Conference yukon::christian_v7

| <<< Note 108.0 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| On Saturday, 54 people who were doing nothing but walking down a public
| sidewalk in Melbourne, Florida, quietly singing "Jesus loves the little
| children" were arrested for violating a judge's injunction which prohibits
| demonstrations near any abortion clinic in Brevard or Seminole Counties.

	John, were these people within the 300' exclusion zone? If not, then
they had no right to be arrested. If they were, then it makes sense. Regardless
of whether the law is correct is a different issue. If an injunction was set
and they broke it, then what happened was correct under MAN'S law. So, were
they within the 300' exclusion zone?

| 200 pro-abortion advocates who were between the pro-life demonstrators,
| holding signs and yelling, were not arrested.

	Was the injunction based towards JUST the pro-life people or
demonstrators period? This is key in discovering if they (pro-choice people)
should have been arrested as well. 

| It is clear that politically incorrect speech is being suppressed in Florida.

	It depends on what the injuction said John. It doesn't mean that the
injuction is correct, but whatever is on that paper is what should be followed.
If one group is allowed to do (in this case protest) and one isn't and the
paper says NO protesting by anyone, then a man made injustice was done.
Otherwise man made justice was carried out. Now, (and I'm sure they're already
doing this) if they disagree with the injuction, then they should do something
about getting the thing changed.



Glen

The law of the land protects freedom of speech, Glen.

The point of the base note is:

	1. to point out that singing hymns has been made
	   illegal in Florida, while yelling pro-abortion
	   slogans more loudly and closer to the clinic
	   will not get you arrested.

	2. To provide a starter for the abortion discussion
	   in this version of the conference.

The judge's order is quite complicated.  Some things are illegal within
36 feet (which is where they were arrested), others are illegal within
300 feet (which is where their own house is located).

The only way to fight the injunction is through civil disobedience and
the resulting legal action after people are arrested under it.

/john

| <<< Note 108.2 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



	John, regardless of your reasons are for writing the note has
absolutely NOTHING to do with what I was asking. 

| The judge's order is quite complicated.  Some things are illegal within
| 36 feet (which is where they were arrested), 

	In other words, they were within 36' of pro-choice people, right? They
broke the law, plain and simple. Under the law the correct thing was done.

| The only way to fight the injunction is through civil disobedience and
| the resulting legal action after people are arrested under it.

	Hmmm.... so if people think murder shouldn't be a law then what they
should do is go out and kill everyone in sight until the law is changed. What
you're implying isn't going to bring change, just cause chaos. Now, I'm not
sure, but isn't chaos more closely associated with Satan than it is with God?



Glen

           Do we follow God's laws or man's laws if man's laws violate
           God's laws?

           Prohibiting peaceful protests looks too much like the former
           Soviet Union, doesn't it?

           What if the Courts said Christians shouldn't preach the Word
           of God in public 'cause it made some people upset?...

           Everything is going topsy-turvy, isn't it?  Soon (very soon?)
           Christians may no longer be tolerated by gov't & society...

           Steve

Glen, the point is that our freedom of speech and freedom to practice our
religion is being infringed upon in Florida.

The injunction makes it illegal to sing pro-life songs that might be heard
within the abortion clinic.  Yet pro-abortion chants are perfectly legal.

The point of this topic is that there is something very bad happening out
there, and all Christians must take action for freedom of religion and
freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

/john

    Glen,
    
    The previous two replies I believe has addressed you well... but
    PLEASE, hear what is being said... When the God's people are being
    directly persecuted while something that is clearly murder is being
    embraced, that is cause for pause.
    
    sign,
    Nancy
    
    P.S.  My Mom, Grandfater, Aund and cousins live in Melbourne, FL.

    
    Hey Glen!!!!!!!!
    
    Ever hear of the civil rights movement in the 60's ???????????????
    
    
     No, I didn't think so....

    I think it's a very inconsistent position to say in this note that if
    the law (of man) says "X" and people violate "X", the people who
    violate the law should be punished, regardless of whether the law is
    flawed.  Yet - when the Law (of G-d) says "Y", one 'knows' that this
    Law is flawed and therefore shouldn't be obeyed.

>   I think it's a very inconsistent position to say in this note that if
>   the law (of man) says "X" and people violate "X", the people who
>   violate the law should be punished, regardless of whether the law is
>   flawed.  Yet - when the Law (of G-d) says "Y", one 'knows' that this
>   Law is flawed and therefore shouldn't be obeyed.

           ... not sure I caught what you're saying???  The Law of God is
           flawed?  Please explain further.
           
           Steve

    re .9 Steve,
    
     I believe Steve McC's reply .8 is referring to man's law being flawed
    and God's higher law is the one to be followed.
    
    Gil

| <<< Note 108.5 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| Glen, the point is that our freedom of speech and freedom to practice our
| religion is being infringed upon in Florida.

	John, please. If all the demonstrations were peaceful and didn't have
people going into the place and chaining themselves to fixtures then there
would never be a problem. But a lot of the protests were far from peaceful. The
bed was made......

	BTW, what religion practices chaining oneself to fixtures? I've never
heard of it. The injunction is based on what has happened in the past. IF this
were a case where there was no injuction, then you would have a point. Like I
said, if the injunction is unfair, make the changes that are needed. If many
feel that they should go against the law because they feel their cause is that
important to them, then fine, do just that. But let's not cry over it once
you've been arrested and act like you didn't expect this to happen.

| The injunction makes it illegal to sing pro-life songs that might be heard
| within the abortion clinic.  Yet pro-abortion chants are perfectly legal.

	John, in Florida, at these area's, what have the pro choice people done
that disrupted the business? Nothing I believe. Now I don't like abortions any
more than you do, but until pro-life people look at ALL the issues and DEAL
with them and not brush them off, I too don't want to see regulations go into
place that only deal with the life being born and not anything else. BTW, if
you would like to know what the things pro-life people have to deal with, look
in the last version of Christian under the operation rescue/act-up/queer nation
topic. I believe Brian started that one.



Glen

| <<< Note 108.7 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Swear: Make your ignorance audible" >>>



| Ever hear of the civil rights movement in the 60's ???????????????


	Sort of like the march that will be happening on the 25th in
Washington. But that will be peaceful.

| No, I didn't think so....

	Andrew! You're showing your age! The only thing I remember about the
60's is going to elementry school. I was just a little tyke back then! :-)


Glen

| <<< Note 108.8 by POWDML::SMCCONNELL "Next year, in JERUSALEM!" >>>



| I think it's a very inconsistent position to say in this note that if
| the law (of man) says "X" and people violate "X", the people who
| violate the law should be punished, regardless of whether the law is
| flawed.  Yet - when the Law (of G-d) says "Y", one 'knows' that this
| Law is flawed and therefore shouldn't be obeyed.

	Interesting analogy Steve. But it doesn't work. The difference is in
our belief system. We both know that man made laws are either followed or there
could be a penalty we have to pay. We have seen these laws passed. Now, on the
other hand..... I don't think I need to go into it.



Glen

    
    Glen,
    
      As usual, you're deflecting and avoiding the issue. You come slam
    banging in with all sorts of opinions/statements and then when someone
    offers rebuttals, you weave and bob and pooh-pooh the replies.
    
      See if you can understand this...
      
      I'm not talking about any one particular "march". Yes, there were
    plenty of them, and most of them were for rallying people together for
    a show of solidarity.
    
      I'm refering to the "civil rights MOVEMENT"!! The civil
    DISOBEDIENCE, the PROTESTS, the SIT-INS, the PARADES through die-hard
    redneck country, where these people lost their lives and sat in jail
    for simply just being there. I'm talking about the FIRE HOSES, the
    BEATINGS (and not with these woosy rubber hoses they have today).
    
      So don't compare a friendly get-together, feely-touchy, goody-goody, 
    rant and rave on the Mall in D.C. on the 25th with what happened in the
    60's....
    
      As for dating myself.... Yes, I was around at the time... didn't
    understand the context of much of it until later simply because I grew
    up in a New Jersey town where 75% of my friends were black or Puerto
    Rican, and I wasn't able to empathize with what happened in many places
    in the South...
    
      Still it's no reason for you NOT to learn about what really happened
    and carry the events/happenings to an analogous conclusion.
    
      Want a learning exercise??? 
    
    
      Go back through your entries and substitute the words "civil rights
    protesters" and "minorities" where you put "pro-life protesters" and
    see what you get.... okay?
    
      Naaaaahhh... that'd be too easy...
    
    
      Andy
     

    
    RE: .14
    
    
    Exactly!!!!!!!!!!! :) :)
    
    Hey Mark!!!!!
    
    Have you seen that commercial on TV where they're advertising a new car
    tire cleaner?? You just spray it on and leave it alone and it does all
    the work??
    
      They show this poor guy itching and wanting to do something with
    those tires.... He's got a rag and all, and it's all he can do to not
    go near the tires.... You can see the strain in his face.... 
    
    
      Kinda remind you of someone?????????????
    
    
      :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
    
    
      Andy
    
    
      

Jonathan Daniels is New Hampshire's civil rights hero, and is memorialized
on a plaque near the Martin Luther King memorial in the hall between ZKO1-2
and ZKO3-2.  Jon experienced a profound conversion in The Church of the
Advent in Boston on Easter Sunday, 1962.

Some consider him a martyr; some consider him merely a good man who was
murdered on August 20th, 1965, by a racist sheriff's deputy.

As you read this story, replace "civil rights" with "unborn rights" and
replace "black bitches" with "defenseless unborn children".

Jon (an Episcopal seminarian at EDS in Cambridge), Fr. Richard Morrisroe,
(a 25-year-old Roman Catholic priest from Chicago), and 18 other civil
rights workers had been arrested on the Feast of St. Mary the Virgin for
picketing in Fort Deposit, Alabama, and had been transferred to the Lowndes
County jail near Haynesville.

On his mother's fiftieth birthday, he and the others were abruptly released
from prison.  Accompanied by two black teenage girls, Jon and Fr. Morrisroe
went to Varner's Cash Store, the only place in Haynesville which would serve
blacks.

As they approached the Cash Store, a 52-year-old part-time deputy sheriff
named Tom Coleman stepped into the doorway holding a pump shotgun.  He
told the group, "This store is closed.  If you black bitches don't get
off this goddamned property, I'm going to blow your brains out."

Coleman leveled his gun at Ruby Sales.  Witnesses later testified that
Jon pushed Ruby to the ground just as the shotgun discharged.  He died
instantly from a wound in the stomach; the force of the blast propelled
him a dozen feet backward.  Father Morrisroe grabbed Joyce Bailey and
hurled her behind a parked car just as a second blast struck him, almost
cutting him in half.  Miraculously, he survived.

Coleman walked to the courthouse and phoned the sheriff in Montgomery.
"I just shot two preachers," he reported.  "Y'all better get on down
here."  A month later, an all-white jury found Coleman not guilty of
manslaughter.  The Lowndes County prosecutor said afterwards that
Jonathan would still be alive if he'd chosen to mind his own business.

The Keene Sentinel editorialized: "White Southerners ... simply do not,
and apparently cannot, understand why a white man would risk his life
to help a Negro register to vote or teach Negro children to read.  They
simply do not understand that, to men like Jonathan Daniels, all men
are brothers, and skin color means nothing... Not only was Jonathan
Daniels minding his own business, but he was also attending to His
business."

"One of the most heroic Christian deeds of which I have heard in my
entire ministry and career was performed by Jonathan Daniels," said
Martin Luther King.

The Christian Faith _requires_ us to *not* follow civil authority when its
precepts are contrary to moral order, fundamental rights of individuals, or
teachings of the Gospel.

Martin Luther King said:  "As we have a moral obligation to obey just
laws, we likewise have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws."

The following teaching from the new Roman Catholic Catechism is for all
Christians to follow, even those who, like me, are not Roman Catholic:

From the Catechism:  "Les autorit�s dans la soci�t� civile", "Devoirs
des citoyens" (Duties of citizens):

(2242) Le citoyen est oblig� en conscience de ne pas suivre les prescriptions
des autorit�s civiles quand ce pr�ceptes sont contraires aux exigences de
l'ordre morale, aux droits fondamentaux des personnes ou aux enseignements
de l'Evangile.  Le _refus_d'ob�issance_ aux autorit�s civiles, lorsque leurs
exigences sont contraires � celles de la conscience droite, trouve sa
justification dans la distinction entre le service de Dieu et le service de
la communaut� politique.  �Rendez � C�sar ce que appartient � C�sar, et �
Dieu ce qui appartient � Dieu� (Mt 22,21).  �Il faut ob�ir � Dieu plut�t
qu'aux hommes� (Ac 5,29).  ...

Roughly translated:  The citizen is obligated in conscience to not follow
the prescriptions of civil authorities when these precepts are contrary to
the requirements of moral order, the fundamental rights of persons or the
news of the Gospel.  The refusal to obey civil authorities when their
requirements are contrary to those of the properly formed conscience finds
its justification in the distinction between the service of God and the
service of the political community.  "Render therefore unto C�sar the
things which are C�sar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew
22:21).  "We ought to obey God rather than men." (Acts 5:29).

A few paragraphs later, in a section entitled "La communaut� politique et
l'�glise", we are told that the mission of the Church is to use all means
which conform to the Gospel and are in harmony with the welfare of all, even
in matters concerning the political domain, when the fundamental rights of
the individual or the salvation of souls requires it.  I interpret this to
allow -- possibly even require -- laity and priests to chain themselves
across the entrances of abortion clinics to defend the fundamental right
of the individual to life (paragraph 2270, abortion), but to forbid them
from harming anyone or damaging property.

(2246) Il appartient � la mission de l'Eglise de �porter un jugement moral,
m�me en des mati�res que touchent le domaine politique, quand les droits
fondamentaux de la personne ou le salut des �mes l'exigent, en utilisant
tous les moyens, et ceux-l� seulement, qui sont conformes � l'Evangile et
en harmonie avec le bien de tous, selon la diversit� des temps et des
situations� (Gaudium et spes 76,5).

Rough translation: Part of the mission of the Church is to "carry moral
judgment, even in matters which concern the political domain, when the
fundamental rights of the person or the salvation of souls requires it,
by using all those means, and only those, which conform to the Gospel
and are in harmony with the well-being of all, according to the diversity
of times and situations."

/john

    RE:18

    Which is why it is not acceptable to be  a Christian and pro-choice.


     Jim

Glen,

It doesn't matter whether you agree with the protestors or not, or even if
you're a Christian or not.

What the judge did was totally, wholly, and completely unconstitutional.

He issued an order that forbad speech espousing a certain political view from
being expressed in a certain area, while not forbidding speed of the other
political view.

Note that there is no issue of violence, or blocking abortion clinics, or 
anything.  He has forbidden pro-life people from praying, singing, or carrying
signs.  But the order permits pro-choice people to say whatever they want.

- Pro-life people are being expressly forbidden from expressing a certain
political view within earshot of the clinic.
- Pro-life people are being expressly forbidden from worshipping on public
property.
- Pro-life people are being expressly forbidden from worshipping on their own
property.

This is a flagrant violation of the constitution.   Because this "court order"
is in express violation of the constitution, it is null and void and cannot be
obeyed.  I would say the same of a court order that prevented homosexuals from
peacefully assembling and demonstrating on public property while permitting
Christian conservatives to do whatever they want in the same place.

The law is not being equal.  The issue of God's law doesn't even enter in. The
constitution is being flagrantly violated. A court order favors speed of one
political persuasion over another.  This is unacceptable in this country.

Eric

           None of this should surprise us... wickedness IS increasingly
           all around us.  And, if you don't believe that, you're either
           not facing reality or you're into humanism.  
           
           Either we, as Christians, stand for what we believe ("salt of
           the earth") or we sit back and accept all, even unjust laws
           ("lose our saltiness"), and become like nothing...  We can't
           ride the fence for long!
           
           Steve

    The proper step for law-abiding citizens is to challenge the lower
    court rulings in a higher court with a class action suit.  Our system
    of government allows for this approach.  It is also permissible to seek
    support from legislative and executive branches of government if the
    law is flawed.  Civil disobedience is not yet warranted.  As a
    Christian, I would want to make sure that all legally acceptable
    avenues had been tried before choosing civil disobedience. 
    Demonstrations serve to stir feelings, but these other avenues are
    what's needed to effect change.
    
    As for this situation, I don't know what legal avenues were tried, but
    threatening civil disobedience because you don't like a court's verdict
    is exactly the "excuse" being used to riot, plunder and pillage today.  
    It is a twisted form of vigilante justice that cannot be tolerated if
    the Constitution is to have any affect.  
    
    The Rodney King trials come to mind ...
    
    Steve

| <<< Note 108.15 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Swear: Make your ignorance audible" >>>




| I'm refering to the "civil rights MOVEMENT"!! The civil
| DISOBEDIENCE, the PROTESTS, the SIT-INS, the PARADES through die-hard
| redneck country, where these people lost their lives and sat in jail
| for simply just being there. I'm talking about the FIRE HOSES, the
| BEATINGS (and not with these woosy rubber hoses they have today).

	Sigh..... Andy, it was you who compared the civil rights movement to
what is going on with abortion. I compared the differences between the
abortionists and the march on the 25th. 

	Now, on these abortion singings, they knew up front that they would be
arrested. They did it anyway because they believe the law saying abortions are
ok is wrong. So for them to cry about getting arrested is ridiculous. They
acted like they weren't expecting it, like it was some kind of surprise. 

	As far as what they did it seemed very harmless. But why did the
injunction go into effect? Because of past experiences with the pro-life
camp. You have to admit that when there is something going on at an abortion
clinic, arrests don't = peaceful. Chaining oneself to fixtures is not peaceful.
To disregard what has happened with these clinics in the past by pro-life
people as a reason for the injunction is wrong. If all they ever did was what
they did the day they got arrested (singing) then there would never have had
any injunctions put in place. BTW, to *me* it doesn't matter what the group is.
If their intent is to not be peaceful (I don't consider shouting as not
peaceful) then if arrests happen then they do. Let's not cry over them. I don't
care if it's ACT-UP, pro-life/choice, vets, what have you. If there is
destruction, then the party(s) involved should be held accountable. If
injunctions go into place against whatever group, so be it. In this case they
had plenty of chances to have peaceful demonstrations, but didn't. 

| So don't compare a friendly get-together, feely-touchy, goody-goody,
| rant and rave on the Mall in D.C. on the 25th with what happened in the
| 60's....

	I don't think I was Andy. The ONLY thing they have in common is they
are about people who feel they are being wrongly oppressed. Other than that
there really isn't anything in common. 

| Still it's no reason for you NOT to learn about what really happened
| and carry the events/happenings to an analogous conclusion.

	Agreed. 

| Go back through your entries and substitute the words "civil rights
| protesters" and "minorities" where you put "pro-life protesters" and
| see what you get.... okay?

	Andy, it's NOT the same. Just as <insert any movement> isn't the same.
The have some things that are similar, but they are all very much different. 

| Naaaaahhh... that'd be too easy...

	More like impossible....



Glen

>	Now, on these abortion singings, they knew up front that they would be
>arrested. They did it anyway because they believe the law saying abortions are
>ok is wrong. So for them to cry about getting arrested is ridiculous. They
>acted like they weren't expecting it, like it was some kind of surprise. 

Of course they were expecting to get arrested.  Use your brain and pay
attention: what is a surprise is that in this country there is now a court
order stating that one can now be arrested for politically incorrect speech
on a public sidewalk.  For singing Christian hymns and praying.  While people
on the very same spot singing "Get your rosaries off our ovaries" or "Satan
loves the little children" are not arrested.

This is injustice, and just like the civil rights movements and the anti-war
movement of the sixties and seventies, must be counteracted in many different
ways -- with both civil disobedience and with legal counterattacks.

We cannot let the pro-aborts win even the partial victory of one day without
demonstrations.  Our religion requires us to disobey man's law when the
fundamental rights of human beings are being trampled -- when innocent
people are being killed.

>Chaining oneself to fixtures is not peaceful.

Yes it is.  As long as the police don't break heads, noone will get hurt
at all in this sort of protest.

We are called by Christ to use all means necessary as long as they are
consistent with the Gospel.  We will continue to do so as long as it is
necessary in order to reduce the number of abortions performed.

/john

| <<< Note 108.24 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| what is a surprise is that in this country there is now a court
| order stating that one can now be arrested for politically incorrect speech
| on a public sidewalk.  For singing Christian hymns and praying.  

	John, you make no sense to me. You say on one hand that these people
should be able to sing their hymns but on the other hand can't figure out why
this injunction is even in place! It's based on PAST UNPEACEFUL demonstrations!

| We cannot let the pro-aborts win even the partial victory of one day without
| demonstrations.  Our religion requires us to disobey man's law when the
| fundamental rights of human beings are being trampled -- when innocent
| people are being killed.

	If you are to go against man made laws if they go against God's, then
can you seriously tell me that every instance that DEC passes a policy that
goes against what you perceive to be one of God's laws, you do something about
it? How could you work for such a company?

| >Chaining oneself to fixtures is not peaceful.

| Yes it is.  As long as the police don't break heads, noone will get hurt
| at all in this sort of protest.

	Sigh.... John, you amaze me. It is not peaceful to have someone running
down a hall way, breaking into the room where the abortions take place and
chain themselves to fixtures! No matter how you try and put it, it is not
peaceful! 

| We are called by Christ to use all means necessary as long as they are
| consistent with the Gospel.  We will continue to do so as long as it is
| necessary in order to reduce the number of abortions performed.

	That's fine John. You are doing what you think the Lord is wanting. Go
for it. But don't be surprised if more of these injunctions are put into place.
You are dealing with man made laws on this subject (injunctions), so even if
your reasons are from above, the end result is man made laws will either be
followed or you'll be arrested. 



Glen

| <<< Note 108.20 by KALI::EWANCO "Eric James Ewanco, MLO LENaC" >>>



| He issued an order that forbad speech espousing a certain political view from
| being expressed in a certain area, while not forbidding speed of the other
| political view.

	Based on what Eric? On the actions of the 2 groups. Did the pro-choice
people do anything that hurt the business that was going on? Did they harrass
the people going inside? Did they chain themselves to anything? I think the
answer can safely be said as no. Weather the law to allow abortions is correct
or not is one issue. Right now they are allowed. So under man made law people
should be able to have these performed. They shouldn't have to be harrassed,
etc. The judge put the injunction in place based on the actions of the pro-life
group. It's not so much about saying pro-life people can't do this or that.
It's about the reasons that brought the judge to this decision. The actions of
the pro-life camp. 

| Note that there is no issue of violence, or blocking abortion clinics, or
| anything.  

	This time, yes, you're right. But the injuction wasn't based on what
happened THIS time, but was based on what happened in the past. Is that really
so hard to see? What about when children do something wrong? They get punished.
And when they consistantly do the same things wrong the punishments get worse.
They can even include that the child can't do/see whatever/whoever it is that's
making this kid do the wrong thing. Should it be any surprise to you that
grownups who break man made laws are treated in the same fashion? Like I said 
in my last note, if MOST of the protests in the past were based as this one 
was, then there NEVER would have been a problem to begin with. Why is this so 
hard to see?

| - Pro-life people are being expressly forbidden from expressing a certain
| political view within earshot of the clinic.

	Based on past actions. It was these past actions that the judge ordered
the injunction.

| - Pro-life people are being expressly forbidden from worshipping on public
| property.

	Based on past actions. It was these past actions that the judge ordered
the injunction. Plus, isn't it just within so many feet of the clinics? Can't
they still worship on public property outside of the area? BTW, are all
pro-life people worshippers of God?

| - Pro-life people are being expressly forbidden from worshipping on their own
| property.

	Based on past actions. It was these past actions that the judge ordered
the injunction. Also, isn't the house right across the street from the clinic?
Doesn't that make it within the distance set by the judge?

| This is a flagrant violation of the constitution.   Because this "court order"
| is in express violation of the constitution, it is null and void and cannot be
| obeyed.  

	And the end result is you will be jailed. But seriously, it is based on
the past actions of the pro-life camp. Plain and simple. If ANY group did the
kinds of protests that they do (destruction) I wouldn't support them either. I
would also want the same type of order in place. Destruction hurts the cause,
not help it.

| I would say the same of a court order that prevented homosexuals from
| peacefully assembling and demonstrating on public property while permitting
| Christian conservatives to do whatever they want in the same place.

	Depends on what the homosexuals have done in the past. If they did
similar things that the pro-life people have done then I can see why the
injuction would go into place. 



Glen

 Glen, there were manmade laws promoting racial segregation.  Many people 
 protested these laws to various degrees, defying court orders, etc.  Were 
 they right in doing so when the existing laws were clearly unjust and inhumane?
 





 Jim

Come on, Andy.  Disagree as strongly as you want.  But please don't resort to
namecalling.  Though I agree with your position on this issue completely, I 
can't endorse that response.

Glen - you keep saying that the injunction is due to past actions.  Fine.  So
hand down an injunction against further occurences of that action, which I agree
is the proper response of the law to deliberate lawbreaking.

But to expand that injunction beyond prohibiting destructive behavior to now
prevent people from expressing their views - *ANY* views - on public property is
precisely what the first amendment was created to prohibit.  This injunction is 
blatantly unconstitutional, completely regardless of what the pro-life folks 
have done at that clinic in the past.

Paul

| <<< Note 108.28 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "He lives, He lives" >>>



| Glen, there were manmade laws promoting racial segregation.  Many people
| protested these laws to various degrees, defying court orders, etc.  Were
| they right in doing so when the existing laws were clearly unjust and inhumane?


	Jim, if ANYONE really thinks that ANY law is unconstitutional then
ANYONE can try and change it. IF getting arrested is part of what THEY feel is
the right way to go about it, then yes, do it. But what I am talking about
isn't whether what has been passed is right or wrong, but the reasons why the
thing was passed in the first place. That's all. The reasons justified the
courts actions. Remember, we are dealing with man made laws. But like I said,
even if a group like ACT-UP has an unpeaceful demonstration, I don't agree with
it. I would also support any injunction that were passed against them BASED on
past unpeaceful demonstrations. 



Glen

    
    re .108
    	Andy,
    	Don't be so hard on yourself.....
    
    
    	First of all, I can't help but feel all these demonstrations are 
        a waste of time/unaffective, it will not solve this problem. I 
    	am against abortions and feel it a definate sin. But we as
    	Christians have to understand that there is nothing in this
    	mixed up world we can do to change the actions of it. If we
    	could, would'nt it just slow down the return of Jesus?? Im not
    	saying we should not try to bring people to the Lord, but he
    	said he will bring people to us. And he does! Marching and chanting
    	in the street will only push people away. We may as well just carry
    	signs saying "WE ARE WACKOS AND WANT YOU TO BE ONE TOO". I know it's
    	sad, but will be veiwed this way. And we only amplify it. They
        can't and won't see it as love...
    
    	I know many here will disagree, but Andy's Dictionary reply can be
    	veiw both ways......Sadly enough!!!
    
    	There are many other directions we can work as Christians, and as
    	far as this issue goes, I must brush of my sandles and continue to
    	pray and work through one person at a time as received...
    
    
    	Bill
    
     
    
    	    

| <<< Note 108.29 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Swear: Make your ignorance audible" >>>

	Andy, it seems as swearing isn't the only way to make one's ignorance
audible. Your note takes care of that without one swear word being uttered!

| -< I vote for the latter... >-

	For some..... I'd say the former.....



Glen

  :

| <<< Note 108.30 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>



| Glen - you keep saying that the injunction is due to past actions.  Fine.  So
| hand down an injunction against further occurences of that action, which I agree
| is the proper response of the law to deliberate lawbreaking.

	To be serious, I agree with what you wrote above. I don't know why the
judge went as far as he did, but I would imagine it is because of a few
factors. One being the complaints by people who have gone for abortions, from
the clinics themselves, not believing the pro-life people would be able to
refrain from having those kinds of demonstrations, etc. Did they list the
reasons for the judges decision in any of the local newspapers down there?

	BTW Paul, thanks. :-)


Glen

    
    RE:.30
    
    Hi Paul,
    
      There was no name calling involved. If you look back at the
    definitions, I made it a point to include the fact that both words are
    adjectives.
    
      There were no nouns involved, ergo it was descriptive (of an
    attitude, btw).....
    
      Actually it was more of a "If the shoe fits..."
    
      When I was somewhat younger... somewhat less mature.... somewhat more
    ignorant than I believe I am now, the shoe fit alot..... and those
    around could see by my reactions then that the shoe really, really did
    fit.
    
      Hope this clears it up a bit Paul, if not, then please.. by all
    means... send me mail and we can talk.
    
      Regards,
    
      Andy
    

    .32
    
    Bill, I believe you are quite wrong in your assertion that
    demonstrations are ineffective and that there is nothing we can do,
    though I sympathize with your attitude as I have struggled with the
    same feelings over time.
    
    Being viewed as a wacko on behalf of God is not unusual nor
    dishonorable, in fact it is reason to rejoice.  Consider the prophets 
    of old, Jesus, Paul, and many other saints who have been considered 
    wacko by society but were true in the purest sense.  The gospel of
    Jesus is a foolish thing to those who are perishing but is also
    salvation for the world.  Shall we then stop preaching it since the
    world finds it wierd and foolish?
    
    I read recently of a seminary president stating his concern over the
    ministers being educated there.  He said something along the lines that
    he feared they were sending out ministers with alot of beliefs but not
    alot of conviction.  This speaks to my heart concerning how firm my
    beliefs are.  Convictions lead to action, it appears.  I find this
    true.
    
    jeff

The demonstrations outside the clinics in Florida have proven so effective
that the clinics' business is down significantly.

For this reason, the clinics have been spending quite a bit of money on
the legal expenses involved in getting these injunctions issued and in
other legal action -- in order to protect their source of income.

The demonstrations at doctors' homes have been effective.  Each year there
are less doctors willing to perform abortions, and fewer residency programs
that teach the procedures.

Abortion advocates are demanding that laws be passed making abortion training
a mandatory part of doctors' training, in order to keep the supply up.

/john

    .39
    
    I wish I could agree with you, that some small number of lives are
    being saved... but I daresay, women who want abortions will find
    another clinic that is not being protested to find them.
    
    Sigh,
    Nancy

	So Glen, you're saying that if I happen to live across from
	an abortion clinic, and happen to be a pro-life Christian, that
	I should not be allowed to sit on my front porch and sing
	"Amazing Grace" based on the past action of some other pro-lifers ?

	If the issue is with people chaining themselves to things, or storming
	clinics, then why not an injunction against those specific things ?

	Do you honestly think it's a fair law that prohibits pro-lifers
	from singing hymns (you *must* agree that's peaceful assembly?)
	while allowing pro-choice people to do whatever they feel ?

	From the news clips I've seen on TV, the pro-choice side doesn't
	seem all that peaceful... IMHO.

	Karen

  Let the government fund all abortions and pay the doctors a fixed, but
very small price. In other words, eliminate abortion for profit. 
You'll see abortion dry up like the Sahara Desert.

	When I was in college (and unsaved, and pro-choice), my friends
	and I walked by a clinic where three people were standing by the
	door (one was a priest).  We all thought it was terrible, because
	women would be intimidated about entering.  We all agreed, we too
	would be intimidated beyond the point of entering.

	I see now how my thinking was influenced by the pro-choice side.
	At that time, I thought that a first trimester abortion, although
	not desireable, was ok (because they are widely allowed, available,
	common), but that a second trimester abortion was bordering on murder.
	The abortion business had me thinking that a baby wasn't a baby until
	13 weeks.  So, we further concluded how horrible it would be for a 
	woman in her 12th week of pregnancy to not be able to get her abortion.

	When I got saved, I was still pro-choice, and thought it'd take a
	lot of doing for me to change my position.  Interestingly, God has
	changed me without much effort, by some simple understanding of
	the facts.  The point was driven home when I had a miscarriage in
	1991, and the doctor said, "Well, at 4 weeks, we should be able to
	see the heart beating."  I was 8 weeks along, and there was no heart
	beat.  Sorry, but you'd have a real hard time convincing me that a
	baby isn't a baby until it's born (or until it's X weeks in utero).

	Karen

    >Statistically, if a woman leaves (or is turned away from) an abortion,
     she, more than likely, will not have the abortion.
    
     Statistically, if a women leaves (or turned away from) a clinic,
     she,*may* deside to preform it herself. 
     I know it tough to hear, and I'm sorry if I affended anyone, but stats do
     show that if a women has to be confronted by a mob of people at the
     clinics, she will find another place or a less saver method..
    
    
    	Bill :-(
          

        re:.42 

>	Statistically, if a woman leaves (or is turned away from) an abortion, 
>she, more than likely, will not have the abortion.  

           I've heard that, too.  When one has chance to think about
           ones' actions, one will not (re)act as quickly.  That why the
           24-hour waiting period is so important.
           
           Steve
           
           PS- FOCA (Note 51) is coming up soon... get your petitions
           in...  Now that's an easy form of protest, which I bet > � of
           all Christians don't act upon!

    
    
    
    	Maybe they sould allow (1) Prolife/Christian to council the women
    	before they are allow to preform the abortion.. I think this would
    	be a much better method..
    
    	Is this done?? Is a Prolife person allowed to council?

| <<< Note 108.41 by CNTROL::JENNISON "Get a *new* life!" >>>



| So Glen, you're saying that if I happen to live across from
| an abortion clinic, and happen to be a pro-life Christian, that
| I should not be allowed to sit on my front porch and sing
| "Amazing Grace" based on the past action of some other pro-lifers?

	I guess that would depend on past actions. By this I mean if your house
was used in any of the non-peaceful protests, then yes I can see why a judge
would do such a thing. If it wasn't, then the only reason I can think of why
the judge would order such a thing is the fear of what could happen. 

| If the issue is with people chaining themselves to things, or storming
| clinics, then why not an injunction against those specific things ?

	Gee, I guess you ARE behind in reading! :-) I agree with this position
totally. But I think it's the fears that some have towards what could happen
based on the past that may have made things the way they are. The past can't
easily be swept under the rug. Once things have calmed down for a while the
pro-life camp will have ammo to take to court and get the injunction (at least
the peaceful part) overturned.

| Do you honestly think it's a fair law that prohibits pro-lifers
| from singing hymns (you *must* agree that's peaceful assembly?)
| while allowing pro-choice people to do whatever they feel ?

	This is kind of a retorical question, isn't it? Would the pro-choice
people be there if you weren't? But what do you mean by whatever they feel? I
think it was John that mentioned 2 chants that they were saying.

| From the news clips I've seen on TV, the pro-choice side doesn't
| seem all that peaceful... IMHO.

	What were they doing?


Glen

| <<< Note 108.42 by SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage-Day (insert #)" >>>



| Statistically, if a woman leaves (or is turned away from) an abortion,
| she, more than likely, will not have the abortion.  

	As someone else stated, they will more than likely do it themselves or
go somewhere that may be unclean to have it done (back alley abortions). This
is one of the issues that would prevent me from backing any pro-life agenda.
Yes, one of the BIGGEST issues is that the babies life should be saved. BUT,
there are other IMPORTANT issues as well. To disregard back alley abortions is
to also disregard the life of a baby.



Glen

| <<< Note 108.47 by GYMRAT::OUELLETTE >>>



| Maybe they sould allow (1) Prolife/Christian to council the women
| before they are allow to preform the abortion.. I think this would
| be a much better method..

	I agree that a pro-life person should be on the council. But I also
think the pro-choice should also have someone on the council as well. But maybe
not in the same room..... :-)



Glen

        Re: <<< Note 108.40 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Search Me Oh God" >>>
    
     Nancy
    
     > I wish I could agree with you, that some small number of lives are
     > being saved... 

     Then be encouraged (and encouraging!), dear sister! 

     > ...but I daresay, women who want abortions will find another clinic
     > that is not being protested to find them. 

     Statistically, Nanc, over 80% of women who do not keep their *first*
     abortion appointment *never* go back! Are some lives saved? YES! Are
     many lives saved? Maybe. Is it worth it? Have you ever held a six-month
     old baby who is alive today becaus *you* were there to preclude his
     mother aborting him? *ABSOLUTELY* IT'S WORTH IT! Go thou & do likewise.

     Greatest love,

     Brian 

Counselling?  What counselling?

There is no requirement for any counselling except in Pennsylvania and in
North Dakota.

In Pennsylvania, the abortion advocates fought it all the way to the Supreme
Court and lost.  They are doing the same thing in North Dakota.

FOCA would overturn any state laws requiring counselling.

/john

    For what it's worth, I think it's uncalled for myself.
    
    I am setting hidden those notes which are offensive in this string,
    until further consideration by the CHRISTIAN moderator team.
    
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

    I just came across a book written by a woman who owned and operated an 
    abortion clinic before seeing the light. Its called, "Blood Money."  I 
    only have her last name which is Everette. She stated that the counselors 
    that talk to the women going into abortion clinics are sales people, not 
    counselors. Their job is to sell abortions. The easiest customer to sell 
    an abortion to is a young pregnant woman who is scared and doesn't know 
    what else to do. Her abortion clinic made $45,000 per month. The welfare 
    of the woman is of no concern to abortion clinics. If it were, they would 
    perform the abortion for free. NONE DO ! 

    I'm gonna get this book. I understand its in books stores. 

    Has anyone seen it ?

    Jim

    I have two questions for those who are claiming that "statistically"
    women "MAY" go and have a "back-alley"/DIY abortion after turning away
    from an abortion clinic blockade.
    
      Where do you get these "statistics" from?
    
           		and
    
      How does one gather stats on what one "MAY" do?
    
    Gil ( who doesn't trust unsubstantiated stats )

 .58 Gil
  Re: Statistics

  P r o p o g a n d a, Gil.

  We choose to believe what we will.

  In this conference, we choose to believe that God reveals Himself
  through His Word.  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
  with God, and the Word was God."

  Opposition to this chosen belief is heretical and antagonistic, by definition.
  See also note 2.8.  Those holding an opposing belief are invited to find a 
  Digital Employee Interest Conference that will welcome and share their belief
  and allow those who share this common belief to do so unmolested by those
  who choose to believe, and worse, proclaim a standard that is contrary to 
  the inerrant Bible.

  Mark Metcalfe

    
    
    	Isn't it funny how you don't question the reply that quoted
    	stats about the women that decide not to abort after turning
    	away from blockades. I beleive this came first..
    
    	Do people only beleive what they *wish/would like* to believe..
    
    	I was given a booklet being pasted out by a group of while
    	shopping. It was'nt from Pro-choice people, but from Christians
    	consern about abortions. They were stressing more concern about
    	educating our kids/people about sexual relations. They beleive
    	as I do, that until we clean up the attitude toward sex, we will
    	never get a handle on eliminating abortions. Our kid are having sex
    	as early as 10 years old in the USA.. Why because this world is
    	revolving around sex.... I mean everything!!!
    	This is where the problem has started!! And this where we should
    	be addressing our concerns. 
    
    	We as Christian should understand this.... We must make a stronger
    	effort to clean up our TV shows, movies and comercials. These are
    	the people we should be confronting...
    
    	Bill- _Who_is_feeling_quite_angry_and_sad_thinking_of_this_topic
    

Bill,

There are a number of Christian organizations confronting
the concerns you mention.  Indeed, sex at an early age is
a sympton of a deeper problem.

Many in society, however, believe that their choices are
liberating for themselves and others rather than confining.
Abortion is one such lie.  Lifestyle is another.  etc.

Collis

    >We as Christian should understand this.... We must make a stronger
    >effort to clean up our TV shows, movies and comercials. These
    >are the people we should be confronting...
    
    >Bill_Who_is_feeling_quite_angry_and_sad_thinking_of_this_topic
    
    Bill, 
    
    There was an 11 year old girl in my Sunday School class that gave
    birth this year... and the sad part was she was in complete denial the
    entire time she was pregnant, that she was pregnant!!!
    
    All of the societal issues mentioned above are correct, but the most
    subversive is music... not to rathole the ZTV topic in here as I think
    these are two *Different* issues as I am not referring to CCM.
    
    Bill, remember this is a forum and while representative of a lot of
    diverse Christian organizations, each person in here is mostly a
    representative of his or her relationship to Christ first and foremost. 
    To be angry at an attitude that is plaguing society, AMEN!  To be angry
    at an individual for perceived ignorance... well, that's okay too, as
    long as its anger at the ignorance and not the eternal soul or being. 
    Just my 2 sense worth. [pun on purpose]
    
    Nancy

    "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, all good things will be added onto
     you."

     Sex isn't the problem. A society that has turned away from God is the
     problem.

    Jim

    
    
    
   >Sex isn't the problem. A society that has turned away from God is the
   >problem.
    
    
    Sex IS *one* of the many problems we face due to a society that has turned
    away from God..
    
    And right Nancy, music is also poluting the minds and souls of our
    children...... MTV appalls me!!!
    
    My anger is for the overall attitude of society, bringing corruption
    and immorality into the lives of our childern.
    
    
    Bill
    our children

   
   >  Sex isn't the problem. A society that has turned away from God is the
   >  problem.



  
  Indeed.  Listening to a talk show on the way to work this morning the hosts
  were discussing the murders in *schools* in the Boston area and the why's..
  a woman called up with the above claim and was practically shouted off the
  air by the hosts.  


  Millions and millions of dollars will be spent on studies, books, research,
  (not to mention lives lost) and the answer is within the grasp of everyone.





 Jim

	Bill,

	In my opinion, a big part of the reason sex is so prevalent among
	young kids is that abortion is legal.  One of the "consequences" of
	sex is theoretically removed through legal abortion.  Fortunately,
	not all of the girls that find themselves pregnant will have
	abortions when actually faced with the decision, but I know that
	the attitude of some of the women I knew in college was, "It won't happen
	to me, but if it does, I know what I'll do" (have an abortion).

	With the efforts underway to provide free condoms to school kids, the
	attitude will only worsen.  Kids will have a false confidence that
	sex is safe, that there are no *real* and lasting consequences of
	sex. 

	Educate kids as to the reality of abortion, what it is, what it does,
	what the lasting affects are, and you'll probably see a drop in
	the numbers of kids having sex.

	Karen

    RE:66
    Karen, 
          I disagree. Girls who have sex do so believing that they won't be the
    one to get pregnant. It is my opinion that if they were absolutely sure 
    that they were going to get pregnant as soon as they had sex, they would
    avoid sex despite knowing they could get an abortion. Teens are having
    sex, not because of the availability of abortion, but because the
    stimulus that they are given everyday drives them to it before they are
    ready. Teens have sex for the same reasons adults do. The sex drive is
    stimulated and control over such strong emotions is difficult. Only
    those who have  strong beliefs in sexual responsibility can control 
    themselves and even they fail.

     Jim

Ultimately we always come back to responsibility to God.  If kids were
taught - people admitted - that we are created by design, with 'right' and
'wrong' ways to use our bodies, and that there are 'present emotional' as
well as 'eternal' consequences from what we are in this life, not only
would moral values be re-established; it would be a relief to kids who are
desperately trying to find a base-line for their existance. 

The very term 'safe sex' is slanted to suggest that bearing a child (the
God-given purpose of sex) is 'an unfortunate side-effect', rather than part
of the fulfilment of God's plan to complete the population of this world,
as stated in Genesis 9:1. 

The goal for those who would reject God is to deny any design in our
physical, emotional or spiritual existance, and one way they do this is to
try to work in contravention of any perceived design.  Reminds me of Acts
26:14 - Saul of Tarsus, kicking against the goads....  To try to work in
opposition to the way you're designed is not much fun even in this life.
Let alone what it brings for the one to come. 

								Andrew

    On NPR they were talking with an expert about what he felt was the
    problem in the school systems.  One point he made that I took interest
    in is that teens tend to not think about the consequences of what they 
    do.  Associating actions with consequences is part of developing maturity 
    and tends to come later in life.  
    
    This aspect of maturity is something I remember getting as part of my 
    Christian upbringing at church and at home.  That is, I remember 
    being taught from the Scriptures that God's laws have consequences for
    disobedience and rewards for obedience.  The "world," meanwhile, taught
    that wicked behavior was of not consequence and that if the results of
    "sin" could be addressed, there was no problem.  (That's basically the
    message I was given in school.)  And, the world seems to have no end to 
    difficulties due to "victimless crimes" committed among "consenting 
    adults" among other things.
    
    Steve

    Several of the replys here have pointed out that the problem is people
    turning from God.  While Believers know the truth in this statement,
    non-believers immediately dismiss the arguement as flawed.  
    
    Planned Parenthood, the Women's Movement, and many others have
    contributed much to the "sexual revolution".  Schools now teach that it
    is expected of the children to be sexually active, so obviously they
    will be.  We as a body, need to counter-attack with pointing out the
    flaws in these ideas.  We must make it clear that Planned Parenthood
    was created to eliminate the undesireable minorities (primarily Negoes)
    from the population - a good tool is to point out how their clinics are
    for the most part in the "inner city".  The Women's Movement has
    stressed that men and women are the same, so it is no suprise that
    young boys expect girls to have the  same sexual desires that they do
    and to respond as they do - but we can point out the biological facts
    that prove this is not true.  Then when we have earned the trust and
    respect of the non-believer we can answer their questions about why
    with our testamony for Jesus.  The task is tremendous, but we have
    Jesus!
    
    Think about Jesus teaching - As far as I know, he never started out
    with "I am God - you must do as I say..."  He used analogy to show the
    problem and the solution - He won the people to His following with the
    demonstration of His love and understanding - then He gave them the
    Bible to follow.  I believe it is the example we must follow.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Other Brother Daryl

>I disagree. Girls who have sex do so believing that they won't be the
>one to get pregnant. It is my opinion that if they were absolutely sure 
>that they were going to get pregnant as soon as they had sex, they would
>avoid sex despite knowing they could get an abortion. 

This may have been true 10-15 years from now... but this is *NOT* true 
today [for some still, yes, but not as a general rule].  Hmmm, the 
thought of the SPUR POSSE comes to mind right now... boys competing for 
points by having sex with as many girls as they can!!! 

Girls being used in that way because they haven't been taught that they 
are more valued.  Sex has become a way of being socially acceptable... 
remember when smoking was the big social bonder???  Sex has now fallen 
into that category... WAKE UP.

Attitude is what the real culprit is... attitude.  Attitude towards 
Godly morals, attitude towards authority, attitude towards parental 
responsibility... The parents of children today came from the "If it 
feels good, do it" mentality.  Multiple sex partners are okay, and drugs 
should be legal.  I grew up in that era... the kids behind me were 
harder then my particular generation... but my generation was the 
culprit.  

Out of the 36 children in my S.S. class, 10 of them have 
Fathers in jail, 20 of them have alcohol or drug abusive parents, and 
the few who have fairly non-abusive homes, get toughened from the 
gang-infested neighborhoods in which they live, as both parents are 
working all hours and the children are left alone most of the time.
I have had 2 girls admit to parental sexual abuse.

These are facts... girls have sex today because the attitude towards sex 
itself has been devalued.. it's like smoking a cigarette!

>Teens are having
>sex, not because of the availability of abortion, but because the
>stimulus that they are given everyday drives them to it before they are
>ready. 

See the availability of abortion leads to the attitude of devaluing the 
sexual act in and of itself.. so while I agree that I don't think that 
this *is* the point, it lends to the problem.

>Teens have sex for the same reasons adults do. The sex drive is
>stimulated and control over such strong emotions is difficult. Only
>those who have  strong beliefs in sexual responsibility can control 
>themselves and even they fail.

Now that is SCAREY... but so TRUE.  Unfortunately, we have a lot of 30 
year old adolescents today.  When something as sacred as sex has 
been devalued, the devastation to the soul can't be seen by the eye, but 
is felt by the pain, hurt and abandonment that one feels as each sexual 
act comes to an end.  The pleasure of the moment... for a lot of girls 
and women... becomes a shadow of the sadness, anger and hurt in their 
lives.  And many go through life violently angry and never understanding 
why.

Nancy

    

    re: last several - lots of good points here.
    
    Re: Bill's questioning of my questioning statistics.
    
     Bill, I questioned the pro-choice stats because I thought they would
    be dificult if not impossible to prove (since they were based on what a
    women MAY do there is no verifiable physical proof.) I didn't question the 
    pro-life ones because they would be easier to trace, being based on 
    actuality (mother leaving clinic, and physical birth of a baby).
    
     That I am unabashedly pro-life didn't enter the logical process of
    questioning. I will admit though that being pro-life is what made me
    start to question it though.
    
    Gil (pro-life, prolific father of 5 - so far)

	Jim,

	I mostly agree with you.  I said abortion was a "big part of the 
	problem".  I also said that girls believe "it won't happen to me",
	but if it does, they feel there's a "way out".  

	The world preaches sex from every form of media, and as Nancy said,
	it's become no big deal to the kids of today.

	My reply came from my personal experiences.  Abortion has been legal
	since before I was a teen, and I do believe it's legality and availablity
	had an influence on my attitudes toward sex, as well as the attitudes
	of my friends.

	Karen, thanking God for His wisdom today 

	The I don't think it will happen to me plays high in a lot of area's.
Drugs, AIDS, pregnancy, robbery, you name it. It's probably the #1 excuse for
something bad happening (I didn't think I'd od, contact AIDS, get pregnant,
get caught in the act of stealing, etc)



Glen

    108.32 - No offense, but we can't simply pretend like all's well with the
    world and not try to save innocent babies.  We will be persecuted,
    Jesus said we would.  We must stand up for what we believe.  Peaceful
    prayer should be allowed.  Crisis pregancy centers should be allowed to
    offer women "true" choices.  There is not just one choice.  Lots of
    people can't have children and would welcome new born babies into their
    homes. 
    
    

    RIGHT ON JEFF!
    

    THE NOTE 108.76 IS IN ANSWER TO JEFF'S 108.38.  OK?
    

    108.43  Though I understand what you are trying to say, I must
    disagree.  That would mean our taxes would pay for the abortions. 
    There is a law right now (in a previous note I mentioned it) that they
    are trying to repeal that will not allow our taxes to pay for
    abortions.  If we let the government handle the whole thing we will be
    in trouble on the abortion issue--especially with a pro-choice
    president in place!  
    
    Peace brother 
    
    

    >The I don't think it will happen to me plays high in a lot of
    >area's.
    >Drugs, AIDS, pregnancy, robbery, you name it. It's probably the #1
    >excuse for
    >something bad happening (I didn't think I'd od, contact AIDS, get
    >pregnant, get caught in the act of stealing, etc)
                                               
    There is credence to this syndrome of DENIAL.  
    
    Denial is a refusal to acknowledge the truth of a situation or possible
    consequences of actions.  It is however, not just a plague of the 
    immature.  

    It has two sides to which we are all susceptible; 
    the blessing of protecting ourselves from devastating pain or 
    the curse of prolonging the negative consequences of sin by
    refusing to acknowledge behavior/sin in our lives.
    
    The problem with this statement in regards to sexual activity
    outside of marriage, is that the *negative consequences* have been
    changed to reflect *choices*.  
    
    Because of this change in attitude/perception there is a lesser quantity
    of women who simply say, "Aw, it won't happen to me" and leave it 
    there. It has gone one step further, to say "aw it won't happen to 
    me, but if it does I have choices."  Now, just as no-one usually
    verbalizes, "I'm exempt from pregnancy", the latter isn't voiced
    either.

    Nancy
    
    
    
    
    
    

    <<< Note 108.75 by WR1FOR::POLICRITI_GR >>>
    
    
    
    >108.32 - No offense, but we can't simply pretend like all's well with
    >the world
     
    
    	When have I ever stated or implied that "all is well with the
        world"?? Infact I have express the reverse, to the point where
    	I beleive we are better off working on the root of the problem.
    	
    	The Bible tell us that the world will be this way. Isn't this
    	what was reveiled to us. Are we honestly surposed to beleive
    	that we can change the WORLD on a large scale basis?
     
    	Again I ask, are we to really focus on the delay of the return
    	of our Lord Jesus Christ?? I curtainly don't want this!! 
    
    	I could be wrong, but would'nt we be much more affective
    	if we were to direct our efforts in our own circle? (Family, friends,
        neighbors, workmates and everyday people we come incontact with??)
    
    	If we could change the world?? Should'nt we Start with children?
    	For in them is the world of tomorrow. Through them there MAY be
    	a better tomorrow. Is not a house built by the foundation up??
        
        In this world be live in, it is tough enough to keep order in our
    	own homes. this is where it all begins. I have found in my life
    	it is harder to watch my own sheep(fam. friends ect.)when my eyes our
    	focus on the whole herd. Making them vulnerable to the sight and
    	jaws of the wolf.. 
    	
    
    	 
                   Bill
    	   
                                       

    "Each of us must become the change we want to see in the world."
                                                             Mahatma Gandhi

Hi Bill,

His return is running right on schedule.  Our perception gets a little 
impatient at times...  And yes, each of us has to be the salt and light in 
our own home first, as per 1 Timothy 3:5.  After that, it's where the LORD 
leads us individually.  Be salt and light wherever we are.  Jesus doesn't 
save 'crowds'; He saves individuals.  He uses us to touch individuals too.

�    	If we could change the world?? Should'nt we Start with children?
�    	For in them is the world of tomorrow. 

If we do not give the gospel to children, who will pass it on to the 
subsequent generation?  We are His instruments in this.

							Andrew

    <<< Note 108.81 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ
    
    
    
       >"Each of us must become the change we want to see in the world."
                                                                 Mahatma Gandhi
    
    	Right Jim...  This in it self, is a difficult battle for most all...
    
    	

    108.80 - What I am trying to say is that we have to be activists (sp?)
    to "try" and make changes.  When we see something like abortion being
    performed we have to make our voices heard (of course, in a non-violent
    manner).  I hope this is clearer.  
    
    

Saturday the pro-life hymn singers returned to the clinic in Florida and
were arrested in large numbers during a completely peaceful protest, but
now something new is being done:

A number of parents have been charged with child abuse for bringing their
children to the point on the public sidewalk that is off-limits for anyone
who is pro-life (i.e. within 36 feet of the clinic's property line).

/john

    You've got one sick country there.
    But in my country they don't even complain about it...
    At least, not that I've heard.

Thanks John...

I feel like asking whether the child abuse charge is because the children
want to live, or because they have come within 36 feet of somewhere liable
to corrupt them.

But I am just disgusted at how low the enemy pulls man in his determination
to deny God's law.  And I doubt this is the end. 

								Andrew

This past Saturday in Melbourne, Florida, 56 pro-life demonstrators were
arrested.  They all cooperated fully with the police and gave their names,
and all have already been released on $500-$1500 bonds.

Two adults were also charged with child abuse as their 10-11 year old
children crossed the street with them to pray on the public sidewalk in
front of the clinic.  The state is attempting to have the parents declared
to be unfit parents and to place the children into foster homes.

Some of the people arrested were not carrying anything or saying anything,
but were merely arrested as they crossed the street, either singly or as
part of a group.  One of the workers at the crisis pregnancy center was
arrested as he crossed the street to retrieve mail from the CPC's mailbox,
which is within the 36 foot zone.  The CPC plans to file federal charges of
interfering with the delivery of mail against the city police.

One young woman who was merely videotaping the proceedings was arrested; her
father is an attorney and plans to sue the city for false arrest.

/john

Thanks John ...  sounds like the 'authorities' really overstepped
themselves there.  But my heart is heavy.  We need to pray against such
terrible measures as declaring parents unfit, because they instil a moral
conscience in their children.  Truly justice is turned upside down.

						Andrew

    >Two adults were also charged with child abuse as their 10-11 year old
    >children crossed the street with them to pray on the public sidewalk in
    >front of the clinic.  The state is attempting to have the parents
    >declared
    >to be unfit parents and to place the children into foster homes.
    
    This certainly sounds ludicrous, doesn't it?  But you know I can't help
    but be enveloped in an overwhelming awareness that it won't be long
    before praying in public [with only the agenda of a restaurant] will
    become a crime.  sigh....
    
    
    

�                 -< It won't go thru, not enough Foster Homes >-
 just don't mention the queue for adoptions... :-(

The looming reality of the last times is a lump in my stomach.

�    before praying in public [with only the agenda of a restaurant] will
�    become a crime.  sigh....

We need to value the liberties we have prayerfully, to retain them as long 
as possible...

And our children have to really *know* the LORD from earliest youth, to
know why terrible things happen to *their* families, and to understand and 
bear it...  I'm glad their angels stand in the presence of the Father 
continually...


							Andrew

 RE last couple.. its amazing when I think of how much things have changed in
 this country..the values which were once held so close.  Our Pastor in his
 message yesterday commented on "when we knew what our country stood for"..I'm
 not sure anyone knows anymore...

 there was an interesting article in today's Boston Herald about the Hollywood
 celebrities that have been flocking to the White House in droves..I can 
 remember when Billy Graham was a regular there..





 Jim

    Yup... Mr. Jim... that is *so* true?
    
    When I was in 8th grade the entire 8th grade was requested by the 
    Interbay Sertoma Club to write an essay entitled, "What it means to me
    to be an American Citizen."  All the Jr. High Schools in Hillsboro
    County in Tampa, FL were included.
    
    My essay won!!!  I was on the local television news with the Mayor of
    the city as having won...  And the funny part was my entire essay was
    in regards to "Freedom of Religion", being able to worship the Lord as
    our forefathers had died for.
    
    Wonder what today's essay would say that would win...
    
    Nancy

Last Saturday someone who lives in the neighborhood (this clinic is in a
residential single-family neighborhood) was arrested for just walking down
the sidewalk even though he wasn't involved in the protests.

The order makes it illegal to come within 36 feet of the property (even though
this includes part of the street and the public sidewalk) except to do business
with the clinic on days when abortions are being performed (so the CPC can't
get to their mailbox on those days); and it makes it illegal to make any sound
which could be heard within the clinic.

However, those who were making sounds in support of abortion, even though they
were much louder than the quiet praying of the pro-life demonstrators and were
closer to the clinic were not arrested.  I guess they were "doing business
with the clinic" since they support its activity.

/john

>    the city as having won...  And the funny part was my entire essay was
>    in regards to "Freedom of Religion", being able to worship the Lord as
>    our forefathers had died for.
    
>    Wonder what today's essay would say that would win...
    
 
  Don't know, but I bet any one mentioning "worship" "Lord" or "religion" would
  be tossed out as offensive :-(



 Jim 

    Newspaper Ad - A FOCA "ad" appeared in a local (California-San
    Francisco) paper on FOCA called "The Freedom of Choice Act: Are You 
    Being Deluded?  (If anyone wants to see it send me your fax number and 
    will fax one of the copies-it's an exciting thing to see i a
    newspaper).  The ad was submited by "Believers On Our Lord Jesus Christ
    (2 Timothy 2:19): (cited Scripture) and the names of three couples are
    there with a P.O. box.  I was so excited about this I made and copies
    and posted a couple of copies.  Twice-and once in front of my own cube. 
    Both times "someone" keeps taking it down.  Boy this makes me MAD! 
    It's very interesting though.  Makes me wonder about the guilt around
    here.  
    
    

Earlier in this notes string, the debate of God's law versus man's
law was brought up.  It is one of the recurring themes.  Very often
we'll quote the Acts passage where the disciples declare they they
will obey God rather than men.  But in a sermon last night, I heard
it from a different angle.

  John 19:15  But they cried out, Away with him, away with him,
  crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?
  The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

The religious leaders of the day opposed and hated Roman rule.  In
fact, these same leaders would defy the great Roman government if
they attempted to defile the temple, or tamper with other religious
practices.

