Should women be allowed to go topless?

[[Syl]]

For the record, the thread title should have (an understood) "in public" at the end. Obviously, women can go topless in private, so long as said private place (like a restaurant) does not have a policy against it.

[Avatar]

Didn't you start this thread?

Have a good weekend folks, play nice, I'm off til Monday.

Be Safe.

--Avatar

[[Syl]]

Yep. Just clarifying

[Plissken]

I mean yes, we censor many things to keep harm from being done - to children. But we're not talking about children, we're talking about "shaking up" adults like Tammy Faye. (Whose old show, it should be noted, offended me on spiritual, intellectual, and moral grounds. Perhaps I had the right to damages from the PTL network? 'Cuz I used to watch it and get really shaken up. I mean seriously, my hands would be shaking by the time they would start asking for money. Ooh, I'm getting kinda upset, even after all these years, just thinking about it...)

[ChoChiyo]

I mean yes, we censor many things to keep harm from being done - to children. But we're not talking about children, we're talking about "shaking up" adults like Tammy Faye. (Whose old show, it should be noted, offended me on spiritual, intellectual, and moral grounds. Perhaps I had the right to damages from the PTL network? 'Cuz I used to watch it and get really shaken up. I mean seriously, my hands would be shaking by the time they would start asking for money. Ooh, I'm getting kinda upset, even after all these years, just thinking about it...)

I HATE Tammy Faye Baker.

My dear old grandma, may she rest in peace, lived on--scratch that--subsisted on her social security. That's all she had. But she ALWAYS sent money to those %$#@$%%^^&^&. Always.

And they spend it on jewelry and boats and airconditioned dog houses and fancy homes.

While my grandma used towels so thread bare that I can't imagine they soaked up much water.

And she always hid them so none of us knew and could buy her new ones.

I could cry every time I think of it.

[CovenantJr]

That's very sad, Cho

We must never substitute simple obedience to the law for morality and justice.

Excellent statement.

[oconnellc]

Oconnelc -- leaving aside for the moment the value of the "natural" argument, (which perhaps is an insufficient one, although scarcely invalid), first, we're a multi-national community, so why limit it to the States? (Although obviously most people will apply the context of their own countries.

My bad. I just assumed. You know what happens when I do that...

What I want to ask about your post though, is the point on abortion-- Women don't have the right to have an abortion in the US? Really?

Robert Bork caught hell when he was nominated for the Supreme Court mostly for saying that exact thing. First, it is important to remember the seperation of powers here in the US. Congress is the only body that can make legislation. The Executive Branch can veto or not. The Supreme Court (is supposed to) make judgements about the application of those laws. That separation is really important and a huge basis of the structure of our government (an aside, that is why it is really scary now that members of our Congress want input on the selection of judges. They are expressly not given that power for a reason. Germany in the 30's is a great example of what can go wrong [admittidly in the extreme] when that happens). The Supreme Court is not supposed to make laws. They are only supposed to make judgements about specific instances. If you read the dissenting opinion (which takes a lot of room to quote, so I won't bother here. But it is pretty easy to find thanks to Google), they spend a fair amount of time explaining why the Court should not have made any decision at all because it did not fit the parameters.

Next, the argument is that Article 9 of the amendments basically gives everyone the right to everything. One, that seems a silly way to run a country. Two, Article 10 of the amendments basically says that states have the power to do things that the US Gov does not have the power to do.

So, the 'Right' to have an abortion has basically been invented. Thats ok, people try to invent stuff all the time. They may not be wrong (notice, I haven't mentioned how I actually feel about this, before I get killed), but the ruling has essentially said that the Constitution implies that states do not have the power to regulate that particular human activity. I've read the Constitution several times and I never felt that way after reading it.

But, to literally answer your question, we essentially have the de-facto right. Until the political winds blow a different way and different people get appointed to the Court....

