There is nothing controversial about the sanctity of life. What is controversial is how to weigh to conflict between that value and autonomy.
I agree that there is nothing controversial about the sanctity of life. There is, though, something controversial about the new definition of life in that context. Traditionally (which is normally your frame of reference, not mine), life is what occurs between birth and death. It is only very recently in history that much thought has been given to the notion of an embryo as life rather than potential life. It is only fairly recently that it became known what an embryo was. The sanctity of life is not in question. What has been called into question is the redefinition of life. That, in turn, has raised the issue of autonomy as some wish to impose the redefinition through law. Women have always been free to abort if they had the wherewithal and know-how to do so. It was a private matter. Abortion only compromises the value of sanctity of life if one redefines life to include pre-life. The simplest way to preserve the sanctity of life is to continue to define life in the most obvious and realistic way.
it would be acting in accord with a view that is so set against treating human beings like trash
I am in complete agreement with you about dignity of life. And I think the best way to validate the dignity of life is to respect the living in favor of the dead and the unborn, the no longer living and the not yet living. To do otherwise, IMO, is dehumanizing, "treating human beings like trash." The best way to support the dignity of life is to assure that each individual entering life has a welcoming family. A short, brutish life awaits too many, and threatens too many of the already living. It's hard for me to see encouraging that as supportive of the sanctity of life. |
