Folks...here is an article in today's newspaper. can you imagine??? No more "no-fault" divorces?!?!?!

Fixing No-Fault Divorce

Isn't that the way it used to be? Our state is a fault state but they have the catch all "irreconcileable (sp?) differences" clause which pretty much addresses the "I love you but I am not in love with you anymore" reason and in my opinion gives those people with no reason an out.
Does anyone agree with this or am I way off base?

I am going to paste the article in here...that way if they move it, we wont lose it. Here it is:

Yes, that is the way it is now. So, any spouse can decide to leave, even if the other spouse wants to stay. This law would change that. The only way under this new law, that you could get divorced, is if 1. your spouse committed adultery, spousal abuse, etc (fault) and you wanted to divorce them; or 2. both spouses agree to divorce.

A wayward spouse would have no cause for divorce...and thus no way out, if the BS did not want to divorce.

I love it! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

I hope it passes, but it will be too late for me <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" />. My case comes up next week (unless we can agree on something before), and my attorney has convinced me that it will be less costly all around to go the "no-fault" route. Custody is already decided, property (mine) is the issue, and she says that fault (his) won't really make much of a difference. I've agreed, but I told her that I really don't believe in no-fault.

I don't want it to pass. Yes, I think it should be more difficult to get a divorce, but what this will lead to is more marriages that end up broken WITHOUT a divorce. Instead, married couples will just go their separate ways, stay married, and live separate lives because they can't get a divorce otherwise. Or, they just won't get married to begin with.

Example:

Wife decides she doesn't love her husband anymore. So, tells him she wants a divorce. She hasn't cheated on him, he hasn't cheated on her, there has been no abuse, the relationship just broke down for whatever reason.
Husband doesn't want her to leave and denies her the divorce. Therefore, there can be no divorce, as there is no consent.
Wife just leaves the husband anyway, and goes on with her life, married, but living by herself.

This law will have an opposite effect... Oh, it will reduce the divorce rate, that's a fact... but the only reason will be because it will also reduce the marriage rate. It will INCREASE the number of co-habitating couples, because they will be afraid of getting married due to how difficult it could be to get a divorce if it came to that.


That will be 27,000 MORE broken families that are being forced to stay together by draconian laws. 27,000 MORE potential domestic violence and abuse cases. 27,000 MORE potential cases of adultery which could have otherwise been avoided...

These people are the same short-sighted, close-minded people who limited marriage to a man-woman-only clause and probably also want to deny same-sex couples ANY sort of civil union protections.... they can't look forward far enough to see the consequences of their actions. They act only on what they think is morally JUST, without properly weighing in the facts.

I'm glad this bill isn't passing in Missouri...

Marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I will leave out the religious aspect of it for a minute. But, what contract do you know of where one party can decide to just up and leave? And the other party has no recourse?


All not true. Draconian? The only thing draconian is people who do not live up to their responsibilities and live up to their word. The last I checked...the marriage is "until death do us part." The abuse issue is always a red herring. As I said, abuse will allow the other spouse (the abused spouse) to divorce the abuser. It is one of the "fault" conditions.


Marriage is one-man-one-woman. That is the definition. Legally, there may be other ways of 'joining' people together. But it cant be by calling it a marriage. It would be like calling myself an automobile. Well, the last I checked, the definition of an automobile is not what I am. And neither is a same sex union a marriage. Some states have allowed same sex unions. Others do not. As a Virginian, I have no right to tell Massachusetts to not have these unions. It is up to the citizens of that state what they want. But the same goes the other way. People in Massachusetts should not expect Virginians to accept these unions if the people of Virginia dont want to recognize them. If a person is gay and wants to have such a union, move to Boston. But dont expect the same sort of rights in Richmond.


Of curse they do. What the people who want "no-fault" divorces want is to not look forward and see the consequences of their actions. The destruction fo their children. It is these people that are the problem.


Again, not so. Facts? Kids suffer tremendously from divorce. Mroe so than if the parents just stayed together and fought all of the time! Ideally, you dont want that. But it is better than divorce! And morally just? The state should not be about condoning or upholding immoral behavior. Which is why Virginia is a fault state. Abuse is immoral. Adultery is immoral. Abandonment is immoral. There is a moral code in Virginia. It is different from California or other states. They all are. And it is different from other nations. As I said, if someone wants to live a certain way, I am sure there is a state or country out there that will let them. But not in my Virginia!!


Give it time!

And I like the fact that that a spouse that leaves with no fault cannot remarry. They screwed up their responsibility the first time. Why would the state allow them another shot at it?? In order to screw up more lives??

Maybe in a fault state, if the BS decides to divorce the WS...then the WS should be banned (for a long period or for life) from being allowed to remarry in that state.

You see, I am all for people being held to their word. To live up to their obligations and their responsibilities. Divorce is killing this nation. It is destroying our children. The family is becoming a dinosaur.

If you make a promise, live up to it! Even if it turns out to be not what you expected. The spouse and the state should hold you to that promise.

Living up to your word is what is called character and honor.

Something many in this society are sorely lacking!

Marriage is unlike any other contract in many ways. You couldn't legally contract for many marital 'benefits' -- like sexual fulfillment. Marriage is a 'catch all' contract that simply describes a special type of relationship between two people. It would be interesting to see someone try to write a different type of contract that includes all the normal things in a marriage and see how enforceable all the clauses would be.


Marriage is <what> "till death do we part?" Just being legally married? Or, is it the love, honor, cherish that's "death do we part?" How do you enforce love, honor, or cherishing?

You can't.

I just don't see the point in tying someone into a relationship that they don't want to be in. *shrugs* Nothing about this change addresses making healthier marriages. All it really does it make it so people can't legally re-marry. As RogueX says, there's no law that compels someone to live with their spouse, meet their needs, love their spouse, go to marriage counseling, etc.

I think that most spouses wouldn't want to "hold" a spouse that demonstrably doesn't want to be married to them. (I'm not talking about while they're in a fog -- but if they TRULY had no desire to be with the spouse... would most people want to live that way? Maybe they would and I'm just different. ) If they did, I'm not sure those are the people we should help exercise that type of control over another human being.


I've seen literature (though I don't have it at hand right now) that suggests that kids are better off in divorced homes than homes that are constant battle fields.


Is it character if you're compelled to do it instead of doing it by choice? I wouldn't call that character. I think character is choosing something you know is right. If you're given no options and no choices then *shrugs* who needs character? Just do what you're allowed to do because only the right things are available.

Just my thoughts,

Mys

At first it looks great but I think Rogue has a lot of valid points.

I can also see this as a punishment tool for some.

Oh you cheated now you want to leave. I will never D you so you can never get remarried.

Oh you don't like the fact I go out with the boys/girls everynight after work and party while you stay home with the kids fine D me. Oh wait you can't unless I consent.

Sorry I turned into a big nasty drunk that can't/won't help support our family but hey you signed the contract.

Besides adultery there are plenty of valid reasons one spouse may want a D and the other doesn't.

Usually the selfish one that has it better wouldn't want a D.

As much as I hate no fault D I think they are probably best after the dust has cleared.

I would like to tweak it to say if adultery occured the spouse that had it would lose some marital assets.

They can screw up those lives by co-habiting just as easily.

This law might create unintended consequences of more "non-marriage" families. People without a marriage license can have children just as easily as wedded couples. Those children are in even worse situations if the relationship breaks up because the system isn't really designed to work in those situations.

I know that no solution fixes all things and this law is just intended to deal with a specific aspect of marraige. I just think that it's worth considering some of the unintended consequences that might spring up before enforcing any particular action.

Mys

myschae and frognomore do well in reinforcing some of the things I said. Personally, I don't want to see more divorces. I think that, instead of making it harder to get divorced, they should make it harder to get married. They should make marriage actually MEAN something. You should really, really have to WANT to be married to someone before you can do it.

There should be some sort of requirements for marriage. A test, observation, etc. Some sort of proof that the family unit will stay stable. Maybe, instead of all that, there just be a legal requirement to see a MC once per quarter just to check up on how things are and to help the couple deal with whatever problems may have crept up. If a pro-marriage MC is involved from the get-go, even when things are good, it won't be so hard to go to the MC when things really DO turn sour.


Kids suffer more from a bitter, argumentative household. My parents divorced when I was 13. While I didn't become a saint, but I didn't turn out an axe murderer, either. I'm a fairly decent person, so far as I can tell. And, like myschae said, there is a fair amount of scientific evidence that says that a safe and secure divorced home is better, psychologically, than a home where the parents stayed together and fought all the time. Violence begets violence, after all.


Yeah.. you see, this is a serious issue. Last I checked, we lived in a single, unified country. But with states being able to pass their own laws as they do, what we really live in is a bunch of little kingdoms that all answer to a larger king. We shouldn't call ourselves 'Americans.' We should call ourselves 'Virginians' or 'Missourians,' or whatnot. With how the Federal Law/State Law system works in this country, we CANNOT effectively call ourselves the 'United' States of America. How can we be United if something I can do in this state is considered invalid or even illegal in another state? Explain that?


Neither should the state be about defining morality, either. At least, not if that morality is borne from a religious background. Separation of church and state, anyone?

I do understand the unintended consequences. That's why this would have to be worked through.

First off, I have no problem if a BS tells a WS "you cheated and now I am not going to let you divorce." What's the problem there? The WS is completely wrong, and really should have no say in the solution. The BS can either choose to remain married or to divorce the WS. The choice should remain with the BS and the BS alone.

We are getting too wrapped around the axle here about these "consequences." The issue is that reputable studies show that divorce is destroying our kids. Marriage is a joke in this society now. The family is a dinosaur.

But if we look back into the past, when divorce was not so easy to get (before no-fault), all of these unintended circumstances running rampant didnt exist. Why would we think they would now? Sure, proportionally, there will be a small amount in any solution that will abuse the system. But overall, the majority would be helped by this.

I talk about character and honor. Yes...it is honorable and right and shows good character to stay in your marriage. even when your wife is cheating on you and trying to leave you for 4+ years (ooopppss...that's me!). No, it is not honorable to divorce and place that load on your children. No, it is not right for a husband and wife to say "hey, I'm tired of you. Let's end this." And then dump the mess on the kids.

Yes, it is honorable to stay in a marriage...even if loveless at the time...because of the kids and because of your word. A promise is a promise. Or at least it used to be!

In the military, we run on character and honor. And yes...even if we dont feel like it...even if we dont like what we are supposed to be doing...the honorable thing is to do our duty. And if we dont? Well, we go to jail (or can even be shot in a time of war).

Marriage is first and foremost NOT about being happy! It is a commitment. In today's society, it is a meaningless commitment because everyone is now buying into the "if it aint working, get out."

As I said, I havent even talked abotu religion here. Teh state has a vested interest in stopping this destructive behavior. I like the idea that if you divorce and dont have cause (or if you are the WS and your spouse divorces you), that the state will not issue another marriage license to you.

If a child care provider laid the kind of emotional destruction on the children they are licensed to watch, as parents lay on their children in divorce...those providers would lose their licenses and probably end up in jail.

But instead, we dont worry about the kids. We talk about "love, and feelings, etc" and how it isnt fair to those two people to live in a marriage that isnt making them happy. Well, boo-hoo!!! When I watch these kids...it makes me not really care about that at all!

Again, I think if we look back in the past before no-fault, we can see we didnt really have the problems described above. No-fault is a selfish act. it destroys marriages. It destroys families. And it emotionally handicaps children for their entire lives. And it stunts the people who are divorcing (anyone see that second marriages have an even greater rate of divorce???).

It is time to "slap" people in the face and say "grow up...it aint all about you!" Do your duty. Live up to your word and your responsibilities. Even if it hurts. No one promised you happiness! Sometimes, doing your duty sux.

But doing right always is honorable.

We also have reputable studies showing that violent families that stay together destroy our children as well.


No, they did exist. It was just taboo to talk about them or make them public, so everyone stayed silent about their 'personal business.' Affairs, abuse, etc... all of that still existed, but it was tolerated and just swept under the rug.


So, in your mind:

Wrong + Wrong = Right.

Because forcing another human being to do ANYTHING against their will, even if it is staying to their word, is wrong. We have dominion and control over ONLY ourselves and our own lives and our children's lives, until they become adults. We do not have the right to dictate how another person lives, no matter what the circumstance.

And, unlike what you may think, I do worry about the kids! I worry about my son, growing up in a home without a loving family! But I would MUCH rather him grow up in a peaceful environment with his mother and father apart and each individually happy than forced to stay together and constantly arguing. He would be MUCH worse off in the latter scenario.

Oh, I agree with making it harder. How to do that would be the issue!


I am sorry. But the most exhaustive studies show that this is not true!


You suffered because of the divorce. Yo uare not the person you could have and should have been because your parents selfishly split up your family.


Nope...we dont! As a politcal scientist (which I am!), we live a representative republic. Created by the people AND the states. The states are still sovereign (check the 10th Amendment!!). Only the laws SPECIFICALLY outlined in the Cosntitution can the Federal government do legally. You see, the Federal government was created to do the bidding of the people AND the bidding of the States. Not the other way around!


No. The states were the sovereign entities. They created the Federal government for SPECIFIC reasons. Outside of those reasons, the Federal government has no Consitutional right to get into those States business. If the Founders could see what we have done with what they created...they would have just kept the States apart. Because there was no way they ever wanted the Federal government involved in their business.


Yes. This is how we have always looked at ourselves until after the Civil War. This is the way this all was intended!! This is the system that we devised over 200 years ago. The problem is, no one knows that because 1. our Federal government has far exceeded its legal mandates; and 2. children are no longer taught the truth about the Constitution and what it means.


Easy. We are united on specific issues. We are united on the issues, as outlined in our Consitution. In every other sense, we are not united. We are unique. In Virginia, we have a way that we live that is unique to Virginians. Our accent is unique. Our values and customs are unique. While very similar to most other Americans...they are also different. And the same goes for the other states.

We have the death penalty in Virginia. We want it here. In other states, the people there do not want it. Is it right to force the death penalty on those people in those states? Is it right to force Virginians to give up the death penalty?

Is it right for the Federal government to force the States to do things that they dont want to do...when the Federal government has no Constitutional, legal right to do so?

Remember, the States created the Federal government...not the other way around!!


Separation of church and state is a prime example of the ignorance of this society!! The Founders NEVER intended religion to not be involved in the state. Remember, the Constitution was written to be a limit on the Federal government...not on the States or the people. It was written to outline and define what the Federal government could and could not do. One of those things was that the Federal government could not establish a state religion. It could not get involved in religion specifically.

But, that in no way limits the states or the people. The people have all the right in the world to get involved in religion. So do the states. The Constitution is a limit on the Federal government!

And remember, our Founders stated over and over again that our Republic and its Constitution and laws are based on the Judeo-Christian morals and norms. There is a basis for our laws.

Everyone says that the Constitution is the basis of our laws. Not true! The Constitution lies atop the Declaration of Independence. It was the Declaration that outlined who we were and why we had the legal right to separate from England and form a new country. At the basis of the Declaration is the one paragraph which this entire American experiment rides on. And that is:


You see, the Founders based this nation on the notion that our rights, our Consitution, our laws, are based on the self-evident truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights... This nation was formed and our Constitution, Bill of Rights and laws all are based on the notion that you have rights given to you by God that no one can take away.

So, the state is involved in issues of morality. That's why a 39 year old man cannot marry and have sex with a 9 year old boy. Why? Because of morality. Could our society change that morality? Could one day we decide a a nation that men having sex with young boys is "moral?" Sure. Except for the fact that our laws are rooted in the religion...rooted in the Bible.

Take God out? Then we have no unalienable rights. Then we are free to do whatever we like. Then we are free to define morality anyway we like. Then we are free to change our laws and allow even the most disgusting of behaviors.

I understand what you are saying here. But when it comes to this Republic, to what this nation is and was intended to be...the people today have been duped. And unfortunately, should we continue down this path...we will eventually lose this gift that the Founders gave us and end up with a tyranny far worse than any dictator or king. We do not have, nor want a democracy. We have a Republic.

Nope.


So, the bank forcing me to pay back the personal loan I took from them would be wrong, because they would be forcing me to live up to my word and forcing another human being to do anything against their will is wrong?


We have a right to insist that others live up to their word.


We have a right to hold a person to their word.


I do not agree. And the recent studies show that isnt the case. Divorce undermines them, undermines their security. Destroys their family. Gives them examples of how NOT to live their life, but little example of how TO live their life.

Children of divorces are more likely to suffer emotional issues, more likely to divorce themselves, more likely to get in trouble. These are facts.

Most people will choose to divorce, if their spouse is just not going to come back. My issue is that for the majority, it is just too easy to divorce! It shouldnt be easy. It should be very, very hard! Difficult. If a person does not want to live up to their word, then they should find it very hard and very painful and very difficult to not live up to their word and responsibilities.

Just as the bank would make it very hard, painful and difficult on me if I dont live up to my word.

I worry about unintended consequences because I see many 'good ideas' that have benefited our society have unintended consequences.

Examples:

- equality and greater access to the work place has made infidelity much more practical (and widespread) for women. Greater access to the workplace and the "drive" towards 2 income families (many families can't make ends meet anymore on one income) has created generations of children who are 'raising' themselves.

- the internet has made meeting people easier, affairs easier, and it's made things MUCH easier for pedophiles tolling for underage children to abuse.

- no fault divorces have made marriage more disposable

- paternity testing has made it easier for women to hold men responsible for their children -- and possibly reduced incentive for women to be more careful.




The family is definitely becoming harder and harder to maintain. I think it's more than "just" divorce that's the culprit. Divorce is usually just another bad option among an array of bad options. Somewhere along the line, in our quest to "improve" society, we've managed to make what used to be a functional, convienent way of living -- dysfunctional and inconvienent. There are so many things wrong with the environment of our society that is making it toxic for relationships that I don't even think you can blame it on simple things like people lacking committment. There's so much going on.

I guess I'm an optimist. I think most people are well-intentioned but ill equipped to cope with whatever is going on in our society. Maybe what needs to happen is that marriage needs to evolve into something that fits better in our society. I don't know what that would look like to be functional but the things I've listed above aren't going to go away. Marriage as an institution is going to have to find some way to fit into the pressures of modern life or less and less people are going to choose it (as we've seen happen).

The answer is not to force people to choose it, anyway.


If we look into the past -- even the recent past -- society wasn't the way it is today. I'm a returning student finishing up my degree. I took about 10 years off. The difference between class today and class when I went before is amazing. When I first went to college, people still used pay phones if they had to make calls between classes. There was a time when I would go for HOURS and be totally UNREACHABLE. And, somehow, everyone survived. These days, it's almost impossible to find anyone who isn't connected in some way almost continuously. You hear phones going off all the time! In class -- during tests... at movie theaters.. in restaurants...

Cell phones aren't going to go away. They are annoying -- especially to those of us who remember much quieter days. But, the world has CHANGED around us. Connectivity is assumed.

The internet - with all it's joys and problems -- isn't going away. I remember when the internet was just the net and you used gopher and archie in a text environnent. I remember how exciting it was when Spry mosaic made the "Web" graphical by being the first browser in wide release that understood http.

Women in the work place aren't going away.


I define character as making choices. Doing something because you have to do it and you simply have no other options is just choosing the default in my opinion. It's like saying that it's phenomenal not to levitate. Isn't it amazing that my feet never leave the ground for long?


I'm not just talking about that, Mortarman. I don't see the point in trying to make someone stay who doesn't want to because there is no realistic way to eliminate the option that they just leave.

I'm talking about the very practical side that says it's really, really difficult to compel anyone (even a child) to do something they really don't want to do. You have to be willing to really increase the consequences. I don't think our society has the stomach to raise consequences 'enough' to really make a difference (and I'm not sure it should).

I AM worried about the kids. Believe it or not, I'm worried about the fate of marriage. I think that marriage is becoming an unattractive option for people. I'm not sure this won't make it even less attractive. Society has a vested interest in figuring out a solution to the problem. I'm not saying this shouldn't pass -- I just wish people would look a lot harder at the unintended consequences of what might happen and have some sort of a plan for how to 1.) figure out if things are going awry and 2.) figure out a plan to manage the issues as they arise rather than waiting until they've just become a bigger mess.

It's too easy to tout something as a solution and then point at the numbers and say "See! All better" while convienently ignoring the rest of the destruction that was wreaked. When ddt came out everyone wanted to believe it was the 'answer' to the pest problem. No one wanted to admit that it was making the shells of eagles so thin that the species was declining.

We've (our society) done that type of 'head in the sand- here's an easy, cheap, convienent fix' way too much. And look where it gets us every time. I just wish we'd stop doing that. And, I wish people would be a lot more skeptical about "solutions" that seem too easy to hard problems.



Again, if you look back 10 years people managed to exist without being in constant communication. And, yet, today that seems to be a huge problem. If you look back 70 years, people managed to live on one income and dedicate one person full-time to raising the children. If you look back 90 years, people used to live without 100 channels on tv and a dvr or 2 cars. If you look back 7 years, a whole lot of people used to live without the world wide web.

The past is different, Mortarman. Society has changed. There might not be more pressure but it's in different spots. We need to live in today and address problems for tomorrow because the one thing we do know is that tomorrow will be different from today just like today is different than yesterday.


Then why even allow divorce at all? Why not just slap the BS in the face and say "Sorry you're hurt but do your friggin duty, why don't you?" Sometimes, doing your duty sux.


Our states recognize reciprocity with respect to certain things like marriage and driver's licenses. If there were no reciprocity, then if you married in Va then went to Wisconsin, you'd have to get remarried -- oh, and you wouldn't be able to drive legally, either.



Mys

this right here is the meat of the issue

Pep

MM... I think this might be a first for me...I need to disagree with a small thing you have stated...

"Again, not so. Facts? Kids suffer tremendously from divorce. Mroe so than if the parents just stayed together and fought all of the time!"

I believe this to be false. There is no credible study that shows this. I will go by the saying that children would rather be from a broken home than to live in one. I speak from personal experience (my own and my sons) and from much reading on my part. It would benefit a child to get out of a situation where his parents "fought all the time."

A couple of studies to look at:

http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/530961.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2536077.html

I agree that it should be harder to get a divorce... but I think this concept goes too far because it would allow for an emotionally abusive person to maintain a hold on someones life. There are just too many variables to make this work as written.

I hope you are well MM.

MM... the problem with comparing this to other types of contracts is that there are provisions in contracts that allow for it to be broken should the parties not live up to the terms of the agreement. The way this is written, it would require everyone to get a lawyer and to spell out exactly what is acceptable and not acceptable to them in a marriage. That way if one spouse removes intimacy from the other...a person is not obligated to a sexless life because some organization said they cannot divorce.
Another important concept is that when you compare this to other agreements is a basic premise in law... tow parties can agree to anything in contract so long as it is not illegal. Well, anyone that is getting married KNOWS that divorce is an option. Everyone that gets married... no matter what the vows are (because the vows are not the contract, the marriage license/certificate is)KNOWS that divorce is available to them. Hence the agreement that they entered into is not one that is unbreakable in the eyes f the law or by the terms of the contract. If we lived in a society where divorce was not permissable... then those would be the terms of the contract. But as it stands right now... there is NOTHING in the mariage contract that makes it unbreakable.

Actually there are quite a few things to come to mind... the most high profile would be NFL contracts. The teams have the right to terminate a contract each season.... this is exactly the opposite of baseball where no matter the performance players get paid.

As much as I hate the whole idea of divorce... I do not think for a minute that making divorce more difficult is really the answer. Bottom line is... if someone doesn't want to be with me... then I don't want them around. I have a finite amount of time on this planet and want to be able to enjoy what life has to offer. If the person that I call wife really and truly wants out...I sincerely don't want her being forced to stay because of the "law of contracts." It just makes no sense to me.

I think "they" should make it more diifcult to get married in the first place.

Absofrigginloutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We should teach our children marriage skills in school.... in the homes... and there should be mandatory classes (not just those associated with religion) which give people skills to help them in marriage. We make people study for a test to drive a car... but not to get married and have kids!!!
I could not agree more.

Marriage Building and PORH classes would do a lot more for the divorce rate.

I am trying to figure out who decides what adultery is......do they have to PROVE intercourse...or do other forms of infidelity count?

My personal opionion is that no-fault should be allowed until the marriage has children (or a pregnancy.) With children in the mix, removing no-fault seems fine to me. Society has a strong interest in providing children a stable environment.

The problem with the 'marriage as a contract' view is that it's not at all a contract. I deal in contracts every day. Contracts are specific with respect to duties, deliverables and measurements. Let me suggest that "love honor and cherish." is neither specific nor measurable.

Now if instead we promised to "have sex a minimum of 3 times a week when phyisically well with no less than 120 times a year regardless of physical state; wherein each encouter must include at least 20 minutes of foreplay, defined in Schedule A. Further each party will provide at least 10 displays of affection comprising one of the acts specificed in Schedule B." We might be on the right road.

But as it is, many people get the hots for each other; they marry and 3 years later they start figuring out the long term plan when their lust starts to fade. Sometimes it works for them, sometimes not.

The real problem is how easy it is to get married fast, not how easy it is to get divorced. I don't think anyone takes divorce lightly. (For context, I was the BS and was "irreconcilable differenced" by WW.)

But that's just the old cliched argument for no-fault divorce.

If you've read here for a while, you know that most cheaters DON'T want out of the marriage. They are trying to have both a marriage and a single life, but they cause so much torment to the BS with this that divorce becomes virtually inevitable. And their decision to live like this is tacitly approved by society-in-general which says, "Just do what makes you happy", and by the laws, which provide *no* recourse to the BS for the emotional *ss-raping they receive at the hands of the WS.

I don't think forced marriage is the answer.

But I do think there should be serious legal consequences for the WS who grossly abuses their marriage this way: Loss of child custodoy, loss of marital assets, payment of punitive damages to the betrayed spouse for a good long time, etc.

