legislating morality

[paedagogo]

There is a new study out with some disturbing data. (1) A minority, yet fairly large percentage of young women are having sex the first time in order to “get it out of the way”, and to be part of the group that knows what people are talking about when it comes to sexual relations. For these women, virginity is shameful. (2) A significant number of women in marriages and relationships (I think it was 17%) have engaged in “revenge sex”. That is engaging in sexual relations with a man other than their husband as an act of revenge or “getting even”. Usually this is with a former partner, or a stranger.

With the persistence for more than a decade among college age and even high school people of the notion of “friends with benefits” relationships being perceived as normative, it appears that we are entering a whole new era of sexual promiscuity.

In addition, there is a trend among younger people, ie high school age and younger, not to want to be identified by sexual orientation. In other words, not to be labeled as either “straight” or “gay”.

I believe that the moral framework is best established in the home, by parents setting an example. But even with that, how does one stand as a bulwark in a cultural tide such as this? Some kids are stronger than others, and the weaker are more likely to be swept away.

As far as legislating morality, sure laws can affect behavior, and also serve to perpetuate moral standards that a society wants to preserve, insofar as that behavior becomes “normal”.

However, as I have pointed out in other threads, in our increasingly diverse society, and with our multitude of voices being heard, it is becoming less and less common for agreement to be reached as to what normality really is, and what is morally good or bad. Particularly in areas such as abortion which come down to agreeing on when life actually begins, and perhaps for some - the precedence of “rights” with respect to mother and fetus.

This is a very difficult challenge indeed, for our legislative bodies, who cannot even come close to agreeing on what seem to be much simpler issues.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I hate that canard. Can anybody seriously name a law that is NOT a legislation of some form of morality? EVERY law, from speed limits (a moral judgement about the degree of risk to others posed by the speed of one) to taxes (moral judgement about how to spread the cost of the common good of government among the people) to murder (a moral assertion about the primacy of life over “choice”) is about legislating a morality.

Let’s not have any more of that nonsense, please. ALL laws are based in moral assertion. It’s just a smoke screen to avoid discussing the nature of what abortion IS. Pro-aborts innately know they can’t win that argument, so they raise endless distractions to avoid discussing it.

Plus, pro-aborts are the ultimate hypocrites who will definitely force their moral beliefs on us. See how Illinois passed a regulation to force pharmacies to carry and dispense the Plan B pill which causes abortions. See also how recently on February 18, 2011, President Obama gutted the Conscience Protection Clause for healthcare workers, passed during President Bush’s administration, and which was aimed exactly to protect healthcare workers like the pro-life pharmacists of Illinois, whom Governor Rod Blagojevich tried to shut down and force out of business, if they refused to stock and dispense the abortive Plan B pill.

For another example of the pro-aborts’ utter hypocrisy, we only need to look at how President Obama rescinded the Mexico City policy and started to finance abortions abroad, even though Americans clearly oppose funding abortions either at home or abroad. Also, what about the pro-aborts being so determined to keep funding Planned Parenthood with federal dollars, against the taxpayers’ wishes? They are all examples of the pro-aborts’ hypocrisy, and how they will not hesitate to legislate and impose their own twisted, sick sense of morality on everybody else.

Folks, it’s time to stand up and fight, and pass legislation based on Catholic morality!

 

[paedagogo]

I hate that canard. Can anybody seriously name a law that is NOT a legislation of some form of morality? EVERY law, from speed limits (a moral judgement about the degree of risk to others posed by the speed of one) to taxes (moral judgement about how to spread the cost of the common good of government among the people) to murder (a moral assertion about the primacy of life over “choice”) is about legislating a morality.

Let’s not have any more of that nonsense, please. ALL laws are based in moral assertion. It’s just a smoke screen to avoid discussing the nature of what abortion IS. Pro-aborts innately know they can’t win that argument, so they raise endless distractions to avoid discussing it.

