Conference yukon::christian_v7

    This makes me absolutely sick!

    Paul, 
        I wish you'd put this in the  Soapbox conference as well. We need
    to show those who think that being pro-choice excuses them from the
    immorality of abortion, to think again. 

    I firmly believe that if you don't speak out against abortion, you
    share the blame of the crime.

     Jim

    This is described in the latest issue of the AZ RTL newsletter as well
    with sketches of the DX procedure.  The brains are literally sucked out
    of the baby.

  re: <<< Note 109.2 by PCCAD::RICHARDJ "Pretty Good At Barely Getting By" >>>

     Jim,

     > I firmly believe that if you don't speak out against abortion, you
     > share the blame of the crime. 

     So does Scripture. In Lev 21:7 (? - from memory), the Torah teaches
     that, if innocent blood was shed, the elders of the nearest village, in
     order to not be held accountable for the shedding of that innocent
     blood, had to be able to pray "L_rd, our hands did not shed this
     innocent blood, nor did our eyes see it done, nor do we know who did
     it." No one in Western UnCivivilization can pray this prayer. We can
     only repent in sackcloth and ashes for our duplicity.

     Sorrowfully,

     Brian 

         re: <<< Note 109.3 by FRETZ::HEISER "nothing but the blood" >>>

     >              -< this world has lost its conscience >-

     That's because the Salt in the world has lost its savor, nothing less. 

     > This is described in the latest issue of the AZ RTL newsletter as
     > well with sketches of the DX procedure.  The brains are literally
     > sucked out of the baby. 

     For those of you who don't know, *this* is how they get the "fetal
     tissue" (which must be *live* at the time of "harvesting", BTW) for the
     very experimental treatment of Parkinson's disease. Is it worth it?

     Brian

 Of course the proabortion folks will accuse us antiabortion folks of sensation-
alizing the issue.





Jim

    Brian,
    
     A bit off subject perhaps, but can you give me the reference for the
    verse in Jeremidh that you allude to in your title? (.4) Something in my
    spirit "clicked" when I read that.
    
     Thanks, 
    
    Gil

    I don't have time to defend it, but I'll post it in SOAPBOX with .0's
    permission.

    Gil,
    
    I'm not Brian, but try Jer. 7:16, 11:14, 14:11
    
    Mark L.

I already posted it in Soapbox.  I said in the note that I won't try to defend
it.  Those who will not hear such graphic evil, will not here mere words of men.
But they can no longer claim that they didn't know this was happening.

Paul

And the predicted reply, accusing Paul of sensationalism, has already been
posted in Soapbox.  It, of course, moans about back-alleys and coathangers.

And it was a fairly mild reply.  Think what would have happened if Paul
had posted this in IKE22::WOMANNOTES-V4.  (Actually, it probably would
have simply been hidden or deleted, as was the "Feminists for Life" tract
entitled "Abortion does not liberate women")

/john

    I recently read of the method posted in .0 also and was sickened.
    
    Last night on 60 Minutes one of the stories was of a plastic surgeon
    who was discredited in his field who went to Russia and began a
    'tissue transplant' treatment center. On one side of the hospital
    he offered free abortions to women who would allow the 'tissue' to
    be 'harvested' for medical purposes. On the other side of the hospital
    he offered 'human fetal tissue treatments' to babies and children with
    various defects such as Downs Syndrome. The treatment costs $10,000
    dollars. 
    
    This is the very type of incentive for abortions that the Anti-Abortion
    groups are fighting in this country when it comes to 'fetal tissue
    research'.
    
    The people involved seemed to have absolutely no concern that abortions
    were happening; their dehumanizing attitude was really horrifying to
    me, a real 'sign of our times'.
    
    

    Copied without permission from
    
    IT'S GOD'S WORLD, April 2, 1993
    (C)April 2,1993, God's World Publications
    
    "Yes, Sir.  No, Sir."
    
    President Clinton's push for "abortion rights" was bathing in good news
    last week.  But it wasn't coming from the U.S. military.
    
    Military doctors were giving him a clear "No, Sir."
    
    In January, Mr. Clinton removed the ban on abortions at U.S. military
    hospitals overseas.  But military doctors are refusing to perform
    abortions.
    
    No Air Force hospitals will offer abortions.  Attitudes are about the
    same at Navy hospitals.
    
    In the Army there are 28 doctors in Europe able to perform abortions. 
    Only one is willing to do them.
    
    The military newspaper "Stars and Stripes" said Army doctors expressed
    "moral or religious" reasons for their stand against abortion.
    
    In the States, however, the president received some major boosts.
    
    Anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice Byron White decided to resign. 
    President Clinton said he would appoint a pro-abortion person to take
    his place.
    
    Also, 17 U.S. senators signed a letter asking the FBI to investigate
    pro-life groups.  The letter called pro-life protests a "growing
    national problem."
    
    And Mr. Clinton chose a pro-abortion person to be America's new
    Attorney General.  Janet Reno said she may use federal police powers to
    protect abortion businesses.

    This is absolutely repulsive!  As I read it I had to struggle to keep
    myself from throwing up.  I wasn't sure if I wanted to cry or scream.

    I am already vehemently opposed to abortion and this simply adds more
    conviction to my stand.  It is especially appalling to see that they
    obviously feel that as long as the head does not come out, and the baby
    cannot breath on its own, then it is not a life and it is OK to kill
    it.  What is really sad is that if what is described here was about a
    veterinarian doing the same thing to limit the number of births in the
    dog world, there would be a tremendous cry from the public and laws
    would be passed to prevent this from happening.  It's amazing that
    peoples concern for the creatures of the animal world have a higher
    priority than for human life.

    Folks, we have got to start inundating President Clinton and our
    Senators and Congressmen about our opinions on abortion.  In
    particular, we have got to tell them that we are opposed to the Freedom
    of Choice Act.  If we don't, this bill will be passed and there will no
    stopping abortions.  I recently sent letters and I would suggest that
    all of you do the same.

    I recently read an article in Time magazine that was talking about
    President Clinton's religious beliefs.  In the article they said that
    the reason he supports abortion is because a minister that he respected
    justified it by using Genesis 2:7 "...and [God] breathed into his
    (Adam's) nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living
    being."  That because the baby is not out of the womb and breathing on
    its own, it is not a life.

    I don't know about you, but I believe that it is not the act of
    breathing that determines whether a person is alive.  I read one time
    that all people die from the same cause: lack of oxygen to the brain.
    If the lungs stop working, someone could remain alive as long as oxygen
    could be introduced into the blood stream.  A fetus in the womb is
    receiving oxygen to the brain via the blood that is transferred through
    the umbilical cord.  If the umbilical cord became pinched so that the
    baby could not receive the oxygen, it would die and cease to grow.
    Since it ceases to grow, doesn't that say something about the fact that
    there had to be "life" there in the first place.  In other words, if a
    fetus is left to grow (without intervention by an abortion doctor), it
    will be born into this world.  The life begins long before the birth.

    Ron

    P.S. Just before I entered this I did a spell check on my text and
    Clinton was flagged as being wrong.  The spell checker wanted to know
    if I wanted to change Clinton to...
    

    Clinician!!!

    My church had a campaign in which we sent Over 5 million cards to 
    Washington D.C. asking our legislators to vote down the approval 
    of the FOCA. The cards have mostly been ignored and have been thrown
    out without even being looked at. 
    
    Jim

	Revelation 6:9-10 States:

	"And when He had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the alter the souls 
	of them that were slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony
	which they held.  And they cried with a loud voice saying, How long O
	Lord, Holy and True, does thou not avenge our blood, on them that
	dwell on the earth?"

	When I read these things, it makes me feel hatred toward those that
	propogate these practices, all the way up the government.  Listen
	folks, these people are sick.  I mean they are spiritually bankrupt!
	The sadness is they don't realize it and the silent ones don't want
	to deal with it or don't care.  

	We use the term "God's Judgement" loosely sometimes and even take
	it for granted.  I don't think we'll ever realize fully what the
	cross means until we see Him face to face.  The judgement of the white
	throne will be the most terrifying experience of any living creature.	
	
	We need to pray hard for our leaders because as we see throughout
	Revelation, God's fury will be unleashed and "There will be great
	tribulation, such as the world has not seen nor will ever see again."
        You Can Count On It!!!
    
	God Speed,

	Jack

    I couldn't finish reading .0.  What utter hypocrisy to think that so
    long as a baby isn't completely born it's okay to kill it.  That's what
    some of the techniques amount to.  These people have dead hearts and no 
    conscience.  In a figurative sense, they are what they are creating.
    
    Steve

    re: .16  - While the individual cards maynot have been read, there was
    a tally made to  make certain how many votes were involved.  With
    pre-printed cards, you have less impact than individual statements.
    They do pay attention to numbers because they equate to votes -
    although Christian groups have not traditionally been a solid voting
    block - which is why  the women's movement, homosexuals and others get
    such response.
    
    In His Love,
    
    Daryl

    Isn't the "need" for any third trimester abortion procedure rare?  It
    seems to me if the pregnancy goes well for that long, chances for
    complications are rare.  I don't see any reason for D&X other than the
    world's selfishness and greed.

     Brothers and Sisters,

     Perhaps it is now time to propose that we stop wasting our time (which
     even G_d Himself not can give us back) praying that those in authority
     be chagned, and start praying that *we* be changed. Specifically, that
     we be *very* prepared for the inevitable coming judgement of G_d
     Almighty. Remember, "The judgement of G_D shall begin in the House of
     G_d." (one of Peter's epistles...)

     Brian 

    Brian:
    
    Sad but true.  Well said!  So being "very prepared" involves...what?
    
    Peace in Him,
    
    -Jack

    By the way, can anybody furnish a list of companies that sponsor 
    Planned Parenthood?  I've already given United Way a piece of my mind
    and haven't given them a dime in my five years here.  I am now on the
    phone with MCI.  If they are guilty of supporting this organization,
    they too will get an ear full as well as an immediate cancellation!
    
    Hit em where it hurts...In The Wallet!!!
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

>                -< Maybe we should stop wasting our breath... >-

>     Perhaps it is now time to propose that we stop wasting our time (which
>     even G_d Himself not can give us back) praying that those in authority
>     be chagned, and start praying that *we* be changed.

     Brian ,

You can't be serious, are you?  I don't think you are, but for those who
might have thought you were...

God says pray - you pray for those in authority over you.  It is, after all,
for our best interest to pray.  I don't want to think of what our leaders
would be like or what our lives would be like, if they were not receiving
prayer.  I had a tough time praying for our new leaders, but the Spirit has
taught me otherwise.

Even if they don't hear ("What is that to you?"), God does and He promises to
heal our land if we ask Him to do it.  In His own words:

    	"*IF* my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves,
    	AND PRAY, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; *THEN*
    	will I hear from heaven, and forgive their sin, and heal their land."
                                                        II Chronicles 7:14

    	"I exhort therefore, that, FIRST OF ALL, supplications, prayers,
    	intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for kings,
    	AND FOR ALL THAT ARE IN AUTHORITY;..."

                                WHY?

        "...that we may lead a quiet and peacable life in all godliness
        and honesty."
                                                        I Timothy 2:1-2
Regards,
Joe

       re: <<< Note 109.24 by LEDS1::LAJEUNESSE "GOOD NEWS reporter!" >>>

     Joe,

     > You can't be serious, are you?  

     I was *quite* serious in asking the question.

     > I don't think you are, ...

     G_d was also *quite* serious at the three times (op cit) that He told
     the prophet Jeremiah to *NOT* pray for Israel, as He would no longer
     receive Jeremeiahs prayers for them. Israel's spiritual, governmental
     and philosophical positions very closely approximated the United
     States' current positions. 

     So yes, I'm serious - as serious as the wrath of G_d!

     Brian 

Brian,

Please consider:

    	1.  God's wrath will surely come, and doesn't require our help.
        2.  As long as there is breath in them and they are over us, the
            Scripture I previously quoted in the last reply is still in effect!
    	3.  As far as I know, the Holy Spirit has not directed the prophets
    	    to tell the body to stop praying - see Amos 3:7 below.

    	"Surely the Lord God will do NOTHING, but he revealeth his
    	secret unto his servants the prophets."

Joe

    Little Joe,
    
     Maybe we'd better check back in with the Lord and the prophets of the
    Lord on this one. I have been wrestling with this very issue for a few
    weeks now.
    
      In the past my thoughts were like "Far be it from me that I should
    stop praying for you." Now things are changing in me. I will still pray
    for the salvation of our authorities and that God will give them wisdom
    to rule rightly. I have stopped praying for God to hold off His
    judgement on this country. I have come to the place of crying
    out to God to either judge us soon (before things get much worse) or
    apologize to Sodom and Gemmorah.
    
     Perhaps a judgement might make us to be more God-fearing as a nation;
    then again, it could end this nation (deservedly so, IMHO). Either way
    my heart's cry is turniong from mercy to Justice. I know that I can
    trust God to bring about each where it is needed.
    
     If my heart is becoming hard then feel free to gently correct me. Lord
    knows I'd prefer it to be the way it used to be.
    
    Gil

    Yes third trimester abortions are digusting ... and rare.
    For those of you which are against this ... what would you 
    suggest in the case that if the child was not removed both
    the mother and child would die. ?
    
    G_D's will ?
    
    Brian V
    

I cannot oppose an abortion which is truly necessary to save the life of
the mother; the principle of self-defense permits this sort of abortion.

Yet in most cases of third trimester abortions, the mother's life is not
in danger, and even if it is, in many cases the child could be saved if
given the same care any premature child would be given in non-abortion
circumstances.

/john

    
    I'm inclined to agree with John on that issue.
    
    Gil:
    
    As I read your last reply, I too sometimes think to myself that God
    should judge this country now.  I think he's holding back though as
    their are believers bearing fruit in this country in spite of the decay
    we have gone through.
    
    Another thought that came to me was how Rome lasted twice as long as
    the United States.  Rome was exponentially more outwardly wicked than
    the U.S.  Well, who knows but they sure were more outward about it!
    
    I feel there are still too many Godly people out there to qualify us
    for what Paul termed, "The great apostacy".  I certainly see us heading
    that way on the fast track!!  The day prolifers are jailed regardless
    of first ammendment rights (even if there not blocking clinics) will be
    yet one more step toward the disregard of the law in the eyes of our
    government.  In other word, disregard for the bill of rights will
    START with the government and trickle its way down.  
    
    Stay Tuned!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    -Jack

I could have put this reply in 108 also, but there are fewer replies here, so we'll
try to even it out ;-)

I'd been hoping to develop a lengthy note on this, but I don't have time right
now (no cheering ;-) ... maybe later.

I've been thinking back to a series of sermons a few months back, talking of our
citizenship in heaven.  I think it's important to remember that, and I think that
it may help to figure how to act (and not) these days.

I believe we can take a look at Daniel and his friends for an example.  They were
carted off to Babylon, given new names, put into the king's service, etc.  It's
instructive to see when they took action, and how.  Being given new names
(variants of Babylonian gods...) didn't get a reaction from them.  Being taught
philosophy, literature, etc of the Babylonians didn't get a reaction either.  In
fact, they were the *best* students.  Daniel and friends only took action when their
personal holiness was confronted (eat 'unclean' things, bow down to an image), at
which point they objected in the lowest key way that got the point across.  They
were focused on living for their God, while residing and taking part in Babylon.
Their personal devotion and focus on holy living was what spoke to those around them.

So how does this affect us?  We live in a wicked, evil society.  We are not
permanent citizens.  We should live by the society's rules, except where our
personal holiness is confronted.  We are also fortunate enough to live in a society
that provides some way for its people to speak up (elected representatives) and
we should be speaking up when we see something being done wrong (e.g. abortion).
I believe that if we make sure to tell those in charge that they're doing the wrong
thing, we have done what is expected.  If they don't listen, well, they have to take
responsibility for that.  Authority and responsibility go together.

We still need to pray for the people in governmental authority over us.

We, most of all, need to glorify God, and enjoy him.  That's what we're here for...

Take care,

-Steve

    109.23 - Money appears to be the only thing that does talk.  We have to
    pray and pray and pray that God does not foresake this country when the
    people in power just "do their own thing" with absolutely no thought to
    our God.  
    

    It is obvious that this should be illegalized.  Whether or not this
    happens is a different story.  Maybe by some miracle abortion will
    become illegal and end the violence with the people who are living as
    well as the babies who are being aborted.
    
    Of course people will say that if abortion were illegal that it would
    start an epidemic of "close-hangar" abortions which are more dangerous. 
    I think for the reason of high risk to the woman they might think twice
    about having an abortion in the first place, or curb their sexual
    activity.  You shouldn't have your cake and eat it too!
    
    E. Bontonovinchi
    

� or curb their sexual activity.  You shouldn't have your cake and eat it too!
          ^^^^^

You realise the guilt that *men* are heaping up against themselves, by
shrugging off the responsibility (it *does* take two).  Counting guilt 'by
outward evidence only' puts an unbearable pressure on women, where men
carry considerably more responsibility.  I believe they (we) frequently
take the initiative. 

Being 'single and pregnant' isn't the sin; only the result of a shared sin.

When I was 10, I was shocked by the immoral perspective of a maths teacher 
who gave the clkass an imposition for rowdiness when he said "I'm not 
punishing you for doing wrong; I'm punishing you for being caught doing 
wrong."  As if to suggest that morality only existed in the outward
perception.  At the time, I thought he was so way off beam that no-one
would - could - be deluded by such twisted thinking.  Since then, I've
found that seems to be the way the world works...  So sad...

								Andrew

    First hand account of the abortion industry - read "The Scarlet Lady".
    Note of encouragement, God loves even the abortionists. This book is
    written by a former abortionist (31,000 abortions performed because of
    her influence) she didn't realize what she was doing until by the 
    grace of God her eyes were open. The day after she prayed with a
    believer, she could sense the smell of death in her clinic for the
    first time! She was spritiually blind by what she was doing up until
    she opened up her heart to God in prayer.  We as Christians MUST pray
    for all persecuters.. "... they do not know what they are
    doing"...satan is a deceiver... JESUS says pray for them......
    
    SD
    

Amen, SD!  Good tactics!  This strikes at the heart of the enemy's
influence.  We wrestle not against flesh and blood - those who are at the
centre of the destruction are not themselves the enemy, but only deluded by 
the enemy.

							Andrew

    RE:35

    RD,
      I don't know if its the same woman, but it sounds like Carol
    Everette. She owned an abortion clinic. She has another book
    called "Blood Money." She states that her  clinic made
    $45,000 per month on abortions. The counselors at the abortion
    clinic were nothing more than sales people. Their job was to
    sell the client an abortion. Of course, how hard is it to sell
    an abortion to a scared unwed girl who doesn't know where to 
    turn for help, and came to the clinic seeking advice ?

    Jim 

                <<< PEAR::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                   -< SOAPBOX: Around as long as Digital is >-
================================================================================
Note 1859.2                Oprah Topics for The Future                    2 of 2
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                        1 line   6-MAY-1993 22:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Children who've had limbs cut off during abortion attempts but lived anyway.

    Has anyone ever performed a Bible study on this topic?  I'd be
    interested in seeing some scripture references in dealing with
    abortion.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Might be quicker to see Christian V6, V5, V4...

Might not, come to think of it.  Brian Ph seems to have this under his belt.
BP?

| Might not, come to think of it.  Brian Ph seems to have this under his belt.
| BP?


	I thought Brian got laid off?



Glen

Try starting with a thorough review of Ps 139 and Deut 21.

Brian_whom_G-d_Has_Mercifully_Preserved_From_Death_and_Lay_Off

You are correct, Glen.
However, Brian landed on his feet at NIO. (Or is that NUO?)
Anyway, he's still around.

Mark

    I was just asking because I've heard he justifies his stance as a 
    pro-choice Baptist based on a verse in Genesis (can't remember the 
    location).
    
    thanks,
    Mike

 You mean Bill?  I've heard the same thing, and I can't remember the verse..


Who wants to send him e-mail?





Jim

    Being the Baptist that I am.  It is in the early part of Genesis where
    God says he breathed and Adam became a living soul.  Clinton says he has
    considered this based on Bible study by a prominent Baptist preacher
    that used this verse.  In the womb, the baby does not breathe and
    therefore is not a living soul.  I can't remember the preacher's name
    but I do know that some Baptists hold to this belief.  
    
    I believe that the preacher probably said this but find it hard to
    believe in light of other scripture that this argument holds H20.
    I don't believe that this is the predominant feeling amongst Baptists
    but................
    
    Robert

    Baptist here and accounted for... No, I don't believe that!
    
    The moniker *Baptist* has about as many flavors as icecream, there
    ABA's, SBA's, there are IFB's... there are fundamental, there are
    liberal Baptists..  
    
    Sigh... I'm not sure why many of these churches keep the Moniker as
    that is all it seems to be anymore.
    
    Nancy

    Re: Note 109.46 by ELMAGO::RWRIGHT
    
    ... but the baby does "breathe" in a sense ...

Mike, 

Do you mean a Bible study on when life starts, equating abortion with 
murder?  As has been said, this is regularly discussed in each version of 
the conference, and I see no reason to make this an exception .... 
 - the exercise is good for us ;-)

There are many verses which refer to the life in the womb, known to the
LORD, but the but the clearest interactive one to my mind is when John the
Baptist leaps for joy at the approach of Mary, because of the LORD.  Around
3 months before John was born, and 9-ish months before Jesus was born, in
Luke 1:44. 

I'm not sure about the reference to Deuteronomy 21 (Brian), but see
Exodus 21:22-24 as significant, though disputed (naturally...) by some.  
Ah! - maybe Brian meant Exodus?

These verses gives the penalty for injury to a child through premature
birth, caused by violence.  Some would maintain that the penalty refers to
injury to the mother, but that case is already covered by the regular laws
of injury, and in that case, the fact that the woman was pregnant, and gave 
birth, would be almost incidental.  The only viable construction I see is
that this covers the case of injury to the child.  Particularly as it 
refers to 'burn for burn', which is, I understand, a typically recognisable 
premature injury symptom.  'Burn for burn' has no special significance for 
the mother in this context.

I have a number of references to our pre-birth existance, and God's 
awareness and preparation of us then.  I'll post them after this entry.

I do feel a certain personal interest in this, having myself been a child
in the womb in early life..... 

							God bless
								Andrew

Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet Thou dost
destroy me.  Remember, I beseech Thee, that Thou hast made me as the clay; and
wilt Thou bring me into dust again? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh,
and hast fenced me with bones and sinews...
						Job 10 verses 8, 9, 11


Did not He that made me in the womb make him? and did not One fashion us in
the womb?
						Job 31 verse 15


But Thou art He that took me out of the womb: Thou didst make me hope when I
was upon my mothers breasts.  I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my 
God from my mothers belly.
						Psalm 22 verses 9-10
 

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
						Psalm 51 verse 5


For Thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mothers womb.
I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are
Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously
wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all my
members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there
was none of them.
						Psalm 139 verses 13 - 16


As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow
in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou knowest not the works of
God who maketh all.
						Ecclesiastes 11 verse 5


Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will
help thee; fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have
chosen.
						Isaiah 44 verse 2


Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am
the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that
spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself;
						Isaiah 44 verse 24


Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel,
which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb...
						Isaiah 46 verse 3

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; the Lord hath
called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of
my name.
						Isaiah 49 verse 1


And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be His servant, to
bring Jacob again to him, though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be 
glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.
						Isaiah 49 verse 5


Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth
out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the
nations.
						Jeremiah 1 verse 5

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine
nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his
mother's womb.
						Luke 1 verse 15


For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe
leaped in my womb for joy.
						Luke 1 verse 44

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called
me by His grace... 
						Galatians 1 verse 15

Your hands shaped me and made me.  Will You now turn and destroy me. 
Remember that You moulded me like clay.  Will You now turn me to dust again? 
Did You not ...  clothe me with skin and flesh and knit me together with bones 
and sinews?
						Job 10 verses 8, 9, 11


Did not He Who made me in the womb make them?  Did not the same One form us 
both in our mothers?
						Job 31 verse 15

Yet You brought me out of the womb; You made me trust in You even at 
my mothers breast.  From birth I was cast upon You; from my mother's womb You 
have been my God.
						Psalm 22 verses 9-10

 
Surely, I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
						Psalm 51 verse 5


For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb.
I praise You because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Your works are
wonderful, I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from You, when I was made in the secret place. 
When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,
Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me
were written in Your book before one of them came to be.
						Psalm 139 verses 13 - 16


As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a
mother's womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all
things.
						Ecclesiastes 11 verse 5


This is what the Lord says - He Who made you, Who formed you in the womb, 
and Who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, 
whom I have chosen.
						Isaiah 44 verse 2


This is what the Lord says - your Redeemer, Who formed you in the womb: I am
the Lord Who has made all things; Who alone stretched forth the heavens, Who
spread out the earth by Myself... 
						Isaiah 44 verse 24


Listen to me, O house of Jacob, all you who remain of the house of Israel,
you whom I have upheld since you were conceived, and have carried since your 
birth. 
						Isaiah 46 verse 3


Listen to me, you islands; hear this, you distant nations: Before I was born
the LORD called me; from my birth He has made mention of my name.
						Isaiah 49 verse 1

And now the Lord says - He Who formed me in the womb to be His servant to
bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to Himself, for I am honoured in 
the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength...
						Isaiah 49 verse 5

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born 
I set you apart;  I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.
						Jeremiah 1 verse 5

for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. He is never to take wine
or other fermented drink; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even
from birth (margin: from his mother's womb.)
						Luke 1 verse 15

As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb 
leaped for joy.
						Luke 1 verse 44

But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by His grace... 
						Galatians 1 verse 15

> In the womb, the baby does not breathe and therefore is not a
> living soul.

WRONG!  The developing child practices breathing (amnionic fluid) 
from the approximate age of 5 months inutero onward!


> I can't remember the preacher's name but I do know that some
> Baptists hold to this belief.

Any excuse to justify sin, when repentance being avoided...

Brian

RE: .49

> I'm not sure about the reference to Deuteronomy 21 (Brian), but
> see Exodus 21:22-24 as significant, though disputed (naturally...)
> by some.  

Sorry, I forgot to mentiont he Exodus 21 passage. You described it
very well, &rew, so I shall add nothing to what you've said

> Ah! - maybe Brian meant Exodus?

No, I meant to include Deuteronomy 21 - It deals with the
requirement for non-participants in the shedding of innocent blood
to not be held accountable for their proximity to the act and
having done nothing to prevent it. IMHO, few in the Church could
pray the prescribed prayer - the blood of the innocents is upon us.

Brian

� ...the requirement for non-participants in the shedding of innocent blood
� to not be held accountable for their proximity to the act and having done
� nothing to prevent it. IMHO, few in the Church could pray the prescribed
� prayer - the blood of the innocents is upon us. 

Hmmm...  I was still on the 'start of life' stage.  Thx....


								&rew

re: causing a miscarriage. (Exodus 21)

I don't know what the original Hebrew says, but the RSV says "the one who hurt
*her* shall be fined."  It certainly seems to refer to the woman.  I had never
considered that this might refer to the child.  I originally thought that this 
could be used as a validation of abortion, since it seems to suggest that 
killing an unborn person is only worth a fine, whereas killing a born person is 
punishable by death.

But even if this does refer to the woman in a case where a child is miscarried
and dies, as I think it does, this cannot be used as a justification for 
abortion.  The Code of Law given to Moses is very careful not to punish people 
for accidents, but to punish people for intent only.  There was the whole thing 
with the cities of safety, for someone who had killed another accidentally to 
escape to to avoid vengeance.

Note in this passage that there is no intent to harm the woman or the unborn
child.  It begins "When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so 
that there is a miscarriage."  Picture the scene this describes.  Two men get
into an argument and perhaps a fistfight.  A woman gets in the way, and one of
the men pushes her out of the way.  The woman is pregnant, but in early 
pregnancy so that she does not show - particularly in the loose eastern robes.
The man pushes her in such a way as not to really cause her any harm - he has
not done a grevious thing.  However, due to her condition, the fall causes her
to miscarry.

The Mosiac Law decrees that he may not be held responsible for taking a life,
since his action was not an action which had the intent to take life nor could
he know that a simple push could take a life.  This is just an extension of the
Mosiac Legal principle that taking life accidentally can not be punished as if
the life were taken knowingly or negligently.

This does not at all address the situation of taking the life of the unborn
intentionally.

Paul

Warning DECWindows users.  (Hey, shouldn't that be DigitalWindows now? :-)  Long
note following.  I posted it over in Soapbox, as a reasonably complete 
articulation of why I am Pro-Life.  It deals exclusively with a secular defense
of a pro-life position.

Paul

DigitalWindows Notes chopped my reply in half.  I deleted the half-note, and am
reposting the note with VAXNotes.

Paul

People have often complained that the pro-life side is not discussing this
subject rationally.  There seems to be a general perception - both in this file
and in the world at large - that any thinking person is 'pro-choice,' and the
only reasons to be pro-life are emotional and religious.  Nothing could be
farther from the truth.  I firmly believe that in any truly rational
examination of abortion - undertaken without any preconceived notions, either
pro-life or 'pro-choice' - abortion must be condemned.  

This will be long, folks.  I've been poking at it during lunchtimes for quite a
while.  I may repeat some things that have already been said by me or others,
but I've tried to put down here all the reasons that I can think of for a
pro-life position.  I'm addressing this mainly to the large number of people
who aren't sure about this issue, and who tire of hearing people on either side
raving and raging their positions.  I don't hold out much hope that this will
do anything to change the minds of any of the really adamant 'pro-choice'
people, because I'm sure that already, before reading a word of what I'm going
to say, some of you have your "anti-choice cold callous oppressive women-
enslaving fundamental emotional religious wacko" juices flowing, and you won't
hear a word of it.  Please, prove me wrong, you who love to claim that pro-life
people are closed-minded, and read with an open mind.  I know that sounds like
an antagonistic opening, but I'm serious.

Don't worry about my pulling religion into this.  In addition to all the purely
secular reasons to condemn abortion, there's a very strong Christian and
Biblical case against it.  But I recognize and endorse that in a mixed, secular
society such as we have, religious arguments can not and should not be used as
a basis for justifying laws.  I fully believe that our society would be vastly
better off if we based our country's laws on God's laws as I understand them. 
But I also acknowledge that unless I want to open up our society to the
possibility of having laws made on the basis of what "God told them" from any
group of wacked-out people - such as the Branch Davidians - who can make their
way into government, *I* can't go using what "God told me" as a basis for
passing laws.

Spare me the "taking away freedom" and "governmental intrusion in people's
lives" lectures.  As I've mentioned before, trust me, you who label yourselves
'pro-choice,' I'm *MUCH* more pro-choice than you are, and I can say that with
full confidence that I will be right for 99.9% of you.  No old-time 'boxers
verified this when I mentioned it last time, but I'm a libertarian to the core. 
Hey, mr. bill, I noticed you entered a note here.  Tell 'em, will you?  In any
debate, I will *always* stand on the side of allowing individuals to take *and
bear* full responsibility for their actions.  I will always stand on the side
of the very least possible governmental intervention.  I will always stand on
the side of stopping any forceful action of one person on another.  I believe
that the prohibition of any exercise of force between individuals or groups is
the *only* valid basis for the passing of laws.  I disagree with a huge
majority of governmental programs, policies and laws that limit individual
choice, even though the majority of the populace - including nearly all of the
people who label themselves as 'pro-choice' - thinks they're just fine.  I'm
not willing to trade freedom for much of anything, as I've been posting in my
personal name for years.  As I'll deal with later, it all hinges on whether
there is only one person involved in the abortion equation, or two.

