judicial system needs reform

//My opponent claims that any religion may be subbed in for our judicial system as "the bases of the majority of religions moral code are similar". However this is simply not true as Jainism teaches that one should not harm any living creature[1] but then Judaism and Christianity teach that homosexuality is punishable by death[2]. As one can see replacing the present judicial system with general religious law would not solve anything// I ask you does The statement one should not harm any living creature includes other humans? this validates my claim on religion as far as Judaism, lets move on to Christianity, The Christian bible is held in two eras, the new testament (current laws) and the old testament (old laws). I will grant my opponent one partial statement, Christianity did state that homosexuality should be punished by death, but I emphasize it did this in the old testament. On to Judaism, again I state the fact that yes in the judist old testament it was stated but in the new the laws changed. therefore emphasizing my original claim that the main basis for moral code remains the same throughout religion, Being on this subject I will further my claim by stating that the Tora, the Muslim bible, admits that the Christian bible is a work of god, It also states that Jesus did exist, but as a prophet not the son of God, I ask you if you have two religions on total opposite spectrum of today's date and time that agree on the validity of the Christian bible how can it or it's views be disputed. //I actually do raise objection to this point in that A)My opponent showed no reason why adultery was immoral or should be illegal and B)My opponent neglected to mention that adultery is illegal in the states of Wyoming, West Virginia, D.C., Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Hawaii, Florida, California, Colorado, Alabama, and Arizona[3]// first point: When you are married you are in a binding contract with the person in which you are married to, to prove this point I refer you to divorce, If marriage was not a legal binding document there would be no reason for a court hearing for divorce, a person who violates this contract is in fact breaking the law as all contracts are to be followed as such. second point: Adultery in the states of Wyoming, West Virginia, D.C., Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Hawaii, Florida, California, Colorado, Alabama, and Arizona has not been a punishable crime since 1965. and the United States adoption of the no fault divorce laws. //My opponent next responds to my issue with how his solution would fix the abortion issue and why abortion is wrong In itself. My opponent responds with "I restate my law emphasizing the first word love one another." I assume this means that we should love other living things. However people who support abortion sometimes claim that A)A fetus is not alive and B)Terminating the pregnancy is actually the merciful thing to do in some situations.// I ask you what if you were that fetus. Would you then think it should be legal? All life is important, for without bees there would be no pollination, without it there would be no plant life, so just because they are not human they don't have to live? I ask you what is life? the realization that you are here, or the fact that electrical impulses travel from your brain through your body energising all parts of you creating heartbeats, motions, thoughts, feelings, etc. I now bring the point 18 days after conception a baby has a heartbeat,which proves an electrical signal is present proving life, which proves abortion is killing. This is a known fact, now there hasn't been enough scientific tests to tell us when the first electrical signals in the cells are present, but I would imagine long before that 18th day. B) Albert Einstein was crazy, Galileo was mentally unstable, Steven Hawking has a serious disability, there are people all over the world with deliberating conditions that are lived with and those people have some of the most extraordinary lives. I am sorry if I find this claim completely ridiculous. My opponent then brings an unexpected point. He claims that "All men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, it is ingrained in all of us." And to prove this he claims that //"When Hitler killed all those people the pain was felt by everyone, why, why did we even go fight. Because we knew killing people was wrong"// This is right I do claim that all men are born with the knowledge of right and wrong, However I did not say that all men are made to follow that knowledge. We are all affected by temptation and peer pressure. it makes us make bad decisions,all people are fallible to a point, especially if a man like Hitler tells you if you don't do it you will be killed as well. I bring to you this point, If I were to ask 100 people if killing a person was wrong, how many would say yes? If I were to ask 100 people if stealing was wrong, how many people would say no? //My opponent next claims that killing is immoral in every instance and that just because the victim is a baby does not make it any more right. However this contradicts my opponent's earlier claim that it was right to fight the Nazis and Hitler in that what they were doing was wrong. So either killing is right in some instances or it isn't. What is the fetus is killing the mother and that unless the pregnancy is terminated, the mother will die? You may love the fetus and the mother but the mother is the only living being and thus takes priority.// 1) If a single person threatens the existence of humans this person has already violated the law, therefore the decision was made to protect those people, and who made that decision, well the people that were being killed, just so happened that we agreed, therefore fighting and killing the Nazi's was a punishment mutually determined by the victims, and approved by the world. hence world war 2. 2) Who makes the decision? The Judge? No. The family, but wouldn't the families decision be bias? But their not capable of making that decision because they haven't been taught to make that decision? This is the claim that my opponent is making... His version of law allows court systems and judges to step in at any moment to decide the fate of you or your family or to even take the decision from you. Wouldn't you want a say. even if it was a bad decision there would be people there to make sure it wasn't wrong, say..... a Judge. //My opponent claims that fraud is legal and claims that "I will say that if this child went into (and I emphasize) court, in front of a judge, It is illegal, however my statement did not mention court or judges, the mention of the statement is not fraud unless reported to a judiciary facility. councilors, not illegal, state departments not illegal, court illegal." However we do not have to believe my opponent in that all he brings is a personal anecdote and not any external evidence to prove his claim. This argument may be dropped until my opponent brings solid evidence in favor of his claim.// But I did...http://www.nolanchart.com...... This time I will quote since my opponent didn't bother reading it. "Sometimes a parent, fearing a loss of control or custody over a child, crosses the ethically acceptable bounds of legal warfare. An unfortunate but all too frequently used tactic by mothers is to accuse the father of sexually molesting their child. The mere accusation is sufficient to strip the father of all his custody rights and launch a criminal investigation. Even when no evidence is found to substantiate the allegation, family law courts typically "err on the side of caution" and award full custody to the mother. "..."The judicial system, likewise, responds to alleged child abusers swiftly and aggressively. " OUT OF ROOM think of this, how many people are falsely accused.