What's fair?

[miamited]

Bette Midler Calls For Sex Strike In Wake Of Radical Texas Abortion Crackdown | HuffPost

Now, before anyone gets their tights wrapped up, I do believe that abortion is wrong. However, I also believe that God intended for the sexual union to be between a husband and wife. So, we can pile on a whole bunch of wrongs that lead to this issue of abortion.

Let's start from the beginning of a pregnancy. A man has sexual relations with a woman or visa versa. There are two people involved in the coupling that produces a pregnancy and in many, many cases, obviously, that pregnancy is unwanted by both the man and the woman. Yet, it is only the woman that will be held to a responsibility to carry through with the pregnancy and be responsible for the child. Whether the child is put up for adoption or raised by his mother.

I believe that for the law in Texas to be fair, then what should be done is that any woman who has an unwanted pregnancy must name the man involved. The man, pending DNA verification, must purchase a $100,000 surety bond and provide medical insurance for both the hospital costs and the child until he/she is 18. The $100,000 surety bond would then be used to force the man to pay at least $500.00/month child support for his child, also until the age of 18.

Sadly, because the sexual union is so often used these days, and portrayed in much of our entertainment, as just the way one enjoys the after dinner time, rather than within the confines of a committed marriage, we are always going to have unwanted pregnancies.

Now, we could further the reduction of unwanted pregnancies by making sexually active men undergo a reversible vasectomy until they produce a valid marriage certificate to have the procedure reversed.

That would be more fair. Not just putting all this responsibility of a sexual union, in which two people were involved, on just one of the two.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

 

[JimR-OCDS]

First off, Bette Midler doesn't understand the law and why the SCOTUS let it stand.

The first thing that has to happen in Texas is for someone to break the law, then
get sued by another civilian. After that, it will make it's way up through the courts
where the SCOTUS will hear and throw it out. The law makes everyone a vigilante and
would be unconstitutional.

Now for the scenario you presented, it use to be in my state, that the father of the
child had to pay for support of both the mother and the child, with the threat of
going to pain if he failed to do so. Not so anymore.

Should that be brought back ? Sure, but also females have to realize that if they
have sex out of wedlock they could and their the one's to pay the price, regardless
of their decision. Is it fair ? Perhaps not but that's life. As the saying goes, if you
want to dance you have to be willing to pay the fiddler when things go wrong.

Does that justify killing the unborn when a heart beat is detected ?

Absolutely not !

 

[hislegacy]

Now, we could further the reduction of unwanted pregnancies by making sexually active men undergo a reversible vasectomy until they produce a valid marriage certificate to have the procedure reversed.

That would be more fair. Not just putting all this responsibility of a sexual union, in which two people were involved, on just one of the two.

Oh, forced sterilization - yeah, that'll work. Does the marriage license guarantee the man will not have sex outside of his marriage?

How about instead we as Christians bring back righteousness as a theme for our lives and our children's up brining?

 

[Hank77]

Now for the scenario you presented, it use to be in my state, that the father of the
child had to pay for support of both the mother and the child, with the threat of
going to pain if he failed to do so. Not so anymore.

In my state, it's just money for child support.
Now they garnish the father's wages. If that doesn't work they take his driver's license. It's the same for mothers who aren't raising their children.

 

[miamited]

Hi jim,

Thanks for your response.

Does that justify killing the unborn when a heart beat is detected ?

I don't really care what Bette Midler does or doesn't know. I posted the link because it is about a response to the Texas abortion law and that's what I wanted to discuss. I'm not really sure why you think that Mrs. Midler's contribution is even relevant to what I wrote in my post.

I don't really care what's the first thing that has to happen to put the Texas law in some sort of jeopardy that would make it an issue for the courts. I don't care whether or not some situation does or doesn't justify the killing of an unborn fetus.

My thread here is about what is fair regarding the issue of abortion and the responsibilities that we should hold the TWO parties involved to, if their fun and games brings about a pregnancy. Our country has long practiced this idea that it's all the woman's responsibility, once she's been made pregnant, to deal with the aftermath. My position is that it's a two person involvement, and therefore, should be a two person resolution.

