Personal v Public

@secondson said
I believe abortion is immoral, it is murder.

Yes, I get what you are saying. I'm fine with it: you'll get no argument from me about your belief regarding abortion. I understand your stance. I am more interested now in the question in the second post and referenced in the title.

@secondson said
I object to the use of the subjective and religious term "enshrined".

I am not religious. "Enshrined" to me, and the way I used it in my OPs, is a regular word without religious meaning. If a rule or an idea or some kind of right is "enshrined" in something such as a constitution or law, it means that it is protected by it.

@fmf said
I am not religious. "Enshrined" to me, and the way I used it in my OPs, is a regular word without religious meaning. If a rule or an idea or some kind of right is "enshrined" in something such as a constitution or law, it means that it is protected by it.

Perhaps "enacted" would carry a less religious overtone and be more secular relative to the legalities pursuant to the resolution of law.

@secondson said
Perhaps "enacted" would carry a less religious overtone and be more secular relative to the legalities pursuant to the resolution of law.

No. "Enshrined in law" is standard English. A "law being enacted" and a something being "enshrined in law" are not the same. "Enshrined in law" carries no religious overtones in the way I have used it. Any thought about the OP#2 question?

@fmf said
Personal v Public

I gave the thread this title in the hope that what is discussed might broaden out and touch upon other instances of where we do or don't want to see our personal principles or standards enshrined in laws that force everybody to conform to how we see the world.

Where do we draw the line?

If the majority seeks to enact law curbing conduct and behavior that violates morality and is proven to be destructive of ones personal health and wellbeing, and that of others, especially the innocent and helpless, then the minority either adheres to the law, moves out of state or suffers the consequences if caught breaking the law.

@secondson said
Where do we draw the line?

The question is: are there any personal principles that you feel very strongly about that you would NOT want to see enshrined in the law of the land?

@fmf said
No. "Enshrined in law" is standard English. A "law being enacted" and a something being "enshrined in law" are not the same. "Enshrined in law" carries no religious overtones in the way I have used it. Any thought about the OP#2 question?

I'm not interested in arguing over semantics. You are welcomed to use any term you wish, even though I think you're using the wrong term in this particular context.

@fmf said
The question is: are there any personal principles that you feel very strongly about that you would NOT want to see enshrined in the law of the land?

I guess that would depend on how we define "personal principles".

I've already stated that my personal principle, with regards to abortion, is that it is murder, and should be enacted into law and made illegal.

You've chosen to make compromise by stating your personal principle that abortion should be legal as long as the life of the child in the womb is not viable apart from the womb.

What more is there to say? In free and democratic societies we take it to a vote. Majority rules. Right?

@secondson said
I guess that would depend on how we define "personal principles".

Define any one of your principles as you wish. And then answer the question, if you want.

@secondson said
You've chosen to make compromise by stating your personal principle that abortion should be legal as long as the life of the child in the womb is not viable apart from the womb.

Are there any such compromises you'd make: something you feel strongly about that you would not choose to see others comply with? It's the question in post #2 on page 1.

@fmf said
The question is: are there any personal principles that you feel very strongly about that you would NOT want to see enshrined in the law of the land?

Veganism. I am opposed to it, but I would not wish to impose on the freedom of another to choose to abstain from eating meat by seeking to enact a law prohibiting eating vegetables only.

@secondson said
I've already stated that my personal principle, with regards to abortion, is that it is murder, and should be enacted into law and made illegal.

I know. You'll get no argument from me about your belief regarding abortion. I understand what your stance is. I am more interested in your answer to the thread's question.

@secondson said
Veganism. I am opposed to it, but I would not wish to impose on the freedom of another to choose to abstain from eating meat by seeking to enact a law prohibiting eating vegetables only.

What about any moral issues?

@fmf said
What about any moral issues?

I can't think of any "moral issues" I'd be willing to compromise on off hand.

Have any suggestions?

@secondson said
I can't think of any "moral issues" I'd be willing to compromise on off hand.

So, you'd like to see all your moral beliefs enshrined in law so that other people had to comply with them? You can't think of ANY moral issues you'd be willing to compromise on?