Abortion Must be Illegal Essay -- Argumentative

Oliver Wendell Holmes was born on March 8, 1941 and died on March 6, 1935. He was a vigorous political figure during his life time. He served as associate justice in the US Supreme Court from 1905 to1982. He was a great political philosopher of his days and his ideas are still remembered. According to Holmes, â€Å"the nature of legal language can obscure and hide the social interests and social advantages to some that a law promotes.† Holmes view about legal language is that law promotes social goodness for people but the manner in which the language of law is interpreted can be a block to providing equal justice to all human beings. Holmes says the interpretation of law makes it hard for others to actually enjoy the benefits law provides to all mankind. Holmes classifies the interpretation of law into rhetorical theory. He emphasizes that a law which is constructed as a principle or in a statute form reduces the likelihood of change. Again he says the language of law when interpreted tends to define or apply to only specific behavior or situation at a specific time. Legal language is constructed in complex forms that make it difficult for people without the knowledge of the laws to interpret their meaning. In addition, the language of law always depends on fi xed interpretation. In actual sense, if a law is not interpreted and therefore is not in statutes or has not being generally considered as a law then, no one can be considered a criminal for that offense. Though in reality, that offense may be morally wrong but it is yet to be discovered and entered as a legal principle thus, representing the prediction of the future consequences. Holmes further says that the interpretation of the law in a universal notion as morally obligated... ..., Holmes says legal language should be based on amendment or changes to suit current situations and not be measured from old or fixed legal principles. Indeed, Holmes’ theory that â€Å"the nature of legal language can obscure the social interests and hide the social advantage to some that a law promotes† is a very important philosophical thought. The fact is that legal language denies some people the right to social advantage or equal justice. For this reason, we should look at laws as they ought to be based on current situations at hand. We should not be predominantly obligated to follow fixed statutes as if they are holy books that have been handed down to us from our predecessors and therefore, cannot be altered or amended. Legal language should be used to serve the interest of current social treads and we should not favor legal rhetoric and traditions over change.