Not exact matches
Inserting additional questions on demographics which will likely result
in invalid population totals must be avoided to preserve the
fundamental purpose for the exercise — obtaining an accurate count and geographical distribution of individuals
living in the U.S.
And even more fundamentally, if we are bearers of inviolable dignity and a basic right to
life in virtue of our humanity, and not
in virtue of accidental qualities such as age, or size, or stage of development or condition of dependency --- if,
in other words, we believe
in the
fundamental equality of human beings --- how can a right to abortion (where «abortion» means performing an act whose
purpose is to cause fetal death) be defended at all?
And
in the same breath, you claim that there were no intelligent design, no
fundamental laws, order, logic or
purpose in the
life with «
purpose» that you all
live.
Judging the book by its title, I was expecting just another account of the various «coincidences» found
in the
fundamental laws and constants of the universe, which seem amazingly carefully chosen to allow the emergence of
life, and which therefore point to the existence of a Cosmic Designer who brought the world into existence for just that
purpose.
Everyone
in the house listens to President Jimmy Carter's «crisis of confidence» speech
in which he claimed that the «
fundamental threat to American democracy» came from a crisis of confidence, reflected
in the growing doubt about «the meaning of our own
lives and
in the loss of a unity of
purpose for our nation.»
With the earliest
purpose thought to be as simple as a light source at night to modern day understandings of its effect on the Earth's rotation and tides, the moon has found itself playing a
fundamental role
in the lifespans of all forms of
life on this planet.
Maps exist for innumerable
purposes in life, because they are, always have been and always will be, one of the
fundamental means by which human beings represent information; with which we translate, codify and make reality intelligible.
Moreover, Justice Susan Himel ruled that the laws that forbid running a bawdy house, communicating for the
purpose of prostitution, and
living off the avails of prostitution were unconstitutional and are not
in accord with the principles of
fundamental justice.
They are all similarly situated with respect to the
purpose of the Code because any type of work is «one of the most
fundamental aspects
in a person's
life, providing the individual with a means of financial support and, as importantly, a contributory role
in society.
For a rule or principle to constitute a principle of
fundamental justice for the
purposes of s. 7, it must be a legal principle about which there is significant societal consensus that it is
fundamental to the way
in which the legal system ought fairly to operate, and it must be identified with sufficient precision to yield a manageable standard against which to measure deprivations of
life, liberty or security of the person.
The Carter majority thus concluded at para. 315 that the Rodriguez court's articulation of the legislative objective of the existing law was not restricted to the narrow
purpose of only protecting the «vulnerable», but also with the «societal concern with preserving
life»
in general, and therefore that concerns over the
fundamental shift
in societal values that would arise if the state permits some citizens to kill others
in certain circumstances, can not be simply brushed aside.