Let's let go of this idea that a woman with an unwanted pregnancy is all her fault. Especially if we're now going to remove her only means of 'fixing' the problem through terminating the pregnancy. If we're going to force pregnant women to bear the burden of carrying a child that was conceived through the work of two people, then both of those people should be held responsible for the care and upbringing of the child that resulted from their bit of fun sex. That's fair!

That's all I'm interested in. I don't care really, whether the Texas law is upheld up or not. I think we might really put a dent in the need for abortions if we begin to hold the male half of this equation at least as responsible for unwanted pregnancies as we do the female. It is, after all, the result of two people. There are, as far as I know, no women who have found themselves pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy, through some solely self induced effort of their own.

Two people had sexual relations and apparently neither of them felt it important to take steps to prevent their relationship from resulting in a pregnancy. Those two people then need to be responsible for any undesired outcome. That's fair? Unfortunately, because the fetus resides within the woman's body, the male is most often allowed to just ride off into the sunset if he so chooses. Leaving the woman as the only one to have to deal with the aftermath of the two party dance.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Oh, forced sterilization - yeah, that'll work. Does the marriage license guarantee the man will not have sex outside of his marriage?

How about instead we as Christians bring back righteousness as a theme for our lives and our children's up brining?

Hi his legacy,

No, there are no guarantees in life. But, there are ways in which we can make an honest attempt to be fair in handling this issue of all the unwanted pregnancies that are the cause of so many abortions.

I fully support the idea that 'we as Christians bring back righteousness as a theme for our lives and our children's (whatever 'brining' is). However, I'm also a bit more pragmatic. I know that our nations, and the globe, are rife with non-christians and that most attempts of christians to change the world, since the days of Noah preaching to those later lost in the flood, hasn't ever been particularly productive and certainly not at all successful. Remember, all but 8 died in the flood, of all the people upon the earth in those days.

So, let's be a bit more pragmatic in our thinking...as christians. Sure, we can go to our fellowships and teach the parents of the children who are a part of our fellowship what it means and how they should raise their children in a godly manner. But some effort to go out and change the fabric of the 300+million people of the United States that they should live by christian values, is certainly the greatest effort in futility that I can possibly imagine. When are you planning on starting in Detroit? How about New York? When will you be holding your 'Parent Christian Training Seminars' in Las Vegas or San Diego? How much money and manpower have you put together to teach, across our nation, that everyone needs to live as christians regarding this effort of preventing abortions? Oh, and BTW, are you going to 'force' people to attend, and learn, and practice your 'christian righteousness values' program?

I rather imagine that you can't even fathom the worthlessness of such an endeavor. Have you not read the Scriptures? As the end approaches people and their willful sinfulness will be worse...not better.

Keep in mind that I did propose a reversible vasectomy. So this is only temporary sterilization until you've had a chance to get them married and teach them to raise their children in a 'christian' manner.

God bless,
Ted

 

[hislegacy]

Hi back atcha Ted

So, let's be a bit more pragmatic in our thinking...as christians.

BTW - we honor Christ by capitalizing the C in Christians - thought you might not know that.

Now as for being pragmatic (def. of or relating to a practical point of view or practical considerations)

I don't recall Christ ever commanding His Apostles to be pragmatic, I don't recall the Great Commission calling to be pragmatic. In fact, it was Paul who commanded us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. A clear calling to not think the way the world thought.

Sure, we can go to our fellowships and teach the parents of the children who are a part of our fellowship what it means and how they should raise their children in a godly manner.

That would be called discipleship.

But some effort to go out and change the fabric of the 300+million people of the United States that they should live by christian values, is certainly the greatest effort in futility that I can possibly imagine.

Making Disciples of all nations is not an effort in futility, it is the Commission God has give every Christian on earth.

