I’m still trying to untangle whether for a Unitarian Universalist sexologist, when it comes to sex, Unitarianism takes precedence – in which case one has sex with a singularity – or Universalism, one must try to have sex with absolutely everything.
In the case of Rev. Haffner, I suspect the latter since she boasts that she has counselled thousands of women faced with unintended pregnancies to view abortion as a “moral” decision: presumably the sex was neither unintended nor particularly selective.
In a stunning example of weasel reasoning, devious Debra tries to make the case that we should abort unborn babies because life is sacred. Rather than being intrinsically sacred, life is only imbued with sacredness when it is our intention that it should be sacred – leaving us free to finish off anyone whose sanctity coefficient doesn’t make the grade.
It is because of my religious beliefs that I am unwavering in my support for abortion, family planning and sexuality education. It is because life is sacred and parenthood so precious that no woman should be coerced to carry a pregnancy to term. Millions of people ground their moral commitment to abortion in their religious beliefs. We understand that the sanctity of human life is best upheld when it is created intentionally. As religious leaders, we seek to create a world where abortion is safe, legal, accessible, and rarely a decision that women and couples need to face.
As a “religous leader” she should know that one of the Tem Commandments is “You will not murder”. The question then becomes “When does a human life begin?” If it is at the moment of conception than ALL abortions are murder! This is for ALL pregnancies, those that are “created intentionally” and otherwise.
All life is sacred and yet she believes in abortion. Talk about an oxymoron!
Where does she stand on sex with donkeys? And can the donkey become a bishop?
We should also ask whether she believes in ‘voluntary’ euthanasia of the unwanted elderly, and, if so, make sure she gets it!
But of course this silly woman is merely an unbeliever, who attracts notoriety by pretending to be associated with the church in some way. There’s no intellectual content here — merely the tricks of the charlatan.
Did you actually read my article? Or did you take the time to visit our organization, Religious Institute — http://www.religiousinstitute.org I do not advocate abortion — I affirm the rights of women to make their own moral decisions and we work hard to make sure that individuals and couples have access to sexuality education and contraception to reduce the need for abortion services. And I wonder how you missed the information about the large numbers of people of faith and religious denominations which support women’s rights. You and I may have different religious beliefs, we may fundamentally disagree on when life begins, but surely you would agree that attacking people’s character and misrepresenting their positions is wrong.
Rev. Haffner,
I say keep it up! For every person on this site and in this world that cannot understand what you’re doing and why you’re doing it, there is a person who CAN understand why you’re doing it and is thankful for it! Whether its legal/illegal or moral/immoral, it’s going to happen. Having people around to speak openly about it will provide others with a more informed decision on what is best for them and they’re child. If people want the right to protest it, then you and many other people have the right to provide safe information on it!
that’s “their”.
My mistake.
Debra,
Yes, I read the article. I just read it again: the second reading confirms the aura of muddled thinking revealed in the first.
For example:
You have confused the fact that humans are intrinsically moral creatures with the rightness or wrongness of a specific moral decision – in this case whether to have a abortion or not. You think that a person making any decision based on morality is equivalent to the person making a morally correct decision. This is nonsense.
If you believe, as I do, that human life begins at conception, then a moral decision to have an abortion is a moral decision to murder: it’s a bad moral decision. If, on the other hand, you believe, as you seem to, that life does not begin at conception, then removing a foetus is not killing anything – deciding to have an abortion isn’t a moral decision any more than deciding to have a wart removed.
You want it both ways: you don’t seem to like being called an “abortion enthusiast”, yet you don’t think there is anything wrong with having an abortion.
You rattle on about “compassion”, “justice” and the “marginalised” without acknowledging the pretty straightforward either/or of the situation. Either the foetus is a human life or it isn’t: if it is, then it is the marginalised one that is suffering injustice and in need of compassion, not the mother. If not, then no-one is being marginalised, etc.: applying the epithets to the natural consequence of sexual intercourse – motherhood and fatherhood – as you are doing, is plain daft.
One last thought – I could go on and on – Has it occurred to you that as sex education has increased, so have the number of abortions? It doesn’t seem to be working too well, does it?