T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
750.1 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Sat Jun 17 1995 14:13 | 19 |
|
I believe that we must reach those intent on abortion with the gospel of
Jesus Christ rather than picketing and causing a fuss at abortion clinics.
I don't believe all of that activity brings a positive view on Christianity
or Christians, nor does it change hearts. If we are going to stop
abortions, hearts must be changed. That can't come through legislation,
nor can it come from picketing and demonstrations. We can save babies,
an admirable persuit, but if we haven't saved souls, we haven't accomplished
that which Christ charged us to do.
Those intent on abortion and apart from Christ are no different than the
rest of us were before we came to Christ...Lost, and living in sin. Once
our hearts were changed, we were able to see the sin we were living in.
Jim
|
750.2 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Sun Jun 18 1995 21:52 | 5 |
| I acutally agree with Jim on this. We've got to stop treating the
symptoms of sin and deal with the sin. And the only way to deal with
sin is to obey the great commission and bring others to Christ.
Nancy
|
750.3 | | PAULKM::WEISS | For I am determined to know nothing, except... | Mon Jun 19 1995 09:20 | 16 |
| At a first pass...
I think both are true. Ultimately, unless we save souls, all our efforts are
fruitless. So a focus in that direction is essential.
Yet at the same time, to proclaim that the unborn are human beings who are
being indiscriminately killed and do nothing at all about it presents an
incredibly inconsistent message. If they *ARE* human beings, how can we
possibly stand by quietly while they are killed?
Much though the pro-choice crowd hates it, the fact that people are willing to
undergo prison and persecution proclaims that we really DO believe that these
are human beings. Without that witness, a claim that they are human beings is
empty and hollow.
Paul
|
750.4 | Both education & help would be good | CPCOD::JOHNSON | A rare blue and gold afternoon | Mon Jun 19 1995 16:08 | 12 |
|
One of those grey areas?
My preference would be for what Jim said. Plus, I think we can help
through such things as the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and other ways
like education on both birth control and abstainance (so?), supporting
a place for unwed mothers that will help them in ways such as getting
good nutrition, a place to sleep, job training, information on adoption
options, teaching them how to care for their child after its born ...
those kinds of things. Being a source of help for those people in need.
Leslie
|
750.6 | Two methods | CSC32::KINSELLA | | Tue Jun 20 1995 17:19 | 16 |
|
Good afternoon Bob!
I do believe that the other methods mentioned here are viewed more
positively. The whackos that are out there unfortunately do make
the non-violent protesters, who should have a right to speak out,
look like whackos sometimes too. Too often Christians are expected to
take their beliefs to their own little corner and not say what we
believe in the presence of others. I believe there are some who God
calls to speak out on the front lines of some issues. Unfortunately,
they are going to be labeled among the whackos. We need to be lifting
them up in prayer. But I think they need to know they have a direct
call from God before doing so because I think they will need Him
because of all the trouble they are likely to incur.
Jill
|
750.7 | Equal Rights for Unborn Women? | BBQ::WOODWARDC | between the Glory and the Flame | Sun Jun 25 1995 23:19 | 12 |
| BobBobBob, ;')
this (and some local input in the Aust. Christian Conference) has
prompted me to contact one of the local Right To Life groups for
membership information.
Now to just fill in the sheets and get myself registered as one of the
'radical's' :')
Agap�,
Harry
|
750.9 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Jun 27 1995 10:54 | 6 |
|
There is no excuse for Christians breaking the law. Those who are
performing and seeking abortions are not coerced to do so, are not
required to do so. No Christian is required to abort their child.
jeff
|
750.10 | | PAULKM::WEISS | For I am determined to know nothing, except... | Tue Jun 27 1995 10:59 | 10 |
| > There is no excuse for Christians breaking the law.
Why did Paul write so many letters from jail? Why was James beheaded? Why was
it necessary for an angel to rescue Peter from a similar fate? Why was nearly
every apostle executed by the authorities?
I don't think your blanket statement matches scripture, Jeff.
Paul
|
750.11 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Jun 27 1995 11:33 | 7 |
|
Paul and the rest were proclaiming the Gospel. Rescuing, in general,
is not the proclamation of the Gospel. Paul made it clear that the
civil authorities have been given the power of the sword by God
Himself.
jeff
|
750.12 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Tue Jun 27 1995 11:51 | 3 |
| So, Jeff you *would* qualify your blanket staement of .9.
Andrew
|
750.13 | Our Holocaust | PIGTAL::STOCK | | Tue Jun 27 1995 12:06 | 28 |
| re: .9
Jeff,
> Those who are
> performing and seeking abortions are not coerced to do so, are not
> required to do so.
While this may be true at abortion clinics, my understanding is that at
some (most?) medical schools, it is now required that *all* students be
trained in abortion techniques. Is this just lecture, or is there a
required "lab"?
"Ya wanna hang MD after your name, ya gotta kill a few babies first."
> No Christian is required to abort their child.
Maybe not here, not literally, not yet - but how about the Chinese
immigrants who came here specifically to escape mandatory abortion?
And how about our government's insistence on sending the mothers back
to China, and their babies to their deaths?
As one who sees a strong parallel between the Holocaust of the 1930s and
our own Holocaust of the 1990s, I suggest you read some of Dietrich
Bonhoffer's (sp?) writings on his own wrestling with Romans 13:1, and what
his response to the Third Reich should be. . .
/John
|
750.14 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Jun 27 1995 12:51 | 5 |
|
Yes, Andrew, I would qualify my blanket statement. Should have done so
the first time ;)
jeff
|
750.15 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Jun 27 1995 12:57 | 36 |
|
> Those who are
> performing and seeking abortions are not coerced to do so, are not
> required to do so.
> While this may be true at abortion clinics, my understanding is that at
> some (most?) medical schools, it is now required that *all* students be
> trained in abortion techniques. Is this just lecture, or is there a
> required "lab"?
It is true that medical schools have recently been required to teach
abortion. However, I don't know if this requires performing actual
abortions. It certainly doesn't require performing actual abortions on
unwilling patients. There is a resolution before Congress right now
which is going to eliminate this requirement if it passes.
> No Christian is required to abort their child.
> Maybe not here, not literally, not yet - but how about the Chinese
> immigrants who came here specifically to escape mandatory abortion?
> And how about our government's insistence on sending the mothers back
> to China, and their babies to their deaths?
Not here, not literally, not now.
> As one who sees a strong parallel between the Holocaust of the 1930s and
> our own Holocaust of the 1990s, I suggest you read some of Dietrich
> Bonhoffer's (sp?) writings on his own wrestling with Romans 13:1, and what
> his response to the Third Reich should be. . .
> /John
Bonhoffer's complicity in the plan to assasinate Hitler reduces his
Christian witness, in my opinion.
jeff
|
750.16 | | PAULKM::WEISS | For I am determined to know nothing, except... | Tue Jun 27 1995 13:03 | 14 |
| >It certainly doesn't require performing actual abortions on
> unwilling patients.
Which patient? There are two patients in every abortion, and only one of them
makes it out in one piece. THAT one might be willing, but the other is never
consulted.
> Bonhoffer's complicity in the plan to assasinate Hitler reduces his
> Christian witness, in my opinion.
I agree, and it's a real shame because his witness is so powerful. But that is
comparable to murdering abortionists, not to blocking clinics.
Paul
|
750.17 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Jun 27 1995 13:46 | 6 |
|
I agree with Jeff on this one. No laws should be broken.
Glen
|
750.18 | then I must seriously reconsider my position | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Jun 27 1995 14:53 | 1 |
|
|
750.19 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jun 27 1995 15:00 | 1 |
| /ME LAUGHING SO HARD I ALMOST FELL OFF MY CHAIR!
|
750.20 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Jun 27 1995 15:51 | 10 |
|
Jeff, I had ALMOST put in my reply the following:
that will end up being the kiss of death for Jeff's belief!
|
750.21 | NO laws??? | PIGTAL::STOCK | | Tue Jun 27 1995 15:54 | 67 |
| Glen, Jeff, et al.
> I agree with Jeff on this one. No laws should be broken.
Then why did they hang Eichmann? He didn't break the law; he took great
pride in enforcing it more efficiently than any of his predecessors had
been able to.
Romans 13:1 and following has always troubled me. Sure, the concept is
easy when "the powers" are benevolent, but what about those times in
history when they seem to have been put into power by the Enemy, rather
than by the Lord? When Nero was teasing starving lions with
Christians, for instance, or when Eichmann was developing ever more
efficient means of executing Jews, processing their corpses for every-
thing of value, and disposing of the rest. Imagine, a co-generation
plant fueled by burning human fat!
Do we blindly follow the law of the land, no matter how far from our
personal values it may lead us? I believe the answer is NO, that each
of us must draw a line over which we will not cross. Daniel's three
young apprentices drew such a line, and God honored them for it (was
that Jesus in the oven with them?).
When our (those of us in the US) founding fathers drew up the original
Constitution and Jefferson's Bill of Rights, we were a nation of Godly
men, who understood that our laws were meaningless and powerless with-
out the blessing of God; specifically the God of Abraham and Isaac and
Jacob. We can no longer consider ourselves so. Please, God, heal our
land.
I'm usually not much for bumper stickers, but one I saw recently hit
home: "If God doesn't do something about America soon, He owes an
apology to Sodom and Gomorrah". Specifically, if we don't do something
about the murder of millions of God's precious children, and do it some
time real soon, I will not be at all surprised to see God do something
about it.
Jim Dobson tells of his trip to Israel a couple of years ago, in which
he took the trip across the Sea of Galilee to the opposite shores where
there are remains of alters to ba'al, surrounded by the bones of
infants sacrificed to the fire god. He stood there with tears
streaming down his face, thinking of all the children sacrificed in our
own country.
Are we compelled to obey just laws? Unequivocally YES.
What about unjust laws? I just don't know, but for me the answer is
not an absolute YES. I do know that if I choose to break any law (just
or unjust), I must be prepared to pay the civil/criminal penalty.
I know I that my line is drawn somewhere this side of shooting/bombing/
terrorizing abortionists or clinics, although I do see an ethical
equivalent to killing/etc. an oven operator on his way home from work
at Dachau... Such people *should* have to keep constant watch over
their shoulders.
However, I also believe that peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience
is as right morally now as it was in 1960. I believe that what Harvey
Baines did was in just the same spirit.
Are there better ways of accomplishing his goal? Maybe. Are there
other ways? Sure. But at least he was doing *something*. James has
some hard words for the rest of us who see hunger and do nothing more
about it than to wish the hungry health and full stomachs. I'm not
sure just what it is that I should be doing, but I know it's more than
just wishing those babies "be well".
|
750.22 | Would I have done the same??? | CSC32::KINSELLA | | Tue Jun 27 1995 16:20 | 8 |
|
I'm not sure I'm proud about this, but in all honestly having read
some of Bonhoffer's writings, I do not believe that my opinion of him
is lessened by him being involved in a plot to kill Hitler. I mean
they were in a war. Even as a commander-in-chief you are considered
a soldier and subject to the ravages of war just like anybody else.
Jill
|
750.23 | | USAT05::BENSON | Eternal Weltanschauung | Tue Jun 27 1995 16:22 | 14 |
|
John,
Please, please, please don't confuse my entry with Glen's entry which
says "no laws should be broken." I didn't say that, Glen did. I made
a qualification and implied several qualifications. If the govt.
forces me (or any other Christian) to break God's laws, I will break
the govt. law.
Furthermore, my belief around Christian responsibility to obey the law
is based *in the Bible*. Who knows what Glen's belief is based
upon...it certainly isn't the Bible.
jeff
|
750.25 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Thu Jun 29 1995 08:41 | 9 |
|
Several off topic notes moved to 57.
Jim Co mod
|
750.26 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jun 30 1995 19:39 | 40 |
| What can we do?
We must work to affect social conscience. We must not stand
back silently and allow "the other side" to claim majority
because of our silence. We must vote. We must speak out.
