Likewise, morals are such a construction of idols used by the Left as a rationale for them to demand compliance to their wishes in politics, which most often are a skewed mess of fallacies in logic. "Morals' are a deceptive replacement for the "avoidance of sin."
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
But, since we are all properly obeying the * modern interpretation * of the First Amendment, good & evil isn't the question... Good & bad, right & wrong, etc., etc., ad nausea; are all inherently religious ideals.
The modern interpretation of the First Amendment (according to the liberal-tarians) says government must exorcise all traces of religion and theism from itself. Therefore, government must never consider issues of morality and right and wrong...
So, it becomes a question of benefits versus costs. Fetus killing has its benefits to society, especially if you like to sleep late on Saturdays. But it also has its costs as well. Society (by which I mean, whoever manages to seize power) needs to evaluate these costs and decide accordingly.
The mythical rights of men and women are also meaningless. The very concept of rights is also founded in religion. Since the enlightened person is freed from any superstitions about some "God," they are free from having to worry about "rights." Only raw power counts and humans are just meat puppets for the powerful...
Excuse my sarcasm...
“Excuse my sarcasm... “
I’m going to ignore it instead. Having lost the debate on the merits of legalization, you’re turning now to impugning the motives of the opposition.
I don’t see where that’s going to be either useful or fun, so I’m going to drop any attempt to reason with you all.
You can get tangled up in deep and conflicting philosophy.
Or you can look at it simply.
“Interstate commerce” once meant transactions across state lines and was meant to keep states from taxing or restricting imports and exports between them by giving the federal government the power to regulate. But when the New Deal Court corrupted it to mean anything that AFFECTS interstate commerce, the federal government stole the power to regulate all commerce and anything that might affect commerce.
The conflict of rights and morality has been summed up with the axiom “Your rights end at my nose.” The morality of law is that it can be generally agreed by each person that they will follow the morality they chuse. The disagreement comes when one man’s morality demands that he compel others to follow it and attempt to use government to effect that end. Then the argument is that what you do affects me somewhere far short of my nose. This argument leads to regulation of everything you do and its end is absolutism. (For illustration, just imagine the imposition of strict Sharia with 50.1% of the vote with a majority Muslim electorate.) This argument must therefore be rejected no matter how much you or I may be agitated with each other’s personal behavior.