Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
USU78

The Tyranny of Enforced Tolerance

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Then the woman should change her mind.  It is her perogative to do that.

But seriously, folks, nobody should want a woman to have an abortion unless the circumstances are drastic and it is to save the woman's life.  The fact that she may want it, for no specific reason than because she just doesn't want it, is just not good enough.

Rape and incest don't count, in your mind?

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is worth noting that Roe v Wade was decided on really shaky legal grounds. Both sides of the issue agree on that. It was decided 7-2 based on the right to privacy based on previous precedent allowing contraception as a right to privacy. Other better rationales could have been used. Those for legalized abortion would rather it be more stable legally.

In my personal opinion the Supreme Court should have declined the case back then. The issue of abortion was still far too polarized for a decision to be helpful. A lot of people and institutions were still working out their stance on it. The decision pushed a lot of people to extremes unnecessarily.

There are rumblings of a retrial of a similar case. If Roe v Wade were overturned it would take away the federal precedent legalizing it and kick the legality of abortion back to state laws. Some states would quickly ban it. Most would probably not at this point.

I think it would be stupid tactically to push a case through right now hoping to overturn it.

You may be right.  I can't say.  But, as I have said in this thread, it isn't so important which decision is made, so much as that a decision was reached.  We always hope that selecting competent, independent jurists, and giving them life tenure, will mean that we mostly have solid decisions.

I can say for certain that some of my most enjoyable time was spent years ago reading the Supreme Court Reporter, briefing some of their cases, as well as reading some excellent books and articles taking the measure of the high court.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Rape and incest don't count, in your mind?

Depending on circumstances, maybe.  Things can get ugly real quick in some cases and I would need to prayerfully consider the circumstances in some cases.

If possible the better result if the mother didn't want or couldn't handle raising the child would be to allow someone else take care of it rather than just kill the baby.  The baby is innocent, too, in most cases like that.

But I can understand how it could be almost unbearable to carry a child to full term in some of those cases. 

I just wish mothers would stop killing their babes for purely selfish reasons like just not wanting the so-called "hassle" of raising a child they don't really want to have.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I just wish mothers would stop killing their babes for purely selfish reasons like just not wanting the so-called "hassle" of raising a child they don't really want to have.

There needs to be safe, affordable options for children to be placed in alternative homes and less stigma attached to giving up a child.

For example, raising pay significantly for social workers in the foster care system to ensure a larger and less stressed staff so they are able to have enough time to develop an ongoing relationship with each child under their care to ensure they are aware of the needs of the children and family they are placed in.

Providing ongoing financial support for people who adopt special needs children (both for the medical needs, but also respite for the parents when they need to rejuvenate and so they don't feel alone and isolated).

Making adoption easier, cheaper, and less stressful while still maintaining high standards.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, you misunderstood me, evidently.  Righteousness is the objective of living, or living well, rather than living to merely to follow a law or the Law.  

Some people equate following a or the Law as akin to following God, or living a good life, but living by laws that are not good laws doesn't improve the quality of that person's life, even if it may keep him out of jail as long as his unrighteous actions are not illegal.

You are not there yet, Ahab, but keep working on it, and you just might.

LDS theology has it that the U.S. Constitution is an inspired document, but that does not make it Scripture.  It is not in any way a religious document.  What is does is make freedom of religion possible in a society in which laws (and not the immediate demands of emotional men) prevail.  It helps the people govern themselves, and it makes the people responsible for the good or bad government they have.  It gives the right to missionaries to preach the Gospel unmolested.

Our Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.  It has nothing remotely to do with individual judgments about what is right and wrong, except insofar as those matters are part of our criminal code -- again part of Law, the legislated details of which are contained in state and federal codes.  Lawyers are the advocates, judges the referees.  Arcane rituals govern how everything proceeds in court.  All of that to bring order and to forestall chaos in society.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Calm said:

But would there be if all the babies were taken to full term at the usual rate that are now aborted?

There used to be many homes for abandoned children/babies back when abortion wasn’t legal. And even now many children are not adopted. Nor are many special needs babies.

Why do you assume things would be different now?

(not saying this justifies abortion, just that a woman can trust that her baby will be likely placed in a home isn’t a valid argument against abortion based on history, that really only works during times when demand for babies is higher than supply...all babies, not just those of certain appearances or background)

I think there are and would continue to be enough homes to raise every child not wanted by the natural parents. Foster homes or something more like orphanages if not enough single family homes with adopting parents.

When I was young I knew of many state homes where parents left their children and if more were needed the state could raise or allocate tax money to build more.  Better than just killing the babies.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I think there are and would continue to be enough homes to raise every child not wanted by the natural parents. Foster homes or something more like orphanages if not enough single family homes with adopting parents.