We must raise our children with a proper morality so that our
lonely voices will be duplicated in the next generation. (I'll
stop short of suggesting that we should have lots of kids so
that our morality which we duplicate in them will dilute the
evil of humanism that allows our society to embrace abortion...) :^)
We must speak out in a way that does not hurt our cause -- for
instance we must avoid violence, badgering, etc. We should speak
to as many people as we can -- individually, groups, kids, adults.
The more to whom we speak, the more we can affect.
We should foster a concept of society that supports the family.
We should avoid jokes about marriage, kids, broken families. We
should support and encourage those who have kids. Rather than
quips like, "you should tie a knot in that!" to a co-worker who
is announcing the birth of his 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., kid, (nothing
like raining on his parade, huh?), we should shake his hand, and
rejoice in his joy.
We should make ourselves benefactors of our local Birthright or
Family Life Center. We should volunteer at one of these centers.
(Volunteering doesn't have to mean counseling, but can be as
simple as cleaning the office, or volunteering to drive patients
-- or even other volunteers -- to the center. It could mean
keeping the books, or assembling donated cribs/toys if you are
handy. It could mean babysitting for other volunteers when they
are working at the center. Be creative.)
We must NEVER consider abortion for ourselves.
Talk. Vote pro-life. Support. Pray.
Joe
|
750.29 | | WRKSYS::CAMUSO | alphabits | Thu Jul 06 1995 15:54 | 42 |
| RE: <<< Note 750.26 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>
> We must raise our children with a proper morality so that our
> lonely voices will be duplicated in the next generation. (I'll
> stop short of suggesting that we should have lots of kids so
> that our morality which we duplicate in them will dilute the
> evil of humanism that allows our society to embrace abortion...) :^)
Amen! It is paradoxical that those of the "pro-choice" persuasion
are likely to select themselves out of the gene pool. Most of the
families with whom we fellowship have a lot of kids, and those that
don't, wish they could have more. Quite a contrast from those that
look upon children as disposable nuisances.
> a co-worker who
> is announcing the birth of his 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., kid, (nothing
> like raining on his parade, huh?), we should shake his hand, and
> rejoice in his joy.
One of the tapes in a series called "The Godly Home" addresses the
"spirit of abortion." The preacher tells of attending a conference
of some 2000 pastors. The featured speaker started by asking how
many of the men had one or more children. All hands went up. The
speaker asked how many had 2 or more, then 3 or more. Fewer and
fewer hands went up. Finally, only one hand went up after he
polled for 11 or more. The speaker went down the aisle of the
auditorium, laid hands on the man, and blessed him. He proceeded
to castigate those who would say that they'd had enough children
and wanted no more as exhibiting the spirit of abortion.
As for participation in the political process in general, and
in-your-face activism in particular, I have been re-examining my
prior support for these in light of some recent communications I
have had.
As for Romans 13, remember where Paul was when he wrote it. "%^)
Christians do their best fighting on their knees.
God bless and keep you all,
TonyC
|
750.30 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Thu Jul 06 1995 16:15 | 48 |
| RE: .29 Tony C.
/ Amen! It is paradoxical that those of the "pro-choice" persuasion
/ are likely to select themselves out of the gene pool. Most of the
/ families with whom we fellowship have a lot of kids, and those that
/ don't, wish they could have more. Quite a contrast from those that
/ look upon children as disposable nuisances.
Well, this is a pretty self-serving delusion. Only people who see
things the way _you_ do are capable of loving children (and everyone
else just runs around having nothing but abortions instead, right?)
Statements like these don't help your 'cause' one bit (because
those on the pro-choice side know how wrong you are about them.)
I thought this was a topic about how to help (not hurt) the
pro-life movement.
As it happens, people with money tend to have fewer children (and
those with less money tend to have more children) in our society.
The fewer children born to richer parents tend to get more of their
resources for education, etc., so these fewer children end up with
more power and influence than the many children born to those with
less resources.
People with money (and fewer children) are not the ones getting
most of the abortions, anyway. They have fewer pregnancies in
the first place (which is not an 'abortion mentality' unless you
regard unfertilized eggs and sperm as being aborted every time
they fail to result in a pregnancy.)
/ fewer hands went up. Finally, only one hand went up after he
/ polled for 11 or more. The speaker went down the aisle of the
/ auditorium, laid hands on the man, and blessed him. He proceeded
/ to castigate those who would say that they'd had enough children
/ and wanted no more as exhibiting the spirit of abortion.
Castigated?? Really? Did he stop to ask how many of these people
could afford to have more children? If a woman on Welfare stepped
forward to say she had 11 children, would he have blessed her or
slapped her in the face?
/ As for participation in the political process in general, and
/ in-your-face activism in particular, I have been re-examining my
/ prior support for these in light of some recent communications I
/ have had.
You need to re-examine your rhetoric, too.
|
750.31 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Thu Jul 06 1995 16:35 | 12 |
|
Frankly, I'd not be too pleased to be castigated for not wanting any
more children and would likely excuse myself from any meeting at which
anyone was so castigated.
Jim
|
750.32 | My quivers full | ODIXIE::HUNT | Remember your chains are gone | Thu Jul 06 1995 16:53 | 6 |
| I have four boys (just had the 4th on May 17th). We don't plan on
having any more kids. I certainly have never viewed myself as having
an abortionist mind set. I thinks its more important what you do with
the kids you have, rather than the number of children you have.
Bing
|
750.33 | | WRKSYS::CAMUSO | alphabits | Thu Jul 06 1995 17:25 | 9 |
| RE: last few
What does the Bible say about children?
Who decides when the quiver is full?
Who is your Lord and Master?
Who provides for you and your children?
Where does any of "your" wealth come from?
What kind of power does faith in material wealth wield?
|
750.34 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Thu Jul 06 1995 17:40 | 5 |
| RE: .33 Tony C.
Do you believe that the Bible says that everyone should have as many
children as humanly possible with no thought at all about how to feed
or support them?
|
750.35 | re last few... | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Thu Jul 06 1995 19:17 | 2 |
| Help me remember, Lord, that nothing will happen to me today that
You and I cannot handle together.
|
750.36 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Thu Jul 06 1995 19:21 | 15 |
| <<< Note 750.31 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>
> Frankly, I'd not be too pleased to be castigated for not wanting any
> more children and would likely excuse myself from any meeting at which
> anyone was so castigated.
I wonder if "castigated" was really the word he meant to use.
I've been to conferences, retreats, lectures, etc., where we
have been CHALLENGED to consider having more children, or
where the more "fecund" couples were singled out for extra
praise. I can't recall (nor can I imagine) anyone actually
CASTIGATING (ie severely criticizing) childless or small-
familied couples.
|
750.37 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Thu Jul 06 1995 19:56 | 63 |
| <<< Note 750.30 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
> / Amen! It is paradoxical that those of the "pro-choice" persuasion
> / are likely to select themselves out of the gene pool. Most of the
> / families with whom we fellowship have a lot of kids, and those that
> / don't, wish they could have more. Quite a contrast from those that
> / look upon children as disposable nuisances.
>
> Well, this is a pretty self-serving delusion. Only people who see
> things the way _you_ do are capable of loving children (and everyone
> else just runs around having nothing but abortions instead, right?)
The delusion is on your part. What exactly is delusionary in
the above statements? That those who have few (or none) children
select themselves out of the gene pool? That's pretty accurate!
And don't you agree that the abortion mentality allows for children
(in the womb) to be seen as disposable nuisances? The same
mentality now pervades our society such that we can think about
"putting to sleep" the infirm and the aged like we would our
family dog. It pervades our society so that many people consider
large families to be contemptible, and the concept "large" has
been downsized to be anything more than two kids. We have rejected
the GIFT that a large family can be, and have instead bartered it
away for a second car, an annual vacation, an extra bathroom.
No, everyone else is not "running around having abortions", but
the mentality that allows for it HAS tainted most of us in many
subtle ways -- myself included. I find Tony's statements to be
challenging. I don't take them as an attack. I take them as a
prod to reconsider where my priorities lie, and whether my kids
would prefer to have my attention this weekend instead of the
overtime money I was planning to earn. No, Tony (nor the speaker
he described) did not say that others are incapable of loving
children, but the question *IS* being raised: on whose terms are
we loving our children -- on the biblical terms of God's plan
for us, or on the terms of the modern world's plan for us?
A man's wealth is in his children! (Just ask the man's
orthodontist...) :^)
> Statements like these don't help your 'cause' one bit (because
> those on the pro-choice side know how wrong you are about them.)
You are the one making the statements more extreme than they
were originally made. Sure, you can make them demonic if you
try, but they are demons of your own making.
> People with money (and fewer children) are not the ones getting
> most of the abortions, anyway. They have fewer pregnancies in
> the first place (which is not an 'abortion mentality' unless you
> regard unfertilized eggs and sperm as being aborted every time
> they fail to result in a pregnancy.)
To me it is an "abortion mentality" only if the couple caused
an unnatural failure of that pregnancy. This is a very extreme
statement for it includes all artificial birth control in that
"abortion mentality". I only mention it here because you raised
the subject, but I never promote such an extreme viewpoint in
general abortion discussions except if all participants share
similar moral points of view on this issue (or if a premise of
the forum expects that extreme morality) and I do not promote
it here.
|
750.38 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Thu Jul 06 1995 22:43 | 12 |
| There was a woman who came to our church about 5 years back, she had 12
children and all were in a musical ministry together. The children
were rich in talent, both vocally and instrumentally... but more than
that they were rich in spirit.
She spoke to our women on a lady's night out and asked this question
which always seemed to stick with me:
"Lady's have you asked Jesus to the Lord of your life? If you have,
does it include your womb?"
|
750.39 | | WRKSYS::CAMUSO | alphabits | Fri Jul 07 1995 11:09 | 12 |
| RE: replies by Joe and Nancy
Joe's position on birth control is congruent with mine. I, too,
believe that "birth control" is an expression of the "abortion
mentality". God bless you, Joe, for placing the stewardship of the
children with which God has blessed you above temporal gain.
Nancy, you are truly a Godly woman. May God richly bless and keep
you. Incidentally, I think that I know about the folks with the 12
musical kids. They have been in this area, too, and have been a
blessing to all that see them.
|
750.40 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Jul 07 1995 12:28 | 32 |
| I don't know if this is the right topic to put this in, but several
things have been going through me this past week as a woman, a
Christian woman in 1995.
I've taken advantage of the 5 day weekend and extended through til
today. I have spent every day in my home, leaving only twice for
necessity and I've felt more whole, more at peace and in tune with God
than I have in a very long time. One of my Sisters from church has
come to visit here and yesterday we were talking as I was painting my
son's closets and I said to her with an ache, "Man, this is what I'm
supposed to be doing full time [not painting closets, per se]."
A real honest to goodness grieving for loss of motherhood welled up
inside of me as I realized my children are near grown and I've never
had the opportunity to be a full-time Mom. I suppose I could have had
I wanted to divorce much sooner and/or be on welfare...but somehow
neither of those alternatives seem to be fitting.
I know that this is not congruent with feminism or for that matter even
for Christian women in some circles of faith, but its my heart and I
cannot deny what it knows to be true for me.
I've cleaned out closets, kitchen cabinets, pulled weeks, watered
gardens, planted spices, vacuumed, scrubbed toilets, cooked experimental
dishes and even had time for devotions.
Its okay for me to grieve this loss, folks, I'm not depressed or in
condemnation, its just a moaning of the Spirit that keeps me living in
Psalms 27:10, whether it be for me or for my own children. Therein
lies their hope... in God.
Nancy
|
750.41 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 13:00 | 125 |
| RE: .37 Joe Oppelt
/ The delusion is on your part. What exactly is delusionary in
/ the above statements? That those who have few (or none) children
/ select themselves out of the gene pool? That's pretty accurate!
Well, first off, it's a delusion to imagine that a political position
(such as being 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life') is found in the genes in
the first place such that it can be 'selected out' by pro-choice
individuals having fewer children.
Second of all, the process of 'natural selection' is not something
that occurs in a generation (or even a few hundred years.) It's
a very, very, very long process.
Also...
If the people with money tend to have fewer children (who also happen
to have the resources to hold enough power and influence in our culture
to keep abortion legal) then the pro-choice position will live on for
a long time.
/ And don't you agree that the abortion mentality allows for children
/ (in the womb) to be seen as disposable nuisances?
