Recently read a few sentences off a post shared on social media. A woman killing her own babies if they were born as female and one of the comments read: Government should arrest this woman. This is illegal. This incident triggered a chain of thoughts as to who really has the supreme authority to decide whether the babies should live? Their mother or the government? Assuming of course that the mother herself was the owner of her thoughts.
If someone roams naked on the streets, why should the government arrest that person? What harm is it to others. Why should you be punished for attempting to end your life? Why are such actions illegal even though they do not seem to affect anyone else (the opening case is a bit more complicated). Where on the spectrum of ownership, our self becomes inferior to the law. Is that limit being pushed in more? Is free will doomed to be a myth?
In the first case, when and why does the right to keep a baby get transferred from the bearer of the child to the government? Why is abortion legal then? Why shouldnt it be? Shouldnt the mother be the sole decision maker? Does she have a choice? Who should be killed and who should be protected under law, who decides that?
The only way to justify all this is to accept the fact that living in a society has made us sign invisible contracts of the community. Where our actions are not judged on the basis of ownership or their impact on fellow beings but primarily on their potential to provoke others. An action is illegal if imitating it may cause a disrupted society, more mildly put, a society deviating from the ideal, the norm. Who decides this ideal? The society obviously, the government. The deciding question now is: Will the emulation of this act cause a disorder in the society. If yes that action is illegal. The boundaries of ownership do not matter then(if they even exist).
APRIL 8, 2015