• 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
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

At the same time, a fetus shouldn't be given personhood when it dies as a result of actions from someone other than the mother. Scott Peterson was convicted of killing his unborn son.

Either a fetus is a person in all cases, or it's a person in no cases.

Our justice system can't even decide.
 
Lursa said:
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.)
Click to expand...

The language in the WI law says otherwise, Lursa. And a vaginal probe can't prove rape anyway.

I'm a woman, by the way, and your post doesn't appear to recognize that. I'm not judging anyone. I said I support a woman's choice to abort her fetus if she choses. I also think if she choses to do so, she should understand what she's doing. And I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I not only never said, I never even implied "They deserved it for being irresponsible." You are usually a very fair poster. That was rude and out of line.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
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?
Click to expand...

They all are, but our supreme law of the land affects us as citizens in the several States of our republic. What is not covered in our Ten Amendments?
 
AJiveMan said:
No, absolutely not, please tell your GOP representative to get the f*ck out of America's bedrooms and out of women's lives.
Click to expand...

I do, maybe you will tell your Dem congress critter to stay out of our gun cabinets and to quit telling us who to spend our money
 
I think law is fundamentally underpinned by rooting out immorality especially where the subject has almost universal agreement. Good examples are those wrongdoings that we see in ancient texts and still have today (e.g. against murder, theft, fraud, etc.). I think there are some moral discussions that people need to debate and deal with at their local levels but which do not belong in national governments. A good example is charity. Charity (helping the needy) is universally considered "good," but that doesn't mean it belongs in federal law.

In short, I would say government's job is to enforce laws, and laws should be focused on regulating immoral behavior (e.g. harm) rather than forcing morally good behavior (e.g. helping the needy).
 
Last edited:
tres borrachos said:
The language in the WI law says otherwise, Lursa. And a vaginal probe can't prove rape anyway.

I'm a woman, by the way, and your post doesn't appear to recognize that. I'm not judging anyone. I said I support a woman's choice to abort her fetus if she choses. I also think if she choses to do so, she should understand what she's doing. And I would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth. I not only never said, I never even implied "They deserved it for being irresponsible." You are usually a very fair poster. That was rude and out of line.
Click to expand...

I know you are a woman and it's still insulting that you *think* women dont "understand what they are doing" when they have an abortion. And did you not imply that there was some responsibility involved that she was avoiding...by not being probed apparently, as that was the example.

I appreciate that you are pro-choice, and even more so because by your words, you disagree with choosing abortion, but still support the right to choose, but not recognizing that these belittling, painful (physically and emotionally), and obstructionist tactics (probes, pictures, moving facilities far from people, etc) are all completely disrespectful of women....if the law says she can have an abortion before 21 weeks, then leave her alone and stop putting up roadblocks.
 
Other-its the individuals job.

Morality and virtue are things the individual must control, especially when he/she does not NEED to. Thats what virtue and morality are.

Ethics is a different issue altogether.
 
TurtleDude said:
I do, maybe you will tell your Dem congress critter to stay out of our gun cabinets and to quit telling us who to spend our money
Click to expand...

Just eat more nachos and cheese, you'll get used to it.
 
US Conservative said:
Other-its the individuals job.

Morality and virtue are things the individual must control, especially when he/she does not NEED to. Thats what virtue and morality are.

Ethics is a different issue altogether.
Click to expand...

Yep. If you'er forced to act morally, your's isn't moral behavior. It is forced labor.
 
joG said:
Yep. If you'er forced to act morally, your's isn't moral behavior. It is forced labor.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, and thats the point. If you are doing it under threat of consequences its not actual morality, is it?

For a disturbing thought-consider how many dont think like this. :shock:
 
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...

It is the job of our government to prevent a violation of peoples rights. No more, no less. The kind of governments that judge, decide, and regulate morality are more often than not those that are religious in nature. Like many countries in the middle east. And I wouldn't exactly call those 1st world countries.
 
US Conservative said:
Absolutely, and thats the point. If you are doing it under threat of consequences its not actual morality, is it?

For a disturbing thought-consider how many dont think like this. :shock:
Click to expand...

Which is why it is so important that it be said.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is the job of our government to prevent a violation of peoples rights. No more, no less. The kind of governments that judge, decide, and regulate morality are more often than not those that are religious in nature. Like many countries in the middle east. And I wouldn't exactly call those 1st world countries.
Click to expand...

