Abortion - Life is Better Than Death

The only time every aspect could be legislated fairly is when the lawmaker knows with certainty what is the best good for all. Of course, for "personal freedom" to be served as well, everyone else must know the best good for all as well.

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Ah and that's the entire problem isn't it? Different people see good as different things. But then again if you made people see good your way, you would become a religious dictatorship kinda like every other country in the world, and that in itself is an evil. Quite a dilemma.

Nathan:

Well, we've heard many times over that people will not conform to a law they feel strongly against. This is why everyone should seek the good, come up with reasons that show it is the good, and then convince others of this. If they accept it because it is reasonable, it isn't oppressive, it's helpful. You've helped them to discover something that makes them better off.

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

But many DON'T agree with you, no matter what argument they make. So passing a law banning abortion would only do like you said, and piss people off.

Nathan:

So, instead of wanting to pass a law for what I think is right, I should want to pass a law for what I think is wrong?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

I think you should pass a law that gives everyone a choice about their own morality, not dictating morality to the masses.

Nathan:

I wouldn't call that a law at all. (Pro-Choice Advocate D seems to define morality very differently from myself. I think that what he calls morality, I would call "personal preferences that are of no concern to others".)

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Well laws aren't meant to dictate morality, they're meant to protect people. There are plenty of "immoral" things that are perfectly legal because they hurt nobody.

Nathan:

What's so good about people (meatbags, as you call them) that they should be protected?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Meatbags are all we have. Even the worst trash seems like gold to a man who has nothing.

Nathan:

If that's all we have, then what are we protecting from? If we haven't something else, what poses the threat? If you needed to accomplish something, and the only thing you had was useless to do so, how is it better than having nothing? And the only thing worse than human beings is nothing?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Um... I think that should be distinctly obvious... death... what is your point here?

Nathan:

We wouldn't protect a human's life from death unless a human's life was better than death.

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

A human life isn't necessarily better than death; we simply fear death and thus don't want to ever have to experience it until there's absolutely no other choice. (Isn't it hypocritical to say it's okay to choose death for the unborn for the sake of someone else avoiding something bad but not death if we wouldn't choose death for ourselves unless there is absolutely no other choice?)

Nathan:

Doesn't our agreement that murder is wrong show that we've decided human life is better than death?