>Right now there are only four children in the world
>that I would consider as anything LESS than a
>terrible burden - my two nephews and my PYM's
>two children. Any of those four would be welcomed
>by me - any other children would be considered a
>REAL nuisance.
>So - for those of you arguing against David,
>remember, not EVERYone considers children to be a
>"precious gift" - from ANYbody, let alone a "god".
So! You were born an adult? I don't think so! (we don't have to footnote here do we? I certainly hope not :-) ) Or do you think children are such a pain the ass because of the way you acted all your life? As for David's you prove it you said it routine; I don't think anyone is saying that he has to believe in God,there are certainly times when I wonder. Where I picked up this thread it
appeared that the real argument was over the rights of unborn children.
Certainly women do have the right to control their own bodies and I do believe
that abortion is sometimes necessary, what I don't understand is the negativity towards children, maybe you know only horrendous brats,(yes Martha they do
exist).
Does the unborn child have any rights in this enlightened society of ours? If so, what are they, who has the right to protect those rights? You
see the problem is not that one side is right and the other wrong, the problem
is that the argument is being fought by the extreme position takers of each side
This of course rarely results in a constructive settlement. It is time that
people on both sides got off their holier than thou wagons and began to look at our problems from the point of view of best possible settlement,(religion
includes David's clinging to the hope that the scientific world will answer all our questions; guess you never figured you'ld be accused of being religious).
So, if you don't like children, well that's just fine, I won't pretend to under-stand it but fine; if you disagree with abortion, well I understand your point
of view just remember that others have different beliefs and we can't all be
