Originally posted by no1marauderLet me ask you this then (if we could dispense with the shouting and personal attacks), how did the abortion law first get passed, and how was it defeated?
I don't agree with howardgee's statement any more than I agree with yours. You haven't bothered to take the time to understand what my philosophy as to the proper purpose of law is (HINT: It's the same as Locke's and Tom Paine's). This philosophy is also the stated philosophy the US is based on. Your "the majority can enact into law their personal ...[text shortened]... n or MUST have 10 children; if that's what the majority's personal beliefs were, that's that.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWhat abortion law? Be specific. But if you want a history of laws concerning abortion, you should read Roe v. Wade.
Let me ask you this then (if we could dispense with the shouting and personal attacks), how did the abortion law first get passed, and how was it defeated?
EDIT: Here's the link to Roe v. Wade http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=410&page=113
Go to section VI which has a history of laws regulating abortion; you'll note it was NEVER treated as murder as you claim it is. Sections I-V should skipped; they are either preliminary matters or a long discussion on "justiciability" that only a lawyer could love.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressOh spare us the bullsh@t. Religious morality changes with time and place as we all well know.
[b]
Of course, this is an anathema to most religious believers, who believe that morals come down from on high as dictated by God.
[/b]
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressAgain, you don't understand our system of government. Some things that effect our basic, fundamental rights aren't decided by people. We have these rights and that's it. End of story. A government may have the physical power to attempt to enforce laws that violate people's fundamental rights, but it never has the actual authority to do so. Such authority was never ceded to the State by the individuals making it up (this is Lockean Social Contract theory which you apparently refuse to read or study).
The point is that these things get decided by people.
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeYou’ve managed to miss my point entirely. I agree with you, and I quoted this from Howardgee’s post because he agrees with you as well.
Oh spare us the bullsh@t. Religious morality changes with time and place as we all well know.
My point is that the morals that we recognize and make into laws “changes with time and place as we all well know” as you so eloquently put it. A law is basically somebody’s idea of morality that has been legalized.
This is why it is bogus to say that we can’t legalize morality, and this is why it is bogus to say that pro-lifer’s should not impose their personal beliefs on pro-choicer’s. The law already does that.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressNo, it doesn't. The absence of criminal laws regarding abortion imposes no personal beliefs on anybody. If it is your personal belief that abortion is murder, you are perfectly free not to have one. No imposition at all.
You’ve managed to miss my point entirely. I agree with you, and I quoted this from Howardgee’s post because he agrees with you as well.
My point is that the morals that we recognize and make into laws “changes with time and place as we all well know” as you so eloquently put it. A law is basically somebody’s idea of morality that has been legal ...[text shortened]... ro-lifer’s should not impose their personal beliefs on pro-choicer’s. The law already does that.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's only idiotic to "idiots'...such as you, courtroom ninja/jihadist, who can't comprehend the concept due to the higher level of liberal "education" 🙄 you purport to have.....when's your next Sabbatical?
Good that it's your final answer, as it's as idiotic as all your previous answers.
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is what you say.
Again, you don't understand our system of government. Some things that effect our basic, fundamental rights aren't decided by people. We have these rights and that's it. End of story. A government may have the physical power to attempt to enforce laws that violate people's fundamental rights, but it never has the actual authority to do so. Such autho ...[text shortened]... ing it up (this is Lockean Social Contract theory which you apparently refuse to read or study).
Some things that effect our basic, fundamental rights aren't decided by people. We have these rights and that's it. End of story.
Then you claim that Tom Paine's The Rights of Man and Locke's Two treatises of Government are what we base our legal system on. So I’ve got to ask you, who or what were Paine and Locke if they were not people? Were they Gods?
Suppose that they were Gods. The ones who make decisions off of that basis would have to be Gods as well.
We both know that this is not the case. Both Paine and Locke were people who created the law based off of their interpretation of morality. The ones who create, amend and abolish laws are people as well who do so because of their notion of what is right and wrong. They obviously interpret Locke & Paine’s works differently, so this whole point of yours is nonsense.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe lack of criminal laws regarding abortion imposes the belief on the fetus that it has no right to live. It imposes the belief that a woman has the right to kill her baby on a father who doesn’t want her to.
No, it doesn't. The absence of criminal laws regarding abortion imposes no personal beliefs on anybody. If it is your personal belief that abortion is murder, you are perfectly free not to have one. No imposition at all.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressThe country is based on a fundamental law that is above the wishes of temporary majorities. If you don't like that, start your own country. Your post is idiocy.
This is what you say.
[b]Some things that effect our basic, fundamental rights aren't decided by people. We have these rights and that's it. End of story.
Then you claim that Tom Paine's The Rights of Man and Locke's Two treatises of Government are what we base our legal system on. So I’ve got to ask you, who or what were Paine and ...[text shortened]... obviously interpret Locke & Paine’s works differently, so this whole point of yours is nonsense.[/b]
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressAbsurd. You can't impose beliefs on something that cannot have beliefs. The man who got a woman pregnant has had no belief imposed on him; he may still think what he wishes.
The lack of criminal laws regarding abortion imposes the belief on the fetus that it has no right to live. It imposes the belief that a woman has the right to kill her baby on a father who doesn’t want her to.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat I mean is that a fetus either has rights or it doesn’t and this is decided by people. A cat cannot have any notion of what a right is, but we give the cat the right to not be abused. If somebody abuses a cat, they might go to jail for it.
Absurd. You can't impose beliefs on something that cannot have beliefs. The man who got a woman pregnant has had no belief imposed on him; he may still think what he wishes.
The fact that the man may still think what he wishes is irrelevant to whether or not somebody’s belief has been imposed on him. I may think that I should be able to drive 75 mph in a 55 mph zone. Regardless, somebody else’s belief that 55 mph is a safe driving speed has been imposed on me.