Way back in the Old Testament, Israel had no king because God was to
be the King of Israel.  God set up judges.  But the people were not
satisfied with the arrangement.  They wanted a king like the other
surrounding nations; a king like them (instead of being a holy
people, like God).  So, while the religious leaders would defy the
outside authority of the conquering Roman government if it
compromised their religious power, they used that same hated
authority to retain their religious positions, rejecting the True
King of kings.  "We have no king but Caesar."

Declaring *and submitting* to the Messiah as king would have cost
them something more dear than the cost of defying Rome: their
positions in their religion.

So some of us will declare, like Peter, "We ought to obey God rather
than men."  And some will declare that we cannot defy the law and in
effect say, "We have no king but Caesar" in the face of taking the
moral stand when it is presented.

Mark

    re: <<< Note 108.97 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

     Mark,

     > So some of us will declare, like Peter, "We ought to obey God rather
     > than men."  And some will declare that we cannot defy the law and in
     > effect say, "We have no king but Caesar" in the face of taking the
     > moral stand when it is presented. 

     Does this mean that you wish to join us (Operation Rescue) in our
     prophetic ministry in front of the abortuaries? 

     8^)

     Brian

Yesterday I saw Brian's name -- posted at the doorway to Planned Parenthood.

He's permanently enjoined from blocking access to any abortuary in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, as well as from any activity which encourages
others to do so.

Glad to see he's still obeying God's law rather than man's.

/john

    Just curious ... but, is it legal to park a car with rotting meat in
    the trunk upwind of a clinic?  Seems to me the subliminal message might
    have an effect yet be legal.  Has this been tried?
    
    Steve

>     Mark,
>
>     > So some of us will declare, like Peter, "We ought to obey God rather
>     > than men."  And some will declare that we cannot defy the law and in
>     > effect say, "We have no king but Caesar" in the face of taking the
>     > moral stand when it is presented. 
>
>     Does this mean that you wish to join us (Operation Rescue) in our
>     prophetic ministry in front of the abortuaries? 
>
>     8^)

The orders of the King are not negotiable.  One must also recognize that
not all troops are ordered to the same place, Brian.  One must be careful
not to suppose that my orders are your orders, or that your orders are my
orders.  

The King's servants merely do what each should; obedience.  For some, it
means joining you in front of abortuaries, if that is where God dictates;
to disobey is sin.  For others, it means other things which may never
include such actions.  

Mark

P.S. John Covert: Brian now lives in Maine so his "encouragement" (if it 
can be called this) is "out of reach."  But I would not like to see 
Brian harrassed, should he need to travel through the People's Rupublic 
of Messachusetts. (Oh my, a typo.)

    Welll, at the risk of alienating some dear folks in here...
    
    I must ask this question, When you are at these abortuaries, what are
    you saying to folks is there one loud unison voice, or many loud voices
    and what are they saying?
    
    Nancy

   re: <<< Note 108.102 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

     Mark,

     > The orders of the King are not negotiable. 

     BOY! Am I finding out the unmitigated truth of *that* these days! 

     > One must also recognize that not all troops are ordered to the same
     > place, Brian.  One must be careful not to suppose that my orders are
     > your orders, or that your orders are my orders. 

     Sorry, didn't you see the smiley face after my statement? I didn't
     really mean to incur your ire, sir. I fully understand and appreciate
     the truth of what you say. Besides, I was *trying* to pull your chain,
     brother, and it appeared to have succeeded.  8^)

     > The King's servants merely do what each should; obedience.  For some,
     > it means joining you in front of abortuaries, if that is where God
     > dictates; to disobey is sin.  For others, it means other things which
     > may never include such actions. 

     If the entirety of Christendom *really* had the attitude you display
     here, there would be no *need* for Operation Rescue... 

     > P.S. John Covert: Brian now lives in Maine so his "encouragement" (if
     > it can be called this) is "out of reach."  But I would not like to
     > see Brian harrassed, should he need to travel through the People's
     > Rupublic of Messachusetts. (Oh my, a typo.) 

     I avoid locales (like Taxachusetts) suffering under Communist
     Oppression, (particularly when I know that there are warrants out for
     my arrest, there) whenever I can. The rest of the time (like when I
     went to the recent Petra concert), I travel under the covering of Psalm
     91, and pray that He make seeing eyes blind. 

     Back to Sleep, Mark!

     Brian

        re: <<< Note 108.103 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Search Me Oh God" >>>
    
    Nancy,

    > Welll, at the risk of alienating some dear folks in here...

     I'm well able to defend myself, sis, don't worry... 8^) 
    
    > I must ask this question, When you are at these abortuaries, what are
    > you saying to folks is there one loud unison voice, or many loud voices

     Except for trained counselors, *NO Rescuer* is to speak to the mothers.
     Except for trained spokepeople, *NO Rescuer* is to speak to the media
     or the police. Everyone else is to be either in prayer or workship
     (individually or with the group, if the group is worshipping), or is to
     remain *SILENT*. The only obnoxious loudness at a rescue comes from the
     pro-aborts with their bulgar chanting, whistle-blowing (borrowed from
     Queer Nation), drum beating, or cursing of Rescuers and/or Police. 

    > and what are they saying?

     I can't say specifically, as I've never been trained as a counselor.
     Generally, though, they quickly (there are only seconds to make the
     case for the baby) describe fetal development, remind the mother that
     she is now, and always will be a mother (no matter *what* choice she
     makes), implore here to consider viable (no pun intended here)
     alternatives, and offer to assist in providing those alternatives.
     That's quite a bit to get out in about 30 seconds. 

     So, some of us block entrance to the abortuary, giving the counselor an
     additional 30-45 seconds, to appeal to the mother not to kill her
     child. That's the whole point of Rescue in a nutshell, Nancy. 

     Brian      

Brian,

  I wasn't mad.  I saw your smiley but chose to make comment on the subject 
anyway (for which I hope you don't mind).  God's power to you, my friend.

Mark

>    I must ask this question, When you are at these abortuaries, what are
>    you saying to folks is there one loud unison voice, or many loud voices
>    and what are they saying?

If you have never been to a pro-life rally at an abortion mill, you really
should go.  It will be quite an eye-opener.  If the other side is there,
and they usually are only when there is a rescue somewhere in the area,
it immediately becomes obvious what the pro-choice people are like.  They
engage in the most filthy, dirty, perverted, nasty, satanic chanting.

You can go anytime to see what the pro-life side does, or to see both sides,
find out when there is a rescue -- but for your first time, go to a different
abortuary than the rescue.  The defenders of death will appear at all the
clinics, since the actual site of the rescue is kept secret until it actually
happens.

The pro-life side will be just singing and praying.  The Apostle's Creed.
The Lord's Prayer.  And "Holy Jesus, forgive us our sins, and lead all souls
to heaven, especially those most in need of your mercy."  Glory be to the
Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit.  As it was in the beginning,
is now and ever shall be, world without end.  Amen.

Meditations are led by someone in charge.  Hymns are sung from hymn sheets
passed out by the organizers.

Turn the hearts of the children to their parents.
Turn the hearts of the parents to their young.
Turn the hearts of us all to one another.
Turn the hearts of us all unto the Lord.

HEAR THEIR CRY
WON'T SOMEONE SAVE THE CHILDREN.
DON'T LET THEM DIE!
O CHRISTIANS WE MUST TRY.

Holy, Holy, Holy!  Lord God Almighty!  Early in the morning our song shall
rise to Thee:  Holy, Holy, Holy, Merciful and mighty, God in three persons,
Blessed Trinity.  Holy, Holy, Holy!  All the saints adore thee.  Though the
eye of sinful man Thy Glory may not see; Only Thou art holy; There is none
beside Thee.  Which were and are and ever more shall be.

And other hymns:

O Sacred Head, surrounded...
To Jesus' Heart all burning...
Were you there when they crucified my Lord...
How Great Thou Art...
Come Holy Ghost, Creator blest...

Holy God we praise Thy name!
Lord of all we bow before Thee!
All on earth Thy sceptre claim,
All in heaven above adore Thee.
Infinite Thy vast domain, Everlasting is Thy Name.
Infinite Thy vast domain, Everlasting is Thy Name.

Hark the loud celestial hymn
Angel choirs above are raising;
Cherubim and Seraphim,
In unceasing chorus praising.
Fill the heavens with sweet accord.  Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord.
Fill the heavens with sweet accord.  Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord.

Please pray for the three members of the Massachusetts Chapter of the
National Organization of Episcopalians for Life (NOEL) who will be meeting
with Bishop Johnson this afternoon.

We had a meeting with him some time ago in which we presented a proposal
to mail out the MCFL pamphlet "In Support of Women" a directory of resources
for pregnant women which includes information about Adoption Agencies,
Birthright Counseling Centers, Health Care Coverage, Legal Assistance,
Material Needs, Day Care, Dependency Homes, Family Services, Nutrition,
Prenatal Care, Post-Abortion Counseling, Pregnancy Testing, and Transition
Homes.

NOEL has enough money in its budget to do the mailing on our own, but we
would like to have it mailed from the Diocesan Office as part of the bi-weekly
mailing to clergy, and are willing to pay for it and assist with the mailing.

We are doing this in response to the following portion of the resolution
adopted by General Convention in 1988 and unanimously reaffirmed by the
House of Bishops in 1991:

   Whenever members of this Church are consulted with regard to a problem
   pregnancy, they are to explore, with grave seriousness, with the person or
   persons seeking advice and counsel, as alternatives to abortion, other
   positive courses of action, including, but not limited to, the following
   possibilities:  the parents raising the child; another family member raising
   the child; making the child available for adoption.

   It is the responsibility of members of this Church, especially the clergy,
   to become aware of local agencies and resources which will assist those
   faced with problem pregnancies.

When we met with the Bishop before, he was supportive, but told us that we
should work through the Pastoral Outreach Commission.  A few weeks ago, we
had a very strange meeting with them, at which Barbara Harris was present.
Barbara did not recall voting for this unanimous resolution (which also says
that the Church takes seriously its responsibility to form the consciences
of its members concerning the sanctity of life), and together with the
commission, could not understand why we were coming to see them.  We told
them that we were concerned about the pastoral care of our members, and
they told us that if the diocese sent out this list of resources, it would
also have to send out a list of abortion clinics as well.  And besides,
they were trying to reduce the volume of material in the bi-weekly mailing.

The Bishop had told us that if the Commission was not supportive, that we
should come back to him.  Please pray that we may have a productive meeting
with him.

/john

    108.108 I pray that your Church, my Church and Christians all over the
    world work to end abortion!  
    
    Peace Brother 
    
    

I've been noting a disturbing trend in the media lately.  I've seen two articles
this week which refer repeatedly to Operation Rescue as a "militant" 
antiabortion group.

Now if you knew nothing about Operation Rescue, you would assume that the use of
this term meant that they used weapons, or at least violence, in their fight
against abortion.  You would never suspect that they were a group that was 
following directly in the non-violent resistance steps of Gandhi and MLK, Jr.

The media is telling this lie often now, and people are starting to believe it. 
How long will it be before they start to feel that "militant" is not a strong
enough word and and start calling it a "terrorist" group?  And then once it is 
generally accepted that Operation Rescue is a "terrorist" group - despite the 
fact that this is a total lie - they will be able to use strong-arm police 
tactics against them, and no one will object - who will protect "terrorists" 
anyway?

Sigh.  I could say much more about this, but I'll let it stand on its own.

Paul

     Paul,

     > And then once it is generally accepted that Operation Rescue is a
     > "terrorist" group...

     I thought that is the way we were already viewed, at least by much of
     the (Christian as well as secular) media... sigh (Am I being paranoid?) 

     > ...despite the fact that this is a total lie... 

     Thank you for refreshing honesty (not unusual in here, but just
     generally not found). 

     > ...they will be able to use strong-arm police tactics against
     > them,... 

     Hello - Have you ever seen the Brutal Truth [I'm in it 8^) ] - a video
     detailing police strong-arm tactics that have been directed against
     Rescuers *for a long time*? 

     > ...and no one will object... 

     No one objects now - especially not the Church - how do you expect it
     to get worse? Ministers and Deacons cheering on the police and
     pro-aborts? That may come too, I fear... 

     > ...who will protect "terrorists" anyway? 

     "He who dwells in the secret place of the Most Hight shall abide under
     the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the L_RD, `He is my refuge
     and my fortress; my G_d, im Him I will trust.'"    (Psalm 91:1-2)

     I know that you knew that, but the door was *so* open, I just *had* to
     stick it in there...
 
     Regards,

     Brian

	Hmmm..... funny, a couple of weeks ago when a certain group was heading
down to Washington it was said that the were 1,000,000 militant people. This
was said by religious leaders and I don't ever recall any Christians going
against what they were saying. Ahhh.... but now they want sympathy because they
are being viewed as militant. I guess it is true......treat others as you wish
to be treated.... hmmm....



Glen

    !          <<< Note 108.112 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
    
    !                         Ahhh.... but now they want sympathy because they
    !are being viewed as militant.
    	- Should we not always be willing to listen to the cries of our fellow
          man? Glen, is it our place to label?? Your statement will put
    	  some sensitive to the cause on the defense. Is this what you
          want?  Why would you want to be an antagonist?
    
    !                          I guess it is true......treat others as you wish
    !to be treated.... hmmm....
    
    Glen, I do not think you meant it, but this is an inflammatory
    statement. There will be those who feel you just *whapped* them.
    Is this your intent, to critize(?), or is there something other than
    the condescending tone to your satement? 
    Recall my friend, we are to lift up and encourage those in Christ, not
    *whap* THOSE who think differently. AND, we are to judge those who
    profess Christ differently and by a different metric than those who
    do not profess Christ.  By what you have said, and to the audience you
    have said it to, I do not see encouragement and uplifting love. Please
    help clearify your position and intent by your words.
    
       PDM

First reports I heard were that the Parks service put (that* rally at about 300K)
and that "others" put it at 1M.  Choose the numbers you wish to believe,
but then what does it matter.

I was wondering when you would resurface, Glen.  (I never wonder *if* you
will ever resurface.)

Mark

| <<< Note 108.113 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



| - Should we not always be willing to listen to the cries of our fellow
| man? 

	Yup!

| Glen, is it our place to label?? 

	Nope! But remember, it was some of the FUNDALMENTALIST CHRISTIAN
leaders who were coming out with info about 1,000,000 people who were going to
be visiting Washington. They knew there would be 1,000,00 and they labeled them
all as militant. Who's labeling who? 

| Your statement will put some sensitive to the cause on the defense. 

	Huh? How so? This has nothing to do with what they are trying to
accomplish. It has to do with some complaining about a label that has been
applied to them while no complaining was being done about those who wrongly put
a label on another group. So if it causes pain for someone, that really isn't
the intent behind it. Maybe if you explain what kind of pain has been caused
I'll know what you're talking about.

| Is this what you want?  Why would you want to be an antagonist?

	In here? Nah! 

| !                          I guess it is true......treat others as you wish
| !to be treated.... hmmm....

| Glen, I do not think you meant it, but this is an inflammatory
| statement. There will be those who feel you just *whapped* them.
| Is this your intent, to critize(?), or is there something other than
| the condescending tone to your satement?

	Phil, maybe they should feel like they have been whapped across the
head. Not for anything to do with abortion, but for people wrongly (in both
cases) putting labels on a group that don't match, and then only complaining
about the one. When your own kind put a label on a group it seems to be ok, but
when any group puts the same label on you, well, then it seems to be wrong. It
can't work that way and expect anyone to take you seriously.

| Recall my friend, we are to lift up and encourage those in Christ, not
| *whap* THOSE who think differently. 

	Again, maybe if you tell me what is being thought differently we will
know what's going on?

| AND, we are to judge those who
| profess Christ differently and by a different metric than those who
| do not profess Christ.  

	That's probably why a lot of people don't take you seriously. It's
viewed by many of them as being do what I say not as I do.

| By what you have said, and to the audience you
| have said it to, I do not see encouragement and uplifting love. Please
| help clearify your position and intent by your words.

	It's called reality.....



Glen

| <<< Note 108.114 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

| First reports I heard were that the Parks service put (that* rally at about 300K)
| and that "others" put it at 1M.  Choose the numbers you wish to believe,
| but then what does it matter.

	The Parks commission did put it at 300,000. How they do the numbers is
beyond me. Both the organizers and the Washington Police estimated it at around
1,000,000. I guess if 7 hours of a parade route that was street lined with
people the entire route along with having the Mall about 3/4 of the way full at
most times comes out to being just 300,000, then I guess they were right.
Otherwise me thinks it is time for a new Parks Commission. :-)



Glen	

 Well, at least that event received plenty of media coverage, ad nausiem.  I
 saw not one second of coverage of the national day of prayer on national news
 last night.






 Jim

    You're right Jim... biased media reporting, in our country?????
    
    BLAH!
    
    >When your own kind put a label on a group it seems to be ok
    
    Glen, I thought you were one of *our* kind... ???????
    
    In your first know you said Christians as though we were apart from
    you.   I'm wondering Glen, has there been a time in your life, when
    you've come before the almighty God and proclaimed His holiness and
    your unholiness in His presence?  Have you then at that acknowledgement
    received Christ as Savior?  Do you recognize that He sacrificed His
    life for yours?  Do you have a personal relationship with Christ?
    
    Sometimes it appears as though you are a chameleon with an agenda. 
    
    I know tone cannot be demonstrated adequately, so let me state up front
    there is absolutely no sarcasm in this note... but genuine concern for
    you and your relationship to Christ.
    
    With love,
    Nancy

| <<< Note 108.119 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Search Me Oh God" >>>



| >When your own kind put a label on a group it seems to be ok

| Glen, I thought you were one of *our* kind... ???????

	Nancy, we are both under the label Christian. But as you and I know
there are many differences under that label. I could no more say I am part of
any fundalmentalist group as while their intentions are probably meant as good,
I see their actions as actions of hate in a lot of cases. Christian in the
sense that I believe in God? Yes. Christian in the sense that I try to be like
Jesus? Yes. Like I said, there are many things that all Christians have in
common, many things that they do not. 

	But, in this file I have many times been told that I am not a Christian
in any form of the term. So, for the sake of those who feel this way I
accomadate them. I really don't need to argue the point with mere humans when
it is only the big Three that need to be satisfied. So, I hope that explains
why I wrote what I did. In reality, I guess I'm not part of most of the people
who perceive themselves to be Christians in this file feel is "true"
Christianity, but then again, it doesn't matter. It's not between me and them.

| I'm wondering Glen, has there been a time in your life, when
| you've come before the almighty God and proclaimed His holiness and
| your unholiness in His presence?  Have you then at that acknowledgement
| received Christ as Savior?  

	Look back a couple of versions of this file and you will see the tell
all tale. I had thought I wrote you about it, but maybe I didn't. 

| Do you recognize that He sacrificed His
| life for yours?  Do you have a personal relationship with Christ?

	Yes Nancy.....

| Sometimes it appears as though you are a chameleon with an agenda.

	Nope.....




Glen

              <<< Note 108.120 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
>any fundalmentalist group as while their intentions are probably meant as good,
>I see their actions as actions of hate in a lot of cases. Christian in the
>sense that I believe in God? Yes. Christian in the sense that I try to be like
>Jesus? Yes. Like I said, there are many things that all Christians have in
>common, many things that they do not. 
    
    See notes 73.0, 128.0, and 128.2 (especially in regards to "actions of
    hate").  While some do not correctly separate hatred for the sin and
    the sinner, and in these cases we should show how to love the sinner
    while still hating the sin, other may err in lumping all [true]
    Christians (fundamental or otherwise - and I believe the definition of
    'fundamental' is in question also) by those who have not separated
    hatred for the sin from the sinner.
    
    Perhaps just as bad or worse are those who do not correctly identify
    sin as God defines it in His Word.  For these "Christians", they have
    fashioned unto themselves their own god, over which they are the
    authority.  By negating the Word's proclamation about sin, they negate
    their claim to Christianity, even though the name tag is prominently
    worn.
    
    Mark

An Hispanic pro-life march will be held in Washington tomorrow (Saturday)
wonder how much media coverage that will get?  All day on C-SPAN, CNN or
other networks?







Jim

    Mark,
    
    That was well written.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

| <<< Note 108.121 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| While some do not correctly separate hatred for the sin and
| the sinner, and in these cases we should show how to love the sinner
| while still hating the sin, other may err in lumping all [true]
| Christians (fundamental or otherwise - and I believe the definition of
| 'fundamental' is in question also) by those who have not separated
| hatred for the sin from the sinner.

	Hmmmm..... Mark, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the
impression that you feel I have done this? If that is your impression, then I
am sorry, but that isn't my intention. In my notes I try to use words like
some, many, a few because not everybody from <insert any group> are all going
to be alike. I know I said that I don't place myself into a fundalmentalist
type group, but then a few words down I mentioned the word "their" as I wasn't
applying it to anyone in THIS file. In that note note I believe I said that 
there are some things that are similar but many things that are different when 
it comes to my belief vs. most people of this file. In an earlier note (or
maybe that was Christian Perspective) I mentioned that Christians were a very 
diverse group. My memory isn't all that good, but I think I said that here. So
I guess I don't understand this part of your note when based on what I have
said (and 2 out of the three mentioned I KNOW were in my last note to Nancy).

| Perhaps just as bad or worse are those who do not correctly identify
| sin as God defines it in His Word.  For these "Christians", they have
| fashioned unto themselves their own god, over which they are the
| authority.  

	By YOUR understanding you may believe this to be true. BUT, in reality,
it isn't so.

| By negating the Word's proclamation about sin, they negate
| their claim to Christianity, even though the name tag is prominently
| worn.

	By YOUR understanding, yes you are correct. 



Glen

 Sigh...

As the person who started this string....

Glen, I didn't see any reporting describing all the folks in Washington for that
march as 'militant.'  If I had, my reaction would have been similar.  I don't 
for a minute believe that all, most, or even a significantly large percentage of
the people who participated in that march could rightfully be described as 
'militant.'  Classifying them as such is wrong.

But my reaction would not be quite the same.  Part of my issue with the 
classifying of Operation Rescue as a 'militant' organization is that the 
pro-choice agenda is a media darling, and our administration has just installed
an Attorney General who has stated "eliminating anti-choice terrorism" as one of
her focal issues.  I see the administration and the media working together to
defraud the public about the truth of this matter, in order to be able to use
strong-arm tactics - even worse tactics than the ones they use already - against
anyone who would protest their policies.

On the march issue, the principal is the same, but the situation is not so dire.
I agree that classifying people as 'militant' when they are not is a direct 
effort to dehumanize them and delegitimize their cause, and this is wrong
whenever it is done.  But seeing as on that particular issue both the media and 
the current administration are *supporting* that group, I don't see the 
consequences on that issue being nearly as severe.  Even if a majority of people
disagee with that stance, the people in the positions of power to effect any
change support the group.

As an example of what I mean, suppose 20 protestants met up with 5 catholics in
a dark alley in Northern Ireland.  Compare the effects of one of the protestants
yelling "kill the catholics" and one of the catholics yelling "kill the 
protestants."  Both would be wrong to think or advocate such a thing, and it's
that sort of thinking that led to the whole mess in Northern Ireland anyway.  
But in that situation, for the group in the majority to start to think that way
has a serious chance to result in the death of some members of the other group.

We have a certain responsibility, particularly when we are in the majority - 
whether by numbers or position - not to encourage "mob rule" sort of thinking.

RE: park service numbers

It has become sort of a tradition for any group staging a march in Washington -
regardless of what end of the political spectrum they are from - to complain
about the park service numbers.  In the 1990 Pro-life rally, organizers
estimated the crowd at nearly twice what the park service said.  Though they may
not be correct in an absolute sense, for purposes of comparison currently the 
park service numbers are the least biased numbers available.

Paul

.124 (Glen)


>| Perhaps just as bad or worse are those who do not correctly identify
>| sin as God defines it in His Word.  For these "Christians", they have
>| fashioned unto themselves their own god, over which they are the
>| authority.  
>
>	By YOUR understanding you may believe this to be true. BUT, in reality,
>it isn't so.

See note 31.* about Morality and Authority regarding absolutes in identifying
sin.

>| By negating the Word's proclamation about sin, they negate
>| their claim to Christianity, even though the name tag is prominently
>| worn.
>
>	By YOUR understanding, yes you are correct. 

Also, in regards to notes 31.* we can see that by aligning one's morality
with the morality of the Absolute Authority, one's understanding may be
ABSOLUTELY correct.  If my understanding is in line with the Absolute Authority,
and His proclamations of sin in the Bible, then I am not only correct, but
your claim to Christ is made null.

Mark M.

	But by your own words Mark, IF.....



Glen

>	But by your own words Mark, IF.....

And on the authority of my words, it means little.
On the authority of God's Word, it means much.

The premise of this conference is that God's Word is Absolute in Truth,
given by the Absolute Authority to dictate truth.  So in this confernece,
whether anyone chooses to disagree with it or not, it defines the 
Christian and not you, not me, not anyone EXCEPY the authority of 
God's Word.

So, If the Bible is the Word of God, Then you have some reconciling to do.

Mark M

    
    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............
    
    Glen must've gotten tired of being "whapped" over in SOAPBOX....
    
    
    

| <<< Note 108.130 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Swear: Make your ignorance audible" >>>




| Glen must've gotten tired of being "whapped" over in SOAPBOX....


	Gee Andy, I hadn't known I was getting whapped! Hmmm.........

	Mark, like you said, by the premis of THIS conference you are correct
and I am wrong.



Glen

    
    
    Once again Glen (and again, and again....)
    
    Mark is not correct....
    
    God's Word is correct...
    
    The premise of THIS conference is established on God's Word... not
    Mark's not mine... 
    
    But you knew that....
    
    
    Andy
    
    
    P.S. "whapped" is a relative term.... no?
    

    Re: Note 108.131 by JURAN::SILVA
    
�	Mark, like you said, by the premis of THIS conference you are correct
�and I am wrong.
    
    I'm pleasantly surprised to see this accommodation, Glen. In all
    sincerity, please do yourself one favor. Please consider the
    ramifications for your own life if in fact the premise of this
    conference actually is the truth.
    
    	BD�

    
    Praise God! Praise God!
    
    Let us continue to praise God, whether in the streets, jobs, markets,
    homes, etc.. We may get persecuted for making a stand or just simply
    singing a hymn song. Rejoice in HIS name. Let us worship Him in spirit
    and in truth, for He is worthy. The devil may seem to be winning but
    the victory is ours. The battle has been won. Glory be to GOD!!!!
    
    
                              Ray

Boston Globe, Friday May 21st, 1993

The Catholic Archdiocese of Boston yesterday blamed "unknown proabortion
activists" for incidents in which glue or another sticky substance was
poured into locks at five Boston-area churches.

"Feminist symbols have been left, and notes announcing their opposition to
`antichoice terrorists' are the identifying marks of this activity," said
Auxiliary Bishop Alfred C. Hughes.

But spokeswomen for three abortion rights groups said their groups oppose
vandalism, and one suggested the incidents might be a provocation by
abortion opponents.

"The prochoice people I know are concerned with passing legislation.  This
is so silly, so immature...that I wonder if this isn't the work of a double
agent," said Rosemary Trowbridge of Catholics for a Free Choice.

Affected were St. Aidan in Brookline, St. Ignatius in Chestnut Hill; St.
Bernadette in Randolph; St. James in Stoughton; and St. Paul in Wellesley.

Since Easter Sunday, April 11, glue has been poured in the locks of church
and other parish buildings "by persons attempting to protest and/or interfere
with peaceful prolife gatherings," according to Bishop Hughes.

"It is sad indeed that some proabortion forces in our communities are so
intolerant that they wish to abridge the rights of free speech, peaceful
free assembly, and religious practice in order to advance their program
of destruction of the lives of the unborn," Bishop Hughes said.

But Joyce Cunha, director of the abortion rights group Mass Choice, said it
did not appear there is "enough evidence to say it's the act of prochoice
people."

"We don't condone vandalism against property, but I must point out that the
incidents to not compare to the antichoice vandalism we see at clinics,"
Cunha said.

If such actions were undertaken by abortion rights supporters they made "the
very typical mistake of confusing the Catholic Church with the message that
comes from the hierarchy," said Ellen Convisser of the Boston chapter of
the National Organization for Women.  "When you attack the parish buildings,
you attack the parishioners...and parishioners have a very high population
of prochoice people."

Church officials said the pattern of vandalism was only recognized this week.

"The activity seems so similar in each of the churches that I guess it must
be one group," said Barbara S. Thorp, director of the Pro-Life Office of
the Archdiocese, who gathered information on the incidents.

John B. Walsh, communications director for the archdiocese, said church
officials "regard this as a threat, something which is a very ugly turn
to the whole debate."

In one case, a message was left rolled up in a plastic Easter egg left in
front of glued doors at St. James Church in Stoughton, Walsh said.  That
message complained that the church was "a breeding ground for hatred of
women" and blamed it for the murder of a doctor at a Florida abortion
clinic, he said.

Walsh said he had only been able to confirm two cases in which the incidents
had been reported to local police, in Stoughton and Chestnut Hill.

Calls yesterday to police in the five affected communities indicated police
in Wellesley, Stoughton, and Randolph were unaware of any vandalism complaints
from the parishes.

At St. Ignatius Church, a priest who identified himself as Father O'Connor
said he informed Newton police by letter May 18 that caulking compound had
been found in five locks on May 8.  Police did not confirm receipt of the
letter yesterday.

Germany's new abortion law, which would have permitted abortion up
to the 13th week after independent counseling and a 48 hour wait,
was struck down as unconstitutional by Germany's highest court.

Germany's constitution has a clause requiring the government to
protect all human life.

/john

          re: <<< Note 108.136 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

     > Germany's constitution has a clause requiring the government to
     > protect all human life. 

     Germany reall learned the lesson of what accrues when you allow the
     least disrespect for human life from the tragedy of the Nazi Holocaust.

     Unfortunately, none of the world paid attention, didn't learn, and is
     damned to repeat the horror, even moreso. 

     The correspondence between the "ethical" discussion amongst the German
     medical profession during the period immediately preceeding and during
     the early Nazi-era (1920-1936) is frighteningly similar and analagous
     to the current "ethical" discussions on-going in the AMA and in Europe,
     EXCEPT FOR GERMANY. The book, "The Nazi Doctors" provides eye-opening
     and quite shocking insight into these facts - highly recommended reading. 

     Glad I had the opportunity to make this comment at the end.

     Regards,

    Brian

With the discussion of the Vietnam war in the other note currently going on, I
just felt a need to post a reality check of the magnitude of what is currently
happening with abortion.

58,000 American lives were lost in the Vietnam war.  That is horribly tragic.
More lives than that are lost in this country **EVERY TWO WEEKS** to abortion.  
The magnitude of the reality of abortion is staggering.

Paul

    
     Thanks Paul, for the reality check!

 Thank you indeed Paul.




 Jim

Did you hear the news report (almost a week old, now) of the newborn
baby found in a vacant lot in a garbage bag?

The police are treating it as a homicide and the press thinks it's just awful.

With some of the things described about late-term abortion, I wondered
what the difference was between this baby and many other babies.
A few inches?  A few minutes?

Why will this woman be prosecuted? (I believe they've found out who had
the baby.)  After all, it's just a late term (plus half hour or so)
abortion, isn't it?  I mean, the baby might have been still born,
or born dead, so what's the difference.  After all, isn't it better
to be terminated than to spend life in poverty with a mother who doesn't
love you?  Why treat *this* case as a homicide?
----------
What a duplicitous world we live in.  A moment outside the womb is some
people's definition of humanity.

Mark

>With some of the things described about late-term abortion, I wondered
>what the difference was between this baby and many other babies.
>A few inches?  A few minutes?
    
    Wanted vs. unwanted.  The size and age make no difference to the
    abortionist. :-(
    
    Mark L.

    Paul,
    
    Indeed thanks for sharing your conscience concern for the MANY
    unborn and neglected children. I too feel the hurt and I KNOW
    the cries of those unborn children are reaching the ears of the LORD!
    Our Lord has patience, and when FINALLY His wrath is awakened!!!!! Look
    out world! ;^)
    
    In the name of decency I pray for it to stop, but I know as we all do,
    these things must come to pass. God is watching and collecting evidence
    for his prosecution. He is giving man all the rope necessary so when
    the final judgement comes, man will have no rebuttle. Man will in the
    end say, "Yes, we were wrong Lord, you judge us fairly!"
    
     PDM

    
    
    	From what I heard, they were trying to determain whether
    	the child had air enter it's lungs...
        Using the distorted notion that if the infant did not take
    	a breath of air, it would not be considerd murder....
    
    
    
    	Bill
    	

    
    
    >He is giving man all the rope necessary so when the final judgement
    comes, man will have no rebuttle. Man will in the end say, "Yes, we were
    wrong Lord, you judge us fairly!"
    
    
     Phil,
    
      I realize what you mean by this statement, but God is still the God
    of love, He is Longsuffering, Merciful and full of Compassion. It is
    His will that all would be saved and that none should perish. There
    will come a time though when it will be too late for the wicked to turn
    to God, then will be the judgement.
    
     Dan

	I saw that report and thought to myself this person had to have some
reason to do this. For the life of me I can't figure out what that reason would
be, but I still wonder what would make someone do this.



Glen

There's always a reason, Glen.  Some reasons are not reasonable.
What are the reasons for people to have abortions?
There are many, as we both know.  How many of those
reasons will stand up as "justifiable" in His sight?

I imagine that this person had some of the very same reasons
that some others have when they make the decision to abort
the "tissue" within them.  Which is why I wondered aloud 
why the authorities would treat this as a homicide, rather than 
a post-partum abortion, call it a still-birth, or whatever.
I haven't heard much else (haven't seen the tube news lately),
except what someone said in here about seeing whether the baby 
had air in its lungs before she trashed the child.  Looking for that
line between "unlawful disposal of medical waste" and "murder."

It was simply another sad commentary, not as much on the [disturbed] 
individual, but on the dichotomies of society on this issue.

MM

Today the prayer vigil outside Planned Parenthood had to contend with
women wearing T-Shirts that said "Screaming Vulgar Blasphemous Feminists
Unite" and holding signs all of which proclaim some sort of relationship
between this conference's forbidden subject and abortion.

These women kept screaming "____ YOU!" as loud as they could while we
were reciting the Lord's Prayer and other prayers.

Police were taping the vigil with video cameras.

/john

> Police were taping the vigil with video cameras.

And one can be sure, that if any part of this event shows up at all in any of
our beloved media, not one eyeblink of this vulgar display of hooliganism will
be included.

Sigh.

Paul

John,

It is outright war, where both sides are committed to a principle of 
spirit, and dialogue and compromise are meaningless terms, signifying 
defeat.  One side is battling for the world of man, where man rules, 
defending his own rights to his own environment, denying the right of 
ownership by the Creator, denying gratitude to Him for any positive emotion 
or cause... - enjoyment, beauty, love....  It is mankind in rebellion....

But the enemy is not the person.  We wrestle not against flesh and blood 
... we want to rescue those people.  The ones who are screaming blashpemies 
and waving banners declaring their enmity to God.  And those who hide
behind the uniform of a policeman with a video camera.  As well as the
primary concern, with the life under threat....

Even on non-confrontational open-air work, I have found that police are 
quite surprised to be treated as people.  And shy away from tracts and 
discussions as if it were the wrong language for them... I guess it's their 
training, to defend them against feeling too sensitive about aggressive 
crowd situations or something.  But underneath, I've always suspected that 
they *are* people ;-)  Just once, I got a policeman asking spiritual
questions at our Bible bookstall. 

								Andrew

	*** Clarinet articles may not be forwarded outside Digital ***

	PHILADELPHIA (UPI) -- An attorney for a family planning clinic said
Monday he has warned The Valley Forge Hilton Hotel it might be breaking
the law if Operation Rescue forces use the hotel as a staging area.

	Attorney Edmond Tiryak said a federal court injunction that has been
in force for several years not only bars anti-abortion groups from
blocking abortion clinics. It also prohibits anyone from helping them by
supporting their illegal activities, he said.

	Operation Rescue has singled out Philadelphia for a 10-day blitz of
abortion clinics and service providers, starting Friday.

	Tiryak said he gave the hotel a copy of the injunction because they
have to be aware of it.

	The sales manager for the hotel, Rick Kolinsky, said he had not seen
the injunction, but the hotel would do whatever necessary to remain
within the law.

	But he said essentially the hotel is neutral on the issue of
abortion.

	``The Valley Forge Hilton has no position on either side. We're a
neutral business,'' he said.

	He said only five people that he knew belonged to anti-abortion
groups had registered at the hotel. 

	``We're not a staging headquarters; we're not a rally headquarters,''
he said.

	Tiryak said Operation Rescue had issued literature to its supporters
telling them to go to the hotel in the evenings for rallies and to hear
speakers. It also said it had negotiated discounts with the Hilton.

	Tiryak said he is not concerned if the hotel rents rooms to Operation
Rescue supporters but believes it would violate the injunction if they
allow the hotel to be used for rallies.

	He said if that happens, he will take further legal action, either by
seeking a restraining order or a contempt of court citation.

    San Jose, California will be the next city targeted by Operation
    Rescue.  Please pray that there will be no violence but only Peaceful
    demonstrations and that many abortions WILL BE PREVENTED!
    
    Thanks 
    
    Peace of the Lord to you all
    

re .152

>    San Jose, California will be the next city targeted by Operation
>    Rescue.  Please pray that there will be no violence but only Peaceful
>    demonstrations and that many abortions WILL BE PREVENTED!

San Jose is one of several cities targeted for a series of demonstrations
beginning this Friday (9 July) and lasting until the 18th of July.

The protests will take place in central Florida; San Jose, Calif.;
Philadelphia, Cleveland, Minneapolis, Dallas, and Jackson, Miss.

/john

    No thanks BP... sigh... my heart couldn't handle it. 
    
    Nancy_who'd_cry_too_much

    At this point the young people gathered in Denver may
 ask: What is the pope going to say about life?

    My words will be a profession of the faith of Peter, the
 first pope. My message can be none other than what has been
 handed on from the beginning, because it is not mine but the
 good news of Jesus Christ himself. ...

    We believe that Jesus Christ has the words of life, and
 that he speaks those words to the Church, to all who open
 their minds and hearts to him with faith and trust.

    "I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his
 life for the sheep." Our first reflection is inspired by
 these words of Jesus in the Gospel of Saint John.

    The Good Shepherd lays down his life. Death assails life.

    At the level of our human experience, death is the enemy
 of life. It is an intruder who frustrates our natural desire
 to live. This is especially obvious in the case of untimely
 or violent death, and most of all in the case of the killing
 of the innocent.

    It is not surprising then that among the Ten Commandments
 the Lord of Life, the God of the Covenant, should have said
 on Mount Sinai "You shall not kill."

    The words "you shall not kill" were engraved on the
 tablets of the Covenant--on the stone tablets of the Law.
 But, even before that, this law was engraved on the human
 heart, in the sanctuary of every individual's conscience. In
 the Bible, the first to experience the force of this law was
 Cain, who murdered his brother Abel. Immediately after this
 terrible crime, he felt the whole weight of having broken
 the commandment not to kill. Even though he tried to escape
 from the truth, saying, "Am I my brother's keeper?" the
 inner voice repeated over and over: "You are a murderer."
 The voice was his conscience, and it could not be silenced.

    (In French:) With the passing of time the threats to life
 do not lessen. They grow enormous. Not just threats from
 outside, from the forces of nature or from some "Cain" who
 murders "Abel"--but threats programmed in a scientific and
 systematic way. The 20th century has been a time of massive
 attacks against life, an unending series of wars and a
 continuing slaughter of innocent human beings. The false
 prophets and the false teachers have been very successful.

    Likewise, false models of progress have led to
 endangering the earth's proper ecological balance. Man--made
 in the image and likeness of the Creator--was meant to be
 the good shepherd of the environment in which he exists and
 lives. This is an ancient task, which the human family
 carried out with fair success down through history, until in
 recent times man himself has become the destroyer of his own
 natural environment. In some places this has already
 happened, or is happening.

    But not only that. There is spreading too an anti-life
 mentality--an attitude of hostility to life in the womb and
 life in its last stages. Precisely when science and medicine
 are achieving a greater capacity to safeguard health and
 life, the threats against human life are becoming more
 insidious. Abortion and euthanasia--the actual killing of
 another human being--are hailed as "rights" and solutions to
 "problems"--an individual's or society's... In the modern
 metropolis, life--God's first gift, and the fundamental
 right of every individual, on which all other rights are
 based--is often treated as just one more commodity to be
 organized, commercialized and manipulated according to
 convenience.

    (In Italian:) All this happens while Christ, the Good
 Shepherd, wants us to "have life." He sees everything that
 threatens life. He sees the wolf coming to ravage and
 scatter the sheep. He sees all those who try to get into the
 sheepfold but who are thieves and robbers. He sees so many
 young people throwing away their lives in a flight into
 irresponsibility and falsehood. Drug and alcohol abuse,
 pornography and sexual disorder, violence: These are grave
 social problems which call for a serious response from the
 whole of society, within each country and on the
 international level. But they are also personal tragedies,
 and they need to be met with concrete interpersonal acts of
 love and solidarity, in a great rebirth of the sense of
 personal answerability before God, before others and before
 our own conscience. We are our brothers' keepers!

    
    re: -1
    
    Thanks for entering that, John.
    
    Even though I am not Catholic, I appreciate the Pope's Pro-life
    message.  I greatly admire the Catholic Church's consistent commitment 
    to the sanctity and preservation of life.
    
    
    Paula

Frances Kissling of "Catholics for a Free Choice" recently admitted on a
Boston WRKO radio program that her organization has no members; that it
"is not a membership organization."

Joseph Doyle of the Massachusetts Catholic League commented that the
frequently-quoted Ms. Kissling "represents nothing but a well-funded
letterhead" supported by opponents of Catholic teaching (Playboy
Foundation, Planned Parenthood, condom manufacturers, and others).

From a George Will column (edited to comply with conference guidelines):

...Congress' attempt to federalize the subject of abortion protests has
resulted only in comic relief.

The House and Senate drafted similar bills to impose severe penalties on
antiabortion protesters, and only on them, not merely for acts of criminal
violence but even for passively obstructing access to a clinic or for
"interfering with" or "intimidating" anyone -- however those terms might
be construed.  If right-to-lifers were to continue using some tactics made
familiar by civil rights and antiwar protesters, they would be subject to
a year in jail and $100,000 fines for a first offense.  For a second, three
years, $250,000.  No other protest group -- labor, environmental, feminist,
animal rights -- would face similar penalties for similar acts.

But a funny thing happened to the clinic access legislation on the way to
an end-of-session White House signing ceremony.  A few weeks ago, on a
Tuesday, Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah inserted a small amendment
extending to places of worship the same protections the bill extended to
places of abortion.

House supporters of the access bill had hoped to accept the Senate bill,
thereby avoiding a time-consuming conference to iron out differences.
But on Wednesday another lobby weighed in.  It opposed Hatch's amendment,
which would extend severe punishment to protests of the sort they direct
against churches.

So on Thursday the House passed a clinic access bill without a Hatch-type
amendment, with the leadership using the House's restrictive rules to
prevent a vote on such a provision.  However, the leaders knew that if
they tried to appoint conferees, a House majority would vote to instruct
them to accept the Hatch amendment.

Late Friday evening Ted Kennedy tried to bring up the House bill in the
Senate.  But he needed the unanimous consent of the Senate to do so, and
he could not get it.  Hence both bills died.

That is all that prevented Congress from making, for the first time in
143 years, peaceful civil disobedience on behalf of a single cause a
federal felony.  It has not done that since 1850: the Fugitive Slave Law.

 It is time for another National Day of Prayer...

Abortion clinic antiviolence bill urgently needed.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy.  Boston Globe, Monday, December 27, 1993, p.12

George Will's Dec. 9 column attacking the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances Act ignores the obvious need for this legislation.  It passed
the Senate and House by solid majorities in November and will go to
President Clinton early in 1994.

The bill deals with the nationwide epidemic of clinic violence by making
it a federal crime to blockade or vandalize health care clinics or assault
or threaten abortion patients, doctors, and nurses.

In the past 15 years, more than 1,000 acts of violence against abortion
providers have been documented across the country, and 100 clinics have
been bombed or burned to the ground.  One doctor has been murdered; other
doctors and clinic staff have been wounded; many now wear bulletproof
vests.

Massive blockades and invasions, which disrupt the delivery of a wide range
of health care services, have plagued facilities everywhere.

Citizens who engage in constitutionally protected activities such as praying,
picketing peacefully or distributing literature have nothing to fear from
this legislation.  Only violent, threatening and obstructive conduct will be
penalized.

By comparing the clinic blockaders of the 1990s to the civil rights
demonstraters of teh 1960s, Will has the analogy wrong.  Today's anti-
abortion extremists, barricading clinic doors to prevent the exercise of
a constitutional right, are more appropriately compared to those who blocked
schoolhouse doors to prevent desegregation.

The clinic antiviolence bill is supported not only by those who are prochoice
but by dozens of senators and representatives with antiabortion records who
recognize -- even if Will does not -- that this measure is an urgently needed
response to a pattern of reprehensible conduct that is harming women and
health care providers across the country.

							EDWARD M. KENNEDY
							U.S. Senate

  Teddy makes no mention of the violence/intrusions against worship services..
  fascinating.




 Jim

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Supreme Court unanimously ruled Monday
that a federal racketeering statute known as RICO can be used against
protesters who intimidate people around an abortion clinic.

	The National Organization for Women brought the case against
Operation Rescue and other anti-abortion groups.

	Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the women's clinics joining NOW
in the suit have the right to use the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act.

	The court also unanimously ruled that a plaintiff does not have to
prove an economic motive on the part of a defendant in order to win
conviction and damages.

	The ruling is landmark decision in the battle between abortion rights
opponents and supporters.

	It also frees up the Justice Department to use the law, which has
been employed against organized crime, against planned intimidation at a
women's clinic and to seek triple damages upon conviction.

	The ruling does not mean that Operation Rescue or the other anti-
abortion groups involved have been found guilty of clinic intimidation,
but only that if such planned intimidation occurs, it can be prosecuted
under RICO.

I fully expect to see churches which are used as staging points for
anti-abortion protests to be prosecuted under RICO as a result of this
decision.

Even encouraging attendance at prayer vigils outside abortion clinics
may become illegal activity.

/john

	To me, this ruling emphasizes the fact that abortuaries are
	for business.  For all the rhetoric about caring for the "poor,
	unfortunate women that 'find' themselves pregnant", this suit
	in and of itself shows the motive.

Re: .166

"No one, when he has lit a lamp, covers it with a vessel or puts it
under a bed, but sets it on a lampstand, that those who enter may see
the light. For nothing is secret that will not be revealed, nor 
anything hidden that will not be known and come to light. Therefore,
take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given;
and whoever does not have, even what he thinks that he has will be
taken away from him."                                 Luke 8:16-18

8^{|

    I think we've just seen the first of many steps towards *real*
    religious persecution.  I think that we are going to be in for a rough
    ride over the next decade and beyond.
    
    Subtleties of secular engineering are over.  It is time for the direct
    assault.  
    
    -steve

Welcome back, Brian!

Mark

Re: .170 Scripture reference:

2Thessalonians 2:1  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
  2  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit,
nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
  3  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of
perdition;
  4  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that
is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself
that he is God.
  5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
  6  And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time.
  7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth
will let, until he be taken out of the way.
  8  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with
the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming:
  9  Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and
signs and lying wonders,
 10  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish;
because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
 11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should
believe a lie:
 12  That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had
pleasure in unrighteousness.

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Mother Teresa, addressing the National Prayer
Breakfast with a stoic President Bill Clinton at her side Thursday,
delivered an impassioned plea for an end to abortion, especially in
America.

	``Please don't kill the child.  Give it to me.  I want it,'' the tiny
Nobel Peace Prize winner told the annual gathering of some of the
nation's most powerful people.  ``From here, a sign of caring for the
weakest of the weak -- the unborn child -- must go out to the world.''

	The lengthy speech was delivered in her understated style but carried
a stern and uncompromising message as she urged the United States to
lead the way in abandoning abortion.

	Seated to her right at the head table were Clinton and his wife,
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who both support a woman's right to an abortion,
guaranteed in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision.

	``The greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a
war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by
the mother herself,'' Mother Teresa said.  ``And if we accept that a
mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to
kill one another?''

	Several times as she spoke, the audience erupted in applause but
there was no clapping at the head table.   Clinton also made no mention of
the subject in his own comments delivered immediately after hers.

	Mother Teresa, reknowned for her work among the poor on the streets
of Calcutta, cited her own work in India, where she said she already has
saved more than 3,000 children ``from abortion.''

	There are 30 million to 40 million surgical abortions performed
worldwide each year.

	She also said the children up for adoption should only be given to
married couples, and ones that do not practice contraception.

	``I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted and to give
that child to a married couple,'' she said.

    Praise God!  And of course Mr. Clinton didn't mention it, she just
    slapped him across the face with Truth.

 Amen!   does anybody have President Clinton's remarks from the breakfast?






Jim

    > Amen!   does anybody have President Clinton's remarks from the breakfast?
    
    yeah, he talked about his new golf ball.

	Nancy, why can't President Clinton actually believe that abortion is
not wrong? 



Glen

    Glen - 
    but he does believe it is not wrong - ie, that it is ok...
    
    (or did I misinterpret the question? too many negatives for me...)

�              <<< Note 108.177 by DEMING::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
�
� why can't President Clinton actually believe that abortion is not wrong? 

He can only believe that 'abortion is not wrong' by closing his eyes to the 
truth as expressed in the mesage from Mother Teresa.

							Andrew

	I guess this is why it is so hard for people to understand Christians.
You believe you know the truth based on <insert 1 to infinity reasons>. If
someone else does not think the reasons are valid, the reply is they are
denying the truth. There is no denial. The person just actually believes 
that they are right. Does it mean they could be wrong? In reality, yes. But
does it mean they are denying anything? No. Because they truly believe they are
right. Oh.... I know what's coming so I'll head ya off at the pass. :-)  They
too just may believe their answers are coming from God. 



Glen

Hi Glen,

It's easy for people to claim they hear from God.  Jesus headed off the
accusation that it was only His word, when he declared the paralysed man 
forgiven of his sin, when He healed him.  God's word is recognisable to 
those who hear, and it seems impossible that others don't recognise it....

Problems when His Word is clainmed for fringe areas, where hearing is 
difficult, but John 10 tells us we should be learning here.

Guess you'll just have to take our word for it ;-)

							Andrew

Re: .173

Does anyone know where I where I can get a copy of the full speech
by Mother Theresa? I hear echos of the Prophet Jeremiah in her voice.

8^{|

Brian

Regarding everyone's "truth."  

If there is a God, and He is absolute, then He defined absolute truth.
Any deviation from the absolute is not absolute truth.

How can we know whether we are aligned with the absolute truth if
everyone believes they are aligned with the absolute truth?
Each person places their faith in something to believe that they
have aligned themselves with (or have defined) the absolute truth.
***Faith is based on evidences both seen and unseen.***

Unless and until the absolute truth is revealed, faith - not certainty -
is all we have.  It therefore behooves everyone to study the evidences
to (1) determine if God indeed exists and (2) determine what God is
like so that we can align our individual truths to God's absolute Truth.

It is not difficult to understand Christians when this context is laid
out.  The absolute Truth will be revealed on Judgment Day and all personal 
truths that conflict with the absolute will be found lacking.  Outside
of Christian circles, the revelation of this Truth has dire consequences.

You can change the permutations of the IF-THEN statement to reflect
non-Christian viewpoints - or other "truths" - but only one Truth will
be absolute.  This does come down to a choice between life and death,
which many people find so disconcerting when searching for a truth
that aligns with their own, instead of the existence of God and what
His Truth is.

Hebrews 11:6  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that
cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that
diligently seek him.

Mark

	That's just it Andrew.... while I think you're a nice guy and all, I'm
not sure we should rely on human beings beliefs for answers when God is so
readily available. :-)



Glen

        There is a  Line
     
     written by Wayne Kirkpatrick
     sung by Susan Ashton


 
 Its hard to tell just when the night becomes the day
 that golden moment when the darkness rolls away 
 But there is a moment nonetheless
 
 in the regions of the heart there is a place
 a sacred charter that should not be erased
 it is the marrow, the moral core
 that I cannot ignore
 
 CHORUS:
 Well in the scheme of things 
 I know where I stand
 my convictions define who I am
 some move the boundaries at any cost
 but there is a line I will not cross
 no standing on the fence, no alibis
 no building on the sand of compromise
 I won't be borrowed and I can't be bought
 there is a line I will not cross  
 
 Ask the ocean where the water meets the land
 he will tell you it depends on where you stand
 You're neither right or wrong
 but in the fathoms of the soul 
 that won't ring true
 cause truth is more than an imposing point of view
 that rises above the changing tide
 sure as the morning sky

 CHORUS

Just another permuatation of "But isn't truth relative?," Glen.  You ask why
people expect certain things of you; well here is a perfect example.

The short answer is "No."  We didn't think truth was relative last time you
asked, or the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the
time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or
the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time before,
or the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time
before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the
time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or
the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time before,
or the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time
before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the
time before, or the time before, or the time before, or the time before, or
the time before, or the time before or ....

What makes you think that we might think it was relative now?

That really was only a rhetorical question, I won't be drawn into this if you
choose to respond.

"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." (Heb 13:8)

Paul

    Actually, when given the facts of abortion (destruction of a human in
    development), I see no way this can be viewed as "right" in anyone's
    book.  The pro-choicer's depend on rationalizations (it's not viable)
    to promote thier agenda.
    
    The absolute truth is that 90%+ of all abortions are due to
    "convenience" factors.  It is a behavioral problem- period.  
    
    I was pro-choice before I became a Christian.  I know that it's easy
    for non-Christians to say I was "brainwashed" by the church and
    whatnot, but in reality, it was God who convicted me of my wrong views. 
    He showed me where my views on abortion *truly* originated from, and
    how little logic there was in my previous veiw.
    
    Seek the truth, and ye shall find it!  This is so true!  God keeps His
    promises.
    
    -steve

	Same here, Steve, and I kept hoping I could find a way
	to hold to the pro-choice side while still remaining a Christian.

	I thank God for showing me His Truth!!

| <<< Note 108.187 by CSOA1::LEECH "I'm not a bug!" >>>



| Actually, when given the facts of abortion (destruction of a human in
| development), I see no way this can be viewed as "right" in anyone's book.  

	That's fine Steve, but when reality is concerned just because you can
not see it does not mean it doesn't exist. It doesn't mean they are right, but
it depends on what the beliefs of the person in question are.

| The pro-choicer's depend on rationalizations (it's not viable) to promote 
| thier agenda.

	Again, you say rationalize, they say belief. You don't think they are
right, they think they are. AS LONG as THEY believe they are correct, then it
is NOT a rationalization, but a belief. It would be like someone saying to you
that your faith in God is not based on realities. It is something you believe
to be true, and because of that belief it is NOT a rationalization, but a
belief.

| The absolute truth is that 90%+ of all abortions are due to "convenience" 
| factors.  It is a behavioral problem- period.

	Steve, where did ya get this info from?

| He showed me where my views on abortion *truly* originated from, and
| how little logic there was in my previous veiw.

	This is a GREAT example Steve. Your beliefs before were that you
thought women should be able to have abortions. It turned out you were shown
you were wrong. Did that mean you were rationalizing before? No. It was just
something you believed to be true!



Glen

    .189
    
    Glen has there ever been a time in your life when you chose to do
    something even though you knew it was wrong?  i.e., lying?
    
    Nancy

>THEY believe they are correct, then it
>is NOT a rationalization, but a belief. It would be like someone saying to you
>that your faith in God is not based on realities.

Realities and faith in them can be tested.  People don't want to test
them for fear of losing their chosen "realities."  It doesn't
change reality.

but this is just like the time before and the time before that...

Glen, I think you have a misconception, at least it seems that way from your
responses.  You seem to be trying to show that if someone really believes
something - anything - that it then becomes "belief" instead of
"rationalization" and is thus worthy of a different level of respect.  I
don't think anyone here is asserting that everyone who disagrees with them
knows they really are wrong, and knows they have succumbed to
rationalization.  At least I don't.  I know that some people really do
believe that abortion is just fine.

But the fact that people really do believe it grants it no greater respect.
I'm completely unwilling to recognize that as a valid belief, just as 50
years ago in Germany I would have been completely unwilling to recognize as
valid the belief that jews were subhuman and worthy of extermination.

Proving somehow that people really do believe what they do will make no
difference whatever.

Paul

| <<< Note 108.190 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| Glen has there ever been a time in your life when you chose to do
| something even though you knew it was wrong?  i.e., lying?


	Yes Nancy, there have been times this happened. But *I* knew it. Some
in here have said that people rationalize, or deny the truth as if they knew
what was in their hearts. What could be in their hearts is they TRULY BELIEVE
that your position, interpretation of abortion (or anything else for that
matter) is wrong. Of course some would still say they are rationalizing,
denying the truth.... hogwash. you can't know that because no matter how close
one walks with God they can not know what is in the persons heart. Maybe if
this concept could get through to some, people would have one less thing about
the Christians of this world to be negative about. Especially when telling
others how they feel, what they mean, etc is something that can ONLY be done
CORRECTLY 100% of the time by God! Why is that so hard to see?



Glen

	Paul, in my notes a little further back in this string I stated that
while they may believe <insert anything> to be true, it doesn't make it so. I
guess on this we agree. :-)

	I think one would have an easier time convincing one is wrong if they
didn't keep telling them they are denying the truth, rationalizing, etc. I AM
glad that you know people can actually believe other things to be true (even if
they or us are wrong).



Glen

    Glen,
    
    I've been following this for a little while and, if I may, I'd like to
    interject something here.
    
    Beliefs are arrived at from one of two directions, either inductively
    or deductively.  One method begins with the premise, abortion is sin or
    abortion is acceptable, and then searches for a substantiating
    authority.  For a Christian there is no higher authority than God,
    Himself, and He has revealed his will through His Word.  The problem
    comes when the authority does not confirm the premise.  Either the
    premise is wrong or the authority is negated.  Since God can not be
    wrong then the resultant attempts to degrade scripture and bring it to
    a par with man's intellect and reason are called rationalization.  The
    other method starts with the authority and determines what that
    authority has to say about a given subject and then the belief is
    established in accordance with the authority.
    
    In a case such as abortion where God's Word speaks clearly then to deny
    the Truth is rationalizing one's belief and making man into God.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Kent
     

<Denial and rationalization> and <firmly and truly held belief> are not
mutually exclusive, Glen.

Some german guards really, really did believe that killing the jews was OK. 
Not many, probably, but some really did.

That doesn't mean they didn't deny the truth and rationalize to arrive at
that belief.  Jews are human beings.  It is not OK to systematically kill
them.  It doesn't matter how much someone may believe it is.  To arrive at
that belief, a person must:

	1) Deny the truth that Jews are human.
	2) Rationalize their position (American heritage dictionary:
	   RATIONALIZE: To devise reasonable but untrue explanations), or
	   accept a position rationalized by someone else.

Whether they do those two things consciously and deliberately or
unconsciously for whatever reason makes no differnce.  Both of the above
conditions must be true for someone to arrive at the belief that Jews can be
exterminated.

