I haven't moved from anything, actually. The fact that morality is relative is precisely the reason it can't be legislated.
There are absolutes and those are which the society agrees on almost to a person. For example, most people would consider it a moral absolute that I am not permitted to hit you over the head and take your wallet. This law, the one that prohibits me from stealing your wallet, is universally accepted and one which you don't see opposition groups springing up to overturn (e.g., it's not viably in dispute). I would consider that an absolute.
Abortion does not fit that category. I find it curious that some of the commenters in this thread would like to see the issue turned back to the states. My equal protection issues aside, I would wager that the pro-life set would be roundly unhappy with the outcome of submitting it to public referendum as those that feel abortion should be illegal are decidedly a minority.
Your suggestion that most posters on FR oppose sending the abortion issue back to the public square, and away from Robe fiats, to be fought out at the ballot box, is the most singularly errant statement that you have made to date. Most here favor precisely that. I have the same opinion about gay marriage, which increasingly fascinates the Robes. I favor legalized gay marriage as a public policy matter, but only via the public square agreeing with me.
Robe fiats on these matters are toxic to the public square, and why it is so angry and fixated on these issues. If the public square fought it out, and fashioned varying compromises over time, much of the toxicity would fade away.
Think about it.
By the way, check out some polls on the abortion issue. There is great support for a middle away, at the cusp, and away from the Robe fiat, that just any are constitutionally mandated, even very late term ones, if the mother has angst about it.
There are absolutes and those are which the society agrees on almost to a person. For example, most people would consider it a moral absolute that I am not permitted to hit you over the head and take your wallet. This law, the one that prohibits me from stealing your wallet, is universally accepted and one which you don't see opposition groups springing up to overturn (e.g., it's not viably in dispute). I would consider that an absolute.
You can't argue for moral relativity in one paragraph and make an exception for an absolute in the second. That's an awful odd religion you're trying to construct there.
It doesn't really matter what you would "consider" an absolute, itself a relative statement. That's your opinion. Who are you to force your own brand of morality on me?
Now you're getting silly Bandita. I favor conception, it helps perpetuate the species so to speak.
Because your continuum exists at a far earlier point than my continuum does. You have science to back yours up, I have science to back mine up.
LOL, you have no science to back up your odd notions. Science is clear, a new human organism is created at the completion of the conceptus. There is no scientific debate about that. There is, of course, the irrational Luddite like comments made by some equating their dandruff to new and unique human life. But folks who make that argument just belie and incredible ignorance of the science involved, equating organs to organisms. You don't fall into that category I hope.
I haven't moved from anything, actually. The fact that morality is relative is precisely the reason it can't be legislated.
Nonsense. You stated unequivocally that politicians should not "legislate morality". I stated unequivocally that that is nonsense, all laws have moral components. I challenged you to name ONE law that did not have a moral component. You demurred as so many have in the past because you can not name one law that doesn't have somebody's morality at it's base.
There are absolutes and those are which the society agrees on almost to a person. For example, most people would consider it a moral absolute that I am not permitted to hit you over the head and take your wallet. This law, the one that prohibits me from stealing your wallet, is universally accepted and one which you don't see opposition groups springing up to overturn (e.g., it's not viably in dispute). I would consider that an absolute.
A better example of absolute morality would be Nazi Germany where society decided that Jews were verboten, subhuman so to speak, or as some would say "nothing". Again you took a pass at answering the question I posed. That's OK as long as you think about it though.
Abortion does not fit that category. I find it curious that some of the commenters in this thread would like to see the issue turned back to the states. My equal protection issues aside, I would wager that the pro-life set would be roundly unhappy with the outcome of submitting it to public referendum as those that feel abortion should be illegal are decidedly a minority.
Oyvey. You are sadly mistaken. Most here at FR are federalists believing that these issues belong to the states. I am in the minority there because I believe the constitution states quite simply in the 5th and 14th Amendments that the right to life is a federal issue. What we all agree on is that judicial fiat stinks and it is a blight on the republic, poisoning the public square and inflaming the culture wars for decades.
I believe that I can beat you in a public debate on abortion and I want that chance but as it stands the robes have decided that they sit on the throne of public morality and legislate same from the bench. Have you seen anything allowing judges to legislate in your copy of the constitution?
I wouldn't bet on it. Thats why it is never put to the vote of the people. Cause it would lose big.