BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 08:06 PM

Thanks gents.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: jaze
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 08:25 PM

Martin, you bring up a point that has always puzzled me about people who are against abortion. "except in the case of rape". Is the baby concieved during rape not entitled to live? Why not? It wasn't the baby's fault how it was concieved. Why make an exception for the manner of conception?

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 08:48 PM

jaze, I don't know if you are male or female- but as a female myself, I should think that carrying a pregnancy to term that was a product of possibly the most terrorizing event of one's life could be a tad difficult.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: jaze
Date: 07 Feb 05 - 09:11 PM

I'm male. And I understand what you're saying completely. What I'm questioning is the concept that is 's only "ok" if the circumstances of conception are undesireable. Personally I don't think abortion is a good thing. Who does? But, and this is a BIG but, I really don't think the GOVERNMENT should tell women what they can do with their bodies. I beleive the woman should be able to decide for herself. To me, there's a hypocrisy in saying it's "ok" if we don't like the manner of conception. If oppositon to abortion is about the baby's right to live, what about "that" baby? Do you understand what I mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Jim Tailor
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:04 AM

The assertion isn't that the government should be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body. The question is whether a woman has the right to choose what to do with the child's body that is in her.

In the case of rape or any other non-consentual conception, the dynamics change. I am absolutely PRO-CHOICE -- a woman should NEVER have to have sex if she doesn't want it -- it is HER CHOICE.   And, as if personal rights were not enough to determine that -- it is ALSO because there is (yes, even still) great risk to life and property involved in the producing of a child -- which is the undeniable possiblity with sexual intercourse.

So a baby that is the product of rape is not the product of the woman's choice to have sex -- therefore she should have a broader range, morally, as to what to do about it. That doesn't mean that she HAS to percieve the baby as an "invader" and terminate it -- she might be able to overcome the awful circumstances and love the child as an individual -- but legally and morally she should not be obligated.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:51 AM

Jim--

Re: your 6 Feb 2005 6:12 PM post regarding the wonders of Bush's Social Security "reform" as seen in similar programs overseas

You might want to check the Wall St Journal (that leftist rag) article 3 Feb 2005 on the supposed international success of similar plans.   The Journal article points out the serious problems experienced, including in Chile, the supposed poster child for the idea.
The Journal article also notes that Chile started its program at the start of a long stock boom. Tell me that's the case now in the US, with stocks near a 3 year peak and p/e 's high.

Sounds like I should resurrect the Social Security "Reform"? thread again.

But it's good to have your posts--we haven't had an articulate spokesman for any of Bush's program since the dear dead days of Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: CStrong
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 07:52 AM

Well put, Jim--but it does make one question what is meant by "absolutely."

It appears we must accept either 1)that abortion is absolutely wrong or 2)that there are conditions--"dynamics"--that render it morally permissible. Not both.

The same dichotomy exists with the death penalty, doesn't it? If we filter the issue through some kind of "justifiability," we are in essence deciding who deserves to die and who doesn't.

I'm pro-choice and anti-death penalty, but uncomfortable sometimes with both. And my shaky positions are just as antithetical as the right-wingers'are.

I'm not into God, or moral absolutes. My view is that a if a civilization claims that right to decide, it must exercise it very carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: Pied Piper
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 08:16 AM

The usual and totally predictable response from Martin, yawn.

What was it Jesus said?

Ah yes.

"Don't cast your pearls before Swine"

Subject: RE: BS: Christians -- Moral vs 'Moral'
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Feb 05 - 01:55 PM

Jaze is correct in my opinion.
A baby born through rape has as much right to life as any other,but it must always be the choice of the mother whether to carry or not.