Lastly, let me emphasize that while I condemn the act of abortion itself, and
much of the rhetoric used to support it, I cannot, would not, and do not desire
to condemn those who have had abortions or those who perform them.   Though I
firmly believe that abortion takes a human life, I believe that some abortions
are still legitimate from medical reasons.  I also understand that the issue
has been very, very clouded, and that it is more than possible to have an
abortion for other reasons and not recognize the reality of it.  I do believe
that some people who have abortions, and many who perform them, know very well
that it is taking a human life and that the reasons for doing so are
insufficient in most cases, and are deserving of some measure of condemnation.
Others have deliberately shielded themselves from the possibility of finding
out if abortion might be the taking of a human life, because they didn't want
to know.

However, though some may be deserving of condemnation, I am in no position to
give it.  I am in no position to judge motivations of individual people, nor
would I desire to put myself there.  Like everyone else, I can only see
actions, I cannot see hearts.  I can condemn the action because I can see it.
Since I cannot see why someone has committed the action or what they think or
believe, I can't condemn the person.  Even if I knew, it's not my place to
condemn, though I may *want* to in some cases, for example for doctors who do
late-term abortions where I can't imagine how they can possibly escape the
reality of what they are doing.  But it's not my place to do so.  I can bring
religion into this part because I'm talking about myself: I have not been held
accountable by the One who *is* the judge of hearts for that which I can be
rightly condemned.  So how can I do any less for others?

So, over 50 lines already, and I haven't even started yet.....

To start with, I really must congratulate the 'pro-choice' side on the
masterful job they have done of framing the terms of this debate.  They have
managed to frame the question in terms of 'choice,' 'women's rights,' and
'reproductive freedom' in nearly all public forums.  They have steadfastly
refused to leave that field of argument, regardless of how they are provoked;
regardless of how hard pro-life people have tried to change the field of
argument to the question of the life of the unborn.  By doing that so
consistently and so well, the 'pro-choice' side has managed to create the
perception that I mentioned before, that any thinking person is 'pro-choice,'
and the only reasons to be pro-life are based on emotion or religion or some
other reason, such as oppression of women.  This is a magnificent strategy, and
it has been executed very very well.  This strategy is essential to the
preservation of abortion, since it is only on that field of argument that they
can win the debate.  On that field, they have 'choice' and 'rights' and
'freedom' on their side, and can accuse those who disagree with them of being
against those things.

The only problem is, this field of argument is completely wrong.  I contend
that the entire field of argument about choice and rights and freedom is
*irrelevant* to the question of abortion, that the question of the validity of
abortion rests on one question and one question alone: Is the unborn child a
human being?  Any issues of choice or freedom or rights, or any of the other
issues that the 'pro-choice' side typically trumpets, are completely dependent 
on the answer to that one question.

Why do I believe that the issues of choice and rights and freedom - issues that
I believe in passionately - are irrelevant to the resolution of this issue?  In
any debate, both sides must agree on what premises they accept before
proceeding with an intelligent interaction.  If one side of the debate claims a
point as a premise, and the other side disputes the truth of that premise, then
the logical and necessary course of action for the side that claimed the
premise is to back up and establish whether the premise is true.  Intelligent
discourse cannot go forward without doing that, and if the objective of the
debate is to seek the truth, then it is of benefit to both parties, not just
the one questioning the premise, to go back and establish whether the premise
is in fact true.

Suppose Columbus was arguing with people about whether he could reach India by
sailing west.  His premise and assumption in claiming that it was possible was
that the world was round.  If someone argues with him "but the world is flat,
you will fall off the edge," his premise is being challenged.  His only 
intelligent course of action at that point is go back and show why he believes
that the world is in fact round.

Now suppose the side claiming the premise refuses to do that, but instead
continues to present their well-formulated arguments which are based on the
premise - arguments that are true, but only if the premise is true.  In the
meantime, the other side of the debate is still challenging the premise. 
Suppose Columbus didn't address the question of why he believed the world was
round, or just tossed off some derogatory comments belittling anyone who
believed that it was flat, and went on arguing about all the wealth and
benefits they would gain by discovering the shorter routine to India.  What
results from this is that the debate degenerates into a cacophony of noise,
with each side addressing completely different issues.  As a result they are
both totally unable to even understand what the other side is talking about,
and any onlookers to the debate see nothing but pure chaos.

That's precisely what has happened in the abortion debate.  The 'pro-choice'
side takes as a premise that the unborn is not a human being.  The pro-life
side challenges that premise - ***AND ONLY THAT PREMISE***.  We *agree* with
the rest of your position, *IF* this premise is correct.  *IF* the unborn is
not a human being, we can all go home and end this debate right now.  *IF* it's
just a few cells that are part of the mother's body, then abortion becomes the
exact moral equivalent of liposuction.  Though people might snicker up their
sleeves at someone who undergoes liposuction, nobody's going to be out there
blocking liposuction clinics to save the fat cells.  Clearly *IF* this premise
is correct, all the rest of the 'pro-choice' position is correct.  Or at least
we agree that it's not worth debating - it seems true to us too.  *Of course*
it's a women's choice to get rid of some excess cells in her body; *of course*
it is completely her right to do so; *of course* any attempt to stop her from
doing so is impinging on her freedom.

But it's precisely that "IF" that the pro-life side is challenging.  We already
agree that *IF* that premise is true, the rest of your position is true.  Now
if it can also be shown that if that premise is *NOT* true then the rest of the
'pro-choice' position is also not true, then the 'pro-choice' position will
have been shown to rest completely on the premise that the unborn is not a
human being: True if the premise is true, false if the premise is false.  And
once that is proven, we can dismiss the entirety of the 'pro-choice' position
as *irrelevant* to the issue of abortion.  If it all depends completely upon
whether the unborn is a human being, then there's no point in even bringing it
up.  If you can prove that the unborn isn't a human being, your work is done. 
If you can't, then the rest of your position is meaningless.  

Again let's use Columbus as an example, and BTW I deliberately chose an example
where the premise in question was in fact true so that the analogy cannot be
perceived as being chosen to ridicule your position.  Suppose he were to try to
justify his expedition by expounding on the benefits of discovering the trade
route.  This argument is completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether
they should undertake the expedition, because its validity depends entirely on
the truth of the premise that the world is round.  The argument is true if the
premise is true, and false if the premise is false.  It is obvious on the face
of it that if the world is round, then of course he can reach India by sailing
west, and of course he can realize all the benefits of discovering that trade
route.  None of his contemporaries questioned that.  But they questioned his
premise that the world was round.  If that premise was false, if the world is
not round but indeed flat, then there is no trade route to be discovered, they
would in fact fall off the edge of the earth.  

In the face of objections to his premise that the world was round, it would be
absurd for him to even bring up the trade benefits, let alone make them the
total focus of his argument.  The trade benefits don't even exist if his
premise is false.  Any discussion of them is meaningless until the premise is
proven, and should be entirely dismissed from the discussion.  What he must do
is prove his premise.   It's to his own benefit to prove that premise, too.  If
he doesn't, if he keeps the argument in terms of the benefits of the trade
route and manages to cloud the issue enough that he can convince people to go
with him, and the premise turns out to be wrong, the result is that they will
all die when they fall off the edge of the earth.

Precisely the same situation exists for the 'pro-choice' position.  If the
whole thing rests on this one premise, and what you must do is prove that
premise.  If abortion rests on the premise that the unborn is not a human
being, then it is absurd to even bring up 'choice' or 'rights.'  If your
premise is wrong, and you manage by clouding the discussion with these other
issues to convince enough people of your position, then the result is the death
and destruction of millions of human beings every year.

So let's address all the 'pro-choice' arguments, one at a time, and see if
their validity rests on the premise that the unborn is not a person.  Remember,
in these examples, we're making the assumption that the unborn is a human being
to see if the claims of the 'pro-choice' position still hold true *IF* the
unborn is human, so don't go arguing that these points are not true because the
unborn is not a human being.  That's the premise we're challenging, and these
examples are intended to prove that the 'pro-choice' position is only valid
*IF* the unborn is NOT human.

   Is it Murder?
********************************

We hardly even need to go past this one.  As people on the 'pro-choice' side of
this discussion have agreed, every remotely civilized society prohibits murder.
If the unborn is a human being, then killing it is murder, and must be
prohibited unless a clear reason can be shown why the murder is acceptable.
Note that in most societies, including ours, the relative helplessness and/or
innocence of the one being murdered is generally considered to increase the
magnitude of the crime.  For one drug lord to murder another is considered bad,
but there's a sense that the person had it coming, and also that he had some
ability to protect himself.  Murdering children is usually considered a much
worse crime, precisely because the child is relatively innocent and helpless. 
The unborn take innocence and helplessness even a step beyond children.  There
is the fact that the unborn is dependent on support from the mother's body, but
I'll deal with that later.  If the unborn is a human being, at best this fact
could try to show that the murder of the unborn was justifiable; it could not
show that the killing of the unborn was not murder.  

   Choice
********************************

If the unborn is a human being, is it valid to speak of the choice or right or
freedom to abort it?  First, let's try to apply this position to other
situations in life.  Does 'choice' apply in *any* other situation where the
'choice' involves the termination of the life of another?

Consider the case of someone who has an affair, and now the person they had the
affair with threatens to make it public.  An instance of this in the press a
few years ago was the case of Wade Boggs (baseball player for the Red Sox) and
Margo Adams.  The parallels to abortion are striking.  The initial cause of the
'problem' in both cases is having sex in an irresponsible fashion (more on
responsibility later).  In both cases, this action results in the existence of
a person who is in a position to *majorly* impact one's life.  In the case of
an unwanted pregnancy, the unborn child is going to grow into a child ready to
be born, who will then need to be either cared for or given up for adoption -
certainly a major disruption of life, with consequences that will be felt for a
lifetime.  The child is going to demand support from the woman's body until it
is born, and support after that if it is not offered up for adoption.  In the
case of Wade Boggs, this person was going to make him front page news as an
adulterer across the nation, probably destroy his marriage and family, deeply
wound him, his wife and his children - again, a major disruption of life, with
consequences that will be felt for a lifetime.  She was also going to demand
support from him, in the form of a palimony suit.

Now in the one case, some people maintain that the woman with the unwanted
pregnancy has the 'choice' to terminate the life of the person that was causing
the disruption.  Yet no one in their right mind would even consider that Wade
Boggs had the right to kill Margo Adams because she was going to disrupt his
life.  *IF* the unborn is a human being, how is there any difference between
these two cases?  How does 'choice' apply, or 'rights' or 'freedom', if the
choice, right, or freedom involves taking the life of another?

Or if you don't think that illustration fits, take the story told in the last
version of Soapbox of the woman who aborted two children so that she would be
able to support the two she already had.  *IF* the unborn is already a human
being, this is no different from killing one of her already-born children so
that she could support the other one.  Would anyone support such a thing, even
in an extreme case like that where the poor woman really had very few options
available?  If some poor woman in the city bears her child and then deposits it
in a dumpster to die because she can't take care of it, the whole city is
outraged, and they hunt down the woman to make her pay for such an unspeakable
crime.  There was a recent case of this, with outrage flowing from everyone. 
Yet if the day before, she had gone to a clinic, and paid a doctor to tear the
child to pieces, people would applaud that as her 'choice.'  How can a thinking
person reconcile these two?  *IF* the unborn is already a human being, the
'choice' to abort is no different than the 'choice' to kill your already-born
children because it's too difficult to take care of them.  We put people away
for years for doing such a thing.

Some of you are probably reacting to "tear the child to pieces," but that is a
precise and literal description of a common late-term abortion process.  Would
you prefer I had said "burn the child to death with a salt/acid solution?" 
That is another common late-term method of abortion.  Let's face facts here -
that is precisely what is actually happening, and the fetus - every bit as
conscious the day before birth as they are the day after - is awake and aware
of what is happening to it, and feels the pain just as you would.  If any of
these things were done to already-born people, the perpetrator would be
perceived as a heinous crimnal and given the death penalty or at least life
imprisonment.  Yet to do the very same things to a done to a conscious, living
late-term fetus is claimed to be a 'right.'

In fact, can anyone come up with **ANY** case where one would be able to speak
of a person's 'choice' to kill another?  I can think of only one defense:
personal self defense.  This could be used to justify abortion in the case
where the mother's life was in real danger, but not for the vast majority of
abortions that are performed.

In short (ha! me, short!) 'choice' has meaning *ONLY* if the unborn is not a
human being.  If the unborn is a human being, the 'choice' to dispose of it is 
totally invalid, and to bring it up is completely irrelevant.

  Women's rights, constitutional right to privacy, right to control
  reproductive destiny, etc.
********************************

All of these concepts are again completely dependent on the unborn not being a
human being.  No one can claim a 'right' to kill another, no one would dream of
claiming a 'right to privacy' as a justification to kill another, and no one
would try to suggest that they should be able to 'control their reproductive
destiny' by killing their children.  If the unborn is a human being, all of
these arguments are meaningless. (Now that really WAS short)

  Back alley abortions
********************************

This is always brought up and much heed is paid to it, even by those who oppose
abortion.  And I understand being swayed by it, because these deaths are 
tragic.  But once again, using this as a reason to support abortion rests
completely on the assumption that the unborn is not a human being.  If the
unborn isn't human, then women are being denied a medical procedure that they
have every right to, and are left with their only option being an unsafe
procedure at the hands of anyone they can find to do the job.  This is truly a
horrible situation.

But if the unborn *is* a human being, then it *should* be dangerous and
difficult to dispose of it.  Suppose I were to desire to kill a recognized
human - an adult - and wanted to hire someone to do the killing for me.  If I
were to then complain how difficult it was to find someone to do it, and how
dangerous it was working with those mob types, and how degraded I felt, would
you consider this a reasonable reason to repeal the laws against killing
another person?  Of course not, your reaction would be "I should hope that it
was dangerous and degrading to have another person killed."

Someone said a while back that he preferred legalized abortion to "the far
worse situation of women dying from back-alley abortions."  Again, this depends
solely on the premise that the unborn is not human.  If the unborn *is* human,
then we are comparing over 1.6 million innocent lives lost annually through no
choice or action of their own, to n(where n is many orders of magnitude less
than 1.6 million) lives lost as a result of trying to take another innocent
person's life.  Even if the number of women dying from "back-alley" abortions
was *equal* to the number of aborted children, if the unborn *is* a human
being, by any civilized standard the loss of innocent life is far worse than
the loss of life in the process of attempted murder.  

But the number of lives lost to "back-alley" abortions is far less than we have
been led to believe.  A recent note postulates "thousands" of deaths a year
from illegal abortions.  I have a magazine article which states that in 1972,
the year prior to Roe v. Wade, ***28*** deaths were reported from illegal
abortions in the U.S.  This figure is not footnoted, I do not know where it
comes from.  But until someone can come up with a strongly documented
counterfigure, I'll stand by that number.  Even I, who am strongly against
abortion, find it hard to believe such a low number.  But I've seen enough of
the mistruth tactics of the 'pro-choice' contingency to believe that the truth
could be that far removed from what we have been led to believe.  Of course,
even if that figure is correct for reported deaths, it is certainly
significantly lower than the truth - there has always been pressure on coroners
to pronounce a different cause of death than a botched abortion.  But we are
talking about a number that is clearly less than 1% of the number of abortions-
would anyone try to claim that 16,000 women a year would die from failed
illegal abortions?  So again, if the unborn *is* a human being, we are talking
about a hundredfold or thousandfold difference in numbers - which of the two is
"far worse?"

Now combine the two.  Which would you consider a worse injustice: 100 children
killed on a playground by a drunk driver who plowed into them, or a drunk
driver killed while just about to drive into a crowded playground?  *IF* the
unborn is a human being, this is precisely what the "back-alley" abortion
argument amounts to.

Many of you are probably thinking how cold and callous I am being, comparing a
woman in a difficult unwanted pregnancy to a drunk driver, and diminishing the
deaths of women who feel they have nowhere else to turn.  But observe that your
reaction is again another emphasis on the fact that you don't believe that the
unborn is a human being.  If what is really happening is that an innocent child
is being killed - regardless of how desperately the woman needs to be rid of 
it - who is being more cold and callous?  The person who is allowing that to
happen out of "compassion" for the woman they can see, or the person who is 
trying to save the life of the child that no but the doctor who aborts it sees?

As an aside, when I posted an absolutely horrific description of a new
late-term abortion procedure, a procedure that is designed specifically to
ensure that the fetus is dead on delivery, the response was remarkably cold and
callous.  Little response was generated at all, and what response there was
just said "we don't support late-term abortions, so we don't even really care
about that."  That attitude of not caring about those late-term abortions once
again shows that there is no recognition that this is a human being.  If it
were a human being that was having a surgical instrument driven into its brain
and having its skull vacuumed out, how could one not object?  Yet these deaths
are just sort of coolly accepted as part of the cost of allowing abortions. 
And the pro-life side is accused of being cold and callous?

As a further aside, there is another point which I believe to be true, but
cannot currently prove.  I will not support this particular point if
challenged, and I would appreciate any supporting materials that anyone may
have.  The 'pro-choice' side makes a big deal about safety, always pointing to
those back-alley abortions.  Yet since the legalization of abortions, there
have been clinics that have performed abortions in unsafe manners, resulting in
injuries or deaths.  I have no numbers, though I don't currently claim they are
large.  As before Roe v. Wade, there is pressure on coroners to pronounce a
cause of death other than a botched abortion, so any actual numbers will be
significantly below the truth, but the fact remains that people are still dying
from unsafe abortions.

When such a case occurs, when a clinic is suspected of performing unsafe
abortions, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the 'pro-choice' side typically
rushes to help defend the clinic and cover up any problems.  I am not aware of
a single case in which Planned Parenthood or any other 'pro-choice' group has
led or even supported an investigation of such a clinic.  Now one would guess,
if these groups really held 'safe abortions' in the high regard that they claim
they do when they are arguing with pro-life people, that they would be the
first people out there demanding an investigation of an unsafe clinic. 
Instead, they seek to defend and cover up any wrongdoing.  This shows that what
they really care about is *available* abortions, and they don't really care
much if they are safe.  Or at least they are not willing to take a stand for
safety if they perceive that it may lose them ground in making sure that
abortions stay available.  That attitude turns the 'dangerous abortion'
argument into the height of hypocrisy - it becomes an argument trotted out to
help their own side and make the other side look bad when it's convenient for
them, though the same issue is completely ignored when it is poses a danger to
the 'more pressing' issue of keeping abortions available.  Though I would never
think to accuse all 'pro-choice' people of this hypocrisy, there are many who
do fall into this category.

  In the best interests of the child: abuse, neglect, deformity of fetus,
  "Every child a wanted child"
********************************

If the child doesn't exist yet, then there is merit to this argument.  The
question of whether a child should be brought into the world into an abusive,
neglected or unwanted situation, or with physical or mental deformities, is
indeed worth asking.  But to propose abortion as a solution to this is to make
the assumption that the child doesn't exist yet - that the unborn isn't a human
being.

If the unborn *is* already a human being, then this is exactly equivalent to
rounding up children (or adults.  Why not?) who are unwanted or who are deemed
by some arbitrary societal standard to have lives that are not worth living,
and killing them.  Once again, this argument is senseless if the unborn is
already a human being.

You occasionally hear people born with deformities say "I wish I had been
aborted," and people point to that and say "See, abortion would have been
better for them."  But there are plenty of people who are perfectly healthy who
desire to commit suicide and wish they had never been born, and plenty of
people with deformities who are glad they had a chance at life, even with their
limitations.  It is not up to us to determine who should live and who should
die.

  Keep the government out.
********************************

There's the compelling argument that outlawing abortion makes the government
intrude into people's lives.  This is absolutely correct; of course outlawing
abortion intrudes into people's lives.  That's what government is *for*. 
Government is there to intrude into the life of anyone who would use force to
impact another person's life.  Government is there to intrude in a robber's
life when he steals your property.  Government is there to intrude in a
rapist's life when he attacks women.  And government is there to intrude in any
person's life when they try to take the life of another.

To impose a negative value judgment on this in the case of abortion, and say
that it is a bad thing that government is intruding in people's lives, is to
assume that there is only one life here that is being intruded upon.  And I
will very much agree, *any* intrusion of government into people's lives when
they were not harming anyone else is completely wrong.  But suppose there are
*two* people involved here, suppose for a moment that the unborn is another
human being.  Then to complain that outlawing abortion is intruding on people's
lives is exactly the same as complaining that the government would intrude on
your life if you 'chose' to kill your spouse.  Once again, this argument is
completely dependent on whether the unborn is a human being.

  Only women are qualified to even discuss the issue.
********************************

Again, if the unborn is not a human being, then no one other than the person
involved has anything to do with it.  And certainly, since men are never in a
position to need an abortion, they can never experientially relate to the
issues involved.  Though they may have input, they can never fully understand,
any more than any other group can understand situations they can never be in.
White people can never fully understand what it's like to be black in the U.S.,
either.

But if the unborn is a human being, then whether I may personally ever be put in
the position of that choice has no bearing on my ability to judge that choice,
nor on the necessity of my becoming involved in the situation.  If I saw a man
beating his child to death, it would never cross my mind to say "Well, I don't
have children, so I'm in no position to judge his choice to beat his child."  I
would simply intervene, and so would anyone else.  The choice to take the life
of another human being can and must be judged to be a wrong choice by *ANYONE*,
regardless of what choices they may or may not have been faced with themselves.

  It's heartless to condemn people who aren't prepared to support a child to
  celibacy.
********************************

Heartless?  Heartless?  It's heartless to say people should not be creating
human beings if they plan to kill them?  As in all the above cases, the very
idea that this could be considered 'heartless' is absolutely dependent on the
fundamental assumption that the unborn is not a human being.  If it's just a
blob of cells, then yes, it's heartless to tell people to remain celibate to
avoid harming the blob of cells.  But observe what this argument degenerates
into if the unborn *IS* a human being.  You are then claiming that people should
have the freedom to have sex whenever and with whoever they desire, despite the
fact that this freedom will directly cause the deaths of many innocent people. 
Why shouldn't I have the "freedom" to drink and drive?  Isn't it 'heartless' to
condemn a poor alcoholic to not be able to drive?  So what that innocent people
will be killed, it's his 'right' to drive.  His very ability to live in our
society will be severely impacted by not being allowed to drive.

What is heartless is accepting the deaths of innocent human beings as a
reasonable cost of sexual license.  And if the unborn is a human being, that's
exactly what is being advocating.

  Would you really impose criminal penalties on people who performed abortions
  or on people who had them?
********************************

Let's rephrase this question, assuming that the unborn is a human being.  Would
you impose criminal penalties on someone who killed another person, or on
someone who paid to have another person killed?  Even asking this question in
the first place makes the assumption that the unborn is not human.  Of course
someone who performs illegal abortions - who kills unborn people - should be
subject to criminal penalties.  Since it is a common natural occurence for
unborn children to die from natural causes, any attempt to investigate a mother
for the death of an unborn child should be subject to extreme safeguards to
prevent wrongful harassment.  But would you prosecute a poor young mother who
killed her post-born offspring because she could not take care of it?  If the
pre-born is also a human being, it is exactly the same situation.

********************************

EVERY SINGLE ONE of these arguments depends completely on the premise that the
unborn is just a part of the mother's body, and is not an individual human
being.  Every one of these arguments is completely true if the unborn is not a
human being, and completely false if the unborn is a human being.  Therefore
they are all *irrelevant* to the discussion of abortion.  The rightness of
abortion rests solely upon the question of whether the unborn is a human being,
and all of these other arguments are just detractions from the addressing of
the real issue.

Now, one would think that if the 'pro-choice' side could win their whole case
so easily by proving this one premise, that they would leap to do so.  Yet they
never do - they avoid this question as much as possible.  No matter how much
pro-life people try to get them to address whether the unborn is a person,
'pro-choice' folks will nearly always return immediately to 'choice,' 'rights,'
'back-alley abortions,' etc.  On the rare occasions that they will address the
humanity of the unborn at all, it is usually a derogatory belittling of the
very idea.  Only very rarely will anyone on the 'pro-choice' side actually
address whether the unborn is a human being.  Why is that?

I believe the reason is simple.  They can't prove that premise, and what's
more, on some level, whether conscious or unconscious, the leaders of this
movement **KNOW** that they can't prove that premise.  They can't ever afford
to let the debate shift to the ground of whether the unborn is a human being,
because any reasonable scientific examination will show that it *is* a human
being.  They *must* keep the debate on the issues of 'choice' and 'reproductive
freedom' and 'back-alley abortions,' or they will lose, and they know that. I'm
not saying that everyone who is 'pro-choice' knows this.  But I do believe that
among those who are directing this movement, this is well known, and that the
strategy being used is quite intentional.

If the 'pro-choice' side were really interested in the truth of the matter,
they would address this issue head on, and make it the focus of their platform. 
They don't; they rarely address it directly, just making off-hand derogatory
descriptions of the unborn as being "just like a toenail," or occasionally
saying something about viability, or "how come a pancreas isn't a person, it's
human and it's alive."  Instead, the whole platform is based on 'choice.'  

How can we categorize this insistence on focusing on an issue that is
demonstrably irrelevant to the question at hand?  My DEC standard American
Heritage Dictionary (limited and lacking in depth though it is, Greg :-) 
contains a word which it defines as: 1) "The systematic propagation of a given
doctrine." 2) "Ideas, information or other material disseminated to win people
over to a given doctrine."  The basic idea being conveyed by this word is that
it is something designed to win people to a position, not to engage in true
debate or a search for truth.  This word is 'propaganda.'  My personal working
definition of 'propaganda' is *any* line of argument, whether for a true cause
or a false cause, which does not aim to seek the truth, but only aims to
convince people of your own position.

There are examples of propaganda within the pro-life movement too.  I've seen a
little "diary of a fetus," where the unborn is thinking things like "I can't
wait to see what my mommy looks like," and ends with "Today, my mommy killed
me."  That is pure propaganda.  It does not seek to discover truth, no one
would suggest that a fetus really thinks at that level.  It seeks only to
emotionalize and convince people of a position.  Repeated crying of 'murder' to
people who don't understand what they are doing may also fall into this
category, although it is still trying to address the fact that the unborn is a
human being.  

Many tactics of the pro-life movement that are labeled 'propaganda' and
'sensationalism' by the 'pro-choice' side are *not* propaganda, however.  For
example showing people what a 12-week fetus looks like, through pictures or the
real thing, while it may be considered sensational, is seeking to make people
understand the truth that this is a person, not a bunch of cells.  It is
addressing the real issue.  Actually, it's not sensational at all, it is just
that reality seems sensational to those who would deny it.  People might be
grossed out, but would anybody be moved, or would anyone expect anyone else to
be moved, to ban liposuction by viewing a jar of fat cells?

In contrast the ***ENTIRE*** 'pro-choice' position, with the sole exception of
the few off-hand comments about the unborn being a "toenail" or occasional
arguments about viability, is ***PURE PROPAGANDA***.  And even those comments
that do address the humanity of the unborn usually don't really address the
issue, they just seek to trivialize it, in another effort to keep the whole
discussion centered around 'choice.'  Occasionally someone will address it
slightly - I'll concede that in the very last reply of our "discussion" a while
back, Greg actually had a couple of interesting facts.  But even those facts
were nearly hidden in the overriding need for derogatory belittling of the very
idea that the unborn might be a person.  In the vast majority of the
'pro-choice' position, there is no effort to seek truth, because it all rests
on a premise which is being challenged.  Until and unless you prove that
premise which is being challenged, everything else you are saying is smoke and
noise, which if it is not intentionally designed to skirt any real
investigation of the truth, is having exactly that effect.

********************************

So.  Is the unborn a human being?

Whatever it is, it's clearly human.  That much is not really up for argument
and has been conceded by the 'pro-choice' side.  It is definitely a human
something.  And as has also been conceded, it is living tissue, so it is
definitely alive.  But as has been noted, so is a pancreas a living human
pancreas.  Is there anything that makes a unborn different from another body
part?

Yes, very much so, on two counts.  First, it is a ***UNIQUE** human entity.  It
is not a part of the mother's body, though it resides in the mother's body.  It
has its own unique DNA sequence.  Most of its physical characteristics are
determined at conception: sex, basic height, skin color, eye color, facial
shape, even things down to the sound of their voice.  In addition, many
behavioral characteristics are already determined.  Some basic likes, dislikes,
and ways of reacting are determined genetically.  Ask any parent who has had
more than one child - the way they act is different from birth and before. 
Studies of identical twins separated at birth have confirmed this.  It is an
entirely separate entity - and a human entity - which at the moment resides
within the mother's body.

It is not only a unique human entity, it is a ***COMPLETE*** human entity. 
Making a comparison with a pancreas or a toenail is foolish - these are only
parts of a human body.  The unborn, from conception, is entire and complete in
and of itself; it is a fully separate and whole entity.  It is not a part of
anything else, nor does it need any other pieces to become complete.  It does
need a nourishing environment, just as all humans do, it is simply that the
nature of the environment that it requires is different from what adults
require.  The completeness of this entity also makes the comparisons which some
people make with eggs and sperm foolish.  Eggs and sperm are no more a complete
human entity than is a toenail.  They are separate and unique, but they are not
complete.  They do not have a complete human DNA sequence, and even given the
best possible conditions, neither eggs nor sperm alone will develop into
anything beyond what they are, and will die in a few days.

This separate, unique, and complete entity will grow in a single unbroken
continuum through the stages of zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, infant,
child, adolescent, and adult up to the time of its death.  It makes no
difference to a discussion of developing embryos or fetuses, or of their rights
as humans, that many fertilized eggs do not implant or are miscarried almost
immediately.  When speaking of abortion we are speaking of terminating an
existing, flourishing life.  It would make equal sense to attempt to use the
fact that most people die before the age of 75 as a factor in determining the
humanity and rights of a 75 year old.

It also makes no difference that many parts of the body are not yet formed at
early stages, or that brain function is nonexistent at the beginning and
minimal for a while after that, any more than an infant can be declared
non-human because it hasn't yet developed teeth or hair, or because it knows
and understands almost nothing yet.  To describe a human as an embryo is no
different than describing a human as an infant or an adult - it simply
describes a state of development.  At no point along this continuum is there
any sudden or dramatic fundamental change in the life itself - it is a constant
process of growth that will continue until interrupted by accident, disease,
age or deliberate termination.  However, the 'pro-choice' side attempts to draw
several dividing lines, prior to which this entity is not classed as a human 
being, and prior to which it has no rights and no status which must be
considered.  Let's deal with each of these dividing lines in turn, starting
from the oldest and working backwards.

The first line that is attempted is birth.  This is the most sudden and
dramatic change that exists in the life of a person, yet the person themself
does not change significantly.  Their environment changes, quite drastically. 
Because of that environmental change, the manner in which the child obtains
nourishment and processes metabolic waste changes.  Prior to birth, the person
obtained oxygen and nourishment through the placenta and the mother's
bloodstream.  It gets rid of carbon dioxide and other metabolic wastes in the
same way, though the baby's kidneys have been functioning for quite a while
prior to birth, doing some amount of processing of metabolic wastes and
urinating into the amniotic sac.  At the moment of birth, the lungs, though
fully developed and capable of breathing before birth, are suddenly put to use
to provide oxygen and dispose of carbon dioxide.   That is the only part of the
baby's system that changes at the moment of birth.  The digestive tract will
begin to be used shortly, but is not used immediately after birth.  

