Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I'm leaving today and won't be back
    until Monday. So you can go ahead and beat my note up all ya want, but
    don't think I'm being a poor sport for not responding. I'll be back 
    monday.

    re: .0 

    >On the abortion issue, if you believe that abortion is immoral but yet
    >feel by not imposing this morality on others, you will not have their
    >pro-abortion morality imposed on you, you probably think that you live on an
    >isolated island like Robinson Crusoe. 

        What about people that cannot have children and are pro-choice (I
        doubt many *real* people are pro-*abortion*)?  They won't likely be
        confronted with this morality.

    >I'am seeing more and more instances,
    >where abortion becomes an issue that the pro-choice person never wanted 
    >to be a part of, and ends up having to be a part of it. 

        Well, maybe that's how people learn.  You can't MAKE someone a moral
        person with any amount of laws.  What was it Jesus said about lusting
        after a woman with your eyes was adultery?  True morality will not
        be legislated, only instilled by example from loving parents.  And
        since no one truly knows what's in the heart of someone who they 
        might think was "lusting" after someone, no judgement can take
        place of that person's action.  The same goes with all moral judge-
        ments.
    

    >A nurse is harassed because she refuses to assist in abortion at the
    >hospital she works at.

        There is another problem here apart from this discussion.

    >A man is pro-choice until he finds that it is his child that is going
    >to be aborted.

         Good!  But that doesn't give him the right to force his discovery
         on everyone else - even if he could!

    >An oil delivery man who is opposed to abortion discovers that his new
    >customer is an abortion clinic.
     
         This man has several choices.  He can quit his job if he feels 
         strongly enough about this issue.  

         Digital probably is pumping some sort of filth into the sky 
         that is slowly killing us all or perhaps they're buying prod-
         ucts from a number of companies who are.  What are you doing 
         about it?  Do you like having food on the table?  I just think
         the issue is a little more complex than what seems to be rep-
         resented here.....

    >It will get closer to home to you ,as long as society sees abortion as
    >nothing more than the woman's individual decision.

       How?

       guy
    

    There was a time when I would have said, "O.K.  Only those of you who
    have had to face this decision are qualified to talk about it."  But
    I'll refrain for the sake of discussion.  ;-)
    
    To some people this kind of decision would be pretty cut and dried. 
    Those are the people who's moral base is made up of right and wrong,
    black and white.  There is no room in their reality for the different
    hues from which the individual is composed.  
    
    I acknowledge that each individual is different, although no less loved
    and valued by the Divine That Is (God, if you will).  Each individual
    also was given a divine gift of conscience.  They can either use that
    gift in alignment with their personal connection to the divine or not. 
    Who are you and who am I to determine what someone elses' conscience is
    directing them to do?   And who are you and who am I to judge the
    result of that individual's conscience?  If I presume to judge for
    someone else then I'm trying to usurp the place of their relationship
    to God.  Since I know that my relationship with God has changed and
    grown throughout my life, how can I make a judgement now which will
    dictate to women throughout the years what she has the moral right to
    do with her body?  Will my relationship with God stay static? 
    Hopefully not.  Then how can I support a law that will remain static
    knowing that my moral and ethical base will probably continue to
    change?
    
    Personally, when faced with this choice, I know that at different times
    in my life my choice would have changed.  How about you?  And what if
    you were living someone else's life.  Given the life conditions of
    someone else can you honestly say that you would make the same choices
    for them?
    
    Nanci
    

    I believe that circumstances affect the morality and rightness of 
    our choices and decisions.  We do not live our Christian lives in a
    vaccuum.  For example, in some plane wreck (in the Andes?) survivors
    eventually were forced to eat the flesh of those who had died in other
    to keep living.  Were they cannibals?  Some said they were.
    Was their action sinful?  I certainly do not think so.
    
    Abortion is always sad and usually tragic.  Those of us who are
    pro-choice admit that!!  But the morality of it, IMCO (that's "in my
    Christian opinion" :-) ), depends on the circumstances!!
    
    BTW, how come this is call "The Pro-Choice Debate Note" instead of 
    "The Abortion Debate Note"??  Hmmm?
    
    Nancy 

    re. -.1
    
    Hey, Nancy that was an excellent answer - and much briefer than I could
    have stated it - until you got to that last Q. Did you get lost among
    your responses or did your reply get moved ?  ;') Sometimes I wonder if
    the rest of you guys have jobs - as I do - or if you dictate your notes
    to typists; you prolific folks set a fast noting pace!

    Dave - 
    
    Thanks.  I'm in the phone support business so in between calls...I
    note!  Actually i've had a lot less time for it this week than usual. 
    :-)
    
    Nanci-with-an-i

    re: .5
    
    Dave,
    No I didn't forget which string I was in -- I could swear the name of 
    this string was different when I wrote .4!
    :{
    
    Sigh,
    Nancy (this one with a "y")  
    

    RE:4
    Hi Nancy

>    I believe that circumstances affect the morality and rightness of 
>    our choices and decisions.  We do not live our Christian lives in a
>    vaccuum.  For example, in some plane wreck (in the Andes?) survivors
>    eventually were forced to eat the flesh of those who had died in other
>    to keep living.  Were they cannibals?  Some said they were.
>    Was their action sinful?  I certainly do not think so.

    Circumstances change what is moral or immoral ? Does this mean that there
    is no absolute moral truth, and that we live our lives in an illusion ?

    Our understanding of what is moral or immoral may be swayed by
    circumstances, however, it is only because of our own sinfulness that
    we fail to see the truth at all times. Morality doesn't change, only
    our interpretation of it does. This is why we need God so much. Only
    he knows what is absolute truth and what is absolute evil.

    Abortion does nothing other than end human life. We did not create
    human life and therefore we can not end it. The  destruction of human
    life is immoral. Our lack of opposition, only hardens society's
    conscience towards that immorality.
    
    I have no doubt that we pro-lifers have lost the political fight to end
    abortion. But, we  still have the conscience of society to
    challenge, and as long as humans have a conscience, we will not have lost
    completely.

>    BTW, how come this is call "The Pro-Choice Debate Note" instead of 
>    "The Abortion Debate Note"??  Hmmm?
    
    I liked your idea so I renamed it.

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim,
    	well yes !  What is immoral in one setting may be quite moral in
    another.  Take the cannibalism thing, for example.  I personally do not
    approve of cannibalism and feel that it is terribly wrong normally.
    Still, those in the wrecked plane had a choice to eat their dead
    comrads or die. They did not kill people for their flesh, or even allow
    them to die, they struggled that those who still clung to life would
    live. I see nothing wrong with that. Or is suicide via starving oneself
    to death more moral than cannibalism ?  Maybe you would like to move
    this to another note for further discussion ?

    Never mind, "NEXT REPLY" finally got me to where I could see my
    suggestion was anticipated.

    Morality is absolute. What circumstances lead us to make moral or
    immoral decisions does not change morality. Even if what we choose
    seems to be moral because of extenuating circumstances, it doesn't
    change morality. Because of original sin, we are blinded from truth
    and as a result we are in need of a savior which we have in Jesus
    Christ. But to turn away from that which we know is immoral, and
    do nothing about it, is the gravest of sins.

    In the case of the plane crash, were the survivors immoral ? Only
    God knows for sure, but my belief according to the Bible is yes, they were.
    I'm not attempting to judge here because I have made immoral
    decisions that were much easier to avoid than the choice those people had to
    make.

    In the case of abortion, is it immoral ? I believe without a doubt that
    it is. Does this make me better than the person who has an abortion ?
    Absolutely not ! Again, I have made immoral decisions in my life that 
    could have been easier to avoid than the poor young girl who has an
    unwanted pregnancy to deal with.

    I've been accused of judging people on this issue in this conference,
    but I have not judge anyone. I'm attempting to clarify the truth, which
    most people agree to be the truth. No one in this conference has yet
    said that abortion is moral. In fact all have said that they don't
    agree with it. Their position is not forcing that belief onto someone
    else. I agree. I would not force someone into not having an abortion,
    but at the same time I'm against those who attempt  to force
    me to support it, either through tax dollars, education, or anything
    else that is required to support abortion and there is more support 
    required than most of us realize.

    I don't care what anyone say's. Society's acceptance of abortion is  
    equivalent to support in the most dangerous of places.....the
    conscience. Our passive acceptance means that we really don't think it
    is immoral, and this is what separates us on the issue.


    Peace
    Jim

If our government's role is to protect "life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness", then why is the protection on an unborn *human* *life*
something that the government should not be involved in?

God has given people the *"right"* to make choices.

God has given people the *responsibility* to make moral choices.

God has given governments the *"right"* and *responsibility* to to protect
and defend *people*.

The "rights" that God gives *anyone* are NOT absolute "rights" (as we
think of "rights".  EVERYONE SINGLE RIGHT that you or I have is a
PRIVILEGE granted to us by God.

We only talk about FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS with respect to them having been
BESTOWED on us by God.  What God can bestow, he can withdraw.  God has
told us how we should act on many issues (including this one, I believe).
It is our *responsibility* to act in accordance with what God says.  It
is the governments *responsibility* to enforce what God says when the
consequences are so serious if not followed (i.e. a human life killed).

Hope this helps with the understanding of rights and responsibilities.

Collis

	I believe that in general God is pro-choice. I am allowed the same
	choice with regards to taking a human life before birth as I am to
	taking a life after birth. When someone agrues that abortion is a
	matter of choice I see that as no different from arguing that a parent
	should have the right to take the life of their three year old. No
	difference at all. This is perhaps why I am so surprised at many of
	the people who say that while they would not have an abortion they
	would not stop someone else from having one. I can't get past this.

			Alfred

    Re: .14  Alfred
    
>    When someone agrues that abortion is a
>    matter of choice I see that as no different from arguing that a parent
>    should have the right to take the life of their three year old.  No
>    difference at all.
    
    If there were no difference between a fetus and a three year old child
    then I'd agree: having an abortion would be equivalent to taking the
    life of one's own three year old.  I think there are very significant
    differences between a fetus, especially a fetus in its early stages of
    development, and a child.  That's why I am pro-choice on abortion and
    anti-choice on murdering children.
    
    				-- Bob 

    The only difference is time. When I was a one day old embryo I was the
    same person that I was at 1095 days old (3yrs for you rocket scientist ). 

    That embryo was me.
    
    Peace
    Jim

    re: .14 et al.

    The problem with saying that God says this, and God wants that, and
    then extending those wishes onto society at large, assumes that the
    rest of  society believes in God the same way you do.  As much as many
    Christians would like _all_ of our society to be committed to
    Christianity, the truth is, it isn't, nor is it ever likely to be. One
    of the foundations of our society is the desire that minorities are
    protected from the tyranny of the majority.  Of course, we do that with
    varying degrees of success.  So, while Christians and others have every
    right to believe that abortion is wrong and to act according to those
    beliefs, they don't necessarily have the right to impose that belief on
    the rest of society.

    What you are seeing, then, are people who _feel_ (and that's all a
    belief is) that abortion is repugnant, but absent a clear moral
    imperative, are unwilling to impose their _feelings_ and/or religious
    beliefs on others, by force of law.

    Mike

> So, while Christians and others have every
>    right to believe that abortion is wrong and to act according to those
>    beliefs, they don't necessarily have the right to impose that belief on
>    the rest of society.

	Should we also stop imposing our belief that stealing is wrong?

			Alfred

    Re:.16  Jim
    
>    The only difference is time. When I was a one day old embryo I was the
>    same person that I was at 1095 days old (3yrs for you rocket
>    scientist ).
    
>    That embryo was me.
    
    No, Jim, I don't think you were the same person as an embryo as you
    were as a three year old.  You had the *potential* to be that person.
    There is an important difference between potential people and actual
    people.  Otherwise every fertile woman who doesn't give birth every
    nine months should be charged with murder.
    
    Time can be an important factor.  What's the difference between burying
    a man after he has died and burying that same man before he has died? 
    Merely a matter of time.
    
    				-- Bob
    

    re: .18
    
    I don't see follow your analogy.  Stealing from someone implies that the 
    thief takes something away from the victim.  In what way is a woman who 
    chooses abortion taking away from someone?
    
    Nanci

>    I don't see follow your analogy.  Stealing from someone implies that the 
>    thief takes something away from the victim.  In what way is a woman who 
>    chooses abortion taking away from someone?

	First off the analogy does not deal with "taking something" it deals
	with making laws to enforce ones beliefs. If I have no right to impose
	one belief then I have no right to impose any other belief. I thought
	that fairly clear.

	Second off, in what way is a person who kills someome taking away from
	someone? I assume you were making a jest.

			Alfred

    re: .18 (Alfred)
    
    
> >   So, while Christians and others have every
> >   right to believe that abortion is wrong and to act according to those
> >   beliefs, they don't necessarily have the right to impose that belief on
> >   the rest of society.

      >	Should we also stop imposing our belief that stealing is wrong?

    No.
       
    Mike

    Re:.19  Bob
    
>    No, Jim, I don't think you were the same person as an embryo as you
>    were as a three year old.  You had the *potential* to be that person.


    OH, it was me all right ! I've changed in character since then, but none-
    theless it was me. If not me, who else ? Or are you saying I was just
    an it ? So God created an it huh ?


>    There is an important difference between potential people and actual
>    people.  Otherwise every fertile woman who doesn't give birth every
>    nine months should be charged with murder.
    
    Common Bob, lets not get carried away here. A woman has no control
    over a miscarriage and most who have had them are sadden by the loss.

>    Time can be an important factor.  What's the difference between burying
>    a man after he has died and burying that same man before he has died? 
    
     >Merely a matter of time.
    
      The difference is that it is life that begins time for him. When his
      life ends so does time. Time is only relevant to us mortals.
     
    Peace
    Jim

Re:  .17

But Mike, the issue is not whether *we* have a right to impose *our*
views onto society, the issue is whether or not *He* has a right
to impose *His* views on society.

He does.  And He has chosen an instrument to help do this.  Government.

That's all.

Collis

    Re: .23
    
    Yes, I'd say that you were just an "it", with the potential to grow
    into a "you".  Assuming that God created the world then God created
    many "its".
    
    				-- Bob
    

>He does.  And He has chosen an instrument to help do this.  Government.
    
    Oh?  Did She also choose a preferred party affiliation, also?
    
    ;-) ;-) ;-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

The question is not which party is God in, the question is which party
follows God.

Neither one does a very good job, unfortunately.  :-(

Collis

    re: .24 (Jackson)                                  

    >But Mike, the issue is not whether *we* have a right to impose *our*
    >views onto society, the issue is whether or not *He* has a right to
    >impose *His* views on society.
        
    But Collis, that only works if one happens to share the same religious
    beliefs as you.  Those who don't, and there are many, shouldn't be
    forced to accept your beliefs, no matter how right you believe yourself
    to be.  Even the Bible says we all have free will! 

    >He does.  And He has chosen an instrument to help do this.  Government.
     
    Our Constitution, which is the basis for our government, guarantees
    that no state religion shall be formed.  Over the years, that has been 
    taken to mean that the state and religion shall remain separate.  That
    the state shall do nothing to promote one religion over another, or
    promote religion in favor of no religion.  That is why, for instance,
    churches are not taxed in this country.  That is also why the
    government should not be in the business of codifying religious beliefs
    into law.  To do so would have the effect of establishing a preference
    for one set of religious beliefs over another.  Or, stated another way,
    it would have the effect of preventing freedom of, or from, religion.

    Mike

    Re .27
    
    So much for God's instrument.
    
    Does anyone know the religious makeup of the signers of the Declaration
    of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights?  As I recall
    Thomas Jefferson was a Unitarian.  Thomas Jefferson went so far to
    create his own version of the Bible (the Jefferson Bible).  Unitarians
    are still considered to be heretical by many.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: .29 (J_Christie)
    
    I'm not sure, but weren't many of the founding fathers, deists?
    
    Mike

My father-in-law (a history professor) tells me that only about 10% of
the people in the late 18th century were "Christians".  (You don't really
want me to define that word, do you? :-) )

The prevailing attitude was one of deism.

So, in our Declaration of Independence (at least I think that's where
it is), it is *acknowledged* that *God* has given His people (i.e. all
people) unalienable rights which include *life*, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness.

Now, I may disagree with some of this, but that's what they said.  I
certainly *do* agree that God has given people a right to live.

Mike,

It matters not one hoot if *anyone* here on earth agrees with my
religious beliefs.  What matters is what God has said and done.  So let's
get the discussion off of me and onto God.  And His instrument.
Government.

And the Bible does say that we *can* and *do* sin (i.e. exercise our
free will improperly).  The Bible NEVER says that sin is acceptable or
should be condoned or should be pursued.  The Bible DOES say that say
is unacceptable, that sin should be repressed and that sin should be
punished.

So.  We've established that God has given us the privilege of free will and
the responsibility of never sinning.  Where does that lead us on the issue
of abortion?  It's clear to me.

Collis

    re: .31 (Collis)

>It matters not one hoot if *anyone* here on earth agrees with my
>religious beliefs.  What matters is what God has said and done.  So let's
>get the discussion off of me and onto God.  And His instrument.
>Government.

    I can see why you wish to get the discussion onto God.  You are
    completely ignoring my point that God, as you understand Him/Her, is a
    matter of your personal religious beliefs.  You believe that God has
    said thus and so, but not everyone in this country agrees with you. 
    Your desire to interpret your personal beliefs as fact, and to act
    accordingly, provided your actions have not been judged illegal by our
    government, is fine with me.  You have that right.  Your rights to act
    end, however, when they come into conflict with anyone else's rights
    to act according to their beliefs, provided that their actions have
    not been judged illegal by our government.  Of course, their rights end
    at the same place.
                                                             
    Our government acts, by constitutional fiat, without reference to
    religion.  Whether or not our government is an instrument of God is,
    again, a matter of personal religious belief.  I don't know of any
    document that purports to be Divine Revelation that says the government
    of the United States of America is an instrument of God.  

    >So.  We've established that God has given us the privilege of free will
   > and the responsibility of never sinning.  Where does that lead us on
    >the issue of abortion?  It's clear to me.

    No.   What we have established is that the Bible says that we humans
    are endowed with a free will and that we have the responsibility of
    never sinning.  
    
    This brings us right back to the crux of the matter.  The Bible is the
    inerrent word of God according to your, and other's, religious beliefs. 
    Again, many others in this country do not share your religious beliefs,
    and have the right to not be forced to act as if they do.  Besides, the
    nature of sin is such, (as I recall from my early religious training)
    that one has not sinned before God, unless one knows and believes one
    has sinned.  So that even a Christian could condone/participate/have an
    abortion if he/she truly believes it is not a sinful act before God.

    Mike                                                     

    Collis,
    	if you are in Massachusetts then you are trying to force your
    beliefs down the unwilling throats of 4 out of 5 of your neighbors.
    Seems a bit presumptuous to me. Nobody has asked you to like it, that
    would be forcing our beliefs down YOUR throat. If you object to having
    your money spent to save the lives of poor women then you are entirely
    free to move to some state where your opinions are closer to the
    mainstream. If you do that, though, you will lose the right to cousel
    women in this state against the sin which you oppose. You, too, have a
    choice. The government in this state has consistently been much more
    conservative on the questions of both birth control and abortion than
    the public has been. Even now, when presented with an overwhelming
    mandate, most legislators shy from the Pro-Choice label.

    I would urge everyone entering a note in this string to peruse
    Note 8.2 before proceeding.  Though the topic has drifted considerably,
    I sense emotions are starting to heat up, nevertheless.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

        In particular, I would observe that if you wish to pursue a
        secular discussion of American history or political
        philosophy, then the SOAPBOX conference (if it currently
        exists) would be much more appropriate.

        Bob

    Soapbox still exists, and my notes were originally entered there.
    However, if we are going to discuss abortion it makes sense to
    me at least to look at how the church has historically viewed it.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .36  (Bob)
    
    A discussion of American history or political philosphy is relevant in
    this conference to the extent that people who believe that our
    government is an instrument of God are putting forth their point of
    view.  I presume, then, you don't intend to stifle discussion on this
    subject as it applies to the abortion issue.  As this topic is devoted
    to the debate on abortion, one can hardly have a debate without
    allowing secular points of view to be presented.  
    
    Mike
    
    

Mike,

If you're going to argue that I should act a certain way, then you need
to consider the framework that I think in or prove (i.e. provide enough
proof that a different framework is more likely to be correct than the
one I'm using) that I should have a different framework.

Since I *have* a framework and since I *have a right* to my framework,
then I feel I must be consistent with my framework.

God is an integral part of my framework.  Therefore, what I do is based
on what God says.  I have exactly those rights and responsibilities that
God has given me.  And so do you.

The fact that, in your framework, I don't (or may not) have a right to
do something is irrelevant to me.  Why?  Because I am not living in
your framework.  I am living in my framework and have that right/resp-
onsibility.

I say this to help clarify the discussion.  You need to show either that:

  1)  my framework does not really say what I think it says (i.e. the
      Bible)  - I haven't seen you doing this.

  2)  A different framework is better.  - What you're saying now isn't
      addressing this that I see (at least in terms of comparing tradeoffs,
      for example.

But instead, you're telling me that I shouldn't do something because it is
not appropriate in your framework.  

Regardless of framework, the first question that we should ask (in my
opinion) is, "what does God say about this".  Now, it is a perfectly
appropriate answer to say "God doesn't exist" or "God doesn't say
anything" or even "God says 'let them eat cake'".  What is important
is that the question is asked.

I think you're asking the question, "What should *I* do about this,
and not dealing with the first question of "what should God do about
this".  That, basically, is all I'm saying.

Collis

Note 31.31

>It matters not one hoot if *anyone* here on earth agrees with my
>religious beliefs.  What matters is what God has said and done.  So let's
>get the discussion off of me and onto God.  And His instrument.
>Government.

Collis,

	Please understand that this is not a attempt to force you into
a defensive posture.

	This is what I perceive you are saying:

1. Collis knows what God has said and done.

2. (Implied) Collis has the correct understanding of what God has said and done.

3. It matters not whether others agree with Collis.

4. What matters is whether others agree with God.

5. Therefore, (Implied) should it occur that others agree with God, others will
   coincidently agree with Collis.

	Is this a correct summary of your thinking, Collis?  I just want to make
certain I understand where you are coming from.

Peace,

    Collis,
    	what *you* should do is try to help people who are faced with the
    unenviable decision of whether or not to have an abortion. Help. Offer
    counsel and support. The law of the land prohibits you from taking
    forcible action to support your beliefs - even as your christian
    beliefs ought to restrain you. Help. Offer solutions. These people do
    not need reproach, and Christian beliefs should forbid you from
    offering such. Help. Make it easier for them to do what you sincerely
    believe is the right - the only - thing. Do not make it harder for them
    to do what they see as the only thing left for them. Help. And, if you
    fail to show them enough love to sway them, show them how a Christian
    forgives. It is not for the likes of you or me to judge them.
    
    DaveM

    re: .39 (Collis)   

    >Since I *have* a framework and since I *have a right* to my framework,
    >then I feel I must be consistent with my framework.
    >
    >God is an integral part of my framework.  Therefore, what I do is based
    >on what God says.  I have exactly those rights and responsibilities
    >that God has given me.  And so do you.

    Under our Constitution, you and I have exactly the same rights and
    responsibilities.  You may have some additional responsibilities that
    you impose on yourself by means of your religious faith.  I may have
    some additional responsibilities that I impose on myself that are
    different than the personal choices you select.  
                                         
    >The fact that, in your framework, I don't (or may not) have a right to
    >do something is irrelevant to me.  Why?  Because I am not living in
    >your framework.  I am living in my framework and have that right/resp-
    >onsibility.

    If you are a resident of the USA, some of your obligations include
    respect for the rights of your fellow citizens as enumerated in our
    constitution and elsewhere.  One of those obligations is to not impose
    your moral framework on those who choose not to believe as you do.
    If you choose to ignore those obligations, then I am within my rights
    to seek legal redress.  If I ignore your rights, you have a similar
    right to seek redress against me. 

>I say this to help clarify the discussion.  You need to show either that:

  >1)  my framework does not really say what I think it says (i.e. the
  >    Bible)  - I haven't seen you doing this.
  
    You haven't seen me do this because I not interested in convincing you
    that your religion is wrong, for you.  

  >2)  A different framework is better.  - What you're saying now isn't
  >    addressing this that I see (at least in terms of comparing tradeoffs,
  >    for example.

    I don't know that a different framework is better for you.  I'm just not
    smart enough to make those decisions for others.  I only know that
    yours isn't better for me.

    >But instead, you're telling me that I shouldn't do something because it
    >is not appropriate in your framework.  

    No.  I am telling you not to interfere with my rights to act according
    to my framework.  I have no interest in preventing you from acting
    within yours, except if yours says you should interfere with my rights
    and you choose to act on that belief.  Then our rights conflict and
    we spend incredible amounts of time debating in notes conferences! :)
     
    In the case of the topic at hand, I don't seek to force anyone to
    accept an abortion against their will.              

    >Regardless of framework, the first question that we should ask (in my
    >opinion) is, "what does God say about this".  Now, it is a perfectly
    >appropriate answer to say "God doesn't exist" or "God doesn't say
    >anything" or even "God says 'let them eat cake'".  What is important is
    >that the question is asked.
    > 
    >I think you're asking the question, "What should *I* do about this, and
    >not dealing with the first question of "what should God do about this". 
    >That, basically, is all I'm saying.
    
    I have asked your first question more times than I can remember over
    the years.  The answer I always seem to come up with is to ask your
    second question, find an answer to that, and then act accordingly.
        
    Mike

    Dave - 
    
    Although I have a problem with the "s" (should) word, that was very
    well put.  In general discussions like these I think sometimes our 
    judgements cloud our thoughts to the extent that we ignore the fact that 
    there are real human beings, who are probably not that different than
    you or me, facing this kind of a decision and feeling confused and 
    helpless and in great pain.  I think sometimes we all need to replace
    the "s" word with the "C" word, Compassion. 
    
    Nanci                                      

    But, Nanci, *Collis* used the word "should" in the question asked. I'm
    not disagreeing with you, I think that you are right. The change just
    would not have been consistent with the question as asked. Maybe I
    should have asked myself if it is better to be consistent or to provide
    a better answer. Thanks for the comment.

    People in this country "force" their religious beliefs on other
    by way of law ALL THE TIME! Polygamy is illegal, murder is illegal, 
    cannibalism is illegal. All of these things are either ok or actively 
    encouraged by one or more religions. (The things a sociology major
    learns. :-)) Making them against the law is no better or worse then
    making abortion against the law in terms of imposing religion. This
    agreement that pro-life people are but should not be imposing their
    religious beliefs does not hold water. I have, to this date, heard
    no argument against pro-life laws that is not JUST AS VALID if used
    to argue that polygamy, murder or cannibalism are religious beliefs that
    are unfairly imposed.
    
    I have also not heard a convincing argument (sorry Bonnie I know you've
    tried) that the soul does not enter the body earlier then 3 months or
    so. Unless someone has something new I think I'm done with this topic.
    
    		Alfred

    re: .44 (Thompson)

    Well, ultimately, whether a belief is one promulgated by a specific
    religion or not, the test a belief must pass before it becomes codified
    into law here in our republic, is if enough people want it so.  The
    reasons why laws against murder, cannibalism, and polygamy exist is
    because society at large, without reference to a specific religious
    belief, has determined that it does not want those practices to exist
    here.  As an aside, I find the restrictions against polygamy and/or
    polyandry to be aimed at followers of specific religions, and are
    suspect because of that.    

    It follows, then, that it is abundantly clear that the pro-life people
    do not have enough people who care enough about the pro-life position
    to force anti-abortion laws into existence over the resistance of the
    pro-choice people.  

    The points I have been trying to make about forcing religious beliefs
    on the rest of society, is that the Christian aspect of this debate
    represents a minority position.  I freely admit I may not have been
    clear enough about that.  

    >I have also not heard a convincing argument (sorry Bonnie I know you've
    >tried) that the soul does not enter the body earlier then 3 months or
    >so. Unless someone has something new I think I'm done with this topic.
    
    This is one of the reasons why there is such a fierce debate on
    abortion.  Neither side has convincing arguments that can be used to 
    sway the other from their particular belief.  That is why I said
    earlier that this issue lacks a moral imperative.  Unlike the crimes
    of theft or murder, for instance.

    Mike

re Note 31.44 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     People in this country "force" their religious beliefs on other
>     by way of law ALL THE TIME! Polygamy is illegal, murder is illegal, 
>     cannibalism is illegal. All of these things are either ok or actively 
>     encouraged by one or more religions. (The things a sociology major
>     learns. :-)) Making them against the law is no better or worse then
>     making abortion against the law in terms of imposing religion.

        Alfred,

        That is one way of looking at the current state of affairs,
        but there are other ways.

        While it is undeniably true that most of our basic laws
        historically descended from religious roots, I think that it
        is also true that what they constitute today is really a
        "secular morality" that happens to parallel religious
        morality in many, but not all, ways.

        If tomorrow all existing laws were repealed, and we had to
        start from scratch to define the laws we had to live by, I
        would have no doubt that polygamy, murder, and cannibalism
        would be outlawed again without appealing to religious
        teachings as their sole motivation.  Rather, you would see an
        underlying sense of secular morality, to the effect that
        these things are not good in a healthy society (or at least do
        not produce the kind of society in which we want to live).

        I don't believe that abortion would be outlawed based upon
        that test.  I believe that there would be very little outcry
        against abortion that wasn't directly motivated by religious
        beliefs.

        I do see a difference here -- do you?

        Bob

    Peyote Sp? use for religious purposes, by Navaho Indians is banned by
    law.

    Seems like government ban of religious veiw's depends on who's 
    religion it is.
    
    Jim

    re: .47 (Jim)

    The government did not ban the use of peyote by Indians in their
    religious services (assuming you are talking about the recent case
    involving the state of Oregon (or was it Washington?) ).  That case
    involved whether or not two Indian men were eligible for unemployment
    benefits after being fired from their jobs as substance abuse
    counselors for use of peyote in their religious ceremonies.  A use that
    ran counter to the stated conditions of their employment.  Apparently
    the state law did not allow unemployment benefits for people who are
    fired for cause.  

    Having said that, the government, in its human imperfection, sometimes
    does act improperly when it forces people to abandon their religious
    beliefs in favor of the codified morality.  A case in point was the
    pressures placed on the Mormons to abstain from practicing polygamy. 
    Another case in point, used to be the government forcing all children
    to be exposed to, and sometimes participate in, the reading of
    Christian prayers in public schools.  These abuses can be redressed,
    but it takes time and a willingness for people to work within our
    political system.  Witness the success of removing Christian prayers
    from public schools.

    Mike

    RE:48
    Mike,
     O.K. but I understood the bases of the Court's decision was that the 
    state invovled had a law making  peyote an illegal substance..
    
    If I'm wrong please correct me.
    
    Jim

    re: .49 (Jim)
    
    You know, now that I think about it, you may be right.  Or at least,
    I'm not as sure as I thought I was earlier.  Oh well, ce la vie! 
    
    Still, that doesn't change what I had intended to be the main thrust of
    my comments in note .48 though.  
    
    BTW: I'm glad you decided to stick around in this conference for yet
    a while longer, Jim.  While we frequently disagree, I do appreciate
    the honesty and generally caring attitude you display in your noting
    style.  It would be a shame for you to leave.
    
    Mike

    Bonnie,
    	about your scientific knowlege being relavent, or whatever. You
    claim to know embryology and your comments seem to support that claim.
    Science does not contradict God, it only explains the rules which
    govern how things work. If we accept the existence of a God at least
    somewhat like that described in the Bible then we must accept that
    those rules are made by that God. And discovered/understood with Her
    help. And it's applicable here.

    Dave,
    
    I'm not a doctor, but I have taken a course in college on
    embryology and have continued to read on the subject since.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  31.40

  >what *you* should do is try to help people who are faced with the
  >unenviable decision of whether or not to have an abortion. 

Is this a perspective from *your* framework, or the perspective
of God from *my* framework?  (Or both?)

I agree with much of what you say, however I don't agree with the reasons
why you say it.  I am called i.e. chosen by God to be HIS instrument,
not yours or mine.  Therefore, the question really revolves around
(my understanding of) what God tells me.  (Yes, I freely acknowledge
that there is an interpretive issue here.)

You say that part of my actions should include:

  >Do not make it harder for them to do what they see as the only thing 
  >left for them. 

Again, this has no necessary correlation with what God would have me to
do.  Therefore, I have no basis for doing this (unless God reveals that
this is what He would have me to do).

Why should I rely on human wisodm when God has revealed His wisdom to
me (and you, too)?

Collis

Re:  31.32  Richard

  >This is what I perceive you are saying:

  >1. Collis knows what God has said and done.

I believe I know some things.  I believe I understand some other things.
I believe that I am wrong in some areas (but not clear which ones - if
I was, I would change!)

  >2. (Implied) Collis has the correct understanding of what God has said 
  >   and done.

Sometimes.  I *do* feel an obligation to act out in life those things
that I believe God has revealed.  And I don't have to *know* that this
is what God has revealed, just believe that the weight of the evidence
supports a particular interpretation.

  >3. It matters not whether others agree with Collis.

In the sense that I was talking previously, quite true.  In other
circumstances, it may matter.

  >4. What matters is whether others agree with God.

YES!

  >5. Therefore, (Implied) should it occur that others agree with God, 
  >   others will coincidently agree with Collis.

On a few issues, I definately believe this to be true (for example, what
is required for salvation).  On a large number of issues, I don't expect
this at all because:

  A)  God has not revealed exactly what He believes in a clear form

  B)  Either one of us might interpret God incorrectly to some extent.

  >Is this a correct summary of your thinking, Collis?  I just want to make
  >certain I understand where you are coming from.

Hope this helps you understand where I'm coming from.

Collis

Newsgroups: clari.news.sex
Subject: Study: Women's abortion stance shifts after pregnancy
Date: 4 Oct 90 21:35:46 GMT
 
 
	NEW YORK (UPI) -- A surprising number of women who visited an 
``alternative-to-abortion'' clinic in a fundamentalist stronghold of
Appalachia said they would use abortion, a researcher reported Thursday.
	``This is a Jerry Falwell stronghold,'' said Charles Baffi, an
associate professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, which is based in
Blacksburg, Va., not far from the fundamentalist evangelist's
headquarters in Lynchburg, Va.
	Baffi's survey of 588 women who went to the Crisis Pregnancy Center
of New River Valley in Blacksburg between 1986 and 1989 found that
initally half opposed abortion, one-third were undecided and 17 percent
supported abortion.
	However, a follow-up of 270 women who proved to be pregnant showed
their attitudes apparently changed after learning the news. Fifty-three
percent said they would have an abortion, including 31 percent who
earlier opposed the procedure, Baffi said.
	``When reality set in...they felt abortion was not such a bad thing,''
he said, noting the attitude shift occurred despite a graphic, anti-
abortion film shown at the clinic.
	Baffi, who presented his findings at the American Public Health
Association's annual meeting, said his work marks the first extensive
study of women who go to clinics with anti-abortion philosophies.
	Three-fourths of the women surveyed in the largely impoverished
region were single and their average age was 18, he noted. While
contraceptive users had more liberal attitudes toward abortion, 43
percent of the women had not used any birth control in the 12 months
before going to the clinic, Baffi said.

    Collis,
    	de-polarize your "framework" for a minute and take another look at
    31.40. Just what do you have against trying to help people who need
    help? Or is it that you would rather bash them for allowing themselves
    to get into a tough spot ?  It may be cheaper, emotionally and
    financially, to tell a woman she's a sinner than to help her find
    another solution, but if you think it's what "God wants you to do" then
    maybe we are talking about two different guys named "Jesus Christ".
    Mine said my "framework" must be love. Mine said it is a good thing to
    forgive and it is a bad thing to judge. Mine said it was a good thing
    to help the poor and the sick and stood between a crowd of "righteous
    men" and a woman they would kill for the sin of adultery. What does
    yours say ?  Where do you stand when a crowd of "righteous men" attack
    a helpless woman in the streets, accusing her of sinning? Like I've
    seen happen when Operation Rescue pickets a counseling center? 

Re:  31.56

  >de-polarize your "framework" for a minute and take another look at
  >31.40. 

O.K.  I'll do that.

  >Just what do you have against trying to help people who need help? 

Absolutely nothing.  I am fully in support of helping people who need
help, certainly including those women who are pregnant and considering
abortion.

  >Or is it that you would rather bash them for allowing themselves to 
  >get into a tough spot ?  

Where did this come from?  I have *never* said or implied that my
response to a pregnant woman seeking an abortion should be to "bash
them".  And in real life I never have.

  >It may be cheaper, emotionally and financially, to tell a woman she's a 
  >sinner than to help her find another solution, but if you think it's 
  >what "God wants you to do" then maybe we are talking about two 
  >different guys named "Jesus Christ".

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  I do not qualify.

  >Mine said my "framework" must be love. Mine said it is a good thing to
  >forgive and it is a bad thing to judge. 

Your framework is too limited.  Because you define "love" too broadly.

  >What does yours say ?  

Framework on.  Mine says that God's revelation must be primary.  This
means that love is critical.  It also says that love, by itself (as
we typically define it here but I would argue that we define it very
poorly) is an incomplete response.  Love, in the sense that the Bible
uses the word, is not an incomplete response, but includes other
concepts that are generally not considered to be part of love.

  >Where do you stand when a crowd of "righteous men" attack a 
  >helpless woman in the streets, accusing her of sinning?  Like I've
  >seen happen when Operation Rescue pickets a counseling center? 

I have been active not in Operation Rescue, but rather in the Ethics of
Choice Foundation.  We do not accuse, hurl insults and physically block
abortion clinics, but rather we love, care for, pray for, pass out 
information and hopefully have an opportunity to nurture both the women and 
the unborn children.  At the abortion clinics.

You don't really want to cast a stone at Operation Rescue, do you?  In my
experience, the pro-choice people are much more "hateful" than the
pro-life.  But I don't think that this issue is really worthy of
discussion here.

Collis

    
    
    This is a reply to 30.34. I felt I should respond here rather
    than in the pro-choice note.
    
    _____________________________________________________________
    
    But Bob, this is exactly where I have a problem in re abortion  - 
    saying that there is no answer in scripture helps me not at all.
    
    If abortion is wrong from conception, because the fertilized egg
    is a person, then what of all the people who live such brief lives
    and die. If (as I believe) a  fertilized egg is not yet a person
    then when in development does it become a person? At the time
    of brain wave activity (i.e. the reverse of the ceasation of brain
    waves as a marker for when a person ceases to exist) or at the
    traditional time of around 4 months when the baby quickens?
    
    Scripture refers only to quickened babies. (lept in the womb etc.).
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie,

I think we need to look at the principles that God has laid down in
Scripture.  These principles include extremely high concern for the
poor, downtrodden, and innocent (such as unborn babies).

But there really is more that Scripture says about this, directly and
indirectly, than you may be aware of.  My noting time is limited (ya,
right) so I'm not going to put a lot in here about this.  But I was very
impressed by a book "Abortion, Toward an Evangelical Consensus" which
tries to do a honest study of what the Scriptures say about abortion
including a look at the culture of the time.

Collis

    Collis
    
    The question to me is when is it a baby. I also share a high
    concern for the poor the downtrodden and the innocent including
    unborn babies (such as my granddaughter to be.)
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie,

I believe it was you who has made several references to the beliefs that
you have in science that you feel would be contradicted by accepting
a newly created fetus as a - as a what, a living human being?  a person?
Yet, the only issue that I remember you dealing with specifically is
when a soul enters the body - an issue that I'm not aware *anyone* has
a definitive answer to (at least from a phsyical science perspective).

Are there other issues that force you to accept abortion as a reasonable
alternative that we can discuss here?  I certainly do not want you to
compromise your intellectual honesty as I believe this is extremely
important.  However, many people, knowing as much as you know about
these issues, are strongly against abortion.  Perhaps there are ways of
both believing what you have learned (which, hopefully, is true) and
believing that abortion is not an acceptable choice (at least in the
vast majority of cases).

Collis

    Just one quick thought. Somewhere in the Bible God says,
    "Before you were in your mother's womb, I knew you." So
    those eggs that don't make it, via miscarriage are not in 
    God's plan to become persons. However, the one's that do,
    are in his plan. Who are we to interfere ?

    Peace
    Jim

    re: .62 (Jim)
    
    How do you know that a person wasn't meant to be, and the abortion
    is really part of God's plan?
    
    Mike

    
    
    For the purpose of adding a biblical point of view to the discussion, I 
    have extracted a reply from the old Christian conference. For those
    that hold to scriptural authority, this may be useful in determining
    the status of the unborn.
    
    Jamey
    
             <<< ATLANA::DUB0:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN_V4.NOTE;1 >>>
         -< Christian conference v4 - Read-only - for reference only >-
================================================================================
Note 225.157             Official Abortion Debate Topic               157 of 298
COOKIE::JANORDBY "The government got in again"       47 lines   1-MAR-1990 18:36
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Although there is some scriptural grounding scattered through this
    topic, I thought that I might list a few (OK a bunch) of scriptures
    that some of you may want to take before the Lord.
    
    A. God is the creator of all life
    Psalm 95:6
    Psalm 100:3
    Psalm 119:73
    Acts 17:24-25
    
    B. Conception is a gift of God
    Genesis 18:9-15; 21:1-2; 25:23; 29:31ff; 30:22-23; 25:21
    Judges 13:3-5; 
    Luke 1:13
    Luke 1:30
    Psalm 127:3
    
    C. God is the creator of the unborn
    Job 10:8-12
    Job 33:4
    Psalm 139:13-16
    Eccesistes 11:5
    Isaiah 44:2; 44:24
    Jeremiah 1:5
    Psalm 22:9,10
    
    D. Pre-natal life has meaning for God
    Isaiah 49:1,5
    Isaiah 49:15,16
    Luke 1:15
    Luke 1:41-44
    Galations 1:15,16
    
    E. Rape and Incest
    Deuteronomy 24:16
    
    F. Birth Defects
    Exodus 4:11
    Isaiah 45:9-11
    

    re: .63 Mike
    
>    How do you know that a person wasn't meant to be, and the abortion
>    is really part of God's plan?
    
    Because then we would have to say that all murders and wars are part of
    God's plan. The only part of God's plan in any of these events is that
    he gives us a free will in which he allows us to choose good or evil. As
    in the case of murder and wars it is our choice that causes them. God's
    choice is that he allows us to choose.

    Peace
    Jim

re Note 31.64 by COOKIE::JANORDBY:

        I realize that this would involve a lot of work, but in the
        future such an offering would possibly have more impact if it
        included the text of at least some of the scriptural
        references.

        Bob

    re: .65 (Jim)

   > Because then we would have to say that all murders and wars are part of
   > God's plan. The only part of God's plan in any of these events is that
   > he gives us a free will in which he allows us to choose good or evil. As
   > in the case of murder and wars it is our choice that causes them. God's
   > choice is that he allows us to choose.

    Are you saying that all these evils aren't part of God's plan?  It
    seems to me that they are very much part of his plan, else why would
    the Old Testament be so full of such events?  Also, if God is almighty,
    surely he would have known that we would be indulging in wars and
    murder and general attempts to destroy each others body and/or spirit
    at every possible opportunity.  Especially since He taught us that
    under certain circumstances, killing is acceptable.  If God didn't want
    us to kill, all he had to do was program us otherwise.  He didn't, and
    in fact according to the Bible, used us to kill for him.  Since belief
    in an almighty God is central to the Christian experience, then the
    Christian God either doesn't care how we humans treat one another, or
    He intentionally wants us to suffer.  In either case, I cannot see much
    reason to believe in the notion of Divine Providence.

    With that in mind, I then can quite honestly accept the idea that, as
    aesthetically repugnant as abortions might be, anything that will lessen
    the human suffering of people who are here now, is preferable to the
    alternative.

    Mike
                                                            

Re:  31.67                    Abortion Debate Note

Mike Smith,

  >Are you saying that all these evils aren't part of God's plan?  

Evil is never the will of God.  Paul is quite specific on this in
Romans 3.

  >It seems to me that they are very much part of his plan, else why would
  >the Old Testament be so full of such events?  

People are evil.  The Old Testament is a record of people and God.

