login
Fatherlessness and Crime (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2009-11-23 5:00 PM in reply to: #2527892 |
Master  2477    Oceanside, California |  Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crimeblairrob - 2009-11-23 2:41 PM eabeam - 2009-11-23 6:23 PM The African-American community has to address the fact that their boys ARE growing up without fathers or positive male role models at a higher rate than the rest of the U.S. This is also true of the Latino community here in CA. It would seem to me that your statement should read 'the country has to address the fact that some boys ARE growing up without fathers or positive male role models at a higher rate than the rest of the U.S.' The country needs to determine how to get these kids the opportunities they need to get out of the cycle of poverty, its not just the job of those adults from a particular racial community, IMO. I am 50/50 on that. I see your point, but I also believe that any lasting, significant change needs to come from within. I don't think that other sectors of the country can realistically do much in that regard. Empowerment, by definition, is not something someone else can give you. I have lost track of how many times I have seen well-funded, well-designed programs run under-utilized (before the recession) because they focused on that paradigm. (As well as a lot of poorly designed ones...) From the "just get a job" level to the MBA-level... USC Marshall School of Business Full-time MBA program commissioned a research study to figure out how it could attract under-represented groups from Los Angeles. They had alumni-funded scholarships going unused. The study basically concluded, "Well, here are some ideas on the few variables that you can control..." to quote my favorite A.A. professor at UCLA, (in referencing overly politically correct teachers at LAUSD), "How about you concentrate on teaching my kids to read, and I will teach them how to be black." If Dr. Cosby and Dr. Cooper believe that it needs to come from within the community, I would agree with them... with necessary external supports. Edited by eabeam 2009-11-23 5:04 PM |
| 2009-11-23 5:30 PM in reply to: #2527852 |
Pro 6767   the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime Jackemy - 2009-11-23 5:22 PM That is a really weird phrasing. I would need more clarification on what you mean by that or maybe your examples for "private" just don't fit the definition of private. OK, I am going to give it another try - I know I was not at all making sense there - On the right, they want to legislate away behaviors you do in private that they find morally objectionable (same examples). On the left, they want to legislate away behaviors you do that are "bad for you" - my better example is things like smoking. OK, so "public/private" doesn't really fit. If I could remember the original source, I'm sure it was worded much better. |
| 2009-11-23 6:38 PM in reply to: #2527963 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime gearboy - 2009-11-23 5:30 PM Jackemy - 2009-11-23 5:22 PM That is a really weird phrasing. I would need more clarification on what you mean by that or maybe your examples for "private" just don't fit the definition of private. OK, I am going to give it another try - I know I was not at all making sense there - On the right, they want to legislate away behaviors you do in private that they find morally objectionable (same examples). On the left, they want to legislate away behaviors you do that are "bad for you" - my better example is things like smoking. OK, so "public/private" doesn't really fit. If I could remember the original source, I'm sure it was worded much better. I get what your saying and I've certainly been asked about the whole legilsation from the bedroom issue as a conservative who hasn't learned to shut his mouth, yet. But, I let me give you the conservative perpective on this. I'm not going to argue right or wrong on gay marriage or abortion on this one I'm just pointing out how we wing-nuts think. A conservative would use your two examples as absolute proof that the left legislate morality. We would argue that morality is not up to the government to legislate as morality is formed from providence, tradition, mores, civil institutions, and ordered liberty and is grounded in natural law. Abortion and gay marriage did not originate from natural law but by government law. |
| 2009-11-23 6:48 PM in reply to: #2528041 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime Jackemy - 2009-11-23 7:38 PM gearboy - 2009-11-23 5:30 PM Jackemy - 2009-11-23 5:22 PM That is a really weird phrasing. I would need more clarification on what you mean by that or maybe your examples for "private" just don't fit the definition of private. OK, I am going to give it another try - I know I was not at all making sense there - On the right, they want to legislate away behaviors you do in private that they find morally objectionable (same examples). On the left, they want to legislate away behaviors you do that are "bad for you" - my better example is things like smoking. OK, so "public/private" doesn't really fit. If I could remember the original source, I'm sure it was worded much better. I get what your saying and I've certainly been asked about the whole legilsation from the bedroom issue as a conservative who hasn't learned to shut his mouth, yet. But, I let me give you the conservative perpective on this. I'm not going to argue right or wrong on gay marriage or abortion on this one I'm just pointing out how we wing-nuts think. A conservative would use your two examples as absolute proof that the left legislate morality. We would argue that morality is not up to the government to legislate as morality is formed from providence, tradition, mores, civil institutions, and ordered liberty and is grounded in natural law. Abortion and gay marriage did not originate from natural law but by government law. I would add this onto Jackemy's points. Abortion is not a private act, in that it involves the killing of another person. It is a human rights issue in that the second person's right to life is being violated. The movement to redefine marriage as being something other than a union of one man and one woman is also not a private act in that marriage is a public institution. |
| 2009-11-23 6:52 PM in reply to: #2527315 |
Pro 4824 Houston | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime Girls give it up early and often looking for love in all the wrong places. It is my opinion if girls felt loved from the adults in her life and loved herself she wouldn't be looking for love and validation in the backseat of a car. We begin sexualizing girls from a VERY young age. It is everywhere. I am very careful with what I allow my children to watch but it is still everywhere you turn. As a Mother of 3 girls I find it difficult to find appropriate clothing for my now 7 year old. It's not so difficult until they are in the 6X size and then it's all about super short skirts, belly tops, words on the behind and low rise jeans. I pay more money to find quality clothing that is more modest. Low self esteem brings about promiscuous behavior and the inability to say no and/or insist a guy use a condom. She is disposable as far as he's concerned and the next thing she knows she's pregnant. She is likely to keep the baby because for the first time in her life she thinks she will have someone to love her and the cycle continues. It is likely nobody ever sat her down and told her what she is worth, that waiting to have sex is important and the emotional responsibilities that come with having sex. I also have 2 teenage sons. I have talked with them many times about sex and that no matter what percautions are made sex can = baby and you shouldn't be having sex with any woman you wouldn't want to be the Mother of your children. Fathering a child also means working full time and your previous life being a distant memory. On a side note when my older son found out Jamie Lynn Spears was pregnant he said "Her boyfriend must not love her" I wasn't sure where he was going and said "well, son, we don't know that." He replied "If he REALLY loved her he would have waited. He wasn't thinking of her or how a baby would affect her life. I mean, she's MY age Mom". |
| 2009-11-23 7:04 PM in reply to: #2527315 |
Pro 4311 Texas | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime Funny, as time slowed down for me I'd be thinking "F*CK THAT'S A GUN...F*CK, THAT'S TWO GUNS. F*CK. F*CK. F*CK.". |
| 2009-11-23 7:05 PM in reply to: #2528056 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime KeriKadi - On a side note when my older son found out Jamie Lynn Spears was pregnant he said "Her boyfriend must not love her" I wasn't sure where he was going and said "well, son, we don't know that." He replied "If he REALLY loved her he would have waited. He wasn't thinking of her or how a baby would affect her life. I mean, she's MY age Mom". Wow!!! Well done Mom! |
| 2009-11-23 7:05 PM in reply to: #2528041 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime Jackemy - 2009-11-23 7:38 PM A conservative would use your two examples as absolute proof that the left legislate morality. We would argue that morality is not up to the government to legislate as morality is formed from providence, tradition, mores, civil institutions, and ordered liberty and is grounded in natural law. Abortion and gay marriage did not originate from natural law but by government law. Well that's sort of the point of my argument. Laws basically tell us where the line is drawn - what we are not allowed to do. Marriage in general does not have a "natural" origin. It originates from human ideas and institutions. We can at any time define what we mean by them. At one time, marriage meant polygamy, with the right to concubines as well (hey, check your old testament). But the Mormons had to give up polygamy (technically) to have Utah join the union. And abortion is just another medical procedure. As are blood transfusions. The Jehovah's Witnesses are against them - should we outlaw transfusions? They read the bible as being against them. So writing laws against abortion or gay marriage are right wing laws. If they were left wing laws, they would be mandatory (or so the right makes it seem) So I tend to have a skeptical of legislating morality from either side. I am troubled by on-demand abortions, by I think they should remain legal. Similarly I think that smoking is bad for people, and sets a bad example for kids. But I think it should remain legal. Let public opinion decide how either of them is used. |
