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

[SCFinfan]

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?

Good try, but again, not at all close. The text says, (using a different translation here to make it a little more clear) in Verse 5,

"Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer."

That word "except" is fairly interesting. It appears as though you can say no to your spouse for certain reasons. I don't know that Paul gives an exhaustive list here - doesn't say it explicitly, and there's nothing I read that implicitly indicates that it is exhaustive. So, I would say this is, as I said at first, a very strained interpretation of what the bible teaches on this matter.

Now, if you want proof that this interpretation was present prior to modern days, look to the Summa Theologica, which was written in the 1260s and 1270s. In the section dealing with the "marital debt" Thomas indicates the following:

And therefore, since the wife has power over her husband only in relation to the generative power and not in relation to things directed to the preservation of the individual, the husband is bound to pay the debt to his wife, in matters pertaining to the begetting of children, with due regard however to his own welfare.

While Thomas is thinking of a woman demanding sex from a man here, it certainly applies in the reverse, given the surrounding sections. Note that Thomas says that spouses don't have power over one another in relation to personal welfare or preservation of the individual. In short, while a person can demand sex from their spouse, if self-preservation or self-welfare requires or makes it beneficial to not have sex, then one can refuse...

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).

I just don't think the Bible says what you think it says. The concept of some sort of undeniable sex-contract between husband and wife is not something that's in the Bible.

Regarding a rapist marrying his victim - that is a red herring to this discussion.

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).

Again, nope: this conclusion follows from incorrect or untrue premises. Were I at home w/ my library, I would also get you some Augustine references, but I'm without that ability presently.

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.

I would argue they haven't "stopped caring" but would rather charity flowed from the private citizens, rather than from boondoggle gov't programs that could very well go bust and take us all with them... (social security anyone? http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/)

However, as I am a proponent of the welfare state to some regard, I don't deny that prominent conservatives could urge more charity and giving and willingness to aid the poor on their people.

[Spider-Dan]

Good try, but again, not at all close.

You say that as if your interpretation of a holy text is provable.

You interpret one thing, CF interprets another, religion gonna religion.

The text says, (using a different translation here to make it a little more clear) in Verse 5,

"Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer."

"Mutual consent."  So if the spouse does not consent to abstinence, still sounds like it's going to be forced sex against your will.

If you want to argue that, instead of a man coercing his wife with the threat of a beating if she doesn't submit (i.e. plain old everyday rape), the church is only coercing her with the threat of eternal torture of her soul, I guess I can agree to that?

That word "except" is fairly interesting. It appears as though you can say no to your spouse for certain reasons.

Based on that verse, the given reason is if your spouse consents to it.  That's not much of an "exception."

Not going to get back into the history of marital rape as I've already addressed it: laws of men previously permitted it, we came to our senses and addressed them, meanwhile the Bible remains divinely unchanged as always.

I would argue they haven't "stopped caring" but would rather charity flowed from the private citizens, rather than from boondoggle gov't programs that could very well go bust and take us all with them...

I mean, maybe they do still care, in some way that doesn't involve any actual action or resources on their part. 

The difference is that when it comes to living people out of the womb, conservatives insist that all charity must come from convincing the hearts and minds of private citizens... yet when it comes to the decision as to whether or not to end a pregnancy, suddenly the time for convincing hearts and minds is over and the party of "small government" insists that the government step in and force women to take pregnancies to term.

[Buddhagirl]

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. 

So did you get a date?

[dolphins4life]

^^^^

I couldn't date somebody like that who is irresponsible and leeching off others.

Modified to add, I did have an awesome date on Wednesday night with somebody else, but that's another story.

Back to my original point, I hate how people get away with irresponsibility, especially when it comes to pregnancy and children.

IF YOU CAN"T AFFORD TO RAISE CHILDREN, DON'T HAVE THEM!!!  What is so hard to understand about that?

[Spider-Dan]

IF YOU CAN"T AFFORD TO RAISE CHILDREN, DON'T HAVE THEM!!!  What is so hard to understand about that?

Are you saying that if you can't afford contraception, you shouldn't be having sex?  Just clarifying.

