Te, rofl, if somebody came to my house and touched my private parts
or exposed themselves, it would depend on whom it was for my judgement:)

Morality is subjective, its our judgement and our ability to reason and decide.

If you believe in objective morality, name the being who is objective and name some substantiated evidence for the existance of that being.

Brownie, considering the tone of your own posts, I would suggest you confine your ‘threats’ to evaluating your own posts first…

Col, you’re much ‘better’ at ‘slagging’ anyone off than I ever hope to be…proved in following post…Sad…very sad.

Yabby, you’ve no regard for the Bible’s written word, yet quote the written word of others whose existence may never have existed either, a contradiction between your theory and its practice, it seems. If any history is questioned, so all written history is called into question.

2nd post…Yabby, for all but your nom de plume…you are a contradiction in terms.

Interestingly Col, it would be good to hear the statistical evidence on how many ‘de facto’ relationships have provided long-term, happy homes for either the couple or children that may survive to birth? By long-term I do mean long-term, not until-the-break-of-day.

Say, 25 year, 50 year Anniversaries – heck, let’s look for a 75 year Anniversary…

Evidential statistics support Te’s suggestion that Tinkerbell and you have much to discuss at your next tea party with Alice…and of course your two daughters would be free to choose a Catholic partner to marry, of course…with your blessing and support, huh?

I’m on a certain bet they’d leave you off the invitation list if they invited the local priest over for dinner…

How about the statistical evidence on step-children in de facto relationships?

Ouch, perhaps God had something when he indicated that free will has to be exercised with self-discipline, accepting consequences.

Rules can be liberating too Col…when they encourage those less disciplined to show regard and respect for the freedoms and rights of others.

In other words, if you stomp all over unborn babies and blame everyone but yourself for doing it, someone is bound to ask you to face up to what started the ball rolling in the first place.

If you are so in-charge of your sexuality, you should be able to understand how others can behave better than dogs and be more selective also…no need for any props when you understand you own sexuality and your own body.

Meg1
Quote "If any history is questioned, so all written history is called into question." Historians Do question ALL history. The process is called scepticism Meg.

Do you believe that the straights of Gibralta were fromed when Hercules pushed the mountains of Spain & Morocco apart? That's in the Greek & Roman myths. How about the stories of Prophetess' of Apollo being able to fortell the future with complete accuracy. Those stories are in ancient Greek history as well.

Sorry Meg but Scepticism is the ONLY way to go with any history. That means we take any text [including the bible] with a pinch of salt until shown to be accurate by evidence outside the text. ie. archaeological evidence or accounts from people who are opposed to the first text's point of view.

Your view on the other hand seems to be either that we should believe all historical texts [quite impossible unless you want to execute your brain] or not subject the bible to the examination undergone by any other ancient text. Not a good idea as this tends to lead to preconcieved conclusions.

Hi all

Col Rouge (post 3:13:05 PM 9/2/06)

RU486 most certainly isn't - as its primary function - a life-sustainer. Doctors are pledged "to save lives". If it can benefit cancer patients then I have no 'problem' with its use in that instance - that's life-saving. But NOT for abortion which is life-taking.

A "seriously pro-choice society" would allow a Police Officer to refuse to enforce the law on a specific crime (which has just been observed) because there is a "conscientious objection" to that law. That has serious implications, & could lead to anarchy. But sometimes we must institute rules for the benefit of the fabric of society which don't receive support from society. They're called "unpopular laws".

Just imagine that I have more money than you, but your mother occupies the hospital bed-space of where my sick son could be treated. I might say: "Well, Col's mum is 65. She's led a decent life. She's 'past her used-by date', switch off her life-preservers so that my 25-year old son can get the treatment he deserves." There's your subjective value system. Meanwhile, objective value says that both lives are important - both should be saved.

Your scenario? Fine for my son! Not too good for your mum though.

All life must/should be highly valued. Hence abortion is a blight on society.
(10/2/06)

Connor (post 3:27:29 PM 9/2/06)

Both men & women need to take joint-responsibility. If one doesn't want the child, abstain. A woman can only fall pregnant on about 3 to 5 days in every month anyway - between the ages of say 13- & 40-years. Additionally, women rarely fall pregnant whilst breast feeding either.

She's infertile for most of her life. Surely both parties could abstain during periods of heightened fertility. It's called "knowing the woman's body" & respecting each other.

No! I'm not Catholic - far from it.
(10/2/06)

jkenno (post 3:40:24 PM 9/2/06)

The word "therapeutic" comes from the Greek word "therapeucin" which means to attend (with the connotation of life-preserving healing). Beyond the contentious treatment for cancer, RU486 is not life-preserving.
(10/2/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

dovif (post 4:05:39 PM 9/2/06)

Good attempt to 'balance' the argument. Guess it's just a matter of whether society values all life or whether it makes arbitrary decisions based on perceptions.

As for me: I'd seek to 'abort' all people who didn't permanently walk like John Cleese. [just joking!]
(10/2/06)

Donnie (post 4:16:26 PM 9/2/06)

Abortion is illegal within many Australian states. It is funded by Medicare so we often choose to ignore its illegality.
(10/2/06)

billie (post 4:51:42 PM 9/2/06)

I live near 6 elderly couples, a truck driver, a university student, 4 "bikies", a solicitor, a doctor & a Police Station.

I have little in common with any of those people except that we are all humans, we try to abide by the laws of NSW & Australia, & we all are probably pretty excited when we wake after a night's sleep.

I believe that Senator McGAURAN probably has similar aspirations. What's your point?
(10/2/06)

Count0 (post 5:10:21 PM 9/2/06)

Point 3: actually at 10-weeks a foetus is pretty well developed, with most of it vital organs in place. Sure, it wouldn't survive outside the womb. But it reacts to stimulae & there is a clear & distinct heart beat.

As to whether or not medical books would or wouldn't concur on life commencing at conception: it may depend upon the viewpoint of the authors. But scientist have, & will continue to be wrong, on issues in the future - just as they were in the past. Thank goodness I didn't listen to my Australian AMA doctor in 1992. Instead I listened to Dr George PIGOTT, a research scientist from Washington University. Ever heard of Omega 3s & 6s. George discovered their relativity to low incidences of "heart disease" in 1984. America's equivalent of Australia's TGA, the FDA, tried to bankrupt him. The FDA's actions meant that George didn't become wealthy from what he discovered. Instead, pharmaceutical companies benefited.

George later went on to be a NASA scientist - a food technologist.
(10/2/06)

Cheers all

Meg. None of my comments here (15 Feb, 21 Feb or 22 Feb) contain personal insults to anyone. Not even any of the really dumb commentors who deserve them. get your facts straight before you accuse (me, or anything else). I bet your hubby is screwing his secretary.