|
I don't understand why the UN is being held up as some sort of gold standard of morals. It was never intended to be such. It seems to me to that you've pulled one word out of one part of the charter to use it in a predefined context that doesn't fit its original intent.
As you alluded to in your final paragraph, morals are relative. It seems you would impose universal morals over the entirety of the human race, at least as far abortion goes. On it's face, that's an unworkable premise. Accepting the existance of magic wands for a moment, the imposition of a universal morality strikes me as facist. Why should your morals be imposed on the Afgans or the Russians?
Diminishing this idea from worldwide to the US, it remains equally unworkable. If I again suspend that as fact, I find myself once again confronted by the imposition of a morality that is not shared by all or even a majority. I don't accept that "most" reject designer babies. I think that "most" reject the idea that other people shouldn't get advantages, but if faced with the opportunity, I think that the vast majority of people would take the chance to increase their offspring's viability and potential success. I know I would. Darwinism by popular opinion remains a distinct possibility and one I doubt anyone can derail.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|