Government, Thomas Hobbes, Straw discussed on The Dave Gram Show on WDEV

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Where do we vast people's rights? And obviously you know I? If you're Catholic, it's at the point conception for other people. It's you know at the point of. you know much later either birth or right before or some point and viability you know, and obviously people will often make Straw man arguments and try and put the other side's point in the most. Ridiculous possible. But the fact of the matter is is that you know there is this societal debate? and. Have about that. I wanted to run this by you. Dent Let's look at the government's role for a minute and and you know. Let's imagine that I I haven't settled on this. By one hundred percent I'm just sort of toying with it and trying to figure out whether it makes any sense at all Looks Look at the government's role as opposed to wear in the development, the fetuses right right at the moment. Traditionally in moral philosophy, the government stepped in as people was created. As people exited. What is what used to be called the state of nature, originally human beings lived in this world where they had no government protection at all nobody did, and you basically offended for yourself out there in the woods or the savannahs of wherever you were and. Did the best you could. And and life was sometimes nasty, brutish and short. Is Thomas Hobbes? and. And that was the way it went. Imagined further for a moment that the last state of nature, the extent in the modern world is womb. And that It's actually in the womb when one. You can say all you want about how much developed and how viable et Cetera, but but it's on exiting the womb that one exits. The state of nature gets a birth certificate the first documentation. Of Their citizenship effectively. And and and they're and there, and then in their moves into the realm where where he or she is protected by the government. Does that make any sense at all. Well I. A little bit. But I guess the thing that I would push back on. As that as an argument is that? You know the social contract that you're describing. isn't necessarily. By all of us We exist within it with sort of a zone. Of a social contract and you know the womb exists within that social contract. and just simply because the person in the womb hasn't necessarily been informed of the social contract doesn't mean that they're any less subject to because. The the woman is herself within that. That zone I think part of you know. oftentimes it just comes down to the question of. what is? What is life and is there a priori? Kind of existence, such that rights would be reasonably. Imposed you know we. We have a scale of legal implications for people throughout their life. For example, children cannot form contracts or be bound by contracts because they don't have the capacity to do so. and oftentimes the abortion debate about this is. If, we have a cluster of cells whether they be a fetus or stem cells or whatever human cells V. Do those things have rights and do they have? Do they rise to the level of existence such that we deemed them to have rights as opposed to? Any other material on earth, such that we would include them within our zone of social contract Yeah, and that's that's ultimately where. Reasonable people disagree in where they have those those debates, but I I guess I would just push back on the idea that you know I certainly understand the idea that this is sort of a wild. The womb is is somewhat outside of society but I I I don't think so I mean I think ultimately it is within, and that's where the government gets. Has The you know has the authority to regulate it is that you know the woman exists within the social contract and we you know some people would see the idea of a social contract not committing merck. And if you believe that the fetus is in in and of itself of life, form, human life form that. Is entitled to Full Rights of a human being. Then it does follow that those can be regulated because you're talking about you know the crime of of you know. Some people would put it bluntly as as or feet aside. and. You know this is. This is the fundamental question, because if it is just a cluster of cells, just assuming for the moment. That it is just not a human being, but is at pre human being is just genetic material. then it's out murder homicide, and there's no justifiable reason to regulate it other than. The, same reasons we regulate any of the medical profession. What I hate to. Resolve this today. Also by out time. Dan Richardson has been my guests is our legal analyst Day gramshop here? The WD FM and am thanks for listening folks It will be back tomorrow with another edition of our program and We wish you good afternoon. Stay healthy there. Washington's more you that.

Coming up next