Knowledge that this is out there waiting *might* make a few WS think twice before they are so lost in fog that they no longer care. And they might not look so good to OP if it's well known that all the money, toys and goodies are going straight to the BS if the marriage is destroyed by infidelity.

And at least the BS could feel that *some* measure of justice has been done, and that the WS hasn't gotten away with murder scott-free while society pats them on the back and says, "Aw, that's okay - your personal happiness counts much more than honesty, committment and your own children."
Mulan

Agreed! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


I disagree. I believe our society is "evolving" into something that cannot be maintained. We need to look at our society and stop much of what is taking place, before we lose our moral compass and end up with a nation in full crisis. Too often, people want to rules changed to fit their lifestyle. I say change the lifestyle, to fit the rules!


The family is already the functional thing to do. We jsut want to do it differently. When I use a screw driver as a hammer, it doesnt work as it is intended. And doesnt work as well on a nail, as using a hammer.


Modern life is going to have to find a way to "evolve" into something more healthy. The family is healthy for all involved.


Didnt say that. You can choose NOT to marry. You see, I could choose not to join the military. But once I did, I couldnt choose to just up and leave one day because I wanted to do something different. I had given my word and oath. And I was going to live up to it. even if the US military forced me to do so! Or jailed me.


I understand the "change" of time. So did the Founders. It is this false notion of "change" that gives people this false notion of a "living" Constitution. We do not have a living Constitution! People say we need a Cosntitution that will conform to the times. Well, the Founders gave a way to do that...thru the amendment process. But they made it very hard to do so. Why? Because they were students of history. They understood that while there were changes throughout history in the way mankind lived...the base issues of mankind have all remained the same. They understood what was needed to govern people, to allow them to pursue happiness. And those things never change.

Sure, the family isnt out on the family farm anymore working from dust until dawn. Sure we have all of those things. But at the basis of it all, the family is still the family. A dad...a mom...and kids. The family isnt obsolete. Instead, society is ignoring what works in any generation...for choosing its own way instead. And all society continues to do is make a mess!


Character is making RIGHT choices when no one is looking. Sure, you can choose not to do what is right. But society has a right to bring consequences for those wrong, dishonorable choices! Like I said, the Army could make me live up to my word. Or, if I still persisted, it could throw me in jail for not living up to my word. For not having honor and living up to my responsibilities and my promise.


I fought my wife tooth and nail for 4 years. And we are no back together. There are reasons NOT to let the other spouse go. But as I said, the aggrieved person should be the one to decide if, when and how the marriage should end. Not the wayward. now, as this law talks to...if BOTH choose to end it, then they can. But as far as I am concerned, the person that broke their word has no right in making the decisions on the marriage or how it will end. They forfeited that when they left! Just as I believe they also forfeited everything else that belongs to the family (house, money, kids, etc). The family is a unit. You choose to leave, then leave. But the family remains...all of it and all parts of it and its belongings.


As I said, it aint that difficult. We do it everyday in the Army!


Which is why I said that this society is breaking!


I believe you do!


Unattractive because society has made it so easy to throw it away. So, you marry someone not knowing if they are just gonna up and divorce you 6 months later. The door is always open...even a crack. When we marry, there should be a walling up of the door.


If people dont want to uphold their word and uphold marriage and the family, then they shouldnt be married. Why should they be allowed to be in an institution they hold in such little regard??


Agreed. And as I said, I hope they do address these consequences in the law.


Agreed.


Agreed.


And the same. Human nature is the same. The basic parts of humanity, what drives us...is the same. All the rest is just "tools." Instead of horse...we have cars. Instead of paper, we have email. Just tools.


To ignore human nature and to ignore the past, dooms us to repeating past mistakes. There are constants...even in change!


This question was raised in a Bible study once. Why does God in the Bible allow for the exception of adultery? Why not say "no divorces?" Good question. As I said, our laws are based on the Bible...like it or not. That exception was granted in the Bible. Thus, I am for granting it in society. but on a secular approach, let just say this. When a person commits adultery, they break the contract. The contract was "one man, one woman, for a lifetime." Since the contract has been broken by the WS, the BS is allowed to decide what to do about the broken contract.

liek my bank analogy. If I dont pay my installments, I break the contract. Now, the bank has in its right to cancel any future payments and make me pay the balance now. Or, it can choose to decide to "rehabilitate" the loan (contract) through a different payment plan.

The main thing to take away from my analogy is that the aggrieved party (the bank) got to decide the solution. Not me. It decided, and then gave to me what it decided. That is the nature of contracts.


While somewhat true, the Commonwealth of Virginia also has in its laws that it does not recognize gay "marriages." So, Massachusetts marries two men, they move to Virginia and expect their "marriage" to be recognized in Virginia. But it is not. Reciprocity has limits.

Thanks Pep...it really is the meat of the issue!

Mebe,



Very interesting suggestion. However I think that as an unintended consequence of that provision would be a skyrocketing abortion rate.

MEDC,

I hope all is well with you also.

I have seen those studies. But, as soon as I get a chance, will also show the studies that show the damage of divorce. I will try to get it up here tonight, if I can.

This bill can't pass fast enough IMO. Forget about the part about having children. I wish my WW would have no recourse but to stay in the M. That way we could move past whether she is staying or going and get to working on the M again. Bring it on MO!

I'm all for taking that away also! The Supreme Court had no right to decide that issue anyway. They even admitted that they didnt find what they decided in the Constitution (they wanted to believe we have a living Constitution and that because of modern society, we needed this change). If anything, the Supreme Court could only decide on protecting life, if they wanted to. But they had no jurisdiction in making the Roe v. Wade decision. At least not Constitutionally. We have many unConstitutional laws and court decisions.

One day, maybe we will decide to force or lawmakers and justices to live up to the Constitution. And if we want to make a change...then do it Constitutionally!!

Quote:

Why not just slap the BS in the face and say "Sorry you're hurt but do your friggin duty, why don't you?" Sometimes, doing your duty sux.


Interestingly enough most BSs [myself included] had to self administer this precise slap while the rest of the world was calling them a fool.

Agreed, Mulan!!


I dont either. I believe that you should be able to choose if you want to get married or not. But once married, I believe you should be held to your word!


Yeah! I agree!


Agreed. Also, if the BS decides not to allow the divorce...but the WS continues to leave and/or commit adultery, maybe we handle it like the military. The BS can take the WS before the court. The court will tell them to cease their illegal and immoral behavior. Then, if they continue...they can be arrested for breaking a court order!


Right there with you, Mulan!

It's a good point. Perhaps one way to prevent this would be to make abortion something that removes eligibility for no-fault divorce.

Edited: user error.

Does anybody know how the law defines adultery...is it only intercourse?

Couldnt have said it better myself, Noodle!

I agree 100%. But it cannot be limited to WS... it should be ANYONE who grossly abuses the marriage.

*shrugs* The 'rules' aren't doing much good if they are so easy to discard or disregard.

Relying on such 'rules' hasn't worked very well lately. It might have worked in the past, but for whatever reason (too many options available, maybe?) it's not working very well currently.

Full crisis or not, we've got a mess on our hands. I know you and I probably disagree on how to go about 'fixing' the mess, but I do think we at least agree that there's a mess. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


I don't agree. I still think the majority of people want families to function the way they used to function. There are lots of books out there about how men feel displaced as primary breadwinners and how women feel they are doing double duty (home duties and work duties). There used to be a much more sharply defined division of labor and, frankly, I think there used to be more of a 'work ethic' involved in marriage. My grandmother has told me that marriage is 'work' - you work at it and you don't always get what you want. In her day, that's what you did.

The roles have changed -- and the old paradigms don't really work anymore. People no longer fit into the traditional package. Women work and need more help around the house. People are tired because they're pulling double duty (work and child rearing) and the division of labor has been smudged. People resent doing too much and not getting enough out of it. I'm not sure whether people really are working harder or if it just seems that way. Meanwhile, people's tolerance for 'more work' has gone down.


Well, yes, that would be nice.


Right. And, what do we do with all those people and their children? Ignore them?


We've all ready discussed jailing people for adultery. You can increase the consequences enough to compell people to do things but then you have to deal with managing that. Our society is running out of resources to manage that type of problem.


You and I seem to be talking about different types of change.

Oddly, I'm taking the more conservative stance and advocating to delay change or not change (the law to eliminate no-fault divorces) until more thought is given to what that change will bring. Even though the change is a 'change back' that doesn't put me on the bandwagon that it's going to fix anything. There were problems in the system that provided impetus to change the law in the first place. Those problems -- plus new ones -- might manifest if we decide to rewind the law. There is no clean "UNDO" button that we can click and restore things to the way things were. Problem solving would be a whole lot easier if there was.


The key is the word choice. Eliminating options/choices does nothing to build character.


I'm so happy for you -- truly. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


Forfeiting things is a different set of consequences than not allowing the person to be divorced in the first place.


How are marriages fairing in the army? Not that good last I checked.


Too simplistic, MM. Where/how are we going to find the resources to enforce all those consequences? It takes energy, time, organization, and resources. Arguably, it might be worth the expense. At some point we have to pick our priorities. Maybe we should make this a priority over say... the costly drug war.

Who knows... investing the resources from the drug war into families might cause a significant decrease in that problem anyway. I'm open minded about it. Convincing other people of that would be a trick, though.


Unattractive because what used to work so well for people has become emotionally confusing. It's not just the disposable nature -- it's that people have a hard time figuring out how to relate to each other.


*shrugs* I could actually live with this --- but it simply fails to acknowledge the problem of non-wedded couples and their children.


If what drives us is the same, then why are we always talking about how the problem with society is that people are too self centered? Either they always were or something's changed.


True. I didn't mean ignore the past. But, let's move on from the past. We can't recreate any moment that's gone by or any era. We have to move into the future and build something different. We don't have to disregard everything and move on (we shouldn't) but somehow we have to see things from the perspective of what IS not what WAS or what we wish it SHOULD be.


I believe/learned differently. Let's agree to disagree about this.


Then, we're defining the only way to break the contract is through infidelity or abuse? What about neglect? What about the rest of the vows? What's the recourse for that?


Right. And, for a while, it was a big mess because they had to pass a separate law to specifically not allow reciprocity in those cases.

Mys

Noodle


I know, noodle, and I commend each and every one for making that difficult decision.

Do you think there's a difference between deciding that for yourself and having someone else tell you that you have to do it?

Mys

I've seen them. Bottom line... we can come up studies out the wazoo for each side of this. I can tell you from my own experience that I believe that children would be better off coming from a divorce home than living in a battle zone. Again, I know there are studies that would support both sides of this... so to me, they are all meaningless.
(One study i will attempt to come up with that I read a while back was done by a very reputable organization dedicated to children... American Academy Of Pediatrics... found basically the same thing as the other studies I noted. This sourse is much more difficult for me to dismiss. Plus my IC who also does child therapy (and by the way he is very pro marriage) also feels that children are better off if the parenst divorce rather than live in conflict).

I don't know -- but I would think it is 'limited' to intercourse or some sort of physical act. I don't think emotional affairs would be included.

Mys

I would define it as

Voluntary sexual relations between a married person and any person not their spouse. I would agree that it would have to include a physical act, but not necessarily intercourse.

Do I think it's different?

The fact is that affairs and divorces resulting from them bring about consequences...that much is inescapable.

We are all confronted with difficult choices and an unattractive array of options. Nobody likes it or feels good about it.

I think that putting laws in place to protect the BS and the children from the WSs actions and choices places the bulk of those consequences onto the shoulders of the person actually making those decisions and choices.

Unfortunately absent those laws [being enforced] the WS is able to shirk responsibility for making their choices and allowing their former spouses and their abandoned children clean up their mess while they chase a fantasy of riding unicorns into the ethereal mists with their affair partner.

Mys,

Thanks for engaging in the conversation here!! I mean that.


No. The reason the rules arent working is because we wont enforce them! Michigan has in its laws that if you commit adultery, you have committed a sexual felony and can be imprisoned for life. Why do we have a law on the books we dont enforce. Now, I might not agree that someone goes to jail for life...but I also wouldnt argu with Michiganers deciding that is the way they want it in Michigan.

But the main point is we need to enforce the rules!!


Absolutely!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />


And she would be correct...even today!! Smart lady!


Which is why there has been a push by women to go home. Many women are changing the tide of going into the workplace, and instead returning to the home. Because they realize that they couldnt do everything. And they have begun to realize that the job isnt as important as their family or home or kids.


No. We need to make out of wedlock relationships and having kids something shameful again. We shouldnt make it "normal." We shouldnt be about reqarding immoral behavior and/or irresponsible behavior. How we do that...is open to debate.


We are running out of resources caring for two household families, divorces, child support, backed up divorce courts, etc. Again, we didnt have to expend all those reseources 50 years ago!!


All true. But the change was originally made because we were selfish and wanted a free way out of our marriages. A no-fault way of ending the marriages. We wanted to be absolved of the rules so we could do whatever we wanted.


I have a choice to rob a bank or not rob a bank today. I have that choice. No one can take that choice away from me. But, society CAN impose consequences for making the wrong choice!!


Thank yoU!! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />


As I said, the law should uphold the promise...the word...the contract...between the individuals. Unless both parties decide to end the contract.


horrible. But not germane to the point I was making. The marriages and spouses arent under the control of the Army. The soldier is. We CAN make them do their duty. Or we CAN jail them for not doing so.


It isnt that hard! A spouse goes to court and say they want a divorce. The other spouse says "no." Judge then says "no divorce. As a matter of fact, it would never reach court because the lawyers wouldnt even go that far without an agreement.


Nah. Keep the drug war. I was involved in it for awhile. Good people doing great work! Let's get rid of the U.S. Department of Education!! It is unconstitutional anyway (education is a state function). Plus unneeded. A waste of money!


Which is another reason NOT to let them just run away! Make them work on it before scrapping it.


As I said, unwed couples and having children out of wedlock should be dealt with as "not normal." As something "not to do."


It's always been the same! look throughout history. Look in the Bible. Shoot, the original sin was all about being self-centered and doing it our way...and not following the rules.


I believe/learned differently. Let's agree to disagree about this.[/quote]

I know. And that is fine! I just wanted to add that what we all learn today is not what the Founders said on this subject, or meant. In depth readings into what they wrote and what they did, shows that our view today is totally wrong about what they had intended! Many site Jefferson as one who was adamnet about the separation of church and state. they use one passage he wrote (out of context) and ignore the other tons of writings that said the opposite of what we are saying he meant. All I am saying is read what they said. Read ALL of what they said. They were not unclear about this.


Virginia doesnt define "cause" as just infidelity. Abuse, abandonment are jsut a few of the list.


Exactly. But the point was that Virginia had every right not to recognize laws that Massachusetts enacted!

MM,
I can truly see why your wife had issues with your marriage.
Rules and regulations. Rules and regulations. Atten-hut!
Do those dishes. Clean the floors.

Follow those regulations. Say what you mean, mean what you say...

On and on and on....


You just don't get it. You really don't...

Right. No argument there.



True again.


I'm not opposed to finding solutions -- I'm just not sure this is the best solution there is to be found. And, like I've said before, I wish people were more skeptical in general about "solutions." I'm not saying "NO! Don't do it!" I'm just saying, let's talk/think about it and make sure it's the best course. If it can't stand up to a little discussion and a few hard questions, then maybe it isn't such a good solution, after all.

Consider this:

How often do you hear: "Why don't people get a divorce before cheating on their spouse? Why not just leave instead of dragging your spouse through the horror of infidelity?"

Now, the 'solution' is to eliminate the possibility of someone leaving?

As I said... I just don't see the point in tying someone to a relationship they don't want to be in. Nothing compels that person to behave honorably or even nicely about it. Mortorman seems to be saying the <not sure what the word is> honorableness(?) of forcing people to keep their word is the point.

That argument doesn't really resonate very strongly with me because I feel that a person who is 'forced' to behave honorably hasn't earned honorable status. I can't explain it any better than that, I'm afraid.

Mys

Rules and regulations and being accountable for your choices.....AND clean floors?

Sounds like a little slice of heaven.

MM you can come run our house anytime.

They haven't earned it Mys...

I think it really breaks down to a belief about how character is created and grown.

I believe that people grow when they are uncomfortable.

Holding someone to their contracts is NOT a far out idea. I guarantee you that if you told a bank you decided you just didn't want to pay back the money you owe them anymore they would tell you "no" too.

There is nothing wrong with forcing people to keep their word. Personally I care very little whether that inspires them to change or not...I care greatly that it offers some protection for the person [people] who are about to be defrauded.

If they are able to make those chages of character they will likely be happier, more satisfied, stronger people in the long run...but that is their choice, if they choose not too bad for them.

I am a pretty patriotic person and believe the courts go beyong their intended purpose when making laws.

MM... but do you realize that you are relying on a document written by a group of men that raped (because there cannot be consenual sex int he arrangement of slavery) and owned slaves. These were truly not men of God and even if they repented and changed their ways later on in life... their words need to not be considered with such reverence.

As far as leaving things to the states... I am all for this except when the laws are overtly unjust... life in prison for adultery is ridiculous. The law exists as do many in this country only because they were once on the books and have never been removed. But you can rest assured that the first idiot that tries to prosecute under that statute would be vilified... and rightfully so.

Im one Southern State it is illegal to have sexual relations with your wife in any bed but your marital bed. Still on the books... that would make for a crazy boring vacation.

I will also tell you that although I get your point that children out of wedlock should not be the norm... it is not shameful. Not everyone believes that sex is wrong or shameful outside of marriage and to have society shame these people would result in many more abortions and a whole lot fewer adoptions.

Take for example my case... I was NOT affiliated with any church and living what I would now consider a sinful life. My sons mom got pregnant and if I had not put up a fight she would have aborted him. Am I ashamed that I am now a single parent... not on your life. But I would live with incredible shame and guilt had I let my child be murdered. Your brush strokes are much too braod and even though you say you are keeping religion out of this... it iws coming through loud and clear.

But the terms of the marriage "contract" allow for divorce.
Should a person be fined for infidelity...yes. Should the custody decisions take into account the infidelity...yes. Should the division of assets be weighted to the BS... Yes.

Should a BS have the only say about a divorce... should they have the ability to hang on to something that the WS does not desire... NO. That would be tanamount to a life sentence for the WS AND the BS. There are good reasons for divorce and neither party should have the ability to take away that choice for the other.

And so what would you do if your wife just said 'screw you' and moved out? You'd be stuck with a marriage to a woman that didn't want it and couldn't be forced to live with you. You'd still lose. Next, you're going to say it would be great if you could imprison the WS in your home so that they can't leave and are forced to work on the marriage. You're going to want to take all of their rights away, like they were a convicted felon.

Take a tiger, raise it from birth to be your best friend. Stick it, hungry and injured, in a cage. Now, go in the cage with the tiger and expect it to purr like a kitten and be perfectly placated because you're its best friend. I dare you.

A WS will react NEGATIVELY if forced to stay in a marriage. If and when you force anyone to do anything that they are not willing to do, they will more than likely react in an opposite manner.

FORGET about this bill in MO.

I'm with Mysch' on this. I can't believe that any of you would want your spouse to stay if they really wanted to go. Or are you thinking that if there was no "out", they would never get to the point where they considered it and therefore would remain in that blissful state of satisfaction?

If there were no way out, would we find a way to be happy together forever, having nothing else to consider? Is that it?

Mortarman - We already have a nation in full crisis that has already lost its moral compass.

It has been fostered, successfully, by the "separation of church and state" crowd, even though no such thing exists in the Constitution.

For what it's worth consider these things:

1. Lack of, and often denial of, Personal Responsibility,

2. The word "No" has been replaced by "political correctness," aka the "finger in the wind" determination of morals and ethics,

3. "Relativism" in all its many aspects IS the "compass" taught and used. Clearly defined "right and wrong" no longer exist for the majority,

4. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is a laboratory experiment proven out in the 200+ year experiment known as the United States of America,

5. Marriage was created, instituted, and defined by God. Where God is no longer permitted (despite the Constitutional guarantee that no law shall be passed that would abridge the "free exercise of religion" on the basis that someone might be "offended" (read political correctness and spineless), the STANDARD for what is a "marriage" is decided by committee and subject to change anytime they so desire or new members with "differing" ideas gain membership in the committee. There are NO absolutes and personal DESIRE (wants) becomes the sole determinant of "right and wrong" for each individual. Society thinks it can impose its will on the people, but only so long as the committee in charge can threaten someone with the loss of their liberty for choosing to "dare" to believe something else,

6. "Vanity, vanity, all is vanity." True then. True today.


Nice to see you posting again. How goes things with your ex-Wife?

Do you know many BSs who want to be married to someone who doesn't want to be married to them for the rest of their lives?

Something like this requires BOTH signers to consent to the dissolution of the contract when an unfaithfull partner wants to divorce.

So basically...you can't leave your spouse for your lover unless they consent.

We all know about affair dynamics...we all know that just simply being told "no" generally IS cause enough for the majority to come to their senses.


We could put the concept that your BS not only exists but has rights as well and have little booklets available at a fourth grade reading level with helpfull illustrations...

"A clue for emo".

Possibly.

Do you think you could ever let someone out of that contract, knowing they were dying inside, and care enough about them to want them to leave if they must?

Or does a marriage contract make all of the above mute?...because of the contract you entered into? And is that the most loving thing to do?

I believe in marriage being forever, please don't get me wrong. This is a very interesting discussion.

TheRogueX - consider this directive BEFORE choosing a mate:

"Do not be unevenly yoked." Ignore at your own peril.

Do we live by "instinct," or by every word that proceeds out the mouth of God?

We are talking about limits on a WS...not unavailability of divorce ever for anyone.

Nearly all WSs think they are dying inside.

I have no problem holding people to their word whether they like it or not until or unless I consider it necessary to MY health and wellbeing to forgive the breach.

you promise?

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

Only after carefull consideration <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Speaking of children...

If we went a generation or two without any divorces...

Can you imagine a world where families were intact, and had been intact for generations? How different country would be?

I hate to say it, MM, but your age and faith are betraying you. Your bias is obvious. You would much rather we become a theocratic Christian society where there were strict moral rules based purely on the Bible and where anyone who violated those rules were severely punished.

...

Sorry, but when that happens, it's time to start the revolution.

You do make a few good points, though, but I want to point something out... Only once in the Declaration of Independence is the term 'God' used. It is used in concert with the word 'Nature' and placed alongside the 'Laws of Nature.' Then, the word 'Creator' is used. These are the only words representing divinity that are used, and they could represent many different faiths; Christianity being only one. Our Forefathers were not all Christians. Many were also Freemasons.

We have the right, in this country, to practice any religion that we wish. Therefore, Christian morality is not necessarily the RIGHT morality. Yes, this country needs laws, but they need to be fair laws that are representative of the diverse culture we have in this country. Not specific laws based upon a specific religious subculture.

Abortion? Should remain a choice. We should do EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS, but we should NOT remove the ability to make that choice.

Divorce? Should remain a choice. We should do EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES, but we should NOT remove the ability to make that choice.

Quote:
Can you imagine a world where families were intact, and had been intact for generations? How different country would be?
***********************************************************
Can I imagine?

Not even remotely. That is my honest answer.

We stopped living by instinct long ago. That's when all the crap started happening... the instant we decided we were better than everything else living on this rock.

And oh, I've never heard a single word spoken from God, so maybe that's why I don't live by it. If and when I hear God speak to me, then I'll start living by his word.

Looking at it from the BS perspective is a little different than looking at it from a non-infidelity related divorce perspective. At least in my mind.

And I can imagine a world where there are no divorces - I grew up on shows like Mayberry RFD and Ozzie and Harriet. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Quote:

Abortion? Should remain a choice. We should do EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS, but we should NOT remove the ability to make that choice.

Divorce? Should remain a choice. We should do EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF DIVORCES, but we should NOT remove the ability to make that choice.

I see it differently.

There are two main issues with regard to abortion.

The rights of the woman, and the right of the unborn.

In my opinion...IF the unborn person is recognized AS a person, then abortion is murder and the rights of the woman are trumped...we don't KILL inconvenient people. If that becomes acceptable be sure I get the memo because I have a list around here somewhere....

If the unborn is NOT a person then it's always OK for any reason and there is no reason to discourage the practice at all.

I get confused by the position that it's OK but should be discouraged. Seems like a cop out. Or a huge case of denial.

If there is nothing wrong with divorce then why should we work to reduce it?

It either is an acceptable option or it isn't.

Unfortunately this is quite vague.

Specifically refusing someone who has breached the marriage contract the right to exclusively dissolve that contract even against the will of the offended party runs counter to any contract situation I have ever participated in.

Sounds like we want a LOT of room to default and not be held accountable.

See, here lies the issue. How do you define WHEN the unborn stops being just a cluster of cells and starts being a person. IMHO, until a certain point, the unborn child isn't much more than a rapidly growing tumor. Once it has upper-level brain functions, then yeah, I'd think it'd be safe to call it a living person. Before that? No, it's not.

So the key is... how do we define conciousness?

As for the divorce situation, again, they are a different breed of contract. I don't even think that 'contract' is a valid term for it. It should be called a marriage 'commitment' instead.

TheRogueX - ahhhh....I understand. I've never heard the framers of the Constitution speak to me either, not physically anyway. But they do "speak" plainly in the documents they were inspired to write and they "speak" through that written word they left for "posterity."

Perhaps you just need a copy of the "Human Being Owner's Manual." It's generally known as the Holy Bible and is the most widely circulated book known to Man. If you have trouble locating one, let me know and I am sure I could find one for you. God speaks clearly there to any who would listen. Try it, you might like it.

It looked like a contract when I signed it.

I had to apply for it and everything.

Legally binding even.

Noodle beat me to it re abortion. I think similarly.

