Here is the fruit of my thought. On many rather sensitive issues, such as abortion or medical assistance in dying, there are two opposing points of view. To recap, let’s say we have Group A and Group B, and the fundamental aspect is rarely emphasized. This is what I want to highlight in my presentation.
Suppose that Group A is fine with everyone doing what they want, while Group B would like to impose their point of view on everyone. By the same token, can we imagine that pro-choice forces pro-life, in certain circumstances, to have an abortion? Going forward, can we imagine dying with dignity organizations asking people, who do not consent, to receive dying medical assistance in certain circumstances?
It seems to me that asking these questions is like answering them. How can so many people be sure of their point of view, when millions think otherwise? Explain it to me if you can.
RG
If I understand correctly the equivalences you are making, you are placing people who oppose God’s imperative to justify their will to impose their will, on others who project their will to live and allow them to live, while defending the right of all to enjoy the benefits offered by the evolution of society.
You oppose people on the right who want things to remain frozen in bronze, arguing that we have always done it this way and that we must continue to do so, and those on the left who agree to give latitude in the face of the past to adapt better to the future. Fortunately, they will always defend the principle of “live and let live” as well as the principle that “the freedom of some ends where the freedom of others begins”. »
