A little thought of mine on the nature of abortion debates.
Abortion debates invariably pit those who promote the ‘right to life’ against those who promote the ‘right to choose.’
Now I was thinking about the right to choose, not merely in the context of abortion but more generally. Within the horizon of leftie-liberalism nowadays (although certainly not in Marxism or old-skool Socialism) there is no right or wrong. No moral decision can infringe upon the personal autonomy of the individual. Furthermore, if the unborn has no rights* and an articulate human has a choice, then this ‘autonomy’ must be self-preserving. In other words, the individual must be able to enforce their autonomy and not have it ‘handed on a plate’ to them, so to speak.
So, the unborn doesn’t have a right to life (which means it’s wrong to usurp this life) in a right to choose ideology. Right is the right to make choices.
Now, I suppose if we are trying to correctly summarise the position of the ‘choosers,’ the right to choose is the ‘right to live as one pleases.’ Individuals who are weak, lacking the ability to make choices, they do not have the right to life. They cannot infringe on the rights of the stronger to live as they please.**
On the other hand, individuals who have the power to make choices without being subordinated to others have the right to live.
I’m wondering how this right to live (the seeming opposite of a philosophy or theology that would incorporate the right to life) can be squared with the idea that there is no right nor wrong. Surely it’s only a choice of some stronger power, e.g. a government or ruling elite, not to wipe out those with a right to live. Where is the right to live of the stronger power if this is not the case?
As far as I can determine the right to choose/right to live as one pleases cannot be a true ‘right’ that is sacred but merely a bit of leeway granted by a stronger power. For example, police violence against blacks could be justified from this philosophical outlook. Given what has been said, this right to choose masks a tyranny of the strong over the weak.
* It seems impossible to escape the comclusion that pro-abortionists want abortion up to 9 months. Hilary Clinton has said this here. (Note the cheering she receives).
** It seems like a philosophy of choice is an all-embracing one, whereas a philosophy that humans have rights to life must be part of a more all-embracing philosophy.