SPEAKER 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counter-examples to the principle of sanctity of life which are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide fifteen mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. You see, implicitly we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.
SPEAKER 2: The analogy my opponent draws between abortion and traffic fatalities is weak. No one would propose such a speed limit. Imagine people trying to get to and from work under such a law, or imagine them trying to visit a friend or relatives outside their own neighborhoods, or taking in a sports event or a movie. Obviously such a law would be a disaster.
Which of the following assumptions are made in the argument of Speaker 1?
(A) The protection of human life is not a justifiable goal of society.
(B) A human fetus should not be considered a “life” for purposes of government protections.
(C) Speed limits and other minor restrictions are an impermissible intrusion by government on human freedom
(D) An appropriate societal decision is made in the balancing of individual lives and the quality of life.
(E) Government may legitimately protect the interests of individuals but has no authority to act on behalf of families or groups.