” Meg1 - if you don't mind, I did not come here to read personal attacks from you on my character. Stick to the topic of Ms Ransom's essay or I will get you blacklisted here. “
Not a good idea. If those in control of the forum were to do that they would probably have to read a few posts and most of the posts on your side of the argument would be deleted. Look at the treatment Lady is getting at the moment.

”“as much sex as they like within marriage”

but only on the “rules” and conditions set down by those who are supposed to be “celibate” and specifically , denying the (individual) contraception or as expression of anything other than “procreation”, unless you are telling me that the Church of Rome supports the pill, condoms and has approved every position in the Karma Sutra?”

Certainly not for pills and condoms. However as we are discussing people’s sexual energy surely that would be an asset. We hear so many complaints about “showers with raincoats” that condoms seem more a hinderance than help to sexual energy.

”There is nothing God needs from such a corrupt organisation. If God did set it up, it would have been a prototype and he would have thrown it out a long time ago.”

That would be a profoundly strange approach from an omnipotent being. Why would he waste his time like that?

”One reason we have separation of Church and State is because of observation of the malevolent influences exercised when the Church of Rome shared authority with and over the offices of the state.”

Without divine guidance people like to have power without conscience. Powerful people didn’t like to have right and wrong pointed out to them.

Likewise, one of the two major figures who created an environment where ‘Christian Europe’ could end by dividing ‘Christianity’, Henry VIII, broke with the Pope because he thought that something less immoral than beheading, like divorce, might get the nod from the Pope. He was proved wrong. Neither wife killing or divorce are Catholic.

Hi all

Shell (post 12:29:44 PM 9/2/06)

That's out dilemma: murder isn't universally condemned. We now selectively kill - those we don't like, those we don't want, those who (in our opinion) have no value.

I'd do anything - within reason - to have my murdered mum back in my life. But that wouldn't include killing/executing her killer.
(10/2/06)

KRS 1 (post 12:41:52 PM 9/2/06)

Don't get too excited about Anomie's reply! Educationalists & academics are often wrong. Don't you remember that the world was flat? Dr William McBride was a genius too - a fraud.

There's a simple reason that life doesn't begin at ejaculation - no foetus has been formed.

As to what I'd do if my wife or daughter were raped & that resulted in a pregnancy: I guess that like if they received AIDS I'd need to pragmatically accept it. Would I be happy? Definitely not! But it wouldn't be the foetus' 'problem' or fault either. Nor would it be the fault of my loved one.

Maybe the child could be born & adopted to a loving childless couple? What would be the then-trauma to the biological mother? Substantial. But hopefully less than that of having killed the foetus that was conceived outside of a loving relationship. Notwithstanding, the foetus' right-to-life has not been taken.
(10/2/06)

Matt Caravan (post 1:05:57 PM 9/2/02)

Just because the government 'allows' abortion through Medicare doesn't mean that abortion is right & proper. They may take your home from you under a government regulation but that doesn't make it right.

Late-term abortion is no more or less wrong than early-term. All abortion is taking another life. RU486 only adds another dimension to a woman exercising her rights over her body at the expense of the rights of the foetus - conceived in carelessness, without planning or through violence.
(10/2/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

Donnie (post 1:26:57 PM 9/2/06)

I'm sorry to tell you this, but in most states of Australia "abortion" is illegal. Check the legislation. It's just that the legislation isn't enforced.

There are many things that human beings do in life that are unethical, immoral, or just plain stupid. Sometimes we have laws against them; sometimes we pretend that they aren't harming anyone & ignore the bad/inappropriate behaviour. But in all instances there is a consequence.

Some people throughout their lives accept their own culpability. Other people walk around blaming it upon others - the scapegoat mentality.

It isn't the foetus' fault that someone had sex but didn't wish to have a child. The burden ought to fall upon the participants in the act - not upon the foetus which is a consequence of the act.

Teenage drunk drivers rarely think that they will be involved in an accident resulting in injury to another. When it does occur it isn't the fault of the other driver or pedestrian. One wouldn't suggest that we encourage the teenager to indulge in more bad behaviour. But we certainly do that when we ignore the consequences which ought to befall individuals who fail to abstain or take adequate precaution.

Imagine that the aborted foetus is you, & you can't get anyone to listen to your desire(s) to live. How would you feel?
(10/2/06)

maracas (post 1:55:04 PM 9/2/06)

Great therapy for the woman - until she suffers psychological 'problems' later, & many do. Not very therapeutic for the foetus though. A 10-week old foetus is about the size of a dessert-spoon (minus handle).

The answer is: don't get pregnant unless you're in a position to be able to lovingly support the foetus - which incidentally didn't ask to be conceived. Simply put: close your legs or be prepared to open your purse-strings to rear & raise the child for the next 18-years.
(10/2/06)

RobP (posted 3:08:22 PM 9/2/06)

Spot-on!
(10/2/06)

Cheers all

"Without divine guidance people like to have power without conscience. Powerful people didn’t like to have right and wrong pointed out to them."

MJ, your problem there of course is that means power is transferred
to those who claim to have divine guidance. Thats what made the Catholic Church such a corrupt and powerful organisation in the first place, if you read history. After reading a book called
"The Sex Lives of the Popes", methinks perhaps alot of them didn't
have a conscience either :)

To avoid the problem, it seems to me that democracy, with a strict
separation of the powers, is the best that we have to avoid the
problem of power corrupting, absolute power corrupting absolutaly.

Let the church stick to preaching to its flock of believers, who need religion to cope with life, but out of the lives of the rest of us.

ALB, there is no objective morality, what you think is moral or immoral is simply your opinion.

”I am a father. Both my daughters are both in loving relationships “out of wedlock” Shock Horror! Am I going to tell them to get married?.....

Col Rouge – how terribly sad that you are not stepping forward to protect your daughters’ HEARTS, virtue and womanhood. Old-fashioned terms? Maybe, but what was true 1000, 100 or 10 years ago is true now. EVERY woman wants the protection of her father – not “I trust your judgement” but “Honey, I love you so much that I would never want you to lie with your body and I would never want someone to lie to you with their body”.
You don’t need to be heavy-handed but encourage them to aim high.

”Of course, such an issue belies the motives of a church, which realised the “power” of the human sex drive and the benefit of controlling it to ensure that energy was forced (with tyrannical determination) into exultation of the religious system and away from the private enjoyment of a natural human activity.”

After I read this statement of yours Col, I have to ask ‘How is Tinkerbell these days?’ as ‘out there with the fairies’ seems to apply more to your statements than mine.

In short, "beware all those who demand abstinence whilst they deny condoms".

Again, this ‘out there’ statement makes me smile wryly. Condoms fail approximately 1 in 7 times – either due to incorrect user application, spillage, breakage, unstable product, etc. And who is DEMANDING abstinence? Gently and lovingly, we encourage it for the sexual health, reproductive health (in the true meaning of the term) and to protect one’s heart.

Yabby - funny you think there is no objective morality - if that were true, everything would be allowed anywhere at any time by everyone.
Chesterton once said "Open minds are like open mouths - they should close on something solid".

My comment - if your stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

I'll bet if someone came into your house and either touched one of your private parts or exposed themself to you, you would not be into "no such thing as objective morality" but be quite indignant that they did THIS to YOU. (not shouting, just emphasising)