What practices are you deeply morally opposed to, but would NOT want to make illegal?

Question

On a somewhat related question, are there Supreme Court decisions for which you agree with the Court's reasoning and result, even though you wish the law as written were different? Or are there cases you disagree with the Court getting involved with, although if you could write the laws (as well as interpret them) you would "come out" the same place they did?

I'm thinking about abortion and other issues we've discussed. This question may be hard to follow. But give it a shot. thanks!

Answer 1

Well, I don't like hate speech or flag burning, but I strongly support the First Amendment, and I think that making them illegal would definitely be unconstitutional.

Answer 2

You're not going to get many honest answers on this.

As long as the activity is voluntary for all involved, it should be legal. Prostitution, drug use, etc.... With drug use the reality is if you work part time at Dunkin Donuts and have a $200/week heroin habit simple arithmetic says you're doing illegal activities to raise the money so I don't feel bad for you if you go to prison, but technically the drug use is voluntary for all parties so it should be legal.

But with respect to banning voluntary activity there's no distinction between what a person disapproves of and what a person thinks one ought not to be free do to - - it's the same question. Most people have no problem with Big Brother imposing morality on individuals - as long as its their morality being imposed.

There are two political desires - the desire to do what you want to do, and the desire to ban what you don't like. Libertarians eschew the second desire. Everyone else has both of them. The differences among everyone else stem from the differences in individuals' tastes and preferences - you like X and despise Y you favor the party that will legalize X and outlaw Y, you like Y and despise X you favor the party that will legalize Y and despise X - - the notion that that are true differences in political philosophy is silly - it's the same political philosophy - - centralized control to enforce a set of values - - just exercised by people with different values.

There are also a lot of liars out there - - men who think prostitution should be legal would use it, women who think prostitution should be legal think back to a time when they went to a bar and hooked up with someone and deep inside they're thinking - gee, I could have picked up a few hundred for that and bought myself something nice.

Answer 3

Abortion, because the effects of a ban are well known from history.

When the Supreme Court usually takes a case there is often a question of construction. The words of the statute or prior decision are ambigious or subject to different interpretations. But I'm not a bible literalist, or a Republican, so my opinion doesn't count..


Still these are interesting questions and a good way to test of the credulity limits of the "strict" construction crowd!

Answer 4

I am opposed to abortion and homosexuality. I would never participate in either due to my religion. My government is not based on religion, however, and neither should be illegal because of MY religious tenets.

I am opposed to flag burning but believe, in some cases, it is protected as "free speech". I am opposed to drug and alcohol use, but do not feel the government should legislate based on MY morality.

I am opposed to prostitution and would never participate in it. I do feel that it is (in most cases) consensual and, yes, people are going to have sex so I could care less if money changes hands. The government should get it's cut, though, as it is earned income.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others.”

Most of the "acts" I mentioned are self-injurious, which the government has not right legislating on...

Answer 5

The Supreme Court doesn't write laws.

The answer to your question is, I have a deep moral opposition to the government getting involved in people's private reproductive decisions. Period. You do not have to like their decisions, but you do not have the right to hijack a woman's body for nine months to produce a child no one wants.

And before all the adoption advocates jump on that last sentence... you just show me the nice American couple who wants the non-white baby born addicted to crack and infected with AIDS or some other communicable disease. Show me where the line starts to adopt those children.

Answer 6

Abortion.

For my own personal reasons I believe it to be wrong. But, ultimately I can't help but agree with the legal ruling. Women are going to do what they want with their bodies, whether we forbid it or not. If we made it illegal, we would still have babies being murdered, but instead being paid for in dark alleys and potentially dying from the amateur procedure. At least legally we can medically regulate it and save the mother's lives.

P.S. Bushinventedthegoogle - I am one of those parents. All children of all backgrounds are worth a loving life, even if it's a short one.

Answer 7

Abortion.

Answer 8

The death penalty.

I do not believe it is up to a panel of ones peers to decided if they should live or die, however it seems to pacify a great deal of people and give them a sense that the judicial system is working in their interest. For that reason I am not completely opposed to Capital punishment.

Answer 9

Good question. I am personnaly opposed to abortion. However, I do not believe the answer is making it illegal and I strongly oppose telling women what they can or cannot do with their bodies.

Answer 10

Eminent Domain. I don't agree with what happened to bring the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, nor what they decided. But I do think it was the right decision. The U.S. Constitution is very vague int his area.