<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?