Legislating Morality

[Garfield1966]

It's not that I don't want any money to be given to help the poor. It's that *I* should decide if I want to give my own money, the govt shouldn't. It doesn't fall within the government's purpose. If I could get most of my tax dollars back, then I would have more money to give to my favorite charities.

(In any case, there are plenty of couples that would love to adopt children but never get the chance because they are aborted.)

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html

In 1999 the last year stats were completed for, there were aprox 127,000 children up for adoption and only 46,000 were adopted.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_r...cars/trends.htm

According to this site, less than 50% are adopted each year.

 

[KCFlyer]

It's not that I don't want any money to be given to help the poor. It's that *I* should decide if I want to give my own money, the govt shouldn't. It doesn't fall within the government's purpose. If I could get most of my tax dollars back, then I would have more money to give to my favorite charities.

(In any case, there are plenty of couples that would love to adopt children but never get the chance because they are aborted.)

My issue on legislating morals though is that some want abortions banned, yet by the same token would not want any of their tax money used to provide food, shelter, health care or ....adoption services....to a newly born infant. That seems almost immoral to me. It would seem that if you want to protect that life in the womb, then there would be zero probmlems providing for that life once it is born. Instead, unwed mothers are considered cheats and told "tough" or "you shoulda kept your legs together". And that attitude seems to insure that we will have a pretty constant supply of unwanted, uncared for, underachieving, and overpopulating bunch of future citizens.

 

[Garfield1966]

And these same people usually do not want to provide sex ed, family planning, easy access to birth control.

 

[Seatacus]

My issue on legislating morals though is that some want abortions banned, yet by the same token would not want any of their tax money used to provide food, shelter, health care or ....adoption services....to a newly born infant. That seems almost immoral to me. It would seem that if you want to protect that life in the womb, then there would be zero probmlems providing for that life once it is born. Instead, unwed mothers are considered cheats and told "tough" or "you shoulda kept your legs together". And that attitude seems to insure that we will have a pretty constant supply of unwanted, uncared for, underachieving, and overpopulating bunch of future citizens.

Where do you get your ideas that this is the way some people think? Maybe a chosen few but in general I don't think the public is that cold-hearted. I consider unwed mothers ( the poor ones that is) as someone who made a bad choice or who were talked into a bad choice. I believe they should be given counseling or education and financial assistance to help them out of their situation. Those who choose to continue with single motherhood and pop out more children are another situation and may need more enticing to change their ways. As for adoption services, their is no need for public money for them. With all the childless couples out their shelling out thousands of dollars for children they would gladly pony up some bucks.

 

[Garfield1966]

With all the childless couples out their shelling out thousands of dollars for children they would gladly pony up some bucks.

Do you have any stats to back that up? The info above seems to indicate that 50,000 children each year go unadopted.

 

[MrAeroMan]

...
-Marijuana
At the very least the ban is hypocritical. Last I checked it was not against the law to smoke a cigarette in the presence of a child. If I recall correctly, smoking a joint is not addictive and is less harmful than smoking a cigarette. The ban on marijuana is political and financially motivated. The cig companies have a lot to loose if marijuana becomes legal. Regardless of all this, in the final analysis, if I want to kill my self by what ever means I choose …alcohol, nicotine, THB or what ever else twisted minds come up with, what right is it of government to intervene? The protection of children is a valid concern, but that argument can be made with nearly anything, driving, smocking, drinking… you name it. If we were to make a general law (I believe they exist already) saying if you jeopardize a minors health you risk loosing custody of said minor that’s fine. To limit to one dangerous substance/action while ignoring others is unfair and legally unsound.

The protection of children is a valid concern yet Liberals feel it's not worthy to protect unborn children. What makes it okay to protect children from smoking or marijuana but not to protect an unborn child from a choice their mother is making with THEIR life?

You also mention the issue of min wage, science grants… etc. There are times when a small investment up front can have far greater yields down line. I have seen stats that indicated the cost of emergency care for the indigent and illegals of this country costs are exponentially more costly than if we were to have universal health care that encouraged preventive health care. If we do not have min wage, we will have families out on the street committing more crime and industry taking even more advantage of labor. Science is what makes the world go around. Look around you. Nearly everything you touch and wear is the product of science. Vaccines, artificial limbs, medicines, air crafts, cars, food….. science is every where. There are times when the little guy may have an idea to create a miracle but not the funds.

