Abortion as art

Originally posted by no1marauder
When one rejects the concept of Natural Rights and embraces all-encompassing paternalistic notions of what our rulers can do to us for our own good like whodey does, anything becomes possible.

"Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you, this will mean much less breeding. For me, much, much more." - Comic Book Guy

Originally posted by no1marauder
When one rejects the concept of Natural Rights and embraces all-encompassing paternalistic notions of what our rulers can do to us for our own good like whodey does, anything becomes possible.

Just like what they're doing to broadcast television I suppose. America has been heading down this road for a long time.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[b]If someone finds that their partner has violated the marriage contract by committing adultery, they can file for divorce. That seems an appropriate remedy for that particular breach of contract. BTW, do you feel that innocent children are helped when parents who have animosity towards each other are forced to remain together? Would you outlaw divorce as well?

You have a point there, however, it has been my observation that the party who cheats usually has a financial upper hand. Therefore, if their partner finds out and files for divorce they are usually better represented on average that their counterpart and have better outcomes than their counterpart as a result. At least that has been my observation and I am not really sure how to fix it. It would be nice to fix the fact that the finacially affluent have the upper hand in our legal system but, unfortunatly, I think it simply to be the natural order of things.

Originally posted by no1marauder
[ 1) Should adultery and/or fornication be made a crime under the "public safety" rationale you put forth above?:

2) If yes to either one, what penalty should the State impose for committing these crimes?;

I personally find adultery to be more destructive on average and therefore would concentrate on addressing that issue. I am not sure I would make it a crime so much as I would find a way to make it more unpleasant for both parties involved. Perhaps it would cause people to take pause from jumping into marriages to readily or cause them to take pause before engaging in activities that may motivate their partner to seek a divorce.

I am of the opinion that the people should be more involed in making such decisions regarding the laws of the land rather than a hand full of judges. In that regard perhaps your view that a hand full of people making things legal/illegal over the will of the masses is more in line with those in Iran/Saudia Arabia? I say less of Big Brother and more of self rule.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You believe that a person's sex life is equally a legitimate concern of the people who run the State as the speed limits on public highways? 🙄

If a persons sex life is endangering society at large what difference is there between endangering them in the bedroom verses the highway? I guess the only differnece I see is that one activity is deemed "personal' and the other is public.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Could the State outlaw sex since it can't be made safe and is thus risky behavior that we should be protected from IF the judgment of the people who run the State so decrees?

The state can do as it pleases, or have'nt you noticed? Really making laws gets down to addressing concerning issues that "needs fixing" in the minds of law makers and judges. It has to do with both practicality and self interest. For example, I suppose if a scarier disease than AIDS comes out that endangers society to a greater degree than it is now, you may well have law makers considering such action.

Then again, I don't think the State has much interest in villifying risky sexual practices of any kind. After all, have you seen the scandels in politics of late? 😛

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
That's an interesting analogy: freeways vs. the boudoir. Perhaps the state should issue a license for having sex and also require that holders undergo exams to make sure they are "roadworthy"? And let's not forget insurance. If someone wishes to engage in sex, they will need to have sex insurance, for those unexpected emergencies like unplanned p ...[text shortened]... Ds in the world, perhaps treating sex the way we treat driving wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Thats it!!! All it takes is for the state to find a way to tax us to have sex and such laws will be instituted as of yesterday!!! 😛

Originally posted by whodey
I personally find adultery to be more destructive on average and therefore would concentrate on addressing that issue. I am not sure I would make it a crime so much as I would find a way to make it more unpleasant for both parties involved. Perhaps it would cause people to take pause from jumping into marriages to readily or cause them to take pause before ...[text shortened]... more in line with those in Iran/Saudia Arabia? I say less of Big Brother and more of self rule.

As expected, you didn't answer the questions. I think your philosophy that there is apparently no limit on what the State can do to individuals is a frightening one; certainly it finds no basis in the political philosophy that this country was founded on. I prefer to keep the protection of people's rights in the hands of judges (where the Constitution meant it to be) rather than at the mercy of people like you who don't believe that any individual rights need be respected.

Originally posted by whodey
If a persons sex life is endangering society at large what difference is there between endangering them in the bedroom verses the highway? I guess the only differnece I see is that one activity is deemed "personal' and the other is public.

A person's sex life can't endanger anyone but their consenting sexual partners (except in cases of rape). That's why it's deemed "personal".

A person's reckless driving can endanger anyone on the public streets whether they want to have any interaction with the reckless driver or not. That's why it's deemed "public".

Too hard to understand?