Are you for choice? When you think about it, it’s a silly question, because it is too general and vague.
When it comes to whether or not somebody murders me, I’m against choice. You probably are too.
When it comes to my career path, I’m for choice. You probably are too.
When it comes to what people are allowed to publish, I’m for slightly limited choice. I expect that you are, too.
Given the three examples, it’s easy to see that it’s silly to defend any political position by simply saying that one is for choice, as if people should be allowed to make any choice at all, even if the choice is harmful.
What about school choice? It’s really silly for people to defend abortion and same-sex marriage on the sole basis of choice, and then oppose vouchers that provide school choice for families.
Personally I’m against choice when it comes to abortion, because it harms someone. I’m for choice when it comes to schooling, because it harms no one, and it helps children.
What about you? If the state is paying for kids to go to school anyway, and there are options, shouldn’t the parents get to decide which school their child goes to? If one school in town is turning out better-educated kids, shouldn’t all kids be allowed to attend that school, if that’s what their parents want?
1 response so far ↓
Jay Burns // May 22, 2008 at 7:00 pm
In general I am for choice when the only fool you can hurt by making that decision is YOU. Examples include seatbelt, helmet, whether or not to eat McDonalds…etc.
If your choice hurts me (anyone other than you) I am not for choice.
There are some exceptions to this. For instance parents should usually get to make the choice for their children, even if it could be harmful in someone elses eyes.
Parents should be allowed to decide if their child eats food that is bad for them. Parents get to decide if the kids can ride a bicycle with or without a helmet. On the other hand they do not get to decide if the child should be murdered, raped, abused… etc.
RG: That’s generally true. It is a very fine tightrope between protecting kids and defending parental rights.
Some actions are clearly abusive and/or neglectful, and 90% or more of us agree on those issues. Others are not so clear, and I would err on the side of defending rights and freedoms in regard to those issues.
The one area in which our argument breaks down concerns the issue of who pays for the irresponsibility of parents who don’t protect their kids’ health and safety? If little Johnny’s poor single mother doesn’t make him wear a helmet, and then he gets brain damage, the public will be paying for Johnny’s medical expenses. In that case, the state, that is the people, have a right to insist that the children that they are paying for live by the standards that they set.
Leave a Comment