The Forum > Article Comments > Ethics and the limits of a Bill of Rights > Comments
Ethics and the limits of a Bill of Rights : Comments
By Amanda Fairweather, published 6/11/2009Despite good intentions a bill of rights is mere symbolism at best, and a danger to the freedom it promises at worst.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 12
- 13
- 14
- Page 15
- 16
-
- All
Your argument that “the rights of any one person cannot influence the rights of another” reminds me of the argument for slavery.
It was contrived that slaves had no personhood, therefore they had no rights.
Yours is the same self-serving mentality:
The unborn child has no personhood, therefore they have no rights.
This is an artificial construct based on desired outcomes.
Just as slave owners argued for the right to exploit other humans, so the pro-abortion advocate argues for the right to kill the inconvenient.
There is more evidence for than against the personhood of an unborn child.
Should not the benefit of the doubt then rest with the one whose life is in the balance?
You say that “all your examples are for independent beings, who can be taken care of by others if the original carer walks away. This is not the case for a fetus.”
You create an artificial hierarchy of levels of independence and separability to justify your stance and then cherry pick the level which suits your argument. This is a self-serving fiction.
Furthermore, one doesn’t have to accept “that humans have the sole right over their body”.
For example, society incarcerates those who are a threat to society.
They no longer have “sole right over their body”.
Society does this to protect the innocent.
In a similar manner, society used to protect the unborn.
What happened?
Women realised that they had the power to redefine life.
And we all know that power corrupts.