If people want to have sexual intercourse without the intent to accept the "consequence" (for the lack of a better word, which is really a shame), God has given them the menu to choose from if they decide to not accept, and it don't look pretty. Whether it's legal or not is not really the issue. The two people must choose from the menu God gives them, and yes, this is where I agree with Joan, the man and the woman must choose - neither gets out of it. Deep in the heart, there will be suffering. It's just how it all works out. And yeah, to go with Chris's flow here, no one has forced anyone's will on anyone else. From God's perspective, He's only limited the things a couple can choose from if they decide not to accept what happens when they "do it."

I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live. -Deuteronomy 30:19

Life and death...blessing and cursing.

God permits each one of us to CHOOSE, but when you read everything that the Book of Deuteronomy has to SAY about BLESSING and CURSING...you would have to be a total FOOL to choose "death and cursing"!

Peter is correct...it IS a simple choice.

I still believe that God created sex for the purpose of procreation, but ALSO (for those of us who will never bear any more children), for the joyous act of physical union that brings us together as one.

Peter...you may still have a lot of children to make...ME, on the other hand...I'm DONE!

(with kids, that is! )

The one thing that I wish teenagers would be taught is that while back-seat unmarried sex certainly provides an incredible (albeit brief) thrill, that is NOTHING in comparison to the experience of two married people who have learned to know each other's bodies from scalp to sole, and to understand exactly what every pushed button will accomplish!

WOOF!

And if ANYONE believes the above statement, check into a hospital. NOW!

Raisons is loverly!!

Mmmmmmm. Tastyfish.

Like a big lump of cheese. He he he he he.

Nope, I don't understand either.

*Scurries for cover*

I wanted to talk about sex some more.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Observer:
John, think about this:
When does life officially begin?
When the sperm smacks into the egg?
Indeed, in the later months when the baby has become fully formed and is aware enough to kick, but what abuot very early on, when it is a fertalized egg or a bundle of tissue? Can you prove that a ferterlized egg, or a fetus with a hardly yet formed brain capable of thought or awareness has the same level of awareness or intelligence as a child?

---

No, I can't.
BUT... if you don't know when it begins (I believe at conception) HOW can you say it's okay to kill a child? I mean, you don't know WHEN humanity begins, WHEN the supposed "change" occurs from irrelevant budle of tissue to baby, so how can you risk it?

quote:

---

Think about this: what if the mother doesn't have enough money to support the baby? Is it better for the baby to starve to death or be abandoned? In cases of rape, the woman sure isn't going to be able to find any financial support from the father.[/B]

---

Adoption is, as I said, the best option. Have the child, place him or her up for adoption, and let the family who so fervently wishes for a child have him or her and take care of him or her.

quote:

---

Besides, you'd think someone as merciful as God would simply transfer the soul to the womb of a better-off family. But then again, I'm just a tiny mortal. [/B]

---

God infuses the soul with the body at conception. After that, to remove it would be to kill sometone He had created, someone innocent.
If you follow that logic, though, why not remove the souls from the homeless, hopelessly ill, mentally disabled, etc.? Same reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
John, I respect your position and understand your feelings. I truly do.
However, as long as women pay a much higher price for sexuality and
irresponsibility, I’m content with the current laws. Should the Supreme
Court want to eliminate abortions by MY proposal and level the playing
field through equal consequences, I’d support a change in the law. Hmm, I can’t
help but laugh thinking about all the guys on the Supreme Court discussing
testicular removal via back alley techniques. YEEOUCH! I don’t think that will ever happen.

---

But, really, Mom, this is a matter of LIFE and DEATH. And I don't just want to illegalize abortion. I want it eliminated, completely. No back-alley abortions, no legal abortions, NO ABORTIONS, period. Surely you can understand that?
Also, the Supreme Court does not have the authority to make or break laws. They never had the right to legalize abortion, and that act was in itself illegal.

NP: Kundun, Glass

NP: Kundun, Glass

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Kinsinger:
I'm really bummed.
I wanted to talk about sex some more.

---

Okay. Which part?

I vote for Pringles Soun Cream 'N Onion potato chips, followed closely by Peanut Butter and Milk Chocolate chips.

Next post in about one minute. The post after that about three minutes later.

I'm glad I was late getting here. I was almost going to get myself drawn into the conversation.

There is NO dip powerful enough to make sour cream & onion chips bearable.

• In 1874, the first animal purchased for the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago was a bear cub, bought for $10.
  
• The Manhattan cocktail began at the Manhattan Club in New York City in 1874. Mixed specially for a party in honor of new governor Samuel J. Tilden, the drink was named for the club.
  
• The ice cream soda was invented in 1874, when Robert N. Green ran out of cream for drinks made with cream, flavored syrup and soda water. Green substituted ice cream, and the ice cream soda was born.
  
• Montgomery Ward was the first to advertise "Satisfaction guaranteed or your money back" in 1874 – two years after Aaron Montgomery Ward launched his first mail-order catalog.
  
• Since 1874 the mints of the United States have been making currency for foreign governments, whose combined orders have at times exceeded the volume of domestic requirements.
  
• Students from McGill University introduced the game of rugby, with its oblong ball, to their Harvard counterparts in 1874 who up to that time played only with a round ball. The Americans were so taken by the game they adopted it and it eventually evolved into the football now played throughout the country.
  
• Less is known about Millard Fillmore than any other U.S. president — after his death in 1874, his son buried all of his father’s private papers and letters.
  

I am deeply troubled.

I alone have provided enough insane material to keep this thread alive waaaaay beyond 3000 posts!

BRITONS WITH BALLS – part XV

Charles Darwin

Born 1809 Shrewsbury, England
Died 1882 Downe, Kent, England

English scientist who revolutionized biological thinking at the end of the nineteenth century. At the age of twenty-three he joined the naval survey ship Beagle as geologist and naturalist for a five-year voyage round the world. In South America he studied the plants, animals, and geology of Patagonia before travelling up the west coast to make a detailed study of the geology of the Andes, and developing a theory of their origin. His observations on coral islands led to his theory of reef formation. A mass of data and specimens of plants, animals, and fossils collected from islands such as the Galapagos strongly influenced his future thinking.

Darwin continually compared living animals with fossil finds, and also compared the differences in species which occurred from place to place. The ultimate result of his experiences, and of his practical knowledge of variation and breeding gained from his own garden plants and animals, was his now famous book, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (1859), usually referred to simply as Origin of Species. It set out to show that species are not fixed but evolve through natural selection. Some individuals have characteristics which better fit them for survival; they are more likely to reproduce and pass their characteristics on to their offspring. Over time distinct species develop.

Darwin argued that mankind has evolved in this way. Darwin's work was immediately influential in psychology when his cousin Galton, founder of eugenics, began to study the heritability of intelligence. Darwin's work gave grounds for belief in the continuity of human and animal evolution. The book caused great and lasting controversy, which was particularly heated on the question of human evolution. His other classic works include The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the action of Worms, with observations on their habits (1881) and a monograph on barnacles. Darwin's The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals (1872) points out parallels between human and animal body language and facial expression and remains influential in the study of emotion and non-verbal communication to this day.

Darwin died at Down House on April 19, 1882. Within hours the news reached London, and a Parliamentary petition won him burial in Westminster Abbey. By this time the theory of evolution through natural selection was generally accepted. His ideas were modified by later developments in genetics and molecular biology, but his work remains central to modern evolutionary theory.

You said – ”There is no greater "untold tragedy" than abortion…..opinions like yours are pure evil.”

To follow your warped reasoning to its logical conclusion, you must surely also believe that the ‘morning after’ pill is also murder….though in this case conception only may have taken place, so perhaps you’d describe this as manslaughter.

And what about other forms of contraception, John? Next you’ll be telling me that the condom is an ‘instrument of death’ because it prevents the possibility of conception.

But why stop there? To you, even the ‘rhythm’ method of contraception could possibly amount to murder, or would at the very least be a crime against humanity.

Ultimately, any form of prevention of pregnancy would be murder to you….and that makes so called ‘paragons of moral virtue’, such as yourself, the biggest murderers of the lot, because you and your kind are forever preaching that sexual liberty and sex outside of marriage is wrong. By doing so, you are preventing the chance of life for millions of hypothetical babies every day. If it was the case that sex was only took place within marriage, some of the greatest people of our times would never have existed, along with millions and millions of other ordinary bastard children.

Anyway, sex isn’t about having children. If a woman wants a child she can simply use a syringe to inject herself with her neighbour’s semen. Sex is about fulfilling mankind’s sensual desires. Regular sex is healthy and good for the constitution…..but without contraception and abortion, there would simply be too many babies being born. Look at the damage the Catholic church has done in developing countries by frowning upon the use of contraceptives. Not only have populations soared, but so has the incidence of HIV. Do you have any idea of the agony that the children of a famine-ridden area of Africa endure? If you did, I believe you would whole-heartedly accept the necessity for some form of contraception, and therefore would also realize the wisdom of allowing abortion.

Thanks to your sexual hang-ups and inability to accept the need for the rest of humanity to enjoy sexual freedom, you and your conservative and unenlightened kind are preventing the conception of millions of children every day. By your own definition, you are condoning mass murder.

You said – ”Most cultures who've self-proclaimed their sophistication have dropped these old ways for more "humane" discipline, although if we look at the mess our culture is in now, perhaps old ways are the best ways….God invented the sexual act for one thing: procreation.”

Your comments are both naïve and obtuse.

