Sylvain,

>>Try teaching abstinence in the public schools. I think that alone makes my point.
>
>We could teach it all we want, but peer pressure is much stronger than "formal" education. Plus, if it's forbidden, you know very well people will want to try it out (cigarettes, anyone?). Back when I was in high school, they did told us about abortion (right after the condom part), but nobody forced it onto us, and they made it clear that it isn't something mundane to go through.

Well, peer pressure also works if its directed away from having sex as well as towards I'd think so the argument that peer pressure in and of itself is a case for abortion seems hollow at best. This whole peer pressure argument seems more designed to condone premarital sex. I'd think that if we put as much into advertising against premarital sex as we do into getting kids to stop smoking we'd find that it would help. To just give up, using "peer pressure" as the excuse is just that, an excuse to continue the current behavior. Either that or the cigarette campaign is a waste of time and money and a lot of folks seem to think its working.

When we were kids peer pressure was exactly that - away from having sex. Did some kids? Sure but not in the numbers we have now. That's the whole point - we're degrading, not getting better. The proof is in the numbers, both then and now.

I stand by my assertion that there are folks who do not want abstinence taught. When it's taught it works - not 100% but nothing is 100% and to use that as an argument is a straw man. If something has to be 100% to be accepted there are lots of things I can see we should get rid of, like midnight basketball. <g>

>
>>At the child's expense? That seems entirely contrary to common sense. Why should the child be deprived of an opportunity for a whole life simply because that child's biological parents are idiots? Naturally I'd rather the parents be more responsible but I'm not so foolish as to think that they will be. Put the child up for adoption.
>
>If the parents are willing to let the child to adoption, I have absolutly no problem with that. If the parents don't want to have a child at all, I also have no problem with that.

So, let me ask you a question that might shed light on this. Do human beings have intrinsic rights? If so, when do they acquire these rights? Also, where are they derived from?

>
>There is a strong part of the smartness/idiocy of a person that incurs from it's environment, but I think there is also a good part that comes from genetics. Just because the parents didn't use a condom doesn't mean they're idiots and that their child would be either.
>
>Just in case I haven't made myself clear, I'm not saying abortion is an alternative to contraception. It's an option when things are getting out of hand.

Yes you are. Since almost all abortions are not for medical reasons the only one left is convenience. You yourself stated above "If the parents don't want to have a child at all, I also have no problem with that.". If that's not an argument for abortions based upon convenience (the parents? the child's) I don't know what is. Unless I'm missing something you want this both ways. Perhaps you can clarify here??

>
>>Really? How do you prove that? Maybe a better question would be for you to provide your definition of 'soul'. I'm thinking we have different definitions...
>
>My "proof", if you will, is that there is no evidence that the soul exists. The only "evidence" holds up only if you already agree on something else, which I don't. I find it weird, though, that I'm asked to prove something when I'm just saying there's nothing there. Why don't those who do think that there is something there prove their point instead?

You're using circular reasoning here it seems. First you claim no soul exists and then you claim that the proff no soul exists is that there is no proof the soul exists. <g> You can't prove that green men didn't live on the moon either. Since you have no proof that they didn't then there's no proof that they didn't. <g>

I think, as far as your question goes regarding proving something IS there, that it's a very valid question. I'd start by defining the word 'soul' and see if there were proofs of the various components. I see the soul as a composite of three basic 'pieces', if you will. Mind, emotions and the will. I see the soul as being separate from the body and also from the spirit of man. It's the 'me' in me I guess.


>
>As for the definition, I tried to come up with something, but it's as vague as just saying "soul" to begin with, so I can't provide a definition. But I guess that would be what people assume will go to heaven (or hell), and/or what ghosts are made of (assuming there is such a thing as ghosts!).

Does mine work at all?

Thanks BTW for your insights. While we disagree I hope you understand that I have no less respect for you whatsoever and I hope you understand this.