HRS if you believe that the unborn have more rights than their mother you are saying that women have no value.

runner: "You infer that I am a hateful person because I come across strong on moral issues."

I didn't say that, and didn't intend to infer it either - although now you point it out I agree some will. What I said is you post many messages claiming people hate / despise / ... you, and often that you feel the same way about them. The difference is subtle, but real. I am attacking the issue - you posting hateful messages. You attack the person.

runner: "love people but to hate sin."

Exactly. Lambaste the the sin, not the person. Which I notice you did here when you said "I hate the murder of the unborn". But you don't normally. Instead you say:

The small mindedness of the academic elite
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4334#41039
(these are your first words on OLO)

typical of someone who lives in la la land
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4485&page=0#42398
(your second post)

You attack the people, not the sin.

Runner: "the vile posts directed at myself .. You must have turned a blind eye to these."

Yes, I did. They are not unexpected, given the vile posts you direct at others. But more to the point I expect you, as a Christian, to turn a blind eye to them as well. They say more about the poster than they do about you.

Runner: "Fred Nile who many times had urine thrown over him"

Regrettable but true, runner. It is also regrettable but true that fundamentalist preachers in the US slept with the women in their congression, catholic priests have raped young boys, nuns in Australian orphanages have dealt cruelly with their charges. But do people, even atheists or the secular, tar all Christians with this brush? Of course not. Yet you runner tar all homosexuals with the urine brush. You tar all Muslims with the terrorist brush. You tar all secular people with the violent brush. That's not a great example of hating the sin and loving the person, is it?

HRS wrote: "Sams You seem quite abusive, and I can understand why you like abortion."

And I can understand why you can't grasp subtle concepts such as the difference between liking something, and supporting someone else's right to do it. I support the right to get eye laser surgery. I don't "like" eye laser surgery. You are resorting to ad hominem attacks now - a sign of a losing battle. Your farcical rant about "liking" abortion and the "laziness" of academics is irrelevant. Contraception is not 100% effective in the real world - you even seem to recognise this now despite your earlier claims. Hence there are and will be unwanted pregnancies, and hence the issue to abortion still exists, and so I ask:

What is exactly is your policy for those people - ignore them and hope they go away?

runner wrote: "The truth is it is a lot easier to find violent secular people than it is to find the odd luny calling themselves a Christian in this country."

Although you've rambled completely off the topic, I couldn't let this go without pointing out that the reality is quite the opposite. For example, atheists are vastly under-represented in jails, by something like a factor of 10.

Sams,
Nothing is 100% perfect, and that is why there is risk management. But find me the academic who has put forward a list of ways to reduce the abort rate.

I don’t think a single academic anywhere in the world has done so, but there is at least one academic who attempts to villy a relion in order to sustain or even increase abortion.

"But find me the academic who has put forward a list of ways to reduce the abort rate. I don’t think a single academic anywhere in the world has done so"

I doubt that you've really bothered to look. Try Googling:

["reduce the abortion rate" university research]

without the square brackets for example. Hundreds to play with there - let me know when you've finished reading them all and I'll find you a few more queries. Your suggestion that the very act of taking up a teaching position at university level turns all people into baby killing ogres is quite amusing really.

rstuart: You attack Anne for not following a "constructive, intellectual, logic-based debate", having just cheered on the argument "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them". Get real.

I'll certainly admit that some of my own statements might be guilty of some of the criticisms I directed to Anne (tho' hers really was a doozy), but I don't think this is one of them.

Surely - hopefully! - everyone on this thread agrees that "some things are simply so wrong they cannot be allowed no matter how many people want to do them"? This is not hyperbole or opinion, but a widely accepted moral view (again I'll add "hopefully"!). We may not all agree that abortion is one of those things, but surely we accept the premise that there is a category of such things? For instance, killings such as the Holocaust; rape of 2 year olds; etc etc To me this view stands up as logical, and intellectually defensible.

You may have missed the point of my comments on Anne's statement, but I certainly do not think GP's statement is of the same type. In my view, GP's statement is a very constructive place to start a debate on any moral issue - the debate then can proceed as to whether the issue in question is "simply so wrong" etc.