Oh yes they can! How ridiculous for you to claim "Morality can not be legislated". Maybe you do not understand what morality is. Morality is the basis of most laws. It's why Slavery is no longer legal. It's why fathers are not permitted to kill their children like in old Roman times. In case you are wondering, there's all sorts of different possible evils that could be legally permitted, and the fabric of society would most likely continue operating without much change. We've seen this in all sorts of societies in past history.
In many Societies, some forms of murder have been legal and acceptable: 1) All Empires and Superpowers have perpetrated genocides. USA did inflict vast civilian casualties on population of Korea 1950-53 and Southeast Asia 1965-75. Air Force personnel who inflicted these casualties did not break any laws, and they were rewarded. Curtis Emerson LeMay may have been responsible for about a million civilian losses, but he is not regarded as a villain. 2) Many Societies in the past inflicted Capital Punishment on people guilty of minor offenses like theft. 3) In many Societies in the past, not just abortion, but actual child murder was an acceptable and relatively common practice. Such practice was considered acceptable in most pre-Monotheistic Societies. Even in Christian and Muslim Societies, children who were weak and thus deemed unable to be an asset to their families were frequently subject to deadly neglect. 4) In most pre-Monotheistic Societies, some form of human sacrifice was acceptable. During Late Bronze Age, Israel was possibly the only Society which forbade human sacrifice. 5) Many religious people view abortion as murder. It is also an example of legal murder in most Modern World.
In most cases Laws enforcing Ethics in private lives of people do much more harm then good. 1) Very soon I will take a 25 hour break from the Internet -- I do every week from Friday sunset to Saturday 1 hour after sunset. But no Nation, including Israel legally mandates observance of Sabbath. 2) Most people view adultery as very unethical. Very few people would support any law criminalizing adultery. 3) Many Muslim Nations do penalize criticism of Quran and consumption of alcohol. Most Western Nations have no similar laws. Overall there is a considerable difference between unethical and illegal.
One important reason why many people hate Far Left is that they impose their ethical standards on others by extremely severe punitive actions. Fortunately, in Modern Western World, Conservatives have no power to do the same. A law banning abortion, just like a State Law mandating observance of Religious Laws would be opposed by most people. Such laws would be viewed as extremely invasive of people's privacy.
Hmm... are these really the things you want to compare abortion to? Sounds much more like an argument against abortion than for it, in my opinion...
I think what you mean is, in many Societies, some forms of KILLING have been legal and acceptable. Given that, murder by definition is illegal.
Then you should also agree with this: While there is life in a comatose person, they are utterly dependent on the machines for that life. Hence they are inseparable from the machines, in their personhood. That is, until it can exist independently, the person is dependent on the machines. I haven't thought enough about it to be honest. I know two things though: I know that to say that it is a human being at the point of conception means that I would have to be against birth control, which I'm not, and that strikes me as a rather insane position. And I also know that I don't think that abortion should be allowed, except in cases of rape and in order to save the life of the mother.
Why? Why make am exception in the case of rape? Is forced pregnancy the punishment for women having consensual sex?
I freely admit that my position is inconsistent. Just like yours is. Did I mention anything about punishment?
Except YOU have NEVER been able to show any inconsistencies in my arguments....you seem to think you saying they are inconsistent makes them so....it doesn't work that way.. I didn't say you did. BUT if one holds the position that raped women should be allowed abortions but women who had consensual sex should NOT be allowed abortions it clearly shows that one wants women who had consensual sex punished by having their rights taken away and be forced to gestate.
Except you don't think that a woman should be able to get an abortion after 30 weeks. Treated differently doesn't mean that one is PUNISHED and one is not punished.
Yes, it does....If "treated differently" means having your rights taken away, that IS a punishment. And WHERE TF did I say women shouldn't be able to get an abortion after 30 weeks? NO where.
FoxHastings said: ↑ Yes, it does....If "treated differently" means having your rights taken away, that IS a punishment. And WHERE TF did I say women shouldn't be able to get an abortion after 30 weeks? NO where. Can't address my entire post? Can't show any proof I said women shouldn't get abortions after 30 weeks? Can't admit that having rights taken away is a punishment?
Sometimes I prefer to break posts up. Meanwhile, you're totally unable say what the cut off should be for abortion!
FoxHastings said: ↑ Can't address my entire post? Can't show any proof I said women shouldn't get abortions after 30 weeks? Can't admit that having rights taken away is a punishment? ...to avoid answering those inconvenient questions.... Can't show any proof I said women shouldn't get abortions after 30 weeks? Can't admit that having rights taken away is a punishment? I have said it....and it isn't 30 weeks as you erroneously claimed....
I am neither for nor against abortion. I believe that it is a great sin on one hand, but not something to be regulated by the State.
The state forces people to do (and not to do) other things with their bodies. Is abortion really that different?
