"Tracy" wrote in message
...

Then I guess we agree to disagree!

Tracy

OK, but let's come to an agreement over what we disagree about. I'll
take it that you have no moral problem with cosmetics, tattoos and blood
transfusions, right?

How about birth defects? If nature produces a kid with hole between the
heart walls, is it immoral for a surgeon sew it up?

Frank Dresser

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:37:23 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"Tracy" wrote in message
.. .

Then I guess we agree to disagree!

Tracy

OK, but let's come to an agreement over what we disagree about. I'll
take it that you have no moral problem with cosmetics, tattoos and blood
transfusions, right?


No



How about birth defects? If nature produces a kid with hole between the
heart walls, is it immoral for a surgeon sew it up?

Frank Dresser

No

Tracy

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:37:23 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"Tracy" wrote in message
.. .

Then I guess we agree to disagree!

Tracy

OK, but let's come to an agreement over what we disagree about. I'll
take it that you have no moral problem with cosmetics, tattoos and
blood
transfusions, right?


No



How about birth defects? If nature produces a kid with hole between
the
heart walls, is it immoral for a surgeon sew it up?

Frank Dresser

No

Tracy

Nature is producing a small number of people who psychologically women
but physically men and vice versa. Why is it immoral to use surgery to
make the body match the mind?

Frank Dresser

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:04:44 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:



Nature is producing a small number of people who psychologically women
but physically men and vice versa. Why is it immoral to use surgery to
make the body match the mind?

Frank Dresser



Who determines this? Man? To me, that is making man god again. If a
person is "psychologically" a woman in a man's body, then why does
that person pursue a female for companionship and not a man after the
surgery? It seems that that the person would be having a sex change
for all the wrong reasons. Although I don't believe in sex
transformation in either case, I could come closer to accepting it if
the person having the sex change was pursuing a person of the opposite
sex.

Tracy

"Tracy" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:04:44 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:



Nature is producing a small number of people who psychologically
women
but physically men and vice versa. Why is it immoral to use surgery
to
make the body match the mind?

Frank Dresser



Who determines this? Man?

If by "this" you mean the difference between the psychological and the
physical person, it would be determined by the person and people who
deal with this problem.


To me, that is making man god again.

OK, but man changes what nature gives him all the time. We change our
enviroment, we change our bodies. Few people would describe every
change as "playing God". It's an exercise in moral line drawing.

If a
person is "psychologically" a woman in a man's body, then why does
that person pursue a female for companionship and not a man after the
surgery?

I don't really know. It's not something I can personally relate to.
It's completely out of my expirence. On the other hand, it doesn't
cause anybody any earthly harm. So why make a big deal about it?

It seems that that the person would be having a sex change
for all the wrong reasons.

I wouldn't have a sex change for a million bucks. I certainly couldn't
tell a person who'd take such a drastic step that there are "wrong" or
"right" reasons.

Although I don't believe in sex
transformation in either case, I could come closer to accepting it if
the person having the sex change was pursuing a person of the opposite
sex.

Tracy

I can't see what difference it makes who a person chooses to live with.
If I was unfamiliar with the people involved, I can't see why I'd give
it a moment's thought.

Frank Dresser

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:48:56 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:


"Tracy" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:04:44 GMT, "Frank Dresser"
wrote:



Nature is producing a small number of people who psychologically
women
but physically men and vice versa. Why is it immoral to use surgery
to
make the body match the mind?

Frank Dresser



Who determines this? Man?

If by "this" you mean the difference between the psychological and the
physical person, it would be determined by the person and people who
deal with this problem.


To me, that is making man god again.

OK, but man changes what nature gives him all the time. We change our
enviroment, we change our bodies. Few people would describe every
change as "playing God". It's an exercise in moral line drawing.

If a
person is "psychologically" a woman in a man's body, then why does
that person pursue a female for companionship and not a man after the
surgery?

I don't really know. It's not something I can personally relate to.
It's completely out of my expirence. On the other hand, it doesn't
cause anybody any earthly harm. So why make a big deal about it?

It seems that that the person would be having a sex change
for all the wrong reasons.

I wouldn't have a sex change for a million bucks. I certainly couldn't
tell a person who'd take such a drastic step that there are "wrong" or
"right" reasons.

Although I don't believe in sex
transformation in either case, I could come closer to accepting it if
the person having the sex change was pursuing a person of the opposite
sex.

Tracy

I can't see what difference it makes who a person chooses to live with.
If I was unfamiliar with the people involved, I can't see why I'd give
it a moment's thought.

Frank Dresser



You make some valid points and some not valid in my opinion. Have you
actually taken the time to look at the person involveds website in any
depth? It not only promotes transsexuality but it does not stop there.
It goes on to have very pornographic overtones.

My original reason for bringing the whole discussion to light was that
fact that Brenda Ann questioned the morals of our president. That
leaves her open to have her morals questioned. Having a sex change is
one thing. Having one to become a lesbian is quite another. Then
creating a website with pornographic overtones makes one question her
decisions altogether. Did she do it for the right reasons? Was it
strictly because she was a woman trapped in a mans body? Or was it
perversion raising it's ugly head?

I can't answer these questions for sure, but, I do retain the rights
to question her morality based on her website. Especially if she is
going to question the morals of our president.

Also, I noted in her posts that she blamed me for attacks on her in
the past. This is totally untrue. Until this incident, I have never
attacked Brenda Ann.

Tracy

"Tracy" wrote in message
...


You make some valid points and some not valid in my opinion. Have you
actually taken the time to look at the person involveds website in any
depth? It not only promotes transsexuality but it does not stop there.
It goes on to have very pornographic overtones.

I didn't find the promotion of transexuality part. It's not like she's
trying to get other people to become transsexuals. I'm sure it does
promote the accecptance of transsexuality, which isn't quite the same
thing.

I did notice the sex change cartoon. I wouldn't call it very
pornographic, I'd call it weird.

If the website would have held my attention better if it had some
radios.

It seems that others, beside Brenda Ann, post a few links to hard core
porn here a few times a week.


My original reason for bringing the whole discussion to light was that
fact that Brenda Ann questioned the morals of our president.

I checked with the original post, and she said a lack of morality was a
major problem in the world today. She used Enron and Martha Stewart as
examples. She didn't mention President Bush in that post.

The morality of transsexuality might be unclear. The immorality of
cheating and selfishness is quite clear.


That
leaves her open to have her morals questioned. Having a sex change is
one thing. Having one to become a lesbian is quite another. Then
creating a website with pornographic overtones makes one question her
decisions altogether. Did she do it for the right reasons? Was it
strictly because she was a woman trapped in a mans body? Or was it
perversion raising it's ugly head?

Brenda Ann isn't hurting anyone, so I'm not worring about it. Besides, I
ain't Sigmund Freud. Anyway, Freud was a crackpot. But if it's got you
bothered, you might want to crack open a Freud book and look under
"castration anxiety".


I can't answer these questions for sure, but, I do retain the rights
to question her morality based on her website. Especially if she is
going to question the morals of our president.

President Enron? President Stewart??


Also, I noted in her posts that she blamed me for attacks on her in
the past. This is totally untrue. Until this incident, I have never
attacked Brenda Ann.

Tracy

Why have you singled out Brenda Ann for an attack then?

Has she done anything to do anyone else any harm?

Is she less moral than those on this group than those who post hard core
porn links, or take the Lord's name in vain?

Do you disagree with Brenda Ann when she says that a lack of morality is
a major problem in the world today?

Frank Dresser