Monday, January 22, 2007

Roe v. Wade Anniversary

Today is the 34th Anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, suprring Bob to talk about abortion for a good portion of the show. After listening, I think I have a pretty good handle on Bob's position. Bob's believes that abortion should be outlawed in almost all circumstances, including rape, incest, and fetal anomaly. Bob believes that all abortion is murder, therefore against God's law.

My position is basically the polar opposite of Bob's. I believe that the law should not restrict a woman from getting an abortion, because the government has little, if any, interest in the matter.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with people having moral objections to abortion. I can fully understand their objections even though I don't agree with them. However, there is a difference between having a moral objection to abortion and requiring that the government impose that moral objection on everyone.

It's unreasonable to expect everyone to have the exact same morality. But this is the antithesis of what Bob believes. Bob believes that there is only one true morality and that morality is outlined in the Bible. But realistically, there is a near infinite number of moral views on just about every topic. Since there are so many views, it becomes impossible for the government to reasonably impose one of these moral views on everyone. Therefore, the government must be focused only on protecting an individual's interests in life, liberty, and property.

But what about the unborn child's interest in life? First, the child has no interest in life, because that unborn child is not self-aware and therefore can have no interest. Second, even if you could argue that the unborn child has an interest in life, the woman's life and liberty interests must obviously outweigh that of the unborn child.

How could it be otherwise? How could it be that simply because a woman has sex, she is forfeiting the right to control her own body?

No comments: