I heard someone the other week asking a rhetorical question – I was having breakfast with friends & didn’t really know the person so didn’t bother asking about it.
It was in relation to a law, and they said (I’m paraphrasing) “Why do people care about making a law for something that doesn’t affect them?”
Now, this type of question could potentially come up in conversation, in relation to abortion or euthanasia. For example, I guess a mother in the South Island getting an abortion tomorrow or next week isn’t going to affect me per se. And I’m not elderly at the moment and don’t think I’m in any danger from my family or something.
Maybe if I had a bit more time, and the situation was appropriate, I might ask some questions to clarify.
“What do you mean? Should there not be laws if they don’t affect you?”
Now, it seems clear to me that there are plenty of laws applying in the Chatham Islands that won’t affect me (unless I holiday over there). Theft, for one.
Hopefully, the person saying this doesn’t really believe that laws shouldn’t exist if they don’t personally affect you.
I guess they might answer that theft affects other people, whereas abortion is something that only affects the person doing it.
Ah, now that is a better thing to focus on…what I call the REAL question…if abortion does affect someone besides the mother (say, someone in the womb), then perhaps there could/should be a law against it, right?
I’d be interested to hear if they agreed with that.
So without much effort, the rhetorical question gets swept aside and perhaps a more fruitful line of thinking ensues.