A legal case in the paper a few years ago:

A pregnant woman is driving to an abortion clinic to schedule an abortion (not necessarily have it that day though, according to later court testimony). It was near the very end of the 1’st trimester legal period.

Her car is hit by another car and she is seriously hurt. The baby dies.

She convinces a reluctant state prosecutor (re-election politics involved) to file a negligent homicide charge against the other driver. She claimed in court she may have changed her mind (yeah, right) about going through with the abortion.

Other driver, a woman, is convicted and gets a four-year prison sentence for causing the death of the child who was shortly going to be aborted anyway.

When I first read this I thought it was made up, an urban legend. But I was told by my attorney friends it happened.

Incidentally at a molecular level I'm a clump of cells right now.

tricky tricky tricky issue

I enjoy it.


You're making the same point I am. The 'rules' aren't doing much good if they can be ignored. The reason they can be ignored is because of many reasons that all boil down to the people don't have the will to find a way to enforce them whether that's because they're stupid laws (like the one about having sex other than in your marital bed) or because enforcing them is too cost prohibitive.

I'd like to see fewer rules (laws) that actually mean something. Making new, unenforceable laws (whether it's because they're unpopular or too expensive) is just silly.


Yes, she is. I want to be her when I grow up.


*shrugs* I don't know, Mortarman. I don't think we're going to see women out of the workplace large numbers in our lifetime. Do you think we will?


"How we do that is open to debate."

That sums up the entire problem with this line of thinking. I'm always really skeptical about "solutions" that rely on magical thinking like:

Oh, we'll find a way to make unwed couples unpopular.

That's a HUGE problem. If this 'solution' in any way depends on it, I want to see a plan that's remotely feasible to do it! I really think that sloughing off these type of "details" and trying to bring the focus back to the original "solution" is how we end up with bad plans.

I can just imagine people who protested making no fault divorces in the first place saying "...but what will we do if the children suffer and the family unit breaks down.." and the reply being "Oh, we'll have to have a debate on how to help the children."

You know what I mean?


Like I keep saying, this isn't 50 years ago.

This is going to be a lot harder to put back together (fix) than it was to break.


Oh, I don't believe that. I think the changes were made because the divorce courts were getting bogged down with all the fault divorces that were clogging up the system. The adversarial nature of divorce was seen as the 'harmful' element and people thought that if there wasn't all this mud-slinging going on then maybe things would be better overall for everyone.

I'm sure no one thought about walk-away spouses. I'm sure that if the idea was brought up, it was pooh poohed away as a small minority. Going to no fault was probably a mistake. I'm just not convinced that 'going back' is the way to fix it at this point. (If you are, then I respect that. I'm just not going say I agree with you just to make friends.)


I have no problem with consequences, MM. I have no problem with boundaries. I'm just not sure this set of consequences is appropriate.


Well, it is germane in the sense that the army enforces a whole different set of duties than marriage does. Let's put it this way -- the army (military) has pretty strict rules about infidelity and fraternization. How well are those rules enforced and how much of that stuff goes on anyway?

Given that the military is (generally) pretty good about enforcing rules (better than society at large) I'd expect there to be much less instances of infidelity in the military. And yet, I don't think that's the case.


Urk! Get rid of education? Sorry, I can't get behind that idea. I work in the education system -- and I see good people doing great work under very difficult circumstances.

I could go on and on about the problems I think that particular decision would create.


That's just it. You can force them to stay but you can't force them to work on it. You can't force someone to love someone else. You can't force someone to let someone else meet their EN's. You can't even force someone to live in the same house. How much forcing do you think is feasible?


Yeah. Sure. How would we do this, again?

When do we start it? Are all the existing children grandfathered in the system or do they become instant pariahs at some point?


Heh. You know I'm an athiest. Oddly enough, I do own a Bible -- but I'm buried with school work and don't really have time to read it these days.


I took an American Politics class last summer at college. I asked my prof about this and he gave me a 4 inch stack of articles, chapters, and 'stuff' on the subject. I read most of it but consigned the stack of papers to the kindling for the fireplace this winter. Suffice to say that I drew a conclusion based on what I'd read (pros and cons) and I came out on a different side than you. I don't have the stuff to back it up because I'm not particularly interested in changing anyone else's mind on the subject. I'm content with the research I've done and with my opinion.

I'm content with your opinion, too.


Yes. I'm actually a State's right's advocate. I think the Federal government has grown too big. I'm a conservative Republican (Goldwater conservative - not what they call 'conservative' these days) who believes in small government and fiscal responsibility.

See, I'm not entirely hopeless. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Mys

Contract (n, v): A contract is a binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce. Contract law is based on the Latin phrase pacta sunt servanda (literally, promises must be kept).

Almost everyone makes contracts everyday. Sometimes written contracts are required, e.g., when buying a house. However the vast majority of contracts can be and are made orally, like buying book, or a coffee at a shop.

Contract law can be classified, as is habitual in civil law systems, as part of a general law of obligations (along with tort, unjust enrichment or restitution).

There are three key elements to the creation of a contract: offer and acceptance, consideration, and an intention to create legal relations. In civil law systems the concept of consideration is not central. In addition, for some contracts formalities must be complied with.


All conditions seem present to me in a marriage agreement/promise/contract. Including the intention to be legally bound.

However, state legislatures have indeed approached marriage law differently from this, starting about 30 years ago.

It has been said the only legislators voting for no-fault divorce back then were having affairs.

Remember, promises must be kept…

Noodle


You know, I was raised with the belief also that people have to be uncomfortable to grow. *sighs* As I've gotten older, I find that I've really started longing for a little peace. I know I still have some growing to do, but, gosh, for the life of me, I wish I could find some way to do it that wasn't always so painful and exhausting all the time.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just wishing you (we) are because some days I'm just not sure I'm going to be able to keep on going.

Is there ever a point, in this life, where peace is justified? Or does that mean you have to have stopped growing and that's bad? Do you think that if we somehow found a way to make growth a positive (not painful) experience that people would be better off?

I do.

And, gosh, how much fun does that make us as spouses? Thank goodness I'm not a parent. I'd hate to do to my children what my parents did to me on this.


Banks have a limited recourse to holding you to your financial obligations. They can take any collateral - if you have it. If it's unsecured, about all they can do is put a mark on your credit report that lasts for 7 years. Check your state laws. Most unsecured debt has a statute of limitations of 3-4 years after which the debt is no longer legally collectable.

It's not like we have debtor's prisons or indentured servitude.

Maybe we should look at what Ireland does: Instead of disallowing divorce entirely, institute a 4 year waiting period before a non-consensual divorce can be put through. That's probably long enough to determine if someone is truly serious. If they hold out for 4 years and want a divorce -- what's the point of waiting until they die?


It would be better if that choice existed in a vacuum and didn't impact everyone else around them...


Mys

TheRogueX - you really might want to consider not using illogic as logic, it ill serves your contention that abortion is "okay."

"How do you define WHEN the unborn stops being just a cluster of cells and starts being a person."

When the egg is fertilized by the sperm and receives a UNIQUE set of chromosomes that DEFINE who that person is. Genetically different from the mother and every cell of the mother's body.


"IMHO, until a certain point, the unborn child isn't much more than a rapidly growing tumor."

That is, of course, your OPINION. But neither your opinion nor my opinion automatically confers TRUTH. Here is the fundamental difference between a tumorous cell and a fertilized ovum.

The tumor cell has the complete DNA of the individual (male or female) and has lost the ability to "turn off" cell replication. But the cell remains genetically identical to all the other cells in the person's body.

A fertilized ovum contains a unique and different set of genetic code, is NOT "another cell" of the host mother that bears the exclusive genetic code of the mother. It DOES grow rapidly, but it is a controlled growth that is operating according to it's genetic information, switching on and switching off as differentiation is needed or acquired.


"Once it has upper-level brain functions, then yeah, I'd think it'd be safe to call it a living person. Before that? No, it's not."

Again, your opinion. But just WHAT "upper-level" brain functions do you include and which do you exclude? Beyond that, LIFE does not "require" upper level brain function, however you might like to define that. Ask any Biologist for a definition of life.

But you want to "narrow the scope" to some concept of what you want to define as a "person." So let's go back to the basics. A "person" is first a member of Homo Sapiens, not some other species. That is defined by their genetic makeup. Check! A developing human embryo IS only going to be a human being, not a chimpanzee, a frog, or a bird.

But you want to further "define" a human being as being "conscious." That brings us to your second point of what a "person" is;



Interesting. So anyone asleep ceases to be a person while they are sleeping? Or perhaps it requires being unconscious, as in during surgery or in a coma?

And I wonder about other things like Autism. I guess those who are "in their own little world" and are not really conscious of the "real world" are not people either.

And you know what, the "taking of a life" is either an execution, a murder, an accidental occurance, "justifiable homicide," ......or just when do we decide that it even IS a "taking of a life?"

This is a very slippery slope you are arguing for RogueX.

Who's next on the "not needed" because they are not "real people list?" And whose "standard" of "realness" should be applied?

Quote:

It would be better if that choice existed in a vacuum and didn't impact everyone else around them...


I agree. Unfortunately it is going to impact everyone regardless of whether they are held to their word or not.

It's making the best of a bad situation and not allowing the offended party to be further victimized.

As it is a person can leave their spouse for their lover, take half the assets with them, claim spousal support, claim child support while retaining custody and the BS is completely powerless to place a stoploss on the behavior.

So first they are raped by the affair, then bent over by the system and told to be cooperative and civil while their former spouse instructs their children to not only be exposed to and accept the affair partner...but give that person a title of respect and honor such as stepmother or father.

It's sickening and it is WRONG.

I don't know that this exact plan is a perfect solution...no one ever does...but I think it is moving in the right direction and taking the victims interest and rights to the foreground rather than the abusors.

I'm going to get back to your other points in another post.

Ah, nice try. You know what? We still have the original copies of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Do we have the original copy of the Bible? OH YEAH, that's RIGHT.. it was passed down through word of mouth for generations before it was actually written down. And THEN, there was the COUNCIL OF NICAEA in 325 which directly dictated what was and was not supposed to be included in the so-called 'Holy' Bible. Do you trust the Roman Catholics of the Dark Ages to tell you what is and isn't canonical in the Bible? Because your Bible is just a copy of that book, with even MORE changes made to it by others who didn't like what the Catholics put in there.

So wait.. you want me to believe this? How? It's a great story, but I don't believe a word of it to be TRUTH.


Great, so it's a bundle of cells that has the potential to be a human being. It's still just a bundle of cells that are no more alive than any other multicellular organism.


Thanks. I should have used the word 'parasite,' because that's more equivalent.


Great, so you want to argue semantics? I know full well that life does not require upper-level brain functions to exist, but HUMAN LIFE does. Otherwise, you have a dead person being kept alive by life support or other means, ie Terri Schiavo. She was biologically alive, that's true, but her brain was dead, her conciousness gone, her soul, if you will, departed.


More SEMANTICS! Who's talking illogically now? You're taking words with multiple meanings and using the ones that are wrong.

Conciousness: 1. the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

When we're asleep, we are asleep. However, we're still aware of our own existance. We wake up when sensations, thoughts, or changes in our surroundings occur. A person with no higher brain functions (read - brain death) will not respond, is not concious.


Okay, so chopping down a tree to build a house is murder. Killing a cow so we can eat is murder. Stepping on a spider because we're scared of it is murder. Euthanising a sick pet is murder.

Heck, the cow and the pet are even concious creatures (aware of their own existance), so yeah, that's definitely murder!

You see? I can play the semantics game too.

I hate to be negative, but can't you see that world in any traditionally Islamic country? Much of the world has lived this way for generations. It does not seem to be helping them.

The power afforded men in societally enforced permanent marriage invariable leads to abuse of that power. At the end of the day, men are just larger and more violent than women. The greater the social stigma surrounding divorce, the greater a woman's willingness to put up with an abusive spouse to maintain social standing and face.

To the Rogue...

Get over yourself. You come across as someone trying to show how clever and smart he is... and it readily apparent that you are neither.


See I won't [censored] foot around this stuff. Others here will play all nice with a horses butt for a while.... I do not suffer fools very well.

MEDC

TheRogueX- That you “don't believe a word of it to be TRUTH” is obvious. You are entitled to your opinion, but remember that opinion does not, in and of itself, confer “truth.” So, simply put, either I am right and you are wrong, you are right and I am wrong, but both of our opinions cannot be right.

So, your “original” contention was that God has not spoken to you. NOW you “object” to the FACT that none of the framers of the Constitution have spoken to you either, as I pointed out, but you place your “faith” in the written document. You cite the existence of the original autograph of the Constitution as being “as good as” though the framers WERE speaking directly today. That’s okay by me, as far as it goes, but there are many things you probably accept as true too where the original documents no longer exist. I could cite many examples of this if needed, but it seems superfluous to do so at this time.

With respect to the “documents,” you may have even read the original draft of the Constitution, but I have not. I have read copies of it. I trust that the copies are accurate, and that they can be checked against the originals if need be.

I do not have the original autographs of the Bible. No one does. But we DO have copies from very close to the original time that the books were written, from a variety of sources, which can be checked against each other to examine the care and accuracy with which the copies were made. Should the time come when the Constitution, that is the original documents, are ever “lost” to fire, attack, etc., we have “copies” that go back to near the original date of writing that I am sure you would also accept as being “accurate.”

Your “argument” that there have been “changes” in the Bible is a typical charge, but one that is not substantiated by Textual Criticism and the Historical Method applied to examining the Bible documents.

If you want a REAL change in a document that is “championed” by many in America you don’t have to look any further than the “separation of church and state” issue that they claim is in the Constitution. It is not. And that IS a fact.



Yes, that is correct as far as you go. They are LIVING, and they are distinctly unique and different from all other “bundles of cells” of the mother. It is NOT the “mother’s tissue,” it is its own “tissue and cells.” They do NOT have the “potential” to be a human being, they ARE a human being in the process of growth, just as a baby after delivery is NOT a fully grown, conscious and reasoning adult, but is in the process of growth that is determined by its genetic coding. It WILL grow into a Human Being, distinctly individual, and not any other sort of creature, regardless of what “stage” of that growth process it is in. Unless, of course, someone kills it.


Oh come on RogueX. It is nothing of the sort. It is dependent upon the mother for growth and support as a NORMAL function of the human reproductive process. It does not “invade” the body and take over for “it’s own good,” to the detriment of the “host” organism. Using your “definition” a baby out of the womb would be a “parasite” too because it cannot feed itself yet either. It depends upon “outside” assistance to sustain its life until it has reached sufficient growth that it CAN “provide for itself.” Show me ANY parasite that ever reaches the point at which it CAN provide for all of its needs WITHOUT any “host,” and survive and reproduce independent of a host organism.



With all due respect, RogueX, it is NOT I who is “arguing semantics,” it is you.

You make specious arguments without basis in fact. Terry Schiavo, if you want to use her sad case as an “argument,” was a fully functioning HUMAN LIFE prior to the attack, from the day she first began growing as a fertilized egg. Someone attacked her, just like abortionists attack babies, and stopped her ability to FUNCTION as a human being, but they did not stop her from BEING a human being.

“Brain death” is the cessation of ALL brain activity. But there have been countless numbers of people in comas, kept “alive”, that is fed and even breathed for, who are NOT “dead.” My own nephew was like that. The Doctors told my SIL and BIL that he would never wake up. After 6 months he DID wake up. Again, RogueX, I ask you do DEFINE what YOU consider to be “upper-level brain functions” and how does “consciousness” meet the SOLE criteria you posit for someone “being a human being?” Furthermore, in your statement you EQUATE “consciousness” with BEING the “soul.” I disagree, obviously, but why do you even consider anyone having a “soul” and where does it go if they are NOT awake, conscious, and aware?



RogueX, have you seen any of the pictures of babies, inside the womb, who are “aware” of sensations and changes in their “surroundings?” If you have not, I am sure that I or someone else could easily make them available to you.
Furthermore, since when is a person in a coma able to “wake up when sensations, thoughts, or changes in their surroundings occur?” If you were sleeping and I stuck a knife in you, I’m willing to concede that you would probably “wake up,” at least for a while. But if you stick a knife into someone who is unconscious or in a coma, it is very unlikely that they would “wake up” in response to the “change” in their surroundings. Your “definition” is severely lacking and “narrow” as a definition of “human life.” Consciousness is NOT, and never has been THE “definition” of life. If it were, there would be NO prosecutions for killing babies of pregnant mothers. But our legal system does not define “human life” the way you are trying to do it, solely so you can “justify” abortion.



Don’t be ridiculous, RogueX, it’s not very becoming on you.

MURDER is the intentional killing of a HUMAN being without any “justifiable” reason, and I would hope that YOU know that.

NO ONE (outside of some people who think humans are nothing more than animals themselves) equates Human Beings with any other life form. There is NO “semantics” involved in that. In point of fact, there are more laws on the books to “protect” animals than there are to protect humans, or so it seems. There ARE people (Hindus for example) who DO think that killing an animal is a type of “murder,” but that is because they believe in reincarnation and cyclical life as it progresses to Nirvana.



So what is the POINT of your argument? That you don’t believe in God? Okay, I can accept that. That you don’t believe that Jesus existed? Okay, I can accept you don’t believe he existed despite the historical data. That humans are just “evolved animals” who don’t have a soul? Okay, I can accept that as your opinion.

What is it that you are arguing FOR?

I understand you are angry as a result of your situation in your marriage. We ALL understand that sort of anger. But the “situation” does not “prove” God doesn’t exist or that babies are not human. So what IS bothering you that you release it through being argumentative and the automatic assumption that YOUR opinion is the RIGHT opinion?

Mebe, I understand exactly your point, and agree. I was talking about a world where nobody wanted divorce, not a world where nobody was allowed to get divorced.

Childish visions of Eden I suppose, but if we can't even envision it...

Good grief!!!! Try reading your own posts once in a while...You come across as a self-indulgent, self-important, intolerant, overly-opinionated, self-absorbed, self-righteous know-it-all who cannot tolerate differing opinions. You must suffer fools better than you state, otherwise you couldn't stand yourself.

The rest of you: No religion on earth is more important than another. jesus supposedly taught tolerance, unconditional love and respect which is something many of you so-called "christians" fail to display to fellow posters on an on-going, daily basis.

This board functions best when used to help and support those in need. Trying to cram your beliefs(or "non-beliefs") down someone else's throat does nothing but expose your own intolerance and ignorance.

Actually, if you were in my household, you would be surprised!! There really isnt "rules" per se...like I have in them military. Everyone in the family is motivated to do what they are supposed to because it is in their best interest to do so.

Do you know what earns the worse punishment in our house? Lying and not keeping your word. My kids could break the rule of throwing the ball in the house...and end up breaking a lamp. And there might not be much said or done about that...aside from me saying how disappointed I am in them. But have them lie...or not live up to their word? That ends up ALWAYS being bad on them. As it is on me if I dont (believe me, my wife holds me to my word).

I get it. I think you may not see exactly what I speak of here. I am not saying that we must live in rigid rules and not be open to mistakes. The honorable man or woman is not one that makes no mistakes. It is the honorable person that, when they do make a mistake, does what it takes to make amends and to do right. And begin again to live up to their word and responsibilities.

This society is loaded with "me, me, me." Just the other day, I heard a briefing that was going on in the Army. The briefer started off with "gentleman, the United States is at war." One of the officers in the meeting interjected: "No sir...the United States is not at war." The briefer was puzzled and asked "what do you mean by that?" The officer said "Sir, the United States Army is at war. The people of the United States are in the mall shopping."

I lost a good friend in the helo crash this past week in Iraq. A good man. Duty, honor, country. But he lost his life for what seems to be a nation of people mroe worried about whether the rules will keep them from having "happiness." We are a nation of self-centered, spoiled brats. We are not willing to accept the heavy burdens of life. We have very little patience. We dont want to be inconvenienced.

I get it. I am sick and tired of the entitlement generation that is now a major part of this country. My kids are raised to honor their commitments, be honest and do their best to do right. And when they mess up...apologize, make amends and to do better next time.

Now...what is it I dont get?

Flawed men. I know this. doesnt take away from what they created.


I disagree. I believe they were men of God. But men nonetheless. You see, every sin is the same to God. So slavery is no worse or better than robbing a bank. All fall short. There was only one Man that walked this planet and did not sin. Also, almost every one of them spoke of how they believed slavery should be ended...about how God would judge this nation for this injustice (which He did in the destruction of the Civil War).

They werent perfect. But what they created was the best hope for all oppressed people throughout the world. It has taken a while to make the changes they knew we needed to make. But that was only possible under the system they created.


Who decides? What if the Federal government is unjust? Does the United Nations get to come in and over rule the US government? As long as a state is not breaking the law as outlined by the Constitution...then the citizens of that state are free to do as they please. If they want to pass a law in Indiana that states that everyone must where pink on Tuesdays...then they are free to do so. it is their state.


As I said, I personally am against life in prison for this. I dont like the law. But I am a Virginian. I have no right, nor does my elected representatives in Congress from Virginia, have the right to tell Michigan to change their law. It is consitent with the Constitution. So, it is not my business!


All true. And if the people of that stae want that law changed, then they can have it changed. By that state legislature. Not by outside forces. And not by simply ignoring the law. If we can ignore one law...why cant we ignore them all?


Some people say it isnt shameful for a man to have 12 wives. But this society says it is. Other socities in the world, believe it is okay. So, if this society thinks it is shameful for unwed persons to shack up and create life outside of marriage, then it is shameful. I am not concerned what everyone believes. This society and the majority of people in it have a Judeo-Christian ethic.


As I said, there is a Judeo-Christian ethic in this nation. The nation was created from that ethic. The Founders put religion into the fabric of this nation and its Constitution and laws. To say our laws and our norms are absent a religious base would be plain false. Our laws are based on something bigger than what the Founders wrote. If not, then there really arent norms and everyone is free to do as they please.

That is not the case...and never should be. Complete freedom is anarchy.

Charlie Brown... is that you????

MM, we will need to agree to disagree about the role of the states and our founding fathers. I also do not agree that all sin is equal in the eyes of our Lord.
As far as states rights and their ability to make laws which are out there... I would suggest that there is no practical way for a nation to exist with that mindset. I live in a place where within three minutes driving I can be in three different states. There needs to exist some continuity between the states otherwise you might as well stop everyone at the state borders and hand them a rule of law book.... wouldn't want to get locked up for not knowing the color of the day....

Be careful with how far you take that argument...Few of the Founders were christian, most were Deists who believed in "god the clockmaker" and not the christian god.

Jefferson created his own version of the bible and for the new testament, he did a "cut-and-paste" job, removing all references to miracles and the resurrection, because he thought that part was all poppycock.

The "Jefferson Bible", is the only version that has at any time been handed out to incoming Congressmen and Senators.

Washington would always conveniently leave sunday church services prior to communion as he didn't believe in it.

Religious persecution was what many came to the new world to avoid, so freedom of religious expression was written into the First Amendment.

Interestingly, religious freedom was not considered by the Founders to be a "god-given" right. "God-given" or "natural" rights are not spelled out in the Constitution because the Founders felt that any rights granted you by the government could just as easily be taken away. Natural rights(life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) cannot be taken away by any government.

From Christianity Today


All Sins Are Not Equal
Question: Are all sins weighed equally, or is one more important than another? —Linda Linton, Celina, Ohio
J.I. Packer



This question leads into what for many evangelicals has become uncharted territory. We think of conversion as the moment when the guilt of all our sins—past, present, and future—is washed away by the atoning blood of Christ. As sinners justified by faith and heirs of promised glory, we rejoice in salvation and think no more about our continued shortcomings and how God might "weigh" them.

If asked, we explain our attitude as true evangelical assurance. But is it?

The Puritans of history were evangelicals too, but on this point they differed from us considerably. They remembered that Christ taught us to pray daily for forgiveness. One of their spiritual disciplines (not yet one of ours, generally) was self-examination each evening to discern what actions in particular, done or left undone, they needed to ask pardon for.

In the forefront of their minds was the holiness of God, the awfulness of his anger, and his amazing patience in nurturing and correcting his irresponsible, recalcitrant children. These were the realities framing their certainty that the precious blood of Christ cleanses faithful repenters from all sin. Most later evangelicals were with them until the 20th century. We are the ones out of step.

Scripture shows that in God's estimate some sins are worse and bring greater guilt than others, and that some sins do us more damage. Moses rates the golden calf debacle a great sin (). Ezekiel in his horrific allegory says that after Oholah (Samaria) had ruined herself by unfaithfulness to God, Oholibah (Jerusalem) "became more corrupt … in her lust and in her ******, which was worse than that of her sister" (, ESV). John distinguishes sins that do and do not inevitably lead to death ...

Are Sins Equal?






Search LearntheBible.org






Open the Bible Question Form to send your own question.



Q: Are all sins created equal? For example, like comparing someone who committed suicide to someone who said God's name in vain. Would they both receive the same punishment?



A: All sins are equal in that they are all capable of condemning the soul to ******.

James 2:10 states, "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all."

For this, I use the illustration of a chain with many links. The top of the chain is connected to heaven. I am holding on the the bottom of the chain as it swings over the fires of ******. The chain represents the commandments I must keep in order to keep from falling into ******. Each link is a different command or requirement from God. How many of these links need to break in order for me to descend into ******--that is, if I am trusting in my own righteousness? The answer, of course, is one. Any and every sin equally makes us a sinner and deserving of ******.

However, some have taken this to mean that every sin is equal to every other sin in every way. That is not the teaching of scripture.

Jesus told Pilate, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin" (John 19:11).

If there is a greater sin, there must also be lesser sins. Luke 12:47-48 teaches that the servant who knew His master's will and did not do it is worthy of more stripes then the one who did not know the master's will. He must have committed the greater sin. I believe that Matthew 11:20-24 teaches that the cities where Jesus ministered were guilty of greater sin than cities like Sodom, Tyre and Sidon in the past. God considers some sins to be greater and therefore other sins to be lesser in deserving punishment.