Most people, including many 'pro-choice' people, reject this definition of when
a 'right to life' begins.  To see a living, born child and defend that the day
before, when the child was still in their mother's womb, they could be
legitimately killed for any reason, is simply too much of a stretch for most
people to accept.  It's clear that consciousness existed the day before, that
the capacity to feel pain existed the day before, that the capacity to feel
fear existed the day before.  Scientific studies have shown that children learn
while still in the womb: newborn babies recognize their mother's voice, and
also the voices of the father or other people who spoke frequently while the
baby was still inside the mother.  To suggest that a woman may kill a child
simply because the child resides within her, is equivalent to suggesting that
adults have the right to shoot and kill any visitors to their house with no
provocation on the ground that the visitors have no right to their own life
when they are on the host's property.

Yet the people in the center of the 'pro-choice' political machine continually
and consistently push for the 'right' to abort up to the day of birth, even
though a very clear majority of people disagree with this, and quite probably a
majority even of those who are on their own side.  Why is this?  I think it is
because they know that it is the only point at which they can hope to hold the
line.  There are no dramatic events between there and conception.  Once they
acknowledge that the mother does not have the absolute right to kill the child
simply because it is within her body, they will have conceded the whole
'rights' and 'choice' position which is essential to preserving abortion.  If
once they allow the field of debate to shift to when the child should have its
own rights, at a point prior to birth, rational examination will soon eliminate
all abortions.

This again is backward reasoning.  There is no attempt in this extreme
'pro-choice' position to seek the truth of whether late-term abortions are
legitimate or not.  There is such an insistence on maintaining the availability
of abortion, that late-term  abortions are simply considered part of the cost
of maintaining that availability, and the question is never even EXAMINED as to
whether they are in fact painful murders of living human beings.  And pro-life
people are accused of being cold and callous?!?!?!

In addition, a significant element of the procedure for most late-term abortion
methods is some way to ensure the death of the fetus, and nearly all of these
methods are tortuous to the fetus.  Saline and urea abortions burn and poison
the child to death before labor is induced.  Dilation and Evacuation leaves no
chance that a child might be born alive, as it is dismembered and removed from
the womb in pieces.  In the new Dilation and Extraction method, the abortionist
deliberately drives a surgical instrument into the fetus's skull and vacuums
out its brain when it is almost fully delivered.  Hysterotomy (Caesarean
section) is rarely used for very late term abortions, largely because the child
is often born alive.  The "spontaneous death" of some fetuses which have been
aborted by hysterotomy at a gestation which is normally fully viable raises
questions of how 'spontaneous' the death was.  Cases have been documented of
aborted babies surviving for hours unattended before finally dying.  These
cases are hard to document because the people involved will not divulge them,
but they do happen.

How can these possibly be justified?  First, even if the mother did have the
'right' to cease supporting the fetus at this stage, how can we possibly
justify her 'right' to torture the child to death?  EVERY late-term abortion
method is extremely painful for the fetus, some more, some less.  The Dilation
and Extraction method, while the most grisly because the abortionist actually
holds the living, squirming child in his hands before pithing it like a
laboratory frog, is actually the most 'humane.'  Certainly more humane than
tearing it apart or burning it with acid.

Second, again even if the mother does have the 'right' to cease supporting the
fetus, why abortion rather than induction?  Late-term abortion methods are not
significantly safer or easier on the mother than labor or Caesarean section.
For fetuses older than 7 months or so, if the mother's 'choice' is based on her
'right' to control her body, then she could exercise that right by inducing
labor or by having a Caesarean section.  She would retain full control of her
body, and the fetus would retain its right to its own life.  To maintain that
the mother has the right to abort at these gestations, rather than the right to
induce labor, is simply to maintain that the mother has the right to kill her
child up until the time it is born.  The 'choice' and 'rights' arguments hold
even less meaning at this point than they do at earlier gestations, since a
woman is perfectly capable of exercising that 'choice' and those 'rights' to
control her own body without harming the fetus.  To maintain that she can still
abort, is simply to grant her the 'right to kill,' and there can be no such
right.

The next point at which a line is attempted to be drawn is 'viability'.  My AHD
defines 'viable' as: "capable of living or developing under normal or favorable
conditions."  Clearly the unborn are all then 'viable' by this definition at
all stages of development, since normal or favorable conditions do not include
forcible removal from the womb where they are growing.  But 'viable' when used
here is usually taken to mean that the fetus has developed to the point where
it can survive without the support of the mother.

So what would be a reasonable age to term a child 'viable?'  18 years old,
perhaps?  Maybe only 12?  A newborn child is *entirely* dependent on adult
humans for its survival.  It will be weeks before the child can even roll over
by itself, let alone provide itself with food, warmth, or shelter.  Without
direct intervention and providing of needs by adults, the child will die.  The
process of growth from zygote to adult is a constant process of growing more
capable and more independent.  True self-dependency without adult support is
not achieved until a point many years after birth.  By the definition that is
used in the abortion debate, the **only** thing that a 'viable' child can get
by themself is oxygen.  What is so miraculous about the ability of our lungs to
process oxygen?  Why is it that if we can process oxygen, we deserve to live,
but if we can't we don't deserve to live?  Is a person on a respirator not
'viable?'  Can their life be terminated?  

Can't anyone else see the utter hypocrisy in the recent case of the newborn
baby bludgeoned to death and left in the dumpster, where they were trying to
determine if the baby had taken a breath yet?  If the baby had taken a breath,
then they could charge the woman with murder, if it had not, they could only
charge her with unlawful disposal of medical waste.  This is a baby that was
clearly fully capable of taking a breath, but until it had, it was just
considered "medical waste."  How can anyone possibly believe that the act of
taking a breath is what makes us human and grants us human rights?  

There is also the fact that the point of 'viability' keeps changing as
technology changes.  I don't know the exact week numbers, but babies are
surviving at much earlier birth ages than they used to - babies under 2 pounds
have survived.  It is technologically feasible that eventually a fertilized egg
could be incubated completely outside a human body.  How is 'viable' defined
then?

What's really even worse is the underlying premise that the ability to take
care of oneself is a prerequisite for having the right to live.  The basis of
the assumption that a pre-'viable' fetus may be aborted is that until the fetus
can survive on its own, it is not fully human and has no right to life.  We
base this on the ability to process oxygen, nothing more.  If we can define
life in this manner, why can't we define it in terms of the ability to obtain
other necessities?  If it's valid to say "If you can't breathe for yourself,
you don't have a right to live," why can't we say "If you can't feed yourself,
you don't have a right to live?"  Or ultimately, "If you can't provide for all
your needs yourself, you don't have a right to live."  What happens if people
start to apply this premise to other people who cannot take care of themselves? 
Are all children not 'viable' and vulnerable to extermination because they
cannot provide for their own needs?  The elderly? The handicapped?  The weak or
injured?  Do we really want to make the right to life contingent on the ability
to provide for oneself?

For those who pooh-pooh this progression, it's worth noting that this is
exactly how it started in Nazi Germany.  Acceptance of abortion was the first
step in dehumanizing the weak and anyone who could not take care of themselves,
which eventually culminated in the dehumanizing of adults who were 'unwanted'
by the rest of the populace, and their extermination.  It is also worth noting
that, probably due to their recent experience with the results of
dehumanization, Germany is one of the only countries in the European community 
to outlaw abortion for almost all reasons.  Poland, which also had direct
contact with the Nazi dehumanization, is another that outlaws abortion.  What
is it that they know that the other European countries don't?  What can we
learn from them?

There is also the fact to be dealt with that even prior to the point that is
currently declared as 'viable,' there is some level of consciousness in the
fetus.  The fetus can move, kick, drink, suck its thumb.  It responds to light. 
It may be able to feel pain, and it may be able to feel fear.  Before the
current point of 'viability,' we are talking about a conscious human being. 
The consciousness may be more limited than that of an infant, but the
consciousness of an infant is more limited than an adult, and we would never
try to defend that we can kill infants because their consciousness is not as
advanced as that of adults.  We are most certainly *NOT* talking about
something that is just a few cells, or is "just like a toenail," which is how
the 'pro-choice' side tries to justify abortion before 'viability.'

There is also the argument that the child is not to be considered a separate
human being as long as it is physically dependent on the mother's body.  I'll
deal with that issue in a later section on responsibility.

The last line that people try to draw is that once brain function starts,
*then* it is a person.  This is not at all a good point to choose to support
abortions, since current technology has detected brain function at 40 days, and
the majority of abortions are performed after that date.  People who put forth
that argument as a support of abortion are arguing against themselves - if the
argument were accepted, it would eliminate almost all abortions.

But medically, lack of measurable brain function is not sufficient cause to
proclaim that a person is not alive.  The actual definition is lack of
measurable brain function, with no expectation that brain function will occur
at any time in the future.  Doctors have discovered that in some cases, for
example cases of hypothermia (extreme cold), a person may have no measurable
brain function or bodily function at all, yet may still be revived with no
adverse effects, not even any brain damage.  The doctor's rule of thumb with
hypothermia is "they're not dead until they're *warm* and dead."  A doctor will
not declare a person in this condition dead, *even with ***NO*** brain function
at all that can be detected by any current means*, until they have reached a
point where the doctor is convinced that brain function will never occur.

Applying the same medical rules to the unborn that we would apply to an adult,
we must conclude that the embryo is alive even *before* brain function begins. 
There may be no measurable brain function at 20 days, but we *know* that brain
function *will* occur.  The embryo can no more be declared not alive because we
can't measure its brain function at the moment than a hypothermia victim can be
declared not alive.

Yes, at this stage the embryo is closer to the 'bunch of cells' that
'pro-choice' folks describe all the unborn as being, though the heart is
usually beating by the time a woman even gets a positive pregnancy test.  But
trying to say that before brain function begins they may be aborted makes the
assumption that if they're not conscious, if they don't know they're being
killed, then it somehow becomes OK.  Would it then be OK to kill someone while
they were sleeping, or in a coma, because they wouldn't know about it?  You say
that sleep or a coma is only temporary?  Well, so is the condition of the child
before brain function begins.  If time is allowed to pass, brain function
*WILL* occur.

There is no reasonable point after the merging of sperm and egg to declare that
life begins.  At the point of conception, an individual, unique, complete and
separate human being is created.  It will grow in an unbroken progression with
no sudden and dramatic changes in the entity itself from conception to death of
old age, if not interrupted by disease, accident, or intentional termination.
That human being will be limited in capacity and in independence for a long
time.  It will be completely dependent on its mother for survival for several
months.  It will be completely dependent on adults for survival for many years
after that.  It will realize the full potential of its humanity by degrees,
slowly, over decades.  But any rational examination must declare that it is
fully human over that entire continuum, from beginning to end.

  Responsibility
********************************

OK, so let's talk about responsibility.  There's a persistent repetition that
the pro-life side wants to prevent people from taking responsibility for their
own lives and actions.  Precisely the opposite is true.  We want to prevent
people from *shirking* responsibility for their own lives and actions, by the
method of terminating the life another human being whose presence is the direct
result of their actions.  There's this assertion that pro-life people are
trying to take away the 'reproductive freedom' of women, and forbid their
'choice.'  Not at all.  Women have complete 'choice' over their 'reproductive
destiny.'  It's just that by the time conception has occurred, that choice has
already been made, and that destiny already determined.  

I've seen a supposed comparison to the abortion issue where someone asks this
question:  Suppose someone kidnaps you and hooks you up to some sort of
dialysis machine connected to another person.  You are then faced with this
choice:  You must remain connected to the machine for 9 months, or the other
person will die.  Do you have an obligation to stay connected to the machine,
knowing that to choose to break the connection results in the person's death?
In response, I would say: No, given the scenario that you portray, I don't
think that the person has an ethical obligation to remain connected to the
machine (though they may feel a personal moral obligation).  However, my point
of disagreement is with your analogy.  Pregnancy does not generally occur by
violence and "kidnaping" against the mother's will.  Pregnancy generally occurs
with her consent.  Now suppose that you entered a contract, one of the possible
stipulations of which was that you be connected to this machine.  The person
who would die as the result of your disconnecting would not be put in that
position in the first place except as a result of your entering into the
contract.  *NOW* do you have an obligation to remain attached to the machine? 
And my answer is, you most certainly do.

Having sex causes babies.  Always has.  Always will.  Whether you take
precautions against it or not, unless one of the participants is sterile,
pregnancy is a possible consequence of every act of sex.   Procreation is a
difficult area for ethics in general, since there is nothing to directly
compare it to - there is no other act which *creates* life.  However, civilized
societies, including ours, have long answered the question "Does a parent have
an obligation to support the child they have brought into the world," with a
resounding affirmative.  There are laws against child neglect in this country,
and there should be.  The recent uproar over the baby found in the dumpster
would probably have been even greater had the mother not violently killed the
child but had simply refused to care for it, allowing it to die a lingering
death from exposure.  Everyone in our society would condemn her for not
fulfilling her obligation to care for the child she has conceived and borne, at
least so far as to put it up for adoption and let someone else care for it.  At
the moment after the birth, assuming that the woman was alone, she was the only
person who could care for the child (no one else was there to do it), so it is
analogous to the situation where the child is still in the womb and only the
mother can support the child.  Yet *Everyone* would insist that she had an
absolute obligation to care for that child and keep it alive, to the best of
her ability, until such time as she could pass that obligation on to someone
else.

To claim that a woman has no such obligation to a conceived child, is yet one
more time a claim that the unborn is not yet a human being, since if it is a
human being the mother clearly has an obligation to support it until such time
as she can pass that obligation on to someone else.  The 'pro-choice' side
claims that women should be able to assert their "choice," their "reproductive
rights," and their "reproductive freedom to choose not to be a parent" *after*
a child is conceived.  

Thank you to Fred Haddock for the perspective that the arguments that the woman
should be able to make this 'choice' because it is her body are really
something of a smokescreen.  The vast majority of the reasons given for having
an abortion have nothing to do with the impact on the woman's body, they have
to do with not wanting the responsibility of the child - not having the money,
not being mature enough, not being in a position to raise a child, etc. 
Chelsea claims that "it's my body" is not the reason for the decision, but just
the justification to make the decision.  Compare it to this:  In general, you
have the right to do whatever you want with your own home.  You get to say who
can come in and who can't, you get to control everything that happens there,
because "it's your house."  There are a few exceptions to this, but they
generally regulate the effect you have on other people's houses - you can't
dump raw sewage into your back yard so it flows into your neighbor's yard. 
This is equivalant to regulations on your body that you may not use your body
to harm others.

Now suppose your home is way up in the mountains of Montana - 30 miles from the
nearest other house.  You tell some friends of yours they can "stop in any
time."  Not a specific invitation, but a general one.  One that you thought
they wouldn't really take you up on.  One winter's day, a taxi drops them off
at your door.  A blizzard is approaching, and you know Montana blizzards are
fierce, the temperature is supposed to be below zero and the blizzard will last
for days.  Do you have the right to claim "it's my house" and throw them out,
knowing that they will surely die?  Under normal circumstances, certainly you
would be justified in claiming "it's my house" and not allowing them to stay. 
But you have invited them there, though you really didn't want them to come and
hoped they wouldn't.  And you know that give the current circumstances they are
entirely dependent for their survival on your house - they will surely die if
you throw them out.  Do you have the right to claim control over your house and
throw them out to their death, or do you have an obligation to them, having
invited them to your home, to take them in at least until the blizzard is over
and you can escort them to safety elsewhere?  Carrying the abortion analogy
further, do you have the right to actively kill them in the process of evicting
them from your house?  And carrying it to late-term abortions, do you have the
right to torture them to death and they toss their bodies out of the house?

The "it's my body" argument is used as the basis, but the reasons that are used
are reasons which are held up with great seriousness and compassion for women -
not ready to have a child, can't afford it, would totally disrupt her life's
plans and possible education, etc.  To see the total bankruptcy of this
position from the perspective of responsibility, note what would happen if men
tried to say the same thing.  Men don't have the short-term dependency on their
bodies that women do, but they *do* have the long-term responsibilities on them
for support that are the overriding reason that most women have abortions.  Men
in fact *do* run away from these responsibilities all the time - men are
constantly conceiving children and then refusing to support them.  But they
never try to claim that it is right for them to ditch their responsibilities,
and their actions are recognized and condemned as being irresponsible and
wrong.  Suppose a man were to say to a woman with whom he has conceived a
child, from the stance of moral superiority: "Well, I don't choose to have a
child right now, and to compel me to have anything to do with the child that I
conceived would violate my reproductive rights, and the freedom to choose my
own reproductive destiny." People would laugh in his face for the absurdity of
suggesting that he had no responsibility to the child he had conceived.  Yet
when a woman says *precisely* the same thing, everyone applauds and nods their
head in assent.  What an incredible double standard!

The law would laugh in his face, too.  He can be legally compelled, through a
paternity suit, to pay support for the child he has helped conceive.  Though I
would not minimize the incredibly difficulty of being a single parent nor try
to portray that it is not much more difficult than paying child support, let's
not minimize the hardship of paying child support either.  Child support
payments are (and should be) very high, *majorly* impact a man's life for
almost 20 years, and *majorly* limit his choices.  His 'choice' or 'rights' are
never considered in determining child support.  Whether he wanted the child,
whether he can afford to support it, whether paying that support will destroy
his ability to get an education or any other dreams of his life, whether *his*
'choice' would have been abortion or adoption, are irrelevant: legally, he must
pay until the child is an adult.  This is sex discrimination at its most
blatant.  The very existence of paternity suits asserts that *the sex act
alone* creates a man's obligation to the child that may be thus conceived.  Why
doesn't a woman have the same obligation from the same act?  If a woman can
still claim the "Right to choose" not to be a parent *after* conception, why
can't a man?  What about *his* "Right to choose his reproductive destiny?"

If it sounds ludicrous to suggest that a man should be able to justifiably walk
away from a child he's conceived, that's the point.  If a man takes off and
shirks his responsibility to the life he has created, you'd think he's a real
dirtbag.  Yet if a woman does precisely the same thing it is championed as her
'right' and her 'choice.'  It hardly seems just or fair to maintain that one
act of sex may oblige a man to support the life conceived by that act for 18
years, while simultaneously insisting that the very same act does not require 9
months of support from a woman.  Yet that is precisely what the law in this
country says today.  

Which act creates the responsibility?  If it is the act of  conception that
creates the life and creates the responsibility to that life -  which is
claimed by a paternity suit, since it's the only act the man has  participated
in - then *BOTH* participants to that act should be responsible to the created
life.  The nature of the woman's responsibility for the first nine months is
different than a man's, but that is just the way nature works.  Whether  a
responsibility is created to the conceived life at the time of conception
should be the same for both of them.  If the life and the responsibility to it
is created by the choice not to  abort, then how can the man be held
responsible for that life?  It's a general  principle of law that you cannot be
held responsible for something over which  you have no control.  If the
conception which he *did* have control over did not create any responsibility -
and the 'right' for the woman to 'choose' abortion claims that it did not -
then his participation is OVER.  If it's the choice not to abort that creates
the responsibility - a choice over which he has no control, then he cannot be
made to bear the responsibility for that choice.  If it's the woman's 'choice,'
and her's alone, as is claimed by the 'pro-choice' side, then the 
responsibility is also hers and hers alone.  You can't have it both ways.

To see it more clearly, note what happens *after* birth.  At the moment of 
birth, the difference in responsibilities between the man and the woman who
conceived the child ends.  At that time, the child is no longer dependent on
the mother's body, and both parents share - or should share - completely equal
responsibility.  Yet still at that point, it is the woman's 'choice.'  If she
desires, she can give the child up for adoption and pass on the responsibility
to someone else.  Or, she can choose to keep the child, and if she does, she
can legally force the father to support it.  Now *THAT* is a double standard
without even a glimmer of reason behind it.

You who label yourself 'pro-choice:' If you want to stand for *human* rights,
not just *women's* rights, then you need to take an equally strong stance
against paternity suits.  If instead you think that a man should be responsible
for the life he has conceived, then perhaps your thoughts about abortion have
been twisted by all the 'pro-choice' propaganda that has been disseminated?

BTW, I am completely aware that though the law *says* it can compel men to take
responsibility for the children they have conceived, the enforcement of this
law is severely lacking.  Women are often being left high and dry without
support by men who conceived children with them.  I deplore men's shirking of
their responsibilities just as much as I do women's.  I would support a number
of laws aimed at requiring men to support the children they've conceived,
including attachment of wages.  Here's a thought: what if, for the last 20
years, instead of fighting to be just as irresponsible as men in the area of
procreation, women had fought to force men to be as responsible as women have
always had to be?  What if all the time, effort, and money that has gone into
supporting abortion had gone into getting men to take responsibility for the
children they conceived?  What a better world this would be to live in.

  Ignorance
********************************

Someone said recently that a young girl who gets pregnant without really
knowing much of anything about sex or contraceptives "shouldn't be punished for
her ignorance."  No one is suggesting 'punishing' her for anything, but what's
more to the point, the unborn life that her ignorance has created shouldn't be
punished for her ignorance by being killed.  If her ignorance did not result in
a conception, no one would suggest imposing any sort of punishment upon her. 
However, if consequences have resulted from her ignorant actions, those
consequences must be *borne*, not *shirked* at someone else's expense.

It's a sad but true fact of life that ignorance is sometimes very costly.   If
a young kid through ignorance drives drunk, and as a result of that ignorant
action hits and kills someone, should they not be held responsible for the
death of that person because they "shouldn't be punished for their ignorance?"
No one would suggest such a thing.  Ignorance is never an excuse - life and
death consequences may fall upon people who had no idea they were risking those
consequences, or who had only a dim idea of the consequences and ignored them.  

If someone chooses to drive drunk, they may not realize or acknowledge the
possible consequence of killing an innocent person, but that may be the result
of their choice.  If it is they will be held responsible for that consequence,
and their denial or ignorance of the possibility of that consequence when they
chose the action that led to it are irrelevant.  Likewise someone choosing to
have sex may not realize or acknowledge that they are risking creating a new
life, but that may be the result of their choice.  If it is they should also be
held responsible for that consequence, and once again their denial or ignorance
of the possibility of that consequence when they made the choice to have sex
are irrelevant.  To allow them to then take the life of another to pay the cost
of their own ignorance is not right, even if that other life is a life created
as a result of their ignorance.

To suggest that it is "punishment" to not allow someone who through ignorance
has conceived a child to abort that child, is once again to assume that the
unborn is not a person.  This statement is meaningless if the unborn is already
a person.

  So what SHOULD be legal?
********************************

So where do I stand on what abortions are legitimate?  I think that the reasons
which should be considered valid to have an abortion are the same reasons which
would be accepted in a court of law for killing any other person or
deliberately allowing them to die.  Personal self defense from impending bodily
injury or death is accepted in all courts as a valid reason for killing another
person.  There is no need to dehumanize the other, and there may be great
regret that the person was killed, but on every moral and ethical ground, self
defense is accepted as a valid reason to kill another person.  Therefore,
situations where the life of the mother is in jeopardy due to the pregnancy
should be a valid reason for abortion.  There is *FULL RECOGNITION* in this
stance that this act kills a living person, but that act is considered
justified.

On ethical grounds, I believe there is also a case to be made that in the case
of rape, abortion should be an option.  Essential to the position that the
woman has an obligation to support the life within her is the fact that she
chose actions which resulted in that life.  Whether she knew she was making
that choice, or whether it appears 'heartless' to insist that she not make that
choice unless she is prepared to support the conceived child, are not relevant. 
The consequences the world levies can seem heartless sometimes.  I am not
levying the consequences, I am merely seeking to prevent those consequences
from being disregarded at the cost of someone else's life.  

A case of rape, however, is exactly equivalent to the hypothetical situation
where the person was kidnaped and hooked up to the life support machine.  In
such a case I *do* think the person has a moral obligation to support the
person, I could not personally defend allowing someone to die because I was the
only person in a position to help them and was not willing to do so. However, I
don't think I can insist that anyone has an ethical obligation in such a case. 
In essence, in the case of rape a woman is being forced to comply with a
contract which she did not agree to.  It is sad and tragic that the one who
pays for this is not the one who forced her into the contract, and as I said I
think she should carry the child anyway, however I don't believe that anyone
has an ethical obligation to comply with forced contracts, regardless of the
outcome.  In a court situation, a person could not be compelled to support
another without being under contract to do so, even if that other person would
die without that support.  You can sue the father of a child in court for child
support, and he has to pay because he chose to be involved in the conception of
the child.  You can't sue any random person for child support, someone who had
no involvement or choice in the child's conception, even if the child might die
without that support.  I think the person SHOULD give that support if it is
required for the child's life, but I don't think that can be legitimately
enforced by law.

I do think that in cases of rape, abortion should be limited to very early
abortions.  Not because before the unborn is developed fully it is not human
and may be aborted for that reason, it is fully human whenever it is aborted. 
But at least an early abortion does not subject the unborn to a painful and
protracted death.  Before it has consciousness or can feel pain, aborting it is
the equivalent of dying in one's sleep.  Late-term abortion methods torture the
child to death.  While I can concede that a woman may cease to support a life
which she did not agree to support, even if the cessation of support results in
the cessation of that life, I can't condone or agree that she may subject that
life to a painful death to cease her support.  Particularly when she has had
the chance to cease her support prior to that with no pain to the unborn.

That's it.  In every other case, where the woman's life is not in danger and
where she has entered into sexual relations voluntarily (which comprises the
VAST majority of abortions), abortion is the murder of a life which the woman
has implicitly incurred responsibility for, and must be prohibited.

  Scope
********************************

*IF* the unborn is in fact a human being, the scope of abortion in the country
is horrific, and the word "holocaust" most definitely applies.  In the last 20
years, 25 million abortions have occurred in this country.  If those have all
really been people, then we have systematically eliminated 10% of our
population over that time, or enough people to populate Canada.  The current
statistics are even more grim.   We have the Vietnam memorial commemorating the
58,000 men who died in Vietnam, and those deaths were indeed tragic.  More
lives that that will be lost in the next two weeks, and every two weeks, to
abortion.  Will there ever be a memorial for them?  405,000 Americans were lost
in the Second World War.  That's three months worth of abortions.  More people
will die this year and every year in this country to abortion than have been
killed in all the wars this country has ever fought.

Percentagewise it is terrible too.  A generation ago, "Safe as a mother's womb"
was a common phrase in our culture.  No more.  A mother's womb is by far the
most dangerous place in America.  In 1990, the last year for which I have
figures, there were 319 abortions in this country for every 1000 live births. 
That means that one out of every four children conceived in this country dies
at the hands of an  abortionist, at the request of their mother.  Living in an
inner-city gang is not nearly so dangerous.  The most violent cities have
perhaps a few hundred murders a year, a miniscule percentage.  Imagine if in
New York City (Total population is what, about 8 million?), 2 million people
were killed in the next nine months.  That's the magnitude of the percentages
we're talking about.  

It's even worse for black people.  For Blacks there are 500 abortions for every
1000 live births, or fully one out of every three.  Margaret Sanger, founder of
Planned Parenthood, had as one of her stated goals the elimination or reduction
of "undesirables," which included Blacks:  "Blacks, soldiers and Jews are a
menace to the race." (Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review).  A 
program which eliminates one out of every three black births is just the sort
of program that Sanger would have advocated, and Planned Parenthood has managed
to sell that program as a *BENEFIT*.  Doesn't that make anyone just the least
bit suspicious about their motives?  Sanger also classed the poor as
"undesirables," and a large percentage of abortions are to poor women.  Again,
abortion is sold as a benefit, and is exactly the sort of program Sanger would
have advocated, with the goal of eliminating as many poor people as possible.

  Black slavery and Native American Genocide
********************************

I'll conclude with one final analogy.  There are a couple of horrible
incidents, and mindsets, in our recent past that bear examination, and
comparison with the abortion issue.  Though parallels have been drawn -
including some by me - between abortion and the Nazi Holocaust, there are also
some significant differences.  In that Holocaust, no one of any moral stature
really defended the genocide that was going on.  It was mostly conducted behind
closed doors, and even among those involved directly with it, all but a few
real thugs knew that what they were doing was wrong.  The general populace was
mostly conditioned not to resist or defend those among them who were being
destroyed, the Nazis were not successful in conditioning them to actually
support the genocide.  For the most part the populace in general would not have
defended what was actually happening, if they had really known.  There was some
effort to convince the people not to investigate what was really happening,
which is similar to the current abortion debate in this country, but there was
not an actual general support of the populace.

However, there are two significant issues in our own country's past that have
very striking similarities to the abortion question.  In both of them, as in
abortion, there was more than just a turning of the head and a not resisting
what was happening.  In both cases, there was a significant portion of the
populace, including many good and morally upstanding people, who actively
supported the issue.  In both cases, as in the case of abortion, this support
was based on the assumption that the people in question were not really human
beings.  

On the black slavery issue, people really did not believe that Blacks were
human beings.  Since they weren't human beings, then ownership of them was no
different than owning a horse.  And of course anyone, including people of fine
moral character, would agree that owning a horse was perfectly acceptable.  On
that basis, many good people supported slavery.  It is hard for us to
understand now, with our perspective gained through another 150 years, how they
could have believed that Blacks were not human beings, but they really did.  We
can't go condemning them for knowingly owning human slaves, they really did
believe that they were animals.  We can only condemn their letting their vested
interests get in the way of their judgment, since the evidence was there and
clear that Blacks were people.

The same can be said of the Native Americans.  People really did not believe
that the Native Americans were humans.  Like the Blacks, they were "savages,"
some sort of sub-human race.  If they weren't human beings, then exterminating
them to clear land for settlement was no different than killing grizzly bears.
And of course anyone, including people of fine moral character, would agree
that exterminating dangerous grizzly bears was perfectly acceptable.  On that
basis, many good people supported the Native American genocide.  As with
Blacks, it is very hard for us to understand how they could have believed that
Native Americans were not human beings, but they really did.  Again, we can't
condemn them for intentional genocide.  We can only condemn their letting their
vested interests get in the way of their judgment, since the evidence was
there and clear that Native Americans were people.

The same is true today for the unborn.  People really do not believe that the
the unborn are humans.  If they aren't human beings, then  disposing of them is
no different than liposuction.  And of course anyone, including people of fine
moral character, would agree that disposing of unwanted fat cells is perfectly
acceptable.  On that basis, many good people support abortion.  As Blacks were
classed with workhorses and so were fit for ownership, as Native Americans were
classed with grizzly bears and so were fit for extermination, so the unborn are
now classed with a pancreas or with a bunch of fat cells and are fit to be
disposed of.  And as with Blacks and Native Americans, it is very hard for some
of us to understand how people can really believe that the unborn are not human
beings, but they really do.  Again, we can't condemn them for intentional
murder.  We can only condemn their letting their vested interests get in the
way of their judgment, since the evidence is there and clear that the unborn
are people.

The question needs to be asked of those who insist that the unborn is not a
human being:  Given that many good and intelligent people were convinced by the
arguments of their day that Blacks were not people, given that many good and
intelligent people were convinced by the arguments of their day that Native
Americans were not people, and given the absurdity of those conclusions in
light of what we know now, can you consider the possibility that the same fate
is befalling you?  Can you at least consider that you have been deceived?  Can
you consider that people in the future will look back upon you as we look back
upon slave owners and wonder how in the world you believe what you do?

Going back to the Blacks and Native Americans, how is it that so many people,
including many good and intelligent people who sought to to the right thing in
all circumstances, were able to ignore all the available and obvious evidence
and convince themselves that Blacks and Native Americans were not people?  It
was purely a question of **development**.  In this case, the difference was in
cultural and technological development.  The Europeans had large sailing ships
and guns, they rode horses and built solid houses, they had well developed
theology, literature, architecture, astronomy, etc.  They saw the "savages" who
carried primitive weapons made from barely-modified natural materials, lived in
simple huts made from animal skins or grasses, had no written language, had
what appeared to be simple superstitions as their only theological
understandings, etc.  

