Can you please give me some figures on pregnancies resulting from incest or rape! Arguing a social decision from exceptions caused by a criminal act cannot be established as normal social practise.

The conception of a child should be a planned act by a couple intending to spend a lifetime caring and building relationship with that child.

The problem we now encounter is a social problem of illicit behaviors exploited by media promoting no restraint or responsibility when it comes to human sexuality. Having children is totally ignored in the whole equation. But the results of indulging in sex seems to be ignored when it was designed for pleasure in procreation of our species. The result of irresponsible sexual behaviour results in many social dilemas that we as a society must act upon. Christians are attempting to identify the social problem as lack of restraint and responsibile behaviours that is being condemned as outdated dogma.

Many despise Christianity because it teaches chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage. This principle has served us well as a secure society, but throwing it off has resulted in many diseased, hurt and disfigured lives.

We must stop allowing second rate behaviours becoming acceptable principles upon which to build a society. You may not like the principles of best practise for society, but they are the only ones where fewer people get hurt. Unrestrained and pomiscuous sex has been tried before in ancient society that has finally resulted in the destruction of that society. It breeds disease and produces conflict that ultimately destroys that society [eg Africa]. That is why rape and incest is held as evil and criminal by Christians, even though it apears by some NT aboriginals as normal practise in their society.

We must encourage and teach best practise and not excuse bad behaviours to be accepted as normal social practise. This is judgmental - too bad! It is the only principle upon which to build a secure and healthy society.

The question is raised:

Is the choice to abort an optimum choice for life and society? Or is it merely a choice resultant from bad choice and behaviour? It rather indicates to me that lust, fornication, adultery, violence, rape and incest against the young and women are to be expected as normal human behaviour that we must accept. Therefore we must accept violence against the unborn as normal and acceptable behaviour by abused or used women.

Therefore in this case abortion is the 'optimum' answer to the resultant consequence / problem. It rather indicates to me we sanction a violent act against an unborn on the journey of life because he / she is the consequence of our bad behaviour, impulsive decision or rageing lust.

It indicates that it was unplanned and resulted from an act of lust or rape. We as Christians are expected to accept these as normal behaviours, therefore we must butt out of peoples lives and allow it to happen.

We as Christians expect in our society purity, justice and committed love as the basis of behaviour, and we will continue to condemn behaviours that push the boundaries exploiting other persons to gratify lust, selfishness, power.

The crimilisation of Christians as oppressive for outlawing these behaviours is presented as primitive dogma; because it enforces restrictive laws upon unrestrained behaviours and is seen by the present society based in the values of the "days of our lives" as unintelligent and oppressive.

Many christians are pro-choice, pro-education, pro-contraceptives. This certainly doesn't mean that they endorse rape, incest or infidelity. However it does mean that they acknowledge the reality of human (mis)behaviour.

It is only the fundamentalists (of any religious stripe) who are despised for forcing their rigid beliefs on everyone else. Fundamentalists are always about control over others.

I notice that Philo has avoided answering whether abortions should be an option for the victims of incest. Once again he has blamed women for what HE assumes are their bad choices. Rape is not a bad choice it is a crime.

The ideal situation is that all children brought into this world should be loved and wanted. As Celivia stated "....I mean, if you are being talked into going through with having a baby, I'd say that perhaps a lifetime of counselling would be a better offer (than 3 counselling sessions)."

The issue is about a womans's autonomy over her body. No man ever has to make such decisions. The best they can do is support the women in their lives and trust them. I don't see that Philo has much in the way of respect or trust for women. But then Philo doesn't represent the mainstream christian who are generally more enlightened.

Clearly education and easy access to contraception is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. Abortion remains the last resort and while unpalatable to many, it must remain legal otherwise we go back to women dying in agony from botched back-yard abortions.

Note to Reason

I do believe that attempts to control women's fertility is anti-female and disagree with you there. My body: my decision; as a man, Reason, you will never have to deal with such a question and it is easy for you to indulge in an intellectual debate without ever having to deal with the reality.

Philo, our legal system certainly might not be adequate enough in dealing with these crimes and problems (rape,incest etc), but that doesn't mean that these crimes are viewed as acceptable behaviour.

