G'day,

Just a 'little' response to previous postings.

flattop: you are of course correct - my mistake, a rush of blood - I shouldn't have used a
non-verifiable statement to link the Romans and the Dark Ages. Lets synchronise calendars &
references - the Dark Ages: The early part of the Middle Ages from the fall of the Roman
Empire in A.D. 476 until the coronation of Charlemagne in A.D. 800 - this from Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Naemansor: regarding abstinence or celibacy; I was not advocating either, because that which
is not expressed naturally is often distorted or perverted and expressed unnaturally.
Although I don't think there is any harm in self-abnegation for limited periods such as Lent
or Ramadhan. Also I was observing (in an unexpanded statement) that sexual urges are not a
matter of life or death for the person who has them - I'm pretty sure that if you are
suffering the effects of a famine or deprived of sleep, then the last thing on your mind is
sex. Apologies for any confusion.

Thomas the Rhymer: You are completely correct my piece was badly researched and that's only
because I didn't do any research on it; I was presenting an anti-abortion position and it is
difficult to do any research because unlike, say, the experts in poverty who are the poor,
the experts in the anti-abortion 'field', unfortunately, are the victims and cannot give us
their informed option. I suppose sensors could be attached to the foetus to see if any
readings are obtained as he/she is 'removed' from the womb - perhaps nothing would 'show-up'
or perhaps an electronic 'scream' would be evident?

Scientific investigation is limited to that which may be measured - to physical systems,
providing the system can be counted, sized, weighed or timed. And of course the mind which
computes these measurements cannot measure itself as it is apparently non-physical and
therefore immeasurable. The mind has only one means by which to gauge reality and that means
is by conscious experience e.g. beholding the beautiful in sound, form, or concept, our
feeling of delight at the laughter of a child, our experience of indignation over an
injustice is of course immeasurable. An experience in consciousness may be triggered by
sense impressions, but it is in the nature of a total response of the psyche to a situation,
and is something quite different and infinitely more significant than a mere intellectual response.
I have never been to a Sunday school so I do not know what they propagate - and here is me
thinking my piece was coming from a different angle - such ignorance.
I don't understand your link with fascism unless it is the fasces carried before magistrates
of ancient Rome as a emblem of authority? My political views are not fascist, I do not
belong to a political party and I am not a member of or speak for any anti-abortion
organisation; I do not belong to any church; like most folk I am conservative on some issues
and liberal on other issues - an aside: is the pro-abortion view now conservative? If not
when does it become so?

Back to fascism: the modern term seems to mean those who like to dress in military uniforms
and jump to the orders of a Colonel/General leader - who is extremely nationalistic - and
who has no compunction in eliminating opposition in a lethal way. I don't know for sure, but
for a fascist I would imagine it would be a small step from voluntary abortion to
involuntary abortion. The preservation of life is not top of a fascist agenda methinks.

I remember from another thread a contributor mentioned St. Augustine and the belief that
women didn't have a soul. I came across this the other day and of course it is a theory, but
it seems to state the same thing in a different way. Its not completely off-topic, but
please don't read it if you think you will be offended; you can of course dismiss it as the
ravings of a madman - I found possibilites in it interesting.

F. Peters writing about a meeting G. held in Paris.

"G. brought up once again the question of men and women, their roles in life, and, as an
additional element, the specific roles of the sexes in his work or, for that matter, in any
religious or psychological work which had self-development and proper growth as an aim. I
was surprised and puzzled then, and many times later when he spoke on the subject, by
reiteration of the fact that not only was his work "not for everyone" but that "women did
not need it." He said that the nature of women was such that "self development" in his sense
of the phrase was something that they could not achieve. Among other things, he said:
"Nature of woman is very different from that of man. Woman is from ground, and only hope for
her to arise to another stage of development - to go to Heaven as you say - is with man.
Woman already know everything, but such knowledge is of no use to her, in fact can almost be
like poison to her, unless have man with her. Man have one thing that not exist in woman
ever: what you call 'aspiration'. In life, man use this thing- this aspiration - for many
things, all wrong for his life, but must use because have such need. Man - not woman - climb
mountains, go under oceans, fly in air, because must do such thing. Impossible for him not
to do; cannot resist this. Look at life around you: Man write music, man paint pictures,
write books, all such things. Is way, he think, find Heaven for self."
When someone did object that the sciences and the arts were not, after all, exclusively
confined to the world of the male, G. laughed: "You ask question about woman artist, woman
scientist. I tell you world all mixed up, and true thing I say. True man and true woman not
just one sex - not just male or female. True human is combination of these thing: active and passive, male and female.
In this solar system, people bi-sexual: necessary have two sexes for reproduction of kind -
primitive method, which use part of man's aspiration for creation of more people. Man who
can learn how to achieve higher self - how go to proper Heaven - can use all this aspiration
for development of self, for what you call immortality. In world as now exist, no man able
do this: only possibility for immortality is reproduction. When man have children, then all
of him not die when his body die.
"Not necessary for woman do work of man in world. If woman can find real man, then woman
become real woman without necessity work. But, like I tell, world mixed up. Today in world
real man not exist, so woman even try to become man, do man's work which is wrong for her nature."

Thank goodness that the wisdom of all your mothers appears to be very sound otherwise this
forum would be rather empty.

I apologise if I have offended you in anyway - may your beliefs go with you.

Bcnu,
Colwyn