Do you have any idea how lucky we are to be living in this part of the world at this time in mankind’s history? Things have never been so good – government has never been more moderate, our culture has never been more enlightened, and society has never been more caring. And yet, even today, the vast majority of the people of the world don’t have access to fresh running water, don’t have access to basic medicines, don’t have access to basic education and are not protected by caring government – in other words, the majority of the population of planet Earth is disenfranchised.

Thankfully, wonderfully talented world leaders, such as Bill Clinton, continue to champion the further sophistication of society at an ever increasing rate.

Although Clinton has proved himself to be one of the most popular US presidents of recent times, I am the first to admit that he does have his detractors.

However, what I fail to comprehend is your apparent attitude that modern society is somehow in ‘moral decline’. The fact of the matter is, contemporary western societies have attained unprecedented levels of tolerance, broadmindedness, fairness and sophistication. For those of us who are lucky enough to live in the Western World of today, life has never been so easy, life has never been so fair, life has never been so affluent, life has never been so free, and life has never been so safe.

I say this having experienced WWII and the suffering and deprivation it caused. I say this as someone who was born in 1932, and grew up in an English society based on the iniquities of the class system. I say this as someone who often went to bed hungry and cold during the ‘30s and ‘40s, just like the majority of the working class British people – those were the ‘scrag-end’ and ‘beef dripping’ days – I used to queue up for hours for my mom at the local butcher, just for a bit of dripping or a scrag-end of lamb. This is to say nothing of the bombs that were falling around us in London, killing and maiming friends, neighbours and family.

Don’t kid yourself that life was better in those days. Right up to the early ‘60s life was far tougher than it is today. My time working as a garbage collector in 1950s Grimsby now seems like another lifetime, it’s almost as if I dreamt it. Back then, people were fighting to feed themselves. People weren’t as nice and polite as they are today, the courtesies that we take for granted today were alien to most of the British people forty years ago. Yes, people did pull together during wartime, as any nation of proud citizens would when its coasts and borders were threatened by an army of Nazi invaders. But after the war, the euphoria of victory evaporated as swiftly as the morning mist, even Winston Churchill was ousted from power with unholy haste, because people then had to endure the hardships of the post-war austerity measures (rationing) that was even harsher than during wartime itself. These austerity measures lasted well into the 1950s, people couldn’t eat properly and they couldn’t heat their homes adequately. It was during this period that Britain was virtually bankrupted, the British Empire began to crumble, and Britain’s infrastructure became fragmented and fractured. Not only that, the harsh winter of ’47 that saw snowdrifts piled up to the rooftops led to further deaths and suffering on a large scale. But, worst of all, as with the Great War, Britain had lost the cream of its manhood in the skies and on the battlefields of Europe during WWII.

Yes, ‘50s Grimsby was a tough place to live, as was anywhere in the British Isles. Crime was rife, far higher than it is today, people were too busy trying to feed and clothe themselves to engage in the niceties that we extend to our friends, neighbours and acquaintances today. Bar-room brawls, broken bottle attacks, and drug-use were common occurrences. Along with the saloon, cinema offered an escape from the drudgery of everyday life.

Many people talk of returning to ‘Victorian Values’ – that set of moral principles that came about during Queen Victoria’s reign from 1837 through 1901. What a frightening prospect that would be! Back then things were even worse for the majority of the people than it was during the ‘30s, ‘40s, and ‘50s. During Victorian times, only a tiny minority of people lived in luxury, you know, like you see in all those Hollywood movies, such as DR JEKYLL AND MR HYDE and PRIDE AND PREJUDICE, whilst the majority lived in squalor, as you see in many of the Dickensian filmizations. And it was the same in America.

Peter, you talk about a moral decline today, well, that’s absolute nonsense. Just one hundred years ago child prostitution was legal, women were denied the vote, people were locked up for engaging in homosexual activity, brothels and opium dens littered the alleyways of London, Bristol and Liverpool, and children as young as five were made to work 12-hour days down the pit.

Peter, you are under the illusion that today’s society is in a moral decline. You see, the fact is, today’s press has far greater freedom than it has ever done, government is far more moderate and is far more open about its actions and policies than ever, and society as a whole is now far more broadminded and tolerant than it has ever been. Therefore, we actually get to hear about the bad things that go on in government and in society as a whole. Yes, there is still much to be done to improve the lot of mankind, but we are very much moving in the right direction.

You see, up until recent years, society was far more prudish and blinkered, people used to find sex and sexual matters embarrassing to talk about, people used to be sexually ‘hung-up’. Because of this, people and society used to brush embarrassing sexual matters under the carpet, they used to turn a blind eye, they used to pretend that the people in their street were all honest God-fearing citizens. However, behind this façade of ‘decency’, child abuse, drug abuse, pimping and other heinous crimes were able to flourish – because they didn’t really exist in the eyes of blinkered society. Thankfully, the cultural revolution during the ‘60s exploded most of society’s childish inhibitions about sex and social behaviour.