  >Also, if God is almighty, surely he would have known that we would be 
  >indulging in wars and murder and general attempts to destroy each others 
  >body and/or spirit at every possible opportunity.  

Agreed.

  >Especially since He taught us that under certain circumstances, killing 
  >is acceptable.  

Agreed.

  >If God didn't want us to kill, all he had to do was program us otherwise.  

This certainly was one option.  However, the consequence of that option
is that you and I would not have free will and that you and I would not
be able to voluntarily choose to worship and praise God for who He is.

  >He didn't, and in fact according to the Bible, used us to kill for him.  

Not how I would put it, but essentially correct.

  >Since belief in an almighty God is central to the Christian experience, 
  >then 
[slight editing of form]
  >  1) the Christian God either doesn't care how we humans treat one another, 
  >  2) or He intentionally wants us to suffer.  

Mike, I really think you can come up with more options than this.
Particularly since you participate in discussions with Christians all
the time and this is not exactly an area that never gets discussed.  Do
you want to add the other options, or should I?

Collis

    I recently read an article sent on by my folks, in which it describes
    an expectant mother in circumstances wherein she felt a child would not
    be appropriate.  She meditated on the situation and attempted to
    "contact" the child, communicating her desperation.  Shortly
    thereafter, she had a spontaneous abortion.  
    
    It warmed my heart as a possibility for healing the division on this
    issue.
    
    DR

    re: .67 Mike

   >> Because then we would have to say that all murders and wars are part of
   >> God's plan. The only part of God's plan in any of these events is that
   >> he gives us a free will in which he allows us to choose good or evil. As
   >> in the case of murder and wars it is our choice that causes them. God's
   >> choice is that he allows us to choose.

>    Are you saying that all these evils aren't part of God's plan?  It
>    seems to me that they are very much part of his plan, else why would
>    the Old Testament be so full of such events?  

    The event's of the world as it pertains to evil is not part of God's
    plan. Understand that in the stories of the Old Testament, tribal
    theology did not understand the concepts of free will. Whatever
    happen to them was believed to be God making it happen. It wasn't until
    Christ came that free will started to become part of theological
    understanding.

    >Also, if God is almighty,
>    surely he would have known that we would be indulging in wars and
>    murder and general attempts to destroy each others body and/or spirit
>    at every possible opportunity.  

    Yes, He knows that we will sin and knew we needed salvation.

    >Especially since He taught us that
>    under certain circumstances, killing is acceptable.  

    I'm not so sure about this. I haven't come to that understanding yet. 
    Most of this evidence is from the Old Testament. I have only scratched
    the surface of Old Testament theology. Without a good understanding of
    tribal culture, it is hard to interpret the Old Testament on your own.
    I missed out on a course on the Old Testament last year that the Worcester
    Diocese offered through Holy Cross College. I had hope they would offer 
    it again this year, but they didn't.

    >If God didn't want
>    us to kill, all he had to do was program us otherwise.  He didn't, and
>    in fact according to the Bible, used us to kill for him. 

    This is were free will comes in. If God would have programmed us, then
    we could not be responsible for sin. The only way you can have sin is
    because of your free will. 

    > Since belief
>    in an almighty God is central to the Christian experience, then the
>    Christian God either doesn't care how we humans treat one another, or
>    He intentionally wants us to suffer.  In either case, I cannot see much
>    reason to believe in the notion of Divine Providence.

    God doesn't want us to suffer, we suffer because of sin. To say God
    wants us to suffer would be saying God wants us to sin.



    >    With that in mind, I then can quite honestly accept the idea that, as
>    aesthetically repugnant as abortions might be, anything that will lessen
>    the human suffering of people who are here now, is preferable to the
>    alternative.

    In most cases, even unwanted pregnancies have not caused great suffering.
    All you got to do is look at the miracle of birth to see that it is
    good. Understand Mike, that we don't hold the key to life, and we
    should not try to act as if we do. The suffering caused by unwanted
    pregnancies are caused by sin, not God. He told us how to avoid this
    suffering, all we got to do is, do what he said.

    The laws of God free us, many think they restrict us. Take a look at
    the ten commandments. If followed, they will prevent lots of suffering.
    If your live against them, you  will suffer.
    
    Jim
                                                            

re Note 31.70 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

> >    If God didn't want
> >    us to kill, all he had to do was program us otherwise.  He didn't, and
> >    in fact according to the Bible, used us to kill for him. 
> 
>     This is were free will comes in. If God would have programmed us, then
>     we could not be responsible for sin. The only way you can have sin is
>     because of your free will. 

        Jim,

        I feel I need to make a comment on this.

        The way you worded the above, it sounds like God gave us free
        will so God could punish us.

        I do not think this is the case.

        Certainly, we are responsible because our wills are free.

        Yet I believe that God created us free, i.e., without
        "programming" to automatically do the good, as an end in
        itself -- God wanted free beings.  Perhaps this is one of the
        consequences of being in "the image of God" -- God has free
        will, and therefore we do, too.
                                                            
        Bob

    re: .31
    
    >In most cases, even unwanted pregnancies have not caused great suffering.
    >All you got to do is look at the miracle of birth to see that it is
    >good.
    
    In all kindness, may I suggest that, in the future, you, as a man,
    watch how you word this argument?  Any woman who has experienced the
    discomfort of even a *wanted* pregnancy -- not to mention the pain of
    labor and childbirth -- is apt to give your first sentence a less-than-
    kindly reception!  
    
    Then, after the miracle of a healthy birth, it is still overwhelmingly
    the *woman's* task to raise the infant to adulthood!!  And if there is
    no responsible father or family to help (as is often the case), it is
    also her responsibility to provide for that child for  18-21 years!
    
    Even a *wanted* pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing can cause
    great suffering and, since it is *most likely* the mother who bears
    that burden, she alone (with the advice and help that *she* desires)
    should make the decision.
    
    Now I am really *not* suggesting a "gag order" nor am I suggesting that
    you should not freely make your point.  I'm just suggesting you figure
    out a way to state it that is less likely to "turn off" the women you
    are speaking to!  :-)
    
    Nancy

.38 Cookie::jandorby from the pro-choice note

    
>    Let me say it again:
    
>    1) You seem to base your support of first-trimester abortion on what
>       you think is a reasonable timeframe, based upon theoretical
>       ensoulment and/or brain waves.
    
So how else do you decide when a mass of dividing cells becomes
a baby?

 >   2) I was pointing out that the God, according to the bible confer 
 >      value to life from conception. Even if ensoulment did not happen
 >      until well after birth, this is not the point. Neither is brain waves.
 >      Nowhere in scripture is life associated with brainwaves.
    
But we aren't just relying on scripture here. No one in the old or
new testament had any knowlege of modern Biology and that is to me
where the conflict comes in... that we have to make decisions based
on modern science in light of scripture written 2,000 years ago.
Do you accept the modern legal definition of death as 'flat brain waves'
allowing doctors to turn off life support machines? Further, if God
    values life from the moment of conception, then why do so many
    fertilized eggs die? The human is very reproductively inefficient.
    
    

    >Sorry if I was not clear before. I am trying to put forward my view on
    >the subject based upon a biblical view of life and to point out the
    >discrepencies between your view and mine. We may both learn something
    >and so might others.
    
    >I hope you don't drop the discussion. It is fine that you believe in a
    >first-trimester abortion. I just can't seem to figure out why? How do
    >you view the bible? Perhaps that would help be better understand where
    >you are coming from and how to address some of your issues. 
    
I view the Bible as a written record of the relationship of a people
with God, of which I am an inheritor. I believe that we read it with
a glass darkly and often misunderstand a lot of what we read. I would
say that it was in places channeled or inspired, and places is simple
history.

It is God's word filtered through human consciousness, not God's word
dictated word by word to human scribes, or at least so I believe.

   > I guess I have several questions:
    
   > 1. Why do you think a first-trimester abortion should be supported as
   > 'legal' from a christian perspective?

Because of tradtion, that the Roman Catholic church held it to not
be a homicide after the council of Gratian for over 1000 years. Tho
I have problems with some traditions this one seems to me to be
a reasonable guide line. Also because I don't  belive that the
fetus/embryo is as yet a child, so that an abortion is not killing
a person. That is from my understanding of Biology. Also that the
Bible mostly refers to children in the womb after the point of
quickening. (except for the verse about 'before you were in your
mother's womb I knew you' but I'd take that to mean that the soul
preexists with God.)

   > 2. Why do you think time of 'ensoulment' is crucial to the argument?
   > I.e. how do you come to the conclusion that ensoulment adds/subtracts
   > value to a live fetus?

Because abortion is murder only if it kills a person or a soul. If we
call it murder to kill living human tissue than we can never amputate
a leg, or remove cancer cells. Also because so many fertilized eggs
die daily, that I have a problem with God creating souls only to die
before they ever live. That to me sounds like the cruel God that
some draw from the old testament, not the loving God that I have found.
I can't belive that God daily allows to die so many persons, so the
    answer I've come to accept is that at that stage they are not yet
    persons. Mothers and fathers grieve over the loss of a 2nd or 3rd
    trimester baby. There are are those who may well grieve over the
    loss of an early conceptuous, but this is - in my experience - more
    the loss of the potential of a child, not the loss of an actual
    child. 

    >3. Why do you think that brain activity adds value from a live fetus?

See above, there is a legal standard for the ending of life, do you
object to 'pulling the plug' on an adult who is 'brain dead'? Also
I think for a soul to exist it needs to be conscious. And if it is
in a body, consciousness comes through the mind.

   > 4. How does the bible play into developing this belief and life in
   >  general?

Only in that I am a Christain and I believe in Jesus, that he died
for us and was resurected. Where the Bible is ignorant of science,
since the writers were ignorant of science I look to science...after
all God created this world that we are learning about through science.

   > 5. How exactly do you see the issues surrounding abortion? How did you
   > come to determining that these were the pivitol issues?
    

Because I know that when abortion is illegal that desperate women die
and I could not accept that. So when I looked at the issues, what I 
saw was a point where the fertilized egg became a person. I could
not accept from my knowlege of biology that this was at conception.
and because I know that women and children are damaged when abortion
goes undergrownd.

Bonnie
    
    

    in re .72 in re .31

    I agree with Nancy Smith in this...unwanted pregnancies have caused
    *great* suffering. Think of women dying in from a 10th or 12th
    pregnancy because she had no access to a safe birth control (i.e.
    all the centuries before the 19th.) Women died, babies died, children
    grew up motherless, or with stepmothers, not all of whom were
    loving to the children of the first mother. Women aged and grew old
    by their late 30's through unending child bearing. Further, desperate
    women killed themselves or maimed themselves and maimed developing
    babies through their desperation not to be pregnant.

    In many cases unwanted pregnancies have caused great suffering.

    Bonnie

    I have long ago learned to stay away from abortion notes, at least not
    to engage in debate.  But I have found it instructive to listen, in
    order to understand other people's points of view.
    
    Frankly I wish that God's Word were clearer (to me anyway; maybe it's
    perfectly clear to you) on this subject of when does (human) life
    begin.  I know what my mind tells me, but I can't tell you on the
    authority of the Word what the answer is.
    
    To complicate matters, what my mind thinks and what my heart feels
    aren't necessarily the same.
    
    I tend to separate the issue into two questions: when does life begin
    (a question science speaks to), and "ensoulment" (a non-scientific
    question).  At the risk of being heretical, I'm not so sure that there
    is a one-to-one mapping from soul to body, or that the life of one is
    co-terminous with the other.  What exactly did Jesus mean when He told
    Nicodemus "you must be born again"?
    
    At the risk of sounding blasphemous, doesn't it seem that God is
    terribly inefficient in the saving of souls?  How many billions of homo
    sapiens have been born through the ages, and how many will see
    salvation through Jesus?  How many die in infancy and childhood, and
    how many never believe in the Gospel?  One answer to that is to reject
    the doctrine of salvation through belief in Jesus.   That's not my
    answer.  I would grieve for all the unsaved, but for my faith in God,
    that, though I understand not now in this life, that I may yet
    understand when I see Him face to face.
    
    I know many cannot accept this.  "If God is Love, how can He ... "
    (fill in the blank)
    
    I don't know that an aborted fetus is a soul dead before its time.
    But if it were, it's no less sad than one living to a hundred and never
    know Christ.  How can God allow that to happen?  I don't know.
    (If I'm not making my point, it is that we should not conclude that
    the unborn do not have souls because God allowed so many fertilized
    eggs to die.  I don't see that it necessarily follows either way.)
    
    --Simon
    

    re: .72
    
    Nancy,

>>In most cases, even unwanted pregnancies have not caused great suffering.
>>All you got to do is look at the miracle of birth to see that it is
>>good.
    
>    In all kindness, may I suggest that, in the future, you, as a man,
>    watch how you word this argument?  Any woman who has experienced the
>    discomfort of even a *wanted* pregnancy -- not to mention the pain of
>    labor and childbirth -- is apt to give your first sentence a less-than-
>    kindly reception!  

    Don't run away with my words. I did not say that there was no suffering.
    I've seen enough births to know that a woman does suffer, however,
    as soon as that baby is born I have seen tears of joy and love
    towards that miracle that is placed in her arms. Even in the unwanted
    pregnancies I have seen this. The point I'm making is that in the
    majority of cases involving having children, the suffering is not as
    great as many would have us believe. Even women in the poorest countries 
    find joy and happiness when they have a child come into their lives. Many 
    in our society see having a child as being a burden, which is another 
    problem in itself.

    Suffering goes with life, and if were a choice between pain and nothing
    I would always choose pain, at least with it there is life. Life
    doesn't give us a choice however. If we choose life we choose pain,
    but if we choose death, the loss is greater and harder to deal with
    because there is nothing anyone can do to rectify it. In life even
    when there is pain there is still joy to go along with it and there
    is always hope in a brighter day. 

>    Then, after the miracle of a healthy birth, it is still overwhelmingly
>    the *woman's* task to raise the infant to adulthood!!  And if there is
>    no responsible father or family to help (as is often the case), it is
>    also her responsibility to provide for that child for  18-21 years!
    

    I'm a father of two children one of which was born prematurely and now
    lives with cerebral palsy. I understand what goes into raising a child
    healthy and unhealthy. I also know women who have done it alone. Neither
    myself or they would trade off not having these kids to alleviate the
    hardship  in having them. Living life with them is more precious than
    to have lived without them. Ask the adults who lived their childhood
    unhealthy if they wish they were never born, I have yet to hear one say
    yes.

    I'm not speaking for everyone, but I feel
    many people share my point of view than not.

    Jim

    RE:71
    Bob,

>> >    If God didn't want
>> >    us to kill, all he had to do was program us otherwise.  He didn't, and
>> >    in fact according to the Bible, used us to kill for him. 
> 
>>     This is were free will comes in. If God would have programmed us, then
>>     we could not be responsible for sin. The only way you can have sin is
>>     because of your free will. 

>        Jim,

>        I feel I need to make a comment on this.

>        The way you worded the above, it sounds like God gave us free
>        will so God could punish us.

    Sorry it seems that way, but no that's not what I intended. You cannot sin
    if you do not have  free will. God gave us a free will so that we can choose
    good or evil. He did not give us a will that could only choose evil or
    a will that could choose only good. Our vision of what is good or evil
    is often blinded because of original sin, but  the  sin is only in
    our choice  to please ourselves rather than the desire to choose what is 
    right in the eyes of God. When we choose evil, it is most often out of
    the desire to please ourselves rather than choose what is right.

    >    I do not think this is the case.

>        Certainly, we are responsible because our wills are free.

>        Yet I believe that God created us free, i.e., without
>        "programming" to automatically do the good, as an end in
>        itself -- God wanted free beings.  Perhaps this is one of the
>        consequences of being in "the image of God" -- God has free
>        will, and therefore we do, too.
                                                            
         Agreed ! I think we're saying the same thing.

    Peace
    Jim

    re: .76
    
    Much better expressed and much less likely to offend!  (I *knew* that
    was your point -- just challenging you to express it better! -- even
    though I'm pro-choice!  Now, how much friendlier can an "opponent" be?)
    
    :)

    
Bonnie, .73
        
>So how else do you decide when a mass of dividing cells becomes a baby?

    When it is conceived. This is how God created Jesus, his only
    *begotten* son. If God was going to make a saviour for the world, I
    think he would have done it perfectly from beginning to end, starting
    with conception.
    
    
>But we aren't just relying on scripture here. No one in the old or
>new testament had any knowlege of modern Biology and that is to me
>where the conflict comes in... that we have to make decisions based
>on modern science in light of scripture written 2,000 years ago.
>Do you accept the modern legal definition of death as 'flat brain waves'
>allowing doctors to turn off life support machines? Further, if God
>    values life from the moment of conception, then why do so many
>    fertilized eggs die? The human is very reproductively inefficient.
    
    I don't have much faith in modern biology to give me eternal life,
    but I do have faith in the God of eternity. Flat brain waves only have
    validity when talking about physical death. They have nothing to do
    with eternity, in either direction.

    It is clear that our opposing views on what the Bible is and who is the
    Author will prohibit us from coming to concensus, but I do appreciate
    you sharing your thoughts and opinions. It helps me to understand.
    
    Jamey

    

    in re .79
    
    ...and here is where I disagree with you. I do not believe
    that an early zygote is a baby/person/soul. 

    re: 31.73
    
    Bonnie,
    	that was a real tour-de-force. Quite impressive. 

    Mike,
    
>    If God doesn't want evil to exist, he wouldn't allow it.

    He won't allow it forever. 
    
    Jamey

    re: .83 (Jamey)
    
    But He has all through human history, right up to today.  Why?
    
    Mike

    
    
    .83
    
    Perhaps it was out of compassion that some should survive rather than
    administering the sentence all deserve. Stomping out evil would take
    all people with it.
    
    Jamey

>    If God doesn't want evil to exist, he wouldn't allow it.

	I don't agree that this is the case. It implies that "want" is
	a binary case. It is not. There are degrees of 'want'. I believe 
	that God would prefer that evil did not exist but that in ways He
	can see good coming of it. Perhaps in ways that we can not see.

				Alfred

Re:  31.82

Mike,

  >I didn't say God was evil.  I said he allows it to happen.

I'm glad we agree (if we do agree) that God is not evil.  I also
agree (if we do agree) that God allows evil to happen.

Re:  options
[slight editing of form]
  >  1) the Christian God either doesn't care how we humans treat one another, 
  >  2) or He intentionally wants us to suffer.  

Mike, the reason I asked you if there were more options was because you
were addressing the issue is if only those two options existed.  A
third option (which I don't see explicitly in your discussion) is that
God allows evil for a time so that there is a chance for repentance and
acceptance by God.  Now you may have personally rejected this option as
inconsistent or impossible, (just as others have rejected the options
you originally presented), but it is an option and one that is accepted
by most Christians who have studied this issue.

  >Regarding whether or not the Christian God wants his people to suffer,
  >doesn't the Bible say as much, somewhere in Genesis, as punishment for 
  >Adam's fall?

God does cast judgment at times in which people suffer.  God does not
want people to suffer (just as I don't want my daughter to suffer), but
finds it necessary and appropriate that punishment be given so that people
will do what is right.  (It's amazing how a spanking will change my
daughter's behavior to what is "right".)

There are many verses I could find for you that indicate that God does
not enjoy the suffering of his people.  No, it grieves his heart.
    
Collis

    Alfred -1,
    
    > I believe that God would prefer that evil did not exist but that in
    > ways He can see good coming of it. Perhaps in ways that we can not see.
    
    I think you're on to something there...
    
    Karen

    re: .86 (Alfred)
    
	>I don't agree that this is the case. It implies that "want" is
	>a binary case. It is not. There are degrees of 'want'. I believe 
	>that God would prefer that evil did not exist but that in ways He
	>can see good coming of it. Perhaps in ways that we can not see.
    
    That would seem to fly in the face of the idea of an omnipotent God.
    If God wants something, I have to believe He gets it.  Right?
    
    To provide a possible answer to my own question; just like there must
    be ugliness in order to perceive beauty, there must be evil in order to
    perceive good.
    
    Mike                                                         
    
    Mike

    Can we perhaps take this discussion about the existence of evil to
    topic 55?
    
    -- Mike

Re:  31.92

Mike,

  >Well, I have indeed rejected that explanation.  Along with it I found
  >I had to reject Christianity.

I thought this was the case.  If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion,
it would be that in the future you include all alternatives when you
state the alternatives, even the ones you reject.  This gives the
appearance of being fair and even-handed (and prevents the conversation
from going off into these lines and allows us to instead focus on the
real issues).
        
  >The scale of suffering that humans have experienced over the millennia
  >indicates to me that God isn't too interested in just chastising us from
  >time to time.  If that were the intent, such chastisements would be
  >followed by "correct" behavior for a while.  As far as I know, that has
  >never happened.  

Actually, there are many examples in the Bible where punishment and
threatened punishment affected behavior.  Would you like me to quote
some?

But this should come as no surprise to you.  Humans *do* respond to
positive and negative reinforcement.  This has been shown over and over
by many and is not dependent on a belief in God.
         
      >>There are many verses I could find for you that indicate that God does
      >>not enjoy the suffering of his people.  No, it grieves his heart.
    
  >Maybe so, but I have seen no evidence of that. 

Have you ever seen a rainbow?

Perhaps you saying that God's words are insufficient.  They certainly fill
the Bible with the grief in his heart.  Perhaps you want more than words.
Perhaps you want God Himself to see to it that his people should never
suffer again.  Perhaps you want God to become a man and die in our place?
Perhaps you want Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, to say to you, "I'm
knocking at the door of your heart.  I love you.  Will you let me in?
Will you allow me to satisfy the longing of your soul?  To help you with
the problems you face on earth?  To give you life with me forever?"

Perhaps you simply reject the evidence that is there for all to see.

Collis

    Having just read all of the entries from 31.0 to 31.92, I like to offer
    an observation and a few comments:
    
    OBSERVATION
    
    There seem to be two primary points of contention throughout the
    discussions; 
    
    	a) When has human life progressed sufficently that society
           should extend the same protections to it that are extended
    	   to a normal adult human?  (When is the zygote human?) 
    
    	b) Under what conditions is it proper or improper for society to
    	   impose restrictions upon its members that some members don't 
           agree with? (Can you legislate morality?)
    
    
    COMMENTS:
    
    
    1) All of you are to be commended for a rather reasonable discussion. 
    I think that you are focusing on the two most important questions in
    the abortion debate.  I would like to respond to both issues of
    contention but that would impose too much on this note.  I offer the
    following comments on the second issue.
    
    
    Regarding the discussion of legislating morality, it seems to me
    that there are two possibilities for ultimate authority that we could
    appeal to in settling the issue of how much involvement (to hinder or
    to promote) the government should have in this issue.  Either we as 
    individuals accept that God's will is the ultimate abitrator, in which
    case we appeal to one another on the basis of what we believe God's will
    to be, OR some other ultimate authority is appealed to.  The U.S.
    Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and modified by the
    Congress is the only alternative that I remember seeing in this topic.
    
    If we remove God from the equation (believing that the first amendment
    to the Constitution requires us to do so) then our only appeal is to 
    man-made laws (the Constitution), passed by the consent of the society.
    
    MY POINT
    
    If then laws are right because they have gone through the proscribed
    procedure to be passed, then no one should object to the pro-life
    movement using every political means available to get the government
    to pass laws limiting or hindering abortion.  One may disagree with the
    position, but is is not logical to characterize this political action
    as "forcing your morality on others" or "shoving your values down someone
    else's throat".  In a secular society any value that the governed
    will concent to is by definition acceptable or right.  So if through 
    political means the U.S. modifies its laws or re-interprets its laws to
    restrict or limit abortions... please no crys of "forcing morality".
     
    3) One final comment, in our system of government, authority is invested
    in legislatures, courts and executives, NOT in opinion polls.  It is
    not required that a majority want something changed.  It is possible
    that a minority that feels strongly enough to organize and promote a
    position, can see that position implemented by our governmental system. 
    That is the way most if not all changes take place in our system of 
    government.  So opinion polls are a political means of influence but 
    not a measure of legitimate authority in our system of government.
    
    
    regards, and GOOD REASONING TO YOU ALL
    
    David Reeves
    
    

    David
    
    Is it accepatable if a minority gets Congress to pass a law
    allowing slavery?
    
    Bonnie

    re: .94
    
    >If then laws are right because they have gone through the proscribed
    >procedure to be passed, then no one should object to the pro-life
    >movement using every political means available to get the government
    >to pass laws limiting or hindering abortion.  One may disagree with the
    >position, but is is not logical to characterize this political action
    >as "forcing your morality on others" or "shoving your values down someone
    >else's throat".  In a secular society any value that the governed
    >will concent to is by definition acceptable or right.  So if through 
    >political means the U.S. modifies its laws or re-interprets its laws to
    >restrict or limit abortions... please no crys of "forcing morality".
    
    You are correct that pro-life adherents have every right to *try* to
    change the laws.  The pro-choice adherents also have the right to
    state, as part of *their* argument, that such restrictive laws would
    infringe on a women's basic freedoms and on her right to privacy and,
    as such, would result in the right-to-life folks "forcing morality" 
    and "forcing pro-life values" on others!
    
    Nancy

>    Is it accepatable if a minority gets Congress to pass a law
>    allowing slavery?
 
    Is it accepatable if a minority gets Congress to pass a law
    allowing abortion? Answer to both is no.

	Question is outlawing slavery any more or less legislating morality
	then outlawing abortion? I believe not so of course the arguement
	that abortion outlawing is legislating morality and is therefore
	bad always strikes me as false. [Not directed at Bonnie or anyone
	else in particular just an observation.]

			Alfred
 

    Alfred,
    
    There are many women who believe that a law outlawing abortion
    would  be tantamount to enslaving women.
    
    Bonnie

	Bonnie, Believing something doesn't make it true. I've seen no
	evidence to support that belief.

			Alfred

    Alfred, 
    
    If indeed a fetus is not a person until some point in gestation
    (which I believe and you do not) then forbidding abortion before
    that point would amount to enslavement of women.
    
    and may I gently point out, my friend, that your stand on
    abortion is based just as much on a belief that may or may
    not be true as mine.
    
    Bonnie

>    If indeed a fetus is not a person until some point in gestation
>    (which I believe and you do not) then forbidding abortion before
>    that point would amount to enslavement of women.

	Even if I were to concede the first part of your sentence it is
	the second part that I was a do dispute here. While we both base
	our opinion on when the fetus is a person on belief the second
	part can be dealt with on a factual basis I believe. Claiming that
	forbidding abortion amounts to enslavement of women weakens your
	argument as it is so illogical as to defy belief. Unless rape becomes
	legal women still have the option not to get pregant in the first
	place.

			Alfred 

    Alfred,
    
    If women are forced to bear children then they no longer own
    their own bodies.
    
    Bonnie

Re: .94 David

>    	b) Under what conditions is it proper or improper for society to
>    	   impose restrictions upon its members that some members don't 
>           agree with? (Can you legislate morality?)
    
Yes, this is an important question.   It is difficult sometimes to balance
the will of a majority against the rights of a minority.  That balancing
act is one of the most important features of a national constitution, such
as the U.S. Constitution.

>    Regarding the discussion of legislating morality, it seems to me
>    that there are two possibilities for ultimate authority that we could
>    appeal to in settling the issue of how much involvement (to hinder or
>    to promote) the government should have in this issue.  Either we as 
>    individuals accept that God's will is the ultimate abitrator, in which
>    case we appeal to one another on the basis of what we believe God's will
>    to be,

This would not be likely to produce a national consensus, since there is
a great deal of diversity in American religious beliefs.

> OR some other ultimate authority is appealed to.  The U.S.
>    Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court and modified by the
>    Congress is the only alternative that I remember seeing in this topic.
    
Yes, the Constitution is perhaps the single most respected authority in the
United States, and would be an excellent source of "ultimate authority".
Unfortunately the Constitution doesn't speak clearly on this issue: some people
interpret the Constitution as granting a right to privacy that includes the
right of abortion choice, while others do not.

>    If we remove God from the equation (believing that the first amendment
>    to the Constitution requires us to do so) then our only appeal is to 
>    man-made laws (the Constitution), passed by the consent of the society.
    
Yes, "passed by the consent of the society".  However, just because Congress
passes a bill and the President signs it doesn't mean that society has
accepted it.  Look at the 55 mile per hour speed limit, for example.

>    If then laws are right because they have gone through the proscribed
>    procedure to be passed,

Whoah!  A law isn't "right" just because it has gone through the prescribed
procedure to be passed.  To the extent that people respect the Rule of Law
they well obey a law that they don't agree with, but they will also attempt
to change it.  If the law is seen as being unjust (such as the Fugitive
Slave Act) or in some cases merely unpopular (such as the 55 mile per hour
speed limit) people will refuse to obey it except to the extent that it can
be enforced by the power of the state,

> then no one should object to the pro-life
>    movement using every political means available to get the government
>    to pass laws limiting or hindering abortion.  One may disagree with the
>    position, but is is not logical to characterize this political action
>    as "forcing your morality on others" or "shoving your values down someone
>    else's throat".

Of course you'd be forcing your morality on others.  Of course you'd be
shoving your values down our throats.  That's why we're trying to stop you.
That's why we vote against candidates who say they are pro-life.  That's
what politics is all about: each of us votes for candidates who share our
values.  I tend to vote for candidates who are opposed to excessive government
involvement in the private lives of its citizens.  You no doubt have your
own criteria.

>  In a secular society any value that the governed
>    will concent to is by definition acceptable or right.  So if through 
>    political means the U.S. modifies its laws or re-interprets its laws to
>    restrict or limit abortions... please no crys of "forcing morality".
     
Not only would I cry "forced morality", but I'd do what I could to reverse
what I'd see as a step in the wrong direction.

>    3) One final comment, in our system of government, authority is invested
>    in legislatures, courts and executives, NOT in opinion polls.

Our government was founded by "We the people".  If the government consistently
ignores the wishes of the majority and becomes dominated by special interest
groups, it ceases to be legitimate.  I don't expect to see a civil war
fought over the abortion issue, but I also don't think that a law outlawing
abortion would end the debate.

				-- Bob

    RE: .102 I addressed that in my note already. Forbidding abortion
    does not equate to forcing women to bear children. No one has
    shown that it does.
    
    		Alfred

    Bonnie,
    
    Your question, "Is it acceptable if a minority gets Congress to pass
    a law allowing slavery" is appropriate.
    
    If you accept a secular state (with no deference to God's will) then 
    the answer is such a law is acceptable.  If the state is the ultimate 
    authority, then whatever the state does is "right".
    
    I don't believe that the state (the government) is the final authority. 
    I believe that God is and His will should be sought and submitted to;
    however some have maintained that since we live in a secular state, the
    "separation of church and state" disallows any appeal to God's will
    in determining the course we should take regarding abortion.  I just
    want to point out how much we could lose if we accept the notion that the
    government is the final abitrator of public values.
    
    Slavery is wrong, but not because a government has ruled against it. 
    South Africa allows a modified form of slavery but that doesn't make it
    right.  Who then determines ultimately that slavery is wrong?  God
    does.  When we follow His will, we abolish slavery both in our personal
    lives and in the public arena (governmentally).
    
    Nancy,
    
    Regarding your statement that "pro-choice adherents have the right to
    state, as part of *their* argument, that such restrictive laws would
    infringe on a woman's basic freedoms .... would result in ... 'forcing
    morality' and 'forcing pro-life values' on others!"
    
    I agree that you have the right to make such an argument.  I only ask
    that you consider the fairness of it.  When political forces in the
    '60's and '70's struck down abortion laws in the states, through
    legislative and judicial action, were they "forcing their morality" on 
    a religous minority?  Were they "forcing pro-choice values" on others? 
    When political forces accomplish state funding of abortions are they
    "forcing abortion down people's throats"?
    
    I believe that you have a valid point regarding privacy and the need to
    limit state power in personal cases.  If it is clearly established that
    an abortion involves only one person (the woman), then the issue is no
    different than having your tonsils removed.  In that case, the government
    should stay out of the matter.
    
    Thanks for the dialogue.
    
    GOOD REASONING TO YOU ALL!
    
    David
    
    
    reasonable
    limits on state power 

    Re .100
    
    >If indeed a fetus is not a person until some point in gestation
    >(which I believe and you do not) then forbidding abortion before
    >that point would amount to enslavement of women.
    
    If indeed a fetus is a person at the point of conception, then
    permitting abortion after that point is murder of children.
    
    Jamey
    

Re: .105  David

>    If you accept a secular state (with no deference to God's will) then 
>    the answer is such a law is acceptable.  If the state is the ultimate 
>    authority, then whatever the state does is "right".
    
Within the American system of government the state is *not* the ultimate
authority.  The ultimate authority is "we the people", i.e. the consensus
formed by individuals.  Slavery is wrong because an overwhelming number
of people think it is wrong, and we have reflected that consensus in the
13th Amendment to the Constitution.  There is no such consensus on the
abortion issue, so it will remain just that -- an issue.

>    however some have maintained that since we live in a secular state, the
>    "separation of church and state" disallows any appeal to God's will
>    in determining the course we should take regarding abortion.

I don't agree with those people.  The separation of church and state is binding
on the government, not on how individuals exercise their right to vote.

				-- Bob

Note 31.107

>Within the American system of government the state is *not* the ultimate
>authority.  The ultimate authority is "we the people", i.e. the consensus
>formed by individuals.

What you have said is *so* true.  We cannot separate ourselves from 'Caesar'
because we (in the U.S.) *am* Caesar.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .105  (David Reeves)
    
    To briefly answer some of your questions,
    
    >                      -< Is God's Will Obsolete? >-
    
    Our laws are, ideally, without reference to anyone's interpretation of
    God's will.  That is because everyone's concept of God is different
    even to the point of not believing there is a God, and therefore
    beliefs on what God's will is, are wildly subjective.  To do otherwise
    would mean the state is showing preference for one religious belief
    over others; something clearly forbidden in the Constitution.
    
    >When political forces in the '60's and '70's struck down abortion laws
    >in the states, through legislative and judicial action, were they
    >"forcing their morality" on  a religous minority?  Were they "forcing
    >pro-choice values" on others? 
    
    No, they weren't forcing morality on anyone.  The pro-choice side
    _does_ _not_ insist that people behave in a prescribed manner under
    force of law.  The pro-life side _does_ insist that people behave in a
    prescribed manner under force of law.  There is a distinct difference 
    that I'm sure you can see.
    
    >When political forces accomplish state funding of abortions are they
    >"forcing abortion down people's throats"?
    
    This is a different point altogether.  We are no longer discussing the
    morality of abortion, but the morality of forcing people to support,
    under force of law, specific welfare benefits for those who cannot
    afford them.
    
    >I believe that you have a valid point regarding privacy and the need to
    >limit state power in personal cases.  If it is clearly established that
    >an abortion involves only one person (the woman), then the issue is no
    >different than having your tonsils removed.  In that case, the government
    >should stay out of the matter.
    
    Now you have it right, at least according to my way of thinking,
    politically speaking.
    
    Mike
            

Note 31.107

>Within the American system of government the state is *not* the ultimate
>authority.  The ultimate authority is "we the people", i.e. the consensus
>formed by individuals.
    Note 31.108
>What you have said is *so* true.  We cannot separate ourselves from 'Caesar'
>because we (in the U.S.) *am* Caesar.

>Peace,
>Richard

    
  Richard,
    
 I have to disagree. We are obligated to seperate ourselves from 'Caesar' ie.
 the world John 17:16, John 16:15 Jas 4:4..  why? 1John 5:19, John 14:30.
 Naturally we can't physically be seperate and this is recognized by the 
 scriptures.. Rom 13:1,5-7 but we must look to God as the ultimate authority
 not man..neither us as individuals or as nations. Mark 12:17, Acts 5:28,29
 I hope never to be considered a part of 'Caesar', rather just in subjection
 to 'Caesar'. Will putting other men in office solve mankinds problems? 
 Ps 146:3,4 and 1John 5:19 leads me to answer NO. For this reason I don't have 
 any ties to political parties, voting etc. I wouldn't want to be actively 
 trying to direct 'Caesar' via voting etc. Rather my efforts are directed 
 towards proclaiming a government (God's Kingdom) which will do what no human 
 government can ever hope to do..provide lasting solutions to mankinds problems.
 God give rulership, dignity and kingdom to Jesus Dan 7:13,14. The effect on
 human governments... Dan 2:44. The effect on people Ps 72:12-14, Ps 110:5;
 no more war Isa 2:4; abundant food Isa 25:6; sickness removed Luke 7:22,9:11; 
 suitable homes and satisfying employment for all Isa 65:21-23; no more death
 Rev 21:4; earth a paradise again etc..... what a difference to todays world.
 I sure look forward to it.
                             Robin
   

    re .110 Seperation
    
    What about "Thy Kingdom Come on Earth as it is in Heaven"?
    
    DR

    re: .110 (Robin)
    
    If you aren't willing to work for your vision of the world, how will it
    ever come about?  Who was it who said, "All evil needs to triumph, is
    for good people to do nothing" (or something like that)?   Besides,
    didn't Jesus say to "Render onto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
    and to God the things that are God's."?  Even Jesus recognized by that
    statment, that civil governments have their proper place in this world,
    didn't he?  
    
    I'm not trying to say you are wrong here, Robin.  I'm just trying to
    understand where you are coming from.
    
    Peace
    Mike

    This topic is drifting, so I initiated 81.0.
    
    I now return you to your regularly scheduled string (abortion debate).
    
    Richard

In the Christian-Fundamentalist notes file, there was some
discussion about politicians who are pro-choice (but personnally,
against abortion) as being murderers and butchers. One such
politician is the Democratic of Florida.

Another, the new Govenor of Texas, (name slips my mind) but she
is for gay rights so now she is labeled lesbian even though she
is hetro-sexual her whole life.

Please help me to understand why if I take a stand of an
alternative life style or I am pro-choice, I am automatically a
sinner? I know that the world of believers is not black or white.

cal

    	The Christian-Fundamentalist notes file ?  Is that the good-ol
    CHRISTIAN file with a tag on the end or is that something new?
    
    	Some people seem to think that if you are not with us you are
    against us, if you are not rabidly anti-(sin, or whatever) then you
    must be guilty of (sin, or whatever). I say "seem to think" because
    their mental processes only resemble thought, perhaps no more than a
    computer's workings might. There might be some reason to equate
    sympathy with the Pro-Choice stand with being guilty of murder, some of
    these same people often expose their "knee-jerk mindless reactionary"
    essence by branding someone who advocates extending "Christian love" to
    homosexuals AS a homosexual. But not here.
    	A person who openly approves of a crime and who facilitates the
    commission of that crime is technically guilty either of that crime or
    of conspiracy to commit the crime or of (forgot the term) before the
    fact. Thus if you feel justified in condemning someone for choosing to
    have an abortion, and who gave you the right to judge, then you are as
    justified in condemning those who allowed that someone that choice.
    	I won't justify the homosexual equation with any sort of defense or
    explanation, nor will I post a personal attack on them in this
    conference. Let's leave it at "I do not think much of them or their
    opinions" and not get me set hidden - again. Or have I already
    overstepped that line again? Sigh.     

    "I do not think much of them or their opinions"
    
    That beg's the question: WHY do you not think much of them?
    
    Pete.

Note 31.114

>Please help me to understand why if I take a stand of an
>alternative life style or I am pro-choice, I am automatically a
>sinner? I know that the world of believers is not black or white.

Cal,

	Doesn't feel good, does it?  I'm afraid I cannot answer your
question.  I can only empathize with you, having been there many times
myself.  If there is any benefit to being in your position, it is that
it will give you greater insight to the suffering of others.

Peace,
Richard

    re .115
    
    The term that you are searching for is "accessory before the fact".
    
    Alison

    re:.118 Thank you, Alison, Accessory before the fact is indeed the
    phrase I blanked on in .115, it's terrible being over 30. ;-)
    
    Pete,
    	I need to be very careful in this answer as .115 was too close to
    the line of acceptability as it is. The group in question is the group
    who conclude (publicly, even) that someone who defends homosexuals is a
    homosexual. I do not think much of them or their opinions because it is
    obvious to me that their conclusion in this instance is dreadfully
    flawed and lacking in both intelligence and compassion. (nit: an attack
    on the conclusion!) If that is not sufficient then give me a call.

    Most here know that I have a fairly high profile when it comes
    to accepting gays, lesbians, and bisexuals as full brothers and
    sisters in Christ.
    
    A few have questioned my own orientation because of this posture.
    
    I confess.  I am hopelessly heterosexual.  The "birds of a feather"
    maxim is not without exception.
    
    We're drifting quite a bit from abortion debate, are we not?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    yes we are drifting from the topic, but I did want to add that
    I'm in Richard's camp, hopelessly heterosexual but very strongly
    in the camp of acceting gays, lesbians and bisexuals as full
    sisters and brothers in Christ.
    
    and Cal, with you I get distressed at being painted as a murderer
    because I support the right of a woman to have an aborton. Especially
    since, as you can tell by my earlier notes, I have serious biologoical
    reservations with those who claim that a fertilized egg is the
    equivalent of an actual child/person.
    
    Bonnie

        Re.114
    
          Cal:
    
              The Governor Elect of Texas is Ann Richards. It seems
        that I recall that Bill Weld the Governor Elect of Mass supports
        Gay rights legislation. I wonder if that means some people
        label him a homosexual because of this position ?
                          
                                                       Mike

Last week, a conference was held in Iowa City to get the ball
rolling about the ethics of the medical position for the abortion
issue. Professor Sass, a well known philospher and scholar on
ethics, suggested that the same test that we give to legally
determine when a body is "leagally" dead: if there is proven
brain activity, then the fetus can be decleared a separate
entity.

If I remember my biology right, the fetus doesn't show much brain
activity until the middle of the second trimester; which current
medical ethicists suggest should be the upper limit of abortion
anyways.

calvin

    Calvin,
    	that seems a fair test to me. It sets the break-point a little
    earlier than my "when it can survive outside the womb without
    extraordinary medical intervention" would but it is a lot easier to
    predict/measure prior to performing a procedure, a major benefit.
    However, there is "activity" in the brain before this point, a random
    and sporatic firing. Perhaps something a little more specific like
    "established Theta waves" or whatever. 

    Dave and Calvin,

    The brain wave standard is one that I've suggested in other files in
    the past. To me it is a logical choice, since as was mentioned
    the cessation of brain waves is commonly accepted a sign of life's
    end.

    I have some text stored away on fetal development that I'd be glad
    to mail to you if you are interested.

    Bonnie

    So the morality or immorality of abortion is dependent on man made 
    instruments ability to detect brain waves in a fetus ? Man can make 
    instruments to detect brain waives, but man cannot create brain waves. Only
    God can. Who is man to destroy what God creates ?
    What if the brain waves are there but, we just don't have the
    capability to read them ?


   God Help Us
    Jim

Jim,

I believe that Dr Sass injection is a starting point. I do
remember the furvor over the application of a brain wave test to
see if a life is legally dead even though it is being kept alive
by machines. There were then (and still are) folks who said that
so long as we (other humans) have a means to keep life alive, you
have that obligation. Back in the mid 60's, the debate was over
is it ok to electrocute/gas/hang a capital criminal yet keep a
brain-dead life alive by artificial means.

I pray that God sees our struggle to be more like Him and guide
us through the issue. If revelation does come, ther's a pretty
good chance SOME folks will not agree; like they didn't agree
that Jesus was the messiah.

calvin

re Note 31.126 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

> Who is man to destroy what God creates ?
  
        We do that all the time:  trees, plants, cattle, fish -- even
        entire habitats and ecosystems.  Christian morality has
        almost always tolerated the destruction of that which God
        creates, with the single exception of some (but not ALL)
        human life.

        So what's new?

        Bob

    I saw that article but was concerned that the date stated for detecting
    brain waves was earlier than I had thought -- seems like it was 
    something like 14 weeks, but I'm not sure.  The dilemma there is that
    a lot of adolescents either don't realize or won't admit that they are
    pregnant that early.
    
    Nancy

RE:Bob

>> Who is man to destroy what God creates ?
  
>        We do that all the time:  trees, plants, cattle, fish -- even
>        entire habitats and ecosystems.  Christian morality has
>        almost always tolerated the destruction of that which God
>        creates, with the single exception of some (but not ALL)
>        human life.