When are you planning on starting in Detroit? How about New York? When will you be holding your 'Parent Christian Training Seminars' in Las Vegas or San Diego?

There are non pragmatic Christians already there doing it. I am part of an organization with more than 88,000 graduates spanning 256 countries globally. We have planted or help plant over 22,000 churches GLOBALLY. Add the other established non pragmatic churches and the numbers are outstanding.

We even have groups and facilities that help woman who choose life for their babies. Classes, supplies, support and adoption are all options.

How much money and manpower have you put together to teach, across our nation, that everyone needs to live as christians regarding this effort of preventing abortions?

Collectively in the neighborhood of 270,000,000 in total globally.

Oh, and BTW, are you going to 'force' people to attend, and learn, and practice your 'christian righteousness values' program?

Absolutely not - it is the goodness of God that draws people to repentance, not forcing.

I also find it interesting that you do not support the Government preventing a child's birth because the woman should have the right to choose what happens with her own body - but you do support the government forcing a surgical procedure on a man.

 

[Hank77]

I don't recall Christ ever commanding His Apostles to be pragmatic, I don't recall the Great Commission calling to be pragmatic.

Was Jesus pragmatic? Was Paul pragmatic?

 

[Beanieboy]

I'm lost, Ted. Are you proposing that you don't just live with your religion and positions on issues like abortion, but impose them upon nonChristians?
1) The Constitution clearly states government shall neither prohibit nor endorse any one religion. So, the Constitution makes it impossible to impose Christian values on another from a legal standpoint
2) Why would a Christian ask a nonChristian to follow their religious code? If a Muslim told you to stop eating pork because it is unclean according to the Quran, would you? If not, to then demand it of others isn't loving your neighbor.
3) Why would we as Christians want everyone to follow a Christian code of ethics, rather than hear about Christ?
4) How would we even determine what that code of ethics would look like when Christians hold such different viewpoints?

A friend of mine came over to hang out, and started insisting that abortion was wrong in all instances. When he asked me, I told him that as a gay man, I don't think about it often, bc I will never be in a situation where one of us is pregnant. To say it is always wrong leaves little room for circumstances of, for example, a father impregnated his 11 yr old daughter he is molesting, or rape. In the instance of rape, he asked why the baby should suffer. I asked why the woman should have to relive a trauma with a pregnancy that happened without her consent.,

At some point, I asked him why this concerned him so much. He is also gay, knows no one personally getting an abortion. So, I then asked what he did for the women who kept their babies - was he actively in support of funding for single mothers trying to feed their baby? Was he involved in resources that provide childcare?

Nothing. He really cared about the unborn. Once they are born, he feels done with his job.

Getting back to the OP, I agree that both parties should be held responsible. However, we also need to change our current social views. Some churches preach Purity - saving yourself until marriage, but inly to the girls. For the boys, it's more of a "wink, wink, nudge, nudge." Men are called Romeo, Lady's Man, Stud, while women are called harlots, etc.

Men are taught that having sex with a lot of women shows how great you are with your peers, teaches that the woman is responsible for birth control, and simply by being male, whether fornication is a sin or not, no one will confront you on it.

We also need more support for single mothers, need to stop judging single mothers who chose to keep their baby, nor tell someone if they couldn't afford the child they shouldn't have had them.

What happens in issues that are very emotionally charged is that people on both sides get more caught up in fighting the opposition, than pregnant women themselves.

Check out the movie Citizen Ruth. She gets caught in the battle between ProLife and ProChoice.

 

[dzheremi]

I don't recall Christ ever commanding His Apostles to be pragmatic, I don't recall the Great Commission calling to be pragmatic.

"Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves. Therefore be wise as serpents and harmless as doves." (Matthew 10:16)

In fact, it was Paul who commanded us to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. A clear calling to not think the way the world thought.

Yes. And the same St. Paul also shares with the Corinthians that for the sake of winning them to Christ, he became a Jew to the Jews (1 Corinthians 9:20). That's a very pragmatic stance.