No one is claiming that denial and rationalization must be conscious and
deliberate.  We are claiming that they must be *PRESENT*, whether conscious
or unconscious, whether really believed or only put forth on the surface, to
maintain certain positions.  Among those would be a position that Jews are
not human and can be systematically exterminated, or that unborn children are
not human and may disposed of via the mother's "choice."

Paul

| <<< Note 108.195 by MIMS::CASON_K >>>



| In a case such as abortion where God's Word speaks clearly then to deny
| the Truth is rationalizing one's belief and making man into God.

	Kent, what you said makes perfect sense. There is just one small thing
you have left out of the picture. Not everyone has the same level, same type
(if any for both) of belief in God that you may have. So because of this while
to you it seems so clear because God has said this (anyone know the verse?)
is true, someone else with a different belief in God may not agree that He ever
said it. This is why it can not be a rationalization or a denial of the truth
as one (or maybe even both) parties has not seen the truth as of yet.



Glen

    
    >someone else with a different belief in God may not agree that He
    ever...
    
    that's great Glen, then go back over to C_P.
    
    

...and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before 
that, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before 
that, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before 
that, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before 
that, and the time before that, and the time before that, and the time before 
that, ...

| <<< Note 108.196 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>




| Jews are human beings.  It is not OK to systematically kill them.  It doesn't 
| matter how much someone may believe it is.  

	Paul, as said before, I agree with you on this.

| To arrive at that belief, a person must:

| 1) Deny the truth that Jews are human.
| 2) Rationalize their position (American heritage dictionary:
| RATIONALIZE: To devise reasonable but untrue explanations), or
| accept a position rationalized by someone else.

	Who said they have to deny anything? I will agree that there will be
those who may do just what you are saying, but you, I or any other human can't
really know for sure. IF we are telling these people they are denying or
rationalizing the truth, aren't we possibly bearing false witness as we can't
know what is in their heart?

	Depending on whether they were brought up to believe something since
they were a child has a lot to do with the people actually denying or
rationalizing anything. I know someone who has a MAJOR dislike towards a
certain group of people because his father and grandfather did. Does that mean
he is denying or rationalizing anything? No. What it means is the truth as he
knows it, nothing else. 

	I wish it were as cut and dry as you make it out to be Paul, but it
ain't. 

| Whether they do those two things consciously and deliberately or
| unconsciously for whatever reason makes no differnce.  Both of the above
| conditions must be true for someone to arrive at the belief that Jews can be
| exterminated.

	Paul, that is based on what you know of as far as right and wrong goes.
From your own perception you have come to this conclusion. There are many
groups out there that do not care for <insert group>. They don't need those
reasons for it to be so. Hate is another method.

| No one is claiming that denial and rationalization must be conscious and
| deliberate.  We are claiming that they must be *PRESENT*, whether conscious
| or unconscious, whether really believed or only put forth on the surface, to
| maintain certain positions.  

	Well Paul, I guess you believe as you like. If something isn't
conscious or deliberate then you or anyone else can't say they are trying to
rationalize or deny the truth, as if they aren't conscious of what they are
doing then they ain't rationalizing or denying anything. It could mean they are
wrong, but it doesn't mean they are rationalizing anything. 

RATIONALIZE - To devise reasonable but untrue explanations.

DEVISE - To plan, invent, contrive

DENY - To declare untrue, to refuse to believe, reject, to refuse to recognize
       or acknowledge, disavow


	By the meaning of those words, one has to be concious for it to be able
to happen. By your words one does not have to be. Sorry Paul, but they have to
be conscious of it in order for it to be true.



Glen

Well since, we're off topic anyway...

"Ransom... Ransom... Ransom... Ransom..."

Why do I let you suck me into your relativistic quagmire?  One more foray,
and then I'll pull my feet clear of the clutching ooze:

You claim:

>	Who said they have to deny anything? 

And then supported that with arguments that assumed "deny" meant "say you
think something is not true when you know very well that it is."  You then
proceded to give a definition out of the dictionary that has no such
connotation.  "Deny" simply means "To declare untrue," it carries no
connotation of knowing otherwise.  So to say that people had to deny that
Jews were fully human is not to say anything about their motives, it is
simply stating a fact.  It doesn't even make a judgement on whether that
denial itself is right or wrong, it is simply noting the existence of that
denial.

The claim that rationalization must occur does require the assertion of
absolute truth - that jews are humans regardless of what anyone thinks, and
the only possible way to arrive at a denial of that fact is rationalization,
by the very definition of rationalization.  And it's that declaration of
absolute truth that you - predictably - feel the need to challenge, and to
re-assert your relativistic stand.

The bankruptcy of your relativism can be seen in stark contrast when you say:

>| Jews are human beings.  It is not OK to systematically kill them.  It 
>| doesn't matter how much someone may believe it is.  
>
>	Paul, as said before, I agree with you on this.

Well, I'm so glad you agree.  But what if you didn't?  Then it would be
perfectly fine to kill them?  According to your logic, you'd just have a
different belief, no better or worse than anyone elses, and no one could say
anthing to you other than "I disagree."

The point here, which you can't seem to resist attacking at every
opportunity, is this:

		R E A L   T R U T H   D O E S   E X I S T

Jews are human beings regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks about
them.  Killing them is wrong, even if every single one of the 5+ billion
non-jews on this planet think it is right.  Absolute truth is absolutely
true, and does not depend on what anyone thinks.

As Christians, we declare some things to be absolutely true, and we will
stand by them, regardless of what the rest of the world may think.

And now I'll step out, and leave you to wallow in the mire you have chosen. 
I will continue to extend a hand should you discover that the mire is closing
over your head and desire to finally be free of it, but I'll keep my feet on
firm ground, thank you.

Paul

    >Why do I let you suck me into your relativistic quagmire?  One more
    >foray, and then I'll pull my feet clear of the clutching ooze:
     
    Romantic.. Paul when you talk this way.... :-) :-) :-)      
                                                             
    

    Glen,
    
    Since you accepted my original statement but then discounted it with a
    relativistic slant, maybe we can try one more time.  See if this makes
    as much sense as the first.
        
    Premise:	All beliefs are equal as long the person holding that 
                belief believes it to be valid.
    
    Authority:	John 17:14-17 ...God's Word is Truth.
       		Is 55:8-9     ...God's ways are HIGHER than our ways.
       		1 Cor 1:20-21 ...the wisdom of this world is foolishness, 
       		    	         God's wisdom is transcendent.
       		2 Tim 4:3-4   ...the unregenerate mind gravitates toward
       		    	         error.
       		Romans 8:7    ...the carnal mind is enmity against God.
       		Rev 22:19     ...adding or subtracting from Scripture has
       		    	         eternal consequences.
    
       		Additional references available upon request.
    
    Conclusion:	All beliefs are not equal but are in subjection to an 
                absolute truth.  That truth is God's and is revealed as the 
                Word, both written and incarnate.  Rejection of the truth 
                as revealed in the Word has eternal consequences.
    
    An invalid premise leads to an invalid conclusion upon which all other 
    premises are erroneously based.  In other words, the whole "beliefs are 
    up to the individual" argument is shifting sand and will inevitably be 
    washed away.
    
    Kent
    

    Glen, 
    
    Do you feel abortion is right or wrong?  Why?
    
    -steve

The following are excerpts of a story that appeared in the _New York Post_ on
Friday, December 3. [Apparently, neither the _New York Times_ nor the _New York
Daily News_ touched the story.]  The story makes clear, that the Clinton
proposal is a threat to all organizations (especially churches) that recognize
the evil of abortion, including Catholics, Evangelical Protestants, Mormons,
and Orthodox Jews.

  o  John Cardinal O'Connor ripped into President Clinton's health-care plan,
saying it would force the Catholic Church to violate its own teachings on
morality and pay for abortions for its staff.

  o "Say it ain't so, Mr. President," O'Connor wrote in a blistering column in
_Catholic New York_ in which he all but accused Clinton of directly threatening
the church's future.

  o  "You, Mr. President, would be using federal law to force a variety of
companies, foundations, and organizations to fund what they believe to be the
destruction of human life or go out of business," O'Connor wrote.

  o  "I find it difficult to believe that you would _want_ to try to do this to
the Catholic Church, Mr. President," he added.

  o  The cardinal wrote scathingly of what he called "procured abortion" and
rejected suggestions that church employees wouldn't want them, saying, "Yes,
Virginia, some Catholics have abortions, sadly."

  o Under the plan now, Catholic doctors and hospitals could refuse to perform
abortions, but every health plan must arrange to provide all basic services,
even if that means contracting out...  Thus, a health plan made up exclusively
of Catholic hospitals would have to arrange to have abortion services provided
by other hospitals and doctors -- and reimburse them. [Note that this would
apply to _all_ plans/groups that oppose abortions, or oppose paying for them.]

  o [In his column,] O'Connor hinted the church will gear up against Clinton's
plan unless abortion is dropped.

The story also quoted pro-abortion spokesmen who agreed that Cardinal O'Connor
is correct in saying the plan would require the Catholic Church and other
pro-life organizations to pay for employee abortions, and incidently thought
this is a good thing.

In responding to those who oppose forcing abortion into all health-care plans,
Pro-abortion folks often respond that through the current private insurance
system, Americans already pay for abortions.  While this is true for many plans
that businesses can sign up for, it is not true for all. It depends on the plan
that the employer pays for.  For example, the Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh
has its medical benefits for employees through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of
Western PA, but they explicitly exclude abortion as a medical procedure that
is an eligible benefit.  [Pro-aborts might point out that, by paying
into Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the Diocese is still subsidising abortion.]
A good question to ask yourself, especially if you are an employer
or work with employee benefits is this: *Does your health insurance?*
[A question for our readers: does anyone have any solid data on this issue?]

To echo the Clinton administration's commitment to including abortion in
National Health Care, Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala assured
NARRAL (National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League) in January
that "we understand that there's no such thing as health equality for women
unless women have full reproductive coverage." Full coverage for abortion
services is among the benefits President Clinton offers in his health care
reform bill, now before Congress.

But the story continues: While drumming up support for the inclusion of
abortion in the Clinton Health Care plan, U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders
likened the unborn child to a cancer, noting that there is little controversy
about health services which are provided solely to men. "What about men who
have prostate cancer?" asked Elders. "Are we going to say we aren't going to
fund prostate cancer" treatment?  

Bishop Charles Grahmann of Dallas, Texas followed up on Elders' and O'Connor's
comments.  In his homily marking the twenty-first anniversary of the _Roe vs.
Wade_ decision, he closed with a promise to refuse to pay his taxes if abortion
services funding is included in the Clinton Health Care Plan. "I will not pay
taxes so that someone else can be killed" he said. 

    Re: .206
    
    Sad.

	Kent, I agree that God has absolute truth, but how you have defined it
is not agreed upon as being correct by everyone. 




Glen

	Steve, I thought you already knew my position. I don't think abortions
should happen. How  I came to that conclusion is easy. I don't believe that
taking a life is the right thing to do. There are exceptions to this for me. If
a mother's life is in danger, rape.



Glen

>	Kent, I agree that God has absolute truth, but how you have defined it
>is not agreed upon as being correct by everyone. 

So?

    As in all things, the absolute truth is only determined by whether or
    not it is contrary to the "final authority" of the word of God, who
    said "Thou shalt not kill"
    
    And since Jeremiah 1:5, says,
    
    Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee, and before thou wast born
    I sanctified thee...
    
    The understanding I receive is that life begins before conception, as a
    thought in the mind of God.
    
    Bob

    Okay, Glen, we're half way there.  If you believe abortion to be wrong,
    why do you defend it?
    
    Taking human life is wrong.  You and I both agree on this.  Leaving the
    1-3% of abortions  that occur for reason of health risk or rape our of
    the equation (and even before Roe v. Wade, these type of abortions were
    allowed), why side with pro-choice who think that it is thier *right*
    to destroy human life?  Who don't see destruction of life as being
    wrong?  It would seem to me that thier views and yours clash more than
    a little.
    
    I'm glad you view abortion as wrong, in any case.
    
    -steve

It's their turn.
God is merciful.

	Steve, please show me where I have defended them.....


Glen

    Your overall tone in SOAPBOX is that you are against abortion, but at
    the same time you come across as defending the "right to choose".  I'm
    not going to go through a thousand notes in the abortion topic there to
    pick them out, but that is my impression.
    
    I'm glad that I'm wrong, and you do not really defend the pro-choice
    stance (I'm assuming from .214 that I am wrong).
    
    -steve

	Steve, one place where we differ (well, maybe) is how things are
handled. The line of, "If one abortion happens then it's murder" seems kind
of hypocritical when you see some only fighting to stop the clinics, and
ignoring and/or saying that back alley abortions are not a problem. You also
have varying degrees of people who think NO abortion, regardless of the reason,
should happen. I do remember one person from this notesfile who said something
to the effect of, "What mother wouldn't give up her life for her child!" when
we talked about a mothers life is in danger. Another talked about how a mother
should have a baby even in a rape case. These things scare me because it seems
like there is a total disregard for the mother, and ONLY regard for the unborn
fetus. This is not like an ordinary pregnancy, so if a mother decides to go 
ahead with having the baby in either of these cases, then that's great. But if 
she decides to not have the baby, then in these cases she should be able to
make that choice. This is why I will not support any legislation or group that 
doesn't keep these safeguards in place, along with dealing and/or recognizing
the back alley abortion issue.



Glen

 What is the percentage of aborted pregnancies resulting from rape?  What is
 the percentage of aborted pregnancies because of danger to the life of the
 mother?  What percentage of abortions are carried out on women who have had
 one or more abortions?


 If the term "pro-choice" means "choice" why will abortion clinics not allow
 a "pro life" person to have an office in a clinic where that person can be
 counselled on her other choices?




 Jim

Hi Glen,

� These things scare me because it seems like there is a total disregard for
� the mother, and ONLY regard for the unborn fetus.

Many of us would hold that abortion demonstrates total disregard for the 
ultimate wellbeing of both the mother and the child.  The subconcious 
awareness of the real developing life, in a case where it is, for some 
reason, intensely distressing, itself serves as a continuing reminder when 
that life is suddenly 'cut off', that it is not mere tissue that has been 
removed, but a life destroyed.  This threatens the continued wellbeing of
the mother-who-wasn't emotionally and mentally, and is liable to have
physical repercussions as well as these areas subsequently.  The mother is 
a real person as well as the baby, and her conscience should be met, not 
blunted.

I would not thank anyone for soft-talking me into taking a path which 
looked like 'the easy way out' of something, only to realise afterwards 
that it meant I'd transgressed a basic personal responsibility.

� This is not like an ordinary pregnancy, so if a mother decides to go ahead
� with having the baby in either of these cases, then that's great. But if
� she decides to not have the baby, then in these cases she should be able to
� make that choice. 

It is not 'an ordinary pregnancy'.  Hence the mother needs special care,
not only in the practical circumstances, but also in the big situation
before her, which should not be allowed to mean that from an emotional
trauma she does something which blights the rest of her life. 

� if she decides to not have the baby, then in these cases she should be able to
I found that a very telling sentence.  The baby doesn't get any vote.  And 
it's the baby's only opportunity for life....  

						God bless
							Andrew

| <<< Note 108.218 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>



Hi Andrew!


| � These things scare me because it seems like there is a total disregard for
| � the mother, and ONLY regard for the unborn fetus.

| Many of us would hold that abortion demonstrates total disregard for the
| ultimate wellbeing of both the mother and the child.  

	Agreed.

| The subconcious awareness of the real developing life, in a case where it is, 
| for some reason, intensely distressing, itself serves as a continuing 
| reminder when that life is suddenly 'cut off', that it is not mere tissue 
| that has been removed, but a life destroyed.  This threatens the continued 
| wellbeing of the mother-who-wasn't emotionally and mentally, and is liable to 
| have physical repercussions as well as these areas subsequently.  

	Andrew, this is what I am talking about. Some seem to feel like this
when an abortion happens, but have total disregard for the women who have been 
raped or who's lives are in danger. 

| I would not thank anyone for soft-talking me into taking a path which
| looked like 'the easy way out' of something, only to realise afterwards
| that it meant I'd transgressed a basic personal responsibility.

	Those are not the cases I am talking about though Andrew.

| � if she decides to not have the baby, then in these cases she should be able to
| I found that a very telling sentence.  The baby doesn't get any vote.  And
| it's the baby's only opportunity for life....

	Andrew, why is it that the mother seems to lose her choice in the
matter if rape or her life is in danger? How do we know how the mother is going
to be able to cope with it? Yes, she MAY be able to. But what if she can't? You
say you want to help her mental status, but it seems only if she is willing to
have the baby, and not if she doesn't. If this is not what you mean, then
please explain it more. 



Glen

It sounds to me (correct me if I'm wrong, Glen) that Glen
doesn't really believe that the unborn child is really a
human being with all that this implies in terms of what
its rights are.

It's interesting to consider what would happen if the
technology were produced that would allow the unborn child
to develop outside of the mother's womb and be "born"
after 9 months.  Do you think women would still want to
abort?  (Obvious answer not put here.)

"Choice" pits a woman against her most dear friend - her own
child.  It poses the question in such a way that the needs
and desires of a woman are seen in *contrast* to the needs 
and desires of her offspring, when actually they are quite
complimentary.

It poses the question in a way which undermine the ultimate
authority of God; who are we that we should be destroying
an innocent life that God has created and will bring forth?

Choice devalues us all since it devalues some and elavates a
few (those making the choice) beyond their rightful place.  It
denies the sovereignty of God and His promise to care and love
us despite our circumstances.  It places human wisdom above
God's wisdom and looks at the temporal instead of the eternal.

The legacy of choice is 30 million aborted children in this
country in 20 years producing millions of women who feel
dehumanized, distraught and isolated from others.

Collis

    Glen, I understand some of your points, but before Roe v. Wade, there
    were abortions allowed for rape, incest, and if the mother's life was
    threatened.  
    
    Why do you think it would be any different if Roe v. Wade were
    overturned?
    
    -steve

	By reading what some want in here.



Glen

Never try to teach a fish to sing.

It wastes your time, and irritates the fish.

� Andrew, why is it that the mother seems to lose her choice in the matter if
� rape or her life is in danger? 

It seems that the mother very often has lost her reasonable choice in 
complex situations, because people with a vested interest take advantage of 
her inevitably heightened emotional state to achieve a political 'solution'
which violates her integrity and future peace of mind. 

Instead, one would wish for care for the whole person (even solely
considering the mother at this stage), which would take a long term whole 
personality view.

� You say you want to help her mental status, but it seems only if she is
� willing to have the baby, and not if she doesn't. If this is not what you
� mean, then please explain it more. 

Major personality problems result from refusing to face reality.  It leaves
mental blocks.It leaves all sorts of hang-ups. These which can't be fully
melted away to give peaceful living until the basic root is dealt with. 
'Abortion' is refusing to admit an essential truth - the presence of a 
life.  Until the mother has been - gently - brought to accept this 
reality, it has a hold over her as a forbidden area of rejection in her 
heart and personality.

So I would quibble with your assumption above - it's the mother who is
unwilling to have the baby who needs help, even more than the one who has
come to terms with a reality which is for some reason painful. 

Brian
.223� Never try to teach a fish to sing.
.223� It wastes your time, and irritates the fish.
							;-) ;-) ;-)  

There's not only fish around.  And sometimes I just need to practise teaching.  
Also, on the second result, some fish are remarkably resilient..... ;-} 



								Andrew

	Andrew, I do understand what you are saying. If the mother chose to not
have the baby then there COULD be more problems for her to face down the road.

	In the case of rape, do we deal with the situation as it is now, or are
we to deal with the situation which MIGHT happen in the future? I would say the
situation that is happening NOW. Reason? The mothers mental state is very
important while carrying the baby to term, correct? IF the mother has been
traumatized real bad and can't deal with the situation as it is now, then the
baby could suffer thoughout the term and could have medical problems when born.
One thing I don't want to give the impression of is letting the woman make the
decision while in an emotional state alone. I believe that the woman should
have conseling of her choice to see if she would be able to make it through the
term. But if the end result is no, which is worse? If one harms the baby during
the pregnancy, it's just as bad as aborting it. These things have to be taken
into consideration. (IMHO)

	In the case that a mothers life is in danger, the mother should be the
one who decides. Does she want to take the chance of losing her own life so the
baby could be brought into the world? Only she can know. But I do wonder, you
seemed to talk only of rape cases. How would you handle this situation? Do you
let the mother die so the baby can live without a mother, or do you let her
abort?

	Again, these are important things to me and it seems as though for
some, they aren't a problem at all. For those people it makes me wonder why
there is little to no concern for the mothers in these extreme situations.


Glen

Hi Glen, 

You are presenting the emotionalised perspective of a pressure group which
behaves as though that which it cannot see does not exist.  The answer to
distress and trauma from rape is not to immediately subject the mother to
an intrusive and a (physically and emotionally) destructive experience.  
Nor is it to visit the sin of its father upon the unborn child.  Healing 
for the mother doesn't lie that route.  To claim that it does is to 
encourage and extend the trauma.

The proportion of abortion from rape are a tiny fraction of the actual 
cases performed.  To magnify their significance in this context is to try 
to turn a blind eye to the major problem, which results in the pregnant 
rape sufferer being encouraged to think of this as a release, instead of an 
assuming of guilt.

The situation you pose of a mother's life being at risk from a birth is 
very rare today.  Its use also distorts the picture.

� For those people it makes me wonder why there is little to no concern for
� the mothers in these extreme situations. 

Do you wonder why there is so little concern for the children in these 
extreme situations?

							Andrew

    Re: .208
    
    > I agree that God has absolute truth,...
                       ^^^
    
    Glen,
    
    Herein is the crux of what is, always has been, and (unfortunately) 
    always will be the difference between Christians (who know that the 
    Bible is - in its entirety - God's inerrant Word) and Unbelievers (who,
    like you, prefer to define their own reality. 
    
    Unbelievers may choose to plagerize portions of the Word for their own 
    purposes, but they will never come to know the Truth, as they refuse
    the accept the truth already given to them by the Author of all truth.
    
    "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness
    and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
    because what may be knon of God is manifest in them, for God has shown
    it to them. For since the creation of the world, His invisible
    attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
    made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without
    excuse, because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as
    God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their
    foooish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,
    and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like
    corruptible man - and birds and four-footed animals and creeping
    things.  Therefore, God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts
    of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who
    exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshipped and served the
    creaturerather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. "
    						Romans 1:18-25
    
    I will not quote the balance of the chapter, for fear of causing
    problems for my brethren with the Personnel PC Police, but you can read
    it for yourself.
    
    As I will be leaving Digital (again) next Friday, it is unlikely that I
    will be able (or inclined) to take the time to reply to any diatribe
    you may dain the pander here, consider this my parting shot. One last
    time, you have been presented with the Truth. On That Day, your blood
    will not be on my hands. Take heed, I pray, and be warned. You are
    paddling your own canoe to Hell. Repent, I plead with you, and be
    redeemed and saved.
    
    THough I know you will not receive it as such...
    
    In Christ's Matchless Love,
    
    Brian_who_has_also_been_redeemed_from_similar_sin

           <<< Note 108.226 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>



	Thanks Andrew. Your note clearly shows why I am afraid for these
people.



Glen

| <<< Note 108.227 by FUJIS2::PHANEUF >>>



| Unbelievers may choose to plagerize portions of the Word for their own
| purposes, but they will never come to know the Truth, as they refuse
| the accept the truth already given to them by the Author of all truth.

	Then you are either telling me one of 3 things Brian. One, you know of
all the truths in the Bible, or 2, you are really an unbeliever, or 3, which
will probably be the case, because you perceive yourself to be a Christian you
can choose the, "It's a different case for a Christian than for those who are
perceived as unbelievers. For us, the truth hasn't been revealed yet, but for
the unbeliever, yer goin to hell."




Glen


PS	I hope you either have another job lined up or will find one soon

Hi Glen,

re .228 - Glad you understood.  There is much reason for concern, because
currently they are being taken advantage of in terrible ways, to an immense 
extent. 

						Andrew

Glen,

With all of the things I have to finish up this week, I don't know why I wasting
my time with you, but I guess the prophet in my just won't let go...

>         Then you are either telling me one of 3 things Brian. 

Wrong! Your ability to misinterpret and misread never ceases to amaze me.

> One, you know of
> all the truths in the Bible, or 2, you are really an unbeliever, or 3, which
> will probably be the case, because you perceive yourself to be a Christian you
> can choose the, "It's a different case for a Christian than for those who are
> perceived as unbelievers. For us, the truth hasn't been revealed yet, but for
> the unbeliever, yer goin to hell."

Try reading what I wrote, Glen. Whether or not I (or you, or anyone else individually)
personally am aware of all of the truths in the Bible is irrelevant. The fact is that
everything in the Bible is true, whether you or I know it or believe it or not! Your
refusal to believe that simple fact does not change it's verity, any more than a foolish
refusal to accept the law of gravity would preserve you should you step off of a high
building. You'd *still* go splat X number of floors below.

So, either you choose to accept the credibility of the Scripture, in toto, or you do not.
If you do not, then you have no basis for redeeming, saving faith, and you go to Hell.
Simple. It's *not* an "I'm better than you. I'm no better, and no worse. It is a matter
that sin has been dealt with in my life, and has not been dealt with in yours.

I can pray Psalm 51, and know that He will deal with my sin, for I have humbly acknowledged
it before Him. You can not, for you have no objective basis from which to have faith 
(your opinion is *not* objective, God's Word *is). Therefore, you have no basis upon which
to establish and maintain a covenant relationship with the Father. As a result, He has 
absolutely *no* responsibility or even right to intervene in your life. Therefore, your
sin remains on your own head, not having been cast upon the substitutionary Lamb of God.
Should this condition remain upon the day of your (physical) death, you will (like the vast
majority of humanity, I fear) face the second death (being cast eternally into the lake of 
fire in Hades) on That Day at the Judgement Seat of Christ.

No time for soft soap and pious platitudes,

Brian

	Nice note Brian. One of the classics.....



Glen

    re: .232
    
    >   Nice note Brian. One of the classics......
    
    Thanks, Glen. I will cherish that compliment. Actually, it's not
    original.Check out Matthew 23.
    
    Brian

I didn't think it was a compliment, I thought he was mocking you.

Please tell me, Glen, that Brian was right and that you were complimenting
him.

Paul

Hi Paul,

Sometimes it's more .... diplomatic .... to take something as it isn;t 
meant, to get the benefit of the doubt ;-}

							Andrew

	Paul, I will gladly tell you what you asked..... just don't ask if I
mean it... :-)


| Sometimes it's more .... diplomatic .... to take something as it isn;t 
| meant, to get the benefit of the doubt ;-}



	I know Andrew.... I saw ya do that earlier in this string.


Glen

What happens when diplomacy fails, gentlemen?

� What happens when diplomacy fails, gentlemen?

As it always does, you then find out who isn't ... ;-)

Two good working definitions of diplomacy:

"Emphatically saying `nice doggy!' while you find a 
      bigger stick."      David Ben Giuron (SP?)
                          1st President of Israel

"Telling someone to go to Hell in such as way as to
      make him look forward to the trip."
                           Samuel Clemens
                           aka - Mark Twain

I agree with both definitions, and see that they apply here.

Brian

NPR is reporting that "The Scream", the famous painting in Norway that was
stolen earlier this month, is being held hostage by pro-life activists.

The ransom is to play "The Silent Scream" on television in Norway.

I DO NOT APPROVE OF THIS ACTION!

/john

Agreed, John.  Not justifiable at all, if this is fact, and liable to bring 
the cause and anything associated with it into disrepute.  It's not just 
being presented as by the pro-choice group?

							Andrew

    I am appalled, dismayed, and incredulous.  Were it not for the
    quote from the Lutheran pastor, effectively accepting responsibility
    for the crime, I would ascribe blaming the Pro-Life movement for
    the theft to being pro-abort diatribe. It is impossible to proport to
    be taking the moral high ground from such a low moral position.
    
    This is not the Pro-Life movement I know. I realize that I've been
    uninvolved with Operation Rescue for a couple of years, but it's hard
    to believe that is could have changed so much, so as to approve of,
    and possibly be involved in, the theft of property. I never did such
    a thing, and would never have authorized it. Interfering with 
    infanticide directly (through blockading and disabling genocidal 
    equipment) is one thing, but stealing a national treasure for publicity
    purposes is something entirely different. It truly smacks of(albeit
    non-violent) terrorism, something which is, IMHO, inherently wrong, and 
    is blackmail. It never works. General Alexander Haig was *wrong*
    when he said, "Grab them by the b***s, and their hearts and 
    minds will follow." It works just the other way around.
    
    Sorrowfully,
    
    Brian

My newspaper this weekend had an article covering this link.  It makes it 
very oblique.

 "Norwegian anti-abortion activists yesterday hinted that they stole one of 
  the world's most famous paintings, 'The Scream' ....
  .... Boerrre Knudsen, a former priest and staunch opponent of liberal 
  Scandinavian abortion laws said that the painting could possibly be 
  recovered if a contraversial anti-abortion [sic] film - The Silent Scream 
  - was shown on national television (NRK). "I have been thinking about this, 
  If for instance NRK showed The Silent Scream for the whole nation, then 
  The Scream will also have been returned," Mr Knudsen said.  But he declined 
  to confirm whether the painting, probably Norway's most valuable, was 
  stolen by anti-abortion activists.
  Nor would we guarantee its return. ....

  There's a lot more, but the link between the theft and the group / 
  publicising of the film is always just oblique enough to leave one in 
  doubt as to whether they are really just trying to hitch a publicity lift 
  on a handy event.

  That would be bad enough....  Depending on the exact nuance in Norwegian...

							Andrew

	CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) -- A year ago, it was the city's only
abortion clinic -- a magnet for unhappily pregnant women, and for
the sidewalk ministers who begged them to reconsider as they
entered.

	But now, the building at 6230 Vance Road has been born again.

	Opponents bought the structure, closed the Chattanooga Women's
Clinic, and made it a counseling center for pregnant women -- and a
shrine to aborted fetuses.

	``There has been a real sense of purging out everything that was
once there,'' said Patricia Lindley, spokesman for the Pro-Life
Majority Coalition of Chattanooga. ``A place that was in existence
only for the purpose of death is now a place that exists only for
the purpose of prolonging life.''

	And not coincidentally, anyone who wants an abortion must now
drive two hours -- to Nashville, Birmingham, Atlanta or Knoxville --
to get one.

	The change came quickly. The building was forfeited in
bankruptcy proceedings, and in just one week last April, ProMACC
raised $300,000 to buy it. A month later, ProMACC closed the
clinic.

	Since then the building has been gutted and portions of it
remodeled. Christian-based AAA Women's Services, a counseling
service for pregnant women which sat across the street for nine
years, has relocated there.

	Outside, a wailing wall displays brass plates engraved with the
names of a dozen aborted fetuses. The wooden memorial, protected by
bulletproof glass, can hold up to 35,000 names, symbolic of the
reported number of fetuses aborted at the clinic during its 18-year
history.

	Any woman who has had an abortion or family members of those
women can request a name plate through ProMacc.

	The ``National Memorial to the Unborn'' was unveiled Jan. 23 to
mark the 21st anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court
decision which legalized abortion. Among the more than 700
spectators were women who had had abortions at the clinic.

	``Anyone personally touched by abortion were offered flowers to
place in front of the name plaques,'' Lindley said. About 30 women
did.

	``We were pleased ... that these people felt safe to come,'' she
said. ``They trusted us enough to come and participate in that
without any fear of being condemned or harassed or any of the
things that pro-lifers are accused of.

	``It was a real confirmation that this was a good thing to do
with this building, to really provide a place for these women.''

	Employees of the abortion clinic said after the closure that
there were plans to reopen at another site under a new name, but
one employee said those plans have been scrapped due to legal
wrangling and a lack of funds.

	Ed Perry, an East Tennessee doctor who conducted abortions at
the clinic, planned to buy the building to keep the clinic open,
but ProMACC outbid him by $7,000. At the time, he said he would
help finance a new clinic.

	It didn't happen. He did not return recent phone calls seeking
comment.

	Several weeks after the clinic closed, women who called its
phone number heard a tape-recorded message directing them to
clinics in other cities. The number since has been disconnected.

	AAA Women's Services offers free pregnancy testing, a 24-hour
crisis line, temporary shelter, financial aid, foster care,
clothing, food, medical referrals, information on adoption and
various types of counseling, including post-abortion and
post-adoption.

	``We encourage women to think about all their options,'' Lindley
said. ``But we don't do adoptions. We don't ever want there to be
any perception that we're out to get people's babies.''

	I deplore the horrible crime of child murder.  ...  No matter
	what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from
	suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty
	who commits the deed ... but oh! thrice guilty is he who
	drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime.

		-- Susan B. Anthony, "The Revolution", 8 July 1869, 4(1):4

    That one's worthy of placing on a placard...

I wasn't sure where to put this, so mods, feel free to move it.

I get the feeling that some of the statistics being quota for the number of 
abortions performed, both here and in Australia, may actually be 
over-statements. My concern is that one of the techniques used for abortion, 
the D & C (Dilation & Curettage of the uterus) is also performed on women who 
have had miscarriages, and I suspect that miscarriage statistics may be being 
carried over. Admittedly, not every woman who has a miscarriage also has a D&C 
(and D&Cs are also performed for other gyn. problems) but MANY do, as there is 
a health risk if not all foetal tissue etc is removed. Statistically, I 
believe there are 1 in 6 pregnancies that end in miscarriage. (especially in 
the first few weeks)

Does anyone know if my supposition is correct?

Does anyone know what the stats are for what I believe is termed "spontaneous 
abortion" - ie miscarriage, vs actual (ie induced by whatever method) 
abortion.


Chele

re .248

The 1.5 million abortions in the U.S. each year are voluntary,
deliberate _abortions_, not D&C operations after spontaneous
miscarriages.

There are detailed U.S. government statistics on the type of abortion
(the primary method is suction curettage, 95%), the term of pregnancy
(most are 8-11 weeks), marital status (23% married, 77% single),
race (70% white, 30% other), age (30% <=19, 35% 20-24, 35% >=25), etc.

You can pick up the Boston Yellow Pages and see page after page of
ads for abortion clinics.  "Abortion up to 24 weeks, convenient hours,
credit cards accepted, easy parking, no parental consent, ... ..."

/john

Thanks John.

Disclaimer:  This AP article contains some biased and inaccurate information
about the requirements of the Pennsylvania Informed Consent Law.

	PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A doctor took a seat, introduced himself and
drying started reading from a script to some two dozen young women
contemplating abortions.

	Then, after the state-mandated speech, another clinic official
had something to say:

	``I apologize that the state of Pennsylvania has so little
respect for women,'' said Dayle Steinberg, associate executive
director of the downtown Planned Parenthood clinic.

	As one of the nation's most restrictive abortion laws went into
effect this week, Pennsylvania abortion clinics and some of their
clients struggled -- angrily -- with the requirements.

	The provisions include a 24-hour waiting period after counseling
from a doctor and a parent's or a judge's consent for unmarried
girls under age 18. It also requires clinics to provide
informational material, including graphic color pictures of
fetuses.

	Annamarie Doan, a 26-year-old divorced mother of three from
Bensalem, was among the women crowding into the Elizabeth Blackwell
Health Center for Women in downtown Philadelphia on Wednesday.

	``It should be nobody's business if I'm here or not,'' Doan
said. ``I'm old enough to know what's best for me. They don't walk
in my shoes every day. They don't pay my bills.''

	Doan, who had an abortion years ago, said she suffered emotional
problems that were compounded by her pregnancy.

	``It's something I can't deal with, the birth would be,'' she
said. ``Why should I have to wait 24 hours if I already sat down
and reasonably thought about this?''

	When the law was enacted in 1988, it was considered the most
restrictive in the country. Seven other states now have some kind
of waiting period, but only Pennsylvania and Mississippi require
patients to travel to the same clinic twice. Five other states are
engaged in legal battles over waiting periods.

	Kathy Liebler, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Department of
Health, said the first week was running smoothly, clinics were
providing the booklets as required and the department had received
no complaints.

	By midweek, a Philadelphia-based hot line for pregnant teens had
received about 30 calls, with about 40 percent of callers saying
they might decide to get an abortion in a neighborhoring state,
said director Lisa Shulock.

	The Cherry Hill Women's Center in New Jersey said it had
received about 20 calls from Pennsylvanians concerned about the
law, mostly teens.

	The Allentown Women's Center stamped the state's booklet with a
disclaimer: ``This material was prepared by the Pennsylvania
Department of Health. It contains some biased and inaccurate
information and is not endorsed by the Allentown Women's Center.''

	Abortion foes say the 24-hour waiting period allows women to
make reasoned, well-informed decisions.

	Abortion providers say the new law only makes getting the
procedure more difficult because it requires a second trip, a
situation especially daunting for rural women in a state where, the
Women's Law Project says, 98 percent of abortions are performed in
eight of the 67 counties.

	Abortion providers also say the state's booklet, ``Abortion:
Making A Decision,'' has an anti-abortion bias. It includes color
photos of a developing fetus and lists the risks of abortion and
pregnancy.

	``Some of the descriptions of the procedure itself has some
pretty inflammatory language,'' said Deni Thurman-Eyer, director of
the Allentown Women's Center. She noted that one passage compares
the equipment used in first-trimester abortions to a vacuum
cleaner.

	Sylvia Lee, director of the Centre Region Crisis Pregnancy
Center in State College, home of Penn State University, defended
the law and dismissed the notion that the state's materials are
slanted.

	``Many of the people who come in here don't know much about
abortion,'' she said.

The Massachusetts Chapter of the National Organization of Episcopalians
for Life (NOELMASS) is sponsoring a spring work day at Friends of the
Unborn, a residential center for women with problem pregnancies.  Friends
of the Unborn provides housing for women during and up to one year after
problem pregnancies, as well as assistance with job placement, finding
housing, and other basic necessities.

We plan to spend Saturday the 7th of May painting, raking, and doing
other necessary work at Friends of the Unborn.

Episcopalians or other interested parties who would like to help are
requested to please contact John Covert (COVERT::COVERT) as soon as
possible.  We need to determine exactly how many people we are going
to have and what skills they have so that we can put together a work
plan, purchase supplies, and make the best use of our time.

Thanks.

A new video game called "Slaughterhouse" features a level called
"The Womb" in which babies in amniotic sacs float toward the player,
who must kill them because they will "jump on your back if you let
them live," according to the game book.

The journal "Sisterlife" commented, "At last, a toy that isn't
based on gratuitous violence but points kids toward a profitable
career".

/john

John, horrific.  In total attitude to the image of God....  
	- and how the media comment can be so blind?

Put it together - "Slaughterhouse ... isn't based on gratuitous violence"
								- incredible.

							Andrew

 Sigh....

The following non-profit group is seeking to help women who have had
difficulties after abortions.  They have also been successful in many
legal actions against clinics operating unsafely.

Problems after an abortion?  Medical, legal, and emotional help is
available by calling 800 634-2224.

The following may indicate abortion related damage:

	1. heavy or continued bleeding
	2. severe cramping
	3. elevated temperature
	4. intense headaches
	5. depression, suicidal tendencies
	6. hallucinations, nightmares, etc.
	7. in general, any unusual physical or emotional sensation

Abortion may be legal, but malpractice, misrepresentation, and fraud are not.
If you need help, call the 800 number, or write American Rights Coalition,
P.O. Box 487, Chattanooga, TN 37401.

	WASHINGTON -- Federal penalties for protesters who block abortion
clinic or church entrances, damage clinics or churches or intimidate patients,
worshippers, staff, or clergy were lowered under a compromise reached by
congressional negotiators Tuesday.

	The legislation makes it a federal crime to block access to
abortion clinics or places of worship.

	The Capitol Hill conference resolved differences between the
House and Senate versions, both passed last November.  The Senate version
of the legislation had been amended to impose the same penalties on
protesters at churches, and the House had directed its representatives
to the conference committee to accept that change.

	The bill would make it a federal offense to block a clinic
entrance or church or damage a clinic or church. It also imposes federal
penalties on those who intentionally intimidate, injure or interfere with
clinic staff, clergy, patients, or worshippers by using force, threatening
force or physically blocking their way.

	The House and Senate negotiators adopted a proposal, similar to
one advanced by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, that would set a maximum
fine of $10,000 and six months in prison for a first offense and a
maximum penalty of $25,000 and 18 months in jail for a subsequent
offense.

	The House bill had called for fines of up to $100,000 and one
year in prison for a first offense, and up to $250,000 in fines and
three years in prison for a second offense.

	``I don't think there's any question that this is an issue
regarding violence in our society and also constitutional rights,''
said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

	``This is the first time I've seen us punishing nonviolent
civil disobedience,'' Hatch said.

	Pamela Maraldo, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of
America, said, ``We are satisfied that the conferees have adopted
the strongest possible legislation.  Given the presence on the
conference committee of such outspoken anti-choice lawmakers as
Sen. Hatch and Congressman Hyde, the process could have been much
more contentious.  We look forward to swift adoption of the conference
(legislation) by both the House and the Senate.''

	HOUSTON (AP) -- Anti-abortion groups illegally conspired to try to
put 10 women's clinics out of business when they protested outside them
during the Republican National Convention two years ago, a jury decided
Thursday.

	The jury awarded Planned Parenthood of Southeast Texas and nine
other Houston abortion clinics a total of $204,585 in damages in their
lawsuit against Operation Rescue, Rescue America, Dallas Rescue, The Lambs
of Christ and several abortion group leaders. It was not clear how the
money would be divided.

	Protesters claimed they were exercising constitutionally guaranteed
rights to free speech.

	But the Harris County jury agreed with the lawsuit that the
anti-abortion groups conspired to interfere with the clinics' business. The
same jury immediately began considering whether to award punitive damages.

	Rescue America national director Don Treshman said the verdict was
``not a valid court order,'' vowing Planned Parenthood would see ``not a
cent.''

	Asked if he feared bigger punitive damage awards, Treshman said,
``It'll make no difference whatsoever. The sad thing is to see justice
denied.''

 Sigh...

Saturday, I will be joining several other members of the Massachusetts
Chapter of the National Organization of Episcopalians for Life in a Spring
work day at three of the houses owned by Friends of the Unborn.

The next several replies are notes from some of the current residents
(some of whom I met Thursday evening when I went out to measure the
rooms we are going to paint).

/john
================================================================================
                -< Christine, 17, arrived 1/24/94, due 8/17/94 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I came to "Friends" I was truely homeless.  When a social worker
found this place, I was so relieved that I didn't have to bounce around
anymore.  If I didn't have "friends", I would probably be in a mental
hospital or dead.

"Friends" made my High School graduation a reality!  I had been out of
school for a month and when I got here I went back.  I'm graduating in
May with honors.

I like Bible Study and the nutrition classes.  You really learn a lot
in them.

I basically had no support in my pregnancy before I got here.  At one
point I thought that abortion would be the best.  But with the support
you get here from Marilyn & Penny and the other girls, I realized that
I'm not the only one and God loves me.  God bless Friends of the Unborn!
================================================================================
              -< Christina, 25, arrived 7/7/93, son born 1/4/94 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of the Unborn enabled me to leave a dangerous situation (homelife)
that I would otherwise have to _survive_.

The bible study classes, cooking classes, nutrition & parenting classes
help me to keep my mind off of depressing things.  I've made friends here,
too.  Because of Marilyn's generosity & Christianity, I have a save, warm
place and a full belly & things for my baby.  My baby likes all the girls
here, too!

Now I can tap the resources Friends of the Unborn provides and receive
help from counseling -- housing workers -- welfare tips -- and start
building a future for my baby and I.
================================================================================
                  -< Erika, 22, arrived 12/29/93, due 5/7/94 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many things I feel when I think of Friends, but mostly thankfulness
beyond words.  Friends took me in when I had no where to go.  They have made
me feel human again, and most of all they cared when noone else did.  When
I came here I started with nothing, and believing in noone, now I have
Friends and God.  Without either one I do not believe I would be alive
today.  I now have a future to think about with a child to raise, and
with Friends and God behind me I know I can stand on my own two feet again.
================================================================================
              -< Bettina, 15, arrived 3/10/94, son born 2/22/94 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of the Unborn helped me in a lot of ways.  They gave me a place to
stay.  If it wasn't for them God knows where I would be.  Before I came
here I was in a foster home.

I think Penny and Marilyn are very nice people because of what they are
doing.  They don't have to run this program but they did because they
have good hearts.

I love both of them very much.
================================================================================
               -< Tina Marie, 21, arrived 3/29/94, due in June >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This ministry has done a lot for me already.  I've only been here a week
but what I've seen since I've been here is everybody is friendly, nice,
& considerate.  If you need help with something, someone would help you.
If you can't find something someone would help you find it.  If someone's
on the phone & their time's almost up they'll get off and let you use it.

I was living at home before I came here but when my mother told my father
I was pregnant he told me to get out.  My mother didn't want me to leave
but what could she do.  My house is too small anyway.  Without Friends I
don't know where I'd be, probably in the street.

I think I would be closer to God because of the Bible class.  The woman
really cares.  I didn't consider abortion before I got here.  I'm grateful
to Friends.
================================================================================
             -< Meiry, 16, arrived 4/14/93, daughter born 11/4/93 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I came here I lived with my mother and twin brothers in a very
small apartment and with an abusive family.  While pregnant I was pushed
around by my mother who wanted me to have an abortion.  I was a student
and couldn't go to schoool, too much for me.  So I had to leave, I needed
help.  I wanted to keep my baby.

That's when I found Friends and they, with a lot of love, helped me.  I
now have a home, my baby, a baby girl named Danylla, and a chance to go
on.  I also go to school; I'm in 11th grade and I learned more about
God, about his love for me in Bible studies that we have here at Friends.

I now have my life together, with Friends of the Unborn's help I'm gonna
get my apartment, I'm going to have my own home, and I wouldn't have none
of this if it wasn't for Friends of the Unborn and all the generous people
who also believe in life and want to help.  Thank you!

================================================================================
              -< Tamara, 20, arrived 8/23/93, son born 12/21/93 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I came to Friends, I had a bery good life.  Good Job, my own
apartment, what I thought was a secure relationship, until I became
pregnant.  Then my boyfriend left, I was put on bedrest & was unable
to pay for my apartment.  Friends took me in right away.  Everyone
was very nice.  They helped me to get things for my son that I may
have never been able to have for him.  I always had plenty to eat
& thanks to Friends I had a 8lb 12oz baby boy.  Without Friends I
really don't know where I would be, but thanks to Friends I know
where I'm going.
================================================================================
             -< Sheila, 21, arrived 8/15/93, daughter born 2/4/94 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of the Unborn has given me a roof over my head when I needed one.

It is a save environment for me and my child and that's all I can ask for.
================================================================================
                 -< Denise, 22, arrived 10/19/93, due 6/22/94 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of the Unborn is a great organization for young mothers.  I have
had a rough pregnancy and everyone has been right there for me.  They
offer love and support to us girls and make us feel like we have a
family.  There is definitely no way to put in words the gratitude I
feel to everyone who participates in the program.
================================================================================
             -< April, 21, arrived 4/12/93, daughter born 12/9/93 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it wasn't for Friends of the Unborn I'd probably be living extremely
unhappy with a friend in very overcrowded stressful conditions.  My mother
& the rest of my family moved out of state and were homeless when they
came back also, so I couldn't turn to them for help.  Since I've been
here I've met a lot of fine people.  Marilyn and Penny have to be the
most caring, helpful, loving people.  Whenever us girls need something
for ourselves or our babies they help us.  If it's not clothes or shoes
for ourselves, it's clothes and diapers for the babies.  When we leave
here, Marilyn and Penny help provide furniture and necessities for our
houses.  They always help to their fullest.  Also, before I came here,
I've never sat down and read a bible, or probably never cared what the
pages said.  Not saying I never prayed or believed in God because I do,
it's just now that we've had Bible study and the book was explained to
me more, I've taken more interest in it.  I just need to say "Thank You"
to Friends of the Unborn.
================================================================================
              -< Heather, 18, arrived 8/12/93, son born 2/28/93 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends helped me when I had no idea where I was going.  I couldn't stay
with my mother because of lead paint.  Living here is helping me to get
my feet back on the ground.  I have met new friends and enjoyed a lot of
new experiences.
================================================================================
                -< Christina, 18, arrived 11/5/93, due 6/7/94 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello.  I, Christina, would like to tell you how I feel about Friends.

Before I came to Friends I was looking for places to stay to rest my
head every night.  I was homeless.  I came out of foster care when I
turned 18 and had no permanent place to go.  If it weren't for Friends
I would probably be no longer living because I came from a very bad
area.  I have learned very important & caring ways to handle a child
on my own through the classes that Friends provides for all the girls
within the houses.  I never did consider abortion.  I was going to do
the best I could for my child but with the help of Friends it is much
easier to do so.

I very much thank Marilyn Birnie and Penny Romano for helping me with
putting a roof over my head and providing whatever it is that I have
needed in the time that I have spent in their home.  Thank you.
================================================================================
                -< Kimberly, 23, arrived 3/31/94, due 11/11/94 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of the Unborn has helped me by taking me in and supporting me
when my family would not.

They have been very kind and friendly and made me feel at home.
================================================================================
            -< Tonya, 19, arrived 11/8/93, daughter born 11/21/93 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Friends of the Unborn was there for me when I was going through a hard
time in my life.  I knew that God must've loved me if he led me here.  My
baby's father was off in another world and left me alone to face the most
scariest and most beautiful part of our lives.

Since I've been here, my boyfriend and I are going to get married and we
are going to be a family.  The most important part is that my baby is
healthy and happy because of the love of Marilyn and Penny.  God Bless
them and I love them much!

Re:  lawsuit

The war was never going to be won by attacking PP and
like-minded organizations and clinics.

God will win the war by reaching out to those in need
through love.  Criticizing, harassing (when that is
actually done which is a whole lot less than what the
media would leave you to believe) and blocking clinics
may save a few babies, but it loses the war of perception
which is a greater loss (translates into more lost babies
if you look at it that way).

We must outlove and outcare those who deceive women
by claiming that abortion is a solution.  The TRUTH is on
OUR side.  Full facts about pregnancy and abortion, a
supportive and nuturing environment and the ability to
meet the basic needs of these women and a reliance upon
God does result in women choosing to carry to term - which
is the real desire of the vast majority of women.

Many (most?) women who choose abortion choose it because
they feel they have NO CHOICE!  Interesting that those who
propangandize themselves as the choice movement are the
same ones who will manipulate information to the extremes
in order to reduce choice when a women comes into the clinic.

This is why the Pennsylvania clinics are in such an uproar
about presenting full factual information with a minimal
24 hour waiting period before the actual abortion can be
performed.  They (and we) realize full well that the
probability of an abortion is directly related to

  - the lack of information about the actual procedure
  - the lack of information of fetal development
  - the emotional distance between the mother and
    the growing fetus
  - the immediate availability of killing the fetus when
    a decision has been made

Women in crisis (and an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy usually
has a lot of crisis elements) swing back and forth day to day,
hour to hour and even minute to minute depending on their
emotions.  Time to think and consider is a great threat to the
abortion industry - but a great savior to the unborn child.

The war is winnable.  We will never stop all abortions; our
world is much too sinful for that.  But we CAN provide the
love, care, factual informationa and refer them to the Father
of us all as they face this difficult decision.

Collis

   re: last couple, Friends..
   
   Amen!  *This* is where we need to be putting some more of our time and
   energy.

   Yes, abortion is worth protesting, and I respect those people who feel
   led to do so... 

   but when it comes down to it, these are real people with real needs -
   they need our love and our support, not our judgement and scorn.  Its
   just like our kids... teach them to stand, and be there when/if they
   fall.
   
   - Tom

HOUSTON (AP) -- A women's clinic was awarded $1.01 million in punitive
damages Monday from two anti-abortion groups that staged confrontational
protests during the 1992 Republican National Convention.

A Harris County jury deliberated about nine hours over two days before
awarding Planned Parenthood of Southeast Texas the punitive damages.

Operation Rescue was ordered to pay $350,000, Rescue America $355,000,
leaders Don Treshman $155,000 and the Rev. Keith Tucci $150,000.

The 12 jurors last Thursday awarded the clinic $204,585 in actual damages
after finding that the groups and two others -- Dallas Rescue and The Lambs
of Christ -- conspired to hinder business at Planned Parenthood and nine
other clinics.

Planned Parenthood did not seek punitive damages against the smaller
groups.

The abortion foes said they would appeal the case and in the meantime would
pay nothing.

``We're not going to accept this.  This is an invalid verdict, and that's
why we're going to challenge it,'' Treshman said.

Attorney Richard Schmude, who represented the abortion opponents, said he
was ``shocked and outraged'' by the decision.

``It's a vindictive and hateful verdict,'' Schmude said.  ``There was no
evidence in this case that supports the plaintiffs.''

Both sides said last week's decision was the first time a jury awarded
women's clinics monetary damages from anti-abortion activists.

Judy Reiner, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood, said the hefty punitive
award expands an already-clear message from the jury.

``This is a very clear message that people who engage in this conduct will
be held accountable,'' Ms. Reiner said.

Planned Parenthood, the only plaintiff to seek monetary damages, listed
extra security, fencing, vandalism and lost business as reasons for actual
damages.

Ms. Reiner said her group has been tracking the abortion opponents' assets
and will try aggressively to collect on the awards.

``We will collect damages from them.  We will collect all damages,'' she
said.

The anti-abortion activists staged daily demonstrations at the clinics
during the GOP convention in Houston.  Dozens of people were arrested as
protestors confronted volunteers trying to defend the clinics.

The lawsuit was filed as part of a long effort to win permanent
restrictions on the protest groups.  With the jury's decision, state
District Judge Eileen O'Neill can hold a hearing to decide if such a
permanent injunction is warranted.

O'Neill isn't expected to rule on that matter, however, until after the
U.S. Supreme Court considers an injunction in Florida that keeps protesters
at least 36 feet away from a clinic.

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of
1994".

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

Pursuant to the affirmative power of Congress to enact this legislation
under section 5 of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, it is
the purpose of this Act to protect and promote the public safety and
health and activities affecting interstate commerce by establishing
Federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for certain violent,
threatening, obstructive and destructive conduct that is intended to
injure, intimidate or interfere with persons seeking to obtain or provide
reproductive health services.

SEC. 3. FREEDOM OF ACCESS TO CLINIC ENTRANCES.

Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section:

"�248. Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances.

  "(a) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. -- Whoever --

    "(1) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction,
    intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts
    to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person because that person
    is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other
    person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing
    reproductive health services;
    "(2) by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction,
    intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts
    to injure, intimidate or interfere with any person lawfully
    exercising or seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of
    religious freedom at a place of religious worship; or
    "(3) intentionally damages or destroys the property of a facility,
    or attempts to do so, because such facility provides reproductive
    health services, or intentionally damages or destroys the property
    of a place of religious worship,

shall be subject to the penalties provided in subsection (b) and the civil
remedies provided in subsection (c), except that a parent or legal guardian
of a minor shall not be subject to any penalties or civil remedies under
this section for such activities insofar as they are directed exclusively
at that minor.

  "(b) PENALTIES. -- Whoever violates this section shall --

    "(1) in the case of a first offense, be fined in accordance with this
    title [not more than $100,000], or imprisoned not more than one year,
    or both;
    and
    "(2) in the case of a second or subsequent offense after a prior
    conviction under this section, be fined in accordance with this
    title [not more than $250,000], or imprisoned not more than 3 years,
    or both;

except that for an offense involving exclusively a nonviolent physical
obstruction, the fine shall be not more than $10,000 and the length of
imprisonment shall be not more than six months, or both, for the first
offense; and the fine shall be not more than $25,000 and the length of
imprisonment shall be not more than 18 months, or both, for a subsequent
offense; and except that if bodily injury results, the length of imprisonment
shall be not more than 10 years, and if death results, it shall be for any
term of years or for life.

  "(c) CIVIL REMEDIES.--

    "(1) RIGHT OF ACTION.--
      "(A) IN GENERAL.-- Any person aggrieved by reason of the conduct
    prohibited by subsection (a) may commence a civil action for the relief
    set forth in subparagraph (B), except that such and action may be brought
    under subsection (a)(1) only by a person involved in providing or seeking
    to provide, or obtaining or seeking to obtain, services in a facility
    that provides reproductive health services, and such an action may be
    brought under subsection (a)(2) only by a person lawfully exercising or
    seeking to exercise the First Amendment right of religious freedom at a
    place of religious worship or by the entity that owns or operates such
    place of religious worship.
      "(B) RELIEF.-- In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may
    award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent
    injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages, as well as the
    costs of suit and reasonable fees for attorneys and expert witnesses.
    With respect to compensatory damages, the plaintiff may elect, at any
    time prior to the rendering of final judgment, to recover, in lieu of
    actual damages, an award of statutory damages in the amount of $5,000
    per violation.

    "(2) ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES.--
      "(A) IN GENERAL.-- If the Attorney General of the United States has
    reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is
    being, has been, or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation
    of this section, the Attorney General may commence a civil action in
    any appropriate United States District Court.
      "(B) RELIEF.-- In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may
    award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent
    injunctive relief, and compensatory damages to persons aggrieved as
    described in paragraph (1)(B).  The court, to vindicate the public
    interest, may also asses a civil penalty against each respondent--
        "(i) in an amount not exceeding $10,000 for a nonviolent physical
      obstruction and $15,000 for other first violations; and
        "(ii) in an amount not exceeding $15,000 for a nonviolent physical
      obstruction and $25,000 for any other subsequent violation.

    "(3) ACTIONS OF STATE ATTORNEYS GENERAL.--
      "(A) IN GENERAL.-- If the Attorney General of a State has reasonable
    cause to believe that any person or group of persons is being, has been,
    or may be injured by conduct constituting a violation of this section,
    such Attorney General may commence a civil action in the name of such
    State, in any appropriate United States District Court.
      "(B) RELIEF.-- In any action under subparagraph (A), the court may
    award appropriate relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent
    injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and civil penalties as described
    in paragraph (2)(B).

  "(d) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.-- Nothing in this section shall be construed--
    "(1) to prohibit any expressive conduct (including peaceful picketing or
    other peaceful demonstration) protected from legal prohibition by the
    First Amendment to the Constitution;
    "(2) to create new remedies for interference with activities protected
    by the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment to
    the Constitution, occurring outside a facility, regardless of the point
    of view expressed, or to limit any existing legal remedies for such
    interference;
    "(3) to provide exclusive criminal penalties or civil remedies with
    respect to the conduct prohibited by this section, or to preempt
    State of local laws that may provide such penalties or remedies; or
    "(4) to interfere with the enforcement of State or local laws
    regulating the performance of abortions and other reproductive
    health services.

  "(e) DEFINITIONS.-- As used in this section:
    "(1) FACILITY.-- The term `facility' includes a hospital, clinic,
    physicians office, or other facility that provides reproductive
    health services, and includes the building or structure in which
    the facility is located.
    "(2) INTERFERE WITH.-- The term `interfere with' means to restrict
    a person's freedom of movement.
    "(3) INTIMIDATE.-- The term `intimidate' means to place a person in
    reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him- or herself or to
    another.
    "(4) PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTION.-- The term `physical obstruction' means
    rendering impassable ingress to or egress from a facility that
    provides reproductive health services or to or from a place of
    religious worship, or rendering passage to or from such a facility
    or place of religious worship unreasonably difficult or hazardous.
    "(5) REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.-- The term `reproductive health
    services' means reproductive health services provided in a hospital,
    clinic, physician's office, or other facility, and includes medical,
    surgical, counselling or referral services relating to pregnancy
    or the termination of a pregnancy.
    "(6) STATE.-- The term `State' includes a state of the United States,
    the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession
    of the United States.".