This is where you hurt your own cause (by suggesting that pro-choice
people aren't capable of loving their own children and seeing them
as among the most precious beings ever placed on this Earth.)
You (like many others) wrongly believe that if a person supports
'choice' that they can't possibly care about children the way you
do. As long as you promote such a blatant falsehood about the
pro-choice movement, you will never do anything more than entrench
the pro-choice position against this falsehood.
/ The same mentality now pervades our society such that we can think
/ about "putting to sleep" the infirm and the aged like we would our
/ family dog.
As far as I know, the big debate is about allowing terminally ill
people to decide to put *themselves* to sleep (as their own choice,
not someone else's.) You may not agree with this - and I don't
have a strong position on this either way - but it doesn't help your
cause, either, to make such extreme statements in connection with
abortion.
/ It pervades our society so that many people consider
/ large families to be contemptible, and the concept "large" has
/ been downsized to be anything more than two kids.
A lot of this comes from the conservative (mostly pro-life) demonization
of large Welfare families.
/ We have rejected the GIFT that a large family can be, and have instead
/ bartered it away for a second car, an annual vacation, an extra bathroom.
If a Welfare family tried to tell you that they wanted the gift of a
large family, you'll tell her she's the scum of the earth, though,
wouldn't you?
Or do you support the notion that EVERY family that wants 11 or 12 kids
should go ahead and have them (in God's blessing) even if the government
has to support them?
/ No, everyone else is not "running around having abortions", but
/ the mentality that allows for it HAS tainted most of us in many
/ subtle ways -- myself included.
Do you consider yourself a 'victim', then? Is this your own
'victimization'? You have control over whether or not the laws
of this country 'taint' your personal actions.
/ I find Tony's statements to be challenging. I don't take them as an
/ attack. I take them as a prod to reconsider where my priorities lie,
/ and whether my kids would prefer to have my attention this weekend
/ instead of the overtime money I was planning to earn.
These are your own choices. Neither the pro-choice movement (nor the
abortion laws) are the ones telling you whether or not to do something
which you would consider neglecting your kids.
/ No, Tony (nor the speaker he described) did not say that others are
/ incapable of loving children, but the question *IS* being raised:
/ on whose terms are we loving our children -- on the biblical terms
/ of God's plan for us, or on the terms of the modern world's plan for us?
The real question seems to be - are we loving our children on Tony's
terms (or on your terms). If not, we can't really love our children,
evidently.
// Statements like these don't help your 'cause' one bit (because
// those on the pro-choice side know how wrong you are about them.)
/ You are the one making the statements more extreme than they
/ were originally made. Sure, you can make them demonic if you
/ try, but they are demons of your own making.
The position mentioned is extreme on its own. You describe your
very next set of statements as an extreme position (and the person
who wrote the position we've been discussing writes later to agree
with you about it.)
But - if you don't mind hurting your cause, so be it. I'm telling
you that the pro-choice movement gets stronger every time pro-choicers
hear things about themselves that they know to be downright false.
/ To me it is an "abortion mentality" only if the couple caused
/ an unnatural failure of that pregnancy. This is a very extreme
/ statement for it includes all artificial birth control in that
/ "abortion mentality".
When you include the measures to *prevent* pregnancy (and, in some
cases, abortion) as being part of the 'abortion mentality', then you
really go off the deep end.
/ I only mention it here because you raised the subject, but I never
/ promote such an extreme viewpoint in general abortion discussions
/ except if all participants share similar moral points of view on this
/ issue (or if a premise of the forum expects that extreme morality)
/ and I do not promote it here.
Believe me, the pro-choice movement already knows that a significant
number of pro-lifers are against the prevention of pregnancy (and in
some cases, abortion) as much as they are against abortion. It is a
big help to the pro-choice movement to keep this in mind.
|
750.42 | | WRKSYS::CAMUSO | alphabits | Fri Jul 07 1995 13:37 | 38 |
|
RE: <<< Note 750.41 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
I'm sorry, I don't know your first name.
Cyberspace is a cold medium through which to convey warm concern
and sincere faith, but please allow me to try.
My heart aches that you feel compelled to reduce all of this to
some degenerate political dialectic. I pray that God working
through His Holy Ghost will awaken in you the knowledge of Christ
as the end of vain philosophies.
Please do not construe this as an attack; it is a prayer for your
soul, though only God knows your heart.
Some day you will die, and you will face Creator God, and you will
be without excuse, because He has revealed Himself in His Word,
through His prophets, and as a man on earth, the Messiah, Y'shua.
I was once scornful and angry at those who would show me this Way
as the only Way, the Truth, and the Life. I was once a believer in
the dialectic as the political expression of evolution. I was once
a humanist, believing in man's innate nobility, and that evolution
would provide the triumph of that nobility over man's intrinsic
depravity. This is not to insinuate that you believe any of these
things, but to show you that I was once as opposed to the-Bible-as-
Truth as one could be. Christ was able to heal the bitterness and
the anger. I was able to ask forgivness of those who I thought had
wronged me, and towards whom I harbored resentment and bitterness.
I humbly ask your forgiveness for anything I have said that may
have injured you in any way.
God's peace to you all.
TonyC
|
750.43 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jul 07 1995 13:39 | 19 |
750.44 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 15:47 | 19 |
| RE: .42 TonyC
My name is Suzanne, and your name is not God (so you have no idea
about the state of my soul or the very private practice of my faith,
which as you state yourself, is not the same thing as politics.)
Pray for yourself (to help you to stop trying to step in between
God and the children of God by attempting to assume things about
the states of their souls.)
/ I humbly ask your forgiveness for anything I have said that may
/ have injured you in any way.
I do accept your apology for any and all assumptions you have made
about me without knowing me (or my soul).
/ God's peace to you all.
Same to you.
|
750.45 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 16:10 | 65 |
750.46 | Moderator warning | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Jul 07 1995 16:14 | 15 |
|
Please watch the tone of replies. There is no need for heated exchanges from
either side and I'll not hesitate to return any notes deemed to be personal
attacks. I am the only mod available today and I have work to do, but I
will not allow personal attacks by either side of this issue. There are
several conferences where such tactics are welcome.
Jim Co-Mod
|
750.47 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 16:20 | 10 |
| To all:
I would like to apologize for my half the heated exchange.
Suffice it to say that comments which suggest that pro-choice people
don't really love children is not helpful to a peaceful resolution
of this issue (in case this is what anyone is seeking.)
Maybe there *is* no resolution, I don't know. But this approach
definitely isn't it (if a resolution does exist.)
|
750.48 | What can we agree on? | PIGTAL::STOCK | | Fri Jul 07 1995 16:58 | 28 |
| re: <<< Note 750.47 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
> Maybe there *is* no resolution, I don't know.
Suzanne,
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
From my viewpoint, there is *no* moral or ethical difference between
Susan Smith's "right of choice" and that of "the person who is in the
state of pregnancy herself."
For those outside the U.S., Susan Smith is a woman in her early 20s who
was married with two small children (two and four?). She has been
arrested and charged with the murder of her two children by strapping
them into child car seats and pushing the car into a lake, drowning
them. Her motive is alleged to have involved making her more desirable
to her boyfriend, who did not want to be burdened with her children.
I believe that *all* human life is sacred, regardless of some arbitrary
length of time since conception, or whether the time is before or after
birth.
I don't see how your view and mine can ever be reconciled. We can
agree that we disagree, we can agree on the rules of our disagreement,
but beyond that, ???
/John
|
750.50 | | CSOA1::LEECH | And then he threw the chimney at us! | Fri Jul 07 1995 17:07 | 11 |
| Note 750.47 (Suzanne)
> Suffice it to say that comments which suggest that pro-choice people
> don't really love children is not helpful to a peaceful resolution
> of this issue (in case this is what anyone is seeking.)
No one is suggesting this- at least not how you are representing said
comments.
-steve
|
750.51 | Write Locked | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Fri Jul 07 1995 17:12 | 10 |
|
This topic is temporarily write locked.
Jim Co mod.
|
750.52 | An honest question (in case we can agree about something...) | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 17:29 | 24 |
| RE: 750.48 John Stock
/ From my viewpoint, there is *no* moral or ethical difference between
/ Susan Smith's "right of choice" and that of "the person who is in the
/ state of pregnancy herself."
You can equate abortion to blowing up the earth, if you like (if you
think it will make abortion sound worse) - but to the pro-choice
movement, a person drowning born children (who could be nourished
and nurtured by anyone at that point) is not the same thing as making
the decision (for oneself) about something which is occurring _inside_
ones own body.
/ I don't see how your view and mine can ever be reconciled. We can
/ agree that we disagree, we can agree on the rules of our disagreement,
/ but beyond that, ???
If abortions could be reduced by 90% in this country (by individual
people making their _own_ choices), would you agree to it? Would you
consider it an amazing improvement (or would you hold out for 100% or
else no improvement at all?)
Could we agree that a 90% reduction in abortions (by choice) would
be a worthwhile improvement?
|
750.53 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jul 07 1995 18:08 | 4 |
| 90% would be great. So would only 50%.
How do you suggest that this 90% reduction would occur purely
by individual choice?
|
750.54 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 18:36 | 22 |
| RE: .661 Joe Oppelt
/ 90% would be great. So would only 50%.
I agree. (Absolutely!) See, we do agree on something. :]
/ How do you suggest that this 90% reduction would occur purely
/ by individual choice?
Such a reduction can *only* occur 'by individual choice' (because
only the woman has to know when she first becomes pregnant - even if
she doesn't feel many symptoms right away, she can get a home pregnancy
test and then tell only those who can help in her particular choice.)
We could get such a reduction by following the example of a country
(in the Western world) who allows legal abortions yet has an abortion
rate that is 1/10th (per capita) the rate of abortion in the U.S.A.
This country also has fewer unplanned pregnancies, of course, and
their teenagers have sex at a much smaller rate (per capita) than
U.S. teenagers have sex. Most teenagers wait until they are older,
in other words.
|
750.55 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jul 07 1995 18:56 | 13 |
| OK....
And how do we get everyone to comply?
Obviously this western country of which you speak does not
have the same abortion culture that we do. What would it
take to change ours? What would it cost? (Such things
don't occur in a vacuum, you know...) Note that cost does
not necessarily mean monetary. What other freedoms would
we lose? Why don't their teens turn to sex at an early
age like ours do? (I'd also welcome that side effect too!)
Understand that I do not put the burden of knowing the
answers to these questions on you. I pose them rhetorically.
|
750.56 | What they do over there... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 19:20 | 53 |
| RE: .663 Joe Oppelt
/ OK....
/ And how do we get everyone to comply?
This other country (which has the lowest abortion rate per capita in
the Western world, even though people from other countries go there
to get legal abortions) uses education and advertising.
/ Obviously this western country of which you speak does not
/ have the same abortion culture that we do.
The key is that they have far, far, far fewer unplanned pregnancies.
(Abortion is legal there.)
/ What would it take to change ours? What would it cost? (Such things
/ don't occur in a vacuum, you know...) Note that cost does not
/ necessarily mean monetary. What other freedoms would we lose?
In some ways, they have more freedoms than we have in the U.S.
/ Why don't their teens turn to sex at an early age like ours do?
/ (I'd also welcome that side effect too!)
Their teens don't have sex at the rate per capita that our teens do
because sex is not a big deal in their country (so it doesn't have
the attraction of either 'teenage rebellion' or 'trying to be grownup'.)
The adults don't especially care if the teenagers have sex (the adults
just stress very vigorously that teens - and everyone in the country -
must do everything possible to avoid disease and unplanned pregnancy.)
So the teenagers promise themselves that they won't have sex without
using both birth control *and* condoms (yes, this means that each
teenager - male and female - uses his/her own methods so they get
**double** protection when they do have sex.)
Except that after all this (with no lure of rebellion or feeling grownup,
and knowing that *both* kids have to be careful) - most just don't bother
having sex at all until they are older.
It's just too much of a hassle (for little benefit, relatively speaking)
to have sex as a teenager over there. So they choose to wait instead
(and pregnancy in their high schools is very, very rare.) One teacher
I saw interviewed said that he'd only seen *ONE* pregnancy in almost
20 years of teaching high school (and this girl 'knew better', but
somehow got pregnant anyway.)