 

[hislegacy]

Yes. And the same St. Paul also shares with the Corinthians that for the sake of winning them to Christ, he became a Jew to the Jews (1 Corinthians 9:20). That's a very pragmatic stance.

For the sake of what??

 

[dzheremi]

For the sake of what??

That they come to accept Christ. As he writes:

19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

 

[miamited]

Hi his legacy,

Thanks for your response.

Making Disciples of all nations is not an effort in futility, it is the Commission God has give every Christian on earth.

Yes, but have you read the place where Jesus gave unto his disciples that command? There is an order. We first make disciples through telling them the gospel and baptizing those who believe...then we teach them to follow all that he has commanded. Unfortunately, a lot of christians don't get that order. And we know that it's an order, because there are other places in the Scriptures, which was the message at our fellowship this past Sunday, that the things of God are foolishness to those who don't know God.

So, when we try to teach obedience to a law that the person we are talking to doesn't even agree that there is this God and Son who love us and care about us, then our work is futile. If, as Jesus describes in issuing the great commandment, we first tell them about Jesus and they see and agree as to who he is, then we baptize them and begin to teach them the commandments, our work is of great worth. Why? Well because they then have the Holy Spirit who is promised to lead those who follow Jesus in 'all' truth. But if we go back and read the Scriptures, those without the Spirit find the things of God as foolishness. So we must first get them to know and believe that Jesus is who he says that he is, before we try to get them to follow his commands.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.

See the order? Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... You see, until we do that first part, then those people we are trying to teach are still under the instruction of the Scriptures as being those who have no understanding. The Scriptures are emphatic on this point. Claiming that not only do they not understand, but that they can't understand. I mean willfully can't understand.

This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

So, I stand by my assertion that our just going out and beating people over the head with the law and commandments of God, without their first believing God, is a futile work. Just as futile as it was in the days of Noah.

There are non pragmatic Christians already there doing it. I am part of an organization with more than 88,000 graduates spanning 256 countries globally. We have planted or help plant over 22,000 churches GLOBALLY. Add the other established non pragmatic churches and the numbers are outstanding.

And yet, the problem doesn't seem to be any better. I'm not sure that just planting churches all over the world is answering the problem of abortion. Certainly the people in the areas where you plant your churches have easier access to worship and, hopefully, the gospel is spread even among the unbelievers...but it isn't helping the abortion issue.

See, while all we are dealing with here is how the United States might deal more fairly with abortion, the abortion issue is a worldwide problem. As per this graphic, the North American continent has a lower rate than most other areas of the world.

Collectively in the neighborhood of 270,000,000 in total globally.

And yet, according to the above graphic, all those places you've spent that money has a worse abortion problem than the U.S. Seems to me like a lot of money being spent wastefully. Of course, I know that your figure isn't really dealing with money raised to address the abortion issue. You're talking about the money spent to build fellowships of believers. And yet in building all those fellowships, the abortion issue is still as rampant as it has always been. I understand that you're not going to agree with me on this and that's ok, but all this work you're touting has really been futile in addressing the abortion issue.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Was Jesus pragmatic? Was Paul pragmatic?

Hi hank,

Of course Jesus was pragmatic. He told his disciples that most would not come to him for salvation. While he taught a message of hope and eternal life with our God and Creator, he was pragmatic enough to tell his followers that most weren't going to accept his message.

Paul was just as pragmatic in his letter to the Romans. Starting off in the very first chapter as to how terribly wicked the world was and how it was going to be worse as we march inexorably towards the last days.

So, neither of these men tried to sugar coat the world by portraying the reality of life upon the earth through some rose colored glasses.

God bless,
Ted

 

[hislegacy]

Certainly the people in the areas where you plant your churches have easier access to worship and, hopefully, the gospel is spread even among the unbelievers...but it isn't helping the abortion issue.

Hi Ted

you have internet research, I have real life results.

I’ll stay with the power of the Gospel and the witness of thousands of Christians.