Second, don't you think the question of whether or not we should be able to do something is far more important that whether or not we are allowed to? I certainly do. The law, for all its good points, was made up by a bunch of people to suit their own ideas, and often even to support their own particular "agenda's" It's practicality, applicability, and validity should always be questioned. We must never substitute simple obedience to the law for morality and justice.
--Avatar

I'm down with that! Our lives would be a lot simpler if they actually codified morality and justice. Problem is, there are lots of loonies out there who disagree with me about what is really moral and what is really just. In the meantime, I have to beat what is really moral and just into them.

[Cail]

I'm down with that! Our lives would be a lot simpler if they actually codified morality and justice. Problem is, there are lots of loonies out there who disagree with me about what is really moral and what is really just. In the meantime, I have to beat what is really moral and just into them.

I don't know about you, but the last thing in the world I want is the law codifying morality. Morality is up to me, thank you very much. I wouldn't want a 200+ year old document trying to tell me what's morally right. That's why we have our three branches of government. It's cliche, but it's true; the Constitution is a living document. It changes with the times. It was once Constitutional to own slaves, it was once Constitutional to outlaw beer. Thankfully, the country came to it's senses on both issues.

[Plissken]

I'm down with that! Our lives would be a lot simpler if they actually codified morality and justice. Problem is, there are lots of loonies out there who disagree with me about what is really moral and what is really just. In the meantime, I have to beat what is really moral and just into them.

I don't know about you, but the last thing in the world I want is the law codifying morality. Morality is up to me, thank you very much. I wouldn't want a 200+ year old document trying to tell me what's morally right. That's why we have our three branches of government. It's cliche, but it's true; the Constitution is a living document. It changes with the times. It was once Constitutional to own slaves, it was once Constitutional to outlaw beer. Thankfully, the country came to it's senses on both issues.

Careful, Cail. That "Living Document" idea of your might put you down on the side of those pesky activist judges!

[[Syl]]

Depends on how you define activist judges

One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.

[lurch]

..Obvious Syl, I have been looking at some of the same news sources as you. I am seeing more and more mention of this concept of " activist judges"..where it seems to be okay to be " activist" as long as they support your pre -packaged, approved by the GOP, and stamped kosher beliefs.

I suspect a warning shot has been fired across the Conservatives bow on the matter. We'll see if they got the message. Some haven't so far. The "bork" issue is all about,,with no aknowledgement that ' borking" was going on long before Bork came along. There has been a long tradition of sending up extremist to the Supreme court and the attatched long tradition of shooting them down is good to know about.

..This activist judges issue is a variant of the whole situation with this Admin and the neo-con num-nuttery its so enraptured with..Classic is the W's warm and embarcing words for one Vlad Putin..a former KGB head..and W saying ,,i looked into his eyes...The presented words and pictures of the Head Cheerleader are truelly " blonde moments". The reality can be only assembled after the fact..and as you have brought up..for some reason ( blonde?) its always quite different....MEL

[oconnellc]

I don't know about you, but the last thing in the world I want is the law codifying morality. Morality is up to me, thank you very much. I wouldn't want a 200+ year old document trying to tell me what's morally right. That's why we have our three branches of government. It's cliche, but it's true; the Constitution is a living document. It changes with the times. It was once Constitutional to own slaves, it was once Constitutional to outlaw beer. Thankfully, the country came to it's senses on both issues.

Actually, that is the exact reason we have laws. There are theories that morality comes from man and therefore we don't need religion. People who are religious think that morality comes from God. In any case, most people behave according to their own personal morality. Since there were too many of us to just let everyone behave how they want, society came up with its own version of morality and codified it and now we get fined $75 if we do something immoral like speeding.

I know I'm splitting hairs here, but society can't afford to just leave it up to you to decide for yourself if killing people is moral or not. Society has codified morality. I'm sure you don't want society codifying your morality for you, but I'd be willing to bet you are pretty happy that society codifies it for your neighbors. I am.

You are right, the Constitution is living and it changes. That is a pretty good thing. We can change it. But if it weren't codified in the first place, I wouldn't want me neigbor deciding if it were moral for him to take one of my computers because I have two and he doesn't have any.

