Restrictions and Regulations to Absolute Freedom of Choice - Literature review Example

MOST PEOPLE PREFER RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS TO ABSOLUTE FREEDOM OF CHOICE By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date Most People Prefer Restrictions and Regulations to Absolute Freedom of Choice Introduction The assertion that people these days concentrate much on the freedom of choice is merely a shallow argument, given that more reflections exhibits that certainly the majority of people prefer restrictions and regulations. Even though there number of people in the society having their own beliefs and convictions are few, they naively follow the set rules which they believe is distinct from the rest (Haas, 2011, p.211). For that reason, people require rules and regulation even though they are offered true freedom. Most likely, people have an absolute freedom of choice, but they have not realized it in detail due to internal and external restrictions. Still such regulations are not as appalling as most people think; they assist people to have a sense of safety and spend their lives more pleasurably. As indicated by Gray (2012), the chase of democracy in scores of countries has given out more rights and freedom for the public to decide on diverse issues, such as electing the president, deciding on the measures and so on. Freedom shared by all people in the country has not just promoted the excitement of people on the present state but as well results in the development of the whole country. Even though freedom of good health, freedom of speech, and freedom of safety and security are vital attributes of any democratic society, the essay seeks to answer why most people prefer restrictions and regulations to absolute freedom of choice. Discussion Freedom of Good Health The absolute freedom according to Smyth (2002, p.335) in choosing with no limit is the essential to everyone, and particularly pregnant women. With no freedom of choice, life may turn out to be worthless routine as well as people may become robots. According to Smyth (2002, p.338), freedom of choice is what makes people responsible and human, and the paramount freedom for women is to control her reproductive process. Therefore, abortion is a right of women, and must not be restricted by religious or governmental authority. Undoubtedly, everyone has a moral right for making decisions with regard to their bodies. Therefore, the abortion right is very important for gender equality and for individual women to get their full potential. So regulating or restricting abortion puts women in danger by compelling them to exploit unlawful channels for abortions. Therefore, the right to abortion must be a component of pregnancy rights portfolio that allows women to decide freely whether to abort or not (BBC, 2014). The right of abortion has been a subject of heated debate in most countries and has been restricted and banned in numerous states, but governments must see the woman as a human being and not merely as fetus container. Therefore, women should be given great consideration with regard to their needs and rights in addition to the rights of the unborn. But as mentioned by Inhorn and Tremayne (2012, p.77), personhood starts at conception, and for that reason abortion is an act of killing an innocent human being and must be restricted. According to Inhorn and Tremayne (2012, p.77), abortion causes affliction on the foetus, which is not fair considering that some couples who biologically cannot have children are patiently waiting to adopt. Besides that, abortion may hamper bonding between mother and child in later pregnancies. This as a result can alter the mother-child association for many years and result in scores of issues like stress. The relationship breakdown after an abortion normally has a damaging effect on the future relationships of the woman. Abortion can make a woman more and more hostile towards men, and as a result, the woman may vent this aggression toward her child or people close to her. Relationship breakdown caused by abortion makes score of children end up being fathered by men who are not their biological fathers and men who lack interest in children welfare. Due to the abovementioned issues, it is evident that freedom of choice at some point must be restricted and regulated to protect some vulnerable people in the society like children. Freedom of Speech Without a doubt, people should have the right to say what they want. The significance of free speech and freedom of expression as a valuable and basic attribute of western society cannot be underrated. In the current digital age, people are using social media as a channel for communication, where they say what they want freely with no restriction or intimidation. With the right to speak freely, people can now freely give the view on issues affecting the society, share ideas that can make the society a good place, and also criticize the government when needed (American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, 2014). Freedom of expression is a human right, and it strengthens majority of the other rights and enables them to prosper. The right for a person to speak his mind liberally on crucial issues within the society and access information plays a crucial part in the process of healthy social development. Freedom of expression and speech is needed mostly by the marginalized people in the society, particularly by the minorities facing unfairness both in rich and poor countries; from homosexuals in African nations, to disabled persons in European countries. Still, the freedom to say what one pleases must be restricted, especially when it results in hate speech. There are a number of reasons to why freedom of speech and expression must be restricted to a certain degree; for instance people can use the freedom to spread hatred, which can result in violent reactions in the society. Most totalitarian politicians use the freedom to say what they want, to politically remain viable by spread hate messages so that people can turn against one another (Sorial, 2014, p.61). Most violent protest in scores of countries are steered by the freedom of speech and expression, which is carelessly used by leading activists, journalists, public figures, as well as even the government. The 1994 Rwandan genocide, the 1992 to 1995 Bosnian Muslims’ ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Nazi Holocaust are good examples of how freedom of speech can be misused. The notion that weak groups and persons must put up with hate speech against them for the sake of freedom of speech and expression is odious. Therefore, freedom of choice should have some restrictive measures to shun hate speech, which has become norm in the digital age. Freedom of Safety and Security It is ridiculous to claim that one has the right to life, but lacks the right to the means needed to defend that life. That is like saying a person has a right to life, but lacks the right to buy food. Therefore, the right to have a gun is anchored in the right to self-protection, that is to say the right to protecting oneself from a person desiring to kill. The right to self-protection as indicated by (The Blade, 2014) is itself a consequence of the right to stay alive. In a society full of insecurity, careless killings, and increased murder, everyone has the right to protect him/herself with any weapon accessible, particularly gun. In a corrupt government system, getting protection is almost impossible unless one is rich to pay for it, so for the poor they must be given the freedom to choose the means of self-protection. Self-protection is important, but when everyone is armed to protect himself and his family, the country becomes a battle field, where even small mistakes are settled by death. So using guns for self-protection is not safe considering the increased number of accidents involving children who by accident may pull the trigger; thus injuring or killing a person standing on the bullet path (The Blade, 2014). If the government fail to regulate and restrict use of such weapons, criminals will continue buying guns legally and using them to commit felonies (Milligan, 2014). So with restriction and regulation, making the society a safe place to live will be possible. Present laws are not sufficient for protecting civilians, but using guns to solve crimes will never succeed. So the key to protecting the democratic system and people is not arming citizens, but arming law enforcers with advanced weapons and enacting laws for severe punishment for law breakers. Conclusion In conclusion, it has been argued that even if people have freedom of good health, freedom of speech, and freedom of safety and security, it takes lots of time as well as energy for them to handle all forms of challenges in their lives and therefore majority have willingly relegate certain form of challenges to regulations and restrictions. As a result, people these days have a great hope on the regulating laws or other restrictions in handling their challenges, and also endeavor to use set laws and regulation to dictate spheres of their lives. As argued above, women should have right to reproductive process, but abortion must be restricted or regulated because everyone including foetus has a right to life. Expressing ideas through freedom of speech is important in a democratic system, but as argued in the essay if this freedom results in hate speech it can result in violence; so there is need for restriction. Aggression, crime and violence has become part of society, even though everyone has right to safety and security, their access to weapons such as guns for self=protection must be restricted. References American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina, 2014. Know Your Rights - Free Speech, Protests, and Demonstrations in California. [Online] Available at: https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-free-speech-protests-and-demonstrations-california [Accessed 6 December 2014]. BBC, 2014. Arguments in favour of abortion. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/for_1.shtml [Accessed 6 December 2014]. Gray, J., 2012. A Point Of View: The trouble with freedom. [Online] Available at: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19372177 [Accessed 6 December 2014]. Haas, M.R.N., 2011. Existential Liberalism and the Republic of Canada: A Manifesto of Moderation. Bloomington, Indiana: iUniverse. Inhorn, M.C. & Tremayne, S., 2012. Islam and Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Sunni and Shia Perspectives. Oxford: Berghahn Books. Milligan, S., 2014. We Need Gun Control to Stop More Than Criminals. [Online] Available at: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/susan-milligan/2014/01/16/we-need-gun-control-to-stop-more-than-criminals [Accessed 6 December 2014]. Smyth, L., 2002. Feminism and Abortion Politics: Choice, Rights, and Reproductive Freedom. Women's Studies International Forum, vol. 25, no. 3, pp.335–45. Sorial, D.S., 2014. Free Speech, Hate Speech, and the Problem of (Manufactured) Authority. Canadian Journal of Law and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, pp.59 - 75. The Blade, 2014. Does right to guns trump right of life? [Online] Available at: http://www.toledoblade.com/Letters-to-the-Editor/2014/09/09/Does-right-to-guns-trump-right-of-life.html [Accessed 9 December 2014]. Read More