Again I don’t think you are going to help the abortion, nor will you be a positive witness for Christ by forcing surgery on men.

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted

you have internet research, I have real life results.

I’ll stay with the power of the Gospel and the witness of thousands of Christians.

Again I don’t think you are going to help the abortion, nor will you be a positive witness for Christ by forcing surgery on men.

Hi his legacy,

Really!!!? That's what's stuck in your craw? That I suggested we have reversible vasectomies for men. Man!!!!! Talk about one who doesn't want to deal with the male responsibility in this issue.

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi his legacy,

you have internet research, I have real life results.

Ok, let's talk about those 'real life results'. Where were the last three countries in which your organization planted fellowships?

God bless,
Ted

 

[hislegacy]

Hi his legacy,

Really!!!? That's what's stuck in your craw? That I suggested we have reversible vasectomies for men. Man!!!!! Talk about one who doesn't want to deal with the male responsibility in this issue.

God bless,
Ted

Hi MT,

no, nothing in my craw. I just do not think forcing a form of sterilization surgery on a person is effective, logical or ethical.

In today’s society boys and girls are becoming sexually active at a younger and younger age. How do you propose to force parents to agree to having surgery done on their teenagers?

What if they choose not to? Is it. Ow a legal issue? Does law enforcement get involved? Who pays for the procedure? It is just a bad idea all around. Not pragmatic in any way.

I believe sharing the Gospel, having both men and women in a relationship with Jesus Christ changes lives. As people draw closer to Christ, they live differently because of that relationship and wanting to be closer to God.

 

[miamited]

Hi @hislegacy,

Well, isn't your group out there teaching those young boys not to have sexual relations? Of course not. However, you are getting lost in the gnats of the issue. As I said, though you have denied it, you have this issue of reversible vasectomy stuck in your sights and can't seem to see that there are other options in my plan. For those boys whose parents won't approve of them having the procedure, if they get a girl pregnant, and the girl wants to terminate the pregnancy, though by law she can't, she will give up the name of the boy and the law will force the responsible party for the boy, if he's of minor age, to provide the surety bond that will provide that the girl gets the $500/month to help raise the child.

Now, if the parents don't want it to happen again, then they might consider having the boy temporarily fixed. The reversible vasectomy is only one part of the plan. It can, of course be optional. But, understand that the options are, a man prepares well in advance for his sexual relations by getting the vasectomy. Or he takes the risk that if he slips up and gets a woman pregnant, who then doesn't want to keep the child, or even does, but they won't get married where he would be at home to support the child, then he must commit, with a surety bond as the sign of his continued commitment for 18 years, to pay $500/month to help raise his child. Quite frankly, I think the surety bond requirement would also help in child support enforcement when a couple splits up. Our jails are filled with men who won't pay their child support. Now, sure, some of them don't make enough money to pay the support, but unfortunately they've already created this child that needs cared for.

Hopefully, one understands that laws such as this, will more likely bring down the demand for abortion because it's going to put more responsibility for unprotected sexual relations on the male side of the equation. Hopefully, when a man and woman get all hot and heavy after a date out for dinner and movie, as we see depicted in our entertainment constantly (maybe your group should work on changing the mores of the entertainment industry), the conversation will come up before the act is consummated, "Do you have a condom?", "Are you on the pill?". Rather than what seems to be pretty prevalent today where they just go ahead and have their fun and worry about any consequences, mainly for the woman, over the next few days. While the man often just says, "Gosh, that's too bad for you. Have a nice life."

I'm just offering what I believe would be a more workable solution to the abortion issue rather than just making the procedure illegal without creating an alternative to 'fix' the problem. Making abortions illegal will be about as successful as making drugs illegal. People are still going to have sexual relations outside of marriage, and people are still going to use drugs.

BTW just as an aside. I heard on the news yesterday that abortion requests in Oklahoma are skyrocketing because of requests from women in Texas. So, already we can see that this idea of making abortions illegal...isn't going to stop abortions.

God bless,
Ted