The truth is, we have legislated, and do legislate morality

The truth is, we have legislated, and do legislate immorality.

Court actions have forced the acceptance of unwanted, nation harming and un-traditional immoral standards.

Thank you for the discussion, your opinions have been interesting and appreciated.

…so that my girlfriend and I can take a vacation.

For discussion and illustrative purposes only.

Been married to a wonderful gal for 31+ years!

Apologies.

P.S.
It’s a pleasure to have a most polite and friendly discussion with you.
Thank you!

On November 7th, 2008 at 12:05 am, Speakup said:

…get an abortion for mandatory health reasons…

A tough, unfortunate decision to have to make.
And, obviously very different from the convenience-driven, selfish choice discussed above.

…concerned with morals and that’s fine but the Constitution doesn’t and can’t control personal issues.
Of course sex and reproduction are very personal issues.
How does the question(s) of whats personal choice and who decides or not get answered?

The Judeo-Christian heritage (essentially The Ten Commandments) is our basis for morality, and also for law.
And no, I am light years away from being a biblical scholar…believe me.

But:

Don’t cheat on your spouse;
Don’t envy people their possessions, and do not desire their spouses;
Respect your elders (honor your parents);
Don’t lie;
These might be considered “morals”; they are a guide as to how people should treat each other.

Do not murder;
Do not steal;
Do not lie (again) – here, under oath in a court of law…or when signing one’s name to a legal document, such as a contract.
Here, these could be considered part of our laws.

I have heard the phrase, “You can’t legislate morality” for about 40 years.

That’s BS.
The truth is, we have legislated, and do legislate morality when we pass laws that are intended to ensure that we treat each other fairly and honestly; and that we do not harm each other, for example.

The laws aren’t just “there”.
The bedrock ideas on which the laws are based don’t just “appear” like a lightbulb flash in some legislator’s head.

Our morality has guided our legislation.

…the Constitution doesn’t and can’t control personal issues.

Well, yes it (and laws in general) does.

I personally might want to beat my wife and kids; or steal that other guy’s new car, or his wallet, or his new coat.
I personally might be attracted to young teen girls.
I personally might want to slander and libel someone whom I dislike.
I personally might want to let my kids go without adequate food or decent clothes, so that my girlfriend and I can take a vacation.

And so on…, but, the law(s) say(s) I cannot do those things.

I personally might believe that there is no such thing as a soul; and personally might believe that the zygote is nothing special, not an individual deserving of, and entitled to, protection whenever possible;
and I might personally believe the woman should have sole and absolute authority over whether to abort that clump of cells.

Well, just as with my personally believing that I should be able to lie in court, or steal & rob, or assault someone;
so with my personally believing that the zygote is nothing special, and that a woman need consider no one and nothing else before aborting the “clump of cells”…:
Just my thinking so doesn’t make it so, or right.

Laws have been passed to discourage and punish murder, larceny, purjury, etc, because most folks felt and believed that they should be discouraged and punished.

We’ll have to wait and see how most folks feel about whether “the clump of cells” should at least be given legal recognition, and some degree of advocacy and protection;
and whether abortion should be discouraged (not punished with trials, penalties, and sentences), rather than encouraged, which is essentially what mandated taxpayer funding does (or, would do – I am not an attorney, and cannot quote chapter and verse what the actual, current legal status and degree of abortion funding by the taxpayer is).

It is a simple, inconvenient, stubborn, if unsophisticated fact that if bad behavior is rewarded, the result will be more bad behavior.

How does the question(s) of whats personal choice and who decides or not get answered?

As with laws against theft, murder, purjury, fraud, etc…my best guess, and my choice, would be “We the People”, though referenda and through our legislatures – most certainly not 5 out of 9 unaccountable, uncontrollable court justices through their “opinions”.

By definition, I should think that if abortion, is being considered, then reproduction is not being considered.