Sins are also greater or lesser in the harm that they cause. Some sins bring greater reproach to God (2Samuel 12:14). Others bring more harm to others (1Thessalonians 4:5-6). Others are greater or lesser in their natural results. Fornication may bring diseases that do not go away. Other examples can be given. All sin is evil. However, the Bible definitely makes a distinction between sins many times.

However, this is not to condone the Roman Catholic teaching of venial and mortal sins. Venial sins are those that can be forgiven in this life and mortal sins are those that must be paid for in a future life. Some teach that the mortal sins will send the person to ****** unless they are confessed before death. There are variations of the teaching. This false teaching can be used to support the arguments for purgatory. People need somewhere to take care of mortal sins. The mortal sin deprives the soul of sanctifying grace. The venial sin does not. This is false teaching and is not found in the Bible in any form.

Till He comes,

Pastor David Reagan

http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.show/CT/RA/k/238

I do? Huh. good thing you told me that because the last I checked my brain, NONE of that was in there. Good thing you told me what I am thinking and what my motivations are. Whew!


I agree!


Read their writings that they did to support what they wrote. Read their journals, the Federalist Papers, etc. They were VERY clear on their intent. They were very clear where they based their views from and based this nation on. As I said, the basis of this whole thing is that sentence, which bases our inalienable rights given to us by the Creator. Those folks, in their writings, were very clear who that Creator was.


Yes we do!! Thankfully.


As a Christian, I believe it is. But as an American...I can agree, maybe it isnt. But this nation is based on that reality...on that ethic. Whether we want to ignore that or not.


Aaahhh. Who decides what is fair? The majority? The minority? Where are these laws based? The logical conclusion to your argument is a democracy...and we clearly dont want that!! The Founders stated that a democracy was one of the worst forms of government!


I believe a human life is being taken. I believe this "choice" involves three people (mother, father and child) but only one of those three gets the choice (and not the one who is losing their life). So, either humans have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness or they dont. As FH stated, an embryo is just a stage of human life, just as an infant is, jsut as an adolescent is, jsut as an adult is. All stages of human life. But human, nonetheless.


Divorce should be the choice of the aggrieved. Of the injured. Not of the selfish, who will not live up to their contract and their word. You make a promise...you sign a contract...you should have to live up to that contract unless the other party decides to agree with you and end it prematurely.

My misunderstanding and yes, that would be fantastic. I'm sure we all agree that what it takes to get this vision is much more education and maturity before entering into marriage.

I'm completely pro-family / pro-marriage, but we have to be very careful as we promote laws that make divorce less attainable and socially acceptable. Lets not forget that the "loving family" of 80 years ago that we so idealize was often a crucible for horrible gender inequality and abuse.

I know that when your spouse is straying and in the fog, what you really want is power to keep them in the marriage. Unfortunately such legal power could be used by people with less pure and loving motives. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

I think you need to follow your own advice. The Founders did not think democracy was the WORST form of government, primarily they thought that direct democracy was untenable in a country the physical size of the flegling US. They did recognize that there were some dangers to any democratic form and that was one of the primary purposes of the Electoral College and Senators being appointed by state legislatures. It was meant to avoid the "Tyranny of the Majority".

BTW, just who is the Creator that they were so clear about? It wasn't the christian god, that's for sure and is demonstrated by the writings you profess to be familiar with.

Aaahh...I agree with you. The Federal government was given the power to deal with this!! In order to regulate things between the states. To build conduits to allow passage between the states. I disagree with you that a representative republic created by sovereign states is unworkable. It was this intent by the Founders, who were students of history and of governments. They understood what worked.

Shoot...with your argument, why not have a world government so we dont have the problems between the countries? But then...who decides how we all will live? The majority? I certainly, as an American, dont want the rest of the world telling me how to live. We do things differently here. And we like it this way.

Same goes for Virginia. We dont want to do things the way people in Vermont do. We have things we do that are uniquely Virginian. Sure, we have to be able to interact with other states. And the Federal government referees that. But the Federal government was meant to be the tool of the people AND of the states. Not the other way around!

MM, respectfully, you continue to make this contract argument but it is not accurate in terms of the laws that govern contracts. There is an out clause in every "marriage contract" signed or promised to in our country.... so, only allowing the BS or the "agreived" to break this contract doesn't really hold water since the terms you state were not in force at the time of the "signing." Till death do us part is an intent... not a term of the contract... for if it was, death would be the ONLY cause for divorce. The marriage vows do not say... till death, infidelity, physical abuse etc, do we part... it says death only. This is a tradition... not a term of a contract. What about marriages that do not include those words... and there are many...are they free to just move in and out of marriage on a whim since this was not in their contract?

I said "one of the worst. And yes, they were worried about the tyranny of the majority. Which is why we do not have a democracy...and never should have one!! That is why we have a Bill of Rights. That is why we have inalienable rights...that no one can take away. Not even a majority in a democratic vote!


They absolutely did! As I said, I am a political scientist. I have studied this in depth. If you read their writings, you would know that they did. As I said, they werent creating a Christian government. They were creating a nation based on the Judeo-Christian ethics and laws and norms...and basing all of our rights on being based on the Judeo-Christian God giving them to us.

True. My H and I wrote our own vows and there was no promise "till death.." in them. For that matter, there was no "keep only unto each other," etc. There's no mention of it on the marriage certificate that I signed, either.

Mys

As I said, I am in agreement with you. The issue is that the Commonwealth of Virginia is in a sense, changing the terms of the contract. Very few people go up there and say their vows and enter into marriage thinking about any "out clause." They believe this other person is entering into a life long commitment. And then they just decide "never mind."

The standard definition of marriage is "one-man-one-woman-for-life." All Virginia is doing is trying to codify that and make that "out clause" go away!

MM... I greatly respect you...but my argument in no way supports a "world government." Not even close. I am just not a radical.... lets form a militia in the woods type of person that feels that our slave owning fore fathers could envision the world we live in today (air flight, trains, auto, the internet, etc.). Go back to your argument about pink Wednesdays. Do you really think it is okay for a state to have this type of power? Would we have to change our clothes in mid flight to match the states requirements? A flight to Hawaii would necessitate about 30 changes for me!!

You seem more in favor of affording power to the states than you do to the people. Last I checked... it was United States. Virginians and Pennsylvanians do not need to agree on how to do everything...but you are taking this point to a totally unworkable place. To make something legal in my backyard and punishable by life in prison just 100 yards away seems absurd.

Or, to bring it back to the original topic... there's no reason why someone married in Virginia couldn't go to Nevada (or even next door to West Virginia if they're willing to establish residency. Nevada is convienent because it doesn't have residency requirements like most states.) and get a quickie divorce, anyway. Unless you want to undo the reciprocity agreements surrounding divorce. That would be a mess.

It's not a reason not to pass the law in any particular state, I suppose. It just makes it "yet another rule" that no one really has to follow because there are freely available options around it.

Mys

And BTW... I think Virginia has a right to make the changes to the contract of marriage for new marriages. But I think the idea that you are presenting about only the agreived party being able to make the divorce decision is dangerous and unworkable. Plus, I tell you that IMHO, it will make affairs that much more difficult to detect and to fix. Imagine how a BS's position changes when they realize the WS ahs NO ability to leave! The POJA would fly right out the window!

As I, you.


What I am saying is why does the Federal government get to decide what its boundaries are? Why dont the entities that created it, get to decide (the states)?


Thye couldnt envision this stuff. But they KNEW that changes would happen. They built into this system the ability change it as needed! So, in a way, they did envision airplanes, etc.


Yes! The people of that state, thru their representatives in their legislature and passed by their chief executive, have the right to pass that law. And as long as it doesnt infringe on another persons basic, inalienable rights...then, sure! I wouldnt want it in Virginia. But if another state wanted it (the people of that state), who am I to argue?? It aint my business!


Okay..using this silly example I started, lets deal with this. The Federal government is given the power to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, it can say that on flights leaving one state and heading to another or another country, that certain attire is permissable. Now, let's say California has the pink Tuesday law (which would probably be the state to do something this stupid!). And I am flying to California from Virginia. The Federal government could say "while in flight and landing in California, I am free to wear any attire." But once, I leave the airport, California is free to enforce their laws and I would have to change into my pink shirt (okay...I dont REALLY own a pink shirt guys! <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />).

Another analogy. Some states may have laws that state you must have your headlights on, day or night. So, let's say Maryland is one of them. And it is a bright, sunny day and I am leaving Virginia into Maryland. While in Virginia, I wasnt required to run my headlights. So, can I cross into Maryland and say "I am not turning them on?" No. Once I cross into Maryland, I am subject to their laws and regulations.

But, does the federal government have the right to say "Virginia, we like the law in Maryland. And so your drivers can easily cross into Maryland, we are instructing you to enact a similar law in your state."? No it does not!!


We have the death penalty in Virginia. If someone commits a murder outside my office, they will get the death penalty. just a mile away from my office is Washington DC. If someone committed a murder there...there is not a death penalty. As it should be. The people of Virginia want a death penalty.

Look. If Mexico was taken over by a Muslim government and enacted Sharia...would those living in El Paso have to wear veils? After all, just a few feet away, the people of Juarez would be!

Yes, we are the United States. Look at that name. United States. We could have been called by our name. Our nation could have been called "America" and inhabited by Americans. just like Germany is inhabited by Germans. But, our name is the United States. Not United Americans.

We are united on many, specific issues, as outlined in our Constitution. And in many of our ethics and norms. we share a common language. And many other things. But we are not united in everything.

The States created the Federal government, as well as the people. It used to be that the people elected the representatives in the House, and the States appointed the US Senators. Why? Because the states wanted their control over the entity they created. Of course, we screwed up and changed that to direct election of senators (if I couldchange one law, it would be this one...that way Richmond could again help control Washington).

The states knew they needed to give up some of their power for the greater good. They did so thru a Consstitution, which is a written document of SPECIFIC powers and limitations on a Federal government. That is how we are united.

So, we only POJA because of the threat that our spouse could leave?

Not quite...
Here are some quotes from the Founders on the topic of Christianity...

Quotes from Jefferson:
“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Quote from James Madison(from "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments"):
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Quotes from John Adams:
Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

another quote:
“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that has ever existed?"

Quotes from Thomas Paine:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”

"The dogma of the redemption is the fable of priestcraft invented since the time the New Testament was compiled, and the agreeable delusion of it suited with the depravity of immoral livers. When men are taught to ascribe all their crimes and vices to the temptations of the devil, and to believe that Jesus, by his death, rubs all off, and pays their passage to heaven gratis, they become as careless in morals as a spendthrift would be of money, were he told that his father had engaged to pay off all his scores.

It is a doctrine not only dangerous to morals in this world, but to our happiness in the next world, because it holds out such a cheap, easy, and lazy way of getting to heaven, as has a tendency to induce men to hug the delusion of it to their own injury."

In many marriages yes, (I am sure that PORH and POJA is driven to improve the marriage in a lot of cases) imagine the shift in power once a BS discovers an infidelity. No reason for a Plan A at that point....it would allow for emotional blackmail on the part of the BS. Emotional blackmail already runs rampant in marriages in crisis... imagine what would happen when one spouse is afforded all the power.... it would, IMHO, make our current system which is very flawed, seem like Eden.

Heartpain, I do not have time to respond to these right now. But I will. Suffice it to say, takign a few sentences out of his entire writings does not convey what he was talking about. But, I will get to these quotes as soon as I can. But, let me just take a few more words of Thomas Jefferson (all of these quotes are written in the Jefferson Memorial, which I can see outside my window right now):





And a few more...


In that one...notice he stated that "coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion" and thus then goes on to say that Jesus was removed from the text, in order to afford protection of the others (Jews, Muslims, etc). He clearly was stating "our religion."


Notice, he states that the states have the right to establish religious exercises.

Okay. Enough for now. I do know Jefferson qrgued for the separation and was very motivated NOT to have the federal government involved in religion (just as he got Virginia out of it also). But he did recognize on many occasions that the rights and laws and norms were based in this Judeo-Christian ethic. Not specifically Christian. but based in the norms and ethics and morality of that ethic.

While I see your point...I also understand that the WS gave the BS that power!! The WS didnt just wander out and accidentally fall into a sexual position with the OP. They committed adultery. And maybe, in this case, they gave the BS this power.

I really have no problem with that...just as I have no problem with a murderer willingly has given the State the power to execute them because of their actions. By committing murder, they have asked the State to execute them.

I am not sure what emotional blackmail a BS could do. If a WS wants out of the marriage, they would have to get the BS to agree. That would have to happen even if there was no affair! But, the WS would not be able to unilaterally end the marriage.

You entered the marriage together...then you must leave it together.

I am going to gracefully bow out of my portion of this debate. Not because I want to, not because I have no counterpoints, but merely because the whole argument is pointless and counterproductive.

It seems to me, from my observations, that most Christians are so convinced that their faith is 'right' that they will refuse to even consider that it may not be. This has always bothered me, because to me, that means that they have given up everything human just to believe in something that is being passed to them by another human, who is just as imperfect as they are. As for me, I regularly question everything I know. Only by questioning ourselves and our world can we ever find the truth. Perhaps this is why Christianity constantly refers to its followers as 'sheep' and 'the flock.' It's because they seem to have no mind of their own, they just follow the leader.

To close... ForeverHers, I am not angry about my marriage. What angers me in this is the simple fact that people with faith like yours exist. You absolutely refuse to even consider arguments presented to you. You present everything in absolutes; it's either right or it's wrong... you're right, I'm wrong. To you, there is no possibility that you are wrong. There is not possibility that we are BOTH wrong. I, on the other hand, present by beliefs, but regularly enter statements showing that I don't KNOW if I'm right. My question on the definition of conciousness is one of those statemtents: if science (though multiple, repeatable studies) proved tomorrow that an embryo was aware and sentient from the moment of conception, then I would accept that and be anti-abortion from then on. If science proved (again through multiple, repeatable studies) that God existed exactly as the Christians believed, I would change my viewpoints accordingly.

Therein lies the difference. I am willing to accept that, as a human being with a finite capacity to learn and perceive, my knowledge of the universe and everything in it is incomplete and flawed, and likely always will be. I am willing to accept that I will likely never know the real 'truth' in my lifetime, but that it is my duty as an intelligent being to never give up my search for that 'truth.' Because of my imperfect understanding, I am willing to admit that, at times, my beliefs may be incorrect, and therefore I am willing to change my beliefs when new evidence proves me wrong.

I refuse to give up that freedom by giving in and blindly believing one book's interpretation of 'truth,' as spouted by a biased, imperfect man in a church.

Such is my right, and such is my path. Did you ever stop to think that maybe God put me on this path for a reason?

You've been hanging around the wrong Christians, and I am so very sorry this is the opinion you have walked away with. As you have probably not noticed, there are many Christians on this board who are extremely intelligent, well read, well versed, and very humble. They epitomize what I believe Jesus' message was to us.

There are also athiest's so spiritual, so intelligent, so well read, and humble that they put many who belong to organized religions to shame, in their christlike behavior.

I grew up with a love for Jesus, and for God so strong that it was this love and belief that got me through times so bad, and so ugly that I am surprised I even survived.

There was a time after reading here that I almost stopped calling myself a Christian because of what you speak, and someday I still may.

But please don't form your opinions of Christians from the few who do not seem to manifest Christian like qualities.

What ever path you are on, I hope it brings you home to your God. That is all one can ever hope to achieve in this life time, and a quest that makes life worthwhile. IMHO

The Rogue...you have me wrong. As I suspect, FH will say the same.

I do not check my brain at the door of the church. I do not look at things blindly. I suspect that FH does not either.

What I do know, due to a lot of information, digging for the truth AND having a personal relationship with Jesus...do know that my faith has a basis in fact.

Sure, I am open minded. Unlike you, I am not angered by someone that believes that their beliefs are correct. I may have the answer...so they may. They doesnt anger me.

As a Christian and having that personal relationship, I know something that those that do not have that relationship dont. You see, I can talk to and receive the answers to my questions directly from the source. Now, those that dont have that relationship...it isnt because they cant. It is because they wont!

But...on a purely physical, worldly realm...I have a basis for my faith. Historical, scientific, archeological, etc. I have facts that back up my faith.

Prove Jesus Christ did not live, was not the Son of God and did not die for my sisn...and I will no longer believe. I, on the otherhand, can prove he was all those things. And I have the additional advantage of having a personal relationship with him. I know him.

It isnt that I want things to be black and white. It is Jesus made it that way, not me. No one gets to the Father except thru Him. If you or anyone else has a problem with that...then take it up with Him! I cant be God thus I cant make the rules!

As I said, if I know that 2+2=4....I am not going to stand by as someone else says it equals 5 and say "well, that's nice. Maybe you are right. Maybe I am wrong. You are entitled to your belief."

While entitled to your belief...or mine...we also are entitled to be wrong! I certainly could be. but I believe I am not due to much introspection and research. And a personal relationship.

That is not blind faith to some human being's writings.

TheRogueX - I have to admit that's a pretty "graceful" way to exit a discussion

Since I'm sitting here having just returned from my dentist and minus one tooth that he pulled, so part of me no longer exists and might lessen your anger a bit. I'm a bit too distracted by pain to post more at this time.

Perhaps later.

I know you said you bowed out of this discussion, but I couldn't resist answering these couple of points in particular.

First of all, the point about changing your opinion if science proved tomorrow that an embryo was aware and sentient from the moment of conception. The thing that amuses me about this is that over the past 10 years or so (I'm guessing on the time range on this, this is just from memory), I've noticed that "science" has changed drastically in its opinion on when a fetus is aware, when it becomes conscious, when the various indicators that, to us, show intelligent life occur. Scientists have gone from saying that a fetus under a certain age feels no pain (what age? I don't remember) to now acknowledging that a fetus can feel pain. There really is no consensus on when "science" feels that an embryo becomes aware, becomes sentient, becomes human.

Given that the point in the fetus development when "science" says these things occur has changed over time, does that mean that humans have been developing at earlier stages over the past few years? No. It means that science has developed better ways of observing the development process. So do you think science has perfected the ways of observing the process yet? I don't. I'm guessing there's still a lot scientists don't know.

And later on, when they figure out that those embryos were really sentient all along, it will be kind of too late to go back and do anything about all the ones that were killed when people thought they were just lumps of cells, huh?

The same thing with God. I don't require science to prove to me that He exists exactly as I believe. I have other sources of proof. And frankly, science has proved time and time again that it is flawed. Don't get me wrong - it's great! I'm a techie, a scientist, and a researcher. I love it! But we're human, and we do get things wrong. My God is bigger than that, and just because science can't explain Him doesn't mean He isn't exactly what He told us He is.

The funny thing is, your reasoning and mine are the same. I know my knowledge of the universe is flawed, finite, and will never be complete. That doesn't mean I won't keep searching for the truth. I do. But I always keep an eye out to the bigger Truth as well. No matter how much we as humans learn, our knowledge will always be incomplete. I look at what some of the truly brilliant scientific minds have achieved in the past - great, wonderful things - and then see that those great minds also were convinced, through thorough scientific study, of other scientific "facts" that have since been proven wrong. Realizing that helps me keep it all in perspective. I can be a scientist, learn as much as possible, and still realize that "facts" we know today may be things future generations laugh at us about tomorrow.

But God's truth is unchanging. And the more I research and study, the more I find that science DOES back up what I know from the Bible.

One last thing - I am open minded. I do try to look at all sides of an issue. Unfortunately, doing so has made me realize that almost everything is politicized. Research money is given mostly by those who want to see certain outcomes. Keeping a grant frequently means telling people what they want to hear, which may mean slanting the data. Reporters slant the news. Poll questions are asked in such a way as to get a certain answer. It's depressing. What it comes down to is - who knows what to trust of the studies and research that is put out there these days. Anymore, I'm about to the point where it's not something I can touch, feel, and see, I don't know if I believe anyone. I guess that's one of the reasons I do have a strong faith in God - organized religion might try and change things up, but if you just stick with the Bible, and go back to original writings, the basics on God haven't changed.

It's also important to keep in mind that everyone has a bias and MOST people have a vested interest in what they choose to believe.

Our beliefs serve us, not the other way around.

We WANT to believe that our beliefs [which serve us] are correct.

Having those beliefs challenged will generally result in a LOT of resistance.

For example...rogue said that until it is proven that a fetus is alive or sentient by some standard he will accept he will *choose* to believe it is NOT...although neither position has ever been concretely proven and likely never will be.

I on the other hand choose to err on the side of caution...the fact that it *might* be is good enough to stay my hand and sway my position.

I think it very revealing about just how stranded we are in our own persective.


Usually I just think of the logic of the thing in a detached way..yes..it might be a whole person already..might be sentient..and then out of nowehere I'm sticken.

I'm stricken by the reality of it would mean if it were...I have seen pics of what is aborted and I can tell you that if that IS a person...that person has been subjected to an unimaginably inhumane execution.

We treat known murderers...people actually guilty of LESS inhumane murders than this appears to be...with a great deal more sobriety and care. And at least due process...it has to be concluded that this person has personally done something to merit execution...I doubt merely existing qualifies.

Yet you don't hear this issue brought up...you only hear about the perspective of the person who does not want to deliver the child for whatever reason.

I think...what an unbelievably selfish, entitled, and ruthless bunch of people we have all become...no wonder people feel entitled to do..really just whatever they want without a glance at the body count and never ask...Do I have the choice to do that? Do I have the right? Really?

I believe that we are becoming conditioned to just dismiss what we do not want to recognize so that we can pursue the things that we want.

We have been conditioned to actually believe that getting what we want is the MOST important thing..it's practically sacred, definitely revered, viciously defended.


Me me me. I I I.

That is so scary.

I think again again of some of the rather nightmarish results of things like an abortion.

And I am amazed that the reality isn't enough to get most people at least considering, weighing, thinking...what if?

Then I remember...we don't SHOW it. People are not confronted with it. It is not in other words EXPOSED so that we have to look at our choices.

It is sanitized. Dressed in medical terms, NEVER something the person who has just made that choice has to LOOK at...that would be unthinkable.

Yet...if the results of our choices are so horrific it would be considered cruel to make us look at them...doesn't that make them pretty questionable?

I think so.

We spend an awfull lot of time here bending into some interesting geometric shapes trying to reality orient someone who has gone into denial and rationalization about what they are doing.

We are very invested in getting people to look at and be confronted with the realities of their choices.

I think that extends beyond adultery and I think it very interesting that you can find the same process of sanitization and blind eye social acceptance in play.

I notice that in these post affair years just the odor of those things heightens my examination of the core issue even if it had NOT gotten my attention beforehand.

I'll think..."hey, that is a similar dynamic" and I am instantly suspicious.

As always this provides more questions than answers...and reminds me that I am all too willing to NOT question unless it is shoved under my nose with a giant spotlight on it reeking of ammonia and bearing a neon sign just like everyone else.

Apparently it might interrupt my TV time or make me too uncomfortable to do something I previously enjoyed. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

back in the 70's I was a nursing student

I volunteered for Planned Parenthood as a "patient advocate" for "women" having abortions

some of the "women" were just girls but we were instructed to refer to the girls as women

this was in a very hippy-feminist area

I was present during several abortions

noodle:



you are sooooooooo right !!!!!!!!!!!!

I stopped doing this, it was just too much

then, a few years later, what was I doing? I was working 11PM to 7AM shift in a neonatal ICU taking care of babies weighing less than 2 pounds

some preemies just a mere 24-25 weeks .... can you imagine the God-smack this was to my stupid stupid brain ????

here I was working like a crazy woman doing everything to save these little lives ... when just a few years earlier I was assisting sucking slightly smaller fetuses down a drain

God forgive me

Pep <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Pep,

Do you see any similarities in the mentality and conditioning or am I imagining things?

when "people" are not convenient to our desires ...
we get rid of them

seems similar

Pep

PS Noodle

I did not change my position based on an intellectual discussion... that does not usually work, in my experience

I suffered a visceral kick in the guts and a God smack to my noggin & that got my attention

so, I usually don't waste my time writing on threads like this ... but if my EXPERIENCE helps anyone, I am grateful

Pep

I would even take that further.

When "people" are inconvenient...we decide they aren't.

That pretty much goes across the board, not only in regard to abortion.

I think it's the detachment pep.

Usually I didn't think much of it as I said. I thought of the logic issues and that's about it [that goes for adultery too until it got up close and personal].

Until I was actually confronted with pictures...there is no way I could react with anything but revulsion.

You are talking to a person who watches eyeball surgery for fun because it's interesting.

I have been on the business end of my share of bodily growths and oddities and procedures.

*This* was a massacre, it turned my stomach and a was filled with SHAME for my hard heart and callous indifference.

Really filled with shame for being ABLE to talk about it in an "intellectual discussion" at all.

All I could think was...if that was a person we are all monsters.

Don't you all see it? In a throw away society it has gotten to the point that we now have disposable spouses, or it sure seems that way....

Great posts as usual Noodle and Pep. I am completely in agreement.

Let me explain something.

Just because I am Pro-Choice does not mean I accept abortion.

I know, that's difficult for Pro-Lifers to understand. I can guarantee to you that the many of those who are Pro-Choice are people who want to find a way to have FEWER abortions, and would rather have NONE AT ALL. The difference is that they don't want to ban people from having that choice if and when it becomes necessary.

Many people who are Pro-Life don't understand that they have something in common with Pro-Choice people; neither group wants more abortions. Both groups want FEWER, if not NO abortions. If the two groups would WORK TOGETHER, maybe they'd realize how much they have in common and actually get something done.

I hate abortions. I wish they didn't exist. I wish there was a perfect form of birth control (besides abstinence, so just don't say it). I wish people were actually TAUGHT about safe sex and contraception, instead of deciding that sex is taboo and shouldn't happen except for procreation after marriage. I don't think abortion is an acceptable form of birth control, not at all.

