"Legislating morality" OR legislating against the poor?

[ck4829]

(I'm passing this file around on the groups I'm a member of, what do you think?)

People often consider the religious qualities of "legislating morality", but do we
ever consider the socio-economic consequences of it and who it would affect more?

Take adultery for example. Some Conservatives want to make it illegal. Our culture
swoons over the latest affairs of celebrities and elites and the media talks about
it non-stop. Now, on the other hand, take poor people, they are ridiculed on shows
such as Jerry Springer and whatever else, not the best example of poor people out
there, but it is easy to see who adultery laws would affect more.

Abortion and contraceptives, that's easy. If abortion and/or contraceptives are
banned or restricted, a rich woman can easily fly or go to somewhere where they
are legal. Poor people may not have that option or the knowledge about
alternatives.

Basically, because of a rich person's increased social capital, they will not be
as negatively affected by "moral legislation" as a poor person will be.

What do you think. Does the Right Wing version of "legislating morality" open the
door to discrimination against the poor?

[LoZoccolo]

1. "but it is easy to see who adultery laws would affect more"

From Jerry Springer? Is that really a good sample?

[ananda]

2. many affluent just don't get it

Don't forget the vaccination against the HPV virus also.
When that order was squelched here in Texas, I actually
heard someone say that women really don't need that
virus because all they have to do is get a pap smear
every year and a cryo procedure if something's wrong.

Well.. yes. That's the case if you have money and
awareness. But a lot of women don't have money, and
many are not that aware.

The affluent are often callow and have a sense of privilege
and rightness that doesn't conform with reality.

Sue

[Warpy]

4. The affluent also don't realize that on the scale of things

THEY are poor and that the restrictive laws are aimed at controlling them, too.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

7. I got into an argument with some people about taxing junk food recently

They thought it was a great idea because it would force Those People (overweight, lower income, brown skinned, etc.) to adopt better eating habits. As if they were willfully resisting fruits and veggies in favor of fast food and just needed some benevolent guidance from their superiors.

They looked at me like I was from outer space when I pointed out that the reason many poor people don't eat healthily is because of factors beyond their control, such as not having well-stocked grocery stores in their neighborhoods or the transportation to get to them. And very often they don't have cooking appliances or supplies even if they are inclined to eat well. Not to mention that the cost of healthy food is not going to go down simply because you raise the cost of junk. More likely the opposite will happen.

"That can't be true. I don't believe you!" was essentially the response I got from my very lefty-progressive, but affluent friends.

[Warpy]

3. Of course their motives are pure

because if only those poor people would live right, they wouldn't be poor any more.

Right?

Most laws are meant for the poor. There was a brief period during the height of the New Deal when many laws started to restrict the divine right of the rich to prey on the poor, but most of those are going or gone.

[OHdem10]

5. I have a problem with the very idea of legislating morality.

Our Country is so large--there are so many regions within regions.
We have Urban City Life--We have Rural "country" life. Within this
we have "Ethnic Cultures". Include Financial differences--Wealthy
to very poor. Add to this the many manhy religous differences.

Legislating Morality in a one-size filts all is impossible in my
opinion.

[rudeboy666]

6. There is no feasible alternative.

We have always legislated 'morality'.

There are basic mores we hold to be universal.