Positivism is defined as “the theory that laws are to be understood as social rules, valid becaus

The theoretical framework of positivism has many strengths and weaknesses. One strength that comes from establishing written law as absolute is that it creates much certainty, and predictability. “There shall be no penalty without a valid law”# gives the public sphere a clear understanding what society is governed by without discrepancy. Another upside to positive law is that nulla poena sine lege can not hold those accountable who in doing evil did what that state forbade. Since government is voted in on the number of majority ridings they win, they do not necessarily have majority population support. Therefore there is a downside to this; parties do not have to have a majority population to reach power, but rather majority of ridings. That being said, lawmakers who reach into power do not necessarily make up the will of society. Regardless of what government is elected as a majority party, all society follows under the laws they have in fundamental nature created.

Critical legal perspective is a theory that challenges and overturns accepted norms and standards in legal theory and practice. Those who have been attracted to this theory look to the purposes, values and assumptions of the legal system. Critical legalist often challenge the contemporary relevance, rationales, and validity of such legal systems. There is a compelling drive to expose the illusions or delusions in legal form. Critical legal perspective aims more to the methods of law rather than its role or nature of morality in a designated society. The influence and effects of law make this perspective so dynamic. The basic principle of critical legal studies movement has pertained to the issues dealing with social disadvantage. Critical legal studies has been suggested to be “an amalgam of traditional legal realism and modern cynicism”.# It was clearly argued that critical theorists approach the methods more intensely and tend to overlook the roles of law. “Gall has asserted that the critical legalists argue not from a sound philosophical basis but from personal and political values”# It is hard to draw direct conclusions how critical theorists would respond to the issues surrounding abortion. Since practitioners or theorists have spoken about issues of social disadvantage, they would view abortion as a question of reproductive rights for women.

The naturalistic theory framework has pros and cons which help understand its perspective in law. One of its strengths is that natural law protects the citizen from cruel and unusual punishment as well as guaranteeing many freedoms by means of morality. There are more downsides to natural law when the primary principle is connecting law to morality. The most prominent negative aspect is a question of, whose morality does natural law truly conform? There are various religions which have conflicting moralities, and whose to say which moral beliefs is the right one? If naturalists base their insights on value systems, then perhaps what is just to one person, may be unjust to the ne

Some topics in this essay:
Freedom Rights, , Ultimately Positivists, British Doctrine, natural law, legal realism, critical legal, legal process, positive law, critical legal studies, law morality, legal studies, law legal, strengths weaknesses, law natural law, morality law, examined theory morality, morality economic issues, theory morality economic,