Yet, I am not about to remove a woman's ability to make that choice if she so chooses, so long as her motivations are acceptable. And there are very few acceptable motivations.

Let me also explain something else, to FH: Please stop saying and assuming that I do not believe in God! You could not be any further from the truth. I just don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God. I don't believe God the same way you do. Is that acceptable to you?

So let me see if I understand this.....

Divorce granted when there is a valid reason, not on trumped up WS charges (WS are famous for making stuff up).

Valid reasons:

1. Proven Adultery
2. Proven Spousal abuse

....and the one's against this concept think that there will be those who will live w/o D and not get the financial benefits of the D (financial settlement via the courts, etc.)?

Hm.... so when a group decides to have a tantrum, we ought to make laws...... accomodating them? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Step back and take a real look.....those kinds of people will break whatever is the law. Like the mind of a WS, breaking laws thrills them.

Best to keep laws plain and simple. WS commits adultery, wants a D....let 'em give up all and go get it. They s/b willing to leave all behind, including their shoes. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/eek.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> After all, isn't the A worth it? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/pfft.gif" alt="" />

L.

Whether or not there's a law regarding either divorce or abortion I have never felt I could choose either of those.

So it's not the laws that are the problem.


On the other hand, years ago I had ruptured tubal pregnancy at 3 months along, and began hemorrhaging, waited 8 days before going to the emergency room, since I DID NOT KNOW I WAS PREGNANT at the time. My husband and I would have welcomed this child, I'm still heartbroken. But if the baby had not been taken, I would have died without any doubt. And the baby would not have survived either way. I'm sure some around here wish I would just go away, but the law protected me.

Also, I consented to treatment but had no idea what the treatment was, I was rushed into surgery as soon as we signed the papers.

Similarly Divorce might be an option in my future if I ever see a sign of WH again. But I would feel similarly tragic and without a real choice in that decision as well. And grateful for a survival mechanism.

(((((Pepperband)))))

The Lord is in the forgiving business for those who believe in Christ. That's not just "some" sins, that all of them.

NONE of us is without sin.

KNOW, Pep, that in Christ Jesus ALL has been forgiven. Consequences, such as "memories we have to live with," may remain, but the sin itself is forgiven and are no longer "held to your account" because Jesus took the penalty in your place and paid the price "in full."

God bless.

Mort,

If you are indeed a political scientist, you appear to be very narrowly read.

Ever here of Thomas Paine?

He wrote a little "book" called The Age of Reason. Have you every bothered to read it?

He was a Founding Father and Definitely NOT a Christain . . . He openly mocks all the basis premisis of Christianity.

Here . . . I've cherry-picked some text to help you broaden your education.

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind; and, for my own part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel."

Well . . . you still think he was a Christian? Then try this one:

"No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it.

It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him."

-Chapter 2

O.K. are you getting his point? No?

"CHAPTER III - CONCERNING THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST, AND HIS HISTORY.

NOTHING that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.

Jesus Christ wrote no account of himself, of his birth, parentage, or anything else. Not a line of what is called the New Testament is of his writing. The history of him is altogether the work of other people; and as to the account given of his resurrection and ascension, it was the necessary counterpart to the story of his birth. His historians, having brought him into the world in a supernatural manner, were obliged to take him out again in the same manner, or the first part of the story must have fallen to the ground.

The wretched contrivance with which this latter part is told, exceeds everything that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was told could prove it himself.

But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different, as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection; and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I; and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.

It is in vain to attempt to palliate or disguise this matter. The story, so far as relates to the supernatural part, has every mark of fraud and imposition stamped upon the face of it. Who were the authors of it is as impossible for us now to know, as it is for us to be assured that the books in which the account is related were written by the persons whose names they bear. The best surviving evidence we now have. respecting this affair is the Jews. They are regularly descended from the people who lived in the time this resurrection and ascension is said to have happened, and they say 'it is not true.' It has long appeared to me a strange inconsistency to cite the Jews as a proof of the truth of the story. It is just the same as if a man were to say, I will prove the truth of what I have told you, by producing the people who say it is false.

That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priest-hood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehension of the effects of his doctrine as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life."


Here is a link if you are interested.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/deist1999/reason1.htm

I disagree with your premise. I think that being pro choice means that you do accept abortion, even if you don't approve of it or like it. You do accept it. You believe that a woman has a right to do it and that right should and must be protected.

I understand that much..it's the disconnect where you lose me.

How can it be both horrible AND something that should be an option?

When I saw for myself what it actually looked like...well I felt defiled just for having seen it.

I can only conclude that it is either unspeakably evil to the extent that it should be illegal in every situation OR it is just fine and there should be no limitations.

I don't agree that it is an issue that allows for a neutral shrug of a position. I don't believe there is a middle ground. I think that is cowardice in the face of being confronted with the conflict between our desires and the realities of what we are doing to achieve those goals.

If that is a person....we have put nazi germany to shame with our callousness and there is no standard/reason/or justification that excuses it.

If not...none of the standards/reasons/justifications matter.

(((((10Swords)))))

If you really do think that there are "some around here wish I would just go away" (I have to make the assumption that you are referring to "Pro-Life" people), then let say that I would have to disagree with that idea. I don't think you will find anyone who thinks that you "should have died" instead of having surgery.

Or maybe I should just speak for myself (since TheRogueX and Weaver seem to imply that I am the sort of "Christian" that they despise because I stand on God's Word and, at least in TheRogueX's case, they would prefer that I didn't exist).

Too many people "buy" the arguments from folks like TheRogueX and Weaver because there ARE "grains of truth" mixed in with falsehoods that make their "arguments" sound "reasonable" to many, especially to those who want the "privelege" of "being their own god" no matter what.

But for most people, it's not solely selfishness and entitlement that drives them. They have, as do I, conflicting thoughts and emotions on many issues. Within Christianity itself, there ARE legitimate areas of disagreement where God has not chosen to reveal "all" to us. There are also areas where the truth has been clearly revealed and they are not open to disagreement, not, at least, if it is to remain truly Christian and not be just an appropriation of the name without submitting to the true and basic tenets of Christianity (i.e., the deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, etc.).

So let me get back to your statement; "I'm sure some around here wish I would just go away, but the law protected me."

I don't know about any others, but I am not one of them.

I would submit that it was not the law that protected you, but that God protected you. The "law" was merely one "means" by which He protected you. But laws, just like so many other things, can also be broken, twisted, and abused. Another "means" that God used to protect you was the Surgeon and the medical team.

Let me simply try to "get across to you" what I am trying to say to you by using another of your statements as a "starting point."

You said; "Also, I consented to treatment but had no idea what the treatment was, I was rushed into surgery as soon as we signed the papers. "

My wife and I consented to treatment and we KNEW what the treatment was. My wife's fifth pregnancy (our 5th child) was an ectopic tubal pregnancy. Surgery was performed, and even though they couldn't find the fetus (they assume it spontaneously aborted), we CHOSE the surgery KNOWING full well what it meant and what we were "doing."

The "issue" for me is the prohibition against willful murder. "Thou shalt not kill," is better translated "Thou shalt not murder someone."

"Killing," imho, by itself is NOT prohibited by God. The matter of the "heart condition" is what God is interested in. Even in the "Old Testament days," God provided for "Cities of Refuge" for those who accidentally killed someone. God also commanded on occasion that the Israelites kill everyone in a given place (which certainly required of at least some of them the placing their thoughts and feelings in submission to HIS command even though they might not understand all the "why's). Because God is Sovereign, not us.

God allowed people, even with premediation in their hearts, to kill Jesus.

Why?

Because GOD, not us, is Sovereign. God allows things to happen because of His will and His knowledge of the "big picture." God knows that this world and all that is in it IS fallen, and that pain, suffering, anguish, etc. are part of THIS world, not part of heaven. So are "problems" that afflict the "innocent." It is not your desire, my desire, or God's desire that a fetus implant anywhere other than the place God prepared for them. But sin and a fallen world exist because God is not yet ready to end it and create a new world, free from the effects of sin. God will end it, but not until all that He has elected have "come in."

So God does provide for us in "common grace" and in His "special grace" for believers.

If someone were to break into my home and present a real threat to the life of my wife or children, I would not hesitate to kill that person. "Inaction" on my part is not acceptable. There ARE some who believe that I should not "kill" in that situation, and they are free to believe what they want. I will, if asked, offer up "WHY" I believe what I believe. I believe that God has given me a command as a husband and father to Protect and Provide for my family before anyone else and to "oppose" blatant and willful sin against God. Suffice it to say that I would NOT be put in a position to have to kill that hypothetical home invader if that person had not first broken several other commandments. I would not have "sought that person out to kill them" under any other circumstances.

Could someone "argue" that I would be, or am being, "hypocritical" in saying that I would kill in "this circumstance and not in that circumstance?" Sure. And I might be hypocritical, or seemingly so, but I would also want to know what THEY would do in similar circumstance and WHY they would do it.

One of the "favorite" ploys of those opposed to Christianity is to accuse Christians of "being perfect," or perhaps more correctly that Christians should BE "perfect" by whatever interpretation of "perfection" would be established by the one making such an accusation. The reality is that Christians are NOT perfect, they do make mistakes, but they "don't excuse" their mistakes or blame others for their "choices." Christians KNOW that God is the Judge and that God knows our hearts, and we are found guilty along with everyone else... unless the penalty for the guilty verdict has been paid for us, that someone else "took our place" on the gallows and stamped our bill "paid in full," exhonorating us from having to pay it.

Nor would you, my wife, or I "seek out an abortion" without a direct and REAL threat to our lives. It was not, in your case or in my wife's case, a question of "convenience" or simple callous disregard for life. It was a choice made that, given other circumstances, would not have been made, and most likely not even considered.

"Laws," like so many other things, are broken and abused by people every day, generally as a result of selfishness on their part. There probably, imho, wouldn't even BE any laws were we NOT living in a fallen, sinful, world. The only "laws" that would exist would be those that God would have written in our hearts, and THEY would all be for our protection and to bring honor and glory to God.

10Swords, "the wages of sin is death" is a far-reaching truth. It does NOT mean just that we die. It means that the whole of creation has been corrupted and is dying. "Bad things," like ectopic pregnancies, do happen BECAUSE we live in a "broken" world that is no longer "very good."

And God provides for us even in those situations, and within the realm of what is "possible" to us. That is one reason why "science" is so important. As has been said by scientists who believe in God, they are "following after God" and discovering what God "did" in creating all that is, and how things "work" according to God's design. But even in circumstances where we can't find a "cure," as in the surgery for the ectopic pregnancy, God still "provides" for those who are His children. "Science" is not the "end all" nor is "Science" a god, though some would seem to want to make it so. This "world" we live in is not the "end all" either. It is temporary and it WILL end, and then be replaced with one that doesn't end and one where the effects of sin are forever banished.




And God does provide just such a "survival mechanism." It is called Jesus Christ. The one who took ALL of our sins upon Himself and bore the penalty so that we wouldn't have to, that we would have a "choice," so that "survival" for us goes beyond this finite existence and carries on into eternity, where all the "problems" of THIS world will no longer exist. God provides the ONE way to "sure survival," and not all the ways that "mimic" the way or "sound good." That's because God, who IS perfect, is Sovereign, and not any one of us.

God bless.

Lots of things are horrible and yet options:

- war is horrible and yet it has to be an option

- the death penalty is horrible and yet it has to be an option

- many, many medical treatments (amputations, chemotherapy, colostomies) are horrible and yet they have to be options.

- prison is horrible and yet it has to be an option

- divorce is horrible and yet..... it has to be an option.

We live in a world where sometimes we have to pick between horrible options. It's always better if the situation never came up in the first place ... and yet... it doesn't always work out that way.

Pro choice means that you accept that sometimes the abortion is the least horrible chioce. It's an acknowledgement that there are worse things out there. Maybe some people believe there IS nothing out there that is more horrible. *shrugs*

This thread has gone all over the place. It's funny how one proposed law about marriage has brought out abortion, euthansia, whether the US is a christian nation, whether christianity is "right", etc. All those things seem tied together. I think that's why these problems are so hard to solve -- they hit on so many huge, "unsolvable" issues -- that there's no way that everyone is ever going to agree.

Morality and ethics of a society (ie. what that society happens to believe) does change over time. History teaches us that things that were once considered moral and ethical are no longer considered moral/ethical today. And, some things that were once considered taboo are believed to be "ok" by a wide number of people in today's society. This is different from the static morality/ethos of a particular philosphy or religious belief which exists outside of the popluarity of adoption. (So, for people who believe that morality is divinely determined, I'm not arguing that -- I'm just mentioning that society doesn't always follow that morality.)

Because of the existence of differing belief systems constantly rubbing shoulders, we have to deal with many of these issues. People on each side believe that the cons of the other belief system far outweigh the benefits and vice versa. With regard to abortion: I think it's safe to say that the people who are pro-life believe that the harm that is done by allowing abortions far out weighs any benefits of allowing them. And, people who are pro-choice (like me) believe that the harm in disallowing the choice far out weighs the harm done by outlawing them.

Unfortunately, those beliefs tend to make having any kind of dialogue impossible on the subject. The topic becomes polarized because no one wants to compromise their position -- their beliefs are so strong that they feel they can give no quarter. It degenerates into a "shouting" match of disparate opinions with neither side being willing to concede that the other side may have any point at all because to concede that would be tatamount to giving quarter or comfort to the enemy.

I don't know if that will ever change. I don't really think it will. I believe that both sides will continue to suffer and that there will be casualties on both sides -- until... until we either face something that is so much larger than ourselves that we band together and let go of our differences or until we die out. Or, perhaps, like in science fiction novels, someday we'll take to the stars and be able to separate ourselves over vast enough spaces that such differences no longer matter.

Until then, around and around and around we go.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

TheRogueX - I don't know if I understand your question. I think I do, but let me ask you a question in return and then try to answer your question as I perceive I understand it.

Have you, TheRogueX, stopped beating your wife yet? How do I define "beating," how do you define "beating," and to fully "trap you," I get to determine if any answer you give to the question is "adequate" and "convicts you" no matter what. Is that about how the question you posed to me goes?

So let's get back to attempting to give you an answer to "I don't believe God the same way you do. Is that acceptable to you?"

You are free to believe anything you wish just as I am free to believe anything I wish to believe. AND I won't sit here and wish you didn't exist simply because I disagree with what you have chosen to believe and that you believe everyone should believe "as you yourself believe."

What is "unacceptable" to me is when you try to put forth your "belief" as FACT, as TRUTH, and you subsituted OPINION for proof. You can rant all you want about "Christians" or as Weaver puts it, "Those types of Christians," who believe in the God of the Bible and who surrender their lives to Him through Jesus Christ.

TheRogueX, let me put it as plainly as I can. Christianity stands or falls upon the PERSON of Jesus Christ. If he is not who he said he is and if he did NOT rise from the dead, ALL of Chrisianity is false and no better than any other "faith" or "belief" that proceeds from the mind and the imagination of Man.

Christians do not believe a concept or something simply because is "sounds good." Christians believe because there is a PERSON, and that person is the OBJECT of, and reason for, our belief. Christians believe because of the grace of God and NOT because of anything we have done or could do.

So, given that, I have always agreed that you believe in "god." Just not the God of the Bible. Everyone believes in some sort of "god," even if their "god" is no god, just nature.

Is that acceptable to you?

This intrigues me. Are you saying that everyone believes in "something larger than themselves" and that <whatever> is god or a god or maybe many gods?

This sentence seems to contradict itself.

If I believe in some sort of "god" that isn't a god, but is just nature -- then is that really a god? *scratches her head* Or, are you saying that I believe it's a god but it isn't?

What does belief confer? Acknowledgment? Surrender? Worship?

Mys

Well, I hope no one else minds too much,

But,

I continue to be thankful I was not aborted,

Whether I was sentient at the time,

At that particular time,

In my life,

Or not.


With prayers,

Myschae - you said "This intrigues me. Are you saying that everyone believes in "something larger than themselves" and that <whatever> is god or a god or maybe many gods?"

If you want to word it that way, then I could see where you might see some sort of "contradiction." But that isn't what I said.

What I said is that everyone believes in some "god." That "god" can, but does not necessarily have to be, "something larger than themselves." Many people, for example atheists, believe that THEY are the "top of the chain." There is no one, and nothing is, "higher than," or "larger than" if you will, themselves. This is the thinking, the "belief" if you will, that "I am sovereign," with all that the term "sovereign" conveys.


"If I believe in some sort of "god" that isn't a god, but is just nature -- then is that really a god? *scratches her head* Or, are you saying that I believe it's a god but it isn't? "

Question 1 - yes, it's a "god."

Question 2 - yes and no. Yes, it's is a "god" to you, but No, it is not the one true God, who exists regardless of what you, I, or anyone else thinks.


"What does belief confer? Acknowledgment? Surrender? Worship?"

If by "belief" you are referring specifically to "Christian belief," then it confers salvation, the creation of a new nature, that results in the sorts of things, among other things, that you cited.

If by "belief" you mean anything that someone believes either by faith or by proof, it does not "have to," though it can, be expressed by the actions you cited. The "point" is that sincerity of belief does NOT, in and of itself, confer truth to that belief. "True belief" is founded in truth. And "truth" by its very nature is "absolute." Truth cannot also be False, Right cannot also be Wrong, God cannot be "not God." Truth exists regardless of a given belief and, in the realm of religion, can be known to Man only by revelation of the truth to those who do not have "all the knowledge" inherent in themselves. In the specific case of Christianity, God not only provides the information, He provides proof that what He has said is TRUE and can be accepted as truth. There is "objective" proof, not just "subjective" feeling.

Thus, someone COULD worship a rock or could surrender their belief in the need for scientific proof that life arose from non-life, contrary to all the proof that IS available to science that life ONLY comes from life. But worshipping a rock does not make that rock a "real god" and belief in evolution does NOT confer truth, it merely states an opinion that should never be construed to be absolute fact and truth. But those very same people CAN also choose to consider that ANY alternative to THEIR belief might actually be possible, much less the real truth. And they CAN choose to attack anyone else who might sincerely believe in something different and wish that they never existed. "Sincerity of belief," once again, does NOT, in and of itself, make that belief TRUE.

Pro choice means that you accept that sometimes the abortion is the least horrible chioce. It's an acknowledgement that there are worse things out there. Maybe some people believe there IS nothing out there that is more horrible. *shrugs*


I believe that there are indeed plenty of things out there just as horrible as this...but the difference is that we recognize them as horrible. We call them crimes against humanity. We put people to death for doing it.

We don't blur or ignore completely the inconveneint issues.

We don't compare divorce to murder [and especially not from a legal standpoint].

If a 12 year old is raped by her father and becomes pregnant...we can all agree that is horrible.

Still...if the fetus is in fact alive...does that crime justify a rather savage murder of an innocent person...does the suffering or potential suffering of one person give that person the right to kill someone who had ~nothing~ to do with it simply because they are inconvenient or will create more suffering for the original victim by existing?

I would say obviously not. Many disagree. If I accept that then all of the formerly abused children turned killer/rapist whathaveyou had better be let out of prison with a big apology from the state.

The entire acceptability of something like abortion is firmly entrenched in something that can not be proven or disproven....that what is being cut up and removed is NOT alive, not human.

Pro choice position says...

You can show me a stack of examples that suggest it might be..that it might feel pain...that it had brain function and a heartbeat before the woman even knew she was pregnant...and that is not good enough.

I have to be shaken by the lapels...I have to be convinced...I have to be COMPELLED to disagree with this practice. I need 100% certainty.

I have to wonder why? Why the vested interest? Why the resistance?

What does it take away from us as individuals to demand 100% certainty that it is NOT alive before we make it OK to destroy it?

Really what?

What is being protected and guarded?

I am not convinced whatever it is is worth it.

Personally...if I'm wrong I'm willing to pay that price...potentially having the blood of thousands or even millions of innocent individuals on my hands is not something I can assent to. Even without confirmation that this is for certain the case...the POTENTIAL is too great to allow me to consent to it.

So it won't have MY consent.

If I hear you correctly then you believe that this is what each individual can best do...follow their own conscience and not impede on others or insist that others agree with them because the result is an unwinnable fight with many casualties.

I think there are some threads of agreement...I see what you are saying and I don't think that I personally have the right to enforce my will because it is my will nor do I think that others should be forced to deny their own...yet we make laws every day. Every day we create structures that say...you may do this, and not that with our collective consent.

We say..you may not murder...we will not consent to this action.

Like it or lump it that is the law.

So that is really the focal point of suprise for me.

Murder *is* illegal.

Yet something that very possibly COULD be murder is not.

Where is the intense investigation?

Where is the scrutiny?

Why do we not show people exactly what an abortion produces and then ask their opinion?

Can you hold a sliced off face in your own hands and not believe that what you held was alive?

Confronted with actual physical evidence would we have the same verdict?

I doubt it very much. I doubt very much that the majority would agree that what they held in their hands was an aceptable price for the freedom to "choose".

10Swords -

ForeversHers said it all so eloquently that I don't know that there's much I can add.

I don't believe in abortion.

What happened to you wasn't abortion - you had a life-saving surgery. The unfortunate consequence was that the child you were carrying died, but then, that child would not have lived anyway. It's a very hard situation, and one I'm very sorry you had to live through. But no, I don't see that as murder, as abortion in any way. I know there are some that do. But I think most pro-life people feel the way FH and I do.

After all, the choice here was to lose 2 lives or 1 life. It's a horrible choice, but obviously, it's better to save one than to save none. And again, I'm sorry for your pain and your loss.

You will never find a person more against abortion than me. Never. And I find your words to be sad that you think anyone would cast blame on you for this. You suffered from a medical condition that left you no other choice. I am sorry for the loss you had.

Myschae, with all due respect, "Pro Choice" means nothing of the sort, not as it is applied to the Abortion Question. In fact, I'd venture that many who claim to be "Pro Choice" on the abortion issue are TOTALLY against any executions of criminal for any reason. Instead, they would advocate for "Pro Life" and "letting the person live" no matter how "inconvenient" it might be for others, especially for victims of crime and mayhem.

"Pro Choice," as used by abortion proponents means that NOTHING supercedes a woman's desire for an abortion for any and all reasons. It is NOT dependent upon a "life or death" choice for the woman. It can be, but it is not the "Standard" that is used. The "Standard" is simply the woman's right to decide the fate of another person with NO appeal to anyone else. "What woman wants, woman gets."

That's selfishness, not abortion due to real necessity (i.e., the life of the mother would TRULY be at risk, a forced pregancy as in the case of rape, etc.).

"Pro-Life," on the other hand, affords the opportunity for "choice," but the Standard is first the sanctity of all life and second the welfare of the woman, not simply because she chose to engage in sex and "got pregnant somehow." The "Pro-Choice" position should be the choice to engage in sex or not to engage in sex, but NOT to hold someone else accountable for YOUR choice(s) and for someone else to PAY THE ULTIMATE PENALTY for your CHOICE, and NOT because of anything they did to you.

Agree completely. The loss of a child from a medical emergency...especially where the pregnancy is nonviable [you can't carry a child in a fallopian tube any more than you could in your eyeball] has nothing at all to do with abortion. People die every day, even children. Some situations are beyond the current ability of doctors to intervene.

But the "horribleness" of a just act does not justify an unjust act. I am confused about why you made this analogy, myshae, because surely you can't fail to see that there is no moral equation between getting a colostomy and killing an innocent human. Were you drawing such an illegitimate equation as a joke to mock the use of the word 'horrible?" Because I know you know these are not legitimate analogies because "horribleness" is not a standard why which we judge right from wrong. If you don't know that, I am frankly ......horrified.



Least "horrible" for WHOM? I really can't think of anything that is more "horrible" than being ripped to shreds, can you?

There is more than one person involved in this situation, after all. Do only SOME people get a "right" to be protected from "horribleness?" Are only SOME people entitled to this ever coveted "CHOICE?" Choice for some, but not for others? Perhaps some people are a little more equal than others? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> I would clearly consider that a "horrible" thing if it were ME who was to have my body parts ripped off until I was dead. I think that is most "horrible."

So, who gets to decide who is protected from horribleness and who is not? Who decides who gets all these cute "choices?" Or can we ALL "choose" to be protected from horribleness since folks around seem to so love "choices?" <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Noodle, I could not ascertain from what you wrote if you were addressing your comments directly to me or just stating your thoughts in general to everyone.

So if I am "off base" in my comment here, I ask your forgiveness because I am assuming that at least this part of your post WAS directed at me for comment, since the header of your post showed you responding to my post.



No, this is definately not what I would say. I am NOT in favor of anarchy and DO believe that sometimes we must intercede and fight for what is right, even if most others think what they are doing is "right" and serving their own purpose.

For example, millions were killed in Nazi Concentration Camps and we could not "ignore" it and let them continue doing what they wanted to do without raising an objection, up to an including, "imposing" our will on their will.

In the abortion areana, since Roe v. Wade, we have slaughtered (in my opinion) millions of innocent children on the alter of personal desire and wanton behavior. We "blame" the children for our being pregnant or for possible life-threatening complications(instead of rare and real life-threatening issues) and use, most often, EXCUSES to rid ourselves of our "responsibility for our own actions," and in the process, rid ourselves of innocent babies. We even go to the extreme of saying that IF someone other than the mother terminates the pregnancy then they are guilty of murder, regardless of what "age" the developing fetus is. The "Standard" is "wanted" or "unwanted" by the mother, and the mother alone.

someone here said the death penalty needs to be an option.... dead wrong. I am an ex cop and I can tell you that our criminal justice system is so flawed that no one.... and I mean no one should be executed for their crimes. There are too many mistakes that have been made in the past... where innocent people have been executed to allow for this to continue. Also...there is no benefit to society in executing a criminal. There is nothing about the death penalty that acts as a deterrent to other criminals... nothing. The cost of executing a criminal far outweighs the cost of housing them for life in solitary confinement. People would advocate cutting down on the number of appeals to lower the cost of execution... that would only result in more mistakes.
I worked the front lines in the battle on crime and can tell you that it is a mistake of monumental proportions.

