Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Behavior

July 15, 2013

So laws should not define behavior only punish those who infringe on another's rights. I have news for you when you pass laws that punish unacceptable behavior you are defining acceptable behavior....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(62)

CMReeder

Jul-17-13 9:48 AM

Police out in force during protest is also about safety, not only for the community and property but for the protesters and onlookers. But as usual you can not see the scope of what is involved only your narrow perspective.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jul-17-13 8:32 AM

Yes it can infringe on property rights but not always protests take place on public areas or 'commons'. It has more to do with behavior.

We have a right to free speech but we have laws that ban certain speech. That is not an infringement of rights that is inappropriate behavior.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jul-16-13 6:25 PM

"If that protest turns violent and becomes a riot then it becomes unlawful, an unacceptable behavior.

If a protest forms law enforcement is sent out to maintain and control the protest. To keep it peaceful." - CMReeder

BINGO! Because the riot it then usually infringes upon another individuals property rights.

I would say there is hope for you yet, but I am not holding my breath.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jul-16-13 12:53 PM

Spike, the child does not COMPLETELY and FULLY match the mothers DNA. Yes, it does share SOME of the mothers DNA, but the baby's DNA are completely it's own, there is no other exactly like it. Which makes the baby an individual separate from the mother, something the Supreme Court failed to admit when it made it's ruling.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jul-16-13 11:41 AM

OK. Kerstetter the child does have the mothers and fathers DNA. Next you work to the grandparents and contributory DNA. This is how we identify bodies who are beyond recognition. DNA from immediate blood family. Transplants do not always work in this way but families are first choice donors. NoBud - I agree with you in part. Information levels of women influence good choices. Families with two professional jobs are close to two children per family. There are always exceptions. Those with the least "information" have higher numbers of children, but can least afford.The people who need these prescriptions the most are the least likely to have a family physician. The E.R. does not work with this issue. We don't get info to the group who needs it the most. have you ever seen any literature on where to go for B.C. in Wmspt. if you do not have a doctor?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jul-16-13 10:37 AM

For an example let's use protesting. Protesting is an extention of First Amendment or as some will say 'free speech'. But under the law it is peaceful demonstration or protest. A behavior has been attached to a right, a condition. If that protest turns violent and becomes a riot then it becomes unlawful, an unacceptable behavior.

If a protest forms law enforcement is sent out to maintain and control the protest. To keep it peaceful.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jul-16-13 10:28 AM

Society developes a system for acceptable behavior and builds institutes to enforce and implement them. One of the institutions they create is government and they use the power of government to enact, protect and enforce. It is not solely on rights it is also behavior.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jul-16-13 10:16 AM

"Is Chuck taking Shaman's meds again?"

Low grade humor from the mindless.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jul-16-13 3:56 AM

Spike, I have nothing against free birth control for any who want it and I believe we provide lots of it now. Is everyone getting it? No. But does everyone want to be responsible enough to get off their butt and get it? No. So, if we currently provide it to millions for free, how do we prevent those--this is not PC, but I don't care anymore--who really shouldn't breed from reproducing and perpetuating the cycle? Let's be honest, those who really should not reproduce for a variety of reasons, not least of which is an inability to properly finance children, seem to have no problem with having more and more kids that we taxpayers get the privilege of financing. Harsh? Yep. But, it is a discussion that needs to be had because we are approaching a time where our limited resources will not allow us to do all we want to do and care for more and more children who really have no chance of ever becoming productive citizens.

8 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jul-15-13 9:23 PM

Well stated MikeKerstetter.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

msgjsheets

Jul-15-13 8:42 PM

Is Chuck taking Shaman's meds again?

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jul-15-13 4:51 PM

Ad the Supreme Court ruled wrongly that the child was a part of the woman's body, even though it is a complete a separate body biologically, with a different DNA and often times different blood types.

I think they clearly ruled that the child was the property of the mother and could be disposed of as she sees fit. And I think they are just as wrong as they were in the Scott case.

10 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jul-15-13 4:45 PM

The following excerpt is from the majority decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. Written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, it addresses the question of African American citizenship and slavery in the territories.

Now . . . the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. The right to traffic in it, like an ordinary article of merchandise and property, was guaranteed to the citizens of the United States, in every state that might desire it, for twenty years. And the government in express terms is pledged to protect it in all future time, if the slave escapes from his owner. This is done in plain words—too plain to be misunderstood. And no word can be found in the Constitution which gives Congress a greater power over slave property . . . than property of any other description. The only power conferred is the power coupled with the duty of guarding and protecting the owner of his rights.....

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jul-15-13 4:25 PM

Mike, in neither case did they decide either as "property".

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jul-15-13 3:04 PM

In 1857, the Supreme Court by a vote of 7 to 2, ruled in Dred Scott V. Sanford that Slavery was legal because Blacks were not people, they were the property of the slave owner, and the opposition to slavery should not impose their morality on the slave owner.

Of course we all know they got it wrong.

In 1973 the Supreme Court, by a vote of 7 to 2, ruled in Roe V. Wade that abortion was legal because unborn children were not people, they were the property of the mother, and the opposition to abortion should not impose their morality on the mother.

I believe they got it wrong again.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jul-15-13 2:51 PM

In it's original form, our Elected Government should be running the country and making decisions on the Moral Law of the people. Moral Law isn't necessarily how you want to behave nor how you think others should behave, but how you think you should be treated by others. It's your conscience, your convictions. It's that thing that tells you something is wrong even if it feels good and you want to do it. We all have it, but most of us are good at ignoring it.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mikekerstetter

Jul-15-13 2:45 PM

Our Government is supposed to be representative of the people and their wishes. Rule of the people. There are some parameters set that the Government is supposed to follow; one being that all are created equal and we should be treated as such. The Supreme Court is a branch of the Government. It was set up as the weakest branch. It's job, in a nutshell, is to ensure that the Government treats all of us equally and doesn't go outside of its intended power. Somehow we allowed a group of unelected people to take over our Government and make themselves the most powerful branch. They've set themselves up as our de facto Government, usurping our Elected Representatives and making laws from the bench.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jul-15-13 2:15 PM

Ok, we don't have to give and take is apparently the general opinion. Birth control is horrid yet obesity is fine. Just as many of you have a problem with preventing pregnancy I have a problem with those who are too lazy to exercise,cut out sugar, and eat properly. The good news is pregnancy will probably only cause a few to die. the rest will die from health relayed issues and we will all pay for that too.

2 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jul-15-13 1:53 PM

Well he can't, I am off to work shutdown is over.

We have laws that pertain to behavior even when it comes to 'rights'.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jul-15-13 1:35 PM

Yea, ok Chuck. It's up to you Phil if you want to try, I'm not wasting my time.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jul-15-13 1:20 PM

then when the government passes a law that punishes the bad behavior on the infringement of rights you are defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Jul-15-13 1:16 PM

When someone infringes on a right it is unacceptable behavior. Hence laws stating that.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

gavinf56

Jul-15-13 12:18 PM

"It also defines 'rights' and gives government the power to protect them from infringement." - CMReeder

BINGO!

5 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jul-15-13 12:08 PM

sorry tgram, typo.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

spike2

Jul-15-13 12:07 PM

thram - yes, however thinking people should behave in a certain way will never cause people to behave in any certain way. I agree, fewer would be great. then some people want to limit birth control. The very people who need it the most will have the least access. That gets us back to some don't want to pay for it and I don't want to pay for obesity related illnesses (unless a genetic issue) because they are too lazy to move or lack the self-control to eat a healthy diet. We are all going to have to give and take a bit or we'll be like Congress and NOTHING will ever happen.

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 62 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web