Second, what makes you so sure that those who interpret religious doctrine on gender roles as endorsing violence against women are interpreting it "the wrong way" (IE, contrary to the intention of the writer)?

Neither gender is superior to the other. Each has its good and its faults.

While I agree with you for the most part, I'm not sure that any gender is cohesive, well-defined, and homogenous enough to make this a meaningful statement.

Here in North Texas, an Egyptian-born U.S. citizen is on the run after allegedly murdering his two teenaged daughters (both beautiful, intelligent girls, by all accounts), with reports saying that it could be an "honor killing", that he was enraged because his daughters "shamed" their family by wanting to date non-Egyptian/non-Muslim young men. Also, he allegedly has been abusive to his family, mostly the women, including his wife, for many years.

This is a tragic, sad example of what happens when backwards, superstitious religion gives people the idea that they may tell another how to live his/her life and the "okay" to punish/hurt people that they don't think live up to their religious standards. After creating the belief that females are inferior, it's no surprise that people of limited mental capacity would interpret it the wrong way and take it to further mean that it's okay to kill the female if she doesn't obey or live up to the standards.

Neither gender is superior to the other. Each has its good and its faults. Men and women should complement each other, and work together to make this a good world for everyone. We women don't want to rule the world; we just want to be treated fairly and not be mistreated. We are not just baby-making machines - we do have brains, hearts, ideas, thoughts, feelings.

consider it somewhere between murder and theft

So what penalty would you proscribe for a woman who had an abortion?

Do you think that abstinence should be considered as part of a comprehensive plan, and if so, to what degree?

It should be mentioned that it's an option, though seems kind of commen sense that it's an option.

I am stating that I don't think casual sex is moral. And the Church doesn't teach that sex is only designed for procreation, although that is certainly a major component and one that shouldn't be ignored. There wouldn't be much joy in that, would there?

I suppose that depends which church we're talking about, as well as what time period. In the not so distant past I recall that the church's position on the matter was somewhere along those lines of "it's a sin to spill your seed".

But what about casual sex isn't moral? Certainly if proformed safely it can be almost free from spreading of diseases and unwanted pregnancy. Also on the flip-side, you seem to have a strong stance about potiential people coming into this world, and what fosters that more than lots of sex?

because no one has the right to choose life or non-life for another.

Funny you should say that because aren't you on the side of choosing life for other "potiental people"? At least that's what all your arguments seem to point to.

and you will still be forcibly preventing people from experiencing life. I completely agree that no child should be born unwanted

So the question is which is the more important concern for you? If the options come down to either having an abortion, or going through with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, which would you opt for?

I don't see that giving everyone free, cheap, easy-to-use contraception will solve all the problems I hope to avoid by advocating against abortion.

The problem, as you seem to put it, is that there just aren't enough people and we need to keep bringing as many of them into the world as possible so they can experience life. However, you also said,

Sperm will not become a baby in the absence of interference, and as such cannot be considered a potential person, but only a component of a potential person.

So if sperm aren't potiental people, and eggs aren't potiential people, by using contraception to prevent the two from joining you have not stopped any potiental people from coming into being.
One other interesting question; you say a fetus has rights, but when do the components become a fetus? If it's the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, then any woman who's had a miscarriage (last I knew roughly the case for 1-2/3 of all pregnancy) has committed a crime, even if unwittingly.

I understand you're all for creating a supportive, and nuturing environment for children to grow in, and who isn't? I know I certainly am, but I also know that's not the only part of the solution. Maybe sex ed should teach children how to have safe sex in good detail so they can avoid abortions and STDs. Maybe it should also teach ways of maintaining relationships, both on an interpersonal and individual level. Maybe it should give them more of a perspective on how much work and money is involved in raising a child. But whatever sex ed teaches, it shouldn't be that sex is wrong, or a big scare tactic.

Joffan: makes sense; I don't advocate abstinence-only "education" either. Do you think that abstinence should be considered as part of a comprehensive plan, and if so, to what degree?

OMGF: I am stating that I don't think casual sex is moral. And the Church doesn't teach that sex is only designed for procreation, although that is certainly a major component and one that shouldn't be ignored. There wouldn't be much joy in that, would there?

Alex: reasonable, yes, but I'd still ask you to be careful about reading into my words. Because I don't fully support contraception doesn't make me against it; I know many people who fully support sex education who are somewhere in the middle on contraception, usually depending on the circumstances.

"And this is a bad thing why? As I understood it, the stated objection to the legality of abortion was that a fetus was already a person (though anti-choicers' actual positions are difficult to reconcile with that claim), not that preventing potential people from coming into being was wrong."

Am I not allowed to add extra objections? : ) It's a bad thing because it deprives potential people of the chance to experience life, and because no one has the right to choose life or non-life for another.

