>> Brazuca – “how do you know which subjective opinion is the correct one if there's more than one”

Most of what is used to guide our lives is subjective opinion (I posted to this effect on another thread). You might want to wait until all the “objective truth” is “discovered” to help you determine what is “absolutely right” but I expect to live only around 4 score years or so and do not have a millennia to wait for the result, so I will go with “subject opinion” – like 99.95% (3SD from the mean) of the population and accept legal and moral codes based on subjective opinion.

Some of us call it “faith” – not necessarily “religious faith” (lets face it the behaviour of most religions has been seen to be pretty corrupt and despicable in recent years, I am surprised anyone who can think for themselves can have any “faith” in an organised religion of any sort or flavour these days). I have faith to follow the ethics and reasoning of my own mind.

So I will go where my faith takes me – and it takes me to the conclusion that “abortion is a matter of an individual woman deciding how her body will be used”. It is her decision and no one elses – because – no one else is involved (to any meaningful extent) as that individual woman (not even the father).

Now maybe you will produce the “objective truth” or “subjective opinion” you have which establishes the authority for a state or stranger to enforce a woman to endure a pregnancy against her will – I am waiting - but will not hold my breath - my complexion is better a rosey hue than blue. <<

-------------------

I take it this is all your subjective opinion, Col. Funny, then, that you should wish to have your subjective opinion codified in law and imposed upon those who dissent.

Brazuca - I may be wrong, but I interpret Col's argument as being for the maintenance of the status quo with respect to abortions in Australia. It is others - mostly men of the misogynist and/or holy roller variety - who wish to force their subjective views on others.

Col's position - with which I do not entirely agree - seems to be that of the primacy of the rights of the individual in all matters. He would hardly argue from that position for the subjugation of women's rights to abortion on demand.

Brazuca, I find your contributions to these comments threads rather cryptic. Could you try being a little less obtuse? Thanks in advance.

Morgan

Brazuca “I take it this is all your subjective opinion, Col. Funny, then, that you should wish to have your subjective opinion codified in law and imposed upon those who dissent.”

Well Brazuca –I place paramount authority with the individual. I am pro-choice.

My subjective opinion is “every woman and every man should have sovereignty of choice over matters concerning their own bodies” – in the case of females that means the right to choose to abort.
As far as that may apply to yourself – I respect your right to choose “not to abort”.

Thus the subjective opinion imposes no demand by me upon any “choice” you wish to make in regard to your own body.

I do not presume to force you to abort. If I did, what you suggest would make sense.

Since my subjective opinion endeavours to enshrine “choice” with you, suggesting anything would be imposed upon you by codifying my “subjective opinion” into law – is nonsense!

Morgazola – thanks for the observation and clarification – your analysis was correct,

Kenny, u want to hear from left wing Chrisitans, I've given you a link to Tony Campolo, do a search on that name and you will FIND one.
check out some of his messages, if ur brave enuf.

Morgan, (and Kenny) the sad thing here if any ... is the way you guys can ONLY see things in an 'either or' way. "If ur anti feminism your a mysoginist, you want to oppress women, you have trouble with your relationship" kind of thing. C'mon guys, you can do better than that.

Biblical principle is not about oppressing women, not about mysogony, and it is a wonderful foundation for healthy relationships.

I was in 'rant' mode above, to draw attention to the stupidity of one aspect of feminism which claims 'Anything you (guys) can do, we can do better (or as well)' which is demonstrably false in the case of the Atlanta shootings. I raised this issue to show the flawed foundation of that part of feminism, and to show how its not based on biological reality. But u guys respond "you have a problem with your wife, u want to oppress women" :) I hope everyone else got the same giggle out of THAT one as I did.

MOrgan, I can understand your blank glazed eyed staring off into space look when it comes to the idea of 'superiority of belief' for Christians. I'll admit, its a struggle for each sincere believer. Its not just YOU who feels a tad uncomfortable with such an apparently 'arrogant' idea, we do TOO, but then, thats human nature I guess, and more importantly, we find ourselves faced with the same problem Paul did on the road to Damascus, and for the disciples who once said to Jesus "Lord, this is a HARD saying, who can bear it" where he replied "Will you also fall away"? whereupon they responded, "To whom will we go, you have the words of eternal life".

Boaz_David When I said I wanted to hear from the left I meant get some log on not a web link anyway I'd suggest Sister Joan Chittister to you to help you with your issues. As for your quotes from the bible I'll give everyone another on biblical family values.
Matthew 10:34 -37
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother,
and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me:
and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me

Need I remind everyone that the Christians Saul had a few things to say about women that religious groups have used to oppress women. Peter 1 3:2-6 anyone.

“out some of his messages, if ur brave enuf” BOAZ_David Christianity holds as much relevance to me as astrology.

"Brazuca - I may be wrong, but I interpret Col's argument as being for the maintenance of the status quo with respect to abortions in Australia. It is others - mostly men of the misogynist and/or holy roller variety - who wish to force their subjective views on others."

Is this your subjective view, i.e., not the objective truth but rather your subjective opinion, open to a multitude of interpretations, none of which can by definition be right? And, moreover, you speak as if what you accuse those with whom you are opposed on this issue are doing the morally "wrong" thing. But is this value-judgement subjective, i.e., not true by definition, or is it objective, i.e., true?

"Col's position - with which I do not entirely agree - seems to be that of the primacy of the rights of the individual in all matters. He would hardly argue from that position for the subjugation of women's rights to abortion on demand."

The "rights of the individual" are precisely what's at issue. Foetuses, you see, are being denied their inalienable, God-given right to life by those who seem to believe that, because they are more powerful than those they afflict, it is their prerogative to deny to the weak their God-given rights simply because they can.

"Brazuca, I find your contributions to these comments threads rather cryptic. Could you try being a little less obtuse? Thanks in advance."

Because the issue of abortion involves some of the most profound of philosophical questions, it is by far easiest, with so little words allowed, to ask questions that will hopefully provoke my interlocuters to realise the futility, irrationality and hopelessness of their worldview. How quickly or slowly we go will depend you your interaction, boys and girls.