You are not alone Peter in seeing past times through rose-tinted spectacles. By past times I mean society as it was 20 years ago, 30, 40, 50, 60, or 100 years ago. For instance, only recently the British tabloid press was full of headlines like ‘Shameful Britain’ and ‘the sorry state of Britain’, as they referred to the huge number of reported incidences of child abuse in Britain’s care homes. The papers talked of Britain’s moral decline just as you Peter talk of a moral decline in contemporary society. They talked about the cases of child abuse as being another example of the moral decline of western civilization.

Such talk is nonsense. Child abuse has been going on in our care homes and amongst our families for all time, it’s not a modern phenomena – it’s just that today’s modern, broadminded and sophisticated society has the courage to face up to reality and accept that paedophiles do live in our streets and paedophiles do work in our carehomes. And because of this, society is now more able to act against paedophiles, and children feel more able to report incidences of abuse they may suffer at home or at school without fear of establishment cover-up or reprisal. You see, many of these recently exposed cases of child abuse in British carehomes spanned decades and can be traced back to the ‘50s, but up until now were covered-up by the establishment. It says something about the sophistication of our modern and enlightened society and establishment that we are finally facing up to and exposing such vile practices.

The same is true with all crimes, be it drug abuse, assault, rape, bullying or whatever. Today’s broadminded society accepts these things exist and therefore can fight such ‘evils’. Education is the key. I’m afraid the days of the innocent child are over. Children must be taught about sex, and children (under 16s) must have access to contraceptives free of charge, and they must be taught about the dangers of drugs – it’s for their own good. Wrapping up our children in cotton wool has failed in the past, it has merely made the child more vulnerable to the attentions of paedophiles, drug-pushers and pimps, and not only that, sex education from a very early age will teach our children how to use contraceptives properly to prevent unwanted pregnancies and venereal disease.

Additionally, today’s politicians, including Bill Clinton, are paragons of virtue compared with those of even the recent past, thanks to the freedoms the press enjoys today and the openness and accountability of modern government. Today’s politicians are more than ever under the spotlight, if they transgress, the press are likely to find out. But, by the same token, people are far more tolerant these days, and far more willing to forgive a politician his little peccadilloes. Indeed, Clinton’s womanizing has actively endeared him to his public – they see him as a fellow human being, a man of the people, with all of those weaknesses that afflict us all. People see Clinton as having red blood flowing through his veins, and they like that.

Great men, such as Bill Clinton need to be able to expend their pent-up energies in many ways, such as through sex. It is only natural that such gifted and highly energized leaders of men are sexually active. Having said that, as I said before, Clinton is a saint compared with most former US Presidents and British Prime Ministers, the difference today is, that thanks to the freedoms that the common man and the press enjoy, we actually get to hear about it.

Take the early-20th century prime minister David Lloyd-George. He had an insatiable sexual appetite, and adjoining his office was a makeshift bedroom which he would use to bed his women, sometimes three at a time (well, one after the other of course), at various times during the day. These women were a mixture of prostitutes, single women and even the wives of his cabinet colleagues. The great Victorian prime minister William Gladstone was another man with an insatiable appetite for sex, even in his 70s. He would pound the seediest streets of London in search of prostitutes and was a regular frequenter of brothels – he had a particular bent for flagellation. But, all of this was mainly covered up whilst they were in office.

So Peter, please bear in mind that today’s politicians are far less corrupt than most of their predecessors. Having said that, a politician is naturally corrupt to some extent, it’s just a matter of firstly coming to terms with that fact, and then making sure that the politician is not allowed too much freedom for corruption – the free press and the electoral system see to the latter. As far as I’m concerned, it’s okay for a politician to be corrupt, just so long as he doesn’t go too far – murder, for instance.

Marriage, as an institution, is dying, but this is not indicative of a society in moral decay, the institution of marriage is merely becoming a cumbersome, outmoded and anachronistic impediment to the function of a modern and enlightened society. Indeed, many psychologists now believe that the traditional family unit can have a detrimental effect on the development of the child, making the child too heavily reliant on parental support and guidance. The family unit can also inhibit the full flowering of a teenager’s sexuality. A single parent will often encourage independence and strength of character – this is not to say a dual-parental family unit is necessarily a bad thing, but the rigid and formal boundaries of marriage should not necessarily be encouraged in a future society based on broad-mindedness and enlightenment.

Freedom of sexual expression is as fundamental to mankind’s well-being as is the air we breathe.

Finally Peter, to summarize the main thrust of the discussion. Yes, today’s society still suffers from many ills, but the difference is that today’s government is working for the people more so than at any time in the past, and society itself is more transparent – our governments, our institutions and all public life have become far more accountable to the people.