Feminism and Abortion
Tom Albrecht
>
>The October issue of Sojourners featured an article on abortion by feminist
>Ginny Soley. In the article she shows how the rights of women and unborn
>children must be addressed together, rather than separately. Following are
>a few quotes from the article.
>
>....
>
>"The particular and unique contribution of Christian feminism is to question
>two assumptions. The first assumption it questions is that the individual's
>self-interest is, in fact, the highest value. The second assumption it
>questions is the vision of justice that pits a woman's rights against a child's
>right to life, that forces us to see only one victim over and against another
>victim.
>
>"What we need is to find a way that is good for both mother and child. In the
>Christian worldview, the highest value extends beyond individual self-interest
>to what is good for the whole of the community. The responsibility for
>anything we do also extends beyond the individual to the whole of the
>community."
>
>
>Randy Stimpson
Randy,
Exactly how is this statement a "unique contribution" of Christian
feminism? Churches faithful to be Bible have always taught that love for
neighbor is a central tenent of the Christian faith. It doesn't matter
whether that neighbor is a pregnant teenager in need of a place to stay because
her parents have tossed her out of the house, or an unborn child who is
about to be scraped from the womb for the sake of convenience.
The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a
people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should
all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the
sake of another.
--
Tom Albrecht
"Reformata, semper reformanda"
Raghu Ramakrishnan
>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should
>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the
>sake of another.
>
>"Reformata, semper reformanda"
Why?
raghu
Pamela K. Whitehurst
Interesting question. I don't recall the Samaritan risking life and
property for another. He bandaged some wounds, took the man to an inn
and paid for the bill until the man could leave on his own. The
description led me to believe the man did not have the strength to attack
the Samaritan. (Perhaps having this person around increased his chance
of becoming a victim.) The story seems to say go out of your way to help
a stranger, even if it is going to cost some money. This does not mean
there are not other stories that claim christians should risk life
and property for other, I just don't think this one says it.
--
Disclaimer: This is just my responding, with an ambiguous language, to
what someone else wrote, in an ambiguous language. At no time did I
read anyone's mind to find out what they really meant.
Pamela K. Whitehurst
...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur
...!sun!idi!tymix!whitehur
"Yes, it is bread we fight for, but we fight for roses too."
Terry Grevstad
Someday when *you* need help and everyone else is asking ``Why?''
maybe you'll know.
--
_______________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
without a Terry Grevstad
ECNALG Network Research Corporation
ihnp4!nrcvax!terry
{sdcsvax,hplabs}!sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!terry
_______________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kiki Herbst
When one becomes a Christian many changes occur in his or her life. The biggest
change is that God becomes the center of the person's life rather than self
being the center. As the relationship between God and man continues, man
becomes transformed into the image of God. God himself is love. After Christ's
life on earth, Christians are giving just *one* new commandment as shown in
John 13:34 "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even
as I have loved you." This commandment lives in our heart's and is powered
by God himself. We see many examples of this attitude that was shown in the
life of Christ and documented in the Bible. One such example is the role of
Christ as a servant where he is shown washing the feet of his disciples.
He shows us that we should put the needs of others before our own. Jesus
himself said that "there is no greater love than this that a man would lay down
his life for a friend." As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin
to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life. Now imagine
the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the
best for others. If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd
have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like.
Kiki
dev...@burdvax.uucp
>
>Interesting question. I don't recall the Samaritan risking life and
>property for another. He bandaged some wounds, took the man to an inn
>and paid for the bill until the man could leave on his own. The
>description led me to believe the man did not have the strength to attack
>the Samaritan.
Would you please explain what you mean in this last sentence? Are you
implying that the Samaritan was a potential target of attack from the
injured man? That's a novel interpretation.
>(Perhaps having this person around increased his chance
>of becoming a victim.) The story seems to say go out of your way to help
>a stranger, even if it is going to cost some money. This does not mean
>there are not other stories that claim christians should risk life
>and property for other, I just don't think this one says it.
>
> Pamela K. Whitehurst
> ...!hplabs!oliveb!tymix!whitehur
> ...!sun!idi!tymix!whitehur
>
And exactly how would you define "property"?
Certainly by stopping on his journey and helping the injured man he opened
himself to possible attack from the same robbers. Providing expensive oil
to tend to the wounds of the other man and giving money to the innkeeper
cost the Samaritan something. You seem to have a rather restricted view of
"property" if money and possessions don't fall into that category.
--
Scott Hazen Mueller
>In article <> ra...@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes:
>>>[...some xtian propaganda saying we should all be "Good Samaritans"...]
>>>
>>>Tom Albrecht
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>raghu
>
>[...more xtian propaganda saying the same thing...]
>
>Kiki
This is called begging the question. You assume that for some reason there
is something intrinsically good about treating other people as equals and
then say, "Now wouldn't it be nice if people really did this."
There are real and good _reasons_ for treating with others as equals; they
also have nothing to do with one or another religion. There is the pragmatic
reason that people will have nothing to do with you if you do not act as if
they are worth something. There is the internal reason that quite often it
simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others. If you don't want
to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at
all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and
expect people to care to associate with you.
I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong)
because "the Bible says so."
\scott
--
Scott Hazen Mueller lll-crg.arpa!csustan!smdev
City of Turlock work: (209) 668-5590 -or- 5628
901 South Walnut Avenue home: (209) 527-1203
Turlock, CA 95380 <Insert pithy saying here...>
Robert A. Pease
>As we develop our life with God as the center, we begin
>to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life. Now imagine
>the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the
>best for others. If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd
>have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like.
>
>Kiki
The intention is a nice one, but the idea frightens me. My first
question, of course, is who is going to decide whats best for me? If
I am to decide, then you need to know of my decision and abide by it.
If you are to decide, then I am to be bound by something that will
very likely cause me great amounts of discomfort.
Be careful with this idea. It can be easily used to justify a
lifestyle akin to that depicted in "1984". I think what has a better
outcome is to live and let live. Its like I tell my kids, "Don't you
worry what she's doing, you take care of yourself and let her take
care of herself."
--
Robert A. Pease
{hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix}!oliveb!oliven!rap
Tom Repa
n.b. > = Kiki Herbst
>>= Tom Albrecht
>>>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a
>>>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should
>>>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the
>>>sake of another.
>>>
>>>Tom Albrecht
>>>"Reformata, semper reformanda"
>When one becomes a Christian many changes occur in his or her life.
>The biggest change is that God becomes the center of the person's life
>rather than self being the center. ...
>
> ... Now imagine the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life
>in this way, wanted the best for others. If everybody lived their lives
>in that way, I think we'd have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like.
>Kiki
Pardon me if I like my afterlife in a different flavor.
"Wanting the _best_ for others"??? Who decides what is best? Me? You?
Your God? My Gods? Your *interpratations* of what your God wants?
My *interpratation* of what my Gods want? Who decides?
Does "wanting the best for others" mean forcing your opinions of what
is best for them on them? If it does how do you know if what you're
forcing on them is really the best? i.e.: She would have gone to Med
school, met the perfect man, and together they discovered how to
cure cancer, AIDS, and a host of degenerative neurological disorders
collectively known as "Reagan's Syndrome." Instead she had to stay out
school one semester to give birth to a child and give it up for adoption,
didn't take the class with the brilliant researcher who directed her
interest to research, and the perfect man with whom she would have had
such brilliant rapport. So she just became a good M.D.
The answer is, of course, you don't. No one can. Except of
course your God and a host of my Gods. But my Gods aren't telling
and I don't trust your God. Which is why I think you should be
concerned with your life and leave mine alone. Each of us are
personally responsible for doing the best we can in this life and
no one else can live our life for us. So each of us must determine
what is best for ourselves. If you would like to inform me, go
ahead, but please don't try to legislate it.
Your idea of heaven sounds to me a lot like the one
Robert Heinlein wrote of in "JOB: A comedy of Justice".
If you haven't read it, try it.
Tom Repa (trash@oliven)
ra...@ut-sally.uucp
>The biggest change is that God becomes the center of the person's life
>rather than self being the center.
Thank you for your helpful posting. I understand that one's attitude
towards life - one's set of values - changes with the acceptance
of a concept of God and a set of divinely inspired (and perhaps
truly divine :-)) values.
Clearly, this acceptance is an act of faith. If one does not make this
act of faith, there are several alternative sets of values, including,
in particular, that which gives pre-eminence to self-interest.
On what basis can this set of values be compared to a God-given
set of values? (You will immediately recognize, of course, that
this basis cannot rest on faith.)
- raghu
Tom Albrecht
>In article <3...@isieng.UUCP> ki...@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:
>>to approach life in a different way: The way God approaches life. Now imagine
>>the ideal situation where everybody reacted to life in this way, wanted the
>>best for others. If everybody lived their lives in that way, I think we'd
>>have a pretty good idea of what heaven is like.
>>
>>Kiki
>
>question, of course, is who is going to decide whats best for me? If
>I am to decide, then you need to know of my decision and abide by it.
>If you are to decide, then I am to be bound by something that will
>very likely cause me great amounts of discomfort.
>
I guarantee that if you were the unfortunate individual helped by the Good
Samaritan you wouldn't question whether his helping you was in your best
interest.
>Be careful with this idea. It can be easily used to justify a
>lifestyle akin to that depicted in "1984". I think what has a better
>outcome is to live and let live. Its like I tell my kids, "Don't you
>worry what she's doing, you take care of yourself and let her take
>care of herself."
>--
> Robert A. Pease
I hope you never run into trouble and the only people who come by have the
same attitude as you. As a matter of fact, I hope *I* never run into trouble
and the only people who come by have the same attitude as you.
--
Tom Albrecht
Paul M. Dubuc
>>In article <> ra...@sally.utexas.edu.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes:
>>>>[...some xtian propaganda saying we should all be "Good Samaritans"...]
>
>is something intrinsically good about treating other people as equals and
>then say, "Now wouldn't it be nice if people really did this."
>
>There are real and good _reasons_ for treating with others as equals; they
>also have nothing to do with one or another religion. There is the pragmatic
>reason that people will have nothing to do with you if you do not act as if
>they are worth something. There is the internal reason that quite often it
>simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others. If you don't want
>to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at
>all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and
>expect people to care to associate with you.
One wonders why we need laws to help protect people from one another if
it is as simple as you imply. Are your reasons really good enough to
convinces the thief or the murderer that he shouldn't steal or kill? If
*they* don't want to feel good (assuming their crimes really make them
feel bad), and don't care to "interact with society", is there nothing
at all wrong with stealing and killing? Take less extreme examples of
unequal treatment and the same principle applies. We still see the need
for laws to insure that the possibility of reward for such behavior is
diminished to the point where people will be less tempted to indulge in
it (e.g. the proposed federal ERA is such a law). Without these added
restraints, it seems fairly likely to me that negative social consequences
of wrong actions would lack the necessary intensity and frequency to prove
practical as a deterrent. In other words, if one has the power to avoid
the consequences you state or considers them to be trivial in comparison to
the rewards she seeks for her anti-social behavior, your "pragmatic reasons"
for calling such behavior wrong lose all their weight.
Our society does not operate on pure pragmatism where morality is concerned.
We "hedge our bets" with laws that raise the stakes for wrong behavior.
>I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong)
>because "the Bible says so."
> \scott
Everyone appeals to an authority (either consciously or not) in exercising
their moral beliefs (I suspect that, deeper down, you are "begging some
questions" too). To imply that unsociable behavior is naturally
and of necessity "wrong" because of its consequences alone (having nothing
to do with beliefs based on an accepted--tacit or otherwise--authority) is
being naive. I think that a society that relied purely on the natural
consequences of behavior as a deterrent to "wrong" behavior would not
last long.
--
Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
ki...@isieng.uucp
That is exactly my point in why we should base our decisions on what God
wants. Every person can make his or her decisions based on many different
elements. Take the extreme example of Hitler who slaughtered the Jews
because he thought he was doing the right thing. Everybody else thought
he was doing the wrong thing! People make decisions based on many different
factors. But they are not always the right decisions. One person's decision
on what is right may be completely different to what is really right. Jesus
said that He is the Truth. If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows
what is right. If we base our decisions on His Truth, then the will not
fluctute with the whims of man. This does not mean that we become a monotaneous
unthinking society, but that we put the Love of God as our primary goal and
react to people with that Love.
Kiki
ki...@isieng.uucp
>
>n.b. > = Kiki Herbst
> >>= Tom Albrecht
>
>>>>The unique contribution of the Christian gospel is that it makes us a
>>>>people who are more interested in your rights than in my rights. We should
>>>>all be as the Samaritan who was willing to risk life and property for the
>>>>sake of another.
>>>>Tom Albrecht
>
>>The biggest change is that God becomes the center of the person's life
>>rather than self being the center. ...
> Pardon me if I like my afterlife in a different flavor.
>
>"Wanting the _best_ for others"??? Who decides what is best? Me? You?
>Your God? My Gods? Your *interpratations* of what your God wants?
>My *interpratation* of what my Gods want? Who decides?
>Does "wanting the best for others" mean forcing your opinions of what
>is best for them on them? If it does how do you know if what you're
>forcing on them is really the best?
I missed the first part of this discussion, so I was just commenting on
what Tom had written. As for forcing opinions, though, you are right,
I don't know what's right for everyone, so I wouldn't try to force my
opinions on anybody. But I am concerned with the way I live *my* life.
I know that God has a better mind then I do, so I rely on him for insight.
If someone also believes in God and relies on that same insight, I feel
very open to accepting advice from that person. The thing about having
God decide is that God is Truth. That's what he said through his son
Jesus. (You can accept or reject that, that's your business.) I believe
he is truth, so basing decisions on him won't cause the decision to vary
depending on the people involved, depending on the circumstatnce, depending
on interpretations and everything else you said. God doesn't change.
>
> The answer is, of course, you don't. No one can. Except of
>course your God and a host of my Gods. But my Gods aren't telling
>and I don't trust your God. Which is why I think you should be
>concerned with your life and leave mine alone. Each of us are
>personally responsible for doing the best we can in this life and
>no one else can live our life for us. So each of us must determine
>what is best for ourselves. If you would like to inform me, go
>ahead, but please don't try to legislate it.
Just information :-). I would be the last person to legislate because I
hate being legislated to! I agree with what you said. Let me ask you,
how do you determine "what is best for ourselves", how do you determine
truth or what is right?
> Your idea of heaven sounds to me a lot like the one
>Robert Heinlein wrote of in "JOB: A comedy of Justice".
>If you haven't read it, try it.
What do you think my concept of heaven is? I know what the Bible says about
heaven and it sounds like a great place to me!
> Tom Repa (trash@oliven)
>
Kiki
larr...@decwrl.uucp
The charter of net.women, now soc.women, specifically says that abortion
is *not* to be discussed. It is to be left to net.abortion, now
talk.abortion, and not touched upon in this group.
I support this decree and I have been waiting for someone else to mention
this to the group at large. What the hell, I may not be a net authority,
but I may be able to refresh some memories. (See whatever
net.announce.newusers has become if you don't believe me).
--
Tracy Larrabee tr...@sushi.stanford.edu decwrl!larrabee
Joel Rives
>consequences of behavior as a deterrent to "wrong" behavior would not
>last long.
>--
>
>Paul Dubuc cbdkc1!pmd
Since, we have no examples of such a society, it is difficult to know
whether such a society would last or not.
Seek not to rule the people with laws
For they will only seek to remain out of prison
and avoid doing wrong
What is more, the will not become virtuous.
Seek, rather, to guide the people by virtuos example.
For then, the people will follow your example
and become virtuos themselves
Kung Fu-Tzu
(aka Confucius)
--
Joel Rives
gatech!gitpyr!cc100jr
{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ ^ }-------{ * }
There is no place to seek the mind;
It is like the footprints of the birds in the sky.
{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }--------{ * }-------{ * }-------{ * }
ki...@isieng.uucp
O.K. Let's see if I can explain this....Here's an analogy to use as a
comparison, and one that is frequently used in the Bible. That is that
God is our Father. Now think of when you were young and you didn't know
what was right or wrong. A lot of times you needed to find out from some
body who had more wisdom than a young child. So you would ask your father
for advice or follow the role that your father set. Now imagine the most
intelligent thing in existence which is God. God knows the short-term and
the long-term results of our decisions in life because he is wise. Often
times decisions are easy to make because they are easy choices. But often
decisions we need to make aren't so easy, so it is necessary to get advice
from someone who is more intelligent--God. So your original question about
why these values are different than those from God is this: Often times
a decision that is made through God would be completely different if
decided by the *same* person without God in that person's life. So as
God imparts his will on believers, those believers make decisions based
on God, not based on themselves. But in the long run and often the short
run, those decisions are a lot more wise than decisions made merely by the
human mind.
I hope that answers your question. Have a good day!
Kiki
Scott Hazen Mueller
< In article <> I write:
< There are real and good _reasons_ for treating with others as equals; they
< also have nothing to do with one or another religion. There is the pragmatic
< reason that people will have nothing to do with you if you do not act as if
< they are worth something. There is the internal reason that quite often it
< simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others. If you don't want
< to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at
< all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and
< expect people to care to associate with you.
>
>One wonders why we need laws to help protect people from one another if
>it is as simple as you imply. Are your reasons really good enough to
>convinces the thief or the murderer that he shouldn't steal or kill? If
>*they* don't want to feel good (assuming their crimes really make them
>feel bad), and don't care to "interact with society", is there nothing
>at all wrong with stealing and killing?
Stealing and killing is by definition an interaction with society. Other
people _are_ society. You can't steal from yourself, and I see nothing
wrong about no-strings-attached suicide. If you steal and/or kill, you have
interacted with society in a negative manner; as a member of one society,
I have no problem with removing the "irritation" (through rehabilitation,
incarceration, or capital punishment). Laws are the emobodiment of a social
contract; violations of the terms of the contract result in expulsion from
society. Laws do not equal ethics.
>In other words, if one has the power to avoid
>the consequences you state or considers them to be trivial in comparison to
>the rewards she seeks for her anti-social behavior, your "pragmatic reasons"
>for calling such behavior wrong lose all their weight.
I never called anti-social behavior wrong. I simply said that for there exist
pragmatic reasons for behaving in a manner that will ease your interactions
with society. If someone truly has the power and the desire to behave in any
way they desire without risking negative consequences, I say two things:
1) this person is not interacting with any other people in manners that
they find undesirable; or 2) we're talking about the ruler of the whole
world here...
If I can get away with something, and the value to me of whatever I gain is
more than the value of lost societal interaction (not to mention the fact
that some social mechanism may act to capture and "punish" me), then I have
a valid reason for doing as I please. Right and wrong do not exist apart
from human interactions.
>Our society does not operate on pure pragmatism where morality is concerned.
>We "hedge our bets" with laws that raise the stakes for wrong behavior.
But why do people _obey_ the laws?
< I have no respect for people who argue that something is right (or wrong)
< because "the Bible says so."
>
>Everyone appeals to an authority (either consciously or not) in exercising
>their moral beliefs (I suspect that, deeper down, you are "begging some
>questions" too). To imply that unsociable behavior is naturally
>and of necessity "wrong" because of its consequences alone (having nothing
>to do with beliefs based on an accepted--tacit or otherwise--authority) is
>being naive. I think that a society that relied purely on the natural
>consequences of behavior as a deterrent to "wrong" behavior would not
>last long.
>--
>Paul Dubuc
I don't particularly like the idea of a society of "pure consequentialists".
I also don't like a society based on "god's laws". I would rather that
people behaved respectably toward each other because each person felt that
it was the best thing to do. I treat those around me as equals because I
want the same treatment for myself. That is the ultimate pragmatism -
"Don't tread on my prerogatives, and I'll leave yours alone."
STella Calvert
>implying that the Samaritan was a potential target of attack from the
>injured man?
According to the fundies who ran the sunday school I was subjected to,
the Samaritans were approximately the niggers of Palestine -- part of
the point of the story was that this member of a despised and
mistreated group behaved more honorably than the good Jews who looked
the other way and crossed the street to avoid getting involved.
Didn't keep those fundies from flaming about blacks, though.... 8-(
STella Calvert
Do what thou wilt -- not just a good idea,
it's the law!
Guest Account: {cybvax0|decvax}!frog!sc
HASA Affiliation: S Division
J.M.Berkley - Computing Services
In article <5...@oliveb.UUCP> tr...@oliveb.UUCP (Tom Repa) writes:
>is best for them on them?
I believe that you ARE free to choose what is best for you, however
with every choice there are consequences. If you decide that it is
in your best interests to rob a bank, then you are free to do so.
However, there are consequences to that action. Those consequences
are enforced by society to protect the innocent.
Having sex makes you responsible for the consequences. Having
an abortion is only an attempt to lessen the natural consequences
of that act. Unfortunately, this involves the life of the one person
who is not guilty of anything: the baby. "wanting the best for
others" means wanting the best for the child, not cutting him or
her off from life before birth. Thus society should try to protect
this innocent little one.
So what about the mother and her rights? In my opinion, she chose
to forgo those rights when she chose to have sex. She should abide by
the consequences of her decision. If she decides to abort her baby,
then she chooses another set of consequences, far worse than carrying
the baby to term. I'm not talking about "Eternal" consequences, but
consequences right now: guilt and remorse, sterility, etc.,etc.
Do I sound high and mighty? Yes. What right do I have to dictate
what is right and wrong? None. But the truth still does not change.