| 2009-11-23 7:06 PM in reply to: #2528081 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime JBrashear - Funny, as time slowed down for me I'd be thinking "F*CK THAT'S A GUN...F*CK, THAT'S TWO GUNS. F*CK. F*CK. F*CK.". I did that later when I was safe. Edited by dontracy 2009-11-23 7:06 PM |
Constantly for about six months. | 2009-11-23 7:08 PM in reply to: #2528051 |
Master 2477 Oceanside, California | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime dontracy - 2009-11-23 4:48 PM The movement to redefine marriage as being something other than a union of one man and one woman is also not a private act in that marriage is a public institution. Why does the government even have an opinion? It is one thing to say marriage started as a religious sacrament. Fine, then be consistent. Keep marriage a religious issue, and offer all couples similar legal rights regardless of the label. It is another to offer specific financial/legal incentives in the form of ability to immigrate, tax benefits, employer benefits incentives, etc. |
| 2009-11-23 7:23 PM in reply to: #2528051 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime dontracy - 2009-11-23 7:48 PM I would add this onto Jackemy's points. Abortion is not a private act, in that it involves the killing of another person. It is a human rights issue in that the second person's right to life is being violated. The movement to redefine marriage as being something other than a union of one man and one woman is also not a private act in that marriage is a public institution. On the first issue, defining a fetus as a person is entering the arena of faith. Not to make light of it, but we don't bury miscarriages in consecrated grounds. And the big bugaboo of the right - late term abortions - are done realistically only in times of either non-viable fetuses or significant risk to the life of the mother. I don't believe one can "kill" a non-viable individual in the former case, and you are quite possibly killing the mother in the second. The second issue is really again legislating a moral view from the right. My marriage is unaffected if two men, two women, a man and a goat, or whatever get married. As a legal entity, marriage is really defining specific rights and benefits to join two individuals that will share property, be allowed to make medical decisions on behalf of one another, have the right to not testify against one another, and so on. Getting married by your church is a decision that can remain in realm of your church. And of course, there are churches that support gay marriage - don't they get to have a say in what is appropriate for their congregants? So while we could debate the fairness or appropriateness of either of these issues, they still represent a form of legislating moral views. They happen to be the views of the right, so we surely will disagree, but they are still moral arguments masquarading as legal arguments. |
| 2009-11-23 7:28 PM in reply to: #2527807 |
| Iron Donkey 38643 , Wisconsin | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime trishie - 2009-11-23 3:59 PM 1stTimeTri - 2009-11-23 4:54 PM trishie - 2009-11-23 3:52 PM I find the amount of racism in this thread disturbing, but I'll let that go for now. First, don, I am so sorry that happened to you. That's terrifying, and I'm impressed you were able to deal with them and come out safely. ((())) Like our resident social worker said, children need to be loved and protected and taught. In my opinion, this love can come from one mother, one father, several parents - the case of steparents, two mothers, two fathers, an aunt, a grandmother, a grandfather, etc. The problem is that many mothers in poor urban areas are single mothers who work multiple jobs to pay rent and put food on the table. They simply do not have the hours in the day to be a PTA mom and attend sports games. In addition, many of them are CHILDREN (14, 16 years old) THEMSELVES! They aren't able to parent because they aren't mature enough to do so. I think there is a big difference between a single mother living in poverty and a single mother NOT living in poverty (well, duh, groundbreaking stuff I know). My neighbor - single - adopted a little boy and provides him with a wonderful life. I live in Baltimore City and it breaks my heart to see 14 and 15 year old