What do you think? United States moving in the right or wrong direction?

[dolphins4life]

In some ways we are, but we need other steps to be taken.

What irks me is the abuse of some government programs because they take away from the truly needy.

Sex is awesome, but too many people are doing it irresponsibly and having kids they can't afford.

Rules need to be changed to make people accountable for their behavior

One rule I would like to see happen is:

Medicaid should NOT cover anything to do with childbirth or pregnancy.  If you need Medicaid, you shouldn't be having kids because you aren't financially able to take care of them

I got others, I can't think of them right now.

[Buddhagirl]

you say this like it's a bad thing .. this just shows how much in demand abortions are .. 54.5 million customers just demonstrates the actual need for easy and legal abortions

I would say the market has spoken.

[Spider-Dan]

forced sex against one's will? Dude, you need some help.

This, at best, is a strained interpretation of what he said, and you know it.

OK, you got me.  When CF said that the Bible "doesn't allow spouses to withhold sex from their partner," I only meant forced in the sense that:

a) according to the Bible, you go to Hell and suffer eternal torture for disregarding the laws contained therein
b) in any ancient jurisdiction that adopted the Biblical interpretation of that law (e.g. the United States, pre-1975), one's spouse was specifically excluded from the definition of rape (i.e. "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if:")

But that's probably a totally unfair Hollywood mischaracterization of what "not allowed to withhold sex" means.  Maybe one of you could clear it up for me, particularly what it would mean in a jurisdiction under the Christian equivalent of Sharia law.  Or, alternatively, the United States 40 years ago (before we started going in the wrong direction?).

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Medicaid should NOT cover anything to do with childbirth or pregnancy.  If you need Medicaid, you shouldn't be having kids because you aren't financially able to take care of them

Your joking right?  So if someone who is poor get pregnant, they give birth at home and the baby receives no prenatal or postnatal care.  No childhood vaccinations, etc.  

But we continue to bail out wall street firms that trade risky dirivitie.

[Spider-Dan]

One rule I would like to see happen is:

Medicaid should NOT cover anything to do with childbirth or pregnancy.  If you need Medicaid, you shouldn't be having kids because you aren't financially able to take care of them

This doesn't really make any sense.

1) you are primarily hurting the unborn child by denying prenatal care
2) once the child is born, we're still going to be on the hook for all the expensive medical treatment that could have been avoided with proper prenatal care

That is, unless you're willing to deny healthcare coverage to Innocent Children (gasp!).

[Spider-Dan]

you say this like it's a bad thing .. this just shows how much in demand abortions are .. 54.5 million customers just demonstrates the actual need for easy and legal abortions

Some people believe that there should be 54.5 million more unwanted children in America.

Unfortunately, most of these same people believe that taxes that redistribute wealth to the poor are immoral.

[Spider-Dan]

I predict that within 20 years conventional abortions and abortion clinics will be a thing of the past, with the next generation of drugs similar to "Plan B" being effective thru the first trimester, making availability simple and protests and blocking impossible. 

Conservatives have been extremely effective at blocking access to Plan B.  The battlefield will simply switch from abortion clinics to pharmacies.

[SCFinfan]

you say this like it's a bad thing .. this just shows how much in demand abortions are .. 54.5 million customers just demonstrates the actual need for easy and legal abortions

You act like you don't know my thoughts on the humanity of the fetus. I get that we disagree - but that wasn't the point.

I would say the market has spoken.

"The Market" spoke for a long time on the slavery of native american and african peoples. Until we legislated it away. I suppose the market morally justified that practice as well? I suppose legislation into that area was some sort of interference?

So that you understand: NO, I am not comparing slavery and abortion. I'm saying that market demand does not create a moral justification out of thin air.

OK, you got me.  When CF said that the Bible "doesn't allow spouses to withhold sex from their partner," I only meant forced in the sense that:

a) according to the Bible, you go to Hell and suffer eternal torture for disregarding the laws contained therein
b) in any ancient jurisdiction that adopted the Biblical interpretation of that law (e.g. the United States, pre-1975), one's spouse was specifically excluded from the definition of rape (i.e. "A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if:")

But that's probably a totally unfair Hollywood mischaracterization of what "not allowed to withhold sex" means.  Maybe one of you could clear it up for me, particularly what it would mean in a jurisdiction under the Christian equivalent of Sharia law.  Or, alternatively, the United States 40 years ago (before we started going in the wrong direction?).

My friend, you could not be more wrong. What CF is referring to is in the NT:

1 Corinthians 7:2-5

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

The author of this text is not thinking about rape within or without marriage, but rather of sexual temptation caused by excessive withholding of marital sex. I think that's fairly clear from the text itself, but, it becomes even more clear when one reads this passage in conjunction with verses 1 and 6-8.

Ok, so, with that cleared up, we turn to marital rape. Where did the exemption for a married man come from in law? It comes from common law, which was essentially a mass of decisions from influential english jurists over the years - then transported here - and then modified slowly by statute.