I am not going to force anything upon an unwed mother, but abortion
is not the "best" thing to do for the baby or for the mother.
Mike Berkley
(PS - Please note, I'm talking about those cases where two people have
decided freely to have sex and have had "an accident;" I'm not
making a general statement about any other situation.)
ma...@oddjob.uucp
> If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right.
And if he isn't, then look at the pickle we're in if we stamp
out all other philosophies! Just as in agriculture, we'd better
keep many strains of thought alive in case some of them should
prove to have hidden weaknesses later on.
Matt Crawford
- if it GLISTENS, gobble it!!
M.BRILLIANT
Services) wrote:
>Having sex makes you responsible for the consequences. Having
>an abortion is only an attempt to lessen the natural consequences
>of that act. Unfortunately, this involves the life of the one person
>who is not guilty of anything: the baby...
>
>So what about the mother and her rights? In my opinion, she chose
>to forgo those rights when she chose to have sex. She should abide by
>the consequences of her decision. If she decides to abort her baby,
>then she chooses another set of consequences, far worse than carrying
>the baby to term. I'm not talking about "Eternal" consequences, but
>consequences right now: guilt and remorse, sterility, etc.,etc.
>
>Do I sound high and mighty? Yes. What right do I have to dictate
>what is right and wrong? None. But the truth still does not change.
>I am not going to force anything upon an unwed mother, but abortion
>is not the "best" thing to do for the baby or for the mother.
>
>Mike Berkley
Thanks. As far as I know, that's essentially the pro-choice position,
with two exceptions. First, "Eternal" consequences are relevant for
those who believe in them. Second, the fetus is not legally a
"person," for reasons that have been gone over before in this
newsgroup, so the state need not concern itself with protecting it.
Therefore, the list of consequences of abortion includes a lot of
"etc.," but don't add legal consequences to the list.
M. B. Brilliant Marty
AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201)-949-1858
Holmdel, NJ 07733 ihnp4!houem!marty1
Kiki Herbst
Yeah, but if something is true, why worry about everything that's not true?
If there were a book on "Everything You Wanted to Know About Agriculture But
Were Afraid to Ask" and your prime concern as you said is agriculture. Would
you read a book about car maintenance or opera? Of course not, you won't
find a section on agriculture in either of those books.
Kiki
P.S. One of my old work partners was named Matt Crawford. Do we know
each other? :-)
J.M.Berkley - Computing Services
>Second, the fetus is not legally a
>"person," for reasons that have been gone over before in this
>newsgroup, so the state need not concern itself with protecting it.
Maybe this is true in a legal sense, but not morally. I'm
talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you
can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."
The view of pro-choice is that an unborn baby is not a person,
the view of pro-life is that the unborn baby is a person.
(This states the obvious, but you seem to need to hear it.)
Hopefully forums like this will lead to the unborn baby being
accorded the rights of a person in the law's eyes as well.
Mike Berkley
Tom Repa
>>n.b. > = Kiki Herbst
>> >>= Tom Repa
>>Does "wanting the best for others" mean forcing your opinions of what
>>is best for them on them? If it does how do you know if what you're
>>forcing on them is really the best?
>
> .... The thing about having
> God decide is that God is Truth. That's what he said through his son
> Jesus. (You can accept or reject that, that's your business.) I believe
> he is truth, so basing decisions on him won't cause the decision to vary
> depending on the people involved, depending on the circumstatnce, depending
> on interpretations and everything else you said. God doesn't change.
You say I can accept or reject the above statements. But the
whole point of talk.abotion is that some people are basing their world
view on the bible, and expecting other people to accept it. By Law.
I realize sometimes people try saying "it's killing a baby" and divorce
their arguments from religion, but the fact remains that some people do
not agree with that world view and, to use the wharf rats UNIX notation,
but it's a !baby. [n.b. I realize other people disagree with abortion
on other grounds, but this is a reply to Kiki. Hell, I don't LIKE the
thought of an abortion, or its use. But I think that if it is used to
allow people to move to a point in their life when they _want_ a child
and can afford to raise the child(ren) in a loving and caring environment,
then it is for the greater good of all involved.]
[[ Oh Boy! Now we can get into a Spockian discussion of the need of the
many vs. the need of the one. What Fun!]]
> Just information :-). I would be the last person to legislate because I
> hate being legislated to! I agree with what you said. Let me ask you,
> how do you determine "what is best for ourselves", how do you determine
> truth or what is right?
At least we agree on something!
But does the above hold true with regard to abortion?
If not, why not?
>> Your idea of heaven sounds to me a lot like the one
>>Robert Heinlein wrote of in "JOB: A comedy of Justice".
>>If you haven't read it, try it.
>
> What do you think my concept of heaven is? I know what the Bible says about
> heaven and it sounds like a great place to me!
>
Whoops! Sorry, you're right. I don't _know_ what your idea of heaven is,
although I think I have a good guess because of your frequent references
to the bible. My interpatation of what the bible says makes it sound, to me,
like an extremely boring place. So I guess I would rather go somewhere else.
Valhalla, perhaps. Or maybe Nirvana. Or maybe just get reincarnated as a
goat. :-)
Tom Repa (trash@oliven)
>> Tom Repa (trash@oliven)
>>
>
> Kiki
--
Have you ever noticed how much they look like orchids? Beautiful!!
Path: {allegra,glacier,hplabs,ihnp4}!oliveb!oliven!trash
tr...@fluke.uucp
Scott writes;
>>There is the internal reason that quite often it
>>simply *feels good* to be polite/nice/helpful to others. If you don't want
>>to feel good, and don't care to interact with society, there is nothing at
>>all _wrong_ with being an obnoxious idiot; just don't act like one and
>>expect people to care to associate with you.
>
>...restraints, it seems fairly likely to me that negative social consequences
>of wrong actions would lack the necessary intensity and frequency to prove
>practical as a deterrent. In other words, if one has the power to avoid
>the consequences you state or considers them to be trivial in comparison to
>the rewards she seeks for her anti-social behavior, your "pragmatic reasons"
>for calling such behavior wrong lose all their weight.
>
>Our society does not operate on pure pragmatism where morality is concerned.
>We "hedge our bets" with laws that raise the stakes for wrong behavior.
Paul, you seem to be ignoring the idea of positive reinforcement. I thought
it was well accepted that positive reinforcement works decidedly better than
negative reinforcement.
It is possible that our society (or any) is too much into "get what you can"
to accept positive reinforcement as a means of insuring proper behaviour, but
this is a pragmatic consequence.
Peter B
Christian Wiedmann
>Morally, you
>can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."
You're making the mistaken assumption that YOUR morals are EVERYBODY's morals.
Personally, I agree with you, but on the other hand I don't think it's fair
to press your beliefs on a society. No doubt you've detected that I'm pro-
choice by now. Morals are essentially arbitrary rules shared to a limited
degree by members of a society. They are similar, but not identical. Remember,
there are no definitive or absolute morals.
-Christian Wiedmann
al...@cae780.uucp
>talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you
>can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."
THE FOLLOWING IS NOT AN OPINION ON ABORTION!
A note to (hopefully) prevent future flames on this and other subjects. What
is moral is what a person or group accepts as being moral. If it is the custom
of a society to eat their first-born (to use an extreme case), then this is
morally okay to them, and we cannot say they are wrong. We abhor the practice,
and to everyone in our society (I hope), it is morally wrong. But if we were
in their society, we would be morally violating the custom if we did not do the
same.
