Posted on 10/09/2007 5:21:39 AM PDT by radar101
Thank you for pointing this out. I'm sure Frost couldn't get a mortgage or take out a loan on his property without insurance. Are his kids less important than his woodworking studio?
"Given that the Frosts may honestly believe that government should play a wider role in providing health care to individuals, given that they may not have quite the same understanding of parenthood that you and I share, and given that they are likely within the parameters of the law, which itself is a moral teacher, I can’t condemn the Frosts for what they’ve done."
Partially delivering a full term baby and then sticking a needle into the base of the baby's skull in order to remove the brain is also legal. It isn't moral, in fact it's abhorent. So the law is not always a moral teacher, sometimes it is the exact opposite and it seems that in this case the law is not a moral teacher either if one considers gaming money out of other folks pockets who have less assets than they do immoral.
And using your children as props in a political debate is, well like I said, despicable.
1. Abortion is intrinsically evil. We’ve already established that it is not intrinsically evil for the government to help folks with health insurance for their kids.
Many people deceive themselves morally by reasoning from a morally permissible circumstance to one that is similar, but not morally permissible.
2. Unfortunately, in the case of abortion, the law IS a moral teacher. I don’t know about you, but I’ve run into so many people, even church-going Catholics, who partially justify access to abortion because it is legal. Screwy to me - sorta backwards.
I was taught that legalism as a moral system is fundamentally logically flawed. I guess some folks missed school the day that was covered.
By making an evil act "lawful," the law normalizes behavior, even the most monstrous behavior.
The law is a moral teacher, even when it teaches what is evil.
sitetest
Someone needs to contact Mr. MANLEY at Reid’s office that put out the info that the Frosts only pay $500.00 a year and that the kids are on full scholarship!! Mr. MANLEY needs to show up PROOF, dontcha think?
Many people deceive themselves morally by reasoning from a morally permissible circumstance to one that is similar, but not morally permissible.
Now, you're dabbling in sophistry and self deception. My only point here is to demonstrate that your view of legal is woefully insufficient to justify actions.
2. Unfortunately, in the case of abortion, the law IS a moral teacher. I don’t know about you, but I’ve run into so many people, even church-going Catholics, who partially justify access to abortion because it is legal. Screwy to me - sorta backwards.
No, the law is NOT always a moral teacher and I find it puzzling that a man of your obvious talents can not see that. The lesson of Roe V Wade and Doe v Bolton is not a moral one but an amoral one, that being that unborn human beings are not human beings at all but simply lumps of tissue to be dispensed with as one would a set of tonisils. The lesson is both amoral and scientific nonsense.
The law is a moral teacher, even when it teaches what is evil.
This is what I mean by sophistry. Only a sophist would make such a claim. Moral and evil are not synonyms sitetest, not now or ever. The law can be moral, amoral or immoral which all have vastly different meanings.
“Now, you’re dabbling in sophistry and self deception.”
No, rather I’m suggesting that perhaps Mr. Frost is dabbling in sophistry and self-deception.
“No, the law is NOT always a moral teacher...”
We may be using the words a little differently.
I don’t mean that the law always teaches rightly, but rather that the law always teaches about right and wrong, even when it gets things wrong.
By way of analogy, what I mean is that the law is a moral teacher - a teacher of morality - just like someone at my old high school was a religion teacher - a teacher of religion. I went to a Catholic high school, and thus a good religion teacher would have taught well the Catholic faith. But unfortunately, not every religion teacher did so. Some taught in a way to steal young men away from their Catholicism. These religion teachers were bad religion teachers.
But they were still religion teachers.
In the same way, the law is ALWAYS a moral teacher - a teacher of what is moral. Unfortunately, when the law is objectively wrong, objectively evil, it teaches what is evil as good, and what is good as evil. Thus, the law is still teaching about morality, is still a moral teacher - a teacher of morality - but fails in its obligation to teach RIGHTLY.
Although there exists an objective moral code, there also exist personal moral codes and societal moral codes. There may be differences between an individual’s moral code and the objective moral code, and there may be differences between a society’s moral code and the objective moral code.
Obviously, the differences represent falsehoods in the moral codes of individuals and societies.
Nonetheless, these subjective moral codes, with errors in them, exist, even exist objectively in a sense.
In a society, the moral code derives in part from the law. What many people accept as moral derives from what is the law. The law teaches them that a thing is right or wrong.
In the case of abortion, the law, by way of Roe, teaches that abortion is moral, that it is, after all, a constitutional “right.”
The law, as moral teacher, is wrong. The law teaches evil as good, and good as evil. The law, as moral teacher, fails in its obligation to teach truthfully, substituting lies for the truth.
Nonetheless, it still teaches, and claims for its teaching the dignity of justice and morality.
sitetest
Hold up there. If I'm reading this correctly and put it with what I've read on other, related, threads: Mr. Frost, being currently 26, and his kid in the commercial being 12 - that would mean he had this baby at 14? Does anybody know if Graem/Graham/Grame is the oldest of the 4 Frostlets?
I also read that he bought his house in 1992 - when he was 13? 12?
The math isn't adding up for me.
He was 26 in 1992 when he got married. I have the link to his wedding annoucement that was in the NYT in posts 74 and 75.
WOO HOO!!!
I could see if this family was down to their last dollar, but the details say otherwise. My own similar situation: My husband was out of work six months, I was four months pregnant, but he paid for cobra out of his own darn pocket because he knew where his priorities were. These people are gaming the system, pure and simple./Just Asking - seoul62.........
Mr. Frost needs to get himself a full time job, along with his once in a while job, and pay for his own blasted insurance. Others of us have to work to support our families. I’m tired of all this entitlement stuff for people who really could work if they wanted to.
$20,000 really seems high to me. We have a private Christian school in our church and the cost is around $4,000 per student, cheaper if other siblings attend.
Well said. Also, health insurance is one of those “things” that should be considered “needed” but is an afterthought to way too many families.
It ticks me off that we have to keep sacrificing and paying for those who have entitlement issues, don’t want to get a darn job, etc. But it also ticks me off that senior trips are to freakin’ disneyworld and that’s normal and band trips are sheduled out of state with no info 6 months prior, like everyone can afford to pay for these trips last minute. We’re far from poor despite what our kids think and the attitude of this country is so far from what and how I grew up that I’m out of the loop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.