A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.support » Child Support
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Moral Dillemas



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 8th 03, 04:45 PM
Meldon Fens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Dillemas


Kenneth S. wrote in message
...
Meldon Fens wrote:

E. Barry Bruyea wrote in message
...
On Thu, 03 Jul 2003 23:54:47 GMT, (David Barr) wrote:

Meldon Fens wrote:

Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way

that
conditions them to be moral?

If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in
competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)?


Define "moral." Likewise "less moral."


Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and

children
from
dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be

little
concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out

on
their
own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar

is
indeed
low for removing fathers from their children.


Perhaps where you are. Some states are much more egalitarian.


If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive

children
of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man

ever
hope
for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is

within
the
realm of wishful thinking.

Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where

individuals
will
face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the

traditional
sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without

any
moral
restriction whatsoever?

Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for

a
moral
world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment.


Sounds like you're generalizing from a specific incident, which is
almost always dangerous...

dafydd


Morality is a shifting target that society has not yet learned how to
accept. As a result, our society is no longer a democracy when it
comes to how we live our lives; a new concept in the evolution of the
democratic process. In matters moral, or ethical, we are now in the
hands of an appointed Star Chamber. Not only is it appointed, but
their is no system of sanction on the appointment of this 'Chamber'
imbedded in our democracy, a gross oversight, not only on the part of
our 'Fathers Of Confederation, but on the part of our 'Father' of our
re-born Constitution. The net result is that we are now ruled
strictly and singly from the office of the Prime Minister, who has not
only controlled the legislative agenda but indirectly the moral and
ethical agenda by simply doing nothing.


It may go deeper than the politicians. The power of the corporation has
reigned supreme in this society since and before its very discovery.

Modern
politics is completely dependant on large amounts of financial

resources.
"Corporation" and "financial resources" are primarily synonymous.



For various reasons, I don't endorse the demonization of business that
goes on in some circles in the U.S. However, it IS interesting to see
the differences between business law and family law.

For example, it has been the practice for years in the U.S. for state
legislatures to change divorce law, and retroactively apply the changes
to existing marriages. There were people (like me) who got married at a
time when no one would have dreamed of the no-fault divorce concept.
Nevertheless, these people were retroactively subjected to no-fault when
it was enacted. Such things don't happen in business law, where the
notion of "grandfathering" existing practices is well-established. When
anyone gets married, they are subjecting themselves a completely
unpredictable set of conditions, and they can't even write a personal
contract to protect themselves, because judges will over-rule prenuptial
contracts if they cover the really important things like custody of
children and payment of post-marital support.

To take another example, when a business partnership is set up in
Delaware, it continues to be subject to Delaware law, regardless of
where the business is being conducted. The same is not true of
marriages. A marriage that took place in Pennsylvania becomes subject
to the divorce laws of Nevada if the couple moves to Nevada.

The major reasons for the differences in treatment are that:
(a) business is taken seriously in the U.S., whereas marriage is not;
and
(b) businesses have effective lobby groups, ready to spring into action
if their interests are threatened.


Nicely done though one does not have to demonize business and this was not
my intent. What is clear however is for example, as the county grew and new
cities born, it was not marriage that drove the activity. St. Louis became
prominent because of it's location and served as the gateway to the west. It
did not happen because there were more families there than somewhere else.

Money makes the world go round....
the world go round...
the world go round...


  #12  
Old July 10th 03, 03:49 AM
Matt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Moral Dillemas

Well Put.

Matthew


"Meldon Fens" wrote in message
...
Is it appropriate in our society to raise our children in a way that
conditions them to be moral?

If so, what then is the likely result of that child when faced in
competition with another who is not moral (or less moral)?

Clearly current law provides a vehicle to protect mothers and children

from
dangerous men or environments. Unfortunately there seems to be little
concern for abuse of the vehicle or the result of men loosing out on their
own children's lives simply based on the whim of a woman. The bar is

indeed
low for removing fathers from their children.

If a woman takes advantage of these protections to unduly deprive children
of their fathers, and we agree it is immoral, then how can the man ever

hope
for equity to be restored if he remains moral? Surely this is within the
realm of wishful thinking.

Therefore, is it not more appropriate in a society where individuals will
face immoral competitors, to raise our children without the traditional
sense of morality and to allow, even encourage them to be without any

moral
restriction whatsoever?

Are we really doing the best thing for our kids? Preparing them for a

moral
world which does not exist surely must be to their detriment
.

/Meldon Fens.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Parenting Without Punishing" Chris General 328 July 1st 04 05:59 AM
"Parenting Without Punishing" Chris Spanking 322 July 1st 04 05:59 AM
Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-cunt" and his mother approved! Kane General 25 February 27th 04 05:02 PM
Kane used "odiferous vulva" and his mother wasn't queried about it .. was ... Kane used "smelly-cunt" and his mother approved! Kane Spanking 22 February 27th 04 05:02 PM
| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 142 November 16th 03 08:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.