The Europeans looked at the vast differences in cultural development between
themselves and the "savages," and concluded that because of those differences -
differences purely of *development*, and not of any other essential nature,
that the "savages" were not fully human and were not deserving of any human
rights.  They had forgotten that their own ancestors lived in exactly the same
way, and they did not really make any effort to search and determine the common
ground they had with the Blacks and Native Americans to determine if those
other groups really were human beings.  The Europeans just noted the
developmental differences and classed the other races as non-humans.  Once they
had done that for a while, their vested interest in keeping those people
classed as non-humans prevented them from seriously examining the evidence
presented to them that those people *were* human beings.  It would be very
costly to them to recognize those group's humanity.  Plus many other arguments
were put forth that skirted the issue of whether they were really people, and
that made the essential part of the issue harder to distill from everything
that was being said.

Does that sound familiar?  That's exactly what is happening with abortion, and
is exactly the reason why many good and intelligent people support abortion. 
People have looked at the developmental differences, physical differences in
this case, and on the basis of those purely *developmental* differences and no
other differences of any essential nature, have declared that the unborn are
not human beings and do not deserve any rights or considerations.  As the
Europeans had once been at the same developmental point as the Blacks and
Native Americans but had forgotten it, each of us has been at the same point in
development as the unborn at one time, but have now forgotten it.  And as with
those other issues, the field of argument has been cluttered with many
positions that make it difficult to distill the true issue from all the dross.

And now just as then, vested interest is playing a major role.  Just as slave
owners would not listen to the very clear evidence that Blacks were human,
because to do so would destroy their livelihood, just as settlers would not
listen to the very clear evidence that Native Americans were human, because to
do so would destroy their homes, so "women's rights activists" today will not
listen to the very clear evidence that the unborn are human, because to do so
would destroy the way of life they wish to "choose."  But just as the slave
owners were wrong, just as the settlers were wrong, so are abortion rights
activists wrong today.  I believe that in 100 years people will look back on
abortion as we look back on Black slavery and Native American genocide, and
wonder how people could possibly believe what they did, and how they could
possibly do what they did as a result of that belief.

It's also worth noting that many of the argument tactics used in those two
issues were very similar to what is used today in the abortion argument.  For
example, those of us who stand for the life and humanity of the unborn are
constantly labeled "anti-choice," and depicted as being cold and uncaring and
'heartless' about the women - and men - who would be impacted by recognizing
the humanity of the unborn.

When people would argue that Blacks were human, they were portrayed as having
no care or concern for the southern white people.  "Outlawing slavery will
destroy our way of life - do you want to do that?"  "Blacks will compete with
the poor white people for jobs, throwing them out of work - would you really do
that to your own people?"  Of course the people fighting slavery had no such
desires, they simply wanted the humanity of Blacks to be recognized, and if
that recognition impacted some other people whose current lifestyle depended on
not recognizing Blacks as humans, that was purely a side effect, and one that
had to be accepted if Blacks really were humans.

When people would argue that Native Americans were human, they were portrayed
as having no care or concern for settlers.  "Those savages murdered people in
such-and-such a settlement.  Would you stand with those savages against your
own people?"  To say that it was wrong to kill the "Indians" was liable to get
you lynched, as people would claim you didn't care about the settlers who had
been killed.  But that wasn't the case at all.  The people who were trying to
say that the Native Americans were people too were just as upset about the
settler's deaths as anyone else.  But if the Native Americans were people, then
it was not acceptable to slaughter them, despite the fact that that might cause
death, displacement, or hardship for some of the settlers.  Those consequences
had to be accepted if Native Americans really were humans.

Abortion is exactly the same.  When I stand for the life of the unborn, I
acknowledge that recognizing that life will cause hardship to many people.  I
understand that it is possible that recognizing that life may cause the death
of some people  (though I don't believe that is nearly as likely as is often
claimed).  I hurt for those hardships, I grieve for those deaths.  But those
consequences have to be accepted if the unborn really are humans.

Another example is the 'religious' argument.  Especially in the slavery issue,
abolitionists were constantly accused of bringing religion into politics, and
trying to force their religious beliefs on the slaveowners.  A common argument
was "If you don't believe in slavery, then don't own slaves.  But stop trying
to impose your values on other people.  It's none of your business"  Sound
familiar?  The point that is missed in both the slavery case and the abortion
case, is that if the slaves - or the unborn - are human beings, then it *IS*
our business that they are being enslaved or killed.  It is everyone's business
to stand up for those who are being oppressed, especially when they cannot
speak for themselves.  And though we may 

Just as it would not be right to justify slavery by the impact on southerners
of recognizing Blacks as human beings, just as it would not be right to justify
genocide by the impact on settlers of recognizing Native Americans as human
beings, it is not right to justify disposal of millions of human beings per
year by the impact on women of recognizing the unborn as human beings.  In all
of these cases, the recognition of people's humanity ********MUST******** come
********FIRST********.  **IF** these groups are human, then the impact on other
groups **MUST** be borne, regardless of how great or how difficult to bear that
impact is.  **IF** these groups are humans, all other issues surrounding the
impact of recognizing their rights on other people are **IRRELEVANT**.  **IF**
they are human, their rights **MUST** be recognized.  End of story.

*IF* Blacks are humans, then white southerners *MUST* bear the impact of
recognizing their humanity, no matter the cost.  Slave owners *MUST* bear the
cost of the destruction of their livelihood.  Poor whites *MUST* bear the cost
of a huge influx into their workforce and the resulting unemployment and
hardship, including possible death from starvation.  Reality is hard, and those
costs are heavy, but it is *DEAD WRONG* for those groups of people to seek use
the avoidance of those costs as a justification of keeping another group of
human beings in slavery.  It would be *DEAD WRONG* to speak of the southerner's
'rights' or 'choice' to own slaves when those 'rights' and 'choices' involve
the trampling of other peoples rights, and the sentencing of other humans to
slavery.  

When the southerners did try to avoid those costs at the expense of Blacks, the
right thing to do was exactly what the North did - they *forced* the
southerners to recognize the Black's humanity, they *forced* the southerners to
grant Blacks equal rights.  The southerner's 'choice' or 'right' to hold Blacks
in slavery was disregarded, as subordinate to the rights of the Blacks to live
their own lives.  The respect of human rights demanded nothing less, and human
rights triumphed in that situation because there were enough people *OUTSIDE*
the group that was being oppressed who were willing to fight for them.  

Of course it takes many years - generations - for such a battle to be fully
won.   Over 100 years later we are still fighting for Black's rights, but 
slowly the tide changes until all but the most twisted can see that Blacks are
human too.  

*IF* Native Americans are humans, then settlers *MUST* bear the impact of
recognizing their humanity, no matter the cost.  They *MUST* bear the cost of
giving up their homes.  They *MUST* bear the cost of leaving land that belongs
to the Native Americans alone.  They *MUST* be content with whatever land the
Native Americans are willing to give them.  Reality is hard, and those costs
are heavy, but it is *DEAD WRONG* for that group of people to seek use the
avoidance of those costs as a justification of wholesale slaughter of another
group of human beings.  It would be *DEAD WRONG* to speak of the settler's
'rights' or 'choice' to the land they had taken when those 'rights' and
'choices' involve the trampling of other people's rights, and the sentencing of
other humans to death or displacement.   

When the settlers did try to avoid those costs at the expense of Native
Americans, the right thing to do was to *force* the settlers to recognize the
humanity of the Native Americans and to *force* them to leave the Native
Americans alone on their ancestral land.  The settler's 'choice' or 'right' to
eradicate them and take the land for themselves should have been disregarded,
as subordinate to the rights of the Native Americans to live their own lives.  
The respect of human rights demanded nothing less.  Sadly, human rights lost in
that situation because there were *NOT* enough people outside the group that
was being oppressed that were willing to fight for them.  The Native Americans
were slaughtered and the remnants who survived were herded onto the most barren
pieces of land the whites could find.

*IF* the unborn are humans, then women AND men *MUST* bear the impact of
recognizing their humanity, no matter the cost.  Women *MUST* bear the cost of
supporting the developing child they have conceived within their body.  After
birth, both men and women *MUST* either take direct responsibility for raising 
the child they have conceived, contribute heavily to the cost of raising the
child, or find another who is willing to raise them.   They *MUST* bear the
cost to their plans, their lifestyle, and their life options of supporting a
child if they choose actions which lead to the child's conception.  If they
wish to avoid those costs, they *MUST* bear the cost to their sexuality, they
*MUST* be willing to abstain from acts which would create children.  Reality is
hard, and those costs will be heavy, but it is *DEAD WRONG* for people to seek
use the avoidance of those costs as a justification for the killing and
disposal of another group of human beings.  It is *DEAD WRONG* to speak of
women's 'rights' or 'choice' to control their bodies when those 'rights' and
'choices' involve the trampling of other peoples rights, and the sentencing of
other humans to death.  

When women - or men - try to avoid those costs at the expense of the unborn,
the right thing to do is to *force* them to recognize the humanity of the
unborn, *force* them to leave the unborn a chance at life, and *force* them to
provide support for the life they have created.  Just as it was right to
*force* white slave owners to free their slaves, just as it would have been
right to *force* white settlers to leave their land and give it back to the
people they stole it from.  As with the slave owner's or the settler's 'rights'
or 'choice' to continue in their oppression of other human beings, the 'choice'
or 'right' to dispose of the unborn should be disregarded, as subordinate to
the rights of the unborn to live.  The respect of human rights demands nothing
less.

Will there be enough people outside the group that is being destroyed that are
willing to fight for them?  Will human rights lose here again, as they did with
the Native Americans?  Will we continue to kill millions of people a year
because we claim they are not human beings?  Or will we begin the long, long
road to fully recognizing the rights of the unborn, as was begun 130 years ago
with the Black slaves?


Paul

    Paul an outstanding writing.
    
    :-)
    Nancy

    Paul,
    I second that.  I heard something like this on the radio where
    a fictitious Plato was debating logically with a doctor who performed
    Abortions.  I didn't get to hear the whole thing, but your note
    wraps  up what I might have missed.  Now I have this in writing and 
    electronically.  
    
    JimGle
    

    Jey JimGle it's nice to see you using your proper nickname!
    
    :-)

    
    As a point of information....
    
    I read that Planned Parnethood, that bastion of integrity and
    information dissemination, is going to provide funds to train a whole
    new generation of abortionists (read 'doctors' who will perform
    abortions).
    
      It seems they're finding out that there are not enough doctors out
    there performing these "medical procedures", and that many doctors are
    getting away from performing them (wonder why?)
    
      Get this.... they stated this new "breed" (pun intended) of doctors
    will be taught a more "humane" way of performing abortions....
    
      Talk about sick....
    
    
     Andy
    
     P.S. Those of you who still support United Way should look into
    whether they still fund PP and do something about it.... Be
    persistant!! They will hedge, hem and haw, but if you push it far
    enough, they have to tell you whether they do or not..
    

    Thanks Nancy,
    I'm using JimGle for those formal/serious type conversations and when
    chatting with you of course :-), and Jungle-Jim in Chit Chat mostly.
    
    I missed #59 :-(.  Oh well maybe when it comes by again.
    
    JimGle
    

    When's the Reader's Digest version come out?

    Re: Note 109.59 by EVMS::EVMS::WEISS
    
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
    |                 *** ATTENTION READ-ONLY NOTERS ***                    |
    |                                                                       |
    | That note was worth reading, even though it was huge.  If you haven't |
    | read it, I ask you to do so when you get a spare half hour.           |
    +-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
    
    Paul,
    
    A thorough presentation.  Well done.  I especially like the closing
    argument repetition.
    
    Just one nit.  On or near line 1417 of your reply you have "And though
    we may" appearing at the end of a paragraph with no punctuation.
    I didn't understand that bit.
    
    James

    Nothing personal, but I read half of it and thought it wasn't very
    direct; too many tangents.  I really like the direct approach.  I think
    it would be a great tool for all brothers and sisters of Christ (with
    Mr. Weiss's permission) to have in their quiver.
    
    I don't read the litterBOX, what has the reaction been in there?
    
    no offense intended,
    Mike

    Re: Note 109.67 by FRETZ::HEISER
    
>   Nothing personal, but I read half of it and thought it wasn't very
>   direct; too many tangents.
    
    I wrote .66 before reading the title of your .65, so don't take my .66
    as a comment against your .65; it's just that as a mostly-read-only I
    can see that a lot of people will skip any note greater than 50
    lines... and I was reading in "batched-mail" mode and answering things
    as I came to them...
    
    James

Yea, I do tend to tangentialize a bit, don't I?  I agree it could use better
organization.  Perhaps at some point I'll try to pull the tangents out of
wherever they are lurking and make new sections out of them.  And yes, it's 
long.  A lot needed to be said.  But I have had the suggestion offline from one
noter to break it up into sections and post each section as a separate note, as
was done for the creation topic.  Perhaps sometime.

Of course, anyone who wishes may take any or all of that, post it wherever they
like, give me credit or not as you choose.  Sorry I didn't say that up front.

The reaction in LitterBox (I like the name) has been quite interesting - none at
all.  I posted it there noon yesterday, as of 8:00 this morning there's not a 
single reply to the topic.  And this from a topic generating 20+ replies a day. 
Maybe they're still reading it?  :-)

Lastly, let me make it clear, in case it wasn't, that this is a purely secular
position.  My christian position on the two exceptions that I made is quite
different than the secular position.

Paul

I also took the time to read 109.59, and highly recommend that people here
find the time to go through it.  I think that Paul did an excellent job.

There is an area which I disagree with him on, and that is the exception
that he takes to rape and the case where the mother's life is in danger.

I challenged him on this in a brief mail exchange which I will post in the
several replies to follow.  I have edited out a tangent we got onto.

From:	KALI::WIEBE        "Garth Wiebe, MLO3-3/U39, pole 10A, 223-0654" 21-JUN-1993 16:01:59.42
To:	EVMS::WEISS
CC:	WIEBE
Subj:	your presentation in 109.59

I read with interest your 1500+ line apologetic against the "pro-choice"
movement.  It is incredible how logic and reason always falls on the side
of the truth of God's word and principles.  For the most part, I think you
did a superb job.

I want to ask if you would mind if I copy your essay, in whole, part, etc.,
to show to others, and to distribute.  I am sure that no thinking man can
rationally argue your points. 

I want to also suggest that you organize your presentation into pieces, 
indexing it with a table of contents.  I found this very helpful in developing
my creation vs. evolution presentation in note 25.  There may be people who
will not read a 1500+ line reply because of its length, and that would be a
shame.

Finally, I want to express my disappointment that you compromised your
position in two areas, making exceptions for the case of rape and for the
case that the life of the mother is in danger.

On those point of contention, let me show you why I believe you are both
wrong and logically inconsistent with your other arguments.

Firstly, in the case of rape, we start with the premise that the life of
the unborn child is a human being.  Given this premise, then that life
should be protected under law.  All your arguments to this point still apply. 
The fact that the woman did not consent to sexual intercourse is irrelevant to
the point that the child is a human being.  The fact that the child committed
no crime means that he should be protected under law.  To punish the child for
the crime of another is not just.  To commit a crime (murder) does not undo
another crime (rape), nor is it just punishment ("eye for eye") under biblical
principles.  Your position is therefore ethically immoral by your own premise
and your own standards of justice. 

Suppose that a man forces himself upon his wife on a particular night, and
she conceives.  Is the woman now permitted to abort?  Note that it does not
matter that they are married.  The principle that a raped woman is permitted
to kill her unborn child is supposedly based upon the idea that she had no
choice in the matter of the child's conception.  The fallacy is clear, and the
child's life should be spared.  The child should not be punished for the sin of
the rapist.  In fact, if anything the child is a victim along with the mother,
in that he has a criminal for a father.  I know of no society where the victim
of a crime is punished under law for the acts of the criminal.

Secondly, in the case of the life of the mother being "in danger", the 
assumption that you make is that you can know for sure that the mother
will die if the baby doesn't.  I don't believe that you will ever be able
to substantiate this in any scenario.  This scenario is analogous to the
stranded lifeboat scenario, where there is not enough food for all, and so the
captain is asked to consider throwing one man overboard so that the rest can
live.  This forces the value judgment that one man is less worthy of living
than the rest.  In the "life-threatened mother" scenario, you must make a value
judgment that the child is less worthy of living than the mother.  The life of
both mother and child should therefore be equally rescued, without making the
presumption that the life-and-death scenario, as it presently appears, cannot
and will not change.

Your self-defense scenario is invalidated as non-analogous and therefore not
applicable, because the baby cannot be shown to have malicious intentions
against his mother.  A man may lawfully kill in self-defense when attacked and
still be found innocent, but who will indict the baby? 

Finally, we bring more spiritual principles into the picture:  Realize that the
conceived life is not an arbitrary thing left to chance, but one created by
God.  Chance does not cause anything.  God creates the human life in the womb
and causes it to grow, creating teleonomy and violating the natural principles
of entropy in the process.  Therefore an abortion is killing not merely the
effect of a rapist's action, but a living human being created in God's image. 

And in the case of the "life-threatened mother", we must remember the word's
of our Lord:  "Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses
his life for me will save it." (Luke 9:24)  Who would dare counsel otherwise?

From:	EVMS::WEISS "Trade Freedom for Security-Lose Both  21-Jun-1993 1634" 21-JUN-1993 16:33:33.90
To:	KALI::WIEBE
CC:	weiss
Subj:	RE: your presentation in 109.59

I realize that the exceptions that I make may be something of a compromise. 
And as I noted, I *do* make a distinction between what can be morally
considered an imperative - as stated by the Word, and what can be ethically
considered an imperative.  As I mentioned at the beginning, much though I would
like to impose *my* interpretation of what God wants on the rest of the
country, and much though I believe we'd all be better off if I could, until
Christ comes back to lead us I don't think we'll be able to do it.  History is
riddled with people who were sure they were doing God's will as they horribly
oppressed other people.  There are plenty of other Christians that I wouldn't
want making laws based on their view of God, let alone non-chistians.  But
that's another looooong topic. 

As a Christian, I can't make either of the exceptions.  You are completely
correct that upon spirityal principles, abortion must be ruled out in all
cases. As you point out, the child is innocent, and I believe that a Christian
has a complete obligation to support an innocent person who depends on them,
whether they chose that dependency or not.  Christ would ask no less of us. 
But without reference to faith in God, I don't think I can insist that other
people do the same.  My beliefs in the area of law are fairly extreme, in that
I don't believe that people should have *any* forced, unagreed-to obligations
to other people. I don't believe in public education, welfare, etc, since they
impose a forced obligation on people who did not enter into any agreement.  It
is in that light that I think it is crucial, ethically, that the mother has
consentually participated in the conception of the child. 

I am fairly comfortable with the exception for the life of the mother, though
as I said a Christian should trust God to spare them both.  But in
self-defense, you don't have to show that the other person has malice toward
you.  If a drunk driver was coming toward you, and you took some action to save
your own life that resulted in the driver's death, I don't think you should be
held liable, even though the driver had no malice toward you.  Also, it is not
necessary to prove that you WOULD have died - if a man comes toward you with a
knife, you don't KNOW that he will kill you, but you don't have to wait and
find out. 

I'm less comfortable with the exception for rape.  I know that the child is
innocent.  But the point is not punishment of the child, it is the
responsibility of the woman.  In the hypothetical case I mentioned, where you
are kidnapped and attached to a machine, and an innocent person will die if you
do not agree to remain attached for 9 months, do you believe you have an
ethical obligation to remain attached?  Not moral, ethical.  Certainly, as a
Christian, you do have an obligation to do this "unto the least of your
brethren."  But should the law enforce this?  I don't believe it should. 

Certainly, you have my permission to extract whatever you wish and publish it
as widely as you can. 

Paul 

From:	KALI::WIEBE        "Garth Wiebe, MLO3-3/U39, pole 10A, 223-0654" 22-JUN-1993 09:58:50.99
To:	EVMS::WEISS
CC:	WIEBE
Subj:	more...

[tangent on ethical vs. moral, governments, etc. deleted]

>I am fairly comfortable with the exception for the life of the mother, though
>as I said a Christian should trust God to spare them both.  But in
>self-defense, you don't have to show that the other person has malice toward
>you.  If a drunk driver was coming toward you, and you took some action to save
>your own life that resulted in the driver's death, I don't think you should be
>held liable, even though the driver had no malice toward you.

Invalid analogy again.  The drunk driver was operating a vehicle in violation
of the law.  He was driving while intoxicated to begin with, and he violated
your right of way (i.e. driving on wrong side of road, passing red light, etc.)
He was intentionally and knowingly criminally negligent, even if he did not
intend to commit vehicular homicide to begin with.  The baby was not found to
be violating any law.  This is not a case of self-defense.  The baby was not
even found to be intentionally negligent.  Again, who will indict the baby? 
Again, who will decree that the baby is less worthy of living than the mother?
Why can't I hypothetically turn your "self-defense" scenario around and say
that the mother should be killed in any effort to save the baby?  Logically,
that scenario is no more invalid than yours. 

It is clear to me that you cannot hold this argument.  Give it up.  Neither
rape nor life of mother constitute just cause to kill her baby, unless you
use ungodly standards to argue your point, which is futile and pointless.

>In the hypothetical case I mentioned, where you are kidnapped and attached to a
>machine, and an innocent person will die if you do not agree to remain attached
>for 9 months, do you believe you have an ethical obligation to remain attached?
>Not moral, ethical.  Certainly, as a Christian, you do have an obligation to do
>this "unto the least of your brethren."  But should the law enforce this?  I 
>don't believe it should. 

The scenario is not applicable for the following reason:  In the case of the
kidnapping, the kidnapper committed a crime by hooking his victim up to the
machine against his will.  In the case of the rape, the rapist commited a crime
by having sex with the woman against her will.  However, God did not commit a
crime by creating a human being in the woman's womb.  You can't relate this
third point to the kidnapping scenario.  The intentional creation of life is
not like the artificial sustaining of life.  Homocide cannot be equated to
death due to lack of medical technology.  

What does scripture say?  "If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and
especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than
an unbeliever."  (1 Tim 5:8)  The baby is the raped woman's child, and she is
obligated to care for him.  The one to whom the kidnapped person is attached
is of no relation and therefore constitutes no obligation.  It would be out of
Christian love and charity that he would opt to remain attached to the machine,
assuming his obligation to his own family were not at issue. 

Thanks again for an otherwise superb and well thought-out presentation.

Do you mind if I copy our mail messages into note 109?

Edited slightly to remove tangents.

Date:	22-JUN-1993 08:23:41.95
From:	FUJISI::PHANEUF      "On Your Knees! Fight Like A Man!"
Subj:	Bravo, Paul!
To:	EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS

> Lastly, let me make it clear, in case it wasn't, that this is a
> purely secular position.


Not to be concerned. If a valid and coherent purely secular aregument
could not be made, how could we reasonably expect non-Believers to
listen to us? Moreover, it might well be said under such
circumstances that even Believers could validly argue to other points.

> My christian position on the two exceptions that I made is quite
> different than the secular position.

Did you mean arguments? I find it how your position on this vital 
issue could be *different* from a Christian perspective...

Highest regards and gratitude,

Brian

Date:	22-JUN-1993 08:37:55.65
From:	EVMS::WEISS "Trade Freedom for Security-Lose Both  22-Jun-1993 0837"
Subj:	RE: Bravo, Paul!
To:	FUJISI::PHANEUF

>> My christian position on the two exceptions that I made is quite
>> different than the secular position.
>
>Did you mean arguments? I find it how your position on this vital 
>issue could be *different* from a Christian perspective...

I simply meant the exceptions I made for rape and life of the mother.  In the 
case of rape, the mother is presented with an innocent life which depends on 
her, though she never agreed to that dependency.  Though I cannot hold the 
mother to that support from a secular basis, Christ certainly would want her to 
support the child at least until birth.

Life of the mother is harder.  I think that I think (you follow that?) that 
Christ would allow us self-defense in some circumstances.  I'm not sure how that 
fully plays out in the question of abortion if the mother's life is really in 
danger.  I think that Christ would want us to take the risk and trust Him.  But 
if the mother had three other children that would then be left orphaned and 
motherless if she died, what would Christ want?  I'm not totally sure.

Sounds like I made it more obscure instead of making it clearer.  I'll try 
again.

Thanks,

Paul 

Date:	22-JUN-1993 09:22:52.35
From:	FUJISI::PHANEUF      "On Your Knees! Fight Like A Man!"
Subj:	RE: Bravo, Paul!
To:	EVMS::WEISS


> I think that I think (you follow that?) that Christ would allow us 
> self-defense in some circumstances. I'm not sure how that fully     
> plays out in the question of abortion if the mother's life is       
> really in danger.  I think that Christ would want us to take the    
> risk and trust Him. But if the mother had three other children that 
> would then be left orphaned and motherless if she died, what would  
> Christ want? I'm not totally sure.

Self-defense, and the issuance of deadly force to protect one's self 
against such deadly force has always (since before the time of 
Hammurabi, the Baylonian king who is believed to be the first 
codifier of the principle of Lex Rex - Rule by Law) been a prima 
facia defense for the taking of the life of another human being. This 
is because, by exerting deadly force against a human being, one 
places one's self in the position of no longer being an innocent 
party. Now, this exertion of deadly force may or may not be 
volitional, either totally or in part. The appropriateness of the 
response is not exclusively based on the volition of the first person 
who threatened or exherted deadly force.  The mere presence of a 
reasonable belief that deadly force was or was likely to be exerted 
against one's self is cause to responding with deadly force. 

In the case of a pre-born human being, the issue of volition is 
somewhat immaterial. The pre-born can not exert volition (whether or 
not they have the capacity is also rather immaterial), and therefore 
cannnot directly either cause or remedy the threat of deadly force 
against the mother. Should the threat of deadly force (as in the case 
of an ectopic pregnancy) be present, the person against whom the 
deadly force is being threatened or exerted (in this case, the 
mother) is entirely justified in responding with deadly force.

This position is entirely defensible in Scripture, the Talmud and the 
Mishnah.

However, for Believers, an even higher calling is present. This line 
of reasoning is witnessed by Rom 8:28, et al. Moreover, the issue of 
the sovreignty of G_d is called into question. If He is indeed 
sovreign (and He *is*), the ectopic pregnancy could not have occurred 
outside of His providence. Witness Job - though terrible things 
occured in his life, they occured under the providence of G_d. Job 
was called to patiently endure them, calamatous as they were.

OTOH, I don't believe that any Believer is under condemnation, even 
in these circumstances, regardless of the decision made. If one does 
not have the faith and conviction that G_d can and will deliver from 
or through these circumstances, it is foolish (and perhaps even 
sinfully presumptuous) to act otherwise.

I hope that I have been sufficiently clear in what I have said. I 
have tried to be both precise and thorough in my wording, but realize 
that I can occassionally get a bit convoluted. Please don't hesitate 
to request clarification, if you feel it would be beneficial...

Regards,

Brian

Date:	22-JUN-1993 09:31:18.88
From:	EVMS::WEISS "Trade Freedom for Security-Lose Both  22-Jun-1993 0931"
Subj:	RE: Bravo, Paul!
To:	FUJISI::PHANEUF

I agree with you.  I made precisely the same point - that volition or 
intention is not required on the part of the person endangering your life for 
you to have a justification for self defense - to someone who wrote me 
disagreeing with that point.  And I also note the higher call for believers, 
hence my saying this situation is 'harder.'

I'll keep your note.  I didn't have any trouble understanding it, since it was 
just an articulation of what I already thought...  :-)

Thanks again,

Paul

Date:	22-JUN-1993 10:14:56.54
From:	FUJISI::PHANEUF      "On Your Knees! Fight Like A Man!"
Subj:	RE: Bravo, Paul!
To:	EVMS::WEISS

Paul,

> I agree with you.  I made precisely the same point - that volition 
> or intention is not required on the part of the person endangering your life 
> for you to have a justification for self defense - to someone who wrote me 
> disagreeing with that point.

I would be interested to hear his/her line of "reasoning." Perhaps it would be 
fruitful to others for you to post these off-line e-mail responses to the 
conference - you'd have my permission.

> And I also note the higher call for believers, hence my saying this          
> situation is 'harder.'

Ah, light dawns on Marblehead (marble-head?)! I make to correlation now!

> I'll keep your note.

You may do with it what you wish...

> I didn't have any trouble understanding it, since it was just an             
> articulation of what I already thought...  :-)

So long as I was sufficiently clear in its presentation...

8^{)

Brian

I have already extracted and used some of Paul's words in my own debate.
I add my voice to your treatise, Paul.  Well done.

    I received a call from the AZ RTL last night.  It seems that the new
    Health Care Reform proposed by the Clintons has FOCA-like provisions in
    it.  They're trying to act fast to fight it so please keep them in your
    prayers.
    
    Mike

    Because one of them might be the next Billy Graham.

>    Because one of them might be the next Billy Graham.

When Moses was born, Satan knew he was coming, and he influenced the Pharaoh to
murder all the innocent children he could lay his hands on, to try to keep Moses
from living and fulfilling his God-given mission.

When Christ was born, Satan knew he was coming, and he influenced Herod to
murder all the innocent children he could lay his hands on, to try to keep
Christ from living and fulfilling his God-given mission.

Given the enormity of the number of innocent children who have died and are 
dying at the hands of abortionists in these days (almost 30 million over the
last 20 years, and one out of every four people conceived today in this country
alone, and more than that in some eastern-block countries), it makes you wonder 
if Satan sees someone coming and is trying the same tactic again.

Paul

    re: -1
    
    That's an interesting observation.  If true, I wonder who is on the
    way...

    
    Because God calls us to denounce sin.  Its simply obedience.  I find in
    my own life that my attempts to answer "why?" prevent my saying "yes" to
    God.
    
    jeff

Re 109.80 by Paul 

Interesting one.  Reminded me of Cyrus.  God foretold his role in the plan
in Isaiah 44:28 - 45:4, identifying him by name. 

The historian Herodotus tells of the early days of the Medo-Persian empire,
and in particular, of the rise of this Cyrus.  He was quite a misfit, and
at one point the king ordered someone to take him away and kill him.  The
soldier hadn't the heart to, so told a shepherd to, who took him home to
his wife who had just lost a baby at birth, so substituted the infant
Cyrus... 

It seemed such a distinct case of the LORD overruling the devil's attempt 
to stop God's published plan....

I need to look that up again and check my details.

							Andrew

    ...and to add to what Jeff just said, what if God is calling us to
    protect the lives of the innocent against an injustice?

I hear your words, and agree with them. But the Church 
as a whole appears deaf as a stone. I guess that I've just
grown weary of trying to get those without ears to hear...

I know, Markem, "What is that to thee, follow thou me..."

Brian

    Hi Brian... long time no see! %^}

>I know, Markem, "What is that to thee, follow thou me..."

Not an easy road, I know, Brian.  But one well worth the effort.

Smiles.

 Saw a bumper sticker the other day "Equal rights for unborn women".





Jim

There was an item on the TV news last night which made me so furious I ended 
up leaving the room.
It seems that a UK research group are looking at the possibilities of 
implanting the ova of aborted female fetuses into infertile women. The "main 
problem", as they saw it, was that the offspring of a woman with such a 
transplant would not be genetically the parent of such a child.

I'm not sure why I posted this - perhaps just to offload some anger.

Mods, please feel free to remove this if it's not suitable.


Chele

Would the child thus born be entitled to track down its maternal
grandmother and bring suit against her?

/john

Who knows. The "logic" of the whole escapes me. The baby is aborted because it 
is not perceived to be a baby, "just tissue", yet is still a parent.