    OK, go ahead and take my words out of context.-:) Man has been
    given dominion over the trees plants cattle, fish, but not
    over other humans. Are ya saying humans are on the same level and their
    right to life is equal to them ?

    Peace
    Jim

    I'm afraid "dominion" has been thought to mean reckless dominance,
    rather than responsible stewardship.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

< Note 31.124 by DELNI::MEYER "Dave Meyer" >
>>>-< What IS Sammy DOing ? >-


Sammy is confusing his sand box with the cat's sand box. He
started dumping the kitty litter down the toilet. Aren't 2 year
olds fun?

RE BONNIE

please send the info to CLOSUS::HOE. I am interested about brain
wave activity in fetual development. When Sam was an infant, he
would twitch every so often; the pedi said that was the nerves
still developing. I understand that some studies of brain wave
are observed in conjunction with scanned images of the fetus.

RE Jim

I believe that the union of man, woman, and God to make a baby.
The responsibility rests on the woman to carry the fetus to term.
If the fetus harms the mother, I believe that she has full
control and could have the choice to abort the fetus.

In the early 60's there was a movie called "the Cardinal", the
cardinal's sister bore a child that caused her death. How would
it benefit the husband or the baby to not abort the baby? The
ethics of that time was to have the baby and the extended family
will keep the baby and raise the baby. That movie left a very
vivid image in my mind.

Also understand that I lost a spouse. If you were faced with the
possibility of loosing a spouse or loosing a baby, what would you
choose? I would definitely choose the spouse over the baby;
rather, I would support her decision to abort so we can creat
another another child. I know that God gave me a free will to
choose; I will definitely make that choice when after I make a
very prayerful consultation with my Father.

In most cases, I am against abortion as a method of birth
control. If abortion was totally outlawed; as proposed by Reagan
administration, those options will not be there.

calvin

re Note 31.132 by CLOSUS::HOE:

> In the early 60's there was a movie called "the Cardinal", the
> cardinal's sister bore a child that caused her death. How would
> it benefit the husband or the baby to not abort the baby? 

        I remember that vividly!  I was just a kid, but it made quite
        an impression when principle was elevated so high above the
        life of the woman.

        And then we had Vietnam....

        Bob

    Quoted from the Ask Beth column in today's Boston Globe w/o permission
    
    Dear Beth:
    	Our daughter became pregnant by her boyfriend. She's not quite 16
    and they don't want to marry.
    	She wanted to have an abortion but we couldn't agree to that kind
    of murder, so we arranged for an adoption. Three months ago she
    delivered the baby. She seemed resigned then but now she is dreadfully
    depressed. She can hardly drag herself to school, and we are even
    concerned about her taking her life. What should we do ?
    		VERY WORRIED
    
    	I won't quote "Beth"'s advice, which centered around counseling and
    not forcing the young woman to accept parental decisions as if she were
    a child. I just wanted to share someone's personal tragedy, an
    avoidable tragedy brought on in part by their personal beliefs. They
    did not believe in abortion so now they stand to lose their daughter
    and they will never share the joy of raising the grandchild that they
    fought so to insure. Let's hope that therapy can cure the wounds that
    poor girl has suffered.

Dave,

Though I have stated that I am prochoice and against abortion as
a means of birth control, I believe that the
abortion would have been the best case. It's a point where the
family unit was separated by a moral value over an ethical value.

If the family went the route of joint decision to present the
child for adoption, then the woman would not have been as
depressed. We adopted our son. Sam's birth mother reached the
decision to present Sam for adoption. She is a healthy woman
(emotionally and physically) today because of the family support
and the support of the agency.

I read into the note that the family was not supportive of her
but rather forced the adoption on her. I know that Jesus said that
He came into our lives to separate us from traditional family.
Well, Jesus taught to deal with each other in LOVE so as to make
decisions as a corporate body and carry and support decisions
through prayer and advisement.

How can the young woman make a decision now? can she trust her
parents? will she trust her faith in God? Ity's not an easy
decision.

calvin

    Calvin,
    	I also read into it that the parents forced her to carry the child
    to term. My belief that the parents made a mistake in doing that, in
    forcing an action upon the young woman, does not weaken my belief that
    the young woman would have needed counseling in either case. Had she
    had an abortion, though, she still might have had a family she could
    trust to help her through. That assumes that the family is loving and
    supportive beyond what I've come to believe is typical. In most cases a
    woman presented with an unwanted pregnancy is in a lose-lose situation.

    It might be interesting (though probably of no practical value) 
    to compare so-called "post-abortion syndrome" with the kind of
    depression described here, whether it be "post-adoption" or
    "post-partum!"  I never thought of this before.
    
    Nancy

nancy,

The post abortion = giving up a child for adoption = child
miscarriage: all equally just as devastating. If a person who
doesn't show any signs of problems, they will get around to
facing the problem later in life.

I know of one birth-mom of a friend's adopted child who denied
the child was not hers anymore. Finally the court had to act in
blocking her access to the growing child.

Why did Mary-Beth Whitehead want access to the child that she
carried? She thought that the money was enough.

Not an easy choice.

calvin

Re:  .139

A life was spared and a teenage girl is suffering grief because she is
seperated from her baby.  And the concensus is that the fetus (baby)
should be killed because then it would have made it easier for the 
teenager to not feel grief?

Since when does grief compare to killing a life?  But, of course, you
don't believe that fetus is a human being worth as much in God's eyes
as you or me.  If you did, you wouldn't opt to kill it.

Is the girl suffering a normal consequence of sin?  Yes.  This doesn't
mean we (I) shouldn't be compassionate, shouldn't live her, we (I)
should.  But to try and limit the consequences of sin by greater sin
is, unfortunately, a normal human response which grieves God and only
goes to show how sinful we really are.

And I am guilty.  (Not by having an abortion (:-) ), but in other areas
of my life.  God, please forgive me.  Please forgive us.  :-(

Collis

< Note 31.139 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson" >
Re:  .139

Collis, are you answering your own note? 8) 8)


>A life was spared and a teenage girl is suffering grief because she is
>seperated from her baby.

I believe that you missed the point of the discussion. That is
the parents FORCED the birth-mom to give up the baby for adoption.
It's not a discussion of abortion; rather it's a discussion where
the parents should help guide her through the decision; be it
abortion, adoption, or keep the baby and raise the baby as her
own.

I know that abortion is not an option with you. That's where I
see a major problem; rightousness over love.

calvin

Re:  31.140

  >Collis, are you answering your own note? 

Noting - and loving it!

  >I believe that you missed the point of the discussion. That is
  >the parents FORCED the birth-mom to give up the baby for adoption.

I did miss that point.  I re-read the letter to Beth and am not sure
if the parents forcing the birth-mom to give up the baby for adoption
is the point.

Giving up a baby for adoption is almost always a heart-breaking experience,
from what I have been told.  This does not make it the wrong thing to do.
Neither does it make it wrong for the parents to believe that option is best
and to strongly encourage their daughter for that option.  (As a Christian
parent, however, I do not feel that I could ultimately make that
decision for my daughter.  The decision needs to be agreed upon by
all.  I know that others believe differently.)

  >I know that abortion is not an option with you. That's where I
  >see a major problem; rightousness over love.

Righteousness can *never* conflict with love.  To do what is unrighteous
and call it love is wrong.  God, who is love, has never done an
unrighteous act (and never will).

Collis

< Note 31.141 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson" >

>>Righteousness can *never* conflict with love.  To do what is unrighteous
and call it love is wrong.  God, who is love, has never done an
unrighteous act (and never will).

Collis

I forgot to add the self part to righteousness. I know of one
case where the son committed the faloneous act. The parents
disowned the child because their sense of self-righteous was
violated.

I am approaching parenting as a unit where parents and child
communicate their points but stands by the child when the
deciaion is made. My point was that the letter to Beth, the
parents made the decision for the birth-mom; ie no options. If I
was the parent, I would convey that abortion is not something
that I would do but adoption or raising the baby is options to
her (the birth-mom).

The implications is this: the birth-mom made decisions based on
advise of her parents. What she chooses, she will have to live
with wherewith, an imposed value would not give her a chance of
making responsible decision; worst, the applied decision gives
her the dependance that others will always make decisions for
her. I know that is stretching the point quite a bit.

Jesus taught that love is unconditional.

peace,
calvin

    Collis,
    	the question raised by that letter does not pertain to the morality
    of abortion. Abortion is unacceptable to the parents but obviously an
    open option for the daughter and something "Beth" was not willing to
    openly condemn. The parents made the decision and thought that she had
    resigned (THEIR TERM) herself to it but now are concerned that she
    might take her own life. I do not think it is fair, loving, righteous
    or christian to force someone to do something that would cause them to
    become suicidal. One of your replies suggests that you agree with this
    even if you disagree with having an abortion. Or did I misread you ?
    
    	Dave

Re:  31.143

Dave,

  >the question raised by that letter does not pertain to the morality
  >of abortion. 

As I reread the letter, the morality of abortion is exactly what caused
the final situation.  If the parents did not think abortion was murder,
then it is likely their daughter would have had an abortion.  This was
the original conflict between parents and daughter and probably flavors
everything that has happened since.

  >I do not think it is fair, loving, righteous or christian to force someone 
  >to do something that would cause them to become suicidal. 

This is a hard question.  First of all, one has to do what is "right"
regardless of whether or not someone may feel suicidal afterwords.  We
are *not* called to do what seems best to our own reasoning, we *are*
called to respond to the truth that God has given us.

However, this is not the situation as I understand it.  It certainly is
possible that, in my opinion, the parents forced their daughter into
making a decision that the daughter is now regretting.  However, it still
is not clear in my mind after reading the letter that this is the case.

I don't think this letter offers enough evidence to say for certain
either what happened or what should have happened.

Collis

    Collis,
    	the problem occured because, when moralities collided, the parents
    forced their daughter to abide by THEIR will. The conflict did arise
    over morality but the question raised by that letter was not the
    morality of abortion - the parents and the daughter each had their
    understandings of that - but in how the conflict was resolved. It was
    resolved through force. THEIR morality was forced on her. She is the
    one who will go to heaven or hell or nirvana or whatever based on her
    actions, not them. They have had 16 years to try to teach her their
    moral standards, they failed. Maybe they didn't try very hard or maybe
    their moral standards were something they did not live by or maybe the
    daughter found serious flaws in those standards, I don't know. The
    parents failed to instill their moral standards in her over a 16 year
    time frame, it seems unfair - at best - to force her compliance now.
    	So, tell me, Collis; which do you believe is the surer road to
    hell, abortion or suicide ?  Why ?  Could you, Would you, force that
    option on YOUR 16 year old daughter ?  Would you REALLY ?

>   	So, tell me, Collis; which do you believe is the surer road to
>    hell, abortion or suicide ?

	Personally I believe any little sin gets you to hell so comparing
	one sin to an other seems rather meaningless. In this case your
	are comparing killing ones self to killing an other which complicates
	the issue still more. In the spicific case in this topic the suicide
	is potentian and not happened. It will not, one hopes, and with love
	and growth need not. Abortion would have been a definite. So you are
	asking here is it worse to support deffinitly killing someone vs
	taking a risk (less the the 100% risk in abortion) that someone may
	kill them self? 

			Alfred 

< Note 31.144 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson" >

>First of all, one has to do what is "right"
>regardless of whether or not someone may feel suicidal afterwords.  We
>are *not* called to do what seems best to our own reasoning, we *are*
>called to respond to the truth that God has given us.

Collis

As parents, I believe that we are called to guide and nurture
children in making choices. Some choices are made against what
we, as parents, consider repulsive to us. Yet, we still love and
guide that child.

Now, let's look at the relation of us to God. If God controlled us 
like Beth's did of her, would that be love or self-righteousness?
If her parents had offered options to her, abortion included, and
pointed out each option in a valued order and the responsibility
of each option, helped her through the ordeal, her self value
would lead to a person who made a choice that she would take
responsibility for.

What would be the result if the parents of Mary responded to the
moral code of her time and had her stoned to death? After all,
they would be self righteous because the law forbade the women to
have children out of wedlock (predicated by fornication).

I have serious doubts that abortion will lead to hell if the girl
repented (after all, isn't that's what salvation is all about?)

If we all lived the hard sayings of God, Jesus or the Bible,
there would be few of us around. Saint Paul taught that a man is
responsible for the salvation of his family. That does not mean
that each MUST be saved; it means that the members of the family
is given the chance to salvation by the man's example. Would he
have the right to kill the member if that member should become an
apostate?

calvin

    Calvin,
    	with guys like you around I tend to wonder if I shouldn't just shut
    up and listen. That was an excellent analysis and essay (.147), thank
    you.

< Note 31.148 by DELNI::MEYER "Dave Meyer" >
                          -< wish I'd said that ... >-
>>>>with guys like you around I tend to wonder if I shouldn't just shut
    up and listen. That was an excellent analysis and essay (.147), thank
    you.

Dave,

No, I only speak from experiences that affect my perspective as a
Christian who has experienced a spousal death, a miscarriage by
my spouse, and an adoption of a wonderful boy.

There are many varied experiences that make up the Christian
family where to make a broad statement that affects the whole
spectrum of Christians would be shutting off a segment of the
body of Christianity. This is why I have a hard time with a Papal
statement that says that birth control is bad when some parts of
our Earth that God has given us to be stewards of, would be so
badly mismannaged by sheer numbers of people. I also have a hard
time with folks who broadly says that abortion is murder and that
is it when a life of a mother/spouse is at risk, for example.

The issue for me, as a Christian who struggles with his share of
the cross, is to be a gentil witness of His love. I, personally
would not advise abortion but when it comes to choosing between
keeping my beloved alive for Sammy and I, I would definitely
choose abortion of a fetus that will threaten the life of my
beloved. My Christian walk is lead by my parents, my choosen
community and my spouse.

I believe that all of us have a witness and a duty to say that
just because someone else said so, it is not so with me or may be
I am lead by that witness to change my life. So, Dave, you have a
place in His world to witness in your way; a bit more or less
zealous for you position but it is a witness.

As I grow closer to the end of my time on earth, I do have some
regrets of some of my choices that I have made in my life; yet, I
know that I am forgiven and can live with Him after I depart this
life. I also, want to be able to witness to Sammy so that when it
comes time to pass the torch of my witness, I pray that he will
reflect my values and witness that my parents has taught me.

In His peace, I bid you well.

calvin

Re:  31.145

  >So, tell me, Collis; which do you believe is the surer road to
  >hell, abortion or suicide ?  

You sure have a big chip on your shoulder, Dave.  Do you really need
to continually mock that which you don't accept?  Just so that you're
aware of the answer, refusing Jesus' offer of eternal life is the *only*
decision of consequence which bears on going to hell.

  >Could you, Would you, force that option on YOUR 16 year old daughter?  
  >Would you REALLY ?

I take my position as the spiritual leader of the household seriously.

You are asking if I would allow my daughter to kill her unborn child.
No, I would not.

There is only one thing that I told my wife that I would not allow her
to do.  That is to kill her unborn child (without just cause).  (By the
way, I would not consider rape or incest just cause.)

Dave, it is my God-given responsibility to Him and to my family to
be the leader.  There are some things that I am *not* to give up because
of expediency.  One of those is the life of an unborn child.

I regret that you do not see this as your responsibility as well.

Collis

    re: .150 (Collis)
    
    >There is only one thing that I told my wife that I would not allow her
    >to do.  That is to kill her unborn child (without just cause).  (By the
    >way, I would not consider rape or incest just cause.)
    
    This is an interesting statement and brings to mind a few questions.
        
     1. When you say you would not "allow" your wife to do something,
        that sounds like you feel that you hold her, or at least her
        reproductive organs, in chattel.  True?  
        
        Or to put it another way, do you feel that her God given right to
        a free will is somehow lesser than yours?
        
     2. How far would you go to enforce your will over your wife's?
        
     3. It sounds like you said that there are "just causes" by which
        you would "allow" your wife to have an abortion, true?
                            
     4. What circumstances, then, would have to exist before you would
        condone an abortion?
        
        Mike                                     

Re:  31.151
    
  >This is an interesting statement and brings to mind a few questions.

I knew it would.  :-)
        
  >Or to put it another way, do you feel that her God given right to
  >a free will is somehow lesser than yours?

No, she has a free will as much as I do.  However, her body is mine
and my body is hers.
        
  >2. How far would you go to enforce your will over your wife's?

Tough question.  I am blessed in that my wife has pledged to submit
to my leadership.  However, I doubt that I would physically restrain
her (or emotionally abuse her) because of this.  I would, however,
bring tremendous pressure to bear (with the support of my church)
which would be of the verbal variety.  Not yelling or screaming, since
I have never yelled at my wife.  But rather a reasoned explanation and
a demand for obedience.  Because, God has given me the responsibility
to be the spiritual leader and has made it clear to me through my studies
that abortion is (almost always) wrong.

If my wife disobeyed me, we would pick up where we left off and continue
as best we could (seeking God's forgiveness and reconciling with each
other).  That is her choice.  However, I believe she would not choose to 
do that (disobey me on an issue that I feel so strongly about with
support from other Christians).
        
  >3. It sounds like you said that there are "just causes" by which
  >   you would "allow" your wife to have an abortion, true?

Yes.  I don't like the phrase "just causes" (even though I am the one
responsible for it).  But yes, there are some circumstances I would
support my wife during an abortion.
                            
  >4. What circumstances, then, would have to exist before you would
  >   condone an abortion?

No comment.

    Rathole alert: It's pretty hard for me to conceive of marrying a
    a woman knowing she considers abortion a reasonable thing. The 
    difference in values that represents is, to me, far to large to
    bridge in a happy marriage. Perhaps others could but I doubt I
    could. 

    			Alfred

    
     > >4. What circumstances, then, would have to exist before you would
     > >   condone an abortion?
    
    >No comment.
    
    Hope you don't mind Collis, but I'd like to interject a couple of
    thoughts. 
    
    My wife and I have discussed the various options as well. Rape would
    not be a viable excuse for an abortion in either of our minds. We
    haven't specifically talked about incest, since it is highly unlikely
    at this point, but I assume the case would be the same.
    
    The other biggie, life of the mother, brought us to another conclusion:
    that either of us would give up our lives for our children, regardless
    of whether it had been born or not. Now in the case where both child
    and mother would die from the pregnancy if it were to continue, my wife
    and I would be willing to accept the sacrifice of a dying unborn baby
    in place of Annie. Of course the decision would be put off until the
    last possible moment just to make sure that those practicing medicine
    had not guessed incorrectly. 
    
    Note the huge difference in heart between this decision and the
    decision made to have an abortion because one's life would be screwed
    up either financially, emotionally, or whatever. One is completely
    self-centered, the other completely other centered. A similar choice
    would be having to face a prison camp guard and choosing between your 
    children which one you will give up to be killed. Not the same as
    having the choice of your children living and you dying.
    
    Now if the choice is mother or child, where one will live and one will
    not, we came to the conclusion that we could not live with ourselves
    that we had committed murder to save our own skins, killing a perfectly
    healthy baby in order for us to save our lives. In this case, my wife
    has recognized in advance that pregnancy is a life-threatening
    situation that she is willing to risk for the blessing of children
    that the Father has given us. She is willing to give up her life for
    the sake of her child, just as she would do for any other of our born
    children. 
    
    
    just another perspective,
    
    Jamey
    

    re: 31.150
    
    Collis,
    	it is my duty to teach my children the values that I hold dear and
    to help them understand those values. When they are truely children it
    is my duty to protect them from their own bad decisions. When they are
    no longer children, and my 14-year-old may be inexperienced but she is
    ni longer a child, then the best I can do is offer my advice AND ACCEPT
    THEIR DECISION. You are lucky that your need for a willing slave of a
    wife found a willing accomplice, I have no such need. My need is for a
    partner. I hear a lot of "I wouldn't allow" out of you in reference to
    other people, this disturbs me. Have you ever thought that eventually
    your dictatorship would end and just maybe those whom you chose to
    dominate so would rebel against your dictates ?  That was a rhetorical
    question.
    	Someone else said it and I'll repeat it since you seemed to have
    missed it. You can regret commiting murder, should you decide that's
    what an abortion was, and do penance and beg forgiveness, but you can
    never regret or beg forgiveness for commiting suicide. And I would
    think the mother or father who so dominated their child that the child
    commited suicide would share the guilt in that death.

< Note 31.155 by DELNI::MEYER "Dave Meyer" >
              -< a chip the size if Chicago, and a wind to match >-

>>>....but you can never regret or beg forgiveness for commiting
suicide. And I would think the mother or father who so dominated
their child that the child commited suicide would share the guilt
in that death.

Dave,

The person who committs suicide can not beg forgiveness but their
survivors can through their intercessory prayers. My Charlotte
died at her own hands because of her insanity; a death as a
resulyt of illness. I prayed for her to be forgiven and believed
that she was forgiven.

Her parents, through my witness, has come closer to God and has
been forgiven for their perceived guilt, shared with her suicide.
I can see the forgiveness by their ability to love my spouse,
Judy, as their own and Sammy as their grand son.

I, for one, cannot imagine where I would be, or where Charlotte's
folks would be if we are not forgiven. Even though she died by
her own hands, we share the guilt and through the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, we are forgiven and have that hope to being
with Him and Charlotte one day when it's my turn to be with Him
in glorious heaven.

Dave, Jamy, I am not trying to convince you that being where I am
is easy; Lord, I pray that either of you will never be tested as
I have. Yet, I testify that I still believe that He is my Lord
and Saviour.

calvin

    re: .152 (Collis)

    So, you are a pro-choice person after all!  Then all we are really
    discussing are the parameters within which a choice can be made.

    Now that isn't all I got out of your reply, but you raised some pretty
    personal insights, and a desire to be sensitive prevents me from going
    off willy nilly in my response.  After all, this isn't Soapbox. 
    Besides, I just don't have the time, right at this red hot moment.  Not
    only that, but your frankness practically knocked me speechless! (So to
    speak.)
    
    Mike

    Calvin,
    	if you are saying what I think you are saying then I do not agree
    with you. Your late wife may have "committed suicide", but you have
    stated that she was not sane at the time. Can God be less forgiving or
    less charitable than I over the misdeeds of the insane ?  I doubt it.
    Perhaps someone who drove her to her insanity might bear some guilt for
    her death, but not her nor those who loved her. You have given no
    evidence here that you helped drive her insane, you have instead
    recounted your sadness at her passing after she began to recover. How
    your hopes were raised only to be dashed again. This does not sound to
    me like the thoughts of a self-absorbed tyrant who would drive his wife
    to the brink of insanity and beyond.
    	Go easy on yourself, guy. If you must feel guilty about something,
    let it be what you've done rather than for failing to know and
    understand all or for failing to do the impossible. I apologise for any
    remourse my message caused you, for certainly I do not believe that you
    did less than your best with what you faced or that I could have done
    any better.

Re:  31.155

  >When they are no longer children, and my 14-year-old may be inexperienced 
  >but she is no longer a child, then the best I can do is offer my advice 
  >AND ACCEPT THEIR DECISION. 

In general, I agree.  Of course, my 14-year-old (when I'll have one in
12 years :-) ) may not be a child, but certainly is not an adult.

  >You are lucky that your need for a willing slave of a wife found a 
  >willing accomplice, I have no such need. 

I don't have a willing slave, as you mean (but do, as the Bible means 
it :-) ).  I do have such a need (and if I understand the Bible
correctly, so do you).

  >My need is for a partner. 

So is mine.

  >I hear a lot of "I wouldn't allow" out of you in reference to
  >other people, this disturbs me. 

I *very, very* rarely say such words as "I wouldn't allow".  Perhaps you
have a different perspective of "a lot" than I do?

Collis

    Collis,
    	make it easy on yourself, just check through the abortion/birth
    control-related notes. You used terms that equate to "I wouldn't allow"
    several times in them. Off-hand, I can't recall you using it elsewhere.
    But my memory has proven fallible in the past, why not bring the system
    to its knees with a global search - say, Sunday at 3AM ? ;-)  No,
    don't, they'd blame ME for tempting you. :-(

    Just read an article this week that was very interesting. 

    Remember the pregnant woman who was in a coma, and her husband 
    was seeking a court order to allow the abortion ? Well, the
    press never gave us the whole story, and few of us ever heard
    the final results. Well, it turns out that the court ruled against
    the abortion on the grounds, that the woman, before lapsing into a
    coma, told several witnesses including her sister, that she did not 
    want the baby to be killed to save her. It was the husband only, who 
    wanted the abortion.

    The doctor that testified to the press, as well as at the court hearing, 
    who said that it would be dangerous for the mother's health if she 
    delivered the baby, never examined the woman, and in fact hasn't practiced 
    medicine in a couple years. The woman's actual physician, as well as
    two others that examined her said, that it would not be dangerous for
    her to deliver the baby, and in fact the delivery my be attributed to the 
    reason that the women snapped out of the coma and is now recovering with
    a normal happy baby.

    Remember, the media is suppose to be  pro-choice. 

    Yeah right !

    Peace
    Jim

Re:  31.157

Mike,

  >So, you are a pro-choice person after all!  Then all we are really
  >discussing are the parameters within which a choice can be made.

No, I am not a pro-choice person.  The pro-choice position says that it
is primarily the responsibility of the individual to determnie what happens
to the unborn.  I do not believe that.  It is primarily (in human terms)
the responsibility of the government.

God instituted government in order to restrain evil and protect life.
Protecting the lives of the unborn is an important part of this
responsibility.  

Collis

    re: .162 (Collis)
    
    Well, all you said was that you would support abortions under certain
    circumstances, and when asked what those circumstances were, you
    declined comment.  Personally, I wouldn't want the government to make
    those choices for us, given its inability to function in any sort of
    fair and predictable manner.  Besides, why allow lawyers to get
    involved in this any more than they already are. 
    
    Anyway, could you elucidate a bit on how, and under what circumstances,
    you would want the government to license an abortion?
    
    By the way, God didn't institute this, or any government.  The people
    did, because they felt the need to provide a means whereby they and
    their society could be protected from harm.  Obviously, some
    governments have been more successful at this than others.  
    
    Mike                                               

>    Anyway, could you elucidate a bit on how, and under what circumstances,
>    you would want the government to license an abortion?

    Speaking for myself, I would allow an abortion in the same basic
    cases I would allow an adult to be killed. That is to say self
    defense. I just don't see that big a difference between "abortion"
    before and after birth.

    			Alfred

    re: .164 (Alfred)
    
    Thank you, Alfred.  Now a further question or two.
    
    1. Who gets to decide if a given abortion is in self defense or not,
       and when? 
    
    2. Are we talking about lawyers and courts and stuff?  
    
    3. If so, how do working class people get access to a "self defense"
       abortion?
    
    4. Also, how do we define the term "self defense"?  
    
    5. Does this definition leave room for pregnant women who are in danger
       of committing suicide?
     
    (I know I said only two questions, but I lied!)
      
    Mike
    

    RE: .165

>    1. Who gets to decide if a given abortion is in self defense or not,
>       and when? 

    A doctor and patient. Any time before birth. After birth the babies
    life is not likely to be a threat to the mother. Until they start
    dating. :-)

>    2. Are we talking about lawyers and courts and stuff?  

    Perhaps. If there is some question as to there actually being a
    threat to the mothers life why not? Don't we do the same when people
    kill muggers? A justifiable abortion should be pretty clear cut most of
    the time.

>    3. If so, how do working class people get access to a "self defense"
>       abortion?

    Same why they get legal support now. I don't see how the amount of
    money one has should make a difference. The frequently heard argument
    that since the rich will find a way to legally get an abortion that
    the less well off should be able to get them is morally reprehensible
    to me BTW. After all we don't call for legalization of murder just
    because some rich people appear to have been able to get away with
    it.

>    4. Also, how do we define the term "self defense"?  

    How is it defined now? How do you define it?

>    5. Does this definition leave room for pregnant women who are in danger
>       of committing suicide?

    This is unclear to me. One concern I have is that it is wide open to
    abuse. Tell me this, if a child says that they will kill themselves
    if they have a sibling should abortion be considered? Why not? What's
    the difference between that and a mother saying she'll kill herself
    if her baby is not killed? Remember that to be acceptable to me your
    argument has to be as valid if the baby is born or unborn. Kinda 
    tough but that's the way I feel.

			Alfred

    re: .166 (Alfred)


>>    1. Who gets to decide if a given abortion is in self defense or not,
>>       and when? 

 >   A doctor and patient. Any time before birth. After birth the babies
 >   life is not likely to be a threat to the mother. Until they start
 >   dating. :-)

    Agreed, especially the dating part! :)

>>    2. Are we talking about lawyers and courts and stuff?  

  >  Perhaps. If there is some question as to there actually being a
  >  threat to the mothers life why not? Don't we do the same when people
  >  kill muggers? A justifiable abortion should be pretty clear cut most of
  >  the time.

    Then this would be done only if the woman wants an abortion and the
    doctor disagrees, or maybe even vice versa? 

>>    3. If so, how do working class people get access to a "self defense"
>>       abortion?

 >   Same why they get legal support now. I don't see how the amount of
  >  money one has should make a difference. The frequently heard argument
 >   that since the rich will find a way to legally get an abortion that
 >   the less well off should be able to get them is morally reprehensible
 >   to me BTW. After all we don't call for legalization of murder just
 >   because some rich people appear to have been able to get away with
 >   it.

    Except that we are talking about a type of civil case that would not be
    amenable to contingency fees.  Also, since they are not criminal cases,
    the state would have no obligation to provide a lawyer for those who
    can't afford them.  So, the question of access to the courts for
    lower/no income people is quite a real one in this sort of scenario.

>>    4. Also, how do we define the term "self defense"?  

  >  How is it defined now? How do you define it?

    I asked you first!
                
> >   5. Does this definition leave room for pregnant women who are in danger
> >      of committing suicide?

   > This is unclear to me. One concern I have is that it is wide open to
   > abuse. 

    It isn't clear to me either, but this is an area that would need to be
    addressed under the system you seem to be proposing.
    
   > Tell me this, if a child says that they will kill themselves
   > if they have a sibling should abortion be considered?

    As you pose the question, yes.
     
    >Why not?
     
    You expected me to say "no", didn't you? :)

   > What's the difference between that and a mother saying she'll kill
    >herself if her baby is not killed?

    Not much.  In either case we are talking about a human being who is in
    the here and now, and who is undergoing intense emotional pain, and
    whose life is at risk, rather than a fetus who is still in the
    potential stage.  The woman involved is quite right to consider
    abortion to save her own life, or the life of her child. (With large
    emphasis on the word "consider".)  We are assuming, I presume, that the
    potential sibling's suicide threat is real and born of clinical
    depression, rather than just some petulant expression of sibling
    rivalry.

    >Remember that to be acceptable to me your argument has to be as valid
    >if the baby is born or unborn. Kinda  tough but that's the way I feel.

    Tough?  Try nearly impossible.  But let me have a go at it.

    If you find it acceptable to abort a fetus to save the mother's life,
    why wouldn't it be equally acceptable to abort the fetus to save
    someone else's life.  I find no difference between the two, from a
    moral perspective.  In either case, we are trading a potential life for 
    a present life.  Defending the life of one's own child is only a little
    less a primal urge than self defense, and sometimes it is even more
    powerful. 
    
    Now, I know of no parent that would sacrifice the life of one born
    child in favor of another born child in the same way that a parent
    might exchange a fetus for the life of a child, except maybe under
    some very special circumstances.  So, I guess I haven't met your rather
    strict criterion after all.  Still, I'm not trying to convince you to
    think as I do.  I just want you to better understand what I think.
    
    Mike 
          

>    Then this would be done only if the woman wants an abortion and the
>    doctor disagrees, or maybe even vice versa? 

    Generally only when the doctor disagrees. The other way around is
    an interesting case. Can you force someone to abort if their health
    is at risk? It would test the limits wouldn't it! I'd say that the
    choice should be up to the mother if she wants to keep the baby.

>    Except that we are talking about a type of civil case that would not be
>    amenable to contingency fees.  Also, since they are not criminal cases,
>    the state would have no obligation to provide a lawyer for those who
>    can't afford them.  So, the question of access to the courts for
>    lower/no income people is quite a real one in this sort of scenario.

    Firstly I think this is a fringe case. There isn't usually too much
    doubt about the medical necessity of abortion to save the mother's
    life. If a number of doctors available to a mother, and I strongly
    support public funding of pre-natal and early childhood care for the
    poor, believe that an abortion is not needed how likely is a court to 
    rule in her favor? Also I think the answer to lower/no income people 
    having a hard time getting access while the rich have an easy time 
    getting to the courts for this purpose to make it harder for the rich
    to get this access. If there is that much doubt that it has to go to
    court the benefit of the doubt should go in favor of the child.

    IF the mother believes that the doctor is clearly wrong then perhaps
    there should be some criminal penalties on the doctor. I don't know,
    but there does not seem to be any justification to opening abortion
    as wide open as it is just because some people have an easier time
    getting away with evil. In other words your argument is still not
    compelling.

    This is sort of related to the argument that if abortions are illegal
    that women will die from "back room" abortions. Pro-life people are
    opposed to them as well. And of course the baby is just as dead from
    a legal as an illegal abortion. Only pro-choice people seem to support
    the idea that "back room" abortions are better then none at all.

>>>    4. Also, how do we define the term "self defense"?  
>
>  >  How is it defined now? How do you define it?
>
>    I asked you first!

    In this case we are talking about taking the life of someone who is
    by their action is threatening the life of someone else. In general,
    a baby who situation in the mother or whose birth would cause the
    mother's fatality through, and this is important, no fault of the
    mother. If the pregnancy is normal and a normal delivery is predicted
    and the mother is going to kill herself rather then deliver that's
    an other problem. I believe there is some room for pregnant women
    in danger of suicide but very little room for the sibling. In the
    latter case the sibling can be separated from the situation and
    treated independently. Not ideal but better then trading the certainty
    of the babies death with the risk of the sibling.

>   > Tell me this, if a child says that they will kill themselves
>   > if they have a sibling should abortion be considered?
>    As you pose the question, yes.
>    >Why not?
>    You expected me to say "no", didn't you? :)

    Sure did. A yes answer was inconceivable to me. Trading certain
    death to avoid the risk of death is not good odds. Especially as
    the clinical depression cause is often likely to cause still other
    "reasons" for suicide.

    			Alfred

re: 31.168 (Alfred) 

    >Generally only when the doctor disagrees. The other way around is
    >an interesting case. Can you force someone to abort if their health
    >is at risk? It would test the limits wouldn't it! I'd say that the
    >choice should be up to the mother if she wants to keep the baby.

    I agree with you.  I was just testing the waters a bit with the second
    possibility I posed.

    >Firstly I think this is a fringe case. There isn't usually too much
    >doubt about the medical necessity of abortion to save the mother's
    >life. If a number of doctors available to a mother, and I strongly
    >support public funding of pre-natal and early childhood care for the
    >poor, believe that an abortion is not needed how likely is a court to 
    >rule in her favor? Also I think the answer to lower/no income people 
    >having a hard time getting access while the rich have an easy time 
    >getting to the courts for this purpose to make it harder for the rich
    >to get this access. If there is that much doubt that it has to go to
    >court the benefit of the doubt should go in favor of the child.

    As long as the decision to abort a fetus when the mother's life is in
    danger is left with the doctor and the women, I'm inclined to agree
    that these are fringe cases.  I wasn't too sure if you felt that the
    woman would need court approval before the she could go ahead and
    have the abortion.

    >IF the mother believes that the doctor is clearly wrong then perhaps
    >there should be some criminal penalties on the doctor.

    I'm not too sure that criminalizing differing medical opinions would
    work.  There are always some cases that could go either way, depending
    on the doctor's experience, speciality, moral point of view, etc.

    > I don't know,
    >but there does not seem to be any justification to opening abortion
    >as wide open as it is just because some people have an easier time
    >getting away with evil. In other words your argument is still not
    >compelling.

    Well, I wasn't really trying to justify the present situation regarding
    abortions, even though I, and many people who are more thoughtful and
    knowledgeable than I am, don't consider abortions to be evil, per se. 
    I thought we were just talking about the more narrow view of when you
    could support an abortion.  Besides, as I said in my last reply, I'm
    not trying to change your mind.  

    >This is sort of related to the argument that if abortions are illegal
    >that women will die from "back room" abortions. Pro-life people are
    >opposed to them as well. And of course the baby is just as dead from
    >a legal as an illegal abortion. Only pro-choice people seem to support
    >the idea that "back room" abortions are better then none at all.

    As I indicated above, we are wandering a bit.

    However, the difference between an illegal back room abortion and a
    legal clinical abortion is that, in addition to the difficult choice a
    woman makes to get an abortion in the first place, she also risks her
    health and going to jail for murder, if not execution. 
    
    Anyway pro-choice people are not in favor of back room abortions.  They
    want to prevent them.  The point is that, absent available legal
    abortions, desperate women are going to seek these back room jobs, and
    there will be animals around to fill that need, all the pro-life "Just
    say no" type moralizing notwithstanding.  

    Pro-choice people recognize that and wish to fill the need in a more
    humane and safe manner, ever mindful of the fact that not everyone
    considers abortions to be evil, and also recognizing that not everyone
    wants an abortion for themselves.  We aren't talking about forcing
    anyone to do anything.  Unlike pro-life people.

    >In this case we are talking about taking the life of someone who is
    >by their action is threatening the life of someone else. In general,
    >a baby who situation in the mother or whose birth would cause the
    >mother's fatality through, and this is important, no fault of the
    >mother. If the pregnancy is normal and a normal delivery is predicted
    >and the mother is going to kill herself rather then deliver that's
    >an other problem. I believe there is some room for pregnant women
    >in danger of suicide but very little room for the sibling.

    A clear position that I agree with, except the part where you say
    "...fault of the mother."  I would like to know more about what you
    mean by that.

    However...

    >In the latter case the sibling can be separated from the situation and
    >treated independently. Not ideal but better then trading the certainty
    >of the babies death with the risk of the sibling.

    ... this is where you and I part company, at least in theory.   Anyway
    though, I think we are talking about a pretty theoretical occurrence,
    as I don't think this sort of situation has ever happened, or could
    ever happen. 

>    Sure did. A yes answer was inconceivable to me. Trading certain
>    death to avoid the risk of death is not good odds. Especially as
>    the clinical depression cause is often likely to cause still other
>    "reasons" for suicide.

    As I said, this seems like a very unlikely scenario.  But to continue
    with it, my "yes" answer would only apply if the clinical depression
    was directly caused by the impending birth of a new sibling, and if
    there were no other alternative.  Fortunately, and maybe this will
    redeem me in your eyes a bit, I can't really conceive of a situation
    where this could happen.  Besides, I was speaking in very abstract
    terms on the theoretical scenario that you posed.  

    Mike
                                              

Re: .168 Alfred

>    Only pro-choice people seem to support
>    the idea that "back room" abortions are better then none at all.

Well, I wouldn't say that.  An unsanitary back room abortion by someone who
was unqualified would be far worse than none at all.

Even if the backroom abortion were completely safe I'd oppose it if it were
illegal.  Of course, that's easy for me to say since I wouldn't be the one
who felt trapped by pregnancy and wanted an abortion.

I'm not sure if I speak for all pro-choicers, but I'm not saying that
I'd encourage women to get back room abortions if abortions were illegal.
I'm saying that women would get back room abortions whether I wanted them
to or not.

>>   > Tell me this, if a child says that they will kill themselves
>>   > if they have a sibling should abortion be considered?
>>    As you pose the question, yes.
>>    >Why not?
>>    You expected me to say "no", didn't you? :)
>
>    Sure did. A yes answer was inconceivable to me. Trading certain
>    death to avoid the risk of death is not good odds.

I'd say "yes" too, but that's because I'm pro-choice.  (Notice that you did
say "considered".)  If we re-phrase it:

	If *after* the sibling is born, if a child says that they will
	kill themself if the sibling is not killed, should the killing be
	considered?

then I'd say "no".

				-- Bob

Extracts from the article "Dead End" (subtitled "Cuomo's abortion contortion")
by Andrew Sullivan, _The New Republic_ 5/6/91.

	  Mario Cuomo's September 1984 speech on abortion at Notre Dame
	University is second only to his convention keynote address of the
	same year in the lore surrounding the philosophical prowess of the
	governor of New York.  Some likened the Notre Dame speech to John
	F. Kennedy's 1960 address to Protestant ministers in Houstom on
	the role of Catholics in American public life. ... The tour de
	force largely ended the abortion issue as a major problem in Mario
	Cuomo's career.

	  It shouldn't have.  In fact, the speech is a work of evasion,
	and so muddled on so pressing a moral matter that it casts doubts
	on Cuomo's seriousness both as an intellectual and as a
	politician....

	  Cuomo argues in his speech that though as a Catholic he accepts
	the Church's teaching that abortion is wrong, as a politician in a
	pluralist society he upholds the right of others to abort.  He
	argues that although he is bound as a Catholic to believe the
	Church's teaching, he can differ from the Church on the practical
	response to such a teaching, which is a matter of prudential
	political judgement, and not of ecclesiatical obedience.

	  The problem with this position is simple: its private-Catholic/
	public-pluralist position makes some sense for almost any other
	moral issue for Catholics *except* abortion.  It's possible, for
	example, for a Catholic to hold that, say, divorce is wrong but
	not wish to make it illegal, out of respect for the rights of
	others to choose diffrently.  The upshot of such a stance, after
	all, is not so bad: at worse a lowering of public morals, at best
	an affirmation of free moral choice.

	  With abortion, however, this balance between public and private
	goes awry,  To accept the Church's position on abortion is to
	believe that abortion is the taking of human life, a somewhat more
	drastic event than the breakup of a marriage...

	  There cannot be much debate among Catholics over whether killing
	should be legal or not.  There may be differences over tactics, to
	be sure: making abortion illegal, for example, could be the last
	part of a broad soecial, educational, economic, and spiritual
	strategy to end it,  But the *goal* is unmistakable.  Yet it is
	precisely on this goal -- of ultimately banning abortion -- that
	Cuomo is silent.  And on making it illegal now, he's actively
	opposed.

[For me, as a liberal humanist, this is not a problem.  Cuomo's position
on abortion reassures me that if he were elected president he wouldn't
automatically do whatever the Church told him to.  In fact, if he *did*
yield to the Church on this issue then I'd never vote for him.

It seems to me that people who are pro-choice will tend to vote for Cuomo
and people who are pro-life will tend to vote against him.  Did anyone
find Andrew Sullivan's argument convincing, that Cuomo's position on
abortion casts doubt on his "seriousness" as a politician?  I'd be
interested in hearing from both Catholics and non-Catholics on this.]

				-- Bob

In my opinion, Cuomo's position is logically indefensible.  The article
clearly explains the logical inconsistency.  How can you be (legally)
opposed to the murder of humans, believe that fetuses are humans and support
the killing of fetuses?  Obviously, you cannot.

Cuomo does not accept the Roman Catholic position that a fetus is a
human, it is as simple as that.

Collis

re Note 31.171 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> 	  The problem with this position is simple: its private-Catholic/
> 	public-pluralist position makes some sense for almost any other
> 	moral issue for Catholics *except* abortion.  It's possible, for
> 	example, for a Catholic to hold that, say, divorce is wrong but
> 	not wish to make it illegal, out of respect for the rights of
> 	others to choose diffrently.  The upshot of such a stance, after
> 	all, is not so bad: at worse a lowering of public morals, at best
> 	an affirmation of free moral choice.
> 
> 	  With abortion, however, this balance between public and private
> 	goes awry,  To accept the Church's position on abortion is to
> 	believe that abortion is the taking of human life, a somewhat more
> 	drastic event than the breakup of a marriage...
  
        I have several problems with the above logic.

        First, I am an automatic skeptic about any position that
        singles out one kind of sin, one kind of evil, as different
        in degree from all other sin or evil.  Scripture teaches that
        any sin is equivalent to the breaking of ALL moral law.  (One
        might qualify that by mentioning the unique "unpardonable
        sin", but I have never heard a convincing description of what
        that sin might be.  It exists, but it seems beyond human
        knowledge to understand with certainty what that is.)

        Secondly, I think that the above cheapens the Biblical (and
        traditional Catholic) teaching on marriage.  The marriage
        union is described, in Scripture, as the making of one flesh,
        to be separated by God alone. The separation of such a union
        is on a par with the taking of a human life.

        (I am a bit of a radical on this issue.  I believe that God's
        dictum "let not man put asunder" applies to any forcible
        separation of husband and wife.  I believe that this
        Scripture is violated when husbands are deliberately
        separated from wives when conscripted for military duty,  and
        I believe that this Scripture is broken when married men are
        imprisoned without the ability to maintain relations (not
        just physical) with their wives.  But for society to observe
        that would be so inconvenient.)

        Bob

    Cuomo is politician who is selling out fundamental beliefs on human life
    in order to get elected. One needs to wonder, what kind of character he
    has ? What other moral issues is he willing to sacrifice in order to get 
    power ? 

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim
    
    you are aware, aren't you, that it is a matter of historical record
    that until the mid 19th century, the Roman Catholic church did not
    regard a conceptus as a person until the woman felt 'life' and
    that termination of pregnancy before that time was not considered
    killing a person?
    
    Bonnie

    The only thing I'm aware of Bonnie is that you keep bringing that weak 
    argument up.

    They matter didn't have to do with the consideration of murder, it had to 
    do with whether or not a miscarried fetus had the need of Baptism, and the 
    sacrament of the Sick and Dying. Let's not try to inject that the lack of
    knowledge the church had around fetal development back then, would somehow
    constitute hypocrisy with regards to their teaching today.

    Peace
    Jim

    I have listened on several occasions to Mario Cuomo.  I find him to
    have a very fine sense of morality.
    
    I seriously doubt he believes he has "sold out" for the sake of getting
    elected.  For example, he continues to take an unpopular stand AGAINST
    capital punishment.   This does not sound like someone who sells out
    fundamental beliefs for electoral success.
    
    DR

    RE:-1
    Well, call me Mr. Skeptic when it comes to politicians, but I believe
    he only became pro-choice when the political climate warranted it. As
    far as capital punishment goes, I don't believe that capital punishment 
    is as popular as some would like to believe, but it's for sure not as hot.
    There aren't major political groups rallying to support it in the same
    degree as the abortion issue.  You could be pro or con with capital
    punishment and it wouldn't make a difference politically in most races.

    Besides, how would it sound if a candidate came out and said, "I'm 
    opposed to the death penalty, yet pro-choice." 

    Peace
    Jim

Re: .173  Bob F.

>        Secondly, I think that the above cheapens the Biblical (and
>        traditional Catholic) teaching on marriage.  The marriage
>        union is described, in Scripture, as the making of one flesh,
>        to be separated by God alone. The separation of such a union
>        is on a par with the taking of a human life.

That's an interesting point of view, Bob, and one that I don't believe I've
heard before.  Clearly, you are personally opposed to divorce.  Would you favor
laws that make it illegal?  Similarly, I assume that you are personally opposed
to abortion, but do you favor laws making abortion illegal?  (It's been a while
so I've forgotten what you might have said in earlier replies.)

				-- Bob

re Note 31.179 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> Clearly, you are personally opposed to divorce.

        Yes*.

> Would you favor laws that make it illegal?  

        No.

> I assume that you are personally opposed to abortion,

        Yes.

> but do you favor laws making abortion illegal?  

        No.

        Bob
        ------
        * I would take a rather liberal approach to recognizing
        annulments.

Re: .180  Bob

In that case it sounds like Mario's your man. :-)

				-- Bob

    Hey, ya know, maybe having laws making divorce illegal is what this
    country needs ? Maybe people wouldn't jump into marriage so fast ?

    Also, the welfare system, courts, and children wouldn't have put up with
    all this adult irresponsibility. In other  words the rest of us wouldn't
    have to carry the financial burden of child support, over burden court
    cases, etc. Gee when you come to think of it, we make other things that
    are less burdensome illegal. Like fishing without a licenses.


    Peace
    Jim

    
    RE: .182 Jim
    
    Gee, I hope not Jim!  That approach does not take into consideration
    that some people grow apart and that the best thing for both of them,
    and sometimes even for the children, is that they go their separate
    ways.  I can personally relate to this based on my parents marriage.
    My father was an alcoholic, and for most of my childhood I lived in
    fear.  It was awful.  We had little money because most of it was
    spent on alcohol.  My mother had to work so that my two sisters, my
    brother and I had what we needed.  My father was abusive and angry.
    The best thing my mother could have done was to leave and give all
    of us a peaceful place to live, but because of societies pressures and
    her own issues, she stayed with him.  They both died in 1974.
    
    I think if she had taken that step, he might have been 'shocked' into
    recovery, she may have found someone who would have given her more
    support and caring, and we children may have been less wounded.
    
    Carole

    OPPPPS ! Sorry if ya took my reply wrong. It was purely tongue in
    cheek. I forgot to include smiley faces. I'm not that ridiculous (yet
    ?) to propose such a thing with any kind of seriousness.


    Peace
    Jim

    
    Oh, ok Jim.  I *did* think you were serious!  That's what happens when
    you don't really know a person ;^)
    
    Carole

I heard an interesting editorial regarding abortion on NPR about 2
weeks ago.  The commentator indicated that most Americans do not
favor abortion.  At the same time, most Americans do not favor
making abortion illegal.  It is possible, it seems, to be both
pro-choice and pro-life at the same time.

When someone claims to be strictly pro-life, the commentator indicated
that he usually asks, "To what degree are you pro-life?  Are you against
participating in war?  Are you against capital punishment?  Where do
you stop being pro-life?"

The commentator stated his observation that a large portion of those
who care for the unborn don't seem to care very much for the born.  It's
as if once they're here, they're on their own.

The state of Louisiana has passed an anti-abortion bill.  Louisiana also
spends notoriously less than most other states on public education, health
care and other services that the poor and elderly turn to in times of need.

Do pro-lifers stop being pro-life once the unborn are born?

Richard

    Whew, good question Richard.
    
    Kb

>When someone claims to be strictly pro-life, the commentator indicated
>that he usually asks, "To what degree are you pro-life?  Are you against
>participating in war?  Are you against capital punishment?  Where do
>you stop being pro-life?"

    Different and unrelated questions. For example, if you are pro-choice
    to what degree? Do you allow people to choose to kill or not kill
    their friends? Do you allow people to choose to own guns or do you
    support gun control? Do you allow people to choose not to educate
    their children or do you support mandatory education? Do you allow
    people to choose to pay taxes or not? When do you stop being
    pro-choice? See what I mean?

>The commentator stated his observation that a large portion of those
>who care for the unborn don't seem to care very much for the born.  It's
>as if once they're here, they're on their own.

    While there are some for whom this is correct I sincerely doubt that 
    it is true for a large portion of pro-life people. I view this comment,
    which I've heard often, as an ad homin attack without solid support.
    It is what "pro-choice" people wish to believe though so that they
    can feel they have some higher moral ground.

>Do pro-lifers stop being pro-life once the unborn are born?

    No! Emphatically no! No more so then pro-choice people stop being
    pro-choice by refusing to allow people to make choices in other
    matters. The terms do not have relevance outside the abortion
    discussion because of how closely related to the discussion they
    have become.

    BTW, to get into a potential rathole, war and capital punishment
    are to me acts of self defense. Allowing abortion to save the life
    of a mother (which I support) and opposing war and/or capital punishment
    are (to me) *conflicting* opinions.
    
    			Alfred

Re: .188 Alfred

>    Different and unrelated questions. For example, if you are pro-choice
>    to what degree? Do you allow people to choose to kill or not kill
>    their friends? Do you allow people to choose to own guns or do you
>    support gun control? Do you allow people to choose not to educate
>    their children or do you support mandatory education? Do you allow
>    people to choose to pay taxes or not? When do you stop being
>    pro-choice? See what I mean?

That's just the point: almost no one is completely pro-life (i.e.  pro-life in
all areas of life) and almost no one is completely pro-choice.  This is not a
black and white world; there are shades of difference.  I think the questions
asked of the pro-life people are designed to get them to see that it's not just
a clear-cut case of being pro-life or anti-life.  The question is whether you
are pro-life in the *particular case* of a fetus whose parents don't want it to
live.

>>The commentator stated his observation that a large portion of those
>>who care for the unborn don't seem to care very much for the born.  It's
>>as if once they're here, they're on their own.
>
>    While there are some for whom this is correct I sincerely doubt that 
>    it is true for a large portion of pro-life people.

I think it *is* true for a large portion of pro-life people, although I'm sure
they don't think of themselves as being anti-children.  They probably think of
themselves as being "conservative".

There is a also a large portion of pro-life people who are also what I would
consider pro-children.

				-- Bob

Note 31.188
    
    Different and unrelated questions. For example, if you are pro-choice
    to what degree?...........

Perhaps "pro-choice" is an inaccurate label.  Personally, I do not promote
abortion.  At the same time, I do not favor making abortion illegal.  I
suspect I am far from alone in this posture.

>    BTW, to get into a potential rathole, war and capital punishment
>    are to me acts of self defense.

I shall accommodate this potential rathole by creating a new string.

Peace,
Richard

    Hello,
    
    I wonder - Is Jesus Pro-Life or Pro-Choice? I guess it really does
    not matter what my personal choice would be since I am suppose to be
    Christ like since I am a christian. I know Christ is Pro-life else
    why would he die on the Cross for me.
    
    Pro-Christ,
    
    Danny Twitty

    Alfred, 
    
    There are a lot of pro-life people who are violently anti welfare,
    food stamps, etc etc. That to me is being anti-children. 
    
    and inre .191
    
    but I believe that Christ died for all of us also, but that doesn't
    answer the question of when does a fertilized egg become a baby.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: .191
    
    Greetings, Danny!  Hope you'll tell us more about yourself.  (Note 3
    is a good place to start)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    The following is copied with the permission of the woman who typed
    it in from another file. It illustrates how the Christian church's
    attitude about abortion has changed over time.
    
    I entered some information on the same subject from a different book
    which corroborates this quote. See note 29.28.
    
    Bonnie
    
    _________________________________________________________________
    
    
The following passage about the history of abortion is from the article
"Abortion" in Barbara Walker's book The Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and
Secrets: 

"Abortion
 --------

	"The ancients generally viewed abortion as a woman's private 
business, in which no man had any right to interfere. As [C. G.] Hartley
put it, 'Each woman must be free to make her own choice; no man may safely
decide for her; she must give life gladly to be able to give it well.' But
with the rise of patriarchal religions -- especially among the Greeks --
came a belief that a father's semen conveyed the soul to the fetus. Men
feared for the safety of any of their body effluvia (hair cuttings,
fingernail clippings, spittle, blood) lest sorcery might damage the living
man by damaging what was once a part of him. The fear was particularly
pronounced in the case of semen as an extension of the father's soul. St.
Thomas Aquinas held this same opinion, since he asserted that semen was the
vehicle of souls. It was a logical extension of this notion that abortion
should be outlawed, not because it was dangerous to women, but because it
was thought (magically) dangerous to men. 

	"In the east, however, abortion was perfectly legal at any time 
before the fifth month, when 'quickening' was felt. After that, according 
to Brahman scriptures, a woman who destroyed her fetus was held guilty of 
murder, but before that time the fetus was soulless and could be destroyed 
with impunity. This opinion was embodied in the Catholic church's Doctrine 
of Passive Conception, which contradicted Aquinas in order to prove that 
the soul comes only from God. Up to the late 19th century, the Doctrine of 
Passive Conception declared that the soul arrives in the fifth month of 
pregnancy, to quicken the fetus, which was previously soulless.

	"In 1869 the church again revised its opinion, tacitly admitting 
either that God had misinformed his church about his method of instilling 
the soul into the body, or else that he had decided to alter it. Pope Pius 
X announced that the soul was received at conception after all.

	"Actually, the church was only coming around, several decades late, 
to follow some new laws made by man, not by God. Abortion was not 
classified as a crime in Europe until the 19th century. The United States 
first defined abortion as a criminal offense in the year 1830. 

	"The church now falsely pretends that it officially 'always' 
opposed abortion. The medieval church's ire was aroused not by abortions per 
se but by the midwives who performed them. The handbook of the Inquisition 
stated: 'No one does more harm to the Catholic faith than midwives'...The 
church was not averse to killing the unborn, since it burned many pregnant 
women as witches. Even the pregnant wife of a city councillor was tortured 
and burned at Bamberg in 1630.

	"Recent opposition to legalization of abortion apparently stemmed 
from ignorance of how recently it was illegalized; and also from male 
belief that women must be controlled by forcing childbirth on them. 'Male 
legislators have laughed at the idea of the legalization of abortion, 
hinting at unprecedented promiscuity (on the part of women, not men) if 
such a thing were allowed. Meanwhile, thousands of desperate women die each 
year as the direct result of male laws making abortion illegal. Women are 
learning the meaning of this male laughter and indifference in the face of 
the most hazardous and serious biological enterprise women undertake,
willingly or not.'" 

| but I believe that Christ died for all of us also, but that doesn't
| answer the question of when does a fertilized egg become a baby.

	Bonnie, I feel that we may never really know the answer to that
question until we meet the maker. I will say that I am against abortion.
I believe that if something is growing inside of you, then it has to be
alive. I would think that most people would agree that if you have cancer,
regardless of how far along it is, it is still cancer. This is how I feel
when it comes to a baby. Based on medical facts we are told by the laws of 
this country that at a certain age a baby is considered to be alive, and 
at that age it can not be aborted. Somehow I don't think that God feels
that life begins at a certain age, but from the time the egg is impregnated 
with the sperm. But, this is just *my* opinion, and one can really never
know for sure until they meet the maker. 

	If someone asks me how I feel about abortion, I usually tell them. I 
also usually end up regretting it too! ;-)

	But I guess what I'm trying to say is until we meet God the almighty, we
will never really know if what we have been doing is right in His eyes or not. 
There have been things in the past that everyone thought was right, but weren't.
It's that way now and I'm sure it will always be that way. 

	In the end though, it will be God who judges us (and not humans). Just 
how He does this is anyone's guess. My *opinion* (and it's just *my* opinion
I'm sure) on this is if you feel what you are doing is right (whole heartedly), 
then the end result won't go against you. If you know it's wrong (in your heart,
and not JUST from someone telling you) and you still do it, then it will be 
remembered on judgement day. Does this make sense or does it sound stupid?


Glen

    Glen,
    
    A fertilized egg is *alive* but I don't think it is a baby. I believe
    as the church used to preach that there is a point in time when it
    becomes *human* recieves a soul.
    
    and yes, other than that what you write makes sense.
    
    Bonnie

re:  .196  Bonnie
    
  > A fertilized egg is *alive* but I don't think it is a baby. I believe
  > as the church used to preach that there is a point in time when it
  > becomes *human* recieves a soul.
    
The word soul (Hebrew=ne'phesh/Greek=psy.khe') as used in the Bible, shows 
it to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.
Gen 2:7 says that man came to be a living soul, as opposed to being given a
soul.  Genesis 1:20,21,24,25 show that animals are living souls.  So, since
the fertilized egg is *alive*, then it is an individual soul.  Ps 139:13-16
shows that God considers the embryo to be precious.  Ex 21:22,23 shows that
if a fatality occurs regarding a pregnant woman, then "you must give soul for
soul".  In the original Hebrew text, this applies to the death of either the
mother or the child.

If the "church" you referred to above taught that a fertilized egg is not a 
new human life, then it wasn't teaching what the Bible says.  


Steve

re Note 31.197 by COMET::HAYESJ:

> Ps 139:13-16
> shows that God considers the embryo to be precious.  

        139:13  For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered
        me in my mother's womb.
        139:14  I will praise thee; for I am fearfully [and]
        wonderfully made: marvellous [are] thy works; and [that] my
        soul knoweth right well.
        139:15  My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made
        in secret, [and] curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the
        earth.
        139:16  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect;
        and in thy book all [my members] were written, [which] in
        continuance were fashioned, when [as yet there was] none of
        them.

Yes, precious;  but apparently God also considers the sparrow and the lily of
the field to be precious -- but not human.

> If the "church" you referred to above taught that a fertilized egg is not a 
> new human life, then it wasn't teaching what the Bible says.  

        No more so than you are doing when you use Ps 139:13-16 to
        prove that a fertilized egg IS a new human life.

        Bob

    
                          *My belief*
    
    
     1.  I believe that life begins at conception.  Its for God to end that
         life or not.
    
     2.  I believe that God does not sanction abortions unless its under
         very special conditions. ie...mothers life in danger or that of 
         the baby.  Those conditions are between the mother and God or
         whoever is making the decision.
    
     3.  I believe that since God gives us "free will" concerning our fate
         for eternity, that pro-choice for the woman only makes sense.  If
         God considers abortion a sin (I believe that) then it is *NOT* an
         unforgivable sin.  Christians, I believe, are guilty of condemming
         the person along with the action.  Also a sin in my mind.  
    
    
    __
    DD

    inre .197
    
    HayesJ, read some of the history I've quoted in this file. From about
    the 3rd century, until the middle of the 19th century, the Roman
    Catholic church, which before the Protestant reformation was the
    Christian Church in the west, did not regard abortion before the
    time of quickening as murder or homicide, because the developing
    child/fetus/baby had not yet recieved a soul. References to the
    child in the womb and bans against abortion were refering to *after*
    that period of time, when the child had 'quickened' and was a baby.
    
    You don't have to believe this, but the belief that the embryo/fetus
    is truely a person from the moment of conception has only been a belief 
    for the last 100 +/- years.
    
    This is a fact.
    
    So it is not anti God, or anti Christian, or anti Bible to believe
    that abortion before quickening is not murder, only against a
    reinterpretation that occured about 100 years ago. 
    
    I have no problem with people who believe in the pro-life fashion.
    I'm not consitant with a lot of how I look at the Bible myself. For
    example, I reject a lot of the interpretations of the Bible that
    make women second class citizens unable to be ministers, etc. Many
    people could call this a reinterpretation. 
    
    We have to follow what we believe in our hearts.
    
    Bonnie

re:  .198  Richard


> Yes, precious;  but apparently God also considers the sparrow and the lily of
> the field to be precious -- but not human.

Matt 6:26 shows that God considers us worth more than the birds.  Matt 6:30 
shows that God would much rather clothe us than the lillies of the field.  So
obviously if God considers the birds and lillies precious to Him, how much
more precious to Him is a human? 

>> If the "church" you referred to above taught that a fertilized egg is not a 
>> new human life, then it wasn't teaching what the Bible says.  

      > No more so than you are doing when you use Ps 139:13-16 to
      > prove that a fertilized egg IS a new human life.

I used the Scripture in Genesis to show that living things are souls.  I used
Ps 139:13-16 to show that God knows a human individual when he is an embryo and
that life even at that stage is precious to Him.  Are you saying that the fer-
tilized human egg is not a living thing?


Steve
                  

    The fertilized egg, as I said is *alive* just as any cell is alive.
    The question is does it have a soul, for over 1500 years the
    intpretation of the Christian church was that it does not.
    
    BJ

re:  .200  Bonnie
    
  > HayesJ, read some of the history I've quoted in this file. From about
  > the 3rd century,

I'm familiar with the history to which you're referring.


  >                  until the middle of the 19th century, the Roman
  > Catholic church, which before the Protestant reformation was the
  > Christian Church in the west, did not regard abortion before the
  > time of quickening as murder or homicide, because the developing
  > child/fetus/baby had not yet recieved a soul. References to the
  > child in the womb and bans against abortion were refering to *after*
  > that period of time, when the child had 'quickened' and was a baby.
   
What the Catholic church or the Protestant church doctrines said at that
time isn't necessarily what the Bible says.  Those doctrines say that a
human receives a soul, and that the soul is the immaterial or spirit part
of a human being that even survives the death of the physical body.  That's
not what the Bible says.  The Bible says that living creatures *are* souls.

 
  > You don't have to believe this, but the belief that the embryo/fetus
  > is truely a person from the moment of conception has only been a belief 
  > for the last 100 +/- years.

But it *has* been a Bible teaching from the start.  Which is the truth?  What
the Bible says, or what church doctrine was from the 3rd to the 19th centuries?
  
 
  > So it is not anti God, or anti Christian, or anti Bible to believe
  > that abortion before quickening is not murder, only against a
  > reinterpretation that occured about 100 years ago. 
   
If it's not what the Bible teaches, then it most certainly is anti-Bible.  The
Bible is the inspired Word of God, and Jesus taught in harmony with the Holy
Scriptures.  There fore if it's anti-Bible, then it is also anti-God and anti-
Christ(ian).

    
  > We have to follow what we believe in our hearts.
    
As true Christians, we have to follow what's written in God's Word, the Bible.
That's what we need to believe, because that's where the truth is written. 
 
Jeremiah 17:9  "The heart is more treacherous than anything 
                else and is desparate.  Who can know it?"


Steve

    Steve
    
    Just because *you* interpret the Bible to say X when the church
    for generations interpreted it to say Y doesn't mean that X is true
    and Y is false. It just means *you* believe X is true.
    
    Bonnie

re: 204  Bonnie  

  
 >  Just because *you* interpret the Bible to say X when the church
 >  for generations interpreted it to say Y doesn't mean that X is true
 >  and Y is false. It just means *you* believe X is true.
    

I suggest you actually read the Scriptures I have quoted or referred to since
reply .197.  


Steve
  

    Steve
    
    as I said before, the scriptures refer to the developing fetus
    *after* quickening.
    
    at that time people didn't even know that fertilized eggs, embryos
    etc existed.
    
    you have to know some history and biology as well as the Bible.
    
    Bonnie

 
  > The fertilized egg, as I said is *alive* just as any cell is alive.
                                                     ^^^^^^^^
The difference is that the fertilized egg contains the complete genetic 
structure and "blueprints" of a human being.  



  > The question is does it have a soul, for over 1500 years the
  > intpretation of the Christian church was that it does not.
   
 
Yes, but before that 1500 years began, church leaders blended paganism with
Christianity for the sake of making it acceptable to the pagans.  Jesus and
many of his apostles told and foretold about this in Scripture.  Let's look
at what the Bible says.  That was written by the ones "borne along by Holy
Spirit."


Steve

    Steve
    
    *Every* cell contains the complete genetic structure and blueprints
    of a human being. If that is used as a basis for an arguement
    against abortion then we should eliminate any sort of surgery
    and allow cancer to grow unchecked.
    
    and in re scripture, I'm not quite sure what your point is here.
    You are aware that there have been times when Christians went
    through the scriptures and threw out scriptures that had been
    previously accepted as being of divine inspiration? The
    apocrypha and the gnostic gospels being the two major examples.
    This was not done as a sop to paganism, it was an elimination
    of material that had been considered holy closer to the time of
    Jesus. Do you regard this material as scripture now?
    
    (The latter is a rat hole in this topic and should be persued
    somewhere else.)
    
    BJ

    
  > *Every* cell contains the complete genetic structure and blueprints
  > of a human being.

No, reproductive cells only contain half of what is needed.   Otherwse why would
we need male and female?  


       
  > (The latter is a rat hole in this topic and should be persued
  > somewhere else.)

Yeah, we could probably fill up a few RA90's on that, eh?  ;^)



Steve (who is signing off until Saturday night
       because he's a third shift person who's
       work week ended at 0700 hrs. MDT this AM)

re: Note 31.209 by Steve "Duck and cover!"

>  > *Every* cell contains the complete genetic structure and blueprints
>  > of a human being.
>
>No, reproductive cells only contain half of what is needed.   Otherwse why would
>we need male and female?  

Um, Steve, I think you just made Bonnie's point!  Essentially every human cell 
(save unfertalized egg cells, sperm cells, and maybe possibly some others) 
DOES contain the human blue print.  That's something like 99.99999999999 %!

So what Bonnie is saying is that if one uses the criteria of comelete genetic 
information for the basis if deciding what is or is not an "abortion" then by 
that test, little surgery would be possible, cancer treatment would be 
possible, et cetera.
       
So, are you agreeing with Bonnie?  (I am, fascinating stuff, Bonnie, thanks!)

Peace,

Jim

    re:  .210
    
    The cells growing in the womb are not identical to either the father or
    the mother.  They are a combination of both, and hence, a new human.
    
    Steve
    

    RE:  last few
    
                     My question is what will the spearm and egg turn into?
    When fertilized, it grows into a human...other cells don't.  It is not 
    a fish or bird but a human being.  Since the bible says nothing as to
    *WHEN* life begins, I have to believe it happens the instant the two
    cells fuse.  Science is trying to tell us that the child is not aware,
    but using that criteria some people in some old folks home are in the
    same boat.  They have even proved that some children in the womb *DO*
    become aware and even try to avoid the suction device during an
    abortion.  Im sorry people but I do not want to play God in this
    instance.  Another reason I am glad that I wasn't born a woman.  Its a 
    very difficult decision.
    
    
    Dave

    Steve,

    A *potential* new human, large numbers of fertilized eggs die
    before they have a chance to become babies, by natural causes.
    A competant lab technition can cause two egg cells to merge
    and begin to divide, or two unspecialized cells from two different
    bodies (from the dividing layers of the intestine or the skin
    for example), these are genetically different from anyone else.
    Are they people? Is murder committed if such cells are combined
    and allowed to grow and then allowed to die?
    
    It is possible for the egg of a chimpanze to be fertilized by
    the sperm of a human, or vice versa. If such an experiment
    were carried out and the fertilized egg began to divide and
    grow, would it be a person? If it is allowed to die is that
    murder?
    
    dd

    What I'm trying to look for is a middle ground where both sides
    may not be happy with the choice but it is something they can
    live with.

    I seriously doubt that abortion will ever be entirely banned,
    for example. Further, if it is the loss of life of desperate
    women that will be the main change, abortions will continue outside
    of the law for the poor, and by traveling for those who can
    afford it.

    However, if there could be some reasonable definition of when
    in the development stage this is truly a person then abortion
    could possibly be very severely restricted after that point.

    I've picked the traditional church point because this also fairly
    closely corresponds to the time of true brain wave activity.
    We use the cessation of brain waves for a hospitalized patient
    to mark the end of human life, why not the alternate for
    the beginning?
    
    Many of you might be interested in something I heard on national
    public radio last night. The World Watch Health program showed
    that banning US funds for anything related to abortion in third
    world countries has actually increased the number of abortions
    there. Let me copy the note I entered on this in womannotes
    and I'll enter it here.
    
    Bonnie
    
    
    p.s. dd on the embryo avoiding the suction divice. This is called
    irritability. It is a feature of all life. A bacteria will avoid
    strong acid or base in the nutrient medium, so will a paramecium
    or a flatworm. Moving away from a negative stimulus is not an
    indication of humanity. If it were we'd have to class all living
    things as human

             <<< IKE22::$3$DIA5:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 49.268       Abortion Concerns (*read .0 BEFORE replying*)       268 of 268
WMOIS::REINKE_B "bread and roses"                    41 lines  11-JUL-1991 10:11
             -< World Health Watch on Women's Reproductive Health >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There was a piece on the NPR last night about a World Health Watch
    report on Women's Reproductive Health. This is what I remember
    about it. Can anyone expand on or correct what I've written?
    
    _____________________________________________________________
    
    What I heard indicated that the U.S. ban on funding any organization
    that has anything to do with abortion (giving abortions with non
    related funds, counceling about abortion, ditto, keeping statistics
    on abortion, or helping women who had had botched abortions elsewhere
    are all banned) had actually increased the abortion and infant and
    mother death rate abroad in developing countries.
    
    The reasons for this were apparently twofold:
    
    1. U.S. funds had been the major support of many of these clinics.
       Without them medical care and free or low cost contraceptive
       availability were seriously reduced. (In some countries where
       abortion was legal, US funds were used for medical and contraceptive
       purposes, and funds from other sources for anything related to
       abortions but this is not acceptable to the US.)
    
       As a result more women have turned to abortion (often by ill
       educated midwives and local healers) with a resultant increase
       in infections and deaths from unhygenic abortions.
    
    2. In many countries the brunt of the national health care programs
       is focused on the cities (India was the example used.) The funds
       from the U.S. had often been focused on rural health organizations.
       One of the things that these organizations did was to train rural
       midwives in hygene  - cutting the cord with a sterile blade not
       a shard of glass or a razor, hand washing before reaching into
       the vaginal cavity, etc. These midwives also performed abortions
       by traditional medthods (a stick pushed through the cervix) which  
       were frequently lethal.
    
       The discontinuance of funds meant not only a discontinuance
       of the training programs for these women, but in the absence
       of alternatives a greater reliance on them for maternal care.
    
       BJ

    Bonnie,
    
                The viability of a fetus outside the womans body is
    becomming shorter and shorter.  How can you or anyone else make a
    determination as to when that fetus is truely human?  Does it have a
    soul?  I don't know but I'll not take the chance that you are wrong in
    Gods eyes.
    
    Dave

    I have no problem with using viability Dave, and pushing things
    back with viability.
    
    But changing the law isn't going to change the number of abortions
    all that much you know, and it will increase the number of women
    dying.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: .216  Bonnie,
    
                       Lord...How do I put this?  I believe that someone is
    going to die.  That is the reason why I think the choice belongs to the
    parents (because you should not eliminate the father).  Between them
    and God is where the question lies....and needs to stay there.
    
    
    Dave

    I can respect that. I just recall the numbers of young women
    who died in back alley abortions when I was younger and I would
    hate like anything to see that start up again.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
                Your right and if my Daughter felt the need to have an
    abortion then I would want a very good doctor with the reght
    enviornment to perform it. 
    
    
    Dave

Re:  31.213 

  >However, if there could be some reasonable definition of when
  >in the development stage this is truly a person then abortion
  >could possibly be very severely restricted after that point.

There is a reasonable definition.  However, it intrudes on people's
wants and desires so we rebel against it.

Collis

    RE: Back ally abortions. I have trouble with people who use this
    as a justification for legal abortion. No one I know who is against
    legal abortion is in favor of back ally abortions. Many many people
    who support legal abortions seem to support back ally ones as an
    alternative. And of course for pro life people there is the *certainty*
    of one death against the *possibility* of death in a bad abortion.

    Do pro-life people hope for the death of a woman during an abortion?
    Of course not but that is a risk the woman takes for herself. She
    chooses it. In neither case does the fetus have a choice. This latter
    statement is why I have trouble accepting "pro-choice" as the label
    for people who support legal abortion.

    		Alfred

Alfred,

Agreed.  I, too, am strongly pro-choice (for the yet unborn child).

Collis

    People who are in favor of the Pro-Life position ought to read up on
    Romania.  
    
    DR

Re: .221, .222

Since I don't think a fetus is a person (unless it is well into its
development, i.e, third trimester) of course I wouldn't give it a "vote" or let
it make "choices".

				-- Bob

    RE: .223 Why? I know quite a bit of what happened there. I believe
    that the lack of pregnancy prevention ability was the main problem.
    I don't believe that abortion is morally any better a solution for
    what happened there then what did happen there.

    		Alfred

    Collis,
    
    Do you mean ensoulment? or when brain waves begin? those, to me, are
    reasonable. Fertilization to me, as a biologist, is not reasonable.
    
    I don't think my wants and desires are affected by the fertilization
    standard. I do think that using it flys in the face of Biological
    facts, church tradtion etc... and will not reduce the number
    of abortions but rather increase the number of deaths of women
    and girls.
    
    Bonnie

    Alfred,
    
    I don't accuse any prolife person of hoping for the death of women
    in back alley abortions. I'm just pointing out that these women
    will be dieing if we can't find a middle ground. To say that
    the women 'take the risk themselves' is an example of how callous
    the prolifers can sound. (and I know you are a kind and gentle
    man, yet you say this.) Developing tissue that is not yet a baby
    takes on an importance that far exceeds the importance of a living
    woman, and I think this is tragic.
    
    Can we not find a middle ground, a point past which abortion is not
    allowed, but before which we agree that there is enough doubt
    or too little evidence of personhood that abortion can be available
    before then?
    
    BJ

    Bonnie, Yes we can find a middle ground. We can allow abortion in
    cases of threat to the woman's life, rape and incest. The latter 2
    are major concessions which cost me emotional pain to make. I do
    not consider them minor.
    
    Are there pro-choice people who will back away from "all abortion in
    the first three months is ok?" I have seen no steps to the middle
    from the pro-choice side to match mine.

    		Alfred

    Alfred, How about moving away from 'abortion on demand until birth'
    that is the extreme position for the hard line proabortion folks.
    BJ

Alfred,

What percentage of abortions are performed because of rape or incest?

It seems to me that the "middle ground" on this issue might be if both sides
could concentrate on preventing unwanted pregnancy, so that the issue of
abortion would become irrelevant.  The trouble is, though, that one side
wants to prevent pregnancy by encouraging abstinence and the other side
wants to prevent pregnancy by encouraging contraception.  Meanwhile vast
numbers of women continue to become pregnant and have abortions.

				-- Bob

	Bob, Please do not misrepresent my side. Thank you.

			Alfred

	There seems to be a problem here. I'm trying to address the moderate
	pro-life position. I thought we could leave the extremists on
	both sides out and have a rational discussion. This appears not
	to be possible. Why? Because no one on the pro-choice side appears
	to be willing to listen to the moderate side of pro-life. People
	keep trying to tie me and other moderates to the extremist position.

	For example.

	.223 ties us all in with Coucesco. Shades of my homosexual reply 
				last month.
	.230 ties us in with the anti-birth control people (as have other
				replies here.)
	
	This indicates an unwillingness to understand or to accept the
	feelings of pro-life people such as myself.

			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    what I was  trying to say is that your position is still too extreme
    for most moderate prochoice people. That even tho you think you've
    made major concessions it is on the order of moving on the other
    side from abortion on demand with no restrictions to severe
    restrictions after an early cut off point.
    
    From my point of view you seem to have taken one small step
    towards the middle and I've gone several hundred.
    
    Would you include severe emotional and psychological damage to
    the mother as a reason for abortion before 3-4 months?
    
    Bonnie

>    From my point of view you seem to have taken one small step
>    towards the middle and I've gone several hundred.

    	My words to you as well. Perhaps it is hopeless.
    
>    Would you include severe emotional and psychological damage to
>    the mother as a reason for abortion before 3-4 months?

    	Yes, but not with carte blanch on who and how that decision
    	was made. (This is an other big step for me and not one I
    	feel is easily justified or lived with.)

    			Alfred

    hugs Alfred

    Alfred - 
    
    I didn't mean to link you with Coucescu.  I do feel that Romania under
    Coucescu is an example of the results of an extreme pro-life anti-
    birth-control position.  As you say, you are not anti-birth-control, so
    in your case, the analogy does not hold or holds only loosely.
    
    Sometimes I wonder whether in a few years this question will become
    moot.  Who's to say that the  national obsession with sex won't
    suddenly evaporate?  Already a complete disinterest in sex is  a
    problem for sex therapists, and this likely to continue as  AIDS and
    Hepatitis-B stalk our sexually mature children.    
    
    DR

Re: .231 Alfred

>            -< I support contriception - when did I say otherwise? >-
>	Bob, Please do not misrepresent my side. Thank you.

It's true that the equation is more complicated than "pro-lifers favor
abstinence, pro-choicers favor contraception".  While the most vocal pro-lifers
are opposed to most forms of contraception, many like you are more moderate.
Therefore it would seem that an emphasis on contraception is a middle ground
that a majority of people might be able to embrace.  Still, the fact that
so many pro-lifers (including the Catholic Church) *are* opposed to
contraception means that this won't be an easy solution.

				-- Bob

    RE: Bonnie,
    
    
                 Give me an exact time for "ensoulment" as you call it and
    I will agree to your form of abortion.  Otherwise, I believe that you
    are tempting fate here.
    
    
    Dave

| Still, the fact that
| so many pro-lifers (including the Catholic Church) *are* opposed to
| contraception means that this won't be an easy solution.

	I think that's because you shouldn't have sex before your married. But
what I don't understand is once you get married, and you either want some time
alone with your partner or can't really afford to bring up a kid at this time
or don't want to bring another kid into an already crowded world, or whatever 
your reason, are you supposed to stay away from sex (which they tell you over 
and over again that you can have it once you get married) because you're 
Catholic and are told you can't use any form of contraception? This always 
confused me.



Glen

    re .238
    
    I understand what you are saying Dave, I'd use the criteria that
    I've mentioned before (brian waves, quickening etc.) but I appreciate
    that you may find this too imprecise, or not agree that 'ensoulment'
    comes as late as that.
    
    Bonnie

re Note 31.239 by JURAN::SILVA:

> are you supposed to stay away from sex (which they tell you over 
> and over again that you can have it once you get married) because you're 
> Catholic and are told you can't use any form of contraception? This always 
> confused me.

        The problem with the Catholic position is that one method IS
        allowed to avoid conception (in addition to abstinence). 
        That method is rather arbitrarily defined as "natural"
        (although anyone who has attempted it would probably agree
        that it is anything but a natural thing to do).

        That method even works rather well for some couples, and
        fails miserably for others.  The couples for whom it works
        are free to feel no guilt about their successful separation
        of sexual union from procreation, whereas those for whom it
        fails are warned that any attempt to separate the two is
        unnatural.

        Bob

| Do you mean ensoulment? or when brain waves begin? those, to me, are
| reasonable. Fertilization to me, as a biologist, is not reasonable.

	From a human point of view I see what you are talking about Bonnie. But
(again, this is just my opinion) I feel that regardless of what the stage of
life the baby is in, it is alive. It's like a seed. Onces it starts to grow it
goes through various stages. The end result is some sort of plant, tree, etc. 

	But, in another file when I made my opinions of no abortions known, I 
came across a lot of information that I hadn't really given much thought about.

1) What does the mother do with the unwanted baby?

2) Being forced to bear an unwanted child, will the mother really take all the 
   nessescerry steps to ensure the pregnancy goes well (no drinking, etc..)?

3) With a lot of kids growing up in homes with other kids waiting to get
   adopted, is this kid really getting any quality of life?

4) If the mother decides to keep the baby, will the baby get all the love and
   care that it should?

5) What about the back alley abortions?

6) Don't we already have enough unwanted babies?

	These situations do make me think about the big picture. It's easy to
say you're pro-life, but what do you do about these very real situations? Most
pro life people I know feel these aren't really an issue as if the deed wasn't
done in the first place then the final results never would have happened. I
know, I used to be one of them. But the reality of the whole thing is these
problems do exist, they are very real and it seems that no one has a solution
for them. It all comes down to the fact that we must remember that we are
human. We all have free will. These do come into play and these problems do
exist. If we just say don't do the deed and they won't exist, then we are just
fooling ourselves. If we can say that statement, and truly mean it, then those
who are saying it had better be perfect and never sin themselves or they would
be nothing more than a hypocrit.

	I am pro life, as I don't want to see ANY life lost, but I also realize 
that we have to address these problems if we were to ever make things work. How
do others feel about these problems?






Glen

| The problem with the Catholic position is that one method IS
| allowed to avoid conception (in addition to abstinence).
| That method is rather arbitrarily defined as "natural"

	I guess I have a hard time with this. If there is one guilt free way to
not have an unwanted child, why can't there be others? Seeing every drop of
sperm could contain a life, and all life is sacred, how can any method be
allowed? This is confusing.

Glen

Bob,

I was not aware that most pro-life people were against contraceptives.
Personally, I am very much in favor of contraceptives.  This, however,
does not make me in favor of immoral sexual behavior.  Perhaps that
was what you were driving at.

Collis

Bonnie,

As a biologist, I think your position is QUITE unreasonable.  Biologically
speaking, life starts at conception.  If this life has lessened
importance to you, then that is your opinion.  In God's eyes, every
human life is precious.

Collis

Re: .245  Collis

I guess the key question is: would you favor a national campaign to encourage
the use of contraceptives, make them easier to obtain, educate young people
about them, promote research into producing improved contraceptives, etc.?

				-- Bob

Bob,

I would favor a campaign that strongly taught that abstinence is the *BEST*
protection against many STD, emotional problems, pregnancies outside
of marriage, etc.

So far, most educators think that people are not willing to modify
their sexual behavior (by abstaining) and yet are willing to modify
their sexual behavior (by practicing "un"safe sex).  Encouraging
behavior which leads to many emotional/personal issues while hoping to
control the physical consequences with condoms, the Pill and other
devices is a losing strategy.

There is a reason why there are so many more sexual problems in today's
society than there were forty years ago.  Society standards have
changed considerably (not that they were by any means perfect then).
Any hope of changing behavior without changing standards is doomed
to failure (where the failure has to take into account *ALL* the
aspects of sexual intercourse - not just the physical).

Collis  

    Collis,
    
    Why do you persist in saying things like "life starts at conception'?
    Do you think I think that a fertilized egg is dead?
    
    Of course a fertilized egg is alive. I've said that before in this
    string.
    
    It is not however, a baby yet. It is a zygote, then it becomes 
    a morula, then a blastula, and.... then eventually an embryo
    where it looks first a bit like a fish, then like an amphibian
    then, like a primitive reptile, then like a primitive mammal,
    then finally like a small baby. 
    
    Eventually brain waves like those of a born human develop. 
    
    It is at this point, that I would consider it a child, even tho
    it is not yet able to survive outside the womb.
    
    Bonnie
    
    p.s do you realy think that behavior has changed or just that
    people are more open about their behavior now?

| So far, most educators think that people are not willing to modify
| their sexual behavior (by abstaining) and yet are willing to modify
| their sexual behavior (by practicing "un"safe sex).  

	Collis, I thought that "un"safe sex is the behavior that educators are
trying to get modified.

| Encouraging
| behavior which leads to many emotional/personal issues while hoping to
| control the physical consequences with condoms, the Pill and other
| devices is a losing strategy.

	Collis, would it be better to NOT mention these things and let the kids
(or anyone else for that matter) run wild? I don't think that would be in
anyones "best" interest. Life isn't perfect. true, we have lost the Ward and
June Cleavers and are now with Al and Peg Bundy, but seeing the world has
changed a lot (look at the difference between the Roman Empire days and the
Cleaver days) and one can't be blind to see there is a problem. yes, teach
others to abstain, that's fine. But you still have to inform people about the
dangers that exist out there.

Glen

    For the longest time I avoided this debate, but I've finally decided
    that I can't keep silent any longer....
    
            <<< GOLF::DISK$COMMON:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
               -< ...by believing you may have life in His Name >-
================================================================================
Note 96.147                         ABORTION                          147 of 156
NYTP07::LAM "Q ��Ktl��"                              75 lines   9-JUL-1991 16:54
                            -< You had to ask.... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re: last few
    
    The reason I feel the way I do about this is because I've seen the
    issue from both sides so I can sympathize with either one but I'll
    probably get a lot of flak for what I'm about to say.
    
    It seems to me that in this country, no one is willing to compromise on 
    this issue.  Its either pro-life or pro-choice, no in-between.  In
    other countries like some in Western Europe or Japan, abortion is
    allowed with certain controls.  I found it interesting that countries
    that had the lowest rates of abortion were the ones that have legal
    abortion like Norway or Sweden for example.  Countries that have the
    highest rates of abortion were the ones that illegalize it like Romania
    for example.  Also countries that have legalized abortion tend to have
    better childcare policies and are more protective of women's rights. 
    Maternity leave is given to working women by law in Norway for example.
    
    I do agree that abortion is a form of murder.  The taking of human life
    in any way, shape or form is abhorrent to me.  But I've hardened my
    position in this in recent years because it seems like the taking of
    human life is necessary in some cases like capital punishment,
    self-defense or war.  There was a time when I was totally against
    capital punishment but lately I've come to the conclusion that some
    criminals just cannot be rehabilitated and need to be properly
    punished.
    
    A lot of pro-lifers complain about the rights of the unborn yet I don't
    see them defending the rights of people who are alive now, such as
    minority groups or women.  This country has an infant mortality rate as
    high as some third world countries -mostly Black or Hispanic children,
    yet I hear nothing about this from pro-lifers.  No one seems willing to
    help the starving children in the inner cities or Appalachian
    Mountains.  I'm talking about both pro-choice and pro-life.  A lot of
    people seem willing to expend a lot of effort on this issue but not on
    issues such as poverty, education and other social problems rampant in
    this country.  They say that pregnant mothers who don't want their
    children can put them up for adoption.  Well, I use to be involved in a
    social service agency in New York that dealt with foster care and
    orphaned babies.  I was appalled to find out that most people wanted to
    adopt white babies but not black or brown ones.  Most Black or Hispanic
    children end up in children's institutions that are poorly run because
    many of them arent given the resources they need to do a proper job.
    Many of the kids I met grow up to become criminals.  I found it
    interesting that some Black churches are pro-choice.
    
