Quote:
Quote:
I have no doubt that the religious right, if they had their way, would leave us with abstinence as the sole defense.
This is not my position. I believe in forms of birth control other than abstinence and don't believe that they should be relegated to only married people. People should make their own decisions about sex and protection.

I remember other posts, I think, where it was clear this is not your position, and you have taken a great deal of care to outline the exceptions you take to the positions of other Christians that I would lump (in a somewhat uninformed way) into the "religious right". That being said, you pretty clearly told us that, electorally speaking, you are pretty much aligned with the folks I call by that name. Same omnipotent god, right?

While this last question may verge on mockery, it is a serious question in my mind. If a large group of people are worshiping a "one, true deity", how is it that the omnipotent deity does such a crummy job of communicating what the rules are? Maybe God needs to stay more on message. Hire Ari Fleischer.

It's not like this is the exclusive dilemma of right-ish Christians in the US. Think of the many Catholic gays working to have Rome accept them whilst being condemned by those they'd like to bond with. Hasn't God heard of the franchise model? Spin-offs? Targeted marketing?


Quote:
Quote:
long after Jeff's god has joined Zeus in the Religion Hall of Fame.
We'll see . . .


I don't mean to predict that this is going to happen any time soon. We'll both be dead and some N of us (point estimate=1, 99% confidence interval: 0-2) will be in heaven before that happens. Christianity, in its uniquely American form, certainly has a grip here in the US, tho' we'll see how that holds out as our country declines. And Catholicism, while diminishing in Europe, certainly has a lot of legs around the world. When we tune in from heaven, though, I'm guessing that we may find that the divine belief system with the longest legs will be Islam. Now, they may all worship the same Allah, and I wouldn't be too concerned, but I'm afraid that the mullahs that prevail could be the ones who want to take away and burn all the electric guitars.

I wonder if Allah knows he has a communication problem.

All this being said, I think if you take the long view, Allah's warm-up jacket will wind up in that display case, too. People will stand there and ask: "Allah, how could you have ever left the Red Sox?"

Quote:
Quote:
In the meantime, his followers/inventors see fit to preside over the lives of others...women...make those lives more difficult and potentially more dangerous, history and individual freedom be damned.
Regarding your accusation, I am not cavalier about anyone's individual freedom- unfortunately it seems that there are two freedoms to protect- that of the child and that of the woman.

I absolutely agree that making abortion illegal and then feeling the work is done is wrong. The women we're talking about need help and protection- that is our collective responsibility.
And if you mean to imply that there are no Christians helping these women then you are mistaken.

Not for a moment would I imply that. Thanks to various TV news magazines it is clear to me that there are more than a few people of faith who are doing extraordinary things. Idealistic belching aside, I am no secular saint. Call me self-absorbed. When am I going to take a developmentally disabled FAS baby from Mississipi (or elsewhere) into my home? Not soon. Maybe when I hit Lotto and can employ a pair of au pairs. So I *do* look to those of you who profess your collective responsibilty to the unborn to continue to carry more than your share of this burden. I admire your willingness to sacrifice for this principle.

Quote:
There are plenty, it's just that unfortunately, like most of society's needs, the need is overwhelming and these organization's efforts fall short. But sacrificing the freedom and life of the child is not a good way to meet those needs.


You know, of course, that some folks don't accept your basic assumptions re "life of the child".

Quote:
You claim that women's lives will be more dangerous if abortion is outlawed and I think you're right. Would unborn children's lives be less dangerous? I think so, though certainly some would still die.

What is almost ironic is that I think, thankfully, that you have been outflanked by (shudder) science. Now some folks in Kansas might not want to admit it, but it has been shown that a certain chemical compound, RU486, has been shown to be an effective, easy to employ abortifacient. I mean, the DEA hasn't done much to limit the flow of cocaine, so why should I think that the FDA will fare any better in limiting the flow of this compact, non-habit-forming drug across our borders. And I am really hoping that these smugglers succeed in Mississippi, as I see that event as much preferable to the prospect of deaths from amateur abortions that you, on balance, seem willing to accept.

Quote:
And how would this play out if we were talking about 2 week old babies? Would that change things? If legalizing the killing of 2 week old babies made it safer for women who did it, would we consider allowing it?

This, I would like to think, in our current society, is a false dichotomy. I'd never contemplate this, nor would I want to. It is worth noting that there have been cultures/societies that have practiced infanticide (to survive, it is said). Not sure if this still goes on, but I know this has been the case with some tribes in my lifetime. Well, for better, I think, we did not put the 82nd on alert and invade those folks and kill all of them to prevent them from practicing infanticide. Maybe we had gentle encounters with those societies and nudged a little bit and said "Hey, there's a better way....let's increase your crop yield. Oh, and girls are just as cool as boys".

All of that aside, I think that your positions are based on an artificially bounded conception of life. If, in the broader historical context of women, pregancy and women's right to self-determination, you are willing to argue that women shouldn't be free to employ an early-stage abortifacient like RU486, then all I can conclude is that your "life" definition is simply something based in mysticism, based on a particular deity franchise. You know how much weight that carries with me.
_________________________
Jim


'Tis the exceptional fellow who lies awake at night thinking of his successes.