From: kellyj@leland.Stanford.EDU (Kelly Johnson)
Subject: Re: Christianity cares about lives--other religions = hypocrites!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:55:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.195017.1@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu> cvafy006@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu (Daniel Rouse, Jr.) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.173939.18362@rotag.mi.org>, kevin@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>> In article <93023.075047KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>>In article <#jl3d9a@rpi.edu>, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) says:
>>>
>>>>>No, that's what you're inferring.  Big difference.  What I'm -clearly-
>>>>>saying is that it's not OK to side-step consequences of an act by taking
>>>>>an innocent life.
>> 
>> Abortion IS a possible consequence of an unwanted conception. Why do you 
>> consider it a "side-step"?
>> 
>>>>But it's ok to deal with the consequences of a rapist's act by taking
>>>>an innocent life?
>>>
>>>In my opinion, yes, since it wasn't any deliberate act of the woman to cause
>>>the situation.  
>> 
>> In the normal case of an accidental pregnancy, however, while the sex act may
>> be "deliberate", the INTENTION of the sex act was not to conceive a child.
>> Normally, in our systems of law and morality, the only time deliberateness
>> becomes an issue is when the intention of the deliberate act is to cause the
>> proscribed result. If a hunter were to accidentally shoot another hunter in 
>> the woods, thinking that the movement in the bushes was a deer, then the 
>> issue of deliberateness does not come into play (although the issue of
>> recklessness would). On the other hand, in the case of a woman shooting
>> her unfaithful husband, i.e. _intentionally_ killing him, the issue of 
>> deliberateness DOES come into play -- it would be the difference between
>> voluntary manslaughter (a so-called "crime of passion") or murder.
>> 
>> 								- Kevin
>
>	Oh, I see.  Let's not follow the Christian guidelines becuase it might
>actually have some morality to it!!!  If you have sexual intercourse, it should
>be to conceive a child.  The fact that sex is used for pleasure is sin--it
>should never be used for self-gratification!
>
>	Oh, but I forgot--we don't follow Christian doctrine and morality. 
>Guess that shows that Christians ARE the better people because of their value
>of life--rather than selfish, gratification-seeking hypocrites!
>-- 
>Signed,
>
>Daniel Rouse, Jr.

Pretty stong words there my boy!  As a Christian here with a strong belief
in the Bible as the definitive answer (even if we can't interpret it properly)
I have got to disagree on your limits on sex.  What is wrong if your
intent of sex is to give pleasure to your mate.  That is surely NOT 
"self-gratification".  I am very strongly opposed to abortion, pre-marrital
and extra-marrital, but you really need to come up with some better arguments.
I think a little tact might be nice to use as well.  You can point out someones
error without having to demean them or sound too pious.  It's in the 
delivery.

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.sex