[oconnellc]

I suspect a warning shot has been fired across the Conservatives bow on the matter. We'll see if they got the message. Some haven't so far. The "bork" issue is all about,,with no aknowledgement that ' borking" was going on long before Bork came along. There has been a long tradition of sending up extremist to the Supreme court and the attatched long tradition of shooting them down is good to know about.

I realize this is pretty far from any discussion of Thomas Covenant, but what rulings of Robert Bork's make you describe him as 'extremist'. You didn't say you thought that explicitly, but the context of your post makes it look that way. Sorry if I misinterpreted.

OC

[Avatar]

So, the 'Right' to have an abortion has basically been invented. Thats ok, people try to invent stuff all the time. They may not be wrong (notice, I haven't mentioned how I actually feel about this, before I get killed), but the ruling has essentially said that the Constitution implies that states do not have the power to regulate that particular human activity. I've read the Constitution several times and I never felt that way after reading it.

You'll see that this particular issue is a long-running one here. We sometimes leave it alone for a while, but on one level or another we usually get back to it. Actually, I was talking about the moral right more than anything. As you yourself pointed out, there is a de facto legal right anyway. And while I see your point in saying that actually, each state should be able to pass that law individually, to me it would be like saying that each state could repeal freedom of speech if it wanted.

The fundamental principle is the same. The right to self-expression, the right to self-determination.

I'm down with that! Our lives would be a lot simpler if they actually codified morality and justice. Problem is, there are lots of loonies out there who disagree with me about what is really moral and what is really just. In the meantime, I have to beat what is really moral and just into them.

Aah, the age old problem. But what gives any of us the right?

--Avatar

[Revan]

Only just read this topic for the first time...

it depends where really. i mean if children are abound, then maybe not. If it's a suitable place, and they don't flaunt the fact, then yeah, go for it.

[wayfriend]

I mean yes, we censor many things to keep harm from being done - to children.

Adults may be more resistant, but they can also be harmed. Consider the topic of sexual harrassment - it does more than annoy people, it can harm people. And sexual harrassment can be accomplished with nothing more than offering images and statements to the offended person. The person doing the harrassing has done something wrong and it should be illegal. This is another example of where "just turning away" is not the right answer. "Right time, right place" is better.

(BTW, my opinion of censorship doesn't mean that there are things that are never, ever allowed to be said/shown. (I don't think anyone has that opinion -- certainly not me.) Just that there is a right time and a right place, which might be very restricted or mildly restricted as the case may be. It's censorship because it is does make it unlawful to do say/show those things (in the wrong time and place).

I don't know about you, but the last thing in the world I want is the law codifying morality. Morality is up to me, thank you very much.

Well, we have to codify (and enforce) something. There are no "market forces" or any other forces which would have the world tend towards "a world where there is somewhere we can walk around, be in a community, and feel unthreatened " all on it's own.

[Plissken]

See, I understand what you're saying, but you're missing a step to make your point - it isn't the offending material alone that gives us our sexual-harrasment law. It's the material+setting+implied threat that makes it harrasment. People have lost cases by losing sight of this distinction, for trying to sue beer companies for putting up billboards with sexy girls on them. ("Twins!")

[safetyjedi]

see my latest post in news of the weird and wild

kevinswatch.ihugny.com/phpBB2/viewtopic ... 058#249058

[wayfriend]

See, I understand what you're saying, but you're missing a step to make your point - it isn't the offending material alone that gives us our sexual-harrasment law. It's the material+setting+implied threat that makes it harrasment.

That's not true, according to any of the several sexual harrassment definitions I have seen. The implied threat is that you have shown/spoken this material. Setting goes to "right time and right place", of course.

[duchess of malfi]

But there's a big difference between being confronted with sexual material at work, and going to a topless beach of your own choice.

If you go to a place where you know you might see topless people (male and/or female) than its your choice.

If someone exposes themselves to you at work (unless your job requires you to see nakedness, like a health profession or working in a strip club) then its not your choice.

It all comes back to intent of the naked person, and choice (or lack thereof) by the viewer and content/place of the nakedity.