response 186 of 216:

Oct 24 04:31 UTC 2000

Re #185: I was under the impression that it had been, but I cannot
say for certain.

response 188 of 216:

Oct 30 12:55 UTC 2000

It takes two to tango, as they say.  And both should be held accountable. 
It is just as immoral for a man to father a child and walk away as it is for
a woman to have an abortion.  But still, two wrongs don't make a right.  Thats
why we don't want people to have sex until after they are married.  It shows
a commitment by both participants to themselves and the future.  It gives us
some hope that these two are mature enough to raise progeny as they come
along.

Yes, I think you should keep your pants on until after you are married, I
don't think it happens to often, but at least it might make you keep them on
until after you are engaged!

response 190 of 216:

Oct 30 16:20 UTC 2000

Re #188:
    I thought that both *were* held accountable.

response 192 of 216:

Oct 31 08:12 UTC 2000

I'd like to see values as well as sex technology taught at the age when
the question comes up (like 7th grade?).  Teach the potential women who
are at least over half a decade from autonomy in our society whatsup -
just what the deal is and how to say no (to the horny little shits like
I was at that same age).  "If you love me you'll do it" is right up
there with "No, I won't cum in your mouth", and "If it hurts I'll pull
it right back out" and "Its totally Windows Compatible", and "The check
is in the mail".  I'd like to see mandatory 'parental notification' - if
the situation blows up because the parents weren't doing what they
should have been doing in the first place, this is one area where I
think the 'State' indeed has an interest, and I'm not gonna bother to
explain that one 'cause if you don't see it, you won't.  I'd like to see
adoption be seriously offered as an alternative to abortion.  There are
childless couples out there who spend hundreds of thousands of dollars 
of their own and taxpayer money trying to have children of their own
which for whatever reason are incompatible genetically that would jump
at a chance to love and cherish a child even if its not genetically
related.

I'd like to see a nation where abortion is truely the last resort
instead of where such is regarded much like taking a shit.

It seems to me a truely moral person has to regard abortion the same as
capital punishment and the right to bear arms and be equally leary of
and support the unpleasant necessity of all.

response 194 of 216:

Oct 31 15:05 UTC 2000

I'm not sure I'm opposed to parental notification (I see both sides of that
argument), but I'm definitely opposed to parental consent.

I don't think we live in a nation where abortion is "regarded much like taking
a shit." I agree it's not taken seriously enough by some people, but I don't
think that's a fair characterization.

I also fail to see the moral relevance of either capital puishment or the
right to bear arms. The latter is NOT a moral imperative, it's the result of
law (the Second Amendment), while the former is the result of the needs of
a civil society (and hence the product of social morality), while abortion
is the result of the needs of the individual (and hence the product of
individual morality).

response 196 of 216:

Oct 31 18:12 UTC 2000

Fancy that. The institution of marriage, the centerpiece of the gay rights
battle, is all about "passing along the genes." OT prohibitions on adultery
and fornication are all about "passing along the genes." It's part of our
cultural psyche, and it's hardly new.

response 198 of 216:

Oct 31 19:26 UTC 2000

(My point being, capital punishment would not exist without society, but
abortion could.)

response 200 of 216:

Oct 31 20:32 UTC 2000

Well, if you have two people, and one kills the other, then who's going to
punish the first one? =}

Capital punishment requires a group of at least four people to make any sense.
with three, it's still fairly silly (Joe kills Mary, then Sally kills Joe,
and now Sally's alone, with her act looking as much like revenge as
remediation; the defense of capital punishment is that it prevents other
murders by bringing about the fear of such retaliation, otherwise, it's just
revenge). Actually, five. (Under 4: Joe kills Mary. Sally kills Joe to warn
Steve of what happens when you kill. Steve doesn't care, and kills Sally, and
now there's nobody to punish him.)

Abortion requires one person. There was a tragic holocaust, and now there's
only one woman left in the world. She finds a sperm bank. In a sadomasochistic
drama, she impregnates herself and then aborts, repeatedly. No society needed.
(Brighn spent too much time watching Twilight Zone and Night Gallery as a
kid.)

response 202 of 216:

Nov 1 15:17 UTC 2000

The father is not required (Reread 200) -- only somebody to have donated sperm
at some time in the past, and not necessarily to the woman in question. A
fetus is not a child. A doctor is not required, either for the artificial
insemination or the abortion.

response 204 of 216:

Nov 2 04:52 UTC 2000

...a fetus.

response 206 of 216:

Nov 2 18:38 UTC 2000

And if you can get all those anti-abortion folks to agree to that, all 
the disagreement will go away.