• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is it the government's job to regulate Morality

Is it the government's job

  • Total voters
    60
AJiveMan said:
I contend the GOP is part of the political agenda in DC, the moral right wing, just as conservatives lump the democrats with liberals. Both have political and moral agendas. The conservative agenda or GOP agenda is the worst of the two. Conservatives label liberals as being immoral.
Click to expand...

The GOP would like to be but they still have no legitimate political party until their members are elected. The Republican Party, in and of itself, is not part of the United States government. The neo-cons have as much right to declare the liberals as being immoral as the liberals have declaring the neo-cons politically incorrect. Both sides are wrong.

Conservative Christians are a group to fear IMHO. I don't need to go into detail how they have gathered at abortion clinics and have killed to prevent what they claim are moral sins.
Click to expand...

You're welcome to your opinions of course. I have as much distaste for the religious of any kind as I do for the liberals. I think they're all idiots.
 
tres borrachos said:
That's an abortion law, not a rape law.

I don't oppose a woman's choice to have an abortion. I also don't oppose making her hear the fetus heartbeat before she does it. With the right comes a responsibility. Take it or leave it.

By the way, the WI bill contains this language:

This bill requires, except in a medical emergency and except in the situation
where the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest, that before a person may

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perform or induce an abortion the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion
or any physician requested by the pregnant woman must do all of the following:

So no, if you're pregnant because of a rape, you aren't subjected to the probe.
Click to expand...

We'll see how much mileage the republican written law gets when something goes wrong.
 
sawdust said:
Thank you for your eloquent response. When you can't support your position it's always a good idea to attack the person you're speaking to. You'll feel good about yourself and publicly look so small minded.
Click to expand...

I've been admonished and corrected by a moderator already thank you.
 
AJiveMan said:
I've been admonished and corrected by a moderator already thank you.
Click to expand...

Not my intention to see you admonished and I'm sorry that you were reprimanded.
 
danielpalos said:
Yes, but Only those secular and temporal morals and legal ethics, ordained and established by our Founding Fathers.
Click to expand...

Could you provide an example of one of those secular, temporal moral, and legal ethics you refer to. Also, only federal morals should be enforced or do you include state and local laws as well?
 
sawdust said:
Not my intention to see you admonished and I'm sorry that you were reprimanded.
Click to expand...

I accept full responsibility for my remark and will attempt to not repeat.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
Fair enough.

What about victimful crimes? Shouldn't the government protect me from these immoral acts such as rape, murder or assault? These are morals that should be legislated.

That's why I voted yes. The only purpose of government is to enforce morality. That's the only reason that government exists.
Click to expand...

The most basic of lines...the starting point...is where someone infringes on the right of someone else. Those main rights are immediately available in a govt document (yes, govt)...the Bill of Rights.
 
Tigger said:
While I agree with the highlighted portion, I do so in a different way.... The Government should not be protecting people from the consequences of their own mistakes. The Government SHOULD be protecting Society from the consequences of those mistakes, by doing everything possible to ensure that the people making those mistakes never have the opportunity to do so again.
Click to expand...

So then there should be no laws regulating the behavior of or discriminating against homosexuals, correct?

If you are going to claim any harm they have done to themselves or society, you'll have to source it.

Same with prostitution.

There is no harm done to society by victimless crimes by definition **except where certain segments of society DESIGNATE them wrong/immoral and THAT causes the damage. **
 
mpg said:
The OP doesn't mention abortion.
Click to expand...

You know, I'm not going to go there with you, or anyone else in this thread. I was already warned by a mod. Leave it alone.
 
WCH said:
By passing RvW (and later by the SCOTUS), they DID regulate morality.
Click to expand...

Before RvW, other people's morality was forced on women....so they really protected women from the morals of (select) others. Certainly not all people hold the beliefs that imposed that force on women.

More like de-regulation sort of.
 
AJiveMan said:
Yeah, until they make a law that states a fetus is a person, oh, wait...
Click to expand...

There needs to be a legal basis for that....not a moral one. And there isnt any legal way to practically give personhood to fetuses ONLY for the sake of preventing abortion and then just ignoring that designation elsewhere as convenient.
 
WCH said:
Our laws should be a reflection of our moral fiber not the whims of those who wish to do what is convenient.
Click to expand...

There would be great disagreement on whose moral fiber.

Would you want Tigger's moral fiber to be reflective of our laws and society?

He endorses govt-authorized slavery and even execution for violators of his laws...including many of those based on personal liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (I am not exaggerating, he's posted this).
 
tres borrachos said:
That's an abortion law, not a rape law.

I don't oppose a woman's choice to have an abortion. I also don't oppose making her hear the fetus heartbeat before she does it. With the right comes a responsibility. Take it or leave it.

By the way, the WI bill contains this language:

This bill requires, except in a medical emergency and except in the situation
where the pregnancy is the result of sexual assault or incest, that before a person may

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
perform or induce an abortion the physician who is to perform or induce the abortion
or any physician requested by the pregnant woman must do all of the following:

So no, if you're pregnant because of a rape, you aren't subjected to the probe.
Click to expand...


Good example, that's not actually how 'rights' work. You dont need to 'qualify' for a right. You also dont have to be responsible. No one is taking away your right to vote for being irresponsible. You dont lose rights often and you generally have to be convicted of a felony.

That is anti-abortion legislation that, like 'listening to fetal heartbeat,' or look at fetal stage pictures, qualifies as treating women like 5 yr olds and in order to punish them for an already difficult decision. It's 100% disrespectful to women and you dont even realize it because you choose to judge them and agree to that punishment. "They deserved it for being irresponsible." PRetty much your words.

(btw, you ARE still subject to the probes to 'prove' you were raped. How appalling.)
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
How does one then justify forced income redistribution? Charitable giving may be morally right but certainly does not protect people from other people so there is no justification for doing so by gov't force.
Click to expand...

I was speaking purely in the physical sense, re: rape, murder, etc. like vasuda was talking about. Had nothing to do with anything else.
 
mpg said:
The OP doesn't mention abortion.
Click to expand...

Well it came up rather organically.

If I broke the rules I didnt mean to but I posted as I went and didnt see the mod warning until after.
 
Lursa said:
The most basic of lines...the starting point...is where someone infringes on the right of someone else. Those main rights are immediately available in a govt document (yes, govt)...the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is the most basic code of morality.
 
cpgrad08 said:
This came up with a discussion with Tigger. Do you guys think it is the job of the government to judge,decide,regulate the morality of the people or that the job of the people and the laws of the government should reflect that?
Click to expand...

Of course. It is the role of government to provide the greatest good to the greatest numbers for the longest period of time, while respecting the civil rights and property rights of all. So, if a well educated citizenry is good in meeting this goal it should be encouraged. If thrift, savings, capital investment, etc. is good in meeting this goal these should be encourage through tax codes and other means. If single parent families and more children then the parent can support is good to meet this goal, than this should be encouraged. If drug use is helpful in meeting this goal, than it should be encouraged.
 
cpgrad08 said:
This came up with a discussion with Tigger. Do you guys think it is the job of the government to judge,decide,regulate the morality of the people or that the job of the people and the laws of the government should reflect that?
Click to expand...

I voted other


THe government shouldnt have ANYTHING to do with morals as far as enforcement, now some morals of some people may happen to match up wit laws and rights but thats all that is

as for people, this is also a big fat no. Peoples morals are for them. AGain yes some of the peoples morals match and some of those are reflected in government but again thats all it is, coincidence.

The reason why morals (in a absolutle sense) should never be enforced by goverment nor should people put it into government is because moral are subjective and the would negate the point of freedom.


The first question would be whos morals?
why theirs? why not yours or mine?
If it is ours, why?
What about all the people with different morals?

etc etc etc.


Now dont get me wrong, morals are gonna have an impact and they are gonna play a role but thats not the mind set that should be used.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
That makes no sense at all. This implies that not giving charitably is morally wrong. That is goofy as all get out.
Click to expand...

That may be true but that is the basis for the "safety net" (income redistribution) programs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom