I don't think that's the question we're dealing with. Multicultural societies have been the reality since the Roman Empire.

There is no Biblical mandate for a theocracy. The closest we have is Israel – and look how that turned out.

Our Biblical political imperative is to trust God to use those in political power as agents of justice (Romans 13 (off the top of my head), and to pray for them.

There's a Biblical basis for using the tools of government as a means for caring for the poor, but I can't see any mandate for pursuing a theocracy or for even encouraging rulers to govern according to Biblical principles.

Rome was probably the most anti-God government of all time (given that rulers were worshiped as Gods) you would think that if this was God's intention for us as Christians the Bible would say more about opposing or influencing the Government than it does.

In a multicultural, multifaith society the law can't act using Christian presuppositional ethics.

We can't, as Christians, impose our ethics wholesale on people who don't have the same framework. Put the boot on the other foot – how should this issue be legislated from the perspective of an atheist?

What one feels is irrelevant to what their body does. The reality is that if a woman waits until her 40s to have children, then there are far greater risks and biological obstacles. The difference between the effects of family-starting on men and women are obvious – a father does not necessarily have to miss any work to have a child, but I don't think the rest of the staff would appreciate a woman in labour in the next cubicle.

"2. The appropriateness idea then could be followed through to an idea that children should be removed from their single parents."

Well no, because we're only talking about who should be given children – we're not talking about people who already have children. A child finding themselves in the unfortunate position of not having both a mother and father is very different from putting one in such a position.

Are you quoting someone, or are you saying this?

I think the problem with using the common ground is that there really isn’t any. All you are doing is trying to conserve something that is commonly accepted by citing its merit. It is like playing soccer on their half of the filed only, as if the half way line was like a sideline – All you can do is defend.

I was referring to naturalism as in the atheistic assertion that the natural world is all that exists, the ultimate reality. I meant that ethics is irrational because they assume meaning when the logical conclusion of naturalism is Nihilism. Like Dave said in ‘Why I’m not an athesist # 2’

“But if the physical evolutionary causes are the only explanation for life you have, how can you assert the reality of meaning of any kind? Itʼs not enough to say that you do assert the existence of meaning and love and beauty! When I hear atheists do that, I just think they are talking as a semi-Christianised atheist, still spending some cultural credit hanging around from Christianity! Itʼs not enough to say evolutionary naturalism doesnʼt lead to meaningless for you — you have to show why it shouldnʼt?”

IVF is pretty ethically murky anyway.

I don't think the conclusion that adoption is out follows the premise.

"Ethics on the basis of naturalism are irrational"

They're completely rational actually. Definitionally speaking. They're pretty dumb if you assume God exists (which I do) but for a state that has to create and uphold morality for atheists, Muslims, Christians and Catholics it's probably the best common ground we've got.

My reasoning for believing the naturalism is the best way to approach ethical issues is that I see a logical connection – things are the way they are because God made them that way.

Totally agree with you.

….or is it okay for a 12-year-old or a 70-year-old to have a baby because they want to?

Or the 60+ year old woman who concieved through IVF recently…

But then, I'm an evil feminist.

Also, I don't feel that I should have to choose between a career and a family any more than my husband should.

2. The appropriateness idea then could be followed through to an idea that children should be removed from their single parents.

Come and spend a day at my house and you might find an incentive not to have children. Then again, come and spend a day at my house and you might find an incentive to have children. Today was probably a day for the former.

Having children should be the incentive for having children, but there are people who have children for the government benefits, others for the status/trophy, others to cross it off their list of accomplishments, others because they feel an expectation or an obligation. Those people should all come and spend a week at my house, or spend some time with families with children and see that having a child is more than about having a baby, before they consider conceiving.

I, too, am perplexed as to why ‘because they want one’ means a right to having a child. Is it only applicable to homosexual couples, or is it okay for a 12-year-old or a 70-year-old to have a baby because they want to?

That's not a very good argument. It does not logically follow that because we might oppose one thing that we must agree with any and every alternative option. Using your logical argument we might say that if one was opposed to teenage pregnancy then they should 'be all for teenage sterilisation'.

As it is I think adoption is often too bureaucratically difficult and financially prohibitive.

It would be interesting to investigate how it came about that it takes two incomes – could it perhaps be that after the feminist push of the creed that women can have both a family and a career (something that sadly many women are finding out too late is not necessarily true!) that banks and real estate costs rose to match the higher income of the new dual-income families?

>>"How do we make the judgement as to who can and can't? Who is the arbitrator of worthiness? "

I don't think it's about 'worthiness', I think it's 'appropriateness' and I think studies have shown that the appropriate environment for children is a home with a mum and a dad, and so that should guide our legislation on who 'deserves' to be given adoption and fertility treatment.

We've all got good internal reasons for wanting children – be they a result of faith, base instinct, or a mix of both.

I don't know any parents who had children because the government told them to.

Yes. We pay for IVF and the support of premature babies. That seems largely irrelevant to my point.

We pay for plenty of things with our taxes that I receive no benefit from – that doesn't give me an entitlement to them.

Public funding does not automatically entitle the whole public to a benefit – it can provide a benefit to society broadly. This is, I believe, is why churches are tax exempt… why university education is subsidised and why investment into the arts is tax deductible even though nobody watches Australian movies and less people work on making them.

Just wanting a grant to make an Australian Movie doesn't entitle you to one – you have to have the capacity to make a film.

At the risk of sounding incredibly divisive though, at the moment we are creating a situation there are few incentives for professionals to have children – it just costs them too much (financially and professionally) – women who pay a lot of tax in their lifetime and add a lot to the economy over their lifetime.

The other part of this issue that grates is that this whole issue focusses on women, when it should be both genders.

Because they want kids.

Second that.

And yep, the commenting thing has gotten very confusing.

Give all young boys reversable vasectomies which they have to pass a test to remove??? Forced abortions?

There are plenty of people that I don't think should breed. But I don't have the right to tell them not to.

No. But it's one of many issues.

If you want the law changed the onus is on you to show why it should be changed, not on me to show why it should stay the same.

Why is a couple a magical number? I had a sponsor child with my housemates at Lorimer – why shouldn't we have been afforded the right to adopt a child and bring him up as our own?

Well not really.

Why does "want" automatically lead to entitlement – particularly if you want something that you can't naturally have.

Homosexual couples can't naturally have children.

I've heard it argued that part of the evolutionary purpose of homosexuality is to control the birthrate and ensure that everybody has a "partner"… if we let homosexuals have children do you think homosexuality will eventually be bred out of our systems because it's no longer serving its purpose?

Is this really such a big issue that its worth stopping a couple having access to having a family? Your arguement that we should be trying to only having families with strong genetic ties seems somewhat insignificant in the grand scheme here.

I thought the church was meant to be all for adoption as such (especially as opposed to abbortion). Doesn’t this logic fly against that?

"And here's the heart of my issue – proponents of gay parenting actually need to show cause as to why we should be positively legislating for that right. And by legislating on the matter we're turning the privilege into a right. "

because they want to have kids. why do you need anything more than that.

"Why should gay people be given the privilege of child rearing when children are a biproduct of heterosexual relationships?"

Because they want kids.

Why is that outcome seen as a bad thing. I don't know how you can enforce it – but you have to do a test to be able to drive a car.