    I found it disturbing when I visited a church in Atlanta where they
    were having an anti-abortion meeting.  One reason the speaker gave for
    opposing abortion was that too many white women were going for them and
    it wasnt replenishing the population.  They were disturbed by the
    fact that the American population growing mostly through immigration
    from Asian and South America.  I couldnt believe my ears when I heard
    it.
    
    So I can understand why some poverty-stricken minority families would
    opt for abortion.  They just can't take care of the kids.  They haven't
    the money.  Where are all the pro-lifers or even pro-choicers in this
    case?  We should be concentrating on the problems that lead people to
    commiting abortion.  
    
    Many say that allowing legalized abortion would result in a lower
    regard for human life.  Well, what kind of a regard for human life do
    we have now?  We spend billions of dollars in developing weapons that
    can kill wholesale numbers of people.  Is that a high regard for human
    life?  This is what's really frightening to me about abortion.  They
    say that legalized abortion would lead to other forms of legalized
    murder even though  that's already happening with capital punishment
    and the military.  I'd worry if they introduce other forms like
    euthanasia where they can justify taking human life even when
    circumstances aren't extreme.
    
    You probably heard some of these arguments before.  But whether you
    understand my point or not. As far as I'm concerned, abortion is just a
    symptom of a greater problems, that of poverty and social degradation.
    We should be concentrating on solving that problem and not trying to aim
    at a symptom of the illness.

re:  .206  Bonnie
    
  > as I said before, the scriptures refer to the developing fetus
  > *after* quickening.

Please cite the scriptures to which you're referring.

    
  > at that time people didn't even know that fertilized eggs, embryos
  > etc existed.

I can't agree with you.  They may not have been as knowledgable as today's 
scientists, but if you read the Scriptures (as they did), you'd know that 
they weren't ignorant about such matters.

    
  > you have to know some history and biology as well as the Bible.
    
Well, I'll certainly admit that you do a fine job with the history and biology,
and two out of three ain't bad (insert many ;^)'s here).  Truly, though, we can
never know enough about what the Bible says.  At John 17:3, Jesus says, "This 
means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, 
and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."  So, if taking in the know-
ledge of God and Christ means everlasting life, it's obviously going to take us
literally an eternity to accomplish that.  

Since this is the Christian_Perspective conference, I simply wanted to point 
out what the Bible has to say about what a soul is, and that God knows us as
individuals from our very conception.  Whether you agree with that or not is
obviously your choice.  


Steve

re Note 31.252 by COMET::HAYESJ:

>   > you have to know some history and biology as well as the Bible.
>     
> Well, I'll certainly admit that you do a fine job with the history and biology,
> and two out of three ain't bad (insert many ;^)'s here).  Truly, though, we can
> never know enough about what the Bible says.  At John 17:3, Jesus says, "This 
> means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, 
> and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ."  So, if taking in the know-
> ledge of God and Christ means everlasting life, it's obviously going to take us
> literally an eternity to accomplish that.  
> 
> Since this is the Christian_Perspective conference, I simply wanted to point 
> out what the Bible has to say about what a soul is, 

        And since this is the Christian-Perspective conference, I
        want to point out that most Christians  believe that Christ
        created the universe (see John 1:3 "Through him all things
        came into being, and apart from him nothing came to be.").

        Thus, one who studies biology IS STUDYING THE WORK, and
        indirectly, THE PERSON OF JESUS!  Truly, though, we can never
        know enough about what we can learn from biology!  As John
        13:3 says, "this means everlasting life, their taking in
        knowledge of you, the only true God..."   This is as true as
        it is for a person who is studying the Bible, another work
        of Christ.

        I wouldn't boast that I study the Bible far more than I study
        biology, nor would I boast that I pay far more attention to
        what is learned from the Bible than what is learned from
        biology.  Such a boast would be the boast of a fool, or of a
        deceiver.

        Bob

    RE: People only wanting white babies. You do know that in many parts
    of the country adoption agencies will not allow white couples to adopt
    minority children. This is at the insistence of minority groups.

    		Alfred

    RE: .241  Bonnie,
    
                        Sorry Bonnie, I just have to answer your .241.
    
    >I understand what you saying Dave, I'd use the criteria that
    >I've mentioned before (brain waves, quickening ect.) but I appreciate
    >that you may find this too imprecise, or not agree that 'ensoulment'
    >comes as late as that.
    
    
               Science is guessing on this question of ensoulment if indeed
    they even believe that a person has a soul.  I'm sorry Bonnie, but I
    cannot take a life or a potential life on the premise of a guess.  And
    I am somewhat worried that you would.  If I am to err, I would rather
    err on the side that says *ALL* life is sacred...including the fetus.
    
    
    Dave
    
    
    

Re: .248 Collis

To what extent would you favor a campaign to promote the use of contraceptives?
In what situations do you approve of the use of contraceptives?

				-- Bob

    RE: .248  Bob,
    
                     I believe that the use of contraceptives is a must and
    should be made available to everyone.  Yes....that even means all ages.
    
    
    Dave

| > at that time people didn't even know that fertilized eggs, embryos
| > etc existed.

| I can't agree with you.  

	Steve, is it the Bible that has given you some knowledge that they knew
anything about fertilized eggs, embryos etc? I'm curious. Remeber, they could
never see inside. They could have never known just what happens, could they?
I'd also be curious to see just when they discovered that they were pregnant.
Any clues? My guess would be when the women started to show.

| They may not have been as knowledgable as today's
| scientists, but if you read the Scriptures (as they did), you'd know that
| they weren't ignorant about such matters.

	Can you be more specific as to which scriptures you're referring to?

Glen

| I believe that the use of contraceptives is a must and
| should be made available to everyone.  Yes....that even means all ages.


	I agree. I know that some would say that people just shouldn't have sex
before they get married. That's so easy to say, that's so easy to preach. Now,
try and get a teenager to always listen to that. That's a lot harder thing to
do. What I would be interested in knowing is how many of the people in this
conference who are either against the use of or to restrict the use of
contraceptives have ever had sex before marriage? 

	Out of the ones who have, why did you? Apply those reasons to todays 
unmarried people. 

	Also, out of those who have, how old were you when you decided that 
you shouldn't do this? 

	What made you change your mind?


Glen

    RE: .262  Bonnie,
    
                          This is a very emotional issue...and I agree that
    a decrease in maternal care and child health is very important and is
    the issue that should be addressed rather than making it easy to abort.
    
                          I never said that an abortion was wrong in all
    cases.  I would concede that there are time when an abortion should be
    the treatment of choice....but the doctors choice and not the patients.
    I know.....its the womans body and she should have control over her
    body and what is done with it.  But to involve another person in what
    is considered by some as murder, I think is wrong.  IMHO it should be
    the doctors call.  I would feel much better with the abortion pill. 
    Then it would involve nobody else but the woman in question.
    
    
    Dave

    Dave
    
    I'd like to see the RU486 pill widely used, It acts on the fertilized
    egg before it implants in the uterine wall.
    
    and I'm not arguing making it easier to abort. What I'm arguing
    is that it should not be banned altogether. The net end result
    of that has been shown to be a decrease in maternal and child
    health, and and increase in unhygenic abortions.
    
    again refer to the report I quoted from WorldWatch.
    
    Bonnie

    I guess I didn't enter this here...
    
    
                <<< PEAR::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< SoapBox.  New and Improved? >-
================================================================================
Note 15.281                         Abortion                          281 of 341
WMOIS::REINKE_B "bread and roses"                    38 lines  11-JUL-1991 10:03
                          -< Ban has reverse effect >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There was a piece on the radio last night about a World Health Watch
    report on Women's Health.
    
    What I heard indicated that the U.S. ban on funding any organization
    that has anything to do with abortion (giving abortions with non
    related funds, counceling about abortion, ditto, keeping statistics
    on abortion, or helping women who had had botched abortions elsewhere
    are all banned) had actually increased the abortion and infant and
    mother death rate abroad in developing countries.
    
    The reasons for this were apparently twofold:
    
    1. U.S. funds had been the major support of many of these clinics.
       Without them medical care and free or low cost contraceptive
       availability were seriously reduced. (In some countries where
       abortion was legal, US funds were used for medical and contraceptive
       purposes, and funds from other sources for anything related to
       abortions but this is not acceptable to the US.)
    
       As a result more women have turned to abortion (often by ill
       educated midwives and local healers) with a resultant increase
       in infections and deaths from unhygenic abortions.
    
    2. In many countries the brunt of the national health care programs
       is focused on the cities (India was the example used.) The funds
       from the U.S. had often been focused on rural health organizations.
       One of the things that these organizations did was to train rural
       midwives in hygene  - cutting the cord with a sterile blade not
       a shard of glass or a razor, hand washing before reaching into
       the vaginal cavity, etc. These midwives also performed abortions
       by traditional medthods (a stick pushed through the cervix) which  
       were frequently lethal.
    
       The discontinuance of funds meant not only a discontinuance
       of the training programs for these women, but in the absence
       of alternatives a greater reliance on them for maternal care.
    
       BJ

    Steve
    
    What I'm talking about is not in scriptures, it is in history and
    biology.
    
    *No* one knew about eggs and sperms in biblical times. Until the
    invention of the microscope it was believed that a baby was formed
    out of 'fluids' from the mother and father or from just one
    parent. 
    
    To say that thousands of years ago people knew about the early
    stages of human development that was only discovered within the
    past few hundred years is absurd on the face of it. 

    The Bible may have been dictated from God to humanity (something
    I don't personally believe, but I presume you may) but that
    does not mean it is an encyclopedia of human knowledge. It was
    not meant as a subsitute for the human mind in learning about
    our bodies, and the world around us. As was said in an earlier
    note, when we study science we are learning about the world
    that God and Jesus gave us. There are many aspects of human
    existence that are totally untouched on in the Bible and
    this includes understanding of the process of conception and
    early fetal development.
   
    and on adoption of minority children:

    Alfred is quite correct in the adoptability of nonwhite babies.
    Most agencies will not place them with white parents unless they
    have one white parent and 'look' white.
     
    inre .255
    
    and Dave, I don't want to increase the risk of woman dying, of
    decreased standards of maternal and child health, of babies 
    like my son Steven born defective, etc etc (refer to the World
    Watch Health report) because of putting the rights of potential
    human life before all others.
    
    Bonnie

The text most often used in support of the pro-life position states "before
I was conceived, He knew me" (or words substantially to that effect).

I have always took that text in a sense so far different from that used in
the on-going abortion debates, that it amazes me that others don't see it
the same way I do.

The essence, soul if you will, of us that God knows can't be the physical
body that our mothers carry in their womb, which is born, and which later
dies.  It must be the spiritual, living, animating force which transcends
physical life and death.  After all, God knew us before sperm and egg
joined to create an embryo.  And that is the individuality that is to be
found in heaven, when we see that state more clearly.

Which makes the issue of "ensoulment" the key, from a religious perspective,
for me.  From a legal perspective, I do not want others to tell me what
*my* religious perspective must be.  That is why I am pro-choice, because
it leaves each individual free to examine the moral dilemmas involved
within the structure of their own religious belief and conscience.

Alison

    
    
    Alison....I agree with your perspective on both points.
    
    Carole

    Alison
    
    I second Carole, your perspective on both points is how I understand
    the scripture also.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  31.249

  >Why do you persist in saying things like "life starts at conception'?
  >Do you think I think that a fertilized egg is dead?

Because I think it is a crucial point and underemphasized by those who
chose to supporting the killing of this life.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    You still haven't addressed the point I was making when I asked the
    question. I don't believe that anyone who is prochoice denies that
    the cells are alive. If the cells were not alive the woman wouldn't
    be pregnant!
    
    Bonnie

Re:  31.250

  >Collis, I thought that "un"safe sex is the behavior that educators are
  >trying to get modified.

Hi Glen,

There are many problems with the current definition of "safe sex", not
the least of which is that it is not safe.  Assuredly, in some aspects
it is safer.

However, even more important than this in my opinion is that the
discussion of safe sex misses the point.  Sex is much more than simply
a physical action (or reaction such as two chemicals being combined).
It involves the *whole* person.  To define the discussion as one of
physical safety while ignoring the many other aspects of sex which are
also quite important is shameful.  This is what those who push for safe
sex are doing - either intentionally or unintentionally.

  >Collis, would it be better to NOT mention these things and let the kids
  >(or anyone else for that matter) run wild?

I'm not sure.  Obviously, the problems that we have today are probably
ten times as bad as the problems that we had 50 years ago in this area
when this information was not nearly as readily available.  Admittedly,
a lot has changed since then and it is very difficult to define a
cause and effect.  What is clear is that people's standards as a society
have changed much to our detriment in both the emotional and physical
consequences of sexual behavior (not to mention the sociological
consequences which may be the worst of all).

Collis

Bonnie,

I'm not sure what point it is that you want me to address.  The point
I'm making is that abortion is the killing of a human life from a
biological perspective.  It is indeed alive.  It is indeed human.  It
is indeed killing.  Do you agree with this?

Collis

    Dave -
    
    You want a doctor to decide?  In the first place, anything that seems
    to remove responsibility for my actions from me (nothing can, really)
    is a step back for my personal growth.  In the second place, I can
    still be in control, since all I have to do is find a congenial doctor.
    
    DR

| However, even more important than this in my opinion is that the
| discussion of safe sex misses the point.  Sex is much more than simply
| a physical action (or reaction such as two chemicals being combined).
| It involves the *whole* person.  To define the discussion as one of
| physical safety while ignoring the many other aspects of sex which are
| also quite important is shameful.  This is what those who push for safe
| sex are doing - either intentionally or unintentionally.

	I guess I would have to agree with what you are saying to a point. I
thought the whole point of talking about safe sex was to help save lives. I
know the commercials on tv talk about making the right choice, and that's to
use a condom. I get the impression that you would also like to see them talk
about not having sex at all. This is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. 
But remember, this is your point (along with many many others). You have stated
your point in here, and I'm sure also to many others outside of this company.
That's great. We all have our own issues to let others know about. For me, I
think that talking about safe sex will do a lot only because it makes you think
twice about the dangers out there when you decide to NOT have safe sex. One 
thing to remember is there will always be people who have sex before marriage, 
so one can't just discount them (which I know you're not). It's the same for 
drug users, you still want to reach out to help. I think we all realize the 
only time we will ever see a perfect world is when the end has past. Until then 
we have to try and make the best with what we have. Can you see my point?


Glen

    RE: .273  DR,
    
                    Ok doc....I will agree that the patient and doctor
    should be equal partners.  But I am concerened about another person
    involved in a situation that God might not agree to.  Too many
    hospitals require doctors to perform procedures that the hospital deems
    as appropo for the patients.  Telling a doctor to do something that
    might be a concern as he/she stands before God, I am not comfortable
    with.  The local hospitals here pretty much dictate the procedures that
    their doctor is required to do.  Since the doctor is *THE* informed
    person in this situation, then a certain ammount of trust is involved.
    
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    
    Are you sure that hospitals dictate to a doctor what he must and
    must not do? It was my impression that no doctor or nurse has
    to perform procedures that go against his/her conscience, including
    performing or assisting in an abortion. Am I naive in my view
    of the medical system?
    
    Bonnie

    Dave - 
    
    The doctors may think they know more about the medical situation, but
    each woman is captain of the vessel she occupies.  At the last, she can
    take the ship down with no help from a doctor.   The doctor will not
    stand with her before the Supreme Court.  
    
    And if a doctor advised an abortion of a child she KNEW to be a great
    prophet, 'though housed in a hideously deformed body, what should she
    answer before before the almighty if she assented to the medical
    wisdom?  
    
    DR

    RE: .277 & .278  Bonnie & Don,
    
               All right you Reinke's....your gangin up on me! ;^)
    
    
    RE: Bonnie,
    
                Claudia is an RN at a local hospital..and yes they do
    dictate procedures that will be performed.
    
    
    RE: DR,
    
                If a woman puts herself into the hands of a doctor then I
    think the doctor can reasonable assume that she is willing to go thru
    with the procedures he performs.  Now I know that sounds a bit stiff
    and I don't really mean it that way but its just like my working on
    computers...I have the expierence and people hire me based on that.  If
    they think they have a better angle on the problem then of course they
    will tell me but ultimatly, I have the decision to make if they wish to
    continue my services.
    
    
    Dave

RE:.277
    Hi Bonnie!
        
>    Are you sure that hospitals dictate to a doctor what he must and
>    must not do? It was my impression that no doctor or nurse has
>    to perform procedures that go against his/her conscience, including
>    performing or assisting in an abortion. Am I naive in my view
>    of the medical system?
    
    Not meaning to answer for Dave here, but I do know that doctors nurses
    and surgical technicians are being pressured into performing abortions 
    in hospitals. As I have spoken about in other conferences, my
    aunt who is a surgical technician in a hospital, after assisting in a
    second trimester abortion, now refuses to assist in any abortion, is
    given plenty of grief from hospital management for refusing. They even
    tricked her one week-end when she was on call for emergencies, to come
    in, only to find that they wanted her to assist in a routine abortion. 

    It is against the law for hospitals to force employees in performing
    or assisting  abortions, but that law is about as effective as
    companies not being able to force you to work on Sunday.

    I'm not sure if a hospital can ask on their job applications, if a person 
    is willing to assist or perform abortions  before being hired ?

    
    Peace
    Jim

    Jim
    
    I was pretty sure that it was against the law, and I'm very
    disappointed in our medical system that they try and force people
    to perform procedures that are against their moral dictates. To
    me this is not what I would include as 'prochoice' at all.
    
    Bonnie

    Collis,
    
    It is *potential* human life. If it develops to viablity it will
    be a human life. There are human lives already inexistance
    (woman and children) whose value I place above that of a fertilized
    egg.
    
    You and the other prolife people seem to be putting a tremendous
    amount of significance on the fact that this fertilized egg is
    under going metabolic processes like any other cell.
    
    Would you care as strongly for some of the other metablizing cells
    that I hypothesized earlier here?
    
    a. A cell mass made by combining unfertilized eggs from two different
       women that had begun to grow and divide. This is biologically
       quite possible and has been done with lower animals. these
       cells are biologically unique, are they a person? If not, why
       would they be different from a cell mass from a naturally fertilzed 
       egg?
    
    b. A cell mass grown from an undifferentiated cell, a potential
       clone. We are close to the technology, if we already have not
       reached it to clone lower mammals. This has already been
       done for frogs and similar animals. If this were done to
       human tissue, would it be a person (presuming that were it
       to be implanted in a woman's uterus it would develop into
       a baby)? How would it be different from a naturally fertilized
       egg?
    
    c. If the above are or are not people, how do you regard in vitro
       (i.e. 'test tube') fertilizations. If 8 - 12 eggs are captured
       and fertilized and 4 are implanted and one 'takes'. Is it
       murder to disposed of the remaining fertilized eggs?
    
    d. It is possible to cross fertilize chimpanzee gametes (eggs or
       sperm) with human gametes. Would the result of this fertilization
       be a person? Why or why not?
    
    Bonnie

re:  .253  Bob
 
      > And since this is the Christian-Perspective conference, I
      > want to point out that most Christians  believe that Christ
      > created the universe (see John 1:3 "Through him all things
      > came into being, and apart from him nothing came to be.").

I agree with this.  Col 1:17 also emphasises this.  Col 1:15 calls Jesus
the firstborn of all creation.  John 1:14, 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9 show
Jesus to be the only-begotten Son of God.  Prov 8:22-31 is a beautiful de-
scription of God creating things through his master worker, Jesus.


      > Thus, one who studies biology IS STUDYING THE WORK, and
      > indirectly, THE PERSON OF JESUS!  Truly, though, we can never
      > know enough about what we can learn from biology!

I also agree with this.  Science is nothing more than gaining knowledge of
God's creation and putting that knowledge to practical use. I didn't say that
biology or history was valueless and is not worh studying.  I *am* saying that
it has to be balanced with God's Word, the Bible.  For example, biology shows
that living creatures reproduce according to their species or "kind".  That's
in harmony with what the Bible says; see Gen 1:21,24,25.


      >                                           This is as true as
      > it is for a person who is studying the Bible, another work
      > of Christ.

2 Tim 3:16 says, "All Scripture is inspired of God....."  How is this accomp-
lished?  Through Holy Spirit, God's active force.  See Jo 14:26 and 2 Pe 1:21.


      > I wouldn't boast that I study the Bible far more than I study
      > biology, nor would I boast that I pay far more attention to
      > what is learned from the Bible than what is learned from
      > biology.

I'm sorry if I gave you the impression that I was boasting.  As this is the
Christian_Perspective conference, and I am a Christian, I find it logical to
try to discuss things from the Bible's point of view.  If this was a biology
conference, I guess the logical thing to do would be to use biology books.
I've studied both biology and history, as most people have as part of their
formal education, but I'm neither a biologist nor a historian.  However, I
am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and as such, I study the Bible more than I
study biology or history books, even though I use them as the need arises.  
If I can share the things I've learned from the Bible with others in a con-
ference for that purpose, don't you find that the logical thing to do here?
 
 
      >           Such a boast would be the boast of a fool, or of a
      > deceiver.

I don't think I'm either one, but you're entitled to your opinion.


Steve

re:  .260  Bonnie                 
    
  > What I'm talking about is not in scriptures, it is in history and
  > biology.
    
  > *No* one knew about eggs and sperms in biblical times. Until the
  > invention of the microscope it was believed that a baby was formed
  > out of 'fluids' from the mother and father or from just one
  > parent.                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ^^^^^^
  > To say that thousands of years ago people knew about the early
  > stages of human development that was only discovered within the
  > past few hundred years is absurd on the face of it. 

Like I said before, they didn't have the knowledge that today's scientists
have, but I think they knew more than what you give them credit for.  For
instance, the Bible gives abundant evidence that people knew it took some-
thing from the male and the female to cause conception.  And they new it 
took sexual relations to accomplish that.  


  > The Bible may have been dictated from God to humanity (something
  > I don't personally believe, but I presume you may)

Yes, I do.  See my comments in .282.


                                                       but that
  > does not mean it is an encyclopedia of human knowledge.

It isn't meant to be.  However, what it does say about biology and history
is certainly accurate.


  >                                                          It was
  > not meant as a subsitute for the human mind in learning about
  > our bodies, and the world around us. As was said in an earlier
  > note, when we study science we are learning about the world
  > that God and Jesus gave us.  There are many aspects of human
  > existence that are totally untouched on in the Bible and
  > this includes understanding of the process of conception and
  > early fetal development.
   
That's why Jehovah created us as intellegent creatures.  It is His intent,
as written in Gen 1:28, for us to subdue the earth and have all things in it
in subjection to us.  We couldn't do that without learning about the creation
itself.  But He also expected us to learn about Him and His purposes.  That's
why He provided us with the Bible.


Steve

re:  258  Glen

> 	Steve, is it the Bible that has given you some knowledge that they knew
> anything about fertilized eggs, embryos etc? I'm curious. Remeber, they could
> never see inside. They could have never known just what happens, could they?
> I'd also be curious to see just when they discovered that they were pregnant.
> Any clues? My guess would be when the women started to show.

Well, you can see in Genesis 16 that Sarai (later called Sarah), Abram's (later
called Abraham) wife knew she couldn't have children, so she gave Abram over to
Hagar so he would have children.  Obviously, then, they knew it took a man and
a woman to have sexual relations to cause a child to come forth.  When Jehovah
instructed Adam and Eve to "become fruitful and become many", do you think He 
left them to figure it out for themselves?  Isn't it reasonable to figure that
He told them what goes where, and why?  Read the account of Lot's daughters at
Genesis 19:30-36.  How did they know about such things?  This knowledge had 
been handed down from the start.  Jehovah had told humans about their "seed".
As far as a woman knowing when she was pregnant, don't women today know they're
in that condition long before it shows?  Leviticus 15:19,26 talks about men-
struation.  Would that have been the first time that women knew about it.  Of
course not.  It's reasonable to believe that Jehovah told the first human pair
about these things, and they passed it along to their offspring.  He probably
didn't give them an advanced course in biology, but I'm sure he gave them the
information they needed.  Don't you think that a loving Heavenly Father would
do that for the ones He made in His image?  Not everything is spelled out in the
Bible, but if you study the information that *is* there, and use reason and 
logic, you can come to the sensible conclusion.


Steve

    Steve
    
    Many people felt that the father planted the child in the mother - she 
    was just an incubator. Others felt that the mother was entirely
    responsible for the child. From my understanding of the history of
    Biology the Western societies of the Judeo-Christian heritage believed
    the latter - which was why I said just one parent. The woman was the
    field and the man sowed his seed in it.
    
    Bonnie

    This is an expansion of the material I entered earlier that I'd
    heard on NPR.
    
    I have the permission of both the woman who posted this in
    womannotes and the man who sent it to her to repost.
    
    Bonnie
    
    ___________________________________________________________________
    
    
             <<< IKE22::$3$DIA5:[NOTESFILES]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 49.272       Abortion Concerns (*read .0 BEFORE replying*)       272 of 273
LJOHUB::GONZALEZ "Books, books, and more books!"    138 lines  16-JUL-1991 10:55
                        -< Read it in Rage and Weeping >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Posted with the permission of the sender....  (header at bottom) 
    ***************************************************************

[reproduced without permission (and with my typos) from Scientific American]
                                                        *******************
EXPORTING MISERY

A U.S. abortion ruling affects women's health worldwide

     On May 23 the U.S.  Supreme Court upheld Title X regulations issued by
the Reagan administration in 1988 that prohibit federally funded family-
planning clinics from providing women with any information about abortion. 
The decision, which came on a 5-4 vote, provoked extensive media coverage,
brought satisfaction to antiabortion advocates and outraged pro-choice groups
and their supporters.

     Only 11 days later the Supreme Court quietly issued another abortion-
related decision that, while provoking relatively little public comment, has
even more far-reaching consequences.  The ruling, which was issued by the
high court without comment, sanctions another Reagan policy that exports the
gag order on abortion to developing countries.

     Called the Mexico City policy because it was announced at a family-
planning conference in Mexico City in 1984, the rule denies U.S. foreign aid
to any organization that performs abortion, advises women on abortion or
lobbies on behalf of abortion rights - even if these activities are supported
by non-U.S. funds.  Like Title X regulations, the Mexico City policy was
challenged in court by the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

     Antiabortion groups, whose lobbying helped to bring about the Mexico
City policy, have nothing but praise for the court's decision.  Richard
Doerflinger, a spokesperson for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops,
calls it "good common sense and good morality." He contends that the policy
has helped decrease the number of unintended pregnancies and promote "true
family planning" in developing countries.

     That view cannot be further from the truth, according to family-planning
experts.  Sally J. Patterson, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, contends
that the Mexico City policy may actually have led to a rise in the number of
unintended pregnancies and abortions in the Third World by reducing the
availability of other forms of contraception.  "We suspect," she adds, that
the policy has caused "an increase in the number of women dying from unsafe
abortions."

     The policy has denied U.S. funds to many international organizations -
notably Planned Parenthood, which was once the largest recipient of U.S. 
money - that off contraception as well as abortion-related services.  Some
funds have been diverted to groups opposed not only to abortion but to all
forms of artificial contraception.  The Agency of International Development
(AID), the primary dispenser of U.S. foreign aid, recently provided a
$200,000 grant to a Catholic organization that advocates the rhythm method
and sexual abstinence as the best forms of birth control.  The money will be
spent in Zambia - a county with a soaring rate of AIDS.

     AID once led the world in promoting birth control, including abortion,
in developing nations.  Adrienne Germain of the International Women's Health
Coalition, a group based in New York City that supports medical and
reproductive services in Third World countries, observes that in the 1960s
and early 1970s AID helped to develop a simple abortion procedure for health
care providers with limited training and resources.  "It is the ulitmate in
appropriate technology," Germain says.

     The Reagan and Bush administrations cut AID's annual budget for family
planning from a high of $300 million in 1985 to $270 million in 1990. 
Meanwhile pressure from conservative groups has helped shut down research
that could provide alternatives to abortion in developing and advanced
nations alike.

     Other nations have taken up some of the slack.  France, for example, is
promoting the use of the chemical abortifacient RU 486 in developing
countries.  But these nations, like the U.S., are increasingly constrained by
pressure from antiabortion groups.  No other country, moreover, can match the
financial and scientific porential of the U.S.  "If you cut back on U.S. 
research," Germain says, "you're cutting it off at the source."

     Not surprisingly, birth control remains largely unpracticed in many
nations.  A report by Jodi L. Jacobson of the Worldwatch Institute, a
research group in Washington, D.C., concludes that 50 to 60 percent of
couples in Latin America, 60 to 80 percent in low-income Asian nations (China
excepted), 75 percent in the Middle East and North Africa, and 90 percent in
sub-Saharan Africa do not use any form of modern contraception.  Yet most
couples on Latin America and Asia and a growing percentage on the Middle East
and Africa, Jacobson says, "wish to space the timing or limit the number of
their children."

     The inevitable result of these trends is that more women are turning to
unqualified abortion practitioners or trying to abort themselves.  According
to Jacobson, abortion-related deaths are rising throughout Asia (China
excepted) and Africa.  Such deaths now account for 31 percent of all recorded
maternal deaths in Bangladesh and 25 percent in Ethiopia.  In six Latin
American countries, Jacobson adds, unsafe abortion is already the leading
killer of women in their twenties and thirties and the second leading cause
in another six.  The World Health Organization has estimated that some
200,000 women die every year of complications from improper abortions.

     These estimates may even be low.  According to a 1988 study by the
Population Crisis Committee (PCC), a private group in Washington, D.C., the
Mexico City policy has discouraged U.S.-funded clinics from reporting
abortions, legal or otherwise.  Some clinics have expunged any records of
abortion-related treatment from their files out of fear that they could
endanger their U.S. funding.

     For the same reason, clinics have refused to treat women suffering from
botched abortions.  A worker at a clinic in Bangladesh told PCC researchers
that even if a woman showed up bleeding and in severe pain, she would be
turned away without treatment or even advice.  "We can't touch abortion," the
worker said.

     Technically, the Mexico City policy applies only to private groups and
not to state-run hospitals and clinics.  Yet PCC vice president Sharon L.
Camp says the policy has led some governments dependent on U.S. foreign aid
to limit or to eliminate abortion-related services - even if their own laws
permit the procedure.  Camp recalls asking a health official in Kenya, where
abortion is officially legal for some health indications, why his agency was
acting as if it were subject to the Mexico City policy.  "One does not bite
the hand...," the official replied.

     Now that the Supreme Court has upheld the Mexico City policy, family-
planning groups are lobbying the U.S. Congress to reverse the policy through
legislation.  Representatives Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Chester Atkins
of Massachusetts have co-sponsored such legislation, which was passed by the
House on June 12.  But Senator Jesse A. Helms of North Carolina has
predicted that the Senate will not follow suit.

     Carol A. Miller, a member of Snowe's staff, points out that an
appropriations bill could still overturn the Mexico City policy, although
President Bush might then use his power of veto.  Still, Miller notes that
opponents of the policy have a trump card: the outrage of many Americans over
the gag rule placed on U.S. clinics.  "We hope that will carry over" into
the struggle for the rights of women in the Third World, Miller says.

								-John Horgan

From:	STAR::PRAETORIUS "RAMtron: we put the FRAM in your framistat  14-Jul-1991 1238" 14-JUL-1991 12:59:44.59
To:	RANGER::JCAMPBELL,LJOHUB::GONZALEZ
CC:	
Subj:	gee, I didn't catch this on the nightly news. . .
    

    re:  .279 Dave
    
    The analogy doesn't hold; the computer isn't responsible.  However, the
    relationship with the customer has some parallels.  And if you've ever
    worked on bet-your-business applications, I'll be surprised if the
    customers didn't want to know who, what, when why and how, and I'll bet
    they retain the option of whether, too.
    
    Abortion is bet-your-life.  
    
    DR 

| Well, you can see in Genesis 16 that Sarai (later called Sarah), Abram's (later
| called Abraham) wife knew she couldn't have children, so she gave Abram over to
| Hagar so he would have children.  Obviously, then, they knew it took a man and
| a woman to have sexual relations to cause a child to come forth. 

	I agree with this Steve. They knew a life existed, but they wouldn't
really know the science surounding it, right?

| As far as a woman knowing when she was pregnant, don't women today know they're
| in that condition long before it shows?  

	You know, when I reread that today, I was thinking to myself, that was
one of the STUPIDEST things I ever wrote (remember, I said one of). I don't
know where my mind was, but it certainly wasn't on when they would know.

| He probably
| didn't give them an advanced course in biology, but I'm sure he gave them the
| information they needed.  Don't you think that a loving Heavenly Father would
| do that for the ones He made in His image?  Not everything is spelled out in the
| Bible, but if you study the information that *is* there, and use reason and
| logic, you can come to the sensible conclusion.

	I agree with what you're saying on the birth part, that no major biology
was taught, but what they needed to know was. As far as the using reason and 
logic to come to a sensible conclusion goes, this is something that for the 
most part would only be agreed with in this notesfile and like people as this 
is a very open minded conference. I agree with what you said. But I have to ask 
you, do you feel that the fundalmentalists would agree with you on this?



Glen

re:  .285  Bonnie
    

  >                            From my understanding of the history of
  > Biology the Western societies of the Judeo-Christian heritage believed
  > the latter - which was why I said just one parent. The woman was the
  > field and the man sowed his seed in it.
   
I'll tell you about and excellent book that shows what Jews and Christians
believed from man's beginning, through the first century.  It's called the
Bible.  But I don't think it will help us to agree here, because we have
a fundamental difference:  the faith and belief that the Bible is the in-
spired Word of God.  Without that common ground, we'll get as far as we've
already come, i.e., nowhere.

Actually, I have a book that can help you understand that the Bible *is* the
inspired Word of God.  If you'd like to read it, send me your address via
e-mail to the above node::name, and I'll send it to you.  Free.  I'll even 
pay the postage.  The only condition is that you'll really read it from cover
to cover, with an open mind.  It's not a very big book, but there's a lot of
good reasoning in it.  Deal?

Steve

re:  .288  Glen


>                                                     ...... using reason and 
> logic to come to a sensible conclusion.......... 
>.....do you feel that the fundalmentalists would agree with you on this?

Depends on two things.  What's the definition of a fundamentalist, and what do
they consider to be reasonable, logical, and sensible?  I'm not sure this can
be answered.

Steve

    Steve
    
    I'll read your book, but can I send you one on the history of
    Biology also? (if I still have it, I have to check). I do read 
    the Bible, but as a guide to my *faith* not as a text book on 
    history or biology.
    
    I'd like to point out something about women knowing when they
    are pregnant.
    
    When a woman nurses a baby, her menses and ovulation are supressed. 
    In premodern times, women nursed children until they were over 2 years old.
    Eventually, as the child begins to eat adult food, ovulation will
    resume, but not the menses (at least at first). This means that
    that a married woman will quite often conceive about two years after
    a previous pregnancy without having a period. Thus for many peoples
    the stopage of the menses as a sign of pregnancy simply did not exist.
    
    Often the only sign that a woman was pregnant was when she felt
    movement in her uterus/womb.
    
    Bonnie

    Re:  when would a mother know?
    
    That leaves out the possibility that the mother herself or the local
    seeress would know what was not physically obvious.  The current
    dissociation from the physical body may be an historical aberration.
    
    DR

| >                                                     ...... using reason and
| > logic to come to a sensible conclusion..........
| >.....do you feel that the fundalmentalists would agree with you on this?

| Depends on two things.  What's the definition of a fundamentalist, and what do
| they consider to be reasonable, logical, and sensible?  I'm not sure this can
| be answered.

	A Fundalmentalist is someone who takes each word of the Bible to be
literal and truly spoken by God. I believe that there is no room for reason
or logic as the Word is supposed to say it all. Have I gotten this correct?


Glen

    re:  .291  Bonnie
    
    I guess we'll have to work out the exchange through e-mail.
    
    
    Steve
    

re:  .293  Glen


>       A Fundalmentalist is someone who takes each word of the Bible to be
> literal and truly spoken by God.

Not everything in the Bible is absolutely literal.  A lot of things are figur-
ative, a lot of things are symbolic.  2 Tim 3:16 says, "All Scripture is in-
spired of God....."  The writers were human, and thus the writing styles vary,
but all that is said, originates with God.  


>                                   I believe that there is no room for reason
> or logic as the Word is supposed to say it all.

You need reasoning and logic to be able to discern what is literal, figurative,
and symbolic.  Most of all you need to pray to Jehovah, through Jesus, and ask
for His Spirit to guide you and help you gain full understanding of the Holy
Scriptures.  With Jehovah's help, you will find that the Word does indeed, say
it all.

OK, back to the original subject of this topic.


Steve

    RE: The church used to allow abortion

    The church used to allow torture
    The church used to allow the selling of forgiveness
    The church used to allow racism

    I'll accept "the church used to allow abortion" as a valid argument if
    someone who already supports abortion will come out in favor of
    torture, indulgences and racism. Any takers?

    		Alfred

    Good point, Alfred.  
    
    DR

re Note 31.296 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     I'll accept "the church used to allow abortion" as a valid argument if
>     someone who already supports abortion will come out in favor of
>     torture, indulgences and racism. Any takers?
  
        Well, it's very tempting, but I don't think you REALLY mean
        it!

        Bob

    RE: .298 I wondered what I'd do if someone called my bluff. No, I
    probably wouldn't accept that as a valid argument. The only point
    I was trying to make is that the church has a long and turbulent
    history. Once can probably find a time, even a long time, when the
    church or what passed for it at the time supported all manner of
    bad/evil/unChristian things. Just because the church once allowed
    something doesn't mean they were right to.

    		Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    what Don said!
    
    Tho the reason I've been bringing it up is as a means to try
    and find a basis for a compromise.
    
    Bonnie

    Alas, Bonnie, I fear there can be no compromise. I have gone
    far enough from my way to cause me serious spiritual pain. I
    can go no farther and yet to many people it's as if I haven't
    moved a bit.

    		Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    I know, hugs brother.
    
    Bonnie

    Going by what the Bible says...

    In the OT, God prescribed a punishment for causing a man's wife to
    miscarry (I believe it was a small payment to the man, similar to the
    fine for causing the death of one of his cattle ), and a greater
    punishment for murder.

    This places a value on fetal life, but a greater value on "born" human
    life.

    So, from this, am I to construe that abortion is wrong, but it is a
    much lesser wrong than to murder a born person?  And/or, is it a
    greater wrong to perform an abortion or to allow a woman (who may
    already have children who depend on her) to die as a result of
    pregnancy?

    Beth

    Red hering Beth. The number of people who would not allow abortion to
    save a woman's life is only slightly higher than the number who would
    allow abortion after birth. And conciderably fewer than those who would
    allow abortion anytime and for any reason in the 9 months.
    
    		Alfred

    re:304
    
>    Red hering Beth. The number of people who would not allow abortion to
>    save a woman's life is only slightly higher than the number who would
>    allow abortion after birth. And conciderably fewer than those who would
>    allow abortion anytime and for any reason in the 9 months.
    
    Gee Alfred ! Could you explain how an abortion after birth is done ?
    
    Peace
    Jim

    RE: .305 Never read "Sanity Claus" did you? It's a science fiction
    short story where the legal time for an "abortion" was extended to
    a childs sixth birthday through the legal designation of that age
    being when it "became a human." 
    
    			Alfred

    RE:306
    OH! 

    My definition of abortion is based on "The American Heritage
    Dictionary" definition.

    Abortion - 1. Induced termination of pregnancy before the embryo
               or fetus is capable of survival. 
               2. A fatally premature expulsion of an embryo or fetus
                  from the uterus.

    That's why I was confused when you mention abortion after birth.-:)

    Peace
    Jim

                 RE: Note 31.303
   Beth,
    
    >     Going by what the Bible says...
      
      The only source to look at, IMHO. We should look to God's thoughts
    and direction on matters not on man's opinions.
    
    >In the OT, God prescribed a punishment for causing a man's wife to
    >miscarry (I believe it was a small payment to the man, similar to the
    >fine for causing the death of one of his cattle ), and a greater
    >punishment for murder.

    Were you perhaps refering to Exodus 21:22,23. NWT 21:22 "And in case men
    should struggle with each other and they really hurt a pregnant woman
    and her children do come out but no fatal accident occurs, he is to
    have damages imposed upon him without fail according to what the owner
    of the woman may lay upon him; and he must give it through the
    justices." Here with accidental injury payment is involved but it's
    different if a fatal injury occurs. Compare 21:23 "But if a fatal
    accident should occur, then you must give soul for soul."
    So yes there is a difference if fatal injury occurs; it is more serious
    even if it's an accidental fatal accident (as in the case of two men
    fighting and the woman or child is killed).
    
    
    > This places a value on fetal life, but a greater value on "born" human
    > life.

    Do you still feel this is accurate? (notice verse 23 doesn't give two
    different judgements if it's the mother or the child fatally injured).
    
    >So, from this, am I to construe that abortion is wrong, but it is a
    >much lesser wrong than to murder a born person?  And/or, is it a
    >greater wrong to perform an abortion or to allow a woman (who may
    >already have children who depend on her) to die as a result of
    >pregnancy?

    I hope this helped answer some of your questions. Other verses that may
    give further insight to answer your questions are; Psalm 139:13-17, 
    1John 3:15, Ex 20:13, Ps 127:3, and Isa 49:15.
    
            robin
   

Re: .308  Robin

>    > This places a value on fetal life, but a greater value on "born" human
>    > life.
>
>    Do you still feel this is accurate? (notice verse 23 doesn't give two
>    different judgements if it's the mother or the child fatally injured).
    
Really?  That's not how I interpret verse 23: I think it is talking about
the case where harm comes to the mother, not the fetus.  The Revised Standard
Version translates verse 22 "When men strive together, and hurt a woman
with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the
one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay
upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."  To me "miscarriage"
means that the fetus has died, and the question is whether any harm was done
to the mother.

Just as a side comment, notice verses 20-21 in the same chapter:

	"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the
	slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished.  But if the slave
	survives a day or two, he is not to be punished; for the slave is
	his money.

				-- Bob

re: Note 31.308 by Robin  (quoting the NWT Bible)

"...the owner of the woman..."  !?!
        ^^^^^

What value does this imply?

Peace,

Jim

Re: .310 Jim

Oooh, I missed that.  That's a classic!

				-- Bob

    
    	INTERSTING...
    
    	Something just dawned on me, spawned by a comment in .42?.
    
    	If the root of abortion is sin (be it adultry or fornication)
    then abortion is merely an attempt to coverup or do away with
    that sin.
    
    	This being the case, King David was guilty of a similar sin when
    he tried to commit murder to cover up his own sin with Bathsheba.  
    
    
    
    	I know its' not that same thing but humer me.
    
    	_ed-
    

    -ed-
    
    What of abortion in the case of married couples?
    
    Bonnie

    
    	I can't imagine a justifiable case...
    
    	_ed-

    Is it the result of sin, I mean?
    
    Bonnie

    
    In my opinion, YES.  Why would a married couple that loved each other
    want to have an abortion.  And if they didn't want children why would
    they not take measures to prevent it, since it is only natural for the
    couple to indulge in the physical relationship?
    
    	_ed-

    _ed-
    
    Take a couple in a third world country. Contraceptives are unavailable.
    They have three children under the age of six, and minimal income. The
    wife becomes pregnant and realizes that by going through with the
    pregnancy she is putting the life of her other children at risk. She
    choses an abortion. You may feel that the abortion was a sin, but was
    normal emotional bonding between husband and wife a sin? This scenerio
    is btw played out daily in most of the third world.
    
    Bonnie

I personally feel that for a follower of God to openly support the
killing of unborn children because of difficult circumstances is
totally unacceptable, and contrary to what it means to be a Christian.

Collis

Re:  29.68

  >but it is okay for 200,000 women to die each year?

No!  I have very mixed feelings about women (and men) who would
choose to kill their unborn children and then have others die as
well.  I can have some sympathy for the despair that some of them
feel, but I cannot condone their actions.

  >Then how do you suggest dealing with the problem outlined in 29.67

It is indeed unfortunate that those agencies which support and
encourage abortion are now unwilling to spend the same amount
of time and resources to helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies
and instead many seem to have folded up and gone home.  Not that
I would agree with all that they advocate had they put in the
effort, but I certainly agree with some of it.

