Romany, what say that I play the diplomat for once and pass that
topic on for you to create, for good reasons.

Yes, it would be an interesting topic, my personal interest is
in the neuroscience behind it, but that is another story.

Given that we'd want the Fractelles and other Yabby haters of
this world to contribute, which they might not do if I start
a topic, your expertise is required here.

Peace and love to all :)

Yabby,

"Fractelle and all the other Yabby haters"? Oh come, come. That made me feel desperately sad. I'm sure that no-one is a Yabby-hater.

I think, that if people consistantly disagree with one, it shows that one is merely coming at life from a different angle to most. Also, on these threads, because we all appear pretty one-dimensional, different people "read" us all differently.

But as to introducing the topic? Yeah, sure, I'll do it. Just as long as you are going to contribute as well?

Looks like the discussion has substantially aborted.

One could say "c'est la guerre", but that would leave a little unfinished business arising out of the thread. So sorry if I set a bad example in proclaiming any unwillingness to post, but I had unknowingly been practising what Maximillion, who is new to the Forum, recommended to CJMorgan: I had been putting my fingers where my mouth is, but I didn't realise they were forcing my tongue into my cheek so much. Most legletable.

It should be acknowledged that Maximillion made a good point in his post of Saturday, 4 April 2009 at 9:03:05 PM. There are others on OLO who have had issues with the Thread-Labeller-in-Chief being perceived to be shutting down discussion in the past, myself included, but on this one I think he deserves a little latitude. After all, others could (and did) still post to the topic. It is only the absence of continuing posts at the rate one might, from experience on this general topic, expect, that is surprising. Unless there exists a conspiracy of silence, of course.

With GrahamY having posted three times to this topic I infer that it is one he would dearly like to see discussed, but short of submitting and approving a topic himself, and subsequently being both player and referee simultaneously on his own thread, he finds himself a bit stymied. I agree with him that the topic has a current hook; I visited KMB's linked site thinking it might be a hoax, surfed on to one of Ragdale's recent sermons, and found no fault in her.

So with Maximillion having effectively received Graham's imprimatur, we all know that this new Forum identity is not just a 'talking head'.

Pax Max?

I very much like GrahamY's idea of a thread for stimulating new topic suggestions. One title I could suggest is:

'Trolling in the Topics: fishing for comments on OLO'.

Another:

'The Wizard Morgan has a Bitch' (would daggett diggitt?)

There! Quantity over quality any day: 350 steaming words!

Yabby, don't be so shy.

Given that you perceive disagreement as a personal hatred for you, I'm just hanging out to know what your views on 'lerve' would be. I promise to participate - but... I will express MY point of view - suggest you shouldn't take it so personally.

As for the parched remains of this topic - here's my final two cents: Religious woman is appointed a leadership role in her church and supports freedom of choice for women seeking abortion. Next there'll be women pilots endorsing freedom of travel for women, female doctors sympathetic to PMS and holy moly female politicians making legislation. Where will it end?

I don't have any particular interest in this matter being discussed. I was keeping an eye on it to ensure it didn't go overboard, and then found that my decision to approve was being challenged. So you shouldn't be surprised that I've now posted 4 times. My interest is free speech, not abortion.

Having said that, I must say I was shocked at the quote and lokked it up myself. That is not because I can't see a theologian approving of abortion, but because the enthusiasm didn't seem to sit right. It's one of those issues that I find morally ambiguous and the triumphalism in the quote just didn't seem Christian.

Catholics only recently became absolutely opposed to abortion, with work by Thomas Aquinas, for example, suggesting (from memory) that life didn't start until 60 days. I understand Jews have no problem with abortion, and Christianity is just an heretical form of Judaism. So Ragdale's position on abortion is well within the tradition in substance, but I don't think in form.

And this is an effort to bring the thread back to where it was. I think the poster deserves that for having gone to the trouble to post in the first place.

BTW, I haven't deleted any comments from this thread either, so the comments you see are all there have been.

Yes, Graham's right: I do apologise to the poster who is probably unaware of how often this topic comes up - and hijacks threads itself.

Please do not be discouraged from proposing topics simply because this one wobbled off the way it did.

As to addressing the topic? I also believe this is a private matter and any woman I know who finds herself in the position of having to consider it for herself, has my heartfelt support and empathy, no matter what her views or final decision.