Quote:
Originally Posted by AGDee
The problem with legislating morality that doesn't impact anybody else is that there is too broad a spectrum of what is moral. Do we legislate according the most lenient or the most strict? We tried Prohibition once and you see how far that got.
|
This particular issue
is a little different, though. Outlawing murder is legislating morality, but would any sane person deny that murder should be illegal? Same with stealing.
If an unborn child/fetus/choose your term is a person, then is abortion murder? It does, if the child is a person, affect a person other than the mother. That's the legislating morality question that is presented, but it is complicated by so many factors, including when does life begin and how was the child conceived. (Like UGAalum, I'm always a little perplexed by those that would outlaw abortion except in the case of rape or incest. Not that I disagree with the outcome necessarily, but if the child is a person so that abortion is the taking of an innocent life, how does the manner of conception change that? It's much easier when the health of the mother is involved -- at least a justifiable homicide/self-defense type analogy fits. But for rape and incest, I'm still looking for a consistent philosophical framework.)
I don't know what the answer is. I usually find myself in the camp of those who want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. But sometimes, we can't avoid legislating morality.
Threaded Mode