Many U.S. high schools would consider it almost a miracle if they got
through a single year without a pregnancy anywhere in their schools.
Can we learn anything from this country? They do have the lowest
abortion rate in the Western world.
|
750.57 | Here comes the tough part... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 19:28 | 20 |
| Ok - I know that this philosophy presents a problem (because it isn't
a Christian teaching to say that sex is not a big deal for teenagers
as long as they do everything possible to avoid disease and unplanned
pregnancy - again, I'm talking about double protection where the boy
and the girl both take measures to protect themselves and each other.)
How about if the Christian parents continue to teach their own
philosophy to their kids, but we aim the education and the
advertising to the kids in this country who are most likely to
have sex no matter what their parents say?
If we aim education and advertising to these kids, then I think
it's possible that they will be less likely to have sex (but if
they do have sex, they will be less likely to have unplanned
pregnancies if both kids try to prevent it.)
It would mean buying into a solution that is not Christian-oriented,
but if it could reduce the abortion rate by even 50%, would you be
willing to entertain it? (Again, Christian parents can teach their
own kids whatever they want.)
|
750.58 | A 'no big deal' attitude is very foreign to our culture. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Fri Jul 07 1995 19:38 | 13 |
| By the way, if you think we already have a society that says it's no
big deal to have sex, we don't.
We do have a society that generates billions and billions and billions
of dollars by being in the business of sexual titillation. (In other
words, people make billions on movies which show people pretending
to have sex - and others make billions on movies, magazines, and
videos which show people actually having sex.)
This isn't an 'open attitude' about sex - it's a 'sex-is-a-thing-we-can-
make-money-on-by-showing-people-lotsa-dirty-pictures' attitude, which is
also a 'sex-is-a-very-very-very-BIG-DEAL-or-people-wouldn't-spend-all-
this-money-on-watching-other-people-doing-it' attitude.
|
750.59 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Fri Jul 07 1995 20:04 | 9 |
| Suzanne --
I agree with your .667, and that presents the crux of the problem.
Sex will always be a big deal here. "Advertising" against teen
sex will not work here. I'd be willing to entertain your ideas
only if we could change the sexual culture that we have here. Do
you think that could be done? If so, how? And how long do you
think it would take?
|
750.60 | Thanks. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Sat Jul 08 1995 23:16 | 34 |
| RE: .668 Joe Oppelt
> I agree with your .667, and that presents the crux of the problem.
Thanks.
> Sex will always be a big deal here. "Advertising" against teen
> sex will not work here.
Actually, they don't 'advertise' against teen sex at all. They
strongly advertise in favor of doing everything possible to avoid
disease and unplanned pregnancies.
The teens themselves make the decision to wait to have sex. When
you have to stop and think about it (and take precautions) before
having sex, it just isn't as much fun as what U.S. teenagers do
(which is to hop into bed with barely a thought in the world for
what might happen to them.)
> I'd be willing to entertain your ideas only if we could change the
> sexual culture that we have here. Do you think that could be done?
> If so, how? And how long do you think it would take?
Well, personally, I think our culture could change - but I don't
think it would happen with censorship or laws forbidding the video
and magazines, etc., that we have now. Such censorship would only
send the 'sex business' underground (where even more billions could
be made from it because sex would be an even bigger deal.)
I think it would take a number of groups which are usually at odds
with each other to join forces to change our culture.
Fads and fashion can overtake a culture in a matter of years - could
this specific cultural change happen this fast? I honestly don't know.
|
750.61 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Sun Jul 09 1995 19:55 | 15 |
| OH boy....
This really grieves me to read the last few replies. We basically are
saying that while the media, radio, movies, newspapers (all
communications) and schools will promote an open sexuality, there won't
be an affect on our Christian children who are being taught another
morality.
Suzanne, you are a very strong voice regarding this country's
attitudes. When will you name the country, so that each of us may have
an opportunity to validate the truths is your last few messages?
Nancy
|
750.62 | | CSOA1::LEECH | And then he threw the chimney at us! | Mon Jul 10 1995 09:22 | 13 |
| I agree with Suzanne's .667, however, the plan of attack
(advertisement) has already been less than successful in this country.
We do advertise "safe" sex (a misnomer), condoms, aids awareness, etc.
Guess what? Aids and other STD's are still on the rise.
I think we need to understand the root of the problem before we can
really do much about it. All sex-related problems stem from the same
root- a root that most of society ignores completely. It is this very
self-inflicted blindness that will insure that the STD, pregnancy, and
other sexually related problems will continue.
-steve
|
750.63 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Mon Jul 10 1995 10:51 | 72 |
| 108.660 � If abortions could be reduced by 90% in this country (by individual
108.660 � people making their _own_ choices), would you agree to it? Would you
108.660 � consider it an amazing improvement (or would you hold out for 100% or
108.660 � else no improvement at all?)
108.660 � Could we agree that a 90% reduction in abortions (by choice) would
108.660 � be a worthwhile improvement?
Hi Suzanne,
Proffering empty figures are meaningless. They don't come without conditions.
The cost of the condition may be more than what is gained, especially if it
sacrifices the very principle behind the reduction.
108.662 � We could get such a reduction by following the example of a country
108.662 � (in the Western world) who allows legal abortions yet has an abortion
108.662 � rate that is 1/10th (per capita) the rate of abortion in the U.S.A.
108.662 � This country also has fewer unplanned pregnancies, of course, and
108.662 � their teenagers have sex at a much smaller rate (per capita) than
108.662 � U.S. teenagers have sex. Most teenagers wait until they are older,
108.662 � in other words.
It's simplistic to judge the value of a line of argument from an outward
number count. It opens the way to playing legal games to call sin excusable,
rather than actually dealing with the heart of it so that we prepare to meet
God. What is even more significant than figures, is the heart towards God.
From your .664, this is clearly not established by any moral awareness. You
claim that fornication is at a lower level than in any other western nation,
but do not indicate how this is measured (sale of contraceptives?). It's not
only the physical necessity of sex that you claim is reduced - this would be
ok, if unbelievable in a world of pressured advertising which uses the most
emotive senses available. The big problem is that this trivialises the
spiritual significance of sex. It says, effectively, "This is an option you
bcan switch on or off using contraceptives, but who cares anyway?" I think
that must be somewhat of a delusion, to say the least.
The 'good' is enemy of the best. Make another 10% your target, and you forget
that really it's 100% that matters. When it comes to babies in the womb, 100%
of them are real people.
Suppose we selected a section of the community, and agreed to only kill half
of them. Would they settle for that instead of having 90% of them killed?
Obviously they would prefer 3%, but 0% is the principle. For 'law' to make
any loophole is to depart from God's law, which says that people are made in
His image, and He will demand an accounting for the lifeblood of the murdered.
In .665 you propose coexistance of two societies. One is trying to follow
God's law, but living amongst and learning amongst those who do not understand
how they are made, or what for. Those children of Christian parents are still
effectively living in moral Sodom and Babylon. While the parents wish them to
become Christians, they are at a severe disadvantage, because the sins of the
world are temptations. They are not neutral.
As a Catholic, Suzanne, you will be aware that we are placed here as salt and
light, to show the world how we should live (Matthew 5:13-16). The idea is
not to create a divergence in ways, but in identifying evil, that it might be
avoided both in our living and in our law - which should, at least, be an
example of righteousness, rather than of compromise.
Incidentally, advertising concerning sex - whether it's stressing the
importance of contraceptives to avoid the result of sin (while ignoring the
actual sin) or exploiting it in other advertisements - inevitably affects the
appetite and awareness. How about we ban advertising for a start? ;-}
Suzanne, as you must know from the Bible, the problem is not our culture, but
our hearts as individuals. To address the culture while neglecting the
individual is to impose another degree of law. We need to address both, that
as people become aware of the awefulness of sin, they also realise the remedy.
Andrew
|
750.64 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Jul 10 1995 11:22 | 32 |
| | <<< Note 108.671 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
| This really grieves me to read the last few replies. We basically are saying
| that while the media, radio, movies, newspapers (all communications) and
| schools will promote an open sexuality, there won't be an affect on our
| Christian children who are being taught another morality.
Peer pressure is a good example that would illistrate the above. Kids
will try things if they are pressured enough. Not all kids, but many. But how
strong the family is, is a big factor in how long they would actually do
something for most kids. I think that is key. If love is present, will a lot of
the peer pressure happen? Some of it might, but imho I believe a good strong
family will help end it sooner than later.
But what about pregnancy? Just this weekend I saw a commercial (media)
that had a 15 year old girl with a baby. She was talking about all the things
she is missing out on. I have seen similar commercials as well. The media is
changing in a lot of ways. Hollywood is also starting to make a change. I don't
think you will ever see a 100% change, but the messages that are being put out
there by the ad agencies are a good strong voice. And they are being played
when kids are watching tv, not JUST late night when they are asleep.
So I don't think things are as bad as you have made them sound Nancy,
only because you seem to have left out the positive messages that are being put
out there today. Maybe they don't have them yet on the west coast? I think you
have said that you don't watch tv much, if at all. If that is the case, how can
you talk about the media like you did? (print maybe...)
Glen
|
750.65 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Mon Jul 10 1995 11:24 | 11 |
| | <<< Note 108.672 by CSOA1::LEECH "And then he threw the chimney at us!" >>>
| We do advertise "safe" sex (a misnomer), condoms, aids awareness, etc.
| Guess what? Aids and other STD's are still on the rise.
Steve, the ads I saw that were a message to kids talked about not
having sex until you're married.
Glen
|
750.66 | | CSOA1::LEECH | And then he threw the chimney at us! | Mon Jul 10 1995 11:27 | 5 |
| That's good news, Glen. I have yet to see these adds in my neck of the
woods, though.
-steve
|
750.67 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Jul 10 1995 13:03 | 10 |
| Andrew! Excellent note. We do fail to recognize the issues of the
heart which causes the symptoms of a dysfunctional society. The issue
as Suzanne would have us believe is our narrow-minded sex is evil
mentality. I don't believe that being moral is the issue, we had less
unwed mothers this society just a mere 20 years ago, while maintaining
a societal view that sex before marriage was wrong... not that sex was
wrong.
Nancy
|
750.68 | FWIW... | CSC32::KINSELLA | | Mon Jul 10 1995 13:33 | 22 |
|
This may be something that's already been mentioned, but...
RE: .672
I agree with Suzanne's .667, however, the plan of attack
(advertisement) has already been less than successful in this
country. We do advertise "safe" sex (a misnomer), condoms, aids
awareness, etc. Guess what? Aids and other STD's are still on
the rise.
Steve, yeah this is advertised, but is it a louder message than the
zillion of messages that sell sex? I don't think so. We are a society
bombarded with messages that sex is the ultimate, we absolutely have
to have it, we can't live without it. This is especially true of teens:
TV ads, teen magazines, health class, and music geared for them all
tell them they need sex. If that's the input they are getting, how
can we expect a different output? We can't. The only way is to change
the input. Adding a few service announcements about "safe" sex to the
barrage of "you need sex" messages is not going fix this.
IMHO, Jill
|
750.69 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Mon Jul 10 1995 13:33 | 8 |
| Right, Nancy. Sex is good. So good, that it's worth using right, and in
context for procreation in marriage. Those who wish to be blind to
original sin, and to God, have as part of their baggage the denial of any
sort of design in our makeup. Hence they move towards rejecting that there
are behavioural absolutes. They lose an awful lot, even down here, let
alone eternity.
Andrew
|
750.70 | | CSOA1::LEECH | And then he threw the chimney at us! | Mon Jul 10 1995 14:48 | 5 |
| re: .678
Well, there's truth to that, too. 8^)
-steve
|
750.71 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | He said, 'To blave...' | Mon Jul 10 1995 16:57 | 3 |
| I can't believe that the kids in this example "Western Country"
refrain from sex without a strong morality leading them in that
direction.
|
750.72 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Mon Jul 10 1995 17:54 | 15 |
| RE: .681 Joe Oppelt
/ I can't believe that the kids in this example "Western Country"
/ refrain from sex without a strong morality leading them in that
/ direction.