And anyone that is in favor of a womens right to kill a baby, I would suggest doing a google search for abortion pictures so that you can see what it is that you are advocating. Ignorance is dangerous.

I don't especially think that this is a productive conversation as I don't think that anyone ever listens or changes views on this, but I also don't feel that anyone has represented my point of view. So here we go.

Society only has so many resources to invest in the next generation and I don't care nearly as much about unborn children as unloved children. I think it's heartless to be protesting RU486 when there are children short miles away that need for love and care and role models. Perhaps putting down the sign and going to be a big brother, big sister or even adoptive parent would be more helpful to children.

For each person who says to me, "I am against abortion" I ask: "How many ethnic children have you adopted?" "How many children of drug addicts?"

Because before we start criticizing the people who abort their pregnancies, lets ask ourselves if we personally are doing everything we can to make sure that every born child is loved and raised with a loving home, good education and caring nuturing environment. If you won't raise the child, why should someone else?

There are children out there today who need your help. If you are anti-abortion, maybe you should put the keyboard down and go help the born and needy instead of responding. But the truth is, it's easy to judge and pontificate and say that people who abort a fetus are taking a life. But it's hard to help the lives that are born.

Horrible argument....taking care of children that are here should be a priority....but the state of affairs regarding that does not justify killing babies. Sorry... but that is weak!

And you are wrong... people change their mind on this topic frequently.

Mebe - I have to say that your "logic" is confusing. Those who are against abortion should somehow be responsible for all the "unwanted" children? Aren't you putting the "responsibility" in the wrong place?

I think you will find that the vast majority, if not all, proponents of "Pro-Life" rather than "Pro-Choice" are in favor of Personal Responsibility for one's actions.

If you are trying to argue that the Pro-Life supporters should take on the responsibility of raising all the unwanted children, then perhaps you are missing the point of the "Responsibility" argument that the people, especially the women since they ARE the ones who actually get pregnant, should be responsible enough to NOT engage in sex if they don't want the risk of becoming pregnant.


"Because before we start criticizing the people who abort their pregnancies, lets ask ourselves if we personally are doing everything we can to make sure that every born child is loved and raised with a loving home, good education and caring nuturing environment. If you won't raise the child, why should someone else? "

But if you wish to extend the argument that the women should have right to engage in sexual activities under all circumstances simply because it is their "right to choose," then maybe the way to control, or end, all the abortions for "convenience" would be to pass a law that all women who want to engage in sex OUTSIDE of marriage must be sterilzed. Their eggs could be harvested and put in "cold storage" should they ever marry and then want to have their own children.

How many people do you think would want to take that approach to solving the "unwanted children" problem you presented?

You should understand that you have forfeited your credibility in your proclaimed "concern" when you advocated the brutal death of an innocent human. Saying that you are concerned about a child being "loved" doesn't ring true when you admittedly don't care if his legs and head are ripped off in a gruesome abortion and tossed in the dumpster.

Please get some better talking points, because this argument is very weak. It is the same as saying a person has no right to object to child molestation unless they are willing to ADOPT that child. A very silly argument.

Sorry FH,

I generally just tack on to the bottom of whatever post was last for quick reply option unless I am quoting someone.

That was actually in response to Mys whose post did give me that impression.

I haven't had a disagreement yet with anything you have said.

I'm an athiest and I don't believe what you've described. I'm not even sure what sovereign means in this context.

You mentioned earlier in this thread how irritating it is to be told what Christians believe. It's just as irritating, as an athiest, to be told what athiests believe - particularly when I don't believe any such thing.


Ok, I can understand that. But, most people believe that what they believe IS true. If they didn't think it was true -- they probably wouldn't believe it.

So, while it doesn't confer any objective kind of truth to their beliefs -- it certainly affects their behavior towards those beliefs -- or, to put it a different way, most people behave as though what they believe is true.


Aside from the absolute fact and truth that they believe it to be true. I understand that's different from 'proving' that it is objectively true -- but it IS a true statement to say: I believe evolution is true. Or I believe the rock is god. If that's how the person really feels.


Yes, and the sincerity of your beliefs about what athiests "think" or believe does not make them true for me. Maybe you're speaking of what some other atheist has told you.

I believe what I believe is true. I also happen to believe that what you believe about Jesus Christ/god is false. I don't need to convince you that it's true or false because, as you said, what any individual believes doesn't matter in terms of the objective truth. Maybe one of us has it right. Maybe we both have it wrong. Either way, what we believe won't change the actual value of truth.

Am I getting what you're saying?


ForeverHers, with all due respect, I know what I mean and I mean what I say. I am pro choice and I am telling you what I think/believe. I don't accept your 're-definition' of my position because it's just utterly false. Like you said -- just because you believe that's what "pro choice" means doesn't mean that it's true. I am perfectly capable of stating what I believe with regard to athiesm or pro choice beliefs. I don't need you to explain to me what I think. (I need your help explaining to me what YOU think. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )



Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

Noodle


Well, that's close. Not impede on others speaks to the idea that everyone in this country has a voice. It's not OK for one group to try to disenfranchise another just because they don't agree. So, I do believe it's unlawful for one group to try to silence another group. That is different than speaking your own mind.

Insisting that others agree with you is not unlawful -- it's just ineffective. It's never worked. I don't mind if people want to spend their energy doing that -- but I wouldn't recommend it to someone.

What I was saying was that both sides feel strongly about the issue. If you can, imagine that there's someone out there that feels just as strongly as you do about the opposite side of the issue. Examine how willing you are to change your mind and, then, imagine that the other person is just as willing to change his/her mind.

We live in an ordered society that contains laws (as you mentioned). Part of our participation in this society includes "voting our conscience" and "voicing our opinion." I didn't mean to say that opinions shouldn't be voiced -- what I did mean was that, often, those opinions are so entrenched that even with increased volume no one's mind is changed.

So, on the one side of the issue we have people fighting -- HARD -- to change the laws to what they think is right. Perhaps it's to eliminate or regulate abortion. You have people on the other side fighting JUST as hard to keep it legal and available. That's how the system is designed to work. There can be change but it's hard to do. Getting mad/angry/frustrated that people oppose you might be 'natural' but it is also rather short sighted, in my opinion. If you fight for/against a topic like this, you should be prepared for someone on the other side to fight just as hard to undo everything you've put energy into doing.

When it comes down to it, each person has to decide what side of the issue they're on (or take no side which often means taking the default position which currently is pro-choice because that's how the existing laws lean). It's much harder on the side pushing for change than the default position because of this.

What I was really trying to say is that the discussion gets difficult because it's a polarizing issue. People feel strongly about it and probably don't like to hear about or think about people who feel differently on an issue they feel is strongly moral. I guess I was just trying to say that I don't feel immoral for my beliefs though I can accept that you might feel I am an immoral person because of them. I act in accordance with what I think/feel/believe. I also expect you to act in accordance with what you think/feel/believe - which is to say that I wouldn't expect you to support pro-choice causes or vote that way.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

Melody Lane


I imagine that a lot of things I think/believe would horrify you - probably some things even more than this.

I'm at peace with that.


Yes, actually, I can. That doesn't mean you'd agree with me or you'd think the same way. I'm not trying to convince you to think the same way that I do. I'm merely relating what I think/believe.

As I said to noodle, I don't think I'm going to change any of your minds and you aren't going to change mine. The purpose of the discussion, for me, isn't to figure out where I stand or to win new "converts" to my way of thinking. I all ready know that your arguments aren't compelling to me and mine aren't likely to be compelling to you. What I wish COULD happen was a reasoned discourse that was an attempt to find any common ground from which to work from. Neither side is going to vanish any time soon. I persist in the (possibly silly) idea that it would be a good thing if both sides could, somehow, figure out if there's anything they DO agree needs to be fixed and focus energy there rather than trying to convert each other lock, stock, and barrel.



From a pragmatic, reality-based point of view -- yes. Apparently so, since abortion is legal in this country.



Yes. The unborn are not given equivalent rights as the born. Children do not have access to all the rights as adults.

Some people are undoubtably "more equal" than other people in our society.


The people who get to decide are lawmakers and, sometimes, judges. Ostensibly, that is supposed to translate into the "will of the people" working through those venues.

I hope I cleared up your confusion.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest.

mkeverydaycnt

I did. You're right. It doesn't need to be an option. I retract that.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

My largest arguament with the prochoice movement is that it focusses soley on the rights of one indivual while completely ignoring the rights of the other.

No one has the right to take a womans choice away from her...but she has the right to take the choice away from the child?

That does not follow any sort of logic. Not when it's potentially death we are talking about.

Do parents have the right to kill their children?

The ONLY explanation is that the "child" is not a child and therefore has no rights.

Yet there is no proof that this is the case.

I'm baffled by the refusal to actually visit the issue of whether or not the fetus is a child.

If it's not I have no problems and do not understand why people believe it is a bad choice or should be limited in any way.

Who cares? I could schedual a mole to be removed on the same day to save time.

It's the disconnect that I sit in wonderment at.

Not anger, or frustration even.

That would be like shaking my fists at the wind..this issue is so big....much bigger than me and waaaaay outside of my control...but almost shock at the knee jerk dismissal.

I have brought it up several times...not one pro choice person has responded with anything BUT reiterating the womans need to have choices.

Would a prochoice person be able to have the same opinion if indeed they were confronted with physical evidence?

Mys..do you think you could look at body parts...recognizable ones such as faces and arms and legs...cut up..and consider that the fetus/child may have EXPERIENCED being cut up or pulled apart and STILL believe that a woman has the right to make that choice?

I'm not saying you couldn't. Maybe you can.

We refuse to put ourselves in the perpective of the child...only the woman. Why?

I think lots of people discuss that -- there's just lots of disagreement.

I tend to draw the "line" at the point where the child is able to survive outside the womb -- and that time is becoming earlier and earlier. In fact, I've often wondered if anyone's considered the possibiliy of removing the fertilized egg/embryo/fetus and creating an "implantation bank" for infertile couples. I'm not sure we have the technology to do this, though it seems we've got to be getting close.

I wonder if that would satisfy either side...


The main limitation(s) I'm concerned with are 1.) prevention and 2.) forcible abortion (like China did for 2nd children). Other than that, I don't argue that much for limitations.


Yes. Does that make you feel better?

I doubt it.


In some ways I do put myself in the perspective of the child. There are worse things, in my opinion, than a quick, early death. Even at the outside (if it lasts a few minutes, for example) there are worse types of death that I can imagine. Maybe I just have a really gruesome imagination.


Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

To all who replied re my situation, I thank each of you for your kind thoughts, and find comfort in them.

Well..I can imagine being eaten by a shark...but I'd be pretty upset if the laws allowed someone else to decide that I was lunch that day just 'cause.

You bring up an interesting point concerning viability.

You know...an embryo can survive outside the womb...that technology exists and has existed for quite some time.

We lack the correct conditions to bring a child to term outside the womb...but we can pull what is considered a *living* and *viable* embryo out and then implant it elsewhere.

Which pretty much makes survival outside the host womb completely possible within hours of conception. Prior even to implantation.

This, IMHO, makes you a bad person. The fact that you can say that even if the baby experienced pain... and being pulled apart... and you would still be okay with that... you are a sad excuse for a human.

It's one thing for a person to be ignorant of what they are doing... quite another to be fully aware of the harm they are inflicting and still being okay with someone having that choice. Absolutely disgusting.

I'm sure its not horrible to you at all. It's someone else's body being ripped to shreds. I betcha many folks, including you, would not make a "choice" to have their OWN body ripped apart, though, do you?


I would like to see a well "reasoned" defense of killing the unborn, but sadly, I never have. I don't believe there IS such a defense, because killing the innocent is indefensible. I wish to GOD there was a defense! But there is not. Believe me, I looked and looked for years because I did not want to give up my pro-abortion stance. [life long pro-abortionist until 90's] I stood in INDICTMENT with the realization of the true nature of abortion and it was not fun. It pains me to this day. All of the bumper sticker rationales I was taught growing up fell apart under MINOR scrutiny; I just ran out of lies and excuses. A person can only lie to themselves for so long.


Agree. Choice is not really "choice" at all; for only for a selected few. It is might makes right, survival of the fittest. Throw the unwanted into the dumpster. A nazi mentality. And we need to admit this truth.


Right, and some are so unequal that we can kill them and dispose of them in dumpsters. BY LAW.

But, we already know this. The question at hand is if this is RIGHT? CAN IT BE DEFENDED?

I have to side with Mel and MEDC here.

>ahem<

[wink wink]

What's next.

How about: Did George Bush steal the 2000 presidential election??

Discuss amounst yourselves.

Just trying to lighten the place up a bit with a new topic.

It is Friday night afterall.

Mr. Wondering

Sorry Noodle. I agree with you too OK???? Happy now????

I hope the COLTS kick butt

[shuffles feet]

Yeah...happy now.

*shrugs* If it wasn't this opinion, I'm sure it would be some other opinion of mine that you'd object to. Either way, I doubt I'd be on your "good person" list for very long.

Why did you bother sharing this opinion with me?


I answered your question.

If I had to choose the manner of my own death, there would be other ways I'd pick before being ripped to shreds and there would be ways I'd pick after being ripped to shreds. What about you? Would this be last on your list?


I don't believe that it's truth so there's nothing for me to admit. You obviously do. You've admitted it.


Yes, we do all ready know this.

I don't think it can be defended TO YOU (et al). You've made it pretty clear that you don't think there is any defense.

I don't need to have it defended because I've all ready made up my mind.

Maybe someone else will feel like defending it to you -- I don't because I don't want to change your mind.

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

I do wish this sort of thing would be discussed/researched/suggested.

My feelings with this have more to do with finding a solution everyone can live with and ending the societal division over this and not with any squeamishness I have about the current conditions.

It just seems that this sort of thing would be a way to turn the situations around into win/wins. The pregnant woman doesn't have to complete her pregnancy and some infertile couple gains a much wanted child.

You "all" have asked me a lot of questions. Would any of you be interested in focusing energy on asking questions about this type of solution? Would that sort of thing be 'acceptable' to your morality or is there something particularly compelling about which womb starts the pregnancy and which womb ends it?

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

Well that IS the point isn't it. YOU can choose. A baby being aborted can't.

The question asked to me (which I answered) was:


Which I boiled down to: Would you make the choice to have your own body ripped apart.

I wasn't making a point. You'd have to ask Melody Lane if that was her point in asking the quesiton -- though I assume if it was I answered the wrong question.

If your point is that the cells/embryo/fetus being aborted has no choice in the matter, then you are correct. It doesn't. It never did.

It doesn't seem practical to try to give it a choice since I'm not sure how to make it understand the issue much less figure out how to interpret it's response. It's kind of a silly notion, really.

Mys

It works for me...that's why I mentioned it <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />.

I'm all for finding a solution everyone can live with. A solution in which someone dies without a vote can not fit that criteria.

Incidentally...maybe I should copyright that plan before someone else claims it.

Oh, I think I would "choose" to not be killed, but that is just silly ole ME. The issue isn't choosing your own death,though, it is enforcing a horrible, cruel, inhumane death on someone against their will. They have no choice.


Well, you can't refute it, so my statement stands. If it is true, it is true whether you believe it or not. Reality exists independent of your "beliefs."

Not really. I bet its not "silly" to the one whose life is up for grabs. Seems pretty practical to me if it is my life on the line. It is a human being who can develop into a thinking individual who can grow to a point where he can make a "choice." Even young children can understand the concept of dead. Since it is his life that is up for grabs, logically, he should be the one to make that "choice." And we all love "choices," right?

The choice was never offered to the aborted.

The choice is offered to the woman who is pregnant to decide whether or not she wants to continue the pregnancy. The choice is also offered to our society to decide whether to continue to allow women the choice to terminate pregnancies. As far as I know, there's never been any discussion regarding finding some way to offer the choice to the cells/embryo/fetus being aborted.

My choice would be to continue to allow women to terminate their pregnancies. My desire would be to investigate ways to bridge the societal divide and find some way to make both parties happy -- potentially by 'ending' the pregnancy in a woman and 'transplanting' it into another woman who does desire to be pregnant. It seems like that might be a technologically feasible, morally acceptable, alternative -- at least to talk about.

I hope that clears some things up for you.


What did it get you? You assert your statement "stands" -- whatever that means. You'll stand there a long time waiting for me to worry about refuting it because I really don't care to change your mind or argue you out of your assertions or beliefs. Your "standing" doesn't bother me at all because I never "stood" on the ground you're occupying.

All that amounts to the same thing we started with, Melody Lane. You have your beliefs and I have mine. Your claims of "truth" do not impact my beliefs -- my claims of "truth" do not impact yours.

We're never going to agree. (unless it's to agree on that)

Anyway, I hope you feel better about being able to stand where you're standing. At least then you'll be getting something positive out of it.

Mys

No offense, but if you think that a 17 year old single pregnant girl is capable of being "personalably responsible" for a child, you ******edit******

There's "how it should be" and there's "how it is." How it should be: If you get pregnant, you are capable of raising a child in a loving caring environment. How it is: Lots of women who are pregnant are incapable of raising a child in such an environment. That leaves three choices: 1, The mother aborts the child. 2, The child grows up in non-nurturing environment. 3, Someone else raises the child. Have you raised an unwanted baby?

Think about the results. No abortions. OK, the child is raised by a 17 year old who has no earning capacity. That's a good start. There is this dream world that says only people who are capable of raising a child get pregnant. But in the real world if you want there to be no abortions, someone has to raise the kids who would otherwise be aborted. Have you adopted an ethnic crack baby recently? Have you stood outside the abortion clinic recently with a sign that says: "Don't abort, I'll raise that cute cuddly baby?"

If not, *****EDIT*****

Either put skin in the game or pipe down. Pro-life judgementalism is tired. Help the problem or sit on the sidelines. The first problem is birthed children who are not given a loving environement, rather than what happens fetuses sitting in the womb of 17 year olds.

(For the record, I have an infertile wife, am a big brother to a very disadvantaged child, am considering adopting, and am 100% pro-choice because we are not yet to the point where 95% of children who are born have a loving caring household. Have you been a big sister? If not, it's not too late. Rather than replying to this post,****EDIT****to http://www.bbbs.org/ and do some good ******edit******** I'm doing something, are you? *********EDIT**********

I know five people off the top of my head who adopted.

The process took almost a decade.

The cost to adopt a crack addicted ethnic baby from her pregnant via prostitution mother [and only an open adoption btw] was only slightly less than the cost of their home, not counting the hospital costs [which were plentifull due to crack addiction and withdrawl].

Plenty of good homes are waiting ready and willing...it is an insurmountable hill for many families who would if they could due to process and cost. Many infertile couples have nearly exhausted their expendable cashflow to be not infertile.

In case you haven't noticed..we don't have a plethora of orphanages full of needy children...it is extremely difficult to adopt a child that no one wanted.

Have you adopted an ethnic crack baby recently?

[b]not recently
it's been about 17 years
but, yes
adopted 2 children of an addict....

someone report my post so I get an edit from Justuss

[color:"red"]****edit******[/color] ... no offense

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

Mebe, it is my personal policy to never discuss the well being of a child with someone who has just advocated its death because their "concern" is so transparently FAKE. You don't deserve a direct response and don't deserve to be taken seriously. Please don't embarrass yourself with that argument. It only makes you look flagrantly hypocritical and I say this sincerely as a person who used to make this SAME silly argument in defense of abortion. It doesn't work.

You simply can't claim to "care" that a child is loved, and then advocate his unjust death out of the other side of your mouth. That is just not rational and it won't work on thinking people.

Another suggestion: don't condemn others as being "judgmental" in the same post where you yourself are extremely judgmental.

I am glad that you are not bothered, mys. And that is the "truth." <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Well, I come at this from two different fronts. One as a father that had to plead with a woman that told me she was going to kill my child before he was born... and I had no say in the matter. Then after he was born I was denied access... just because she could do that.... that what happens when you afford ONE person rule over the entire situation.

I also come at this fromt he standpoint of someone doing foster/foster adopt.... yet I find your silly arguments childish at best. To think that the infants would not be adopted in a split second is beyond ridiculous. But the host says... I could never give it up for adoption once I carried it! No, but you can slaughter it!

So, from someone that has stood up and made the committment to take in a child that needed a home... you sound like an *** and YOU should ****. Pro-choice justifications are the tired game in town.

Why should I choose between abandoned children and executed ones anyway?

They are both important and relevent issues.

Not either or, first and second.

Thankfully... we don't need more ignorance roaming the street and given your views, I can only imagine the moral standards you would pass on to your child.

Okay, Myschae, let me grant you the benefit of the doubt. Though I find it surprising that you claim “ignorance” of what was meant by the term “sovereign” in the context of “who is the supreme authority and decision maker” and who is the “servant, obligated to defer to the sovereign authority.” I will try to clarify that term so that you can agree or disagree with the term in the context in which it is applied (i.e., “supreme god”).

Here are the Primary definitions of Sovereign, and we can see which ones are applicable to the concept of “sovereign god,” depending upon who someone may believe is “sovereign” in their own life; their own self, a rock, God, Mother Earth, Gaia, Brahma, etc.

sovereign

IN BRIEF: Supreme. Also: Not controlled by others.


Sovereign may refer to:
· Sovereignty, a philosophical concept or state.
· Sovereign Faith a theological perspective.
o Self-ownership, a concept also referred to as the [color:" red"] sovereignty of the individual [/color]
· Monarch or other head of state


Law Dictionary
Sovereign
That which is preeminent among all others. 1 Bl. Comm. *241. [color:"red"] For instance, in a monarchy (as in God), the king as sovereign has absolute power[/color], while in a democracy, the people have the sovereign power. Blackstone, the eighteenth century legal theorist, defined sovereign power to mean "the making of laws." 1 Bl. Comm. *49. In ancient England, the king's word was law, in today's democratic governments, the law-making function has been taken over by representative bodies such as Congress. Other incidents of sovereignty in addition to law-making power are sovereign immunity, which prohibits lawsuits against the sovereign without its permission, and eminent domain, which allows the sovereign to take private property and put it to public use.

Myschae, when you say “I'm an atheist,” you are using a term that is understood and are applying that definition to yourself, embracing that definition as being “you.” That is NOT my telling you who you are, that is you announcing to all of us who you are. The term “atheist” carries with it an understanding that theologically there is no “supreme being,” no “outside of self” authority who has any “sovereign” rights over you.

In the context of our discussion about “gods” it is FAIR to say that if someone denies any “god,” they retain the “sovereign rights” normally associated with a “sovereign (god)” for themselves. They become the “authority” with the “sovereign right” to believe whatever they want to believe and to determine what is truth for themselves, regardless of anyone else’s belief, opinion, or facts that might be in “conflict” or “opposition” to what they choose for themselves.

You agreed with that when you said; “Aside from the absolute fact and truth that they believe it to be true. I understand that's different from 'proving' that it is objectively true -- but it IS a true statement to say: I believe evolution is true. Or I believe the rock is god. If that's how the person really feels.”

Your answer begs the question however. The issue is not, and never has been, “true = a sincere belief that someone might hold.” We are not talking a semantic definition of the word “true” here. We are talking about TRUTH that exists regardless of anyone’s closely held “truism” for themselves.

When you say; “Yes, and the sincerity of your beliefs about what athiests "think" or believe does not make them true for me. Maybe you're speaking of what some other atheist has told you,” you are either being insincere or you have some definition of “atheist” that is not the generally accepted definition of what an atheist believes relative to there being or not being any “sovereign supreme being.”

No one, least of all me, is going to argue that you might hold some opinion for yourself and have chosen to make it “your truth.” No one is going to argue that you can’t have 20 people in the same room who all hold differing opinions about something and who also believe that their opinion is true, at least for themselves.

But that does NOT confer “TRUTH” to the opinion. As you agreed, “objective truth” operates independently from “opinion truth.” But you take your opinion to be the “final word,” at least for yourself, and make it the “sovereign word,” the “authoritative word,” and try to deflect examining that very opinion in an attempt to determine what might actually be the “objective truth” by wanting to shift discussion to some “common ground of agreement area.”



Yes, but “intellectual honesty” would seem to require that when faced with “opposing” ideas about the same subject that a search for truth should be undertaken, or proof offered in support of one’s opinion if they are convinced from prior study that their opinion is the truth (of all the possible postulated “truths”). It would seem to be “intellectually dishonest” to merely “bury one’s head in the sand” and say “my opinion is my truth and that’s ‘good enough for me’.”

So let’s look at one example of this “head burying” concept, based on what you wrote to Noodle, as a good place to begin considering the implication of your stated position about what is “a true statement” and therefore “true for you.”


Okay, I am willing to imagine that you might be willing to change your mind.

Let’s use an example of this thinking that has already been proven wrong and that the disagreement with the idea WAS proven effective AND imposed upon those who considered the matter closed and not open to discussion. In addition, that disagreement and imposition of one “true thought” upon the other “true thought” (using your previously described concept of “it’s true for me, therefore it’s a true thought) not only “worked,” but it was very EFFECTIVE.

People once thought slavery was okay. Slaves were NOT people, they were merely “assets,” to be used and/or disposed of anytime the “Master” (read “sovereign”) so desired for whatever reason the “Master” wanted to use. It was the “Master’s” sole right, and it did not matter that anyone else might think that HIS slave was a person and not a “thing,” a “piece of property” that had no more inherent rights than any other “piece of property” that the “Master” might own. The slaves had NO rights, and no practical ability to “speak for themselves.” It took others to IMPOSE their will upon the “Masters,” to “violate the rights of the individual “Masters” and their “true belief,” to establish the objective truth that we are all created in God’s image and are all created equal. Two hundred years from now, it is hypothetically conceivable that slavery could again become the “norm” for the majority of Americans. But that would not change the TRUTH or alleviate the “opposing” from the necessity to disagree, to stand for the TRUTH, to provide proof (even if the “majority” wants to dismiss it), and even to forcibly stand up and say “you are all wrong to accept such a wretched state of affairs,” especially since it would be for the benefit of one group at the tremendous cost to another group.

