[Nuclear1]

To me responsibility simply equates to taking the right decision; and for a abortion I think the rightness of that decision is very much down to the woman (primarily) and man (secondarily) involved.

That's actually a very valid point. I've always formed my opinion around having the child and then making a decision: raise the child together or with the help of family/friends, or just put it up for adoption. With regards to abortion, I can't stress enough that people who mess around just for the temporary pleasure and believe that they can get away with just having abortions as a safeguard against having to raise children or giving the child a chance thoroughly disgust me, because it shows a total lack of regards for the consequences of sex.

As you can probably tell, I'm all about what's going on in peoples' heads at the time, which is why I don't attempt to force my opinion onto others--you can never know what's going on in their heads when they make a decision, and there's always another side to the story. Now, if the Christian Fundies would only agree with that...

EDIT; it increasingly strikes me, actually, that when we get onto this whole 'taking responsibility' thing, it's not about taking responsibility at all but mandating the physical and emotional discomfort of unwanted pregnancy and possibly subsequent child rearing as a punishment for having sex (regardless of what precautions were taken).

True, but isn't the physical labor and child rearing a result of the woman's choice to have sex, and thus a consequence that she (and her partner) must take responsibility? Of course, it's an entirely different situation in terms of rape, where it's not her choice, but in this case, I would say it is her responsibility to at least raise the child (assuming it's in her physical capacity; she shouldn't have to if the birth would kill or otherwise horribly cripple her). Whether or not she chooses to raise it or put it up for adoption is the next step.

Still, very valid points. The viewpoint on responsibility was especially interesting.

nuclear1: You are not a fundie, I know this.  However I don't see you actively opposing them.  I don't see you working against their co-opting of your religion.  I just see the moderate christians sitting their quietly, doing nothing about the behavior because it isn't infringing upon them.  In this situation you are either actively supporting freedom, or you are it's enemy.  People who like freedom, but do nothing to defend it, are guilty of being "good men doing nothing".

I can name very few people in my entire congregation that actually agree with anything the fundies do; is it enough that at least half of my congregation votes for liberal politicians? Of course, I've got no power in this matter: I state my opinion with regards to opposing the fundies, but due to being unable to vote at seventeen, I'm unable to capitalize on this directly. I've written countless times to the Congressmen that my parents and other members of my congregation elect to represent my community in protest of fundie legislation, and apparently it works--neither Sen. Lugar or Bayh are exactly known to side with fundies on issues in Congress.

[Kazan]

I can name very few people in my entire congregation that actually agree with anything the fundies do; is it enough that at least half of my congregation votes for liberal politicians? Of course, I've got no power in this matter: I state my opinion with regards to opposing the fundies, but due to being unable to vote at seventeen, I'm unable to capitalize on this directly. I've written countless times to the Congressmen that my parents and other members of my congregation elect to represent my community in protest of fundie legislation, and apparently it works--neither Sen. Lugar or Bayh are exactly known to side with fundies on issues in Congress.

good, then my apologies* (plus i didn't realize you were a minor) - will you be 18 in time for this november's midterm?

However your above thing about "consequences of sex" is just making them a punishment.  The Consequences of sex are pleasure, possible disease and possible preganancy.  The latter are easily mitigated by condoms and birth control, etc.  If one gets pregnant there is no requirement telling them what they have to do - aborting the child, or having it and raising it properly can BOTH be responsible options.  The latter option is more often than not the irresponsible option (if the person is not emotionally, physically or financially ready to have a child), of course in this case you're going to assert "well they shouldn't have sex!" and my response would be "piss off, it's not your business to tell me when I can and cannot fark my fiancee". 

My fiancee and I have sex, we don't intend to have a child for atleast 5 years, and any conception will be almost certainly aborted.  Your attitude of that "Disgusting" you disgusts me - you are attempting to coopt people to follow your definition of morality by disparaging them.


* I haven't seen many good christians in a LONG TIME

[Kazan]

I'm not dicussing my winkles functionality with anyone except my wife and maybe a doctor should it ever drop off.

This isnt the general cir*******sition thread fury closed that.

you mean censored that for bogus biased reasons

http://www.noharmm.org/advantage.htm

anyway,................Who reckons Jesus was the original hippy?

jesus (if he ever existed) was the original hippy

[Colonol Dekker]

Electromagnetic "cross-communication." thats probably the only thing on the list i'm vaguely curious about, but other than that, my tackle has a good life, it gets fed daily and ummm, i'm stopping there.

