Originally posted by generalissimoWe are tolerant? Good. Are you in favour of a woman's right to choose, and to have control over her own body and fertility? Or are you with the darkest, most traditional, most male oriented factions of the Catholic Church?
Aren't we already very tolerant about sex?
Isn't everyone?
Originally posted by FMFIm tolerant about sex (I don't care about what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms), however, that doesn't mean you should let people go around practising infanticide.
We are tolerant? Good. Are you in favour of a woman's right to choose, and to have control over her own body and fertility? Or are you with the darkest, most traditional, most male oriented factions of the Catholic Church?
Or are you with the darkest, most traditional, most male oriented factions of the Catholic Church?
easy-labeling again? King of hypocrisy.
Originally posted by FMFIt's a bit of a stretch to say that abortion is about sex and sexual freedom.
We are tolerant? Good. Are you in favour of a woman's right to choose, and to have control over her own body and fertility? Or are you with the darkest, most traditional, most male oriented factions of the Catholic Church?
Abortion is about whether the fetus has human rights that outweigh the mother's right to privacy. It's not about whether a woman has the right to have sex in the first place. As long as you're careful, it's not that difficult to have sex and avoid pregnancy.
Originally posted by sh76And outweigh the interest of society in allowing abortions.
It's a bit of a stretch to say that abortion is about sex and sexual freedom.
Abortion is about whether the fetus has human rights that outweigh the mother's right to privacy. It's not about whether a woman has the right to have sex in the first place. As long as you're careful, it's not that difficult to have sex and avoid pregnancy.
And it's not about privacy. It's about liberty.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhere the crusades a "terrible mistake"?
Suppose that Osama Bin Laden could be located and we knew he was hatching terrible plans that would lead to the mass murder of thousands of babies.
Would it be a "terrible mistake" for a genuine Christian to shoot him and prevent these murders?
Originally posted by FMFThe sex, and the consequences of it are entirely separate.
We are tolerant? Good. Are you in favour of a woman's right to choose, and to have control over her own body and fertility? Or are you with the darkest, most traditional, most male oriented factions of the Catholic Church?
Yes a woman has control of her body, and fertility. She may refuse to have sex, and she may use contraception without the knowledge or consent of her male partner.
If both consent to sex, without contraception, there is a fairly high likelihood of pregnancy, so both have consented to that outcome and it's consequences. How do you argue that only the female has any decision thereafter? Who will likely be sought out for child support? Described as a deadbeat? Or if he want to support and raise the child as a religious fanatic?
Somehow, you manage to absolve the female of all responsibility and consequences of her decision. You say, it's her body? She knew that was her role before she had sex.
In March 1993, three months into the administration of the US' first pro-choice president, Bill Clinton, abortion provider Dr. David Gunn was murdered in Pensacola, Florida. That was the beginning of what would become a five-fold increase in violence against abortion providers throughout the Clinton years.
The murder of Dr. George Tiller comes 5 months into the term of the US' second pro-choice president.
During the Bush administration, from 2000-2008 there were no murders of abortion providers.
During the Clinton era, between 1994-2000 there were 6 abortion providers and clinic staff murdered, and 17 attempted murders of abortion providers. There were 12 bombings or arsons during the Clinton years.
During the Bush administration, not only were there no murders, there were no attempted murders. There was one clinic bombing during the Bush years.
What can one conclude from this?
My conclusion is that the murders during the Clinton years, and now beginning during the Obama years, are not anomalous, aberrant acts by random, crazed individuals. They are a politically motivated and encouraged response to being on the losing end of the abortion power struggle.
The killers are similar to terrorist sleeper cells and have been set in motion by design. The evidence is already there. The chatter, the threats, the hate-filled rhetoric are abundant.
In the last year of the Bush administration there were 396 harassing calls to abortion clinics. In just the first four months of the Obama administration that number has jumped to 1401.
The killing is directed by religious groups, who dominate the anti-abortion position in the US.
Religious groups have always been a problem, regardless of which part of the world or which religion one wishes to discuss.
However much good religions may be said to have initiated, there is far more violent harm than good caused by fervent religious groups.
Originally posted by whodeyI'd say John Brown was morally justified in using physical force to try to end slavery.
It reminds me of a man by the name of John Brown who was an abolitionist. After all, he opposed slavery just like yourself, except for the samll detail of him murdering slave owners. Now if these slave owners had killed theri slaves, which they were known to do from time to time, would you have baked the actions of John Brown?
I'd say any slave who killed his master was morally justified.
So are you saying Scott Roeder was morally justified in killing Dr, Tiller?
Originally posted by normbenignIf only women would accept "their role", huh?
The sex, and the consequences of it are entirely separate.
Yes a woman has control of her body, and fertility. She may refuse to have sex, and she may use contraception without the knowledge or consent of her male partner.
If both consent to sex, without contraception, there is a fairly high likelihood of pregnancy, so both have consented to that o nces of her decision. You say, it's her body? She knew that was her role before she had sex.