Yes, of course, every law is derived from some sort of moral precept, and expresses some form of moral relativism. I think the originator of the thread was really posing a question as to what the effect of laws as moral standards are on the internal moral compasses of individuals, and perhaps the moral “culture” of a society.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Whats right, moral and good it taught constantly to the majority of children in the US. The problems occur through peer pressure as they always have. Here at this point the switch in majority is severe. The problem of internal conflict is also severe.

Its hard to find in this period those who will walk away from the crowd and not become subdued by false thinking. What I see and hear is 15-16 yos trying to present an agrument on why sex, marijuana, etc are now valid, when in fact the same children where opposed and spoke against it up to this point. So under and upper classman becomes a very large factor here. As do many other senerios. This is only one.

Here its takes patience because you come up against a closed mind and the thinking that somehow a 15-16 yo actually knows better now. Somehow they believe the magic wand has touched them with wisdom. When the only touch has been teenage feelings and wrongly acting of them.

Also whats confirmed at home as the better thinking I see not so much as the issue. Whats happening is “self identity” at the teenage years. The effort to strive to be independent. Which also need not be discouraged but correctly encouraged.

I see the athletes still after decades of wrong thinking, continue to be enabled to act inappropriately because they are excelling in a sport. I just went through this 2-weeks ago with a 15 yo drunk at a dance.

Somehow the thinking became well, I know his father and he’s doing really well in Basketball? Whats does that have to do with the behavior? So Basketball and this fellows fathers success made his behavior OK? This hasn’t chnaged much nor has the outlook on sexual behavior which has largely been prepetuated since the 60’s 70’s.

What I do see escalting is the wanton outlook on human life. Theres little regard for the sanctity of life today. What I also see a change in is how teachers respond today. The fact that abuse is so clearly defined and our economic situation so dire. The teachers are unlikely to push the envelope to encourage sound moral thinking and behavior. There very livelyhood becomes at risk. So what in essense might well have been nipped at the bud, is also enabled to escalate in this sense.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

What I also see a change in is how teachers respond today. The fact that abuse is so clearly defined and our economic situation so dire. The teachers are unlikely to push the envelope to encourage sound moral thinking and behavior. There very livelyhood becomes at risk. So what in essense might well have been nipped at the bud, is also enabled to escalate in this sense.

Gary, would the revival of the Catholic school system, through making the school vouchers finally available, solve this problem? I mean, Catholic private schools could insist on teaching morality and enforcing discipline based on Catholic morality, and protect the teachers instead of the rascals breaking the laws and regulations at school?

 

[samiam1611]

Plan B pill which causes abortions.

You completely ignored me. Plan B does not cause abortions. It prevents ovulation. You are mixing it up with the abortion pill, Mifepristone. Plan B DOES NOT END AN EXISTING PREGNANCY. IT DOES NOT CAUSE ABORTION SO STOP SAYING THAT. Hence the word contraception - it prevents conception. Does not hurt an embryo.

Folks, it’s time to stand up and fight, and pass legislation based on Catholic morality!

Ever heard of separation of Church and State? This isn’t a Catholic country. Legislation is a secular decision.

Oh and that pharmacist you quoted, who said Plan B is more like a contraimplantive is ignorant of medical terminology if that’s what he’s going to call it. A substance which prevents implantation of the blastocyst is called a contragestive. But Plan B is contraceptive, not contragestive. Further,

to describe this drug as ending the life of a “fertilized egg” is scientifically incorrect, since a fertilized egg is properly called an embryo

.
is also incorrect. A fertilized egg is called a zygote.

This isn’t just a moral issue. You have to **get the medical facts straight **before you can push your morals on legislation!!!

 

[Joan1969]

You completely ignored me. Plan B does not cause abortions. It prevents ovulation. You are mixing it up with the abortion pill, Mifepristone. Plan B DOES NOT END AN EXISTING PREGNANCY. IT DOES NOT CAUSE ABORTION SO STOP SAYING THAT. Hence the word contraception - it prevents conception. Does not hurt an embryo.

Hi Samiam,

My thought about this would be, if that were true, then how can Plan B be adequately effective? Since by definition it is intended to be taken some hours after intercourse, there is a strong possibility that the woman has already concieved. Some conceptions at least can take place shortly after intercourse. Then there should be a fairly high pregnancy rate, especially if the delay in taking the Plan B is longer. How long is Plan B supposed to be effective?