Well, I know it's difficult for some to imagine, but it's true.
They use a strong sense of responsibility instead of a strong sense
of morality and it just isn't as much fun for teenagers to have sex
when they have to think about what they're doing.
Hopping into the sack without a *thought* to the possible consequences
is a lot easier to do (which is why *so many more* of our teenagers in
the U.S. find it so attractive.)
|
750.73 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Mon Jul 10 1995 22:01 | 6 |
| Suzanne,
I, for one, refuse to believe anything further about this country until
it is named and I can validate your statistics.
Nancy
|
750.74 | | BBQ::WOODWARDC | between the Glory and the Flame | Mon Jul 10 1995 23:06 | 3 |
| My guess...
either Denmark or The Netherlands (Holland as some know it).
|
750.75 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Mon Jul 10 1995 23:20 | 7 |
| re .682
Given your agenda and your secretiveness about details, I
hold doubts about what is really true. I do not doubt that
they have different or better statistics, but I'll need
more than just your affirmation about the underlying
motivations.
|
750.76 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 13:38 | 33 |
| The country with the lowest abortion rate in the western world (and
the nation with an abortion rate per capita that is 1/10th the abortion
rate per capita in the United States) is, of course, the Netherlands
(also known as Holland.)
Per capita, they have 90% fewer abortions than the U.S., although
abortion is legal there.
As for why the kids do not have sex - I saw a number of high school
students interviewed in the Netherlands and the *one common theme*
among them was that they ALL had promised themselves (early in their
teen years) that they would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have
sex without doing everything possible to protect themselves from
disease and unplanned pregnancy. (This promise is made by girls *and*
boys in Holland.) When Dutch teenagers do have sex, they have double
the protection (because *both partners* are using their own.)
Dutch teenagers have sex in *fewer numbers* (per capita) than U.S.
teenagers have sex, though. Many teenagers interviewed said that
although they had also made the promise to themselves about never,
ever having sex without doing everything possible to protect them-
selves, many had further decided not to have sex at all until later
(by their own decision, after a lot of thinking about what to do).
Holland has the vital statistics to prove what has happened in their
country: fewer teenagers have sex per capita, fewer people experience
unplanned pregnancies per capita, and they have the lowest abortion
rate in the western world (1/10th the rate per capita in the U.S.)
Yet - it also isn't too unusual to see full frontal nudity in TV
commercials there, or so I've heard. Sex just isn't a 'big deal'
over there, so a display of the human body isn't a source of mass
hysteria or mass titillation for the Dutch.
|
750.77 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Tue Jul 11 1995 13:54 | 9 |
|
My eldest son thinks that The Netherlands is heaven on earth. He can go
and use drugs 24 hours a day/7 Days a week and nobody will say a word..
JIm
|
750.78 | | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Tue Jul 11 1995 13:55 | 26 |
| Hi Suzanne,
Sounds as if this promise is based on a self-centred fear, rather than on
a proper awe of God, and honour and respect for His creational design.
While the result is commendable as far as it goes, we do not yet see the
full results, and are unlikely to in this dimension. It sounds like a time
bomb, where nature has to be moulded to a law of fear.
Just think how much better such a society would be if behaviour were
instead based on a true understanding of the place God has made for each of
us, and our function here; an awareness of His love for each of mankind!
Not only would the side effects of sin be reduced (in terms of
extra-marital sex), the honour and respect of the individual would be
maintained (in terms of sanctity and decency). And .. we would then be
moving towards 1 Timothy 2:2
"...that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and
holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, Who wants all
men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."
Any compromise is opening a door to later trouble, and a general loss of
holiness and consequent isolation from God.
Andrew
|
750.79 | Key phrase upon which the thesis is built: | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 11 1995 14:20 | 1 |
| "Or so I've heard."
|
750.80 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 16:31 | 12 |
| RE: .689 Joe Oppelt
/ -< Key phrase upon which the thesis is built: >-
/ "Or so I've heard."
Actually, this phrase was about TV commercials in the Netherlands
(and it was mentioned in passing and is not under discussion in this
topic.)
And, by the way, I got this one piece of information (about TV) from
a citizen of the Netherlands in mail yesterday.
|
750.81 | The 'promise' is based on responsibility. Is responsibility bad?? | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 16:34 | 11 |
| RE: .688 Andrew Yuille
/Sounds as if this promise is based on a self-centred fear, rather than on
/a proper awe of God, and honour and respect for His creational design.
So, you would pass up an opportunity to reduce abortions by 90% if you
believed people were avoiding pregnancy and abortion for the 'wrong'
reasons?
Does this mean you have a priority which is higher than the lives of
the 'babies' which could be saved by this approach?
|
750.82 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Tue Jul 11 1995 16:40 | 15 |
|
In this conference we approach issues from a Biblical point of view (as
pointed out in 2.*). I believe Andrew was stating his views from the Biblical
point of view. It's wonderful that lives are being saved, and I hope that
trend continues. From a Biblical point of view, to which most in this
conference subscribe, it is sad that God's pronouncements re: premarital
sex are ignored, and seemingly encouraged.
Jim
|
750.83 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 16:50 | 19 |
| RE: .692 Jim Henderson
/ In this conference we approach issues from a Biblical point of view (as
/ pointed out in 2.*). I believe Andrew was stating his views from the
/ Biblical point of view.
Thanks, Jim - I do understand this.
I'm concerned about Andrew's apparent rejection of a method which
has succeeded in keeping abortions down to 10% of the U.S. rate,
though, which he seems to do in this statement:
"Any compromise is opening a door to later trouble, and a
general loss of holiness and consequent isolation from God."
Would it really be more appropriate to reject the Netherlands'
success if it doesn't fit into a Biblical point of view?
(I'm just asking this - it's ok if no one wants to answer.)
|
750.84 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jul 11 1995 16:54 | 5 |
| The answer is yes, Suzanne. There are things in the life that are
extrabiblical and things which are contrabiblical... this falls into
the latter, cars fall into aforementioned.
Nancy
|
750.85 | Doesn't the word 'contrabiblical' indicate a rejection? | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 17:05 | 11 |
| It sounds like some are saying that they *would* reject a method
that could reduce abortions by 90% if it came from an idea that
was not in the Biblical point of view.
This does start to sound as if a higher priority than the lives
of 'babies' is at stake, here.
(Remember, we're talking about a method employed in society at large
and *not* something that every Christian would have to incorporate
into his/her own life. Christians would still be free to teach their
children whatever they like.)
|
750.86 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Tue Jul 11 1995 17:10 | 31 |
|
> "Any compromise is opening a door to later trouble, and a
> general loss of holiness and consequent isolation from God."
> Would it really be more appropriate to reject the Netherlands'
> success if it doesn't fit into a Biblical point of view?
There are a couple of verses in the Bible, which off the top of my head
seem to address this. One in Proverbs 14 "There is a way which seemeth
right to a man, but the end thereof is destruction [actually I think it
says 'ways of death']" and in 1st Corinthians "The wisdom of the World is
but foolishness in God's eyes".
It is wonderful that babies are being saved..I don't think any one will
argue with that. However, the process by which these babies are conceived
is ungodly. It seems right to us that lives are being saved, but the sin
that leads to their conception leads to the destruction (separation from
God for eternity). The (nonChristian) World comes up with all sorts of
ways to make things *seem* right, but apart from God, they are the ways
of death. The Wisdom that comes up with this is foolishness in God's
eyes.
Jim
|
750.87 | A bit of confusion corrected, hopefully. | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 17:23 | 29 |
| RE: .696 Jim Henderson
/ It is wonderful that babies are being saved..I don't think any one will
/ argue with that. However, the process by which these babies are conceived
/ is ungodly.
Jim, I think you missed a big part of my note - the rate of unplanned
pregnancies (and teenage sex) is way, way lower in Holland than it is
in the U.S., too.
The babies are saved (mostly) by not being conceived in the first place.
/ It seems right to us that lives are being saved, but the sin that leads
/ to their conception leads to the destruction (separation from God for
/ eternity).
As I mentioned, the babies are saved by not being conceived (and fewer
teenagers have sex in the Netherlands.)
If teenagers refrain from sex for reasons of responsibility rather than
morality, is this bad? Or is it ok that they *do* refrain from having
sex (for whatever reason)?
/ The (nonChristian) World comes up with all sorts of ways to make things
/ *seem* right, but apart from God, they are the ways of death. The
/ Wisdom that comes up with this is foolishness in God's eyes.
Would God want to save the lives of 'babies' even if the answer came
from a non-Biblical approach, do you suppose?
|
750.88 | How about another way? | CSC32::KINSELLA | | Tue Jul 11 1995 17:55 | 17 |
| How about if we reduced the abortion rate by 90% by teaching all our
kids abstinence, having them promise not to have sex until they are
married, getting rid of the constant bombardment of sexual messages,
and an aggressive education on purity, virtue, self-esteem,
consequences of premarital sex both physically, spiritually, and
emotionally, and the physical consequences of abortion on a woman's
body?
None of us want to reject a 90% reduction rate in abortion. What we
can reject is the promotion of that which is sinful as a means of doing
it. I think it's great that some kids are choosing not to have sex. I
think it's unfortunate that others are and that society is going to
"bless" it because the are using double protection and it doesn't cost
them anything. I think that stinks. So much for caring about the
spiritual and emotional well being of these kids!
Jill
|
750.89 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:01 | 30 |
|
> Jim, I think you missed a big part of my note - the rate of unplanned
> pregnancies (and teenage sex) is way, way lower in Holland than it is
> in the U.S., too.
Well, perhaps I did..sorry. File that reply for another time ;-)
> If teenagers refrain from sex for reasons of responsibility rather than
> morality, is this bad? Or is it ok that they *do* refrain from having
> sex (for whatever reason)?
What is "bad" is that they (apparantly) have not come to know Jesus Christ
It is wonderful that they refrain from sex, as God intended.
> Would God want to save the lives of 'babies' even if the answer came
> from a non-Biblical approach, do you suppose?
My understanding of God says that he would love that the babies are being
saved, but ignoring the fact that He died to save their souls and that
is being ignored (apparantly) would cause Him great sadness.
Jim
|
750.90 | | PAULKM::WEISS | For I am determined to know nothing, except... | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:07 | 1 |
| Snarf
|
750.91 | Agreement | SUBSYS::DYER | | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:10 | 14 |
| As I sit here and watch the notes go back and forth, it is easy
to understand both sides. But, I agree with Andrew and others, that if something
does not line up with the bible(God's direction for our lives - the living word
of God), then no matter how good something looks or the how great the results
are, it is not the way to go. There were many circumstances in the bible where a
direction from God seemed wrong(why go into battle and kill off hundreds of
people?), but obedience was the key to God's blessings and his presence with his
people. Why should Abraham lay his son Isaac on the Altar and sacrifice him?
Bizaar request from God?? Obedience was all that was required and God's mercy
came about and Isaac was spared.
my two cents,
Steve
|
750.92 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:13 | 45 |
| RE: .698 Jill Kinsella
/ How about if we reduced the abortion rate by 90% by teaching all our
/ kids abstinence, having them promise not to have sex until they are
/ married, getting rid of the constant bombardment of sexual messages,
/ and an aggressive education on purity, virtue, self-esteem,
/ consequences of premarital sex both physically, spiritually, and
/ emotionally, and the physical consequences of abortion on a woman's
/ body?
To a great extent, you seem to be suggesting that we look at the
western country with the *greatest success* in keeping down the
abortion rate and do (pretty much) the exact opposite of what they
are doing.
Sorry, but it doesn't sound like the wisest thing our society could do.
/ None of us want to reject a 90% reduction rate in abortion. What we
/ can reject is the promotion of that which is sinful as a means of doing
/ it.
The Netherlands does not 'promote' sex for teenagers. Far from it.
They simply promote responsibility for those who choose to have sex.
(More Dutch teeangers than American teenagers choose not to have sex.)
/ I think it's great that some kids are choosing not to have sex. I
/ think it's unfortunate that others are and that society is going to
/ "bless" it because the are using double protection and it doesn't cost
/ them anything. I think that stinks. So much for caring about the
/ spiritual and emotional well being of these kids!