SEC. 4. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 13 of title 18, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

"248. Blocking access to reproductive health services."

SEC. 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the
application of such provision or amendment to any person or circumstance
is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this Act, the amendments
made by this Act, and the application of the provisions of such to any
other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act takes effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall
apply only with respect to conduct occurring on or after such date.

 "Reproductive health services"....geesh..

The conference committee accepted the House wording "reproductive health
services" rather than the Senate wording "pregnancy or abortion-related
services" after the definition of the term was so written that the act
would also apply to pro-abortion activists trying to shut down crisis
pregnancy centers that only provide referrals.

/john

Yesterday the Clinton Health Care Bill passed Committee and went to the
full Senate.  It includes a provision requiring all employers to pay for
abortions, even those not medically necessary, at any time during a
pregnancy.

Many employers cannot reconcile this with their consciences.

Catholic bishops have said that the Church will have to disobey this law,
since paying for an abortion carries the penalty of automatic excommunication.

/john

    If the Senate passes it, those voting "yes" to the bill will find
    themseleves out of a job.

    Re: Note 108.269 by CSOA1::LEECH

�    If the Senate passes it, those voting "yes" to the bill will find
�    themseleves out of a job.
    
    Much as I'd like to believe it, I am sure this will not be the case.
    Given the re-election success of virtually all incumbents despite the
    most ridiculous "yes" votes, it's clear that they can pretty much vote
    how they want and a plurality of the voting citizenry will continue to
    keep them in power.
    
    	BD�

    Only the president is actually elected because of what He stands for.
    Or in the case of the last election what he is perceived to stand for.
     
    Everyone in the House and Senate are elected for what they can do for
    their district/state financially.  The incumbents wield more clout to
    get more programs/ funds/ grants for their constutuants.  A rookie is
    not going to be able to say 'Move funding for the Space project from
    the Alabama location to the Houston Location'.  Only an incumbent with
    lots of favors and contacts can do this.
    
    There is a horrible congressman from Texas, everyone knows he is
    crooked, amoral, and racist.  He keeps getting voted in, over and over,
    why, because he ALWAYS gets nice big goverment projects for the Beumont
    and Orange areas.  The opponents run on moral, honest open platforms,
    and everyone always say wonderful things about how nice it would be to
    have a moral, honest congressman, but they vote for the incumbent
    because they know has long as he is there, they will have jobs and
    money in their pocket.
    
    It's the way the system works, and always has.
    
    Sparky
    
    

    Sparky,	
    	I couldn't agree more.  Senators and Congresspeople are elected to
    bring home the bacon to their home state or district.  This is how we
    can see Chicago sending Rostincowski (sp!) and Mass sending Ted Kennedy
    back to Washington.  They are amoral individuals, but they bring the
    federal projects to their districts.
    
    	Something that isn't widly known outside the beltway is that
    Congress is seniority driven.  Committee chairs and assignments are all
    based on how long the congressperson has been there.  The more time the
    Congressperson gets elected, the better committee assignment, the more
    contacts are made, the more valuable the Congressperson is in his
    district.  The more powerful the individual becomes.
    	To push the rathole a little further, we can discuss if this is
    what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they set this
    government in motion.  Nah, we'd better save that for another
    conference or note.
    
    -Rick 

Of course, Digital and You are already paying for elective abortion coverage
with almost every plan currently available...  (I've specifically checked
HCHP and HMO Blue, both of which cover abortions.)

But this affects your church, which hopefully has in the past arranged plans
for its employees which do not cover elective abortions, in order to make
sure that no percentage of the money collected in the plate goes to kill a
child.  Your church will no longer have this option.

/john

The Concerned Women for America filed a lawsuit challenging the new FACE law,
saying it's too vague.  "Anyone could be sued for simply speaking out for the
pro-life position," said Beverly LaHaye, the group's president. "We are filing
this suit in an effort to ensure the long-held right to peaceful protest, free
speech and freedom of religious expression."  The suit was filed on behalf of
Joyce Woodall, 66, of Jamestown, Calif., who was arrested Tues June 7th under
FACE for refusing police orders that she stop praying on the steps of a Falls
Church, Va., clinic.  

The suit names the Federal Government and U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno as
defendants, asks the court to invalidate the law, award unspecified damages
and award attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

LaHaye commented that "It is clearly an effort to stop the right to free speech
and the right to religious expression," and "The current administration, as
well as some members of Congress, have tried every way they know to silence our
ideological positions on important issues like the rights of unborn children."

 While surfing through the TV channels last night I stumbled across a
 news item regarding the tragic murder in Florida of last week.  An
 abortion supporter (name/function not remembered) was worrying about
 an alleged consipiracy by prolife groups to wage terrorism and violence
 against abortuaries and their employees..what really got me was the irony
 of this woman claiming that there were groups out there who were "plotting
 the deaths of innocent people"..

 Please note, I do not in anyway support the murder of the 2 people last
 week.



 Jim

	Jim, how do we know there aren't groups out there plotting this? There
are a lot of sick people in this world as it is, and we've seen over and over
again what happens to others when these people get together as a group. Just a
thought.....


Glen

    How do we know that there isn't a pro-abort plot to dress up their own
    in "pro-life clothing" and commit a few murders to bring down the whole
    movement?
    
    Speculation works both ways, I'm afraid...

    I think it is interesting that "they" do not see unborn
    children as innocent people.
    
    I, also, in no way, shape, or form, condone the murder of
    ANYONE!  
    
    Every murder is unjustified.
    
    Pam
    

RE:               <<< Note 108.276 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
            -< I'm not saying there is, I'm saying how do we know? >-




>	Jim, how do we know there aren't groups out there plotting this? There
>are a lot of sick people in this world as it is, and we've seen over and over
>again what happens to others when these people get together as a group. Just a
>thought.....


There may very well be..though I pray there is not.  However, my point was
the irony in the woman's concern over group's plotting the death of innocent
people, while representing an organization that does that very thing, to the
tune of 1.5 million a year with government (and my tax dollar) support and
they get US Marshall protection, a luxury not afforded those who work in
Post Offices (more postal workers have been killed than abortuary employees).



Jim

	Steve, I agree with you whole heartedly. There are extremists for every
issue, for either side. ANYTHING is possible.


Glen

    What bothers me is that they claim some sort of Biblical justification
    for these murders.  Pro-life is exactly that in every sense of the
    word.  Killing isn't how Christ would've solved these problems and I
    resent these "pro-lifers" giving true Christians a black eye.
    
    Mike

 
amen, Mike

    I was reading an article in an old National Geographic magazine about
    Japanese women.  It described that many of the women there have
    abortions.  They honor these "deceased children" in much the same way
    as any live birth/now deceased person.  There are special burial
    grounds for "fetus" deaths either by abortion or miscarriage.  It was
    strange to read it...at least they recognize that it is a person.  Too
    bad they don't realize the act is murder.
    
    -s
    

    The F.B.I. said yesterday that they believe there is a anti-abortion
    group that is organized and has  plans to carry out terrorist
    activities against abortionist. They said Hill and a Catholic priest
    may be part of the same group.


    BTW, Bishop O'Connor of N.Y. made a public statement to these terrorist
    groups that if they wish to kill somebody, to kill him instead of any
    one else. He said this to express his and the Pro-life movements
    opposition to violence.

    Jim

	It is the role of God and government (law enforcement and judicial
branches) to protect the innocent, and to punish the guilty.  This is *not*
the proper role of any individual or group outside government to take into
their own hands.

	We should have good laws (that is, our laws should be based on
God's Law).  These good laws should then be rigorously and fairly enforced,
and those found guilty should be punished without mercy, according to those
laws, by the authorities God places over us.

	The fact that our current governments and laws are far from perfect,
does not excuse us from doing what is right.  It is *never* right to commit
murder.  It *may be* justifiable to kill in self-defense, such as to defend
one's own family (or nation, in a war) from an imminent threat.

	It is so frustrating to see pregnant women herded like cattle by their
"boyfriends" or "husbands" to their abortions, knowing that the abortionists
have been unjustly given a license to kill, all in the name of "a woman's
right to choose" death for her child.  This wholesale slaughter has been
going on, day in and day out, for over 20 years!  Then, recently, three
looney tunes opened fire on some abortionists, and *this* is supposed to
be the only front-page news!  Call out the Federal Marshals!  It's a Crime
Wave!  It's a Humongous Conspiracy!  Uncle Sam, get us out of this Jam!

	Meanwhile, all we can legally do is watch from the sidewalk, pleading
with people to stay away, if we're fortunate enough.

Saturday the 13th I will again be at the monthly prayer vigil outside Planned
Parenthood in Brookline.

We usually have about 300 present for about an hour and a half, during which
we pray the Lord's Prayer about 16 times, sing about seventeen hymns, meditate
on 15 mysteries (5 joyful, 5 sorrowful, and 5 glorious) of God's plan of
salvation, have about 15 different testimonies about the sanctity of life,
pray for the forgiveness of sins about 15 times, and recite Luke 1:28b
and ask for prayers for us sinners now and at our death about 156 times.

Barbara Bell, founder of Massachusetts Blacks for Life, does sidewalk
counselling, and the Brookline police block off all of the parking along
the street near the abortuary to give us room to stand.

/john

	Their boyfriends and husbands heard them off like cattle? This really
does disturb me. While I will agree that this can happen, but in your note you
seem to imply that this is what always happens. I got that impression from you
not listing anything else. Please correct me if I am wrong. But I sincerely
doubt that you are so naive to believe that women can't come to the decision of
wanting an abortion on their own, and that the couple themselves can not sit
and discuss things and BOTH come to the same conclusion to have one. I really
wish you would call it as it is, without the mellow dramatics. 


Glen

	Anyone else catch the 60 minutes piece last night ?

	Karen

    I didn't catch the 60 minutes piece, but did anybody catch Maria
    Shriver's piece about infertility???

 What was the 60 minute piece about?





Jim who didn't see it

	Yes, we caught the last part, with Boulder's own most prominent
abortionist, Warren Hern, portrayed as a medical hero, saving a poor
woman from "certain death" by aborting her baby 20 weeks into the
pregnancy.  (Sarcasm intended).

	How was it medically necessary to *kill* the baby at that late stage
of pregnancy?  Couldn't someone at least deliver the baby prematurely, in
hopes of saving his or her life?  How does slicing the baby to bits benefit
the diabetic woman?  It looks to me like she got lots of ignorant and
misleading medical advice, from people who are trying to justify the
thousands of abortions done every day, for no good reason at all.

	It also showed the last remaining abortion mill in North Dakota,
supposedly besieged by unruly peasants, while the brave abortion "doctor"
resolves never to quit.

	From the context, I gather that the first part was an unfavorable
review of the Lambs of Christ group.

	All together, quite a piece of propaganda.  But it does make one
wonder...  Why do all the "violent anti-abortionists" live in distant
cities?  Those I know personally would never harm anyone.

	Glen, I read your note.  Why don't you spend some time outside an
abortion clinic, and watch the people go in.  Then report back to the rest
of us on your observations.

						Bob Sampson

	Gee, I could also talk to my friends who had abortions too. It is not
all like you stated. Simple as that.


Glen

    	re .-1
    
    	Nor is it all like the media and abortion proponents state
    	regarding the "dangers" and "risks" faced by abortionists
    	at the hands of the rabid and violent pro-lifers.

    bumper sticker a friend has...
    
    
    
    	Only half the people who enter an abortion clinic come out alive
    
    -s
    

	Joe, I agree with you. I guess if people who block clinics did not do
all the things they do which, imho, is not neccesary, and more pro-life people
get out and just council/picket, they would not be looked at in the light they
presently are. 


Glen

    
    That's a lot of crap Glen.  There is a very small percentage that
    engage in violence, and that is what the media will play up, and yet
    again you have bought it hook,line and sinker.  In the end times people
    will gather around them prophets and false teachers that will tell them
    what their itching ears want to hear.

    	I'm surprised that you saw fit to enter that, Glen.  You've been
    	told many times that such perceptions are false, yet you persist.

	Glen, what I'm saying is, I know what I've seen while standing
outside an abortion clinic.  "Herded like cattle" about sums it up in most
cases.  Look closely at what I said, and you will see that I did not convey
the idea that this is *always* what happens.  Why are you pressing the point
that some women go in by themselves?  Big deal!  Does this necessarily indicate
a "free choice", or could it possibly be a delusion or compulsion to abort?

	Women who have had abortions are likely to invest heavily in a
"pro-choice" viewpoint, as a defense against any recognition of what
actually took place during the abortion(s).  So they are likely to see it
as their decision to make, even when the original decision was not entirely
theirs.

>Women who have had abortions are likely to invest heavily in a
>"pro-choice" viewpoint, as a defense against any recognition of what
>actually took place during the abortion(s).

You are correct; this is true for many women who have had abortions,
probably true for the majority.

But what is very interesting is that a large number of women who have
had an abortion realized afterwards that what they had done was wrong,
repented, and have become active in the pro-life movement.

/john

| <<< Note 108.296 by DECLNE::YACKEL "and if not..." >>>


| That's a lot of crap Glen.  There is a very small percentage that engage in 
| violence, and that is what the media will play up, and yet again you have 
| bought it hook,line and sinker.  

	Andrew, I'm wasn't talking about violence in that note (I believe you
were referencing .295). I was referring to those who block the clinics, those
who pose as parents who want an abortion, then run down the halls and chain
themselves to fixtures. 


Glen

 We used to think of those folks as "heros" back in the days of the
 civil rights protests, etc.




Jim

| <<< Note 108.298 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| Glen, what I'm saying is, I know what I've seen while standing outside an 
| abortion clinic.  "Herded like cattle" about sums it up in most cases.  

	If you had read my note, you would have seen that I said this does
happen. You only talked about this, so I assumed that you only thought this was
the case. 

| Why are you pressing the point that some women go in by themselves?  Big deal!
| Does this necessarily indicate a "free choice", or could it possibly be a 
| delusion or compulsion to abort?

	You seem to be quick to push aside anything but a forced thing. There
are many reasons why people will have abortions. But to believe that they are
forced into it all the time and that no effort was taken on the mothers part or
both parents part is sad indeed. 

| Women who have had abortions are likely to invest heavily in a "pro-choice" 
| viewpoint, as a defense against any recognition of what actually took place 
| during the abortion(s).  

	Wow... and the sad part is I bet you believe this too. I'm sure it does
fit some women, but are women likely to invest in it as a defense mechanism?
Most women I know who are pro-choice have never had an abortion. It is their
belief that it should be their choice. And most women I know who have had an
abortion don't use it as a defense mechanism. They honestly believe that it
should be a choice. This is what really makes me angry with some Christians. It
seems some have it all in tact, they know the answers why people do things,
even though they could be telling them differently. Pretty sad.

| So they are likely to see it as their decision to make, even when the original
| decision was not entirely theirs.

	Are you saying they were forced to have it? If so, do you feel it is
this way for the majority of the abortions?



Glen

| <<< Note 108.302 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| We used to think of those folks as "heros" back in the days of the civil 
| rights protests, etc.


	Jim, protesting is one thing, breaking the law is another.

    >belief that it should be their choice. And most women I know who have
    >had an abortion don't use it as a defense mechanism. They honestly believe
    >that it should be a choice.
    
    Glen,
    
    Its hard to say "all" or "most" because if someone is taking a
    position (on anything) as a defense mechanism, no one else is going to
    know for sure.  Even the person is probably not going to admit it 
    to themselves.  I think the perspective that women who have had an
    abortion maintain a pro abortion stance as a defense mechanism comes
    from the experiences of those who have later come to view abortion as
    wrong.  A lot of times this comes when a women comes to know Christ and
    experience His love and forgiveness.  These women will often say that they
    help a pro abortion stance in order to justify their actions. 
    
    Obviously, this may not be true in ALL cases.  However, if society
    holds something up as OK or RIGHT, then some people will be swayed to
    that point of view.  If society holds something up to be WRONG, then
    some of those same people would have not been swayed to hold that
    position.
    
    Bing
    

	Bing, thanks for clearing that up. I appreciate it. BTW, I hate to say
this, but I know 2 women who have had abortions who found Christ. Maybe it was
where they were at, but they said it was more like they were told it was a
defense mechanism, and told and told and told...... they still have Christ, but
they had to find another church that spent less time telling them what they
thought and more time getting them to know God.


Glen

    Re: .304
    
    Are you suggesting that no laws were broken during the civil rights
    movement or are you saying that they shouldn't have been?
     

	Glen, thanks for expressing your views on my views.  You and I and
others can assert almost anything in here.  You can keep telling me I'm wrong.
I'm going to continue basing my understanding mainly on empirical evidence,
as I myself experience and interpret it, hopefully in the full light of
Holy Scripture, as revealed by the Holy Spirit.  Sorry if you think my views
are sad.  Sometimes I think some of your views are kind of funny.  :-)

	Glen,

]	You seem to be quick to push aside anything but a forced thing.
] There are many reasons why people will have abortions. But to believe
] that they are forced into it all the time and that no effort was taken
] on the mothers part or both parents part is sad indeed.

	I haven't pushed any ideas aside, as far as I know.  I'm asserting,
based on what I've seen, that the level of coercion applied is very high. 
Sometimes it is more overt, sometimes it is very subtle.  Sometimes, I'm
sure, the delusion or compulsion comes entirely from within.

	Honestly, I'm not understanding what you believe is "sad" here.
What is really sad, in my view, is to think that any "mother", "father", or
"parent" might willingly choose to have his or her own child deliberately
put to death in the womb.

	Do my views make you angry with me?  Should I be saying something
differently?  If so, how and why?  So far your advice has been too vague
for me to benefit from it.

	I'm not aware of any statistics that can quantify whether a
majority of women are "forced" into their abortions or not, Glen.  Even the
Alan Guttmacher Institute (research arm of "Planned Parenthood" Federation)
has never attempted such a study, to my knowledge.  Clearly such a study
would be a minefield of subjectivity, regardless of who conducted it and
which conclusion was reached.

	My personal observations don't square well with your understanding
of reality, and vice versa.

	In regard to people who attempt to physically obstruct abortions:
Yes, they are breaking laws.  In fact, there is a law on the books in
Colorado that prohibits pro-lifers (only) from getting within eight feet
of, or speaking to, anyone on a public sidewalk outside an abortion
facility, unless that person formally and specifically gives his or her
permission.  (You'd better get that in writing, too!)

	We are moving quickly toward a society that will no longer allow
anyone to express the view that abortion is murder, and that God will take
vengeance on those who shed innocent blood.  On Tuesday of this week, I sat
in on part of the trial of a man who expressed this view to an abortionist,
as the abortionist and his wife drove by in their gold Lexus near their
home.  The pro-lifer was charged with a misdemeanor (disturbing the peace),
and has been held in various jail cells during the trial.  He is conducting
his own defense.  Any or all of us pro-lifers who were there that day might
have been slapped with the same bogus charge.  The judge and prosecutor
just love it!

	The point has been made that abolitionists regularly broke laws in
their struggle to abolish the slave trade, and Civil Rights leaders also
broke laws to acheive an end to segregation and racial prejudice.  The best
of them (almost all of them) were scrupulously non-violent.  History
repeats itself, for those willing to see the parallels today.

	The "right" to bring about the wrongful death of any human being,
however well-intentioned, will eventually result in the loss of every true
right we ever had.  Some people are willing to break laws to defend the
innocent.  These people will have to bear the consequences of breaking those
laws.  Still, it may not be too high a price for a clean conscience. 
Violence against people is wrong, and should be punished by the governing
authorities.  Chaining oneself to an abortionist's suction machine is
called "civil disobedience"; no one gets hurt, except the pro-lifer (and
who cares about him/her?).  Can you see a difference between the two?

| <<< Note 108.309 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| I haven't pushed any ideas aside, as far as I know.  I'm asserting,
| based on what I've seen, that the level of coercion applied is very high.
| Sometimes it is more overt, sometimes it is very subtle.  

	Explain, if you would, how you are so sure about what has taken place.
Do you run up and question the so called coerced people on the spot? Not just
one or 2, but most that you see. 

| Sometimes, I'm sure, the delusion or compulsion comes entirely from within.

	On this I think we agree, but probably it is not being applied the same
way.

| Honestly, I'm not understanding what you believe is "sad" here. What is 
| really sad, in my view, is to think that any "mother", "father", or "parent" 
| might willingly choose to have his or her own child deliberately put to death 
| in the womb.

	I myself would like to see abortions go away, but not all of them. If a
mother's life is in danger, she should have a choice. If a mother has been
raped, she should have a choice. If it is being used as a form of birth
control, then that is where I want to see it end.

| Do my views make you angry with me?  Should I be saying something differently?

	A clearer explaination would help. But I would not want you to change
your views to suit anyone, well, anyone but God that is. You have your
convictions, you should stand by them. If your convictions are wrong, God will
eventually show you. But what you believe to be the truth should always stay
just that. Never change what you believe to be the truth, unless God has shown
you that you were wrong.

	Do your views make me angry? Yes and no. No, from the standpoint that I
think we either miscommunicated or you were not looking at the entire picture.
In your origional note you mentioned herding them in like cattle ONLY. I wanted
you to realize that while it does happen, it is NOT the case in every single
case. That was the part that made me angry. Now, if you would clarify how you
know these herded women are all coerced, that would bring it into light a lot
more.

| I'm not aware of any statistics that can quantify whether a majority of women 
| are "forced" into their abortions or not, Glen.  Even the Alan Guttmacher 
| Institute (research arm of "Planned Parenthood" Federation) has never 
| attempted such a study, to my knowledge.  Clearly such a study would be a 
| minefield of subjectivity, regardless of who conducted it and which conclusion
| was reached.

	I agree with this 100%! But you need to answer how you are able to say
most are? You've just shown me that there is no study, so how can you make that
claim?

| My personal observations don't square well with your understanding of reality, 
| and vice versa.

	You need to add some personal experiences in there. Show me how you
know it's most.

| In regard to people who attempt to physically obstruct abortions: Yes, they 
| are breaking laws.  In fact, there is a law on the books in Colorado that 
| prohibits pro-lifers (only) from getting within eight feet of, or speaking to,
| anyone on a public sidewalk outside an abortion facility, unless that person 
| formally and specifically gives his or her permission. (You'd better get that 
| in writing, too!)

	In Colorado, what led them to impose this law? I do not agree with it
as it stands, but there may be a reason why they did it. I guess what I am
asking is, what happened at the abortion clinics that got people up in arms?

| Violence against people is wrong, and should be punished by the governing
| authorities.  Chaining oneself to an abortionist's suction machine is
| called "civil disobedience"; no one gets hurt, except the pro-lifer (and
| who cares about him/her?).  Can you see a difference between the two?

	Actually, if the person is a Christian who does it then one has to
wonder what they are trying to accomplish. Let's see, they lied to get in, 
the Bible, which they are supposed to believe says to obey the law (and Law),
yet they went against that too. Sounds like a scenerio of the ends don't
justify the means.....



Glen

RE:               <<< Note 108.310 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

>	I myself would like to see abortions go away, but not all of them. If a
>mother's life is in danger, she should have a choice. If a mother has been
>raped, she should have a choice. If it is being used as a form of birth
>control, then that is where I want to see it end.



And what is the percentage of abortions due to rape/mother's life in danger?
I seem to recall reading that it was less than 3%.




Jim

    3% is a generous figure, actually.
    
    -statistical-steve

	The point being is that not everyone is going to be walking into an
abortion clinic out of coercion. And out of the abortions that have happened,
is 3% so few people? 


Glen

	Glen,

]	Explain, if you would, how you are so sure about what has taken place.
] Do you run up and question the so called coerced people on the spot?
] Not just one or 2, but most that you see. 

	No, Glen, if I were to run up and question them in Colorado,
I'd get arrested!  My wife won't let me get arrested.  She reminds me
of my responsibilities to the family.  I can be sure of this in the same way
anyone is sure of lots of things.  We observe, we form an opinion, we test
that opinion against more observation.  If I were "pro-choice", it would be
allowed for me to interview abortion targets and survivors.  But then my
personal bias would cloud the issue.

	Maybe I'd rather believe that people get mentally and/or physically
trapped into committing something as evil as abortion.  If it's an entirely
free choice, that makes the evil much more repulsive for me.  It's like
millions of us are committing our own mini-Auschwitz death-camp atrocities.

	What is the enlightened alternative, Glen?  You have the answers.
I've been careful to state my observations as they are, and not to draw any
hasty conclusions or statistics from them.  Try taking my statements at
face value, if you will, and avoid reading conclusions that I haven't
drawn.

| Sometimes, I'm sure, the delusion or compulsion comes entirely from within.

] On this I think we agree, but probably it is not being applied the same way.

	I'm not at all sure what you mean by that.  If you mean that
an absolute pro-life position is deluded and compulsive, and that the
delusions and compulsions of pro-lifers come from within, then we don't
really agree at all.

]	I myself would like to see abortions go away, but not all of them.
] If a mother's life is in danger, she should have a choice.  If a mother
] has been raped, she should have a choice.  If it is being used as a form
] of birth control, then that is where I want to see it end.

	Ethel Waters, the Gospel singer, was conceived by rape.  This is
rare, but it does happen.  In the past, our laws protected the child, and
punished the rapist.  Now we're much more sophisticated, so we protect
the rapist, and put the child to death.

	I don't know if you were listening several notes back, but I have
some serious questions about how abortion can be justified by pointing to
pregnancies where the mother's life is in danger.

	Ectopic, or "tubal" pregnancies are life-threatening.  The growing
baby must be removed from the fallopian tube, or the mother is likely to
hemorrhage to death.  It is unfortunate that our medical technology is still
so primitive that we cannot help the underdeveloped baby survive outside,
nor even implant him or her in the mother's womb.  But the mother and baby
both likely could not survive together if the lifesaving surgery were not done.
The baby is not (or should not be) brutally poisoned or hacked to pieces like
some alien parasite (as would be done by an abortionist).

	Incidentally, there is medical evidence that some epidemic venereal
diseases have sharply increased the occurrences of ectopic pregnancies.

	In the medical case presented on 60 Minutes, the woman was
diabetic, which, I hear, sometimes leads to serious complications during
pregnancy.  But hers had progressed to 20 weeks, and no one wanted to kill
her baby except Warren Hern.  So she sought him out.  Just maybe, she could
have risked a premature delivery, and given her baby a chance to live.

	There are other, possibly life-threatening scenarios, such as
Rh(esus) blood factor problems.  Killing the baby (even in an attempt
to protect the would-be mom from harm) is still grotesquely wrong.
The baby in the womb is a human being, with as much intrinsic right
as any of us to be given a chance to live.  The act of murder itself
(abortion) is more likely to *cause* medical complications for a woman,
than it is to improve her health.

| Do my views make you angry with me?  Should I be saying something differently?

]	A clearer explaination would help.

	Well, I really am trying to explain things clearly, but I'll try
even harder.

	Glen,

]	Do your views make me angry? Yes and no.
] No, from the standpoint that I think we either miscommunicated
] or you were not looking at the entire picture.
] In your origional note you mentioned herding them in like cattle ONLY.
] I wanted you to realize that while it does happen, it is NOT the case
] in every single case. That was the part that made me angry. Now, if you
] would clarify how you know these herded women are all coerced, that would
] bring it into light a lot more.

	I did not state "cattle ONLY".  I did not claim to "know that these
herded women are all coerced".  I shared my observations.  Very different.
You appear to be setting up a straw man and knocking it down.
Why not step back, and have another look at the entire picture?

]	I agree with this 100%! But you need to answer how you are able to say
] most are? You've just shown me that there is no study, so how can you make
] that claim?

	You may claim that I claimed this, but I did not.
I stated my own observations, remember?

] You need to add some personal experiences in there.
] Show me how you know it's most.

	I don't claim to "know it's most".  I shared some of my
personal experiences, but they apparently get you angry with me.

]	In Colorado, what led them to impose this law? I do not agree with it
] as it stands, but there may be a reason why they did it. I guess what I am
] asking is, what happened at the abortion clinics that got people up in arms?

	You'd have to ask the legislators in the state capitol.  We can't
get a straight answer from them on this.  They must have had their own
special reasons.  You've got to admit, though, that if they were trying to
prevent or eliminate some grievous harm that pro-lifers were doing,
they sure picked a strange way of going about it.  I guess they figured
that the existing laws against murder, assault, vandalism, etc. would not
be adequate to deal with the insidious schemes of abortion protesters.
So they passed a law to curtail our speech!  Maybe that is what they fear
the most?

| Violence against people is wrong, and should be punished by the governing
| authorities.  Chaining oneself to an abortionist's suction machine is
| called "civil disobedience"; no one gets hurt, except the pro-lifer (and
| who cares about him/her?).  Can you see a difference between the two?

]	Actually, if the person is a Christian who does it then one has to
] wonder what they are trying to accomplish. Let's see, they lied to get in, 
] the Bible, which they are supposed to believe says to obey the law (and Law),
] yet they went against that too. Sounds like a scenerio of the ends don't
] justify the means.....

	Your logic astounds me once again, Glen!  We are faced with a moral
dilemma.  Should we allow these murders to continue, or should we try to
intervene in some useful way?  What they are trying to accomplish is to chain
their bodies to the equipment, so that it can't be used to kill babies that
day.  Sounds to me like a scenario of disobeying laws in order to obey the
higher Law of God ("You shall not commit murder.").  It can be argued that
there may be more effective ways, ways that are more ethically squeaky-clean,
ways that do not involve any jail time.  I can agree with arguments of this
kind, at least in principle.

| <<< Note 108.314 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| I can be sure of this in the same way anyone is sure of lots of things.  We 
| observe, we form an opinion, we test that opinion against more observation.  

	Then please state it as an OPINION, and NOT as fact. An observation
without ever talking to the people themselves is hardly any type of fact. I
mean, how can you know what they discussed at all? You would have no knowledge
of those who were raped, of those who's life would be in danger, of those who
discussed it between themselves, of those where the choice was made by the
woman. What you have done in reality is project your own thoughts onto these
people and used them as the reason they did it. You don't really know. BTW,
with all you people hanging out front, do you expect people to just walk in or
do you think they might be a little intimidated and are rushing in? Did you
throw that into your equation?

| Maybe I'd rather believe that people get mentally and/or physically trapped 
| in committing something as evil as abortion.  

	That's just it, you can believe this to be the case, but it is not the
reality of the situation for ALL cases.

| What is the enlightened alternative, Glen?  You have the answers. I've been 
| careful to state my observations as they are, and not to draw any hasty 
| conclusions or statistics from them.  

	Really, and when you said something like, "The men herd them into the
place like cattle" is not a hasty conclusion? Especially seeing you have never
talked to them? Are you serious?

| Try taking my statements at face value, if you will, and avoid reading 
| conclusions that I haven't drawn.

	You have drawn the conclusion that the women are being herded in like
cattle, at least according to your note a few back. And you have drawn this
conclusion without EVER talking to the women or men. THIS, along with that
there is more to it than what you wrote, is what I was addressing. You have
since stated that you do realize there are more reasons than the one you listed
for people to get an abortion. But the conclusion part of cattle was entirely
yours.

| | Sometimes, I'm sure, the delusion or compulsion comes entirely from within.

| ] On this I think we agree, but probably it is not being applied the same way.

| I'm not at all sure what you mean by that.  If you mean that an absolute 
| pro-life position is deluded and compulsive, and that the delusions and 
| compulsions of pro-lifers come from within, then we don't really agree at all.

	Actually, I am pro-life. But what I was referring to was you drew a
conclusion with just sight, no real facts. This is a delusion on your part.

| Ethel Waters, the Gospel singer, was conceived by rape.  

	This is absolutely fine. IF a mother is able to have the baby, then let
her. But if she can not handle the stress of it all, then at that point she
should have a choice. Remember, different women will handle the stress and
trauma of rape differently. If one can not handle it, then yes, she should have
a choice. Think about it, what would the mother do to herself or the child
within if she could not handle it mentally? Do you really want to find out?

| In the past, our laws protected the child, and punished the rapist. Now we're 
| much more sophisticated, so we protect the rapist, and put the child to death.

	I had to laugh at this one. Tell me, just how do we protect the rapist?
I'd love to see the answer on this one. 

| I don't know if you were listening several notes back, but I have some serious
| questions about how abortion can be justified by pointing to pregnancies where
| the mother's life is in danger.

	Do you mean all abortions justified because a mothers life is in danger
or do you mean just those cases where the mother could die? If the latter, then
it is done on an individual case, like with rape. The mother may choose to have
the baby, but then again she may not. It's up to her to decide. If you meant
the former, then I do not think a mothers life being in danger should justify
ALL abortions.

| In the medical case presented on 60 Minutes, the woman was diabetic, which, 
| I hear, sometimes leads to serious complications during pregnancy.  But hers 
| had progressed to 20 weeks, and no one wanted to kill her baby except Warren 
| Hern.  So she sought him out.  Just maybe, she could have risked a premature 
| delivery, and given her baby a chance to live.

	And what was the mothers chances of dieing if she had the baby? 

| Killing the baby (even in an attempt to protect the would-be mom from harm) 
| is still grotesquely wrong. The baby in the womb is a human being, with as 
| much intrinsic right as any of us to be given a chance to live.  The act of 
| murder itself (abortion) is more likely to *cause* medical complications for 
| a woman, than it is to improve her health.

	Wow, this is definitely something. Lets see, have an abortion and live,
possibly having medical complications, or die. I believe it is up to the woman
to make that choice.


Glen

[ <<< Note 108.316 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

[ Then please state it as an OPINION, and NOT as fact. An observation
[ without ever talking to the people themselves is hardly any type of fact.

	No, thanks.  A careful observation can be at least as factual as any
interview.  My observations are as good as anyone else's.

[ BTW, with all you people hanging out front, do you expect people to just
[ walk in or do you think they might be a little intimidated and are rushing
[ in? Did you throw that into your equation?

	They often do not want to hear what we are saying, or read our signs.
No doubt the recent media hype about the three shootings of abortionists have
also caused some people to be fearful.  Also, the people who run abortion mills
have been known to put on dramas for us.  One good reason for us to be there,
is to hopefully help someone who has made an appointment for an abortion, to
change her mind and stay away that day.  Surveys by AGI have shown that those
who don't keep their first appointment, often don't come back at all.

	Intimidated?  I suppose some shy people are intimidated by almost
anything.  This week there were only two of us picketing the place.  Hardly
very intimidating.

[ Really, and when you said something like, "The men herd them into the
[ place like cattle" is not a hasty conclusion? Especially seeing you have
[ never talked to them? Are you serious?

	Yes, I am totally serious.  My observation stands.  I'm
not drawing a hasty conclusion; I'm making a simple observation.

[ You have drawn the conclusion that the women are being herded in like
[ cattle, at least according to your note a few back. And you have drawn this
[ conclusion without EVER talking to the women or men. THIS, along with that
[ there is more to it than what you wrote, is what I was addressing. You have
[ since stated that you do realize there are more reasons than the one you
[ listed for people to get an abortion. But the conclusion part of cattle was
[ entirely yours.

	I have watched women herded like cattle into the abortion mill.  This
is an observation I have made.  It's not a statistical conclusion.  I think we
have made that very clear by now.  I want to make it clear that there isn't any
good reason to murder an unborn baby.

] Actually, I am pro-life. But what I was referring to was you drew a
] conclusion with just sight, no real facts. This is a delusion on your part.

	Any real-world observation may constitute a fact.  When multiple
scientists make the same observation, they often consider their theory proven.
I'm deluded only if I believe something that isn't true.  You haven't shown
my observation to be incorrect by any material facts.  Instead, you have stated
that you believe that I have drawn conclusions, which I haven't drawn.

	You are pro-life under some circumstances, pro-choice under others
(rape, incest, life of mother in jeopardy).  My position is that abortion is
murder, and is wrong under any circumstances, even the most difficult.

[ This is absolutely fine. IF a mother is able to have the baby, then let
[ her. But if she can not handle the stress of it all, then at that point she
[ should have a choice. Remember, different women will handle the stress and
[ trauma of rape differently. If one can not handle it, then yes, she should
[ have a choice. Think about it, what would the mother do to herself or the
[ child within if she could not handle it mentally? Do you really want to find
[ out?

	Yes, I believe that God has the right to allow our faith or sanity to
be tested.  Abortion is an insane response to stress, just as insane as
any other suicidal and/or homicidal evil anyone might be tempted to inflict
upon oneself or anyone else.  The abortionists might have medical degrees,
but they are *not* practicing medicine.  The abortion chamber, and the
instruments of death, might be sterile, but they are still used to kill.
The abortuaries are now openly and "legally" located on main street, but
they are still run by "back alley butchers".

	With or without good laws, we all have the opportunity to kill.  Laws
against murder determine whether government will punish the murderer, and how
severely.  This, in turn, affects how many of us will decide that it must be
okay to murder.  If severe penalties are consistently imposed for murder, there
will be less murder.  If murders are sometimes allowed, or murderers are given
a license to kill (as is the case with abortion), there will be more murder of
all kinds.

| In the past, our laws protected the child, and punished the rapist. Now we're 
| much more sophisticated, so we protect the rapist, and put the child to death.

[ I had to laugh at this one. Tell me, just how do we protect the rapist?
[ I'd love to see the answer on this one.

	How we protect the rapist:  We feed, clothe, and shelter him.  We
educate, medicate, and entertain him.  We keep him cool in summer, and warm
in winter.  We provide him with law books and time to study them, so that he
can appeal his conviction or bring lawsuits against his jailers.  All of this
is provided by our tax dollars.  Are you still laughing?

[ And what was the mothers chances of dieing if she had the baby?

	Giving birth (under a competent doctor's care) would have meant a
chance at life for the baby.  But she opted to find someone who would kill
the baby for her instead.  

[ Wow, this is definitely something. Lets see, have an abortion and live,
[ possibly having medical complications, or die. I believe it is up to the
[ woman to make that choice.

	You seem to be missing my point.  Does delivering a live baby do
*anything* to increase or decrease the medical risk to the woman, versus
delivering a dead aborted baby, or deliberately withholding lifesaving
treatment from the premature baby born alive?  How is an abortion supposed
to improve *any* situation?  I'm asking *competent* physicians (not the
abortionists) for good answers to these questions.

| <<< Note 108.317 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| No, thanks.  A careful observation can be at least as factual as any 
| interview.  My observations are as good as anyone else's.

	But observations are not facts. Plain and simple. How many times were
people of colour observed as dangerous and all they were doing is walking down
the street at night? Every hear of first impressions? They are not always
correct. How does one find out if these perceptions are correct? By gathering
more data. 

| Intimidated?  I suppose some shy people are intimidated by almost anything.  

	Gee, I doubt that it only applies to shy people....

| This week there were only two of us picketing the place.  Hardly very 
| intimidating.

	Maybe they thought you had guns....

| ] Actually, I am pro-life. But what I was referring to was you drew a
| ] conclusion with just sight, no real facts. This is a delusion on your part.

| Any real-world observation may constitute a fact.  When multiple scientists 
| make the same observation, they often consider their theory proven.

	I hope you aren't comparing you and the people you picket with in the
same light as scientists. They test their theories before they can become fact.
For you to test your theory, you need to talk to the people entering the place.

| You are pro-life under some circumstances, pro-choice under others (rape, 
| incest, life of mother in jeopardy).  My position is that abortion is murder, 
| and is wrong under any circumstances, even the most difficult.

	If your wife dies because she is forced to have a baby when her life is
in danger, don't you feel like you murdered her? And what quality of life is
the child, the other children going to have when someone who they really loved
died? And what if your wife were raped, and forced to have the baby, but
couldn't handle the mental stress part of it all and did things to hurt the
baby within her? Would you feel guilty about it? 

| [ I had to laugh at this one. Tell me, just how do we protect the rapist?
| [ I'd love to see the answer on this one.

| How we protect the rapist: We feed, clothe, and shelter him. We educate, 
| medicate, and entertain him. We keep him cool in summer, and warm in winter.  
| We provide him with law books and time to study them, so that he can appeal 
| his conviction or bring lawsuits against his jailers.  All of this is provided
| by our tax dollars. Are you still laughing?

	Actually, yeah. Maybe you should go to prisons and have a looksie. I
had a friend who went to jail for vehicular homicide. This is a medium security
place he was at, and the stories he told were pretty sad. It ain't no picnic
like you make it sound, so yeah, I am still laughing at what you have said.

| [ And what was the mothers chances of dieing if she had the baby?

| Giving birth (under a competent doctor's care) would have meant a chance at 
| life for the baby.  But she opted to find someone who would kill the baby for 
| her instead.

	You did not answer my question. What was the MOTHERS chances of dieing
if she gave birth? (60 minutes lady)

| [ Wow, this is definitely something. Lets see, have an abortion and live,
| [ possibly having medical complications, or die. I believe it is up to the
| [ woman to make that choice.


Glen

 I watched the 700 Club last night and they made a powerful statement regarding
 the murder(s) of abortionists that have occured..they condemned the action
 and spent a considerable amount of time discussing the alleged perpetrator
 of the most recent event and how he was "kicked out" of several pro-life
 groups, which were represented in the report, and also excommunicated from
 his church (Presbyterian USA).



Jim

[ <<< Note 108.318 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

[ But observations are not facts. Plain and simple. How many times were
[ people of colour observed as dangerous and all they were doing is walking
[ down the street at night? Every hear of first impressions? They are not
[ always correct. How does one find out if these perceptions are correct?
[ By gathering more data. 

	I disagree.  An observation is not *necessarily* a fact, but an
observation *can* be a fact.  That's as plain and simple as it can get.
I'm not talking about first impressions.  I'm talking about sustained,
repeatable, demonstrable observations.  Stand outside your local abortion
mill once a week for about an hour, and you might begin to see this.  We do
not have the luxury of interviewing abortion targets and survivors, as I
explained to you before.

[ Maybe they thought you had guns....

	As far as I can tell, no one walking, bicycling, or driving by or
toward the abortion mill has felt intimidated by us.  Nor is there any need
for anyone to feel intimidated, since we do not pose any physical threat.
Quite a few people who pass by us will honk their horn, wave, or say
something encouraging or pleasant.  A small number of others will raise a
one-finger salute or shout something obscene or disparaging.  The majority
of people are just apathetic.  They pretend we (and the abortion mill) are
not there.

[ I hope you aren't comparing you and the people you picket with in the same
[ light as scientists. They test their theories before they can become fact.
[ For you to test your theory, you need to talk to the people entering the
[ place.

	Why can't we compare ourselves with scientists?  Aren't we as capable
as they are of objective reasoning and experimentation?  Aren't scientists
just as human and fallible as the rest of us?  I must agree that any scientist
worthy of the name will carefully test a theory before calling it fact.  Yet
today, so-called "scientists" are promulgating evolution as fact, even though
its occurrence has never been observed!

[ If your wife dies because she is forced to have a baby when her life is in
[ danger, don't you feel like you murdered her? And what quality of life is
[ the child, the other children going to have when someone who they really
[ loved died? And what if your wife were raped, and forced to have the baby,
[ but couldn't handle the mental stress part of it all and did things to hurt
[ the baby within her? Would you feel guilty about it?

	Yes, I'd feel guilty about ever contributing toward putting anyone,
including my wife, into a state of mind where she would feel compelled to
kill her own baby, or have her baby killed, whether in the womb or out.

	Let us suppose that, by some quirky miracle, the government authorities
decide to pass good laws, based upon God's Law (as revealed and expounded in
both Old and New Testaments of the Bible), and further resolve to strictly and
consistently enforce those laws and their associated penalties.  This is the
one and only legitimate and just means by which laws (e.g. laws against murder)
can and should be imposed upon us.  It must not be *my* law (or *your* law)
alone; it must be totally based upon the bedrock of *God's* unchanging Law.

	Thus it must not be just *me*, unjustly imposing *my* values on the
rest of society.  It must be governmental authority, granted or revoked as
necessary by the Sovereign God according to His Law, which recognizes the
need for the protection of life first, then liberty, speech, and property.

	So, in this context, would I feel "guilty" if somehow my wife and
her "doctor" decided that giving birth to a live baby would probably kill
her, and that it would therefore be best to kill her baby first, but they
were prevented from carrying out their plan, by a law against murder that
included unborn babies?  Well, the whole scenario sounds very unlikely,
but my answer is no.  I'd be sad if my wife were to die giving birth to
her child, but I don't believe that I'd feel especially guilty about it.

	If she had been raped, and conceived a child as a result, that
would not give either of us the right to have the child killed.  It would
give us the right to see justice done as the rapist is put to death by the
governing authorities for his crime, or even to kill the attacker in self-
defense, if applicable.  If we could not raise the child ourselves (due to
the emotional distress of the rape), we could give him or her up to another
family to adopt.

[ Actually, yeah. Maybe you should go to prisons and have a looksie. I had
[ a friend who went to jail for vehicular homicide. This is a medium security
[ place he was at, and the stories he told were pretty sad. It ain't no
[ picnic like you make it sound, so yeah, I am still laughing at what you
[ have said.

	I'm sure it's not a picnic for many inmates.  I've only visited a
California Youth Authority juvenile detention center.  You're right.  I
should visit an adult prison and see what it's really like.  Most likely
I'll have that opportunity thrust upon me someday.  In a police state,
people of conscience "belong" in jail.  I've heard stories from pro-lifers
thrown in jail.  They have their favorite detention facilities.  For
example, I hear it's like "easy street" getting jailed in Boulder County.
Some of the Federal correction centers are said to be virtual "country
clubs".  But, no doubt, there are lots of "heck-holes" out there.

	My point is that, in most cases, a convicted rapist should be put
to death.  Instead, we give him an all-expenses-paid vacation from society.

[ You did not answer my question. What was the MOTHERS chances of dieing
[ if she gave birth? (60 minutes lady)

	I told you that I'm asking competent physicians for their best
guess.  We loaned a tape of the 60 Minutes segment to one doctor.  I had an
interesting phone conversation with him.  You understand that no doctor is
going to prescribe treatment without examining the patient first.  His
medical training and experience do, however, allow him to make general
statements, given the limited information provided by the propaganda piece.
He mentioned several courses of treatment.  Plenty of bed rest is generally
indicated for a difficult, diabetic pregnancy.  The stress of being
transported hundreds of miles by helicopter to face the abortionist's knife
could very well have caused the onset of shock, which was reported by
Warren Hern, the abortionist, as justification for the "lifesaving" (?!?)
abortion.  High blood pressure is one of the major concerns in the later
stages of a diabetic pregnancy, but is routinely controlled with medication,
without hurting the unborn baby.  Complications caused by diabetes do not
ordinarily pose any imminent threat to the life or health of the mother
until about the 30th week of pregnancy.  Delivery between 24 and 30 weeks
can provide an excellent chance of survival for both mother and child.
Again, the propaganda piece only alluded to the fact that the hospital
would not perform abortions over 20 weeks.  It is also interesting that
she was taken to a *real* hospital in order to stabilize her when she
went into shock near the end of her helicopter ride.  Funny, you'd think
that Warren Hern's abortion clinic would have the equipment, staff, and
training to handle just about any medical emergency, wouldn't you?  Maybe
he just doesn't have a helipad on his roof?

	But I wonder if this answer, and others like it, will ever be good
enough for you.

| <<< Note 108.320 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| I disagree.  An observation is not *necessarily* a fact, but an observation 
| *can* be a fact.  

	I do NOT disagree with what you are saying here. It COULD be a fact. I
don't think I said differently. What I did say was that until you have more
data, you don't know if it is indeed a fact. 

| I'm not talking about first impressions. I'm talking about sustained, 
| repeatable, demonstrable observations.  Stand outside your local abortion
| mill once a week for about an hour, and you might begin to see this.  We do
| not have the luxury of interviewing abortion targets and survivors, as I
| explained to you before.

	Then I guess you will never know if it is a fact. I could sit here and
make observations about you all day. I could even believe that my observations
are true. But do you know what? I have no way of knowing that they are true
unless I ask you if they are. There have been people in here who have told me
that I do <insert thing> for "this" reason. With some you can say no, this is
the reason and they find they were wrong, with others they still believe they
know the correct answer. But through mail I have had several great conversations
with a lot of people in here, and some not so great.

| They pretend we (and the abortion mill) are not there.

	Could it be that they aren't pretending you and the abortion clinic
aren't there, but that they really just don't care one way or the other, that
they are engrossed in conversation or deep in thought? I mean, why do you see
it as so cut and dry when it could actually be so many things? 

| Why can't we compare ourselves with scientists?  Aren't we as capable as they 
| are of objective reasoning and experimentation?  

	You aren't doing any experimenting. All you are doing is observing, and
not taking the next step which would be to test your theories. So no, you
should not compare yourselves with scientists.

| Aren't scientists just as human and fallible as the rest of us?  

	Yes.

| I must agree that any scientist worthy of the name will carefully test a 
| theory before calling it fact.  

	So you should now understand that you should not compare yourselves to
the scientists. That is unless you don't want to be worthy of your name....

| Yet today, so-called "scientists" are promulgating evolution as fact, even 
| though its occurrence has never been observed!

	Just how did they come to this conclusion? Is it by gathering data
maybe?

| Let us suppose that, by some quirky miracle, the government authorities
| decide to pass good laws, based upon God's Law (as revealed and expounded in
| both Old and New Testaments of the Bible), and further resolve to strictly and
| consistently enforce those laws and their associated penalties.  This is the
| one and only legitimate and just means by which laws (e.g. laws against murder)
| can and should be imposed upon us.  It must not be *my* law (or *your* law)
| alone; it must be totally based upon the bedrock of *God's* unchanging Law.

	Won't work. Give the Bible to each denomination, give it to each sub
group of that denomination, and how many different versions of the Bible do you
end up with? I guess unless you could choose a group of people that everyone
could agree with, your idea probably will not work. Why? Because you will not
be able to agree between yourselves, never mind those who do not believe in the
Bible, those who do not believe in God, and those from different religions ever
stepping in. Can you see the problems that will be coming? You've got
everything wrapped up as you see it, yet it will never work that way as someone
else will always see it differently. There is only ONE way that I can see your
plan working. That will happen when God comes back. Only He will be able to
wade everyone through the confusion. 

| Thus it must not be just *me*, unjustly imposing *my* values on the
| rest of society.  It must be governmental authority, granted or revoked as
| necessary by the Sovereign God according to His Law, which recognizes the
| need for the protection of life first, then liberty, speech, and property.

	But it is your version of what the Bible is saying that you want to see
enacted. You know Clinton has a different view on what the Bible says, and
would you be able to live with that version?



Glen

| <<< Note 108.321 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| So, in this context, would I feel "guilty" if somehow my wife and
| her "doctor" decided that giving birth to a live baby would probably kill
| her, and that it would therefore be best to kill her baby first, but they
| were prevented from carrying out their plan, by a law against murder that
| included unborn babies?  Well, the whole scenario sounds very unlikely,
| but my answer is no.  I'd be sad if my wife were to die giving birth to
| her child, but I don't believe that I'd feel especially guilty about it.

	You left one part out. What if she did not want to die in the first
place?

| If she had been raped, and conceived a child as a result, that would not give 
| either of us the right to have the child killed.  It would give us the right 
| to see justice done as the rapist is put to death by the governing authorities
| for his crime, or even to kill the attacker in selfdefense, if applicable.  

	Wow..... so as long as someone else is allowed to do the killing, as in
governemnt, then it is ok for rapists, but not for unborn children. This has
got to be one of the weirdest twists I have ever read or heard. Why do you deem
it ok for a rapist to be put to death when you are so set against an unborn
baby losing their life? If you knew your child was going to grow up and be a
rapist, and there was no way to change it, would you kill her/him to prevent it
from happening? 

| If we could not raise the child ourselves (due to the emotional distress of 
| the rape), we could give him or her up to another family to adopt.

	I've always liked this one. Let's just give them up to adopt. Well, I
guess if you're a white child, chances are that you will find parents to adopt
you. As there are more parents than babies when it comes to white children. But
what of those of colour? Do they have those same chances? Nope. Will it turn
out the same for them as a white baby? Possible, but the % drop once the color
changes from white. But then they are out of your hair, so why would it matter,
huh?

| My point is that, in most cases, a convicted rapist should be put to death.  
| Instead, we give him an all-expenses-paid vacation from society.

	You know, you talk about how you only visited juvie centers, how you
have not visited adult ones, and that you realise there must be some out there
that are heck-holes (which would be the majority), but then you again bring up
the "all-expenses-paid vacation" stuff again. Why? 

| I told you that I'm asking competent physicians for their best guess.  We 
| loaned a tape of the 60 Minutes segment to one doctor.  I had an interesting 
| phone conversation with him.  You understand that no doctor is going to 
| prescribe treatment without examining the patient first.  

	Wow... you understand this, but then you go on with what he would do.
While his observation based on the average case may be correct, without having
all the facts in front of them, (s)he could never make a call. So whatever he
said about it is really worthless as he did not have the specific patient and
all of her medical stats in front of her/him. His observation is about as
accurate as yours in front of the clinics.

| But I wonder if this answer, and others like it, will ever be good enough for 
| you.

	Without any fact? No way. You mention things like routine in diabetic
pregnancies, yet without the medical stats in front of the doctor, they could
not tell you if this really was routine or not. Not how I would ever want to be
treated....


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 108.323 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>| If she had been raped, and conceived a child as a result, that would not give 
>| either of us the right to have the child killed.  It would give us the right 
>| to see justice done as the rapist is put to death by the governing authorities
>| for his crime, or even to kill the attacker in selfdefense, if applicable.  

>	Wow..... so as long as someone else is allowed to do the killing, as in
>governemnt, then it is ok for rapists, but not for unborn children. This has
>got to be one of the weirdest twists I have ever read or heard. Why do you deem
>it ok for a rapist to be put to death when you are so set against an unborn
>baby losing their life? If you knew your child was going to grow up and be a


You can't be serious..



Jim

    >Why do you deem it ok for a rapist to be put to death when you are so set 
    >against an unborn baby losing their life?
    
    There are laws that have been put in place to protect INNOCENT lives. 
    Our society has gotten this backward, in that we protect those who are
    guilty and allow those who are innocent to be killed.  There are
    consequences to sin.  If there is a law that says if I intentionally
    murder someone, that the penalty is death, then I know what the
    consequences of that sin will be, if caught.  An unborn baby has no
    such option.  The baby is simply an innocent life.
    
    This shouldn't take away our heart of compassion for those who are on
    death row, or others that might be in prison.  They need to know Jesus. 
    He is the only one who can truly change the heart.
    
    Bing

| <<< Note 108.325 by ODIXIE::HUNT >>>



| There are laws that have been put in place to protect INNOCENT lives.
| Our society has gotten this backward, in that we protect those who are
| guilty and allow those who are innocent to be killed.  There are
| consequences to sin.  If there is a law that says if I intentionally
| murder someone, that the penalty is death, then I know what the
| consequences of that sin will be, if caught.  An unborn baby has no
| such option.  The baby is simply an innocent life.

	Uh huh..... this isn't about what human law says, as if that were the
case, no one would be picketing abortion clinics, as it is legal to have
abortions. What I thought this was about was saying it is wrong to kill on one
hand, but killing on the other.



Glen

    Glen,
    
    "Thou shall not murder" is one of the ten commandments.  The OT calls
    this sin.  There were consequences which were associated with this sin
    (ie Stoning to death).  At one time our laws were in agreement with
    this, that's why I referenced our laws.  There is a big difference in
    my mind between carrying out a pre-defined and understood punishment
    for someone who has created a premeditated murder and in killing an
    innocent baby, who has had no say what-so-ever in their fate.
    
    Bing

| <<< Note 108.327 by ODIXIE::HUNT >>>



| "Thou shall not murder" is one of the ten commandments.  The OT calls
| this sin.  There were consequences which were associated with this sin
| (ie Stoning to death).  At one time our laws were in agreement with
| this, that's why I referenced our laws.  

	Bing, what are gentiles to follow for Law? The 10 Commandments + 2,
right? Anything else is nothing in the eyes of the Gentiles. An eye for an eye
is no longer valid. Besides, if we used the eye for an eye analogy, we'd have
to rape those who raped the women, not kill them. We would have to kill all
parent(s) who allowed an abortion to happen. Is this what you really want?

| There is a big difference in my mind between carrying out a pre-defined and 
| understood punishment for someone who has created a premeditated murder and 
| in killing an innocent baby, who has had no say what-so-ever in their fate.

	Bing, while I agree with your theory, the fact that murder was put in
place for a crime is where I think the mistake was made.



Glen

[ <<< Note 108.322 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

[ I do NOT disagree with what you are saying here. It COULD be a fact.
[ I don't think I said differently. What I did say was that until you
[ have more data, you don't know if it is indeed a fact.

	Yes, and this is where we disagree.  I'm convinced that, by
careful and sustained observation, a fact *can* be established.  You
seem to believe that interviews are always necessary.

[ Then I guess you will never know if it is a fact. I could sit here and
[ make observations about you all day. I could even believe that my
[ observations are true. But do you know what? I have no way of knowing
[ that they are true unless I ask you if they are.

	I disagree.  You can establish facts about someone by observing
them.  External facts about a person (actions, appearance, demeanor,
statements, clothing, tone of voice, etc.) are factual, and can be
established by observation.  Internal, subjective thoughts of a person
(such as their rationale for doing something) would require an interview.

[ Could it be that they aren't pretending you and the abortion clinic
[ aren't there, but that they really just don't care one way or the other,
[ that they are engrossed in conversation or deep in thought? I mean, why
[ do you see it as so cut and dry when it could actually be so many things?

	Aren't you splitting hairs here just a bit?  Okay, maybe they just
don't know or care about either the abortions or the protesters.

[ You aren't doing any experimenting. All you are doing is observing, and
[ not taking the next step which would be to test your theories. So no, you
[ should not compare yourselves with scientists.

	I disagree.  Observation is a form of experimentation, and a way of
testing some theories.  In addition, we try to do more than just observe.
We get involved.  We try to help people to see what kind of choice is
awaiting them in the abortion chamber, without violating anyone's rights
or breaking any laws.  This isn't an easy tightrope to walk.

[ So you should now understand that you should not compare yourselves to
[ the scientists. That is unless you don't want to be worthy of your name....

	That's any scientist worthy of the name "scientist".  Sometimes I
have difficulty following your line of attack.

[ Just how did they come to this conclusion? Is it by gathering data maybe?

	No.  They reached the conclusion that evolution is how all living
things got here, *before* they looked at the data.  When the data doesn't
fit their conclusion, they make an end-run around the facts, by inventing
some even more far-fetched theories.

[ Won't work. Give the Bible to each denomination, give it to each sub group
[ of that denomination, and how many different versions of the Bible do you
[ end up with? I guess unless you could choose a group of people that everyone
[ could agree with, your idea probably will not work. Why? Because you will
[ not be able to agree between yourselves, never mind those who do not believe
[ in the Bible, those who do not believe in God, and those from different
[ religions ever stepping in. Can you see the problems that will be coming?
[ You've got everything wrapped up as you see it, yet it will never work that
[ way as someone else will always see it differently. There is only ONE way
[ that I can see your plan working. That will happen when God comes back.
[ Only He will be able to wade everyone through the confusion.