I had a lot of anger because of what the researchers thought was a moral 
dilemma was the actual parent status - ie the aborted child or the host 
mother. The fact that the child aborted was sufficiently developed to have 
transplantable organs - ie was an unborn BABY, rather than TISSUE, seems to be 
something they have no qualms about. Presumably the fetus would be "checked 
out" to make sure there was nothing wrong with it, before it's body and organs
were harvested.

The procedure has not yet, I believe, taken place. (or at least not been 
publicised as having been performed)

I have no problem with the idea of organ transplants - I just don't like the 
idea of deliberately killing to get them.


Chele

    Chele, the same news was discussed on 2GB (873KHz) radio last Friday
    afternoon.  Many callers on the talk-back joined in.
    
    James

    Re: Note 109.91 by COVERT::COVERT
    
>Would the child thus born be entitled to track down its maternal
>grandmother and bring suit against her?
    
    Possibly in the US.  But in countries like UK and Australia, the
    government would create legislation to prevent that suit from being
    file-able.
    
    James

    Re: Note 109.92 by GIDDAY::BURT
    
>I have no problem with the idea of organ transplants - I just don't like the 
>idea of deliberately killing to get them.
    
    Larry Niven?  I'm sure I've mentioned his extrapolation here before. 
    The idea that convicted criminals should be harvested of useful spare
    parts rather than be "wasted" by being executed.  And once the
    techniques and success rates of transplantation improve, there will be
    a higher demand for spare parts.  Hence organleggers; people who go out
    and grab someone, take them apart and sell the bits.  Hence an increase
    in coverage of the death penalty; speeding fines couuld really cost you
    an arm and a leg.
    
    The Chinese government has just introduced eugenics legislation.  It
    does not yet take control of the fetus, but it provides economic
    support (and hence negative support) for couples who produce useful
    offspring.  The decision is still made by the proud parents, but it
    won't be long before overcrowding in developed nations like yours and
    ours causes some form of population control.
    
    In Australia we have a family allowance; the government pays to support
    our extra children.  It virtually encourages big families.  It was real
    popular back just after world war two, when the government noticed that
    the population had shrunk considerably due to the war losses.
    
    I expect the family allowance will reverse within thirty years or so to
    become an extra-child tax.
    
    James

I saw this in the UK news recently too.  Made me sick to think of people
being used in such a way.  Counted worthless - non-existant, even - as an
individual, but their potential child taken to satisfy someone else's whim.
Not eligible to be a person, but able to be a mother.  This is an utterly
sick world... 

							Andrew 

    "Pamela Colson, a Florida resident, died after having a legal abortion
    at the same Florida clinic where abortion doctor David Gunn was killed
    last year.  She died on June 26 as a result of excessive bleeding, the
    victim of a perforated uterus.  For the most part, few took notice of
    her death.
    
    A Florida newspaper reporting Ms. Colson's death quoted a doctor at the
    University of South Florida College of Medicine as saying that
    perforated uteruses happen about twice for every 1,000 abortions, and,
    with 1.5 million abortions performed in this country every year, simple
    math tells us 3,000 women have their uteruses perforated every year by
    abortion, a staggering number by any measure, and by our standards,
    simply unacceptable."
    
    - THE FEMINIST, Summer 1994
    
    ABMAL (Abortion Malpractice Network) provides legal action support for
    the attorney with an abortion-injured client.  The majority of the
    services are free and include: expert witnesses/consultants, defense,
    expert history, physician history files, medical/legal research, 3D
    animation of abortion procedures, advertising materials (print, radio,
    TV, billboards, yellow pages, business cards), counseling network for
    clients, co-counsel/mentor network, court reporter services, client
    recruitment network, as well as various education materials.  For more
    information call (817) 380-8800 or FAX (817) 380-8700.

    69% do not agree that the federal government should pay for abortions
    for any woman who wants it and cannot afford to pay.  27% agree.  ABC
    News/Washington Post, July 1992.
    
    73% favor requiring that minors obtain the consent of 1 parent before
    having an abortion.  (23% oppose).  Times Mirror, May 8, 1992.
    
    86% favor legislation requiring women to receive information about
    fetal development and alternatives to abortion before going ahead with
    the procedure.  9% oppose.  Gallup, February 28, 1991.
    
    81% favor requiring doctors to counsel on alternatives to abortion. 
    16% oppose.  USA Today/CNN, Gallup, June 30, 1992.  Despite this, early
    in 1994 the American College of OB-GYN doctors endorsed training
    non-physicians to perform abortions.
    
    57% think that the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision that
    abortions should be allowed for any reason should be changed. 
    Wirthlin, January 22, 1992.
    
    58% underestimated by more than 500,000 the number of abortions
    performed annually in the United States.  U.S. Catholic Conference
    Release, November 5, 1990.  Approximately 1.6M abortions are performed
    annually and 31.5M from 1973 to 1993.

    "28% of women who regret their abortions attempt suicide and, over half
    of these women attempt suicide more than once," according to a new
    study by the Elliot Institute.  These findings are among the many in
    the study, published as part of the Fall 1994 issue of "The
    Post-Abortion Review."  A copy is avaiable by sending $2 and a SASE
    (52�) to 
    
    Post-Abortion Review
    P.O. Box 9079
    Springfield, IL 62791-9079
    
    You may also call David Reardon, Director, at (217) 546-9522.

    All pro-life leaders have rightfully condemned the recent killings of
    abortionist doctors.  The media has fallen all over itself giving
    publicity to "anti-abortion violence."  But have you heard of the other
    murders?  For example, a 35-year-old woman arrested in Huntsville,
    Alabama, had been charged with murdering 51-year-old Jerry Simon, a
    minister who had been co-hosting with his wife a daily radio program
    and who was very active in the pro-life movement.  Charged with the
    murder is pro-choice extremist Eileen Janezic who held police at bay
    for 6 hours with a pistol while reading aloud passages from Anton
    LaVey's "Satanic Bible."

    For a recent article in "Mother Jones" magazine (a journal priding
    itself on its views from the left), journalist Bill Dedman went
    undercover as both a member of Operation Rescue and as a Planned
    Parenthood "clinic defender."  After participating on both sides in a
    clinic blockade, Dedman wrote: "the pro-life crowd looked prayerful,
    peaceful and committed...the pro-choice representatives were...looking
    vulgar, antisocial and hateful."

    Reporting on 2 women who recently went to England for RU486 abortions,
    the "New York Times" said that the drawbacks to using RU486, which also
    includes the expense of longer hospital stays and more follow up exams,
    are "not well known" in the United States.  Talk about truth in
    advertising...
    
    New York state performs almost 10% of the nation's abortion and funds
    abortions for poverty-level women.  For example, 50,000 abortions in
    1992 cost the tax-payers $20.5M.  Fortunately on May 5, 1994, the NY
    Court of Appeals unanimously voted to reverse two lower court decisions
    which would have expanded taxpayer funded abortions in New York.
    
    Finally, one you may have heard before...  the "Journal of the National
    Cancer Institute" (December 1993) states that breast cancer is 2 to 4
    times more likely when women abort or miscarry their first child in the
    first trimester of pregnancy.  Meanwhile as abortion figures escalate,
    it is no surprise that there are 182,000 new cases of breast cancer per
    year and 46,000 deaths of women from the same in each year.

    So...what's hidden behind dem-dar blank screens?

	Hmm...  We probably don't want to know...

	Steve, it was a note that referred to a set hidden/deleted note. I know
because it's my note. :-)

| <<< Note 109.29 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Yet in most cases of third trimester abortions, the mother's life is not in 
| danger, 

	Can you back this with stats John?

| and even if it is, in many cases the child could be saved if given the same 
| care any premature child would be given in non-abortion circumstances.

	Again, can you back this as well? I'd like to get a better
understanding of this. I'd much rather see the above happen, then the baby
aborted. 


Glen

	from .46, on the argument that the baby isn't alive until it
    	breathes:
    
>    It is in the early part of Genesis where
>    God says he breathed and Adam became a living soul.  ...
>    In the womb, the baby does not breathe and
>    therefore is not a living soul.  
    
    
    	That verse says nothing about Adam breathing.  It speaks of
    	God breathing, and who can know when God so breathes for the
    	baby in the womb?  It seems to me that we are better off 
    	erring  on the side of caution in assuming that God breathes
    	earlier than later.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
								22 January 2023

Dear Mum,

Can you believe it's 2023 already?  I'm still writing 22 on nearly everything. 
Seems like yesterday I was sitting in first grade celebrating the century
change!

I know we haven't chatted since Christmas.  Sorry.

I have some difficulties now and really didn't want to call and talk face to
face. 

Ted's had a promotion and I should be up for a hefty raise this year if I keep
putting in those crazy hours. You know how I work at it. Yes we're still 
struggling with those bills.

Timmy's been `OK' at Preschool, although he complains about going. But then he
wasn't happy about day care either, so what can I do?

He's been a real problem, Mum.  He's a good kid, but quite honestly he's an
unfair burden at this time in our lives. Ted and I have talked this through and 
through and finally made a choice.

Plenty of other families have made the choice and are much better off!

Our counsellor is supportive and says hard decisions sometimes are necessary.
The family is a `system' and the demands of one member shouldn't be allowed to 
ruin the whole. He told us to consider all the factors and do what is right to
make the family work.

He says that even though he probably wouldn't do it himself, the decision really
is ours. He was kind enough to refer us to a children's clinic near here so at
least that part's easy.

I'm not an uncaring mother and I really do feel sorry for the little guy.

I think he overhead Ted and me talking about `it' the other night. I turned 
around and saw him standing at the bottom step in his PJ's and the little bear
you gave him under his arm and his eyes sort of welling up.

Mum, the way he looked at me broke my heart. But I honestly believe this is 
better for Timmy too. It's not fair to force him to live in a family that can't
give him the time and attention he deserves.

Please don't give me the kind of grief Grandma gave you over your abortions. It 
is the same thing you know. We've told him he's just going in for a vaccination.

They say the termination procedure is painless. I guess it's just as well you
haven't seen that much of him. Give our love to Dad,

Jane.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the consequences of our society's callous disregard for human life?
Your involvement in speaking out against the killing of unborn children is
vital.

    What are the consequences of callous distortion of facts in order to
    make one's opinion seem like the right opinion!

	Patricia, even though I am against abortion as a method of birth
control, I thought the same thing you did. Why can't people just use the facts,
and stop the distortions is beyond me. It takes away any credibility they could
have had. imho


Glen

    Life is a continuum.  I don't think you can arbitrarily set a date as
    to when a human life is protected by law.  When you do this, you leave
    value judgements for human life open to interpretation to the
    individual and the courts.  The inconsistencies of this kind of thought
    process are obvious.
    
    If you believe God is in control, then you realize that nothing happens 
    that He does not allow to happen.  Some of these things may seem overly 
    burdonsome, things we can't for the life of us think we can handle.  When 
    these things happen, it is an *opportunity* to trust God, however.  It is 
    also an opportunity to grow in our relationship with God, and a chance for 
    God's blessing.  No one who puts their trust in Him will be ignored by the 
    Allmighty.  He will help.
    
    I see abortion as a symptom of a sickness in society.  That sickness
    originates around our attitude towards God.  Do we believe in God?  Do we 
    really trust God?  Are we willing to do what is right, rather than what is 
    convenient?  
    
    The attitude that allows abortion is one of defeat foremost, which in turn 
    gives way to rationalizations- or relativistic thinking.  Why defeat? 
    Because by destroying your unborn child, you cave in to circumstances,
    not trusting that God will assist you.  Why reletivism?  Because we
    rationalize the value of human life according to circumstance, rather
    than giving it absolute value as God does.  God does not give us
    children if He does not want us to have children.  He doesn't put us in
    difficult circumstance because He enjoys watching us suffer- but
    because he enjoys watching us grow.  Hard times make for great
    spiritual lessons that are not soon forgotten.
    
    If we *really* believe God is in control (and trust Him), and that the 
    things happening in our life are not random, then we look at life and 
    difficult situations a bit differently.  If we believe that God is in 
    control, we know that nothing is hopeless, and that the most hopeless 
    *looking* circumstances can lead to a big blessing *if we trust in God* 
    to help us.  There is no such thing as hopeless, when there is an
    all-powerful, loving God.
    
    God wants to help us.  All He asks is that we trust Him.  The Bible
    says this over and over and over.  "Trust me."  "Trust me."  "Put your
    trust in me."  etc.  Too bad this very simple message has been lost on
    our society, who replace God with an idol of their own making, or by
    disbelief in God.  If society would but put their faith in God, things
    *would* turn around.
    
    But society is hell bent on redefining morality in its own image of
    reletive thinking, rationalizing God away via science and human
    philosophy.  It is no wonder that problems in America (and around the
    world) deepen.  When a society has reached the point where it can
    rationalize the destruction of its own offspring, there is no evil that
    it cannot rationalize given enough time and desensitization.  This
    string is just one example of how abortion is used as a springboard for
    the next step in degredation.  In this light, I don't see .112 as being
    a great stretch of the imagination, given enough time (should mankind
    be allowed by God to sink even further than he has before judgement
    comes).  A list of things that are considered the norm today would have
    been shocking to the sensibilities of those just a half-century ago. 
    
    I'll get off my soapbox now.  8^)  
    
    
    -steve 

    Steve,
    
    It is impossible to decide when human life begins and when it does not
    begin.  If you hold the opinion that human life begins at conception
    then you will hold the belief that abortion is murder.
    
    If we follow the philosopher Descarte(I think therefore I am) then
    human life begins at the time of conciousness.  Some believe that human
    life begins when I fetus could be viable outside the mother's body. 
    There is justification in each of the answers.
    
    I believe that God gives to each one of us free choice.  We freely
    choose many aspects of our lifes including whether or not to have
    children and when to have children.  We choose where to work, where to
    live, what kind of medical care to seek, etc.
    
    We routinely ask medical professionals to intervene in our well being. 
    Is that not allowing God to be God?  There are no simplistic answers.
    I would think that it would be helpful for people who believe that
    abortions are murder to try to minimize the number of abortions
    performed while realizing that not everyone agrees that abortions are
    murder. 
    
    I think all people need to be clear on what the goal is.  Is the goal
    to reduce the number of abortions or to prove that one's opinion is
    right.
    
                             Patricia

    .115
    
    Great note Steve!!!  Amen!

    Hi Patricia,
        
>    It is impossible to decide when human life begins and when it does not
>    begin.  
    
    Scientifically speaking, a unique life begins at conception.
    
>    If you hold the opinion that human life begins at conception
>    then you will hold the belief that abortion is murder.
 
    It's not an opinion, it is accepted fact.  The opinion comes into play
    when deciding on what value we, as a society, place on the new life at
    any given stage of development.  If you place inherant value on all
    human life, then yes, abortion is murder.
       
>    If we follow the philosopher Descarte(I think therefore I am) then
>    human life begins at the time of conciousness.
    
    Then those in a coma should be fair game, too.  They have no conscious
    thought, either.  I have to disagree with using this philosophy in this   
    circumstance.  If you are familiar with it, you will recognize that
    Descarte was talking about existence itself.  He thinks, therefore he
    exists.  A fetus, whether it thinks or not, does indeed exist.
     
>    Some believe that human life begins when I fetus could be viable outside 
>    the mother's body.  There is justification in each of the answers.
 
    They believe wrongly.  Human life begins at conception- scientifically. 
    The unborn has a unique DNA and is an individual human life.  Once
    again, the question is not whether it is human or if it is alive, but what 
    value it has at a given stage of development.  This form of reletivism
    is dangerous, at best.
        
>    We routinely ask medical professionals to intervene in our well being. 
>    Is that not allowing God to be God?  There are no simplistic answers.
    
    This has little to do with what I was discussing.
    
>    I would think that it would be helpful for people who believe that
>    abortions are murder to try to minimize the number of abortions
>    performed while realizing that not everyone agrees that abortions are
>    murder. 
 
    Agreement is not the issue.  The issue is whether or not, as a society,
    we wish to condone a practice that kills 1.5 million unborn each and
    every year.  By law, we do indeed condone such an evil, and we will, as
    a society, be judged on what we lawfully allow.  Once again, it comes
    back to reletavistic value being placed on human life.
      
>    I think all people need to be clear on what the goal is.  Is the goal
>    to reduce the number of abortions or to prove that one's opinion is
>    right.
 
    This is a good goal.  The problem is, society will do anything BUT
    control their behaviors.  They will use condoms and other BC devices,
    but they refuse to change the behaviors that are at the root of the
    problem- therefore, there will always be a "need" for abortions.  BC only 
    covers over (and not very well, it would seem) the real problem which is 
    immorality, which stems from a rebellion against God.   Abortion is only 
    one symptom of how far astray we've gone.
    
    
    -steve  

Hi Patricia,

109.116 � It is impossible to decide when human life begins and when it 
109.116 � does not begin.  

Bearing in mind that this is the Christian conference, based on Biblical 
inspiration, the common ground here that life begins at conception is based 
on our general understanding of God's instruction in the Bible.

109.116 � If you hold the opinion that human life begins at conception then 
109.116 � you will hold the belief that abortion is murder.

Exactly.  The reasonings of godless philosophers and the random reasonings 
of minds without God's inspiration are irrelevant when it comes down to how 
we really are designed to live, and what implies a violation of our 
humanity in the moral or spiritual realms.  God actually does know.  People
without God guess.  And their guesses may often be biased by influences
ultimately inimical to God and to man. 

I'll include some verses below that indicate the significance of the child 
before birth.


								Andrew


Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet Thou dost
destroy me.  Remember, I beseech Thee, that Thou hast made me as the clay; and
wilt Thou bring me into dust again? Thou hast clothed me with skin and flesh,
and hast fenced me with bones and sinews...
							Job 10 verses 8, 9, 11

Did not He that made me in the womb make him? and did not One fashion us in
the womb?
							Job 31 verse 15

But Thou art He that took me out of the womb: Thou didst make me hope when I
was upon my mothers breasts.  I was cast upon Thee from the womb: Thou art my 
God from my mothers belly.
						Psalm 22 verses 9-10

 
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.
						Psalm 51 verse 5

For Thou hast possessed my reins: Thou hast covered me in my mothers womb.
I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are
Thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.
My substance was not hid from Thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously
wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.
Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in Thy book all my
members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there
was none of them.
						Psalm 139 verses 13 - 16


As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow
in the womb of her that is with child; even so thou knowest not the works of
God who maketh all.
						Ecclesiastes 11 verse 5

Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will
help thee; fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have
chosen.
						Isaiah 44 verse 2


Thus saith the Lord, thy Redeemer, and He that formed thee from the womb, I am
the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that
spreadeth abroad the earth by Myself;
						Isaiah 44 verse 24

Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel,
which are borne by me from the belly, which are carried from the womb...
						Isaiah 46 verse 3

Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; the Lord hath
called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of
my name.
						Isaiah 49 verse 1

And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be His servant, to
bring Jacob again to him, though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be 
glorious in the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength.
						Isaiah 49 verse 5

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth
out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the
nations.
						Jeremiah 1 verse 5

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine
nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his
mother's womb.
						Luke 1 verse 15

For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe
leaped in my womb for joy.
						Luke 1 verse 44

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called
me by His grace...
						Galatians 1 verse 15

Continuing....

109.116 � I would think that it would be helpful for people who believe that
109.116 � abortions are murder to try to minimize the number of abortions
109.116 � performed while realizing that not everyone agrees that abortions 
109.116 � are murder. 

Except that we are answerable to God; not to people.  It is God mankind will 
face in the judgement, and in that naked clarity where there is no 
pretence, there is no excuse of pressure of opinion, when an honest 
examination of one's heart reveals God's design.


109.116 � I think all people need to be clear on what the goal is.  Is the goal
109.116 � to reduce the number of abortions or to prove that one's opinion is
109.116 � right.

Neither.

The goal is to pursue personal righteousness - integrity - before God. 
This also has a bearing on national righteousness, and can even reach
international righteousness.  

But while abortion is an horrific deed, it is not 'the only', nor even 
'the ultimate' sin. 


							Andrew 

>    It is impossible to decide when human life begins and when it does not
>    begin.  If you hold the opinion that human life begins at conception
>    then you will hold the belief that abortion is murder.
    
    It is only impossible, if you don't believe in the Bible as the
    inerrant word of God.  The Bible says that God "knew him before he
    formed him in the belly", and we aren't talking about Jonah here. :-)
    :-)
    
    And then there's the Psalms on our creation and the love God has for
    us.  No, Patricia, I think the problem lies in the fact that we've
    equalized children to hardship versus the "fruit of the womb".
    
    
    >If we follow the philosopher Descarte(I think therefore I am) then
    
    This is the problem, right here.  Why follow a philosopher?  I don't
    understand how we choose to believe in the words of a man over the Word
    of God.   Well I suppose I do understand... :-(
    
        
    >I believe that God gives to each one of us free choice.  We freely
    >choose many aspects of our lifes including whether or not to have
    >children and when to have children.  We choose where to work, where to
    >live, what kind of medical care to seek, etc.
    
    
    But He didn't give us the choice in murder.  And I believe that God
    sees this as the murder of the innocent based on scripture.
    
    >We routinely ask medical professionals to intervene in our well being. 
    >Is that not allowing God to be God?  There are no simplistic answers.
    >I would think that it would be helpful for people who believe that
    >abortions are murder to try to minimize the number of abortions
    >performed while realizing that not everyone agrees that abortions are
    >murder. 
    
    I think we realize that not everyone believes abortions are murder. 
    But awareness and education is the key to all the problems in the
    world, right?  So, we, as Christians need to educate and make aware
    that abortion is murder of the innocent.  We can do that in many
    non-violent ways.
    
    One way is through medical films from medical colleges.  Ever watch an
    abortion being performed at the different stages of pregnancy?  It's
    quite gruesome and body parts are evident, arms, legs, hands..  being
    ripped apart from their body.
    
    Yes, we know that not all believe abortion in the killing of innocent
    life.
    
    >I think all people need to be clear on what the goal is.  Is the goal
    >to reduce the number of abortions or to prove that one's opinion is
    >right.
    
    The goal is for me to see people know and respect a loving and
    wonderful Father in heaven.   Abortion, morality, immorality are all
    symptoms of the greater need.
    
    Nancy

         <<< Note 109.116 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    It is impossible to decide when human life begins and when it does not
>    begin.  
    
    	Thus it is better to err on the side of caution, and give the
    	growing fetus every benefit of the doubt.
        
>    If we follow the philosopher Descarte(I think therefore I am) 
    
    	At what age do babies start thinking?  Using this philosophy
    	makes .112 even more likely!
    
    	(Aside.  You spoke of distortions in .113.  Yes, you have a
    	point there, but at the same time the point of things like
    	.112 -- clearly fictional given the time setting, so fact
    	is not claimed -- the point of such stories is to show the
    	possibilities of where the next (and the next and the next)
    	domino might fall.  It may never happen.  Perhaps stories like
    	.112 will raise an awareness among people that this is a
    	possible evolution, and prevent such from happening.  But
    	the abortion mentality *has* grown in recent history.  We
    	no longer do abortions just for pregnancy termination.  Now
    	aborted fetuses are viewed as a source for scientific tissue
    	research.  Babies that are born deformed are in some cases
    	left to die without food or water or simple surgeries to
    	correct some problems.  If you want some accounts of such,
    	I can provide to you first-hand accounts from nurses...
    	The dominoes *are* falling.  What would be considered horrible
    	30 years ago are being done today.  It is not so far fetched
    	to imagine that what is considered horrible today might 
    	occur 30 years from now.)

    Interesting answers.
    
    Steve, Andrew, and Nancy all seem to agree the issue is not the loss of life
    but instituting a religious based view of righteousness on those who
    don't agree with the definition.  The lifes of the fetuses are just
    incidental to the arguement.
    
    How Niave i am to think that there can be a common ground!

Hi Patricia,

The idea that we want to institute 'a religious based view of righteousness 
on those who don't agree with the definition' seems to assume that it 
originates in us.  This is totally contrary to all that we stand for.

The crux of the matter lies in whether you really believe that we - and our 
environment - exists at the will, command and design of an omnipotent, 
righteous and loving God.

If you do, ultimately you come to the Bible, and God's image in the foetus,
and the only eternal hope for salvation, amongst many other guiding
principles. 

If you don't, it all seems to be rather arrogant - because the claims of
God would be infinitely arrogant if they were not actually totally 
justified, and the only way we have any true meaning as people.

								Andrew

    	re .123
    
    	Patricia, that is a terribly unfair statement and you know
    	it.  You pretend to seek common ground (and such common ground
    	*IS* defined for the purposes of this conference) yet it
    	seems to me that your primary interest is to erode that
    	common ground.
    
    	There is more to common ground than identifying the least
    	common denominator.

    re: .119
    Andrew -
    
    Ok, I agree that human life begins at conception therefore 
    abortion is murder.  My question is, there seem to be times
    when God commands murder - look at the book of Joshua.  
    Couldn't there also be times when an abortion is God's will?  
    James 1:13 says God will never ask one to do evil.  But how
    do you reconcile all the wars in God's name? 
    
    Jill2

    >How Niave i am to think that there can be a common ground!
    
    Patricia, with all due respect, we've been saying since you joined this
    conference that the common ground is the authority of God's Word, the
    Bible.  I don't think you are naive, but just stubborn enough and caring
    enough to keep trying. 
    
    But this stubborn, caring side of your nature will not prevail against
    those of us who have established *this* conference in a belief of the
    inerrancy of scripture and the guidelines it establishes by which we
    try to live our lives.
    
    Peace by unto you,
    Nancy

Hi Jill,

Life belongs to God.  Not to us.  We can use it, because He has given it to
us, to glorify Him for its duration, but ultimately everyone's physical
life is returned to God Who gave it.

When Cain killed Abel, he suddenly realised that he had denied the very
sanctity that protected himself, and that his own life should be forfeit 
(Genesis 3:14), but even he received temporal grace in God's protection 
(:15).

After the flood, in Genesis 9, God emphasises that even though animals may 
be eaten as food, this does not apply to man, whose blood is special.  

  "...for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting.  I will demand 
   an accounting from every animal.  And from each man too, I will demand an 
   accounting for the life of his fellow man.

	Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;
	for in the image of God has God made man.

    As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth 
    and increase upon it."
						Genesis 9:5-7

When God specified that certain nations should be destroyed, it was to 
execute His divine judgement on those who had fulfilled their quota of evil 
(see Genesis 15:15), and had their opportunity of repentance.

Similarly, when God decreed that certain sins should be punished by death, 
this didn't mean that either God or the executioner was committing murder, 
but that God was recalling the life that He had lent out, before it should 
be used for any greater evil (Genesis 6:5, 11:6 - the confusion of Babel 
was a protection on the nations, that their combination of evil wouldn't 
reach judgement before time).

However, it is not for us to arbitrarily take a life that is God's - 
whether it is being used by us, or by someone else.

� But how do you reconcile all the wars in God's name? 

If you mean the wars in the book of Joshua, they were under God's specific 
instruction.  If you mean other wars - especially since the time of Jesus, 
like the Crusades, these are terrible deceits on ignorant people, stemming 
from hearts of sin, and nothing to do with God or Christianity, even 
though people claimed God's authority for them.

I could go on at length here, if (a) it were not off topic, and (b) it were 
not getting late in the UK... ;-}

I hope this starts to explain?

						God bless
								Andrew

| <<< Note 109.118 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>


| It's not an opinion, it is accepted fact.  

	Steve, does accepted fact = fact, or does it = we really don't know,
but will accept this as being fact? 




Glen

    re: .129
    
    It is a scientific fact that life begins at conception.  We DO know
    this, and to be honest, we knew this in our hearts before science came
    along and confirmed it.
    
    
    -steve

    re: .123
    
    I am not interested in instituting a religious-based view of
    righteousness on anyone.  What I *am* interesting in doing, is
    revealing the reletavism that has infiltrated society's thinking.  I am
    interested in having society value all human life, without placing
    arbitrary value on human life due to circumstance. 
    
    A man who shot a pregnant women in the abdomen was charged with murder
    under the law (the woman survived).  The woman, however, could legally
    kill the child she was carrying for any number of reasons.  What this
    means is that the value of human life is determined by the *opinion* of
    individuals. 
    
    Those who argue pro-abortion are in effect arguing that life is of
    value if the opinion of the pregnant woman says so, and not valuable if
    she does not want it.  Life is degraded to a value that is dictated by
    opinion and circumstance.  This is not logical, nor is it healthy for
    a society.
    
    You don't have to have religion to understand that human life is not of
    a variable value that is dependant on development.  Human life is either
    valuable or it is not.  Life is a continuum of development.  Newborns
    are totally dependant upon their parents to care for them, they are far
    from fully developed and far from being of anything more than potential
    future value to a society (or perhaps of potential harm later in life).
    
    Development or dependence are not good arguments for abortion.  You are
    still stuck with the fact that you refuse protection to some human life 
    simply because they are not yet "viable" (a point in time that is 
    continually changing, BTW) or developed to a certain point
    on the continuum of life.  By using such opinionated and emotional
    reasoning, you leave society open for the next degredation.
    
    I would like to see consistency and logic in the law.  Either human
    life is valuable or it is not.  You can't just pick a certain point in
    the continuum and say "now it's valuable"; nor should you be able to
    say, due to hard circumstances, "it is not valuable"- circumstance has 
    nothing to do with inherant value of human life.  All humans must pass 
    through the same process of life.  Giving arbitrary values to human life, 
    based solely on development, is illogical and dangerous.
    
    
    -steve         

    There are a bunch of different issues.
    
    1.  How does a Christian with the belief that abortion is wrong live
    righteously before God.
    
    ans.  The Christian does not have an abortion.
    
    2.  How does a Christian live righteously before God in regard to
    others who do not share their beliefs.  
    
    The anti abortion movement is trying to prevent those who DO NOT share
    their beliefs from having an abortion. 
    
    3.  Why is the Christian trying to force their view of righteousness
    upon others?
    
    It was number three that I niavely thought the answer was to save
    innocent lives.  That is not the answer given.  The answers seemed to
    indicate that forcing others to live righteously before God was more
    important than saving lives.  The lives seemed inconsequential to the
    reasoning.  Further more, some of the answers seemed to indicate that
    the desire was to force a innerrantist christian view of sexual ethics
    onto those who did not hold the beliefs.
    
    So what is the purpose of the anti abortion efforts of innerrant
    Christians?  And what right does any one person have trying to force
    their morality onto others.  
    
    What does the Bible say about trying to force a Christian morality on
    those who are not Christian(or who don't define Christian the same way
    you do).

    re: 128
    
    Thanks - thats what I was looking for.
    
    Jill2
    

	Steve, thanks for the info. The way it was worded it could have been
taken either way. I just wanted to know which way to take it. :-)  Thanks.


Glen

>  The problem is, society will do anything BUT
>    control their behaviors.  They will use condoms and other BC devices,
>    but they refuse to change the behaviors that are at the root of the
>    problem- therefore, there will always be a "need" for abortions.  BC only 
>    covers over (and not very well, it would seem) the real problem which is 
>    immorality, which stems from a rebellion against God.   Abortion is only 
>    one symptom of how far astray we've gone.
    
    
    Steve,
    
    This is the paragraph that told me that you were interested in having
    society conform to your notion of righteousness and not specifically
    interested in saving the life of the fetuses.  
    
    If you were interested in saving lifes, you would be interested in any
    measure that would save lifes.  You seem most interested in influencing
    the sexual ethics(i.e immorality and rebellion against God.)
    
    What does the Bible say about your trying to force non believers to
    stop rebelling against "God"?
    
                            Patricia

    re: .133
    
>    1.  How does a Christian with the belief that abortion is wrong live
>    righteously before God.
    
