Concubines

Alan Wisdom has a brilliant article in Salvo, bringing back a word we need again and showing how different “just living together” and marriage really are:

In ancient times, there was an option for a man who desired a regular sex partner but did not wish to marry her. He could take a low-status woman as a concubine. He could enjoy her company as long as it pleased him, and he could dismiss her at any time. The man made no promises and signed no contract; consequently, the concubine had few legal protections. Any children that she bore would have an inferior legal status.

The early Church fought long and hard against concubinage. It insisted that such a sexual relationship, without the permanent and total commitment expressed in marriage vows, was immoral and unjust. Over the course of a thousand years, concubinage retreated into the shadows of social disapproval.

In the past 40 years, it seems, concubinage has come to light again under a different name. Like ancient concubinage, contemporary cohabitation is a deliberately ambiguous relationship. The partners make no promises and have no legal obligations to one another. The arrangement has no specified duration and can be terminated at a moment’s notice. Those who cohabit tend to be of lower social status. Their children, on average, do not fare as well as children born to married couples.

Defenders of cohabitation portray it as just a more flexible form of marriage. The love is the same as in marriage, they say; all that is missing is “a piece of paper,” the marriage certificate. Some see cohabitation as a “trial marriage.” They assume that living together will confirm a couple’s compatibility and reduce the odds that a subsequent marriage might end in divorce.

Social science does not support any of these assertions. By every measure, cohabitation is a very different relationship from marriage. Marriages are formed by a series of decisive, publicly announced events: A proposal is made, it is accepted, an engagement is announced, friends and family gather for a wedding, vows and rings are exchanged, and two formerly single persons are declared to be married. By contrast, many couples quietly drift into cohabitation. They gradually spend more time together, one moves his or her possessions piece by piece into the other’s residence, one allows his or her lease to expire, and eventually they realize that they are living together full-time.

The two relationships differ dramatically in durability. The average marriage lasts several decades; the average cohabitation, only 15 months. Because their time horizons are longer, married people are much more likely to invest in one another. Husbands and wives almost always pool their assets. They have a single household budget that does not separate “his” and “her” money. They take responsibility for each other’s debts and inherit each other’s estates.

via Salvo Magazine: Cohabitation: Marriage Lite or the New Concubinage? – Salvo 15.

Read the rest of it, the differences between concubinage and marriage go on and on.  Pity the poor concubine.  Once again we see ourselves progressing at breakneck speed back to primitivism.

UPDATE:  Of course there are differences between the ancient practice of concubinage and today’s “living together,” but the point of similarity is that both are a type of “marriage lite.”  Having or being a concubine bears some similarity to marriage and  exists parallel to that institution but is easily dissolvable.

.

 

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Jonathan

    “Those who cohabit tend to be of lower social status.” Maybe by sheer numbers, same as lower status folk out-number the privileged. However, it seems to me just a prevalent across the upper crust too. Wills & Kate did it for how long?

    I have a friend who has gone in and out of these several times, each time sure the guy will commit. She is so broken down by it when it ends, she feels like a used car out for a test drive but can’t get the guy to sign the sales contract.

    There’s a ripping apart of the two-oneness in these break-ups that’s no easier than a divorce or death of a spouse.

  • Jonathan

    “Those who cohabit tend to be of lower social status.” Maybe by sheer numbers, same as lower status folk out-number the privileged. However, it seems to me just a prevalent across the upper crust too. Wills & Kate did it for how long?

    I have a friend who has gone in and out of these several times, each time sure the guy will commit. She is so broken down by it when it ends, she feels like a used car out for a test drive but can’t get the guy to sign the sales contract.

    There’s a ripping apart of the two-oneness in these break-ups that’s no easier than a divorce or death of a spouse.

  • Carl Vehse

    Along with “concubine” one would have to include the “gigolo,” as well as the usual GLBTQ equivalents… unless, of course, the person is a Democrat. Then, following a few “tsk, tsks” such arrangements are tolerated, especially by the politician’s sewer and cemetery voters.

  • Carl Vehse

    Along with “concubine” one would have to include the “gigolo,” as well as the usual GLBTQ equivalents… unless, of course, the person is a Democrat. Then, following a few “tsk, tsks” such arrangements are tolerated, especially by the politician’s sewer and cemetery voters.

  • Howard

    What’s the issue? The worlds wisest man had 300 of them. I don’t see God doing too much about that.

  • Howard

    What’s the issue? The worlds wisest man had 300 of them. I don’t see God doing too much about that.

  • SKPeterson

    @Howard #3 – I seem to recall that there were big consequences to having those wives and concubines – the tragic upswing of paganism in ancient Israel leading to the eventual dissolution of the kingdom into 2 parts, and then the collapse of both over the centuries. The rot began under Solomon and the irony is that, for all his wisdom, he still acted unwisely and imprudently in his marital/sexual relationships.

  • SKPeterson

    @Howard #3 – I seem to recall that there were big consequences to having those wives and concubines – the tragic upswing of paganism in ancient Israel leading to the eventual dissolution of the kingdom into 2 parts, and then the collapse of both over the centuries. The rot began under Solomon and the irony is that, for all his wisdom, he still acted unwisely and imprudently in his marital/sexual relationships.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Howard,
    In actual fact, the concubinage of Solomon and that of David, and other near east kingdom’s tended to be quite different than that of the Roman empire for which the article is referencing. You can see this as you read Esther much more explicitly, but even just reading 1 and 2 Samuel, 1and 2 kings, and Chronicles.
    In these cases any woman living on the kings dole was a concubine, if the king had relations with her, her status changed. But there was no fear of break up either. The king did not dismiss his concubines, or let them be handed over to other men. As for another man to know the same woman as the king had known would have been an insult to the king, it was actually an act of treason and an attempt at usurpation.
    However, this is the arrangement that St. Augustine lived with for many years, and I’m still a bit scandalized by that part of his confessions where seeming without any remorse, he dismisses his concubine thinking that the Christian thing to do, even after having a son with her.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Howard,
    In actual fact, the concubinage of Solomon and that of David, and other near east kingdom’s tended to be quite different than that of the Roman empire for which the article is referencing. You can see this as you read Esther much more explicitly, but even just reading 1 and 2 Samuel, 1and 2 kings, and Chronicles.
    In these cases any woman living on the kings dole was a concubine, if the king had relations with her, her status changed. But there was no fear of break up either. The king did not dismiss his concubines, or let them be handed over to other men. As for another man to know the same woman as the king had known would have been an insult to the king, it was actually an act of treason and an attempt at usurpation.
    However, this is the arrangement that St. Augustine lived with for many years, and I’m still a bit scandalized by that part of his confessions where seeming without any remorse, he dismisses his concubine thinking that the Christian thing to do, even after having a son with her.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I love the last line, “progressing at breakneck speed back to primitivism”. Sadly, it is quite true. We are increasingly just another generic pagan society with a lot of money and a really good military.

  • Steve Billingsley

    I love the last line, “progressing at breakneck speed back to primitivism”. Sadly, it is quite true. We are increasingly just another generic pagan society with a lot of money and a really good military.

  • J.P.H.