COULD they have tried to deflect an examination of the real issue by trying to focus talk on some “area where they could find some sort of common ground?” Yes they could and yes they tried to do exactly that. Some States were “free” and some States were “slave.” And they just tried to “get along” with each other until some “radicals” had the temerity to say “NO! you are wrong, you cannot ignore the issue or pretend that ‘I’m okay, you’re okay,’ when others are PAYING THE PRICE so you can play “nice-nice with each other and your individual ideas that you consider to be ‘true’ for you.”


“When it comes down to it, each person has to decide what side of the issue they're on (or take no side which often means taking the default position which currently is pro-choice because that's how the existing laws lean). It's much harder on the side pushing for change than the default position because of this. “

It may be harder. Certainly “pro-life” positions and the people who hold them ARE most often ridiculed and demeaned for having such a position against the “Politically Correct” position of “abortion on demand by a woman.” But the child held in “slavery” to the mother, who does not have the ability to speak for itself, needs to have others “speak for it.” It (abortion) is wrong.



Myschae, this is NOT just some academic argument or semantic game that is played. This is an issue of how people, in this case the smallest and most vulnerable of all, are actually treated, as “property” or as people. Yes, it IS a polarizing issue, just like the issue of Slavery was a polarizing issue. There are LIVES at stake.
That YOU don’t feel immoral for your beliefs is understandable to me because you are Sovereign in your own life. NO moral value or code “outside” of yourself applies to you. ONLY you get to decide what morals ARE for you, and it does not matter if your chosen morals are in “conflict” with someone else’s chosen morals.

That is why I have so often asked the question “whose moral Standards should one accept as their own and why should they accept them?” You have answered that question as it pertains to you. YOU choose whatever morals you WANT to and there is NO “objective truth that generates morals” that has any “authority over you.” That is the same attitude that the “Slave Masters” had. And they backed up their position with the “law of the land” argument too.
It is my sincere hope that you WILL one day reexamine the facts and the set of Moral Standards that you adopt for your own life.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt. Sovereignity isn't as simple for me as you seem to make it out to be. For example, I am sovereign over my beliefs, code of ethics, morals, etc. as you described but I do answer to higher authorities all the time. The State/Federal Government retains sovereignity over certain portions of my life. I pay taxes whether or not I particularly want to. I follow the laws even when it might be enticing to break them.

In a philosphical sense, I also follow natural "laws." I can't just decide to levitate because I feel like it. The law of gravity applies to me -- and all the laws of physics, biochemistry, etc.

Part of my confusion comes because I thought (and I might be wrong) that Christianity recognized a certain sovereignity of self -- ie. free will. It is a choice to be Christian or not to be Christian so it seems as though even you have sovereignity over your free will -- as that is how your God decreed things should be. Even as a follower of Christ, you have described many times in many posts that you have to pick through and apply rules of discernment to find the right path. You are then are 'choosing' which ethics/morals/rules are the right ones to follow (since there seem to be a number of conflicting ones even within Christianity. It's hardly uniform.)


Untrue. I answer to higher authorities.


True. I do not recognize any deities.

Given the wide ranging nature of this discussion to political power vs. morality and ethics, the context truly was a bit confusing.


This might be where we part company because I don't believe anyone knows any more than a truism = or their own sincere beliefs. So, while you might believe that my truisms are not on par with yours (if you believe that yours are objectively true) -- I hold them both to be equal and worth while and worth discussion.


Your belief that athiests do not believe in god(s) is true for athiests. What I felt was over stated was the sovereignity idea -- I recognize that there are much greater powers than I have. I'm not going to go take on a hurricane or blithely disregard the laws of state or nature. I am the 'ruler,' as you say, of my own thoughts and beliefs but ... I guess I see that as something you are the 'ruler' of as well due to my (mis)understanding of free will. It sounds as though you give that up at some point from what you're describing.


I have searched for "truth." I do that periodically in my life. I read some books that you recommended to me (one by Josh McDowell and one about geology who's name/author escapes me at the moment) and I also read some other books that had different things to say.

Nothing I read was compelling enough to change my mind. It doesn't ring 'true' for me.

I could tell you what I believe and why if you're truly interested but I don't think it would be compelling to you as it relates mostly to a mish mosh of observations, experiences, and information that I've cobbled together along the journey.


You misread what I wrote. The underlined portion was specifically stressing that I don't think anyone is willing to change their mind. My point was that my mind wasn't going to be changed by the arguments I've heard thus far on this thread (re: abortion) because I've heard them all before and they aren't compelling enough for me to change my views. It's not that I won't think about them -- it's that I all ready have thought about them and I still come to the same conclusion that I have now. Saying them to me again and again and again isn't going to make me change my mind - even if you change the words around each time.

So, based on what I've read (for the most part) on this thread, my mind isn't going to change regarding abortion no matter how emotional the arguments get or how many people choose to believe I'm a bad/immoral person because of them. I AM open to new ideas and new discussions and new things that haven't been said before like the idea Noodle and I were kicking around regarding cell/embryo/fetus transplantation but, as usual, it's more popular to talk about what's right and what's wrong.


*shaking my head*

No.. no...

Laws impose limits on behavior whether certain segments of the populace are willing or not. I never stated that it wasn't effective to impose laws to change behavior. I said that it never worked to tell someone to agree with you.

You are correct that emancipation did free the slaves but I am correct in saying that those laws did nothing to make everyone AGREE that slavery should be ended. In fact, after emancipation, Jim Crow laws which mandated "separate but equal" are a prime example of how little agreement formerly slave states had with emancipation.

So, insisting someone AGREE with you is ineffective. Insisting someone abide by an enforced law and reflect that in their behavior is VERY effective.


I understand you feel this way but I really would like you to consider for a moment this alternate avenue of discussion.

IF it is technologically possible (or could be in a short time) do you think that an effort to transplant pregnancies would be something that might conquer the divide?

I understand that you want change -- but it seems that the desire for change and finding a solution becomes subordinate to 'convincing the other side you're right and making everyone agree with you.'

If Roe v. Wade is reversed and abortion is outlawed or severely restricted, a movement will spring up to 'bring it back' which might be successful in time. Prochoice/Prolife can't ever rest. I'd like to see something investigated that makes the argument a non-argument.

All this shouting at each other isn't accomplishing a thing, as near a I can tell.


I understand that you feel this way. Why is it, then, that you ignore any discussion of alternatives such as transplantation? I would think that people would jump on that topic and posulate about it and possibly even write someone to ask if it's being looked into. Noodle wants to patent it. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> I think that's a grand idea.


Well, Foreverhers, I understand that you feel differently about this but I think everyone is sovereign in their life with regard to morality. Even if you choose to follow an outside code -- you have to choose which code (and sometimes which code among the codes - ex. which Christain code) to follow.

Everyone's chosen moral code is in conflict with someone's code. Does the fact that your code almost certainly conflicts with another (potentially even another that calls itself Christian) upset you? I imagine it does not.


I do the best I can with what I have to work with.

I'm sure you know that many of the slave owners were devoutly religous and used Biblical scripture to justify slavery and the 'insutability' of black people to govern their own lives.

You've implied that I'm the moral equivalent of a slave master. That wasn't very nice of you to do. History is rife with examples of atrocities that were committed by people who were convinced they were following the 'objective truth of the Word of God.' I won't equate you to them, though. It wouldn't be fair and, besides, I don't really believe it anyway.


Your hope will almost certainly be answered as I do review things periodically. At the moment, I'm starting my last semester before I earn my BS degree and I'm just too busy. I spent some time with it this summer and I'm somewhat exhausted from thinking about it. I have looked for faith/god (sincerely) and I've never found Him/It. Actually, the more I've looked the less convinced I've become.

Purely objectively, that does not mean that He/It does not exist and I do know that.

Belief, however, is not an objective thing. It's something that resides within you and speaks to both knowledge and emotion. I search that place within me and I find there is no god. It doesn't make it objectively true, as you say, but it is my truth. Until it becomes not true for me, then I will continue to say that there is no god. It is what I know. It is what I have to share.

My belief in no way needs to detract from your belief.

As a side note regarding intellectual honesty -- does my non-belief spark in you the desire to prove (once again) to yourself that god exists? If not, why not?

Mys

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

Myschae – Let’s try not to get too “philosophical” here if we can. What we have been, or perhaps I should say ‘should have been’, focusing the discussion of “Sovereignty” on is the PERSONAL, not the societal in general agreement. We all “submit” ourselves (our right to choose what we want to do) to certain societal laws simply because it tends to make things “work better.” That was also true for Nazi Germany or the Slave States or ANY society where people decide to follow the mandates (or “laws”) of their society.

What we are talking about is PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY. That is the right to command you to do something that you don’t want to do. The area of “morals” and Standards fall into these categories. Society, for example, may dictate that the law of the land is “disposable marriages and ‘no fault’ divorce.” But the individual may choose to disagree with the societal “law” and “morals” and decide that marriage is NOT “disposable,” should be “exclusive” and should be “for life.”

The ISSUE is the “rightness” of a given Standard that someone chooses. It is NOT that someone can choose essentially the SAME Standards, but one believes that those Standards are established by God and are applicable to everyone whether they agree with them or not, AND the other persons simply says, “I like that Standard, but not that Standard, so I will choose the ones I think I like and disregard the others.” It IS the “absoluteness,” not the “relativeness” of a set of Standards that is the question.

So long as “society” and society’s “laws” are in concert with, or even in agreement with, the Standards and Morals “you” have selected for yourself, all SEEMS harmonious and you are not bothered. In fact, you can “lean on those very laws” to provide justification of your Standards and Moral position. The “problem” begins to arise when there is “conflict” between society and personal Standards and Morals. Some “conflicts” are easily resolved and others are “go to the mat” differences that are fundamental in nature.

A couple of quick examples. The power of Eminent Domain is taken by the government in their “Sovereign” right over individuals. They CAN and WILL take your property and land for any reason they deem to be “justified for the common good.” It does NOT matter what you think about your home or land, they take it by force and without your consent. You may strenuously believe that they DON’T or SHOULDN’T have that “right,” but that will not stop them. What is “true” for them is “not true” for you, but you have no say in the matter.

I may think that I have the right to drive my car at any speed that I want to, but I willingly submit that “right” to the government, for the “good of all.” There is no real “harm” done by limiting how fast I can go and it does not alter my MORAL choice or violate my Boundaries. Hence, I willingly “cede” to society that “right of determination of ‘fast speedness’ as NOT being an “essential core belief.” I might think differently if the societal rule was “the leaders get to drive cars and YOU, because you are only 5 feet 2 inches or shorter don’t get the option to drive, you must use ONLY the “ankle express.” Why? Certainly personal inconvenience would part of the equation, the “unfairness” of a rule applied to the entire society that discriminates against anyone 5 feet 2 inches tall or less. In your mind, in that scenario, YOU might think that you are “just as human and just as deserving of the right to drive” as anyone else, regardless of how tall they are. They set an “objective standard” (i.e. height) whereby they could classify you as “less than human” and therefore NOT entitled to all the rights of a “full human.” Your “objections” notwithstanding, the “government” is Sovereign and “gets the right to determine what is right and wrong and you have no voice in the matter.”

From the perspective of God, ALL humans are created equal and would be entitled to all the rights of that “humanness” according to the Standards that God set forth for all of humanity. You COULD drive that care even if you were a “munchkin” in size or a “giant” in size. The “inherent worth” of an individual is NOT determined externally, but internally, by God. IF one rejects God as the Creator (and with it God’s sovereignty over Man) and embraces the concept of evolution as to “how we got here,” and then further embraces the Darwinian notion that “survival of the fittest” determines the “morality” and “rightness,” then ONLY each individual has the right to embrace whatever Standards and Moral they choose for themselves and no one else’s personal Standards and Morals are “better than or worse than” my own choices.


That brings us to your comments about “Free Will.”



I understand your confusion. It IS confusing because God created Man and Woman with “Free Will,” that is, the ability to choose. While I know you don’t agree with that premise, walk with me a little bit and maybe we can part some of the confusion. IF one rejects the very existence of God, then there IS no other alternative for how life got here and how we “chose” various things, including “morals,” other than random chance evolution. The ONLY “rule” that governs this process is the accidental addition of favorable “survival” tool. Babies could have been born from eggs instead of being placental, and the “problem” of abortion today would have been solved. But that’s not reality.

WHY would you or anyone else want to think that creating (through science) the equivalent of an “egg” so that the fetus can develop outside of the mother’s womb “solves the problem?” It doesn’t. All it does is make “selfish indulgement” all the more possible by “removing” some consequences. But other moral consequences would continue. Who would be the mother and father? Who would have the legal responsibilities? Who would raise the children? And a host of other questions.

But all the time PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY in the area of sexual activity is NOT addressed and left on the “altar” of a person’s “sovereign right” to behave any way THEY think is right for themselves. There is NO “outside” set of Standards and Morals that SHOULD, even if they don’t because of people’s “free will,” apply to all people.

“I thought (and I might be wrong) that Christianity recognized a certain sovereignity of self -- ie. free will. It is a choice to be Christian or not to be Christian so it seems as though even you have sovereignity over your free will -- as that is how your God decreed things should be.”
This very issue IS an issue that has been with us from the beginning of time. It is still a major issue among Christian groups (i.e., RCC and Protestant) because “Free Will” exists as a part of being human. It would be very difficult to get too deeply into this area with someone who does not even believe in God, and therefore that “free will” evolved and was not given to us by God. So let me just give you a theological answer that you will likely reject simply because it requires the existence of a “Supreme Being.”

When God created Mankind, sin was not yet in the world and Man did NOT have a “sin-nature.” Man’s “free will” was seen in Adam choosing names for all the animals in whatever manner he chose. Man’s “free will” was to DO the work of God, which was to have dominion over the earth and all that is in it and to DO (that is to submit his free will willingly to God’s will, to walk in concert with, not in opposition to, God.

After the Fall sin corrupted everything, including Mankind’s “Free Will.” Mankind is incapable of “finding God” on their own. Mankind’s will went from “thee (God) to “me” and everything it does is at enmity with God.
Choice IS involved in someone accepting Jesus Christ as their LORD (Sovereign) and Savior, but it is involved because of the Grace of God that “changes” the will to one that IS “willing” to accept Christ.

But that is getting into rather “deep theology” and the issue is NOT vital to our current discussion. The question for all, believers and unbelievers that is Primary is “Who do YOU say that I (Jesus) am?” It is NOT do you believe that God changed your “free will” so you CAN answer “you are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” It is as the blind man said to the Pharisees, “I can’t answer your theological question right now, but one thing I DO know, I WAS blind, and NOW I can see.”

All Christians start out as “infants in the faith” and grow and mature in the faith with time and study, pretty much like most humans start out as infants and learn and grow.



Myschae, this is playing “word games.” When you say, “I don't believe anyone knows any more than a truism = or their own sincere beliefs. So, while you might believe that my truisms are not on par with yours (if you believe that yours are objectively true) -- I hold them both to be equal and worth while and worth discussion, “ you are mixing things.

A “crazy person” may sincerely believe that he is “Napoleon,” but you and I both know he is not. There is NOTHING “equal and worthwhile” in denying reality. All you would be doing is consigning that crazy person to his “truth” and casting him adrift in a world where the reality is quite different. You may “feel good” about being so “understanding” of “his truth” and not wanting to contradict him or help him to see that his “truth” is in reality false.

There were, for another example, many people who sincerely believed (their truth) that the world was FLAT. The reality, despite all that worldwide sincere belief, was that that world really IS round. Truth operates independently of “sincerely WRONG belief” and in “concert with sincere belief in what IS true.”

Can we have an academic “exercise,” i.e. a “discussion,” about “varying truths that individuals hold?” Sure, but at some point we must CHOOSE a “truth” that is “above all other truths.” YOU CAN get to some places no matter which direction you start out with. Some will result in the “short way” and some will be the “long way.” And some will lead to nowhere with no hope of every “getting where we wanted to go.”

In this arena of Free Will, Morals, and Standards, the issue is tied to “direction.” That direction can be toward God or away from God. But the FIRST issue is the existence or non-existence OF God.

Without Jesus Christ, I would submit to you that God could easily become nothing more than a “concept” of “Man’s mind” that is no different than any other religion of the world. But Christianity is different from all other religions because it is founded upon a real person, Jesus Christ, who did not “just” claim things, but who “proved his claims.” As a child may not understand college level courses, they grow into that capacity and knowledge over time. So it is with “new born” Christians. But they cannot even “choose” to accept Jesus Christ unless they are issued an “invitation,” they are first drawn by God to God. Think of it, though it’s a poor analogy, like you wanting to study at a given school, are willing to study at that school, and are willing to discuss with other what that school teaches and believes, but you can’t go there or even accept any of their teachings UNLESS they first invite you, essentially telling you “we chose you, now you can choose us.”



None of it will “compel” you to change your mind. The STARTING point is Jesus Christ. Until that issue is settled and one becomes a “born again” person, the sin-nature continues to rule. The TRUTH IS Jesus Christ, first and foremost. The rest may be more or less “important” but they are all meaningless if Christ is “left out.”

So, having done all that study, what brought you to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was a liar, a crazy lunatic, or someone who really didn’t exist and is nothing more than a fable?



So now, Myschae, you are putting words in MY mouth. I have NEVER said that everyone MUST agree with me. I DO NOT “insist” that everyone agree with me. That can never happen. But that does NOT mean that I should keep my mouth shut when some states their “true belief” that is in direct opposition to “God’s truth.”

The ENTIRE world thought Noah’s truth was crazy, at least up until the time the door to the Ark was closed and the water began to fall in earnest. Noah did NOT “insist” that everyone agree with him, he stated it, went about his business of continuing to STAND in his belief in God, and let the others believe what they wanted. COULD some have “come to believe” as Noah believed? Mankind would answer “yes.” I would answer “no,” because unless God Himself draws us, we CANNOT (not “will not”) come to Christ. That is because of the total depravity of Man as a result of the Fall.



Nope. I don’t need to “prove” that God exists, God exists regardless of anyone’s belief. God is NOT impacted by what WE believe, WE are impacted by what God has established as the TRUTH.

Once truth has been established, is there a need to go back an “revisit” it every time you encounter someone who doesn’t know the truth and wants to substitute their opinion for truth, for “being just as good as the truth even if it might be false?”

Here is the truth. Jesus Christ is a historical person who lived and died and rose again from the dead. He claimed for himself to BE God, the Son of God, and performed many miracles, culminating in his resurrection to give “authenticity” to his “claims.” He provided, if you will the “show me” in “I’m from Missouri, show me.”
But I will have the “desire” to share the truth about God with anyone who seems willing to actually discuss and examine the issue. NOT because I can “win souls,” I can’t without the help of God anyway. All that Christians really are commanded to so is to “plant seeds.” It is God who takes those seeds and makes them grow into adulthood, in the fields of His choosing. Other fields, sown with the very same seeds, will wither and die because the “Master Gardener” has not chosen to work in those fields and someone else masquerading as the Master Gardener, but without the loving care of the Gardener, tries to convince the seeds in those fields that they can “go it alone,” all the while he is also sowing seeds of fast growing, choking, weeds that will “take over” and be the “fruit” of those fields.

Great. But, uh, the only part of this that isn't mythology is that Jesus did in fact exist. We have no proof (save from the Bible, which is at best an epic work of fiction with maybe a few scattered truths) that he ever made any of your claims, we have no proof that he performed any miracles, and we have no proof that he 'resurrected.' So, given thus, there is no 'authenticity' to his 'claims.'

Here's a really great question for you: How can you believe the Bible is true, but not believe that the Quran is true? How can you believe the Bible is true, but not the Torah? The Vedas and the other great Hindu Epics? What about all of the Egyptian and Greek stories? Why is YOUR book true, but all of the others false? On a very basic level, they're all the same!

The Bible is just Christian Mythology passed down over millenia. To believe it to be a LITERAL TRUTH seems to be a bit out there. I believe the same way about the other 'Holy Books' too though. They are great, epic stories and they CAN impart morality (some better than others) upon a person, but that does not make them TRUTH.

Ultimately, though, I guess people will believe what they may. It just sincerely bothers me that people can be so willing to give up logic and reason just to believe in a something that amounts to a giant, violent fairy tale (and it doesn't even have a happy ending!)

Anyway, myschae, yer my new internet atheist best buddy. I hope you don't mind. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

TheRogueX - If I felt that you were sincerely interested a response to your questions rather than just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, I might take the time to answer your questions.

But since I don't believe there is any sincerity in your questions let me simply say that if you are really interested in the area of Textual Criticism (as in "Are the Bible documents reliable) there is a plethora of information out there that you can research to your heart's content.

You are biased against the Bible for one reason and one reason only, you don't like the idea that there might actually be a Sovereign God "out there" that will judge you by His Standards.

If you ever do get to the point where you would sincerely like to explore things regarding Jesus, I will be happy to discuss them with you. But you argue from a position of "ignorance" of both history and proof in your poste and I don't intend to waste my time "arguing" with someone who already has his mind made up because to accept Jesus would "interfere" with what you want in your life.

One brief example: You said; "How can you believe the Bible is true, but not the Torah?" Do you even know what the Torah is? If you did, you would not ask such an obvious question that reveals your "ignorance" of the subject matter that you so vociferously condemn.

Just more "Christian bashing" is all I see in your post. Bash away, it won't change the truth because of your opinion against it.

EDIT: Forget it. I'm done. There is no point to arguing this. I believe how I believe, you believe how you believe, and that's that.

So I deleted my post. Enjoy.

TRX:

You're far from the only one. Sadly, WAT had enough of the religious bigotry that's allowed on these boards.

I've chosen 2 ignore FH's posts, though I haven't used the "ignore" button 2 do it yet.

http://www.marriagebuilders.com/ubbt/sho...rue#Post3102894

-ol' 2long

ForeverHers


Heh. Funny that you say that. I often perceive that you are the one taking things into the philosphical arena.


Fine. Just so we're clear. I don't want anyone to think I'm some sort of sociopath that doesn't believe in an ordered society.


This seems contradictory to me. If you disagree with societal laws and choose not to get divorced, commit adultery, have an abortion, et al. then how does that relate to being commanded to do something you don't want to do? If you disagree with doing it -- then you mostly likely don't want to do it.

Most societies don't demaind those things -- with the notable exception being China which tried to limit children to 1 per household (and look at what a mess that made).


I believe that personal standards and morals are just that -- people's own choices. I do, however, judge them on a societal (not religious or against some uniform standard such as the one you speak of that was issued by God) basis with reference to what contributes to an ordered society and what does not.

I do happen to believe that things ARE relative to the society in which we live and what's going on around us.

Let me give you an example:

Stealing is wrong.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, many people were going into drug stores and 'stealing' medication and distributing it. Some of them were behaving ethically and distributing it according to need. Some of them were undoubtably taking advantage of the situation and causing harm. I would not place those two actions on the same objective scale. To me, the goodness or wrongness of their actions is relative to the situation. Normally, it's always wrong to steal from a drug store. In that case, it was not wrong to do it if you were helping others -- it was if you were trying to manipulate the system and disregarding others (worse, even, than just robbing a drugstore in normal times).

So, yes, to me it IS relative.


I believe that life evolved. Yes.


True.


I hadn't seen that suggested until now. What we were talking about was transplantation from one womb (woman) to another womb (woman). Presumably the woman who gave birth would take the responsibility.



*shrugs* Oh, I don't believe that all consequences would be removed from sexual activity because there would still be people who were unable to transplant (give up) their pregnancies. There are still outside standards and morals that apply -- for example, laws against pedophilia, etc. I just don't think pregnancy should be a way to punish women for having sex.


Yes. Mythology.


Well, I'll tell you.

First, I'm not without bias (who is?) and I started looking with the deep suspicion that "Jesus" was a fictional character created to illustrate the moral play of the times much like Aesop's fables or the various mythologies of the world.

That said, I did try to keep my bias in mind and keep as open a mind as I could.

I read that book by McDowell that you recommended and then I went researching to see what other people had to say about it and they had quite a lot. I read, browsed, spoke with, etc. a variety of materials and people and came to the conclusion that there is a lot out there! I didn't keep a record of everything I searched since I wasn't writing a thesis on it -- but rather just exploring my own personal journey so I can't chronicle in detail here what exactly I did.

In the end, I concluded that there just wasn't enough good evidence that Jesus ever did live. There is a lot of things people wrote and said that he did, etc. There is just as much stuff refuting it.

I suppose the lack of truly conclusive evidence (evidence with a high level of agreement/interpretation) tends to lead me to a 'gut' level decision about the whole thing which is that Jesus was a fictional character who never actually existed -- though "he" may be a collection of stories of people who did exist, they all just weren't the same person.

In particular, the part that caused me the most doubt where the "miracles" that were performed. I don't believe they are possible and I don't believe they happened. I think, rather, that they are like the actions of the god mythologies of the world that attempt to explain things using magic. Their appearance in the stories is most likely due to exageration over time.


Has truth been established?

I'm not sure it has been established conclusively for me. Clearly it has for you.

In the meantime, I do have my opinion which I feel comfortable expressing and I shall continue to express it.


I do not believe that to be the truth.

As you've said, if it is the truth then my belief does not make it untrue. If it is not the truth, then your faith/belief will not make it true.

I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

Mys

P.S. To The RogueX and to FH, as well


I don't mind at all.

If you want a board where religious discussions (from the athiest side) are presented, then you might visit http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php. Anyone is welcome (Christians, etc) though the board is striclty moderated to ensure that discussions remain appropriate.

