| The Freedom Quandary |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Arclightzero |
| Thursday, 04 October 2007 13:22 |
|
So what is freedom? While one would think that freedom is something of an objective constant, we are finding more and more that freedom is curiously subjective and is being constantly defined by those we have charged with upholding our freedom. What do I mean by this? Well, look at it this way, the very nature of freedom is under attack due to the fact that people are working so hard to define it. In other words, freedom cannot be defined because the moment it is defined it negates some other freedom. I know this sounds odd, so let me cite an example here. The current smoking ban that just went into effect in Minnesota is a perfect example of one freedom being defined and another freedom being negated. The Minnesota law, cunningly named the Freedom to Breathe Act (read my take on it here), was put into place to give non-smokers the freedom to enjoy smoke free air on private property. However, by defining a freedom for non-smokers, the law overrode the freedoms of both smokers and private property owners. The more freedoms are defined, the less free we grow as a society. What really raises the quandary, however, is how it is that some freedoms can be so viciously fought for while other are so willingly dismissed and given up. This is what brings me to the abortion issue, which is the pinnacle of the freedom paradox. For simplicity's sake, I will only use smoking as a comparison, but you should get the general idea. So we are prohibited from harming others with second hand smoke. We have taken away the freedom of choice and replaced it with the freedom to allow non-smokers to go wherever they please, falling just short of private residences. As such, we have essentially been told to do no harm. Choice has been replaced with mandate. However, we have been fed exactly the opposite when it comes to abortion. How can one be mandated to do no harm to to others via second hand smoke, yet have the freedom to kill a child at will be mandated by the same people? This seems backward to me, and it is because of these self-defeating definitions that I question the legitimacy of defining freedoms period. After all, shouldn't freedom be a constant? If you have the freedom to harm a child, shouldn't you have the freedom to harm another with your smoking? Or, if there is to be a limit on freedom, shouldn't it be a constant as well? If you are forbidden from doing harm with smoke, why shouldn't you be forbidden from doing harm to a child? This unequal definition of rights is perplexing to say the least. While I may personally be pro life, I advocate for freedom of choice, and as such I cannot in good conscious demand a ban on abortion. However, I feel that the same freedom of choice should then be extended to other elements, such as the freedom to smoke on private property and the freedom to choose whether or not you will patronize a business that allows smoking. If we are to have our freedom to choose taken from us in piecemeal form, I can't help but to revise my normal stance and demand that other choices be taken from the general population as well. In the case of this current argument, I propose that the right to abort a pregnancy be revoked. I may not agree with it (revoking the right), in light of the current push to limit everything from smoking to trans fats, I feel it is the next and most logical move. However, and I open up this challenge to anybody who disagrees with me, I am willing to listen to anybody who disagrees with me that freedom (or lack thereof) should be a constant. I would like to hear from others out there - especially the people who advocate for supreme freedom (the freedom afforded a mother to kill her own child) while also advocating for the revocation of other freedoms (such as the freedom to smoke on private property). If anybody can explain to me what makes one right and the other wrong, I would be more than happy to entertain your argument and even consider it if it makes sense. However, I do not want to hear anybody come at me and use the "public health" aspect of smoking, because harming another person is a constant, whether that harm is inflicted through second hand smoke or the end of a doctor's tool (a'la abortion), the harm against another has not changed. In fact, one could actually argue that second hand smoke is not intentional harm (the concept of even circumstantial harm here could even be refuted due to lack of hard evidence) while abortion most certainly is (as a choice to intentionally inflict harm on another living being that is). While that may be abusing definitions a bit, the point still remains a valid one. For the sake of argument, we'll set aside the question of actual harm being done by second hand smoke and we'll simply say that harm is done to others in both cases. So again I ask: what makes one right and the other wrong? Until this quandary is adequately answered or the defined limitations on the freedom of choice such as smoking bans and trans fat bans are lifted, my stance is shifted to an outright ban on anybody's right to choose to have an abortion. |
As some of you may or may not have noticed, I recently added the "Blogging for Life" widget over on my side bar. While I have tried to stay moderately neutral on such controversial and subjective topics, I have decided that it is time to be up front and bold about these things as the current series of events has raised some serious questions about people and their perceptions of freedom. In turn, I have decided to be blunt and hope for the best.
