Guest guest Posted January 28, 2001 Report Share Posted January 28, 2001 > > You are FORCED by the STATE to WEAR CLOTHING ON YOUR BODY. You do NOT > have the RIGHT to GO ABOUT UNDRESSED. Your exterior bodily appearance, then, > is CONTROLLED BY LAWS of your STATE. Totalitarian? Or would you agree the > State has rights over your physical body! You do have the right to make the decision to go about undressed...simply we, by continuing to reside within society, have thus far agreed that it is more "comfortable" for, perhaps, the majority (and we should question who that "majority" is) that we go about dressed, and that those which decide to move against that agreement need to be re-minded of it....living within a society is contractual...surely, what you do privately in your own home, backyard or designated areas, such as a nude beach is perfectly acceptable...therefore this generalized statement is a tad bit misleading....also you do have the 'right' to petition to remedy this institutionalized norm...which does not exist within a totalitarian society...therefore, the state is not FORCING as much as it is ENFORCING what we have "agreed" upon...again, if one begins to question the reason for any certain 'societal obligation' such as not spitting on the sidewalk (as this is still a law on the 'books" in certain cities throughout the country, but is not as enforced for a plethora of situational reasons) than they may choose to put forth the effort in order to change it, to instate a new agreement when the divide between de jure and de facto deepens...many laws are rather archaic in that they re-flect the ideologies of a time period that no longer applies due to the hit and miss of praxis versus theory....and from what I have read of these posts, most of you are dealing with theoretical situations...I am not...I have personal application in the area that this list is currently referring to, I understand both sides of the issue (again personal experience) which brings me to state, Carol's arguments in regards to the disinterested enforcing of continued existence by the societal accumulation better known as the State, except for technical considerations, are valid, and serves as a platform to analyze the purpose of these "laws"...on one hand, we have a political party extolling the virtues of responsibility (albeit, yes, choosing NOT to engage in irresponsible sex is, by inference, acting responsibly), but refusing to allow for every possibility which occurs in life...such is the reason we have three branches of local, State and Federal Government and attorney's ad nauseum.... My question to those which for whatever rationalized reason, oppose abortion, what do we do for these children whose mothers are more than likely ill prepared financially and emotionally to care for their children?? Should Roe. V. Wade be oveturned or modified conservatively, will we send those women that decide to perform an abortion to jail? What "punishment" or societal "re-minder" is to be enacted??? >If > abortion is a right to choose what to do with one's body, then the State must > give up all its other notions about what it may control, including the right > to carry any type weapons on my own body that I choose, as well as assembling > a mob of undressed citizens in the Town Square if we so choose! I trust > there is a political entity one may join, that would embrace such ideas. There are differning points on how each of these effects society, therefore they necessitate being addressed individually...I believe you are co-mingling Federal Laws and state laws as there are states that do allow for you to carry a weapon whether concealed or not...as far as the gathering of a 'naked mob'...who knows what laws lurk in the books of the various cities and states throughout the country.... "while every law restricts individual freedom to some extent by altering the means which people may use in pursuit of their aims, under the Rule of Law, the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc action." F.A. Hayek It is my understanding that we operate under this Rule of Law...at least in theory... Slante chugat, HerPoliticalMindedness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2001 Report Share Posted January 29, 2001 In a message dated 1/29/2001 4:55:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, naramundali writes: << we have a political party extolling the virtues of responsibility (albeit, yes, choosing NOT to engage in irresponsible sex is, by inference, acting responsibly), but refusing to allow for every possibility which occurs in life...such is the reason we have three branches of local, State and Federal Government and attorney's ad nauseum.... Thank you for your response, Naramundali. The point was to bring out an understanding that the issue is not one of "religious nuts" forcing their creed upon others. It is a component of our society itself that life is revered and we do constrain one another from certain acts. <<My question to those which for whatever rationalized reason, oppose abortion, what do we do for these children whose mothers are more than likely ill prepared financially and emotionally to care for their children?? >> This is where compassion enters in, aiding the mother to become capable in caring for her child, or in absence of her ability to do so, allowing her to give her child a place in the hearts of an adoptive family. Compassion is charitable towards mother, charitable towards baby, charitable towards the couple seeking an adoptable child, and respects society's desire to protect all its citizens. As for what society might do in cases of abortion, it would be well to be carefully discussed and thoughtfully worked out by a consensus of the society itself. I don't know what Vedic astrology might do other than attempt to lessen the sorrows of a person if at all possible. Best wishes, Carol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2001 Report Share Posted January 29, 2001 > In a message dated 1/29/2001 4:55:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, > naramundali writes: > > << we have a political party extolling the virtues of responsibility (albeit, > yes, choosing NOT to engage in irresponsible sex is, by inference, acting > responsibly), but refusing to allow for every possibility which occurs in > life...such is the reason we have three branches of local, State and Federal > Government and attorney's ad nauseum.... > > Thank you for your response, Naramundali. The point was to bring out > an understanding that the issue is not one of "religious nuts" forcing their > creed upon others. It is a component of our society itself that life is > revered and we do constrain one another from certain acts. A chara Carol... Really which component reveres life? The component that tests cosmetics on animals so that we can have a safer form of eyeshadow?? Or is it the component that mows over vast areas of the forest so McDonalds can shoot bovine up with growth hormone in order to serve bigger Big Macs? I understood your point, just as I understand the hypocrisy behind it.... The reverence for life begins on the most minute level.... As far as constraining each other from certain acts...freedom is not free...everything maintains a cost...this is simple economics.... Slante chugat, HerPoliticalMindedness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.