*ends CD's willy convo*

[Wobble73]

* I haven't seen many good christians in a LONG TIME

You haven't met my (foster) mother! A more non-judgemental practising christian you will ever likely to meet! On a personal topic, my wife recently had a hystorectomy for menstrual problems and we don't have children. She would have made a perfect mother too   but then we look at it as "Heck, at least this way we can go an get pissed and bonk each other's brains out when we want and not have to worry about waking the kids" and if we want a child we borrow a niece or nephew for the day. It's great to be the favourite Uncle and Auntie.  

[aldo_14]

To me responsibility simply equates to taking the right decision; and for a abortion I think the rightness of that decision is very much down to the woman (primarily) and man (secondarily) involved.

That's actually a very valid point. I've always formed my opinion around having the child and then making a decision: raise the child together or with the help of family/friends, or just put it up for adoption. With regards to abortion, I can't stress enough that people who mess around just for the temporary pleasure and believe that they can get away with just having abortions as a safeguard against having to raise children or giving the child a chance thoroughly disgust me, because it shows a total lack of regards for the consequences of sex.

As you can probably tell, I'm all about what's going on in peoples' heads at the time, which is why I don't attempt to force my opinion onto others--you can never know what's going on in their heads when they make a decision, and there's always another side to the story. Now, if the Christian Fundies would only agree with that...

Well, let's say (ignoring human nature and sex as a sort of bonding/expression of love thing, which is what I'd say it's equally-primary purpose is alongside reproduction) you have a bloke weaing a condom, a woman on contraceptive pills, and - despite the miniscule probability incurred - it happens?  They've taken every possible precaution, have illustrated an awareness of consequences in doing so, is it something - a freak of chance - that necessitates punishment?

I'm not a one-night stand hedonistic kind of bloke; I don't have much tolerance for people who shag around for the hell of it, even if I can't give a cold rational rather than emotional, personal justification for it. (and I would never accept any legislation or law that would deny abortions in that type of case, because it's not a legally valid standpoint and it would be essentially 'have a baby' punishment rather than any sort of fair legislation)

But I think there's a world of difference between a loving couple who just get unlucky, versus some guy who gets **** faced at the pub and has unprotected sex with an equally ****-faced girl in a back alley, and it's the former case which I think matters when we consider the morality of sex; especially as I think it's not just a reproductive act in human psychology.

EDIT; it increasingly strikes me, actually, that when we get onto this whole 'taking responsibility' thing, it's not about taking responsibility at all but mandating the physical and emotional discomfort of unwanted pregnancy and possibly subsequent child rearing as a punishment for having sex (regardless of what precautions were taken).

True, but isn't the physical labor and child rearing a result of the woman's choice to have sex, and thus a consequence that she (and her partner) must take responsibility? Of course, it's an entirely different situation in terms of rape, where it's not her choice, but in this case, I would say it is her responsibility to at least raise the child (assuming it's in her physical capacity; she shouldn't have to if the birth would kill or otherwise horribly cripple her). Whether or not she chooses to raise it or put it up for adoption is the next step.

Still, very valid points. The viewpoint on responsibility was especially interesting.

Define responsibility, though; responsibility does not simply equate to punishment, surely, so why is the only form of taking responsibility to proceed to term?

(no opinion on sex after sterlization / between sterile partners, then?)

[Kazan]

On a personal topic, my wife recently had a hystorectomy for menstrual problems and we don't have children.

that sucks bro.. how about adopting?

[Kazan]

Well, let's say (ignoring human nature and sex as a sort of bonding/expression of love thing, which is what I'd say it's equally-primary purpose is alongside reproduction) you have a bloke weaing a condom, a woman on contraceptive pills, and - despite the miniscule probability incurred - it happens?  They've taken every possible precaution, have illustrated an awareness of consequences in doing so, is it something - a freak of chance - that necessitates punishment?

I'm not a one-night stand hedonistic kind of bloke; I don't have much tolerance for people who shag around for the hell of it, even if I can't give a cold rational rather than emotional, personal justification for it. (and I would never accept any legislation or law that would deny abortions in that type of case, because it's not a legally valid standpoint and it would be essentially 'have a baby' punishment rather than any sort of fair legislation)

But I think there's a world of difference between a loving couple who just get unlucky, versus some guy who gets **** faced at the pub and has unprotected sex with an equally ****-faced girl in a back alley, and it's the former case which I think matters when we consider the morality of sex; especially as I think it's not just a reproductive act in human psychology.

hear hear! i can add rational reasons to your preference against one night stands - high probability of causing the spread of disease for starters!