This observation is interesting, it addresses the the casual sex consequence.
Children started by accident should not be who pays the price, sex wasn’t their choice.
People do change their minds and relationships do fail.
Having had a girlfriend get an abortion for mandatory health reasons I can assure you that couples will nearly always break up over the forced (for any reason) losing of a baby and that’s one part of the equation lost in the debate.
For people who already have children its devastating.

So far your comments have been concerned with morals and that’s fine but the Constitution doesn’t and can’t control personal issues.
Of course sex and reproduction are very personal issues.
How does the question(s) of whats personal choice and who decides or not get answered?

Apologies.

On November 6th, 2008 at 5:41 pm, Speakup said:

When does personal choice (and whats more personal than reproduction) become an act of murder.

Sorry, I don’t see that as an actual comparison.
It rather reminds me of the “No soap, radio”, or “Do you walk to work, or do you carry your own lunch?” attempts at humor back when I was in college.

By definition, I should think that if abortion, is being considered, then reproduction is not being considered.

Bringing “personal choice” into the discussion takes us back to a “conflict of visions”, as Thomas Sowell’s excellent book is titled.

If the mother/both parents/society believe that there is no such thing as a soul;
that the zygote is but a clump of cells;
that the “personal” feelings, desires and convenience of the mother/both parents are of paramount, primary, overriding importance…then, what’s the big deal, right?
I mean, a guy and a gal screwed for no other reason than for fun, intimacy and pleasure; and figure that the zygote is no big deal – that hey, that clump of cells ain’t gonna inconvenience them.

In fact, the mere asking of the questions of the presence of sentience, of the ability to survive outside the womb, indicate to which worldview the asker holds.

On the other hand, the folks who screw for all those reasons above…but who also believe that an individual – an individual human, with a unique set of 46 chromosomes – comes into existence at that instant that the egg is fertilized; and who also believe in the existence of the soul; and who believe that their personal feelings and convenience are not of overriding importance; are not the only things that matter, or are what matter the most…well, those folks are faced with a moral dilemma – and they know it.

In years past, that’s most likely why there were “shotgun” weddings; why the guy married the gal to make her an honest woman (and in so doing civilized himself); why so many first children were a wee bit “early”.

Is it the potential of human life or the actuality that rises to the level of force of law?

This abortion question, regarding the actuality of human life, as far as I am aware, deals with the zygote/embryo/fetus;
whether the full, diploid complement of 46 chromosomes “qualifies” the zygote as human, (sentient or not), and thus deserving of, and entitled to, protection by the law.
It does not – again, as far as I am aware – deal with the potential for human life, which was, if I remember correctly, the difficulty raised for Catholics in the 60s when “the pill” became available, and the Pope told his flock that it would not be right to use “the pill”.

This topic ain’t easy, by any means.

I was 20 years old once, too, and had the same drive as those of everyone else, including those who have gone before us for thousands of years.

It’s how those drives are tempered and controlled for the benefit and stability of society that is the job of morality; of shame; of behavior norms; and, yes, in part, of religion and of law.

