Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Physicist
"On the contrary, it will enforce moral codes if a love-child cannot be hidden. The stakes of adultery are raised."

There is no "love" involved in the production of most of these children, and I think it is highly unlikely that their rising prevalence will do anything to enforce moral codes. The trend I am seeing in court case after court case is just more state control over private lives, and the moral issue is never even addressed. There is a cookie cutter fix to mandate compliance with certain "respoonsibilites," but morality doesn't have a thing to do with it. Just once I'd like to see a judge say "keep your legs together, sweetheart" or "keep it in your pants, buddy."

113 posted on 08/12/2005 5:43:38 AM PDT by sweetliberty (Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: sweetliberty
There is no "love" involved in the production of most of these children

Take it up with the lexicographers. "Love-child" is a synonym for "bastard".

I think it is highly unlikely that their rising prevalence will do anything to enforce moral codes.

Read my post again. I said that the rising detectability of bastards will enforce morality among the married.

The simple fact is that people are less likely to break a rule--any rule--if they are more likely to get caught. Let me know if you disagree with that.

117 posted on 08/12/2005 6:31:23 AM PDT by Physicist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson