- Dec 2018
- New England
When I say "protecting people from harm" implied is a harm from some external source. Whether the government has an obligation to protect someone from suicide is a special case, more debatable, and not what I'm discussing here.I try to find something I can agree with, common ground. It is not there.
The government has no business protecting me from myself. Zero. Zip. Nada. Ninguna. Empty set. Null. Void.
The government has no business dictating to me what it believes is harmful to me. It can restrict actions that directly harm society, realizing that has the possibility to be abused. Telling me I may not eat certain foods, not their business.
As to abortion, the point is when does life become a human being. No one denies ova and sperm are alive, that does not make them a human being. No one denies a zygote is alive, not everyone believes it is a human being.it certain lacks most of the characteristics we use to identify a human being.
A human acquires the rights of humanhood the moment it comes into existence. Universal agreement, no dissenters. That solves nothing.
I have no idea what you're saying in your second paragraph, but my point stands. Where we agree a human has human rights, we should agree government has a compelling interest to protect that life from harm.