- The Supreme Court seemed to say in Roe that in the absence
of a consensus among experts the state should not restrict the
liberty of a citizen (in this case, the mother). This view gains
strength because we often assume that a person should be free
to perform an act unless there is a good reason to forbid it. Indeed, one of the marks of a liberal society is the idea that one is free by default to do what one wishes. One is restricted only when good reasons can be brought forward to justify doing so.
- In some cases we believe that it is best to 'play safe' when we don't know all the relevant facts or what principle to apply. If you knew that one out of three bottles contained poison, it would be wrong to pick a bottle at random and give it to someone to drink.
- Macklin has suggested that we reconsider the problem in terms
of the "interests" of the fetus rather than trying to
agree on a definition of personhood. If we do that, how do we
weigh or balance its interests with those of its mother (or its
father)?
|
