| | | You have it in your mind that unlimited abortion rights constitutes essential freedom. The point I've tried to make is that there are two sides to this story and for the time being any solution must involve an element of compromise.
Does no one understand freedom? Especially Republicans? Unlimited abortion rights do constitute essential freedom. If one compromises on that, one is compromising freedom. That's not to say that freedom must never be compromised. All I'm looking for here is the recognition that restrictions compromise freedom.
It's a matter of attitude regarding the default. The default is freedom. The founders said so.. Thus, one is not being generous when one grants limited abortion rights on whatever basis. One is just compromising freedom less than one would otherwise. When the default is freedom, by definition, there needs to be a reason to take away those rights, not a reason to grant them. If that is to be done, it should be done consciously with the knowledge that someone's rights are being taken away and that one can weigh the two options and state a compelling reason to take them away.
I have not yet heard a justification for taking them away. The only two reasons I have heard is, from you, that there is a constituency against abortion to be accommodated and, from Tom, that it's immoral according to his religious beliefs. Neither is compelling. |
|