girls, heavily pregnant, pushing a stoller down the street. Why are these girls getting pregnant? What can we do to stop it? <----- these are the biggies, IMO. I had sex as a teenager, and I used every type of precaution available (pill, condoms, etc). I knew that if I got pregnant it would interfere with my life --- with college, studying abroad, graduate school, etc. I had things to look forward to and if I got pregnant at 16 I would have very dissapointed parents. A lot of the teens in the city don't have a bright future. They've had subpar schooling, uninvovled parents, and college normally is not an option. They do what they've seen: unprotected sex, pregnant, repeat. It's what their moms did as teenagers and likely it's what their children will do as well. It's a cycle and it's a very sad one. Maybe some self-realization and self-consciousness and not succumbing to peer pressure, too? Okay... HOW? Who is going to give these girls the tools to not succumb to peer pressure? It's easy to us to say "well, don't have sex, get good grades, go to college." but to some people - esp. in poor urban areas - these ideas are foreign. I did well in school because I grew up with parents who cared, who called teachers and checked homework. I went to college because it was expected of me. To say that these kids should just "self-realize" is oversimplifying a very complex problem. I lived in a small town in northern-central Wisconsin, where Rednecks thrive. I was the youngest of 8, and could be considered upper-poor class, with no father around and Mom was a stay-at-home Mother with no real skills since she dropped out of H.S. when she was 16. A lot of my friends drank, and some used to do some drugs. My Mother didn't check on my school grades or attend my track meets or basketball games. I chose at a young age, because of my father being a drinker (but not a child abuser), to NOT drink or touch drugs and get into trouble, even though friends of mine were doing so. Nobody worked with me to decide about college. I had to decide, on my own, two years after working sh1t jobs, what to do with my life. I made the decision to go to college. I made the decision to make something of my life. So, a person CAN choose to make the decision. Do they choose to? Yes, it is quite complex, but, even with influential parents, not many choose to make a GOOD decision. Maybe maturity plays into this. |
| 2009-11-23 8:01 PM in reply to: #2528114 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime gearboy - On the first issue, defining a fetus as a person is entering the arena of faith. Not to make light of it, but we don't bury miscarriages in consecrated grounds. And the big bugaboo of the right - late term abortions - are done realistically only in times of either non-viable fetuses or significant risk to the life of the mother. I don't believe one can "kill" a non-viable individual in the former case, and you are quite possibly killing the mother in the second. The second issue is really again legislating a moral view from the right. My marriage is unaffected if two men, two women, a man and a goat, or whatever get married. As a legal entity, marriage is really defining specific rights and benefits to join two individuals that will share property, be allowed to make medical decisions on behalf of one another, have the right to not testify against one another, and so on. Getting married by your church is a decision that can remain in realm of your church. And of course, there are churches that support gay marriage - don't they get to have a say in what is appropriate for their congregants? So while we could debate the fairness or appropriateness of either of these issues, they still represent a form of legislating moral views. They happen to be the views of the right, so we surely will disagree, but they are still moral arguments masquarading as legal arguments. To start with the ending, among other things the law is a teacher. It has a responsibility to some degree to teach moral truths. What those moral truths are is the question. Gets back to our discussion the other week about what a "good" is.
We've lost three children that we know of to miscarriage. May have lost others to natural miscarriage or to the use of abortifacients. Impossible to know for sure. The youngest of our three miscarried children is buried in a consecrated cemetery belonging to the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Our child's name is Fran, a member of our family. I think it actually takes less faith to hold my view than it takes to hold yours. We know from the science of embryology that human biological life begins at conception. We believe through reason that we possess personhood. There is no place on the continuum from conception to natural death where we can know empirically that personhood is not possessed by our biological nature. It seems to me that it requires an act of faith to believe that we suddenly receive personhood at some point after conception.