    The concubine/living together comparison is a weak one for a whole host of reasons. As the article indicates, concubines were generally from a lower class than their male partner. Why would they enter into such an arrangement? Answer: material gain. Either they were desperate to begin with or they enjoy the relative wealth they’re afforded as the concubine of a wealthy man, even if they have to serve as a sex slave to get it. Nor are any requirements placed on the male partner. He is, for instance, free to marry someone else or to take additional concubines. Being illegitimate, the concubine’s children are second-class citizens *by birth* and not by circumstance. Viewed this way, concubinage is basically long-term prostitution.

    Contrast this with “living together”. This is a voluntary arrangement between two individuals neither of whom wishes marriage (at the time). Often it is seen a precursor to actual marriage. A woman typically doesn’t move in with a man out of financial desperation or because she wants a sugar daddy; modern society empowers her to support herself as a single person. Any children that may result from the relationship are not second-class citizens. Living together doesn’t preclude the woman subsequently marrying someone else as it might have in ancient cultures. Living together typically comes with a requirement of mutual exclusivity; the man cannot take additional partners. The concubine is required to give her master unrestricted sexual access; not so with the female partner in a “living together” relationship. Couples living together often “go dutch” on expenses.

    “Living together” is an altogether more equitable arrangement. The comparison to concubinage just doesn’t work.

  • J.P.H.

    The concubine/living together comparison is a weak one for a whole host of reasons. As the article indicates, concubines were generally from a lower class than their male partner. Why would they enter into such an arrangement? Answer: material gain. Either they were desperate to begin with or they enjoy the relative wealth they’re afforded as the concubine of a wealthy man, even if they have to serve as a sex slave to get it. Nor are any requirements placed on the male partner. He is, for instance, free to marry someone else or to take additional concubines. Being illegitimate, the concubine’s children are second-class citizens *by birth* and not by circumstance. Viewed this way, concubinage is basically long-term prostitution.

    Contrast this with “living together”. This is a voluntary arrangement between two individuals neither of whom wishes marriage (at the time). Often it is seen a precursor to actual marriage. A woman typically doesn’t move in with a man out of financial desperation or because she wants a sugar daddy; modern society empowers her to support herself as a single person. Any children that may result from the relationship are not second-class citizens. Living together doesn’t preclude the woman subsequently marrying someone else as it might have in ancient cultures. Living together typically comes with a requirement of mutual exclusivity; the man cannot take additional partners. The concubine is required to give her master unrestricted sexual access; not so with the female partner in a “living together” relationship. Couples living together often “go dutch” on expenses.

    “Living together” is an altogether more equitable arrangement. The comparison to concubinage just doesn’t work.

  • http://www.housewifetheologian.com Aimee Byrd

    I love this article. Who ever begins life with hopes to be someone’s concubine? As Voddie Baucham said, the dating relationships these days are only teching our youth the art of divorce. How many “serious relationships” does one go through these days before they eventually marry?

  • http://www.housewifetheologian.com Aimee Byrd

    I love this article. Who ever begins life with hopes to be someone’s concubine? As Voddie Baucham said, the dating relationships these days are only teching our youth the art of divorce. How many “serious relationships” does one go through these days before they eventually marry?

  • steve

    One big difference is that while modern concubine enter into the relationship willingly, concubine of previous ages often had to be taken by force. Whether that makes the modern concubine look “more independent” or “less intelligent” is, of course, a matter of opinion.

  • steve

    One big difference is that while modern concubine enter into the relationship willingly, concubine of previous ages often had to be taken by force. Whether that makes the modern concubine look “more independent” or “less intelligent” is, of course, a matter of opinion.

  • Andy

    I agree that cohabitation is not beneficial to society. Neither is it beneficial to the future of the couples that do it, marriage or not. With all of this I can agree with the author–there has been plenty of data on this for years.

    However, I must echo those questioning the validity of the comparison otherwise. I would like to see how the author comes to the conclusion that cohabitation is more common amongst those of lower status. Really?

    It is also not an apples to apples comparison because of the voluntary nature of the agreement and equal rights that both parties hold.

    Finally, while some studies support the idea that children from nuclear families “fare better,” it is not an issue of status or law for those children. Also, one should qualify what faring better means. Is it doing better in school? Fewer behavioral issues? A better career down the road? And from this stems the question of what the author values, because that will inform his definition of what it means to fare better.

    While I do not condone cohabitation, I wonder if this article accomplishes much outside of comfirming what one already believes.

  • Andy

    I agree that cohabitation is not beneficial to society. Neither is it beneficial to the future of the couples that do it, marriage or not. With all of this I can agree with the author–there has been plenty of data on this for years.

    However, I must echo those questioning the validity of the comparison otherwise. I would like to see how the author comes to the conclusion that cohabitation is more common amongst those of lower status. Really?

    It is also not an apples to apples comparison because of the voluntary nature of the agreement and equal rights that both parties hold.

    Finally, while some studies support the idea that children from nuclear families “fare better,” it is not an issue of status or law for those children. Also, one should qualify what faring better means. Is it doing better in school? Fewer behavioral issues? A better career down the road? And from this stems the question of what the author values, because that will inform his definition of what it means to fare better.

    While I do not condone cohabitation, I wonder if this article accomplishes much outside of comfirming what one already believes.

  • helen

    JPH @ 7
    “Living together” is an altogether more equitable arrangement. The comparison to concubinage just doesn’t work.

    No, the comparison doesn’t work, because the concubine was acquired by someone who would support her lifelong, whether or not he was always interested in her.

    When I began to work in a university setting, it seemed that half the girls I became acquainted with were living with someone. In many cases, the girls were paying the bills. Once, I remember, the girl got fed up and moved out.
    In another case, the two moved here to pursue the young man’s graduate degree, and when he got it, he left town… with someone else.

    Some eventually married the “live-in”. Others with a long history of living together before marriage, married and are now separated/divorced.
    [In that last, I suppose they are no worse off than those of us who were "super square", managed the household, raised the kids and eventually were discarded for a flashier model!] ;(

  • helen

    JPH @ 7
    “Living together” is an altogether more equitable arrangement. The comparison to concubinage just doesn’t work.

    No, the comparison doesn’t work, because the concubine was acquired by someone who would support her lifelong, whether or not he was always interested in her.

    When I began to work in a university setting, it seemed that half the girls I became acquainted with were living with someone. In many cases, the girls were paying the bills. Once, I remember, the girl got fed up and moved out.
    In another case, the two moved here to pursue the young man’s graduate degree, and when he got it, he left town… with someone else.

    Some eventually married the “live-in”. Others with a long history of living together before marriage, married and are now separated/divorced.
    [In that last, I suppose they are no worse off than those of us who were "super square", managed the household, raised the kids and eventually were discarded for a flashier model!] ;(

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    This article makes an interesting point…however, it is inaccurate about some of the historical realities of concubinage.

    The article quoted in this post said, “The early Church fought long and hard against concubinage. It insisted that such a sexual relationship, without the permanent and total commitment expressed in marriage vows, was immoral and unjust.”

    This piece by Patout Burns points out that, due to layers of Roman law, marriage was regulated and marrying certain people was not only socially unacceptable, it was illegal.