>    ans.  The Christian does not have an abortion.
    
    A parallel to this would be:
    
    How does a Christian with the belief that slavery is wrong live
    righteously before God.
    
    asn.  The Christian does not own slaves.
    
    Inaction is not the way to go when wrongs are being committed.  Those
    who owned slaves didn't think they were in the wrong, either.
       
>    2.  How does a Christian live righteously before God in regard to
>    others who do not share their beliefs.  
    
>    The anti abortion movement is trying to prevent those who DO NOT share
>    their beliefs from having an abortion. 
 
    The anti-slavery movement was trying to prevent those who DO NOT share
    their beliefs from owning slaves. (they even went a step further and
    helped many slaves escape via the Underground Railroad)
       
>    3.  Why is the Christian trying to force their view of righteousness
>    upon others?
 
    Why are non-Christians trying to force religion out of the public
    sector?  Why are pro-choicers trying to force their view of
    relativistic morality off on society? 
     
>    It was number three that I niavely thought the answer was to save
>    innocent lives.  That is not the answer given.  
    
    That abortion is wrong is a given in this forum.  Why?  Because it
    destroys an innocent life.  That we wish to save innocent lives is a
    given, and I wonder why you question it.  What I and others have posted
    simply say that abortion is no the ROOT PROBLEM of the abortion issue. 
    The root problem is a much deeper cancer.  The fact that one symptom
    (abortion) is so bad, merely points to how far society has strayed from
    God.
    
    Outlawing abortion may reduce the number of innocent lives taken; it
    may even impose responsibility on people for their actions.  What it
    will not do is cure the problem.  The abortion issue is a simple one to
    solve.  The solution, however, is totally unacceptable to most of
    society, which merely reinforces the fact that a deeper problem
    remains.
    
>    Further more, some of the answers seemed to indicate that
>    the desire was to force a innerrantist christian view of sexual ethics
>    onto those who did not hold the beliefs.
 
    Where do you come up with "force"?  Would I like to see people act
    responsibly in regards to sexual ethics?  Definitely!  It would be a
    great boon to society, and we would see many problems vanish in a
    single generation.  There is no way to force such ethics, nor would I
    attempt such a doomed-to-fail effort.
       
>    So what is the purpose of the anti abortion efforts of innerrant
>    Christians?  And what right does any one person have trying to force
>    their morality onto others.  
 
    What right does society have to enforce murder laws?  Rape laws?  Theft
    laws?  What right does society have to enforce any value judgements on
    free citizens?
       
>    What does the Bible say about trying to force a Christian morality on
>    those who are not Christian(or who don't define Christian the same way
>    you do).
    
    What does the Bible say about inaction? About turning your back on
    innocent lives? 
    
    Legally speaking, it has little to do with forcing morality, and a lot
    to do with how a society values human life.  You can't value it on one
    hand and devalue it on the other due to some arbitrary criteria.  This
    is the type of logic used to rationalize slavery.
    
    
    -steve

>    It was number three that I niavely thought the answer was to save
>    innocent lives.  That is not the answer given.  The answers seemed to
>    indicate that forcing others to live righteously before God was more
>    important than saving lives.  The lives seemed inconsequential to the
>    reasoning.

So you read a few answers and decided that saving innocent lives isn't
the motivation.

Nonsense.

I am pro-life to save innocent lives.

I am pro-life _before_ I consider any religious aspects.

But if you want a Biblical aspect (the basis of this conference), God
commands us to love our neighbors as ourselves, and challenges us to
see everyone, even those who we may not want to, as our neighbors.

When I see my neighbor, the unborn child, being attacked by brigands
on the road to life, I am obligated, as a member of society, to stop
and do what I can to help him.

/john

    Steve,
    
    I would agree with your answer(from your perspective) if it was clear
    that the saving of lifes was the issue.  However if saving lifes is the
    issue, then one would come up with all the different ways of saving
    lifes and work on the ones that were most likely to succeed.  When
    people are clear regarding what they are trying to accomplish, then
    there can be many approaches to the problem.
    
    There is a real difference to me in a goal of saving lifes and a goal
    of preventing abortions.
    
                                Patricia

| <<< Note 109.137 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| The anti-slavery movement was trying to prevent those who DO NOT share their 
| beliefs from owning slaves. (they even went a step further and helped many 
| slaves escape via the Underground Railroad)

	Steve, that's fine and dandy, but for the above to work, don't you have
to be comparing apples to apples, and not apples to oranges?

| Why are non-Christians trying to force religion out of the public sector?  

	I don't see too many people doing this with any Christians except those
who are of the shove it down your throat variety. What is wrong though, is many
people take that description, and apply it to all Christians. So when you have
Christians who are not like the above example trying to say or do something,
you get the negative reactions. Is it the Christians fault? No. It is the fault
of the person throwing everyone into one grouping based on <insert reason(s)>.
YES! Can Christians do something about this? I think some are right now. They 
seem to be speaking out against those who are giving Christians a bad rap.

| Why are pro-choicers trying to force their view of relativistic morality off 
| on society?

	This is an incomplete statement. You have Christians who do not see
abortion as wrong, you have Christians who feel abortions due to certain
circumstances are ok. Steve, unless you are one who believes all abortions are
wrong and NONE should EVER happen, you are being relativistic yourself to some
extent, aren't you? 

| Outlawing abortion may reduce the number of innocent lives taken; it may even 
| impose responsibility on people for their actions.  

	Once people address the back alley abortion issue it might.



Glen

    What I see in Patricia's note is a finger pointing almost to shame us
    for wanting to see soul's saved before abortions are performed.
    
    I think the view is skewed incorrectly.  The most important aspect of
    saving lives, is not just the unborn fetuses but the souls that are
    misinformed about when life begins.   The key to stopping abortions
    imho is not via a safety net for those who jump, but to prevent the
    jumping through education and awareness.
    
    To me this is two/fold:
    
    1.  Appeal to the medical/human intellect via medical data.
    
    2.  Appeal to the heart/soul of woman through an evangelistic effort
    for others to receive Christ as their Savior.
    
    Both are necessary...not just one without the other to impact this
    country's current abortion rate.  But THE most important appeal is #2.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    
    

| <<< Note 109.141 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| What I see in Patricia's note is a finger pointing almost to shame us
| for wanting to see soul's saved before abortions are performed.

	That is interesting. I didn't see it as that because she asked
questions, and with the answers given, she came to a conclusion. Maybe it would
have been better if she asked if her assumptions were correct. I know it is
something all Christians should be doing.

	As far as the rest of your note goes, I agree with it.

                  <<< Note 109.140 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Steve, that's fine and dandy, but for the above to work, don't you have
>to be comparing apples to apples, and not apples to oranges?

    	It is apples-to-apples.
    
    	Slavery is wrong.
    
    	Abortion is wrong (don't you agree?)  And forget about the argument
    	that some don't see abortion as being wrong.  Some also didn't
    	see slavery as being wrong either.
    
    	Wrong-to-wrong.
    
    	Apples-to-apples.

    Hi,

    seems to me that this has stirred things up a little. To be honest, I
    have 'sat' upon that entry for just on 2 months. I was so unsure about
    posting it that I asked for some advice from people I consider to be
    more Spiritually mature than I, and *still* delayed posting the note.

    'Distortion' I think was the immediate reaction.

    Hmmmm.

    Let me see. Quite a number of years ago, it was considered unsafe to
    attempt an abortion past the first trimester. Then the 'advance' was
    made to the second trimester. Now, in the base note, we see the further
    'advance' of the third trimester.

    So, all this entry (.112) has done is extrapolate to the future when an
    abortion in the (approx) 23rd trimester is permissable.

    It has always saddened me that you can have a doctor in one room
    fighting to save the life of a baby in the late 2nd trimester, where a
    child, with proper medical attention, will survive. In another, right
    next door virtually, you can have another doctor murdering a baby of
    the *same age* (i.e. late 2nd trimester)!

    Now, it seems (with 3rd trimester abortions), we have the technology to
    virtually deliver the baby, and then "evacuate the skull contents" (was
    that the phrase?). And this is classed as a valid abortion technique?

    You tell me? Is .112 all *that* far fetched?

    And before you have a 'go' at me - keep in mind that in 1989, when my
    (then girl-friend) became pregnant, my gut reaction was 'terminate'.
    That child has brought so much joy to my life in the last 5 years, that
    I can tell you - it would have been a crime to terminate, and I am
    pleased that Karen stood firm against me, and even more so that the
    people in V3 of this conference talked with me, and helped me see the
    wrong which I wanted to commit, and helped me turn from it.

    Admitted, .112 is fiction. But it seems to have provoked some thought.
    ;')

    Harry

| <<< Note 109.143 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>



| It is apples-to-apples.

	No.

| Slavery is wrong.

	In every aspect.

| Abortion is wrong (don't you agree?)  

	Not in every aspect. That's why comparing the 2 of them is comparing
apples to oranges.

| And forget about the argument that some don't see abortion as being wrong.  
| Some also didn't see slavery as being wrong either.

	Joe, even you support abortions under certain circumstances. Is there
any aspect of slavery you would support, or even allow?

| Wrong-to-wrong.

	100% wrong/partial-wrong

| Apples-to-apples.

	Apples-to-oranges



Glen

    re .144
    
    The entry is an exaggeration and a distortion and adds nothing to the
    cause.
    
    the third trimester abortion described is a very small fraction and
    only performed when the mothers life is in danger or when the fetus is
    so badly deformed that it will not live anyway.
    
    There can be no doubt that a baby, child, or grown person held as slave
    are human beings and worthy of being treated with all the worth and
    dignity required for every human being.
    
    There is considerable doubt whether a few ounces of fetal material is a
    human being.  It is basically a religious question to answer when human
    life begins.  It is basically a personal ethical question to answer
    when one human can be obligated to use her body for the benefit of
    another.
    
    Distortion, emotionalism, and extremism lead to extremism.

    When is the destruction of an innocent life not wrong, Glen?
    
    I think that Joe, like myself, will exclude certain circumstances
    with regards to the law, but the compromise made is in legislation
    (without which, there would be no chance of passing any law), not
    morality.
    
    I hold the position that destruction of the unborn is wrong under any
    circumstances.  There are circumstances, however, that society has no
    right to decide for the mother- when her life is in danger, for one
    (legally, this could loosely fall under 'self-defense').
    
    It is never "right" to kill an innocent human life.  
    
    
    -steve

    re: .146
        
>    The entry is an exaggeration and a distortion and adds nothing to the
>    cause.
 
    The entry in question is only meant to provoke thought on what *could*
    happen when we tip too many moral dominoes.  Currently, the moral
    argument of the day is "well, that may be true for *you*, but I don't
    follow your religion".  The simple fact is, society is trying like hell
    (there's a pun here somewhere  8^) ) to confuse the issue of what is
    right and what is not.  The truth is, there is only one truth.  You can
    ignore it, rationalize it away, come up with your own "truth" that you
    are comfortable with; but when you come before your maker, there is
    only one truth that counts- His. 
    
    Currently, most of us (not all, believe it or not) believe murder is
    wrong.  You need only look at US history to see how murder was legal,
    as long as you weren't murdering "citizens".  The argument was that
    black people were not citizens, that they were lesser human beings than
    white people- they were property.  The parallel between slavery and
    abortion is the (il)logic behind the rationale.  The fetus is less than
    human due to it not being fully developed (which is false, it is
    entirely human, though still in development).  Killing it is okay, since
    it is part of the mother's body- property (also false, it is not a
    part of the mother's body, nor should it be considered property any
    more than an infant is considered property).  The list goes on.
    
    If the rationale behind abortion is allowed to continue unchecked,
    future generations WILL take the next step of degredation (whatever
    form it takes).  When you are allowed to devalue one segment of human
    life, you will, sooner or later, rationalize the devaluation of other
    segments of human life.  Since abortion is circumstancially defendent
    in their rationale, so will be the next step in our trip down the
    slippery slope of moral relativism.  When human life is of variable
    value in the minds of a society, it is all too possible that in a time
    of crisis, other segments of human life will be considered expendable
    (read a history book on WWII, particularly Nazi Germany- you can't
    argue that such a thing can't happen here, especially when we are
    already showing signs of devaluing the terminally ill, the deformed,
    and the retarded, in addition to the fetus).
       
>    the third trimester abortion described is a very small fraction and
>    only performed when the mothers life is in danger or when the fetus is
>    so badly deformed that it will not live anyway.
 
    It is a very small %; now.  Previously, 2nd trimester abortions were
    rare, now they are not (though the majority of abortions are 1st-tri).
       
>    There can be no doubt that a baby, child, or grown person held as slave
>    are human beings and worthy of being treated with all the worth and
>    dignity required for every human being.
 
    I agree.  Why is a fetus not considered a human being?  It has a unique
    DNA, making it an individual- a separate life from the mother carrying
    it.  If left alone, it will continue on its development stage until
    born.  It is a human life.  Why devalue it?  We all developed in this
    same way.
      
>    There is considerable doubt whether a few ounces of fetal material is a
>    human being.  It is basically a religious question to answer when human
>    life begins.  
    
    No, it is a scientific fact.  Human life begins at conception.  The
    only question remaining is how much value society will place upon the
    early stages of human development.
    
>    It is basically a personal ethical question to answer
>    when one human can be obligated to use her body for the benefit of
>    another.
 
    Is it ethical to engage in sex (an activity which is well known to
    cause pregnancy), then destroy the fetus when you discover that your
    own actions created a new life that you don't wish to deal with?
    
    The ethics have to come first.  The destruction of the fetus is never
    ethical, regardless of the rationalizations behind it.
       
>    Distortion, emotionalism, and extremism lead to extremism.
    
    There's plenty of this on both sides of the issue.  From the pro-choice
    side, I include the following arguments:
    
    'The fetus is part of the mother's body.'
    'It is not a human life.'
    'It isn't valuable until it reaches X stage of growth.'
    
    ...and similar arguments.
    
    
    
    -steve

Hi Patricia,

.146 � There is considerable doubt whether a few ounces of fetal material is a
.146 � human being.  It is basically a religious question to answer when human
.146 � life begins.  It is basically a personal ethical question to answer
.146 � when one human can be obligated to use her body for the benefit of
.146 � another.

You express a purely humanistic stance there.  This is the 'CHRISTIAN'
conference, where a basis of our understanding is that the Creator, God, 
Author of the Bible, has given clear teaching on these matters.  As we have 
explained before, that is the premise of our conference.  

For you to insist on trying to discuss here as though there were no Bible,
and as though God were merely a product of the imagination, is to violate 
the conference guidelines, and give offense to those who participate here 
in order to share from the viuewpoint of our faith.  It also contravenes 
the company policy of valuing differences.  I hope you appreciate that I am 
not trying to threaten or give offence; merely to request that you try to 
understand where we are coming from in discussing with us.

						Thank you 
							Andrew

RE:         <<< Note 109.146 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

       
   > There is considerable doubt whether a few ounces of fetal material is a
   > human being.  It is basically a religious question to answer when human
   > life begins.  It is basically a personal ethical question to answer
   > when one human can be obligated to use her body for the benefit of
   > another.
    
    
   
   This is an insult to me, and I'm sure many others who participate in this
   conference and adhere the beliefs outlined in 2.* .  And, while I can't
   speak as a woman, I can't help but think that many women who have felt
   life growing within them would be offended at reading of that life as
   an "obligation for the benefit of another".



>Distortion, emotionalism, and extremism lead to extremism.


  Please take your anti Christian, anti life propaganda elsewhere.




 Jim 

    Andrew,
    
    There is two different strands of discussion go on.
    
    1.  This is a Christian notes conference.  The biblical belief of most
    in here is that the fetus is a human life and destroying the fetus is
    murder.  From that perspective, the question is what is the role of the
    Christian concerning the choice of those who do not hold that same
    religious belief to have an abortion.  We are no longer talking about
    the issue of abortion but the issue of controlling the actions of those
    outside your own belief structure.  That is where you get down to
    whether your goal is 
    
    a.  To save lives.
    b.  To win converts.
    
    Based on which of those two you choose, the tactics will be different. 
    i.e. using force in inappropriate to win converts but it may be
    appropriate to save lives.
    
    Steve is claiming that he is not working out of a specific religious
    belief and claiming the self evident fact that the fetus is a human
    life.  That is a position that does not have wide acceptance outside of
    the Innerrant Christian, Pope believing Catholic groups.  It is a
    position that specifically does not have acceptance among all but the
    most conservative of women.  Steve cannot claim as self evident that
    which a majority of people do not believe.
    
    It is difficult carrying multiple related conversations at the same
    time.
    
                                Patricia

    God's existence is evident to all, yet it would seem that many do not
    believe in Him.  Because these people do not believe in God makes no
    difference to the reality of His existence, therefore, nullifying His
    truth to ease our conscience of what our worldly selves wish to
    do/rationalize serves no viable purpose to an individual or society --
    it is a lie.   Of couse, you need not be an atheist to not believe in
    God, you may believe in a God that is of your own making, rather than
    the one who reveals Himself in the Bible.
    
    Patricia, you are correct about the slant of my current argument.  In
    my opinion, the humanity of the unborn is self-evident to all- but is
    rationalized away by many.  How so?  Relativistic thinking/morality.
    (FWIW, the Bible clearly backs up my claim of the humanity of the
    unborn, but such arguments are ignored outside Christian circles).
    
    First, in order to rationalize killing the unborn, society must be
    moved away from absolutes.  Right and wrong must become a variable
    which is completely dependent upon circumstances (situational ethics). 
    Those who are adamant on supporting absolutes must be labelled as
    uncaring and cold, as they do not except emotional circumstances as
    being reason enough to commit a wrong.
    
    Second, desensitization must occur.  Once most of society is used to
    rationalizing a certain wrong, then they are ready for the next step. 
    With the first step (above) complete, it becomes a lot easier to
    rationalize the next step; and with each proceeding step, it gets
    easier and easier to topple the next domino.
    
    This seems to be the basic trend.  From my old personal views, I
    understand the rationalizations, but I also see where they originate
    and the hypocrisy involved in them (which is why I'm always in the
    "frey" when a topic hits upon certain subject).  It is easy to go with 
    the flow, but it is hard to stand firm for a truth that very few seem to
    recognize- especially when you are condemned for such a stand.
    
    To get back to my argument in this string, I have simply found no
    viable pro-choice argument for killing off the unborn.  Not one.  All
    arguments fall into two categories:
    
    1) emotional
    2) illogical
    
    Emotional arguments include the 'the baby is part of the mother's
    body'.  Quite clearly, science tells us that it is dependent upon the
    mother for sustenence, but it is a unique being, not the equivalent to
    an appendix or other organ.
    
    Illogical arguments include 'the right of the woman to abort'.  This
    argument opens us up to devaluing human life.  It promotes unequal 
    application of law for human life.  Those born are protected, those who
    have not yet evacuated the woumb are fair game- due to subject value
    judgements.
    
    You can be tried for murder if you kill a preganant mothers unborn,
    without killing the mother.  However, she can kill it for any number
    of reasons legally.  Such application is based on opinion, which varies by
    individual.  Such subjective criteria for applying law to human life is
    not logical nor reasonable.
    
    Science already states the unborn is a unique human life.  The fact
    that it is dependent upon the mother for sustinence is irrelevent.  The
    stage of development is irrelevent.  It is a unique human life.  If
    left alone, it will continue on its path of development, just like we
    all did at the beginning of our lives.  
    
    Those who cannot see that setting subjective and variable values on human 
    life, for any form of human life, is dangerous, have little foresight and 
    little understanding of human nature.
    
    The real argument, and the one avoided by most pro-choice folk, is not
    the fact of the unborn being human- nor is it regarding it's
    individuality (it has a unique DNA).  These are facts.  The real
    argument is about what value society places on the unborn.  And you
    can't escape the fact that by arguing for abortion, you have to place
    subjective value on the unborn, based on development or circumstance. 
    This, to me, is not a logical position to argue, as everyone's opinion
    seems to vary.  Opinion is not the best basis of argument, nor a good 
    foundation for law.
    
     
    
    -steve 

    re: .144
    
    Harry -
    
    Of course its Distortion.
    Of course its fiction.
    But it touched my heart anyway.
    Thanks for posting it.
    
    Jill2

    Steve,
    
    I appreciate your answer and I do follow your line of thought.  I
    disagree with you regarding many of your assumptions.  Your assumptions
    are based upon your religious beliefs.  It would rathole this
    conversation and be contradictory to the guidelines of this conference
    to argue with your assumptions.  The fact is that you have come to
    conclusions based on assumptions that many people do not agree with.
    
    So the question to you, is what is the appropriate response with and
    to persons who agree neither with your assumptions or your
    conclusions.
    
    

    
>    So the question to you, is what is the appropriate response with and
>    to persons who agree neither with your assumptions or your
>    conclusions.
    
 

  Pray that they would come to know the grace of God through the Lord Jesus
  Christ, and be saved, and do all one can to show them the love and Peace
  available only through Him.




 Jim   

    	.145
    
    	Glen.  You have unfairly distorted my position.  Upon that
    	premise you have created a quicksand argument.
    
    	Abortion *IS* wrong in every circumstance.  Slavery *IS*
    	wrong in every circumstance.  People can conjure arguments
    	for acceptability of either, making the apples-to-apples 
    	comparison all the more appropriate.
    
    	We do not agree on this.  It is fruitless to continue
    	discussing it here with you.

    re .155
    
    That would be wonderful to "unbelievers" if that was the "Christian"
    response rather than tampering with earthly things to control the behavior
    of "unbelievers".
    
    

Patricia,

There are many discussions and approaches relevant to the problem of 
abortion.  This note is specifically concerned with the late term abortion
situation.  Presumably with discussing the legislative situation, and
practical ways to approach and address this, with the aim of warning, and
drawing legislation to the Biblical stance.

This is not to claim that it is 'achievable'; rather, how to represent the 
LORD [live for Him] in a Godless society in this particular area.

When you say :
� We are no longer talking about the issue of abortion but the issue of
� controlling the actions of those outside your own belief structure.

You imply that other people are not created by the one, eternal God,
are not answerable to Him, and will not meet Him on the day of judgement. 

There is only one God.  He is not sharing His authority with any other god, 
who will decide the fate of non-Christians.  

Whether people believe something or not - however fervently - does not 
affect whether it will occur or not.  That is controlled by actual fact.
The fact that many people live as if there were no God does not absolve 
them from all spiritual and moral responsibility.  The mind of man is no 
substitute, because it, itself is fallen.

Incidentally, I'm not sure where you get the idea of linking a belief in 
the Bible with the Pope, or specifically with Catholics.  While there are 
some Catholics who here, the majority of those participating, who believe 
according to the guidelines, are not.  Note that Steve is working from the 
perspective of the conference guidelines, however limiting, or unsupoported 
by popular opinion you feel that is.  It is accepted as self evident here, 
as I have stressed before.

btw, with a moderation eye on this one - it is not appropriate to sidetrack
the discussion from the topic of the note, into addressing its interaction
with the guidelines. Discussion on this basis (including this note) is
liable to be moved away from the mainstream of the note when it is reviewed. 

								Andrew 

    
>    That would be wonderful to "unbelievers" if that was the "Christian"
>    response rather than tampering with earthly things to control the behavior
>    of "unbelievers".
 

   I believe I'd have little arguement with you on this point, if I understand
   it correctly.




 Jim   
    

    .151
    
    >a.  To save lives.
    >b.  To win converts.
    
    I think a and b are one and the same for most Christians.
        
    My focus is not on abortion, morality or other symptoms of this godless
    society.  My focus is on giving hope to the hopeless, love to the
    unloved and salvation to the unsaved.  It is to reach people within
    their hearts with the gospel of Christ.  And when this is accomplished,
    then the result will be a dominoe effect and abortions, immorality and
    violence will begin to lessen.
    
    Analogy:
    
    An alcoholics greatest weapon against the non-drinking is the ability
    to "defocus" off of themselves and onto something else.  Preferably,
    the dofocus in on some area of weakness of the non-drinking person.  
    
    An example;  The husband comes home drunk.  He's not falling over, but
    he's inebriated.  The wife says, "How many drinks did you have?"
    
    The husband says, "How much money did you spend at the mall?"
    
    And then the non-drinking person is put on the defensive and is dealing
    with a financial issue instead of the drinking.
    
    This is exactly what has happened in America today.  
    
    America is screaming Abortion, Violence, and Immorality which has
    defocused Christians off the real issue.  Christians have become judges
    versus missionaries of the gospel through Satan's defocus and
    deception.  The media is a great tool to get Christians defocused.
    
    The real answer and focus for Christians I believe should be:
    
    2Chronicles 7:14  If my people, which are called by my name, shall
    humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked
    ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and 
    will heal their land. 
    
    and the Great Commission
    
    Matthew 28:19  Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them
    in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
    
    I would also like to encourage missionaries to the U.S.  I think that
    there are some young Christians who should be supported by churches to
    travel this country and set up missions just as we do for other
    countries.   
    
    I've started several notes about knocking on doors, about
    evangelization and I have gotten negative reactions from Christians... 
    this concerns me greatly... and it also validates that Satan has done
    an extremely fine job in defocusing God's people off the real issue.
    
    Nancy
    

 re .160




 And all God's people said......

    Nancy/Jim
    
    If "Christians" focused on there mission to win converts rather than
    trying to impact the behavior of non believers, then there would be no
    problem and issue between "Christians" and non "Christians"  If God has
    truly given each individual to chose a particular path  to salvation or
    not choose that path, then don't try to take that God given freedom
    away from people.
    
    So please, focus on the issue of salvation/winning converts etc and let
    those who do not believe as you believe make their own decisions
    regarding what is right and what is wrong.
    
    That is in fact the Biblical answers.  It is also the answer that would
    cause the least problems for others.

    	THis is a very sad topic, and I cannot understand the mindset that
    	says that a Christian response would include arguing for the
    	continuation of abortion -- and expecially abortions of the
    	type described in this topic.

    
    You know Patricia,
        
    I've often pondered if all those folks standing in front of abortion
    clinics were actually knocking on doors and street preaching, the
    number of saved lives [both born and unborn] that would be realized.
    
    {sigh}
    
    Unfortunately, I do believe that Christians need to be active in
    bringing about awareness of what happens during an abortion and results
    on the fetus at different stages of pregnancy that are aborted.
    
    Awareness and Education for the those who reject Christ and then let
    them choose between abortion or not to abort.
    
    For all the Planned Parenthood propoganda that is given in our schools,
    I'd like to see a balance perspective given for those that are
    pro-life.  I don't think either should be forced or "taught", but the
    information available together when these issues come up.
    
    Nancy    

>    So please, focus on the issue of salvation/winning converts etc and let
>    those who do not believe as you believe make their own decisions
>    regarding what is right and what is wrong.
>    
>    That is in fact the Biblical answers.  It is also the answer that would
>    cause the least problems for others.

Sorry, Patricia, but it's only half of the biblical answer.

In the Bible, Jesus tells us enough to know that _he_ is being killed on
abortion tables day after day, and that even though we can turn our back
on the mother and the doctor, we cannot ignore the baby; we have to try
to save every one of them that we can by all reasonable means:

	"I was a baby on the abortion table, and you did not help me."

/john

 Sad indeed, Joe...



  God says in 2 Chron 7:14 that if we humble ourselves and pray and seek his
 face he will hear from Heaven and heal our land.  Problem is, most of the
 people in the land don't know just how sick it is..pick up a newspaper in any
 town in any state in the US and read what is taking place.  Spend a day sitting
 in a courtroom where one after another a young person stands before a judge
 and faces the consequences of a life of sin, watch an evening's news on TV
 (if you can..I can't anymore) and see just how sick we are.



 And still there are those who will stand in congress, or in a state legislature
 or on a talk show, or in a notes conference and argue that we should just 
 stand by and shut up while human life is destroyed in a place where it should
 be safer than anyplace on earth..in the womb of its mother..



Jim

Patricia,

It sounds as if you're asking Christians to disobey Jesus' command to be 
salt and light in the world.  He also inddicated that this would bring 
persecution.  It is not enough to seek a quiet life by avoiding 
confrontation; we need to be open to demonstrate God's principles in our 
lives, and represent Him to others.  Matthew 5:11 onwards spells a lot of 
this out.

In fact, even your personal name has a taste of this!
     <<< Note 109.162 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

 - but is this 'light', the light of Jesus' salvation, or just anyone's
personal light?  Isaiah 50:10-11 says: 
    "Let him who walks in th dark, who has no light, trust in the name of 
     the LORD and rely on his God.
     But now, all yuo who light fires and provide yuorselves with flaming 
     torches, go, walk in the light of your fires and of the torches yuo 
     have set ablaze.
     This is what yuo will receive from My hand: You will lie down in 
     torment."

The fact is that 'right' and 'wrong' in these global issues are not a
matter of personal decision, but of God's direction to the human race.
If you admit that other people are human, then they will only be truly 
fulfilled, according to the measure that they live according to God's 
principles.  Mostly a long way off, but there are those who will eventually 
respond, by His grace.

								Andrew

    re: .154
    
    Hi Patricia,
    
    My "assumptions" are not based upon religion at all.  Look to the
    stars, to the variety and wonder of life, to the perfect balance and
    systems of nature.  God has made His hand in creation apparent to all. 
    Before I knew any revelation of God's nature and love, I knew He
    existed.  My idea of what He was was incomplete and inaccurate, to be
    sure, but there was enough evidence in all the things around me that
    there was a creator behind it all.
    
    How can you look to the heavens and to the complexities of life-forms,
    the order, and the beauty of all that is around you, and believe that it
    all happened due to random chance.  Why is it we marvel when looking at
    nature's beauty? (it was designed for us to marvel over)  My soul was
    not formed by evolution of consciousness, nor was it a product of
    random chance. 
    
    My other "assumption" has to do with people knowing the inherent value
    of human life, regardless of its stage of developement.  This may be an
    assumption, but I feel it is an accurate one, for the most part.  I
    won't argue this, though.
    
    The basis of my arguments in this string, however, does not revolve
    around the above "assumptions", but on three simple facts:
    
    1) The fetus is human (what else could it possibly be but human?).
    2) It has a unique DNA, therefore is a unique human life.
    3) The fetus is alive.
    
    These are scientific facts, and have nothing to do with religion
    (though the Bible backs up the above facts).  From these three facts,
    we can determine that all the ongoing arguments revolve around a
    subjective value judgement (at what point will society give value to
    the fetus).
    
    I say that such subjective values are illogical.  You either value
    human life or you don't.  You can't arbitrarily pick a number out of a
    hat and say "at this point on, it is valued and should be protected".
    
    
    -steve

    
    >It is basically a religious question to answer when human life begins.  
    >It is basically a personal ethical question to answer when one human 
    >can be obligated to use her body for the benefit of another.
    
    That's interesting consider the Supreme Court has ruled that due to
    scientific evidence that life begins at conception.  So it's not just
    a "religious" question.
    
    >a.  To save lives.
    >b.  To win converts.
    
    Hmmm....both are saving lives.  One physically, the other spiritually.
    Both value life as God created it.
    
    >If "Christians" focused on there mission to win converts rather
    >than trying to impact the behavior of non believers, then there would 
    >be no problem and issue between "Christians" and non "Christians"
    
    So your saying believe what you will, but don't leave any impact on
    this world and we'll be happy.  This is unacceptable.  We have a 
    commission to impact this world, to turn it upside down even!  We're 
    not here to please anyone but God.  I refuse to compartmentalize my 
    faith so that it doesn't inconvenience anyone by having them question 
    the morality of their choices.  
    
    Jilla
    [EOB]
    
     

 ...and all God's people said..