The notions around the push to redefine marriage really point back to the assault on marriage and the family that has been going on for some fifty years already. (hopefully, this will address eabeam's point) When the sexual revolution began to gain traction back in the sixties, many proponents believed that marriage was to be avoided if one wanted to be free. It was thought to be a lingering institution of the oppressive authoritarian patriarchy. It was seen by many in light of the fish and bike thing. Now with the push to redefine marriage itself, the sexual revolution movement is touting marriage as the greatest of goods. Everyone has the right to marry, it says, in any way they themselves deem proper. It is being used to justify and legitimize a personal lifestyle choice. That is a very curious change that is worth exploring, the movement in the sexual revolution from marriage being the problem to now being the goal. The real problem though, began decades ago. Among other issues, divorce laws were made more lax. No fault divorce became the law. If the law is a teacher, then it began teaching back then that the institution of marriage is not really that important as a basic building block of society. Rather, it began teaching that it is really just a lifestyle choice, and should have options similar to those available in the rest of the consumer market. In my opinion the result of this, among other things, is the reality of fatherless crime. Edited by dontracy 2009-11-23 8:16 PM |
| 2009-11-23 8:26 PM in reply to: #2528085 |
Master 2006 Portland, ME | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime gearboy - 2009-11-23 7:05 PM Jackemy - 2009-11-23 7:38 PM A conservative would use your two examples as absolute proof that the left legislate morality. We would argue that morality is not up to the government to legislate as morality is formed from providence, tradition, mores, civil institutions, and ordered liberty and is grounded in natural law. Abortion and gay marriage did not originate from natural law but by government law. Well that's sort of the point of my argument. Laws basically tell us where the line is drawn - what we are not allowed to do. Marriage in general does not have a "natural" origin. It originates from human ideas and institutions. We can at any time define what we mean by them. At one time, marriage meant polygamy, with the right to concubines as well (hey, check your old testament). But the Mormons had to give up polygamy (technically) to have Utah join the union. And abortion is just another medical procedure. As are blood transfusions. The Jehovah's Witnesses are against them - should we outlaw transfusions? They read the bible as being against them. So writing laws against abortion or gay marriage are right wing laws. If they were left wing laws, they would be mandatory (or so the right makes it seem) So I tend to have a skeptical of legislating morality from either side. I am troubled by on-demand abortions, by I think they should remain legal. Similarly I think that smoking is bad for people, and sets a bad example for kids. But I think it should remain legal. Let public opinion decide how either of them is used. Damn, I agree again on the whole legislation of morality point. That's it, I'm shut off from writing anything nice about you in Don's thread. Though, I don't know of any laws against gay marriage. I do believe you can commit to anyone you darn well please to commit to in front of just about anyone you darn well please to get commited in front of and call it whatever you like to call it. That is your private choice and there is no need for me to privy to that choice. On the abortion thing, well, I really have a thing about abortion and innocent life and it being the number one killer of african-americans and such so I'll just refrain from giving my opinion. Edited by Jackemy 2009-11-23 8:31 PM |
| 2009-11-23 8:30 PM in reply to: #2528216 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime Jackemy - Damn, I agree again on the whole legislation of morality point. That's it, I'm shut off from writing anything nice about you in Don's thread. Nah... go on... I'm all for the love between discordant brothers and sisters... |
| 2009-11-23 8:43 PM in reply to: #2528178 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime dontracy - 2009-11-23 9:01 PM . It has a responsibility to some degree to teach moral truths. What those moral truths are is the question. Gets back to our discussion the other week about what a "good" is.
