The only time every aspect could be legislated fairly is when the lawmaker knows with certainty what is the best good for all. Of course, for "personal freedom" to be served as well, everyone else must know the best good for all as well.

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Ah and that's the entire problem isn't it? Different people see good as different things. But then again if you made people see good your way, you would become a religious dictatorship kinda like every other country in the world, and that in itself is an evil. Quite a dilemma.

Nate:

Well, we've heard many times over that people will not conform to a law they feel strongly against. This is why everyone should seek the good, come up with reasons that show it is the good, and then convince others of this. If they accept it because it is reasonable, it isn't oppressive, it's helpful. You've helped them to discover something that makes them better off.

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

But many DON'T agree with you, no matter what argument they make. So passing a law banning abortion would only do like you said, and piss people off.

Nate:

So, instead of wanting to pass a law for what I think is right, I should want to pass a law for what I think is wrong?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

I think you should pass a law that gives everyone a choice about their own morality, not dictating morality to the masses.

Nate:

I wouldn't call that a law at all. (Added note: Pro-Choice Advocate D seems to define morality very differently from myself. I think that what he calls morality, I would call "personal preferences that are of no concern to others".)

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Well laws aren't meant to dictate morality, they're meant to protect people. There are plenty of "immoral" things that are perfectly legal because they hurt nobody.

Nate:

What's so good about people (meatbags, as you call them) that they should be protected?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

Meatbags are all we have. Even the worst trash seems like gold to a man who has nothing.

Nate:

If that's all we have, then what are we protecting from? If we haven't something else, what poses the threat? If you needed to accomplish something, and the only thing you had was useless to do so, how is it better than having nothing? And the only thing worse than human beings is nothing?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

I never said human beings were worthless

Nate:

What *is* it that makes human beings of more worth than nothing? What about living non-human sentient beings...are human beings worth more than those?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

No, but we're smarter and intuitive enough to use weapons, which is why we're the dominant species on the planet. It's not a matter of being worth more; it's a matter of intelligence.

Nate:

Intelligence is worthless?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

You know what, this is absolutely pointless. You're talking randomly just to try to prove... whatever the @#$% it is you're trying to prove. Either get to the @#$%^&* point or I'm through with this discussion.

Nate:

My "point" should be obvious enough. The subject is the name of the thread, and I've stated my view on the subject. Most statements I've made lead to the justification of my view, at least the ones in which I haven't digressed. That is the only way it is obvious, however, to someone who disagrees. If I went directly to the point, only those who already agree would be there with me.

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

You weren't talking about abortion anymore you were talking about something concerning sanity, and a peace-loving Hitler so you kind of lost track. When you're debating something don't meander off into something that's completely unrelated in the other persons mind. It doesn't help your cause if YOU know what your point is and nobody else does.

Nate:

If I stay in things that someone who has an opposite view considers completely related, all I can do is try to impose beliefs without reasons. How else can I convince people unless I show them a way to look at it that they hadn't considered?

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

And exactly what does the question "Is murder wrong?" prove? What does talking about the nature of good and evil, saying mass murderers and serial killers were "misguided", what does any of that have to do with abortion?

Nate:

Well, if you analyze a particular good, tracing it back to a more general sense, it can be easier to apply it to other particular situations.'

Pro-Choice Advocate D:

And your example is...? All you've done it seem is taken mass murderers and called them "serving good the wrong way" or something like that.

Nate:

If people disagree on an issue, take an issue they agree on and trace it back to the universal good. Then apply the universal good of their agreement to their disagreement.