It is reasonable and necessary for society to outlaw certain ‘choices’. The only way people can successfully live together in community is to give up a measure of personal freedom. Personal choices that infringe on the life or livelihood of another human being must be legislated against. Therefore, it is impossible to justify abortion by simply arguing that women should be ‘free to choose’ (http://www.abort73.com/index.php?/abortion/the_role_of_law)
In Australia, we legislate against driving under the influence of alcohol because of the likelihood for injury or death to another party. We outlaw smoking in public places, even in our own cars (where children are present), because of the potential impact on the health of others. This is because it is not OK to do whatever we want with our bodies when it adversely affects the health of others. The role of law is to curb the freedom of some, to ensure the more basic freedoms of others.
Is choice a universal right? To be pro choice or anti choice makes no sense. It all depends on the ‘choice’ that we are talking about. It is silly to defend a specific choice on the basis that it is a choice. For example, few people are pro choice about rape, child abuse or cruelty to animals. No one has the ‘right’ to do such things. On the other hand, other choices are regarded as a right – matters of religion, politics and lifestyle, for example. Even poor choices may be permitted. No one will stop you from staying out late before an exam, leaving the milk out or wearing a heavy coat in summer. ‘Choice’ is only a right if it doesn’t harm others.
Opposing abortion is not about opposing the right to choose. It is about opposing the particular choice of abortion, on the grounds that it harms another person – the unborn child. It is reasonable to expect that our Government will restrict the freedom of some, to protect the welfare of others, just as it does in the cases of rape, slavery and assault.
Comments
Post has no comments.