Hence the " so long as no laws are being broken."
In the civilized secular Nation in which I live, you cannot consent to bodily harm or death.
I still say your idea towards what is harmful is still largely incorrect. And the legal system does not as it can not provide a moral compass.
If you were to take a class that deals with the introductory of the legal system, it is discussed that laws can not be applied to base moral compass. business courses have complete chapters between moral behavior and law concluding exact same lesson. The Catholic Church’s teaching is similar as the law is formatted by individuals with a difference in opinions, and the law does not reflect whether something is good or bad (only legal and illegal).
Alcohol is greatly harmful and yet thousands still drink themselves to death as millions poison their bodies and increase kidney disease as well as creating the potential for psychological set backs. However, it is still legal to drink.
Marijuana is supposedly legal in California, but still illegal according to the U.S. federal courts (The U.S. was established under a republic govt. system with a centralized federal system, however, attitudes towards such systems have even started the American Civil War as well as other events). The legal system today has zero accuracy on where it stands as well as whether or not marijuana is legal or illegal. The actions against the subject seem to be none. This gives support that a country’s legal system is backwards and never direct correct, nor balanced moral compass. there is a great amount of individuals to claim that this drug is harmless, however there are still physical damages to the body. Mentally a person will become addicted to their high and constantly focus for that high. They may adventure into more biologically harmful narcotics or even use it as a means of escape from difficult or unpleasant situations.
The US among other countries have also long been governed by a single description of men. it was law that only white, property owning men could vote. NO blacks, women, hispanics, orientals, etc. I know I just used two words that are incorrect to say, however, I still wrote them for you to see it. why; because that is actually how it was written. Sometimes other words would be used in written law to describe a group of people, but I thought I’d allow your imagination while thinking. Now I know that it is morally wrong and socially to reject a woman’s ability to speak up and have her voice heard on a ballot just as much it is to do the same to a person simply because they look different. However, within the U.S. alone, the U.S. Supreme Court once said that that a black man was not human, and now they attempt to state you are only human after birth.
Over all, the law is NOT a source of moral backbone! I chose “backbone” for a big reason. Morals set the character for a person, and what kind of person would you be if you changed your mind all the time, and never held clear reasons to what to believe? well besides most likely being a politician, you’d have a very weak moral backbone to understand right from wrong. after all that is what morals supply us. a sense of right and wrong, but then again the law only states what is legal and illegal.
There are also many legal activities that may still place a person under physical harm as well as a more important mental harm. abortion is currently legal in several countries, and yet not only is this KILLING or as some would say MURDERING a child, but has a great physical effect on the woman. (
americanpregnancy.org/unplannedpregnancy/possiblesideeffects.html ;
afterabortion.org/physica.html)ThereThere) are also several known psychological dangers as well(
afterabortion.org/psychol.html). So is it moral? it’s legal, but brings harm. what the fudge?
