..but man/is right to be in fear[see god made adam]..ie a little bit of god[XyX]..to make Xy=adam..adam/wanted..what the beasts got[ie their sisters/for mating[so god made eve/adams sister]..god simply doubled up/on the X/tossed away the why.

anyhow dont tell eve/she has the creator\god/genes
sure/adam\gives the gift of life\but eve co-creates/with\god.

<<those who are outraged..that a pregnant-woman..should be able to decide..she wants to terminate..a pregnancy.>>

yes/it must be a mothers right\yet all life is sacred[even sperm]
even seeds/yet we kill generations of living wheat/corn/hempseed..to make our dauily bread[or soy latte]

<<..The female foetus..is important..but not the woman whose body carries it.>>

its more spiritual/than that

<<..The legend even denies the fact..that we are all born of woman.>>

learly/your mother is a woman[so is mine]
it seems a sure rule.

<<..Adam must give birth to Eve.>>

no adam/gave a rib/god extracted the dna/put the dna phetus..into a pig..and the pig..]or ape]..gabe birth to eve.

men/dont have a uterous..

<<..abortions are for the convenience of the woman.>>
lets just say..if the girl/says nothing/no one knows\till its too late

but so what..its a niggerly point..98/90 980%..who cares/the girl askes her mum/dad/peers/or a quack/its up-to/her.

<<Eliminating human sexuality would benefit the planet>>
rubbish..it needs man/to make it a garden/not a jungle..or a swamp
i couldnt survive without sex/either..id rather..be dead.

<<..Hatching, matching and dispatching
are the three big events in life...May they continue.>>dont forget mating/procreating/parenting/nurturuing/assuring/enduring/enamoring/satifying

Dear David,

Who am I to judge whether Gandhi was a Hindu or Martin Luther King a Christian?

<<Religion is not defined by its injunctions. It is defined by what its practitioners do.>>

Indeed, religion in general is not defined by injunctions, but exactly as you quote: By their fruits shall we know them. Whatever works in bringing one closer to God, is religion.

Language however has been overloaded: 'religions' came to also describe specific organisations whose stated purpose is to enhance or support religion (whether or not they effectively do so). Those, in contrast, are defined to a large extent by their injunctions. Thus one can be a non-religious Hindu or a non-religious Christian, or one could be religious but none of those.

<<Eliminating human sexuality would benefit the planet and eliminate religion.>>

Eliminating human sexuality has the potential to enhance religion, by directing all that energy and attention towards God. Of course, it could be directed elsewhere, but at least some of it is probably going to be directed towards God. In any case, the less distractions there are, religion has better prospects.

Dear david f,

>>humanity has done great things, but are the great things more important than the extinction of species?<<

It depends on who asks, member of which species. If your reference is to the human species then indeed what you are asking is “what is the point to all this evolution culminating (so far) in the human species with its unique culture(s) if it leads to a dead end?” Indeed, there is an answer in religions that see evolution (even when not recognising it as such) as having a purpose. If not, one could say, borrowing from Shakespeare, that human evolution - giving rise also to Socrates, Einstein, Beethoven etc - is a tale told by an idiot signifying nothing.

By the way, I used “sexuality” in the sense of “sexual activity” (not capacity), so abandoning it would better be expressed as ordered mass vasectomy (not castration). This would still create a vacuum that would have to be filled lest humanity went extinct. We already have IVF but maybe - I am not a biologist - one day we will have invented artificial wombs, where a pair (male and female or not) would bring their genetic material and come to pick up their baby in nine months.

These are silly speculations about what would need to be dome to fill this “procreation vacuum”. However, I think the question of what could or should fill in the religious vacuum, is not as vain. You did not offer anything, but usually something called secular humanism is being offered, a sort of plastic replica of Christianty, with the belief in the “transcendent” and the “bad fruits” removed. Whether this replica will not bring other "bad fruits", that the original was immune to, is a different question.

In this respect you might be interestd in http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/the-case-for-soft-atheism/. I liked it as a position more reasonable than many others, though I obviously do not share it.

(ctd)

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: “In any case, the less distractions there are, religion has better prospects.”

Less refers to quantity – items of measure. Fewer refers to number – items one can count. Distractions can be counted so the sentence should be, “In any case, the fewer distractions there are, religion has better prospects.”

Your definition of religion: “Whatever works in bringing one closer to God, is religion.”, to the best of my knowledge, is a definition of religion which you share with no one else. God is an invention which is not common to all religions.

Eliminating human sexuality would eliminate humans unless humans were created without the involvement of sex. Eliminating humans would therefore eliminate religion unless another species evolved that would invent religion.

(ctd)

Indeed, religion has provided benefits for humans, but sometimes also acted against achievements that we today see as posititive. There are many examples of the former as well as of the latter and which ones you see as prevailing depends on how you interpret history. The West, it is unthinkable without Enlightenment, born very painfully out of Christianity, which in its turn is unthinkable without Judaism and Hellenic rationalism, where Islam, or rather the Arabic culture, acted as a catalyst in bringing together these two sources in Medieval and post-Medieval Christianity, or at least its Catholic version (see e.g. Benedict XVI’s Regensburg 2006 lecture).

As for abortions, there are two extreme positions: (i) a foetus is a human being hence killing it intentionally is murder, and (ii) the woman has right over her body, hence removing an unwanted foetus is the same as removing any other part of her body, e.g. an aching tooth.

I think what can be defended is that a foetus or embryo is only a potential human being, (which would require a more precise definition). When I was eight years old I wanted to become a Nobel prize laureate, and it would not have been right to prevent me from reaching that goal. So I was a potential Nobel laureate, but that was very different from actually being one.

Also, as far as the woman’s right to do with the foetus inside her body the same as with her tooth, there is a difference in that the tooth, unlike the foetus, is a product of her body without any outside contribution. So one should look differently at these two “rights” as far as society’s interests are concerned.

george/quote..<<..a potential Nobel laureate,..but that was very different from actually being one.>>

in the sprit-realm..merely thinking/willing..to do something/is doing..it..depending..on the will/knowing..it will be a given[faith]
but of course in this material realm..there is 'process/needing reason/logic..that follows hard and fast material laws.

but/the spirit..is more focussed on the imediate/passion.
and as one would know..the imediate needs of a few cells..oe even a blank disk..[when aborted]..has only the extent/of its pheotus/wants needs/etc

to use this weak excuse/to put a much more advanced living creature/through guilt/hell..is imature and childish/by all means respect life[especially life that died/that ye should ongoingly live.

<<..Also, as far as the woman’s right..to do with the foetus inside her body..the same as with her tooth,>>

funny enough/no doctor\nor dentist..will allow her to take either[each is rightly classifies as biological-waste..[its a waste/but let the dead tend the dead

<<..there is a difference..in that the tooth,..unlike the foetus,..is a product of her body..without any outside contribution.>>

in spirit/both will remain/till..the teaching has had its/learning

<<..So one should look differently..at these two “rights” as far as society’s interests are concerned.>>

societies intrests are all vairiable means of control by claiming juristiction/or coercive powers..or other means to force obedience to outside will.