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Ever heard of separation of Church and State? This isn’t a Catholic country. Legislation is a secular decision.

Legislation is by the People, through elected officials - and is not by fiat declared from a secular head of state. And “separation of church and state” does not mean that anyone with strong moral convictions based upon their faith is excluded from participation when Congress addresses moral issues such as abortion, stem cell research, etc. NOTHING in the Constitution would prevent a Catholic, Christian, or Muslim from voicing their opinion within such a political discussion, simply because their opinion is formed in part from their faith. It really bothers me when someone tries to silence a dissenting opinion on a moral issue on the grounds that one is trying to “impose” religious belief. All of the major issues of today are fundamentally about respect for human life - a theme that carries across all religious boundaries. The fact that one may come to recognize human life in pre-born infants through one’s religion is largely irrelevant. Such a result does not therefore make the opposition to abortion an imposition of religious beliefs.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Joan1969]

Hi to Samiam and to all,

To follow up to my post above, I went to Plan B’s site, and they say it’s effective within 72 hours. This is clearly plenty of time for conception. They claim it does not hurt an “existing pregnancy”. The trick here (I believe) is that they don’t consider a pregnancy to begin until implantation. So harm to a non-implanted embryo does not count in their book. This is my best understanding of their position.

Hard to see how the claim can be made that Plan B doesn’t cause abortion. In many cases, it should.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

You completely ignored me. Plan B does not cause abortions. It prevents ovulation. You are mixing it up with the abortion pill, Mifepristone. Plan B DOES NOT END AN EXISTING PREGNANCY. IT DOES NOT CAUSE ABORTION SO STOP SAYING THAT. Hence the word contraception - it prevents conception. Does not hurt an embryo.

Ever heard of separation of Church and State? This isn’t a Catholic country. Legislation is a secular decision.

Oh and that pharmacist you quoted, who said Plan B is more like a contraimplantive is ignorant of medical terminology if that’s what he’s going to call it. A substance which prevents implantation of the blastocyst is called a contragestive. But Plan B is contraceptive, not contragestive. Further,
.
is also incorrect. A fertilized egg is called a zygote.

This isn’t just a moral issue. You have to **get the medical facts straight **before you can push your morals on legislation!!!

Of course Plan B causes abortion, and no, I’m not mixing it up with Mifepristone. In fact, newer research indicates that Plan B rarely prevents ovulation, and works mostly through inhibiting the implantation of the human person, starving him/her to death.

And just because someone came up with a gimmick to re-define pregnancy, to say that the woman is not pregnant until the embryo is implanted, and to say that killing a human embryo (a human person!!!) through blocking implantation and starving him/her to death is not abortion, I’m not going to be impressed at all by this effort to obfuscate the truth.

As I said, this gimmick, this obfuscation, is on the same level of intellectual dishonesty as redefining humanity to exclude Jews, Native Americans, or African people, just because someone wishes to kill them and won’t have the guts to outright admit, “they are human persons and I’m going to murder them!”.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Hi to Samiam and to all,

To follow up to my post above, I went to Plan B’s site, and they say it’s effective within 72 hours. This is clearly plenty of time for conception. They claim it does not hurt an “existing pregnancy”. The trick here (I believe) is that they don’t consider a pregnancy to begin until implantation. So harm to a non-implanted embryo does not count in their book. This is my best understanding of their position.

Hard to see how the claim can be made that Plan B doesn’t cause abortion. In many cases, it should.

God Bless,
Joan

Yes, Joan, they use this gimmick to say that a woman is not pregnant until the embryo is implanted, and that killing a non-implanted human embryo is not abortion.

It’s intellectually and scientifically dishonest all the way.

