Re: She wants to fine constant abortions far from Selma's chapel.

-humanist --high road-- of saying
that I believed in --a woman's right to choose-- thus (theoretically
anyway) allowing her to assume whatever --karmic debt-- or --spiritual
burden-- results from having an abortion while, on my own part,
--escaping-- with just the financial burden of a few hundred dollars for
the cost of the operation. Even in my secular-humanist days it seemed
just a little too, as I say, --ethically convenient-- considering what
was actually involved: the irresponsible initiation of a human life
followed by the equally irresponsible (to me) eradicating of that human
life. Two wrongs don't make a right, at the point of greatest reduction.
It seemed to me a double ethical pitfall and, no, I don't blame women
for that. Women have as natural an affinity for medical science as they
had for its progenitor, magic. If there is something that women can make
use of that, in their view, will provide them with immediate tactical
gratification or relief from anxiety, they will make use of it and then
welcome any voodoo-professional feminist ideology band-aid assistance in
rationalizing away their (I think, natural) feelings of guilt -- so long
as the assistance/rationalizing comes --after the fact--. It is, in my
view, part of a man's ethical obligation to his own soul and to his
Creator to endeavour to be (or become) sufficiently wary of this female
trait and for men to not allow their penises to lead them down specific
unethical paths where a man's own fate in this world and possibly the
next becomes --bound up-- with those disposed (predisposed?) to believe
in these sorts of --ethical conveniences--. In saying that, I no more
believe