If some kids are bound and determined to have sex, would you rather they
got AIDS, STDs, pregnant (and that the fetus was aborted) instead?
Dutch society doesn't 'bless' kids for having sex.
Dutch society 'blesses' the absence of disease and unplanned pregnancies
(and the low abortion rate.) They make sure that those relatively few
teenagers (compared to the U.S.) who *do* have sex are not in as much
danger of disease, unplanned pregnancy (with a possible abortion) as
American teenagers are in danger of going through these things.
Would you rather that the American teenagers who are bound and determined
to have sex *remain in danger* (and continue to get diseases, unplanned
pregnancies and possible abortions by whatever means they can find)?
|
750.93 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:17 | 8 |
| Okay we've heard of the successes...
I'm confused at this point what you are saying accomplished these
statistics.
Susan describe exactly the society's way of accomplishing these
successes and then we can decide whether they are contrabiblical.
|
750.94 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:21 | 13 |
750.95 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:32 | 28 |
| RE: .703 Nancy
/ I'm confused at this point what you are saying accomplished these
/ statistics.
As mentioned earlier, education and advertising.
/ Suzanne describe exactly the society's way of accomplishing these
/ successes and then we can decide whether they are contrabiblical.
The Netherlands has an 'open' attitude about sex (which means that
the mention of sex does not have the vast titillation effect that we
get here in the United States.)
They do vast education and advertising about disease and unplanned
pregnancy, so kids are very aware of the stupidity of even
*considering* to have sex without both people taking precautions
to prevent disease and unplanned pregnancy.
In the course of all this openess, more Dutch teenagers (than U.S.
teenagers) decide *not to have sex at all* until they are older.
They think about the subject enough to make this decision.
Those Dutch teenagers who regard it as a question of morality make
the decision for reasons of morality, of course. The education and
advertising is aimed at providing information on how to protect
oneself from disease and unplanned pregnancy. Families can teach
the moral aspects of all this on their own.
|
750.96 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:55 | 6 |
| .704
Suzanne, you *are* in the ::Christian notes conference. We are trying
to understand your proposal but quite honestly, "openness" about sex
and "open sex" are too different things. Which are you saying is the
methodology in the Netherlands.
|
750.97 | An unfair assessment | CSC32::KINSELLA | | Tue Jul 11 1995 18:58 | 45 |
|
> To a great extent, you seem to be suggesting that we look at the
> western country with the *greatest success* in keeping down the
> abortion rate and do (pretty much) the exact opposite of what they
> are doing.
Suzanne I don't think this is a fair assessment of what I said. You
said that the kids in Holland aren't put under pressure to have sex. I
believe the kids in the US are under intense pressure with all the
sexual messages they get, so I say we should take this pressure away.
So far, the same. You said that the kids in Holland are taught
responsibility, I said teach our kids about the physically,
spiritually, and emotionally effects of premarital sex and abortion and
ask them to be responsible not to have sex until marriage and to show
respect for themselves and others. Again... along the same lines.
Where am I saying the exact opposite? I brought a spiritual dimension
into it of purity, virtue and self-esteem, but that's not totally
opposite of anything you said IMO.
> Sorry, but it doesn't sound like the wisest thing our society
> could do.
Following God's precepts is always the wisest thing anyone can do.
> If some kids are bound and determined to have sex, would you
> rather they got AIDS, STDs, pregnant (and that the fetus was
> aborted) instead?
No, I did not say this either. I think many kids get married young and
need to be probably educated about their bodies at an appropriate age.
I don't think that is a sin. It has been warped almost beyond repair
in the current school system and that whole mode of teaching needs to
be thrown out and a comprehensive program of educating kids to respect
themselves from K-12 grades. This doesn't not mean you tell little kids
about sex...it means you teach them respect for themselves and others
and build on that. I think that adequate sex education should be
taught in high school but within the context that this is information
for when they get married which for some will be right after they
graduate. Actually, I think a whole course on marriage and adult
responsibility would be a good requirement. Will some kids choose
to use this information before then? Probably so. But they cannot
claim ignorance for their irresponsibility.
Jill
|
750.98 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 19:01 | 15 |
| RE: .706 Nancy Morales
/ Suzanne, you *are* in the ::Christian notes conference. We are trying
/ to understand your proposal but quite honestly, "openness" about sex
/ and "open sex" are too different things. Which are you saying is the
/ methodology in the Netherlands.
'Openness', not 'open sex'.
An 'open' attitude lacks the titillation and mass hysteria (grasping
for every sexual inuendo and 'peek' at body parts) that we have in
the U.S.
In other words, they have a responsible attitude towards sex (while
the entire U.S. is a snickering, giggling child in comparison.)
|
750.99 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 19:21 | 46 |
| RE: .707 Jill Kinsella
/ You said that the kids in Holland aren't put under pressure to have sex.
/ I believe the kids in the US are under intense pressure with all the
/ sexual messages they get, so I say we should take this pressure away.
/ So far, the same.
Holland doesn't pressure kids to have sex or not have sex. Sexuality
is an open subject in the Netherlands - for example, I saw part of a
TV show which featured a group of teenagers speaking openly about sex
(with an adult moderating the program). The kids decide for themselves
not to have sex.
You're talking about pressuring kids to *not* have sex and what sounds
like an avoidance of the subject of sex in the media (which is not the
same thing Holland is doing.)
/ You said that the kids in Holland are taught responsibility, I said
/ teach our kids about the physically, spiritually, and emotionally
/ effects of premarital sex and abortion and ask them to be responsible
/ not to have sex until marriage and to show respect for themselves and
/ others. Again... along the same lines.
Again, you're talking about pressuring kids *not* to have sex (by
equating responsibility with abstinence, so that once kids are not
abstinent, they will do nothing further to protect themselves since
they've already 'shot' the definition of 'responsible'.)
This is precisely the opposite of the very successful Dutch methodology.
Being responsible means considering the consequences of sex and taking
care of themselves if they do have sex. Once kids think about all
this in Holland, they often choose not to have sex. They aren't
pressured into not having sex.
/ Where am I saying the exact opposite? I brought a spiritual dimension
/ into it of purity, virtue and self-esteem, but that's not totally
/ opposite of anything you said IMO.
You are turning 180 degrees away from what they are doing (by trying
to equate responsibility with abstinence so that any teenagers who
break their abstinence will have no other protection from disease or
unplanned pregnancy.)
This couldn't be further from the methodology that has been successful
in the Netherlands.
|
750.100 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jul 11 1995 19:23 | 27 |
| Well, I'm about as open as a person can get and have used this openness
with my children to discuss sex. I've taken the titillation out of it
as much as any parent can do... but my boys still blush at the beauty
of a woman, whether clothed or only half clothed.
My church recently had a youth conference in which it used films to
educate our teens on abortion. These films were films used you
colleges for medical students.
As the testimony in the "Our progeny, but His children" topic, declares
my son came out in shock and horror of what actually is abortion. He
has since had that impact his way of thinking, even more so than
probably *our* conversations which have included things such as "Mom,
do girls like sex?"
I think we do need more education in the right direction and less
titillation regarding our sexuality. But I don't think that education
without morality is the answer.
Its awfully hard to bring about sexual responsibility when our entire
familial structure has deteriorated to the point that few Mom's and
Dad's are responsible for their homes.
My biggest concern in this country is *accountability* for our
children. Which breeds responsibility.
|
750.101 | | CSC32::KINSELLA | | Tue Jul 11 1995 19:40 | 2 |
|
Thanks for expounding on that Suzanne.
|
750.102 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 11 1995 19:48 | 30 |
| <<< Note 108.709 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
Suzanne, all we have is your assertion that Holland kids do not
abstain from sex out of moral responsibility and do so absent a
spiritual dimension in their decision-making.
> for example, I saw part of a
> TV show which featured a group of teenagers speaking openly about sex
> (with an adult moderating the program). The kids decide for themselves
> not to have sex.
I have seen no less in my church's senior youth group.
I really believe that you have filtered into (and out of) the
Holland situation what you need to make your argument.
> This is precisely the opposite of the very successful Dutch methodology.
So far I only see evidence that this is a methodology of your
own making.
> This couldn't be further from the methodology that has been successful
> in the Netherlands.
Ditto.
If you could, please point us to some study or text that describes
their society in this area so that we could assess for ourselves
what transpires there. I need more than one agendized person's
assertions to be convinced of what happens in Holland.
|
750.103 | About responsibility... | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 19:52 | 22 |
| RE: .710 Nancy Morales
Of course, whatever an individual church or family wants to say to
their own kids about all this is up to the church and the family.
/ My biggest concern in this country is *accountability* for our
/ children. Which breeds responsibility.
Well, my take on this is that it doesn't teach children to have
responsibility for their own actions if their parents are the
ones to get into trouble for what the kids (themselves) do.
It only gives the kids power over their parents (by knowing that
if the parents make them mad, they can get the parents into major
hot water by doing something bad for which the parents will have
to pay, not the kids.)
I know that it seems as though the parents would exert more control
over the kids if the parents knew that THEY would get into trouble
if the kids misbehaved - but if the kids are determined to get BACK
at their parents for strict rules about behaving themselves, an easy
way to do it is to get their parents into legal trouble.
|
750.104 | | BSS::S_CONLON | A Season of Carnelians... | Tue Jul 11 1995 19:58 | 17 |
| RE: .712 Joe Oppelt
/ Suzanne, all we have is your assertion that Holland kids do not
/ abstain from sex out of moral responsibility and do so absent a
/ spiritual dimension in their decision-making.
Actually, I did say that the Dutch teenagers who consider this an
issue of morality make their decisions based on reasons of morality.
The education and advertising on this subject doesn't press a specific
moral stance, though.
/ If you could, please point us to some study or text that describes
/ their society in this area so that we could assess for ourselves
/ what transpires there.
Sure - I'll see what I can find and will post it here as soon as I can.
|
750.105 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jul 11 1995 20:01 | 25 |
| .713
I'm sorry I wasn't very clear... Parental responsibility and
accountability is not all that was intended in my note.
Children should be accountable to their parents, parents should be
responsible for their children. This does not mean that I condone a
society where parents are punished for their children's law breaking...
though that is throught provoking. :-)
The above is an implied contract between parent and child to uphold
certain virtues/actions towards each other. This kind of agreement can
only be had via respect or fear. I prefer the aforementioned.
I see what you are describing in all of Holland in many of our
Christian teens already. I know in the Christian school my children
attend, in the last 19 years 5 teenagers have become pregnant. Not bad
statistics. I must admit that I do not know of abortions, but to be
fair, I believe there must have been at least 5 to match the number of
known pregnancies.
All-in-all not bad statistics in a school that has housed over 1100
female students in 19 years.
|
750.106 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 11 1995 21:06 | 13 |
| <<< Note 108.714 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
> Actually, I did say that the Dutch teenagers who consider this an
> issue of morality make their decisions based on reasons of morality.
And how do we know that this is not the majority (say, 90%?)
of the Dutch teens?
> The education and advertising on this subject doesn't press a specific
> moral stance, though.
Again, how can I be sure of this?
|
750.109 | Still write locked | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Wed Jul 12 1995 06:54 | 9 |
| The write lock established in 750.51 has not yet been lifted.
Following the write lock, this discussion was continued in note 108. This
is an unacceptable subterfuge. Replies have now been moved back to this note.
The write lock will be reviewed by the moderators in due course.
Andrew Yuille
co-moderator
|
750.108 | See guidelines - note 2. | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Wed Jul 12 1995 06:58 | 6 |
| Several notes entered here are significantly out of line for the CHRISTIAN
conference. This is being addressed with the author.
Andrew Yuille
co-moderator
|
750.111 | URGENT! Here's something we CAN do! Pro-life | CAMONE::LINDSEY | | Thu Jul 20 1995 11:22 | 68 |
|
Here's something we CAN do!!
As I was driving home yesterday, I was listening to Focus on the Family.
Dobson was talking about some legislation they are going to vote on TODAY,
July 20 in the House Appropriations Committee.
