(July 20, 2010 at 1:44 pm)Paul the Human Wrote: Okay, I see what you're saying. Let me clarify a bit. Let's say that a large number of people (for whatever reasons) feel that abortion is immoral and, so thinking, wish for a law preventing anyone in the country from getting one. Now, even if it is a majority that feels that way, there are going to be those that feel that the choice of whether or not to get an abortion should be up to the individual to decide - and not up to those who wish to legislate their morality upon everyone. If a law is passed banning abortion, one group has forced their morality upon another.
I understand that all laws are the legislation of morality in one way or another, but not everything has such a grey and undefined area of contention that an issue like abortion does. Laws should never infringe upon anyone's personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual. Laws about theft and murder and rape... do not fall into that category, as there is no grey area, so to speak. And the rule of law is necessary to maintain a society.
Another example: Not long ago, the county just south of the one I live in finally repealed a law prohibiting the sale of liquor on Sundays (last one in the state to repeal said law). I, personally, felt such a law was wrong, as it enforced the sanctity (for lack of a better word) of the Christian Sabbath upon everyone in the county... and yes... that is the origin of the law in question. That was a case of legislated morality in the "you shouldn't legislate morality" sense. Why can't I buy liquor on Sunday? What's different about Sunday? To me? Nothing at all... except that some religious people don't think I should be able to buy liquor. If they don't want to buy liquor on Sundays... no one is forcing them to... so why force me not to?
That is what I (personally) mean when I say something like, "Don't legislate your morality upon me."
For the most part I understand your position and I think your example of liquor sales on a Sunday is a good one. I don't think the abortion example is quite as clear, however, as there is the issue of the whether or not the unborn child/fetus has rights. (Note, I am merely mentioning this as one possible distinction as to where lines may be drawn. This statement was not an indication that I want to debate the abortion issue. I don't.)
I do have a couple of questions, though, about some of what you said. You said:
"Laws should never infringe upon anyone's personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual."
And then went on to say:
"Laws about theft and murder and rape... do not fall into that category, as there is no grey area, so to speak."
What does whether or not there is a "grey area" have to do with whether or not a law infringes upon anyone's personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual? A thief could certainly argue that the laws against stealing infringes upon his personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual, right? And it seems to me the thief would have a reasonable point. Consequently, I think that in discussing pros and cons to potential or existing laws, the argument relative to "legislating morality" is weak.
One statement of yours I can certainly agree with:
"And the rule of law is necessary to maintain a society."
