🚀 go-pugleaf

Satin (zeinejohnsonds%dfyc@dfmail.usafa.af.mil) wrote:
: In article <nduehrCt8nGy.6BD@netcom.com> nduehr@netcom.com (Nathan N. Duehr) writes:

: <snip of PK debate>

: >men who hope to offer a much better solution than abortion.  They 

: Really?  Are they finding adoptive parents and host mothers for the babies?
: Just curious.

Actually there are groups that are doing just this.  My best friend and I 
witnessed this when his sister had an unfortunate unwanted pregnancy 
during her first year out of high school.  Instead of demeaning her for 
not living a Christian lifestyle, her family helped her find a non-profit 
group dedicated to finding host parents for her child.  She did *not* 
have an abortion and there was never any need to.  Plans for the future 
child's life were discussed openly and honestly with the new parents in 
areas such as, "should the child know his real mother", etc. etc.  It has 
been a heartwarming sight to see that answers like this one really *do* 
work and *could* work for the majority, but in our society where instant 
gratification is king, people opt for the "easier" abortion rather than 
deal with the emotions that the giving up of a child will *always* bring 
about, whether or not the child is given alive to new parents or dead 
to a coroner.

: >proclaim that sex was meant for procreation and the strengthening of a 

: I have had a hysterectomy.  Does this mean I am not to have sex with my 
: husband, since we are not able to have children?

I didn't say that they are mutually exclusive.  Those are *two* of the 
many reasons for sex, according to the Bible.  

: >godly marriage, but was never intended to be a selfish act of 
: >sensuality.  They also proclaim that men in general need to follow 

: Define "godly marriage", please, since I am not sure what you mean that to 
: encompass.  Hnmmmm.  Could you also define the term "selfish act of 
: sensuality"?  Last time I heard that sort of phrase, it was in reading about 
: how Shakers denounced sex completely.  There are only about 3 or 4 of them 
: left, aren't there?

Okay, this could get off-topic for the original intent, but the term 
"godly marriage" could be simplistically defined as a relationship 
wherein the two individuals are married and both have a personal desire 
to please God above and beyond their marriage, but also as an integral 
part of the marriage.  Each has a desire to grow and serve God, but they 
can both serve each other in marriage and in helping one another before 
God.  

Selfish acts of sensuality are best defined as sexual acts between two 
people where neither has any long-term interest in the other's sexual, 
mental, spiritual, and physical well-being.  It may seem strange today, 
but the boyfriend/girlfriend relationship is one of the most damaging 
relationships emotionally that most people have been involved in, 
especially when sex is involved, when they fall apart.  Couples need to 
have a basic long-term commitment in place between the two people 
involved before any type of sexual relationship should really begin.  Too 
many times, one person is simply in the relationship "for the sex" 
(usually male, but that's probably overly stereotypical), and the other 
is in the relationship to gain a strong emotional sense of togetherness 
or "love".  In these situations, usually the person desiring sex will 
manipulate the other into doing so, while effectively becoming more 
distant at the same time.  This leads eventually to another broken 
relationship and the two part company broken and hurt.  Men & women are 
not communicating anymore regarding the area of sex.... it's just a given 
that just like in the movies and condom commercials, "you will *know* 
when the time is right".

Of course, both of these are "working definitions", since we are having a 
discussion here.  Also my netadmin just sent a message that the NFS 
system will be going down in 10 min, so I can't be any more verbose now.

: >through on promises made to their families and to in general be more 
: >responsible for the actions taken in relationships, including not 

: Sounds like a good plan for either spouse.  Are women allowed to be 
: responsible, too?

Of course.  Did I make it seem that they couldn't?  Granted, in the 
Judeo/Christian viewpoint, the male is considered "head-of-household", as 
a good friend of mine put it, "In our many years of marriage, I've only 
seen a need to put this into practice ONCE.  It was a situation in which 
both of us had perfectly rational and reasonable arguments and the 
situation would NEVER have been resolved.  My wife and I had discussed 
this possibility before marriage, and she had agreed that if this type of 
situation were to come up, she would be able to deal with this.  If we 
hadn't decided to move on, we might still be arguing the topic today with 
the resultant damage to our relationship."  I don't think that Christian 
men who don't EVER bend are *leading* their families as they should be.  
They are *dictating* and that is wrong.

: >allowing themselves to be tempted into sexual relations before there is 
: >any marriage commitment, therefore there would be no need for measures as 
: >extreme and deadly as abortion.

: So if the couple is engaged, they will never need to have an abortion?  Or 
: is it only a "sin" if you are not engaged?  Do you take into account the 
: cases of "accidental" pregnany where the birth control in use failed?  I got 
: pregnant more than once while on the Pill.  It happens.

What I meant by "marriage commitment" was the vows of marriage.  Not an 
engagement.  Engagements for the purpose of having sex would be an 
incorrect interpretation of Biblical principals.  Birth control failures 
during marriage are a difficult topic to deal with.  Each one should be 
considered as a seperate situation (as really all relationships should be 
- people deserve the benefit of the doubt.  I believe Christ gave 
*everyone* a chance, and we should also.  I don't believe that killing is 
an acceptable answer for myself, and I hope that it would not be for 
others, either.  There are justoo many options available out there to 
decry abortion as a miracle answer to accidents.

: >Men and women who have no self control have caused the entire abortion 
: >debate to be blown completely out of proportion.  If both sexes would 
: >learn to keep their pants on, then maybe we'd see what CHOICE really is.  

: ROFL.  Do you really think that all the problems relating to abortion and 
: adoption and unwanted children and the dozens of related topics will all go 
: away if you close your eyes and hope people will "keep their pants on"?

No, not if I close my eyes, but you must admit that if there was less 
promiscuity, there would be less of a debate and more time to deal with 
those "falling through the cracks".  Sexuality is becoming part of the 
image of this country's young people, during a time in their lives when 
they are neither prepared or do they want to raise a family.  Sex is not 
to make one feel good.  It's meant for other purposes.

: >I'm extremely sick of people who say their right to choice is going to be 
: >eroded by making abortion illegal.  Of course, they forget to mention 
: >that they had a choice in the bedroom.  (Or was it the back of a car?)

: I am asking for clarification because I want to be sure I understand you.  
: Do you mean that you believe all instances of unplanned pregnancies are made 
: by "loose women"?  That seems to be what you are stating.  Please clarify?

Loose women and uncaring, unfeeling, unloving men cause a lot of the 
problem, yes.  As for the rest, see below... that's why I put it there.

: >I'm also not naieve enough to think that a blanket answer is the key, but 

: Whew! :-)

: >the Promise Keepers have a viable and ALREADY WORKING plan for their 
: >lives regarding the issue of abortion.  Funny thing is, everyone is 

: "FOR THEIR LIVES"  You said it beautifully!  Just doesn't happen to be the 
: solution for lots of other lives.  Thank you for clarifying this! :-)

And many people bash them for proclaiming something that they have found 
to work.  If you thought you had a good answer, you would proclaim it 
also.  You didn't bash them, but my comment was pointed at those who would.

: >bashing them for being radicals.  Since when is waiting to have sexual 
: >relations with a person until they are legally commited to you so 

: Since Adam and Eve, near as I can tell - did you note they were never 
: married? <grin>

God gave them one to another.  Although no ceremony or legal paperwork 
were filled out, I believe you could interpret this as marriage.

: >radical?  Used to happen in this country all the time.  Sad that we think 
: >it is so strange now.

: >Sober up, America.  As evidenced by the continuous flaming on Usenet, and 
: >the promiscuous sexual sensuality craze that this country is in, we no 

: I thought that was the '50s, no '60s, no 70's....seems everyone thinks that 
: was the last decade that they noticed.  It happens all the time!

But it is always getting worse.  Not better.

: >longer care about each other in this country.  All we care about is 

: Sadly, in many cases this is very true.  Probably, because so many, many 
: people want to tell us to live *our* lives exactly the way they live *theirs*
: and that doesn't really seem right, does it?

No.  Perhaps if Christians would stop touting that they are better than 
others and point out that it was really Christ who was good, and that 
they are simply trying to live like he did, things would seem a little 
better.  God loves all equally.... some are saved, some aren't.  PK is 
trying to gather men in a country where men are rapidly losing not only 
the right but the ability to protect, provide for, and lead their 
families.  Men learn by example, in most cases, and PK is offering a 
forum to hold up men of integrity to a certain world view to other men 
desiring to share that same world view.  I applaud that.  Admitedly, I 
applaud it somewhat due to the fact that I happen to agree with them, but 
I feel that in general they are doing a fine job of it whether or not I 
agree with them or not.

: >ourselves.  Is someone invading *MY* rights today?  Is someone 
: >disagreeing with *ME*?  I use the examples of the Usenet and sexuality 
: >just because they fit the topics in this message.  There are obviously 
: >many more pieces of evidence to support this position.

: Very true!  Lets see, if we refuse to pay England taxes because they are 
: interfering with MY rights as a Colonist, and we dump British tea into the 
: harbor because they disagree with us, and we refuse to follow their laws any 
: more we can be....SELF RULING.  Gee, guess we have been leaning that way 
: since we started this country!

Self rule only works if we all agree to allow everyone else to be free.  
Political factions vying (sp?) for power are always trying to prove that 
someone else is worse instead of pointing out why they are right and 
letting the listener decide.  In the case of the Boston Tea Party, the 
right infringed was the right to have our views represented, not the 
right to do as we pleased.  Lately, many groups in the U.S. have pushed 
for the public to not listen to the other group (i.e. making that group 
*not* be represented anymore before the public).  My desire would be to 
see that stop.  I don't tell others who to listen to, but I want my right 
to be able to say what I want to say and for others not to infringe upon 
the listener so much that they can't hear what I say.

: >Volunteer in an area where you care and let others be free.  This is the 
: >*United* States of America, isn't it?  I don't yell and scream on Usenet 
: >every time a Bronco game snarls traffic in both directions on I-25, just 
: >because it inconvieniences me.  Maybe I'm a football fan, maybe I'm not, 
: >but I certainly didn't want that traffic jam that resulted.  Stuff 
: >happens.  

: Very true!  You are exceptionally perceptive to see that.  Good for you.

Thank you.  My aim here was at those who think that a group of 50,000 can 
meet in a small college town and not cause some kind of trouble.  These 
are people and people do stupid things.

: >My point is this:  It sure is easy to stir up hate and discontent.  ANYONE
: >can do that.  Peacemakers are few and far between these days.  My hope is
: >to be a peacemaker, as *most* of the Promise Keepers hope to do also. 

: >"Judge every man by the fruit he produces."  Right?

: Bingo!

: have a great day!!

Wilco.  (grin)

-- 
Nathan N. Duehr - nduehr@netcom.com

Pvt. Pilot, N0NTZ (ham), Pikes Peak 120 (CAP), AOPA 01119032-9 (Joined 1992)
Colorado Wing CAP Net Control Station, 76 Senior Sqdn. Comm. Officer.
Member: Natl. Weather Service "SkyWarn" Severe Weather Spotting Team,
Amateur Radio Emergency Services, and the Rocky Mountain Radio League.