 

[samiam1611]

Legislation is by the People, through elected officials - and is not by fiat declared from a secular head of state. And “separation of church and state” **does not mean that anyone with strong moral convictions based upon their faith is excluded from participation when Congress addresses moral issues **such as abortion, stem cell research, etc. NOTHING in the Constitution would prevent a Catholic, Christian, or Muslim from voicing their opinion within such a political discussion, simply because their opinion is formed in part from their faith. It really bothers me when someone tries to silence a dissenting opinion on a moral issue on the grounds that one is trying to “impose” religious belief. All of the major issues of today are fundamentally about respect for human life - a theme that carries across all religious boundaries. The fact that one may come to recognize human life in pre-born infants through one’s religion is largely irrelevant. Such a result does not therefore make the opposition to abortion an imposition of religious beliefs.

Peace,
Robert

You’re right. I didn’t like Joseph’s wording but I can’t argue with what you’ve said.

“Folks, it’s time to stand up and fight, and pass legislation based on Catholic morality.”

It shouldn’t be based on Catholic morality but you certainly are entitled to your opinion, including expressing it in political forms.

 

[samiam1611]

Of course Plan B causes abortion, and no, I’m not mixing it up with Mifepristone. In fact, newer research indicates that Plan B rarely prevents ovulation, and works mostly through inhibiting the implantation of the human person, starving him/her to death.

And just because someone came up with a gimmick to re-define pregnancy, to say that the woman is not pregnant until the embryo is implanted, and to say that killing a human embryo (a human person!!!) through blocking implantation and starving him/her to death is not abortion, I’m not going to be impressed at all by this effort to obfuscate the truth.

It’s not a gimmick. The definition of the beginning of life is controversial. There are moral and biological questions regarding it. Ok? I’m not saying you’re wrong. It’s controversial and let’s not go there, bc it’s not the topic of the thread.
I’d like to share with you guys the official stance of the Catholic Church on this subject.
It’s more of a subtopic. However, I am taking it out of context, and this context is rather important. I will share this context with you later though bc I have to get back to work, and I’ll be interested in what you have to say regarding it.
“If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization.”
Don’t worry, I will be back to elaborate and clarify, cite it, and put it in the context it deserves. Just let that sink in for awhile.

 

[Sufjon]

It is not an abortion as long as the purpose of the procedure is not to terminate the pregnancy. If the intent isn’t there, even if they know the child will die, it is still not considered an abortion. Therefore, based on your arguments and in light of these present facts, it appears you are against abortion! Congratulations!

Good, then we shouldn’t have any disagreement. The minute you say a woman should be forced to die to save a fetus, then I disagree completely.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[Sufjon]

So, the best possible situation for an unwanted pregnancy would be adoption? The parents do not have to raise the child they did not want or were unprepared for, the child is given a loving set of parents, and a husband and wife who were unable to have children on their own are able to be father and mother. And again, this ‘saving the life of the mother’ discussion is bunk because it is either an abortion (direct termination of the fetus) or treatment of the mother that indirectly causes the death of the preborn child.

Please stop and listen. I have no problem with adoption. YES! it is the only option for an unwanted pregnancy according to MY morals, but my morals are not everyone’s morals. I have simply said about a dozen times already that a woman shouldn’t be forced to die to save a fetus. Very simple stance I am taking.

Your friend
sufjon

 

[phesoge]

No morality should be legislated if the act in question does not harm or violate another persons rights. To do so would be a violation of an individuals right to choose freely. Abortion is an issue that completely violates the right of being to exist. Abortion is the taking on an innocent life. Legislation is needed to protect an individuals right to life liberty and property. That being said legislating morality that does not violate someone elses individual liberty is abhorrent. If an individual wishes to use drugs that is their right, and we should not seek the overbearing hand of the government to inflict our morailty on someone who is not violating our own rights.

People should be free to live their lives the way they see fit. Legislation is necesarry to protect life, liberty, and property. The rest of it is useless.

 

[Sufjon]

Hello, Sufjon,

This is an area where we disagree. There are, and have been, many cultures where homosexuality has been much rarer than it is in the modern western world. You can allege, if you choose, that it was going on in secret, but this is a mere unfalsifiable assertion. Hard evidence such as disease rates (caused by homosexual acts) would have to be provided in order to make this case. The known facts, including marriage and childbearing rates in a number of cultures, lack of diseases resulting from secret homosexual promiscuity, and a universal abhorrence of such behaviors that endures over centuries, gives me strong evidence that such activity was much less common in the past, and continues to be uncommon today in at least some cultures such as those of the Middle East.