We've lost three children that we know of to miscarriage. May have lost others to natural miscarriage or to the use of abortifacients. Impossible to know for sure. The youngest of our three miscarried children is buried in a consecrated cemetery belonging to the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Our child's name is Fran, a member of our family. I think it actually takes less faith to hold my view than it takes to hold yours. We know from the science of embryology that human biological life begins at conception. We believe through reason that we possess personhood. There is no place on the continuum from conception to natural death where we can know empirically that personhood is not possessed by our biological nature. It seems to me that it requires an act of faith to believe that we suddenly receive personhood at some point after conception.
The notions around the push to redefine marriage really point back to the assault on marriage and the family that has been going on for some fifty years already. (hopefully, this will address eabeam's point) When the sexual revolution began to gain traction back in the sixties, many proponents believed that marriage was to be avoided if one wanted to be free. It was thought to be a lingering institution of the oppressive authoritarian patriarchy. It was seen by many in light of the fish and bike thing. Now with the push to redefine marriage itself, the sexual revolution movement is touting marriage as the greatest of goods. Everyone has the right to marry, it says, in any way they themselves deem proper. It is being used to justify and legitimize a personal lifestyle choice. That is a very curious change that is worth exploring, the movement in the sexual revolution of marriage being the problem to now being the goal. The real problem though, began decades ago. Among other issues, divorce laws were made more lax. No fault divorce became the law. If the law is a teacher, then it began teaching back then that the institution of marriage is not really that important as a basic building block of society. Rather, it began teaching that it is really just a lifestyle choice, and should have options similar to those available in the rest of the consumer market. In my opinion, the result of this, among other things, is the reality of fatherless crime. The fundamental difference here may be the perception of the law as a teacher. The law is not a teacher; or at least, in a nation of laws, it should not be. The law is an agreed upon set of rules we all must follow. Again, I would refer to the example I gave about blood transfusions. The embryology is not quite as simple or straightforward as you think. Without implantation, a fertilized egg does not develop. If conception is considered the start of life, then a lot of what happens with in vitro is reprehensible - multiple fertilized eggs, some of which never get out of the starting gate. That would be the moral equivalent of having babies and then starving them to death. I understand that for some people, that is absolutely the case, but it is not absolutely clearly the case, and we do not prosecute fertility docs for murder when they do not implant the zygote. The problem I have with abortion on a personal level more or less gets to this point - Life does not begin at conception. Ir just as clearly does not start at birth. So somewhere in between is the start. I don't presume to be able to define that, so I am troubled by abortion. But my doubts don't rise to a level of provability that warrants my demanding a legislative solution. The marriage issue gets right back to my original points about the differences between the right and the left really just being what moral issues they believe should be legislated. Gay marriage has little to nothing to do with divorce (although I am sure that when gays marry in significant numbers, they will divorce as much as straight couples). I think we agree on the effects of fatherless kids and crime. But I beleive there is more to it than the divorce issue, or sexual freedom. I think there is a downward spiral when people start to have kids in poverty, out of support systems. It starts to seem to be normal. And I am sorry for your losses. I hope my example did not come off as insensitive. |
| 2009-11-23 8:50 PM in reply to: #2528216 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime Jackemy - 2009-11-23 9:26 PM Damn, I agree again on the whole legislation of morality point. That's it, I'm shut off from writing anything nice about you in Don's thread. Though, I don't know of any laws against gay marriage. I do believe you can commit to anyone you darn well please to commit to in front of just about anyone you darn well please to get commited in front of and call it whatever you like to call it. That is your private choice and there is no need for me to privy to that choice. On the abortion thing, well, I really have a thing about abortion and innocent life and it being the number one killer of african-americans and such so I'll just refrain from giving my opinion. I'm telling you, our agreeing is a sign of the apocalypse! I have very ambivalent feelings about abortion, some of which are driven by the points I made above, and some by the fact that my mother lost her mother at the age of 12 (my mother was 12, not my grandmother) due to a "back alley abortion". It set a whole chain of events in motion that are too much to go into in a public space. So outlawing abortion puts lives at risk as well; not to mention the issue of unfair access to resources (i.e. the rich get access, and the poor do not). So I am bothered by both the abortion and the laws outlawing them. May not be fully consistent, but that's the way it is. |
