2006-12-01 10:04:30 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
What's with all the abortion answers? I aksed about morals, not issues.
2006-12-01 10:14:28 · update #1
Pretty cut & dried: freedom of choice.
Anything that doesn't harm anyone else besides the one doing that thing should be legal. Period. It's my life to do with as I please, not anyone else's to tell me what to do that doesn't involve them.
Legislation is NOT morals -- it's rules for harmonious living in a society. Nothing to do with morality.
And yes, if I'm a woman (I'm not, but we can imagine for a minute), that means as long as a fetus is non-viable and part of MY body, it's mine to do with as I see fit. Not anybody else's business.
2006-12-01 10:09:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 5⤋
your question so vague, I don't see what the point of it is. You need to ask about specific legislation. Should a 12 year old girl be allowed to choose to have sex with a 50 year old man? I would say no, there should be legislation against that because it is immoral. Should there be a law requiring all citizens to profess faith in God. I would say no, even though my morality is based on my faith in Jesus Christ, I don't think that should be legislated. Your question is issue dependant.
Frankly it seems that many posters on yahoo answers like to ask questions like this, trying to make everything simple and cut and dry, when many things aren't.
2006-12-01 18:25:32 · answer #2 · answered by FrederickS 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree with Ruth on this one.
All laws are legislated morals. They come from the social 'mores' or moral codes a society chooses to follow.
Freedom of choice began before conception. If you and your partner/wife/friend/whatever conceive, all I ask is that you don't kill the baby.
2006-12-01 18:22:36 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
It would be ideal if we could go with Freedom of choice.
Unfortunately there are those that would exploit such freedoms and infringe their free choices on others.
So with freedom of choice comes responsibility and certain legislated morals. It is a necessary evil.
One thing to remember is there is NOT one law carved in stone to the point that it can not be overturned if deemed not in the best interest of the majority.
Sorry, I didn't take your question as one specifically speaking of abortion. If it is then I still would prefer freedom of choice until we are talking partial birth abortions. To me that is crossing a line into murder.
2006-12-01 18:19:34 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Freedom of Choice
2006-12-01 18:07:09 · answer #5 · answered by Moxie Crimefighter 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I get bashed for this every time I answer this question. I know you are referring to abortion. I believe freedom of choice stops at the choice of having sex. As humans, we cannot correctly answer the question of when life begins. There's no way for us to know, when it comes to abortion, whether or not the life of an individual is being terminated. All of us past through those stages in the womb. Abortion just seems to make killing acceptable when the human seed is at its most helpless point.
Making abortion illegal is not entering the bedroom. Abortion is not a sex act, and it shouldn't be a choice either.
2006-12-01 18:18:50 · answer #6 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Too simple of a question. I wish it was that easy. Freedom of choice of course, but only if it doesn't infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.
2006-12-01 18:29:18 · answer #7 · answered by Garth Rocket 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
being told what to think, say and do is sooo much easier than having to decide what to do and calculate your own destiny. If the government regulated our values, I wouldn't have to have any morality of my own...and the "good old days" could last forever...ahhh utopia...until the thought police started rounding people up, exterminating the old, the odd and the un-valued among us. At some point it wouldn't be about morality any more, it would be about me and millions like me striving for others' benefit. the state morality would become the rights of the well to do...and the well to do would be connected to power.
Freedom and democracy are very fragile, but we must control our urge to protect them by legislating laws in it's behalf. Its like a wild plant that must be protected by leaving it alone in a forest...just leave the forest alone and the plant will thrive. Once you begin to enact laws in the name of morality, you have damaged the foundation of our system.
I am thinking only in general terms though, of course one persons frredoms should not infringe on another. No system is perfect, we all must accept some limits to our freedoms, but not in the name of one groups idea over another legitimate groups ideas of morality.
2006-12-01 18:20:53 · answer #8 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Choice.
2006-12-01 18:07:09 · answer #9 · answered by Mrs. Bass 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Freedom of choice, of course.
However, there comes a time when certain actions by man must be legislated for the protection of the majority. Such as laws forbidding murder, rape, and theft. Which all three are immoral.
2006-12-01 18:09:11 · answer #10 · answered by Frogface53 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Freedom of choice.
2006-12-01 18:10:59 · answer #11 · answered by Perplexed 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