So, where does this ridiculous exemption come from? Well, mostly from Lord Matthew Hale. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hale_(jurist)

Lord Hale's theory was that marriage was a contract, wherein the woman had given blanket consent to sexual intimacy, and said consent could only be revoked by dissolution of the relationship. Sadly, Lord Hale's influence lasted into the 20th century. Click here for a link (see footnote 9)

Now the problem w/ all this is that contract law was very severe back in the day. For example, a renter who was driven out of his leasehold was still required to pay rent, despite not having quiet enjoyment of the property. So, a ridiculous statement like this didn't seem out of place if you thought that marriage was a contract.

Anyway, the point is, the bible never indicates (and neither did CF) that somehow a woman had no-self possession, and that marital rape was therefore allowable. Indeed, I would argue that the following passage makes it very clear that acting in such a way is exceptionally sinful for a Christian:

In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Eph 5:28

Some people believe that there should be 54.5 million more unwanted children in America.

Indeed - some people do not subscribe to the theory: "every child a wanted child; every unwanted child a piece of butchered meat in a dumpster somewhere."

- edited to fix screen distorting URL - fau

[Sunstroke]

^^^ Wow, that mile-long link totally butchers the page formatting. Maybe consider using bit.ly when you have links containing over 100,000 characters.

[dolphins4life]

Your joking right?  So if someone who is poor get pregnant, they give birth at home and the baby receives no prenatal or postnatal care.  No childhood vaccinations, etc.  

But we continue to bail out wall street firms that trade risky dirivitie.

No, you garnish her wages to pay for the pregnancy and stuff.  Then, you tell her to put it up for adoption because she shouldn't be having kids if she can't afford to take care of them.

I talked to a girl online.  She has two kids.  I asked her what she did for work.  She said she didn't.  I asked how she supported herself.  She said, Section 8, food stamps, and child support.

I told her she made me sick.  She's just going to sleep around and make other people pay for it.  This is not right.  I asked her how lived with herself and slept at night. 

[dolphins4life]

I fully support section 8, ssi, food stamps, medicaid, and other assistance programs.  I just think they should be for people who really need them, not for people who are just irresponsible or who have the mindset of, "Oh, I can do whatever I want to because everybody else will bail me out"

[SCFinfan]

^^^ Wow, that mile-long link totally butchers the page formatting. Maybe consider using bit.ly when you have links containing over 100,000 characters.

My bad.

[bsmooth]

Proof positive we are going in the wrong direction. Reality shows like Keeping Up with the Kardashians, Jersey Shore and Honey boo Boo would never have made it beyond a week if they were on 30 years ago. They are not only train wrecks but people have turned them into idols and aren't ashamed to admit it.

Shows such as Archie Bunker and movies such as Blazing Saddles would not make it today.

[Sunstroke]

I told her she made me sick. 

If she wasn't online at the time, would you have hugged her before or after that comment?

[Spider-Dan]

My friend, you could not be more wrong. What CF is referring to is in the NT:

1 Corinthians 7:2-5

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency."

The author of this text is not thinking about rape within or without marriage, but rather of sexual temptation caused by excessive withholding of marital sex.

Funny, because CF interpreted that text as, "The Bible not only encourages sex it doesn't allow spouses to withhold sex from their partner."  (I know, two people interpret a holy text differently, stop the presses!)  So if you are required to have sex with your spouse, even if you may not want to (on the basis that such withholding may drive them to temptation), what is the proper term for when someone who doesn't want to have sex is made to anyway?

Ok, so, with that cleared up, we turn to marital rape. Where did the exemption for a married man come from in law? It comes from common law, which was essentially a mass of decisions from influential english jurists over the years - then transported here - and then modified slowly by statute.

I appreciate the history lesson, but it's about as relevant to the discussion as a history of slavery in defense of Biblical slavery.  Our flawed, fallible Laws Of Men corrected the error of presuming that a spouse is required to provide sex, while the concept remains pristinely intact in the Bible and will continue as such forever (just like the Biblical law that forces a rapist to marry his victim as punishment).

Anyway, the point is, the bible never indicates (and neither did CF) that somehow a woman had no-self possession, and that marital rape was therefore allowable.

No, it just specifies that she is not permitted to withhold sex from her husband (and vice versa).  And laws that followed the same standard literally and explicitly eliminated the possibility of marital rape (which is functionally the same thing as allowing it).

Indeed - some people do not subscribe to the theory: "every child a wanted child; every unwanted child a piece of butchered meat in a dumpster somewhere."

Well, liberals and conservatives seem to have a difference of opinion on what constitutes an "unborn child" and what constitutes a "lump of fertilized cells with no sentience or rights."

The difference is that after the child is born (when everyone agrees they are, in fact, independent humans with individual rights), conservatives immediately cease caring.