Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
My main objection to this is that it is not even remotely based on the popular explanations for the law. In other words, it is a law that has little to no relation to those whom it applies.
As for the state monopoly on violence, I do not subscribe to that belief either. The state, in my opinion, only has the authority to preserve and protect rights. If any violence does not directly affect the rights of another, the state has no authority over that violence, notwithstanding precedence. Similarly, I do not believe the state can allow or disallow anything that does not directly affect the rights of another. As such, I do not believe the state "allows" women to exert control over their bodies. Besides, a woman's actions to her self and a person's actions to a seperate person, or another person's property, are completely different issues.
Your final point is precisely why your porposed alternative cannot work in conjunction with public thought: it is essentially representative of a totalitarian state. Women may have abortions because the state "allows" them to. The state may, at any time, after self-defining a "compelling reason," then criminalize one's private actions. Personally, I do not want laws based on logic that allows such a state to exist.
|
Dude, I can't keep going back and forth if you keep shifting your position.
You said you wanted an objective reason for the law. You specifically wanted to exclude what the public thought about the matter. Yet, now, you say my explanation violates public sentiment (it doesn't, what I wrote actually forms the core of how our law operates in the courts, but that is neiter here nor there at this point).
Regardless of how you
feel about the notion of a state claiming full monopoly over violence, that is the recognized definition of a state. It is also how our law operates. You hold a lot of positions counter to our legal system. That's fine, so do I, but your objections are based on your personal preferences, not how our system is set up and actually operates.
You specifically stated that you wanted a position from outside personal perspective, so I can't help you much further in this regard.
The notion that what a woman does to her own body being quite different from what an external actor does to it are quite different notions, indeed. I'm glad you finally came around to see the logic in that. Seems to me you answered your own question about whether our current law is incoherent.
My last statement is in no way representative of a totalitarian government (and it doesn't help to understand something by essentializing the position). It's exactly the position our government is currently in. Furthermore, both examples of the positions you already gave hinge on whether the state should allow or not allow a woman to have an abortion.