The minimum wage does nothing to bring a family out of poverty because by far the most people working for minimum wage are teens. Virtually no one works for minimum wage while supporting a family on it.

It’s a fine line we walk. We are not a perfect society by any stretch. Not everyone has the same opportunities. Some make the wrong choice. Not everyone can be successful. Someone needs to do the dirty jobs in society for the rest of us to be comfortable. Like it or not we do live in a class system and those at the top cannot survive with out those on the bottom.

So just like John Kerry if you don't have the same opportunities as others or if you're not quite as sharp as others or a little disadvantaged you get shipped off to Iraq to do the "dirty jobs" huh?

ne last thought. Someone else on this board started a thread on illegal aliens in this country. Some here love to #### and moan about the cost on society. Time had an article a few months back that argued the cost is pretty neutral. When their labor (far under the min wage), the taxes they pay via sales tax on item purchased and various other factors they are cost neutral. With out their labor most of the produce you eat, a lot of the goods you buy would cost several times what they currently run. Why do you think W wants to give them a break? Because he has a kind and gentle heart? He is doing it because business has him by the short and curlies and he knows just as well as most economist that to cut off the labor supply would be to shoot the US economy in the head.

So in order to keep our produce prices low we should keep illegals here? Sending the illegals back where they belong would not hurt the economy at all. What it would do is bring the businesses that hire illegal workers in line with legitimate businesses that hire workers legally and the prices would stabilize over a short period of time.

 

[Seatacus]

Do you have any stats to back that up? The info above seems to indicate that 50,000 children each year go unadopted.

No, I don't. I do know several couples who are trying to adopt and are having trouble finding a child. Two of the couples ended up going to china to adopt girls. It seems that girls are not wanted that much in China so foreignors are welcome to adopt.

 

[MrAeroMan]

First of all it's extremely expensive to adopt a child in this country. The lawyers have made sure of that.
Secondly, adopting a child in this country can be very risky. You can spend all kinds of money only to find out when push comes to shove the birth mother has a change of heart and you're out all the time and money you just invested and have to start over.
Thirdly, adoption agencies are very expensive especially if you have to go overseas.
The costs of adoption are out of most peoples reach. It's come to the point where only the wealthiest families can adopt a child.

 

[Garfield1966]

No argument from me. The bottom line is that there are still more children than parents.

 

[QA4Jet-A]

First of all it's extremely expensive to adopt a child in this country. The lawyers have made sure of that.
Secondly, adopting a child in this country can be very risky. You can spend all kinds of money only to find out when push comes to shove the birth mother has a change of heart and you're out all the time and money you just invested and have to start over.
Thirdly, adoption agencies are very expensive especially if you have to go overseas.
The costs of adoption are out of most peoples reach. It's come to the point where only the wealthiest families can adopt a child.

My Ex G/F adopted during her marriage and it was a long time completing. The Bio Mom was a Crack head which Miss Ex found out after the fact. Talk about risks? It is sad but true. The child, last heard, is doing well but is a daily challenge. According to her there were many to pick from. It wasn't a cheap transaction either.

 

[PITbull]

I agree with 1 and 2. I strongly disagree with 3 and I disagree with your examples.

I am agnostic so the idea of ‘divine rights’ is alien to me. The concept of ‘rights’ are human in nature. By that I mean that we have given our selves our rights. We can change them at will. Government is given its power by the people. If we cede our rights to government that is our fault.

I do not believe that if the founding fathers intended for the government to support any type of religion. Regardless of that, since I pay taxs, I have no interest in my tax dollars going to fund any type of religious display. Like I mentioned in a different thread, if someone wants to put up a christmass tree on public property, then it is also my right to put a wica display, pagan display, satanic display right beside it. Do we really need/want that on government property? I would argue no. If you want to have a display of any type, put it on your private property or have your religious institution host it. It is private property and you may do as you choose.