As you are well aware, there is no good short-term solution.
Steps can be taken to change the situation, but as long as people
continue to view the unborn as having little or no value (instead
of as having the value of being a living human being created in
the image of God), we will continue to have many deaths resulting
from the intentional killing of the unborn.  To support this
outrageous killing in hopes that others may not die by attempting
to kill illegally is foolishness to the extreme in the opinion
of those that hold to the sanctity of the unborn life.

Long-term, I support education and availability of birth-control
much as you do - although probably not as unrestricted as you do.

Of course, I strongly support the work of missionaries to bring
the news of hope of Jesus Christ as well as a God-breathed attitude of 
the sanctity of life which will make a *tremendous* impact as God
promises to care for those who trust in Him.

Just a few thoughts, no detailed plan.

Collis

    paraphrase from Genesis...
    
    God breathed into his(Adam's) nostrils the breathe of life and he
    became a living soul.
    
    Therefore a human being becomes one when he starts breathing according
    to the bible.
    The concept that the soul somehow attaches itself to the body at
    conception isn't based on scripture. It has its roots in ancient Greek
    superstition. I'm certainly not going to reccomend an abortion to
    anyone, though.
    	However, the disposition to compel the consciouses of others
    bothers me.
    
    john

    Please show me someone who is innocent.
    
    "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god".
    
    Pete.

    The bible doesn't make any hard and fast rules on when a clump of cells
    is a human being or not. After you're born, clearly you are. Before
    then, in the early period of pregnancy... what are you? Do you have a
    soul?
    
    Pete.

    Re: 30.52

    Interesting you should bring that up, Pete.  I was just thinking of the
    fact that some Christians who who condemn abortion as killing innocent
    children are the same ones who *defend* the biblical depiction of
    divinely mandated atrocities in Jericho and Ai by saying that no one is
    really innocent anyway (see note 35.91 for an example of this).  

    -- Mike

    I bring it up because children (and preborn children?) are seen as
    innocent, yet the bible states that nobody is innocent. Clearly there's
    a contradiction here. How can something unborn NOT be innocent?
    
    Pete.

There are several meanings of the word "innocent".

I agree with you, Pete, that "all have sinned and fall short of
the glory of God".  However, to have sinned assumes the capability
of sinning.  Many people believe that young children (including
the unborn) do not have the capability of sinning.  My own personal
opinion is that you have to be *quite* young in order for this
to be the case.  (I believe my daughter was very intentionally
sinning at age 8 months, for example.)  So, those who are incapable
of understanding the difference between right and wrong may not
be committing sins of omission or comission.  Does this make them
innocent?

Well, yes and no (in my opinion).  I also believe that we are all
guilty as sinners because our representative (i.e. Adam) sinned.
However, Christ (as the second Adam) was also our representative
and globally paid for these sins (even for the unsaved).  So we are 
"sinners" whose "sins" have been totally paid for and are righteous because 
of this.  In this sense, I think it really is fair to call the
unborn "innocent".

Of course, in the non-Biblical sense of the term "innocent", I think
it is *quite* clear that if any can be innocent, it is the unborn.

Re:  31.313

Hi, John

  >paraphrase from Genesis...
    
  >God breathed into his(Adam's) nostrils the breathe of life and he
  >became a living soul.
    
  >Therefore a human being becomes one when he starts breathing according
  >to the bible.

It appears that you are defining the "breath of life" that God breathed
into Adam as being a direct reference to Adam's starting to breath.
I think that this understanding is not very accurate.

First, it says that God breathed into Adam, not the Adam breathed.

Secondly, the consequence of this breathing is that "he became a
living soul".  In other words, God put a soul into Adam.  Before
God breathed life into Adam, he had no soul.  Afterwards, he did
have a soul.

It is quite true that Adam may have started breathing at this time,
but the text does not tell us for sure if this was even the case.

  >The concept that the soul somehow attaches itself to the body at
  >conception isn't based on scripture.

This concept is indeed based on Scripture.

The Bible does not explicitly say (that I am aware of) when a soul
attaches itself to a body.  However, I do believe that there are
numerous Scriptures that imply that a newly conceived human being
is a full person (i.e. has a soul and assumes the rights of any
human being).  The book "Abortion: Toward an Evangelical Consensus"
provides a very solid Biblical framework for understanding the
importance of protecting and preserving the unborn including
dealing with this issue.  As we lose the perspective of the sanctity
of life, we all lose some of the "humanity" that God has given us.

  >It has its roots in ancient Greek superstition.

Actually Scripture preceeds Greek superstition.  But even if there
are superstitions that preceed the writing of Scripture, this does
not a priori make them wrong.  

Collis

    Ah yes, but you're bending things to fit the bible, after all the bible
    doesn't really mean "for ALL have sinned" does it?
    
    Pete.

Pete,

Perhaps you didn't understand me.

The Bible *does* really mean "for ALL have sinned".  The question
is, how do you wish to define "have sinned"?

Again, there are several ways of defining this.  One is to define 
having sinned as having consciously and intentionally disobeyed
God.  This is one possible meaning of this verse (the implied part
of the verse being that all who are able have chosen to sin).

Another way of defining this is that all have sinned because our
representative (Adam) sinned and we are therefore guilty.  This verse
is sometimes used in this context.

Which interpretation do you prefer?  They are both true.  :-)

Collis
  

    You concluded that the unborn are innocent. How can this be when the
    bible says "all have sinned"? It doesn't say "all have sinned except
    those as yet unborn". If you want to claim the unborn are alive (and
    therefore abortion is murder) then they must be sinners and have
    sinned. Therefore they aren't innocent. Of course, if the unborn aren't
    alive, then they haven't sinned.
    
    Yet clearly somone unborn has had little chance to sin. I don't mean
    predisposition to sin, because "for all have sinned" doesn't mean that.
    
    Pete.

	I was going to enter a reply about different meanings of innocent,
	different justifications for actions but decided against it. Why?
	Well lets just say I no longer believe that pro-abortion people are
	descussing this in good faith. That is to say I believe, and .318
	was the final straw in coming to this conclusion, that the pro-abortion
	are deliberatly twisting things and pretending to not understand. 
	Either that or they're really not that bright and that I don't believe.

	If fair minded people show up on the pro-abortion side perhaps I'll
	contribute here again. But not before.

			Alfred

Re:  30.57

It escapes me as to why my explanation in 30.56 escapes you.  Every
question you asked is answered there.  Perhaps you disagree with
the answers?  Anyway, instead of reposting the answers, I'll simply
let you reread them.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    the agencies quit because of lack of funds, and dealing with abortion
    was only one small piece of what they did.
    
    Bonnie

    I inadvertently deleted 30.318 (which I wrote), but I'll not try to
    exactly reconstruct it.

    However, I think that Pete has identified an interesting aspect of the
    question of innocence.  The question has become not "when does life
    begin?", but "when does innocence end?"

    This is an important question, and it could be crucial.  For example,
    suppose God sends down instructions for all God-fearing Christians to
    mow down all the people who live in a nearby hamlet, much as he ordered
    the His people to do against Jericho and Ai.  Now I would want to be
    very careful about how I implement these orders.  Does innocence end at
    eight months after conception?  One month after birth?  I mean, suppose
    I am in Jericho, and I cut off a baby's head.  There it is, sitting in
    front of me, blood gushing everywhere, the mother crying hysterically
    and screaming about my having killed her child, and I am feeling proud
    of myself for having carried out God's will.  All is well, because I
    assume that the baby is guilty anyway.  Then, much to my horror, I
    discover that the baby is too young to be guilty!  How terrible!  God
    will really be p-oed!

    As we can see, even a few minutes one way or another can be crucial. If
    I wait until the magic cutoff point it would then be acceptable, but if
    I kill a baby or a fetus that is too young, I will have committed a
    terrible sin.

    Since we can assume that God is good, and would never order people to
    slaughter innocent people, we can engage in some creative biblical
    interpretation (an important tool in explaining away any problems that
    might arise from a doctrine of biblical inerrancy) and assume that no
    women in Jericho and Ai were pregnant and thus carrying any innocent
    fetuses.  Furthermore, we can assume that any children who were
    slaughtered were older than the magic guilt cutoff point.

    Perhaps what we need is a theologically certain timeline so that we can
    know when it is safe to kill babies.  For example:

    o------------------------------0------------------------------o
    Conception			Birth				8 months
    (Living, Innocent)		(Living, ?)			(Living,Guilty)

    Somewhere on that timeline, a baby crosses over from innocent to
    guilty, and is thus eligible for being killed if God tells me to.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 31.322 by DEMING::VALENZA:

>     Since we can assume that God is good, and would never order people to
>     slaughter innocent people, 

        We can't assume the latter from the former, unless we know
        precisely what it means to say "God is good".

        Does "God is good" assume that a God would act according to
        some assumed or expressed human standard of morality?  Is it
        possible that even a "perfect" standard of human morality (a
        written version of "natural law", if you will) would not
        apply perfectly to God?

        In the case of "slaughter of innocents", a creator-God has an
        inherently different relationship to the "innocents" than any
        human would have.  Scripture uses the potter and clay
        metaphor -- potters have the right to destroy their own work,
        even though I couldn't simply walk into a potter's shop and
        do likewise.

        Perhaps a good God does slaughter innocent people, but I much
        prefer the alternative understanding, also supportable from
        Scripture, that none is innocent (can I assume that if "all
        have sinned" then "none is innocent" -- which is really to
        say "none is as good as God"?), not even the unborn babe.

        Bob

    Bob, I think that is one problem why I have a problem with the "potter-clay"
    analogy. I think it tends to view humans as more or less passive
    objects that have been molded according to the will of an omnipotent
    deity.  On the other hand, I hear that potters often have to deal with
    unruly clay that is not as easy to mold as they please, so I suppose
    that the analogy does leave room for some autonomy on the part of the
    "clay".

    The point I am making is that the "clay" is not a passive subject to
    divine whim.  As subjects of experience, we and God together influence
    the outcome of events, including our own development.  We are "created"
    by God in the sense that God is the ultimate divine influence on the
    outcome of events; but we are also autonomous creatures, and thus
    partially self-creating.  I don't believe in creation ex nihilo, and
    therefore I reject the view that we are utterly dependent in every
    sense on divine fiat.  I therefore think that the "potter-clay" analogy
    tends to fall apart at that point.

    If God is perfect, then that includes perfect goodness.  Part of this
    goodness includes perfect compassion.  Is divine compassion different
    from human compassion?  Aquinas thought so.  He and Anselm argued that
    God was immutable, and therefore unaffected by our suffering and our
    joys.  In this view, God only *seemed* to be compassionate.  What kind
    of God is this?  Is this a God worth worshiping?  I say no, and I would
    not worship a God conceived in such a way.  The only reason I am
    willing to believe in God at all is that I have encountered a
    theological conception of God that, contra Aquinas, acts by loving
    influence rather than vindictive coercion--one who is compassionate
    and loving, and truly affected by what we do.  The idea of a God who
    can act on whim, who cannot be understood by us, who inflicts an
    irrational world upon a people who nevertheless crave for rationality
    and meaning--that is one that I categorically reject.  If that is what
    inherently defines Christianity, then I would rather be an atheist.

    I just finished reading a moving passage in "The Brothers Karamazov" in
    which the brother Ivan describes the irrationality, the cruelty, the
    pain and suffering that so often characterizes this world, and which
    summarizes brilliantly the problem of evil.  What he describes is a
    version of Christianity that is all too common.  It is one that defines
    the cruelty and irrationality that we experience in this world as part
    of the master plan of an unfathomable, immutable, and remote deity
    whose "goodness" is beyond our conception of good, who is indeed "good"
    simply because He is the only game in town (and I use the male pronoun
    for God here, because this is patriarchal theology at its classical
    best).  Perhaps that is why I am so attracted to process and feminist
    theology, because these theologies find this view of God abhorrent.  In
    any case, Ivan's poignant speech reminds me much of Camus's description
    of the world as being absurd.  Placing a divine stamp on absurdity does
    not make it any less absurd.  It only makes God absurd.

    -- Mike

    Christian apologetics will always appeal to human concepts and human
    reason when it suits its purposes.  But when confronted with
    irrationality or internal contradictions, it throws up its hands and
    says that God's ways are beyond our understanding.  What a classic
    example of having one's cake and eating it too!  Consider the news that
    Christian evangelists proclaim.  It is "good" news.  Do you think that
    anyone would be particularly interested in Christianity if it described
    its message as bad news?  Here we have Christianity appealing to the
    human understanding of what is "good".  And what of John 3:16?  Why is
    it such a moving passage, and why do Christians quote it so much? 
    Would it have even made it into the canon if it had begun, "For God so
    hated the world..."?

    God is presented in terms of human understanding.  The Christian faith
    is justified in terms of concepts that we hold, about love, and
    goodness, and right and wrong, and absolutes.  Christianity is not
    normally presented as a series of disjoint mandates that do not relate
    in any overall, Ultimate fashion.  We are told that there *is* an
    Eternal reality.  Christianity proceeds from the premise that God
    created the world.  This is an important assumption, because it
    presents the world as being orderly and understandable.  Some have
    argued that this conception by our religious heritage, of an orderly
    and understandable world, are what made the great strides in science
    possible in the West.  In any case, Christianity claims that the world
    is *not* disjoint, irrational, and pointless.  Appeals to human
    understanding are everywhere found in Christianity, except when
    inconvenient. 

    This is clearly the case in the abortion debate.  When the pro-life
    side shows the film "Silent Scream", when Operation Rescue members urge
    women entering clinics not to kill their babies, when we hear about the
    killing of "innocent" children--we are hearing appeals to our
    conscience, to our morality, to our understanding of what is "good". 
    The term "innocence" is applied in this case because of it rhetorical
    and moral power.  That would not make sense if morality were conceived
    to be nothing but a series of disjoint divine commands that are beyond
    our capability to internalize into a coherent and meaningful whole. 
    That we can internalize morality is accepted by both sides of the
    fence, and that is, I believe, because it is a fundamental fact of
    humanity.

    But then, when the term innocent is rejected in another context, the
    tables are suddenly turned.  The same people use appeal to our
    internalized sense of morality by showing us "Silent Scream" will
    defend atrocities against the men, women, and children of Jericho and
    Ai.  Aborted fetuses are innocent babies, we are told; but in the next
    breath we are told that the babies who were slaughtered in those cities
    were not innocent because no one is really innocent.  When the
    contradiction is pointed out, we are told that God's ways are not our
    own, and we are to ignore our internalized sense of morality and
    instead accept, verbatim, what clearly must be a disjoint morality
    beyond our understanding.

    As far as I am concerned, this is intellectually dishonest, and morally
    bankrupt.  I am not speaking of the anti-abortion stance per se, which
    I don't think is either intellectually dishonest or morally bankrupt,
    and I have a great deal of respect for many pro-life individuals and
    their moral convictions.  What I object to is a theological stance that
    is sometimes embraced by *some* Christians (not all) to justify a
    particular position through an appeal to human understanding, and yet
    which does an about face and rejects that approach when it is
    convenient to do so.

    -- Mike

Re:  31.321
    
  >the agencies quit because of lack of funds, and dealing with abortion
  >was only one small piece of what they did.
    
The only reason the agencies were denied funds was because they
refused to stop performing/recommending abortion.  In other words,
it is their insistence on performing abortions which shut those
clinics down.

Collis

    Re: .320
    
    Presumptious! - "next comes understanding?"
    
    I understood what you said. But did you understand my point?
    
    Pete.

    If a woman can justify killing her unborn child to save her living
    children, she can probably justify infanticide, she can probably
    justify killing the weakest of the children, killing the girls, etc.
    
    Her own children will come to justify killing her when she becomes
    inconvenient or a drain on the income of the family.
    
    All life has dignity.  Love never demands death.
    
    What good can come from evil?
    
    re: innocent babies
    
    All babies, as innocent as they look, are pre-disposed to sin.
    It's part of our human nature for the child to disobey the parent,
    and for the human to disobey God.  The true greatest of humanity is
    that by the grace of God, we can overcome sin and be righteous.

    I take it, then, that you agree with me that the biblical depictions of
    divinely mandated genocide at Ai and Jericho were morally wrong?
    
    -- Mike
    

Re:  .341

No!  What's morally wrong about God destroying unrepentant sin?

    We aren't merely talking about destroying unrepentant sin here, as if
    "sin" were merely some abstract entity out in space somewhere; when you
    say "destroying sin", that is a euphemism for killing people who sin. 
    Living, feeling human beings.  Slight difference there.   I am all in
    favor of eliminating sin myself.  But I don't favor doing so by a
    method so heinous that any person with a modicum of conscience would
    find utterly repulsive.  More importantly, it is heinous from a
    Christian perspective, which tells us that we are to love our enemies,
    and which also tells us that this morality comes from God, who is Love.

    Perhaps you think that slaughtering a human being can be an act of love
    for that person.  Personally, I think that's a little bizarre, but in
    any case I stand by my conscience on this issue.  I also stand by my
    vigorous opposition to the sort of Jim Jones morality that you are
    promoting here.  If someone claimed that "God" told them to go into a
    town and kill every man, woman, and child there, simply because they
    found "unrepentant evil" there, I would find that inexcusable.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If being a Christian means
    throwing out my conscience, then I would rather be an atheist.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 31.340 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     If a woman can justify killing her unborn child to save her living
>     children, she can probably justify infanticide, she can probably
>     justify killing the weakest of the children, killing the girls, etc.
  
        We men justify killing other people's women and children to
        save our own, and have done it (with full blessing of the
        religious leaders) throughout history.

        A consistent pro-life stand would be radical indeed.

        Bob

Re:  31.344

  >A consistent pro-life stand would be radical indeed.

That's because very few people are willing to put the value of
human life over all other things.  Certainly God doesn't (if we
are to believe His revelation in the Bible.)

Collis

    The issue is not putting human life over all things, but putting *love*
    above all things.  Respect for human life naturally follows from the
    premise of love.  That is, unless you believe that you can slaughter
    people that you love.
    
    -- Mike

    re: Judgment and Death

    God judges.  Traditional Christianity varies in the form we will be
    judged or what will weigh for and against us in the judgment.  But
    that judgment is certain.

Re:  31.346

  >The issue is not putting human life over all things, but putting *love*
  >above all things.  Respect for human life naturally follows from the
  >premise of love.  That is, unless you believe that you can slaughter
  >people that you love.
    
My understanding of what you say is this.  You put love (as you define it) 
above all things - including God.  There is no room in your theology
(as I understand it) for hate - for hating sin, for example.  Your
God is not the God of the Bible (which I think you will readily
agree with.

Collis

Re: .348  Collis

>My understanding of what you say is this.  You put love (as you define it) 
>above all things - including God.

But according to the N.T. God is love, right?  Doesn't that mean that putting
love above all things is the same as putting God above all things?

				-- Bob

    Wrong, on several counts, Collis.  First, I do not put love above God,
    since I define God as being the embodiment of love.  Second, there is
    certainly plenty of room for "hating" sin in my theology, in the sense
    of being morally opposed to it.  What there is no room for in my
    theology is hating *people*.  I can hate what people do and still love
    love them.  What generally I cannot personally do, as an expression of
    love for others, is killing them.  I am willing to discuss and consider
    the  possibilities in which killing another person can be an expression
    of love for them (the euthanasia and suicide debates are examples of
    this question), so I am open to different perspectives of how this love
    can be put into practice.  But in general that is where I stand. 
    Apparently you feel that you can kill another person (even a child),
    against their will as an expression of love for that person; I suppose
    another alternative is that the notion of loving one's enemies is for
    you a meaningless platitude.

    -- Mike

Re:  31.349

  >But according to the N.T. God is love, right?  Doesn't that mean that 
  >putting love above all things is the same as putting God above all things?

Love is one (essential and extremely important) characteristic of
God.  Is it not the only one, however, and "love", in and of itself,
does not fully describe the nature of God.

Re:  31.350

  >Wrong, on several counts, Collis.  

Why did I know I'd be wrong?  :-)

  >First, I do not put love above God, since I define God as being the 
  >embodiment of love.

Yes I know you do.  That's what I said that this is "my" understanding
of what you said (since love and God are not exactly the same in
"my" understanding of God).  However, I thought I'd give you a chance
to say just what you did and me a chance to explain what I just
explained.  :-)

  >Second, there is certainly plenty of room for "hating" sin in my 
  >theology...

This I was unaware of - but am very glad that we can agree on this.

Mike, I'd be interested if you'd respond specifically to the issues
I raised with Jesus prophesying the destruction of people in the
future.  The last time I raised this issue, you recited your argument
from conscience.  But you seem to say that you both follow Jesus
and that you believe Jesus is totally wrong on this critical
(foundational) issue.  Perhaps I misunderstand this as well?

Collis

    in re .340
    
    So the woman should have the child knowing that she is condeming
    that child and all her other children to death?

    That's interesting, Collis, that you should define God that way.  The
    first epistle of John doesn't say that "love is one characteristic of
    God"; it says that God *is* love.  In any case, in my view, creative
    and responsive love precisely define God's nature.

    Let me first point out that I don't claim to follow Jesus.  Surely you
    are aware of the fact that I don't call myself a Christian.  I have
    said many times that I believe in the ethical teachings of Jesus
    because I happen to think he was right, not because *Jesus* said them. 
    I am not a Christian, and I think you would be better off asking other
    Christians for input on your question, because I am certain that they
    would give you a much different answer than I would.  As you know, I
    happen to believe that you ignore a critical issue of Jesus's teachings
    as well, and thus I find it interesting that you are so taken with
    checking the Christian credentials of other people, when it is clear
    that everyone, including you, interprets the relevance of Jesus's
    individual teachings in various and often disparate ways.  Loving one's
    enemies seems to be interpreted in some wildly different (and
    sometimes, in my view, bizarre) ways.  I don't happen to believe that
    killing a person against their will is generally an act of love or
    compassion for that person, although perhaps there are exceptions. 
    Others seem to disagree.

    Regarding Jesus advocating destruction, I don't know what specific
    passage you are referring to.  Let me point out that I am interested in
    the ethics Jesus is said to have taught during his life, not what he
    allegedly said after the resurrection (for one thing, I don't believe
    in the resurrection).  And I certainly am uninterested in the
    apocalyptic imagery of Revelation, since anything Jesus allegedly said
    there occurred long after his death.  Since you often cite those
    other passages in your description of what Jesus taught, it is
    important to remember this point.  Second, scholars don't fully agree
    on what parts of the New Testament are authentic and what are not, so
    the authenticity of anything attributed to Jesus is up for grabs, as
    far as I am concerned.  Of course, my point is that it doesn't matter
    whether Jesus really said something or not, since it is the truth of
    what has been attributed to him, and how it speaks to my life, that
    matters to me, not whether he said it.

    However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus did advocate
    the destruction of people.  What could that mean?  It would be
    unfortunate indeed if he were to contradict his most fundamental
    ethical teachings by expressions of hate and desire for people to
    suffer and die; but perhaps this is an illustration of his very human
    qualities.  Contradicting his fundamental ethical teachings does not
    invalidate them in any way.

    However, that is not my interpretation of what Jesus taught during
    his life.  I have seen that he told people that destruction and hate
    had consequences--a Karma, to use a term from Eastern religions.  The
    Karma of living by the sword is that you die by the sword.  Certainly
    this phrase is a classic example of teaching that violence is wrong,
    and also telling people that their immoral behavior (in this case,
    violence) can lead to their destruction.  But it is not an expression
    of desire for their destruction; rather, it is a simple expression of
    the Karma of self-destructiveness associated with hate and violence. 
    In this I agree with Jesus.  This self-destruction that results from
    immoral behavior is not desirable, but the wonderful thing about love
    is that it never ceases to forgive; it forgives even those who live by
    the sword.  That people die by the sword is tragic; but through love we
    can urge people to stop living by the sword before the tragic
    self-destructiveness of a violent mode of living come to fruition.

    -- Mike

I'm one of those people (and I suspect there are quite a few of us)
who don't like abortion, but don't want to see abortion made illegal.

I don't want to return abortion to being a back alley, clotheshanger
operation.

I'm one of those people who don't see the recent decision of the
Supreme Court as "the beginning the end" for Rowe v. Wade.

I'm one of those people who believes that a minor's parents should
not be circumvented from the decision to abort a pregnancy.  Nor do I
believe that a husband should be sidelined from such an important
decision.  I consider these to be reasonable accommodations.

Peace,
Richard

    re  .354  Richard,
    
    I agree with just about everything you say, except the 'sidlining' of
    the husband business.   Personally, I'm glad the supreme court ruled
    that it is unconstitutional to require a wife, by law, to inform her
    husband about her abortion decision before having said abortion.
    
    Simply put, if a husband/wife have such severe communication problems
    in the first place, where a law is needed to force a discussion between
    a husband/wife RE how to handle a pregnancy, where a wife wants to
    abort her pregnancy in secrecy, without telling her husband, then I think 
    there is someting fatally flawed with the marriage to begin with.  The 
    problem with the marriage may be that she has been abused/threatened by him.
    In those cases, telling the husband might be downright dangerous. 
    Moreoever, if a  spouse who is abusive/threatening, IMHO, he/she is
    no longer is an equal partner, worthy of trust, and notifying an 
    abusive/threatening husband becomes no better than asking for
    parental-style permission. 
    
    No law will force harmony in a marriage that is not working, including
    communication between a husband and a wife, when the wife becomes
    pregnant.
    
    Paul
    

>I don't want to return abortion to being a back alley, clotheshanger
>operation.

	Why do pro-choice people keep saying this? Seriously, I believe that
	the only reason it is said is to imply that pro-life people want to
	see back alley abortions. For me, at least, the use of this statement
	has become a stumbling block to communication. The only people I have
	ever heard advocating illegal and unsafe abortions are pro-choice
	people who espouse that as a viable alternative to no abortions at all.

	I agree with much of the rest of what you said.

			Alfred

    Alfred
    
    Because if abortion is made illegal, women will still seak abortions
    and the only way they will get them will be in the 'back alley'.
    
    The total number of abortions didn't increase particularly after Roe
    Wade according to what I've read, they just became legal. The total
    number of abortions won't decrease if they become illegal, they'll just
    become dangerous. Do you really, seriously, think that banning
    abortions will stop them? If you do you are very naive.
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie,

> Do you really, seriously, think that banning abortions will stop them?

Of course not. Pro-choice people will still encourage people to have 
illegal abortions. But I refuse to be blamed for it. You know robbery is
illegal but no one suggests that it should be legal to make it safer. The
implication that people who want to see something made illegal want to see
the same thing continue illegally, as Richard's comment (especially from some
others who make it) says to me, is unreasonable and stands in the way of 
communication. 

Such comments may have a place in conversation between pro-choice people. But
the only effect of bringing it up in conversation with pro-life people is to
either shut down communication or to try and undermine the credibility of the
pro-choice movement. For me it started out as the first effect and has moved
to the second. 

		Alfred

    Alfred,

    Desperate women have been having abortions for generations, it doesn't
    take 'prochoice' people to encourage them to have them. If there is
    no attention given to the historical fact that women who did not want
    to have children will seek to abort, then prolife is guilty of not
    caring about the lives of many living beings. I am not saying that
    people who want something made illegal want to see it continue
    illegally, rather, that if this is made illegal they should look at
    the logical consequences, given what has occured in the past. Making
    abortion illegal won't be saving 'babies' lives, it will result in
    the death of many many women, young and old, along with what
    the prolifers call their baby. Will society have gained? I don't
    think so.

    Bonnie

re Note 31.358 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> Of course not. Pro-choice people will still encourage people to have 
> illegal abortions. But I refuse to be blamed for it. You know robbery is
> illegal but no one suggests that it should be legal to make it safer. The
> implication that people who want to see something made illegal want to see
> the same thing continue illegally, as Richard's comment (especially from some
> others who make it) says to me, is unreasonable and stands in the way of 
> communication. 

        Alfred,

        I certainly don't think you want to see the same thing
        continue illegally -- the issue is not what you or I want,
        but what is the outcome from public policy decisions.  (How
        many conservatives believe that the "war on poverty" was the
        right thing to do because it is good to want an end to
        poverty -- regardless of whether the ends could be achieved
        that way?)

        I think that the point being made to the "pro-life" camp is
        more one of awareness:  "are you aware that the number of
        abortions will not significantly decline if your side wins?"
        and "are you aware that more women will die if your side
        wins?"

        It's just another factoid/opinion to take into account when
        one determines one's position on the issue, and one's actions
        in pursuit of one's position.

        It needn't shut down conversation:  feel free to refute it;
        I, for one, will listen.  If you don't directly address it
        (either because you haven't the data to refute it, or because
        you've walked away from the conversation in a huff), then I
        probably will give some credence to this claim.

        As far as the undermining of the credibility of the
        pro-choice proponents among the pro-life camp, do you really
        think this is a big issue?  Absent this, how much credibility
        did you give them?

        Bob

>        more one of awareness:  "are you aware that the number of
>        abortions will not significantly decline if your side wins?"
>        and "are you aware that more women will die if your side
>        wins?"

	I have to believe that if the law is inforced that abortions will
	significantly decline. I do understand that some women will still
	get abortions and some will die from them. I do not believe that that
	number will anywhere approach the number of lives saved by outlawing
	abortions. Especially if the laws are inforced.

> Absent this, how much credibility did you give them?

	I give some in the pro-choice camp quite a bit of credibility. I believe
	that they are as honest in their beliefs that abortion doesn't kill
	people as <mumble> believed they were not killing people when they
	killed <mumble>. Some of them even have scientific evidence that I have
	looked at closely. From a purely scientific point of view I even buy
	a lot of it. But science doesn't cover things like "soul" very well.


			Alfred

    Alfred
    
    From what I've read, the absolute number of abortions didn't
    change particularly when abortion became legal, they just
    became safer.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, You said that already and I saw it the first time. I just 
    don't believe it. Can you give me a source that doesn't use estimates?
    I believe that there are lots of people with a vested interest in
    inflating estimates so Planned Parenthood or NORAL or NOW would not
    be concidered a reliable source. Thanks.
    
    			Alfred

    My source was Susan Faludi's book "Backlash" I'll look up where
    she gets her data from tonite.
    
    But I rather suspect you'll just impune my source.
    
    Bonnie

I don't believe the Pro-Lifers really want to see the back alley abortion
clinics put back in business.

However, Pro-Life proponents seem to be suggesting that if abortion is made
illegal then abortions will simply cease to exist.  I wish it were as simple
as this.  But my observation of human nature and human history tells me
differently.

I suggest that abortion is a symptom and not a cause.  I suggest that
forbidding treatment of the symptom does nothing to address the cause.

Peace,
Richard

    I agree with your last paragraph Richard but don't get the point
    of the first two. Well, partly I do, but I'm not sure. Are you
    arguing that "since people are going to do bad things we should
    at least make it safe"? And if you don't believe that pro-lifers
    want to see back ally abortion again why bring it up at all?

    			Alfred

>    But I rather suspect you'll just impune my source.

    	I thought you knew me better than that. If your source doesn't
    have an axe to grind what can I say? In the gun control debate people
    are often asked to use sources other than the NRA, because of their
    agenda, so I supply other sources. I'm just asking the same sort of
    thing I've been asked for over and over in other places on other
    topics. A non biased (or minimally so) source.

    BTW, would you accept without impugning the source counter statistics
    from say Jerry Falwell?
    
    			Alfred

	BTW, I've never encouraged any woman to have an abortion.

Peace,
Richard

Alfred .366,

	I suppose the reason I bring up back alley abortions is because of
my own fear that such operations are likely to spring up as soon as legal
abortions cease.

	I'll try to address your other question later.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .355  Paul,
    
    The same arguments (with which I agree, BTW) apply to requiring
    parental notification/consent!!  The girl should be strongly encouraged
    to tell her parents, but not required to do so.  
    
    Nancy

    In this whole abortion debate, one thing always puzzled me.  And that
    is, assuming that abortion becomes illegal, what would/should the
    punishment be for any woman who violates the law and gets an abortion
    nevertheless?    Perhaps pro-life people here can help me with this
    one.   If abortion = murder in the eyes of anti-abortion folks, what
    should the penalty be for a woman who commits this crime?
    
    re  .370  Nancy,
    
    I would tend to disagree with you on the parental consent issue.  
    As a society, we assume that there are many decisions children (girls,
    boys, under the age of 18) cannot make rationally for themselves, and
    require their parent/guardian to watch out for them and ensure they do
    not harm themselves.   In a dysfunctional family, where there are abusive 
    parents, the child is probably less able to come to grips with rational 
    decision making in her/his own life, and a responsible adult is needed
    in his/her life more than ever.   
    
    For example, we as a society say that, even if a child decides on her/his 
    own to participate (star in) the creation of x-rated films/magazines, 
    that it is exploitation of children, since these kids don't really know 
    what is best for them.   Same with consenting to sex with an adult.  If a 
    child consents to having sexual relations with someone over the age of 18,
    the adult can be charged with and prosecuted for rape, since the child 
    isn't considered to have viable reasoning powers to consent to sex.  Same 
    with child labor laws.    A child may want to work, but is prohibited 
    from working, all in the best interests of the child.   The rationale 
    being that children, on several fronts, are unable to make decisions
    in terms of what is best/right for them.
    
    If a girl were guaranteed decent adult counseling/supervision, in lieu
    of her parents, who might be abusive, then that's another story.  The
    law, I think, is aimed at making sure the child is guided by a 
    responsible adult, not necessarily 'squealing' on the child or 
    invading her privacy.    If the child gets pregnant and then can't 
    discuss it with her parents to begin with, then there is something 
    definitely wrong with the whole family.   A child coming from this
    environment certainly needs strong adult intervention/support.
    
    Paul
    

   Well, I am not jumping in here to blast anybody else's opinions,
   but I do want to state my own.   I believe this adequately states
   my position:
   
   First Point - I chose not to accept the commonly used labels of
   pro-life versus pro-choice.  It is, I believe, a not-so-subtle
   implication that pro-life followers are somehow against personal
   freedom and that pro-choice followers are somehow closet murders.
   This is, I believe, inaccurate.
   
   Instead I chose to label myself anti-abortion.  This is an accurate
   label for me, and does not carry the implications that I perceive
   in the other labels.  I believe strongly that abortion is indeed
   the murder of unborn babies as the pro-life groups state, and I do
   not support it.  
   
   (In all honesty, I doubt that there are very many pro-choice people
   who are really, really in support of wide-spread abortion either,
   but they still want that option to be legal).
   
   [ Note - Yes, I know there is some small percentage of "real"
   reasons for considering abortion - life-threatening health risk to
   mother, pregnancy as result of rape, maybe some others too, but
   this is not what I am referring to, nor do I believe most others
   refer to either.  Instead I refer to the vast majority of abortions
   that are not a result of the above mentioned reasons. ]
   
   Second Point - I strongly believe that the pro-life/pro-choice
   people are debating the wrong issue.  While I have respect for
   these groups who are willing to stand up for their beliefs and
   possibly be imprisoned for them, I believe they are fighting the
   little battle.  I do not believe there will be any winner in that
   battle.
   
   Instead I believe the "real" issue here is personal accountability.
   If I were to chose a pro-'something' label for myself, I believe it
   would have to be pro-responsibility.  The pro-choice people claim 
   [ my paraphrase here ] that they are unwilling to relinquish their
   freedom of choice to the local or federal government.  I can accept
   that.  What I can not accept is their conclusion.  What I see
   happening is a refusal on society's part to accept personal
   accountability for its own actions.  I claim that the pro-choice
   people have already exercised their freedom of choice by "choosing"
   to engage in unprotected intercourse.  I claim that it is a crime
   and a sin to then relinquish accountability for the consequences of
   personal decision.   What I see is society wanting the best of both
   worlds - they want to participate in unprotected intercourse and
   still avoid the natural consequences of that action.  And I believe
   that we, society in general, are wrong to support that lifestyle.
   I believe it is time for "us" (society) to grow up - to start
   accepting the consequences of our actions, and to stop looking for
   a "silver bullet", a magic pill to make these unwanted consequences
   go away.  Life simply does not operate that way - every action has
   results, and I believe we need to start accepting personal
   responsibility for our own actions.

   All that said, I believe the real cure is education.  The AIDS
   epidemic has resulted in tremendous efforts towards educating the
   masses about the consequences of unprotected intercourse.  I
   believe that if *both* the pro-life and pro-choice groups were to
   join forces with the AIDS groups to promote a different lifestyle
   that there would be less abortions.  I believe that an affective
   education program is, in the long run, the only reasonable solution
   for reducing the number of abortions.  I believe that the only way
   to cut down on abortions is to cut down on the need - that is, to
   reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by promoting lifestyle
   changes.  The AIDS people have had no choice but to do this - the
   natural consequence of contracting AIDS is often fatal, and there
   is no "silver bullet" (like abortion) to "fix" the results of the
   lifestyle choices that led to AIDS.  I believe that this should be
   the attitude of these groups also - that the only reasonable way to
   protect people (including unborn babies) is to make lifestyle
   changes significant enough to reveal the enormous risk involved.
   If we as a society can educate enough people, then I believe that
   the whole abortion debate will all but disappear for lack of
   interest and participation.
   
   I believe also that there is no way to legislate personal
   behaviour.  The only reasonable way, I believe, to affect change in
   these areas is through education.  I believe all other efforts are
   not going to produce any significant, long term results.
   
   Like my personal name here says, "Freedom is not free".  With
   freedom comes responsibility.  If we are not willing to accept that
   responsibility, then we will, in time, lose that freedom.
   
   Peace,
   
   - Tom

    Alfred,
    
    I think that any statistics from Jerry Falwell are far more
    questionable than anything that Planned Parenthood puts out.
    
    okay here are the references for that page of Faludi...
    
    Luker Politics of Motherhood p 19
    US Abortions Up or Down from Population Today Nov '87 pp 6-7
    US Abortion rate shows a 6% decline from NY Times April 26 '91 p a14
    
    these are secondary sources, but I trust her, and Luker's
    scholarship...
    
    
    will you check the refernces out before you make a decision?
    
    also she mentions the fact that in Brazil where abortions are
    illegal, the rate of abortions is 3X that in the US of A..{
    k{and 10,000 women die each year of complications of illegal
    abortions.
    
    vI *DON"T* want that to start again in the US
    
    Bonnie

re Note 31.366 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     I agree with your last paragraph Richard but don't get the point
>     of the first two. Well, partly I do, but I'm not sure. Are you
>     arguing that "since people are going to do bad things we should
>     at least make it safe"? 
  
        Alfred,

        I believe that the Biblical lesson of "the wheat and the
        tares" is relevant here (from Matthew 13):

        13:24  Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The
        kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed
        in his field:
        13:25  But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares
        among the wheat, and went his way.
        13:26  But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth
        fruit, then appeared the tares also.
        13:27  So the servants of the householder came and said unto
        him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from
        whence then hath it tares?
        13:28  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The
        servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather
        them up?
        13:29  But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye
        root up also the wheat with them.
        13:30  Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the
        time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together
        first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but
        gather the wheat into my barn.


        Sometime, for the sake of what and who is good, God allows
        the bad to flourish.  We need to exercise similar wisdom.

        Bob

    Recently heard a lesbian standup comic on tv (can't recall her name)
    say "the last time anyone cared about my rights was when I was a
    fetus".
    
    Something to think about...
    
    Ro
    

And she would, of course, prefer that we stop caring about a fetus' rights?

    Nope, perhaps she would just like to see the same concern payed to her
    rights as the fetus's right - after all she is the same Child of God
    now as she was as a fetus.
    
    Ro
    

Alfred 31.366,

I know it must sound like I'm saying "since people are going to do bad
things we should at least make it safe," and possibly to some degree
that's what I am saying.

But this is the way I see it.  If the door is closed to having a legal
abortion, women, especially the ones who are desperate, will resort to
terminating the pregnancy in some other fashion.  This may result in
permanent physical injury or even the death of the pregnant woman.  Some
of these pregnant women already have children.  Some of those deaths
will be of the mothers of those children.  I believe, at least in this
case, making abortion illegal would serve only to compound the problem.

I believe that if and when the cause is addressed, rather than the symptom,
that the number of women seeking abortions will decline.  I would rather
see abortion clinics become a thing of the past due to lack of business,
rather than shut down by force of law.

Peace,
Richard

    There are some 200,000 abortions performed in the United States which
    carry a greater risk of illness and death to the mother than carrying
    the baby to term even when performed in a hospital.
    
    Do the people who participate in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE believe that
    there should be restrictions placed on these abortions?
    
    A waiting period?  Informed consent?

    re: .371, Paul,
    
>    ..................  In a dysfunctional family, where there are abusive 
>    parents, the child is probably less able to come to grips with rational 
>    decision making in her/his own life, and a responsible adult is needed
>    in his/her life more than ever.   
    
    I don't consider it likely that a dynsfunctional family can offer the
    girl a truly "responsible" adult!
    
    > If a girl were guaranteed decent adult counseling/supervision, in lieu
    > of her parents, who might be abusive, then that's another story.  The
    > law, I think, is aimed at making sure the child is guided by a 
    > responsible adult, not necessarily 'squealing' on the child or 
    > invading her privacy.    If the child gets pregnant and then can't 
    > discuss it with her parents to begin with, then there is something 
    > definitely wrong with the whole family.   A child coming from this
    > environment certainly needs strong adult intervention/support.
    
    Your argument doesn't hold water.  It definitely sounds like you are
    saying that if the girl has an abusive or "merely" dysfunctional
    family, she is in special need of strong responsible adult guidance
    (I agree) and therefore she should be required to go back to that same
    family (I *strongly* disagree)!!
    
    Moreover, parents who may otherwise be reasonaly caring in their
    relationships with their children, frequently "freak out" on matters
    relating to sex!!  They love to live in their mistaken belief that
    their child is still innocent and years away from being concerned with
    sex.  They call their daughters "sluts" with little or no provocation.
    
    Sorry, I don't buy it!  I agree that adult guidance is preferred.  But
    *no* adult guidance is better than some of the grief that is visited by
    parents on their female "children" who dare to have sex!  I'm sure that
    some girls don't tell because they fear reactions that would, in fact,
    never occur and thus both they and their parents are deprived of the
    chance to face it together.  But I strongly believe that *forcing* an
    otherwise unwilling girl to tell her parents is wrong.   There is just
    too much risk to the girl.  In my opinion, there is simply
    no comparison between that and ear-piercing or child labor laws or
    whatever.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

re: Note 31.381 by Nancy "rises up with eagle wings" 

Hi Nancy,

As I read Paul's note, it sounded like he was saying that a girl from a 
dysfunctional family needs *responsible* adult guidance, which would most 
likely NOT come from her family (biological/adoptive/whatever).  (Is this 
correct, Paul?)

Now, who might provide such guidance?  

Peace,

Jim

    Patrick,
    
    Are you talking about some special class of abortions that are
    more dangerous than carrying a baby to term? Every source of
    information that I've seen on abortion shows it to be safer than
    carrying to term by a factor of 10. What is the source  for
    your information?
    
    and yes, I believe that there should be some restrictions placed
    on abortions, especially in the third trimester.
    
    Bonnie

.380 Patrick,

As implied in 31.354, I do favor certain restrictions.

I don't like the idea of abortion simply as an option of convenience or
reactive birth control.  I'm not sure how motives could be legislated.

I think our focus needs to be ahead of when a pregnancy occurs.  Way ahead.

Peace,
Richard

    I wonder if anyone (Bonnie?) knows the percentage of abortions
    that are done because contraceptive methods *failed*.  
    
    Those who are opposed to abortions say a lot about not wanting to use
    abortion instead of birth control, as though all those who seek
    abortions were nochalant about using contraception.  
    
    (I know that many young girls do neglect to use contraception because 
    they "didn't intend" to have sex, but that's not what I'm talking
    about here.)
    
    BTW, this isn't aimed at you, Richard! :-)  
    
    Nancy 

48.7 percent of all abortion patients used no contraceptives.

Source:  Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

    RE: .-1
    
    If true, that means that 51.3% of all abortion patients *did*
    use contraceptives and got pregnant anyway.  They *were* being
    responsible in trying to prevent pregnancy.

�    Who is an "abortion patient"?  The mother or the unborn child?

    There's nothing inherently responsible or irresponsible about
    contraception.