§ 604. Permissible purposes of consumer reports [15 U.S.C. § 1681b]
(a) In general. Subject to subsection (c), any consumer reporting agency may furnish a consumer report under the following circumstances and no other:
(1) In response to the order of a court having jurisdiction to issue such an order, or a subpoena issued in connection with proceedings before a Federal grand jury.
(2) In accordance with the written instructions of the consumer to whom it relates.
(3) To a person which it has reason to believe
(A) intends to use the information in connection with a credit transaction involving the consumer on whom the information is to be furnished and involving the extension of credit to, or review or collection of an account of, the consumer; or
(B) intends to use the information for employment purposes; or
(C) intends to use the information in connection with the underwriting of insurance involving the consumer; or
(D) intends to use the information in connection with a determination of the consumer’s eligibility for a license or other benefit granted by a governmental instrumentality required by law to consider an applicant’s financial responsibility or status; or
(E) intends to use the information, as a potential investor or servicer, or current insurer, in connection with a valuation of, or an assessment of the credit or prepayment risks associated with, an existing credit obligation; or
(F) otherwise has a legitimate business need for the information
(i) in connection with a business transaction that is initiated by the
consumer; or
(ii) to review an account to determine whether the consumer continues to meet the terms of the account.
(4) In response to a request by the head of a State or local child support enforcement agency (or a State or local government official authorized by the head of such an agency), if the person making the request certifies to the consumer reporting agency that
(A) the consumer report is needed for the purpose of establishing an individual’s capacity to make child support payments or determining the appropriate level of such payments;
(B) the paternity of the consumer for the child to which the obligation relates has been established or acknowledged by the consumer in accordance with State laws under which the obligation arises (if required by those laws);
(C) the person has provided at least 10 days’ prior notice to the consumer whose report is requested, by certified or registered mail to the last known address of the consumer, that the report will be requested; and
(D) the consumer report will be kept confidential, will be used solely for a purpose described in subparagraph (A), and will not be used in connection with any other civil, administrative, or criminal proceeding, or for any other purpose.
(5) To an agency administering a State plan under Section 454 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. § 654) for use to set an initial or modified child support award.

The only other exception is for National Security Clearance, which the entire country did not apply for.

Notice, there is no legal cause for disclosure due to “political or market research”.

Here’s what to do:

1) Write the three Credit Reporting Agencies, and determine if you information was released to anyone in the past two years on what is known as a “soft hit”. Ask for the name, address, and contact number for each soft hit. Your normal credit report will not contain these, as they do not affect score. As rightly noted above, these are used to pre-qualify customers for credit related purposes.
2) Write the National and local DNC, and demand under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and any local Sunshine laws you may have, to know if they have in their possession or have requested without your authorization any credit or SSN related information related to you. Note in your letter that you do not give them permission to use any personal information. Note in your letter that a lack of response will be treated as confirmation that such information is in their possession, and that you will file a police report, and FTC identity theft report, and potentially a report with the FBI for Social Security fraud.
3) Immediately write the CRA’s, and demand to be excluded from pre-qualification notices.
4) Follow up and file reports. It is the only way to protect yourself from the DNC’s identity theft. Who knows when they will sell that information to ACORN or La Raza to help them in their SSN-only Illegal Immigration efforts.

Identity theft is no laughing matter, and even more scary when political organizations are the ones breaking the law.

it’s just a clump of cells, anyway.”

You should think it would take a biblical definition to make a clump of cells become a human or be a barbarity.

When does personal choice (and whats more personal than reproduction) become an act of murder.

When does personal choice become a human aware?

Is it the potential of human life or the actuality that rises to the level of force of law?

Speakup said:

When does the zygote which is almost as likely to be sloughed off by the uterus as not, become a sentient being?

How can one being “sense”, for sure, the precise instant at which another being becomes sentient?
If we cannot tell, then I should think we should err on the side of life as much and as often as possible.

At what point does contraception become barbarity?

I’m pretty sure contraception (contra-conception) is not what so many people find barbaric.

It’s the intentional – for reasons of convenience – destruction/killing of the post conception zygote that is frightening and horrible…i.e., barbaric.

And, what is meant by reasons of convenience is, “OMG, I’m not ready to have a baby now! So, I think I’ll get rid of the zygote; it’s just a clump of cells, anyway.”

Where is the middle ground between the individual’s being of prime importance; and the indiividual’s being swallowed up by the all-powerful state?

There isn’t any.

Where is the middle ground between the zygote’s (fertilized egg’s) being an individual; and its being merely a clump of cells?

When does the zygote which is almost as likely to be sloughed off by the uterus as not, become a sentient being?

At what point does contraception become barbarity?

If the Democrats get their own TV channel (and they might if they when nationalize) it’ll be called NBH..Nothing But Hypocrisy and every TV set will have a camera, to keep you safe.

Meter gets pegged again.