I don't get it. Coercive restrictions on the voluntary commerce between informed and consensual parties are removed. Why is that not a cause for joy?
The argument cannot be that the morning after pill is designed to kill, because then it applies equally to gun restrictions. And (I hope) we agree on removing gun restrictions.
Nor can the argument be that allowing the morning after pill sends the wrong message, because then it applies equally to restrictions on drugs. We agree that we ought to abolish all restrictions on drugs, don't we?
Whether or not prevention of implantation is on the same level as killing an innocent human being, it is a very relevant moral question. But should we look to the government for an answer or guidance, or should we look to the parents/churches/communities/friends/families? And if it is justified to use violence to prevent use of the morning after pill, against whom is it justified? The apothecary owner? The pharmaceutical company that produced the pill? The girl who buys the pill but decides not to use it? The girl who happens to be below a certain age? Over that age?
Upon considering these questions, I cannot fathom how less government intervention, especially in this area, is not a good thing.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: