We (people) tend to be very pragmatic when it comes to law in our societies. We tend toward an overwhelming majority of the group being in complete agreement on many, if not most, basic points of law. Sort of a “lowest common denominator” approach to legal and social theory.
I was involved in a discussion, not long ago, during which I found myself having to define the most basic of words to the person with whom I was having this discussion; words such as: life, death, law, justice, etc. The discussion involved abortion on demand, which means abortion for any reason whatsoever. I was unsure, at first, whether I should be taking this person seriously, because the definitions of such basic words are, well, pretty basic. But, apparently, when it comes to the issue of abortion, even the simplest words are distorted to represent and symbolize something that they were never intended to represent or symbolize, and that’s a real problem, because societies depend upon language to write their laws and language is simply a system of signs or symbols.
I’ve written a very simple law, which should be easy enough for anyone to understand, designed to protect all human beings within our society from being killed, intentionally and unjustly, by other human beings within our society (with the sole exception being made for self-defense and the defense of innocents). And because people do like to quibble about the meanings of words, especially when it comes to abortion, I’ve also included the proper definition of each word I’ve used, as well as the word’s part of speech.
If, after reading this law, you still doesn’t understand what I’m saying, or if you don’t agree with what I’m advocating, or if it happens to be your desire that abortion on demand would continue to be legal throughout the US for the foreseeable future, then please write me and explain to me why you believe this and tell me what sorts of arguments you are using to defend your prochoice position, because I’ve yet to hear a sound argument that proves why abortion is NOT a moral evil and I doubt that you or anyone can make such an argument.
“The intentional, violent destruction of a human being of any age is not permitted by law. Deadly force is permitted only when exercised directly in defense of innocent human life.”
This law is as simple as I could possibly write it. As I see it, the law would prohibit the following: murder, all forms of homicide or manslaughter committed with malicious intent, capital punishment, abortion, war, and euthanasia (when the natural, biological death process has yet to begin).
The law would permit: deadly force when used in self-defense, defense of others (i.e., innocents), war (in defense of direct attack) and the prescription of pain relief medications (as the individual, family, and physician sees fit) to dying people once the (natural, biological) death process has begun.
Words used: 25 (distinctly different) words used; 29 total words (3 words are used twice: “human”, “is”, “permitted”; and one word is used 3 times: “of”).
“law”: noun; principle and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in their form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.