In this pluralistic society (that is what we are, isn't it?), issues such as
abortion and prayer in schools do NOT have one view agreed upon by EVERYONE.
If that were the case, then the above statements would be correct. Instead,
they should read something like:
"Morally, I cannot do anything but consider a fetus a 'person'."
^^^
It is fine for the poster to feel this way. No arguments there. But he does
not have agreement from the whole society.
One more quick example: Moslems Friday
It is morally wrong to work on the Sabbath for Jews on Saturday.
Christians Sunday
Each of these religious groups in America celebrate their Sabbath in their own
way, without imposing it on others.
--
Alan Steinberg
textronix!cae780!alan
Helllp, Mr. Wizarrrrd! I don't want to be a programmer anymore!
Carole Ashmore
. . . If she decides to abort her baby,
> then she chooses another set of consequences, far worse than carrying
> the baby to term. I'm not talking about "Eternal" consequences, but
> consequences right now: guilt and remorse, sterility, etc.,etc.
>
Lord only knows what your qualifications are for telling the world
what consequences women have from abortions, particularly since you
seem to think that all women are alike and have the same reactions.
My qualifications include personal experience with both an
intentionally aborted pregnancy and a planned child carried to term.
Also, I spent two years as a volunteer for Planned Parenthood. During
that time I talked to more than one hundred women who were
considering abortions, most of whom later had the abortions and came
back to tell us about the experience.
On the basis of these experiences and on the basis of my extensive
reading in the field I can say that:
1. Sterility, and indeed, any bad physical consequence, is more
likely to result from carrying a pregnancy to term than from
a legal first trimester abortion. (The situation gets
statistically more complicated for second trimester abortions
because many of them are done *because* of physical complications
of the pregnancy --because the woman's life or health is in danger.)
The horror stories we have all heard of the awful physical
consequences of abortion (infection, sterility, haemorraging, etc.)
are leftovers from the bad old days when abortions were illegal and
usually done under poor conditions by badly trained practitioners.
Today, while it is slightly more dangerous to have an abortion
than it is to never become pregnant, it is no more dangerous
than carrying the pregnancy to term.
2. Some women do suffer guilt, remorse, and other mental
problems following an abortion; most women do not.
The women who suffered guilt were nearly always
women who felt that abortion was wrong, but felt forced into
it by difficult social or economic circumstances. Such women
could be greatly helped by programs designed to help pregnant
women choose alternatives to abortion. On the other hand, the
majority of women who did not feel abortion to be wrong reported
feelings of liberation, strength, independence, and being in
control of their lives. These women would not be dissuaded
from having abortions no matter how easy or attractive the
alternative.
Carole Ashmore
Robert A. Pease
>In article <6...@houem.UUCP> mar...@houem.UUCP (M.BRILLIANT) writes:
>>Second, the fetus is not legally a
>>"person," for reasons that have been gone over before in this
>>newsgroup, so the state need not concern itself with protecting it.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a position that I cannot agree with. No one KNOWS.
All we can do is report observations, and because of this I
will not require that a fetus be thought of as an individual
person.
>The view of pro-choice is that an unborn baby is not a person,
>the view of pro-life is that the unborn baby is a person.
>(This states the obvious, but you seem to need to hear it.)
>
>Mike Berkley
I may be mis-stateing the position, but as I see it the pro-
choice position is a question of when does one person's
rights end where those rights conflict and interfere with
another person's rights.
An example I have used before. If I injured myself in such
a way that I would die if you did not give me some organ for
transplant and you were the only person in the world who
could give me this organ, do you have a right to refuse me
that organ if it doesn't adversly affect your helth?
My answer to the question is, yes.
Sunny Kirsten
> ^^^
> It is fine for the poster to feel this way. No arguments there. But he does
> not have agreement from the whole society.
A fetus is a body which is going to die anyway.
The spirit lives eternally.
There are more spirits waiting to incarnate than there are bodies to hold them.
Normally, the spirit takes the body between birth and 10 days after.
Therefore, abortion is not murder, where I'm defining murder to be depriving
a spirit of a body it already possesses prior to it's being willing to depart
its body.
Likewise, pulling the plug on a medically sustained body whose spirit
has already departed is not murder.
What's the difference, as far as the absent spirit is concerned, between its
potential or obsolete body being allowed to or forced to expire, by failing
to support it, whether that support came from a human womb or a set of
medical machinery?
Sunny
--
Sunny Kirsten
POB 557
Monte Rio, CA 95462-0557
(707)865-2885
USENET: {sun,ptsfa,well,lll-crg,ihnp4,ucsfcgl,nsc,frog}!hoptoad!sunny
J.M.Berkley - Computing Services
>In article (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes:
>>Maybe this is true in a legal sense, but not morally. I'm
>>talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you
>>can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."
>
>If it is the custom of a society to eat their first-born (to use
>an extreme case), then this is morally okay to them, and we cannot
>say they are wrong. We abhor the practice, and to everyone in our
>society (I hope), it is morally wrong. But if we were
>in their society, we would be morally violating the custom if we did not do the
>same.
I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the
sake of convenience. Sure there are/were societies where babies
were murdered for religious ceremonies or entire villages were
slaughtered for reasons of war but I do not know of any society
where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of
convenience.
That's what abortion is. A matter of convenience.
Mike
Gadfly
> Morally, you can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person."
False. Clearly, you must consider it "human", but "person"--what exactly
is a person? All reasonable definitions ultimately resort to common
sense (a person is something that looks or acts like one), and this
excludes a 3-day old clump of cells. And indeed, many quite upstanding
ethical codes, at present and through history, do not consider a fetus
to be a person. It may become a person, just as Prince Andrew may become
king of England. It thus has a *claim* to rights, as Andrew has a *claim*
to the throne. Claims, of course, are relative, as Charles and Di might
tell you.
*** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** *****
****** ****** 09 Oct 86 [18 Vendemiaire An CXCV]
ken perlow ***** *****
(312)979-8042 ** ** ** **
ihnp4!ihlpa!gadfly *** *** <== NOTE NEW ADDRESS!
Tom Albrecht
>
>On the basis of these experiences and on the basis of my extensive
>reading in the field I can say that:
>
> 1. Sterility, and indeed, any bad physical consequence, is more
> likely to result from carrying a pregnancy to term than from
> a legal first trimester abortion.
>
> 2. Some women do suffer guilt, remorse, and other mental
> problems following an abortion; most women do not.
>
> Carole Ashmore
Statistics, please, could we have some statistics? It's easy for
abortionists (and anti-abortionists) to make such unsubstantiated claims.
Where are the facts to back up the assertions?
Do you, in your counseling, use the approach that the fetus is possibly a
living human and worthy of protection? What comfort is it to these
women to be told the the child within her is simply a lump of flesh only to
find out later that it ain't necessarily so? That's where the mental
problems come from. I've talked with members of WEBA who invariably recall
their experience as one clouded by misinformation and half-truths all
designed to get the woman to have an abortion. Remember, abortion is big
business.
Tom Albrecht
p...@fluke.uucp
Hi,
In article <19...@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg%OACVAX.BITNET writes:
>... Talk.abortion is a place to discuss abortion issues.
Faith in God requires facing this serious moral question, anywhere.
If what you said was meant to be true, why then did the remainder of
your article deal strictly with abortion and your pro-choice stance.
>... The PRO-CHOICE view is that a woman's
>rights to privacy and her body over-rule any possible rights to life of
>a miniscule blob of cells that feeds of her body and does weird things
>to her chemistry.
With todays scientific abilities, the laws cannot keep up. There is a
cutoff of x number of weeks, beyond which a baby is considered not
abortable. Babies have lived that were born before the cutoff date.
Should the laws be continually updated, for every baby born before
a new cutoff date; or will people realize the baby is a little people.
>... The view of "pro-life" is that a life of a fetus
>is more important than needs and wants of a woman who is sentenced to
>nurture it within her body and then for 18-20 years as a dependent.
When a parent becomes too old to care for him/her self - you then
believe they too are an unwanted burden which makes it acceptable
for them to be killed. Simply because they would depend on you?
>... The view of "pro-life" is that the State, governed by the inane logic
>of applying shoddy interpretations of nebulous allusions of a particular
>religious book of questionable authenticity, has a right to force women
>to endanger their lives against their will.
>... Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division founder
The current law does not reflect Christian belief in the sanctity of life.
Every law is made with someone's idea of moral right and wrong. There
is no avoiding it.
I personally don't think there is a hard and fast never on abortion.
When the mother's life is clearly endangered is probably one I see as
possible - I pray I never face such a decision, and neither do you.
Recently in Washington State, some people were pushing for the right
to have abortion on demand when they didn't like the sex of the baby
they were about to have. It was thrown out. But where will it end,
and what effect will it have on the elderly. Replace the words fetus
and baby with infirmed and elderly in pro-choice articles - maybe
this is where it is leading. Then go another step and put in the
words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction
things can go.
The women who have already had abortions suffer, too. Condemning them
is equal to condemning the baby. A woman I know recently had an
abortion, and she is now in much mental pain. She doesn't need my
judgment or yours, she needs our love, God's unconditional love.
Christians must love even pro-choice advocates. If you can't, then think
of them as your enemies, and God's *command* to love our enemies takes over.
God Bless,
Mike Andrews
al...@cae780.uucp
In article <26...@watdcsu.UUCP> mber...@watdcsu.UUCP (J.M.Berkley - Computing Services) writes:
>In article (Alan M. Steinberg) writes:
(That's me, but the poster left out the first line. It said:
THIS IS NOT TO DISCUSS ABORTION!!
I guess I did not check the subject, since I read talk.religion.misc, but
not talk.abortion. I have corrected the subject line, but still feel this
reply is necessary.
I had said:
>>What is moral is what a person or group accepts as being moral.
>>If it is the custom of a society to eat their first-born (to use
>>an extreme case), then this is morally okay to them, and we cannot
>>say they are wrong. We abhor the practice, and to everyone in our
>>society (I hope), it is morally wrong. But if we were
>>in their society, we would be morally violating the custom if we did not do the
>>same.
>
He then says:
>I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the
>sake of convenience. ...but I do not know of any society
>where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of
>convenience.
>That's what abortion is. A matter of convenience.
>
The poster was not listening. I was discussing morals, not abortion. He are
discussing abortion. The reason why an issue becomes one of morals is
irrelevant. The point is that there is disagreement among society, so that
there is no one singular moral stand.
To use Jonathan Swift's examples from Gulliver's Travels, if half of society
breaks its eggs on the big end, and the other half on the small end, then
that society has no single moral stand on the right way to break its eggs.
One half may think the other half is morally wrong, but each has its own
reasons for believing what it does. Each side is right in its moral opinion.
Now don't start saying that eggs are fetuses, and they shouldn't be broken.
That's an issue for net.abortion.
Oleg Kill the bastards Kiselev
>In article <19...@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg%OACVAX.BITNET writes:
>>... Talk.abortion is a place to discuss abortion issues.
>your article deal strictly with abortion and your pro-choice stance.
You are right, I should have at least set the followup field properly.
Apologies. This article gets x-posted to talk.abortion and will be
"Followup"ed to talk.abortion only.
>Faith in God requires facing this serious moral question, anywhere.
Well, THAT is a proper thing to discuss in this news group. I do not
accept the existance of your God and therefore do not concern myself
with having to do something because of "faith".
>With todays scientific abilities, the laws cannot keep up. There is a
>cutoff of x number of weeks, beyond which a baby is considered not
>abortable. Babies have lived that were born before the cutoff date.
>Should the laws be continually updated, for every baby born before
>a new cutoff date; or will people realize the baby is a little people.
You want to keep the "removed" fetuses alive? Be my guest! You can start
hanging around the Family Planning Centers ("abortion clinics" in
"pro-life" terminology) and offering to the women who visit it to take
over their motherly functions for them. A small financial reward would
surely provide you with more fetuses than your body could support.
Or do you want to see statistics on the number of babies that grow up
NORMAL (i.e. not severely physically and brain damaged), or even SURVIVED
these very premature births.
Or do you need me to tell you that it COSTS LOTS OF MONEY to provide
the care for premature babies, money most people do not have???
Or do you need me to tell you that if YOU want not to have an abortion NOBODY
will force you to have one???
>>... The view of "pro-life" is that a life of a fetus
>>is more important than needs and wants of a woman who is sentenced to
>>nurture it within her body and then for 18-20 years as a dependent.
>
>When a parent becomes too old to care for him/her self - you then
>believe they too are an unwanted burden which makes it acceptable
>for them to be killed. Simply because they would depend on you?
You are either an idiot or you are VERY naive. There are plenty of examples
of old people being killed by neglect and abuse in retirement houses. Their
children and relatives get rid of them and forget them completely. So much
for old people analogy.
You do not seem to realize that most human beings have emotions, likes, loves
and loyalties of other human beings associated with them, that the lives
of these human beings are very closely interwoven by emotional strings with
lives of other people -- a death of one person in this network of relationships
resonates through the entire network, ringing every node in it, causing grief,
sorrow, remorse. THAT is a true value, a true definition of a human being --
people are NOTHING without love and care of their fellow human beings.
There are very few people who have these emotional ties with a fetus. A wanted
future-child has very strong ones, an unwanted one has negative ones. The
people who are closest and most often the only ones linked to the unborn
child's life are the parents. If THEY do not want the baby -- WHAT RIGHT IS IT
OF YOURS TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO?! It is not YOUR PLACE TO MAKE DEMANDS!
>>... The view of "pro-life" is that the State, governed by the inane logic
>>of applying shoddy interpretations of nebulous allusions of a particular
>>religious book of questionable authenticity, has a right to force women
>>to endanger their lives against their will.
>The current law does not reflect Christian belief in the sanctity of life.
>Every law is made with someone's idea of moral right and wrong. There
>is no avoiding it.
Good thing too! You presume to speak for all Xtians. Yet there are plenty
of Xtians who do not extend this alleged sanctity of life upon a fetus!
>Then go another step and put in the
>words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction
>things can go.
Do not attempt to cloud the issue! A local court case of a quadruplegic
woman, who practically lived on pain killers and just wanted to have the
doctors let her die, is still too fresh in my memory. I wish you never
have to face a situation in which either you will be begging someone to
kill you to end your suffering, or someone close to you was writhing in
pain for months or years, while you held their death and a release from
pain in your hands!
>The women who have already had abortions suffer, too. Condemning them
>is equal to condemning the baby. A woman I know recently had an
>abortion, and she is now in much mental pain. She doesn't need my
>judgment or yours, she needs our love, God's unconditional love.
>Christians must love even pro-choice advocates. If you can't, then think
>of them as your enemies, and God's *command* to love our enemies takes over.
You God's "*command*" means nothing to me. If He is displeased about my
attitude -- let Him tell me so. Not that I accept your God's existance.
As for "condemning" women who had abortions: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?!
You are REALLY confused, my opponent: PRO-CHOICE means people have choices,
and whatever those choices are THEY ARE CHOICES OF THOSE PEOPLE and are
not a subject of judgement by strangers.
Armentrout Group
>
>I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the
>were murdered for religious ceremonies or entire villages were
>where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of
>convenience.
>
>That's what abortion is. A matter of convenience.
>
How about ancient Greece and Rome? In those societies, it was permissible
for a father to expose a newborn baby outdoors if he felt that the baby
was too weak or sickly to be worth supporting, i.e. if the father thought
that raising the child would be too inconvenient.
Gregory Woodbury
>><referring to:>
>> "Morally, I cannot do anything but consider a fetus a 'person'."
>> not have agreement from the whole society.
>
>A fetus is a body which is going to die anyway.
>The spirit lives eternally.
>There are more spirits waiting to incarnate than there are bodies to hold them.
>Normally, the spirit takes the body between birth and 10 days after.
>Therefore, abortion is not murder, where I'm defining murder to be depriving
>a spirit of a body it already possesses prior to it's being willing to depart
>its body.
>--
Specifically, ''the spirit takes the body between birth and 10 days after'',
OH REALLY! Despite my feelings on the matter (pro-choice), I am NOT willing
to let this pass. To blindly assert that the spirit comes to the body after
birth (besides, the spirit is -in christian terms- of god: do you possibly
mean the soul?) is just too much.
It involves assumptions about the deity's actions; the nature of the spirit;
the relationship between the flesh and the spirit/soul; and several other
topics. The issue of abortion has many facets, but to try to lay this one
aside by saying that the spirit/soul comes after birth doesn't work.
I am not saying that the spirit is present from conception (that is just as
arrogant), but that nobody can be absolutely sure when or where it does arise.
Greg Woodbury
------------------------------------------
Gregory G. Woodbury The usual disclaimers apply
Red Wolfe Software and Services, Durham, NC
{duke|mcnc|rti-sel}!ethos!ggw
Alex Cannon
keyboard again: :-)
>There are more spirits waiting to incarnate than there are bodies to hold
>them. Normally, the spirit takes the body between birth and 10 days after.
Sunny, you're a loon.
>Therefore, abortion is not murder, where I'm defining murder to be depriving
>a spirit of a body it already possesses prior to it's being willing to depart
>its body.
I think Sunny went through some awful trauma as a child, and she needs to
substitute fantasy for reality so she can avoid thinking too hard.
>Likewise, pulling the plug on a medically sustained body whose spirit
>has already departed is not murder.
I'm pro-choice and in favor of (self-)euthanasia, and it bothers me to
see other people support my views with gibberish. Come on Sunny, you *must*
have a brain; USE IT!
> Sunny
Alex Cannon
Boston University
l...@uw-vlsi.uucp
>In article <3...@isieng.UUCP> ki...@isieng.UUCP (Kiki Herbst) writes:
>
>> If Jesus is God (like he said) than He knows what is right.
>
>And if he isn't, then look at the pickle we're in if we stamp
>out all other philosophies! Just as in agriculture, we'd better
>keep many strains of thought alive in case some of them should
>prove to have hidden weaknesses later on.
>
That was what turned me away from Christianity for SOOOoooo long (better
than 21 of my years). The concept that Christ and God would encourage
everyone to be the same, to smear all the varied and beautiful colors of
human endeavour and thought and faith into one runny mess really repulsed
me. The thought that there would only be one truth, that could actually be
seen and interpreted by a failable human elected by failable humans, would
be the only truth for all humans was something that I could not accept. Not
on faith nor on hope. If I had accepted that as the basis of my faith it
would crumble to nothing.
Then one day, someone showed me Corinthians I, 12 and 13. I'm going to take
lines out of them.
12.4-7 "There are different kinds of spiritual gifts, but the same Spirit
gives them. There are different ways of serving, but the same Lord is
served. There are different abilities to perform service, but the same God
gives ability to everyone for their particular service. The Spirit's
presense is shown in some way to each person for the good of all."
12.14-20
"Christ is like a single body, which has many parts; it is still one
body, even though it is made up of different parts. In the same way, all of
us, wheither Jews or Gentiles, whether slaves or free, have been baptized
into the one body by the same Spirit, and we have all been given the one
Spirit to drink.
For the body itself is no made up of only one part, but of many
parts. If the foot were to say, "Because I am not a hand, I don't belong to
the body." that would not keep it frombeing a part of the body. And if the
ear were to say, "Because I am not an eye, I don't belong to the body," that
would not keep it from being a part of the body. If the whole body were
just an eye, how could it hear? And if it were only an ear, how could it
smell? As it is, however, God put every different part in the body just as
he wanted it to be. There would not be a body if it were all only one part!
As it is there are many parts but one body."
We are all needed. I am a Christian, first a Catholic baptised and
confirmed as a child, then, repulsing the human element, failings and
bigotry of that section of that Church that I was involved with I declared
myself NOT a Christian. Now, I am back. Accepted as a part that is
different, yet still a PART of Christ's body.
13.8-10
"Love is eternal. There are inspired messages, but they are
temporary; there are gifts of speaking in strange tongues, but they will
cease, there is knowledge, but it will pass. For our gifts of knowledge and
of inspired messages are only partial; but when what is perfect comes, then
what is partial will disappear."
The Bible is a series of "inspired messages", something that must be
interpreted to adapt to present day situations, otherwise it stagnates and
dies and is no longer relavent. There is a Truth that is eternal, but I do
not really believe that any one person can perceive or interprete it, at
least I know that I cannot, you may be gifted enough to perceive the whole,
and able to judge all who might abort an innocent.
All I know is what I have seen. And from that view I have seen what
unwanted children go through, from seeing the terrible emotional scars that
led to physical scars on one of my boyfriends, to hearing with horror the
death of a sister of a friend who was an unwed mother, to reading of the
terrible storys of child abuse from elementary school teachers. Every
teacher of children that I have known has agreed with me on my view of
the issue of abortion. And from what I have seen and experienced and been
told and felt, the terrible price of a childhood unwanted is not paid by
just the mother, it is also paid by the child, the father, the teachers of
the child, the social workers that have to deal with child abuse, all the
friends the child may have, and the lover that child may wish to love later.
No, I know, not all unwanted childhoods turn into these feast of horror, but
enough have that I am conviced that to make *all* abortions illegal is a Bad
Thing.
Mostly because anyone who can make the decision to go through the grief,
risk and clinical horror of an abortion in order to get rid of a child, will
NOT make a good mother at that time.