-There have been many cultures where homosexuality was more prevalent than in ours as well.

-Disease rates are harder to track the further back in time you go. There was no CDC 200 years ago. Literary and historical accounts while anecdotal, suggest that homosexuality has always been present enough especially among priest casts of all religions, from Native American to Christianity.

-If it only happened here and there in older cultures, the homophobes who wrote Leviticus and Deuteronomy wouldn’t have spent so much time prescribing death to all homosexuals. Of course, they had a reason to be homophobes. They needed to keep the Jewish population up, and these books were written in a period where exile and subjugation to other cultures threatened the continuance of the Jewish culture.

Same with your abstinence perspective. The idea that certain sins will “happen anyway”, not just at some rate but presumably at the same high rate no matter what we do, is not supported by the reality of the human experience. There have been, and continue to be, cultures where abstinence is indeed practiced until marriage. Christian families and communities of various denominations have been very successful in teaching almost all their young people to embrace chastity. In the past, fornication clearly happened but was not as common, and marriage with childbearing often followed (not to give general approval to any harshness of these past cultures). There are some new realities to deal with now (espeically contraceptives), but we can still have reasonable results with effort. Look at the trends with smoking, or drunk driving, which happened because of the will of American moral standard setters (including lawmakers).

Sure, there have been and continue to be societies and religious groups that spend a lot of time teaching sexual abstinence. Could you share some data points that prove that anyone actually followed any of it?

I have to say that this is a rather overwrought accusation. You may be believing unreliable, politically driven sources. I know of some of the stronger pro-life politicians, and I have the strongest confidence in their personal integrity. Again, there is such a thing as a sincere, and good, political leader just as there is such a thing as a largely chaste culture.

What I have stated was in reference to direct observations that can be found in the Congressional Record about the business dealings of certain American politicians. How is that overwrought? Mind you, because you have confidence in a particular politician, doesn’t mean that I should.

You seem in this post to express a certain moral despair with respect to some issues, espeically sexual ones. This I will never accept. I am not an optimist in the sense that I think things are in good shape, but I do believe they can be in good shape, and that it is worth a fight.

I don’t sense that I am having any despair over morality. I am fine with my own morals. I just don’t want yours forced on people who are simply trying to live their lives as happily as possible as guaranteed by the constitution that purposefully separated church and state to protect me from your religion and you from mine.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[meltzerboy]

There is a new study out with some disturbing data. (1) A minority, yet fairly large percentage of young women are having sex the first time in order to “get it out of the way”, and to be part of the group that knows what people are talking about when it comes to sexual relations. For these women, virginity is shameful. (2) A significant number of women in marriages and relationships (I think it was 17%) have engaged in “revenge sex”. That is engaging in sexual relations with a man other than their husband as an act of revenge or “getting even”. Usually this is with a former partner, or a stranger.

With the persistence for more than a decade among college age and even high school people of the notion of “friends with benefits” relationships being perceived as normative, it appears that we are entering a whole new era of sexual promiscuity.

In addition, there is a trend among younger people, ie high school age and younger, not to want to be identified by sexual orientation. In other words, not to be labeled as either “straight” or “gay”.

I believe that the moral framework is best established in the home, by parents setting an example. But even with that, how does one stand as a bulwark in a cultural tide such as this? Some kids are stronger than others, and the weaker are more likely to be swept away.

As far as legislating morality, sure laws can affect behavior, and also serve to perpetuate moral standards that a society wants to preserve, insofar as that behavior becomes “normal”.

However, as I have pointed out in other threads, in our increasingly diverse society, and with our multitude of voices being heard, it is becoming less and less common for agreement to be reached as to what normality really is, and what is morally good or bad. Particularly in areas such as abortion which come down to agreeing on when life actually begins, and perhaps for some - the precedence of “rights” with respect to mother and fetus.