Putting aside crimes; we do not live in lala-land where nobody has sex before marriage.
We live in a modern society where sex is an intimate part of getting to know and appreciate a partner in developing a relationship.
This does not mean that we are exploiting each other, gratifying lust and power, and does not mean we are selfish. In a healthy sexual relationship there is a lot of giving involved.

I still stick with what I said before, that through sex education to teenagers and their parents, through providing free contraception and protection, we can greatly reduce the incident of 'catching' a sexually transmitted disease or unwanted pregnancy, as well as educating teenagers to think before they act and to take responsibility, which also will reduce the age and frequency they have sexual intercourse.

You cannot put boundaries on people's sexual behaviour just by 'forbidding'it. People need to be educated and agreeing with facts. Just like you cannot 'forbid' people to smoke- it's the anti-smoking campaign that influenced people to stop smoking, to make them agree that smoking is bad.
The same with unwanted pregnancies- education in schools and through campaigns will be most beneficial as they sink in and change attitudes and behaviours.

Who says what people are designed for anyway? People have free wills and free minds... and Christian views and values can be very influential and be taken into account by those free thinking people when they make up their mind in which way to live their lives, but it's not the one-and-only way for everybody to live their lives.

We cannot go back to the middle ages; we need to adapt to these modern times and we might as well adapt with as much information from as many different value systems or views as possible.

Celivia,
You have assumed sex in uncommitted relationships is the sign of an evolved modern society. This isn't modern society this was the way society was outside of the revealed truth of the Creator. Revealed best practise is; one young man - one young woman committed to each other to raise and teach children for life. That's the definition of marriage. It's the welding [bonding] of the two different sexes to produce a product of their own kind. Your definition of the role of sex for intamacy is exactly what I uphold but within the committed relationship, and it works.

Quote, "We live in a modern society where sex is an intimate part of getting to know and appreciate a partner in developing a relationship.This does not mean that we are exploiting each other, gratifying lust and power, and does not mean we are selfish. In a healthy sexual relationship there is a lot of giving involved."

You talk about sex in developing relationship, but in practise if there is no committment [bonding], then there is every opportunity for males to exploit women merely for gratification and power. Beside that type of relationship deliberately ignores the ultimate purpose of human sexuality - the procreation of children. Having multiple partners increases cross infection and the spread of disease.

I agree with you here: "People need to be educated and agreeing with facts." That is why education by family, the Church and school should be correct, informed, ideal, and best practise. But then you degenerate into an ill informed comment that places no principles or boundaries for behaviour. Every person is free to live as he / she chooses. So you capitulate to accept degenerative consequences as socially normal.

"Who says what people are designed for anyway? ... but it's not the one-and-only way for everybody to live their lives. We cannot go back to the middle ages; we need to adapt to these modern times and we might as well adapt with as much information from as many different value systems or views as possible."

Philo, thanks for your opinion.
Sometimes definitions can go past their use-by-date though and need reviewing. The marriage definition is, in my view, overdue.
I personally know many couples who have been in de facto relationships for 20+ years, have a family, have been committed to each other from start, and have successfully raised a family together. So marriage is not a requirement for a happy, committed long relationship and neither necessary to successfully bring up children.
Also, the divorce rate is increasing and shows that marriage is no guarantee for a long and happy relationship.
Some people marry and get divorced 5 times or more, how is that different from having a few de facto relationships?
The law, or marriage, has no connection with the love and commitment couples feel for each other. I think it is supersticious to think that love and marriage are synonymous. These two concepts have nothing in common. Some marriages spring from love, others don’t. Think about arranged marriages!

I am not sure that I understand what you mean that unmarried women in a relationship (not marriage) can be exploited. Are you saying that marriage protects women from being exploited by their partners?

As for diseases, people can protect themselves- that’s why I mentioned promoting birth control and condoms in my last post.

I want to add that I am not at all against all marriage, I just want to have an open mind that it is not the thing for every person. I have been married for almost 25 years and we are still raising a family. I just don’t want to judge anyone who makes the decision not to get married.

People can be in a relationship that doesn’t work out for them so they don’t get married, but they enjoyed having sex together when they were in that relationship.

Philo, I think that there are some points that we will never agree on, but that’s fine, I still respect your opinion.

I think we have strayed a little off the track of the original article about counselling too! Oops! ;)