As far as your examples are concerned, There may be some out there that cross both lines but I do not believe the two you choose are them.

-gay marriage.
The legislation is not about banning heterosexual marriages. The ban is against homosexuals. Even if it were to ban hetero marriages there would be a minimal effect if any on the birth rate. People have babies because they have sex, not because they are married. Take a look at the unwed mother stats in this country if you don’t believe me. I was having sex with my wife long before we made our union. Had we decided to forgo the birth control, I would be a father now. We are animals, our instinct to reproduce is hard wired into us. Our ancestors ‘Lucy’ and all those who came before and after her, had no problem reproducing with out the knowledge of marriage. The proposed ban on gay marriages in my opinion is nothing but homophobics legislating morality.

-Marijuana
At the very least the ban is hypocritical. Last I checked it was not against the law to smoke a cigarette in the presence of a child. If I recall correctly, smoking a joint is not addictive and is less harmful than smoking a cigarette. The ban on marijuana is political and financially motivated. The cig companies have a lot to loose if marijuana becomes legal. Regardless of all this, in the final analysis, if I want to kill my self by what ever means I choose …alcohol, nicotine, THB or what ever else twisted minds come up with, what right is it of government to intervene? The protection of children is a valid concern, but that argument can be made with nearly anything, driving, smocking, drinking… you name it. If we were to make a general law (I believe they exist already) saying if you jeopardize a minors health you risk loosing custody of said minor that’s fine. To limit to one dangerous substance/action while ignoring others is unfair and legally unsound.

You also mention the issue of min wage, science grants… etc. There are times when a small investment up front can have far greater yields down line. I have seen stats that indicated the cost of emergency care for the indigent and illegals of this country costs are exponentially more costly than if we were to have universal health care that encouraged preventive health care. If we do not have min wage, we will have families out on the street committing more crime and industry taking even more advantage of labor. Science is what makes the world go around. Look around you. Nearly everything you touch and wear is the product of science. Vaccines, artificial limbs, medicines, air crafts, cars, food….. science is every where. There are times when the little guy may have an idea to create a miracle but not the funds.

It’s a fine line we walk. We are not a perfect society by any stretch. Not everyone has the same opportunities. Some make the wrong choice. Not everyone can be successful. Someone needs to do the dirty jobs in society for the rest of us to be comfortable. Like it or not we do live in a class system and those at the top cannot survive with out those on the bottom.

One last thought. Someone else on this board started a thread on illegal aliens in this country. Some here love to #### and moan about the cost on society. Time had an article a few months back that argued the cost is pretty neutral. When their labor (far under the min wage), the taxes they pay via sales tax on item purchased and various other factors they are cost neutral. With out their labor most of the produce you eat, a lot of the goods you buy would cost several times what they currently run. Why do you think W wants to give them a break? Because he has a kind and gentle heart? He is doing it because business has him by the short and curlies and he knows just as well as most economist that to cut off the labor supply would be to shoot the US economy in the head.

Outstanding post!!!!

The only comment that I disagree with is your last paragraph on illegal immigrants.

Regardless of the asset or liability both sides argue, NO ONE should be in the U.S. illegally. Its dangerous from a security stand point, they don't contribute to paying taxes,and since illegal immigrants are not documented, they can commit violent crimes, some add to the drug trafficing that creates for a more explosive issue and contributes to killing our society with no way to track these folks. I think that if Congress creates a bill to allow undocumented workers who are here renain in the country as documented by having sponsorship by another citizen or employer that would take the responsibility to house them, pay for medical care until such time their application for citizenship is approved. Those sponsors can write them as a deduction on their taxes as an incentive to document them. Without sponsorship, they should not remain here.

When my parents who immigrated to the U.S. on a ship through Ellis Island back in the 1950s when the U.S. was allowing European immigration, they had to be documented, with a sponsor. In 1970, my mother brought her brother to the states. In order to allow him his Visa and application for citizenship, my parents had to sponsor him and his family, secure their housing (pay for it), and provide them employment and health care. It took my uncle and his family 4 years to finally gain citizenship. Up until that time, my parents were their sponsors for shelter, employement and health care.