    Church practice was ambivalent about concubinage. The conflict between Callixtus and Hippolytus indicates that some bishops were more interested in long-term relationships than in the legality of the marriage. The church could not have required that all Christian marriages conform to Roman legal standards, since slaves and some other persons were incapable of legal marriage. The Council of Toledo in 397 affirmed that a Christian man could have a concubine or a wife but not both. In legal terms, this conformed to imperial legislation and practice. In ecclesial practice, it may have been intended to restrict the use of slave women by their married Christian masters.(33)

    When you are legally prohibited from legal marriage, the alternative is concubinage – NOT a “temporary” agreement (shacking up,) but more what we would call “common law marriage” today.

    from newadvent.org

    Permanent concubinage, though it lacked the ordinary legal forms and was not recognized by the civil law as a legal marriage, had in it no element of immorality. It was a real marriage, including the intention and consent of both parties to form a lifelong union. This the Church allowed from the beginning, while Pope Callistus I broke through the barrier of state law, and raised to the dignity of Christian marriage permanent unions between slave and free, and even those between slave and slave (contubernium).”

    While the article quoted in this post makes some good points, we should take care to not misrepresent the past, to make a point about the present.

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    This article makes an interesting point…however, it is inaccurate about some of the historical realities of concubinage.

    The article quoted in this post said, “The early Church fought long and hard against concubinage. It insisted that such a sexual relationship, without the permanent and total commitment expressed in marriage vows, was immoral and unjust.”

    This piece by Patout Burns points out that, due to layers of Roman law, marriage was regulated and marrying certain people was not only socially unacceptable, it was illegal.

    Church practice was ambivalent about concubinage. The conflict between Callixtus and Hippolytus indicates that some bishops were more interested in long-term relationships than in the legality of the marriage. The church could not have required that all Christian marriages conform to Roman legal standards, since slaves and some other persons were incapable of legal marriage. The Council of Toledo in 397 affirmed that a Christian man could have a concubine or a wife but not both. In legal terms, this conformed to imperial legislation and practice. In ecclesial practice, it may have been intended to restrict the use of slave women by their married Christian masters.(33)

    When you are legally prohibited from legal marriage, the alternative is concubinage – NOT a “temporary” agreement (shacking up,) but more what we would call “common law marriage” today.

    from newadvent.org

    Permanent concubinage, though it lacked the ordinary legal forms and was not recognized by the civil law as a legal marriage, had in it no element of immorality. It was a real marriage, including the intention and consent of both parties to form a lifelong union. This the Church allowed from the beginning, while Pope Callistus I broke through the barrier of state law, and raised to the dignity of Christian marriage permanent unions between slave and free, and even those between slave and slave (contubernium).”

    While the article quoted in this post makes some good points, we should take care to not misrepresent the past, to make a point about the present.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Living together” is an altogether more equitable arrangement. The comparison to concubinage just doesn’t work.”

    Very true.

    Women now, whether they marry or not, have the legal recourse of support for the children. He can dump her, but not the kids. She may also have common law rights depending on the state.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Living together” is an altogether more equitable arrangement. The comparison to concubinage just doesn’t work.”

    Very true.

    Women now, whether they marry or not, have the legal recourse of support for the children. He can dump her, but not the kids. She may also have common law rights depending on the state.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “modern society empowers her to support herself as a single person.”

    LOL

    translation:

    “modern society demands she support herself as a single person.”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “modern society empowers her to support herself as a single person.”

    LOL

    translation:

    “modern society demands she support herself as a single person.”

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hmm. As others have noted, the comparison doesn’t really work out. Concubinage involved a clear difference in class/power/status/wealth — the man having significantly more of each. “Just living together” rarely works out that way, from what I’ve seen and heard. The couple living together is usually on fairly equal footing. And I’m suspicious of the claim that “those who cohabit tend to be of lower social status” — at the very least, it is far from rare among middle and upper class folks, including not a few I’ve known personally.

    Which makes me wonder what the point of this article is. Is it to draw accurate comparisons between concubinage and living together? Or is it to search history to find some concept that provides a nice (if inaccurate) pejorative framework with which to criticize living together?

    After all, concubinage is old-fashioned, having “retreated into the shadows of social disapproval”. It’s the sort of things those old, mysogynist patriarchal types do, right? Boo! Boo! And what modern woman would submit herself to such a system? Why, to be a concubine is little more than being a high-class whore!

    So the term packs a punch. But is it a legitimate punch? I mean, you could write more or less the same column, but substitute “temple prostitute”, which concept might have just as much relevancy to living together.

    But it seems to me this is largely just a search for a more pejorative term.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Hmm. As others have noted, the comparison doesn’t really work out. Concubinage involved a clear difference in class/power/status/wealth — the man having significantly more of each. “Just living together” rarely works out that way, from what I’ve seen and heard. The couple living together is usually on fairly equal footing. And I’m suspicious of the claim that “those who cohabit tend to be of lower social status” — at the very least, it is far from rare among middle and upper class folks, including not a few I’ve known personally.

    Which makes me wonder what the point of this article is. Is it to draw accurate comparisons between concubinage and living together? Or is it to search history to find some concept that provides a nice (if inaccurate) pejorative framework with which to criticize living together?

    After all, concubinage is old-fashioned, having “retreated into the shadows of social disapproval”. It’s the sort of things those old, mysogynist patriarchal types do, right? Boo! Boo! And what modern woman would submit herself to such a system? Why, to be a concubine is little more than being a high-class whore!

    So the term packs a punch. But is it a legitimate punch? I mean, you could write more or less the same column, but substitute “temple prostitute”, which concept might have just as much relevancy to living together.

    But it seems to me this is largely just a search for a more pejorative term.

  • Erik

    preferred translation:
    “modern society supports her while pretending she’s supporting herself”

  • Erik

    preferred translation:
    “modern society supports her while pretending she’s supporting herself”

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @16

    Bravo!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    @16

    Bravo!

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    the claim that “those who cohabit tend to be of lower social status”

    This is true, actually. Among lower income groups, marriage rates are low. Among the highest income groups, they are very high. We discussed this here. Can’t find thread right now, but the topic was a report from The National Marriage Project. pp.71-73

    http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Union_11_25_09.pdf

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    the claim that “those who cohabit tend to be of lower social status”

    This is true, actually. Among lower income groups, marriage rates are low. Among the highest income groups, they are very high. We discussed this here. Can’t find thread right now, but the topic was a report from The National Marriage Project. pp.71-73

    http://www.virginia.edu/marriageproject/pdfs/Union_11_25_09.pdf

  • Jeremy

    I love how in the article women aren’t even regarded as sentient beings. The only thing relevant is what a man wants. The idea that a woman could want to live together or have sex without being married isn’t even considered.

    I have no problems with a sexist joke and am no feminist, but I hope you all realize how incredibly demeaning this article is to women. If you disagree, I would encourage you to start using “concubine” to describe unmarried women in sexual relationships and see how well that goes for you on anywhere except anonymous fundamentalist blogs.

  • Jeremy

    I love how in the article women aren’t even regarded as sentient beings. The only thing relevant is what a man wants. The idea that a woman could want to live together or have sex without being married isn’t even considered.

    I have no problems with a sexist joke and am no feminist, but I hope you all realize how incredibly demeaning this article is to women. If you disagree, I would encourage you to start using “concubine” to describe unmarried women in sexual relationships and see how well that goes for you on anywhere except anonymous fundamentalist blogs.

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    ” Among lower income groups, marriage rates are low. ”

    at times, it appears that the federal government encourages this. Retired and widowed people may find themselves in financial difficulty if they remarry and lose their benefits.

    personally, I receive a widow’s annuity via my husband’s retirement program. If I remarry before age 55, that goes away completely.

    Also, I have seen a small, but growing number of people who believe that the government should stay out of the marriage business. If those people make a life-long covenent, but don’t have the government’s permission to marry – that is **exactly** the situation that was referenced in the article I referenced earlier. The only way that related to social status was when social status made it illegal for two people to marry…not inconvenient.

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    ” Among lower income groups, marriage rates are low. ”

    at times, it appears that the federal government encourages this. Retired and widowed people may find themselves in financial difficulty if they remarry and lose their benefits.

    personally, I receive a widow’s annuity via my husband’s retirement program. If I remarry before age 55, that goes away completely.

    Also, I have seen a small, but growing number of people who believe that the government should stay out of the marriage business. If those people make a life-long covenent, but don’t have the government’s permission to marry – that is **exactly** the situation that was referenced in the article I referenced earlier. The only way that related to social status was when social status made it illegal for two people to marry…not inconvenient.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The idea that a woman could want to live together or have sex without being married isn’t even considered.”

    Like what, 1% of women don’t want marriage?

    They just can’t get it. Making rules that work for 1% of women and 0% of children is not such a swell idea.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “The idea that a woman could want to live together or have sex without being married isn’t even considered.”

    Like what, 1% of women don’t want marriage?

    They just can’t get it. Making rules that work for 1% of women and 0% of children is not such a swell idea.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “at times, it appears that the federal government encourages this. Retired and widowed people may find themselves in financial difficulty if they remarry and lose their benefits.

    “personally, I receive a widow’s annuity via my husband’s retirement program. If I remarry before age 55, that goes away completely.”

    Good example of moral hazard. In the well meaning effort to provide for widows, a perverse incentive is created.

    It used to be that marriage was a proxy for sexual relations. Basically the new man who enjoyed sexual relations with a woman would by convention marry her. With the general loss of shame, people flagrantly take advantage of the rest of society by expecting society to support women while those men who are most attractive to women can enjoy as many women as they can seduce.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “at times, it appears that the federal government encourages this. Retired and widowed people may find themselves in financial difficulty if they remarry and lose their benefits.

    “personally, I receive a widow’s annuity via my husband’s retirement program. If I remarry before age 55, that goes away completely.”

    Good example of moral hazard. In the well meaning effort to provide for widows, a perverse incentive is created.

    It used to be that marriage was a proxy for sexual relations. Basically the new man who enjoyed sexual relations with a woman would by convention marry her. With the general loss of shame, people flagrantly take advantage of the rest of society by expecting society to support women while those men who are most attractive to women can enjoy as many women as they can seduce.

  • Jeremy

    “people flagrantly take advantage of the rest of society by expecting society to support women”

    Society is supporting the children of these women, not supporting the women themselves. I don’t think children should have to suffer because of something their parents did. Furthermore, the Religious Right would promote even more pregnant women by reducing contraception and abortion. In an ideal world for the Religious Right, a woman who found herself pregnant would have no support from the government, and have no legal options to terminate her pregnancy.

  • Jeremy

    “people flagrantly take advantage of the rest of society by expecting society to support women”

    Society is supporting the children of these women, not supporting the women themselves. I don’t think children should have to suffer because of something their parents did. Furthermore, the Religious Right would promote even more pregnant women by reducing contraception and abortion. In an ideal world for the Religious Right, a woman who found herself pregnant would have no support from the government, and have no legal options to terminate her pregnancy.

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    “a woman who found herself pregnant would have no support from the government, and have no legal options to terminate her pregnancy.”

    I notice that personal responsibility and supporting herself doesn’t show up on your radar.

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    “a woman who found herself pregnant would have no support from the government, and have no legal options to terminate her pregnancy.”

    I notice that personal responsibility and supporting herself doesn’t show up on your radar.

  • Jeremy

    “I notice that personal responsibility and supporting herself doesn’t show up on your radar.”

    As I said in my post, I was talking about the well-being of the children who had no choice in the circumstances of their birth, not the mother. As for the mother’s well-being and assistance, I hope that you and your family aren’t using any government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or public education. If you are your family aren’t, at least you’re consistent, albeit quite uncaring of the unfortunate mother. Otherwise, it would make you a massive hypocrite to use these government programs while decrying someone else for doing the same.

  • Jeremy

    “I notice that personal responsibility and supporting herself doesn’t show up on your radar.”

    As I said in my post, I was talking about the well-being of the children who had no choice in the circumstances of their birth, not the mother. As for the mother’s well-being and assistance, I hope that you and your family aren’t using any government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, or public education. If you are your family aren’t, at least you’re consistent, albeit quite uncaring of the unfortunate mother. Otherwise, it would make you a massive hypocrite to use these government programs while decrying someone else for doing the same.

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    People who have no choice in their circumstance don’t show up on the same page (in my book) as those who put themselves there.

    I work with impaired people who get medicaid. I don’t begrudge them that, since they have no choice.

    I understand that you attempt to make a distinction between supporting the mother and the children (I also notice that you put “children” in plural, but not “the mother” – and that’s often the case, is it not?) The reality is that both benefit.

    “Otherwise, it would make you a massive hypocrite to use these government programs while decrying someone else for doing the same.”

    Without knowing my circumstance, that’s a pretty judgmental statement to make. (but no, I’m not)

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    People who have no choice in their circumstance don’t show up on the same page (in my book) as those who put themselves there.

    I work with impaired people who get medicaid. I don’t begrudge them that, since they have no choice.

    I understand that you attempt to make a distinction between supporting the mother and the children (I also notice that you put “children” in plural, but not “the mother” – and that’s often the case, is it not?) The reality is that both benefit.

    “Otherwise, it would make you a massive hypocrite to use these government programs while decrying someone else for doing the same.”

    Without knowing my circumstance, that’s a pretty judgmental statement to make. (but no, I’m not)

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    Oh…and also, to make a very broad “decrying someone” – I believe in making sure folks don’t fall through the cracks.

    I don’t believe in making the cracks so wide that everybody risks falling through.

    Playing word games works well for you, does it not?

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    Oh…and also, to make a very broad “decrying someone” – I believe in making sure folks don’t fall through the cracks.

    I don’t believe in making the cracks so wide that everybody risks falling through.

    Playing word games works well for you, does it not?

  • Jeremy

    “Without knowing my circumstance, that’s a pretty judgmental statement to make. ”

    If you read the post more carefully, you will read that I was only calling you a hypocrite it you were using the government programs. I make it a point to ask anybody who is against the new health care plan “how do you get your health care?”. So many tea-party types champion small government, but have no problem using Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc. It just drives me nuts.

  • Jeremy

    “Without knowing my circumstance, that’s a pretty judgmental statement to make. ”

    If you read the post more carefully, you will read that I was only calling you a hypocrite it you were using the government programs. I make it a point to ask anybody who is against the new health care plan “how do you get your health care?”. So many tea-party types champion small government, but have no problem using Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc. It just drives me nuts.

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    Yeah…and broad brushes make me nuts.

    How does this relate to concubinage? Other than the father would be responsible, instead of us.

  • http://mzellen.com MzEllen

    Yeah…and broad brushes make me nuts.

    How does this relate to concubinage? Other than the father would be responsible, instead of us.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “a woman who found herself pregnant would have no support from the government, and have no legal options to terminate her pregnancy.”

    That would be a world in which natural selection would be operating.

    The hilarity of “a woman who found herself pregnant”. The complete lack of reasonable judgement. Here’s a tip, don’t have sex with a man who is unwilling and/or unable to support the kids he fathers. As for rape, how about the death penalty for the perpetrator instead of the victim?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “a woman who found herself pregnant would have no support from the government, and have no legal options to terminate her pregnancy.”

    That would be a world in which natural selection would be operating.

    The hilarity of “a woman who found herself pregnant”. The complete lack of reasonable judgement. Here’s a tip, don’t have sex with a man who is unwilling and/or unable to support the kids he fathers. As for rape, how about the death penalty for the perpetrator instead of the victim?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Society is supporting the children of these women, not supporting the women themselves. I don’t think children should have to suffer because of something their parents did.”

    Missing the point.

    “Society” refers largely to the diligent tax paying men who are forced to subsidize the offspring sired by irresponsible guys who are adept at seducing women and fathering children but rather inept at supporting those kids. Why should the “good guys” get stuck paying for the fun of all the cads out there and the chicks who love them?

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Society is supporting the children of these women, not supporting the women themselves. I don’t think children should have to suffer because of something their parents did.”

    Missing the point.

    “Society” refers largely to the diligent tax paying men who are forced to subsidize the offspring sired by irresponsible guys who are adept at seducing women and fathering children but rather inept at supporting those kids. Why should the “good guys” get stuck paying for the fun of all the cads out there and the chicks who love them?

  • Jeremy

    “Here’s a tip, don’t have sex with a man who is unwilling and/or unable to support the kids he fathers. ”

    I’ll just come out and say it: most of these women who find themselves giving birth in unwanted pregnancies are just ignorant or stupid. There it is. Whether they are just very immature, uneducated, or just don’t have sufficient intelligence, you seem to think they are thinking the entire situation by very carefully evaluating all the ends. Cutting government benefits for their kids won’t change their behavior at all, because they are too ignorant or too stupid to see the ends. You take your average 19 year old girl who gets pregnant. We don’t even think she should be allowed to drink alcohol for another 2 years, but then a bunch of older, religious fundamentalists who really ought to know better come along and say, “Well it’s best if you go through pregnancy and have the kid”. If they had the power, they’d force all women who became pregnant to gestate for 9 months, regardless of circumstances like rape. I see them as the biggest offenders, because they really should know better. Having a kid when you’re very young or out of a committed relationship can be a recipe for disaster.

  • Jeremy

    “Here’s a tip, don’t have sex with a man who is unwilling and/or unable to support the kids he fathers. ”

    I’ll just come out and say it: most of these women who find themselves giving birth in unwanted pregnancies are just ignorant or stupid. There it is. Whether they are just very immature, uneducated, or just don’t have sufficient intelligence, you seem to think they are thinking the entire situation by very carefully evaluating all the ends. Cutting government benefits for their kids won’t change their behavior at all, because they are too ignorant or too stupid to see the ends. You take your average 19 year old girl who gets pregnant. We don’t even think she should be allowed to drink alcohol for another 2 years, but then a bunch of older, religious fundamentalists who really ought to know better come along and say, “Well it’s best if you go through pregnancy and have the kid”. If they had the power, they’d force all women who became pregnant to gestate for 9 months, regardless of circumstances like rape. I see them as the biggest offenders, because they really should know better. Having a kid when you’re very young or out of a committed relationship can be a recipe for disaster.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Vieth, I would add to your update. Both concubinage and cohabitation, are essentially about sex without love.
    There might be a great deal of lust involved, maybe perhaps even a desire to love and be loved. But where one or the other does not trust the other person enough to get married there is no love, as trust is necessary for there to be love. Commitment too.
    I think it is normally the man who doesn’t trust enough for marriage, but that probably doesn’t hold for every couple. And there are lots of reasons to be leery these days with no fault divorce. But that said, if you can’t trust the girl enough to marry her, probably should not be living with her to begin with, and having children with her outside of wedlock is going to be just as taxing on you and the children should the relationship end, well perhaps you still retain some property but it isn’t going to be much easier either way.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    Vieth, I would add to your update. Both concubinage and cohabitation, are essentially about sex without love.
    There might be a great deal of lust involved, maybe perhaps even a desire to love and be loved. But where one or the other does not trust the other person enough to get married there is no love, as trust is necessary for there to be love. Commitment too.
    I think it is normally the man who doesn’t trust enough for marriage, but that probably doesn’t hold for every couple. And there are lots of reasons to be leery these days with no fault divorce. But that said, if you can’t trust the girl enough to marry her, probably should not be living with her to begin with, and having children with her outside of wedlock is going to be just as taxing on you and the children should the relationship end, well perhaps you still retain some property but it isn’t going to be much easier either way.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I’ll just come out and say it: most of these women who find themselves giving birth in unwanted pregnancies are just ignorant or stupid. There it is.”

    Uh, what? Isn’t that kind of, uh, um, demeaning?

    “Whether they are just very immature, uneducated, or just don’t have sufficient intelligence, you seem to think they are thinking the entire situation by very carefully evaluating all the ends. Cutting government benefits for their kids won’t change their behavior at all, because they are too ignorant or too stupid to see the ends.”

    Sure it will. It will make an example of them as a warning to others. It has always worked before. A small percentage suffered as a warning to others. Even the ignorant and stupid can think in the short term. We have the evidence of many years of very low rates of illegitimacy before gov’t incentivized non-marital maternity.

    “You take your average 19 year old girl who gets pregnant.”

    The problem isn’t the pregnancy or the age. It is the unmarried status. My mother had been married two years already and had a baby and another on the way when she was 19. No problem. Dad supported the family. The problem is that no one in society expects him to marry her. Who cares if he has to work 3 jobs? He has a family to support. It is common decency to support one’s children. It is the bare minimum of responsibility.

    “We don’t even think she should be allowed to drink alcohol for another 2 years, but then a bunch of older, religious fundamentalists who really ought to know better come along and say, “Well it’s best if you go through pregnancy and have the kid”.”

    Yeah, it is best, especially for the kid.

    “If they had the power, they’d force all women who became pregnant to gestate for 9 months, regardless of circumstances like rape.”

    How about execution for the rapist instead of the victim?

    “I see them as the biggest offenders, because they really should know better.”

    They do know better. Those values built the greatest civilization in the history of the world.

    “Having a kid when you’re very young or out of a committed relationship can be a recipe for disaster.”

    Nah, just unmarried is a losing proposition. Just to make that absolutely clear, the rest of us should not be taxed to support the children of cads.

    The whole thing of taxing the responsible to pay for the irresponsible is just a bunch of moral preening by those who think themselves charitable but don’t want to fork over their own money to pay for the kids of cads.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I’ll just come out and say it: most of these women who find themselves giving birth in unwanted pregnancies are just ignorant or stupid. There it is.”

    Uh, what? Isn’t that kind of, uh, um, demeaning?

    “Whether they are just very immature, uneducated, or just don’t have sufficient intelligence, you seem to think they are thinking the entire situation by very carefully evaluating all the ends. Cutting government benefits for their kids won’t change their behavior at all, because they are too ignorant or too stupid to see the ends.”

    Sure it will. It will make an example of them as a warning to others. It has always worked before. A small percentage suffered as a warning to others. Even the ignorant and stupid can think in the short term. We have the evidence of many years of very low rates of illegitimacy before gov’t incentivized non-marital maternity.

    “You take your average 19 year old girl who gets pregnant.”

    The problem isn’t the pregnancy or the age. It is the unmarried status. My mother had been married two years already and had a baby and another on the way when she was 19. No problem. Dad supported the family. The problem is that no one in society expects him to marry her. Who cares if he has to work 3 jobs? He has a family to support. It is common decency to support one’s children. It is the bare minimum of responsibility.

    “We don’t even think she should be allowed to drink alcohol for another 2 years, but then a bunch of older, religious fundamentalists who really ought to know better come along and say, “Well it’s best if you go through pregnancy and have the kid”.”

    Yeah, it is best, especially for the kid.

    “If they had the power, they’d force all women who became pregnant to gestate for 9 months, regardless of circumstances like rape.”

    How about execution for the rapist instead of the victim?

    “I see them as the biggest offenders, because they really should know better.”

    They do know better. Those values built the greatest civilization in the history of the world.

    “Having a kid when you’re very young or out of a committed relationship can be a recipe for disaster.”

    Nah, just unmarried is a losing proposition. Just to make that absolutely clear, the rest of us should not be taxed to support the children of cads.

    The whole thing of taxing the responsible to pay for the irresponsible is just a bunch of moral preening by those who think themselves charitable but don’t want to fork over their own money to pay for the kids of cads.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’ll just come out and say it: most of these women who find themselves giving birth in unwanted pregnancies are just ignorant or stupid. There it is.”

    Yeah, that is why there was a long standing custom of fathers protecting daughters from being seduced by cads. Nowadays such appropriate behavior is considered by some to be “demeaning”.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “I’ll just come out and say it: most of these women who find themselves giving birth in unwanted pregnancies are just ignorant or stupid. There it is.”

    Yeah, that is why there was a long standing custom of fathers protecting daughters from being seduced by cads. Nowadays such appropriate behavior is considered by some to be “demeaning”.

  • Jeremy

    “I’ll just come out and say it: most of these women who find themselves giving birth in unwanted pregnancies are just ignorant or stupid. There it is.”

    “Yeah, that is why there was a long standing custom of fathers protecting daughters from being seduced by cads. Nowadays such appropriate behavior is considered by some to be “demeaning”.”

    Just to clarify, by “unwanted birth”, I do not mean “unplanned pregnancy”. I’m talking about the woman who has a baby, and wished she had never gotten pregnant. Basically, these are your crisis pregnancies that end with a baby to talk care of, and now society has to support that baby. Having limited or undeveloped mental capabilities, these women are highly susceptible to these “cads” and fundamentalist religious authorities. They probably have a mental age of about 13, and I have a problem laying so much blame at their feet. I would actually agree with you that these women might need additional protection in their life, perhaps by their father and then later perhaps their husband. But I don’t think that can be the normative rule for the entire female population just because some women (and some men too) are mentally undeveloped.

  • Jeremy

    “I’ll just come out and say it: most of these women who find themselves giving birth in unwanted pregnancies are just ignorant or stupid. There it is.”

    “Yeah, that is why there was a long standing custom of fathers protecting daughters from being seduced by cads. Nowadays such appropriate behavior is considered by some to be “demeaning”.”

    Just to clarify, by “unwanted birth”, I do not mean “unplanned pregnancy”. I’m talking about the woman who has a baby, and wished she had never gotten pregnant. Basically, these are your crisis pregnancies that end with a baby to talk care of, and now society has to support that baby. Having limited or undeveloped mental capabilities, these women are highly susceptible to these “cads” and fundamentalist religious authorities. They probably have a mental age of about 13, and I have a problem laying so much blame at their feet. I would actually agree with you that these women might need additional protection in their life, perhaps by their father and then later perhaps their husband. But I don’t think that can be the normative rule for the entire female population just because some women (and some men too) are mentally undeveloped.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Basically, these are your crisis pregnancies that end with a baby to talk care of, and now society has to support that baby. Having limited or undeveloped mental capabilities, these women are highly susceptible to these “cads” and fundamentalist religious authorities. They probably have a mental age of about 13, and I have a problem laying so much blame at their feet.”

    Can they write their own name? If so, they can give the baby for adoption. Society doesn’t have to pay. Baby doesn’t have to die. Girl is off the hook. Childless couple gets a child to love. Child gets good home. It is a win-win-win-win-win.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Basically, these are your crisis pregnancies that end with a baby to talk care of, and now society has to support that baby. Having limited or undeveloped mental capabilities, these women are highly susceptible to these “cads” and fundamentalist religious authorities. They probably have a mental age of about 13, and I have a problem laying so much blame at their feet.”

    Can they write their own name? If so, they can give the baby for adoption. Society doesn’t have to pay. Baby doesn’t have to die. Girl is off the hook. Childless couple gets a child to love. Child gets good home. It is a win-win-win-win-win.

  • Jeremy

    “Sure it will. It will make an example of them as a warning to others. It has always worked before. A small percentage suffered as a warning to others. Even the ignorant and stupid can think in the short term. We have the evidence of many years of very low rates of illegitimacy before gov’t incentivized non-marital maternity.”

    Well, here we have our ideological differences, which are vast and irreconcilable. Women who get pregnant should be forced to bear the fetus to birth, whether she wants to or not, and not only that, the child shouldn’t get a dime’s worth of government help. If the woman has to watch her child starve, so be it. But that’s okay, because it’ll be a great deterrent to anyone who doesn’t want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle, even if children are collateral damage. What happens to the fetus after birth is of no concern, but it’s main purpose will be to serve as a deterrent.

    Assuming you are kind enough to allow for government orphanages for the poorer women, with no birth control and abortion, we would see the situation that happened in Romania, and orphanage populations would sky rocket with only a percentage getting adopted. Complete government care in an orphanage hardly sounds like small government, and let’s not forget these people can vote in 18 years, and you can probably guess they’ll vote big government. This proposed world is a nightmare for people like me who believe in individual rights, and at least having a care about a child brought into the world over which he had no control.

  • Jeremy

    “Sure it will. It will make an example of them as a warning to others. It has always worked before. A small percentage suffered as a warning to others. Even the ignorant and stupid can think in the short term. We have the evidence of many years of very low rates of illegitimacy before gov’t incentivized non-marital maternity.”

