Bandgeek,
The point of your slavery example revolves around one person being subjected to the whims of another. It isn’t just about leaving one person to do something on their own. Obviously, as hopefully we all know today, removing the use of free will is not appropriate.
However, I hear many people ready to jump in that the same is true in the case of abortion.
This is the point at which legitimate disagreement can arise. We aren’t sure just when a child becomes an entity that is fully endowed with thoughts and feelings.
For some people, especially those with religious leanings, it is assumed to be at the point of conception – though this would more aptly coincide with the granting of a soul (not thoughts and feelings) if such a thing truly does exist. For others though, it is a more subjective thing.
Personally, given the fact that death and killing are common occurences on the planet, I don’t think we can get on our moral high-horses and just assume that nobody should ever die. We are out killing terrorists and they are out killing us, and both sides feel justified in their actions. It isn’t that war or death itself is always wrong.
My take is that it revolves around the suffering of the other. Someone who is forced to endure slavery or racism suffers. An unborn child that has progressed to the point of developing a nervous system is also able to suffer. One group imposing its view on another also causes suffering of some type. Why else would we be at war now? It isn’t because we are free, but what others perceive that we have done to them with that freedom.
Another take on death and dying revolves around the sick and aged. These people sometimes want to end their own lives. They want to find a way to end their perceived suffering. Who are we to make that decision for them if they own their own life?
So, where does that leave me? I think that one person can make decisions for themself when they don’t impose their will on another with decision making ability and they don’t impose suffering on another. It gets more complex when decisions do impact others… and that is where our laws come in to help.
To me, this means there is some leeway with respect to time. An egg does not have feelings and does not think… hence I am not concerned about its rights. A fetus at nine months is damned near a complete human being ready to assume it’s own life… hence I am concerned about its rights.
Notably, I won’t claim my interpretation is correct, but it has been reached without regard to any religious considerations. You don’t need religion to make a reasonable decision.
In any case, the religious interpretation cannot be proven any more correct than my interpretation of what is important from a moral point of view. It is simply a belief that some people, but not all, hold very dearly.
What I would like to know, is that without resorting to religion, how can you claim human life is more significant than other life? Without resorting to religion, how can you decide the rights of a person should be curtailed when there apparently is no other being yet in existance able to be harmed by exercising those rights?
If you can answer those two questions, suitable enough to convince me, then I’ll be willing to adjust my stance on this issue. However, if you resort to religion, I’ll counter you by claiming I have freedom of religion also, so our religions in effect counterbalance each other.
I was given a brain so that I could think, understand and make my own decisions, thank you very much. I’m not going to assume someone alive several thousand years ago with no knowledge of the issues we face today has more insight into the moral dilemmas of today than those alive today.