I don't visit there much, but I did find it in some of my internet wanderings.

Your friendly, neighborhood athiest

I am a born again Christian. That being said upfront, I would say that I think the stand that TRX takes is very disrespectful at times. However, I am not one the believes that is anything would consititute "proof" that Christ was in fact God. Having worked in a field that required standards of proof... I just have never seen anything that could be considered an incontrovertible set of facts that allow for anyone to say there is proof. There always seems to be something that must be assumed in order to reach that point.
My proof is in my heart... it is in the still small voice that tells me the Lord has called me to His side. To try and prove to anyone that there is a scientific basis for that belief has never measured up for me. It allows for too many "experts" on one side or another to make compelling arguments for their belief.
IMHO.. we take away some of the divinity of our belief when we try and 'prove" that Christ is Lord. Instead... the Lord will call the person to Him in His time and the proof shall be found in their heart... not in a textbook.
JMHO.

2long, I have likewise chosen to stay out of discussion from you when you exhibited your bigotry too. So should we amend your statement to read You're far from the only one. Sadly, others have had enough of the atheistic bigotry that's allowed on these boards.?

I'll tell you what, take it up with the owners of the board. It is their board and they are within their rights to ban you, me, or anyone they want from their system.

Just as in the thread you linked to, you don't like it when when anyone has the "temerity" to actually believe in God and Jesus Christ AND to say so. Okay, I understand your dislike. I dislike the attacks on Christianity in general and on Christians in particular too, but I'm not in the least surprised by it.

So here you are interjecting your opinion in another bigoted and disrespectful post claiming that it is the Christians who are bigoted and disresepectful. I guess the Fog is far reaching after all.

Let's not be so obtuse. You "object" to me just like a previous poster stated that he would like to see Christians just die.

Got anything positive you want to contribute or just more Christian bashing in the middle of a discussion that had NOTHING to do with you?

And I'm supposed to be the bigoted one? If so, I'll move over a tad, there seems to be plenty of room on that bench.

MEDC - Couldn't have said it better myself.

But we are also required to be ready to give someone an answer as to why we believe if they inquire. Whether or not they believe, or even accept, those reasons is not important. All they are are "seeds" that are sown. And we don't know which seeds the Lord will choose to make grow. But that's HIS domain.

God bless.

FH gets the dubious distinction of being the first and only user that I've ever put on "ignore".

Others:

Those of you who know me, including the original poster of this thread, know that FH's description of me is innacurate, 2 put it mildly.

Those of you who don't know me, I only hope that you judge me on my own merits, not on any of FH's rants.

I've never been anti-Christian.

-ol' 2long

Since you won't be reading this I'll keep it short so the others can be assured that your distracting intrusion into the thread is over.

Another very positive contribution to the thread, 2Long.

But that has been your mode of operation, defame and attack those who do happen to believe in Christ and are not willing to roll over and say that 2Long is the all knowing.

As for your claim to never being anti-Christian, I could go back into the threads and pull up some examples from your posts, but what would be the point? As you once said in your cloak of atheism...."Jesus and I are just fine." So it's really quite clear what your attitude toward Christ is, and it's decidedly not Christian. I'll leave it at that.

Have a wonderful day out there.

And that, Myschae, IS the truth. It really is an "either/or" type of thing.

Since you have elected to withdraw from the discussion I will leave it with an open invitation to you that if you ever want to discuss the areas that you have "problems" with, I will endeavor to address them.

Okay, last thing to say.. I must have missed this comment.

Why is Christianity any different than any other religion of the world? Why are all other religions simply "concepts of Man's mind," but Christianity isn't? Christianity is just another one of the world's myriad of faiths. To believe otherwise is arrogance. They are ALL "truth" in their own way. They are all of God, just in different ways. Why? Because everything is of God. God exists in all things, right?

EDIT: Those are all rhetorical questions. Answer them if you wish, I'm done with this thread now. Thanks.

You know we are all atheists to some extent; I bet most here are atheistic with respects to the believe in . . . say . . . Zeus. It just so happens that I am atheistic to one more god than FH and other Christians.

wow... very profound.

Thank you.

I am curious how the people on this thread view capital punishment...??

Do you mean capital punishment as a concept or the capital punishment system as implemented in the US?

I have different opinions based on which one you mean.

Mys

Very opposed to it. There have been too many innocent people executed.
I beleive that the punishment of death should be avoided until there is an infallable system in place to assure no mistakes are possible.
Governer Brown from California (Edmund Brown) who mistakenly sent more than a few people to their death has written a few good books on the topic.
Morally killing even ONE innocent person (when we could just keep them locked up (which BTW is cheaper) so that mistakes can be corrected....) is indefensible. Plus there is not deterrent factor either... which is one of the main reasons the DP is supposed to exist.

Pro-life
Pro-death penalty

would you please you explain your views.

I was thinking as a concept, actually....but i am interested to hear your views of it's use in the US too.

Sure. I will do so briefly. If you want to know more, please let me know!!

I am pro-life. I believe that a human being is a human being, no matter the stage (zygote, fetus, infant, toddler, adolescent, adult, senior, etc). They are all human beings. I believe that as such, they have the God-given right to life. Intentionally taking an innocent human life is wrong.

I am pro-death penalty. I believe that when you kill another innocent human being, you have agreed that you should be killed. Just as if you steal from another, you have given up your right to walk freely on the streets. Or if you rape someone. Someone that intentionally kills a innocent human being has chosen to end their own life. Just as a thief has chosen to be put in jail.

I am a Christian. In that, I believe that NO ONE is sent to He!! by God. The people that end up in He!!, choose to go there! By their own free will. People that choose to rape another person, choose to go to jail. People who choose to kill an innocent person on purpose, have chosen to go to death row.

Anyway...that's the basics. Please let me know if I can elaborate any or if this explains it well enough.

It's probably easier to address them in reverse so here goes:

I think that the death penalty as instituted in the US is largely a political carrot for politicians who want to convince their consitutencies that they are 'tough on crime.' I don't think it accomplishes anything other than wasting a lot of time, effort and money. Well, it polarizes people and gives them a reason to vote for or against someone - which is nice for the politicians.

I think the way the system is implemented costs too much money, is wrong too much of the time, is slanted towards minorites and men, and basically just fails to offer any redeeming qualities.

As a concept:

This takes a little explaining because it highlights a key difference between my general philosphy and many other people's general philosophy which is: Humankind is not special We're just like everything else on the planet - no better and no worse. I don't think we're some higher form of life.

I also don't happen to believe that death is the worst thing that could ever happen to a person (animal, etc). I can imagine a lot of things I'd rather die than have to endure. Well, ok, maybe not a lot but enough. Which, by the way, I recognize is my personal bias. It affects my opinion on matters but I do understand that many people hold death as the ultimate "Bad Thing" and I rather expect their opinions on things to be very different than mine if that's what they believe.

So, that said, I support euthanasia. I think that if we think it's moral to put down a dog, cat, or horse as an end to suffering (their deaths aren't worse than their suffering) that people should have the same option.

Following that train of thought, we also sometimes have to kill animals that are threats to society. I believe that there are some people who, probably because of some disorder, disease, or damage, can not ever be trusted to rejoin society. In my opinion, warehousing those individuals is often more cruel than a swift, relatively painless death (such as lethal injection -- I don't advocate other forms of state sponsored death that include tortureing the individual first).

The truth is, we don't really know what to do with people who, for whatever reason, just can't be allowed to join society -- and some of them can't even exist inside the structured enviornment of prison. We have to build new prisons called SuperMax institutions which eliminate all human contact and keep people locked in tiny cells 23 hours out of every day. The time they're out of their cell, they're exercising in solitary conditions. If you do an internet search on Supermax and psychological problems you can read up on what happens to people when you do that to them.

I'm a pretty pragmatic person. I tend to think of goals. So, the goal of prison is to keep the criminals away from the rest of us. An ideal goal would be to rehabilitate people to re-join society. I think prison is a good structured environment for people who have proven they need that structure. When you find someone who is unable to integrate into that limited of a society, I think you're faced with the question of what to do now?

Now maybe some people would be happy to see that those people are suffering -- after all, they did some pretty horrible things to end up there. I just can't shake the feeling that we'd never do that to any other life form and feel good about it. If someone wanted to take a social animal, like a dog, and lock it in a cage for the rest of it's life with no human or canine companionship -- allow it to stretch for 1 hour every day because it was a "bad dog" or it "bit people" or it even "killed/maimed a human" people would be up in arms about it. We seem to recognize that it's better just to put it to sleep. Somehow, though, our recognition of that does not extend to what we do to our fellow human beings -- even though we know those conditions drive them crazy(ier).

I guess people believe those criminals had choices -- the more I learn about the biology of some mental illnesses, the more I wonder about that. And, frankly, even IF that person was fully functioning and had full choices and STILL did those horrible things -- I don't think I'm improved by glorifying in their punishment or suffering. I might be relieved that they're gone and can't hurt anyone anymore -- but I just don't need to see people tortured in order to feel better about bad things happening.

The bottom line: I don't necessarily believe the death penalty is the worst punishment we are capable of inflicting -- or even that we all ready inflict on people.

Anyway, that's what I think.

Mys

thank you all for answering.
i grew up cathoilc and both
abortion and capital punishment were considered wrong and against the church....yet,i saw so much contradiction in the beliefs of the people I knew.....i realized most of my opinions and beliefs and on formed from my own life experience and what i feel in my heart.......i find it very difficult to take a black and white stand on either of these issues.

mortarmans reasoning confuses me... It seems so wrong to me that a man can rape a young girl and impregnate her.....go out an commit murder and be sentenced to death for it......while that young girl will be forced to have his child. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

seeing it spelled out like that...
just looks like an oxy-moron to me. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

I am assuming the wrong part of this you are referring to is that the young girl having to have the child, right? If not, if you are saying it is wrong to sentence to death this rapist or a murderer...then I will address that in a different post. Just let me know.

But on the issue of this girl....

I have a 12 year old daughter. And if she was raped and impregnated, I know I would probably come unglued (they had best lock the guy up...for his own safety!) But that being said...there is now another issue here.

And that is there is a human being growing inside my daughter. And that human being is also family. That human being had no choice, just like my daughter, in its conception. That baby is just as innocent as my daughter.

So, what do we do? Do we kill this member of the family to avoid the pain (emotional) of another member of the family? Does my daughter's need for emotional recovery trump the baby's need/right for life?

I know that I would stand by my daughter all the way through. She would understand that while, yes...this baby was conceived by an evil man... But that baby is hers...it has her blood running through it. And while no one would want what happened to her to have occured, we are where we are.

I will help her understand that although there is much emotional pain here...that her very soul will feel even worse pain if she is involved in the death of this child.

I would help her understand that there are options for her. That she could choose to rely on God, and to raise this child with love. Or, she could choose to have the baby adopted by a loving family, if she was unable to overcome this horrific event that has happened to her.

As I have said before...this situation is one of the worst! There really isnt a great way out of it. No matter which way you go, there is pain.

But, I also want to note that this situation is a very small percentage of the overall abortions being conducted. Most abortions are for convenience...because they dont want to be pregnant after having sex that they consented to.

Hope that clears things up. And if it is the other part (the death penalty for the evil one), let me know and I can explain that one!

Yeah...I can see how it would. Maybe the better way to say it is:

Pro-innocent human life
Pro-death penalty for the non-innocent

yes, i was referring to the girl as the victim in the sceario.
I understand the point you make about the unborn innocent being a member of your family.

as a woman who has been thru an emotionally difficult pregnancy it pains me to think of a little girl being forced to endure that......particularly if she was a victim of rape.
so, yes...i guess i do believe that your daughter's (or my daughters) emotional health would trump the ongoing life of that particular fetus.

abortions out of convience?
i don't like the way that sounds either and can say I completely do not agree w/ that.


there are so many possible scenarios....some that i personally know, that make it so difficult for me to feel strongly for or against abortion or capital punishment.

I find it interesting to hear others views....others who have picked their side...are so sure of what they are against and what they are for.

I am curious as to what MM thinks regarding the killing of innocent victims in the prisons. There are very well documented cases of innocents being executed. There is no way to assure that it wouldn't happen in any particular case. How do you see this fitting into your scenario of innocents being killed? BTW, MM, I shared your view until I saw first hand how screwed up our criminal justice non-system really is. IMO, when we have another alternative... life in prison w/o parole we should not rely on a method that has been proven to be responsible for the execution of innocents.

I can respect that. As I said, this would not be an easy decision, whichever way it went!! I believe that life trumps these things. But I can respect your take on this...as this would be one of the worst things I hope my daughter or wife or anyone would be able to avoid!!


I say this because outside of rape or the life of the mother (which are a very small portion of the overall abortion numbers), the other abortions fall into this category. The person had consentual sex...knowing that only abstinance is 100% effective in preventing pregnancy. So, they had sex...and the consequence of that sex is a baby. Now, since they do not want that baby due to a myriad of reasons...they should not have engaged in the sex act in the first place! A baby should not lose its life due to the poor judgement or decisions of its parents!


Me too. I have been involved in the abortion issue...at the "ground floor" so to speak. So has my wife. And I do understand the many many issues surrounding it. It is a very hard issue!

But as I said...in the end, a human being should not be destroyed because of the bad judgement of his/her parents. And most of the abortions that are done in the U.S. today, fall into that category.

Look. I am retired Army. And when we go to war, we KNOW that some innocent people almost always die. Some maybe at my own hands!! But...here is the issue...I am not targeting or intentionally trying to kill innocent people! I am targeting and trying to kill the enemy.

When we put a person on death row, we are targeting...and killing...a person we believe to be evil...the enemy of society. That mistakes have been made...I have no doubt! And that is about as sad as it gets! But...Ted Bundy wasnt innocent! And he got what he deserved. The two brothers that killed a grandmother here locally at her mom & pop grocery store she owned...werent innocent. They had video tape and everything! And they got what they asked for. And they did ask for the death penalty. As did Ted Bundy. As do all murderers. When they commit the murder, they are asking the people of that state to execute them. It is their choice!


I can respect your view. I can.

But as I said...there are those that ARE definitely guilty!! And deserve to die. And have asked to die, due to their actions. But having innocent people die is a tragedy. Whether it be in prison, or in war.

I am not willing to stop the death penalty (although I agree we need to make darn well sure they are guilty before killing them), just as I am not willing to tell soldiers not to shoot because their rounds might cause some innocent people to die. Unfortunately...it is a part of war.

I am not saying this in an off-handed way! Everytime a soldier is responsible for an innocent person's death...it hits you hard. And it ALWAYS stays with you!

Until Jesus returns...nothing on Earth will be perfect. Mistakes will be made. We need to do our best to minimize them.

War is different. A prisoner has already been "captured" and there is no reason to kill him if in fact he may be innocent. The criminal justice system does not allow for a flawless delivery of punishment. Do we have a new standard of guilt??? Guilty and definitely guilty. Because anyone sentenced to death has been through numerous appeals and most would say they are definitely guilty...that is until they are PROVEN innocent. War time innocents are a victim of mistaken identity or a bystander to an event. I had to face the same thing as a cop when I discharged my weapon. Apples and oranges. A person mistakenly on death row is neither.
And since you say you are unwilling to stop the death penalty...it must serve some profound purpose in your eyes if you are willing to risk the execution of even one innocent.
The war analogy just doesn't hold water in comparison to the death penalty.
Like I said MM, I once held your view (and respect you)... and most likely would have continued to do so had I not spent my time in the police department and saw firsthand how easy it is to convict the wrong person of a crime.

MEDC,

I also respect you and the position you take on this for the reasons you have stated.

I understand that the war analogy doesnt perfectly fit...but I was using it to show that as we step into battle, we know that we will be killing innocent people. I had a friend of mine who was being shot at by an enemy who was hiding behind a child. My friend had to shoot the child and the enemy.

As I said, the analogy isnt supposed to be perfect. Except to say that innocent humans are killed almost everyday by mistake.

Again, I do not take this lightly. And it bothers me greatly that even one innocent person is put to death.

You asked if I thought the death penalty had a purpose. I think so. Some say it is a deterent. I dont care whether it is or isnt.

To me, the death penalty is punishment. Plain and simple. Look at Saddam. Is there anyone with a brain that works that thinks he wasnt guilty of all of those murders? He got what he deserved.

Remember, God allowed capital punishment...and not just for murder. Adultery, being disrespectful to your parents are just two of them.

Again, MEDC...I do understand. And I want us to do a better job now with convictions. Using DNA, etc. But at the end of the day, there is now way I want the likes of Ted Bundy sitting in a prison somewhere. I want him punished appropriately. Anything short of death is not appropriate to me.

nia - consider this; "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

It is the government's "job" to exact penalties for wrongdoing, and that includes the capital crimes.

We may not like paying taxes, but we do.

We may not like executing killers, but we don't have to, the government takes on that role on our behalf.

Personally I think the greatest problem we have with the death penalty is the TIME that it takes for a sentence to be executed. Then we get to "feeling sorry" for the "poor prisoner." In the meantime, the dead victim is still in grave and is "forgotten." The families that are devastated are "forgotten."

This idea of "all prisoners can be 'reformed'" is not true and the statistics prove it out.

Now, if we want to build a "lifetime" prison for killers and end the death penalty (no possibility of parole EVER), then I guess I'd support one or more prisons being built in Antarctica. Want to escape? Have at it.

Absolutely right on!!!!



Decrease the amount of time.... decrease the number of appeals...etc... more innocent people will be executed. Also statistically proven since there are people that are proven innocent after a lengthy appeal process. Without time, that process cannot run its course.



Any prison can be made escape proof. You would get NO argument from me though with your approach. The problem with prison and escape/riots etc are a result of criminals being given the opportunity to congregate. Solitary confinememt for murderers would take care of that. And remember.... it is cheaper to keep a person in prison for life than to execute them.

And FH...int he United States... the people are Ceasar. We are the government. That may not have been true for the authors of the Bible living under Roamn rule... but We are our government. We do not trun people over to be executed... we all do it.

Agree.

I would prefer prison for life.

I have heard the scriptural arguaments for death penalty and find them VALID but incomplete.

MEDC - I understand your point and I think you also understand mine. I am not talking "semantics" here.

You seem to be "splitting hairs" here, and I understand what you are saying.

But we do not personally execute the criminals that we have delegated that "Right" to the government anymore than we personally wage war or personally arrest people who do break the law. We have collectively "given" that right to the government to act on our behalf. We can "execute" someone in self-defense of an imminent threat on our lives and we can perform a "citizen's arrest," but they are the exceptions to the "rule of law" that we have entrusted to our government (Federal, State, and Local).

Now we could return the "Old West" method of justice and strap on a six-shooter and go gunnin' for the bad guys ourselves, but I don't think most of us would care to do that, or want everyone else to do that either.




There have been some people I suppose, though I'd have to look up the statistics for actuals, who have been executed for crimes they didn't commit. But I'd guess it's a very low ratio of the total.




I'd personally have no problem with solitary confinement, but I also wouldn't be surprised if a "hue and cry" arose about "cruel and unusual punishment" from the crowd who put criminal "rights" ahead of "victims" rights. I could be wrong, but I don't think so at this time.




An interesting hypothesis. Are there any statistics on the cost of lifetime incarceration versus the cost of execution?

Providing 3 squares a day and cot in Antarctica doesn't seem like it would be an "unreasonable" cost.

Noodle - I, too, would have no great problem with "prison for life" if we could be assured that it WOULD be "for life" with no possibility of parole or out "for good behavior" or some other "reason." "Lock 'em up and throw away the key" works for me.

the cost of keeping a 25-year-old inmate for 50 years at present amounts to $805,000. Assuming 75 years as an average life span, the $805,000 figure would be the cost of life in prison. So roughly it's costing us $2 million more to execute someone than it would cost to keep them in jail for life.

Sentencing a prisoner to life in prison is a better allocation of resources than sentencing him to be executed.

First I'll present figures representing the dollar costs of capital punishment versus life in prison/no parole. Then I'll discuss the deterrent effect as the only legitimate rational justification for capital punishment. Then I'll discuss the externalities of capital punishment.

A Duke University study found... "The death penalty costs North Carolina $2.16 million per execution over the costs of a non-death penalty murder case with a sentence of imprisonment for life." ( The costs of processing murder cases in North Carolina / Philip J. Cook, Donna B. Slawson ; with the assistance of Lori A. Gries. [Durham, NC] : Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy, Duke University, 1993.)

"The death penalty costs California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary costs of the justice system - $78 million of that total is incurred at the trial level." (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

"A 1991 study of the Texas criminal justice system estimated the cost of appealing capital murder at $2,316,655. In contrast, the cost of housing a prisoner in a Texas maximum security prison single cell for 40 years is estimated at $750,000." (Punishment and the Death Penalty, edited by Robert M. Baird and Stuart E. Rosenbaum 1995 p.109 )

"Florida spent an estimated $57 million on the death penalty from 1973 to 1988 to achieve 18 executions - that is an average of $3.2 million per execution."
(Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

"Florida calculated that each execution there costs some $3.18 million. If incarceration is estimated to cost $17000/year, a comparable statistic for life in prison of 40 years would be $680,000."
(The Geography of Execution... The Capital Punishment Quagmire in America, Keith Harries and Derral Cheatwood 1997 p.6)

Figures from the General Accounting Office are close to these results. Total annual costs for all U.S. Prisons, State and Federal, was $17.7 billion in 1994 along with a total prison population of 1.1 million inmates. That amounts to $16100 per inmate/year

Ahhh...but what accounts for these costs?

Yep.

And FH... I was not splitting hairs. One could use the same argument for abortion. Render to Ceasar... but I don't want one penny of my tax dollars to go to killing a baby! So, as a society where we are the government... I am responsible for how my money is spent. And BTW... you can arrest anyone breaking the law... you have that authority... you have the authority to even issue a traffic violation to someone. See a crime committed and don't like the way it is handled... file a private criminal complaint. Heck... even our constitution gave us the right to wage war against our own government should they stop working on our behalf. The right to bear arms is so that we do not live under a tyranical rule... not to protect us against some foreign threat. Okay... maybe now I am splitting hairs...but it is true!

<img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />

Hey...my tax dollars are paying rent and hospital expenses for pregnant teens...I would prefer that those dollars be spent keeping dangerous people off the street permanently.

The vast majority is court costs... the trial and appeals... and do away with the appeals and more innocents are executed... of that there is NO doubt.

MEDC- Thanks for the information. If you have it, I'd also like to know the average length of appeals and imprisonment time per execution.

Time in prison and the $16100 per year for incarceration would be a "wash" it would seem, so I'm interested in the part that is attributed to Defense manuevering and appeals for those who are ultimately executed in compliance with the original trial and sentencing.

I will see what I can come up with...but again... if 10 people in the country are exonerated on appeal each year and not executed ... and BTW... there have been more than 10 just in Texas this year (2007)...then it is obvious that the appeal process is necessary.

Please explain to me how any person that values life could be in favor of a system that has been proven to execute innocents. If it were to save lives... protect ourselves... I could understand that collateral damages must be weighed against the good of the operation. That is why I was able to do my job everyday. But there are other options here that assure that if a mistake is made we can do something to correct it.

Agree 100% MEDC.

In the past two decades, federal and state courts have overturned 68 percent of the death sentences they have reviewed because of serious errors in their trials, according to a new study. And in cases sent back for retrials, 82 percent of convicted capital defendants received new sentences that were other than death -- including 7 percent who were found innocent.

I think also [this is a Christian issue end disclaimer] that we just have to accept that God does allow or permit innocent people to die.

Now...does that mean that he WANTS them to die or only that he will permit it?

Am I getting in the way by removing a system such as the death penalty or putting my will or disdain ahead of what scripture calls a correct action?

I really don't know.

I do know that most christians I have asked prefer counseling and tough love for their wayward teens and spouses.

I think it's a relevent oppositional comparison.

And trust me... the numbers are higher... the court system works much the same as doctors and hospitals... MANY times errors that have caused a patients death are not reported when they are discovered. People do not want to hand out information that puts them at risk for financial or criminal penalty. I have seen the system work first hand. I have testified in murder trials where numerous "eye witnesses" have seen different things.

There was an exercise that they did when I was in the academy. We were in a study class and the back door burst open... a man pulled a gun and "shot" the instructor four times. He then ran from the room. Afterwards the instructor stood up and asked us to write a description of the events and the perpetrator... WE WERE TRAINED OBSERVERS! The description of both the perp and the act were all over the place...very few were alike. This from trained individuals. Mistakes happen every day in convictions. Every day... no exceptions. And since murder has the highest conviction rate among major crimes, it stands to reason that more mistakes are made in capital cases than all others.
MM is a fan of Thomas Jefferson....

he wrote...

I shall ask for the abolishment of the penalty of death until the infallibility of human hands is displayed to me.

I am not a Jefferson fan... but he hits the nail on the head.

Look this stuff is all fact... I respect a persons right to see this differently... but at least know what you are doing and why. Too many have no clue as to what goes on in the justice system. Just like they have no idea of what goes on in the womb. Innocents are being killed in each.

As far as God not allowing innocents to die... one word... abortion.

Well exactly MEDC,

I was actually thinking of the famous saved from the fiery furnace OT story [guess which one].

I was thinking that they were spared because there was some specific plan...there was a purpose behind the miracle.

Everyone else burned and died.

God does not regard our lives with the same perspective that we do.

gotcha.

One other interesting piece of info...

Out of the top ten safest countries for murder... only Singapore (which BTW is number 10 on the list!) allows capital punishment. All of the other top 9 countries do not allow for capital punishment for any crime.
Also... when Canada (which is not on the list) stopped allowing executions, their murder rate dropped 33%. Just some interesting facts to consider.

And in the 10 worst countries for murder (the US is not on this list) 60% of these allow executions for certain crimes.