    As I began this discussion, if the purpose is to save lives, there are
    a number of different ways to reduce the number of abortions and to
    save lifes.
    
    1.  teaching responsibility to both men and women,
    2.  providing good access to birth control
    3.  teach respect toward women to our young men
    4.  provide good prenatal care and infant nutrition.
    5.  etc etc. 
    
    This has proven to be effective in other countries.
    
    It also means the elimination of such hypocracies as fighting to
    eliminate abortion and fighting for the death penalty at the same time.
    
    
    The specific answers show that for most, reducing the number of
    abortions is not the real concern.  That is just an issue used to
    excite emotionalism and rally for an agenda that means imposing one's
    life style on others who want no part of it.

    >How Niave i am to think that there can be a common ground!
    
    Patricia, with all due respect, we've been saying since you joined this
    conference that the common ground is the authority of God's Word, the
    Bible.  I don't think you are naive, but just stubborn enough and caring
    enough to keep trying. 
    
    But this stubborn, caring side of your nature will not prevail against
    those of us who have established *this* conference in a belief of the
    inerrancy of scripture and the guidelines it establishes by which we
    try to live our lives.
    
    Peace by unto you,
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 109.147 by CSOA1::LEECH "Dia do bheatha." >>>

| When is the destruction of an innocent life not wrong, Glen?

	The term is abortion. If a mother's life is in danger, if she has been
raped, these are 2 areas where a lot of people who are against abortion (like
me) will allow one.



Glen

| <<< Note 109.156 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Abortion *IS* wrong in every circumstance.  Slavery *IS* wrong in every 
| circumstance.  People can conjure arguments for acceptability of either, 
| making the apples-to-apples comparison all the more appropriate.

	If they can make it acceptable, and they view it as wrong, then they
are hypocrites, aren't they? I view abortion as being wrong as a means of birth
control. I view it as right if a mothers life is in danger, and she chooses to
have one. 



Glen

         <<< Note 109.162 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>


	GREAT NOTE Patricia!!!

re .175  But it's wrong.  See my reply in .165.

| <<< Note 109.176 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| re .175  But it's wrong.  See my reply in .165.

	I read your .165. It is STILL a great note Patricia!

Patricia, 

I'm puzzled by your 109.171.  It implies that either you haven't read, or 
that you have totally misunderstood, what has been entered on this topic.

Does the God of the Bible enter into your practical consideration of how
people should live? 


								Andrew 

    re: .173
    
    "Allow one legally", yes.  But the question I posed to you was, "when
    is the destruction of an innocent life not wrong?".
    
    Life of mother and rape are two extremes that none (that I know of) would 
    be willing to try to put in legislation limiting abortions (me
    included).  In either case, is it actually "right" to kill the unborn? 
    
    
    
    -steve  

    Hi Patricia,
    
>    As I began this discussion, if the purpose is to save lives, there are
>    a number of different ways to reduce the number of abortions and to
>    save lifes.
    
>    1.  teaching responsibility to both men and women,
    
    You can teach all you like.  The simple fact is that men and women (and 
    teens) don't wish to act responsibly.  Therein lies the problem.  The
    problem is further confused as we have several different definitions of
    responsible sexual behavior.  Group A says abstain until you are
    married.  Group B says use a condom.  Which one is promoting real
    responsibility in this area?
    
    When people are still being promiscuous with the threat of AIDS
    looming over their heads, I get the impression that very little esle has
    a chance at disuading them from their irresponsibility.  You have to
    get to the heart of the issue and deal with it on another level if you
    wish to change behaviors.  BC, and most other PC sexuality teachings
    regarding sexual ethics, only skip over the real problem.  They treat
    the symptoms, not the disease (like taking aspirin for a brain tumor).
    
>    2.  providing good access to birth control
    
    Bandaid on a broken arm.  There is already good access to BC, and it
    isn't doing a lot to stem the tide of abortions that is sweeping this
    nation.  This merely promotes the behaviors that cause the problem to
    begin with.
    
>    3.  teach respect toward women to our young men
    
    How do you go about this?  (not that I disagree with the premise)
    
    How about teaching the young ladies that virginity is a virtue and
    should not be given up before marriage, in addition?  
    
>    4.  provide good prenatal care and infant nutrition.
    
    This is not a factor in most abortions, if any.
        
>    It also means the elimination of such hypocracies as fighting to
>    eliminate abortion and fighting for the death penalty at the same time.
    
    Apples and oranges, as Glen would say.  8^)  Both are distict issues
    that cannot be easily tossed into the same category.  But we've been
    over this one before, so I won't kick a dead mule.
    
>    The specific answers show that for most, reducing the number of
>    abortions is not the real concern.  That is just an issue used to
>    excite emotionalism and rally for an agenda that means imposing one's
>    life style on others who want no part of it.
    
    It has nothing to do with "life style", but of protecting a segment of
    the human population that is currently not protected by law.  As I've
    said repeatedly in this string, you need not have religious convictions
    to see that the destruction of the unborn is not a good thing, and
    should be restricted.
    
    Emotionalism comes into play when you decided that circumstances rule
    the day; when life is devalued due to the opinions of others.  This is
    not logical application of law.
    
    Regarding your first sentence, above, I had addressed this concern of 
    yours previously.  It seems you did not understand my position or that
    of others who responded.  If you like, I can try explaining from a
    different angle, for clarification.
    
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    I think your all wet in your assumptions and analysis. (but then again,
    you don't give me A pluses for my assumptions either).  But I can
    accept that.  The rightness or wrongness of my opinions have nothing to
    do with your approval of them or the approval of them by any other
    human.  I would like to recognize myself as being prophetic at least in
    the sense espouse by James Luther Adams a tremendous Unitarian Universalists
    theologian.  In a wonderful twist of words, he proclaims the
    "Prophethood of all believers."
    
    It is a fact that there is a difference of opinion on some very basic
    issues regarding what is human life.  Repeating doctrines forever does
    not change the fact that there is a basic difference of opionion.
    
    There is a lack of clarity by many in here regarding exactly what the
    goal is.
    
    There is an emotionalism, and  distortion perpetuated in here and in
    the world at large regarding that issue.  That distortion and
    emotionalism has lead in the world outside of here to terrorism and
    murder. 
    
    It is senseless to try to argue about what is the right position about
    abortion.   It is a much more viable question to ask, what position
    should Innerrant Christians take regarding the acts of those who don't
    believe as you believe.  There is also a ton of biblical literature on
    how to treat non believers.  Use it.
    
    I really do respect positions that are clear.  I don't agree with John
    Covert's position, but I admire his position for being clear and
    coherent.  I have not seen the same level of clarity in any of the
    other positions espoused.  I have no intention to argue with anyone
    here on the rightness or wrongness of abortion.  I will argue with you
    regarding how far you are willing to go in preventing others with views
    different than yours for making there own choices on the issue.  And
    I'm not only going to argue about your personnel choices, but also
    about the impact of distortions and particularly on the impact of those
    distortions on the mentally ill, who seem all to willing to pick up the
    campaign as they understand it, and act in ways that are clearly
    unethical.
    
    It is clear that the desire to control the behavoir of those who do not
    believe as you believe go well beyond trying to prevent abortions.  It
    goes into trying to control the choices regarding human sexuality of
    women and other oppressed groups.  There is no biblical support for
    your trying to legislate/influence the sexual behavoirs of those who do
    not fit within your community.
    
                               Patricia
    

Patricia,

Reiterating your confusion concerning clear Biblical teaching does not 
justify rejecting the conference guidelines in your noting.  Nor does 
emphasising that there are many people who do not accept the Bible.

If you are unable to discuss this topic within the conference guidelines, 
and feel that an alternative discussion is more relevant, start that 
alternative discussion, but do not attempt to use your personal divergence 
from the guidelines as an excuse to declare others' discussions 
meaningless.

The doctrines you rubbish are the tenets and guidelines of the conference. 
They are also held sacred by those who wish to participate within those 
guidelines.

Please note that replies repeating this approach will be rejected.  

							Andrew Yuille
							co-moderator

    Andrew,
    
    I believe that you are entirely misinterpreting my note and intention.
    
    I am stating that based on the guidelines and beliefs of this
    conference, most here shared the view that abortion is wrong.  I am in
    no way trying to change that belief or argue that belief.  I am
    accepting that as the overwhelming majority belief here.
    
    Outside of this conference and outside of the  churches represented by
    the participants here, are many people who do not share your beliefs. 
    Again, I am not arguing whether these people are right or wrong.  Just
    identifying the fact of their existence.
    
    I am trying to direct my question on the appropriate behavoir for
    those within this group toward those who are outside the group.  I also ask
    what is the responsibility for those within this group in making sure that
    their teaching is not interpreted incorrectly and used as an
    excuse for terror. 
    
    My intention is to stay within the conference guidelines and not in any
    way argue with those guidelines.
    
    In thinking of the Gospels, I ask what role Jesus played in actively 
    seeking  to impact the conduct of those outside of the Jewish
    community.  He certainly included outsiders when they showed an
    interest, but he did not directly deal with them.  He did tell his
    disciples to preach the Word and win converts, but he did also have a
    clear message to his disciples about what to do, if they were not
    accepted and not listened to.
    
    Paul too in a couple of passages suggests that the discipline warranted
    within the Christian community was for those saints within the
    community.  In fact, he suggests throwing people out of the community,
    such as in Corinthian (5?)  would mean physical death to them because
    they were no longer within the realm of Christ's protection.
    
    So what is the biblical source used to forcibly stop someone outside
    the community from seeking and obtaining an abortion?
    
                             patricia

>    There is a lack of clarity by many in here regarding exactly what the
>    goal is.

There is not a lack of clarity, there is a lack of unity.  We all 
believe that abortion is wrong, but each of us take different approaches 
towards the subject.  
    

>    There is an emotionalism, and  distortion perpetuated in here and in
>    the world at large regarding that issue.  That distortion and
>    emotionalism has lead in the world outside of here to terrorism and
>    murder. 

You say "emotionalism" as though its a bad word.  Emotionalism is a part 
of every human being.  We all *feel*.  The key is do we guide our lives 
by our emotions or by common sense?  Or is there a balance between the 
two?

I think it is impossible to say that abortion is not an emotional debate 
for *most*.  And I believe that for those that abortion is not an 
emotional debate is due to the devaluation of *human* life in our world 
today.  

As human beings when our lives are threatened most of us will be come 
extremely emotional and defensive.  Because, our own lives are precious. 
But in our society, the breakdown begins here.  This society has been 
taught a "self" awareness program to the extent that many cross over the 
line of self awareness to self centeredness.  It is through an appealing 
to our basic human nature of "self" regarding the value of life that 
some headway can be made towards discouraging an abortion and maybe even 
preventing an abortion.

You seem to espouse a belief that we can unite is some formal plan to 
prevent abortions.  And perhaps there are some things that can be agreed 
upon i.e., education and awareness of what actually is an abortion.  I 
think medical colleges who provide training on abortions could also 
provide the public with the *real* view of what happens to both the 
fetus and the mother during an abortion.  

Back to subject... :-)  But I believe that each individual is unique and 
that while a formal agreed upon plan may work for some, that an 
emotional plea will reach hearts as well.

BTW, I still believe that *this* is an emotional argument.

    
>    It is senseless to try to argue about what is the right position about
>    abortion.   It is a much more viable question to ask, what position
>    should Innerrant Christians take regarding the acts of those who don't
>    believe as you believe.  There is also a ton of biblical literature on
>    how to treat non believers.  Use it.

You know Patricia, this paragraph is very condescending.  I feel as 
though you are saying that I and others who have noted with you in this 
topic are stupid because we stand for a moral decision on abortion.  I'd 
appreciate since you believe we are "senseless" that you take your 
arguments elsewhere.  Obviously, we do not have the capability to meet 
you at your high intellectual level.  Why bother with us?

    
>    I really do respect positions that are clear.  I don't agree with John
>    Covert's position, but I admire his position for being clear and
>    coherent.  I have not seen the same level of clarity in any of the

Again, why bother with us?
    
>    It is clear that the desire to control the behavoir of those who do not
>    believe as you believe go well beyond trying to prevent abortions.  It
>    goes into trying to control the choices regarding human sexuality of
>    women and other oppressed groups.  

Again, you are very condescending is this paragraph. You keep saying you 
are here to reason, but then you throw insult after insult at the noters 
here regarding their intelligience, their spirituality and their ability 
to reason.  

I no longer believe that you are here for reason.  I think its evidenced 
in this note and others that you are here to elevate yourself above us 
and show us our stupidity.

>    There is no biblical support for
>    your trying to legislate/influence the sexual behavoirs of those who do
>    not fit within your community.

I've shown you Biblical support for my position.  

Nancy

    
    

    Patricia,
    
    I suggest you read 2.8 of this conference and then determine if 
    you have been noting within this conference's guidelines.
    

    re: .183
    
    Regarding what Jesus told his desciples when they were rejected...
    
    To keep this in perspective, Jesus was speaking to those who were to go
    out into the world (those that left home to evangelize other cities and
    countries).  If they reject the teaching, wipe the dust off your feet
    as a sign against them, then move on.
    
    Jesus said nothing about ignoring wrongful behaviors and evil acts in
    our own back yard.  He did not say turn a blind eye towards what
    happens in our society.
    
    The key is finding where the line is to be drawn.  When innocent lives
    are at stake, we should do all we can (legally) to protect them.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 109.183 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>



	Patricia, great note!

    <<< Note 109.184 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


	Nancy, the 1st � of this note was absolutely wonderful. The 2nd � of
this note sounded like you were going against Patricia, based on her beliefs
that differ from yours. I had thought that wasn't allowed in this conference?
That was what you told me before.


Glen

 The woman who was "Jane Roe" in the Roe vs Wade case has become a Christian,
 and renounced her pro-abortion stance, though she did (if I heard correctly)
 indicate sympathy for early term abortions.  She had some negative things
 to say about the Pro-choice movement.  On the ABC News this evening 
 the report showed her being baptised.  Unfortunately I wasn't able to
 get the entire report, though I heard her say her feelings began to 
 change when she walked by a park and saw empty swings swaying in the breeze,
 and she thought "there should be children in those swings"..

 I pray for her growth in the Lord, and that the prolife movement won't
 exploit her salvation.


 Jim

	Yes, I was tipped off that the segment would be on, got it on tape,
and called into a local radio talk show while it was on.  Ted Koppel is
going to interview Norma McCorvey ("Jane Roe") tonight on Nightline.

	It sounds as though she has simply responded to the love of Christ,
as demonstrated by the pastor and by the Operation Rescue people.  I don't
believe they want to exploit her, but I agree that we should pray for her.
Notoriety and fame (and the pursuit of them) can do strange things to
famous people, and to many of the people around them.  She certainly has
been through a lot of pain, and the healing will take time.

						Bless the Lord!
						Bob Sampson

| "I am watching out for Norma now; I'm not watching out for other women,"
| McCorvey said, explaining that she is tired of the notoriety. 


	This is pretty sad considering she just became a born again Christian.
To be putting herself first, makes me wonder if the rules have changed......



Glen

Hi Glen,

I'm not sure of the significance of 'watching our for' in the U.S., but 
it has a measure of ambiguity here.  I took it to mean that she'd got to 
get herself right before she took any sort of public stand regarding other 
people.  Her stance on abortion sounds transitional rather than conclusive, 
for instance.  She's been very much in the public eye on the abortion
issue, and it is generally inappropriate to plunge a newly committed
Christian into a position where they are liable to be publicly asked for 
statements on things they have not thought through afresh.

							Andrew

	Andrew, I could believe what you were saying if it weren't for one fact
that I heard after I wrote my note. The guy who baptized her in the Spirit had
said to the woman that she is partly to blame for <insert # of abortions that
happened since the case>. She can only be blamed for ONE abortion, which was
hers. Not ALL of the other abortions in the country!!! For this guy to say that
to her, it burns me up. Why can't he go on the merits, and not on pure guilt?
The guy outright lied to her by saying she had any responsibility for all the
other abortions. 

	And incase you're wondering, I heard the guy say it himself this
morning on a clip taken from the Today Show. It was during their news segment.
(he was on later to talk live)


Glen

>She can only be blamed for ONE abortion, which was hers.

She never had an abortion.

But she did lie to the Supreme Court.  She was not pregnant as the
result of a rape.

/john

'Jane Roe' has change of heart, but still supports some abortion rights
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

(c) 1995 Fort Worth Star-Telegram

DALLAS (Aug 10, 1995 - 22:42 EDT) -- Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the
1973 landmark Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion, said on Thursday
that she has quit her abortion clinic job and has joined forces with
Operation Rescue.

But she said she still supports a woman's right to an abortion in the first
trimester.

In a move that stunned many, the best known symbol of the abortion rights
movement said she has become a born-again Christian after her baptism
Tuesday by the anti-abortion group's president Flip Benham in a suburban
backyard pool.

"I am watching out for Norma now; I'm not watching out for other women,"
McCorvey said, explaining that she is tired of the notoriety. She will
perform clerical duties for Operation Rescue but will not become a movement
spokeswoman, she said. "I don't have that burden anymore."

McCorvey, 48, said her conversion occurred over several months. "It was a
gradual change. It wasn't something where I just woke up one day and said I
am not going to be 'Jane Roe' any more."

Her videotaped baptism was aired on ABC-TV's "Prime Time" news program
Thursday night, followed by numerous local interviews and an appearance by
McCorvey on ABC's "Nightline". The coverage represented a coup for Benham's
movement.

But it wasn't a total victory.

McCorvey, while now considering herself "pro-life," said she still supports
a women's right to an abortion through the 11th week of pregnancy.

"It's not a contradiction," she said in an interview. "I feel like a woman
has a right to choose. It's her decision in the first trimester. After the
first trimester it gets sticky."

Asked whether she thought abortion should be outlawed, she said, "I think it
should be illegal after (a woman's) second abortion."

Benham said he understands McCorvey's stand, but thinks it will change,
explaining: "I owned a saloon for the first six months after I accepted
Christ. It's not an immediate thing."

McCorvey said she is rededicating her life to Jesus Christ but will continue
in what Benham has described as a sinful, "un-Christian lifestyle."  [See
full article in other conferences for deleted text.]

Sarah Weddington, McCorvey's attorney in the landmark Roe case, downplayed
the impact of her former client's change of heart.

"My first reaction was, 'My God, we don't need this,' " Weddington said,
then added: "I think the opposition will try to use it to hurt the (abortion
rights) movement, but I don't think it will. I think it's one little hill
we'll have to get over."

After Benham relocated Operation Rescue's national office next door to A
Choice for Women, an abortion clinic that employed McCorvey as marketing
director, he prayed publicly for McCorvey and struck up a friendship with
her.

"Lord, thank you for changing Norma McCorvey's heart," Benham prayed out
loud three months ago. "Norma will never tell anyone, but we see it."

Soon, McCorvey was on a first-name basis with Operation Rescue staff
members, even helping a daughter of Benham's secretary, Rhonda Wright, with
her homework.

Benham quickly learned that McCorvey felt "used" by the abortion rights
movement, he told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram then.

"She doesn't want to be known just for Roe vs. Wade but for herself," Benham
said in May. "She thought it was her worst nightmare... Norma is a lot
closer to the Kingdom of God that one would suspect. She is honestly
searching."

McCorvey said that she began attending Hillcrest Bible Church in North
Dallas with Wright and felt so moved at a July 23 service that she walked up
to the altar to be saved.

McCorvey's conversion did not surprise everybody.

"It's been coming for several months," said Mark Crutcher, director of Life
Dynamics, a Denton group that assists medical malpractice attorneys who sue
on behalf of women injured during abortions. "When we first knew Norma was
having doubts about her position, at that moment it became a matter of time,
because you can't do what they do if you have doubts."

And a former supporter, Dallas lawyer Linda Coffee, said she, too, could
understand the change.

"She is a person who has a great need for attention and obviously Flip
Benham has filled that need in her life," said Coffee, co-counsel on the Roe
case.

Some abortion rights leaders downplayed McCorvey's involvement in the
abortion rights movement on Thursday, leading Crutcher to say: "Until today,
you cannot find one example of anybody on that side saying, 'Well, Norma
McCorvey is just a bit player."

Hi Glen,

This begins (?) to sound a bit confused.

� The guy who baptized her in the Spirit had

Jesus is the one Who baptises us in the Holy Spirit (John 1:33).

I rather think you really meant to refer to the person who baptised her in
water? 

And what he said is irrelevant to her personal motivation, which was the 
point in question.

								Andrew

    I think we need to excercise patience with this lady and pray a lot for
    her. When I first got saved I still held a lot a lot of views which now
    I consider absolute trash. New christians don't suddenly get a theology
    degree the minute they're saved, they need time to develop, learn and
    understand the truth. We need to pray that she is planted in good soil
    where all the nutrients she needs are provided (ie sound biblical
    teaching, freedom of the Holy Spirit, herds of love. etc.). I am sure
    that if she is given these things then her views will change. 
    
    I think this is the danger when famous people get saved - they are
    immediately thrust into the public eye and are expected to have all the
    answers when, in fact, they are still learning themselves.
    
    Love
    Ben

 Amen, Ben, particularly in this instance.  I know even when I recommitted my
 life to the Lord 2.5 years ago, I had some adjustments to make.  I *knew*
 I wanted to serve God, but there were things that had become part of my life
 that took some time to let go.  I found many things that I heard as being
 almost a "foreign language".  With all the attention she is going to get, it
 wil be a while before she is on her feet. 



 Jim

    Me too.  I was forced into a situation right after I was saved
    where I had to defend my faith in an almost debate fashion.  Needless
    to say I didn't stand a chance.  It takes time to learn and grow.  
    So many people out there expect total instant conversion, and when
    you fail to know all the answers and be perfect, they are inclinded to
    say your conversion never happened.  We need to pray for this woman
    that God will protect her during this growing process.
    
    Jill2

 Amen, Jill2, Amen..and the media will be all over her, I'm sure.





 Jim

    I just love to watch the power of God move in a life and resurrect it.
    
    Mike

    Did anyone say up to watch Nightline?  I wonder how badly that twit
    Koppel treated her.
    
    Mike

 I watched, though I was only able to catch bits and pieces.  It seemed to 
 me that Koppel was trying to "trip her up" on a couple of points.  He appeared
 to me to be "bothered" by her conversion.


 
 Jim

    figures.  Our "media" makes me sick.  Gone are the days when we had
    respected journalists who reported (and interviewed) the facts 
    objectively and allowed the public to make their own intelligent decisions 
    about events.  All we have today are a bunch of editorialists telling
    us what we should think.
    
    "when the ratings point the camera's eye
     they mistake the facts by telling a lie"
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 109.196 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>



| I rather think you really meant to refer to the person who baptised her in
| water?

	Yup.

| And what he said is irrelevant to her personal motivation, which was the point
| in question.

	Andrew, what he said was nothing more than a lie. She is not
responsible for anyone who got an abortion. For him to say to her that
she was, is nothing more than him telling a lie. Using lies and guilt isn't
a way that should be used to bring one to Him. He isn't built on lies. The
other one is. In other words, the ends don't justify the means.


Glen

Everyone who encourages abortion bears some responsibility for every abortion.

/john

| <<< Note 109.204 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| Our "media" makes me sick. Gone are the days when we had respected journalists
| who reported (and interviewed) the facts objectively and allowed the public to
| make their own intelligent decisions about events. All we have today are a 
| bunch of editorialists telling us what we should think.

	Wow..... and this is based on one person saying he was trying to trip
her up on a couple of points. And the points were never mentioned. How nice.
Considering what one of the points is, I can see any and everyone trying to
find out what she is doing. I'd tell you the point, but we can't discuss it
here. Send mail if you really want to know.

	I wonder why you would write what you did Mike without ever seeing the
show yourself?

| "when the ratings point the camera's eye they mistake the facts by telling a 
| lie"

	How nice..... what a lovely statement to make when you never saw the
show.


Glen

| <<< Note 109.206 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| Everyone who encourages abortion bears some responsibility for every abortion.

	WRONG!  It is still the decision of the person who is having one. There
are people who encourage murder. Does that make them responsible for someone
murdering someone else or is it the person who pulled the trigger, to slash the
throat, etc? They have the final decision to make. They are responsible for
their own actions. If kids say they did something due to peer pressure, do you
turn around and say, "Ok.... you're not responsible for what happened, the
others are." 


Glen

>There are people who encourage murder. Does that make them responsible

Yes.

/john

    
    Glen, I watched Nightline last night and her statement about watching
    out for herself was in response to Koppel's insistence about her 
    impact politically.  She said this wasn't about politics.  This was
    about her salvation.  She's the only one who could make that decision
    so she's right in that her decision was based on watching out for
    herself.  She wasn't thinking about what effect it would have on the
    rest of the nation.  Who of us had to decide whether we should accept
    God's indescribable gift because of how it might affect millions of
    other Americans whom we don't even know?  It's a personal decision,
    that was her point.
    
    I pray that she will grow in Christ and that she won't be tormented
    by the press and other organizations, whether pro-choice or pro-life.
    
    Jilla

    I am so encouraged by this... isn't it amazing that so many renowned
    anti-christian values individuals have come to admit their own guilt
    before God and come to know Him as Savior!?!!!?
    
    I near cried reading this article.... patience is what we should have
    with each other as Christians regardless of amount of time saved. :-)
    
    

   Amen!


     what can wash away my sin?
     nothing but the blood of Jesus.

| <<< Note 109.209 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| >There are people who encourage murder. Does that make them responsible

| Yes.

	So the peron who actually pulled the trigger may never of heard this
person speak, yet they are responsible for that person pulling the trigger?


Glen

| <<< Note 109.210 by CSC32::KINSELLA >>>


| Glen, I watched Nightline last night and her statement about watching out for 
| herself was in response to Koppel's insistence about her impact politically.  

	I was actually referring to the statement in the news text of John's
note, and what I heard her say on the Today Show. The way she seemed to put it
was she was not going to be taken advantage of by OR like she felt she was with
those wishing to have abortions. That she was only going to look out for
herself.

| She's the only one who could make that decision so she's right in that her 
| decision was based on watching out for herself.  

	If she is the only one who could make the decision as you stated above,
would you also agree that she is the only one who could make the decision to
have an abortion? And that she is not at all responsible for any other abortion
that happened, as only those people can make that decision?



Glen

| <<< Note 109.211 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| I am so encouraged by this... isn't it amazing that so many renowned
| anti-christian values individuals have come to admit their own guilt
| before God and come to know Him as Savior!?!!!?

	I see what you write, but it amazes me you wrote it. It might actually
be that you don't know about her whole life situation. Because I can't fathom
why you would say she has come to know Him as Savior, when there is a big part
of her life that you have stated in the past to others makes it so they can't
see Him as their Savior.


Glen

 re .215


 
 Parse-o-meter overload

    	Glen,
    
    	Why do you always seem to find yourself on the pro-abortion side
    	of these debates?

>| >There are people who encourage murder. Does that make them responsible
>
>| Yes.
>
>So the peron who actually pulled the trigger may never of heard this
>person speak, yet they are responsible for that person pulling the trigger?

Possibly.  If their encouragement of murder contributed to whatever conditions
caused the trigger to be pulled, yes.

/john

| <<< Note 109.217 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Why do you always seem to find yourself on the pro-abortion side of these 
| debates?

	This isn't about pro-life vs pro-choice. This is about the ends not
justifying the means. This is about a person who lied. Regardless of whether
the person who lied is pro-life or not is not the issue I am discussing. If you
would like to bring that aspect of it into the conversation, then fine. But
then we will be talking about something brand new.


Glen

| <<< Note 109.218 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| >So the peron who actually pulled the trigger may never of heard this
| >person speak, yet they are responsible for that person pulling the trigger?

| Possibly.  If their encouragement of murder contributed to whatever conditions
| caused the trigger to be pulled, yes.

	Wow..... and people think I'm twisted.....

    Glen,
    
    I know to what you are referring and I stand by what I've written. 
    What I've stated in the past had nothing to do with this issue, but
    more to do with knowing God through the inerrant word of God and
    believing the Bible to only be a "book" of historical events.
    
    I've since come to know differently things that you and I haven't
    discussed, but hey, since when do I have to account to you for
    anything.
    
    Nancy

From listening to her speak for herself on Nightline, it looks like she is
much more opposed to abortion than the press articles indicate.

But the media are refusing to listen to her, and refusing to report what
she's actually saying, except when she actually says it herself on live TV.

	"I believe in a woman's right to have an abortion
	 during the first trimester but only in certain very
	 necessary cases, such as when the child will be seriously
	 deformed, like having no brain."

So do most pro-life people, for varying values of "seriously deformed".

/john

                  <<< Note 109.219 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	This isn't about pro-life vs pro-choice. ...
>This is about a person who lied. 
    
    	Who lied?  And who set you up as the authority to determine
    	what is a lie and what is not?
    
    	I stand by my original statement.  You find yourself on the
    	pro-abortion side of these discussions a vast majority of times,
    	yet you continue to claim that you are against abortions.  It
    	wouldn't be hard for someone to draw conclusions about lies from 
    	that if one wanted to.

| <<< Note 109.221 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I know to what you are referring and I stand by what I've written. What I've 
| stated in the past had nothing to do with this issue, but more to do with 
| knowing God through the inerrant word of God and believing the Bible to only 
| be a "book" of historical events.

	Are you saying that you think there are other things besides the Bible
that give historical events? How that changes things, I'm not sure, as unless
you have taken up other things besides the Bible to live your life by (and your
interpretations of said book), then other items, or books, etc, wouldn't come
into play.

	Now.... if you have viewed things differently, then I guess you will
admit that I am a Christian. 


Glen

| <<< Note 109.223 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>



| Who lied?  And who set you up as the authority to determine
| what is a lie and what is not?

	His own words make him a liar. Joe, are you one who believes
individuals are responsible for their own actions, not someone else? 
If so, then you will see clearly where he lied.

| You find yourself on the pro-abortion side of these discussions a vast 
| majority of times,

	Your statement above is an outright lie, Joe. Either back it with
facts, or delete it.



Glen

    Glen,
    
    Why do you need my approval of your Christianity?
    
    I have my own personal opinion about some things which are better left
    unsaid between God and me.  In my not too recent past, I may not have
    had this lesson learned.  
    
    As far as I'm concerned its between you and God.  Anything further
    comment would only be fruitless.
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 109.226 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Why do you need my approval of your Christianity?

	Why do I need? I don't. I have His. But I am interested in how you can
accept her salvation when she really isn't any different than I. Well, except
that she has been in a relationship for 22 years.

| As far as I'm concerned its between you and God.  

	On this, we agree.

| Anything further comment would only be fruitless.

	After the above has been said, I don't think it would be fruitless.
Because now it would just be your opinion. Much different than before.


Glen

    I think it's a little too soon to base approval on something she's been
    doing prior to her salvation.  It would be best to watch how the Lord
    matures her and what decisions He influences her to make.  This will be
    the sign of who is in control of her life now.
    
    Mike

 "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men"..we do the fishin' God
 does the cleanin'.




 That's what my pastor likes to say.



 Jim

                      <<< Note 109.225 by BIGQ::SILVA "Dabble" >>>

>| Who lied?  And who set you up as the authority to determine
>| what is a lie and what is not?
>
>   His own words make him a liar. 

    	My opinion sees it otherwise.  

    	Why should your opinion prevail as the truth?  (I think the
    	problem is your insistence on using a word so strong as LIAR.)

>| You find yourself on the pro-abortion side of these discussions a vast 
>| majority of times,
>
>	Your statement above is an outright lie, Joe. Either back it with
> facts, or delete it.