    Where responsibility enters the picture is where the "choice" of having
    sexual relations occurs, because no contraceptive is 100% effective,
    each act of intercourse involves the potential creation of human life.. 
    In 1% or less of the cases where an abortion is sought, consent is
    mitigted by rape or incest.
    
    Some of the greatest experiences in life are not planned.  Not being a
    planned baby shouldn't carry the death penalty.

Some abortion statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion
organization directly related to Planned Parenthood).

NUMBER OF ABORTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES

1972	587,000
1988	1,559,000

ABORTIONS PER 1000 KNOWN PREGNANCIES

1973	193
1988	288

PERCENTAGE OF ABORTIONS PERFORMED ON WOMEN FOR THE 2ND OR MORE TIME

1974	15.2%
1987	42.2%

PERCENTAGE OF UNMARRIED AMONG WOMEN HAVING ABORTIONS

1973	71.0%
1987	82.4%

    Do those statistics include illegal abortions for the earlier time
    period. and I would like to politely request that you refer to
    the organization as 'pro choice' many of us who are prochoice are
    not proabortion.

    
    Hi Bonnie,
    
    I wouldn't think that any statistic after 1972 would include illegal
    abortions since abortion was legalized in 1973.  I would have to assume
    that any statistics before 1973 would represent illegal abortions.
    
    jeff 

    Jeff
    
    The first date you used was for 1972 when abortion was illegal in many
    states. It seems to me that the total number of abortions, counting the
    illegal ones would have been much highter. I've read in a number of
    sources that the total number of abortions percapita hasn't really
    changed if illegal abortions are factored in.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Bonnie,
    
    I believe that the idea that there were as many illegal abortions as
    there are legal abortions is purely wishful thinking by organized 
    abortion proponents.  I have read similar accounts and other
    accounts which absolutely deny this claim.
    
    All types of media propogate false statistics and claims.  Whether it
    is purposeful, I do not know.  Another good example of this is that 10%
    of the population is gay.  As you may know this is a Kinsey statistic
    which is based solely on prison inmates as the population group.  Not a
    very reliable group for many reasons.
    
    jeff

    I don't know about y'all, but I seriously doubt if anyone was taking
    statistics on the number of illegal abortions performed prior to Roe v
    Wade.  If the number given for 1972 does not factor in an estimation of
    the number of illegal abortions in some way, then I would say that
    the statistic given is rather meaningless.
    
    Mike

    Jeff
    
    The 10% gay was not based on just prision inmates, but on a survey
    of the general population by Kinsey workers. Further, it has been
    independantly confirmed by other researchers into sexuality many
    times since then. Such comments smack of homophobia, please be 
    careful. 
    
    and when I was a young woman, there was an increasing outcry over
    the deaths of young women due to illegal abortions. The high
    death toll was one of the reasons that the current abortion laws
    were challenged. In third world countries death due to non
    medically performed abortions is still the leading cause of
    death of women. These statistics were published about a year ago
    by Scientific American the source being the world health organization.
    
    Women, in the days when abortion was largely illegal, had abortions
    in droves. They just didn't talk about it, it was too embarassing.
    If you are seriously interested in the subject, I suggest that
    you read Lukker's "Abortion the Politics of Motherhood". This book,
    published in the mid 1980s is very well researched and has been
    used as a college text book, so I think I can vouch for it's 
    reliability.
    
    Mike, I suspect that the extrapolated the number of illegal abortions
    from the number of deaths by botched abortion and the number of
    'emergency d&c's' performed by hospitals.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie, I was wondering if the stats fro 1972 quoted by Jeff included an
    estimation of the number of illegal abortions.  
    
    Mike

    
    Bonnie,
    
    You mean you're not a young woman anymore? ;)
    
    I've read the book you mention.  However, I do not ascribe to its
    interpretation of events.  And the fact that it is a college textbook
    does not help its case any in my opinion.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 31.397 by FATBOY::BENSON >>>


| I've read the book you mention.  However, I do not ascribe to its
| interpretation of events.  

	Jeff, is that because it doesn't match up with what you have witnessed, 
read or what you think happened?




Glen

	In the Christian notesfile I had made a statement that even though I
was pro-life, I had thought an abortion should be allowed if a mother's life
was in danger. The reply I got was this:

| ***** and I have talked about the situation. If it is a choice between
| her life and the life of her child, that is easy. What mother would not
| give up her life to save her baby? 


	I still wonder about this statement. I read many replies afterwards and
no woman had responded to that statement. I ask the women of this conference 
3 questions:


	1.) If you were told early on that if you had this baby that your life
	    could be in danger, would you have it?

	2.) If you were told that if you had this baby you have a great chance
	    of dieing, would you still have it?

	3.) If you were told that you will die if you have this baby, would you
	    still have it?

	I'd like to hear from just the women on this as I do wonder if they
feel the same about this issue. 




Glen

re Note 31.399 by JURAN::SILVA:

> | ***** and I have talked about the situation. If it is a choice between
> | her life and the life of her child, that is easy. What mother would not
> | give up her life to save her baby? 

        I am not one of the women of this conference, nor do I play
        one on TV. :-)

        I thoroughly understand the above quoted statement as an
        emotional reaction, but not as a logical one.

        There are many possible other considerations.  One of the
        most important of which is whether anybody else is dependent
        upon that woman.  Suppose she has other children?  Even if
        she has no other children, but has a husband -- that husband
        is dependent (one would hope in a mutual way) upon her. 
        (Jesus taught that humans may not make the choice to
        terminate a true marriage:  the acting out of the above quote
        would amount to this.)

        Even a totally single woman:  no other children, husband, or
        SO, will probably have other people to whom she is important
        and to whom she is a blessing.

        It is a great, even the greatest, act of love to lay down
        one's life for another.  But such an act is greatly
        diminished when it robs still others of a blessing that God
        has placed in those others' lives.

        Bob

    I am pragmatically pro-life, not absolutist pro-life.  If restrictions
    on abortion would reduce on-demand until-birth abortion, then I
    advocate them.

    The pro-life side believes that two decisions create any-reason
    until-birth abortion: Roe v. Wade, and Doe v. Bolton.  Doe allows for
    abortion for "the health of the mother" where health is defined so
    broadly that no reason under Doe is not related health in some way.

    The "life of the mother" is another matter entirely.  From what I read
    in pro-life and abortion rights advocacy sources, genuine cases where a
    mother's life is at risk while carrying a viable unborn child are
    either (a) zero, or (b) less than 5 cases per year.  Against 1.3 to 1.8
    million abortions, it would be the right thing to do.

    Such women typically know that they are at risk if they become pregnant.
    I would pray that they either abstain from sex, or practice natural
    family planning.

    Pat, would you include suicidal women in the category of a mother's
    life being at risk? 
    
    Mike

	Bob, I agree with you 100%. There is a lot more to it than what meets
the eye. I don't agree with what the origional author of that statement said. I
do wonder though how women feel about this. To have someone make a statement
like he did and to include the felings of all women doesn't seem like it's
right. Not as in right or wrong, but that it's the view held by all mothers.



Glen

>    Pat, would you include suicidal women in the category of a mother's
>    life being at risk? 

Doe vs. Bolton certainly does.

    But how do pro-life people feel about suicidal women being in danger of
    loosing their lives.  I should add, those women who are suicidal
    because they are pregnant.  Should they get to have an abortion if the
    only just cause for abortion were "Mother's life in danger"?
    
    Mike

Or should they be locked in a padded room?

How should you treat suicidal people, anyway, whether they are pregnant or not?

    No, John.  Suicide is not a word to be replaced by euthanasia.
    
    Actually, people who are suicidal are hospitalized, given appropriate
    anti-depressant medication, and counseling.  One of the things that a
    competent counselor would discover is the reason for the depression. 
    If it is found to be caused by an unwanted pregnancy, and if the woman
    cannot be made to change her mind, it seems to me that an abortion is a
    reasonable thing to do in order to save her life.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 31.407 by SOLVIT::MSMITH "So, what does it all mean?" >>>


| Actually, people who are suicidal are hospitalized, given appropriate
| anti-depressant medication, and counseling.  

	Mike, I wonder if they could even give the woman any anti-depressant
drugs while she is pregnant. If they couldn't, I wonder how they handle that
situation?

| One of the things that a
| competent counselor would discover is the reason for the depression.
| If it is found to be caused by an unwanted pregnancy, and if the woman
| cannot be made to change her mind, it seems to me that an abortion is a
| reasonable thing to do in order to save her life.

	I have a hard time on this one. What you say Mike makes a lot of sense.
But on the other hand I feel the mother could be watched until she had the
baby. I don't know which would be a worse hell, the abortion or the mother
being put through hell just to have the kid. Also, if the mother is going to
commit suicide, then there will be 2 murders happening instead of one. I guess
I need to hear more about this but am starting to lean more towards having the
abortion than to not. 

	John, I totally disagree with your interpretation of suicide.



Glen

    This is absurd.  Unless there is a medical condition such as ectopic
    pregnancy, the child inside the womb is not a real threat to the life
    of the mother.  Her delusion doesn't change this.

    Women can become suicidal over their children outside the womb.  They
    aren't killed, are they?  And if compassionate treatment fails, society
    doesn't regret not having killed the children to save the mother.

    If the cause of a suicidal delusion is a house plant, then throw out
    the house plant.
    
    It's a child, not a choice.

    Pat, I simply don't know what to say to you.  We are talking about the
    same thing, but we don't seem able to respond to the same moral
    impulses, let alone talk in the same language.
    
    I am truly sorry.
    
    Mike

| Women can become suicidal over their children outside the womb.  They
| aren't killed, are they?  

	Pat, I was referring to the fact that if there is a baby inside the
womb and the mother commits suicide, then both the baby and the mother have
been murdered. Does this make sense now?

| And if compassionate treatment fails, society
| doesn't regret not having killed the children to save the mother.

	Do you have some sort of facts to back this claim about society?

| If the cause of a suicidal delusion is a house plant, then throw out
| the house plant.
| It's a child, not a choice.

	Don't these 2 contradict each other? Oh.... maybe this is one of those
pick and choose your morals thing.



Glen

>| If the cause of a suicidal delusion is a house plant, then throw out
>| the house plant.
>| It's a child, not a choice.
>
>	Don't these 2 contradict each other? Oh.... maybe this is one of those
>pick and choose your morals thing.

There's only a contradiction for those who believe that a child is
nothing more than a house plant.

Have abortion advocates stepped that low?

/john

    re: .412
    
    No, John, those people who believe that abortions must remain legal do
    not consider children as nothing more than house plants.  Certainly
    this parent and grandparent doesn't.
    
    Why do you ask?
    
    Mike

    .399
    
    
    I don't think I can answer those questions without actually being
    in the situation and knowing all the facts and feeling all the
    feelings.
    
    When I was about 10 years old, I had a cousin (Eileen).  She was
    a devout Catholic.  She was told that if she got pregnant, she would
    very likely die (some kind of liver problem, I think).  She felt that
    she could not use birth control, so she got pregnant.  She felt she
    could not have an abortion.  She and the baby died.
    
    To me her death was a real loss - she was such a special person.
    
    Were her choices right for her soul?  Who knows?
    
    
    Carole

   Right now I am angry.  I have seen little new thought added to the
   subject, and disappointingly little care in reading.  There are 
   alligations, factionism, taking of sides, and little problem solving!

   Points of discussion:
   	
   	Who has the responsabilty for preventing unwanted conception?

   	Who is the person that will be responsable for nine months
   	no matter what?

   	Who has the right to tell another what they may or may not
   	do with their life?
   	
   	Why is prochoice a euphemism for abortion advocate?
   	
   	Why is prolife a euphemism for antiabortion?

   	Why is there a lack of inexpensive reliable birth control
   	that is not hazardous to the female other than abstention
   	by the male?
   	
   There is only one person at the center of the abortion controversy.
   She is female.  She is responsable for her life and potential new life.
   How she came to be in that spot is delt with when it is too late
   for her.  Then too many people arrive to tell her what she must do.
   Where were they before?  Where will they be after?  What will they
   do to prevent another?  Maybe the heat in this debate comes from
   everyone not wanting to do the real work to fix the causes, and just
   maybe a bit of anger from the resulting failure to not take action.

   If I've splattered a few, well sorry.  I personally would never chose
   abortion but, then I'll never have to chose.  I do appreciate what 
   having choices in life, but that's because I was also told what I
   must do by people who will never understand.  For those that think they 
   have all the answers, good for you.  I pray you are never faced with
   an unanswerable dilemma.  Oh yes, they are only your answers for you
   alone.  If you wish to share your wealth, teach don't tell.


   Peace,
   Allison


   PS:  The definition of insanity is having all the
        answers and no acceptable solutions.

    You can't effectively debate abortion if you "define away" the
    arguments made by pro-life.
    
    A Christian, a Nobel laureate, Mother Theresa said yesterday that "It's
    a terrible thing to destroy the presence of God that is in that child."

Re:  31.415

Allison,

  >There is only one person at the center of the abortion controversy.

What can I say?  After all the responses here in this notesfile, after
all the discussion in the media, etc., you still feel comfortable
making a claim like this.

What I hear you saying is that you have decided the fetus is not a
person.  You have decided that God's love of that fetus (re:  little
person), God's forming of that fetus and God's desire for that fetus
to cherish and be cherished, to love and be loved is at best
irrelevant.

You have also decided that people who love God and love the ones that
He loves are also irrelevant.

You have decided that the government which God instituted to protect
the weak and innocent (among others) is irrelevant.

The only one that matters to you is the pregnant woman.  And it doesn't
seem to be much of an issue whether this woman responds in a godly way
of sacrificial love for the baby God has blessed her with - or whether
or not she chooses to kill it.

I can hardly believe what people will do still do today in the name of 
Christianity.

Collis

re Note 31.417 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >There is only one person at the center of the abortion controversy.
> 
> What can I say?  After all the responses here in this notesfile, after
> all the discussion in the media, etc., you still feel comfortable
> making a claim like this.
  
        Collis,

        Allison said "only one person at the center" NOT "only one
        person."  There is an enormous difference between the two.

        Bob

re: Note 31.417 by Collis "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" 

Hi Collis,

I hear Allison saying something quite different.

I hear Allison saying that the woman who is in the center of the controversy 
is too often there because the love, help, guidance and support from the pro-
life AND pro-choice people is too little too late.

Yes, I think that the "people who love God and love the ones that He loves" 
ARE irrelevant, *IF* the only expression of that love is to close down 
abortion clinics and hinder a woman who is making a choice that is quite 
difficult enough as it is.

Yes, I think that the "government which God instituted to protect the weak and
innocent (among others)" IS irrelevant *IF* that government acts only to ban 
abortion without providing the necessary support for these children and their 
mothers, as well as education and support to prevent unwanted pregnancies in 
the first place.

I think there's a lot more that matters to Allison than the pregnant woman.  
Alas I hear a lot about people to whom the only thing that matters is the fact 
that a woman is pregnant, and that only seems to matter up until she delivers 
the baby.

There ARE a lot of pro-life people who work to go beyond what the media makes 
so visible.  There are crisis pregnancy centers which try to provide support 
through the pregnancy, after the pregnancy, and also try to educate men and 
women enough so they can choose to have a wanted child.  Sadly, their quite 
crusade is rarely seen and usually poorly funded.

I think it IS an issue that a woman (and the man) respond in a Godly way of 
sacrificial love, however you can't force that.  As Allison said, teach, don't 
tell.

"I can hardly believe what people will do still do today in the name of 
Christianity." 

me too.

Peace,

Jim

   Jim,

   Thank you!  You were able to discern my intent.


<There ARE a lot of pro-life people who work to go beyond what the media makes 
<so visible.  There are crisis pregnancy centers which try to provide support 
<through the pregnancy, after the pregnancy, and also try to educate men and 
<women enough so they can choose to have a wanted child.  Sadly, their quite 
<crusade is rarely seen and usually poorly funded.

   That paragraph is equally true if the words pro-choice are substituted
   for pro-life.


   Peace,
   Allison

Hi Allison,

>   That paragraph is equally true if the words pro-choice are substituted
>   for pro-life.

You're quite right.

And...you're welcome!

Peace,

Jim

    Is there a pro-choice organization that supports a pregnant woman who
    has been thrown out of her home by her parents for refusing to have an
    abortion?  Or offers any support in favor of a choice for life?

    Pat Sweeney

Jim,

Your entire statement totally denies as far as I can see
the God-given responsibility that His people and the 
government have *regardless* of whether they have been
faithful in all that you expect of them.

It seems that you want to place lots of conditions on those
who choose to see the innocent life which is about to be
first killed and then aborted.

Allison said that there is one person at the center of the
controversy.  Again I strongly stand by my response that this
is simply WRONG.  It is this short-sighted condition-filled (Jim's
response) thinking that gives credibility to a woman choosing to kill
her unborn fetus.  Again, the government and Christians 
(hey, let's even include the father) have an *integral*
interest of the lives of each of us.  That is why there are
laws about murder.  That is why there is praying going up
to God as well as the kind of support that Jim wishes on
pregnant women (which, as best as I can tell, is mainly
supplied by those who are pro-life).  This is the *responsibility*
of every Christian.  To assume that God's people are not
central in this issue (the assumption has also been made that
God is not central in this issue) is totally off-base, in
my opinion.

Don't you see???

Collis

   Collis,

   I am annoyed by the binary thought and even the implication that I
   would advocate killing babies, excuse me fetuses.  I cannot do that.
   I will not place myself between God(or what ever you prefer) and the
   woman as judge.  If there is any role in this for me it is as a guide.

   Peace,
   Allison

Re:  .424

I'm glad you do not advocate killing babies or fetuses.
What I hear you saying is certainly supportive of mother's
"rights" to kill their fetuses.  The two can get quite blurred.

I commend you in not judging.  However, we are also to be
the light of the world and to cry out just as Jeremiah did
when he saw babies being brought to the slaughter.

Collis

    The belief that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" applies to unborn children is not
    a "judgment".

Re:  .425

>...we are also to be
>the light of the world and to cry out just as Jeremiah did
>when he saw babies being brought to the slaughter.

     What about those times when whole cities, babies included
     were slaughtered in the name of God?  Who cried out for them?
    
     Carole

    We regret each death of one at the hands of another.
    
    Society shares this regret for many but not all.  Respect for life has
    disappeared for the unborn.  It is being chipped away at for the
    elderly based on the concept of "quality of life".

Re:  .427

First Jim and now Carole.  Is it not sufficient that we
have a responsibility?  It's an *unconditional* responsibility
that God has given each of us.  There's no need to change
to issue to either diminish our responsibility or say that
it doesn't exist in different circumstances.  The issue
is abortion.  If you agree that we have a God-given responsibility
about this issue, please say so.  If you disagree, I'd personally
prefer it if you give Biblical reasons instead of asking
questions about non-abortion reasons.

BTW, many people (especially God) cried out for those who
God slaughtered because of their rejection of Him.  It grieves
God that even one should be lost.  But this has little relevance
to the abortion issue.

Collis

    
    Collis,
    
    You are the one who mentioned Jeremiah.  And how can babies
    reject God?  I bring up these points and ask these questions
    because there seems to be so much contradiction and I find
    it very hard to understand the conservative Christian 
    position in light of statements such as yours in .425.
    You supported your position with the Jeremiah statement and
    I questioned that statement.  I'm not changing the subject
    at all but rather am trying to see through the contradictions.
    
    Carole

  >And how can babies reject God?

Original sin, as discussed elsewhere in this notesfile.

Re:  Jeremiah statement

  What's to understand?  We are to be the light of the
world.  Jeremiah acted this out as a prophet of God
when he wept and grieved and cried out against those
who were killing their babies where this killing
occurred (much like what goes on today, I might add,
although this is not an endorsement of Operation Rescue).

I don't see the connection between this, abortion and
your question about who cried out for those
babies who were slaughtered in the name of God.  Forgive
me if I'm somewhat dense about this.

Collis

If you'd like help trying to see through the contradictions,
you'll have to more clearly point out the contradictions to
me.  I think one of them had to do with the slaughter of
babies in the name of God; hopefully that is not now a
contradiction (in the sense that you understand the reasoning
even if you don't agree with it).  Again, I don't see
what this has to do with abortion.

If there are other contradictions that you have, I'll try
to be more patient at explaining them.  What I see is an
extremely one-sided mindset (probably much like what you
see :-) ) which ignores the many significant points made in
the previous 400 replies.

Collis

    Original sin?  Oh, never mind.

re:      <<< Note 31.422 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>

>    Is there a pro-choice organization that supports a pregnant woman who
>    has been thrown out of her home by her parents for refusing to have an
>    abortion?  Or offers any support in favor of a choice for life?

Yes.

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 31.423 by Collis "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" 

Hi Collis,

>Your entire statement totally denies as far as I can see
>the God-given responsibility that His people and the 
>government have *regardless* of whether they have been
>faithful in all that you expect of them.

I regret that that is as far as you can see.  
I advocate freedom *with responsibility*.

>It seems that you want to place lots of conditions on those
>who choose to see the innocent life which is about to be
>first killed and then aborted.

The only condition I want to place is that of accepting the responsibility
that goes with the freedom.

>...Again, the government and Christians 
>(hey, let's even include the father) have an *integral*
>interest of the lives of each of us.  

Interest is one thing, freedom and responsibility go well beyond that.

>Don't you see???

Yes, I believe I do.

Peace,

Jim

    reply .415
    
    >Who has the responsabilty for preventing unwanted conception?
    
    The woman. She cannot rely on her male partner to use birth control.
    
    >Who is the person that will be responsable for nine month
    >no matter what?
    
    The woman
    
    >Who has the right to tell another what they may or may not
    >do with their life?
    
    No one.
    
    >Why is prochoice a euphemism for abortion advocate?
    
    It isn't prochoice means just that. Prochoice = antiantiabortion.
    
    >Why is prolife a euphemism for antiabortion?
    
    It is better P.R.
    
    > Why is there a lack of inexpensive reliable birth control
    >that is not hazardous to the female other than abstention...
    
    A combination of barrier methods and spermacide is reliable.
    A combination of barrier methodes and IUD is reliable
    
    RU_486 would be reliable and safe, but the zealots won't permit its
    legalization.  
    
    

    re: 31.434
    
    What pro-choice organization supports a pregnant woman who has been
    thrown out of her home by her parents for refusing to have an abortion?
    Or offers any support in favor of a choice for life?

    .437
    
    Lemme guess, the Great State of Louisiana?
    
    Richard
    

re: Note 31.437 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" 

>    What pro-choice organization supports a pregnant woman who has been
>    thrown out of her home by her parents for refusing to have an abortion?
>    Or offers any support in favor of a choice for life?

Planned Parenthood, for one.

The friend of a friend of mine was pregnant (at age ~17) and her parents let 
her know that if she had the child she'd be out on the street.  She went to PP 
to see about an abortion, but found she could not go through with it.  The 
people at PP then helped her find low cost housing, a doctor who would provide 
pre and post natal care at a very low cost, got her into a hospital for the 
delivery for free...this was in central Massachusetts.

I am NOT going to divulge anyone's name here, so you can believe this or not 
as you choose.

Peace,

Jim

Re:  31.435

  >I advocate freedom *with responsibility*.

I agree totally with you.  In fact, we *have* the freedom to choose
right now (and will *always* have the freedom until Jesus comes
back).  We can choose to obey God or disobey God.  We can choose
to murder our spouses, our lovers, our friends, to rob, injure,
mutilate, whatever - even love.  That is our choice.

However, there are consequences.

The question is not whether or not the individual has a choice.  Of
course the individual does!  The question is whether or not some choices
should be considered wrong - and something done about it.  All societies 
that I know of have answered this in the affirmative.

Is it "responsible" to kill your unborn child?  See how foolish that
questions *sounds*?  Freedom with responsibility I accept, I embrace!
However, you advocate freedom with irresponsiblity which puts the
selfish desires of an individual before the life of another.

     >>It seems that you want to place lots of conditions on those
     >>who choose to see the innocent life which is about to be
     >>first killed and then aborted.

  >The only condition I want to place is that of accepting the 
  >responsibility that goes with the freedom.

This does not follow from what you were saying.  You were not questioning
the responsibility of the person who wants the freedom (the woman
considering an abortion), you were questioning the responsibility of
those who cry out for life of the unborn - the one who can not cry
out for himself/herself.  Your last statement is simply wrong.

Collis

re: Note 31.440 by Collis "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" 

>                     -< Yes, freedom with responsibliity! >-

Well, I'm glad we agree on that!

Not only does an individual have freedom, however, (and the responsibility 
that goes with that), but organizations (like businesses, schools, churches, 
legislative bodies and government administrations) have freedom (and 
responsibility) as well. 

A government has the *freedom* to pass laws, however they also have the
*responsibility* to make the laws workable. 

What good does it do for a legislative body to pass laws prohibiting or 
enforcing some activity, without accepting the responsibility that that 
entails?

For example, if a government passes some laws requiring jail sentences for 
numerous activities, without providing adequate resources for enforcement, 
litigation, incarceration and such, (and education and support for the 
populace to avoid those activities) then the laws are useless.  There is a 
responsibility to make the laws workable.

Collis, you ask if it is "responsible" to kill an unborn child.  I think you 
are using the word in a different way than I (as an adjective, not as a noun).
A person has the *freedom* to do many things, some of which may be viewed as
immoral, unethical, or illegal; but must accept the *responsibility* that that
action entails.  If that responsibility entails going to jail, or eternal
damnation, or writing "I will not chew gum in the classroom" on the blackboard
500 times, a person may still choose to do it. 

Now, the question comes to "what is *my* freedom and responsibility regarding 
someone else's action which I believe to be wrong?"  I may choose to ignore
it, vocally oppose it, legally oppose it, physically oppose it, attempt to 
educate the person as to their responsibility, or any of a number of things.
Each action that I am free to do carries with it a responsibility as well. 

Sometimes that freedom and responsibility are not at all clear.  Should I
physically violate someone else's freedom to protect a third party?  When does
vocal opposition become harassment?  At what point does vocal or physical
intervention become assault?  

No, I do not advocate freedom with irresponsibility, but I cannot accept the 
responsibility for any one's actions other than my own.  

Because I call out the responsibility of "those who cry out for life of the 
unborn" does NOT mean I don't do the same for "the person who wants the 
freedom".  Freedom with responsibility for ALL.  I stand by my statement.

Peace,

Jim

Re:  31.441

Hi Jim,

Indeed, I agree with much of what your note said.  From my perspective,
it doesn't really continue the previous dialogue (by adequately
addressing the issues I raised there), but that's fine.

  >No, I do not advocate freedom with irresponsibility, but I cannot accept 
  >the responsibility for any one's actions other than my own.  

This is where you differ from the prophets of God, from Jesus and
from our calling as Christians.

Isaiah noted not only his unclean lips, but that he came from a people
of unclean lips.  Jeremiah wept for his nation.  David accepted
respoonsibility for the sins of Israel.  The priests yearly offer a
sacrifice for the sins of the nation.  Most importantly, Jesus died
for your sins and for mine.

Throughout the Bible, we see examples and are told of our responsibility
not only for our own actions, but for the actions of the people that
we are associated with.  By allowing someone else to kill their unborn
child and then say, "I don't have any responsibility for what they
chose" is *totally* unScriptural.  You and I are to be a light to the
world and salt to the earth.  We *have* a responsibility not only to
share Jesus and help meet their physical, emotional, spiritual, etcetera
needs, but also to repent for their sinful choices (as I repent for
our nation when I pray).

What was lost in your reply was a need to addressing the killing of
the unborn children.  I agree that it is sinful to be irresponsible
in not providing for both the mother and the child (should the
child be born).  The disconnect is that it is EQUALLY sinful to kill
the unborn child because he/she may not be properly cared for.  One
sin does NOT justify the other.  Never has, never will.

Collis

    The moral obligation of a mother and of a surgeon is to not participate
    in the active killing of an unborn child.  The unborn child has the
    right to life that is shared by all human beings.  God commands us
    "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
    
    The moral obligation of of a citizen is to promote the public policy of
    preserving life and respect for life. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

How often did Jesus force his will upon others?
How often did Jesus teach others by his example and *invite* them to follow?

I can admit that I come from a people who have sinned.
I can weep for the sins and pain of others.
I have the freedom to accept the responsibility for the sin of another.
I have the freedom to accept death for another.

None of which argues counter to what I have said.

>Throughout the Bible, we see examples and are told of our responsibility
>not only for our own actions, but for the actions of the people that
>we are associated with.  

As I have said before, I have the freedom to ignore someone else's action, OR 
to oppose those action verbally, physically, or through education.  And I have 
the responsibility to accept the consequences of *my* choice.  This is QUITE 
different from saying "I don't have any responsibility for what they chose".

>What was lost in your reply was a need to addressing the killing of
>the unborn children.  I agree that it is sinful to be irresponsible
>in not providing for both the mother and the child (should the
>child be born).  The disconnect is that it is EQUALLY sinful to kill
>the unborn child because he/she may not be properly cared for.  One
>sin does NOT justify the other.  Never has, never will.

Collis, I did address the abortion issue.  And I agree, one sin does not 
justify the other.  However, that works two ways.  I have seen what I would 
describe as sinful behavior by people attempting to prevent women from having 
an abortion.  Justifying assault by preventing what one perceives as a sin 
doesn't work either.  "Never has, never will."

Peace,

Jim

    .443
    
    > God commands us "Thou Shalt Not Kill".
    
    Commandment is Lo'Tirtzacha -- don't murder
    
    Killing of unborn child is not murder. It is not even manslaughter.
    
    See Exod 21:22.
    
    

Exodus 21:22 pertains to the accidental killing of an unborn child.

It has no relevance to intentional abortion.

Re:  31.444

Jim,

  >How often did Jesus force his will upon others?

Rarely.  The two cleansings of the temple come to mind.

  >How often did Jesus teach others by his example and *invite* them to 
  >follow?

Often.  This was the norm.

However, this is a distorted view in the sense that there are two
comings of Jesus and you are only focusing on the first one.  In
Jesus' second coming, how often will Jesus force his will upon others
and how often will Jesus teach others by his example and invite them
to follow?  Ah, now that's a more balanced picture.

  >And I agree, one sin does not justify the other.  

Is this a general claim?  Or are you specifically referring to abortion
as a sin.  If so, we may be in more agreement than I thought.

Collis

Re:  31.446

  >Exodus 21:22 pertains to the accidental killing of an unborn child.

Actually, it is not at all clear that the baby is killed as a
result of the premature delivery.  All that is clear is that the
mother delivered a baby early as a result of a blow.

Collis

re: Note 31.447 by Collis "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" 

>                     -< looking at all of Jesus' actions >-

Well, as some of those actions haven't happened yet, it makes it rather hard 
to observe them.  .-)  I do see your point though.  I'd reply that in several
creeds, the essence of the the second coming is to "judge the living and the
dead".  I don't see that as Jesus forcing his will on anyone.  Rather it is 
the fulfillment of the responsibility that goes with the freedom we have been 
given.

While I suppose God could make it physically and mentally impossible for us to 
sin, we were given free will instead.  That freedom goes hand in hand with 
certain responsibilities.  There are consequences to our actions.  The second 
coming might be seen as the culmination of those consequences.

>Is this a general claim?  Or are you specifically referring to abortion
>as a sin.  If so, we may be in more agreement than I thought.

Well, your statement of "never has, never will" seemed pretty general.  .-)
Yes, I think the claim is rather general, but specifically to abortion, let us 
say that it either is or is not a sin.  If abortion IS a sin, that does not
justify using sinful behavior to oppose it.  And if it is NOT a sin, again
there is no justification.  The point being that one cannot use stopping
abortion as an ends to justify the means. 

There are people in this world who, after studying and learning the teaching 
of Jesus, openly and honestly choose to reject him as their Lord and Savior.  
They are fully aware of the possible consequences of their actions, and accept 
them freely.  I know several such people.  What is my response to them?  I try 
to show them Christ's love through myself.  But I cannot *make* them believe.

Peace,

Jim

>  >Exodus 21:22 pertains to the accidental killing of an unborn child.
>
>Actually, it is not at all clear that the baby is killed as a
>result of the premature delivery.  All that is clear is that the
>mother delivered a baby early as a result of a blow.

The only version of the bible I have handy at the moment uses the word
"miscarriage" which means death.  There are no notes indicating other
possible meanings.

/john

Re:  31.450

      >>>>Exodus 21:22 pertains to the accidental killing of an unborn child.

    >>>Actually, it is not at all clear that the baby is killed as a
    >>>result of the premature delivery.  All that is clear is that the
    >>>mother delivered a baby early as a result of a blow.

  >The only version of the bible I have handy at the moment uses the word
  >"miscarriage" which means death.  There are no notes indicating other
  >possible meanings.

From "Abortion:  Toward an Evangelical Consensus" by Paul Fowler, page 148

  One problem with this view [that the fetus is killed in Ex. 21:22]
is that it is based on a faulty translation.  A second interpretation
of this passage exposes the errors in translation.  A more exact
rendering of the Hebrew is found in the New International Version:

  (22) "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives
  birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must
  be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
  (23) But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for
  life, eye for eye..."

  According to this second interpretation, the child is born prematurely,
but *does not die*.  [author's emphasis]  No serious harm occurs to the
mother or child, only some trauma or less serious affects, so the
monetary requirement is proper.  In verse 23, the serious harm can refer
to either the mother or the child or both, and in this case the "lex
talionis" principle is proper.  [footnote here to John Warwick
Montgomery's book "The Christian View of the Fetus", J. W. Cottrell's
"Abortion and the Mosaic Law", Frame's "Abortion" and H Wayne House's
"Miscarriage or Premature Birth:  Additional Thoughts on Exodus
21:22-25" published in The Westminster Theological Journal 41 (Fall '78).

  There are several good reasons the second interpretation is to be
preferred.  First, the literal translation of verse 22 is: "So that
the child depart."  This cannot refer to a miscarriage.  The word
normally used for miscarriage in Hebrew is "shakil" and is used in a
passage as nearby as Exodus 23:26.  The verb here is "yatza" meaning
"to go or come forth."  It is used elsewhere in Scripture to describe
normal births and never refers to a miscarriage.  The Hebrew word
for child ("yeled") is always used of someone already born (with the
exception of Esau and Jacob in Genesis 25:22), and is usually
translated as "child" or "boy." [footnote to Meredith G Kline's
"Lex Talionis and the Human Fetus, Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 20 (Sept '97):194.]  There are Hebrew words for fetus ("golem")
or for the death of an unborn child ("nefel"), usually translated "one
untimely born."  But there words are not found in these verses.
Moreover, where the NASB reads, "if there is no further injury," as
though there had been a miscarriage to the child but no injury to the
mother, we find "further" is not even in the Hebrew.  The Hebrew
simply means injury, or possibly, serious injury.

Collis

Collis' explanation certainly supports the concept that the child is truly a
child while still in the womb.

Sounds like I need to add my own footnote to some or all of the translations
of the Bible I have at hand.

/john

   John,  RE:Note 31.452    
     
    |Collis' explanation certainly supports the concept that the child is 
    |truly a child while still in the womb.

|Sounds like I need to add my own footnote to some or all of the translations
|of the Bible I have at hand.

    A couple of other cross-references I have for Exodus 21:22 that you might
    want to make note of are Psalms 139:13-16 and Gen 25:22-24 (especially 23).
                                                  
         robin 

I guess I've been thinking about the whole issue of "imposing" my morality
on someone else through laws and whether or not that is correct.  I realize
that all laws impose someone's morality, usually it is the morality of
the person or person's making the laws.  Sometimes it isn't considered
morality because it is so widely accepted that it is a "given" in all
cases.

I've been thinking as well about the "middle" road.  I have friends
who are against abortion but are pro-choice and don't want to force
their views on the mother.  It seems to me that in effect, they are
saying that they believe abortion is wrong but not as wrong as
speeding, or hitting a pedestrian with a car, or letting one's dog run
around unleashed, etc. In other words, we have lots of laws on the
books that "impose" things on people regardless of whether or not the
individuals agree because "society" has determined that the behavior
or action is wrong or not in the best interests of society.  It seems
to me inconsistent to pick this particular event as one where we don't
impose our views.  If someone feels that something is wrong, smoking
in a newborn intensive care unit, letting children under 10 buy
alcohol, etc., why not try to get the laws changed to prevent the
destructive behavior?

I guess it seems to me that those who say abortion is perfectly fine
100% of the time and those who say it is wrong 100% of the time are
being more consistent than those who say that it is wrong but it is
not wrong enough to try to prevent by passing laws like we do for so
many other things.  I don't mean to offend anyone by this, but I have
to confess I'm missing the logic, maybe because I've defined the
apparant inconsistency incorrectly.

Along the same lines of consistency, if abortion is wrong because in effect
a baby is being killed, then I'm not sure how rape and incest can be
allowed as exceptions while still being consistent.

On the other hand, very few of us are consistent in anything. 8-)


---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon			or
Loptson		clt::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Re: .454

Hi Paul,

>Along the same lines of consistency, if abortion is wrong because in effect
>a baby is being killed, then I'm not sure how rape and incest can be
>allowed as exceptions while still being consistent.

The cynic in me says it's because childbirth is a punishment for girls who
fool around.  If a girl was raped or was seduced by her father or brother
then there is no need to punish her (or maybe childbirth is an excessively
harsh punishment in the case of voluntary incest).  In this view, abortion
should be illegal not so much to protect the unborn child (which is the
ostensible motive) but to enforce Biblical standards of sexual morality.

				-- Bob

    Bob .455,
    
    re:  "childbirth is punishment for the girl who fools around"
    
    I'm bewildered by this statement and the general tone of your note.
    
    You feel a "girl" should be "punished" for "fooling around," and
    childbirth is the punishment?  What about the "boy's" accountability?
    
    If .455 is the cynic's opinion, I'd be interested in knowing if the 
    rest of you shares the same opinion.
    
    Karen

Re: .456 Karen

What I meant was: the cynic in me thinks that "pro-lifers" want to punish
pregnant girls/women.  The rest of me thinks that pro-lifers are sincere
but sometimes inconsistent.

In case it isn't obvious: I'm not a "pro-lifer".

				-- Bob

    Thanks very much for the clarification, Bob.  It was such 
    a 180 degree turn for you...I suspected someone else had 
    logged into C-P using your account. ;-)
    
    :-) 
    
    Karen

    There are pro-life advocates here so you don't have to speculate what
    they believe.

    An unborn child shouldn't be the second victim of rape or incest and
    given the death penalty.  An unborn child isn't culpable for the rape
    or incest, and isn't "marked" from birth as a child of rape or incest
    unless society makes it so.  The experience of a pregnancy from rape or
    incest isn't a greater psychological trauma unless society makes it so.

    Because pro-life advocates want to do what they can, with the 
    spiritual and political resources they will support legislation that
    contain exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.  If a
    reduction from 1,500,000 dead children to 300,000 or fewer would be a
    great achievement for life.

    Once achieving that, later, I believe that we'll be able to influence
    public policy to make all abortion unnecessary and all children, either
    those conceived by rape or incest, wanted children.

Re: .459 Patrick Sweeney

>    The experience of a pregnancy from rape or
>    incest isn't a greater psychological trauma unless society makes it so.

I think you're probably wrong, but in any case I believe that the experience
of pregnancy from rape or incest is a greater trauma for most women than
pregnancy from other causes, whether or not "society makes it so".

>    Once achieving that, later, I believe that we'll be able to influence
>    public policy to make all abortion unnecessary and all children, either
>    those conceived by rape or incest, wanted children.

"Unnecessary" in whose opinion?  What if the mother-to-be doesn't agree
that the abortion is unnecessary?

				-- Bob

<    given the death penalty.  An unborn child isn't culpable for the rape
<    or incest, and isn't "marked" from birth as a child of rape or incest
<    unless society makes it so.  The experience of a pregnancy from rape or
<    incest isn't a greater psychological trauma unless society makes it so.

   Patrick,

   There are other reasons.  Incest is also unacceptable because of genetic
   inbreeding which result in an unacceptable likelyhood of malformed
   children.  That is a permanent mark.  Again the scriptures have
   prohibitions against incest.

   As far as rape, well a lot of things in society would have to be fixed
   before that child wouldn't be marked, like unmarried women with
   children being perceived as bad.  

   I get this idea from what I'm reading that children are the goal of a
   womans existance no matter how she became pregnant.  It's at least one
   possible interpretation of the idea that she should bear the child no
   matter what the cause or the burdens it imposes on her or others.

   Peace,
   Allison

    You've got to be kidding... illegitimacy isn't a stigma.  There are
    segments of the population of the United States where there are more
    births to unmarried women than live women.
    
    Society puts its own spin on values.  American society values personal
    freedom higher than responsibility to one's family, for example.
    
    Abortion is seen as a positive good: eliminating a problem that
    interferes with one's personal freedom.
    
    I value personal freedom but believe that the right to life should be
    public policy.  Because we've come to cheapen life, the right to life
    of the unborn moved from a question of balancing interests to an
    absolute right to abort an unborn child for any reason at any time.

    
    		I really don't see abortion as a 'problem'.  Of course I
    really don't see rape, incest, drugs, crime, or any of those other
    nasties as 'problems.  I see them as symptoms to the real problem.
    Society is gonna have to mature and understand spirituality before any
    resolution is garnered.  In my mind, its kinda like a doctor only
    giving pain medication for a broken leg.  He/she 'cures' the pain but
    the original problem still exists and until the leg is 'set', the
    problem won't go away.  Passing laws to "do away" with abortion, while
    nobel, ignores the real problem.  Why are young men and women doing
    what may hurt their lives and futures for a few moments of pleasure.
    
    
    Dave

    In the meantime, I believe that public policy consistent with the
    teachings of Jesus Christ is for the life of the 1.5 million victims of
    abortion.
    
    A society that permits death on this scale will be judged by God for
    it.

    RE: .464 Mr. Sweeney,
    
    			Well, I'm not sure how you believe but I believe
    that each and every one of those little souls go right to God.  I
    sometimes wonder what this country would be like if all that effort
    against abortion was turned toward witnessing the good news of
    salvation thru Christ.  Interesting delimna.
    
    Dave

    What makes one believe that each non-violent act of opposition to
    abortion is not an act of witnessing the good news of salvation thru
    Christ?
    
    Jesus could have arrived on earth in a body already 30 years old and
    ready to start his ministry.  What he did do was live for nine months
    in the womb of Mary, and then lived for 30 years in humility in
    Nazareth.
    
    God gave us life.  The person in the womb is just trying to live in
    innocence.

A number of you have responded to Pat's comments on the last paragraph
of .454.  I'm interested in your comments on the middle paragraphs of
what I wrote.  Am I drawing the analogy incorrectly?  How do folks
who are pro-choice anti-abortion address what seems to me to be an
inconsistency in the sorts of things that laws are used to control.  For
those of you who are pro-choice anit-abortion, clearly abortion is less
wrong than outlawing it.  How wrong is it? 

I'm really not meaning to bait or trap, but am genuinely curious as to
the reasoning behind the decisions.

Thanks,
Paul

|>I've been thinking as well about the "middle" road.  I have friends
|>who are against abortion but are pro-choice and don't want to force
|>their views on the mother.  It seems to me that in effect, they are
|>saying that they believe abortion is wrong but not as wrong as
|>speeding, or hitting a pedestrian with a car, or letting one's dog run
|>around unleashed, etc. In other words, we have lots of laws on the
|>books that "impose" things on people regardless of whether or not the
|>individuals agree because "society" has determined that the behavior
|>or action is wrong or not in the best interests of society.  It seems
|>to me inconsistent to pick this particular event as one where we don't
|>impose our views.  If someone feels that something is wrong, smoking
|>in a newborn intensive care unit, letting children under 10 buy
|>alcohol, etc., why not try to get the laws changed to prevent the
|>destructive behavior?
|>
|>I guess it seems to me that those who say abortion is perfectly fine
|>100% of the time and those who say it is wrong 100% of the time are
|>being more consistent than those who say that it is wrong but it is
|>not wrong enough to try to prevent by passing laws like we do for so
|>many other things.  I don't mean to offend anyone by this, but I have
|>to confess I'm missing the logic, maybe because I've defined the
|>apparant inconsistency incorrectly.
|>
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon			or
Loptson		clt::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

   Paul,   (31.467)
   
   Well, I'm not all that active here - I think I've written 2-3 times -
   and I'm definately a lot more conservative than some of the other
   participants here... but I'll say something...
   