    Well, here we have our ideological differences, which are vast and irreconcilable. Women who get pregnant should be forced to bear the fetus to birth, whether she wants to or not, and not only that, the child shouldn’t get a dime’s worth of government help. If the woman has to watch her child starve, so be it. But that’s okay, because it’ll be a great deterrent to anyone who doesn’t want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle, even if children are collateral damage. What happens to the fetus after birth is of no concern, but it’s main purpose will be to serve as a deterrent.

    Assuming you are kind enough to allow for government orphanages for the poorer women, with no birth control and abortion, we would see the situation that happened in Romania, and orphanage populations would sky rocket with only a percentage getting adopted. Complete government care in an orphanage hardly sounds like small government, and let’s not forget these people can vote in 18 years, and you can probably guess they’ll vote big government. This proposed world is a nightmare for people like me who believe in individual rights, and at least having a care about a child brought into the world over which he had no control.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “anyone who doesn’t want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle, even if children are collateral damage.”

    Not really. Plenty of adopted kids grow up happy and healthy. The collateral damage kids are the ones who are dismembered alive by the millions, not the ones who are adopted by families.

    Studies show that when abortion is not available, but contraception is, then the number of pregnancies decreases. See, they can be reasonable.

    Anyway, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), 1994-2008 data show that girls with better grades in school are more likely to get abortions.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “anyone who doesn’t want to live a fundamentalist lifestyle, even if children are collateral damage.”

    Not really. Plenty of adopted kids grow up happy and healthy. The collateral damage kids are the ones who are dismembered alive by the millions, not the ones who are adopted by families.

    Studies show that when abortion is not available, but contraception is, then the number of pregnancies decreases. See, they can be reasonable.

    Anyway, the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), 1994-2008 data show that girls with better grades in school are more likely to get abortions.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), 1994-2008
    Harris, Kathleen Mullan; Udry, J. Richard

    http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/21600?q=national+longitudinal+adolescent

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), 1994-2008
    Harris, Kathleen Mullan; Udry, J. Richard

    http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/21600?q=national+longitudinal+adolescent

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Women who get pregnant should be forced to bear the fetus to birth, whether she wants to or not, and not only that, the child shouldn’t get a dime’s worth of government help.”

    What would Darwin do?

    Would he recommend that the those adapted to be more successful in their environment commit their resources to the offspring of those less adapted instead of to their own? What are the consequences of such selection? Would he recommend killing the offspring of the less adapted aka abortion? Would he recommend killing the offspring of younger healthier women? Etc…

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “Women who get pregnant should be forced to bear the fetus to birth, whether she wants to or not, and not only that, the child shouldn’t get a dime’s worth of government help.”

    What would Darwin do?

    Would he recommend that the those adapted to be more successful in their environment commit their resources to the offspring of those less adapted instead of to their own? What are the consequences of such selection? Would he recommend killing the offspring of the less adapted aka abortion? Would he recommend killing the offspring of younger healthier women? Etc…

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Jeremy @ 36,

    “Just to clarify, by “unwanted birth”, I do not mean “unplanned pregnancy”. I’m talking about the woman who has a baby, and wished she had never gotten pregnant. Basically, these are your crisis pregnancies that end with a baby to talk care of, and now society has to support that baby.”

    You seem to be under a biological misconception. When a woman goes into a crisis pregnancy center, she already has a baby to take care of; the whole reason she goes there is to find out how. By the time a pregnancy center comes into play, society already has to support that baby–the only question is whether it will fulfill that responsibility or simply kill the child to evade it.

    Your ambivalence towards killing these babies makes me somewhat skeptical towards your claims to be one of those special people who “at least have a care about a child brought into the world over which he had no control.”

  • http://www.matthewcochran.net/blog Matt Cochran

    Jeremy @ 36,

    “Just to clarify, by “unwanted birth”, I do not mean “unplanned pregnancy”. I’m talking about the woman who has a baby, and wished she had never gotten pregnant. Basically, these are your crisis pregnancies that end with a baby to talk care of, and now society has to support that baby.”

    You seem to be under a biological misconception. When a woman goes into a crisis pregnancy center, she already has a baby to take care of; the whole reason she goes there is to find out how. By the time a pregnancy center comes into play, society already has to support that baby–the only question is whether it will fulfill that responsibility or simply kill the child to evade it.

    Your ambivalence towards killing these babies makes me somewhat skeptical towards your claims to be one of those special people who “at least have a care about a child brought into the world over which he had no control.”

  • Jeremy

    “Sure it will. It will make an example of them as a warning to others. It has always worked before. A small percentage suffered as a warning to others. Even the ignorant and stupid can think in the short term. We have the evidence of many years of very low rates of illegitimacy before gov’t incentivized non-marital maternity.”

    While I dislike hearing such a dystopia advocated, your honesty is really a breath of fresh air. In recent years, pro-lifers have attempted to bill themselves as caring not only toward the fetus, but the mother as well, and lately even the black community. With their crisis pregnancy centers and handing out treats and packages at abortion clinics, they have attempted to send the message “we’re here to help!”. While they aren’t taken seriously by even themselves, it’s helpful to hear the true motivations of the anti-reproductive freedom crowd stated so plainly as you have.

  • Jeremy

    “Sure it will. It will make an example of them as a warning to others. It has always worked before. A small percentage suffered as a warning to others. Even the ignorant and stupid can think in the short term. We have the evidence of many years of very low rates of illegitimacy before gov’t incentivized non-marital maternity.”

    While I dislike hearing such a dystopia advocated, your honesty is really a breath of fresh air. In recent years, pro-lifers have attempted to bill themselves as caring not only toward the fetus, but the mother as well, and lately even the black community. With their crisis pregnancy centers and handing out treats and packages at abortion clinics, they have attempted to send the message “we’re here to help!”. While they aren’t taken seriously by even themselves, it’s helpful to hear the true motivations of the anti-reproductive freedom crowd stated so plainly as you have.

  • Pingback: Monday Links and Bullets 6.13.11 « pastorkevinb

  • Pingback: Monday Links and Bullets 6.13.11 « pastorkevinb

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “While I dislike hearing such a dystopia advocated”

    Low illegitimacy is not dystopia.

    What we have now is dystopia.

    Far better for a few women to suffer the consequences of their own actions, than for huge numbers of children to suffer from the consequences of their parents actions as they are now. The truth is that incentives work and so do natural consequences.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “While I dislike hearing such a dystopia advocated”

    Low illegitimacy is not dystopia.

    What we have now is dystopia.

    Far better for a few women to suffer the consequences of their own actions, than for huge numbers of children to suffer from the consequences of their parents actions as they are now. The truth is that incentives work and so do natural consequences.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “With their crisis pregnancy centers and handing out treats and packages at abortion clinics, they have attempted to send the message “we’re here to help!”.