You and I agree so much sometimes it astonishes me that you haven't become as angry as me... then I remember you live in britain where things aren't as bad

[Nuclear1]

I can name very few people in my entire congregation that actually agree with anything the fundies do; is it enough that at least half of my congregation votes for liberal politicians? Of course, I've got no power in this matter: I state my opinion with regards to opposing the fundies, but due to being unable to vote at seventeen, I'm unable to capitalize on this directly. I've written countless times to the Congressmen that my parents and other members of my congregation elect to represent my community in protest of fundie legislation, and apparently it works--neither Sen. Lugar or Bayh are exactly known to side with fundies on issues in Congress.

good, then my apologies* (plus i didn't realize you were a minor) - will you be 18 in time for this november's midterm?

Unfortunately, no. I'm going to miss it by about two or three weeks.

Well, let's say (ignoring human nature and sex as a sort of bonding/expression of love thing, which is what I'd say it's equally-primary purpose is alongside reproduction) you have a bloke weaing a condom, a woman on contraceptive pills, and - despite the miniscule probability incurred - it happens?  They've taken every possible precaution, have illustrated an awareness of consequences in doing so, is it something - a freak of chance - that necessitates punishment?

I'm not a one-night stand hedonistic kind of bloke; I don't have much tolerance for people who shag around for the hell of it, even if I can't give a cold rational rather than emotional, personal justification for it. (and I would never accept any legislation or law that would deny abortions in that type of case, because it's not a legally valid standpoint and it would be essentially 'have a baby' punishment rather than any sort of fair legislation)

But I think there's a world of difference between a loving couple who just get unlucky, versus some guy who gets **** faced at the pub and has unprotected sex with an equally ****-faced girl in a back alley, and it's the former case which I think matters when we consider the morality of sex; especially as I think it's not just a reproductive act in human psychology.

hear hear! i can add rational reasons to your preference against one night stands - high probability of causing the spread of disease for starters!

I'll third this. This is essentially what I meant, but I've never been very eloquent in expressing opinions. Every one of my posts where I've expressed disgust is when I was referring to the one-night stand hedonists that aldo described. I've nothing against loving couples engaging in sex to become closer or to express their love for each other. Picking up girls in bars and taking them home for an evening of fun and leaving the next morning is what I look down on. Which is why I'll take this moment to apologize to Kaz for apparently offending him as I did with my poorly-worded posts.

[Kazan]

gotcha.. all cleared up then

[TrashMan]

ah, so you do subscribe to the black sea deluge theory (a fairly well evidenced one)  - atleast you have some brains

I'm a MENSA member, so I have ample of it.. want some? You look like you could use it.

you act as if you have real solid grounds to say homosexuality is bad - you don't

Bad? You mean as in evil? Not in that sense.
But you missed hte point - you liked the destruction of those towns with homosexuality, when in fact there was a LOT more to it.

he did neither, he sent superstitious followers who killed off cats, who could have reduced the problem, because they were "evil" and therefore were automatically the cause

Killed cats? WTF?

your "Basic sense of moral" is BASED off the bible - making that statement circular logic

Part of it yes, but it's not based mearly on the bible. It's alos based on the basics of human society.

Those aren't analogous to religion - religion INSPIRES violence, hatred, bigotry and ignorance

That not what the religion stands for, in fact it is against such things. Alltough some people see only what they want to see.

no ****, however YOU DON'T HAVE RIGHTS UNTIL YOU'RE AND INDIVIDUAL - there is no "you" until then.  A foetus is not a person, it does not have rights, even if it did the mothers right's come first - you cannot be required to give up your bodily integrity for the sake of another.  Once a featus becomes and individual it has rights - and it has those retroactively.

Cute. It is a LIVING thing, it is a human...but since it doesn't have individuality yet, it's OK to kill it?
"You have no rights, as you are not yet worthy of them" - that sentance was repetated again and again in history only to give more previliges to those that allready had them.
Yes, I can compare this to slavery and racism.

Miscariages can happen. And you can also be run ver by a car. Does that mean I can kill you now, since chances are that you might not even reach the end of your natural life cycle?

false analogy and avoiding the issue
[/qote]

No, it's not. You claimed that a fetus is not guaranteed to grow, and I demonstrated that you'r not guarnateed to grow old. What we do know however is - what WILL happen if everything goes Ok. the child will be born and you will row old.

A fetus is a human - it has the destinct DNA, it feeds and it grows.

Humans aren't special.  there are many cells in my body that have distinct DNA, there are subparts of cells that have seperate DNA than the cell itself.  HAving unique DNA, and feeding and growing doesn't make something an individual.  Nor is human life special

Now THIS is a false analogy. A cell alone does not a human make, but a fetus is a cluster of GROWING cells that has the NDS imprint of the final human it will become. And the first thing that is formed IS the brain.

[TrashMan]

This is exactly what you mean; you're determining what is and what is not meant by the bible on a personal basis and being interpretative over the meaning of the book.

This is not MY interpretation. This is a scientific fact that hte flooding took place and this is how vatican enterprets that.

Well, it's been pretty much proven to lead to deaths due to aids; whether or not you like pre-marital sex, there's no question that it occurs, and no question that the Vatican launching a campaign to stop and scare people from using condoms, or deny access to sexual advice in Africa, only hurts people.  Surely telling people condoms are ineffective against aids using reasoning known to be wrong (aids viral size vs condom pore size whilst ingoring the transmission medium) - i.e. lying - must be a sin?

I'm not entirely pleased with he waay the Church handeled this, but it's not asin by a longshot...and they are right that the ONLY 100% effective preventions is abstinence. Well, either that or je*** off but given the number of children they have in africe and how many die of deseases and hunger.. I'd say abstinence is better.

The whole crux of the abortion arguement is about the present situation, not future.  At present, I am a sentient human being, ergo your analogy is completely wrong.  Perhaps a more appropriate example would be if I was brain-dead and on life support with an unknown prognosis? (if we wish to reflect the physical situation of the foetus more accurately).

Is it all about the present situation, or do you WANT it to be about the present. I guess I could call you shortsighted.

And the analogy is not correct either. In 90% (if not more) cases the baby will be born just fine. And I wouldn't call the baby brain-dead either. It has a brain (alltough a very small one, it does function).

Mah..this discussion is nothing more than a waste of my time.

[Kazan]

Killed cats? WTF?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubonic_plague

primary tranmission vector was rats

your "Basic sense of moral" is BASED off the bible - making that statement circular logic

Part of it yes, but it's not based mearly on the bible. It's alos based on the basics of human society.
[/quote]

which you almost certainly largely define based off the bible - much of the "morality" christians adhere to ("no abortions!!!", "homosexuality is evil!!!") aren't actually present in the bible even btw

That not what the religion stands for, in fact it is against such things. Alltough some people see only what they want to see.

evidence suggests that religion doesn't stand against it, as it has been the single largest cause of wars in the past several thousand years

Cute. It is a LIVING thing,

and ant is a living thing, so was the salad you just ate

it is a human

not yet - it cannot yet survive on it's own and its bodily dependant on it's mother

...but since it doesn't have individuality yet, it's OK to kill it?

it's not ALIVE yet - it's not its own life - it's only alive as part of it's mothers body.  refering to it as anything OTHER than part of the mothers body prior to viability is a fallacy

"You have no rights, as you are not yet worthy of them" - that sentance was repetated again and again in history only to give more previliges to those that allready had them.

false analogy and underhanded godwin.

it's not "it's not worthy of them yet" it's "it ISN'T A THING yet" - it's NOT a seperate entity from it's mother until viability.  Even if it was the mother cannot be forced to give of her own body for it - so even if it was a seperate entity and therefore had rights - it's rights don't trump the mothers.

Yes, I can compare this to slavery and racism.

with invalid analogies

No, it's not. You claimed that a fetus is not guaranteed to grow, and I demonstrated that you'r not guarnateed to grow old. What we do know however is - what WILL happen if everything goes Ok. the child will be born and you will row old.

which is COMPLETELY irrelevant in law - law deals with what IS not what COULD BE.  If it dealt with what COULD BE I could have you arrested for bombing an abortion clinic - because you COULD BE planning to do that

A cell alone does not a human make,

make up your mind - either a cell (the first stage after fertilization) is or isn't a human - make up your mind

but a fetus is a cluster of GROWING cells that has the NDS imprint of the final human it will become.

which means JACK SQUAT
humans are not special
a featus cannot live outside of the woman's body - it is not it's own life - therefore it is not an individual and has no rights
even if the previous was not true and it did have rights, the mother cannot be forced to give up her own body for the sake of another

And the first thing that is formed IS the brain.

no the first thing formed is not the brain, go back to science class. 

[Kazan]

And the analogy is not correct either. In 90% (if not more) cases the baby will be born just fine. And I wouldn't call the baby brain-dead either. It has a brain (alltough a very small one, it does function).

what part of that means absolutely nothing do you have a problem with understanding?

It is not capable of surviving out of the mother - it is not it's own life, it is a parasite/part of the mother
even if the previous statement was not true - the mother cannot be forced to give of her body for the sake of another - that is illegal (see trying to force someone to give up a kidney for example)

[aldo_14]

This is not MY interpretation. This is a scientific fact that hte flooding took place and this is how vatican enterprets that.

It is a personal selection of a (clerics) personal interpretation of how an event described in the bible might be referring to an actual historical event.  Even if you take the Vaticans interpretation as correct, there are millions of equally christian christians who think differently on this and other theological matter.s

I'm not entirely pleased with he waay the Church handeled this, but it's not asin by a longshot...and they are right that the ONLY 100% effective preventions is abstinence. Well, either that or je*** off but given the number of children they have in africe and how many die of deseases and hunger.. I'd say abstinence is better.

How is lying about the effectiveness of a 99.9% effective method of protection and acting against fully comprehensive sex education centres not a sin?  This type of narrow-mindedness does result in people getting AIDS and thus dying.  How is it not a sin to outright lie about the effectiveness of a protective measure to discourage people from using it?

Preaching abstinance will not save the lives of people who want to have sex; proper sex education will and does do that - the most succesfull countries in Africa at reducing HIV transmission are those that provide comprehensive education; not just 'abstain or be damned', but teaching people the dangers, and the precautions available.

Is it all about the present situation, or do you WANT it to be about the present. I guess I could call you shortsighted.

It is all about the present situation.  We do not form laws based on what might happen, what might transpire, but what has and does definitively occur.  Law is based on known, present absolutes, not maybes.  Even 'predictive' laws like conspiracy or intent are based around actual facts.  And the simple fact is that we apply value to human life based on the concept of preserving existing cogniscence; something a foetus does not have.

And the analogy is not correct either. In 90% (if not more) cases the baby will be born just fine. And I wouldn't call the baby brain-dead either. It has a brain (alltough a very small one, it does function).

No, it doesn't have a functioning brain at these stages of development (where non-life/health saving abortion is legalised).  That's the whole point.

Mah..this discussion is nothing more than a waste of my time.

Why?  Do you not have the willingness to argue your convictions?

[Goober5000]

Why is non-reproductive sex considered bad, again?

Setting aside the fact that sex and reproduction are intrinsically linked, at no time is sex considered "bad" within the context of marriage:

1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

The reason why it is accurate to blame christians is that it was brought to america by christians in the late 1800s as a "cure to masturbation" (they KNEW it reduced sexual pleasure) - specifically Dr Kellogg (as in frosted flakes).  It was then carried on with junk science that I still faith to fathom how it doesn't get laughed out of peer reviewed journals in the US to this day (And does get laughed out elsewhere).

The practice was restarted by christians to deprive boys of sexual pleasure.  It serves no other purpose.

Whether or not it was Christians doing it, it was a means of control, not a Christian principle:

Galatians 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

[Kazan]

Whether or not it was Christians doing it, it was a means of control, not a Christian principle:

Galatians 5:2
Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.

wee a christian who actually knows what the bible say about the subject! Go Goober

sadly, christians have been ignoring that for a long time - i often here of people doing it "for religious reasons" in denomiations that follow the new testament anti-circ, just the pasters never talk about it

like my parents denomination (ELCA Lutheran)

[aldo_14]

Why is non-reproductive sex considered bad, again?

Setting aside the fact that sex and reproduction are intrinsically linked, at no time is sex considered "bad" within the context of marriage:

1 Corinthians 7:3-5
The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

And non-marital sex?

(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)

[Janos]

And non-marital sex?

(note; sex and bonding are also intrinsically linked, too, as strongly as sex and reproduction are)

Propably stronger, because there has to be some reason why human females have hidden ovulation and why getting human females pregnant can be quite difficult. Unless it's a 17-year old Catholic chick, then you just have to cum in her general direction and voila

[Nuclear1]

like my parents denomination (ELCA Lutheran)

Must be just an ELCA thing then. I'm LCMS Lutheran and I don't believe many people in my congregation were circumsized even just for tradition.