And for good reason. Look back at how much "pride" many of these men who were drafted took in their service to country. Not much from the stories I have heard. That I think gives weight to how when people are "forced"to do something against their will that they do not take as much pride in it as if they volunteered on their own.

 

I wasn't aware that performing community service was risking your life, or that you would be expected to kill people. My bad.

 

I apologize if someone brought this up already, but if not it is possible that requiring community service could be a violation of the 13th amendment of the constitution.

Then again a military draft could be argued to fall into this as well.

 

nobody is requiring anyone to perform community serivce!

 

OK. If you don't find maternal instincts and survival to be actual laws, how about the laws concerning child abuse? If I neglect my children (not feed or cloth them) they can be taken from me and I could go to jail.

Apparently I was trying plug social values :eek2:

 

For starters I did read the original postings on the net where it said the plan was for it to be a requirement.

Secondly I never said it was or is going to be a requirement.

Finally I was only pointing out that IF they tried to make it one that it could be a constitutional violation.

 

There you go again trying to make everything an extreme to try to negate someone's post that is in disagreement with yours. What I was trying to point out (which I am sure you understood, just chose to ignore) is that there are many situations that can be used where people were "forced" to do something and their level of commitment was not desirable. :roll:

 

First off you have yet to produce an actual law that specifically states that you are "REQUIRED" to provide for anyone, a little hint, you will never find one. You made the comparison not me so I am sorry but I am not looking, so I will not find anything about this made up law called material/maternal instinct/law or what ever new name you want to give it. Again it is just a fancy name for "FEELING OBLIGATED"

As far as child abuse, you are painting with a pretty broad brush. If you feel you do not want to provide for your children then you can turn them over to DFS, Child Services, an orphanage, local authorities or such and give them some sob story that you can not provide for them. There will be no backlash, prison time, law suit of neglect or abuse. Now if you would be so inclined to not provide food and such for your child just because you didn't want to and you didn't pass the responsibilty on then I guess one of the services I posted above could press charges on you which would more then likely wind up in your children being taken away without to much in the form of puishment being brought up on you. Plenty of parents, mothers and fathers alike, have walked away from the responsibility of providing for their children, no punishment involved. In fact, some of them have gone on to have more children so apparently there is no law, in the books, enforced by any policing agency in the United States, that states that you, or anyone else is "required" to provide for them.

Plug away with social values but don't try saying social values in some way is the same as being "forced" by law to do something.

 

So let's see....you are trying to compare people being forced to risk their lives vs. being encouraged to perform community service.....

And you are claiming that I'm the one taking an "extreme" view?:roll:

 

What I was trying to infer was that it should by nature be done and that it is too bad that it has to be guided by Statute, such as the case with providing for your children.