| 2009-11-23 8:56 PM in reply to: #2527315 |
Master 2477 Oceanside, California | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime Let's look at it from a pragmatic, to-do list. Let's table the role of government in morality discussion, until the get some more fundamental issues done first. (No particular order other than higher than the current conversation.) 1. Protection from outside invaders. 2. Secure the borders, with a fair efficient immigration/tourism system. 3. Protect us from insiders. Eliminate murder, rape, abuse, violent crime, robbery, etc. 4. Fix the economy. Promote commerce that is fair, and regulated only as necessary. 5. Minimize government spending and infra-structure. 6. Basic human services that is fair and provides for those truly in need - not those abusing the system. Food, shelter, healthcare. 7. Educate the next generation in skills that will truly will help them. 8. Promote self-reliance and sustainability. So that we are not reliant on other countries for natural resources, food, financial stability. etc. etc. n = get involved in morality. Mind you, not promoting morality is not the same as protecting people from the consequences of their actions. I think that we can all agree that those bilking the system, or wanting to never face the consequences of their actions and then claim "pursuit of happiness" should get a dose of reality. Some people don't get that just because you could, doesn't mean you should. |
| 2009-11-23 9:02 PM in reply to: #2528238 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime gearboy - And I am sorry for your losses. I hope my example did not come off as insensitive. Thanks. No worries. It wasn't offensive at all. |
| 2009-11-23 9:09 PM in reply to: #2528258 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime eabeam - Let's look at it from a pragmatic, to-do list. I'd say that your list itself is based in a moral calculation. That's fine in itself. I just don't think that you can get away from the question of morality being part of law. To say that the law ought not speak to morality is to make a moral declaration. |
| 2009-11-23 9:13 PM in reply to: #2528238 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime gearboy - Life does not begin at conception. I'd be interested in your thoughts about when a chicken's life begins. I think that most young kids who have one of those chicken incubating and hatching experiments in their classroom would say that it is when the egg is fertilized. Same holds true for a lot of vegetarians who will eat eggs, but not fertilized eggs. There seems to be a fundamental difference between the two. Edited by dontracy 2009-11-23 9:13 PM |
| 2009-11-23 9:15 PM in reply to: #2528178 |
Master 2477 Oceanside, California | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime dontracy - 2009-11-23 6:01 PM gearboy - On the first issue, defining a fetus as a person is entering the arena of faith. Not to make light of it, but we don't bury miscarriages in consecrated grounds. And the big bugaboo of the right - late term abortions - are done realistically only in times of either non-viable fetuses or significant risk to the life of the mother. I don't believe one can "kill" a non-viable individual in the former case, and you are quite possibly killing the mother in the second. The second issue is really again legislating a moral view from the right. My marriage is unaffected if two men, two women, a man and a goat, or whatever get married. As a legal entity, marriage is really defining specific rights and benefits to join two individuals that will share property, be allowed to make medical decisions on behalf of one another, have the right to not testify against one another, and so on. Getting married by your church is a decision that can remain in realm of your church. And of course, there are churches that support gay marriage - don't they get to have a say in what is appropriate for their congregants? So while we could debate the fairness or appropriateness of either of these issues, they still represent a form of legislating moral views. They happen to be the views of the right, so we surely will disagree, but they are still moral arguments masquarading as legal arguments. To start with the ending, among other things the law is a teacher. It has a responsibility to some degree to teach moral truths. What those moral truths are is the question. Gets back to our discussion the other week about what a "good" is.