As an owner of a Fender Jag Stang, I like you plenty.

But the job of govt is more diverse than simply a violation of peoples rights. Perhaps you consider national security as an example of such and if so I agree.

First world is a different meaning, independent of morality, I think. Its most likely I dont smell what you've been cooking in your post.

But in general, the fxn of govt is the bare minimum as I see fit.
 
Last edited:
Government regulation of morality/ethical behavior is required for societal stability and is done so through laws preventing violence and the removal of elements that threaten personal freedoms. The balance of this process is corrupted when religion is used for the implementation of these regulations as the laws are inherently biased against anyone of differing opinion.
Unless these regulations fall under these categories:

Prevention of violent action.
Protection of the citizenry.
Infrastructure improvement/creation.
Majority approved Constitutional adjustment.
....and a few others....

The regulation becomes an invasion of rights.
 
danielpalos said:
They all are, but our supreme law of the land affects us as citizens in the several States of our republic. What is not covered in our Ten Amendments?
Click to expand...

I'm not clear why you limit the laws to just citizens since it applies to those who are here legally and illegally, as well. Clearly the remaining amendments are not covered in the 10.
 
US Conservative said:
But the job of govt is more diverse than simply a violation of peoples rights. Perhaps you consider national security as an example of such and if so I agree.
Click to expand...

It prevents other countries and terrorist groups from trying to rip our freedoms from us so yes, that is a part of it.

US Conservative said:
First world is a different meaning, independent of morality, I think. Its most likely I dont smell what you've been cooking in your post.
Click to expand...

Depends on your point of view. Some base whether a country is 1st world or not based on the countries morality. Some base it off of technological superiority. Some base it on a blending of the two. I'm one of those that base it on the last example.

US Conservative said:
But in general, the fxn of govt is the bare minimum as I see fit.
Click to expand...

That term "bare minimum" is subjective. As long as that bare minimum doesn't tread on peoples rights though, I'm fine with that. ;)
 
Lursa said:
So then there should be no laws regulating the behavior of or discriminating against homosexuals, correct?
Click to expand...

Incorrect. There would be no laws against discrimination, PERIOD. Base it on race, age, gender, etc.... However, homosexuality is an afront to society in general and would be banned under the Morality laws.

Lursa said:
Same with prostitution.
Click to expand...

Prostitution would be totally legal. Of course it would be one of the only vocations a woman would be allowed to engage in, and only with her father/husband's approval.
 
Tigger said:
Incorrect. There would be no laws against discrimination, PERIOD. Base it on race, age, gender, etc.... However, homosexuality is an afront to society in general and would be banned under the Morality laws.

Prostitution would be totally legal. Of course it would be one of the only vocations a woman would be allowed to engage in, and only with her father/husband's approval.
Click to expand...

This whole post is a contradiction. How can there be no laws against discrimination "PERIOD", based on race, age, gender when there would be laws against homosexuality AND requiring that a woman gets permision to do something with her own body?
 
Kal'Stang said:
This whole post is a contradiction. How can there be no laws against discrimination "PERIOD", based on race, age, gender when there would be laws against homosexuality AND requiring that a woman gets permision to do something with her own body?
Click to expand...

Women don't have rights. They belong to the dominant Male (father, brother, husband, etc....) in their family.
 
Tigger said:
Women don't have rights. They belong to the dominant Male (father, brother, husband, etc....) in their family.
Click to expand...

And this is why I will never take anything you say about morality seriously.

BTW: Noticed that you ignored the part about there not being any discrimination and yet there will be laws against homosexuality because it would be banned. Even without the women part that in itself is discriminatory.
 
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 does not imply such. Just like the number 0 being non-positive and non-negative, there are actions which we would not debate as morally right nor wrong (e.g. breathing). Please work on your logical reasoning skills.
 
Kal'Stang said:
And this is why I will never take anything you say about morality seriously.

BTW: Noticed that you ignored the part about there not being any discrimination and yet there will be laws against homosexuality because it would be banned. Even without the women part that in itself is discriminatory.
Click to expand...

No it's not. Women and homosexuals are not human beings. Therefore one cannot discriminate against them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom