> Some individuals may not like the law, but that’s true of any law.
Tell that (for example) to Iranian- or Afghan- or Saudi women who must cover themselves in public, can't drive, and possibly can't leave the house without a male relative.
Or tell it to women in Texas, Idaho, etc., who are compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies to term — and then are largely left to fend for themselves after their forced births — because power-seeking radicals have democratically imposed "Christian" values about when an abortion is supposedly "murder."
To be sure, living in a society involves duties, not just rights. But some purported "duties" go too far.
Iran actually has a setup similar to the US, where moral issues are removed from the democratic process and turned over to elites. Like the US Supreme Court, Iran’s Guardian Council decides moral issues in consultation with learned experts. Same shit, different religion. Saudi and Afghanistan, meanwhile, aren’t democracies.
And as to Idaho and Texas—who decides where “murder” begins? Me? You? Someone has to, right? What is the rule of decision? Why should post-Christian secular humanism provide the rule of decision instead of regular Christianity, or Islam?
Explain why anybody would accept your premise that "Iran actually has a setup similar to the US, where moral issues are removed from the democratic process and turned over to elites"?
The "elites" in Iran are the Shi'a hierarchy. The "elites" in the US are, in your formulation, people who went to college and who live in major US metros. These are not comparable sets. Elite control over US policy is implicit (one might even say supposed); elite control over Iranian policy is explicit and rigidly formalized. These are not comparable notions of "turned over to".
In Iran, moral issues are turned over to a Guardian Council of 12 members who are experts in law. The Guardian Council has the power to overturn laws approved by the Parliament. In the US, the Guardian Council, err, Supreme Court, has 9 members who are experts in law, and can overturn laws approved by the federal and state legislatures. Both bodies, moreover, interpret the law according to the moral worldview of their country’s respective elites—from which those legal experts are drawn—even when that departs from the moral worldview of the public in those countries.
> And as to Idaho and Texas—who decides where “murder” begins? Me? You? Someone has to, right?
To a first approximation, Roe got it right.
> Why should post-Christian secular humanism provide the rule of decision instead of regular Christianity, or Islam?
I'm certain you recognize that, if enough people feel strongly enough about an issue, the rule of decision will arise not from logic but from raw power, manifested in various forms:
- elections;
- mass demonstrations (Iran 1978-79; Israel of late, outcome uncertain);
- strikes (France of late, outcome uncertain);
- armed rebellion (Ireland 1916; East Pakistan 1971);
- military intervention (the U.S. 1861; East Pakistan 1971).
Tell that (for example) to Iranian- or Afghan- or Saudi women who must cover themselves in public, can't drive, and possibly can't leave the house without a male relative.
Or tell it to women in Texas, Idaho, etc., who are compelled to carry unwanted pregnancies to term — and then are largely left to fend for themselves after their forced births — because power-seeking radicals have democratically imposed "Christian" values about when an abortion is supposedly "murder."
To be sure, living in a society involves duties, not just rights. But some purported "duties" go too far.