|
Yes, alternatives are always of interest. I have a basic problem with using historical record, etc. in the debate though, as I don't believe inconsistant or flawed actions of the past are of interest in determining an objective yet fair approach to the future. Whether or not our society, in the past or now, considers that the right to life extends to all human beings equally is of no concern to me. Others are, of course, free to take that into consideration, but I view it as counterproductive when dealing with a society which has shown a propensity to repeatedly manipulate its interpretations of scientific data in order to support its own biases.
In this instance, I see that we, as a society, have a bias towards revenge against murderers and sympathy towards mothers who wish to have their children that clouds our judgement and prevents us from an objective viewpoint. Despite how the law may choose to write its own loopholes, the core of the matter lies in the fact most people who are pro-choice are so because they believe the life to be not "human" (expressed popularly as a belief that it is not a life). However, there are also the popular emotional interests I previously mentioned. The result is a legal explanation that does not match the popular explanation so that it can attempt to make up for the inconsistancies in the popular viewpoint. I'd prefer to have laws which match the popular explanations while also taking consistancy into account.
__________________
Le temps détruit tout
"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling
|