	I agree that Theocracy cannot work unless God Himself is really in
charge of it.  We have human history to teach us that lesson.  I also agree
that until Christ returns, we cannot have a true and enduring Theocracy.
This is due to the influence of the unholy trinity (our own sinful nature,
the devil, and the corrupt world system).  Weren't you the one who set up the
improbable scenario that we might somehow return to a Biblically-based system
of law (in which abortion is recognized and punished as murder), after we have
abandoned one that came closer to the ideal than any prior system?

[ But it is your version of what the Bible is saying that you want to see
[ enacted. You know Clinton has a different view on what the Bible says,
[ and would you be able to live with that version?

	It looks like we will find out the answer to that question.  It's
not *my* version of what the Bible is saying, but I don't expect you to
believe that.

[ You left one part out. What if she did not want to die in the first place?

	People don't ordinarily want to die.  I guess I'm not understanding
your meaning again.

[ Wow..... so as long as someone else is allowed to do the killing, as in
[ governemnt, then it is ok for rapists, but not for unborn children.

	Yes.  This is what God's Law commands.  Innocent people are to be
protected by the government.  Those guilty of murder, kidnapping, etc.
are to be put to death by the same government.  It's a simple concept.

[ This has got to be one of the weirdest twists I have ever read or heard.
[ Why do you deem it ok for a rapist to be put to death when you are so set
[ against an unborn baby losing their life? If you knew your child was going
[ to grow up and be a rapist, and there was no way to change it, would you
[ kill her/him to prevent it from happening?

	Huh?  Who's doing the twisting here?  How can I know what any child
will do when he or she grows up?  As a parent, I can help raise my children
to love God and respect the rights of others.  This is the best protection
against their committing crimes in the future.  Please explain yourself
further on this.  We must not punish people for crimes they might possibly
commit in the future.  Only those proven guilty of a crime should be punished.

	Yes, it is allowed to kill in self-defense.  It is required for
society (governing authorities) to kill a convicted murderer; this is a
societal form of self-defense.  Anyone who deliberately kills someone who
has not committed (nor attempted to commit) a capital crime, is guilty of
murder.  These aren't my ideas; they're God's Laws, clearly articulated
in the Bible.

[ I've always liked this one. Let's just give them up to adopt. Well, I guess
[ if you're a white child, chances are that you will find parents to adopt
[ you. As there are more parents than babies when it comes to white children.
[ But what of those of colour? Do they have those same chances? Nope. Will it
[ turn out the same for them as a white baby? Possible, but the % drop once
[ the color changes from white. But then they are out of your hair, so why
[ would it matter, huh?

	Aren't we just clouding the issue by talking about the race of the
child?  There are plenty of families and couples of all races who would be
glad to adopt a child of any race, given the chance.  Again, I don't have
a clue where you're coming from or heading toward on this one.

[ You know, you talk about how you only visited juvie centers, how you
[ have not visited adult ones, and that you realise there must be some
[ out there that are heck-holes (which would be the majority), but then
[ you again bring up the "all-expenses-paid vacation" stuff again. Why?

	The swift sentence of death is a punishment more severe than
jail time, at least in my view.  You say the "heck-holes" are in the
majority.  How did you arrive at this conclusion?  Did you interview
anyone?  Who?  The inmates?  The jailers?  The man on the street?  Oh,
yes, one inmate.  That must make your views more valid than mine.  My
sources must be less reliable, I guess.

[ Wow... you understand this, but then you go on with what he would do.
[ While his observation based on the average case may be correct, without
[ having all the facts in front of them, (s)he could never make a call.
[ So whatever he said about it is really worthless as he did not have the
[ specific patient and all of her medical stats in front of her/him. His
[ observation is about as accurate as yours in front of the clinics.

	That's interesting.  Since none of us have all the facts, anything
that any of us says must be worthless.  Is that what you're saying?  No one
has *all* the facts about anything, therefore *all* of our opinions are
*always* worthless?  Then there's no point in discussing anything, is there?

	I provided medical information from a competent physician.  So far,
I'm finding that this information effectively counters the arguments that
were presented in the 60 Minutes segment.  I thought you might be interested
in hearing from a more authoritative source than myself, but I guess not.

[ Without any fact? No way. You mention things like routine in diabetic
[ pregnancies, yet without the medical stats in front of the doctor, they
[ could not tell you if this really was routine or not. Not how I would
[ ever want to be treated....

	Your view of what is "fact" does not appear to coincide with mine.
To me, you appear to be determined to trivialize any evidence that doesn't
fit your own view.  The 60 Minutes piece was very sketchy, and (I believe)
deliberately so.  They wanted to paint Warren Hern as a hero, and the
abortion as lifesaving.  To do this, they had to avoid a considerable
amount of medical fact.

[ Uh huh..... this isn't about what human law says, as if that were the
[ case, no one would be picketing abortion clinics, as it is legal to have
[ abortions. What I thought this was about was saying it is wrong to kill
[ on one hand, but killing on the other.

	It is wrong to *murder*.  Death is the appropriate punishment for
a very specific set of crimes.  Those who carry out the proper sentence of
death are not guilty of murder.  You and Bing have dibs on this argument,
though.

| <<< Note 108.329 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| Yes, and this is where we disagree.  I'm convinced that, by careful and 
| sustained observation, a fact *can* be established.  You seem to believe that 
| interviews are always necessary.

	To prove it, yes. Has there EVER been a time when you thought someone
did something for reason X, and it turns out the reason was Y? What you have
from your observing is nothing greater than a theory. Without ANY facts
involved, as you can't possibly read these peoples minds to know what they
actually talked about before going there, you can not call an observation a
fact. Ask any of the scientists you are trying to compare yourself with.
Remember, you said any scientist with any type of name will have the facts
before the make something a fact. They will run tests. You have just observed.

| I disagree. You can establish facts about someone by observing them. External 
| facts about a person (actions, appearance, demeanor, statements, clothing, 
| tone of voice, etc.) are factual, and can be established by observation.  

	And the black male who is walking down the street at night, how is he
observed? The woman who wears a short skirt? A blond(e)? Until you get to know
the person themselves, you can not know for sure if your observations are
correct. Without knowing they are correct, you can not call them fact. Oh, hit
and miss correct observations is based on luck, not fact. I can't tell you how
many times people have given me one view of them from observing, but a totally
different view once I got to know them. I mean, has this ever happened to you?

| Internal, subjective thoughts of a person (such as their rationale for doing 
| something) would require an interview.

	But you said that men are herding women in like cattle, and you also
said you never talked to these people, just observed. Seems like something is
wrong here.

| [ Could it be that they aren't pretending you and the abortion clinic
| [ aren't there, but that they really just don't care one way or the other,
| [ that they are engrossed in conversation or deep in thought? I mean, why
| [ do you see it as so cut and dry when it could actually be so many things?

| Aren't you splitting hairs here just a bit?  Okay, maybe they just don't know 
| or care about either the abortions or the protesters.

	EXACTLY! But your observations were telling you that you and the
abortion clinic aren't there. Can you see why observations are not a fact? 
You've been proving it over and over again.

| I disagree.  Observation is a form of experimentation, and a way of testing 
| some theories.  

	What theories can you possibly be testing? You don't know what their
thinking is, you don't know what they may have talked about beforehand, yet
because you observed, you came to the conclusion that the men are herding the
women in like cattle. Care to run that one by me again?

| In addition, we try to do more than just observe. We get involved. We try to 
| help people to see what kind of choice is awaiting them in the abortion 
| chamber, without violating anyone's rights or breaking any laws. This isn't 
| an easy tightrope to walk.

	Wait, you said that you can't talk to them, so do you do it by
chanting? Just how do you let them know? 

| Weren't you the one who set up the improbable scenario that we might somehow 
| return to a Biblically-based system of law (in which abortion is recognized 
| and punished as murder), after we have abandoned one that came closer to the 
| ideal than any prior system?

	No, that was not me. I do remember it being stated, but I forget by who
right now. It's in this file somewhere though. I don't think a system like that
can work until God comes back.

| [ But it is your version of what the Bible is saying that you want to see
| [ enacted. You know Clinton has a different view on what the Bible says,
| [ and would you be able to live with that version?

| It looks like we will find out the answer to that question.  It's not *my* 
| version of what the Bible is saying, but I don't expect you to believe that.

	Everyone has differences in the Bible. It will hold different meanings
to different people. The verses can be interpreted differently from person to
person. Ever notice that in Bible study? So when I say your version, her/his
version, or my version, this is what I am referring to.


Glen

| <<< Note 108.330 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| [ Wow..... so as long as someone else is allowed to do the killing, as in
| [ governemnt, then it is ok for rapists, but not for unborn children.

| Yes.  This is what God's Law commands.  Innocent people are to be protected 
| by the government.  Those guilty of murder, kidnapping, etc. are to be put to 
| death by the same government.  It's a simple concept.

	Are you stuck in the OT? Show me where in the NT that God says the
punishment for rape is murder. 

| Huh?  Who's doing the twisting here?  How can I know what any child
| will do when he or she grows up?  As a parent, I can help raise my children
| to love God and respect the rights of others.  This is the best protection
| against their committing crimes in the future.  Please explain yourself
| further on this.  We must not punish people for crimes they might possibly
| commit in the future.  Only those proven guilty of a crime should be punished.

	What I am getting at is if you knew your child was going to be a
rapist, would you kill her/him to prevent it from happening? 

| Yes, it is allowed to kill in self-defense. It is required for society 
| (governing authorities) to kill a convicted murderer; this is a societal form 
| of self-defense.  

	Oh... so that's how you justify it. Show me in the NT where God states
the punishment for murder is the death of the person who did the killing.

| [ I've always liked this one. Let's just give them up to adopt. Well, I guess
| [ if you're a white child, chances are that you will find parents to adopt
| [ you. As there are more parents than babies when it comes to white children.
| [ But what of those of colour? Do they have those same chances? Nope. Will it
| [ turn out the same for them as a white baby? Possible, but the % drop once
| [ the color changes from white. But then they are out of your hair, so why
| [ would it matter, huh?

| Aren't we just clouding the issue by talking about the race of the
| child?  There are plenty of families and couples of all races who would be
| glad to adopt a child of any race, given the chance.  Again, I don't have
| a clue where you're coming from or heading toward on this one.

	Where I am going with this is really simple. You give up a child to be
adopted and everything is aye ok! I'm telling you for people of colour, it is
not always the case. Their babies are more likely to NOT get adopted than a
white baby. So when you ask if I am clouding the issue with race, no, I am
bringing the adoption thing to it's correct light. Oh, just give the baby up
for adoption! Yeah, if you're white. 

| [ You know, you talk about how you only visited juvie centers, how you
| [ have not visited adult ones, and that you realise there must be some
| [ out there that are heck-holes (which would be the majority), but then
| [ you again bring up the "all-expenses-paid vacation" stuff again. Why?

| The swift sentence of death is a punishment more severe than jail time, at 
| least in my view.  You say the "heck-holes" are in the majority.  How did you 
| arrive at this conclusion?  Did you interview anyone?  Who?  The inmates?  
| The jailers?  The man on the street?  Oh, yes, one inmate.  

	More than just one inmate my friend. He did tell me lots of stories
though. But from cops, documentries, things like that. My friend Mark used to
work at the womans prison in Framingham. It ain't too pretty there either.
Women don't have a picnic either.

| That must make your views more valid than mine.  My sources must be less 
| reliable, I guess.

	From your zero sources (based on what you've listed so far) against
many, yeah, I think I might have a better understanding of things.

| That's interesting.  Since none of us have all the facts, anything that any 
| of us says must be worthless.  Is that what you're saying?  

	You have to go with what the doctor who examined her said.

| [ Without any fact? No way. You mention things like routine in diabetic
| [ pregnancies, yet without the medical stats in front of the doctor, they
| [ could not tell you if this really was routine or not. Not how I would
| [ ever want to be treated....

| Your view of what is "fact" does not appear to coincide with mine.

	Apparently. Yours are more theory based, and I like to deal with tested
and proven things.

| To me, you appear to be determined to trivialize any evidence that doesn't
| fit your own view.  

	No, what I am doing is trying to see the facts. You provide theories
and observations. Nothing more.

| It is wrong to *murder*.  Death is the appropriate punishment for a very 
| specific set of crimes.  

	You just contradicted yourself here. If you take ones life, you have
murdered. In the case of an abortion, it's wrong, for a crime, it's ok. It is
wrong on any account.


Glen

>	Show me where in the NT that God says the
>punishment for rape is murder. 

    	Why bother?  If it exists you'll jsut twist it to fit your
    	predetermined view anyway?  Besides, you don't believe that
    	the Bible is God's word.  Why should you then be asking for
    	scriptural support?

| <<< Note 108.333 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>

| >Show me where in the NT that God says the punishment for rape is murder.

| Why bother?  If it exists you'll jsut twist it to fit your predetermined view 
| anyway?  

	I love it when you jump into a conversation like this where you don't
have a clue. If someone claims that rapists should be killed, and says the
Bible backs this claim, then they should show the proof to back their words.
Death is not attributed to rape.

| Besides, you don't believe that the Bible is God's word. Why should you then 
| be asking for scriptural support?

	I don't need to believe that the Bible is God's Word. He does. He is
basing it on what he believes the Bible says. He needs to show his proof to
back his claim, a claim that he believes is from Him. 


Glen

    	You didn't answer the question.

<<< Note 108.331 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

[ To prove it, yes. Has there EVER been a time when you thought someone
[ did something for reason X, and it turns out the reason was Y? What you
[ have from your observing is nothing greater than a theory. Without ANY
[ facts involved, as you can't possibly read these peoples minds to know
[ what they actually talked about before going there, you can not call an
[ observation a fact. Ask any of the scientists you are trying to compare
[ yourself with. Remember, you said any scientist with any type of name
[ will have the facts before the make something a fact. They will run tests.
[ You have just observed.

	Only according to you, Glen.  I have established a fact by making
observations.  I can and will call my observable information a fact.
Certainly not what each person thinks inside, but the material, visible,
external facts.  I'm not drawing any conclusion about why people go and
have their own babies slaughtered.  I'm making a factual observation on
how I have seen them, herded like cattle into the abortion mill.

[ And the black male who is walking down the street at night, how is he
[ observed? The woman who wears a short skirt? A blond(e)? Until you get
[ to know the person themselves, you can not know for sure if your
[ observations are correct. Without knowing they are correct, you can not
[ call them fact. Oh, hit and miss correct observations is based on luck,
[ not fact. I can't tell you how many times people have given me one view
[ of them from observing, but a totally different view once I got to know
[ them. I mean, has this ever happened to you?

	You're making a statement that I'm burdened with a prejudiced
notion about why people kill their own children, and that if I would only
listen to their reasons, then I'd see how wrong I've been all along.
Sorry, I must disagree with your premise.

[ But you said that men are herding women in like cattle, and you also
[ said you never talked to these people, just observed. Seems like
[ something is wrong here.

	Something *is* terribly wrong here.  Like cattle to the slaughter,
women are being herded by men, by other women, even by their own thoughts,
to evil places where their own children are killed.

[ EXACTLY! But your observations were telling you that you and the abortion
[ clinic aren't there. Can you see why observations are not a fact? You've
[ been proving it over and over again.

	My observations continue to tell me that people often very resolutely
refuse to look at our signs and pictures.  This is a factual observation.  I
was allowing for your theory that maybe some of them are preoccupied by other
thoughts and don't even notice anything around them.  We could run some very
dangerous experiments on the drivers, something like a drivers' training film
come to life, but somehow I don't think this would be a worthwhile endeavor.

[ What theories can you possibly be testing? You don't know what their
[ thinking is, you don't know what they may have talked about beforehand,
[ yet because you observed, you came to the conclusion that the men are
[ herding the women in like cattle. Care to run that one by me again?

	Okay, just once more.  It's an observation, not a conclusion.
Give it a try sometime.  Watch the women go in.  Do they go in by themselves?
Often they do not.  Do they walk without assistance?  Often they do not.  Do
they sometimes appear to be "herded"?  Yes, sometimes they do.

[ Wait, you said that you can't talk to them, so do you do it by chanting?
[ Just how do you let them know?

	We are not allowed to approach anyone while near the abortion mill.
If people want us to speak directly to them or offer them literature, we
must get their explicit permission first.  We don't "chant", that I know of.
We hold up signs and pictures, and speak out when we can.

[ Everyone has differences in the Bible. It will hold different meanings
[ to different people. The verses can be interpreted differently from
[ person to person. Ever notice that in Bible study? So when I say your
[ version, her/his version, or my version, this is what I am referring to.

	In Bible studies, I've noticed that different individuals will often
contribute different insights to our helping each other together gain deeper
understanding of a Biblical passage.  Deep and enduring conflicts are unusual.

[ Are you stuck in the OT? Show me where in the NT that God says the
[ punishment for rape is murder.

	Are you stuck on insisting that *all* killing equals murder?
When a convicted criminal is put to death for a capital crime, the
government and the executioner(s) have *not* committed murder.  They
have done what is right; they have carried out the just sentence of death.

	Murder is deliberately killing someone without just cause.  Just
cause exists in the execution of a duly authorized sentence of death, and
in protecting oneself or another person from an imminent and deadly threat.

	Now that we've cleared *that* up, Jesus (God the Son) endorses the
OT death penalty in Matthew 15:4 (also Mark 7:10).  He quotes the OT Law
(Exodus 20:12, 21:17): "'Honor your father and your mother', and, 'He who
speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die.'"  There are other
places where Jesus clearly endorses the entire OT criminal code.  See
further below for more of that.

	OT Law pertaining directly to rape is in Deuteronomy 22:25-29,
complete with death penalties for most rape offenses.  The one exception
is that, if a man rapes a woman who is not married or betrothed, he can
escape the death penalty, but only by marrying her for his entire life!

[ What I am getting at is if you knew your child was going to be a rapist,
[ would you kill her/him to prevent it from happening?

	That's too theoretical.  I thought you only dealt in true facts!
I can't know ahead of time.  If a child has grown up totally disobedient
to parental authority, OT Law allows for that wicked person to be put to
death, if the parents cannot remedy the situation.  Is that what you're
alluding to?  The short answer is no, I would not kill my own (or anyone
else's) child for something I might have thought that I knew about what
they would do in the future.

[ Oh... so that's how you justify it. Show me in the NT where God states
[ the punishment for murder is the death of the person who did the killing.

	So which is how I justify what?  I'm having trouble following your
meaning again.  Do you have a Bible, Glen?  You can read it yourself, right?
Why must I show you?  Why not look things up for yourself?  Get a Strong's
concordance, if you don't already have one.  Here are a couple of starting
points: Jesus (God the Son) endorsed the OT Law against murder in Matthew
19:18.  He said in Matthew 5:17 that He did not come to abolish the OT Law
and Prophets, but to fulfill them.  The penalty for murder is death under
OT Law (stated again and again in the book of Numbers, for example).  The
sentence was to be carried out by stoning the murderer at the city gates.
The two or more witnesses (on whose testimony the murderer was convicted)
were the first to throw the stones, followed by the rest of the people.

	The NT is important, but so is the OT.  They are the two testaments
of the one Bible, from the same God.

[ From your zero sources (based on what you've listed so far) against
[ many, yeah, I think I might have a better understanding of things.

	I cited a few of my sources.  You chose to ignore what I said.

[ You have to go with what the doctor who examined her said.

	The doctor(s) who *first* examined her (when she landed at the *real*
hospital) was/were not interviewed on the 60 Minutes segment.  What that/those
doctor(s) apparently did was treat her for shock, and get her stabilized.  At
that point, her life would no longer have been in imminent danger.

	The abortionist (Warren Hern) who killed her baby *was* interviewed
on the 60 Minutes segment.  He claimed that the abortion saved her life.
Abortion is what he does for a living.  He has an economic and philosophical
incentive to convince himself and others that abortion can be a "good" thing.
Therefore, I won't accept his statement without any facts to back it up.

[ Apparently. Yours are more theory based, and I like to deal with tested
[ and proven things.

	That *is* funny! :-)

[ You just contradicted yourself here. If you take ones life, you have
[ murdered. In the case of an abortion, it's wrong, for a crime, it's ok.
[ It is wrong on any account.

	Nope.  Wrong.  See above.  Read the Bible.  Consult any competent
lawyer or judge.  Murder is a crime.  Under some special circumstances,
killing is *not* the same as murder.  Sorry.  Try again.  Game over.

| <<< Note 108.336 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>

| Only according to you, Glen.  I have established a fact by making
| observations.  I can and will call my observable information a fact.

	You can call it what you want, but reality states otherwise.

| Certainly not what each person thinks inside, but the material, visible,
| external facts.  I'm not drawing any conclusion about why people go and
| have their own babies slaughtered.  I'm making a factual observation on
| how I have seen them, herded like cattle into the abortion mill.

	Let's look at that, shall we? 

RE: .320

I disagree. An observation is not *necessarily* a fact, but an observation *can*
be a fact. That's as plain and simple as it can get. I'm not talking about first
impressions. I'm talking about sustained, repeatable, demonstrable observations.

		You talk about no first impressions, but unless the same 
		people are coming back again and again, you really ARE
		talking about 1st impressions. You are putting EVERYONE 
		into one catagory.

The majority of people are just apathetic. They pretend we (and the abortion 
mill) are not there.

		Here you made an observation, later on you realized that 
		there was more to it than that. You realized that they may 
		just not even notice period. It should have showed you that 
		your observation method, like everyone elses, has flaws, and 
		therefore can't be used as fact.

I must agree that any scientist worthy of the name will carefully test a theory 
before calling it fact.  

		Observing what goes on hardly constitutes carefull testing.

RE: .317

[ Really, and when you said something like, "The men herd them into the
[ place like cattle" is not a hasty conclusion? Especially seeing you have
[ never talked to them? Are you serious?

Yes, I am totally serious. My observation stands. I'm not drawing a hasty 
conclusion; I'm making a simple observation.


		But you have called your observations fact. This is where I 
		am disagreeing with you. 

I have watched women herded like cattle into the abortion mill. This is an 
observation I have made. It's not a statistical conclusion. 

		And by your words, you had at one point known your observation 
		was not fact. But now that seems to have changed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| You're making a statement that I'm burdened with a prejudiced notion about 
| why people kill their own children, and that if I would only listen to their 
| reasons, then I'd see how wrong I've been all along. Sorry, I must disagree 
| with your premise.

	Actually, it's your premise. What *I* am saying is that you can observe
all you want, you can say they are herding women in like cattle, anything, but
unless you talk with the people themselves, you can not know this is a fact.
AND, by listening to their reasons you would see that your observation could
have been wrong. It does not mean that you should agree with their reasoning
for doing the abortion, but it would allow you to see that they might not have
been herding them in.

| Something *is* terribly wrong here.  Like cattle to the slaughter,
| women are being herded by men, by other women, even by their own thoughts,
| to evil places where their own children are killed.

	Wow..... now you have expanded it to a larger crowd. Origionally you
said that MEN were doing the herding. How did your observation suddenly get
bigger to include all these people, thoughts, everything?

| My observations continue to tell me that people often very resolutely
| refuse to look at our signs and pictures.  This is a factual observation.  I
| was allowing for your theory that maybe some of them are preoccupied by other
| thoughts and don't even notice anything around them.  

	Kind of brings a new light to your observation theory, doesn't it?

| Okay, just once more.  It's an observation, not a conclusion.

	Then it is not fact. That is what I am saying.

| Do they sometimes appear to be "herded"?  Yes, sometimes they do.

	Appear is not fact. Observation is not fact. 

| In Bible studies, I've noticed that different individuals will often
| contribute different insights to our helping each other together gain deeper
| understanding of a Biblical passage.  Deep and enduring conflicts are unusual.

	One, who said conflict has to occur? Two, it shows that if you learned
something from someone elses insight, then your origional observation of that
piece of Scripture was not complete. So while you may have thought it could be
fact, it was indeed not. Observations alone does not = fact.

Glen

    	Glen, why do you argue the pro-abortion positions yet you
    	declare yourself to be pro-life?
    
    	Why do you give pro-abortion arguments the benefit of the doubt?

| <<< Note 108.339 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| Glen, why do you argue the pro-abortion positions yet you declare yourself to 
| be pro-life?

	Joe, I do not like abortion. To use it as a form of birth control to
*me* is wrong. But regardless of that, if someone wrongly accuses someone or
projects their reasoning onto why someone has an abortion, I will speak up. To
dislike the act is one thing, to tell the world why these people do it is yet
another. I have seen people give a reason for why they did X, but some in here
(and other conferences) have said, no, this is the reason. 

| Why do you give pro-abortion arguments the benefit of the doubt?

	BTW, what pro-choice arguments have I given?


Glen

    	You have said in another conference that as long as society
    	cannot figure out how to handle the "difficult cases" of
    	rape, incest, mother's-life-in-danger, etc., you will continue
    	to support abortion laws as they stand today.

| <<< Note 108.341 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| You have said in another conference that as long as society cannot figure out 
| how to handle the "difficult cases" of rape, incest, mother's-life-in-danger, 
| etc., you will continue to support abortion laws as they stand today.

	I'm pretty sure I said it in here too Joe. BTW, I guess the "etc" covers
back-alley abortions too along with the adoption method.... which, btw, all of
these things mentioned, the way it is now, is a big mess. If we have abortions 
and can't control these other issues, how do we control them when they increase
because abortions are stopped? Rape and the mothers life in danger will always 
be there. That is never ending. To just pass it off as a 3% figure does it no
justice at all. Especially seeing when a lot of people who are pro-life seem to
say, "if just one life is saved, it is worth it". Funny how that works for the
unborn, but those who are already alive it has zero meaning. The back-alley 
abortions are low at the moment, yet you know the results of those in a lot of 
cases is death for the mother. What would happen if abortion was outlawed? Many 
consider it a non-problem, but I do feel it will sky rocket if abortions were 
illegal. Then there is the adoption issue. More parents than there are babies 
is what's said. For white babies, yes. But that is not the case for babies of 
colour. This issue would also need a lot of work, as if abortions stop, adoption
will grow. And while it may never get to the point where white babies have to 
worry (but who know's), it is already bad for babies of colour, it can only get
worse. So that is why I believe the laws should stay the way they are now.
Address the issues BEFORE they blow up in everyone's faces.


Glen

    	So when you say:
    
    
.340> | Why do you give pro-abortion arguments the benefit of the doubt?
.340> 
.340> 	BTW, what pro-choice arguments have I given?

    	... all you have to do is look to .342 to get your answer.

    .342
    
>The back-alley 
>abortions are low at the moment, yet you know the results of those in a lot of 
>cases is death for the mother. 
    
    	BTW, what is "a lot" in your statement?  I believe the figure
    	posted in SOAPBOX was 160 mother/year died from abortions 
    	pre-voe.v.wade.

    
    Some of the recent exchanges appear to have returned us to 
    an old issue...whether or not there is any absolute morality.
    
    Mark Metcalfe has argued far more eloquently and effectively 
    than ever I could that there is indeed an absolute morality 
    and that God's will (and our guide to what is moral) is revealed 
    in the Bible.
    
    Those who believe in non-absolute-morality almost by definition 
    believe in changing morals.  If societal pressures make something 
    unpopular, it becomes 'immoral'.  If society changes (or changes 
    back again), those old moral standards are thrown away.  Kind of 
    a moral-du-jur.  
    
    Abortion fits right in with this latter portrait.  Not so long 
    ago society raged at its very mention (i.e. abortion = immoral).
    Now society rages at any constraint of abortion (i.e. abortion =
    moral).  Any number of other examples also abound.
    
    This thinking equates to a belief that there is no 'right' or 
    'wrong'; no 'good' or 'evil'.  Society may change its idea of 
    good and evil, but Bible believing Christians have consistently 
    maintained that abortion is wrong.
    
    Otto 

 The media puts a nice spin on things...pro lifers are called "*anti*abortion"
 those in favor of abortion are *pro* choice.




 Jim

 ...and those who are "pro *LIFE*" are considered the radical wackos..
can you believe it?  



Jim

	Thanks for the last few replies, folks.  This topic had become
another deep rat-hole.  Now that I've repeatedly explained my statements
to someone, I get the impression that someone just doesn't want to hear me.
My wife has volunteered to tell us about two of her friends who were
coerced into having abortions, and the effects they say it had on their
lives.  We will post this after we both rest up a bit from the rat-race.

| <<< Note 108.343 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| .340> | Why do you give pro-abortion arguments the benefit of the doubt?
| .340>
| .340> 	BTW, what pro-choice arguments have I given?

| ... all you have to do is look to .342 to get your answer.


	Yup, and it shows I want to see the problems rectified before they get
worse, and to a critical state.


Glen

| <<< Note 108.346 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| The media puts a nice spin on things...pro lifers are called "*anti*abortion"
| those in favor of abortion are *pro* choice.


	Gee Jim, what do others call pro-choice people? Murderers, pro-death,
etc. So let's not talk about spin without first taking the log out of our own
eyes. BTW, what term did M* Sampson use? 



Glen

| <<< Note 108.347 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| ...and those who are "pro *LIFE*" are considered the radical wackos.. can you 
| believe it?

	That was not hard to figure..... they picket, block abortion clinics,
run down the halls and chain themselves to fixtures, yet they are to be looked
at as anything BUT radical? Uh huh.....


Glen

    	well, .351 is nothing but the opposite side of the "herding
    	women" generalization at which you took such offense.

    	and the term is no longer "pro-choice".
    
    	It is "abortion rights activist".

	Besides, "pro-kill" sounds too much like "parochial",
which might be an unfair swipe at Catholics!

	Seriously, though, we've already got a problem more serious than
any of the "fine tuning" Glen seems to be concerned about.  We are killing
unborn children in this country at the rate of 1.5 million a year.  That is
over 4,000 kids a day we flush down the toilet or throw out with the trash.
We (as a people) are shedding a horrendous amount of innocent blood.  God
holds us accountable for the innocent blood that is shed in our own
community.  We must do something useful to prevent it.

    	Correct.  It's a "forest for the trees" issue.

| <<< Note 108.354 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| Seriously, though, we've already got a problem more serious than any of the 
| "fine tuning" Glen seems to be concerned about.  We are killing unborn 
| children in this country at the rate of 1.5 million a year.  

	Let's take that 1.5 million and throw them into the adoption ring. We 
already know children of colour will have a harder time getting adopted than 
white babies, so where will this leave the children now? Will the white babies 
now be thrown into the same ring as the babies of colour? 

	How much will back alley abortions go up once abortion is illegal? We
know what can happen when abortions are done in a safe sterile location, but
how many more deaths of mothers will happen once the back-alley abortions take
their place?

	Fine tunning? Maybe, but it would ONLY be fine tuning OUT from reality
on your part.



Glen

>	Let's take that 1.5 million and throw them into the adoption ring. We 
>already know children of colour will have a harder time getting adopted than 
>white babies, so where will this leave the children now? 

Alive.

    Kent
    

    	Why are you arguing the pro-abortion arguments, Glen?

[ Let's take that 1.5 million and throw them into the adoption ring.
[ We already know children of colour will have a harder time getting adopted
[ than white babies, so where will this leave the children now? Will the white
[ babies now be thrown into the same ring as the babies of colour?
[
[ How much will back alley abortions go up once abortion is illegal?
[ We know what can happen when abortions are done in a safe sterile location,
[ but how many more deaths of mothers will happen once the back-alley abortions
[ take their place?

	Several assumptions are made in these paragraphs, without any
facts to back them up.  One is that, without legal abortion, 1.5 million
additional live-born children will be rejected and unwanted by their entire
families, and adoptive parents from other families will have to be found for
all or most of these children.

	Another assumption is that non-white babies are not, and will not be,
wanted by enough adoptive families of any race.

	Another assumption is that current, legal abortions are always, or
usually, done under much safer and more sterile conditions than previous
and future, illegal abortions, despite the fact that no statistics are
required by law on deaths and injuries to women resulting from current,
legal abortions.

	Ron Kuseski, a Mayfair abortionist, managed to bungle one young
woman's anaesthesia, and delay the arrival of (more competent) paramedics. 
This woman has been declared brain-dead, although she has since made some
progress toward recovery.  The Colorado Department of Health supposedly
conducted an investigation, but Ron is still on the job, without even a
slap on the wrist.  This is just one example, illustrating that merely
declaring an act of violence "legal" does not magically make it safer.

	Another assumption is that law enforcement and criminal justice
would be unable or unwilling to prevent illegal abortions.

[ Fine tunning? Maybe, but it would ONLY be
[ fine tuning OUT from reality on your part.

	Wow, we must live in *very* different realities, then.  Even if all
of the above assumptions proved to be completely true, I'd rather give an
innocent person a *chance* at life, even if that life has to start out in a
church-run orphanage.

| <<< Note 108.357 by MIMS::CASON_K >>>

| >	Let's take that 1.5 million and throw them into the adoption ring. We
| >already know children of colour will have a harder time getting adopted than
| >white babies, so where will this leave the children now?

| Alive.

	And at what quality of life.... adoption is NOT the answer to the
problem. To think so is not looking at the picture clearly.


Glen

| <<< Note 108.358 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| Why are you arguing the pro-abortion arguments, Glen?


	These are arguments that have merit Joe. They are not something that
can be overlooked. Do you think there will be more problems with adoptions if
all abortions went away? If you think there will be, then either you are
pro-choice, or you can see that there should be concern in this area.



Glen

	Ah, yes.  The famous "quality of life" argument, which is also used
to defend euthanasia.  We can see this issue much more clearly, now that
we've had it explained to us so well!

    
    re: .359
    
    Thank you for your well-reasoned arguments.  I was going to 
    enter a note challenging these same false assumptions.  Your 
    words echo my own thoughts.
    
    Otto

| <<< Note 108.359 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| [ We already know children of colour will have a harder time getting adopted
| [ than white babies, so where will this leave the children now? Will the white
| [ babies now be thrown into the same ring as the babies of colour?
| [
| [ How much will back alley abortions go up once abortion is illegal?
| [ We know what can happen when abortions are done in a safe sterile location,
| [ but how many more deaths of mothers will happen once the back-alley abortions
| [ take their place?

| Several assumptions are made in these paragraphs, without any facts to back 
| them up. One is that, without legal abortion, 1.5 million additional live-born
| children will be rejected and unwanted by their entire families, and adoptive 
| parents from other families will have to be found for all or most of these 
| children.

	You are right that all 1.5 million would not all be put up for
adoption. As it stands now, about how many families are there that put 
their child up for adoption each year for every mother who gave birth?
Take that % and apply it to the 1.5 million. I think that is a low number
to take as why do people want the abortion anyway? Many reasons, some
which include they are not ready to handle it now (emotionally, financially,
maturity, etc). Another reason is that some view abortions as another
form of birth control. The mother's life is in danger, the mother was
raped are two other reasons. And I know there are many more that I don't
know of. But for those mothers that are not ready for birth, use abortion
as a form of birth control, will they really be keeping the baby? Some
will, some won't, but the numbers will still be a burden to the adoption
process. Burden as in there will not be enough families for all the babies.

| Another assumption is that non-white babies are not, and will not be, wanted 
| by enough adoptive families of any race.

	That is the way it is now. Partly due to there are not enough families
out there that are the same race and want to adopt, and partly due to the fact
that it is very hard for a family other than the same race to adopt in this
country. I have heard several stories of people that have adopted OUTSIDE the
country, but in this country it is EXTREMELY hard. 

| Another assumption is that current, legal abortions are always, or usually, 
| done under much safer and more sterile conditions than previous and future, 
| illegal abortions, 

	Gee, could it possibly be while in a clinic, which is far more sterile
than where a lot of the back-alley abortions are done have anything to do with
it? 

| Ron Kuseski, a Mayfair abortionist, managed to bungle one young woman's 
| anaesthesia, and delay the arrival of (more competent) paramedics. This woman 
| has been declared brain-dead, although she has since made some progress toward
| recovery.  The Colorado Department of Health supposedly conducted an 
| investigation, but Ron is still on the job, without even a slap on the wrist.  
| This is just one example, illustrating that merely declaring an act of 
| violence "legal" does not magically make it safer.

	And any other doctor can make a mistake or be incompetant during ANY
other medical procedure. So what's your point? What is the % of women who have
had abortions in clinics who have died? Who have been injured? Let's see the
numbers on this if you would.

| Another assumption is that law enforcement and criminal justice would be 
| unable or unwilling to prevent illegal abortions.

	They can't stop crime as it is now, yet they will be able to stop this?
Be real.

| [ Fine tunning? Maybe, but it would ONLY be
| [ fine tuning OUT from reality on your part.

| Wow, we must live in *very* different realities, then.  Even if all of the 
| above assumptions proved to be completely true, I'd rather give an innocent 
| person a *chance* at life, even if that life has to start out in a church-run 
| orphanage.

	Gee..... aren't you sweet.... like that is how it works..... look at
the total picture and take off those rose colored glasses you're wearing.



Glen

| <<< Note 108.362 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| Ah, yes.  The famous "quality of life" argument, which is also used to defend 
| euthanasia.  We can see this issue much more clearly, now that we've had it 
| explained to us so well!

	Are you saying that quality of life does not play a role in one's life? 

Glen

 Please knock off the personal comments/attacks.  This issue can be discussed
 without resorting to such nonsense.  Notes containing personal comments/attacks
 will be hidden/deleted



 Jim Co-Mod.

[ Gee, could it possibly be while in a clinic, which is far more sterile
[ than where a lot of the back-alley abortions are done have anything to do
[ with it?

	So, if they move their abortion business to an uptown location,
tack a sign on the front, and call it a clinic, that makes it cleaner?
It might *look* cleaner, but in order to scientifically demonstrate that
conditions *are* medically more sterile, a culture would have to be run
periodically, in a double-blind study, by an independent testing lab.
The instruments and surfaces would have to be tested in both kinds of
abortion mills: (1) the "back-alley" abortion mills (which only exist in
other countries, and in our past and possible future); (2) the current
"uptown" abortion mills (which are not subject to inspection, regulation,
or peer review).

[ And any other doctor can make a mistake or be incompetant during ANY
[ other medical procedure. So what's your point? What is the % of women
[ who have had abortions in clinics who have died? Who have been injured?
[ Let's see the numbers on this if you would.

	Any *real* doctor would be subject to having his or her license
suspended or revoked for making this series of mistakes, as well as subject
to lawsuits by relatives of the dead or maimed patient.  A few people *are*
now beginning to dare to take on "Planned Parenthood" lawyers, but it takes
a great deal of courage and money.  The lack of statistics is due to the
fact that no one currently has the authority to collect them.

[ They can't stop crime as it is now, yet they will be able to stop this?
[ Be real.

	Okay.  Let's make everything legal, because we can't stop anything.
We can reduce crime by redefining it as non-crime.  Our Surgeon General
Elders said something similar about illegal drugs, didn't she?  That was
before her son was convicted of dealing cocaine.

[ like that is how it works..... look at the total picture
[ and take off those rose colored glasses you're wearing.

	Which parts of the picture am I missing?  Rose-colored
glasses *can* cut haze and glare, *improving* one's vision!

[ Are you saying that quality of life does not play a role in one's life?

	No, I'm saying that "quality of life" is extremely subjective and
difficult for anyone (except God) to measure or predict.  Therefore it
*should not* be used as an argument for killing a human being.

   Yeah, I guess I'll jump in here...
   
   I have a radical thought... how about if some people work on fixing
   the illness, and not the symptoms?  How about if we prevent the
   pregnancies in the first place instead of arguing about how to deal
   with them after the fact?  While I personally feel, like many here,
   that abortion is murder and should be stopped, I believe that's not
   the real problem.  While I have a great deal of respect for people who
   (peacefully) protest abortions, I personally believe that the real
   battleground is further upstream.  I believe if we fix the morality
   problems, that we could make a grand dent into reducing the number of
   people who even consider abortions.  (No, I don't have any stat's on
   that one - its strictly my own hypothesis).  I mean, if people weren't
   getting pregnant at the rate they are today, they wouldn't have to
   even think about that option, would they?
   
   C'mon folks, let's remember that we're all on the same team.  The more
   we argue and bicker, the more divided our team becomes...
   
   Peace,
   
   - Tom

    >  I believe if we fix the morality problems, that we could make a grand 
    >  dent into reducing the number of people who even consider abortions.
    
    I'm reminded of the song- People need the Lord
    
    Bing
    

 

 If we had more heart transplants, there'd be fewer abortions?




 Jim

	Sure.  The same can be said for murders in general.  If everyone in
the world were a genuine Christian, we would expect the murder rate to go
down dramatically.  This is a noble goal, and we should strive toward it.
However, in the mean time, hadn't we better do what we can to get just laws
enacted and enforced?  Hadn't we better do what we can to call unfavorable
attention to brutal acts of violence against innocent people?  In fact,
if we do this with a heart attitude of sorrow, contrition, repentance, and
humility, is it possible that this kind of activity may be exactly the
witness of Christ many people need to see?

    	I agree with "fix the illness" too.
    
    	But Satan's hand is strong in dealing out confusion, and 
    	society gets muddled down in the "Whose morality?" debate
    	when we try to address the underlying cause of the need
    	for so many abortions.

| <<< Note 108.368 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| The instruments and surfaces would have to be tested in both kinds of
| abortion mills: (1) the "back-alley" abortion mills (which only exist in
| other countries, and in our past and possible future); 

	This kind of ignorance is exactly what I am talking about. It DOES
happen in OUR country NOW. For you to believe otherwise shows that you are
BLIND to it all. Go into the inner cities, look around, you will find them
there. My friend Debbie must have imagined that she had an abortion as she went
to one of these places. Either that or she forgot that she left the country....
open your eyes to the FACTS.

| Any *real* doctor would be subject to having his or her license suspended or 
| revoked for making this series of mistakes, as well as subject to lawsuits by 
| relatives of the dead or maimed patient.  

	And tell me, if you will, why is it that you feel people who were hurt
during an abortion do not have the same opportunity? In the case of a doctor,
whether (s)he be an abortionist or have a private practice or work in a
hospital, will have a good lawyer(s). So tell me what makes abortionists so
hard to go after...

| A few people *are* now beginning to dare to take on "Planned Parenthood" 
| lawyers, but it takes a great deal of courage and money.  

	Oh.... but it's easy to take on a lawyer of a regular doctor.... you
are not making ANY sense at all. It may take courage and money, but it applies
to any doctor someone may take on, not just abortionists. You have offered
nothing to prove otherwise.

| The lack of statistics is due to the fact that no one currently has the 
| authority to collect them.

	Uh huh......

| [ They can't stop crime as it is now, yet they will be able to stop this?
| [ Be real.

| Okay.  Let's make everything legal, because we can't stop anything. We can 
| reduce crime by redefining it as non-crime.  

	Abortion is a non-crime now.....

| [ like that is how it works..... look at the total picture
| [ and take off those rose colored glasses you're wearing.

| Which parts of the picture am I missing?  Rose-colored glasses *can* cut haze 
| and glare, *improving* one's vision!

	For starters you can look at the back-alley abortion thing again. It
does happen IN THIS COUNTRY. 

| [ Are you saying that quality of life does not play a role in one's life?

| No, I'm saying that "quality of life" is extremely subjective and difficult 
| for anyone (except God) to measure or predict.  Therefore it *should not* be 
| used as an argument for killing a human being.

	I agree 100% with what you said above. But I believe it goes further
than that. With all of these babies that won't be adopted, never have real
parents, need something done so that the quality of life they have will be as
good as they can get. One, there will be no figurehead for them. I do believe
that this needs to be changed. How many kids who grow up in an orphanage go
onto college? We know in this world today that a college education can make
things easier for a person. Love at an orphanage is important too. All of these
things will either make or break a child that has to grow up in an orphange.
These things need to be addressed now, as we are now, LONG before you start
sending more and more kids there. I don't want to see babies dies because their
quality of life may not be good, but I want to see the quality of their life
improved as we are now before you go off and hurt the system with more babies.


Glen

| <<< Note 108.373 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| If everyone in the world were a genuine Christian, 

	I believe that this statement alone would cause a lot of problems. It's
genuine Christian that matches you, correct? No need to answer, but that
statement alone could cause many many problems. I mean, it does now.....


Glen

	Joe, will you be answering .361 anytime soon or will you avoid
answering it?


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 108.376 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>



>| If everyone in the world were a genuine Christian, 

>	I believe that this statement alone would cause a lot of problems. It's
>genuine Christian that matches you, correct? No need to answer, but that
>statement alone could cause many many problems. I mean, it does now.....


 It only causes problems for those who refuse to accept the authority of the
 Word of God.  The term "Christian" is clearly defined therein.  Once again
 1 Corithians 2:14 applies.



Jim

| <<< Note 108.378 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "I'm the traveler, He's the way" >>>




| It only causes problems for those who refuse to accept the authority of the
| Word of God.  The term "Christian" is clearly defined therein.  Once again
| 1 Corithians 2:14 applies.


	If that were a true statement Jim, then ya might have something. Would
you agree that there are people out there that obey the authority of the Bible
that you would not call Christians? And then there are those that don't meet
your version of what you feel the Bible says, and so on..... 


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 108.379 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>





>| It only causes problems for those who refuse to accept the authority of the
>| Word of God.  The term "Christian" is clearly defined therein.  Once again
>| 1 Corithians 2:14 applies.


>	If that were a true statement Jim, then ya might have something. Would

 It is a true statement.  Many chose to deny the truth.


>you agree that there are people out there that obey the authority of the Bible
>that you would not call Christians? And then there are those that don't meet

Yes.  Merely obeying the Word does not make one a Christian.  The term and those
who were given the name Christian and how they became such is contained in the
Bible (ever read Acts?)





Jim

    	re .377
    
    	There is too much so-soggy* in there to bother with it.
    
    	I'm not going to assist you with your twisted ideas.
    
    
    
    	*  Same-Old, Same-Old Glen Gave Yesterday.

Re: 108.379
It goes back to what God's objective standard is.  Scripture is clear on how 
one becomes a Christian.  We become a Christian by accepting Christ into
our lives and receiving His free gift of salvation. These are just a FEW of the
verses:

Joh  1:12 But as many as received him, to them he gave power to
become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:
{power: or, the right, or, privilege}

Eph  2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of
yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph  2:9 Not by works, lest any man should boast.
Eph  2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to
good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in
them. {ordained: or, prepared}

Ro   3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of
Jesus Christ to all and upon all them that believe: for there is
no difference:
Ro   3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of
God;
Ro   3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the
redemption that is in Jesus Christ:

Ro   6:21 What fruit had ye then in those things of which ye are
now ashamed? for the end of those things [is] death.
Ro   6:23 For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God
[is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Ro   5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we
were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Ro   5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Joh  3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, Verily, verily, I say to
thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of
God. {again: or, from above}

The Scripture is equally clear on what happens to us when we become
Christians.    This involves an exchanged life (mine for His):

2Co  5:17 Therefore if any man [is] in Christ, [he is] a new
creation: old things have passed away; behold, all things have
become new. {he is: or, let him be}

Ga   2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet
not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in
the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me,
and gave himself for me.

Rom 6:6,7 Knowing this that our old self was crucified with Him, that 
our body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be
slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin.

The Scripture also points out what some of the works of the flesh are:

Ga   5:19 Now the works of the flesh are revealed, which are
[these]; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Ga   5:20 Idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousy, wrath,
contention, seditions, heresies,
Ga   5:21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such
like: of which I tell you before, as I have also told [you] in
time past, that they who do such things shall not inherit the
kingdom of God.

And finally, scripture tells us what fruit Christ will produce through
those who know Him and abide in Him:

Ga   5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace,
longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,
Ga   5:23 Meekness, self-control: against such there is no law.
Ga   5:24 And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh
with the affections and lusts. {affections: or, passions}
Ga   5:25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the
Spirit.

Love in Christ,

Bing
    

| <<< Note 108.381 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>

| There is too much so-soggy* in there to bother with it.
| I'm not going to assist you with your twisted ideas.

	Uh huh.... and you asked me why I support pro-choice ideas, I answer
and ask you a question, one that would really only require a yes or no answer,
and you can't do it. I see joe, like always, when it comes to really answering
something, you dodge it. Oh well, thought we could have a conversation. Guess I
was wrong about that one.


Glen

	Bing, I would love to answer this, but one can't do that in here. I'll
be sending you mail instead.



Glen

    	re .383
    
    	You didn't answer why you are supporting pro-choice arguments.
    	You simply stated that that they have "merit" without saying
    	why.
    
    	You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated a preferrence for
    	clouding the overall issue with minor points, and have stated
    	that you would rather see the status quo held until those points
    	are first addressed.
    
    	And before you go back into your "3% is not insignificant?"
    	issue-clouding, relative to the overall issue 3% *IS* minor.
    
    	As long as you prefer the status quo, you are pro-abortion
    	contrary to what you attempt to claim.

| <<< Note 108.385 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| You didn't answer why you are supporting pro-choice arguments. You simply 
| stated that that they have "merit" without saying why.

	One, I said why these things bothered me when I origionally wrote the 
statements (.356), two, .361 asks you if you thought there would be a problem
with adoptions if all abortions when away. I stated why I thought it would be a
problem back in .356, and was asking (and still am) if you thought it would be
a problem. You already knew the reasons why I thought it would be a problem
from reading .356, which mentioned nothing about what pro-choice people
thought, but only mentioned what I thought would happen. By asking you the
question, had you replied, it would have shown us that you either believe that
the adoption agencies will have a heavier burden, which would also bring into
light that this concern is far greater than a pro-choice one, that it is
something we all should be looking at to try and help with, OR, you would have
to say it will not burden them anymore than they are now, and then that would
back your assertion of it being a pro-choice thing. So which is it Joe?

| You have clearly and repeatedly demonstrated a preferrence for clouding the 
| overall issue with minor points, 

	I don't view them as minor. I guess that is where we differ. But I
guess if you will answer the question of if the adoption agencies would be
burdened if all abortions are stopped, then it would really show us if you feel
all of these things are minor....

| and have stated that you would rather see the status quo held until those 
| points are first addressed.

	Yes, that is the case. I mean, to have someone say that back-alley
abortions don't happen in this country, well, that's kind of being blind to
reality, don't you think?

| And before you go back into your "3% is not insignificant?" issue-clouding, 
| relative to the overall issue 3% *IS* minor.

	Joe, 3% is based on mothers life in danger and rape, correct? You say
it is minor, yet isn't the phrase, "If one life is saved, it's worth it" used
by many of the pro-life people at rallies or in general? Is it something you
believe? If so, why is it that one life matters for the baby, but 3% is minor?


Glen

Issue-clouding is part of the agenda: to present supposed "shades of gray"
to obscure the black and white.  Use the minority (3%) to skew the majority.
Special-interest groups use this tactic all the time.

Pro-aborts claim that most people support abortion.  What they don't tell
you is that most of the people who support abortion do so with strict
qualifiers (such as life of the mother, etc) but decidedly are against
the wholesale slaughter of children because of stupid things like economic
disadvantage.  What they don't tell you is that if these qualified "supporters"
are taken out of the picture of pro-abortion, that those who support abortion
on demand number about 5%, perhaps just as those who say that abortion under
ANY and ALL circumstances is wrong number under 5%.  The bell curve doesn't
support the claims of the extremists.

It is in this note string where if all abortions EXCEPT FOR life of the mother,
incest, and rape, were liminated, we would eliminate 95% of the abortions in
the country.  I think we could look at the life of the mother, and rape or
incest cases on a case-by-case basis if we simply started with where MOST
people really want to be on the abortion issue.  But that won't happen because
its not part of what the liberals are fighting for.

it still comes down to ONE issue: is the fetus human life?

| <<< Note 108.387 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

| Issue-clouding is part of the agenda: to present supposed "shades of gray"
| to obscure the black and white.  Use the minority (3%) to skew the majority.
| Special-interest groups use this tactic all the time.

	Actually Mark, in THIS case it's dealing with the 3% before the number
jumps up. It's dealing with adoption agencies now, before the number of babies
that won't be adopted jumps higher, and it's dealing with an issue of back
alley abortions that one person in here says doesn't happen in this country,
when indeed it does. Regardless of what either side thinks the numbers are,
can't we sit down and look at these issues and try and come up with possible
solutions or ways of making it easier on everyone? Take adoption for instance.
To adopt a baby other than your race in this country is very difficult. Why? By
looking at the reason(s), maybe we can find a solution so that before it gets
any worse than it is now, and before more babies are thrown into the picture,
we can deal with it, have a plan in place.

| Pro-aborts claim that most people support abortion. What they don't tell you 
| is that most of the people who support abortion do so with strict qualifiers 
| (such as life of the mother, etc) but decidedly are against the wholesale 
| slaughter of children because of stupid things like economic disadvantage.  

	Mark, I'm curious, where do abortion for children having children fall
into place? Did they mention that at all? BTW, maybe we travel in different
circles, but I very rarely have heard any reports where they say most people
support abortions without a lot of the qualifiers being mentioned alongside it. 

| What they don't tell you is that if these qualified "supporters" are taken 
| out of the picture of pro-abortion, that those who support abortion on demand 
| number about 5%, perhaps just as those who say that abortion under ANY and ALL
| circumstances is wrong number under 5%.  The bell curve doesn't support the 
| claims of the extremists.

	Mark, just curious, are the figures you are quoting taken from the same
study that was given to the public, or was this done by another group?

| It is in this note string where if all abortions EXCEPT FOR life of the mother,
| incest, and rape, were liminated, we would eliminate 95% of the abortions in
| the country.  I think we could look at the life of the mother, and rape or
| incest cases on a case-by-case basis if we simply started with where MOST
| people really want to be on the abortion issue.  But that won't happen because
| its not part of what the liberals are fighting for.

	Mark, again, you left out children having children. How do the people
feel about that. I had always thought that was another area where people were
on the high side for wanting an abortion.



Glen

[ This kind of ignorance is exactly what I am talking about.
[ It DOES happen in OUR country NOW. For you to believe otherwise
[ shows that you are BLIND to it all. Go into the inner cities,
[ look around, you will find them there. My friend Debbie must have
[ imagined that she had an abortion as she went to one of these places.
[ Either that or she forgot that she left the country....
[ open your eyes to the FACTS.

	That was exactly my point, that some abortion mills may have moved
"uptown", some stayed "downtown", some got trendy new names, but all still
retain the essential character of a death chamber, including medically
ethics-free, negligent, and incompetent staff, and unknown sanitation
(or lack thereof).

	Whoa, didn't the abortion proponents say that we needed to make
abortion *legal* to prevent "back alley" abortions?  Isn't abortion now
*legal* in this country?  Doesn't that mean that, by definition, we no
longer *have* any "back alley" abortions in this country?  Either that,
or *legal* abortion has utterly *failed* to make abortion *safe*!

	Go ahead, call it ignorance, call me BLIND, but you might get
FURTHER with your arguments if you would kindly FURNISH us with some
of these hazy FACTS of yours.

	Did your friend Debbie *choose* a "back alley" abortion?
Or did she feel that she was tricked or coerced into it?

[ And tell me, if you will, why is it that you feel people who were hurt
[ during an abortion do not have the same opportunity? In the case of a
[ doctor, whether (s)he be an abortionist or have a private practice or
[ work in a hospital, will have a good lawyer(s). So tell me what makes
[ abortionists so hard to go after...

	I'd be glad to.  Abortionists and abortion advocates have organized
into a tremendous power bloc, exerting undue influence on many high-level
judges, politicians, police chiefs, etc., as well as the rest of us.  There
is much more money in abortion than in legitimate medical practice.  I won't
accuse you of being blind to this; maybe you just forgot or were not aware.

[ Oh.... but it's easy to take on a lawyer of a regular doctor.... you
[ are not making ANY sense at all. It may take courage and money, but it
[ applies to any doctor someone may take on, not just abortionists. You
[ have offered nothing to prove otherwise.

	Wait a minute.  It's up to *you* (or whoever else) to try to prove
to *me*, that what I have seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears,
isn't *really* true.  Don't expect me to hold myself to a standard impossibly
higher than that to which you (from my perspective) adhere.

	I make assertions here.  You challenge me to back up my assertions,
which is well and good.  I can back up some of them more cogently (from your
perspective) than others.  That's fine, as long as it's mutual.

[ Uh huh......

	Prove *me* wrong.  Here's your opportunity.

[ Abortion is a non-crime now.....

	Abortion is "legal" now.  Morally, it is still a crime.
Again, this is exactly my point.  Making it "legal" has certainly
removed it from enforcement and prosecution, which has also severely
increased its occurrence and its destructive effects on our society.

[ I agree 100% with what you said above.
[ But I believe it goes further than that.

	I'm genuinely glad to hear that we have this point of agreement.
Yes, kids who lack (loving, capable, responsible) parents and role models
*face challenges*, which all of us should try to help them overcome.
But kids born into difficult conditions must *not* be viewed as *problems
in themselves*, that can be "fixed" by killing them in the womb.

	In other words, let's spare the lives of unborn children at a minimum,
while concurrently helping individually with the upbringing of born children.
Let's not wait for a perfect world before we let them live.

[ I believe that this statement alone would cause a lot of problems.
[ It's genuine Christian that matches you, correct? No need to answer,
[ but that statement alone could cause many many problems.
[ I mean, it does now.....

	Others have already ably responded to this.  The statement seems
to present some problems for you.  No doubt it presents some problems for
a wide majority of people in the world.  This is why I don't think we can
humanly expect to completely solve the problems of immorality and crime,
simply by evangelizing alone.  The Law of God is the great teacher.  It
is the foundational "bad news", upon which the structural "good news" of
Christ is necessarily built.  God's objective standards of right and wrong
must be reflected in the laws and practices of our society, in order for
many of us to recognize our need for Jesus to save us from our sins.  If
our society teaches us that objective, universal right and wrong do not
exist, that can make the blood atonement of Christ seem irrelevant to us.

	Hi, Mark.  You're not saying much this go-round, are you?

    	.386
    
>	I don't view them as minor. I guess that is where we differ. 
    
    	I guess so.  But no matter how many other people point out
    	to you where you're wrong, you'll never see it, so why should
    	I waste my time?
    
    	As for all the rest of what you wrote, I could only skim it
    	because it's just too long and rambling, and it seemed to be 
    	all the same stuff over and over again anyway.  I can't be 
    	bothered wading through it all again to find something
    	possibly new and valuable.  Sorry.

>	Hi, Mark.  You're not saying much this go-round, are you?

See note 16.312

| <<< Note 108.389 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| [ This kind of ignorance is exactly what I am talking about.
| [ It DOES happen in OUR country NOW. For you to believe otherwise
| [ shows that you are BLIND to it all. Go into the inner cities,
| [ look around, you will find them there. My friend Debbie must have
| [ imagined that she had an abortion as she went to one of these places.
| [ Either that or she forgot that she left the country....
| [ open your eyes to the FACTS.

| That was exactly my point, that some abortion mills may have moved "uptown", 
| some stayed "downtown", some got trendy new names, but all still retain the 
| essential character of a death chamber, including medically ethics-free, 
| negligent, and incompetent staff, and unknown sanitation (or lack thereof).

	Wow.... you just don't get it. Where my friend got her abortion, is at
a place where they are not to be performed. To do so is illegal. It is NOT the
same as an abortion in a clinic. Open your eyes a little and you would really
see this.

| Whoa, didn't the abortion proponents say that we needed to make abortion 
| *legal* to prevent "back alley" abortions?  

	Will laws in this country prevent crime? They will cut down
dramatically the amount of times it will happen, but laws are broken 
everyday, why you would think that this is any different is beyond me.

| Isn't abortion now *legal* in this country?  Doesn't that mean that, by 
| definition, we no longer *have* any "back alley" abortions in this country?  

	To begin with, I have NEVER heard the pro-choice side ever say it would
eliminate/prevent back-alley abortions. What I have heard them say is if
abortions are NOT legal, back-alley abortions will be worse than they are now.
As in they have NEVER said that back-alley abortions don't happen now. They
HAVE said that it is a problem now that will escalate if abortions are made
illegal. 

| Either that, or *legal* abortion has utterly *failed* to make abortion *safe*!

	Safe for those who go to the clinic. 

| Go ahead, call it ignorance, call me BLIND, but you might get FURTHER with 
| your arguments if you would kindly FURNISH us with some of these hazy FACTS 
| of yours.

	Wow, I talk about my friend Debbie, I have talked about what I have
heard over and over again by pro-choice people, but their useless facts?

| Did your friend Debbie *choose* a "back alley" abortion?

	Yes.

| Or did she feel that she was tricked or coerced into it?

	No, she made the decision on her own. 

| [ And tell me, if you will, why is it that you feel people who were hurt
| [ during an abortion do not have the same opportunity? In the case of a
| [ doctor, whether (s)he be an abortionist or have a private practice or
| [ work in a hospital, will have a good lawyer(s). So tell me what makes
| [ abortionists so hard to go after...

| I'd be glad to.  Abortionists and abortion advocates have organized into a 
| tremendous power bloc, exerting undue influence on many high-level judges, 
| politicians, police chiefs, etc., as well as the rest of us.  

	Let me ask you something. These people you talk about, is it a
possibility that they believe abortion should be legal? Why is it if a judge
rules in favor of an abortionist, that they would have to of had undue
influence done to them? Couldn't they just believe that abortion should be
legal? Same with politicians, and everyone else? Is this concept something you
just can't fathom? Also, does it mean that everytime someone goes against what
you believe when it comes to abortion, that they have had some undue influence
put to them? You seem to only be looking at this from one point of view, yours,
and not acknowledging that there is more to this than what you have been
writing.

| There is much more money in abortion than in legitimate medical practice.  

	I'd love to see how you came to this conclusion.

| I won't accuse you of being blind to this; maybe you just forgot or were not 
| aware.

	Not being aware of things is something we are all guilty of from time
to time. 

| [ Oh.... but it's easy to take on a lawyer of a regular doctor.... you
| [ are not making ANY sense at all. It may take courage and money, but it
| [ applies to any doctor someone may take on, not just abortionists. You
| [ have offered nothing to prove otherwise.

| Wait a minute.  It's up to *you* (or whoever else) to try to prove to *me*, 
| that what I have seen with my own eyes, and heard with my own ears, isn't 
| *really* true.  

	I sincerly don't think that is possible. You are looking at it from
only one view. It has been proven to you that your perceptions don't always =
facts. That was proven when you admitted that possibly the people driving by
while you're picketing may not really see you, when you origionally stated that
they purposely don't see you or the abortion clinic when they drive by. BUT, I
do believe that people will read all of this and make their own conclusions. I
know I have gotten mail from people about the perceptions part of it. From the
mail I have received it has all pretty much had the same conclusion. There is
more to the picture than what meets YOUR eyes.

| [ Abortion is a non-crime now.....

| Abortion is "legal" now.  Morally, it is still a crime.

	While I agree with what you just wrote, I seriously doubt most will,
and I know that you apply it to ALL abortions (which must make you part of the
5% extremist that Mark talked of) while I have reservations about certain
abortions.

| Yes, kids who lack (loving, capable, responsible) parents and role models
| *face challenges*, which all of us should try to help them overcome. But kids 
| born into difficult conditions must *not* be viewed as *problems in themselves
| that can be "fixed" by killing them in the womb.

	Agreed. Now the next step is, how do we accomplish this?



Glen

| <<< Note 108.392 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| As for all the rest of what you wrote, I could only skim it because it's just 
| too long and rambling, and it seemed to be all the same stuff over and over 
| again anyway.  I can't be bothered wading through it all again to find 
| something possibly new and valuable.  Sorry.


	Oh Joe... a true classic. This has to be your best avaisive
type-o-move. No sense in showing the real Joe Oppelt. 

    	re .395
    
    	Well sorry to disappoint you.  But you didn't disdappoint me.
    	Nope, instead you posted another classic 100+ line reply that
    	might have some value in it, but much of which is destined to
    	be lost because of form.
    
    	Still, I saw a few things near the top worth commenting on:
    
    
    	.394
    
>	Wow.... you just don't get it. Where my friend got her abortion, is at
>a place where they are not to be performed. To do so is illegal. It is NOT the
>same as an abortion in a clinic. Open your eyes a little and you would really
>see this.
    
    	So even when they are legal and avaliable, people choose back-alley
    	abortuaries.  Why?  Yet you say that we should keep things as they
    	are because if we ban most abortions then women will go to back-alley
    	abortionists.  THEY DO IT ANYWAY!  So you are asking for the
    	impossible.
    
>	Will laws in this country prevent crime? They will cut down
>dramatically the amount of times it will happen, 
    
    	Thus the call to make abortions illegal.  It will curtail
    	abortions.  You have made a perfect argument for making
    	abortions illegal.

| <<< Note 108.396 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| So even when they are legal and avaliable, people choose back-alley 
| abortuaries.  Why?  

	Partly because they do not want to deal with the people who picket,
partly because they are afraid of being noticed and ridiculed, which kind of
leads us back to the first one partly.

| Yet you say that we should keep things as they are because if we ban most 
| abortions then women will go to back-alley abortionists.  

	Joe, you are the one who says most. I am talking of all. But alas, I
forget, 3% of 1.5 million is minor to you.....(30,000) 

| THEY DO IT ANYWAY!  So you are asking for the impossible.

	No, I am not. Because you don't bother to read any notes you don't
really know what they say. You would have already realized that time and time
again I have stated that back-alley abortions would rise by great numbers. But,
seeing you use the skim method of reading, you probably missed that all the
times it was written. As what I stated to Mark, we need to look at these
issues, discuss them, and see what we can do to help prevent them from
exploding in our faces. Nothing more, nothing less.

| >	Will laws in this country prevent crime? They will cut down
| >dramatically the amount of times it will happen,

| Thus the call to make abortions illegal.  It will curtail abortions.  You have
| made a perfect argument for making abortions illegal.

	And you just helped show the point that all the other stuff means
NOTHING to you. Would you like to see everything blow up in your face? Or does
it make more sense to prepare for those things that will have problems BEFORE
they become one....

	Remember Joe, we both would like to see abortions illegal, the only
difference is I would like to prepare ahead of time in those areas where there
will be a problem.


Glen

>	Partly because they do not want to deal with the people who picket,
>partly because they are afraid of being noticed and ridiculed, which kind of
>leads us back to the first one partly.
    
    	Give me a break.

>	Joe, you are the one who says most. I am talking of all. But alas, I
>forget, 3% of 1.5 million is minor to you.....(30,000) 
    
    	COmpared to 1.5 million?  Can you do the math?

>	No, I am not. Because you don't bother to read any notes you don't
>really know what they say. 
    
    	Be more concise and more people might pay attention to you.
    
>You would have already realized that time and time
>again I have stated that back-alley abortions would rise by great numbers. 
    
    	I already realize that.  And time and time again you have been
    	asked to support that claim.  What are "great numbers".  Nothing
    	but hollow words so far.
    
>	And you just helped show the point that all the other stuff means
>NOTHING to you. 
    
    	No I didn't.
    
>	Remember Joe, we both would like to see abortions illegal,
    
    	Sometimes I wonder if this is true.

    Joe and Glen,
    
    Could we possibly be once again at an impasse?
    
    If so, let's just agree to it and move on.  
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 108.398 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| >	Joe, you are the one who says most. I am talking of all. But alas, I
| >forget, 3% of 1.5 million is minor to you.....(30,000)

| COmpared to 1.5 million?  Can you do the math?

	Actually, I did screw up. It should not be 30,000, it should be 45k.
Sorry bout that. Now, if you mean that 45k is small compared to 1.5 million,
you are correct. But if you think it is minor, guess again. If one life can be
spared then it is worth it, which is said by many if not most pro-life people, 
then how can 45k be minor?

| >	No, I am not. Because you don't bother to read any notes you don't
| >really know what they say.

| Be more concise and more people might pay attention to you.

	You're the only one who doesn't take the time to read the notes, BUT
RESPONDS ANYWAYS.

| >You would have already realized that time and time
| >again I have stated that back-alley abortions would rise by great numbers.

| I already realize that.  And time and time again you have been asked to 
| support that claim.  What are "great numbers".  Nothing but hollow words so 
| far.

	And thinking it doesn't happen in this country shows that one is blind
to it. Do you really think that if abortions are made illegal that there will
not be a flood of people who will have them anyway? Be real.

| >	Remember Joe, we both would like to see abortions illegal,

| Sometimes I wonder if this is true.

	Why? Did you change your position on it?



Glen

    Argh!
    
    45K is minor WHEN COMPARED TO 1,500,000.
    
    If you earned $1.5M/year and were told you HAD to choose to give up one
    of two portions of your income; either $45K or $1,455,000, which would
    you fight hardest to save?
    
    No one is saying 45K is itself insignificant.  What's significant is
    the possibility of saving 1,455,000 babies from dying.
    
    And the argument that having a law wouldn't prevent abortion is a
    red, foul-smelling herring!  Taken to its logical conclusion, its an
    argument for anarchy since having a law against ANYTHING doesn't
    prevent that activity from happening.
    
    "No need for a law against murder - having such a law won't prevent
    murder from happening."
    
    Now pardon me for being frustrated, but I hate baseless arguments,
    especially when they've been addressed ad nauseum (and the first person
    who says "can you show me where?" is gonna get a noogie! ;-).
    
    Steve
    

>if you think it is minor, guess again. If one life can be
>spared then it is worth it, which is said by many if not most pro-life people, 
>then how can 45k be minor?
    
    	"If one life can be spared."   Your logic says take all 1.5
    	million lives because 45,000 cannot be spared.

>	And thinking it doesn't happen in this country shows that one is blind
>to it. Do you really think that if abortions are made illegal that there will
>not be a flood of people who will have them anyway? Be real.
    
    	Who said that it doesn't happen?  Who said that it won't happen?
    
    	But you know so much about what will actually happen, so please
    	tell us how large the "great number" of back alley abortions
    	will be.
    
    	This is the second time you've been asked today.

See note 152.107, 16.312, and 363.91 and others.

>    Now pardon me for being frustrated, but I hate baseless arguments,
>    especially when they've been addressed ad nauseum (and the first person
>    who says "can you show me where?" is gonna get a noogie! ;-).

You said it, brudder - and I only skimmed things to see that the beat goes
on and on and on and on with the same drone, drone, drone, year after year
and day after day.

    Well, truth be told, Mark - there are 2 kinds of drones...I *could*
    just shut my mouth and stop responding to arguments I find profitless,
    but do I?
    
    I 'spect I'm as guitly of droning as the next guy (that's a most
    generic "next guy", lest any guy feel himself to be picked upon ;-).
    
    So wot say we all quit drowning in the drool of our dreary droning and
    move on to udder things?
    
    
    Steve

>    I 'spect I'm as guitly of droning as the next guy (that's a most
>    generic "next guy", lest any guy feel himself to be picked upon ;-).

Yep.  Been there.  Done that.  Popsicle sticks!

The illogic is promulgated into other areas, too.  Frustrating, groundless,
but on it goes.

    	I guess I'm one of the drones...  :^)
    
    	My problem is that I can't leave the illogic unaddressed in the
    	latest iteration eventhough it has been addressed in all the
    	previous iterations.
    
    	This I need to work on.

    All I have to say this time is that, this time, nothing has been
    discussed since my last reply, that hasn't already been addressed.

| <<< Note 108.401 by POWDML::SMCCONNELL "Next year, in Jerusalem!" >>>



| 45K is minor WHEN COMPARED TO 1,500,000.

	Steve, are you one who believes the statement, "If one life is saved,
then it is worth it"? Would that ONE life be minor to you? How can 45k?

| If you earned $1.5M/year and were told you HAD to choose to give up one of two
| portions of your income; either $45K or $1,455,000, which would you fight 
| hardest to save?

	Steve, how can you compare money, which is superficial, to human life?
Apples and oranges.

| No one is saying 45K is itself insignificant.  

minor- 1. Lesser or smaller in amount, size or importance. 2. lesser in 
       seriousness, danger. 

	If just one life is important to save when it comes to abortion, then
to let the minor portion go as you would seem to have it, is sad.

| What's significant is the possibility of saving 1,455,000 babies from dying.

	And is there a reason that problems that will and are here now can't be
addressed BEFORE they blow up in everyone's face? Simple question, and I can't
figure for the life of me why it can't be answered.

| And the argument that having a law wouldn't prevent abortion is a red, 
| foul-smelling herring!  Taken to its logical conclusion, its an argument 
| for anarchy since having a law against ANYTHING doesn't prevent that 
| activity from happening.

	Well, actually, that is true, isn't it? Name me one law that is on the
books that does not get broken. If you can not, then it is not a red herring
and maybe the problem should be addressed? Nah... that would be too easy.

| "No need for a law against murder - having such a law won't prevent
| murder from happening."

	Ahhhh..... while murder does happen when there is a law in place, what
steps do they take to try and prevent it from happening? What steps are you
willing to take to see abortions not happen once a law went into place? This is
what I am after. But what I am getting instead is people thinking that it ain't
a problem, will never be a problem, and one individual who thinks it doesn't
even happen in this country! So while you are frustrated Steve, I too am.
Because it's the thinking like what I have seen in here that will prevent the
laws from ever changing (imho). There are definite problems out there, and they
will get far worse if the law were to ever change. 

| Now pardon me for being frustrated, but I hate baseless arguments, especially 
| when they've been addressed ad nauseum 

	Actually Steve, they have not been addressed, but pushed aside as
non-problems. Maybe IF they actually WERE addressed we would get somewhere.

| (and the first person who says "can you show me where?" is gonna get a noogie

	Can you show me where? :-)


Glen

| <<< Note 108.402 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| "If one life can be spared."   Your logic says take all 1.5 million lives 
| because 45,000 cannot be spared.

	Actually Joe, it's the 45k that I am ALSO worried about. To me they are
not minor. 

| >	And thinking it doesn't happen in this country shows that one is blind
| >to it. Do you really think that if abortions are made illegal that there will
| >not be a flood of people who will have them anyway? Be real.

| Who said that it doesn't happen?  Who said that it won't happen?

	CUJO::SAMPSON said it does not happen. No one said it will not happen,
but that it would not be a problem.

| But you know so much about what will actually happen, so please tell us how 
| large the "great number" of back alley abortions will be.

	Most pro-choice people I have talked with have said that the ones this
will effect the most are women who are dead set against having anyone tell them
what to do with their bodies, women who use abortions as birth control, and
children who do not want their parents to find out they are pregnant. That's
pretty much most of the females in the pro-choice group. 

| This is the second time you've been asked today.

	When was the 1st?


Glen

| <<< Note 108.405 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| The illogic is promulgated into other areas, too.  Frustrating, groundless,
| but on it goes.

	Then maybe you should stop entering notes?

| <<< Note 108.406 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| My problem is that I can't leave the illogic unaddressed in the latest 
| iteration eventhough it has been addressed in all the previous iterations.

	Joe, if this is true, how come you don't respond to your own notes? Oh,
I know, it'd be an infinite loop..... 

>| The illogic is promulgated into other areas, too.  Frustrating, groundless,
>| but on it goes.
>
>	Then maybe you should stop entering notes?

Maybe you should stop noting, altogether, Glen.  Besides being illogical and
irrational in your arguments, you are also an antagonist in this conference
and have been invited on more than several occasions to leave.  Further, I
once again point out Daryl Gleason's note to you (152.107) and urge you to
heed it, if it isn't already too late for you.

Mark

           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 152.107                    By What Premise?                      107 of 121
EVMS::GLEASON "Only Jesus Christ, and Him crucified."  13 lines  28-MAY-1993 15:21
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Glen,

    Please get your Bible and read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.  Then, read
    notes 30.11-12 in this conference.  Repeat until the Holy Spirit
    opens your eyes to the Truth therein.  Know that I am as eager as
    anyone alive to see you come to know Jesus as your Lord and Savior,
    but for now you are known by your fruit, and I for one grow tired of
    repeated demonstrations of your willful ignorance.  Please, give us a
    break.

    In Christ,

				*** Daryl ***

    re: .408
    
    one noogie for you, Silva  :-)
    
    
    Look, gang - this is getting us nowhere.  Glen, you may not understand
    it (and don't ask me to explain what's already been explained -  really) 
    but your arguments, in as gentle words as I can find, are irrational,
    illogical, circular, and tired.  Sorry, friend.  That's the way it is. 
    I think this is because you're building your arguments upon an unsound
    foundation.  I know you don't like to hear that, and I'm sorry about
    that, but until your foundation is solid, all you build is shaky.
    
    That said - I don't think the rest of us (myself chiefly) need to be so
    harsh on Glen.  Fine - Glen's arguments are foolish; but if we're so 
    "wise"; why are we engaging at all?  If we *must* engage (again - myself
    chiefly) let's do so with a lot more grace and compassion - which no
    doubt, in our flesh has been worn out :-), but He is the Inifnite
    Supply of such things as that is His character.   Again - I suggest we
    all disengage from foolish debate (sounds familiar ;-) and speak only
    when we must; and only His words.
    
    Also, remember that while He is the Good Shepherd who would leave the
    99 in the pen to search for the 1 who is missing; there were also times
    when He would explain the requirements and move on (consider the rich
    young ruler, or the one who wanted to wait until his father passed on).
    
    Something to prayerfully ponder.
    
    Steve

    Re: Note 108.413 by POWDML::SMCCONNELL
    
�    Again - I suggest we
�    all disengage from foolish debate (sounds familiar ;-) and speak only
�    when we must; and only His words.
    
    Amen (again).
    
    	BD�

    De ja vu'...(or however it is spelt  8^) )

    This note has been writelocked until further notice.
    
    From the Moderators of CHRISTIAN
    
    Nancy Morales
    Jim Henderson
    Andrew Yuille
    Bing Hunt

    This note is now open.  Noters are reminded to keep discussion on
    topic.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

| <<< Note 108.412 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| Maybe you should stop noting, altogether, Glen.  Besides being illogical and
| irrational in your arguments, you are also an antagonist in this conference
| and have been invited on more than several occasions to leave.  

	Mark, it is an invitation that I have not accepted, as while you may
believe that I'm being illogical and irrational in my arguments, which you are
entitiled to believe, I do not view tham as anything but my beliefs. I guess if
I were to believe as you, then I could say the same about your beliefs. We both
agree that abortion is wrong. Although I'm not sure what your views are on a
mothers life in danger, or rape. But from what is happening just in this topic,
it is clear that most feel the only problem worth addressing is getting the
abortions stopped, and not at what would happen if they did. That in itself is
truly sad.

	And as far as being an antagonist goes, you couldn't be further from
the truth. But then, you are entitled to your beliefs.



Glen

>	And as far as being an antagonist goes, you couldn't be further from
>the truth. But then, you are entitled to your beliefs.

Isaiah 5:20 says otherwise.  You don't know your definitions well enough
to know, apparently.

You two trying to get this note locked again?

Paul

These are the words from something by David Crossman.  It's on a tape of his,
"Whose fool are you."  It's not actually sung, it's almost whispered, and is
very effective.  It's called "What about the Child?"  Posted without
permission, but I'm sure he wouldn't mind.

"They're not human"
That's what the conquistadors said
To justify the slaughter of the Indians
And somewhere inside
That small voice that cried 
"This is wrong! This is wrong!"
Would subside
For the shouting was loud and long
So they twisted the law
'til the law agreed
And we are the fruit of the seed


"They're not human"
That's what one race would say
To justify their enslavement of another
And somewhere inside
That small voice that cried 
"This is wrong! This is wrong!"
Would subside
For the shouting was loud and long
So they twisted the law
'til the law agreed
And we are the fruit of the seed

"They're not equal"
That's what they said
To justify the second-class status of women
And somewhere inside
That small voice that cried 
"This is wrong! This is wrong!"
Would subside
For the shouting was loud and long
So they twisted the law
'til the law agreed
And we are the fruit of the seed

"They're not human"
That's what the Nazis said
The justify the extermination of Jews and gypsies, Poles and Czechs
And somewhere inside
That small voice that cried 
"This is wrong! This is wrong!"
Would subside
For the shouting was loud and long
So they twisted the law
'til the law agreed
And we are the fruit of the seed

"They're not human"
That's what they say
To justify the sacrifice of the unborn
On the shadowy altar of 'rights'
And somewhere deep, deep inside
That small sad voice that cries 
"This is wrong! This is wrong!"
Is subsiding
For the shouting is loud and long
So we twist the law
'til the law agrees
And we are the fruit of the seed

And history is a merciless judge

The point is this:  No segment of society
However large, however vocal
Must be allowed to determine the worth of another
However small, however defenseless
For in so doing, we open a grave for us all

And lest we forget -- yet again,
The answer to the question
"Am I my brother's keeper?"
Is "Yes"

| <<< Note 108.419 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

| >	And as far as being an antagonist goes, you couldn't be further from
| >the truth. But then, you are entitled to your beliefs.

| Isaiah 5:20 says otherwise.  You don't know your definitions well enough
| to know, apparently.


	I think it comes down to you don't know me like you think you do. Time
to stop playing Jesus to the lepers in your head.


Glen

> Title:  ENOUGH!!

Nah.  Maybe the mods can get us banned for life from the conference.
That would be enough.

Glen,  you're wrong.  But it doesn't matter.  You don't see it, and if
you did, you wouldn't acknowledge it.

 \|/ .-----. \|/
  Y-/  o o  \-Y
 /=( \_____/ )=\
    \ \_ -/ /
     \__) \/
        \__)

P.S.  You're tiresome, too.  (152.107)

    You know, we live in a worldly society, where the predominant order of
    thought does not address right vs. wrong, but rather tends to focus on
    the "what ifs."  If we do away with abortion, what about - the
    back-alley abortions, the children having children, etc. We musn't act
    until we have all the answers. But perhaps that's the wrong order of
    thought. That abortion is wrong has been stated - and what comes to my
    mind is "leave the consequences of obedience to God." If we know a
    thing to be wrong, then we know our duty with regard to that thing. If
    it is agreed that abortion is wrong in God's eyes, and abortion is
    stopped, as an action of obedience to God, then the consequences for
    the cessation of abortion rest with God. I believe Him to be equal to
    the task of providing the answers for the concerns that surround
    eliminating abortion. He's ever more compassionate, infinitely
    wiser then we, and how He loves the children. Perhaps the reason we fail 
    as a society in solving this particular problem, as well as myriad others, 
    lies in this wrong order of dealing with problems.
    
    It seems to me there has, in the history of mankind, been only one time
    where this obedience was fully enacted, and that resulted in salvation
    for the world. Perhaps we should try obedience first, and place our
    trust in Him - *especially* for the big problems.
    
    Rebecca 
    

    	Perhaps Mark should read Proverbs 23:9 before continuing with this.

    .425
    
    Rebecca,
    
    Amen!  I have said the very same thing, but perhaps not as clear.  I,
    too, believe we spend too much time doing what is God's role.  
    
    He will judge this country and the peoples who occupy it.
    

| <<< Note 108.424 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| Glen,  you're wrong.  But it doesn't matter.  You don't see it, and if
| you did, you wouldn't acknowledge it.


	Mark, again you are WRONG. I have on MANY occasions admitted when I was
wrong.  To say any different is a false statement on your part.

| P.S.  You're tiresome, too.  (152.107)


	Uh huh...


Glen

| <<< Note 108.425 by ODIXIE::SINATRA >>>

| If it is agreed that abortion is wrong in God's eyes, and abortion is
| stopped, as an action of obedience to God, then the consequences for
| the cessation of abortion rest with God. I believe Him to be equal to
| the task of providing the answers for the concerns that surround
| eliminating abortion. 

	I could almost believe the above could happen, but how can God get
through to us about the problems associated with stopping abortions when most
don't even think there are any, there will never be total agreement on stopping
all abortions or allowing special cases, etc. 




Glen

    RE: .429 (I think)
    
    That goes back to wanting the answers to the questions first. He is
    God, Almighty and unchanging, and although you and I may be unable to
    see the how, He can surely take care of it. Again, our duty is
    obedience. The power that created the Universe and conquered death
    through the cross is capable of dealing with the hearts of men and the
    problem of abortion.
    
    Suppose God told you He'll take care of you and then brought you to the 
    edge of a cliff and told you to jump. It's dark and you can't see the
    bottom or anything that might save you. Your first inclination will be
    to want to know how He'll take care of you. He simply tells you to
    jump. You're responsibility is clear - the thing He has given you to do
    is jump. It may be that a tree branch will catch you, or perhaps you'll
    land on a ledge. Perhaps it's not that far down. Perhaps a miraculous
    windstream will carry you safely to the bottom. Or perhaps an angel or
    God's own hand. You will not know how He will respond until out of
    obedience you jump. You only know that He will respond, because He has
    said so.
    
    It took the obedience of one to provide salvation for the world.
    
    Rebecca    
    

>through to us about the problems associated with stopping abortions when most
>don't even think there are any, 
    
    	*MOST*???
    
>there will never be total agreement on stopping
>all abortions or allowing special cases, etc. 
    
    	As long as you want it to be this way, it will remain that way
    	for you.

Good note Rebecca!

Leslie

| <<< Note 108.430 by ODIXIE::SINATRA >>>


| That goes back to wanting the answers to the questions first. He is God, 
| Almighty and unchanging, and although you and I may be unable to see the how, 
| He can surely take care of it. Again, our duty is obedience. The power that 
| created the Universe and conquered death through the cross is capable of 
| dealing with the hearts of men and the problem of abortion.

	If this is something you really believe, then do you agree that people
should not be picketing abortion clinics, counciling mothers, etc? You would
have to believe that God will deal with the hearts of men and the problem of
abortion, right? 

	While your above analogy is something that could happen, if He came
back to rule the earth right this second, it is not something that will happen
until then. Think about it. God has given us free will. That free will is what
keeps us from always making the right decision, doing the right thing. It is
the reason we need to also get out and do something about it, to ask Him to
help us in this task.

| Suppose God told you He'll take care of you and then brought you to the
| edge of a cliff and told you to jump. It's dark and you can't see the
| bottom or anything that might save you. Your first inclination will be
| to want to know how He'll take care of you. He simply tells you to
| jump. You're responsibility is clear - the thing He has given you to do
| is jump. It may be that a tree branch will catch you, or perhaps you'll
| land on a ledge. Perhaps it's not that far down. Perhaps a miraculous
| windstream will carry you safely to the bottom. Or perhaps an angel or
| God's own hand. You will not know how He will respond until out of
| obedience you jump. You only know that He will respond, because He has
| said so.

	You don't have medical insurance, right? I mean, there would be no need
for it as you can't possibly visit a doctor or anything with your beliefs.
Don't take asprin either, right?


Glen

    .434
    
    Glen, why do you twist around Rebecca's note to imply something
    opposite of what was written.
    
    To not be hot doesn't mean one is cold.

    What are the responsibilities of the Christian with regards to
    abortion? How does reliance on God come into it? What can we do? What
    should we do?  My belief in God is not mystical, but practical. He has
    charged us with practical applications - to love Him first and
    foremost, and to love our neighbor as ourselves. He asks us to encourage
    one another and to build one another up, to clothe the naked, to feed the 
    hungry, to visit those confined, to care for the children.... And He has
    entrusted to us the greatest responsibility of all, that of sharing the
    good news of Christ. We are his agents and his instruments. How does
    that play into the issue of abortion?  Does trusting God mean sitting
    back and doing nothing?  I don't think so.  This is an *enormous*
    problem, complicated vastly by the fact that we are dealing in large
    part with an ungodly society, who most of what we're talking about
    means nothing to. But does that mean that God can not be effective in
    dealing with the situation? If we assert that He can, does that alleviate
    of us of our responsibility to be involved?  Does it show a lack of
    faith if we're involved - won't He just come down and *poof* solve the 
    problem? We are his agents and through us changes can be affected. It
    will not be accomplished willy nilly, or without great difficulty, but
    it will never be accomplished at all by sitting on the fence tut-
    tutting at the vastness of the problem and taking a bassackwards
    approach to solving it. Obedience to God regarding this issue
    certainly involves prayer and much of it, and the searching of one's
    heart to decide firmly where one stands and exactly how best they can
    be involved. I personally have mixed feelings about the picketing of
    abortion clinics, and definite negative feelings about the use of
    violence. The counseling of mothers, the education of our
    youth, legislative activity, constant work to search to provide
    better alternatives for these children now to be born, and on and on - I 
    advocate. And believe God can and does desire to provide guidance for
    us with regards to all of these things. And I will say this, whether an 
    individual believes in Him or not, God is in charge, this is His world and 
    we are *all* utterly reliant upon Him for every breath we take.
    
    Rebecca    
    

| <<< Note 108.436 by ODIXIE::SINATRA >>>


| good news of Christ. We are his agents and his instruments. How does
| that play into the issue of abortion?  Does trusting God mean sitting
| back and doing nothing?  I don't think so.  This is an *enormous*
| problem, complicated vastly by the fact that we are dealing in large
| part with an ungodly society, who most of what we're talking about
| means nothing to. But does that mean that God can not be effective in
| dealing with the situation? If we assert that He can, does that alleviate
| of us of our responsibility to be involved?  Does it show a lack of
| faith if we're involved - won't He just come down and *poof* solve the
| problem? 

	Then I guess I'm confused. If we are to deal with the abortion problem,
why is it that we aren't dealing with the whole thing? I took your last note to
mean that with the outer stuff of abortion, like back-alley stuff, etc, we
should let God handle it, and now I see in this note it is different for the
main issue on abortion. Do I have this right? If not, please correct me, if so,
why the double standard?



Glen

| <<< Note 108.435 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Glen, why do you twist around Rebecca's note to imply something opposite of 
| what was written.


	Nancy, here is what I wrote:


	If this is something you really believe, then do you agree that people
should not be picketing abortion clinics, counciling mothers, etc? You would
have to believe that God will deal with the hearts of men and the problem of
abortion, right? 



	If I have a thought, doesn't asking a question clear things up? Is it
wrong to ask questions? How does asking questions=twisting? 

    There is no double standard - the same holds true for the back alley
    abortions, and every facet of the abortion issue. I suppose I'm confused, 
    perhaps if I had a better understanding of how you believe God deals
    with things I could better answer your concerns?
         
    Rebecca 

    It doesn't matter you wouldn't see it and I'd end up in a Silva Spiral
    of chatter.
    :-)
    
    God Bless Glen.

    	.434
    
>Think about it. God has given us free will. That free will is what
>keeps us from always making the right decision, doing the right thing. 
    
    	What a defeatist attitude!!!
    
    	Did you ever consider that free will also is what helps us make
    	the *right* decisions?

Glen, .437>	Then I guess I'm confused. 


!

    The Original notes 108.441 and 108.442 were moved note topic 71.
                        Dyer        McConnell
    
    Nancy 
    co-mod CHRISTIAN
    

Hi Rebecca,

As my available time doesn't match the usual active time in the conference 
(U.S. midday on), I don't manage to participate usefully in a lot of the 
discussions, and haven't been into this one much, but I felt that your 
reply cut through a lot of the opposite positions held, and extremes 
postulated, into the reality of the situation.

� This is an *enormous* problem, complicated vastly by the fact that we are
� dealing in large part with an ungodly society, who most of what we're
� talking about means nothing to. 

This is the core of it.  The problem springs from the hatred of the devil 
for mankind, made in God's image.  He wants to stamp them out, as far as 
possible, so just brings into society another form of the evil Babylonian 
and Canaanite child sacrifices.  Only this time the reasons put into 
people's minds are materialism and fear.

I believe that the fear comes from the following main sources.  
	(a) Health / survival of the mother
	(b) Health of the child
	(c) Social conformity
	(d) Discovery of sin

The materialism comes from the delusion of empty minds that swallow the 
lies of worldly advertising, and puts personal greed first - wanting to 
lick the icing off every cake they see, instead of taking commitments 
seriously...

� Does trusting God mean sitting back and doing nothing?  I don't think so. 

James 1:27 says : 
	"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: 
	 to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep 
	 oneself from being polluted by the world."

That says involvement.  Weeping with those who weep, and rejoicing with 
those who rejoice.  Caring to the point of standing beside them.

There are Christians (including some who participate here) who are involved
with providing help and care for mothers who have not the material
resources or domestic loving support to see them through this time
themselves. 

We also need to include in our consideration the root causes, of fear and 
materialism, and to address these, as well as the resultant problem of 
abortion that they give rise to.  As you said, Rebeccca, the problem in
offering a solution is that this Godless world has lost its direction. 
There is neither fear (awe) of God, nor genuine love, without Him.  The 
absence of these leaves hearts prey to random fear (terror).  1 John 4:18 
tells us that "...perfect love casts out fear...".  Where there is no room 
for His perfect love, fear has free access.

A couple of examples :

  God promised Cain that he would be protected, in spite of deserving death
  for murder.  As Cain hadn't got perfect love in his heart, he couldn't rest
  in the peace of God's promise, so had to build cities - walled enclosures -
  to make his own protection (Genesis 4:17). 

  After the flood, God gave the sign of the rainbow to promise that He would 
  not flood the entire earth again.  Mankind, still in rebellion, and 
  rejecting God's command to spread out and fill the earth, made the tower of 
  Babel as a memorial to man's glory - and sealed it as a waterproof refuge 
  lest God should (contrary to His word) send another flood.

Pitiful when people are trapped by their own fear and ignorance, instead of 
entering into the joy, peace and reality that God offers...

So ultimately, the answer to both the fear and the materialism lies in the 
fullness of salvation.  But equally, we seek to reach out to help where 
this cannot be accepted.

This means addressing the causes we perceive, and I listed 

	(a) Fear for Health / survival of the mother
	(b) Fear for Health of the child
	(c) Fear for Social conformity
	(d) Fear for Discovery of sin
	(e) Materialism

I believe that (a) is very rare - rare enough for each time to be a special
case, worthy of it's own consideration, and dependent on the strength of
faith of the mother, or parents, rather than rubber-stamped by standard
rules.

Abortions on the basis of (b) - that the child is likely to be handicapped
or unwell in some way - is an invalid value judgement. To judge the value
of a life by its physical capability is a cruel elitism. In some reported
cases, abortion has been recommended and followed, only to find that the
child who was sacrificed to this judgement was in fact perfectly healthy. 
This has resulted in severe trauma for the mother / parents.  This should
underline to us the abomination of presuming to take life as if it belonged
to us.  If it is tragic for the healthy child to die, it is equally tragic 
for the other life to be stolen.  

The extra responsibility given to the parents of the (possibly) handicapped
child is actually a character- and spirit- developing trust from God, but
this can hardly be perceived by unbelievers, whose solitary investment is 
in the temporal.  There are organisations (Christian as well as secular) 
targetted at helping in this sort of situation.

(c) - fear for social conformity - and (e) - materialism (other than cases
of genuine need), are really cases where a higher motivation is needed, and
the only valid entry here is the spiritual reality.  

(d) fear of discovery of sin - generally originates from abrogation of
responsibility by the father.  The sad thing here is that the result of the
sin is evident on one side only.  Organised suppression of the evidence
leads to indifference to the root sin by society.  Adultery and fornication
are still sins.  Child bearing is not.  That's a matter of basic education 
our world is incapable of separating, particularly with the blasphemous 
council at Cairo, and it's decision to come against God's command to 
populate the earth....

I could go on at [even more] length, but I've way overrun the guide-line 
limit.

							Andrew

| <<< Note 108.439 by ODIXIE::SINATRA >>>

| There is no double standard - the same holds true for the back alley
| abortions, and every facet of the abortion issue. I suppose I'm confused,
| perhaps if I had a better understanding of how you believe God deals
| with things I could better answer your concerns?

	Then are you saying we should address these problems before they happen
or wait until they do?


Glen

| <<< Note 108.440 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| It doesn't matter you wouldn't see it and I'd end up in a Silva Spiral
| of chatter.

	Uh huh..... in other words, you can't answer why one can't ask
questions, even though you thrrough in the twist yourself by not realizing I
was asking questions.... ok.... 

| <<< Note 108.441 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound" >>>

| >Think about it. God has given us free will. That free will is what
| >keeps us from always making the right decision, doing the right thing.

| What a defeatist attitude!!! Did you ever consider that free will also is what
| helps us make the *right* decisions?

	Joe, reread what I wrote above. It said ALWAYS making the right
decision. Free will CAN NOT accomplish this, ONLY God's Will can do it
EVERYTIME. I wish you would read, think and then reply sometimes...


Glen

| <<< Note 108.442 by PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>

| Glen, .437>	Then I guess I'm confused.


	Why this time Paul? :-)

	This has been a good (better?) discussion without my participation.
Thanks to most of you for your insights.  I'm going to be read-mostly (at
least in this topic) from now on, unless a real need arises for my input.

              "Negligent" Abortionist Suspended for One Year

by Liz Townsend; from National Right to Life News, September 7, 1994

	A Los Angeles abortionist charged with causing the deaths of two
women due to "gross negligence and incompetence" lost his medical license
for only one year but was barred from ever performing abortions on unborn
babies over 15 weeks old.

	The state attorney general's office had requested that Leo F.
Kenneally be permanently stripped of his license for the two deaths and for
multiple injuries caused on women between 1986 and 1993.  Deputy Attorney
General Calvin Torrence told NRL News that the state considered license
revocation an "appropriate penalty" for Kenneally's actions.

	However, administrative judge Milford A. Maron recommended in
August 1994 that Kenneally's license be suspended for one year with 10
years' probation.  Maron also proposed that Kenneally be banned from
performing second trimester abortions.  All of the deaths and injuries but
one occurred after the first trimester.

	The Medical Board of California adopted Maron's recommendations,
and allowed him to continue practicing in his abortion clinics in central
Los Angeles and Pacoima until the one-year suspension began on September 9.

	In 1990, the executive officer of the Medical Board filed an
accusation against Kenneally, charging him with causing the deaths of two
women.  The doctor was performing an abortion in 1986 on an asthmatic
22-year-old woman when she had a seizure.  Instead of "appropriately
managing her life-threatening emergency," the accusation alleged, he
continued the abortion.  The woman was pronounced dead at the hospital when
she was finally taken there.

	In 1987, Kenneally again allegedly caused a death.  An 18-year-old
went into cardiac arrest on his operating table during an abortion, but he
again did not call for an ambulance right away.  The woman died 58 days
later.

	After the original accusation was filed, several more women came
forward, charging that Kenneally injured them during abortions.  Kenneally
was formally accused of causing injury to five women between 1988 and 1993.

	Judge Maron, while acknowledging that Kenneally was "negligent" in
these cases, wrote that there were several "mitigating factors" that caused
him to recommend a lighter sentence, according to the Los Angeles Times. 
Since Kenneally's abortion clinics are located in lower-income areas and do
not charge a high rate for an abortion, Maron wrote, "The weight of the
evidence demonstrates that [Kenneally] is an unselfish and committed
provider."

	And, in a statement pro-lifers can recognize as a true indictment
of the abortion industry, Maron wrote that Kenneally is seen as a "skilled
and innovative provider" by his abortionist colleagues -- this after Maron
had found him responsible for the deaths of two women!

	"Little has changed since the eugenics-motivated Margaret Sanger
spawned Planned Parenthood.  Those who promote the abortion industry
consistently target minorities and the poor," said Brian Johnston, NRLC
Western director.  "You just can't help but wonder if the same tolerance
would apply if Kenneally's 'skill' and 'innovation' had caused the deaths
of young women from wealthier neighborhoods."

	Torrence said that Kenneally has announced he is planning to appeal
the suspension.

Date: Fri, 7 Oct 94 7:50:22 PDT

	BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) -- First there was an argument between an
anti-abortion demonstrator and a man picking up his wife from a
clinic. Then there was a scuffle and a shot was fired -- but not by
a protester.

	Ernest Robertson Jr. was charged with attempted murder Thursday
for allegedly firing one shot at a demonstrator who had yelled
``You're killing your baby'' at him and his wife.

	``I said I felt sorry for him. That set him off,'' said the
protester, Richard Mahoney, who was not hurt. ``He swung at me.
Then he went and got his gun and started shooting at me.''

	Robertson, 22, was jailed in lieu of $75,000 bond. He faces a
maximum 50 years in prison if convicted. No trial date was set.

	The incident came one day after Paul Hill, who is charged with
killing an abortion doctor and an escort outside a Pensacola, Fla.,
abortion clinic, was convicted in the first trial using a new law
guaranteeing access to clinics.

	The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act took effect in
May. It was prompted by the killing of abortion doctor David Gunn
as he arrived at a Pensacola clinic and increasingly volatile
demonstrations at clinics nationwide.

	There were no plans to charge Mahoney, said police spokesman Don
Kelly. He said any charges under the federal clinic access law
would be handled by federal authorities. The U.S. attorney was out
of his office late Thursday and could not be reached for comment, a
clerk said.

	The confrontation occurred outside of the Delta Women's Clinic.
State health officials recommended this week that the clinic's
license be revoked because of dirty conditions.

	Mahoney was demonstrating with three others when he approached
Robertson and his wife. Mahoney and Robertson exchanged words and
began pushing and shoving each other, Kelly said.

	``Mahoney was saying, `You're killing your baby.''' said clinic
owner L.T. Brinkley.

	Robertson got a 9 millimeter pistol from his car and fired one
shot at Mahoney before the gun jammed, Kelly said. Robertson and
his wife drove away, and Robertson surrendered an hour later.

	Clinic officials would not identify the woman with Robertson or
say whether she had an abortion.

	Bill Shanks, a spokesman for the state chapter of the
anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, knew Mahoney as a regular
protester at the clinic.

	``Richard is very emphatic when he talks to people,'' he said.
``He's not easily intimidated.''

	Robin Rothrock, an administrator at a Shreveport abortion
clinic, said the incident showed that safety and security issues
have become paramount at abortion clinics.

	``Having protesters be very antagonistic toward family members
can lead to this kind of problem,'' she said.

    Re: Note 108.451 by COVERT::COVERT
    
>             -< Abortion-seeker shoots at demonstrator (misses) >-

    And it would have been great if the guy had said at the last moment
    (and quoted as well) "Better me than your kid!".
    
    James

.451

I must have missed it over the weekend.  Was this anywhere on TV coverage?

RE:     <<< Note 108.453 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


>I must have missed it over the weekend.  Was this anywhere on TV coverage?



  I didn't see it either.  Had it been a prolife person shooting at a
 proabortion person it would have superseded the Iraq story.




Jim

    > proabortion person it would have superseded the Iraq story.
    
    you mean the Iraq story that's 4-weeks old.

I have a call in to the U.S. Attorney's office to see if the protesters
who disrupted the prayer service at Ruggles Baptist Church yesterday are
going to be charged under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances [and
Churches] Act.

/john

    Good for you, John. Please let us know what you find out. Thanks.
    
    	BD�

I'll bet the U.S. attorney won't call back.

I spoke to the pastor; he says the incident was not serious enough to
justify prosecution.

The protestors came in and started to unfurl a banner, but left when
three police officers escorted them out.

If his regular worship services start being disrupted because of having
held this prayer service or other prayer services, he said he might change
his mind.  I mailed him a copy of the FACE bill.

/john

 They also had a bunch of eggs with them...






Jim

| <<< Note 108.459 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| They also had a bunch of eggs with them...


	I bet they were planning on scrambling them.... :-)

    
	An Ethical Evaluation of Operation Rescue's Practices

    Hopefully, this is an appropriate topic for this entry.  I have an
    excellent, concise article written in the Orthodox Presbyterian
    Church's monthly publication, "New Horizons" by Mr. Charles Wingard
    pastor of First Presbyterian Church North Shore (OPC), Ipswich, Mass.
    on the civil disobedience as it is specifically practiced and promoted
    by the antiabortion organization Operation Rescue.  The article addresses 
    the question, of just how much, if any, breaking of law is permitted in 
    the name of opposing abortion, according to the Bible.  OR's biblical
    justifications are examined.
    
    Though concise it is too long to type. I will mail it via U.S. Post to 
    anyone who is interested.  Please mail to me your mail address at 
    DISNEY::BENSON if you are interested in receiving this.
    
    I have always been somewhat confused by OR's beliefs and tactics in
    light of biblical knowledge.  This article has finally addressed my 
    questions and I feel confident in my position concerning OR's practices.  
    
    jeff
    

	Okay, so why not give us a brief summary of your conclusions,
and the information, thought process, and Scripture that got you to each
one?  Maybe that way we can have an enlightened discussion here?

    
    .462 Sampson
    
    Are you talking to me? 
    
    jeff

                           Keeping Perspective
               Whose approval do we seek -- God's or man's?
                    By Randall A. Terry / January 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	Greetings in the Name of Jesus.  By the time you read this, I will
be half-way through my prison sentence.  It's amazing how time flies.  Many
are writing and asking how I'm doing.  Well, (as you can imagine), I have
the daily struggle to keep a joyful heart (to not be angry or depressed). 
And believe me, I have struggled with this!  I miss my family deeply and
can hardly wait to be home.  This I can tell you: the dealings of God have
been deep and, at times, painful, but the revelation of practical theology
has been rich; the times of sustained and, at times, tearful prayer have
been life-changing.  I have also had moments of glorious joy in the Lord,
thanks be to Him.  I am convinced that trials prepare us for further use of
the Master.  We get pruned (and boy, can it hurt!), so that we can bear
more fruit.  I earnestly solicit your prayers for me, my family and all
those who minister with us.

	Allow me to share one of the principles I have focused on during my
imprisonment -- keeping perspective.  I write these thoughts for the
Christian activist who is under fire from friends, family or enemies for
taking a stand for God.  It should also prove of benefit for the Christian
who is now passing through a trial of any sort.  It is my fervent hope and
prayer that these thoughts will benefit you in _whatever_ situation you
find yourself in.

	As we live the Christian life with all its duties and battles (joys
as well as sorrows), we will inevitably experience different levels of
buffeting from men and devils.  At times the attacks seem small, relatively
easy to be borne.  At other times we feel we will be overwhelmed by fear,
or swallowed up in grief, or perhaps we are plagued by doubtful
self-introspection and second-guessing: "Did I _really_ do the right
thing?  Then why is everybody mad at me?"  I hope that the truths I share
with you will act as an antibiotic against these infections of the soul. 
Most of us will invariably struggle in the hour of testing that accompanies
taking a stand for God.  The truths we're going to look at, when practiced,
can serve as a refuge for our souls while the storms rage.  Your internal
distress can then be kept to a minimum -- or even jettisoned altogether.

	Whenever we take a visible stand for God's truth in any area (from
home-schooling our kids to witnessing for Christ on the job to being
arrested for standing for righteousness), we are going to draw reactions
from people.  When we resist the wicked, or pursue justice, we will become
acutely aware of praise and scorn, of approval and criticism.

	In that moment, the question is -- with whose appraisal will we be
preoccupied?  Whose praise will lift our spirit?  Whose disapproval will
make our countenance fall?  Your concern with _someone's_ opinion about you
will captivate a portion of your heart.  _This is inevitable._  The only
question is -- _whose opinion will matter?_  _God's or man's?_  _Whose
favor will we seek, and whose disapproval will we dread?  God's or man's?_
The answer to this question will determine whether, _after you do the right
thing,_ you pass your days and nights in nervous distress, or calm peace.

	Let me illustrate the point by painting this practical picture. 
Before you or I take a public and controversial stand on a critical issue
in our community, we will often ask ourselves this question: "What will
'blank' think?"  The weight of importance we put on the person's opinion
who fills the "blank" will often determine _what_ we'll do, _when_ we'll do
it, and with how much vigor it will be done.  If our "blank" is filled with
an unreasonable or skittish or hostile employer or relative, we may tone
down or alter our message; we may relegate ourselves to the back of the
activist crowd (so that our face doesn't show up on T.V. or in the
newspaper).  Or worse yet, we may choose to back away altogether from
taking a stand that, in our heart, we know is right.

	Conversely, if our "blank" is filled with God's holy name, we will
be reduced to asking one simple question: "What would _You_ have me to do?" 
We _know_ that doing His bidding will please Him; we know that obedience to
His will is His delight and will be met with His praise and approval. 
Whereas disobedience will grieve Him and vex our soul.

	So we must again ask these fundamental questions.  Who do we serve
-- God or man?  Whose approval do we seek -- God's or man's?  We all know
what the correct answer is.  Paul wrote, "If I yet sought the approval of
man, I should not be a servant of Christ" (Galatians 1:10b).  But let's be
honest" we are all frail creatures of dust, and at times the shrill voice
of human condemnation can drown out the still, small voice saying, "Well
done, thou good and faithful servant."  Our natural ears hear the cutting
words of disapproval; our natural eyes see the anger of the scorn written
on faces or editorial pages; our hearts feel the pain of human reflection.

    -1
    
    Who is he? and why is he in prison?

	_That is why keeping proper perspective is so critical._  As long
as we are in these bodies -- that see and hear and touch and feel -- it
will take great discipline to keep our internal eyes and ears focused on
Him, Who alone should command the awe of our minds and hearts, the
subjection of our will, and obedience in our actions.

	Let's look at some of the blessings that attend a Divine
perspective.  Then we'll look at some of the snares and vices that
accompany seeking men's praise.  When we yearn for God's approval:

	_I.  We will have an eye toward His judgment seat,_ which is final
and flawless, unquestionable and unappealable.  Focusing on His judgment
seat gives us _perspective for:_

	A) _Time._  In the midst of trials that accompany righteous deeds
we tend to become preoccupied with _this moment._  The hours seem to last
forever.  We feel like the trial will never end.  When we focus on the
Eternal Judge, we remember our end and number our days.  We remember our
life is but a handbreadth.  We remember that "this too shall pass," and we
know we will be better and stronger because of the trial of our faith.

	B) _The facts._  When we come under criticism, we often chafe at
the false accusations or false conclusion based (we believe) on a lack of
details on the facts.  "If only they knew the details, the facts, _the
truth,_ then they would understand and agree with my actions."  _Perhaps
so, but probably not._  Some critics are willfully ignorant of the truth
because they are in ethical rebellion; the facts are merely the annoying
particulars in your outrageous conduct!  At the judgment seat, He who is
Truth and who knows every detailed fact will make those details and the
justice of your cause known to all.

	C) _Motives._  Many of our enemies, and some of our friends, will
question or challenge our motives.  "You just want to control people's
lives!" or "You are so selfless, so humble, your heart is so pure!"  When
you have eternity in view, you are more concerned about your motives than
your detractors or supporters will ever be!  You know God will reveal your
motives for all to see.  Do we act for our glory or God's glory?  That day
will reveal the truth of the matter.

	D) _The deed itself._  Is what you're doing wrought of God?  Is the
house on which you labor built of the Lord?  On that day, every man's work
will be tried by fire to determine whether it be gold, silver, precious
stones, or wood, hay and stubble.  Keeping this in mind will prompt us to
ask the question before we plunge in -- "What does God want me to do?"

	E) _Reward._  Jesus said, ,"Great is your reward in heaven..." when
you are persecuted, falsely accused, etc. (See Matthew 5:11,12; Luke
6:22,23)  Paul wrote, _"For momentary, light affliction is producing for us
an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison, while we look not at
the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the
things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are
eternal" (2Corinthians 4:17,18).  Having an eye on eternity keeps us
focused on God's reward, not man's praise.

	_II.  When we yearn for God's approval, and we keep a right
perspective, our heart and mind will find refuge in God._  If you know
because of the clarity of God's Word and His Providential leading that what
you are doing is right, you heart will be:

	A) _Kept in peace._  Isaiah 26:3 says, _"Thou wilt keep him in
perfect peace, whose mind is stayed on thee; because he trusteth in thee."_ 
We all know the vexing, draining nature of anxiety and worry.  Anxiety
consumes the mind and saps the strength.  We can rehash and rehash an event
or conversation in our thoughts, or ask ourselves "What if..." a thousand
different ways and destroy our peace of mind.  But if we discipline
ourselves to keep our focus on God, His Providential care and eternal
wisdom (even when we don't understand it), our hearts will be calm.  The
Scripture says, _"In quietness and confidence shall be your strength..."_
(Isaiah 30:15).  None of us can keep up battle pitch for very long.  We
will self-destruct and may also destroy those around us.  Quiet peace and
confidence through right perspective and focus on God allows us to renew
our strength as we wait on Him.  This saves us from having to keep
ourselves revved up on adrenalin via anger, or excitement, or crisis, etc.

	B) _Kept in faith._  Remember when Peter walked on water?  As long
as he kept his eyes on Jesus he didn't sink.  But when he took his eyes off
Christ, and focused on the waves and boisterous wind, he began to doubt; he
feared, and he began to sink.  (See Matthew 14:25-31).  _We too will sink
into the tossing sea of fear or despair if we look away too long from the
Lord._  The psalmist prayed, _"Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity;
and quicken thou me in Thy way"_ (Psalm 119:37).  As we turn our focus away
from the vexing distraction and vanity of men's criticism, or attack, or
hardship, our heads will be lifted up above our enemies, and we will be
made alive and refreshed in our relationship with God.

	C) _Kept in joy._  The more conscious we are of God, eternity,
doing His will -- the more we will have His joy.  David prayed, _"I delight
to do thy will, O my God; yea, thy law is within my heart"_ (Psalm 40:8),
and _"Thou wilt show me the path of life; in Thy presence is fulness of
joy; at Thy right hand there are pleasures forevermore" (Psalm 16:11).

	Consider the example of joy left to us by the apostles -- after
they were beaten!  _"So they went on their way from the presence of the
Council, rejoicing that they had been considered worthy to suffer shame for
His Name"_ (Acts 5:41).  They must have remembered the Lord's teaching on
the Mount.  Jesus said, _"Blessed are you when men hate you, and ostracize
you, and cast insults at you, and spurn your name as evil, for the sake of
the Son of Man.  Be glad in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your
reward is great in heaven; for in the same way their fathers used to treat
the prophets"_ (Luke 6:22,23).

	I must tell you that this passage has meant a great deal to me over
the years.  At times, when I was under attack, my heart cleaved in faith to
it, and I submitted to its demands.  I rejoiced (!) that I was being
persecuted and misrepresented.  At other times (to my shame), I have chafed
and kicked and screamed, "This isn't fair!  God, do you see?!!"  I must
have written dozens of sarcastic, cutting, self-defensive editorials in my
mind to set the record straight, to defend my reputation.  Then I
remembered the words of Jesus: _"They have called the master of the house
Beelzebub...the servant is not greater than his master"_ (Matthew
10:24,25).  They called our perfect Lord and Master the prince of demons. 
We, therefore, cannot expect nor demand any better for ourselves.  _But we
can have His joy in the midst of such trials,_ plus the satisfaction of
knowing we are pleasing Him.

	D) _Kept in love._  If we are keeping perspective, we will be
obeying the two great commandments: _"Love God with all your heart, soul,
mind and strength; and love your neighbor as yourself."  We must be sure
that we love God fervently, or we will lose our first love and slowly
calcify into rigid "warriors for truth."  Loving God will keep us balanced,
in perspective; otherwise we will become calloused.

	Perhaps the most probing way to gauge our love for God is to
examine our love for man, especially our fellow Christians.  When we lose
our perspective, and become fixated on anyone or anything other than God
(which is a form of idolatry), we will lose our softness toward Him and our
tenderness or concern for individuals.  We may fight fervently for a
"cause," but be detached from or indifferent to hurting people.  We can
become cynical, caustic, or even embittered.  We can hold unforgiveness
against our enemies, or worse -- against fellow Christians.  Let's face it
-- Christians will let us down.  We will all fail each other from time to
time.  And from the activists' perspective, inactive, selfish or lazy
Christians can be more troubling than active adversaries!  It's quite
vexing to envision millions of self-consumed Christians watching T.V. night
after night while the nation perishes and their children's future is
destroyed.  It's easy to be angry with such a lot, and certainly a godly,
righteous anger is in order.  But when we lose perspective, we develop a
human anger, and _"the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God"_
(James 1:20).  A root of bitterness can enslave us and defile many.  That
type of anger can destroy us, making us unfit for God's service.  Remember
these arresting words of God through the apostle John: _"For the Father
loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and
greater works that these will He show Him, that you may marvel"_ (John
5:20).

	Obviously, this type of perspective and all its blessings can only
be born out in a life of prayer.  I know -- I'm striving to live this out
every day in here!  And it can be hard.  (Honestly, I'm ashamed of how
erratic my prayer life had become before I came to prison.)  We must set
aside time to pray, not quick little routine prayers, but genuinely focused
on communion with God.  Then God will give us the strength to think and
live and keep perspective in the way we have been discussing.

	Furthermore, we must take time to revive the lost Christian art of
reflection: deliberately viewing our life in the perspective of God's Word,
which is Truth.  We must meditate on His Word -- in the Hebrew sense. 
"Meditate" in Hebrew means to murmur or mumble or roll around in our mouth
(if my memory of Strong's Concordance serves me well!).  In other words, we
should preach truth-filled, challenging sermons to _ourselves_.

	Now, let us look briefly at the converse -- when we are
man-oriented, looking to man for praise or approval.  Most of us are quite
familiar with this psychological torture chamber, yet for some reason many
of us frequently visit this private purgatory -- locking our own legs in
the shackles!

	When we yearn for man's approval:

	1.  _We develop a distorted view of time._  We inevitably lose
sight of eternity, and only the immediate moment matters to us.  We forget
our end, forget the brevity of life, and forget that we shall face God for
our actions.  We deliberately live for the pleasure of man's praise, and
cease seeeking God's approval.  Judgment day becomes an agitating stranger.

	2.  _We become corrupt in our motivation._  We begin to act and
speak -- or sit idly by -- to please man rather than God.  It's like
becoming emotional hedonists.  Frighteningly, we may even do a religious
deed, or take "activist" action, but it is done for self-promotion and
self-glorification rather than the glory of God.  Remember, every plant
(i.e. deed) that the Heavenly Father has not planted shall be plucked up by
the roots.

	Nancy, he is a founder of Operation Rescue.  He was convicted of
"aiding and abetting" (in violation of a special court order) a man who
presented an aborted baby to Bill Clinton while he was campaigning for the
'92 election.  The man who showed Bill the dead fetus was not charged with
anything, since he was not aware of the court order.

						Bob

	3.  _We have our reward!_  When we seek man's praise, we might as
well make sure we get it, because that's the only reward we're going to
get.  On the day of judgment, our beautiful "woodwork" will turn into a
heap of ashes before our eyes!

	4.  _We lose God's peace._  We become turbulent in heart, tortured
in mind, living in turmoil as we seek the praise of man.  Let's face it:
man's praise is mercurial.  Opinions change like clothing styles, so we can
never be sure what will win human praise _today_ -- or _tomorrow!_

	5.  _We cannot have abiding faith._  Hence, we have no confidence,
no assurance that we are pleasing God.  Like Peter, rather than fix our
eyes steadfastly on Jesus, we foolishly look at the waves and storms of
family or co-workers' or public opinion.  And we are sure to sink in those
unstable waters.

	6.  _God's joy becomes a stranger._  Having submitted to the fickle
court of publick opinion, we live in dread of its next verdict.  Unlike the
apostles, we run from "beatings" (verbal, psychological, whatever), and
mourn man's disapproval.  When we are persecuted or spoken ill of, we will
quickly seek to surrender or hide whatever position, activity, etc. that
brought us into disfavor.  But our lives become miserable, for we have not
been true to ourselves, or more importantly, true to God.

	7.  _We lose healthy love._  We trade the sense of divine love
flowing between God and us for the bitter love of man's praise.  We trade
true, healthy, brotherly love for a sickly love of self.  Our new maxim
becomes "Love yourself and your reputation with all your heart, soul, mind
and strength."

	Now, we have all seen (or been, or both!) the type of Christian
that yearns for man's approval and has lost a Biblical perspective. 
Someone can be in this sickly state and still go to church faithfully.  He
can hang out with a group that condemns abortion or xxxxxxxxxxxxx and chime
in with them; then he can be with co-workers or relatives or "worldly"
friends who _condone_ such practices, and he holds his tongue, or even nods
his head and says, "I see your point," but never raises the standard of
God's Law.  We need to beware that we don't subtly sell-out our positions,
or blunt the edge of our convictions.

	_We don't want to become spiritual chameleons --_ just blending in
with whatever ethical scenery we find ourselves in.  A chameleon may be a
clever creature in the animal kingdom, but its natural purpose, created by
God, is to _avoid_ detection.  _God did not create Christians to avoid
detection._  He created us to be lights in the darkness, a city on a hill
seen by all.  He doesn't want us to blend in with unjust or evil
circumstances.  He wants us to pray and work to alter them according to His
Word.

	Allow me to finish on a positive note about perspective.  Along
with an eye to God and eternity, we should have perspective on Christian
history and Christianity's future.  We should be mindful of the legacy and
heritage left to us by our spiritual forefathers.  Likewise, we should have
godly concern for the legacy and heritage we deliver to our grandchildren
and great grandchildren.

	You and I are part of an awesome, miraculous, sacrificial line of
Divine/human history.  Our forefathers strove and risked everything to have
the Bible in their mother tongue.  We are enjoying the fruits of their
labor.  Our forefathers fought against governmental tyranny in Europe and
America, and we are still enjoying (and unfortunately squandering) their
hard-won victories.  With their memory in mind, ever thankful to God and
them for their sacrifices, we must persevere in the trail they blazed and
guard that which has been delivered to us and committed to our trust.  We
must faithfully discharge our duties, repenting of our failures as we go,
knowing we have a merciful Father -- _remembering that we are someone's
forefathers._  We are blazing a trail -- whether for advance or retreat --
and others, yet unborn, will follow our paths and _reap the fruit of our
labors._

	We are part of God's grand paln and we know that under God we shall
triumph.  Christ will build His church and _the gates of hell will not
prevail against it._  Since the resurrection of Christ the gospel has
converted entire realms and overturned oppressive, tyrannical governments
and rulers.  In other centuries, the realms of art, science, education,
medicine and law have flourished in the hands of Christian men and women. 
_Frankly, if it wasn't for Christianity, civilization as we know it, would
not, _could not_ exist._  This is our glorious heritage!

	Yes, right now is a dark hour in America.  Gross darkness covers
the people.  _But it is temporary._  The light of the gospel will yet
pierce the veil of darkness and no power in earth or hell can stop it.  The
righteous will once again serve in the robes of authority.  Wickedness and
oppression are in high places -- but not for long.  The God of heaven and
earth, who sees and judges men and nations, will soon have the wicked in
derision.  God will shatter their grip, and those following their Heavenly
King will yet inherit the earth.  So let's keep perspective -- and rejoice! 
(And pray and work hard too!)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Permission is hereby granted to make copies of this article for the
express purpose of distributing it free of charge.  Randall Terry LIVE,
Inc., PO Box 570, Windsor, New York 13865.

| <<< Note 108.469 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| The man who showed Bill the dead fetus was not charged with anything, since 
| he was not aware of the court order.

	So if anyone didn't know it was wrong to steal, they could claim
ignorance and get away with it? 

re .471

Well, apparently the government didn't think that he should be charged
with disobeying a court order he knew nothing about.

/john

RE:              <<< Note 108.471 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>| The man who showed Bill the dead fetus was not charged with anything, since 
>| he was not aware of the court order.

>	So if anyone didn't know it was wrong to steal, they could claim
>ignorance and get away with it? 



 Take it up with the people who lodged the charges.




 Jim

.471:

	So, you are saying that it is inherently wrong to show the results
of abortion to a presidential candidate, especially if his name is Bill
Clinton?  This was a *special court order*, specifically naming Randall
Terry (and others), as well as Bill Clinton.  Randall was convicted of
violating the *court order*, and not of violating any law.

| <<< Note 108.474 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| Take it up with the people who lodged the charges.


	Jim, I will have to remember this answer. Then the next time you
complain about Christians getting the raw end of the deal, this will appear.


Glen

| <<< Note 108.475 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| So, you are saying that it is inherently wrong to show the results of abortion
| to a presidential candidate, especially if his name is Bill Clinton?  

	How did you ever get that from what I said???? I never mentioned
anything about whether it is right or wrong to show an aborted fetus to anyone.
I will now though, it's wrong in my eyes, and that goes for showing anyone, not
specific people. Would you enjoy it if you went to a place to eat and they
showed you an aborted fetus? Or is it ok to do so when you want to make a
point? If so, isn't that a bit hypocritical?

| This was a *special court order*, specifically naming Randall Terry (and 
| others), as well as Bill Clinton.  

	Ok.... then now I understand why you included Bill Clinton. Did Randall
Terry say he would do this BEFORE it happened, which is why the court order
went into place? I would imagine they would have to know ahead of time if the
court order included Bill Clinton. If so, the order makes perfect sense.


Glen

| <<< Note 108.478 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| Get a more interesting life, Glen. I am not a member of Operation Rescue. I 
| don't receive any financial benefit by letting you know what they are offering
| to send.

	It doesn't matter. You are solicitating for them. That is against
Digital Policies. If you want I'll gladly send Ron Glover both notes and let
him decide if it is solicitation or not.


Glen

 ONE MORE TIME....PLEASE DO NOT DEBATE WHAT IS AND WHAT IS NOT SOLICITATION
 IN THIS TOPIC.  IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE MODERATORS ARE TALKING ABOUT 
 IT.  IF THERE IS A PROBLEM TAKE IT OFFLINE TO THE MODERATORS.



 THANK YOU.


  Jim Co-Mod

.479:
	I was making an inference, and asking you whether that was what you
were intending to say.  Whether Randall announced his intent to show Bill
an aborted baby, I don't know.  Someone anticipated the move well enough to
get the court order from a pro-abort judge.

	Would I object to being shown an aborted baby?  No, so I don't see
where you charge of hypocrisy has any merit in this instance.  I certainly
would not even *try* to obtain a special court order to prevent the
occurrence, putting a prior restraint on another person's free speech.

� So if anyone didn't know it was wrong to steal, they could claim
� ignorance and get away with it? 

Nice try, Glen, but I wouldn't try it if I were you ... ;-)

								Andrew

 Judge: "Ignorance is no excuse"

 Me:  "I didn't know that either!"

| <<< Note 108.482 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>


| I was making an inference, and asking you whether that was what you were 
| intending to say.  

	Thanks for clearing it up. 

| Whether Randall announced his intent to show Bill an aborted baby, I don't 
| know. Someone anticipated the move well enough to get the court order from a 
| pro-abort judge.

	You mean from a judge that upholds the law, don't you? Do you honestly
believe that a judge would not hold up the law if abortion were illegal?

| Would I object to being shown an aborted baby?  No, so I don't see where you 
| charge of hypocrisy has any merit in this instance.  

	How about being shown a dead body before breakfast. A fetus is the same
as a dead body, right? Would you mind seeing this?

| I certainly would not even *try* to obtain a special court order to prevent 
| the occurrence, 

	What about for a full grown dead body? The only way you could object to
it is if you thought a fetus was not a life to begin with. Otherwise how could
you? Both would be considered dead bodies, right?


Glen

| <<< Note 108.483 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>

| � So if anyone didn't know it was wrong to steal, they could claim
| � ignorance and get away with it?

| Nice try, Glen, but I wouldn't try it if I were you ... ;-)

	Andrew, do you mean don't try and steal or don't try to claim
ignorance???? :-)


Glen

    
    I'm sorry but thankfully I won't have the time to have a discussion due
    to a long-prayed-for improvement in my job situation (I'm getting some
    meaningful work to do).  I will mail you a copy or some of those that
    I recently mailed copies to may be willing to manage a discussion after
    reading/studying it.
    
    However, in a nutshell, the Bible gives no authority for individuals to
    break the law unless compelled by the law to sin against God.  The very
    laws are in place by virtue of God's will according to the Bible. Much
    evidence is provided.  And OR's several justifications are studied
    according to God's Word and are found lacking as biblical
    justifications.  It is rather straightforward when laid out
    systematically with the Bible as the standard for discerning truth from
    error.
    
    jeff

Thanks Jeff.  That sounds sound ;-) .

Glad your work situation is looking up, even if it does mean less noting !


					God bless
							Andrew

    .487
    
    Jeff,  is aborting babies legal?
    Jeff,  is aborting babies okay with God?
    
    Nancy

    
    quickly Nancy, aborting babies is legal.  aborting babies is not okay
    with God.
    
    The important thing to understand is that *no one is compelled by law
    in our country to abort babies*.
    
    jeff

We are, however, compelled to pay to abort babies.

Paul

    
    that's a different matter, Paul.  
    
    jeff

   re: 108.490 <USAT05::BENSON>

   >The important thing to understand is that *no one is compelled by law in
   >our country to abort babies*.

       Yes, but unfortunately, we ARE COMPELLED by law to pay for them with
   our tax dollars through government funded abortions.

   :-(
   Tony

	Jeff, are you saying:


		It is against God to abort babies, but it is also against God
for operation rescue to break other laws that do not deal with the one law of
aborting babies? If so, I think we may agree on this.


Glen

Abortion Clinic Slayings:
The Pro-Life Community Responds					Randall Terry

As the nation heard with sorrow the news of the deplorable shooting spree at
abortion facilities in Massachusetts, the question is asked:  Why?  Why this
sudden rise in violence in this arena?

I have been intricately involved in the pro-life movement for over a decade.
I have led multiple thousands of people in peaceful pro-life activism via
Operation Rescue.  Hence, I enjoy a perspective few have.  So I submit these
answers to the question "Why?"

Enemies of the babies and of the pro-life movement will argue that the
conviction that abortion is murder, and the call to take non-violent direct
action to save children from death inevitably leads to the use of lethal
force.  This argument on its face is ludicrous - unless one is prepared to
argue that Ghandi's non-violent civil disobedience in India in the 1930's
led to the murder of British officials; or that Dr. Martin Luther King's
non-violent civil disobedience led to the violent actions that accompanied
the civil rights movement in the U.S. during the 1960's; or that peaceful
civil disobedience in South Africa was responsible for the blood shed there
in the 1980's.

So why, then, this recent spate of violence?  Law enforcement officials need
look no further than Roe v. Wade; the abortion providers need look no further
than their own instruments of death; and Congress and the President need look
no further than their own F.A.C.E. (Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances)
Act to understand the roots of the recent shootings.

The Supreme Court's attempt to overthrow Law (capital L) in order to
legalize and legitimize murder has led to the inevitable - a disregard of or
contempt for law.  I say the Court's "attempt," for the Court can no more
overturn Law and legalize murder than they can overturn the law of gravity.
God's immutable commandment - "Thou shall not murder" - has forever made
murder illegal.  The Court's lawlessness is breeding lawlessness.  The Court
cannot betray the foundation of law and civilization - the Ten Commandments -
and then expect a people to act "lawful" and "civilized."

Let us look at the abortion industry itself.  Abortion is violent murder.
And just as segregation and the accompanying violence possess the seeds for
further murder, likewise, it appears that the Law of sowing and reaping is
being visited upon the abortion industry.  A society cannot expect to tear
thirty-five million innocent babies from their mothers' wombs without reaping
horrifying consequences.  Was it perhaps inevitable that the violent abortion
industry should itself reap a portion of what it has so flagrantly and
callously sown?

Now to Congress and the Judiciary.  Similar to the civil rights activists,
pro-lifers have often been brutalized at the hands of various police
departments, then subjected to vulgar injustices in sundry courts of law.
Add to this the draconian new law, FACE, which turns peaceful pro-life
activists into federal felons, and perhaps one can understand the frustration
and anger that is growing in quite a few Americans.  Like those who turned
violence in the 1960's, a sliver of anti-abortion adherents see the evil of
abortion coupled with the growing oppression of peaceful pro-life activists.
Perhaps they're thinking, "Babies are dying . .  The courts are crushing
peaceful pro-life activities  . . . This country is going to hell . . . Maybe
this will save some babies and get people's attention."

Planned Parenthood, N.A.R.A.L., the NOW, and the rest of the abortion
industry can partly blame themselves for the recent shootings.  They clamored
for harsh treatment of peaceful pro-lifers, and they usually got it.  Now
they have to deal with an emerging violent fringe.  John F. Kennedy stated,
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution
inevitable."  This has proved true around the world.  One would think the
abortion crowd would belatedly heed the late president's warning, but they
haven't.  They're now urging a decidedly political Justice Department to
launch a witch hunt into the lives of peaceful pro-life activists and
leaders.  Make no mistake - what the abortionists really want is to further
pressure and direct law enforcement and the courts into intimidating anyone
who strongly and publicly condemns abortion as murder.  Their recent public
relations scam is to blame all pro-lifers for the shootings.  And they will
not be content until they have silenced or crushed all dissent against
abortion.  We must not allow them to cause us to cower in silence.  Using the
Justice Department and the courts to harass pro-lifers is a despicable,
treacherous abuse of power and should outrage all Americans who cherish
freedom.  Remember - the villains are the child killers, not the pro-lifers.

To those who support these recent shootings or you who would herald John
Salvi as a hero, I ask these questions:  Has God authorized one person to be
policeman, judge, jury , and executioner?  Is it logical to leap from
non-violent live saving activities to lethal force?  Read your history!
Remember the principles of Calvin, Knox, and Crewel regarding "lower
magistrates."  Are you likening John Salvi and Co. to Knox or Crewel?  Are
you calling for revolution?  Please consider these questions before you
flippantly call someone a hero who walks in and starts randomly shooting
people.

So, what can be done to curtail this trend?  Are we doomed to tailspin into
further random bloodshed, or degenerate into social anarchy?  The only
realistic and righteous solutions are utterly unacceptable to some.  So the
question is, will justice or injustice by decree prevail?  Here are some
solutions:

FACE should be repealed immediately.  Allowing peaceful protests to save
babies' lives acts like a safety valve on a social boiler.  This oppressive
law is an outrage and an embarrassment before the world.  The crushing
weight of the federal government punishing peaceful protestors is the kind of
thing we would expect in communist China against "political dissidents."

Second, the courts nationwide must stop abusing pro-life activists.  We must
be accorded the same tolerance and leniency that every "politically correct"
protester receives nationwide, i.e. small fines, two days in jail, charges
dismissed, etc.

Finally, and this is most urgent, child killing must be brought to an
immediate end.  Whether the Supreme Court declares the personhood and
inalienable right to life of preborn children, or the Constitution is
amended, or the President signs an "emancipation proclamation" for children,
or Congress outlaws abortion outright, or each state legislature strikes it
down, all child killing must be ended in all fifty states.  Senator Dole is
quite wrong:  We don't need federal protection of abortion facilities, we
need to outlaw them.

We can never, I repeat, never be at peace as a nation while we slaughter our
young. This holocaust must be stopped or we cannot survive as a people.  It
is that simple - because God hears their blood crying from the ground, and He
will bring unquenchable justice.  Perhaps He has already begun to hand us
over to the fruit of our ways.  Abortion is more evil, more volatile, more
divisive than was slavery.  And over one hundred years later, we are still
eating the bitter fruit of that wicked institution.  God only knows what
horrors await us if we do not bring a swift end to the murder of innocent
children.

This is an appeal to anyone contemplating the use of force and violence
against those who take the life of preborn children and endanger their
mothers through abortion.  This is the argument which is being used to
justify the execution of those who perform or assist in abortions:

The preborn person is alive.  People who are alive must be protected from
those who threaten to take their lives, even if that protection requires the
use of deadly force.  Therefore, to save the life of a preborn child facing
imminent death at the hands of an abortionist, deadly force against the
perpetrators of abortion is justifiable homicide.

As Christians, we condemn this argument, which seems reasonable in natural
law, as heresy.  This condemnation must be loud, without hesitation or
reservation.  This heresy is certainly deadly, insidiously seductive, and
grievously contagious.  We must do all we can to expose it and stop its
spread for it is a cancer attacking the Body of Christ.

Recently one of the assailants was asked if he were a Christian.  He
responded that he was.  The questioner asked if killing an abortionist was
something Jesus Christ would have done.  The assailant responded,
"Absolutely, He certainly would have done so."

This is a lie.  It must be denounced as a lie and it must not go unanswered.

We know Jesus most certainly would not have done such a thing.  The Bible
clearly tells exactly what the last temptation of Christ was:  Just before He
gave up His life on the cross, He was taunted to come down off the cross to
"prove He was the Christ."  Jesus was an innocent man.  He was also God.  He
had the power, the authority, and the right to come down off the cross and to
kill each one who sought to "legally" crucify Him.  He could have done it
both as an act of self-defense and as an act of retribution.  But He did not.

He did not succumb to that temptation though many of His followers must have
wondered why He chose not to.  He chose to die instead.  He died not only
for the meek, for the poor, for the repentant sinner, and the lost.  He also
died for the soldiers who had the law's permission to nail Him to that
hideous cross.  Despite the fact that the legal and religious reasoning of
His day justified the use of force to either rescue or to punish, He resisted
the temptation, knowing only His death, not anyone else's, would accomplish
the purpose for which He was sent; namely, to save the world from sin.

Make no mistake:  There will be a judgment day and there is a Judge, but it
is the Christ of the cross whose example we as pro-life Christians, are to
follow today.  His Word, as well as His example, commands us to lay our lives
down for the children threatened with death, not to take the life of the
abortionist!  We are the ones who should be dying on the doorsteps of
abortion clinics, if necessary, to save the lives of preborn children and
their mothers. 

This is where we Christians have failed.  We feared the ever-increasing
penalties for our own peaceful intervention.  When these penalties escalated
from citations, to fines, to jail, to RICO suits, and now to federal prisons,
we left the doors of the killing centers and returned to our clever
arguments, protest slogans, and voters booths.  Rather than finish the race,
by willingly sacrificing ourselves as Jesus did, we have allowed the cross to
be taken from us.

Those who took it are running a deadly and disobedient race.  Consequently, a
desperate lie is being used by desperate people who, knowingly or not, have
become avenging wolves in sheepis clothing.  They are neither Christ-like nor
prolife, despite their claims to the contrary.

This should not surprise anyone with an appreciation of history.  When the
federal government made it a federal felony to rescue slaves by using its
strong arm to intimidate peaceful rescuers during the abolitionist movement,
John Brown, hailed by many, turned to violence.  A few generations later
state governments turned their dogs on non-violent civil rights protestors
led by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  Militant Black Panthers and others turned
to violence as their solution.  Now, after 75,000 arrests, non-violent
prolife rescuers have been suppressed by federal laws. History is repeating
itself.

Violence begets violence.  Christians must condemn those who would use this
unjustifiable argument to kill.  Any victory claimed in saved babies is
short lived and does not change the heart, which is the only solution to the
violence against preborn children and their mothers.

We must expose this heresy in every possible forum.  This violence will
continue until the time we as committed, non-violent Christians fearlessly
take up our crosses again and are ourselves willing to die for moms, babies,
and abortionists alike.

You see, at just the right time when we were still powerless, Christ died for
the ungodly.  Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a
good man someone might possibly dare to die.  But God demonstrates His own
love for us in this:  While we were still sinners Christ died for us.  Romans
5:6-8. He resisted the temptation to come off the cross and destroy His
enemies, choosing to die for them instead.  Changing hearts and rescuing a
world bent on destroying itself can be accomplished no other way.

This is the last paragraph of a statement released by Fr. Frank Pavone,
Director of Priests for Life.  It will run as a full page ad in the
Washington Times in response to Cardinal Bernard Laws proposed moratorium on
street activity:

On December 30, 1995 the country was once again horrified as John Salvi shot
seven people, killing two and wounding five, and two Boston abortion mills.
With intent, the secular news media is daily presenting Mr. Salvi as a
religious, Christian pro-life person.  The truth is John Salvi is a disturbed
individual who took human life without justification just as others have in
the recent past.  (i.e. killings in fast food restaurants, post offices,
subways, public schools, etc.)  It is intriguing that the media has chosen
not to report that Mr. Salvi turned and fired on three pro-lifers standing on
the sidewalk outside the second mill, resulting in the impounding of one of
their cars because it has a bullet lodged in it.  The car and bullet will be
used as evidence.  Why is this information being withheld from broadcast and
publication?

It is obvious that what the opponents of the pro-life message want more than
anything is Christians to be silent.  Slogans such as "Abortion is not a
moral issue, but a political issue!" and "don't force your religious view on
women!" are all part of the rhetoric to intimidate and silence the truth.
Linking Christians to radical, violent individuals is a blatant attempt to
distort; and discredit our message - not just the message that human life is
sacred but also that of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  Every effort is being
made to mute the Christian.

For his violent act, Paul Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the
murder of an abortionist and an escort.  Were you aware that Hill was
disciplined by his denomination for holding to the heresy of advocating
killing abortionists?  Paul Hill's ordination was revoked.  Did the media
report that national pro-life leaders confronted and denounced Hill and his
teaching long before he finally killed people?  No, the violence was
attributed to Christians and Paul Hill was depicted as a leader in the
pro-life movement.

We as believers in Jesus Christ condemn violence.  We condemn the taking of
human life with premeditation - born or pre-born.  We must continue to speak
out against the slaughter of the innocent for convenience and profit.  We
must continue to lovingly, peacefully, offer help and alternatives to women
in crisis pregnancies - especially at the last minute at death's doorstep at
the abortuary.  We must continue to reflect the truth as we picket, as we
write letters to the editor, and seek to educate.  For over twenty years
hundreds and thousands have been seeking justice for the preborn whose lives
have been ordained by God and whose right to life has been guaranteed by the
Constitution.  Violence will not change the hearts of Americans. 

It is not the message of the pro-life movement that caused the violence. The
violence was caused by for individuals acting outside of Biblical Christian
principles.

The world system cries out, "Shut up, Christians!"
God says,"Speak up, Christians!"  (Proverbs 31:8-9)

HOLY WEEK ACTIVITIES IN NEW ORLEANS
APRIL 10-16

Thanks for accepting our invitation to New Orleans for Holy Week. April
10-16, 1995.

New Orleans is now the murder capital of America.  Over 425 people were
killed here in 1994.  During one of our regular pickets, I told the police
that they would never be able to stop the murder in the streets of New
Orleans until they stopped the killing in the clinics.

Crescent City Women's Clinic has had 4 abortionists quit.  We believe Holy
Week Passion for Life may cause them to give up for good. 

We also believe that the event will expose the unfrutiful works of darkness.
The church rejoices when good triumphs over wickedness.

God has prepared a table for you in the presence of your enemies.  The hotel
is ready.  The Comm. Center is set up. Bro. Rod Aguillard and the other
pastors say come.  The Spirit and the bride say come.

Pastor Bill Shanks
New Orleans, Louisiana

FROM RANDALL A. TERRY
ALLENWOOD FEDERAL PRISON

You may think that the most dangerous place in our country is an abortion
clinic.  The media has done its best to convince the public that selfless
servants of the masses are gunned down by blood thirsty bigots spouting hate
while shaking a bible and firing a gun.

It is tragic that 5 people have been gunned down in and around abortion
clinics in 1993 and 1994 but we remember them because we are buried in
retelling of the stories.

Let's just look at a few other violent crimes that have occurred in 1993 and
1994.  You have probably forgotten these murdered people. They did not work
in the abortion business.

Arthur Mullins
Anthony Shanko
Charles Seawright
Donald Simmons
Robert Patterson
Eleanor Lewis
Jeral McCants
Uunree Brown
Debbie Shanko
Gerald Williams
Roy L. Fails

These people were murdered in the City of Pensacola in 1993. Only one name is
absent, Dr. David Gunn, but then you have probably heard of him.

While abortion clinic violence in Pensacola is the topic of countless news
stories and our city government devotes countless hours and untold resources
to prevent violence at abortion mills, other parts of our city don't even
rate a mention.

In the same period of time that both abortion clinics experienced 11 arrests
(1991-1995) another location in our city, Griers Grand Hotel, experienced 523.
The Pensacola City Council was made aware of this crime-ridden area, but
chose not to act.  In December, while the abortion mills had protection from
both U.S. Marshals and the Pensacola police, a man was murdered at Grier's
Grand Hotel.

Perhaps the clientele of Griers makes the difference in the city's efforts
to slow the violence. It is not normally patronized by white abortion
doctors. 

The argument could be made that questionable characters hang out at Grier's.
However another location in Pensacola that should be a relatively safe place
is also ignored by the city council and others.  The abortion clinics must be
guarded!  The clinics are private businesses and so is Grier's Grand Hotel.
Certainly the media and council would be in an uproar if some local
government facility had a crime problem.  Guess again.

While the abortion clinics had 11 arrests (1991-1995) an institution at 500
E. Maxwell had 149.  Thirteen times the arrests as at the clinics. The name
of this dangerous institution?  Pensacola High School. The January 6th
edition of the Pensacola News Journal printed a story regarding crime in the
schools in Florida.  While abortion clinics reported 5 homicides involving
abortion providers for 1993 and 1994 for the entire country Florida schools
alone reported 4.  Governor Chiles acted quickly getting the Federal
government involved in prosecuting Paul Hill for murder and F.A.C.E. charges.
Perhaps school children are not considered endangered as abortionists.

In response to the tragic shootings in Brookline, Massachusetts, the
President called for special efforts of the Justice Department to protect
the clinics. Has he forgotten:

 Luby's Cafeteria killings in Killeen, TX 24 dead

 McDonald's mass murder in San Ysidro, CA 21 dead

 Long Island Railroad Murders 6 dead, 17 wounded

Mass murders seem to occur weekly but the government rushes to protect only
the media-anointed heroes of our day: the abortion doctor and his staff.

Federal and State officials dispatch experts to advise on security and
recommend metal detectors.  Did metal detectors help prevent the deaths of 3
law enforcement officers and the wounding of a fourth and a civilian at
Washington, D.C. police headquarters?  Perhaps civil servants are considered
expendable or perhaps they are just cops not as valuable as doctors and staff
who perform "reproductive health services".  I am sure their families miss
them as much as the abortion providers' families miss their loved ones.

While the deaths of two young women in Massachusetts on the eve of New Years
Eve is tragic you may not have heard that:

On New Years Eve 4 people were killed and a fifth wounded at a game room near
Raeford, NC.

On New Years Day 5 people, 3 men and 2 women were killed in an apartment in
Roanoke, VA.

New Years Day a mother, her 2 sons and a friend were shot in the basement of
the family's home in Rigby, Idaho.

In Albany, GA on January 5th. a woman was shot to death in a post office
parking lot, the gunman then ran next door to a restaurant and killed
another.

On January 7th. 6 people were found slain in an condominium in a quiet
section in the borough of Queens, NY.

On January 7 a shooting occurred at the Ford plant in Plymouth Township, MI.
Two men died, one murdered and one a suicide. The wife of the suicide was in
critical condition after surgery. This shooting was the 3rd. since September
in Michigan automobile plants.

Reality shows that restaurants and auto plants are more dangerous than
abortion clinics. Consistency demands that the President assign a task force
to each. The FDA and the Department of Transportation need to be trained at
FBI Headquarters.

Maybe the reason you have heard little about the carnage surrounding New
Years 1995 is because all the space and time went to abortion clinic
shootings.

UPCOMING OPPORTUNITIES

January 26-29, 1995
DARE TO BE A DANIEL
Fargo, North Dakota
701-232-2716

February 18-21, 1995
THE PROVERBS 18:17 PROJECT
Washington, D.C.
214-739-4520

February 24-26, 1995
STREET ACTIVITIES
Rochester, New York
716-254-9282

April 10-16, 1995
HOLY WEEK PASSION FOR LIFE
New Orleans, Louisiana
504-464-6858

May 18-21, 1995
REGIONAL EVENT
Cleveland, Ohio
Akron/Canton, Ohio
216-383-1956
      
July 1995
REGIONAL EVENT
Denver, Colorado
303-295-6891

    
    Glen,
    
    Operation Rescue has no valid biblical basis for breaking any laws 
    whatsoever in their protest of abortion.  Nor do any other individuals 
    have a valid biblical basis for the same.
    
    You see, Christians are commanded to obey the civil laws as long as
    they do not require an individual to sin against God by the performance
    of said laws.   The Bible states that the civil authority is in place
    at the decree of God no matter how evil or immoral.  
    
    How can you agree with this?  The premisses and conlusions are strictly
    based on biblical exegisis.
    
    jeff

    
    Thanks John for all the notes.  Excellent documentation.
    
    Jill

    .501
    
    Jeff, I disagree with you.  While I don't like the methods OR uses, I
    certainly believe they have a Biblical basis for protesting.  However,
    I believe they are misdirected at blocking abortion clinics.  The
    protest should be towards changing the law.
    
    There must be a way to get around the "tax" issue... but then as in
    anything else, you would go to jail for your conviction.  Interesting
    dilemma for Christians in this country, I'd say.
    
    Should Christians pay taxes that are used for anti-God purposes?
    Should Christians be willing to go to jail for this reason?
    
    Nancy

    
    Nancy,
    
    Put your glasses on, okay?  What I stated is that OR, nor anyone else,
    has a valid biblical basis for *breaking any laws* in their protest of
    abortion.  That is different than protesting abortion without breaking
    laws which I wholly support.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 108.501 by USAT05::BENSON >>>



| Operation Rescue has no valid biblical basis for breaking any laws whatsoever 
| in their protest of abortion. Nor do any other individuals have a valid 
| biblical basis for the same.

	Then on this we agree. 

| You see, Christians are commanded to obey the civil laws as long as they do 
| not require an individual to sin against God by the performance of said laws. 

	Yes, I knew that and thought that's what you might be referring to. As
in 2 wrongs do not make a right.

| How can you agree with this?  The premisses and conlusions are strictly
| based on biblical exegisis.

	I can agree that according to the Bible, they don't have a basis for
doing what they do. The ones who claim to be Bible believing Christians should
follow what they believe, and not make exceptions.


Glen

Christians are called to disobey immoral laws.

The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is clearly immoral, as it
provides excessive penalties for forms of protest that are either legal
or have negligible penalties when the issue is not abortion.

Any law which discourages a person from attempting to stop someone from
killing another person is immoral, and is to be disobeyed.

/john

	John Covert has entered a longer version of Randall Terry's
editorial.  I had received a shorter version on the back of the
"Randall Terry LIVE" newsletter.  His wife Cindy wrote in the newsletter
that edited versions of the editorial have appeared recently in newspapers
around the country.  She also mentioned that USA TODAY (Jan. 9) took the
liberty of changing some of his words to suit their own pro-abortion slant.

 Gee, they wouldn't do that, now would they?





 Jim (tongue in cheek)

	Jeff Benson has made some assertions in this string regarding his
views on the Operation Rescue organization, and stating (if I understand
him correctly) that it is always wrong to disobey any governnment law,
but has so far declined to provide us with the arguments from the Scriptures
that he uses to support these claims.  One or two others have voiced some
agreement with his position.  So, now we have lined up on opposite sides of
the question, without really bothering (so far) to discuss and explore it
together, or even to explain to each other why we believe as we do.

	Therefore, in order to open up the debate, I will articulate some of
my own views, and some of my reasons for holding them.  Then, the other side
can present many convincing proofs that my views are all wet.  Later, I plan
to present some quotes from a booklet by the Rev. Daniel J. Little (Randall
Terry's pastor), titled "The Right & Responsibility to Rescue".

	Let me make it clear that I do *not* advocate anarchy.  It is
unscriptural and unwise to flippantly disregard or disdain government.
Government has authority, delegated by God, to enforce law and punish
wrongdoers, specifically to protect human life and property.

	The controversy for me begins when I seem to hear some of you
saying that it is now (and always will be) possible for all good Christians
in America (and elsewhere) to unquestioningly obey *every* law (e.g. FACE)
or court order (e.g. for Randall Terry), without ever once violating or
compromising our society's highest law (e.g. the US Constitution and the
Bill of Rights), or a good conscience, or the Scriptures.

	The purpose of some new laws and court orders in the US is simply
to protect a woman's newly-minted "right" to choose death for her child,
and to protect an abortionist's unbridled license to kill.  In order to
clear space in our brave new world to exercise these very broad and
far-reaching "rights", the rest of us are subtly or overtly being "asked"
(compelled?) to get out of the way by giving up our antiquated concepts
of "absolute right and wrong", "free speech", etc.

	In this case, government has stepped out of the boundaries of its
God-given authority.  It is no longer protecting human life and property.
Instead, it has begun to actively promote a specific form of murder, and to
actively suppress any dissent against it.

	Yes, it is our duty as Christians to submit to the governing
authorities, and even to obey as many of the laws as we can in good
conscience.  However, if obeying one of man's laws causes us to
disobey one of God's Laws (as revealed by Holy Scripture), then we must
follow the example of the apostles and "obey God rather than man".
Note that they respectfully but openly chose to disobey the court's
order to stop speaking to others about Jesus.

	Some of you don't seem to think we've reached the point where civil
disobedience is necessary today.  You haven't yet begun to chafe under any
yoke of tyranny.  Others have already been rescuing and sounding the alarm
for many years now.  Personally, I want very much to stay out of jail, keep
my job, and support my family, and that is why (I tell myself) I do not
rescue, and have even managed (so far) to obey the laws and court orders
(at least I *believe* that I have).

	But if you're trying to convince me that it's wrong to rescue (i.e.
attempt to intervene non-violently, disobeying trespassing and FACE laws,
in order to prevent an abortion murder), then you're going to have to try
harder.  If it's wrong for O.R. to rescue, then:

(1) Was it wrong for the abolitionists to run their "underground railroad",
    illegally and clandestinely, in order to free slaves from bondage?

(2) Was it wrong for the "freedom riders" to disobey the "Jim Crow" laws,
    in order to gain dignity and fair treatment for black people?

(3) Was it wrong of a few German families to hide Jewish people in their
    homes, disobeying Chancellor Hitler, in order to save their lives?

	Well, folks, as the rules keep getting harder to follow, just file
away this bit of advice for future reference:  If you continue to neglect
the exercise of every God-given right still left to you, then don't feel
cheated or be surprised when you wake up one day and, lo and behold, your
beloved government, which of course can do no wrong, has quietly taken all
of your rights away.

   T r u t h   D o e s n ' t   K i l l .   A b o r t i o n   D o e s .

	"Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has
	been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea
	of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent.  The
	result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact,
	which everyone really knows, that human life begins at
	conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine
	until death.  The very considerable semantic gymnastics
	which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but
	taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not put
	forth under socially impeccable auspices."

				"A New Ethic for Medicine and Society"
				California Medicine (editorial)
				September 1970

	"Abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun."

				"Plan Your Children for Health and Happiness"
				Planned Parenthood Federation of America
				(pamphlet), 1963

	"We have reached a point in this particular technology where
	there is no possibility of denial of an act of destruction by
	the operator.  It is before one's eyes.  The sensations of
	dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current."

				Dr. Warren Hern, Director
				Boulder Abortion Clinic in Colorado
				at a Meeting of the
				Assoc. of Planned Parenthood Physicians
				San Diego, October 26, 1978

	"Paradoxically, I have angry feelings at myself for feeling
	good about ... doing a technically good procedure which
	destroys a fetus, kills a baby."

					New Mexico Abortionist
					American Medical News, July 12, 1993

	"Many times" (a clinic nurse said), "women who had just had
	abortions would lie in the recovery room and cry, `I've just
	killed my baby'... I don't know what to say to these women,"
	the nurse told the group.  "Part of me thinks, `Maybe they're
	right.'"

					Abortion Clinic Nurse
					American Medical News, July 12, 1993

	"Even if you're pro-choice, no one likes to see a dead fetus."

					Vilma Valdez, Education Director
					Planned Parenthood of Greater Miami
					The Miami Herald, October 24, 1992

                Pro-life advocates call abortion killing.
                        So do abortion advocates.
      Agreement of basic fact is the first step in reasoned dialog.

     A b o r t i o n   P o l i c y   M u s t   b e   D e b a t e d .

    W i t h o u t   V i o l e n c e .   B u t   w i t h   T r u t h .

                 National Conference of Catholic Bishops
                   Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities
                         3211 Fourth Street, N.E.
                         Washington, D. C. 20017


  Full page ads made possible by the generosity of the Knights of Columbus

Re .510-.519: Very chilling and persuasive stuff.  John, I resonate
	very closely in agreement with you on this topic.

Re .509: Is it wrong to rescue?  Any takers?

>Re .509: Is it wrong to rescue?  Any takers?

See note .518.

Define "rescue."

>
>Define "rescue."
>

For the purposes of this discussion, let's define "rescue" as making the
clinic entrance inaccessible without damaging property that doesn't belong
to the rescuers.

For example, lying down on the sidewalk in front of the clinic, chained
together and to railings or doors.

/john

 I have a question.  I am pro-life.  However, I question some of the 
 blocking the entrance protests.  What if the woman is entering the clinic
 for purposes other than abortion, ie, gynecological exams, etc?  Should she
 be subjected to this activity?





Jim

I suppose you could ask the same question about the restaurant protests.

Suppose the person trying to enter the restaurant isn't a segregationist?
Should he be subject to such inconvenience?

/john

| <<< Note 108.506 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| -< Christians are only required to obey _legitimate_ laws >-


	Oh that's right, and the Christians get to CHOOSE which laws are legit,
right John? I don't think so.

| The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act is clearly immoral, as it
| provides excessive penalties for forms of protest that are either legal
| or have negligible penalties when the issue is not abortion.

	John, how is that immoral? If anything, it just goes against the human
law that says it's ok to protest. That's a human law, not God's. 


Glen

| <<< Note 108.522 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| For the purposes of this discussion, let's define "rescue" as making the
| clinic entrance inaccessible without damaging property that doesn't belong
| to the rescuers.

	Go to Jail, do not pass go. You want to picket out front, that's fine.
But when you say:

| For example, lying down on the sidewalk in front of the clinic, chained
| together and to railings or doors.

	Who's railings and doors are you chaining yourself to John? 


Glen

	John, when many in the prolife movement don't know or want to recognize
the whole truth, then your statements about the truth make no sense.


Glen

>| -< Christians are only required to obey _legitimate_ laws >-
>
>Oh that's right, and the Christians get to CHOOSE which laws are legit,
>right John? I don't think so.

Quite frankly, Glen, I care what the Church teaches, and will follow that.

I'll listen to Augustine and Martin Luther King.
I'll read the words on the walls here at Spitbrook:

	Just as we have an obligation to obey just laws,
	we have an equal obligation to disobey unjust laws.

That's written right on the wall of the building I work in.  It has been
taught by the Church since apostolic times.

/john

I wonder why John the Baptist's beheading wasn't stopped by Jesus and
his band of followers.

The loss of innocent life is tragic and abominable.  Abominations to God
will be dealt with by God; He has promised to avenge the innocent.

I have been swayed to and fro: by the people who have pushed others into
a corner by simplifying the issue and justify law breaking to protect
innocent people; a strong case can be made.  And by people who make a strong
case for law and order, and the responsibility of the individual, and
the accountability of the individual.  It is an understatement to say that
this is no simple issue with simplistic reasoning.  I think simplistic
reasoning has caused harm on both sides.  

I once forwarded the suggestion by some to legislate the prohibition of
abortions EXCEPT for the cause of rape, incest, and the life of the mother;
most people in the USA agree that casual abortion is wrong, but get very
squishy when you bring up the "but-what-about" exceptions.  I am told that
this would take into account up to 95% of the abortions.  Yet my pro-life
friends find it an unacceptable compromise and in being rigid, the 95%
are continuing to be lost.  At least it would be a MAJOR step in the 
right direction, enabling people to redirect their energies on pregnancy
counselling and the other 5%.

Another theory forwarded was to take the profit out of legal abortions.
The idea being that only those doctors with a *true* passion for a woman's
"right to choose" would be performing the abortions.  Again, dwindling the
number of fetal deaths significantly.  

The pigeon-holing of pro-life and pro-choice adversaries have tried to force
an all-or-nothing battle on us all.  I believe life begins to form at
conception.  I believe that every child should be a wanted child, and
that alternatives other than abortion should be sought for "unwanted"
children.  Does this belief lead me to the extremes of civil disobedience 
(or worse)?  Have we come to the point where nothing can be done within
the system, or are we being merely impatient?  What things are we doing 
within the system to change things?  America shifts from time to time,
as we saw in November.  What are we doing to effect change WITHIN the system
to save lives?  Shutting off a water main will take many turns at the
spigot.  A lot of water will still escape from when we begin to turn it
off, but it will diminish and hopefully stop.

I may have just offended my prolife friends who feel that one life lost is
worth the efforts, but sometimes it is better to save the many, knowing
that a few will be lost.  Every General in every army knows this.  And
this "battle" between opposing viewpoints should be little different.

Mark

| <<< Note 108.529 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Quite frankly, Glen, I care what the Church teaches, and will follow that.

	Good for you John. Just think of the wrongs the churches have done in
the past and that should be real helpful....

| Just as we have an obligation to obey just laws,
| we have an equal obligation to disobey unjust laws.

	Again, it means you make the decisions as to which laws are just/unjust



Glen

>
> Again, it means you make the decisions as to which laws are just/unjust
>

No, there again I listen to the Church.

Laws which do not respect the dignity of the individual are unjust.

/john

	Mark,

	Your reply and interest in dialog is appreciated!

>I wonder why John the Baptist's beheading wasn't stopped
>by Jesus and his band of followers.

	John the Baptist was a full-grown man, fully responsible for his
actions, and fully aware that his message of repentance might very well
get him killed someday.  Specifically, he knew that it was dangerous to
publicly humiliate Herod over his grossly immoral behavior.

	Rather than compare John the Baptist to an innocent child in the
womb, try comparing JTB to an abortion protester who speaks very loudly
and publicly against the abortionist's wicked deeds.  Pro-lifers *have*
been injured and even killed in the line of duty.  This can't be totally
prevented, and the risk is generally understood and accepted.

>The loss of innocent life is tragic and abominable.  Abominations to God
>will be dealt with by God; He has promised to avenge the innocent.

	Neither John Covert, nor Randall Terry, nor I are interested in
personally taking vengeance on anyone.  Where did you get that idea?
We fully recognize that we are to leave vengeance to God and government.

	I do understand the Scriptures to teach that we should not just
stand quietly by as innocent people are murdered daily in our communities.
We have a responsibility to these people, at least to protest their deaths,
and when possible, to non-violently try to prevent their deaths.

	One possible illustration of this in a biblical setting might be
Herod's slaughter of the innocents.  It is recorded both prophetically
and historically that their mothers mourned their loss.  Would it be too
great a stretch of the imagination to think that the childrens' parents
might have protested, even resisted the slaughter of their children to
the point of their own deaths?

	Yet today, the parents themselves are being deceived into having
their own unborn children slaughtered in the womb.  If the parents won't
protect or speak up for their own children, who will?

>I think simplistic reasoning has caused harm on both sides.  

	If you mean that we all have to think through this issue carefully
for ourselves, I would agree.  However, I'm not sure what you mean here.

>I once forwarded the suggestion by some to legislate the prohibition of
>abortions EXCEPT for the cause of rape, incest, and the life of the mother;
...
>Yet my pro-life friends find it an unacceptable compromise and in being rigid,
>the 95% are continuing to be lost.  At least it would be a MAJOR step in the 
>right direction, enabling people to redirect their energies on pregnancy
>counselling and the other 5%.

	You have previously recognized that it comes down to the issue of
whether the unborn are human beings, with the same intrinsic right to life
as the rest of us.  Is it merely stubborn rigidity on our part, or are we
just being true to, and consistent with, what we believe and understand?

	In any case, why would our being "rigid" be to blame for not making
progress in a positive direction?  The fact is that people will vote for
legislators who they think will represent their own views, whether it be
pro-abort or pro-life.  A candidate who flip-flops on the issue, saying
that abortion should not be allowed EXCEPT in hardship cases, will be seen
by both sides as a spineless politician, without personal convictions,
trying to win the election by pleasing everyone, and is unlikely to get any
support or respect from either side.  That is the political reality.

>Another theory forwarded was to take the profit out of legal abortions.
>The idea being that only those doctors with a *true* passion for a woman's
>"right to choose" would be performing the abortions.  Again, dwindling the
>number of fetal deaths significantly.  

	Okay, how do we go about taking the profit out of contract killing?

>The pigeon-holing of pro-life and pro-choice adversaries
>have tried to force an all-or-nothing battle on us all.

	Can you be more specific?  To what kinds of pigeon-holing are you
objecting?  Who is trying to force an all-or-nothing battle on you, and how
are they (we?) doing it?

>I believe life begins to form at conception.  I believe that every child
>should be a wanted child, and that alternatives other than abortion should be
>sought for "unwanted" children.  Does this belief lead me to the extremes of
>civil disobedience (or worse)?

	Do you believe that *all* civil disobedience is "extreme" (meaning
bad) simply because it involves the breaking of a law?  (I can't agree with
this position.)

	Or are you trying to say that you object strongly to those few
individuals who have committed and/or threatened and/or advocated violence
against persons, and/or destruction of property?  (I agree wholeheartedly
with you here, whether the perpetrators are pro- or anti- abortion or
whatever their motives.)

	BTW, I did pose some questions worth pondering regarding civil
disobedience (specifically rescues), in a previous reply (was it .509?).
I hope you will take some time to respond to them, since I value and
respect your opinions.

	Did you know that Paul Hill was a "nobody", defrocked as a
Presbyterian minister for advocating violence against abortionists,
until Phil Donahue subjected the national audience to his views?

>Have we come to the point where nothing can be done within the system,
>or are we being merely impatient?  What things are we doing within the
>system to change things?  America shifts from time to time, as we saw
>in November.  What are we doing to effect change WITHIN the system
>to save lives?  Shutting off a water main will take many turns at the
>spigot.  A lot of water will still escape from when we begin to turn it
>off, but it will diminish and hopefully stop.

	Your point is well taken.  My response is that there are still a
number of things we can do that are still perfectly legal, and you are
correct that we should emphasize and promote these activities.  If we are
especially good at parenting, financially stable, and unable to conceive
enough of our own, then we should try to adopt "unwanted" children.  We
should do our best to educate and inform our children, relatives, friends,
neighbors, acquaintances, and elected officials.  There are several good
ways of doing this:

* Help out at a local crisis pregnancy center.
* Support solid national, state, and/or local pro-life organizations.
* Protest and pray peacefully at the local abortion mill.

	A certain amount of impatience and frustration is only human and
understandable, but certainly is *not* justification for taking any sort
of vigilante, violent action against people.  I'm sure you would agree that
it would be out of character for any genuine disciple of Christ to even
entertain the thought of it.

	Non-violent civil disobedience (rescue) is another matter,
and I would like to hear you expound your views on it as well.

>I may have just offended my prolife friends who feel that one life lost is
>worth the efforts, but sometimes it is better to save the many, knowing
>that a few will be lost.  Every General in every army knows this.  And
>this "battle" between opposing viewpoints should be little different.

	No offense taken.  I'm just trying to understand what exactly you
are saying.

						Bob Sampson

>>I once forwarded the suggestion by some to legislate the prohibition of
>>abortions EXCEPT for the cause of rape, incest, and the life of the mother;
>...
>>Yet my pro-life friends find it an unacceptable compromise and in being rigid,
>>the 95% are continuing to be lost.  At least it would be a MAJOR step in the 
>>right direction, enabling people to redirect their energies on pregnancy
>>counselling and the other 5%.
>
>	You have previously recognized that it comes down to the issue of
>whether the unborn are human beings, with the same intrinsic right to life
>as the rest of us.  Is it merely stubborn rigidity on our part, or are we
>just being true to, and consistent with, what we believe and understand?

We live in a pluralistic society; majority rule.  The majority have little
problem with first trimester abortion, spontaneous or induced.  What I am
saying is that if we STARTED with how the majority feels, rather than 
either of the minority positions, we'd SAVE MANY MANY MANY LIVES.  That
doesn't seem to be good enough.

The vocal minorities on either side have made this an "all or nothing"
position, which in THIS pluralistic society has meant that all abortions
are legal, even if the majority of us are not comfortable with what that
means.  If we remove the all or nothing, (for example, marijuana can be
used for medicinal purposes), then we severly curtail the WHOLESALE slaughter.

-----------------

>>Another theory forwarded was to take the profit out of legal abortions.
>>The idea being that only those doctors with a *true* passion for a woman's
>>"right to choose" would be performing the abortions.  Again, dwindling the
>>number of fetal deaths significantly.  
>
>	Okay, how do we go about taking the profit out of contract killing?

I expect this is merely rhetorical because of the all or nothing reasoning
above, but I'll bite.  (I don't know; I'm guessing.)  Abortions get government
regulated (price fixing or wage fixing - both really).  In conjunction with 
this, if you add the caveats to what abortions can be performed, you reduce
the number of killings again.

Convenience abortions *will* create a black market, by the way.  This is
not a reason to avoid the majority view and pursue it.

The all or nothing approach CANNOT manage the enormity of the issue.  
By starting with the majority approach, you reduce the incidence of
slaughter to something a whole lot more managable - as I said, redirecting
protest and anti-abortion energies into pregnancy counselling, adoption, 
and education.

MM

>>The pigeon-holing of pro-life and pro-choice adversaries
>>have tried to force an all-or-nothing battle on us all.
>
>	Can you be more specific?  To what kinds of pigeon-holing are you
>objecting?  Who is trying to force an all-or-nothing battle on you, and how
>are they (we?) doing it?

(a) if you are prolife you believe there is no alternative to an all-out
    prohibition to all abortions.  The religious prolifer believes that
    abortion in any case is a sin and murder.

(b) if you are prochoice you believe there is any reason to terminate an
    unborn child *if you want to* and it denies that life exists or matters
    before the child is born.

All or nothing.

Most people in America feel that abortion is WRONG, but then backpeddle on
the "what-ifs" of rape, incest, and where the mother's life is threatened.
The simplistic view is that "its a life" (which is the fundamental question)
but we don't like to consider relative values on people's lives.  After all,
God is no respector of persons, is He?  Tell that to a husband who is faced 
with a choice between a wife he chose whose life may be lost by carrying
a child to full term, and a child who he didn't choose (even if they chose
to get pregnant, by the way).  *WE* place relative values on human life.
You value your wife and kids more than your neighbors.  You value your
neighbors more than strangers.  Abortion is a SYMPTOM of a deeper issue of
self (selfishness and selflessness) and this societal issue is gargantuan
compared to the abortion issue.  In the meantime, STARTING with the majority 
viewpoint on abortion, *WE* *SAVE* *LIVES* that are being lost right now!

(Only quarks jump from one point in space to another.  Most other things
travel through space in step increments.)

Mark

MTC

>>I believe life begins to form at conception.  I believe that every child
>>should be a wanted child, and that alternatives other than abortion should be
>>sought for "unwanted" children.  Does this belief lead me to the extremes of
>>civil disobedience (or worse)?
>
>	Do you believe that *all* civil disobedience is "extreme" (meaning
>bad) simply because it involves the breaking of a law?  (I can't agree with
>this position.)

No.

Have we come to the point of no recourse within the system?
I think some people would want to push us to this point to have 
an abrupt resolution.  (All or nothing.)  Incremental resolution 
will save lives - more lives than setting up the ultimate conflict.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>disobedience (specifically rescues), in a previous reply (was it .509?).

(I'll go back and take a look sometime today.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	Did you know that Paul Hill was a "nobody", defrocked as a
>Presbyterian minister for advocating violence against abortionists,
>until Phil Donahue subjected the national audience to his views?

Not surprised.  One radio commentator had some friends object to his
painting all prolifers with a broad brush.  He said if there are a dozen
students at ABC University who are acting up, they are reported as students
of ABC University regardless of the other 5000 who are dutifully studying in
their dorm rooms.   I find it tragic that we have to "clean up" after the
fringe.  It is an expense of energy we cannot afford.
----------------------------------------------------------------

>	A certain amount of impatience and frustration is only human and
>understandable, but certainly is *not* justification for taking any sort
>of vigilante, violent action against people.  I'm sure you would agree that
>it would be out of character for any genuine disciple of Christ to even
>entertain the thought of it.

I do, and I know you were not advocating any of these things either.  
My experience is that when you are pushed from the left, you move right.
And when you are pushed fromthe right, you move left.  The majority of
America has been pushed (or pulled, screamed at, berated, etc) into 
taking a stand, but Mr. and Ms. Average American have taken a stand in
the middle and it hasn't been good enough for the left or right, so they
keep pushing and elevating.

Let's deflate this conflict but bringing the *practice* to the *attitude*
of America before working on the attitude of America.  The job will be a 
whole lot easier.

Mark

On matters of conscience or principle, there is always a rift between those
who go back to basic principles, and will make no compromise, and those who
believe that they are more likely to attain their ends a little at a time,
with less overt confrontation. 

The trouble with the latter approach is that they have lost their root
principle.  A small evil is still an evil, and it is evil that is objected
to, that is unclean, not the size of it.  Once you make an exception, 
you're allow the possiblity that some measure of whatever-it-is, is 
acceptable.  If the larger manifestations were disallowed, and you came 
down to that example which was earlier allowed to slip through, yuo would 
be in an anomalous position in trying to reverse the condition you had 
previously allowed as a bargaining point.

Suppose the issue were post-natal murder, and we made an exception for very
small children, because they are very small, so it doesn't seem so wrong -
after all, they haven't made much impression on society.  Once the killing
of anyone over 20lb weight was declared as murder, the push back to protect
smaller children would be increasingly difficult, and even then, the
ultimate exclusion of all murder would *still* have to be ultimately faced.
A gross example, but it tries to demonstrate the anomaly of the compromise
position. 

'Majority' rule, and 'democracy' are man's second best replacements of 
divine law.  They have their good points - but they also have their bad 
points.  The imagination of man's heart is increasingly evil - and the more 
so as he shares in evil influence with others...

Obviously each one has to come to terms with his own conscience to reach
his own position, but we are responsible ultimately to God, not to force
society to obey His law, by our verbal skill or political manoevering, but
to be the salt that exhibits His pure law through our life constantly.  My
objective is not to convert the world, but to be a channel through which
God can convert the world. 

If the former were to fail, it would be my fault.  If it were to succeed,
it would disastrously convert them to me instead of to God. 

There is no failure in the latter, except in the flavouring of the channel, 
which inevitably obscures something of His perfection.  But I know that 
even this will not frustrate the ultimate total achievement of His plan, 
because it is He Who has chosen to use this weak channel.

							Andrew

Note 108.509  CUJO::SAMPSON 
================================================================================
>	Yes, it is our duty as Christians to submit to the governing
>authorities, and even to obey as many of the laws as we can in good
>conscience.  However, if obeying one of man's laws causes us to
>disobey one of God's Laws (as revealed by Holy Scripture), then we must
>follow the example of the apostles and "obey God rather than man".
>Note that they respectfully but openly chose to disobey the court's
>order to stop speaking to others about Jesus.

We see a tension between ideals: (a) obeying the law and government
and (b) disobeying the law on the basis of a higher law.

In the strictest sense, how is one obeying God by preventing the egress
of people into a clinic to perform and abortion or have an abortion
performed?  "Thou shalt not kill," perhaps?  If you are not at the clinic, you
are not killing - someone else is.

How about prosecuting a murderer?  Is this God's law or man's law?

o  Examine God's commandments.

   They are to love.  Love Him first; love others.
   They are to avoid evil.  Don't steal, don't murder, don't commit adultery.

o  Apply them to yourself first and only.
   
   Peter asked "what about him?"  Jesus responded, "leave that to me.  You
   must follow me." (loose paraphrase)

o  As a member of society, your resposibility is to define laws for the
   common good, to oppose laws that are to the common detriment.

   Society must impose law and order to protect its members.  When it 
   does not protect its members, it is in danger of collapsing.  Yes,
   America is in danger of collapsing, but I again assert that we are
   not and need not get to the point of ultimate conflict.  There is 
   much that can be done within the system with enough main stream support.

   Right now, mainstream support sits on the sidelines.  The left and
   right factions are engaged in guerilla tactics and sorties, marking 
   this day with a protest, targeting this place or another with a 
   staged event - be it clinic or church.

>	Some of you don't seem to think we've reached the point where civil
>disobedience is necessary today.  You haven't yet begun to chafe under any
>yoke of tyranny.  Others have already been rescuing and sounding the alarm
>for many years now.  Personally, I want very much to stay out of jail, keep
>my job, and support my family, and that is why (I tell myself) I do not
>rescue, and have even managed (so far) to obey the laws and court orders
>(at least I *believe* that I have).

  For many years now, people have been painting this as an all or
  nothing battle when most people in this country do not see it as black
  and  white.  And I do not think they *will* reach the point.  The
  "yoke of  tyranny" (inflaming words, by the way) is thought of by
  mainstream  America as the froth-at-the-mouth abortion-killers and the
  froth-at-the-mouth abortionist-killers.

>(1) Was it wrong for the abolitionists to run their "underground railroad",
>    illegally and clandestinely, in order to free slaves from bondage?

  There was no recourse for slaves.  We were entering a state of civil
  war over this issue.  Have we lost all recourse and are faced with
  civil war?  Some people think that the "radicals" want to force this
  issue.

>(2) Was it wrong for the "freedom riders" to disobey the "Jim Crow" laws,
>    in order to gain dignity and fair treatment for black people?

  I don't know.  There were measures afoot for civil rights but it
  certainly was happening at a very slow pace adding to the sufering and
  frustration of blacks in our country.

>(3) Was it wrong of a few German families to hide Jewish people in their
>    homes, disobeying Chancellor Hitler, in order to save their lives?

  Again, no legal recourse.  Have we run out of recourse, or are we
  merely impatient, frustrated, and leaping before looking?

>	Well, folks, as the rules keep getting harder to follow, just file
>away this bit of advice for future reference:  If you continue to neglect
>the exercise of every God-given right still left to you, then don't feel
>cheated or be surprised when you wake up one day and, lo and behold, your
>beloved government, which of course can do no wrong, has quietly taken all
>of your rights away.

  Impassioned, but a pro-choice person could have said the same thing
  about the right-wing religious people who want to take their rights
  away.

  We need to change the way people view the issue, and to date, the
  prolife side has done a poor job of it.  It's not for lack of trying,
  but frustrations make poor allies.

  Incidentally, I'm prolife (having to classify myself in one camp or
  the other - again all or nothing).  Does this, or does this not
  pigeon-hole me?

  Mark

  I think we have a problem with reconciling a view that all life is
  precious, that the killing of one life is wrong,  and a view that
  adopts saving some of those who are being killed systematically. I
  know I have trouble with it, too.

  Why aren't we waging war with China where abortion is pressured for
  the same reasons we blockade clinics?  One answer might be "order of
  magnitude."  Perhaps this is an ultimate goal: changing the world.
  Sounds pretty gospel-like to me in some respects.  In others, it may
  sound like the ill-executed crusades.

  But the reasoning behind the issue is focused here in America and
  not on "abortion" or we should be sending people overseas to
  physically oppose the many governments that are advocates and more
  regarding abortion.

  Back to order of magnitude.  If we can leave China as the next stage
  in the plan to stop abortions (and all other ills of selfishness),
  then why can't we address the issue at home in American in stages?

  No one would argue that opposing abortion in China has greater
  consequences than here in America, yet on the principle of the
  issue, we should have no less of an interest or ACTION (which is 
  attitude expressed) there than here.

  But, one may object, we can and should have impact where we are
  first.  Perhaps.  But how one has impact can be expressed in
  innumerable ways.  John Salvi's expression is one expression that
  almost everyone abhors (myself included).

  If we are to act on the *principle* of saving a life, then we are
  obligated to consider which expression best saves a life and best
  saves most of the lives it can.  Principle is useless unless it can
  be applied effectively.

  Are we going to save all lives that are intended to be aborted?  No.
  We know this from the days when abortion was illegal.  How do we
  save the most lives?  What are the most effective ways?  There
  doesn't have to be just one, but we must recognize a finite resource
  pool of energies to which we can apply to the problems.  Therefore,
  prioritizing efforts along the lines of most effective to least
  effective will help determine which way the principles can be best
  applied.

  Gideon, even though the battle was won by the Lord only, did not
  walk directly into the enemy camp demanding surrender.  Instead,
  Gideon was instructed to take up strategic positions with his mere
  300 people and at the appointed time sounded the trumpet blasts from 
  all of these surrounding vantage points.  It was a God-directed
  tactic with God-assisted results.

  The proper application of principle is nearly as important as the
  underlying principle itself.

  Mark

Note 108.536   ICTHUS::YUILLE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Suppose the issue were post-natal murder,

  The issue becomes far less complex because this person is separate
  from the host (mother).
-----
  There is also the issue of poverty and addressing it as a moral
  issue. Because of the fall of the world, we have poverty and Jesus
  said we will always have the poor with us.  He didn't crusade
  against poverty, but he helped those who were poor.

  A man walked along the beach and stooped over to pick up a star
  fish.  He flung it as far as he could into the ocean.  Someone
  noticed and asked what he was doing.  The man replied, "these star
  fish will die on the beach when the sun dires the out.  By throwing
  them into the water, they have a chance to live."

  "Do you know how many star fish there are washed up on the beach?
  How do you expect to make a difference by tossing in one or two?"

  The man stooped over to pick up another star fish.  "To this star
  fish, it will make all the difference in the world."

  The all-or-nothing argument on principle will see people die in
  greater numbers.  I have wrestled myself with "compromise" and I
  have come to the point where I do not compromise my belief regarding
  the abortion issue by compromising my stand on society's
  implementation regarding abortion.  And I will no longer be pushed
  into thinking that if I hold to the societal position of compromise
  that I have abandoned or intermingled my belief with the pagan
  culture.

  Mark

  Incidentally, I wrote .538 without seeing Andrew's note -
  interesting how it addresses the issue of reconciling the belief
  with the yielding to society's application WHILE attempting to
  change society's application by changing their beliefs.

    Hi all,
    
    I have a tough time with this one.  I have been struggling with my
    stance on this for about a week now.  I have never been one for
    protests.  I think that's because as a little kid growing up in the 60s
    and 70s, I really resented much of what went on.  The hostility between
    the youth of that day and authority.  I was an extremely innocent child
    and could not understand all this hatefulness that I saw.  I further
    resented when this time was later glamorized by Hollywood.  I find
    myself feeling a great deal of unrest with whether rescue groups are
    doing the will of God and I know that God is not a God of confusion, so
    I've had to really seek on this.
    
    The issue of abortion is very clearly immoral.  I was amazed that even
    while the Supreme Court ruled that life began at contraception they
    could turn around and rule that the killing of these lives were the
    acceptable law of the land.  I believe God is judging America for the
    willful murder of these lives.
    
    I think christians need to channel our money and effort into positive
    change.  I think operations like the Crisis Pregnancy Centers do a good
    work.  I think if we can get the word out that there are alternatives
    to abortion, that it can have a positive effect.  I think we also need
    to get the word out on the affects of abortion on women.  Women go
    through horrible emotions and often end up in counselling or worse
    getting physically ill because they have locked their guilt and
    grieving inside. We should also barrage our youth with the knowledge of
    that having an abortion(s) could later prevent a healthy delivery of a
    child they do want in addiction to the other effects.  Our kids are
    being lied to and maybe some stark reality will wake them up to the
    truth.
     
    I think many Americans don't agree with unlimited abortion.  However,
    they have been convinced that they don't have the right to their own
    opinion.  I think we need to convince people to stand up and ignore 
    the liberal activists and say what they feel.  Not only do people have 
    the right to a pro-life opinion, they have the right to yell it from 
    the rooftops.
    
    I also agree with Mark on his comments about we might not be able to
    take all the ground back at once.  The fact that we could have cut out
    the majority of abortions "as a first step" and that it was blocked by
    pro-life people chanting 'all or nothing' is a sin in itself.  We did
    not lose this battle overnight and we will not win it that way either.
    I hate to think of how many lives could have been saved and weren't.
    This is an atrocity committed by a people that should have known about
    valuing life more preciously than anybody else.  There is a verse that
    applies here but I can't seem to remember it, it's about taking some
    ground and fighting on.  
    
    Lastly, on the subject of Operation Rescue and groups like them.  My
    heart goes out with theirs at the mass murders of this countries'
    infants.  I've struggled with much of their activities though.  The
    most riveting analogy given for me is that of WWII.  I think of people
    like Corrie ten Boom and her family and the fact that they went against
    Nazi rule and tried to save the lives of Jews.  I most often in my mind
    correlate these kind of WWII events with Rahab.  Both hid Jews and
    deceived the men that wished them killed.  Both are considered great
    women of faith.  Both would be considered criminals by their own
    people.  Rahab was rescued from certain death by the Jews she helped
    and God gave her a special place in the lineage of Jesus. Corrie ten
    Boom and her family were captured along with the Jews they sought to
    protect and placed in a concentration camp.  Both her father and sister
    were murdered there.  She was the only survivor in her family.  But God
    has worked miracles in her life and given her a vital ministry to the
    christian community.  I understand the correlation that rescuers see
    between keeping the babies out of harm's way and these kind of historic
    events.  But the difference I see is that these women were personally
    asked to assist the authorities in putting these people in harm's way. 
    I guess this is where my struggle is.  I think it would be different if
    the law was ordering a group of people (teenagers, wowen on welfare,
    handicapped, women of a certain race, etc...) to have abortions and
    maybe even asking for people to turn in people that fit the criteria,
    then I could understand efforts to the contrary.  But that is not the
    case.  These are people who are willfully committing the murder of
    another human being and we are not being asked to take a part in this. 
    I can appreciate feeling like maybe we should "jump in and take the
    bullet" but I'm questioning if there are better ways of doing this
    besides breaking laws which has led a few whackos to decide that any
    law could be broken resulting in murder.   Unfortunately, the acts of
    these whackos have aided the opposition in strengthening their position
    of choice.  We need to make sure we are not responsible for creating an
    environment where these whackos are going to flourish.  I'm not saying
    that we are directly responsible for their actions, but we might be
    partly responsible for the environment they are enable to operate in. 
    But a question I have is what is happening to our primary objective of
    "make ye disciples in all the earth" if people are lumping us in with
    these whackos? Are we now facing a more difficult spiritual battle of 
    our winning souls in America of own making?
    
    Jill

	First: Mark, I will reply to your reply after this one.

	Second, I'm having trouble following the arguments that pro-lifers,
simply by holding an uncompromising position, are prolonging and increasing
the slaughter, or are somehow causing more people to become murderous kooks.
I can't buy those ideas, at least not without a stronger selling effort! :-)

	Third, you are technically correct in saying that our government
does not (yet) "compel by force" anyone to commit abortion murder, as the
Chinese Communist government does.  Note, however, that our government
*does* currently *fund* population control programs, including forced
abortion in China, and "voluntary" abortion here.  Euthanasia starts off
as "voluntary", too, but it does not stop there.  Ask the people in the
Netherlands who have first-hand experience with this government-sponsored
"mercy killing".  That is, if you can find anyone still alive who is
willing to talk.  Germany's government also instituted abortion and
euthanasia programs several years before Hitler took over.

	Mark,

>In the strictest sense, how is one obeying God by preventing the egress
>of people into a clinic to perform and abortion or have an abortion
>performed?  "Thou shalt not kill," perhaps?  If you are not at the clinic,
>you are not killing - someone else is.

	First, one is obeying God by opposing evil; the shedding of innocent
blood, which defiles the land and brings guilt upon all of the inhabitants of
the city, and cannot be atoned for except by blood sacrifice (which we know
must be the blood of Jesus).
 
	Second, one is obeying God by defending children who are defenseless
and very much orphans, in that they lack caring fathers (and mothers).  This
is action that should result from loving our neighbors as we love ourselves.
We also should care, pray for, and be very much concerned about the other
potential abortion victims (women, children, and men) and abortion perpetrators
(clinic staff), for their physical, emotional, and spiritual deliverance.

	Third, one is obeying God by warning evildoers to repent of their
wicked deeds.  Whether they heed the warning or not is up to them.  When we
faithfully deliver the (non-violent) warning, God promises to absolve us of
further responsibility for their future actions and possible ultimate eternal
demise.

	By ordinary human legal standards, yes, only those actually committing
murder, or aiding and abetting in the commission of murder, should be held
guilty and accountable.  We may be able to stay out of trouble with human
authorities for a while by physically staying well away from the abortion
mills, and by not speaking out against abortion.

	Those Germans who were of "Aryan" race, and who kept their eyes, ears,
nostrils, and mouths shut about the concentration camp deaths and the stench
of the crematoriums, were largely exempt from the "mysterious disappearances"
going on all around them.

	Mark,

>How about prosecuting a murderer?  Is this God's law or man's law?

	Who said anything about prosecution?  Please clarify.

>o  Examine God's commandments.
>
>   They are to love.  Love Him first; love others.
>   They are to avoid evil.  Don't steal, don't murder, don't commit adultery.

	Okay.

>o  Apply them to yourself first and only.
>   
>   Peter asked "what about him?"  Jesus responded, "leave that to me.  You
>   must follow me." (loose paraphrase)

	Yes, they apply to "me" first, but God applies them to everyone.
Peter was referring to John, another disciple and apostle of Christ,
wondering what God had planned (e.g. martyrdom or exile) for both of them.
The passage is *not* saying we should wink at or ignore all evil committed
by anyone other than ourselves.  But I think you know that.

>o  As a member of society, your resposibility is to define laws for the
>   common good, to oppose laws that are to the common detriment.
>
>   Society must impose law and order to protect its members.  When it 
>   does not protect its members, it is in danger of collapsing.  Yes,
>   America is in danger of collapsing, but I again assert that we are
>   not and need not get to the point of ultimate conflict.  There is 
>   much that can be done within the system with enough main stream support.

	Er, ah, I think I've already agreed, reinforced, and made some
practical suggestions, regarding your point that much more can and should
be done by more people, within the law.

>   Right now, mainstream support sits on the sidelines.  The left and
>   right factions are engaged in guerilla tactics and sorties, marking 
>   this day with a protest, targeting this place or another with a 
>   staged event - be it clinic or church.

	Would you have us sit on the sidelines with everyone else?

>  For many years now, people have been painting this as an all or
>  nothing battle when most people in this country do not see it as black
>  and  white.  And I do not think they *will* reach the point.  The
>  "yoke of  tyranny" (inflaming words, by the way) is thought of by
>  mainstream  America as the froth-at-the-mouth abortion-killers and the
>  froth-at-the-mouth abortionist-killers.

	Sorry, I can't be held responsible for the concepts others may have.
Bad government is tyranny.  If someone gets inflamed, that is just too bad.
I don't kill anyone, and I don't ordinarily froth at the mouth.  Abortionists
do murder, but I don't remember seeing any froth on their mouths, either.

>>(1) Was it wrong for the abolitionists to run their "underground railroad",
>>    illegally and clandestinely, in order to free slaves from bondage?
>
>  There was no recourse for slaves.  We were entering a state of civil
>  war over this issue.  Have we lost all recourse and are faced with
>  civil war?  Some people think that the "radicals" want to force this
>  issue.

	As you know, unborn children also have no recourse.  No sane person
*wants* another bloody civil war.  A few (insane) radicals (on both sides of
the abortion issue) *do* want to force a bloody conflict.  True pro-lifers
only want to save lives.

	More later; it's late.

	By the way, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that
pro-aborts want to maintain the status quo, in which they are free to wage
quiet, unobtrusive, and bloody war on unborn children.  There have been
more than 30 million victims of this holocaust since Roe v. Wade.

>Note 108.542 CUJO::SAMPSON

        Mark,

>>In the strictest sense, how is one obeying God by preventing the egress
>>of people into a clinic to perform and abortion or have an abortion
>>performed?  "Thou shalt not kill," perhaps?  If you are not at the clinic,
>>you are not killing - someone else is.
>
>       First, one is obeying God by opposing evil;

  Opposing evil can be done in many ways.  Is "rescue" the best way?

>       Second, one is obeying God by defending children who are defenseless

  Again, which actions and programs yield the best results?  How many
  defenseless children do you save when the effort is like using a
  sand pail shovel when a backhoe would do a better job.

>and very much orphans, in that they lack caring fathers (and mothers).  This
>is action that should result from loving our neighbors as we love ourselves.

  Outside the womb, we have the DSS (like 'em or not) who will take children
  away from parents who neglect them.  Inside the womb, we have a VERY
  different story.  I suppose one answer is to lock up pregnant women who
  declare their desire for an abortion until they give birth, feed them
  intravenously if they resist, etc.  You see, when taken to a logical
  conclusion, it is extreme because of the uniqueness of how and where the
  child is.

>       Third, one is obeying God by warning evildoers to repent of their
>wicked deeds.

  Again, which actions and programs yield the best results?  Not the
  noisiest or most noticable, but the best?  There are many ways to
  educate and warn.

Mark

    	I agree with Mark.
    
    	I would prefer to see some legal compromise that allows abortions
    	for the difficult cases, but prohibits abortion as a means of
    	birth control, or for convenience.
    
    	I would even be willing to accept a very broad definition of
    	"mother's life in danger" such that she merely needs confirmation
    	of that from a judge or a doctor.  Sure, that is an open invitation
    	to abuse of the provision, but it still requires an extra step
    	that would still filter out many abortions that are done today.
    
    	This legal compromise would in no way reflect my personal morals,
    	nor would support of such a legal compromise mean that I am
    	compromising my own morals.  I would still argue and fight for
    	the rest, but in the meantime we will have eliminated the vast
    	majority of the slaughter.
    
    	Without such a legal compromise, not only will the "problem 
    	cases" continue (as they would under the compromise) but so
    	too would the rest of abortions that are done as a matter of
    	birth control or convenience.
    
    	Allowing all abortions to continue simply because we can't yet
    	address every problem situation is nothing more than sacrificing
    	the babies aborted for birth control because we are paralyzed
    	by our inability to solve the extreme case.  And arguing to
    	maintain the status-quo because we will always have difficult 
    	cases is nothing more than a cowardly use of tragic cases for 
    	the sake of one's agenda.

Note 108.543    CUJO::SAMPSON

>       Mark,
>
>>How about prosecuting a murderer?  Is this God's law or man's law?
>
>       Who said anything about prosecution?  Please clarify.

  I did.  If abortion is murder, what about prosecution for murder. If
  the Bible (OT) sets a lesser penalty on being the cause for a
  spontaneous abortion (deliberate or otherwise), what does this say?

  Second, God says, "Thou shalt not kill."  Man says, "as a society,
  we'll punish you for anti-social behavior;  That is, punish you for
  murder if you do murder."   What does God say?

>>   Peter asked "what about him?"  Jesus responded, "leave that to me.  You
>>   must follow me." (loose paraphrase)
>
>       Yes, they apply to "me" first, but God applies them to everyone.
>Peter was referring to John, another disciple and apostle of Christ,
>wondering what God had planned (e.g. martyrdom or exile) for both of them.
>The passage is *not* saying we should wink at or ignore all evil committed
>by anyone other than ourselves.  But I think you know that.

  I don't think I was implying that this "winks at evil."  I would
  hope you kow that, too.  It is meant to say that we are resposible
  for our own conduct and will be held accountable for it.

  How we address the evils of the world is what we are attempting to
  discuss.  The tactics involved are at issue.

>>   Right now, mainstream support sits on the sidelines.  The left and
>>   right factions are engaged in guerilla tactics and sorties, marking
>>   this day with a protest, targeting this place or another with a
>>   staged event - be it clinic or church.
>
>       Would you have us sit on the sidelines with everyone else?

  We're coming at "sidelines" from different perspectives.  The two
  extremes won't allow the mainstream to "play on the field."  The
  mainstream has been pushed to the sidelines by the All-or-Nothing
  groups.
  What I would have is to have the whistle blown and both extremes
  sent to their corners.  Then I would have us discuss the mainstream
  point of view and how this might be implemented *as a first step*
  towards reforming the abortion issue.

>       Sorry, I can't be held responsible for the concepts others may have.

  I think you're wrong there, Bob.  Like it or not, people hold us
  responsible.  We wrestle against the label and the definition.  And
  our actions will be partly the reason people will hold us
  responsible for their ideas.

>Bad government is tyranny.  If someone gets inflamed, that is just too bad.
>I don't kill anyone, and I don't ordinarily froth at the mouth.  Abortionists
>do murder, but I don't remember seeing any froth on their mouths, either.

  The all-or-nothing crowd pushes people to extremes, like Act-up and
  the Salvis of the world.  Then the civil all-or-nothing crowd wants
  to distance themselves from the fringe.  (Very understandable.)  But
  you and they use the fringe of the other side to broadly categorize.
  The use of flash-point terminology such as murder ("but it is murder
  - I'm just calling it what it is) leads to other flashpoint
  terminology.  No dialogue - just shouting.  And we feel as if we did
  our job by shouting - it is their problem and responsibility if they
  don't want to listen, right?  Communication is never one
  directional.  It must be received.  It may not be the fault of the
  transmitter that the message isn't getting through to the reciever,
  but perhaps the transmitter isn't on the same wavelength to begin
  with.  So who's fault is miscommunication, then?

>>>(1) Was it wrong for the abolitionists to run their "underground railroad",
>>>    illegally and clandestinely, in order to free slaves from bondage?
>>
>>  There was no recourse for slaves.  We were entering a state of civil
>>  war over this issue.  Have we lost all recourse and are faced with
>>  civil war?  Some people think that the "radicals" want to force this
>>  issue.
>
>       As you know, unborn children also have no recourse.  No sane person
>*wants* another bloody civil war.  A few (insane) radicals (on both sides of
>the abortion issue) *do* want to force a bloody conflict.  True pro-lifers
>only want to save lives.

  No one wanted a civil war, either, Bob.  They only wanted to save
  lives (and their economic welfare, but that's beside this point).

  There *IS* recourse for us to take to SAVE the lives of unborn
  children.  They are unprotected as were the slaves.  We DO HAVE
  legal recourse to shut off the water main of wholesale slaughter.
  The slaves did not have legal recourse to be set free.


>Note 108.544

>                        -< it's a one-sided war so far... >-
>
>       By the way, I would be remiss if I failed to mention that
>pro-aborts want to maintain the status quo, in which they are free to wage
>quiet, unobtrusive, and bloody war on unborn children.  There have been
>more than 30 million victims of this holocaust since Roe v. Wade.

  Pulling ourselves to the mainstream position IS NOT the staus quo.
  It is a SIGNIFICANT RESTRICTION on abortion, making casual abortions
  illegal - but not making all abortions illegal.

  It is a start that would save more lives than we presently can do
  under existing "rescue" efforts.

  Mark

>Note 108.541 CUJO::SAMPSON
>
>                            -< initial objections >-
>
>       Second, I'm having trouble following the arguments that pro-lifers,
>simply by holding an uncompromising position, are prolonging and increasing
>the slaughter, or are somehow causing more people to become murderous kooks.
>I can't buy those ideas, at least not without a stronger selling effort! :-)

  a) Mainstream American opinion is that abortion is WRONG except in
     the case of rape, incest, or the danger of the mother's life.

  b) Making all abortions illegal goes farther than what mainstream
     American opinion is willing to tolerate as a restriction on
     abortion.

  c) When give a choice for SOME restrictions versus the extremes,
     Americans will choose some restrictions.

  d) When given a choice between complete prohibition or complete
     unrestriction, Americans (particularly) will choose unrestriction.

  Therefore, because we have not offered a compromise position, (and I
  even present it to prolife advocates as *a start*), we continue to
  push mainstream American opinion into the Unrestricted Abortion camp.
  Please reread (c).

  If we adopt some restrictions (the mainstream view), we can curtail
  the number of abortions significantly.

  If we do not adopt some restriction and maintain an uncompromising
  position, we will only escalate the conflict and push people into
  the Unrestricted Camp (d).

  Lastly, I have an uncompromising position on the value of life,
  beginning at conception.  My personal position is not compromised
  by accepting the strategic position of the pluralistic society.
  I still hold the same value and will attempt to influence society
  (as we all do) into seeing value in those values.

  Mark

.546> J_OPPELT

What he said.  (sometimes I get so verbose).  ;-)

I know, I know... what do I mean "sometimes"?

| <<< Note 108.531 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| >
| > Again, it means you make the decisions as to which laws are just/unjust
| >

| No, there again I listen to the Church.

	Maybe someday when all churches can agree you would have a valid point.
But you really don't.


Glen

	Mark,

	I can see that you and I aren't going to reach full agreement on
this topic any time soon.  Honestly, I wish you success and I do gladly
participate in "mainstream" efforts to place "reasonable" restrictions on
abortion-on-demand.  I don't intend to be an obstacle to your progress.
From my vantage point, you still haven't supplied any convincing evidence
that I *am* an obstacle, or anything other than an adjunct and ally to the
cause of saving lives.  Sorry, maybe I'm just too dense to catch on.

	On the other hand, maybe I have begun to realize something that you
haven't yet.  Perhaps I should quit trying to convince you further, and just
let you plunge afresh into the mainstream political fray, drawing your own
conclusions for yourself as you go.  Okay, maybe you'll accept a last little
bit of free advice.  Be careful out there.  The political and legal game has
been heavily rigged, loaded, and booby-trapped against you.  Don't lose heart
at your early setbacks; many more will follow.

	It seems so far to me that when I draw historical parallels, you
want to emphasize superficial differences, rather than acknowledge deeper
similarities.  Unborn babies currently have absolutely *no* legal recourse,
just as slaves did not.  They do not enjoy the legal status of persons with
rights, just as slaves did not.

							Bob

	I could see them searching the van, and any other vehicle for weapons
at this rally. I don't think they would have if Salvi hadn't come into the
picture, but where he did, everyone is being extra cautious. For all anyone
knows, someone could have made a threat that something would happen. Who knows?
While it makes perfect sense to remain cautious, in time maybe that won't be
needed. 

	Did anyone see Law & Order last night? I only saw the Order part, as I
got in late (the Order part would be the courtroom scenes, the Law part has the
crime happening, along with the investigation). But it was about an abortion
doctor who was killed by someone. The Order part of it was done really good I
thought.


Glen

>Note 108.552 CUJO::SAMPSON
>
>From my vantage point, you still haven't supplied any convincing evidence
>that I *am* an obstacle, or anything other than an adjunct and ally to the
>cause of saving lives.  Sorry, maybe I'm just too dense to catch on.

  I didn't expect you to see anything from your vantage point except
  your view. Funny how that works until you begin to look at it from
  other perspectives.  You *are* an obstacle to some, not all.  You,
  personally and collectively, obstruct the mainstream from defining
  what they feel is proper restrictions.

  Again, I am not mainstream in my view, but view that the mainstream
  is FAR better than unrestricted (convenience) abortions, and that
  implementing the mainstream view would SAVE MANY lives.  The
  mainstream will not implement its views if it is given only two
  choices: all or nothing.

  I mentioned (in one of my verbose notes) that poverty is a crime
  against humanity and that Jesus recognized that the poor would
  always be with us. One might reason that God, being God, could end
  it all if He chose, but  Jesus only said that we'll always have poor
  people.  It doesn't make it  right.  (See also slaves in the Bible;
  not the indentured servant kind.) Given this fact, what did Jesus do
  for the poor?  Did he do it for *all* the poor?  Think about it.

  With abortion, whether legal or illegal, there will always be people
  who will abort for "convenience."  I haven't changed my value on the
  human life by trying to minimize what will always be a problem.
  Some see this as fatalistic, but they would never dream of trying to
  attack poverty in  one fell swoop.  To do so means to address the
  human condition of selfishness; (materialism, for example) which is
  the basis of original sin anyway.  In one sense, that's what
  evangelism is, but evangelism isn't a ramrod; the Good News is
  supposed to be winsome.  In our frustration with the way things are,
  we have adopted a very combative posture in the fight to end
  abortions.  In doing so, I think we've also lost some very important
  tactical ground, causing the opposition to gain because of the
  all-or-nothing conviction we have about life.

>The political and legal game has been heavily rigged, loaded, and
>booby-trapped against you.

  I don't intend to play games, or politics beyond advising people to 
  implement the majority opinion in America.  I don't intend to shout
  or protest for majority opinion.  I intend to "pick up a starfish and
  toss it back into the ocean."  I intend to encourage others to do the
  same rather than sitting around debating that all star fish should be
  saved.  To each their own calling.

Mark

I don't intend to get embroiled in the 'what action' type discussion here,
as this is very subjective, and applies differently in the States from in
the UK.  I am more concerned about principles, because once these are in 
line, the action appropriate to any particular situation becomes clearer.
One approach I find can clarify obscure or complex dilemmas, is to ask 
myself what Jesus would do; What He would agree to.  I can't see Him 
compromising on those starfish somehow....

One point in your note, Mark, puzzled me :
�  I mentioned (in one of my verbose notes) that poverty is a crime
�  against humanity 

Why do you identify poverty as a crime?  I would see a 'crime' as committed
against the state [ie covered by the laws of the country],  while a 'sin'
is committed against God.  If you feel that your view merits another note to
explain it, please feel free to open one, and copy this reply in!

Do you see this as a crime committed by the state, for failing to provide 
for the indolent as well as the needy?  Or a crime by the needy and the 
indolent?  Poverty in itself is not a crime.  Nor a sin.  Possibly you 
intend to imply that the existance of poverty is a sin of the state, in 
that they have not ensured a basic level of support for all?

Poverty is a hardship which can exist in many degrees before it reaches a
life-threatening, or state-condemning situation.  Many may claim poverty, 
but those whose situation has been reduced to something comparable with 
state murder must not only be infinitesimal, but also against the purpose 
of the administrative laws and provisions.  ie - the intent of the law is 
not to make them poor.  For abortion, the converse is true.  The intent of
the law (as I understand it) is to support the extermination of chldren
whose parents decide they do not wish them to be born.  The two cases do 
not bear direct comparison.  It is the responsiblity and privilege of the 
state to protect the members of the state, whether born or unborn, from 
hardship, yes, but even more, from life-threatening activity.

� I don't intend to play games, or politics beyond advising people to  
� implement the majority opinion in America.  I don't intend to shout or
� protest for majority opinion.  I intend to "pick up a starfish and toss
� it back into the ocean."  I intend to encourage others to do the same
� rather than sitting around debating that all star fish should be saved. 
� To each their own calling. 
The difference is when you focus on, say, ensuring that all blue starfish, 
are thrown back into the sea, meanwhile treading on the yellow ones...  At 
some point you hope to move on to saving the yellow starfish, but at the 
moment you feel they are beyond your reach.  I can't see Jesus ignoring one 
of the least of these...

						God bless
								Andrew

Note 108.557 ICTHUS::YUILLE 

>What Jesus would do; What He would agree to.  I can't see Him 
>compromising on those starfish somehow....

  Jesus commands us to go into the world and teach the gospel.  He
  doesn't command us to teach the whole world personally but
  COLLECTIVELY.  It is an IMPOSSIBLE task personally.  And people are
  lost because we cannot get to them all.  But God is just and will
  not condemn a soul unjustly.

  I can't see Jesus doing any more than picking up one starfish at a
  time, and by that set an example for all to pick up star fish.  I
  suppose he could (a) levitate all star fish and put them back in the
  ocean, or (b) prevent them from being cast ashore in the first
  place.  In principle, isn't this what Jesus *should* do? 
  (Rhetorical, because I never presume to say what God *should* do;
  only proclaim what He has done and promised to do.)

  We think: abortion is wrong, God hates abortion, we should stop it
  all.  Jesus came to earth and didn't stop all sin.  He made
  provision to stop the sinning of one person: you, me, one person
  times all of humanity.  The provision is for all; the application is
  for one: "WHOSOEVER."

  The fact is, Jesus DIDN'T compromise - and neither am I.  I make
  provision for all "star fish" that I am able to help.

>One point in your note, Mark, puzzled me :
>�  I mentioned (in one of my verbose notes) that poverty is a crime
>�  against humanity 
>
>Why do you identify poverty as a crime?  I would see a 'crime' as committed
>against the state [ie covered by the laws of the country],  while a 'sin'
>is committed against God.  If you feel that your view merits another note to
>explain it, please feel free to open one, and copy this reply in!

  Poverty is not a sin OF the poor but a sin AGAINST the poor committed
  by the community, the church, and all of society.  In a very real
  sense, we commit poverty on people.

  Sin is a crime against the state of God's government.  Poverty is a
  crime against God and humanity in that it is the result of the
  wrongful distribution of wealth, propagated by the base note of sin:
  selfishness.  Some people are poor by stupidity or idleness.  Some
  people are poor just because they have never been given opportunity
  (because of selfishness).  God demonstrated His community with
  Israel (when they were doing good), leaving field gleanings for the
  poor; defending the alien, widow, and orphan.

>Do you see this as a crime committed by the state, for failing to provide 
>for the indolent as well as the needy?  Or a crime by the needy and the 
>indolent?  Poverty in itself is not a crime.  Nor a sin.  Possibly you 
>intend to imply that the existence of poverty is a sin of the state, in 
>that they have not ensured a basic level of support for all?

  Since we are delineating between crime and sin.  We know that in the
  USA, abortion in itself is not a crime, either.  Not since Roe V.
  Wade in the USA.  But we believe it to be sin, though, don't we?  If
  we then attempt to create legislation based on this belief, where
  are the corollary outcries against adultery and fornication, beyond
  the usual griping of it being portrayed (supposedly fictional) on
  TV?  There are likely other examples.  

  If we are putting our energies on the abortion issue because we
  cannot expend our energies on abortion AND sexual sin, then haven't
  we compromised?

>The difference is when you focus on, say, ensuring that all blue starfish, 
>are thrown back into the sea, meanwhile treading on the yellow ones...  At 
>some point you hope to move on to saving the yellow starfish, but at the 
>moment you feel they are beyond your reach.  I can't see Jesus ignoring one 
>of the least of these...

  The difference is knowing that you cannot save all starfish; only
  God can.  Understanding that you can save SOME starfish, especially
  by employing the vast majority of the mainstream to pick up the blue
  starfish, means that you can reach and save more starfish than by
  insisting uncompromisingly that all people pick up both blue AND
  yellow starfish, knowing that they won't. By insisting that people
  pick up both blue AND yellow, they will pick up neither.  

  By getting their cooperation to pick up the blue ones, because they
  willpick up the blue ones, you (and I) don't have to waste our time
  on the blues ones and can pick up more yellow ones, thereby saving
  more than could be saved.

  Jesus healed many, did he not?  Didn't he also retreat into the
  hills because of the press of the crowd?  Did he heal everyone?
  He knew he had three years.  He did many things besides healing
  as a matter of priorities.

  Mark

Hi Mark,

re starfish - The point I was trying to make was that as He threw each one
into the sea, Jesus wouldn't be treading on those He who were not in His
agenda to throw back.  My verbosity undoubtedly clouded that issue ... ;-}

Re poverty, it was partly your use of 'crime' that had me a tad uncertain. 
A terminology thing.  Comes of different language too... ;-) 

�  Sin is a crime against the state of God's government.

As such, I would refer to it as a 'sin', rather than as a 'crime', for clarity 
and communication...

�  Poverty is not a sin OF the poor but a sin AGAINST the poor committed
�  by the community, the church, and all of society.  In a very real
�  sense, we commit poverty on people.

I'm glad you clarified your stance on that.  The previous wording seemed to 
imply something else!

'Poverty' is the state in which some people find themselves.  
'Impoverishment' is the sin that has been committed against them.
 - at least, in the UK!  [though it sounds as if the US does the same .. :-{ ]

							Andrew

>Poverty and impoverishment...  

Thanks for the correction.  I improve on my clarity in the future when 
describing these two concepts.  Now to the other...

>re starfish - The point I was trying to make was that as He threw each one
>into the sea, Jesus wouldn't be treading on those He who were not in His
>agenda to throw back.  My verbosity undoubtedly clouded that issue ... ;-}

  We differ in what you see as "treading on other starfish."  Or at least
  I need a litte more clarifying.

  By implementing (not adopting, personally) the mainstream opinion on
  "legitimate" abortions, some abortions will continue.  You see this as
  the "starfish that are trod upon."  You and I are not committing these
  abortions and are therefore not treading on starfish.  They are still being
  trod upon by others. 

  Right now, all starfish are being trampled.  Eliminate the majority of 
  killing incidents, caused by people unthinkingly stepping on starfish,
  and you can focus (y)our efforts on helping others to stop stepping on
  the rest.

  The "agenda to throw all starfish back into the sea" is NOT abandoned,
  NOR compromised by getting people to stop the majority of wanton from
  killing intentionally or unintentionally.  In fact, the "agenda to throw
  all starfish [in danger of dying] back into the sea" is HELPED (furthered,
  fueled, fed) by getting the mainstream opinion implemented as the first
  step towards helping all "starfish."

Mark

About legistlation:

I think that all legislation is based on some moral understanding, so it
is pretty dumb to say we can't legislate morality.  We can and we do.  The
rubbing point is when we have disagreements about what is right and wrong:
whose morality?  (See my notes on Morality and Authority - which need some 
polishing up.)  I don't see it as wrong to oppose unjust laws, but opposition
and justice can exist in a very wide spectrum of opinion.  (Again, the
greatest power defines what is right or wrong.)

We've come to an agreement on principle: abortion is the termination of
a human life, or (on the other side) it is the termination of a pregnancy
which may or may not result in a healthy human life (that it will be human
when it comes to term is not a question).  Because some people value the
single cell when sperm and egg meet as much as their neighbor and themself,
they feel that it is the right thing to do to place themselves in 
juxtaposition between the human and death.  The wrongful death of another
human is by definition murder.  (Legal definitions do vary, especially in
regards to an underdeveloped human inside the womb.)

Now, we oppose sin.  But how fervent have Christians been in opposing
sinful behavior in the world?  How fervent should they be?  We have lobbied
to get smut off the TV (and we should) and boycotted stores because of the
sexual exploitation of the smut (and we should), but have we gone to the 
measures that we have over the abortion issue?  Some may say that it is
not *as* serious as the abortion issue.  In whose eyes?  Which sin is 
greater?  Why aren't we going into people's homes and blowing up their
television sets because smut is available through the airwaves - or knocking
over TV towers?  We don't because (a) we don't feel it is as critical, (b)
we may be embroiled in it ourselves - hitting closer to home than a pregnancy
issue that we will never personally face, (c) we abhor violence, but silently
approve in principle when someone destroys the TV tower because fewer people
are receiving smut into their homes.

Smut is evil.  Killing another human is evil.  And society sets up punishments
for those who go beyond the definition of propriety (commit evil acts).
The definitions of right and wrong are where our principles should be
applied INSTEAD of against the acts of people who are operating within
the current definition.  Change MUST come from within before it will be
expressed from without.  As a society, we must change the legal definitions
if we have hope of influencing the personal definitions of many.

Mark

                      <<< Note 108.564 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



	See note .554

 May as well have the police searching everybody all the time, eh?  One
 never knows who might be carrying a gun..postal workers (how many people
 have been killed by disgruntled postal workers?) stock brokers, lawyers,
 students..



 Jim

    Could someone clarify something for me?

    It is my understanding - and, if I recall correctly, this was presented
    in a sermon I once heard - that Roe v. Wade did not truly affirm a
    woman's right to abortion but rather a woman's right to privacy; that
    nobody had a right to intrude into a woman's private decision about
    whether to abort a fetus or not.  Is this correct?

    If this is true, maybe we should be encouraging our government
    (Congress, Supreme Court, whoever) to pass a law that affirms the
    sanctity of life, including the life of a fetus, that supersedes a
    woman's right to privacy on this particular matter.  Didn't someone say
    in a previous reply that the Supreme Court as already ruled that life
    begins at conception?  Seems like this law wouldn't be hard to create
    if that is true.

    Ron

| <<< Note 108.566 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| May as well have the police searching everybody all the time, eh?  


	Jim, is that what the note says? No. The note gave possible reasons for
why they may had done this. One of the reasons was possible threats could have
been made. I did receive mail from someone who said death threats were made
against some people refered to as the dirty dozen. So it was justified at this
point, especially if you throw in the Salvi case. Should the stay on the side
of caution? My guess will be they won't forever. But for death threats to be
made, it is justifiable in this case.

	Jim, did my note state that maybe in the future there won't be a need
for this? Yes. So what's your point?

            The Right to Life Newsletter of Colorado

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life..."

          ...articles from the February 1995 edition...

COLD DAY BUT WARM HEARTS AT MARCH FOR LIFE

     On January 21 a crowd of perhaps 2,000 pro-lifers listened
to Dr. Bill Deagle tell of his own transformation from abortion
to pro-life advocate.  Dr. Deagle, from St. Francis Health Center
in Colorado Springs, was the principal speaker at the annual
March for Life held at the State Capitol.

     His odyssey began when he lost his first child to abortion. 
"I was told that the child would be congenitally malformed due to
steroids my first wife was on for acute multiple sclerosis." 
Later on when his position on abortion was changing, he succeeded
in temporarily resuscitating the unborn victim of a second
trimester abortion, "to the horror of the abortionist and
operating room staff."

     Dr. Deagle's complete transformation occurred when a blind
diabetic woman without kidneys gave birth to a perfect baby,
after he and 3 other doctors had recommended an abortion.  It was
then that he fully realized that he had pretended to be God.

     In commencing the rally, master of ceremonies Earl Dodge
reminded us that "unlike the abortion forces who only condemn the
deaths of abortion workers, we condemn that violence as well as
the murder of 30,000,000 precious children."

     Ending up the rally, Marty Nalitz, from the USA Patriot
Network, said that "men must stop using abortion as an easy way
out of a touchy situation."

     Despite the cold weather, the large crowd then streamed down
Logan St. to the home of Governor Romer to remind him of his duty
to protect all life.  The usual pro-abortion hecklers were on
hand to utter four-letter words and tell us to "get out of their
neighborhood."  One woman in a blue minivan even tried to run
over another woman pushing a baby stroller.  It is no surprise
that the pro-life position brings out such anger from those who
favor "choice."


ABORTION FOES SEEK COMMON GROUND

     A Colorado group calling itself The Common Ground Network
for Life and Choice has been meeting for more than a year to
discuss the abortion issue.  The organization has an unusual
makeup: its 16 members totally disagree on the subject.

     Common Ground founders have worked for eight months on a
statement of purpose for the group.  It seeks to address the
conditions that lead to abortion, especially teen pregnancies and
the lack of support for single pregnant women.  It would also
like to make adoption a more available option.

     Members of the network have decided to call the opposite
side whatever it wants to be called.  Those favoring abortion are
called pro-choice, while those opposing abortion are called pro-
life.

     Members of the group are not middle-of-the-road on abortion. 
For example, Betty Serotta is director of the Colorado chapter of
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, while Fr. Bill
Carmody, pastor of Corpus Christi Catholic Church in Colorado
Springs, is a strong opponent of abortion and says Mass outside a
Planned Parenthood clinic every Saturday.

     The members try to steer clear of discussing things that
divide them and concentrate on those they agree on - like the
fact that there are too many abortions.

     How the group will reduce the number of abortions is yet to
be seen, since members are at odds with each other on the methods
to be employed.  The Rev. Mel Taylor, pro-choice pastor of First
Baptist Church in Denver, says he would defend protestors' right
to picket abortion clinics "if they won't call us baby-killers,"
but Fr. Carmody compares abortions to the killings carried out by
the Nazis.

     The Rev. Bill Campbell, pro-choice pastor of Park Hill
Congregational Church, says, "My vision is that we could harness
the energy we use in opposing each other and address the root
causes of unwanted pregnancies."  Since abortion is only a
symptom of a greater moral breakdown, the root causes *are* what
need to be addressed, but that must happen without sacrificing
the truth.

(Cartoon (c) ASAY):

     Guy on Left:  "Y'know, maybe the public wouldn't be so pro-
death if they actually saw a real execution on TV!"

     Guy on Right: "I agree!  Let's go film one right now!"

     Guy on Left:  (surprised) "There's an execution going on
right now?"

     Guy on Right: "Sure!  Let's go down to the abortion clinic
and get some pictures!"

     Guy on Left:  (walking away) "You right-wing fanatics are
SICK!"


PRO-LIFE ALLY:  THE TIMOTHY PLAN OFFERS INVESTMENT CHOICE

     For many of us in the battle against abortion, the decision
to invest our time and energy is not a difficult one to make, but
deciding how to invest our money is.  No one committed to
defending the unborn wants to unknowingly invest their money in a
company involved in the abortion industry.  But screening out
companies who profit from abortion is almost impossible for the
average small investor.  A new investment plan is trying to
change all that.

     The Timothy Plan is a new mutual fund that excludes
companies involved in abortion.  The fund also weeds out
companies which profit from pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and
gambling.

     Based in Winter Park, Florida, The Timothy Plan prospectus
announces, "How much money is OK to have invested in abortion and
pornography?  The answer is simple.  Not a penny."  It is able to
achieve this by relying on the services of three ministries:
American Family Association, Life Decisions International, adn
Pro-Vita Advisors.  These organizations monitor corporate
activity in abortion and pornography, in much the same way that
environmental groups screen out companies they deem
environmentally irresponsible.

     While living up to high ethical standards, The Timothy Plan
also promises to adhere to sound investment principles that do
not compromise investment performance.  If you would like more
information about The Timothy Plan, call 800-TIM-PLAN.


FEDS FIND NO ANTI-CLINIC CONSPIRACY

     Despite abortion advocates' continued accusations of a pro-
life conspiracy to commit violence, federal officials have
uncovered no evidence of a nationwide plot directed against
abortion clinics.

     The investigation, ordered by Attorney General Janet Reno
and FBI Director Louis Freeh, was just one more example of the
government's complicity with the pro-abortion industry.

     Caving into pressure from Planned Parenthood, the initial
inquiry expanded into a large-scale investigation involving a
number of federal agencies, including the Treasury Department's
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.  With not a shred of
evidence to back up her claims, Planned Parenthood Federation
vice president Ann Lewis said, "These shooters are supported by a
network like any other terrorists."

     The result of the investigation did not surprise anyone in
the pro-life movement.  The government found nothing to indicate
that pro-life groups are involved in "terrorist" activities. 
According to a comment by a Justice Department source in the
January 16, 1995 issue of _U.S. News and World Report_, "We
haven't found squat."

WORLD NEWS BRIEFS

     CHINA - A new "Law on Maternal and Infant Health Care" will
take effect on June 1.  The new legislation gives doctors the
right to abort any child that may be prone to genetic diseases or
shows signs of abnormality in the womb.  The new law also
stipulates that the mentally retarded will not be allowed to
marry unless they are sterilized first.

     The Chinese government has also banned the sex screening of
preborn children.  China's severe one-child policy, enforced by
involuntary abortion, has resulted in the misuse of sex
identification tests.  Due to the traditional Chinese preference
for boys, sex screening is causing the inevitable gender
imbalance.

     POLAND - In what must be an enormous blow to Planned
Parenthood, official figures show that Poland has achieved an
astonishing reduction in abortions since 1987, the year in which
the Poles revolted against Soviet-imposed communism.  Not only
did the number of abortions drop from 123,534 in 1987 to 777 in
1993, but the number of maternal deaths dropped from a high of
122 in 1984 to 44 in 1993, completely refuting Planned
Parenthood's claim that laws against abortion inevitably result
in more deaths from botched "back-alley" abortions.

     Fr. Matthew Habiger, who, along with Fr. Paul Marx, heads
Human Life International, credits the Polish clergy, doctors and
many faithful HLI supporters.  He says that when a society
encourages women to have their babies and gives them some
support, abortions decrease.


NATIONAL NEWS BRIEFS

     OREGON - A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction
preventing the state from putting into effect its new assisted-
suicide law.  Measure 16, narrowly approved by Oregon voters in
November, allows a person to request a lethal dose of drugs if
two or more doctors determine the person has less than six months
to live.  An attorney from National Right to Life argued that
Measure 16 lacks safeguards to protect patients who might want to
kill themselves because of depression or because they cannot
afford treatment.  The ruling is expected to delay the law from
taking effect for at least a year.

     SAN FRANCISCO - Planned Parenthood has initiated an "Adopt-
a-Protestor" program in five Bay Area cities.  Abortion-rights
advocates donate money to Planned Parenthood each time pro-life
protestors appear at a clinic.  Every nine months, Bay Area
clinics send their "sponsors" bills for their tax-deductible
contributions.  Protestors receive "thank you" letters stating:
"Your picketing helps offset the cost of family planning and
abortion services to our low-income patients.  We cannot express
in words how much your efforts are appreciated."


IN THEIR OWN WORDS...

     "I had my first child 32 years ago.  I had no idea where to
go for an abortion.  I was denied an abortion.  My son was
denied."
     - 55-year-old professor at abortion rights
rally/demonstration coordinated by POWER (The Progressive
Organization for Women's Equal Rights)
     (HLA Action News, October-November 1994)

     "Motivation to bear children is associated with an
unaccepting or restrictive attitude toward abortion."
     - from article in Family Planning Perspectives, July/August
1994 (Communique, October 14, 1994)

     On January 19, the Colorado Coalition for Choice hosted "its
annual _celebration_ to honor the 22nd anniversary of Roe v.
Wade."  With Dottie Lamm acting as Master of Ceremonies, the
"celebration" also included "a resounding rendition of our new
song, 'Reproductive Choices are a Girl's Best Friend'!"
     - from Colorado Coalition for Choice invitation to January
19, 1995 celebration.

THE TEMPTATION TO VIOLENCE
by Terry Martin

     One of the oldest temptations besetting humanity is the
temptation to violence.  Ever since Cain decided to exercise his
"right to choose" and killed his brother Abel, people have given
in to the desire to exterminate their fellow men.  Today,
violence seems to be everywhere; we see it on our TV's, in our
neighborhoods, in our schools.  Violence is no longer something
that happens half a world away.

     Why is this happening?  Perhaps one reason is the degree to
which our society condones violence.  The concept that a preborn
child can be killed at the whim of his or her parents -
established as a legal "right" by Roe v. Wide and Doe v. Bolton -
has mushroomed into unprecedented rates of child abuse and
domestic violence, as parents take this "right" to its logical
conclusion.

     Some take it further and conclude that it's also fine to
beat a spouse - after all, if the "right to choose" means the
strong can destroy the weak, that means the strong can also beat
up and otherwise abuse the weak.

     We've seen the lengths to which pro-"choice" thinking can go
in the recent acts of violence at abortion clinics.  No, I don't
mean those perpetrated by abortionists - I mean the shooting of
clinic employees that's been in all the papers.  The perpetrator
is usually characterized as "pro-life" or "anti-choice,"
demonstrating the ignorance of the media.

     Far from being pro-life (or even "anti-choice!"), the man
who shot those Planned Parenthood employees was acting out the
fullest expression of pro-choice thinking.  John Salvi decided
certain human beings should be eliminated, and he took his gun
and eliminated them, just as abortionists take up their curettes
and eliminate human beings their customers want eliminated.  He
exercised his "right to choose."

     Anyone who commits an act of deadly violence cannot claim to
respect human life.  Unfortunately, the violence of a John Salvi
is seen as our violence.  Why?  Because it makes news.  The news
media are in the business of selling papers or TV advertising,
and that which is sensationalistic increases sales.  People don't
run out and buy papers to find out what we *really* do - run
maternity homes, arrange adoptions, sit and pray with frightened
women.  That's not news; violence is.  A nut who shoots a
receptionist becomes the face of the pro-life movement for the
average newspaper reader or TV viewer.

     Slavery was a terrible evil that plagued this nation for
nearly a century after the Declaration of Independence asserted
that all men were created equal.  It took a war to end the
practice, and another hundred years to put an end to legalized
racial discrimination.

     The fight to change the heart of the nation had its share of
bloodshed, but most of the fighting wasn't on the battlefield, or
even places like Harper's Ferry - it was on the editorial pages,
in state legislatures, in Congress.

     Nevertheless, to the average person of the early to middle
nineteenth century, abolitionists were wild-eyed radicals who
burned plantations.  Even though the cause was right, the
violence some used in defense of the cause was wrong, just as
clinic violence is today.

     Some media commentators - even liberal ones - legitimize
violence by agreeing with the claim that, if one believes
abortion kills a human being, one has a duty to try to stop the
killing, even by violent means.  I can only reply that killing is
wrong, and I condemn those who kill abortionists for the same
reason I condemn those who burned plantations a hundred and fifty
years ago.

     One can argue that some people "deserve" death.  That may be
true.  However one can - indeed, *must* - also argue that some
people deserve life.  Our challenge today is what it has always
been: to resist the temptation to kill and, instead of violence,
instead of death ... choose life.

*Terry Martin recently moved to Colorado from California, where
she was heavily involved in the pro-life movement.*


     "Violence brings only temporary victories; violence, by
creating many more social problems than it solves, never brings
permanent peace.  I am convinced that if we succumb to the
temptation to use violence in our struggle for freedom, unborn
generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night
of bitterness, and our chief legacy to them will be a never-
ending reign of chaos."
                               - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., 1961

| <<< Note 108.571 by CUJO::SAMPSON >>>



| POLAND - In what must be an enormous blow to Planned Parenthood, official 
| figures show that Poland has achieved an astonishing reduction in abortions 
| since 1987, the year in which the Poles revolted against Soviet-imposed 
| communism. Not only did the number of abortions drop from 123,534 in 1987 to 
| 777 in 1993, but the number of maternal deaths dropped from a high of 122 in 
| 1984 to 44 in 1993, completely refuting Planned Parenthood's claim that laws 
| against abortion inevitably result in more deaths from botched "back-alley" 
| abortions.

	This does NOT refute this. How many people who died were known to have
a back-alley abortion? Are the 44 all back alley abortions? Are ANY of them?
This cracks me up.

| SAN FRANCISCO - Planned Parenthood has initiated an "Adopt-a-Protestor" 
| program in five Bay Area cities. Abortion-rights advocates donate money to 
| Planned Parenthood each time pro-life protestors appear at a clinic. 

	What a wonderful idea. They will get more money everytime someone
protests. Of course they can use it. And of course Planned Parenthood does MUCH
more than JUST abortions. I know some people who either don't realize this, or
ignore that FACT.



Glen

� This cracks me up.
Sorry it troubles you, Glen.  Hope it's nothing too physical.  The change 
in figures is impressive, isn't it!

In spite of your pleasure at the medical donations, you should realise 
that when this group calls themselves 'Planned Parenthood', their stance 
is actually much more than merely 'Parenthood'; it concerns life itself.
They presume to take God's authority over who may or may not live, as
though it were merely the option of prospective parents.  Such people
continue in blind ignorance until one day they will face the LORD, and
realise with horror the gross uncleanness they have committed.... 

						Andrew 

| <<< Note 108.574 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>

| Sorry it troubles you, Glen.  Hope it's nothing too physical.  The change
| in figures is impressive, isn't it!

	What was written proved nothing Andrew. It mentioned death's of
mothers, but never tied the before in with the after. Were the before all
deaths and the after just hospital deaths? Sorry, I've seen religious types all
too often quote stuff out of context. There is no info given in the article to
even start to back it's claims.

| In spite of your pleasure at the medical donations, you should realise
| that when this group calls themselves 'Planned Parenthood', their stance
| is actually much more than merely 'Parenthood'; it concerns life itself.

	That's right Andrew. Could you please take the time and tell me what
YOU think Planned Parenthood does? Abortion is one aspect, but there is so much
more than that Andrew. SOOOOO much more. But please enlighten me.

| They presume to take God's authority over who may or may not live, as though 
| it were merely the option of prospective parents.  

	The way the laws are Andrew, it is an option for the parents. I may not
agree with the abortion part of Planned Parenthood, at least not from the
abortion for birth control part, but with the other things they do, they are a
valuable asset for women. 


Glen

�	What was written proved nothing Andrew. It mentioned death's of

Ah!! Your response sounded as though ytou were bowled over by it.  Of
course, until one knows the source and circumstances of a quote, it can't
have the force of a defined statistic.  However to call any group in 
question for mis-using statistcis is dangerous, on the glass house basis.

Would you say you were a 'religious type'?

� But please enlighten me.
Glen, I am from the UK, not the U.S.  My concern is rather with obeying
God's law than with playing with it.  Life is not an option; it is a 
responsibility.  If the 'law' od a country steps outside God's laws, it 
does not make any action in that window 'right'; merely 'legal'.  
'Legitimate' in that sense can lead into heavy condemnation.  Would you,
for instance, support the 'legitimate' purges of Stalin, or the gas
chambers of Hitler?  They were entirely legal, but that did not make them 
right in God's eyes.  For all I know these men may have done much good in 
some areas.  That does not justify them before God.  When it comes to the 
judgement, it is not a case of an individual's good outweighing his evil.  
All 'our' righteousness is as filthy rags.  'The end' never justifies 'the 
means'.

							Andrew

| <<< Note 108.576 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>

| �	What was written proved nothing Andrew. It mentioned death's of

| Ah!! Your response sounded as though ytou were bowled over by it.  

	Only at the articles response of saying this proves Planned Parenthood
blah blah blah... the article proved nothing. It stated some numbers, but gave
no inclination of where they came from. They could very easily be distorted.

| However to call any group in question for mis-using statistcis is dangerous, 
| on the glass house basis.

	I based what I said on past experiences Andy.

| Would you say you were a 'religious type'?

	Not the type I was referring to. Ya gotta admit that the religious
types are numerous. 

| � But please enlighten me.
| Glen, I am from the UK, not the U.S.  My concern is rather with obeying
| God's law than with playing with it.  

	Then you'll be happy to know that PP cares for the mothers who choose
not to have an abortion, they help women with health care issues, etc. Abortion
is only part of what they do, it is not the whole kit and kaboodle.



Glen

Hi Glen,

Daytime has arrived in the UK once again!

� no inclination of where they came from. They could very easily be distorted.
Take care not to distort them, then!  Just at face value.

�| However to call any group in question for mis-using statistics is dangerous, 
�| on the glass house basis.

�	I based what I said on past experiences Andy.

EXACTLY!!! ;-) ;-) ;-)

� | Would you say you were a 'religious type'?
� Not the type I was referring to. Ya gotta admit that the religious
� types are numerous. 

Ah! Sounds as if you're playing statistics again ;-)
Are you saying you are, or you're not, or you don't want to admit it, or
you only are if it's not being used as an insult, or....? ;-) 

� Then you'll be happy to know that PP cares for the mothers who choose
Glen, I don't think you read the paragraph this was answering.... A lot of 
things are done in the name of 'good', which put a whitewash front on a 
heart which defies God.  Beware of superficially accepting a clean token,
which is really a cover for rebellion.

							Andrew

| <<< Note 108.578 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>



| � no inclination of where they came from. They could very easily be distorted.

| Take care not to distort them, then!  Just at face value.

	At face value they are worthless. Any quote of studies is worthless
unless you go into how the study was done, how they came to their conclusions.

| Ah! Sounds as if you're playing statistics again ;-)

	Stats-R-Me

| Are you saying you are, or you're not, or you don't want to admit it, or
| you only are if it's not being used as an insult, or....? ;-)

	I am religious Andrew. But I think it's safe to say I am not part of
the Right. 

| Glen, I don't think you read the paragraph this was answering.... A lot of
| things are done in the name of 'good', which put a whitewash front on a
| heart which defies God.  Beware of superficially accepting a clean token,
| which is really a cover for rebellion.

	Andrew, less than 6% of the business Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood 
does is abortion related. This is per Sylvia Clark, the director of RMPP. If
you wish to stop that part of PP, then by all means, go for it. I know of
people that think PP should be shut down. Some people feel PP is about
abortions as a whole or that is their primary function. It is not the case.
Like I said, you want to try and stop the abortion process of PP, then go for
it. But please realize just what it is they REALLY do.



Glen

RE:              <<< Note 108.579 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>





>| Take care not to distort them, then!  Just at face value.

>	At face value they are worthless. Any quote of studies is worthless
>unless you go into how the study was done, how they came to their conclusions.


>	Andrew, less than 6% of the business Rocky Mountain Planned Parenthood 
>does is abortion related. This is per Sylvia Clark, the director of RMPP. If
>you wish to stop that part of PP, then by all means, go for it. I know of



 Based on your statement above, that stats at face value are worthless, perhaps
 you'd care to explain how the above study was done?



 Jim

� I am religious Andrew. But I think it's safe to say I am not part of the Right

Sad Glen.  Sounds as if you're picking up the pain without the pleasure.  
Too bad if in spite of your sweat, you end up as part of the Wrong... :-(
It's relationship that true Christianity majors on; not religion.

You refer to the uselessness of stats, yet you try to apply them to cover
up a glaring basic error....  As I stated when  in my first note in this
string, I'm not interested in your organisation; I am interested in God's
standards.  Possibly I shouldn't be involved here, if this note is
exclusively concerning the organisation, but I wished to emphasise
principle rather than excuse. 

							Andrew 

| <<< Note 108.580 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>

| Based on your statement above, that stats at face value are worthless, perhaps
| you'd care to explain how the above study was done?


	She did the beancounting Jim. 

| <<< Note 108.581 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "Thou God seest me" >>>

| � I am religious Andrew. But I think it's safe to say I am not part of the Right

| Sad Glen. Sounds as if you're picking up the pain without the pleasure.

	Nah.... wanting to associate with the ideals of the Right would be along
the lines of you associating with the ideals of pro-choice. 

| Too bad if in spite of your sweat, you end up as part of the Wrong... :-(

	If my Faith in Him is strong, which it is, then I have nothing to worry
about, which I don't.

| It's relationship that true Christianity majors on; not religion.

	Your version of true Christianity maybe, but not mine.

| You refer to the uselessness of stats, yet you try to apply them to cover
| up a glaring basic error....  As I stated when  in my first note in this
| string, I'm not interested in your organisation; I am interested in God's
| standards.  Possibly I shouldn't be involved here, if this note is
| exclusively concerning the organisation, but I wished to emphasise
| principle rather than excuse.

	Andrew, I understand what you are saying. That was why I said to be
against the abortion part of PP might be something you want to do, but I also
wanted to state the the organization as a whole should not be devalued because
people will or won't agree with part of it.



Glen

RE:              <<< Note 108.582 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>| Based on your statement above, that stats at face value are worthless, perhaps
>| you'd care to explain how the above study was done?


>	She did the beancounting Jim. 



   On what did she base her stats?




Jim