I cannot condone abortion as a method of contraception, nor can I condone
abortions after the first trimester. But I also cannot condemn all
abortions as a crime against an innocent, because a childhood unwanted is a
penalty no innocent should have to pay just to exist. I, personally, will
never and have never had an abortion, I love kids too much to even think of
it. However, and this is also a personal view, I cannot think that He who
loved children so much could actively condone and help those that which
could make their lives a living hell.
Liralen Li
--
"A closed mouth gathers no foot."
USENET: ihnp4!akgua!sb6!fluke!uw-vlsi!li
ARPA: l...@vlsi.cs.washington.arpa
George Greene Jr.
I'll grant a tip of the hat to a worthy adversary here.
>
> I don't recall any societies where murder is condoned for the
> sake of convenience. Sure there are/were societies where babies
> were murdered for religious ceremonies or entire villages were
> slaughtered for reasons of war but I do not know of any society
> where it was acceptable for a child to be killed for reasons of
> convenience.
>
> That's what abortion is. A matter of convenience.
You have stated the pro-life position well and clearly.
Your side of the argument is blessed with the shorter defenses.
My main points against this particular formulation of it are:
1) Most of the societies were patriarchal, but most of the inconvenience
was borne by the mothers and their misbegotten children. You can bet
that if fathers had had to share that inconvenience, "child murders"
would've been a lot more common historically.
2) In some cultures, since children are your property and have to obey
their fathers, it is true that fathers with more kids have more workers,
and can earn more wealth by managing them productively.
This is another reason why patriarchal societies would
tend to cheat deserving women out of their abortions. This is the main
reason why birth control is so impossible in Kenya and India today. It
is also the main reason why lessening population growth has zero force
as an argument in favor of abortion.
3) The mere fact that you haven't read about societies where child murder
or abandonment for "convenience" was common doesn't imply that they
didn't exist. As Christians should know, Moses was abandoned for precisely
that reason. I'm sure the history or soc. majors could help you on that
one.
> >>talking about morality in society, not legality. Morally, you
> >>can't do anything but consider the fetus a "person." > > > >What is
George Greene Jr.
here he is taking moral relativism *entirely* too far.
(This particular branch of the discussion also happens to belong
in talk.politics and talk.religion rather than here.)
Robert was (and I'm glad he was) trying to refute the following:
> >That is exactly my point in why we should base our decisions on what God
> >wants.
So Robert said,
> First of all, no one really KNOWS what "God" wants. All we can do is
> point to something and say, "This indicates that God wants ta-da." If
> someone KNEW what "God" wanted then there would not be such a heated
> debate about "The TRUE Religion."
This was fine and dandy.
Then,
his victim continued,
> >Every person can make his or her decisions based on many different
> >elements. Take the extreme example of Hitler who slaughtered the Jews
> >because he thought he was doing the right thing. Everybody else thought
> >he was doing the wrong thing!
Then Robert replied:
> Hitler is not at issue here. What is at issue is using the idea that
> "I know what is right for you." Only I and my deity know what is best
> for me and only I and my deity should make that choice. Not you. Not
> Jerry F. Not Ronnie R. (BTW - Hitler was enforcing his idea of what
> was right on other people and that made him wrong.)
>
I hate to disappoint you, but enforcing your idea of what is right on
other people is NOT usually wrong. Whether it is right or wrong depends
on whether your idea of right or wrong is right or wrong. If you see a
person committing a murder, and you know that you can easily prevent it,
you are (usually) morally obligated to prevent it, even if he thinks
that murder is good clean fun. Any morality worthy of the name will
occasionally REQUIRE itself to be enforced upon the unwilling. About the
only thing that can be said in favor of Robert's position is that these
occasions are a hell of a lot rarer than the Ayatollah Robertson thinks
they are. Nevertheless, when one arises, you had darn well better
recognize it (South Africa should leap to mind unbidden here, as Dixie
did in 1956-66). If you have a morality then you are usually morally
obligated to enforce it through as wide a sphere as your power
will permit. There are some cases where you can claim ignorance of how
other people ought (morally) to behave, but in most cases that is just a
cop-out. An obviously key component of any morality is some guidelines
about legitimate use of force. A morality that cannot legitimize force
in its own defense is usually untenable.
p...@fluke.uucp
Hi,
Following is a discussion of abortion from my perspective as a Christian.
I don't pretend to speak for all Christians, and I hope Oleg Kiselev
doesn't believe he speaks for all non-Christians.
[refering to my statement that `Faith in God requires facing this serious
moral question, anywhere']
In article <20...@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> ol...@OACVAX.BITNET (Oleg "Kill the bastards" Kiselev) writes:
>... Well, THAT is a proper thing to discuss in this news group. I do not
>accept the existance of your God and therefore do not concern myself
>with having to do something because of "faith".
>... You want to keep the "removed" fetuses alive? Be my guest! ...
As you say, they are very much alive, before their lives are taken.
Lives God created thru the participation of two people. The existance
of the child is not just the woman's responsibility, nor is the child's
care. The man has emotional and financial responsibilities, too.
>... Or do you want to see statistics on the number of babies that grow up
>NORMAL (i.e. not severely physically and brain damaged), or even SURVIVED
>these very premature births.
Maybe you could look at the statics and tell me. Also look at how many
babies went on to live normal, productive, and happy lives.
>... Or do you need me to tell you that it COSTS LOTS OF MONEY to provide
>the care for premature babies, money most people do not have???
You've answered one of my concerns very clearly here.
There are groups, even churches, who will help clothe and feed entire
families if they can't handle it on their own; helping them get on with
their lives.
>Or do you need me to tell you that if YOU want not to have an abortion NOBODY
>will force you to have one???
I'm forced to pay for them thru my taxes, and the tax support or government
support some abortions get.
[I stated]
>>When a parent becomes too old to care for him/her self - you then
>>believe they too are an unwanted burden which makes it acceptable
>>for them to be killed. Simply because they would depend on you?
[Oleg responds]
>...You are either an idiot or you are VERY naive. There are plenty of examples
>of old people being killed by neglect and abuse in retirement houses. Their
>children and relatives get rid of them and forget them completely. So much
>for old people analogy.
Think again.
>... If THEY do not want the baby -- WHAT RIGHT IS IT
>OF YOURS TO TELL THEM WHAT TO DO?! It is not YOUR PLACE TO MAKE DEMANDS!
Why should I have to pay for them. Who is making demands?
>... You presume to speak for all Xtians. Yet there are plenty
>of Xtians who do not extend this alleged sanctity of life upon a fetus!
I am expressing my own beliefs regarding the sanctity of life. I do wish
more Christians shared them, too.
[regarding where I fear abortion could lead, I state]
>>Then go another step and put in the
>>words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction
>>things can go.
[Oleg responds]
>...Do not attempt to cloud the issue! A local court case of a quadruplegic
>woman, who practically lived on pain killers and just wanted to have the
>doctors let her die, is still too fresh in my memory.
>...Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division
I know two quadraplegics, one personally, who want very much too live.
What happens when too-much-money, over-dependence, etc. make their way
into laws which say they too are just a burden and drain on society, which we
can choose to eliminate, or refuse to give them the medical and emotional needs
they have.
This is not an easy, cut and dried issue. But death for a living being is
very final.
God Bless,
Mike Andrews