 

[MrAeroMan]

Outstanding post!!!!

The only comment that I disagree with is your last paragraph on illegal immigrants.

Regardless of the asset or liability both sides argue, NO ONE should be in the U.S. illegally. Its dangerous from a security stand point, they don't contribute to paying taxes,and since illegal immigrants are not documented, they can commit violent crimes, some add to the drug trafficing that creates for a more explosive issue and contributes to killing our society with no way to track these folks. I think that if Congress creates a bill to allow undocumented workers who are here renain in the country as documented by having sponsorship by another citizen or employer that would take the responsibility to house them, pay for medical care until such time their application for citizenship is approved. Those sponsors can write them as a deduction on their taxes as an incentive to document them. Without sponsorship, they should not remain here.

When my parents who immigrated to the U.S. on a ship through Ellis Island back in the 1950s when the U.S. was allowing European immigration, they had to be documented, with a sponsor. In 1970, my mother brought her brother to the states. In order to allow him his Visa and application for citizenship, my parents had to sponsor him and his family, secure their housing (pay for it), and provide them employment and health care. It took my uncle and his family 4 years to finally gain citizenship. Up until that time, my parents were their sponsors for shelter, employement and health care.

I couldn't agree more! While we are a nation of immigrants we are also a nation of laws and you can't claim status of one if you're breaking the other. There is a process and if you follow that process you will be rewarded in the end. If you decide to skip the process then be prepared to live with the consequences. Those consequences go far deeper for some than just themselves. The Charlotte Observer did a series on what it cost one family and how the entire family is paying the price for the mothers illegal behavior.
What will happen to Kayla?

 

[Garfield1966]

I did not mean to imply that I agree with the immigration policy (or lack there of) that we have here in the US. I was merely stating what I believe to be the current state of affairs and correcting what I felt to be an inaccurate statement in regards to the cost/benefit of having them in the US. While I think it is a nice dream (unfortunately I think that is all it is) to have the borders closed and have full control over who enters vs who does not I feel we are closing the barn door after the horse has fled.

Companies have become dependent on cheap labor. Companies exert a massive amount of influence on our government officials. The Time article had a side bar in which they talked about a raid the INS had all set up and ready to go. From what I remember it was going to be a huge raid on various farms. Word came down from above (way above) that the raid was a no go. A few local sen/reps got involved and quashed it.

Closing the border seems impractical, costly and unlikely too work given the amount of land and water that needs to be closed. Seems to me that helping Mexico build op their economy would be a much cheaper solution in the long run. Make an economy that is strong and can provide decent jobs for those wanting to work and they will not leave to come here. After all, anyone who come al this way, just to work and send some of the money back home obviously has a strong bond to their family. Given the choice to come here and work or stay home and work, they would stay home. Cubans risk life and limb to cross 90 miles of dangerous water in boats (I use the term loosely) to come here. I am guessing Mexicans would also risk quite a bit to come here.

 

[Gilding the Lily]

You are aware that ‘In god we trust’ originated under McCarthyism right? We were scared of the evil non-believers in the USSR and had to prove to the world that we were good christians by branding the religious beliefs on our money and our pledge. The phrase was not there prior to that time. As far as our fundamental rights are concerned, see above.




Actually Garfield, the term "In God We Trust" first started appearing on coins in 1864! It appeared on various coins for years after that (even required on some coins). The "McCarthyism" timeline you have as the first time the motto appeared is just plain wrong. The bill signed by Eisenhower in 1956 just made it mandatory on paper monetary units.

 

[Leto2]

http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/foster.html

In 1999 the last year stats were completed for, there were aprox 127,000 children up for adoption and only 46,000 were adopted.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_r...cars/trends.htm

According to this site, less than 50% are adopted each year.

Both of those stats are talking about foster care children. Which includes children of various ages, not just babies. Children are put into foster care for a variety of reasons and can be relatively old when they enter.
I think that most if not all pregnant mothers that say they will put their baby up for adoption find someone to adopt. Otherwise, why would people fly all the way to Kazakistan or wherever else to adopt?