I agree with you about the change in moral expectations of our society. But I think that giving in to it is the wrong approach. And I think the tide is turning against the permissive society. I think our society is attempting to self-heal. The support of conservative politicians, the resurgence of evangelical Christianity, whatever one may think about those beliefs, is, IMO, a signal that a significantly large group of the population is saying enough already.
The question is whether this movement will succeed, or be crushed under the continuing onslaught of permissiveness.
It is impossible to ever argue and reach agreement on the issue of ensoulment or religious beliefs but this has no place in a governmental decision imo.
We may never fully agree, but IMO the issue of ensoulment (not the way I would have put it, but I'll use your term for sake of the discussion) has a very definite and necessary place in governmental decisions. It was, for example, the issue of ensoulment that led to the abolition of slavery -- the belief that slaves were people, not animals. The absence of soul is what allows us to kill and eat animals. We believe that even if Terri Schaivo can't speak or have any mental control she still has ensoulment, in whatever terms one wants to define the conceptual difference between humans and non-humans, and for that sole reason we don't just shoot her as we would a wounded horse.
Defining the difference between human and non-human life forms (which I equate with your term ensoulment) is an essential function of government.
As a mature, educated, moral person, I want the right to make this considered decisions for myself, and am not at all inclined to concede control of my body and life to you or Jewel or George Bush in this area. I realize that others may make decisions I find morally repugnant, but I believe they have this right, just as I do.
That, of course, is the factor that makes abortion particularly controversial. The counter point, though, is that you DO have the right to control your body, that you have the absolute right not to have intercourse. But that having made that choice, there are consequences that you must accept. Just as if you choose to use your body to swing your fist into another person's face, government then has a right to control your body by tossing it in jail.
We cede to government the right to control peoples' bodies under many different circumstances. Government has the right, for example, to draft people into the military and put them in the front lines to get shot at. Government has the right to tell children that they will get innoculated against certain diseases by government injecting diseases into their bodies. Through guardianships government has the right to decide where and how people will live, whether they may marry, and basically how they are to live their lives. Government has the right to demand that if you get into a car you strap yourself in with seat belts, whether you want to control your body in that way or not. If through no fault of your own you get an infectious disease government may quarantine you or force you to live in a secluded hospital room. If you violate the law, the government has the right to control your body by putting it in a small cell and feeding it what the government wants to when the government wants to. And these are just the beginning of the power that government has over our bodies. The idea that our bodies should be insulated from any right of government control is a fallacy and a fiction. |
