> > Legislation of 'morality', however, must be done at some point to > > prevent theft, murder, etc.
> That line is when the interests of society outweigh the rights of an > individual. > I guess I cannot comprehend where the interests of society lie in killing > babies... especially when we are facing a social security crisis in upcoming > years with almost as many people collecting as paying in. If we hadn't > killed all those babies, we would have a lot more workers supporting the > system. That's because you are looking at it backwards. It seems you think the government needs to explicitly grant freedoms such as abortion because society feels it in their interest. But rather in a free country, the individual would have a right to the abortion and the government would have to exclude it by creating a law banning it(say, in the interests of the social security system, tho I see that as quite silly). It's like firewall rules-- the default is supposed to be 'allow all' and the government has to create all the 'deny ...' rules that get processed before falling through to 'allow all'. Or that's how it works if it's a free country, anyways... -- Derek _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
