The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Politics & Current Events / Political Asylum
|Subject: Re: Poll: When should abortion be legal/banned||Date: 7/11/2013 4:28 PM|
|Author: nigelwhalmsley||Number: 1888481 of 2007346|
[ The question is who has the right to make such a decision, the people involved or the government. ]
So I've been told, often, but the logic never seems to be there to support that idea. 'Because' simply isn't a valid reason. I would argue that it is precisely the choice.
"The people have a right to chose, up until a point society, through government, deems otherwise."
Society has already chosen. The right to choose has been the law of the land for decades. No one is forced in either direction. That is the hallmark of personal liberty. Those that champion the removal of those rights wish to force everyone to follow their beliefs.
The Supreme Court heard many challenges to abortion rights over the years, yet continues to uphold the idea that this is not a decision for government to make in a society that values personal liberty. The reason the struggle continues is that there are those who feel the need to force everyone else to follow their personal views on this. Most often it is based in religious belief, thinly veiled as a noble humanitarian stance. As it stands, the decision is left to the individuals involved, as it should be. Those that don't believe it is right are free to choose, as are those that do. There is no better solution.
"The unborn need not be a person for society and government to have a role and a reason in limiting a person's ability to terminate something that may be considered less than a person."
Sorry, but I see no reason to turn over this kind of decision to government. My rather admittedly cold hearted sounding response to the above is "Why"? On what basis do you think that the people directly involved, the woman carrying the fetus should not be allowed to make that decision? That the decision should be made by the government?
"I find it rather amazing at times that people (not necessarily you but perhaps) have no issue with no restrictions at all on terminating an unborn human while at the same time extending far more rights and protections on what a person may do to an animal or pet that they own. The animal or pet is not a human but as society, we accept the fact that government has a role in limiting what we may do to that entity."
Not sure what you mean here, but I don't think the treatment of animals is relevant to the question at hand.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|