    Some guys just don’t understand chicks. Look, chicks don’t consider pregnancy and babies and motherhood to be a disaster, in just the general case. The disaster is that the guy is rejecting her and making it unmistakably obvious that he thinks she is worthless. It is a self esteem crusher. Now, if she is worthless in the eyes of the father of the kid she is carrying, her value is now even lower to every other guy she might want. It is all wrapped up in her self image. Generally if the guy would just marry her or reassure her that he will do whatever, she would be fine with that. Normal women (aka not feminists (who idolize everything masculine and demean everything feminine)) understand this, so they want to help. Folks who are repelled by the thought of these undesirable women (and cads) having children, of course, don’t want those kids born even if those kids could grow up happy and loved in adoptive families. So, the rationalization hamsters get busy thinking of absurd and implausible reasons why prolife people give money to pregnancy centers. Don’t understand someone’s thinking? Just vilify them. It’s easier.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “With their crisis pregnancy centers and handing out treats and packages at abortion clinics, they have attempted to send the message “we’re here to help!”.

    Some guys just don’t understand chicks. Look, chicks don’t consider pregnancy and babies and motherhood to be a disaster, in just the general case. The disaster is that the guy is rejecting her and making it unmistakably obvious that he thinks she is worthless. It is a self esteem crusher. Now, if she is worthless in the eyes of the father of the kid she is carrying, her value is now even lower to every other guy she might want. It is all wrapped up in her self image. Generally if the guy would just marry her or reassure her that he will do whatever, she would be fine with that. Normal women (aka not feminists (who idolize everything masculine and demean everything feminine)) understand this, so they want to help. Folks who are repelled by the thought of these undesirable women (and cads) having children, of course, don’t want those kids born even if those kids could grow up happy and loved in adoptive families. So, the rationalization hamsters get busy thinking of absurd and implausible reasons why prolife people give money to pregnancy centers. Don’t understand someone’s thinking? Just vilify them. It’s easier.

  • Mjay

    Why is rising cohabitation a surprise, given the lack of due process and focused anti-male bias of family court.

    Cohabitation is just an attempt to limit the power of the third party (the State) in a marriage, a party that enforces the de facto prenup in the marriage, a prenup that is decidedly anti-male.

    As a man, I applaud the end of marriage, and will do everything i can to accelerate this bigoted institution.

  • Mjay

    Why is rising cohabitation a surprise, given the lack of due process and focused anti-male bias of family court.

    Cohabitation is just an attempt to limit the power of the third party (the State) in a marriage, a party that enforces the de facto prenup in the marriage, a prenup that is decidedly anti-male.

    As a man, I applaud the end of marriage, and will do everything i can to accelerate this bigoted institution.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “As a man, I applaud the end of marriage, and will do everything i can to accelerate this bigoted institution.”

    Perhaps this is like saying that no fault divorce was the de facto end of marriage, but it took folks a while to figure that out, no?

    I mean when a wife can leave a marriage for no specific reason, aka break the contract, and get half the assets instead of losing all of her share because she broke the contract, then marriage is effectively dead.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    “As a man, I applaud the end of marriage, and will do everything i can to accelerate this bigoted institution.”

    Perhaps this is like saying that no fault divorce was the de facto end of marriage, but it took folks a while to figure that out, no?

    I mean when a wife can leave a marriage for no specific reason, aka break the contract, and get half the assets instead of losing all of her share because she broke the contract, then marriage is effectively dead.

  • Pingback: Friday Link Highlight 6.17.11 « pastorkevinb

  • Pingback: Friday Link Highlight 6.17.11 « pastorkevinb

  • Pingback: excerpts from “History of the Philippines” « CLOSETQUEAN: In my place…

  • Pingback: excerpts from “History of the Philippines” « CLOSETQUEAN: In my place…

  • Pingback: Food for Thought « Desiring the Better Country

  • Pingback: Food for Thought « Desiring the Better Country

  • Pingback: Grab bag « Words of Grace

  • Pingback: Grab bag « Words of Grace

  • !illy

    The nature of man is may be different from woman! If God who made man and woman allowed for concubines! I won’t appose! If it is so demmeaning to women then can God be wrong? I don’t think so!!

  • !illy

    The nature of man is may be different from woman! If God who made man and woman allowed for concubines! I won’t appose! If it is so demmeaning to women then can God be wrong? I don’t think so!!

  • John

    God blessed David with his wives and concubines; David took MORE wives when he was closest to God; it was when he committed adultery (adding a lonely woman (not multiplying) vs. wife stealing) . God spelled out what Solomon’s sins were and it wasn’t taking all those wives but taking all those PAGAN wives (1 Ki 11. 1-2). He slept with his fathers in the end.
    Isa4.1 “and in that day the branch of the Lord will be glorious..” but the verse before says “7 women will take hold of one man..”
    God never portrays himself as an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief or liar, but He does portray himself as a bigamist in Ez 23, then says His wives went off him and committed fornication. Why wasn’t God committing fornication with the 2nd woman if its wrong to have more than one. Was He not telling us something here?

    I HAVE READ the early fathers through the Reformation and after (yes others wrote on it till the 19th century, for I felt my life depended on it for over 10 years, and I KNOW the issue. The end comes to this, not monagamy vs. polygamy, but an attempt of man & woman coming together in love AT ALL. This is what the end was hoping to be. Man/woman relations as having an odor of uncleanness. “Doctrines of demons, forbidding to marry..” This issue covered the Reformation that has purposely silenced in the generation after them.

    Ask any single American man, who will confess that 5 out of 10 women they meet are marriage material only if you actually can wean them onto seeing that their sexuality is not meant to be a place of worship, but to be for them and them alone for life. So at best if you need love vs. engaging in uncleanness, concubinage is the only viable way to find or make a wife. If she isn’t good enough, or as the scripture says “he finds some uncleanness in her..” he gives her a chance to be a wife and behave or leave –as Luther said “take Esther and let Vashti go”.

  • John

    God blessed David with his wives and concubines; David took MORE wives when he was closest to God; it was when he committed adultery (adding a lonely woman (not multiplying) vs. wife stealing) . God spelled out what Solomon’s sins were and it wasn’t taking all those wives but taking all those PAGAN wives (1 Ki 11. 1-2). He slept with his fathers in the end.
    Isa4.1 “and in that day the branch of the Lord will be glorious..” but the verse before says “7 women will take hold of one man..”
    God never portrays himself as an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief or liar, but He does portray himself as a bigamist in Ez 23, then says His wives went off him and committed fornication. Why wasn’t God committing fornication with the 2nd woman if its wrong to have more than one. Was He not telling us something here?

    I HAVE READ the early fathers through the Reformation and after (yes others wrote on it till the 19th century, for I felt my life depended on it for over 10 years, and I KNOW the issue. The end comes to this, not monagamy vs. polygamy, but an attempt of man & woman coming together in love AT ALL. This is what the end was hoping to be. Man/woman relations as having an odor of uncleanness. “Doctrines of demons, forbidding to marry..” This issue covered the Reformation that has purposely silenced in the generation after them.

    Ask any single American man, who will confess that 5 out of 10 women they meet are marriage material only if you actually can wean them onto seeing that their sexuality is not meant to be a place of worship, but to be for them and them alone for life. So at best if you need love vs. engaging in uncleanness, concubinage is the only viable way to find or make a wife. If she isn’t good enough, or as the scripture says “he finds some uncleanness in her..” he gives her a chance to be a wife and behave or leave –as Luther said “take Esther and let Vashti go”.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X