This is a very difficult challenge indeed, for our legislative bodies, who cannot even come close to agreeing on what seem to be much simpler issues.

I find this a very thoughtful post, and I agree with your basic premise that, in present-day society, it is often difficult to understand what normality means, due to the shifting social norms as well as the cultural diversity of norms. In American society, the distinction between what was considered morally right and morally wrong was, in many ways, much simpler in the past. Even when we found out later that we may have erred in our thinking, we were, at the time, quite content because we had a clear right and wrong attitude about so many things. That’s the way it seems to me, though I suspect certain social historians may be able to find holes in my argument. And I would add that I believe some, perhaps many, people are concerned, even frightened by the change and competition in social and moral norms, which they have dubbed “secular relativism.” They wish to return to the old days when they lived in a society that was more sure of itself with regard to morality. The specific examples you cite to illustrate your point are good ones. I think a common denominator in all these examples is that along with the dropping of labels has come the blurring of divisions between right and wrong, good and bad. Society, as a whole, is unsure as to who the “good guys” and the “bad guys” are. And, as you nicely point out at the end, our legislators cannot possibly sort this out for us as they fail to grasp the complexity of these issues or even simpler issues. They too are often clueless, engaged as they are predominantly in political maneuvering. At the same time, they reflect the confusion of society in their normative values.

 

[samiam1611]

samiam1611;7724409:

Hi Samiam,

My thought about this would be, if that were true, then how can Plan B be adequately effective? Since by definition it is intended to be taken some hours after intercourse, there is a strong possibility that the woman has already concieved. Some conceptions at least can take place shortly after intercourse. Then there should be a fairly high pregnancy rate, especially if the delay in taking the Plan B is longer. How long is Plan B supposed to be effective?

“Direct laboratory evidence overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that emergency contraceptives work by mechanisms that do not include post-fertilization events. Since these drugs are administered within hours of intercourse and implantation does not occur until approximately five to seven days after ovulation, use of emergency contraception does not interrupt pregnancy and is ineffective after pregnancy has occurred.”

72 hours officially. Unofficially, up to 120 hours. Effectiveness decreases as time goes on, indicating that, as you said, some women may have already conceived by the time they take it. (That’s what I assume anyway. There are probably other reasons it could fail.)

Probability of pregnancy after unprotected intercourse by timing of coitus for a 20-something:
3 days before ovulation 15 percent
1 or 2 days before ovulation 30 percent
day of ovulation 12 percent
1 or 2 days after ovulation near zero

So you see, if the woman ovulates on Monday, has unprotected intercourse on Tuesday, and takes Plan B on Wednesday, and does not get pregnant, it would be wrong to assume that Plan B allowed conception to occur (i.e. beginning of life, if using that definition) but ended the pregnancy by preventing implantation (i.e. abortion, if using that definition). It would be correct to assume that the egg did not get fertilized in the first place, and that Plan B had nothing to do it.

 

[meltzerboy]

No morality should be legislated if the act in question does not harm or violate another persons rights. To do so would be a violation of an individuals right to choose freely. Abortion is an issue that completely violates the right of being to exist. Abortion is the taking on an innocent life. Legislation is needed to protect an individuals right to life liberty and property. That being said legislating morality that does not violate someone elses individual liberty is abhorrent. If an individual wishes to use drugs that is their right, and we should not seek the overbearing hand of the government to inflict our morailty on someone who is not violating our own rights.

People should be free to live their lives the way they see fit. Legislation is necesarry to protect life, liberty, and property. The rest of it is useless.

This argument sounds to me a little too simple. When you say legislation regarding drug use is basically useless and wrong because such behavior does not violate the rights of others, I think you must also consider cases in which drug use may violate other people’s rights, including the right to life, such as taking drugs (especially alcohol) while driving. I think in instances such as these, legislation must be enacted to ensure the rights and protection of others. Behaviors that may be acceptable in the privacy of one’s own home may not be socially acceptable. Oftentimes in society, individual rights must be weighed against the social welfare. Talking about the US, deciding just how far government is entitled to go to protect society without endangering individual liberties as guaranteed by the constitution has always been a great challenge.