"Also, this stated position is inconsistent with either any meaningful grasp of reality or your earlier statements about the birth of unwanted children being a bad thing that should be prevented."

Hm. Which stated position? Could you clarify?

Alex: Stats to back your assertion about abortion rates would be welcome, if you have the time or inclination. Meanwhile, abortion would naturally be lower in countries in which contraception was much more widespread and more efficient and easy to use, just as chopping down a tree will prevent it from being struck by lightning.

I don't see that giving everyone free, cheap, easy-to-use contraception will solve all the problems I hope to avoid by advocating against abortion. There will still be children born unwanted; presumably people will feel free to have sex whenever and wherever, which causes its own problems; and you will still be forcibly preventing people from experiencing life. I completely agree that no child should be born unwanted; I advocate prevention of this by creating surroundings that are capable of raising and loving these children, not by annihilating the children before they have voices to protest.

I wasn't aware that I had stated any opposition to contraception as yet, other than saying that I am not "all for it." Did you take that to mean that I oppose contraception, or are you making an assumption?

You said you favored sex education but wouldn't say the same about contraception. It was a reasonable inference, especially from a pattern-recognition standpoint.

To answer that question, though, I oppose contraception because, like abortion, it prevents people from coming into being. (That's a general statement, I know.)

And this is a bad thing why? As I understood it, the stated objection to the legality of abortion was that a fetus was already a person (though anti-choicers' actual positions are difficult to reconcile with that claim), not that preventing potential people from coming into being was wrong.

Look at it this way. Every human ejaculation contains hundreds of millions of sperm. The human female body, under normal circumstances, has at most one or two eggs ready to fertilize. Every time one of those eggs is fertilized by a sperm, hundreds of millions of potential people, that might have resulted from the fertilization of the egg by different sperm, are prevented from coming into being. If you're ok with that result, then why is preventing one more suddenly unacceptable?

Also, this stated position is inconsistent with either any meaningful grasp of reality or your earlier statements about the birth of unwanted children being a bad thing that should be prevented.

And yet there are still so many abortions, despite the availability of contraception.

This is in large part due to the fact that contraceptive education is woefully inadequate, many of the more effect forms are difficult or expensive to obtain, millions of people have been effectively traumatized when it comes to sex by their religious upbringings, such that either they hate and fear their own sexuality enough to keep them from planning for sex (but, being human, not enough to keep them from having it). Contraceptives are useless when people are too ignorant to use them properly or too afraid they'll burn in hell for using them at all. In countries where these barriers do not exist (I've heard various Scandinavian countries named, for instance) abortion is exceptionally rare.

To answer that question, though, I oppose contraception because, like abortion, it prevents people from coming into being. (That's a general statement, I know.)

Lots of things prevent people from coming into being, like vasectomies, not masturbating, wearing clothing that is too tight (although this also could help start a pregnancy), or a whole host of other things.

Where have I said that "Abortion is murder"?

You haven't I suppose. Do you think it is murder? If not, then why the opposition? If so, then would you care to venture an answer to my questions?

Joffan, as I understood his posts, opposed teaching abstinence as part of a more comprehensive plan; my response was in light of that. If I misunderstood your intentions, Joffan, my apologies.

My reading is that you have misunderstood Joffan.

What part of my comment causes you to think that?

When you said, "Still doesn't make their decision right." From my reading it seems as though you are making a moral judgement about sex in general. Also, from my knowledge of Catholic teaching, I believe that the Catholic church holds that sex should only be for procreation.

I wasn't aware that I had stated any opposition to contraception as yet, other than saying that I am not "all for it." Did you take that to mean that I oppose contraception, or are you making an assumption?

To answer that question, though, I oppose contraception because, like abortion, it prevents people from coming into being. (That's a general statement, I know.)

"If you believe that abortion is murder, shouldn't it be outlawed? And, shouldn't a woman who gets an abortion be tried for murder?"

Where have I said that "Abortion is murder"?

"Actually, studies show that abstinence only education is far less effective at reducing pregnancy and subsequent abortion than a comprehensive sex ed."

Not surprising. Joffan, as I understood his posts, opposed teaching abstinence as part of a more comprehensive plan; my response was in light of that. If I misunderstood your intentions, Joffan, my apologies.

"If it were an effective plan, I would not object to it forming one aspect of sex education, one option presented to children. But it isn't effective, and children shouldn't be encouraged to rely on it."

"Most sexual encounters between people who properly use contraception will not end in abortion. Your comment makes me think that you are more concerned with making sure that people don't have sex because of the morality of it than with reducing abortions."

And yet there are still so many abortions, despite the availability of contraception. What part of my comment causes you to think that?