I think it's fair to say that many of the people in question don't want to have children, but because the religious right has successfully (and unnecessarily) enforced a moral link between sex and pregnancy*, the expectation seems to be that the poor should be abstinent.

*This is not the 18th-century; we have readily available medical technology to allow people to have unlimited sex without a single parent being created.  Certain groups oppose the availability of these products/procedures on moral/religious grounds.

[dolphins4life]

Several Points

1) Birth control isn't that expensive.  My friend has a really good kind that is really cheap

2) There are ways to have sex without risking pregnancy, I should know given my performance troubles

3) Condoms aren't that expensive either

4) If you have sex, YOU deal with the consequences.  If you can't afford to raise the child, put it up for adoption to somebody who can.

And this is coming from a liberal

[bsmooth]

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

There has been a couple of studies that have looked at the number of abortions and the correlation to the reduced crime rate starting the mid 90's.
If you look at the 16-24 age group, which commits the most crime, you will see that by the mid 90's that group was significantly smaller, as they were the first to come of age after abortion became legal.
Crime has been heading down.
Also just think how much worse our schools and prisons would be. Statistics show that the majority of poor students and criminals come from single parent households.
So by allowing these women to make the choice to terminate their pregnancy, we have prevented even more social problems.
Of course most evangelicals and conservatives I have ever discussed this topic with, do ot even consider the ramifications of making all pregnancies come to term.

[Buddhagirl]

There has been a couple of studies that have looked at the number of abortions and the correlation to the reduced crime rate starting the mid 90's.
If you look at the 16-24 age group, which commits the most crime, you will see that by the mid 90's that group was significantly smaller, as they were the first to come of age after abortion became legal.
Crime has been heading down.
Also just think how much worse our schools and prisons would be. Statistics show that the majority of poor students and criminals come from single parent households.
So by allowing these women to make the choice to terminate their pregnancy, we have prevented even more social problems.
Of course most evangelicals and conservatives I have ever discussed this topic with, do ot even consider the ramifications of making all pregnancies come to term.

You bring up a great point.
So, let's say we force women to have babies they didn't want. Most people say, "Just give them up for adoption."

First of all, many minority children are the last to be adopted. Then you add in the ones that maybe were kept, but mom and dad didn't give a shit about them. In both scenarios these children are left in the system or with completely inattentive parents that are not equipped to handle being parents.

What future do these children hold? Are they our next responsible citizens or our future criminals?

[bsmooth]

It is an interesting theory. Has abortion reduced what our crime rate would have been had all these pregnancies been forced to term?

[dolphins4life]

on my point, what a message we send to girls in today's society:

To support yourself, just make babies and leech off the government.

Awesome stuff, really

We gotta hold people responsible for their actions.

Boy it just makes me so angry that she's living the good life in luxury all on my tax dollars because she decided to sleep around.

[Spider-Dan]

dolphins4life, ultimately it boils down to this: do we, as a society, want to provide children with the best possible opportunity to grow up and become productive, contributing citizens?  If so, then we have to make sure that children have food, clothing, shelter, and education.  Now, we can do this one of several ways:

- require people to provide proof of financial stability in order to have children
- forcibly remove children from the homes of parents incapable of financially supporting them without assistance
- provide cheap, easy access to contraception/abortion
- provide financial assistance to poor parents

All of these solutions have their own drawbacks.

So, do you think our nation is better off or worse off by providing food/clothing/shelter/education for children?  Is it worth the cost?

[Buddhagirl]

on my point, what a message we send to girls in today's society:

To support yourself, just make babies and leech off the government.

Awesome stuff, really

We gotta hold people responsible for their actions.

Boy it just makes me so angry that she's living the good life in luxury all on my tax dollars because she decided to sleep around.

Can I ask what you consider the good life? Because I really doubt that a woman that completely relies on government assistance is living the "good life".

[dolphins4life]

^^^^

Not having to work and having all your needs met is the good life for me

[dolphins4life]

This girl purposely didn't use birth control because she didn't believe in it.

Birth control isn't that expensive.  My date last night told me hers was $34 a month.

[dolphins4life]

Next subject for me to vent on is employers.

Nothing has been done to address this paradox.

Employers say, "We won't hire you without experience in their ads and on interviews"

But if nobody will hire you, how can you get experience?