From: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Date: 3 Jan 93 04:20:53 GMT
Reply-To: rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert  Johnston)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Columbia University

In article <C09Esx.9B7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> graham@venus.iucf.indiana.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.230323.29355@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, lfoard@Turing.ORG (Lawrence C. Foard) writes...
>>In article <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>>ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>>
>>>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
>>>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
>>>right to divorce their parents.  
>> 
>>I totally agree with her, children are not slaves or property, parents are
>>there to provide for and protect children. 
>
>And hopefully to teach them their values.
>

Even more hopefully, to teach their children to think, so that their 
children can make informed decisions about their own values.

>> 
>>>Or if the "child" no longer exists, legally, because that
>>>child has been ruled an adult by the courts?
>>>
>>>Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning? 
>> 
>>Because it produces genetic diseases. 
>
>Promiscuity propogates all kinds of diseases, many of them fatal.
>
>What's your point?
>

You have conveniently trimmed the bit where the previous author said
he would have no problem with incest, if not for the purpose of
child bearing.

>> 
>> 
>>>If a woman can decide
>>>to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her decision
>>>to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons, and
>>>there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out 
>>>of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic 
>>>future.
>> 
>>Strange I thought men chose to have sex?
>
>So do women who choose abortion, even if the father decides that he
>_wants_ the child.
>
>And suppose the man is unwilling to be a father?  Why must he be legally
>bound to provide for a child he doesn't want, when the mother is perfectly
>free to decide to have a child that he doesn't want, when she can
>decide to terminate the life of a child he may decide that he wants?
>
>Understand his point now?
>

Either the father, or tax dollars, will provide for the child.
Though it may not be fair to always force the fater to pay support,
where possible, this is certainly better than forcing you and me to pay 
child support.



>> 
>>>Especially now that the AZT-resistant strains are obviously being spread
>>>by precisely these people?  According to secular reasoning, a drunk driver
>>>and a sexually active AIDS carrier are no different.  
>> 
>>No according to religious reasoning they are no different.
>>In secular reasoning the idea of consent plays a role. An HIV+ rapist is a
>>murderer if someone dies as a result. A person who chooses to have sex with
>>someone who is HIV+ and dies as a result was not murdered.
>
>But, if an HIV+ partner deliberately lies or fails to inform even a willing
>sex partner that he or she is infected, and the uninformed, albeit willing
>partner contracts aids and dies, then yes, it most certainly should be
>at least "manslaughter".
>
				   
So, you are saying that if you have sex with someone, you are
resposible for conditions that might result from this act. I guess
you DO believe in child support after all.

You wouldn't ever be inconsistent in your beliefs, after all.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality