home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12873 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11346 alt.politics.clinton:19511 alt.politics.bush:15413 alt.politics.homosexuality:8853
- Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
- Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!kellmeye
- From: kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l)
- Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
- Message-ID: <C0B0H5.F5B@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
- Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
- References: <C07oBz.F74@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan2.230323.29355@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <C09Esx.9B7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1993Jan3.042053.1061@news.columbia.edu>
- Distribution: usa
- Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:38:51 GMT
- Lines: 65
-
- rj24@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Robert Johnston) writes:
-
- >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:
- >>>>
- >>>>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.
-
- Really? Then you must be opposed to state funding of abortions, since
- it is certainly better not to force "you and me to pay" for it.
-
- >>>
- >>>>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.
-
- Just between you and me, I haven't found many people who are consistent
- in their beliefs.
-
- Steve Kellmeyer
- --
-
- Steve Kellmeyer
- kellmeye@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
-