When I was young I knew of many state homes where parents left their children and if more were needed the state could raise or allocate tax money to build more.  Better than just killing the babies.

In the past, governments or charitable societies often weren't too generous with state homes for children.  Do you have evidence this would be different now?  Given how short staffed foster care programs are even with fewer babies due to abortion?

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Calm said:

And yet back then they built like their homes and stores were fortresses. I never saw such thick doors and two of them. Going into our older apartment was like entering a bank vault. And all the ground floor windows of older buildings had massive bars on them.

If there been no crime, why was there such a major investment in protecting oneself?

Sounds like Socialist Realism in construction.  Soviet society had a low crime rate (the State was the real criminal), everyone had a job, and everyone was poor.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are not there yet, Ahab, but keep working on it, and you just might.

LDS theology has it that the U.S. Constitution is an inspired document, but that does not make it Scripture.  It is not in any way a religious document.  What is does is make freedom of religion possible in a society in which laws (and not the immediate demands of emotional men) prevail.  It helps the people govern themselves, and it makes the people responsible for the good or bad government they have.  It gives the right to missionaries to preach the Gospel unmolested.

Our Constitution protects minorities from the tyranny of the majority.  It has nothing remotely to do with individual judgments about what is right and wrong, except insofar as those matters are part of our criminal code -- again part of Law, the legislated details of which are contained in state and federal codes.  Lawyers are the advocates, judges the referees.  Arcane rituals govern how everything proceeds in court.  All of that to bring order and to forestall chaos in society.

Talk more about how law makers should foster a more righteous society rather than just allowing unrighteousness to become legally acceptable in society.

I know those in power use the Law to bring about the things they want to allow in society, while putting people in prisons when they do not conform to the Law as they establish it.  Now just add in the concept of upholding only righteous laws instead of allowing the unrighteous to not only avoid living in prisons but live rather lavishly in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Here is a report from Idaho, surely a state that would be doing all they can to ensure a woman feels comfortable about bringing a child into the world knowing it would be looked after by another.

Quote

A worsening shortage of foster parents threatens the fidelity of the states child welfare system. Finding an out-of-home placement can be a difficult and stressful process for social workers, foster parents, and children. Often several calls must be made before a foster parent will agree to bring children or youth into their home.

Because of the shortage, foster parents are asked to do more, stretch their capacity, or create more space in their home. To make a placement, social workers said they have apologetically asked foster parents to accept children or youth with characteristics or behaviors outside the foster parents stated preferences, knowing the request would place additional strain on the family.

When social workers are not able to find an out-of-home placement near a childs home, they must turn to placement options outside of the area. Out-of-area placements solve the short-term problem of finding a bed for the child but lead to long -term problems over the span of the case.

If social workers are not able to find a placement for the child within hours, they will have to personally spend the night in the office or a hotel with the child. This need has not been common in Idaho; however, the shortage of available foster homes in other states shows the potential for a problem to turn into a crisis....

We found that inconsistent supports and services for foster parents, a lack of understanding of the wants and needs of foster parents, and underdeveloped relationships with foster parents affect foster parentssatisfaction with their experience, their effectiveness, and their willingness to continue being foster parents.

Social workers need to have well-developed relationships with foster parents to bridge a gap that has formed by the difference in experience, training, and expectations of foster parents and social workers. The gap can lead to disagreements and leave social workers feeling frustrated or attacked and foster parents feeling disappointed, marginalized, and uninformed. Child and Family Services is attempting to improve relationships with foster parents, but it struggles with communication and investing the necessary time....

Without question the most common theme we found in our evaluation was the perception that social workers do not have enough time to serve their cases effectively. About 87 percent of Child and Family Services staff agree that problems often arise because they do not have the time necessary to do the job. We also heard this concern from foster parents, court-appointed special advocates (CASA) volunteers, judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys.

In 2007 Child and Family Services conducted a workload analysis that found the need for 36 percent more staff. Since then, Child and Family Services has been able to increase case carrying staff by about 10 percent.

Our survey of staff found that, on average, program managers, supervisors, and social workers believe that social workers are carrying approximately 38 percent more cases than they can effectively serve. Similarly, Child and Family Servicesmost recent analysis of average monthly caseloads showed 13.5 cases per month per worker, approximately 28 percent more cases than program managers, supervisors, and social workers believe social workers are able to carry while serving every case effectively. 

https://legislature.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/OPE/Reports/r1701.pdf

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Soviet society had a low crime rate

Or they just didn't report actual crimes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
58 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I've never heard it described as a "scrum," but that is a very apt description.  My not so naive view, Grasshopper, is that a scrum is much better than a blood feud, which is the beauty of the ritualized procedures which govern the Law.  Ahab thought that righteousness was the objective of the Law, which means that he missed the point completely.  There is, however, majesty in good lawyering and a well-argued case.

Years ago, when Rex Lee was the Solicitor General of the United States, the ACLU had an article about him in their regular newsletter.  They frequently went up against him at the bar of the Supreme Court and considered him a formidable opponent,  a great lawyer.  What impressed them even more than his forensic skill, was his graciousness and unfailing courtesy.  He was always willing to stipulate to honest facts, was never small-minded.  I circulated that article at the J. Reuben Clark Law School at the time.

He taught my bar review con law course. I liked him a lot. He looked and sounded exactly like Tennessee Tuxedo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Talk more about how law makers should foster a more righteous society rather than just allowing unrighteousness to become legally acceptable in society.

I know those in power use the Law to bring about the things they want to allow in society, while putting people in prisons when they do not conform to the Law as they establish it.  Now just add in the concept of upholding only righteous laws instead of allowing the unrighteous to not only avoid living in prisons but live rather lavishly in the world.

Those are your lawmakers.  You elected them.  When was the last time you went to your lawmaker's office to discuss your pet peeves with him or his staff?  Do you congratulate him when he does something you like?  When was the last time you went to the capital to speak to that rep to lobby him?  Do you regularly interact with your state and federal reps?  Do you work on their election campaigns?  We all get the government we deserve.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

No.  The article specifically says that it teaches kids that sometimes dress up is real.  

There is nothing real about goth style. My comment is on the 2nd photo.  It’s not about the program. Drag is often fantasy.  Transgender is not always about drag. 

 

Interesting. My concern is more about the purpose of the organization and its program, not about dress up or photos. There is nothing there about "goth" style. 

Quote

Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.

Reading defensive letters from library directors who have these programs speaks somewhat to our topic of forced tolerance.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

That is what you think.  I suspect most people don’t think that way anymore. I see her outfit as very feminine and very attractive myself.

I suppose it boils down to a matter of individual taste, and there’s really no explaining or arguing that, so I won’t bother trying. 

Like your inexplicably fussing at Smac the other day because he whimsically used a benign catch-phrase from a 1980s sit-com to punctuate a point he was making in a post. You’ve yet to explain yourself on that one, but I suppose that’s a matter of individual taste as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suppose it boils down to a matter of individual taste, and there’s really no explaining or arguing that, so I won’t bother trying. 

Like your inexplicably fussing at Smac the other day because he whimsically used a benign catch-phrase from a 1980s sit-com to punctuate a point he was making in a post. You’ve yet to explain yourself on that one, but I suppose that’s a matter of individual taste as well. 

I find most catch phrases annoying, especially when the person tries to imitate the original actor.  I am a very visual person so my mind goes to a well dressed white guy acting like a little black kid and thinking he is being funny and it just feels so out of place and character, like people are trying way too hard.  Where's the beef is another that makes my skin crawl, but that one Smac used is probably my least favorite even when it was new.  

I have never acted like my dislike of catch phrases was anything but personal taste.  If Smac had chosen to continue using it or said he enjoyed it, I wasn't intending to do anything more than I did.

----

You have an interesting definition of fussing, one short polite request not to do something, not repeated.  Smac was gracious enough not to get upset with my request.

Does that mean anytime you complain about something more than once, you see yourself as drama queening it, if my little thing was "fussing".

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Ahab said:

Talk more about how law makers should foster a more righteous society rather than just allowing unrighteousness to become legally acceptable in society.

I know those in power use the Law to bring about the things they want to allow in society, while putting people in prisons when they do not conform to the Law as they establish it.  Now just add in the concept of upholding only righteous laws instead of allowing the unrighteous to not only avoid living in prisons but live rather lavishly in the world.

Lawmakers have one option to try to create virtue in their official capacity (though they can try other ways outside the strict duties of their office). That is coercion. You sure you want to encourage that?

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think there are and would continue to be enough homes to raise every child not wanted by the natural parents. Foster homes or something more like orphanages if not enough single family homes with adopting parents.

When I was young I knew of many state homes where parents left their children and if more were needed the state could raise or allocate tax money to build more.  Better than just killing the babies.

I do not know whether to laugh or to weep.

Babies (if they are white, reasonably good looking, and not damaged from birth with any disabilities or from substance abuse while in the womb) can get adopted quickly. Toddlers often find homes. Older then that and it is a crapshoot. Once you are a teenager it requires a miracle to get adopted.

Those state run boarding houses are almost all hellholes to the children even when run by caring staff who are trying. They are only a slight improvement from when the Catholics and other churches ran them and I can tell you some horror stories about those days. And God help the child with emotional or mental problems who end up in one (that is sincere prayer, not taking the name of God in vain).

I am against abortion but your blasé assumption that we are taking very good care of the children in the foster system is laughably naive. Children need permanent families. Very few find them.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...