There are 4 initiatives:
1) title 10 monies. The initiative is to do away with the monies given to
title 10 programs, such as planned parenthood. The main reason being
the abortion counselling that they provide.
2) Mandatory elective abortion training needs to be conducted in all medical
schools in order for them to be accredited. Interns have a choice as to
perform them or not, but the medical school, regardless of its convictions
on this issue and the hospitals must teach this to gain the accredition.
Pro-life avocates want this stopped.
3) Late term abortions. It is now legal to perform a particular type of
late term abortion in the last trimester of pregnancy. The procedure
is done during labor (or induced labor). They allow the baby to be
"born" up to the birth canal and then cut into the skull and use some
sort of device to suck the brains out of the child. I think the reason
why they wait so long in the birth process is so that the baby's body
parts can be used for experienmentation or as donated organs (not sure
on this).
4) Research monies from our taxes are being used for fetal tissue
experimentation. Scientists and doctors are being allowed to test on
fertilized eggs or embryos to try to find out more about human development.
Then they discard of the embryos when their testing is complete.
I am trying to be as accurate as I can be in explaining the legistation. No
doubt I may have missed some points, this is complicated legistalation.
What I do feel strongly about is the use of my tax dollars to fund projects
that allow or encourage the abortion of a pregnancy and the experiementation
on embryos. I am all for science and improving the health of our society
but I am distressed at how easily we can jump to the conclusion on what is
life and what isn't and the arrogance of us to think we can make these kind
of judgements on what "quality" of life is.
For more information on this you can contact Focus on the Family at
(719)531-5181.
Dobson is urging those who are pro-life to call the congressmen on the
appropriations committee who tend to be the swing votes, concerning this
passing. You can call any or all of them at the main switchboard at
(202) 224-3121. or call or fax them individually at the numbers below.
office phone fax phone
Ralph Regula Rep Ohio 202 225-3876 225-3059
Jerry Lewis Rep Calif 202 225-5861 225-6498
Joe Skeen Rep New Mexico 225-2365 225-9599
David Hopson Rep Ohio 225-4324 1984
Henry Bonilla Rep Texas 225-4511 2237
Dan Miller Rep Florida 225-5015 0828
Jim Kolbe Rep Arizona 225-2542 0378
Frank Riggs Rep Calif 225-3311 3403
George Nethercutt Rep Washington 225-2006 3392
Tom Bevill Dem Alabama 225-4876 1604
Marcy Kaptur Dem Ohio 225-4146 7711
Ray Thorton Dem Arkansas 225-2506 9273
Bill Hefner Dem North Carolina 225-3715 4036
If you feel strongly about this please call them and urge them to support
the pro-life amendments that are coming up to vote today.
|
750.112 | | PAULKM::WEISS | For I am determined to know nothing, except... | Thu Jul 20 1995 11:53 | 5 |
| The abortion method mentioned in point 3) is described in grisly detail in
note 109. I believe that the fetal brain tissue is used in the treatment if
Alzheimer's disease.
Paul
|
750.113 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 11:58 | 44 |
| | <<< Note 750.111 by CAMONE::LINDSEY >>>
| 1) title 10 monies. The initiative is to do away with the monies given to
| title 10 programs, such as planned parenthood. The main reason being the
| abortion counselling that they provide.
This COULD be a good idea if it were done right. Planned Parenthood
does a lot of very good things for women. To do away with the money they
receive because their beliefs on abortion is different than your own, is
defeating more than it is helping. If the money they receive has the
stipulation that it can not be used for abortion related issues, then you would
have a bill that will fit what you are against, and not punish a group that
does women a lot of good.
| 2) Mandatory elective abortion training needs to be conducted in all medical
| schools in order for them to be accredited. Interns have a choice as to
| perform them or not, but the medical school, regardless of its convictions
| on this issue and the hospitals must teach this to gain the accredition.
| Pro-life avocates want this stopped.
In theory, this makes perfect sense. But what happens if a woman comes
into a hospital, and the mother's life is in danger? If you are the only one
around, and you do not know what to do, the mother will die. I think, anyway,
that this is the reason why all must do it.
| 3) Late term abortions. It is now legal to perform a particular type of late
| term abortion in the last trimester of pregnancy.
Does anyone know what the circumstances have to be for this type of an
abortion to take place? Is it a free for all, or do certain conditions have to
be in place first?
| 4) Research monies from our taxes are being used for fetal tissue
| experimentation. Scientists and doctors are being allowed to test on
| fertilized eggs or embryos to try to find out more about human development.
| Then they discard of the embryos when their testing is complete.
Do they create the fetilized eggs in the lab, or do they take them
directly from the mother?
Glen
|
750.114 | clarifying some issues | CAMONE::LINDSEY | | Thu Jul 20 1995 12:29 | 45 |
|
I don't want to get into a big discussion back and forth on this but
I will make some comments on your points.
I am not exactly sure whether the title 10 monies specifically targets
abortions. I agree that planned parenthood does do some good thing for
women and the community. Personally, I just don't want my tax monies
paying for abortions. Pregnancy prevention in my opinion is fine and
I would support that with my tax dollars.
Mandatory ELECTIVE abortion training is the wording. I agree that if
the mother's life is in danger, a doctor would need training in some
abortion procedure. I believe that they are given this already.
I believe the wording they used is funding for Abortion on DEMAND.
The irony of this is that if the child was born, they would have to
perserve its life by law, but if they kill it before it exits the
birth canal, it is not illegal. I don't want to fund this activity.
Personally I would like it to be illegal. It is just getting too
close for me to "making children" for use of spare parts. This also
would be an incredibly painful abortion mention since the child is
alive during the initial stages of the process.
To me, it is an non-issue as to wheter they create them in the lab or
take them from the mother. Certainly using eggs/sperm without the
donors knowledge would be morally wrong in my opinion, and in fact
it has happened recently in the news that someone elses child was
given to another woman (accidently or deliberately is yet to be
determined). Either way it is a growing group of cells that has the
potential to become a human being and in fact has reached the embryo
stage where parts of the body are performing their function. I am
all for research to be done but there needs to be some limits on this.
After all, I am sure pro-animal rights activists would be "up in arms"
if this was happening to animals. Shouldn't we be just as upset when
it is happening to little people??
My goal was in adding the previous note was to make people aware of
the legislation and for them as individuals to find out the details
of the issues and then to vote their conscience. I agree my synopsis
was a bit sketchy, and that's why I included the numbers there for you
to call and find out more.
BTW, title 10 I was told has passed with a vote of 28 to 25.
Sue
|
750.116 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 13:39 | 47 |
| | <<< Note 750.114 by CAMONE::LINDSEY >>>
| I am not exactly sure whether the title 10 monies specifically targets
| abortions.
I think this is key though. If it targets abortions, then I can see why
you would want that part of it stopped. If it does not target abortions, then I
can't see why you, or anyone for that matter, would want to have the money
stopped, when it is being used for something good. To call the numbers listed
without knowing what it is all about is plain wrong. Know why you are calling
and then you can make a decision based on fact, and not some fact, some
hysteria.
| Personally, I just don't want my tax monies paying for abortions.
I agree with this. I don't want my tax money to pay the salaries of
some of our countries leaders! :-) Some of them should be paying us back! But
if we as a nation start to only give monies to those things we would like to
see funded, you would see a lot go wrong with a lot of things. True, you and I
both would like to see abortions stopped. But unless those in charge actually
want to address all the issues that go along with it, we will never see this
done.
| Pregnancy prevention in my opinion is fine and I would support that with my
| tax dollars.
Agreed.
| Mandatory ELECTIVE abortion training is the wording. I agree that if the
| mother's life is in danger, a doctor would need training in some abortion
| procedure. I believe that they are given this already.
I'm confused here. Are you saying the are given abortion training for
emergency situations, along with abortion training that they have to have
mandatory? If they are one in the same, then I can not see it becoming an
elective.
| To me, it is an non-issue as to wheter they create them in the lab or take
| them from the mother.
Sue, I take it then you are one who believes that artifitial
insemination is ok, right? A baby created in the lab.
Glen
|
750.117 | issue is elective abortions | CAM3::LINDSEY | | Thu Jul 20 1995 14:18 | 12 |
|
I didn't make myself clear. What they are trying to make mandatory in
the medical schools and hospitials is teaching how to perform elective
(not saving the life of the mother) abortions. I see this as intrusive
to an individuals or organizations conscience.
Artificial Insemination is an entirely different topic which I don't
want to muddy the waters and discuss here. The point I was making is
that regardless of how the embryo was gotten, it is human life that
they are discarding after they do their research.
|
750.118 | | POWDML::FLANAGAN | let your light shine | Thu Jul 20 1995 14:44 | 9 |
| Sue,
There is some extensive discussion in Womannotes about this topic. The
particular type of abortion is very rarely done and only when the
woman's life is in danger or when the fetus is so deformed that it has
no chance of viability. The legislation would make it illegal even
when being performed to save the life of a woman.
Patricia
|
750.119 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 15:12 | 27 |
| | <<< Note 750.117 by CAM3::LINDSEY >>>
| I didn't make myself clear. What they are trying to make mandatory in the
| medical schools and hospitials is teaching how to perform elective (not saving
| the life of the mother) abortions. I see this as intrusive to an individuals
| or organizations conscience.
Hmmmm.... maybe you could clear this up for me. I see the following
things:
Med students are taught how to do an abortion incase they need to do
an emergency abortion to save the mothers life.
Med students are ALSO being taught how to do an abortion in a non-
emergency situation.
Each of the two examples above are taught at different times.
If the above is true, then I DO agree with you 100%. As long as they are both
being taught at different times. If they are only taught abortions once, then
they need to know how to do one incase of an emergency. So it comes down to how
many times are they taught?
Glen
|
750.120 | | CNTROL::JENNISON | Revive us, Oh Lord | Thu Jul 20 1995 15:16 | 5 |
|
If a mother's life were truly in danger, it would be far
more expedient to deliver the child be Caesarian section.
Karen
|
750.121 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Thu Jul 20 1995 15:23 | 55 |
|
Ok, here is some info I got from a friend of mine. You can contact your
local PP office to check it's validity.
1) Title X money to PP ONLY is for pregnancy prevention and
contraception, it does not pay for abortions in any way
shape or form.
The title 10 money should not be touched based on the above.
2) There are only a handful of Dr.s that perform late-term
abortions in this country. (Three the last time I checked)
They are performed only in the case of endangerment of the
woman, or if the fetus is so deformed there is no hope of
survival.
This is a key part of what I was looking for. A better clarification of
what deformed is would be helpful. I do agree that endangerment is a good
reason to have one of these. The way Dr. Dopson makes it sound, it is something
that just happens at a whim. Apparently this is not the case. Apparently the
Dr's only perform them for 2 reasons.
3) The alternate late-term abortion method for a fetus which
is too large to pass through the birth canal is hysterotomy,
which is a c-section for all intents and purposes.
This is consistant with what someone said earlier.
4) This has serious risks to the woman, inluding hemorrage,
infection,.. uterine scarring and weakness, with possible
rupture of the uterus in later pregnancies. FWIW late-term
abortions are tradgedies for all involved. D&X is grisly,
but the preferred method in some cases. The law as written
currently has no provisions for life of the woman at risk
for anything other than a possible defense for the Dr.
performing the procedure. This IMNSHO is putting women at risk.
5) FWIW, PP in X is offering full prenatal, delivery, and postnatal
care to its clients. PP has been responsible for the healthy
delivery of 24 babies so-far this year. Since the average client
makes less than 11K/year and is uninsured, and the average cost
of a vaginal delivery with pre-natal care is about 5K, you can
see another use of the title X money at work. Pre-natal care
saves babies, but that is a facet which may be lost if the
title X money goes.
Again, based on the above, I can't see the title X money being taken
away. I think this will hurt, not help.
Glen
|
750.122 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Thu Jul 20 1995 17:21 | 4 |
|
DoBson, Dr. DoBson.
|
750.123 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Jul 21 1995 10:48 | 3 |
|
Jim, you forgot the NNTTM!!! :-)
|
750.124 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Fri Jul 21 1995 13:51 | 17 |
| De-funding of title 10 passed committee yesterday. Now it goes
to the full house for vote.
The paper today said that the money is earmarked for "family
planning", but that it is issued as block grants to states, and
the states do not have to necessarily use it for that. In the
same way, I can't see what stops Planned Parenthood from using
the money however they want once they get it. (Or why they
couldn't do creative bookkeeping to use for abortion funding
what they would have spent on other things had they not received
the grant money.)
So now this goes to the full House, and if it passes there, it
goes to the Senate, and if it passes there it goes to Clinton
for his signature or veto.
This is far from a done deal.
|
750.125 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Fri Jul 21 1995 17:24 | 7 |
|
I hope it does not pass, or that Clinton vetos it. From what I can see,
this is something that will hurt, not help.
Glen
|
750.126 | | WRKSYS::CAMUSO | alphabits | Fri Jul 21 1995 18:50 | 8 |
| > I hope it does not pass, or that Clinton vetos it. From what I can see,
>this is something that will hurt, not help.
Can't hurt as much as being torn apart while still alive.
How many of those that oppose animal vivisection oppose the same
for human babies?
|
750.127 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Fri Jul 21 1995 19:26 | 3 |
| .126
Amen Tony!
|
750.128 | a lot of very good things for women... | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Sun Jul 23 1995 15:57 | 21 |
| <<< Note 750.113 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
> This COULD be a good idea if it were done right. Planned Parenthood
>does a lot of very good things for women. To do away with the money they
>receive because their beliefs on abortion is different than your own, is
>defeating more than it is helping.
From the New York Times News Service:
Planned Parenthood director resigns in dispute over goals
Pamela J. Maraldo ... resigned friday after apparently failing
to muster a vote of confidence at a board meeting last weekend.
Sources both inside Planned Parenthood and outside said that
Maraldo had aroused opposition with her emphasis on reshaping
Planned Parenthood into a broad health organization ...
a focus that some of the group's affiliates felt would
inevitably diminish their role as advocates for abortion
rights...
|
750.129 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Sun Jul 23 1995 16:02 | 9 |
|
Fascinating...I heard the report on CNN last night.
Jim
|
750.130 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Sun Jul 23 1995 22:56 | 17 |
| | <<< Note 750.126 by WRKSYS::CAMUSO "alphabits" >>>
| > I hope it does not pass, or that Clinton vetos it. From what I can see,
| >this is something that will hurt, not help.
| Can't hurt as much as being torn apart while still alive.
Title X money is NOT used for abortions. Title X funding is estimated
to have prevented 50K pregnancies in Colorado alone. Given that 40-50% of
unplanned pregnancies are terminated in the US, that is 20-25K abortions that
didn't happen. So to get rid of it would be foolish.
It also has paid for prenatal care at clinics, pap smears, and breast
cancer screening. Again, to get rid of it would be foolish.
Glen
|
750.131 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Sun Jul 23 1995 22:58 | 8 |
| | <<< Note 750.128 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>
| From the New York Times News Service:
Joe, how much of that note was from the paper, and how much of it was
your own opinion?
|
750.132 | Don't shoot the messenger... | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Mon Jul 24 1995 01:35 | 3 |
| Everything I posted was quoted from the paper.
As you see from another note, CNN reported it too.
|
750.133 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Mon Jul 24 1995 09:42 | 10 |
|
The report I saw on TV stated precisely what Joe posted.
Jim
|
750.134 | | CSLALL::HENDERSON | Learning to lean | Mon Jul 24 1995 09:43 | 7 |
|
re .130
and your source for that info is..?
|
750.135 | Whom do you trust? | CIVPR1::STOCK | | Mon Jul 24 1995 17:38 | 16 |
| A couple of thoughts...
If it comes down to deciding who is telling the truth, the Family
Research Council (most likely the source for Dr. Dobson's request), or
Planned Parenthood - whom will you trust?
Some of us view 1.6 million babies killed by abortion each year as a
horror on the same scale as the Jewish Holocaust. In as much as it
would be difficult for a Jew to see the good in anything the Totenkampf
SS did (the building of a new road, for instance), it is difficult for
us to see the good in anything Planned Parenthood does, even when not
directly connected with abortion.
The thought of ANY public money going to them, for any reason, offends me.
/John
|
750.136 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Jul 25 1995 14:09 | 19 |
|
You know, if one goes by the last note, aren't you taking everything
they do, whether it be good or bad, and dumping it into the bad catagory? If
they are doing something to prevent pregnancies, one would think you would try
and support something like that. Not to mention all the other things they do to
help women. You shouldn't condemn the good.
If one were to go by the analogy used in the last note, you could not
work for a company that would support things you feel are unChristian. In other
words, you could not work for Digital.
I look at where the source would come from on the other side, and I
would have my doubts about it. But if the same person does something good,
their action should not be condemned based on something else.
Glen
|
750.137 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Jul 25 1995 14:10 | 9 |
| | <<< Note 750.135 by CIVPR1::STOCK >>>
| -< Whom do you trust? >-
Actually, one last thing..... you should trust God. If there is any
condemning to be done, He will do it. We should not be doing that.
Glen
|
750.138 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 14:57 | 9 |
| re .136
I guess the outcome of the internal power struggle as reported
in .128 is meaningless to you. They don't want you to lose
focus of their abortion activities, Glen. You want to give
them credit for more than they want you to! Surely their
self-description should have more merit than your description
of them... "Why don't you ask them what they are saying, instead
of just telling them ..."
|
750.139 | Planned Parenthood's Racist Origins | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Tue Jul 25 1995 15:44 | 19 |
| Margaret Sanger was the founder of the modern birth control movement
in America during the early 1900's. An ardent feminist, she opened her
first birth control clinic in 1916 in Brooklyn, NY. In 1921 she
launched the American Birth Control League. And she founded the Birth
Control Federation of American in 1939, which was later renamed to the
Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
Margaret Sanger's goal was to promote birth control policies designed
to discourage minorities from having babies and, as she put it, to
"create a race of thoroughbreds." In 1919, Sanger wrote: "More
children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief issue of
birth control." In 1916, in her book "Woman and the New Race," Sanger
wrote that: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of
its infants is kill it." Remarking on funds given to the blind, the
deaf and the poor, Sanger argued that the public should be made aware
of the "terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human
waste."
{Christian Coalition newsletter}
|
750.140 | Planned Parenthood fact file | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Tue Jul 25 1995 15:49 | 19 |
| - Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion
facilities.
- Planned Parenthood's clinics perform between 130,000 and 134,000
abortions each year in the U.S. and another 6,000 elsewhere in the world.
- Planned Parenthood's sale of birth control pills provide an estimated
$65 to $70 million in profits each year to the organization.
- Planned Parenthood helped form the National Abortion Federation, a
trade association of abortion clinic operators.
- Planned Parenthood is a federation of nearly 170 separately
incorporated corporations with 900 clinics in 49 states.
- Planned Parenthood's annual budget is $443 million, of which it
receives about $158 million in grants from the government.
{Christian Coalition newsletter}
|
750.141 | Planned Parenthood's goals | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Tue Jul 25 1995 15:57 | 40 |
| The 2 main goals of Planned Parenthood, according to their literature
are:
1. Destroy the innocence of children regarding sexuality at the
youngest possible age; and
2. Undermine parental authority and the bond between parents and their
children.
From Planned Parenthood's book "Changing Bodies, Changing Lives":
"If your parents or other adults who play a parental role in your life
have talked to you about sex, their voice may be saying, 'you're too
young to be in the back seat with a girl!' If you feel your parents
are overprotective, their message may not be helpful. If they seem to
fear your sexuality, or if they don't want you to be sexual at all
until some distant time, you may feel you have to tune out their voice
entirely."
From Planned Parenthood's "Sex, the First Time or Anytime":
"New Partner? More than one partner? Use them! Condoms prevent
infection."
From former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton in "How to Talk
to your Child about Sexuality":
"Using a condom gives effective protection against STDs (sexually
transmitted diseases) to both partners."
THIS IS FALSE. The failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy is
10-30%, according to a 1986 study conducted by the U.S. Surgeon General
Task Force. But the HIV virus is 450 times smaller than a single sperm
and 600 times smaller than a typical flaw in the condom. Moreover, a
woman can only get pregnant 3-5 days in a month, while she is
potentially vulnderable to the AIDS virus every day of the year. In
other words, condoms are far from safe and do not provide an effective
barrier to the HIV virus.
{Christian Coalition newsletter}
|
750.142 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Jul 25 1995 17:58 | 23 |
| | <<< Note 750.140 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
| - Planned Parenthood's sale of birth control pills provide an estimated
| $65 to $70 million in profits each year to the organization.
There is something wrong with this?
| - Planned Parenthood is a federation of nearly 170 separately
| incorporated corporations with 900 clinics in 49 states.
Again, what does this do to discredit them?
| - Planned Parenthood's annual budget is $443 million, of which it
| receives about $158 million in grants from the government.
What are the grants used for? I think that is key.
I don't particurly care for the abortions they perform, but it does not
take away the good they do for women.
Glen
|
750.143 | | BIGQ::SILVA | Diablo | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:02 | 33 |
| | <<< Note 750.141 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
| 1. Destroy the innocence of children regarding sexuality at the youngest
| possible age;
You really should put iyho. I don't see it that way.
| 2. Undermine parental authority and the bond between parents and their
| children.
Same as above.
| From Planned Parenthood's "Sex, the First Time or Anytime":
| "New Partner? More than one partner? Use them! Condoms prevent
| infection."
Hey, this looks like the same things people do to warp what a Bible
passage is talking about. They take one line, and print it. The end result is
it has been taked totally out of context. Let me look this up and see if this
is the case.
| From former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton in "How to Talk
| to your Child about Sexuality":
| "Using a condom gives effective protection against STDs (sexually
| transmitted diseases) to both partners."
Gee, I wonder what year this was taken from? I will get back to you on
that as well.
Glen
|
750.144 | | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Wanna see my scar? | Tue Jul 25 1995 18:18 | 1 |
| Good note!
|
750.145 | | JULIET::MORALES_NA | Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:07 | 3 |
| .144
Didn't know you could hear me from there. :-)
|
750.146 | in case you haven't heard | OUTSRC::HEISER | watchman on the wall | Tue Jul 25 1995 19:59 | 2 |
| The Bible has much to say about innocence of children and parental
authority.
|
750.147 | reposted for Jill Diewald /Bob Sampson | ICTHUS::YUILLE | He must increase - I must decrease | Mon Jul 31 1995 05:09 | 53 |
| From: MPSG::DIEWALD "jill diewald" 26-JUL-1995 09:08:31.99
Subj: Right-to-life - a concrete thing to do
Here is something concrete to do to prevent abortions, help people,
and save lives both physically and spiritually.
This group came to our Church one sunday about a year ago.
I was very impressed. Some of our church members help out.
One family is even hosting a girl.
Life Saver Ministries, Inc
P.O. Box 2036
Westford Ma, 01886
508-692-3617
This group takes young pregnant girls who have been thrown
out of their homes because their family rejected them.
These girls have no where to go. This group sets up
"Shepherding Homes", and has a group home too. These
homes are Christian homes. They teach Christian values.
What I like the most about this is that they wind up saving
1 life physically and 2 lives spiritually! All through
helping lost and confused young girls.
This is the paragraph from their newletter that I have:
As our name suggests, Life Saver Ministries is about life. It is about the
opportunity for young women to give their babies life instead of death. It is
about helping young women realize their self worth as unique creations of God.
It is about teaching young women to restructure their lives so their futures
and those of their children can be lived to their fullest potential. Life
Saver Ministries is also about rebirth - the finding of new life in a personal
relationship with Jesus Christ.
Our Girls:
Of the girls actively involved in Life Saver Ministries at this time
(this newletter is a year old) we have:
4 living in Shepherding Homes
4 living in their own apartments
3 sophomores in high school
one finishing GED program
2 attending college
1 accepted in college for the fall
6 new babies born this year
three 1 year olds
2 two year olds
Biggest baby to date - 10lbs, 15oz
They are looking for:
money, volunteers, people to just talk to the girls, more homes,
help on upkeep on existing homes, churches to sponsor rooms
in their next group home, ...
Jill2
|