We've lost three children that we know of to miscarriage. May have lost others to natural miscarriage or to the use of abortifacients. Impossible to know for sure. The youngest of our three miscarried children is buried in a consecrated cemetery belonging to the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Our child's name is Fran, a member of our family. I think it actually takes less faith to hold my view than it takes to hold yours. We know from the science of embryology that human biological life begins at conception. We believe through reason that we possess personhood. There is no place on the continuum from conception to natural death where we can know empirically that personhood is not possessed by our biological nature. It seems to me that it requires an act of faith to believe that we suddenly receive personhood at some point after conception.
The notions around the push to redefine marriage really point back to the assault on marriage and the family that has been going on for some fifty years already. (hopefully, this will address eabeam's point) When the sexual revolution began to gain traction back in the sixties, many proponents believed that marriage was to be avoided if one wanted to be free. It was thought to be a lingering institution of the oppressive authoritarian patriarchy. It was seen by many in light of the fish and bike thing. Now with the push to redefine marriage itself, the sexual revolution movement is touting marriage as the greatest of goods. Everyone has the right to marry, it says, in any way they themselves deem proper. It is being used to justify and legitimize a personal lifestyle choice. That is a very curious change that is worth exploring, the movement in the sexual revolution from marriage being the problem to now being the goal. The real problem though, began decades ago. Among other issues, divorce laws were made more lax. No fault divorce became the law. If the law is a teacher, then it began teaching back then that the institution of marriage is not really that important as a basic building block of society. Rather, it began teaching that it is really just a lifestyle choice, and should have options similar to those available in the rest of the consumer market. In my opinion the result of this, among other things, is the reality of fatherless crime. I think we can all agree that current divorce laws do more to make lawyers money and less to help society. As for life begins at conception, I can respect that belief when people are consistent. In addition to in-vitro, this definition makes the pill, IUDs, and other methods of contraception that prevent implantation murder. |
| 2009-11-23 9:21 PM in reply to: #2528279 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime eabeam - As for life begins at conception, I can respect that belief when people are consistent. In addition to in-vitro, this definition makes the pill, IUDs, and other methods of contraception that prevent implantation murder. All of those technologies involve the direct killing of a human person. |
| 2009-11-23 9:31 PM in reply to: #2528270 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime dontracy - 2009-11-23 10:09 PM eabeam - Let's look at it from a pragmatic, to-do list. I'd say that your list itself is based in a moral calculation. That's fine in itself. I just don't think that you can get away from the question of morality being part of law. To say that the law ought not speak to morality is to make a moral declaration. I get the point I think you are making here - that deciding not to use a religiously based code of morals in the law is itself a decision about using a moral code. The problem is that once you get away from the most basic ideas of what constitutes a universally agreed upon good, you start to develop a specific religious perspective. One of the things that I like about how our system works (when it works) is that it locks up whenever the opinions are too varied. And while most people complain about the system being "gridlocked", I think that is what the founders had in mind - a system that could not impose its will too easily on the people. |
| 2009-11-23 9:41 PM in reply to: #2528299 |
| Philadelphia, south of New York and north of DC | Subject: RE: Fatherlessness and Crime gearboy - I get the point I think you are making here - that deciding not to use a religiously based code of morals in the law is itself a decision about using a moral code. The problem is that once you get away from the most basic ideas of what constitutes a universally agreed upon good, you start to develop a specific religious perspective. One of the things that I like about how our system works (when it works) is that it locks up whenever the opinions are too varied. And while most people complain about the system being "gridlocked", I think that is what the founders had in mind - a system that could not impose its will too easily on the people. I'm with you there. Then within that gridlock it would be beneficial to have civil and open discussion about what constitutes the good. The vast majority of people of all persuasions in our country do not want a theocracy. I know I don't. I wish that instead of the push for teaching creationism in the public schools, those same people would push instead to teach basic philosophy and ethics in high school, along with perhaps comparative religion. We desperately need a literate public in this regard. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK