From: "Monique Boea"
> Well for those of us who don't believe in abortion, to us it's not right
for
> one person or a group of people to change things for the majority. At
least
> that is how I feel.
But, see, we're not. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. I'm not
altering your rights in any way, shape or form if I do get one.
> Or someone says, "And I want to have sex with animals if I want to" and
they
> start rallying to change the laws.
Why would you care? Is it hurting you? If it's hurting the animal, that can
be handled with other laws. If it's not, then what's the issue? Is it that
it's repugnant to you? Well, what if I say that your religion is repugnant
to me? (Just as an example.) Should I have any more right to say that you
can't practice your religion?
>
> That is what bothers me, because you don't believe in something, you
change
> it for the majority.
Only if the "majority" allows. (I use that term loosely as our legal system
is much more complicated that simple majority rules. But, no one individual
is going to change things like you're using for examples.)
> For example, here is the defination of marriage: The legal union of a man
> and woman as husband and wife. Why is a group of people allowed to change
> that definition?
Um, that's not a universally accepted legal definition. And again, the only
way it gets changed is through a complicated process with a series of checks
and balances.
> Where do you stop?
Wherever society allows.
> how do you please everyone?
You don't.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
