Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 22:41:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1047 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
> news:G3zEJ9.74n@lugnet.com...
>
> > Oh, I thought you meant a way that was sure to avoid conception. • [snip]
> Yep.
But my point was that none of those methods are 100% which is what it seemed
you were suggesting. That is, it seemed you were simply saying that there were
some ways to have sex without having a baby.
> > > I do not advocate anal sex.
> >
> > Why not? It avoids pregnancy and abortion, right?
>
> Personal and moral reasons.
OK, this could be touchy, so I'll try to be careful. Do you mean personal as
in, "please let's not go into that because I don't feel like laying that part
of my psyche out for public consumption" or do you mean that you find the act
of anal sex aesthetically unpleasing, and thus don't suggest it to people?
<If it's the first option, feel free not to respond to the rest, but it would
be nice to know that tha's why you're opting out.>
OTOH, how can one be morally opposed to anal sex? I mean your religion might
dictate against homosexuality, and I don't buy that that's moral, but instead
religious. But what about heterosexual anal sex? I mean between two
consenting adults. Is that immoral? What if the instrument of intrusion is a
finger instead of a penis? Does the moral balance change?
Chris (genuinely curious)
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