    	Oh is it?  How often do you agree with me in the abortion topics
    	of various conferences?  How often do you disagree?  I'd estimate
    	that the latter prevails the vast majority of the time.

    	I always take the anti-abortion position.  (I rarely use absolutes
    	like that...)  You frequently take a position opposite mine,
    	therefore "You find yourself on the pro-abortion side of these
    	discussions."  Note that I'm not saying that you are pro-abortion.
    	We rarely are at odds on the question of abortion in general.  No,
    	instead it's always on peripheral issues like the one currently
    	at hand.  But my observation about you stands, and I'm curious 
    	why you do it.  It is my suspicion that you will do it less 
    	frequently once I'm off the net...
    
    	Again, I think the problem here is your insistence on using
    	the word LIE.

    	As for deleting my note, fat chance.  It would take moderator
    	action to do that, and when I've outmaneuvered someone so 
    	thoroughly that their only recourse is moderator action, I
    	know I've won.

    >and when I've outmaneuvered someone so 
    >        thoroughly that their only recourse is moderator action, I
    >        know I've won.
    
    And what is the prize?
    
    Truth doesn't need to win, it *will* prevail.  We as Christians often
    find ourselves caught up in today, and forget that God has control over
    time and today is merely a blip. :-)
    
    Where is the love?  Where is the love?  Anybody remember that song?
    
    

    Nancy,

>    Where is the love?  Where is the love?  Anybody remember that song?

    if I were to admit to this, it might disclose my age :'}

    Harry

    '...now where did I put those flares, and the platform shoes...'

    	re .231
    
    	Nancy -- when the discussion is hopelessly mired in the same
    	old circular argument to no end, and all that's left is facing
    	the belittlement of the opponent, one must find some other
    	form of satisfaction if he wants to stay with it.
    
    	If we're quoting songs, let me suggest, "What's love got
    	to do with it?"  :^)

    belittlement of the opponent?
    
    Man am I ever confused...

| <<< Note 109.230 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Oh is it? How often do you agree with me in the abortion topics of various 
| conferences? How often do you disagree? I'd estimate that the latter prevails 
| the vast majority of the time.

	Ahhh.... so you have the tell all version of abortion? ;-)  Joe, there
is only one area where we disagree. That won't change. We do agree in most
areas. If you judge my view on what I comment on, without ever making sure of
the other areas, then I can understand why you made such a blatently false
statement about me.

| You frequently take a position opposite mine, therefore "You find yourself on 
| the pro-abortion side of these discussions."  

	Again... is your version the tell all version? :-)  Provide examples.
You seem to think I am against your ways, so now list those differences. 

| We rarely are at odds on the question of abortion in general. No, instead it's
| always on peripheral issues like the one currently at hand.  

	Ahhhh.... so when one disagrees with Joe, then they are on the
pro-choice side...... I see...

| It is my suspicion that you will do it less frequently once I'm off the net...

	You think too much of yourself Joe. ;-)  I write when a topic interests
me. Whether or not you are part of the topic or not isn't a concern. 

| Again, I think the problem here is your insistence on using the word LIE.

	Hmmm... I agree..... I guess it is in mho..... thanks for pointing that
out. I do wonder though, why for some things it is seen as the above, yet
others are seen as absolutes.....

| As for deleting my note, fat chance. It would take moderator action to do 
| that, and when I've outmaneuvered someone so thoroughly that their only 
| recourse is moderator action, I know I've won.

	How very loving. 



Glen

| <<< Note 109.233 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Nancy -- when the discussion is hopelessly mired in the same old circular 
| argument to no end, 

	So we have always been talking about this guy being a liar? Wow....
another false statement made by Joe.

| and all that's left is facing the belittlement of the opponent, one must find 
| some other form of satisfaction if he wants to stay with it.

	Like Nancy said.... where is the love? 

| If we're quoting songs, let me suggest, "What's love got to do with it?"  :^)

	That does seem to fit you better!!! ;-)

| <<< Note 109.234 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| belittlement of the opponent?
| Man am I ever confused...


	Nancy, I can see your confusion. He does claim to be a Christian, but
mentions the above. Your song would fit here for sure. Hopefully Joe can clear
the confusion....


Glen

                  <<< Note 109.237 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| belittlement of the opponent?
>| Man am I ever confused...
>
> Hopefully Joe can clear the confusion....

    	Sure.  What I meant to say was belittlement FROM the opponent.
    
    	Hope this clears things up.

                  <<< Note 109.235 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Ahhh.... so you have the tell all version of abortion? ;-)  Joe, there
> is only one area where we disagree. That won't change. We do agree in most
> areas. 
    
    	If we agree in most areas, then why do nearly all of our 
    	discussions on abortion result in our disagreement?  Today
    	is just the latest example.
    
    	Yes, I adhere to the strictly pro-life view on abortion.  If
    	you insist on BELITTLING it as the "tell-all version" then
    	so be it.  There is nothing false about my statement about 
    	you.  (I noticed that you are trying to tone down your rhetoric
    	now by avoiding the word "lie"...)
    
>	Again... is your version the tell all version? :-)  Provide examples.
    
    	We have had disagreements over the value of Planned Parenthood.
    
    	We disagree on pro-life legislation.  You say that no pro-life
    	legislation should be enacted -- even if it can reduce abortions
    	by 90% -- until the issues of "back alley abortions" and other
    	pet concerns of yours can be resolved.
    
    	We disagree on pro-life activism.

    	We disagree that a person's pro-abortion position can contribute
    	to others having abortion.
    
    	You all too frequently give the benefit of the doubt to abortion.
    	108.723 is just your most recent example.  (No, Glen, I don't
    	want to debate our disagreement on that specific point.  The
    	purpose of bringing it up is to show yet another example of
    	where we disagree, and your insistence on debating that specific
    	point only serves to prove my claim.)
    
    	We apparently disagree on what the "tell-all version of aborion"
    	really means.

| <<< Note 109.238 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Sure.  What I meant to say was belittlement FROM the opponent.
| Hope this clears things up.

	Not really, cuz your notes make it appear differently. 


Glen

| <<< Note 109.239 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>



| If we agree in most areas, then why do nearly all of our discussions on 
| abortion result in our disagreement?  Today is just the latest example.

	Because you talk about the things I am against most often maybe? You
can go back and check, and you will see I usually enter an abortion
conversation somewhere along the line. I don't normally start one. I very
rarely even read most of the abortion topics just for that reason. 

| If you insist on BELITTLING it as the "tell-all version" then so be it.  

	Tell all to you.....

| (I noticed that you are trying to tone down your rhetoric now by avoiding the 
| word "lie"...)

	No.... he did lie... cuz the more I think about it, it comes up the
same. If one tells another they are responsible for something they had no
involvement in, they are lying.

| >	Again... is your version the tell all version? :-)  Provide examples.

| We have had disagreements over the value of Planned Parenthood.

	This is not an example. You can state you have the tell all version,
but you have not proved that I have taken the pro-choice side. Until you can
prove your version is the tell all, and not just state it, you don't have a leg
to stand on.

| We apparently disagree on what the "tell-all version of aborion" really means.

	But unlike you, I know I can't say my version is 100% correct, cuz the
only one who can know for sure is One who is perfect in every way. That would
be God.


Glen

                  <<< Note 109.241 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| If we agree in most areas, then why do nearly all of our discussions on 
>| abortion result in our disagreement?  Today is just the latest example.
>
>	Because you talk about the things I am against most often maybe? 
    
    	I rest my case.
    
>| We have had disagreements over the value of Planned Parenthood.
>
>	This is not an example. 
    
    	I disagree.  But I'll let it slip.  Your inability to disclaim
    	the rest of the list proves my point.
    
>| We apparently disagree on what the "tell-all version of aborion" really means.
>
>	But unlike you, I know I can't say my version is 100% correct, 
    
    	I never claimed to be 100% correct.  Just 100% pro-life (or
    	anti-abortion.  I'm not concerned with terminology.)

| <<< Note 109.242 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >| If we agree in most areas, then why do nearly all of our discussions on
| >| abortion result in our disagreement?  Today is just the latest example.
| >
| >	Because you talk about the things I am against most often maybe?

| I rest my case.

	Noooott.... really.... you conviently left off the rest of what I said:


You can go back and check, and you will see I usually enter an abortion
conversation somewhere along the line. I don't normally start one. I very rarely
even read most of the abortion topics just for that reason. 


	Why leave off a key part??? Oh yeah.... cuz it would counter your
claim.


| >| We have had disagreements over the value of Planned Parenthood.
| >
| >	This is not an example.

| I disagree.  

	Again.... you left off some more:

You can state you have the tell all version, but you have not proved that I have
taken the pro-choice side. Until you can prove your version is the tell all, and
not just state it, you don't have a leg to stand on.

	I do see why you leave off these key things. I mean, why keep them when
they counter what you say?

| But I'll let it slip.  Your inability to disclaim the rest of the list proves 
| my point.

	Ahhh.... maybe you should ask why I did not disclaim the others. The
above is the wrong answer.

| >| We apparently disagree on what the "tell-all version of aborion" really means.
| >
| >	But unlike you, I know I can't say my version is 100% correct,

| I never claimed to be 100% correct. Just 100% pro-life 

	The only way you can be 100% pro-life is if you have the tell all
version. That tell all version would have to be 100% correct. You have some in
the pro-life movement who believe NO abortion, for whatever reason should
happen. For some, certain conditions would prevail. So for you to be 100%
pro-life, maybe you should inform us what those parameters include.


Glen

    
    I feel like this note has lost sight of it's original intentions.
    People seemed to have ignored the absolute horror of a baby being in
    the birth canal and being killed in the process of labor.  These are
    viable lives!  What right have we to decide if they should live? What
    right have we to determine if their lives have value or not? Or even to
    say that one life has more value than another?  This debate over choice
    is a non sequitur.  I can't believe that even one person knowing the 
    facts of what is being done to these children can be less than outraged 
    over this overtly murderous act.  You can't hide these acts in the
    darkness because they happen when the baby is coming into the light.
    You can't pretend that it's not a baby as they put a hole in the base
    of it's skull and suck it skull dry.  It looks like a baby, it moves
    like a baby, it is a baby and they are being killed.  The tissue from
    these children is being harvested in hopes for finding a cure for many
    diseases plaguing our nation.  One is even the disease that
    incapacitated my grandmother, Alzheimers.  But we can't play God and
    decide that these lives can be sacrificed to save the lives of others. 
    It's one thing to sacrifice your own life for others, this is a godly
    act.  But to sacrifice the life of another without their consent, is
    plainly murder and is reprehensible in the sight of God.  It is a lie
    that it's a woman's choice, when it is not a woman that gives life, but
    only God.
    
    Jilla

                  <<< Note 109.245 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, are you saying that you do not think a woman should have an
>abortion when her life is in danger, or when she has been raped, or for any
>other reason imaginable?
    
    	Yes, that is what I believe.

> Others claim they are pro-life, but their views are different than
> what you have stated above. Who are you to say they are wrong? 

    	I'm not saying they are wrong.  I'm just saying that they are
    	not 100% pro-life with respect to abortion.

 Glen and Joe, I suspect that most (if not all) the readers herein aren't
 interested in the constant back and forth taking place between the 2 of 
 you.  


 Please take it off line.


 Thank you.



 Jim Co Mod

Yes, Jim, I've mostly been NEXT-UNSEENing this note.  Actually, I'm doing
that for several active notes in the conference at the moment.  The
noise-to-signal ratio is quite high right now.

I did read your note, Jilla.  Yes, it's incredibly sad and shocking that this
outrage is being perpetrated in this country, and sad that the 'conversation'
here has lost sight of that.

What's more shocking to me is that this particular abortion method is not one
whit different from any other, except that it is harder to ignore the facts
of what is happening in every abortion - a living human being is being
deliberately killed.

We have a big monument in Washington to the 40,000 people who gave their
lives in Vietnam.  That many people are killed in this country by abortion
every 10 days.

Paul

    
    I couldn't agree with you more Paul.  

| <<< Note 109.247 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| >	Joe, are you saying that you do not think a woman should have an
| >abortion when her life is in danger, or when she has been raped, or for any
| >other reason imaginable?

| Yes, that is what I believe.

	Did this change recently?

| > Others claim they are pro-life, but their views are different than
| > what you have stated above. Who are you to say they are wrong?

| I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm just saying that they are not 100% pro-life
| with respect to abortion.

	No matter how you word it Joe, you are still saying they are wrong. Not
100% wrong, but if their version is different than your own, and you view your
version as 100% pro-life, then any differences are wrong. Pretty simple. I'm
just wondering how you know your version is 100% correct?


Glen

| <<< Note 109.248 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| Glen and Joe, I suspect that most (if not all) the readers herein aren't
| interested in the constant back and forth taking place between the 2 of you.

	Jim, there are a lot of things in here I'm not interested in. A lot of
it is back and forth. I just next unseen. 

	But if it is any consolation.... I did learn something new about Joe.

Glen

    The Bible clearly states that what is sown shall be reaped, and if a
    nation makes it legal to shed innocent blood then it shall reap, in
    abundance, the shedding of innocent blood. Look at the increasing
    violence on our streets, the innocent people mugged, raped, murdered,
    etc. - this is not Gods judgement it is one of the laws of creation in
    action [seed is sown - harvest grows]. 
    
    Gods laws are for our own good, He knows the full consequences of sin,
    He knows where it leads, He knows all the laws of the universe and the
    consequences of breaking them. When a nation makes laws that directly
    break Gods laws then that nation will reap what it has sown, and I fear
    for the so-called 'civilised' nations because of what is likely to come
    to them if they do not repent.
    
    
    Love
    Ben 

>                     <<< Note 109.246 by CSC32::KINSELLA >>>
>                                 -< Outraged >-
    
>    I can't believe that even one person knowing the 
>    facts of what is being done to these children can be less than outraged 
>    over this overtly murderous act.  You can't hide these acts in the
>    darkness because they happen when the baby is coming into the light.
>    You can't pretend that it's not a baby as they put a hole in the base
>    of it's skull and suck it skull dry.  It looks like a baby, it moves
>    like a baby, it is a baby and they are being killed.

    I don't understand how ANY doctor can do this.  If my recollection of
    the method is correct, the body of the baby is delivered but the head
    is left in the birth canal where the hole is made into the skull in
    order to evacuate the skull.  I would imagine that that little body is
    moving it's little arms and legs during that period and that at some
    point during the procedure that movement ceases.  If that isn't the
    taking of a life, I don't know what is!  Sickening!

    Ron

    I thought that in most vaginal deliveries, except for breech,
    the baby's head would be the first, and the body would follow?

    Regardless of how its done, I think that killing a living child
    as it is being born is tragic, awful, and cannot understand how
    someone could even contemplate doing it, never mind actually do 
    it.  Abortion for convenience is a tragic wrong that people the
    world over seem to be getting accustomed to.  I do view abortion to
    save the life of the mother as a tragedy, but one that is acceptable
    from a moral view, whereas abortion for convenience I *cannot* accept 
    as morally right.

    Leslie

>    I thought that in most vaginal deliveries, except for breech,
>    the baby's head would be the first, and the body would follow?

Read .0 for a grisly description.  Don't eat lunch first.

Paul

ok, I read .0 ..... horrible and terrifying.  

Leslie

	But the notes that preceed .0 kind of put things into better
perspective.


Glen

    
    huh?  The notes that come before .0?  I didn't know we had 
    notes in negative numbers.  HAHAHAHA
    

| <<< Note 109.259 by CSC32::KINSELLA >>>


| huh?  The notes that come before .0?  I didn't know we had notes in negative 
| numbers.  HAHAHAHA

	<grin>.... too funny.... :-)

    must be for the AXP version of notes :'/

                  ORN - WORLD ARTICLE ON NORMA MCCORVEY
         (edited to conform with CHRISTIAN conference guidelines)
                                       
   This article from the August, 1995, edition of World Magazine
   was placed on (the ORN) site with permission of World Magazine.
   
   WORLD
   God's World Publications
   P. O. Box 2330
   Asheville, NC 28802-9931
   1-800-636-0003

     _________________________________________________________________
   
   Driving Miss Norma
   by Joe Maxwell with Roy Maynard in Dallas
   
   Dissuaded by stiff federal penalties from barricading abortion
   businesses, Operation Rescue pursues a new course and rediscovers a
   simple truth: Win the heart, and the mind will soon follow. With the
   high-profile defection of abortion clinic worker Norma McCorvey---the
   "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade---among a growing number of others,
   pro-lifers are seeing the practical benefits of obeying Christ's
   command to "love your enemies." And seeing, at least in Miss Norma's
   case, that indeed a little child shall lead them.
   
   Little Emily Mackey sits at her mother's worn desk--just one of many
   chipped wooden masterpieces in Operation Rescue's Dallas office. The
   seven-year-old watches her mother, Ronda, 27, an OR volunteer, whirl
   here and there fielding calls from CNN, Time magazine, the New York
   papers, the British and Canadian press, the Today Show, and 20/20.
   
   Amidst furniture that looks donated, a dull gray-blue carpet, and a
   hung ceiling with requisite water spots, Emily sits, listening to
   excited chatter from OR volunteers accentuated by rowdy phones and a
   churning fax.
   
   Emily herself answers calls with a pure childlike confidence that
   seems to feed on conversing with adults. She keeps them entertained
   until an OR spokesperson can take over. She helped create this whole
   stir in the first place. This thing, in one sense, is Emily's fault.
   
   Back in March, when OR moved its Dallas offices next door to the A
   Choice for Women abortion clinic, Time magazine writer Richard Lacayo
   was quoted under a headline reading "Trouble Brewing": "Now we'll
   see," said Mr. Lacayo, "what happens when we've got Roe V. Rescue."
   
   Roe v. Rescue?
   
   Jesus won.
   
   Jesus and a little girl named Emily, who likes to talk to adults and
   who ended up naively asking street-tough Norma McCorvey to come to
   church. If you're a child, you figure---Why not?
   
   It's hard to miss the irony that a little girl, who might as well have
   been butchered before birth if America's pro-abortion elites had had
   their way, ended up rocking the national abortion debate---at least
   for one week.
   
   The fact is, however, that the conversion to Christ last week of the
   hardened abortion icon Norma McCorvey---the Jane Roe of the Supreme
   Court decision that legalized abortion---is indicative of a slight but
   growing trend, according to OR leaders. In recent months they have
   seen other key abortion figures converted "at the gates of hell."
   
   "This is happening all over," OR national director Flip Benham says.
   "Jesus is pillaging the abortion industry." He points to another
   woman, 24-year-old Kristen Breedlove, who is seated by him in his
   office where she now volunteers. Miss Breedlove was the director of a
   for-profit abortion clinic in Dallas until March, when a loud, male OR
   protester helped in her conversion.
   
   OR's befriending of two abortion providers has done more than win two
   converts; a seven-year-old and a dogged male OR protester
   inadvertently have thrown light on a dusty room of suppositional bones
   concerning the national abortion debate. Miss McCorvey and Miss
   Breedlove's testimonies highlight at least three things:

     * The "tough-love" tactics of aggressive but nonviolent sidewalk
       counselors are not ungodly, as some evangelicals who base their
       opinions largely on secular media accounts may believe.

     * Many pro-abort elites don't really care about women, just winning.

     * And what happens inside an abortion clinic is,
       in fact, as bad as you feared.
       
   
   
   The stories of Kirsten Breedlove and Norma McCorvey bear out all three
   points.
   
   Kirsten Breedlove was 22, mad, and miserable. She had a ------- -----;
   she had a nursing degree; she was working in a late-term abortion
   clinic (death offered up to 24 weeks after conception) in an effort to
   stay true to the feminist cause; and those protesters just kept making
   a show outside.

   She went on Dallas news shows and verbally trashed them; she had one
   unusually committed OR protester---Mark Gabriel---thrown in jail
   repeatedly.
   
   "911," the emergency receptionist would answer.
   
   "It's Kirsten Breedlove," she'd say.
   
   "Oh, hey Kirsten. Is it Mark again?"
   
   "Yep."
   
   "We'll come get him."
   
   For the two years she was a clinic administrator, Mr. Gabriel kept a
   daily vigil; he tried to block her car; she admits she tried to run
   over him; he would follow women into the clinic, begging them to
   reconsider their intentions; Miss Breedlove would perform her 911
   routine. She says Mr. Gabriel never was "out of line," just
   "passionately aggressive" with his speech.
   
   But all the while, Miss Breedlove's life was becoming wearisome. An
   abortionist's day will take its toll: Spare body parts lie around.
   Miss Breedlove started taking drugs to go to sleep, and then began
   staying up all night, rocking in a cradle called cocaine.
   
   Her work was gruesome and cold. Each month she directed about 200
   abortions at the clinic that netted her New York owner about $12,000 a
   month; he geared his business for monetary success. "The workers
   inside the clinic were not properly trained," recalls Miss Breedlove.
   "I called myself the administrator, but I was a 22-year-old LVN
   (Licensed Vocational Nurse) with no experience at all. My counselors
   were not trained as counselors. They were high-school graduates with
   no type of counseling degree at all. I would call them counselors. We
   gave the girls no alternative choices when I first started doing
   this.... On a typical day 20 girls were rushed through. It was almost
   like a factory line. They were just pushed through one at a time. They
   were given no personal attention.... A good doctor could do a suction
   abortion in three minutes.... (The women) were sent home and told to
   come back in two weeks. When they came back all we did was urine test
   to make sure they were not still pregnant. The doctor would walk in
   and say, 'Good news, you are not still pregnant,' and then walk out
   without ever examining her."
   
   Sometimes Miss Breedlove would try to introduce the patients to the
   doctors when they came into the room to do the procedure on the
   prepped subjects. "He would just walk in and start without ever saying
   hello to the patient," she recalls.
   
   And the back room of the clinic---the "POC Room" (Product of
   Conception Room)---could be a pretty tough place to visit. Hugh
   buckets were filled with baby parts. The clinic owner ignored requests
   to get the hot water faucet fixed to aid in clean-up. "You would just
   look in the buckets and see arms and legs. I have horrible dreams
   about that now. It was something you would see in a scary movie."
   
   Some of the nine clinic workers actually refused ever to go back
   there. When Miss Breedlove would ask them to go measure a dead baby's
   foot, a standard procedure, some would reply with a flat---no.
   
   More and more Miss Breedlove's work seemed to move from an altruistic
   motive of "helping women" to "greed and the love of money." And those
   protesters' words just kept coming back at her, not to mention the
   white crosses Mark Gabriel set in the ground outside to memorialize
   aborted babies. They made the former Catholic high-school student
   think.
   
   "Around January I noticed a definite change," she says. Mark and other
   protesters started asking her to pray with them; something clicked in
   her and she started talking with them. "They would show me a lot of
   love. What I used to think was hate was actually love; they would be
   out there praying for me.
   
   "Every day I would go in the clinic and hear the same thing over and
   over again, and I started thinking about what they were saying;
   questioning my own self."
   
   Eventually she and the protesters became friends; Miss Breedlove, who
   performed routine sonograms on every woman considering an abortion,
   began seeing babies on the screen instead of blobs. Then she began
   doing something about it. She felt better when she did. She started
   asking women to take a look at the screen with her. "You don't want to
   abort this. C'mon, I have some people who will help you." At that
   point she would walk them outside and introduce them to the
   protesters, who would take them to a nearby crisis pregnancy center.
   Jill Busha, the director there, was used by God to lead Miss Breedlove
   to Christ this March. Kirsten still struggles with old ways, including
   her addiction to drugs. Her heart has changed, says Mrs. Busha, but
   she continues to need and receive much nurture and support.
   
   But between January and March of this year, in the days leading up to
   her conversion, Miss Breedlove's new commitment to actually counseling
   women on other options beside abortion contributed to an interesting
   effect. "We finally went bankrupt," she says. "We had no money." One
   of her workers, Norma McCorvey, just moved shop to another abortion
   clinic.

   "Don't let the -------s wear you down." That was talk-show host Tom
   Snyder's exhortation to Norma McCorvey at the end of his interview in
   which she called OR national director Flip Benham more nasty things in
   a few minutes that the former saloon keeper used to hear in a whole
   night at the bar.
   
   When Flip and OR moved next door to the A Choice for Women clinic
   where Miss McCorvey was marketing director, says Religion News
   Service, she used to call over to OR's headquarters and mock the
   former bartender and recovering alcoholic: "Hey Flip, I've been over
   here killing babies all day---ya got any new recipes for Manhattans?"
   
   Not that Flip was any pushover himself. Once on Dallas's McKinney
   Avenue, outside a site where Miss McCorvey was promoting her 1994
   book, I Am Roe, Flip called out: "Norma McCorvey, your life has caused
   the deaths of 33 million little baby boys and girls. You ought to be
   ashamed. How dare you desecrate their blood by selling a book!"
   
   Right away---then and there---Flip saw it: a look in Norma's eyes that
   said his words had, for some reason, pierced her heart this time. "And
   it broke my heart," he recalls. "And I said, 'My God, what have I
   done.'"
   
   In fact, Norma McCorvey was destitute. Her ------- --------- had not
   met her inner needs; the drugs she took to kill the pain of working in
   a abortuary didn't last; and the second thoughts---they were coming
   around with greater and shattering frequency.
   
   She would walk through parks and see empty swing sets that haunted
   her. Where were the children? She had helped kill them. One day she
   forced herself to go look "in the back room" of the clinic where she
   worked. "The babies were frozen in a freezer," she told WORLD in an
   exclusive written interview arranged by Mr. Benham. "Now I wished I
   had not looked."
   
   Another time she actually got up in the stirrups where the second
   trimester abortions were performed. She thought about what it must be
   like to submit a woman's body and child to such indignity. It was just
   too much to handle.
   
   To add to matters, the elites of the pro-choice movement continued to
   disparage her; she knew now that local attorney Sarah Weddington had
   used her back in 1973 to achieve her own goal of Roe V. Wade. (Norma
   claims that Sarah herself had had an abortion in Mexico, but kept that
   availability secret from Norma to keep her pregnant so she could use
   her to achieve her personal goals---passing Roe V. Wade and becoming a
   superstar, Supreme Court attorney.) And two years ago a host of
   pro-abortion elites threw a big party to celebrate the 20th
   anniversary of Roe v. Wade. They didn't invite Norma.
   
   One the other hand, these pro-life folks were getting harder to hate.
   When OR moved next door in March, volunteer Ronda Mackey started
   bringing her two little girls with her to work.
   
   "They would see [Miss McCorvey] out at the clinic, and they'd say,
   'There's Miss Norma, there's Miss Norma,' and they'd run and give her
   hugs. She just fell in love with them," recalls Mrs. Mackey. Miss
   McCorvey started coming by OR headquarters to see the girls and talk
   with Flip, who shortly after relocating by McCorvey's offices sat down
   with Miss McCorvey and profusely apologized for hurting her with his
   words at the book signing. Mr. Benham and Miss McCorvey actually
   started traveling together: In New York City once, he took her to
   David Wilkerson's Times Square Church.
   
   One day in Dallas Miss McCorvey said she'd like to get some ice cream,
   so the Mackeys went to get ice cream and lunch. Miss Mackey was having
   trouble decorating a local crisis pregnancy center, and Miss McCorvey
   volunteered to help. She said she knew of places to shop that were
   cheap. The two women took the children with them. Emily hung on Miss
   McCorvey the entire time.
   
   "And Norma asked them to call her Auntie Norma," recalls Mrs. Mackey."
   It was really the girls who broke through."
   
   One day Emily saw "Miss Norma" and ran out to see her. Miss McCorvey
   said she was going to make some photocopies; did Emily want to go?
   Emily said yes, and her mother just told herself: "Emily doesn't
   belong to me, she belongs to the Lord."
   
   Emily got into the truck and went driving with Miss Norma, but not
   long into their trip it became Emily who was driving Miss Norma.
   During their shopping venture, Emily asked Miss McCorvey to go to
   church. Two weeks later Miss McCorvey said she would. That same day
   OR's air conditioning went out. Miss McCorvey came over and offered to
   take the girls over to her clinic where it was cool. Chelsey, Mrs.
   Mackey's other daughter, came right back and said "I don't like it
   over there, Momma." But Emily stayed and when her mother eventually
   went to pick her up, she asked her girl how it was.
   
   Emily told her that Miss Norma got a crank call, and had told the
   caller she'd see her in hell. At that point, Emily informed Miss
   McCorvey that she didn't have to go to hell; that if she'd ask for
   forgiveness and repent, God would forgive her. The seven-year-old told
   the national abortion icon that they could pray "right now."
   
   That Saturday, Miss McCorvey went to church with the Mackeys. Ronda
   Mackey walked down the aisle with Miss McCorvey, holding her tightly;
   Jane Roe kept saying she wanted to help undo all the evil she's done
   in the world. "And you could tell it was a true repentance," says Mrs.
   Mackey. "She was shining---her face was so different."
   
   Flip Benham says that Norma McCorvey is a changed person. "[She} shows
   us abortion is a gospel issue---it isn't going to be solved
   politically, there's no economic answer. It's a battle between 'It's
   my body and I'll determine who lives and dies,' and, 'Not my will but
   thine be done.'"
   
   So what about Miss McCorvey's will? Much has been made about her
   ------- ------------. Mr. Benham says to give her time. He says that
   Miss McCorvey's ------------ with "---- ------...who kept her alive
   through overdoses and drunkenness...is basically for all intents and
   purposes" simply a strong friendship between roommates now; there has
   been no ------- --- for years, he says. And, insists Mr. Benham, "Miss
   Connie wants to meet the Lord."
   
   Meanwhile, Norma McCorvey's former handlers have played down her
   conversion and change of mind.
   
   "It was [McCorvey's] story and her situation that was the symbol for
   the movement, not Norma McCorvey herself," purred Susan Hill of the
   National Women's Health Organization to ABC News concerning Miss
   McCorvey's conversion.
   
   "The anti-choice movement will just have a field day with this," was
   Kate Michelman's initial response upon hearing that Miss McCorvey had
   found inner peace and happiness.
   
   "Norma McCorvey didn't even have an abortion," crowed her former
   attorney, Ms. Weddington, upon getting the news.
   
   No, thankfully she didn't. But their words betray the ultimate
   shakiness of their amoral moorings, says OR spokesperson Wendy Wright.
   "They see the unborn as property, to be disposed of if they want,"
   says Miss Wright. "They're treating Norma the same way. When she was
   pregnant, she was valuable to the movement. When she was a loose
   cannon, she was pushed aside by them, hidden. There's nothing more to
   the pro-abortion movement than that. What else can they offer, other
   than a focal point for anger? The anger, bitterness, the easy, natural
   human emotions. We offer the harder emotions---the love, the mercy,
   the forgiveness."
   
   And Emily.

    Call the White House at (202) 456-1111 to express your opinion on H.R.
    1833 (Partial-Birth Abortions).
    
    Mike

    In September 1993, Brenda Pratt Shafer, a registered nurse with 13
    years of experience, was assigned by her nursing agency to an abortion
    clinic.  Since Nurse Shafer considered herself "very pro-choice," she
    didn't think this assignment would be a problem.  She was wrong.  This
    is what Nurse Shafer saw:
    
    "I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth
    abortion on a woman who was 6 months pregnant.  The baby's heartbeat
    was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen.  The doctor delivered the
    baby's body and arms, everything but his little head.  The baby's body
    was moving.  His little fingers were clasping together.  He was kicking
    his feet.  The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into
    the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a
    flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he
    might fall.  Then the doctor opened the scissors up.  Then he stuck the
    high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains
    out.  Now the baby was completely limp.  I never went back to the
    clinic.  But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy.  It was
    the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."
     
    {National Right To Life bulletin on the upcoming partial birth abortion
    veto override}