   I think your questions are right on.  I think you've pointed out an
   inconsistency that ought to be dealt with, and frankly, its something
   I for one had never noticed before.
   
   I was, for a while, one of those folks who used to say - "I do not
   support abortion, but I won't push my views on other people".  I'm not
   sure what led me to that thought - I guess part of it was that I
   didn't want to offend anybody.  Abortion is such an emotion-charged
   topic (even the labels "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are 'loaded') that
   I think some people want to try to remain relatively neutral.  As much
   as I disagree with abortion, and as much as I believe it is wrong to
   kill unborn babies, I supposed a part of me didn't want to be
   associated with those folks we've all seen on the evening news who get
   arrested for blocking abortion clinics.  
   
   Its almost in line with those Greenpeace folks a few years back who
   got into all that trouble for chaining themselves to whalers out in
   international water - impressive statement of faith and conviction,
   but not what you'd expect from your next-door neighbor, if you know
   what I mean.
   
   Interesting, as I write this I realize that for a good while I suppose
   I was too worried about what "they" would think to really take a
   stand.   As I've matured a little  (very little if you ask some people
   :-)  ) over the past few years, I've become less worried about what
   "they" think.  Actually, I find that in many cases, "they" aren't
   thinking about me anyway, so why worry about it.
   
   While I do believe that abortion is murder, and I do not support it, I
   do not choose to follow the same path that the pro-life folks follow.
   (See note 31.372 in this conference if you want to see where I'm
   coming from.)  However, no longer do I say "I won't push my opinions
   on others".  I believe that this non-confrontational approach to life
   is at best a waste.  Doesn't the Bible say something about "salt that
   loses its saltiness is worthless"  ?  
   
   We are instructed to be bold for the Lord, are we not?  This is
   neither arrogant, nor rude, nor stupid, nor violent, but bold.
   
   Paul, I hope you continue to ask the "tough questions" that we all
   need sometimes to get our attention.  Maybe it will help other people
   realize that they need to think more clearly about how they feel.
   Maybe your questions will lead other people to realize that they need
   to take a stand for something if they want to see change.
   
   Like the poster said:
   
   "A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything"
   
   May all of us learn to stand more than we fall..
   
   Peace,
   
   - Tom

I think it would be accurate to say I am one of the more liberal Christians
within this conference and I do not favor abortion.  At the same time, I would
not favor a total ban on legal abortions.

Do you know that it is possible to be cited for running a green light?
Yes, I said a green light.

The point is that what seems to be prudent and right under most conditions
may not be prudent and right under all conditions.

Peace,
Richard

    
|>I've been thinking as well about the "middle" road.  I have friends
|>who are against abortion but are pro-choice and don't want to force
|>their views on the mother.  It seems to me that in effect, they are
|>saying that they believe abortion is wrong but not as wrong as
|>speeding, or hitting a pedestrian with a car, or letting one's dog run
|>around unleashed, etc. 
    
    I guess my answer would be that the wrongness or rightness of abortion
    in a *specific situation* is not as clear-cut as the wrongness of
    speeding -- unless you're rushing an emergency patient to the
    hospital!! --, hitting a pedestrian, or letting your dog run free.
    
                          In other words, we have lots of laws on the
|>books that "impose" things on people regardless of whether or not the
|>individuals agree because "society" has determined that the behavior
|>or action is wrong or not in the best interests of society.  It seems
|>to me inconsistent to pick this particular event as one where we don't
|>impose our views.  If someone feels that something is wrong, smoking
|>in a newborn intensive care unit, letting children under 10 buy
|>alcohol, etc., why not try to get the laws changed to prevent the
|>destructive behavior?

    Again, the situations quoted here are much simpler and easier to
    judge.  The alternatives to preventing *these* behaviors do not
    in themselves create other destructive or damaging situations.
    
|>I guess it seems to me that those who say abortion is perfectly fine
|>100% of the time and those who say it is wrong 100% of the time are
|>being more consistent than those who say that it is wrong but it is
|>not wrong enough to try to prevent by passing laws like we do for so
|>many other things.  I don't mean to offend anyone by this, but I have
|>to confess I'm missing the logic, maybe because I've defined the
|>apparant inconsistency incorrectly.
|>
    
    Anyone who can rest on an absolutist position is more consistent than
    those of us for whom right and wrong depend on the situation.
    
    Actually, Roe v Wade was supposed to be a compromise -- and one which,
    in my opinion, still makes a lot of sense:  The first trimester, the
    mother's choice is paramount; the second trimester, the state is
    involved in regulating the procedure; the third trimester, the rights
    of the fetus become primary except in life-threatening cases.
    
    
    Nancy

    re:         <<< Note 31.469 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Keep on loving boldly!" >>>

>I think it would be accurate to say I am one of the more liberal Christians
>within this conference and I do not favor abortion.  At the same time, I would
>not favor a total ban on legal abortions.
>
>Do you know that it is possible to be cited for running a green light?
>Yes, I said a green light.
>
>The point is that what seems to be prudent and right under most conditions
>may not be prudent and right under all conditions.
>
>Peace,
>Richard
    
    Thanks Richard for taking the time to respond to my reply. Would you be
    willing to share a little more about your views?  You wrote that you
    didn't favor abortions but that you didn't favor a total ban on them. 
    Do you see abortions as being somewhat wrong or sometimes wrong?  Do
    you have any comments on my comments 8-), about abortion being less
    wrong than speeding, etc.  If it isn't too personal, why do you not
    favor abortions? I'm assuming that your distaste for a total ban on
    abortions is based on your views of the rights of the woman to have
    control over her own body.
    
    Thanks,
    Paul
    

    re:         <<< Note 31.470 by LJOHUB::NSMITH "rises up with eagle wings" >>>
                           -< An attempt to answer >-
    
    Nancy,
    
    	Thanks for responding.  If I'm reading your reply correctly, you
    believe that abortion is wrong based on the viablity of the fetus. In other
    words, the wrongness of abortion is based on the state of medical
    technology in the current age.  I would guess (maybe incorrectly) that
    if medical technology progressed to the point that fetuses were viable
    after the first trimester that you'd be willing to back limits on
    abortion after the first trimester.  Do I understand your position
    correctly?
    
    	Both you and Richard (in .469) indicated that for you abortion was
    sometimes wrong but that you were pro-choice.  Perhaps my question in
    .468 which was addressed to folks who are pro-choice and consistently
    anit-abortion will go wanting and maybe the vast majority of folks hold
    the same views as you and Richard, with folks on either end of the
    spectrum.
    
    Thanks,
    Paul
    

    Re: .472, Paul,

>    	Thanks for responding.  If I'm reading your reply correctly, you
>    believe that abortion is wrong based on the viablity of the fetus. 
    
    Not quite.  I believe that "rightness/wrongness," morality, ethics,
    what-have-you is situation-dependent.  (Situation ethics.)  I believe
    the "rights" shift from mother to fetus as the fetus matures.  Thus,
    toward the end of pregnancy, the rights are probably nearly equal.
    
    >In other
    >words, the wrongness of abortion is based on the state of medical
    >technology in the current age.  I would guess (maybe incorrectly) that
    >if medical technology progressed to the point that fetuses were viable
    >after the first trimester that you'd be willing to back limits on
    >abortion after the first trimester.  Do I understand your position
    >correctly?
    
    Not if by medical technology you are referring to the ability to keep
    a fetus alive by providing an artificial uterus, etc.  I don't think
    there is any indication that the viability of a fetus -- unaided --
    occurs at an earlier stage of pregnancy than in ages past.
    
    I think there is probably much more agreement between pro-life and
    pro-choice people in general than is protrayed in the rhetoric on both
    sides.  I do *not* endorse abortion literally on demand, regardless,
    for the entire nine months.  And I suspect that most pro-lifers have
    exceptions to their positions as well.
    
    But both sides have made it an either/or situation.  As I said earlier,
    Roe v Wade was intended to be a compromise!
    
    Nancy

Paul .471,

	I would like to start out by saying this:  I appreciate your approach.
I find your approach to be respectful and considerate.

	My position on legal abortions is not very different from Nancy's.

	Allow me to augment her comments by saying that I've also known women
who've had abortions.  I know in each case the decision was not one that was
made lightly.  Not one of them felt good about it and probably to this day
each still carries a great deal of guilt about it.  But each, for their own
individual reasons, decided to have an abortion performed.  I am convinced
that these women would have pursued having an abortion even if it meant
having it performed illegally.

	Abortions performed outside the legal system cannot be monitored for
sanitary conditions and medical credentials.  I would not like to see abortions
relegated to the back alley, which I fear would happen if all abortions were
legally banned.

	If my stepdaughter (17) were to become pregnant, I'd encourage her
to go ahead with the pregnancy.  I suspect this would not be difficult, as
she has already expressed strong opposition to all abortions.

	Your comparison to other laws implies, at least to me, that you'd
like to see punitive measures taken against women who have had an abortion,
not unlike the motorist who has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk.  I don't
know.  I do know I'd want to know a lot more about the circumstances in
either case before having a sentence handed down.                    ==
===========
	I have other concerns related to making abortions illegal, if you'd
care to hear them.

	In any case, thanks again for your most courteous inquiry.

Peace,
Richard

In article <31.474-920819-172030@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (Keep on loving boldly!) writes:
|>X-Note-Id: 31.474 (474 replies)
|>Reply Title: (none)
|>
|>Paul .471,
|>
|>	I would like to start out by saying this:  I appreciate your approach.
|>I find your approach to be respectful and considerate.

Thanks.

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    Argh! I was using the Notes-News gateway for that last reply and had
    carefully crafted a reply addressing some of Richard's comments and
    discussing a few more questions.  Right when I was posting it our clump
    had some sort of disk error, and all that made it through was the
    "Thanks".  I don't know if I have it in me to try and reproduce the
    note. 8-)
    
    Paul
    

    .476
    
    Perhaps it was a sign, Paul!
    
    Just kidding!!  ;-}
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: 477
    
    The thought had crossed my mind Richard! 8-)
    
    Paul
    

    
Richard,
    	Here's another shot. You should have seen the reply that got away! 8-)
    
>
>	I would like to start out by saying this:  I appreciate your approach.
>I find your approach to be respectful and considerate.

    Thanks again. 8-)
    
.
    .
    .
    .
>
>	Abortions performed outside the legal system cannot be monitored for
>sanitary conditions and medical credentials.  I would not like to see abortions
>relegated to the back alley, which I fear would happen if all abortions were
>legally banned.

    I wouldn't want to see abortions relegated to back alleys either.  On the
    other hand, the rightness or wrongness of abortion (at least for
    non-situational ethicists), doesn't seem to me to have anything to do
    logically with the issue of back alley abortions.  Emotionally the
    issues are certainly tied together but I don't think they are
    logically.  To me, the issue of rightness or wrongness is something to
    be figured out before deciding legal issues. Legality has to do more
    with what societal consensus will tolerate, in my mind, than with
    legality; compare laws in the former Soviet Union vs some of our laws.
    
>   	If my stepdaughter (17) were to become pregnant, I'd encourage her
>to go ahead with the pregnancy.  I suspect this would not be difficult, as
>she has already expressed strong opposition to all abortions.

    Agreement! 8-)
    
>	Your comparison to other laws implies, at least to me, that you'd
>like to see punitive measures taken against women who have had an abortion,
>not unlike the motorist who has killed a pedestrian in a crosswalk.  I don't
>know.  I do know I'd want to know a lot more about the circumstances in
>either case before having a sentence handed down.                    ==
>===========
    
	Well, I'm not sure what measures I'd want taken.  I'm still
    undecided as to how moral issues that some consider to be absolutes
    should be addressed in society, especially in a pluralistic society. At
    the minimum, as Christians we're called to serve as prophets in
    society, praising things that glorify God and pointing out things which
    don't please him.  Christ was able to do that perfectly and without
    sinning. 8-)  We have to be a little more careful given our sinful
    natures and our habits of either seeing rules where there aren't any or
    not seeing rules where there should be some.  I'm realizing, the older
    I get, that God wants me depending on Him daily.  I want to say to Him,
    give me some general guidelines and I'll check back with you in a
    couple of months.  He has a different idea of how things should work
    and wants me dependent, in the real sense of the word, on Him.  I need
    to be guided by His Word that He has given us, by the Holy Spirit, and
    by the witness of the church through the ages.  This doesn't mean that
    there aren't clear cases where God's desires are in sharp contrast to
    the society's and where we need to take a stand no matter how popular
    or how effective it might be.
    
    	I'm trying to figure out for myself how all of the above ties into
    a legal system.  But I am trying to determine "first" principles and
    then secondary ones will derive from those.  As far as abortion is
    concerned, I believe that the fetus should be given the benefit of the
    doubt as to whether or not it is a person.  I think that the arguments
    for abortion tied to viablity don't make a whole lot of sense to me. 
    Likewise, the arguments that the fetus is just a part of the woman's
    body like any other part. The arguments for abortion based on potential
    hardship in the mother's life if the baby is carried to term are
    certainly powerful and it is not easy to appear to dismiss them. 
    However, I believe that God is sovereign(sp?) and have seen powerfully in my
    life and the lives of people close to me where he took an "impossible"
    situation and worked it out in a wonderful way.  That is cold comfort
    to someone facing a decision in the face but it seems to me that we
    need to see things through God's eyes rather than our own, and realize
    that He really is bigger than our problems.
    
    	As I reread the above I realize that unless the reader shares some
    of my assumptions about who God is then the above may seem very
    cold-hearted.  My wife and I believe strongly that if the church says
    "no" to abortions that it should be putting it's money where it's mouth
    is and providing support to women who make a choice to carry a baby to
    term, rather than just saying, make the decision and go in peace.
      
>	I have other concerns related to making abortions illegal, if you'd
>care to hear them.


    Sure.
    
	In any case, thanks again for your most courteous inquiry.
>
>Peace,
>Richard
    
    Likewise.
    
    Paul
    

Paul .479,

I have to confess, my explanation had less to do with the rightness or wrongness
of abortion and more to do with the rationale of why I would not favor a ban
on legal abortions.

And I also have to confess, I'm not an entirely logical kind of guy.  I've
come to appreciate that about me, that it is not necessarily a negative trait
or quality, especially when it comes to spiritual matters.  I see Christianity
as essentially a heart-centered (emotional) religion, as compared to Buddhism,
which I see as more of a mind-centered (rational) religion.

My other concerns are not directly related to the morality of abortion,
either.

As you may know, the state of Louisiana has passed legislation making
abortion illegal.  Louisiana is also at or near the bottom of state funding
for public education and funding of public health and welfare.  What this
says to me is that the people of Louisiana can feel real righteous about
having saved all these unborn, unwanted children, but once they're born
they're on their own.

As Elayne Boosler has put it: "Bush is pro-life and pro-capital punishment.
True to the fisherman, he favors throwing them back until until they're bigger."

Peace,
Richard

    Richard .480
    
    Pro-life pro-capital punishment on one side, willing to allow fetuses
    not becoming adults, anti-killing adults on the other.  It is all in
    the assumptions about what is right and wrong.
    
    Although I certainly support increased support for those unwanted
    children (and do something concrete to that end) I tend to be on the
    rational "Buddhist" 8-) side of things for something like this although
    I can attest to an emotional first-hand appreciation of God's love and
    care.  I would say, if it wrong then we shouldn't allow it and we
    should own up to our increased responsiblity as a result. I wouldn't
    say, let's not pass a law against rape if we don't have the jail
    facilities.  If rape is wrong then as a society we should try and stop
    it and bear the responsiblity of the consequences of that decision.
    
    Paul
    

    I'm brand new in this discussion so if the answer to my question has
    been answered, please forgive me.  
    
    On the pro abortion side, I see alot of people holding up signs which
    say something like, "Keep Government out of our bedrooms" or "Stay out
    of our utereses".  
    
    I see a tremendous double standard here.  On one side, you want
    government to keep out of your private choice.  However, when federal
    funding on clinics is dropped or questioned, groups like NOW and
    planned parenthood go bonkers.  The message I get as a taxpayer is you
    don't want government to intervene, you just want them to keep their
    mouth shut and pay for it.  Am I correct in this?
    
    If this is a private choice, KEEP IT THAT WAY!  When you ask government
    to subsidize things like this, YOU ARE dragging us into your bedroom
    and quite frankly, I don't want to be there!!  Funding should come from
    private groups, I.E. United Way or Planned Parenthood, NOT from Uncle
    Sam!  
    
    Thanks for your attention
    
    Jack  

    The issue of government funding of medical procedures is a good one and
    certainly worthy of debate.  However, it is quite separate from the
    debate on the morality of abortion.
    
    Mike

    Good Point; however, many individuals would say you cannot legislate
    morality.  I tend to agree and feel if Jesus were to go that route, he
    would've overthrown the Roman Empire way back when.  
    
    Don't you feel that by federally subsizing clinics, the moral issue is
    put upon everybody since our government is of the people, for the
    people, by the people?!  If I am paying for an immoral, private choice,
    am I not partaking of the dirty deed?
    
    Jack

    
<    Don't you feel that by federally subsizing clinics, the moral issue is
<    put upon everybody since our government is of the people, for the
<    people, by the people?!  If I am paying for an immoral, private choice,
<    am I not partaking of the dirty deed?
    
   Jack,

   I have seen this arguement persued and it doesn't go far or stay nice.
   In an attempt to answer your objection I'll point out some things.

   	WE pay taxes, they support methadone, war, and capital punishment
   	just to name the first three that pop into me head.  Some of 
   	these are "dirty deeds" as well and we partake of them.
   	
   No matter what your money will be spent in relation to that pregnancy
   as either a "funded" abortion or pre-natel care.  While some may
   object to one the other is still an absolute need , namely pre and post
   pregnancy care of the mother and baby.  We never can get off free.
   Money is not a valid arguement.


   Peace,
   Allison

    Hi Allison:
    
    I try to take a logical approach to these things so my dialog will
    remain "nice".  Getting emotional in a notes file doesn't really get
    anywhere.
    
    Your explaination holds merit in some cases.  I assume by mentioning
    methadone, you are referring to pollution?  I agree with you on that
    one and I feel government regulation is necessary.  The war and the
    capital punishment don't hold too much water as they result in an act
    of the will whereby one party offends the other.  If I took your life
    for example, I could only expect my life to be forfeited and if you
    read the Old Testament, you will find capital punishment sanctioned by
    God in many many instances, even for reasons you and I take for granted!  
    
    As far as wars go, Didn't God use war to bring Israel to the promised
    land.  King David killed tens of thousands, yet he is referred to as
    "...a man after God's own heart".  I believe God allows wars to happen
    as a judgement of a nation, including the U.S.  I believe you will find 
    this as a theme to every one of the hundreds of wars in the Old
    Testament.
    
    Is my logic making sense thus far?  Getting to the abortion issue and
    looking at it logically, what is the major cause of abortions?  Other
    than rape, incest, or life endangerment to the mother, I do not see the
    correlation between abortion with war and capital punishment.  If an 
    abortion takes place, is not the mother taking an act of aggression
    where the other party (child) is indefensible?   
    
    If ANYONE can logically dispute this, I am all ears.  The way I look at
    it is if the fetus isn't a human life, then I am all wet and want to
    fight for your right.  However, nobody has been logically able to
    convince me so if you want it legal, isn't the onus is on you to prove
    to society that it is simply a non life. (oxymoron)
    
    Peace to you also,
    
    Jack 

<    methadone, you are referring to pollution?  I agree with you on that

	No that is the substitute drug for heroine addicts.  It is
   	a funded substitute.

   	Actually I don't wish to discuss abortion further as after
   	480+ notes I cannot add any new insight and my views conflict
   	with yours based on what I've read so far.
	
   Sorry to be abrupt but my postition is in defense of personal choice
   and even though i'm personally appalled by abortion it is not for me
   or the government to say who can or who should be able to obtain it.
   As to who pays, well the rich can anyway and the poor will suffer
   for it.

   Peace,
   Allison	

    Dear Allison:
    
    I understand and as usual, logic loses.  As far as the pay
    issue, it IS for me to decide and it starts at the voting booth.
    I guess it really doesn't matter as God always has the final say!
    
    God bless you Allison and thank you for your input.  Again the
    invitation is open to anyone.  Show me I'm wrong and I'll actively 
    fight for your God given right.  Somehow though, I don't think I'll ever 
    get a logical answer to this.
    
    Godspeed,
    
    Jack
      
    
    

    
   Jack,

   I agree this is a topic where logic paralyzed by the things that
   it touches.

   Peace,
   Allison
      
    
    

    Jack,
    
    The point is, you think abortion is immoral and don't want your tax
    dollars to pay for it.  Others think war is immoral and don't want
    their tax dollars to pay for it.  Both of these pro/con debates re:
    morality can, and do, take place in this conference and both sides
    or each use the Bible (as you did in .486 to justify war).
    
    However, your original question can be summed up, I think, this way:
    Should any taxpayer be required to fund an action that he or she
    considers to be immoral?  If *this* is the question you are asking,
    then Allison's point (and Richard's anti-war-tax actions) *are*
    relevant to your question.  
    
    Do we want to let taxpayers choose from a "cafeteria" of programs
    that they want to fund?  Do we want to live with the kind of society
    we would then have?  I often think about that, but I can't answer the
    question.  I'm not sure I would want to take that risk. 
    
    But if not, then pacifists have to deal with their consciences on
    paying taxes that support the military and you have to deal with your
    conscience on paying taxes to fund abortion.  Some of us, including me,
    strongly advocate pro-choice and federally funded medical care for
    poor women who need abortions.
    
    Nancy
    

    Collis,
    
    I'm truly sorry to hear that.  I'd be interested in learning more about
    the Nashua CPC.  Do you have any literature I could read?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ro
    

re: the reason is money

You've got it.  Planned Parenthood quotes $355 for 1st trimester abortions,
at least $100 more for early 2nd trimester abortions.  That assumes no
complications, and, of course, they counsel that "complications are rare",
which is not true.

So, that means that abortion is at least a half billion dollar business,
bigger than DEC when I first joined.

/john

As a matter of fact, there is a walk for life tomorrow
in Manchester (which I will be walking in).  The
information given in the brochure says the CPCs are
involved in:

 - pregnancy tests
 - factual information about pregnancy and fetal development
 - factual information about abortion (alternatives, risks
   and procedures)
 - crisis counseling; 24 hour hotline
 - referrals (medical care, adoption, financial assistance,
   etc.)
 - childbirth classes, education, youth abstinence program
 - practical assistance (maternity and infant clothing, baby
   needs
 - post abortion counseling

It claims that the clinics are seeing 65-75 new clients a
month.  I believe that this is now higher (closer to 80-90).

BTW, if anyone would like to sponser me, you can send me mail
or sign up on the sheet outside my office (ZKO2/3M29).

Collis

Swedish researchers have described the procedure used for obtaining
fetal neuron transplant cells used for Parkinson's disease.  A
pregnant woman is placed on an operating table, her cervix is
dilated, the bag of amniotic fluid is broken, and an instrument
called a cannula is inserted into the uterus and aimed at the head
of the living child.  Then the skull is drilled open and a suction
device is driven into the brain.  The brain tissue is then
suctioned out and preserved with ice.  Following this, the remains
of the infant's body are aborted.  Similar procedures are used to
"harvest" fetal pancreas, fetal liquid and fetal thymus tissue. 

See "Human Fetal Dopamine Neurons Grafted Into the Striatum in Two
Patients With Severe Parkinson's Disease," Lindvait et al.,
Archives of Neurology, Vol. 48, June, 1989, pp. 615-18.

    John,
    
    I don't understand.  Who are the prenant women volunteering to have
    this procedure done?  Wouldn't they have to be quite a bit along in
    their prenancy for the fetus to be old enough for them to perform this
    procedure.
    
    A very disturbing and frightening report.  If I understand this
    correctly, then I'm in agreement with you John.  (surprise!)
    
    Ro
    

RE:  .46
    
>Apparently, the philosophy of local abortion clinics (and,
>presumably, the vast majority of abortion clinics) is to
>get the woman in for an abortion as quickly as possible
>after a call is made.  The reason?  Given time, women
>might (and do) change their minds.  Don't let them think.
>Don't provide information.  Assure them that this is the
>best course.  The reason?  Money.
    
    While money may be one motivation for some for-profit clinics (not much
    different than the knife-happy surgeons who rush to do unnecessary
    surgery), I think in most situations the primary reasons for haste are:
    
    o  The woman is suffering mentally or physically from the pregnancy. 
    She has already decided to terminate and the wait is very difficult. 
    In some cases a longer wait would permit her to change her mind, but I
    think in most cases it would simply prolong her suffering.
    
    o  If she determins that she is pregnant late in the first trimester,
    a delay could push the abortion into the second trimester, which is 
     riskier, more difficult, and more emotionally fraught.
    
>They are afraid that the woman may realize that this choice
>is not simply of matter of controlling her own body.  They
>are afraid that this woman may choose to put her faith in
>God *despite* her circumstances.

    Oh come on,   You can't really believe this is true. (can you??)
    
    L

    Self-delusion is a non-sectarian quality!

    
    A congressional candidate in my district was one of the first (and few)
    to place political ads on t.v. showing aborted fetuses earlier in the
    year.  It caused quite a stir (and a change of heart for many, I
    understand).
    
    He is now about to show another ad and it will be a 1st,2nd and 3rd
    trimester abortions.  Since he is a political candidate his ads cannot
    be censured by television.  This has been a wonderful opportunity for
    people in our part of the country to actually see the horror of
    abortion.  This usually results in folks getting off the fence on the
    subject and onto the side of the unborn.  It's even going to get our
    candidate elected this time (we pray).
    
    jeff

    Well, Jeff.  This guy can go right ahead with his visual terrorism.  I
    suspect it isn't going to win him any votes, though.
        
    Mike

   Interesting,

   The most notable thing about the crisis support was the 8 weeks of
   consuling.  Why is 8 weeks so magical?  Now the point is that most
   women realize they may be pregnant after 3 to 6 weeks.  How conveinient, 
   after 13 weeks it's serious medicine, potentially expensive, higher 
   risk, and generally much more difficult to get.

   On the topic of greed, medicine is far from exempt!  I would suggest
   looking at the number of hystorectomies performed on younger women as
   an example of this type of medical abuse.  Second and third trimester
   abortions for less than good medical reason are just examples of this.

   Now to be clear, abortion is serious. It is not a easy out, nor should
   it be.  It is a choice that belongs to one person only and their 
   concience.  I've always supported informed choice, and a stance that
   favors the possibility of a non-abortive resolution.  I also feel that
   any deliberate to delay, sidetrack or otherwise make it unavailable is
   at best cruel and abusive.  There has to be balance in every thing
   or the extremes occur as abuses of the system.  Let's be kind, and real,
   most of the prochoice(ers) I've encountered are not willing to suppport
   the woman beyond thawrting an abortion.  Those that are willing don't 
   posess the resources to provide the support needed.

   I say this as someone who has also been in the position of choice, maybe
   not the same one but a life changing one none the less.  I resent those
   who would presume to know my circumstance, the introspection I have gone
   thru to arrive at such a choice, and the battles to get what I feel is 
   medically needed for me to survive as a whole person.  I expressly resent
   those who over the years have laid religious trips on me like they know.
   Sorry, you ain't been there.  Until men can be come pregnant or be
   raped they are not in any position to tell any woman what she can do
   with her body.  We are not talking about married couples planning and
   concieving a family, or someone who was foolish, that is not part of 
   the same realm.

   Stopping abortions is trying to cure the symptom, not the underlying
   cause.  If you want to fix it be prepared to cut deep and see pain.

   In Gods name bring peace,
   Allison

Re:  31.497
    
  >While money may be one motivation for some for-profit clinics...

You have obviously not read the same stories I've read.  For some
(I expect most, but only know about a few) abortion clinics, money
is 99% of the issue.  The job of the receptionist and attendents
is to insure that the woman does not change her mind, but schedules
an abortion which will be performed as quickly as possible.

  >The woman is suffering mentally or physically from the pregnancy.

What a farce.  Abortion does not end the suffering.  In fact, it
tends to create more suffering - although it is a different kind
of suffering.

  >She has already decided to terminate and the wait is very difficult. 

Indeed, once you've decided to kill the unborn life within you, it
is indeed difficult to live with that choice day after day.  Many
guilt feelings typically accompany this choice.  However, this hardly
makes the killing an appropriate solution.

  >If she determins that she is pregnant late in the first trimester,
  >a delay could push the abortion into the second trimester, which is 
  >riskier, more difficult, and more emotionally fraught.

Rarely a factor for the women that are actually seen.  In actuality,
waiting so that the woman has a chance to *learn*, to *think* and
to *pray* makes a *whole* lot more sense than a quick non-thinking
abortion.  One choice leaves your options open; the other irrevocably
kills.  One choice gives you the opportunity to put another before 
yourself; the other refuses to allow God to work in the situation.  
One choice suffers in the short-term with the hope/trust that the
suffering is not beyond what God will allow you to bear; the other 
attempts to get rid of the problem while producing trauma that will
need to be dealt with later.
    
     >>They are afraid that the woman may realize that this choice
     >>is not simply of matter of controlling her own body.  They
     >>are afraid that this woman may choose to put her faith in
     >>God *despite* her circumstances.

  >Oh come on,   You can't really believe this is true. (can you??)

Laura, I attended a protest about 2 years ago.  It was simply a presence
at a clinic attended by much prayer and one woman who would attempt
to talk to women going for an abortion.  No yelling or screaming.  No
blockades.  The woman counselor would ask for an opportunity to talk
with those seeking an abortion.

The hate I saw there at the clinic was very real.  There was hate
in the eyes of the pro-aborts (these people were not pro-choice, as
far as I could tell) who did everything in their (legal) power (and a
little bit more) to avoid the woman counselor from being heard when she
attempted to talk.  There was hate and violence in the eyes and
attitude of a young man who brought his girlfriend in for an abortion -
and nothing would stop him (not that anyone was trying, mind you).

Laura, I think you see the sanitized arguments that are made in the
newspapers and the campaign trail.  It's so easy to say "I'm for
choice".  It's particularly easy to say "I'm for choice although I
would never choose abortion."

But it's not sanitized discussion that takes place at the abortion
clinics.  The group that champions "choice" is hell-bent on insuring
one choice and one choice only.  The group that champions "life" is
hard-pressed to even be heard.

The issue is not simply abortion.  Indeed, as Alison pointed out, let's
deal with the real issue.  The *real* issue is whether or not the woman
will stop focusing on the *external* issues which make her situation
so difficult, and instead trust in *God* to bring her through.  You
and I, as the living body of Jesus Christ, are His representatives
to effect this change.  Will you, who desire continued life for the
unborn baby, work to enable the woman to choose life?  regardless of
your view of choice?

Testimony in the next note.
    
Collis

One of the two testimonies we heard at the yearly dinner for
the Crisis Pregnancy Centers last month.

A woman in her twenties came into the Center with a crisis pregnancy.  
She was with some good friends (a couple she knew; she was single)
and I forget the details but the husband raped her (wife was not
around when it happened).

She dealt with much guilt believing she caused it.  She *trusted*
him.  Her parents were down South and she was alone.  She came into
the CPC and was loved.  Her counselor explained all the facts, she
asked her to trust God with this problem instead of seeking an
abortion.  I do not remember whether or not she was abortion-minded
when she came in.

She arranged with her parents to move back down with them.  The day
before the move, her mother called.  She asked one question.  "Your
father wanted to know if the baby's father was black."  Indeed, he
was.  The mother said that she couldn't come home because "you know
how your father is".

The CPC found a family for her to live with - a family that helped
transform her life.  Here, for the first time, she experienced true
acceptance.  She lived with them during the pregnancy until the baby
was about 6 months old (if I remember correctly).  She forgave her
father.

Her parents, by the way, told her that an abortion was the only
reasonable solution.

She visited her parents.  Her dad, who refused to see a daughter
pregnant with a black baby, now loves and happily plays with his
grandson.  The relationship with her family is *so* much better -
although there are still problems.  She sees the baby every morning
and feels she has to *thank* the man her raped her - not for what
he did (she has forgiven him) but for what he caused - her baby.

Yes, trusting God is *very* difficult - but *very* rewarding.  No
secular solution is going to heal the hurts (as well as preserve a
life!) that trusting God will.  This is what the CPC is all about.

Collis

Re:  31.502

  >The most notable thing about the crisis support was the 8 weeks
  >of counseling.  Why is 8 weeks so magical?  Now the point is that
  >most women realize they may be pregnant after 3 to 6 weeks.  How
  >convenient, after 13 weeks it's serious medicine, potentially
  >expensive, higher risk and generally much more difficult to get.

Alison, the 8 weeks of counseling is post-abortion counseling.  There
is no counseling course during the pregnancy.  There is constant
counseling availablee including a 24-hour hotline.

  >It is a choice that belongs to one person only and their conscience.

Did you forget God?  It shocks me, at times, how those who claim to
be Christian think.

  >Let's be kind, and real, most of the pro-choice(ers) I've encountered
  >are not willing to support the woman beyond thwarting an abortion.

Most of the pro-choicers I've encountered have no interest in
thwarting an abortion.

BTW, how do you think Planned Parenthood is funded?  Mostly by government
grants.

BTW, how do you think CPC is funded?  Over 400 CPCs funded solely by
private contributions.  Are these the people who are not willing to do
anything beyond thwarting an abortion?  I suggest to you that the amount
of time, money *and prayer* given to/for these expentant mothers far exceeds 
your imagination.

Collis

>The hate I saw there at the clinic was very real.  There was hate
>in the eyes of the pro-aborts (these people were not pro-choice, as
>far as I could tell) who did everything in their (legal) power (and a
>little bit more) to avoid the woman counselor from being heard when she
>attempted to talk.  There was hate and violence in the eyes and
>attitude of a young man who brought his girlfriend in for an abortion -
>and nothing would stop him (not that anyone was trying, mind you).

Collis knows of what he speaks.

One day while roller skating, I merely happened past my first abortion
protest.  The hateful attitude of the pro-abortion protesters, their
yelling and screaming in response to prayer and singing from the pro-life
side, catalyzed my objection to abortion, and changed it from silent
resolve to active protest.

/john

    First, the people at clinice such as the ones John and Collis describe
    are not "pro-abortion".  They are "pro-choice".  As one who considers
    herself on that side of the fence in this debate I'd appreciate being
    called by the term of the group that I identify with.  
    
    Secondly, both John and Collis alluded to the hate and violence in the
    attitude of someone who was forced to walk through a crowd of people
    who were trying to tell him that the very difficult choice that he and 
    his girlfriend had made was wrong.  I don't know about this particular
    crowd but I have heard the news stories about the physical and emotional
    violence that pro-life groups have visited upon clinics which offer
    abortion and those who have chosen to take that option.  It is a human
    response to react to fear by becoming defensive in attitude in order to
    protect oneself.  I don't think this young man's attitude was out of
    line.  
    
    Speaking as one who has faced this decision I know that it is a very
    personal decision, between oneself and God.  I would not choose to have
    to make that decision again and I also know that, given the
    circumstances, I could not have made any choice other than the one I
    made - to have an abortion.  Yes, it was difficult.  I prayed long and
    hard about it at the time.  Yes, I mourned for the child that might have 
    been.  No, I don't regret my personal decision.  I know that it was the 
    right one for me at the time.
    
    I have been very hesitant to share my personal experience in this
    string because I have personal experience of the harsh condemnation and
    judgement that I have faced from those who have never had to face this
    themselves.  I enter this in order to share a personal experience so
    that those who have faced this same decision might be able to share as
    well.  For those of you whose first response is to judge and condemn, 
    keep in mind that it's easy to judge someone for something with which you 
    have no first hand experience.      
    
    Nanci
      

    RE: .507
    
    Nancy,
     I at all possible, I would like to hear from you about *how* you made
    the choice. 
    
    Talk about walking on egg shells!
    
    Marc H.

>    Secondly, both John and Collis alluded to the hate and violence in the
>    attitude of someone who was forced to walk through a crowd of people

No, that was not what I was alluding to at all.

At the protest I went to, the pro-life side were not even on the same side
of the street as the clinic.  The only crowd anyone might have been forced
to walk through would have been the crowd of abortion advocates in front of
the clinic singing things like "Satan loves the little children" and chanting
"You defend the Common [where the pro-life group was standing], we'll defend
the clinic."

As the pro-life group was closing their meeting with a prayer, some abortion
advocates came across the street, forced their way into the group, and waved
anti-religious signs and rosary beads with the crucifix replaced with condoms.

/john

  >Let's be kind, and real, most of the pro-choice(ers) I've encountered
  >are not willing to support the woman beyond thwarting an abortion.

   Collis,

   Funny thing I just reread that and realized what a stupid statment that
   truly was.

  *Let's be kind, and real, most of the pro-lifer(ers) I've encountered
  *are not willing to support the woman beyond thwarting an abortion.

   Looking at my log file explained why, modem problem I used the early
   edit file.  There are no doubt other strange spellings and oddities.

   This is a hard thing for me, I don't believe in abortion. I thought I
   had been clear on that.  What I object to is the reduction of those
   women to people who cannot and should not choose for themselves.
   No one can make the decision for another.  Maybe a waiting period 
   may help, I suspect however honest balanced counseling would serve
   better.   No one should block another from seeking the truth as they 
   know it, or worse substitute their agenda as the truth.  I would hope
   that those who believe they are solving something by blocking availability
   of abortion are also seeing far enough as well.  I have heard and seen
   some terrible stories of women who did truly need the abortion due to
   some disaster during pregnancy that left the baby damaged.  I heard these
   stories before Roe-v-Wade.  I heard the hell they had to go through in
   courts and before hospital boards to get a legitimate theraputic abortion.
   I agree, there is abuse, and it is on all sides.  Abortion was and
   should never be a replacement for common sense or birth control.

   I have seen the protests, I have seen hate, I have also seen incredible
   fear on all sides.  Fear and hate have no place anywhere, yet I saw it.
   Sometimes it hard to tell which is which.  I would hope that CPC is 
   not another place where a woman will hear fear as a tool to influence.
   Be careful though, in every place there will be those who misuse their
   power to influence others.  It can reduce good work to more
   destruction.  

   Peace,
   Allison

    Marc - 
    
    I made the decision based on logic and my own personal morals.  First,
    I don't believe that a foetus has a soul until quickening or
    thereabouts.  If I'd believed otherwise I couldn't have aborted it.  As
    I said in my previous note I did a *lot* of praying about this. 
    Because my spirituality is based on a very personal relationship with
    God I went inside my heart and listened to what God was leading me to
    do.  
    
    The circumstances at the time were that I had recently separated from
    my husband and the fetus was conceived the last time he and I were
    together.  When I found out I was pregnant I had a 14 month old and was
    working full time trying to support my daughter and myself on a salary of 
    $4.25 an hour.  I was getting ready to sign the papers for divorce and
    my ex didn't believe that he should have to pay any more than half of
    day-care for our daughter.  I had no money with which to pay a lawyer
    to force my ex to pay for half of Emily's expenses.  (I couldn't even
    afford court costs for the divorce so the state waived them.)  I was 
    forced to accept some help from the state in order to provide for Emily 
    and I.  
    
    Nevertheless, I wanted that second baby.  But when I'd pray what I kept 
    hearing was, "What are you going to do with the other one"?  Selfishly
    I wanted another child but I had to face the fact that given my limited
    financial and emotional resources I couldn't provide for two children
    on my own.  I could barely provide for one.  Not only would that not be
    fair to the future child but it wouldn't be fair to the one I already
    had.  So I prayed and prayed and one evening while I was rebelling at
    the thought of having to give up that child I had a vision of a little
    chubby boy.  He didn't speak to me with his mouth but with his soul. 
    He said to me that it was all right to let him go and that he would
    come back to me when the time was right.  I knew than that the decision
    to abort was the right one and I was able to say goodby to him with
    love.
    
    I can't say that I haven't thought about or mourned what might have
    been.  I have.  I also don't regret the decision.  I know in my heart
    that there was no other option for me at the time and I also know that
    God approved of that decision.   And I still want another child...when
    the timing is right, when I have the resources to provide emotionally
    and financially for both of my children.
    
    This may sound kind of strange and mystical to some of you and if it 
    does I just ask you to keep in mind that this was *my* personal 
    experience, one which I have shared with less than a handful of trusted
    friends until now.  
    
    Nanci 
     

"Quickening" (which literally means "coming to life" -- "quick" means "alive")
is an outmoded concept with modern science and in-utero investigations which
show that the baby is very alive much earlier than the ancients could detect
from observations outside the woman's body.

/john

    John - 
    
    The question is, when does the soul enter the fetus?  I don't believe
    it happens until sometime in the 2nd trimester at the earliest and I
    also believe that is varies just as an individual's physical, emotional
    and spiritual growth varies.
    
    Modern science has no tools with which to test for a soul.
    
    Nanci

    RE: .511
    
    Thanks for sharing that ,Nanci.
    
    Marc H.

    I *honor* the courage it took to share such an intimate and personally
    challenging experience so openly here, Nanci.  
    
    Hugs,
    Kb

    Marc - 
    
    By your willingness to listen and lack of judgement you created a safe
    place for me to share that.  Thank *you*.  :-)
    
    Kb -
    
    I can feel your love and support.  Thanks, sister.
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci 

Re:  31.507

  >First, the people at clinice such as the ones John and Collis describe
  >are not "pro-abortion".  They are "pro-choice".

I defend my choice of terms as accurate.  If you had been an impartial
observer there, I believe you would have reached the same conclusion.

  Does "choice" drown out an option?

  Does "choice" hustle a woman inside where only one option is
    presented and encouraged?

  Does "choice" defile the name of God and those who worship Him?

There was absolutely no indication that there was any desire for "choice".
Those who supported choice were those who supported life.  In fact,
the banner held said "Choose life".

  >I'd appreciate being called by the term of the group that I identify with.  

Unless you were there, I wasn't calling you anything.

  >Secondly, both John and Collis alluded to the hate and violence in the
  >attitude of someone who was forced to walk through a crowd of people
  >who were trying to tell him that the very difficult choice that he and 
  >his girlfriend had made was wrong.

I wouldn't exactly call it "walking through a crowd of people".  There
were a number of people there, but the sidewalks are quite wide and
people walked on them all day without any danger of being bumped
or even touched by someone else (i.e. it just wasn't that crowded).

BTW, no one was talking to the boyfriend.  Only one woman was 
attempting to talk to the woman.  Think what you will, but I stand by 
the original portrayal of a man set out to kill the life he had 
created - and he acted like he'd kill anyone who got in his way.

  >I don't know about this particular crowd but I have heard the news
  >stories about the physical and emotional violence that pro-life groups
  >have visited upon clinics which offer abortion and those who have
  >chosen to take that option.  It is a human response to react to fear
  >by becoming defensive in attitude in order to protect oneself.  I
  >don't think this young man's attitude was out of line.

Indeed, the media has been part of the problem.  Brian Phaneuf 
presented in detail exactly what the most "radical" of pro-life
advocacy groups do, Operation Rescue.  If you believe that what he 
says is similar to what the media portrays, you've been deceived.

I will add that the abortion clinic itself several months later asked 
the pro-choice group to NOT come to the clinic.  There were a number
of minor incidents that were overwhelmingly attributed to the actions
of this group.  They claimed to provide "safe passage" for a women to
the clinic.  In actuality, women were never prevented from going up to
and into the clinic.  There were no blockades.  There was no mob.
There was no loud shouting.  There was no chaining of protestors.  
There were only concered people praying, talking quietly, holding
signs, showing love and a counselor who would ask to talk to the
woman entering the clinic.  She would attempt to walk with the woman.
If the woman didn't want to listen, she would be inside the clinic
within about 10 seconds.  (BTW, the woman wasn't shouting.  Counseling
is not accomplished by shouting at someone.)

  >Speaking as one who has faced this decision I know that it is a very
  >personal decision, between oneself and God.  

I dare say the rest of society has a stake in the decision as well.
The church also has a responsibility.  So does the government.  So
does the father.

  >I would not choose to have to make that decision again and I also know
  >that, given the circumstances, I could not have made any choice other
  >than the one I made - to have an abortion.  Yes, it was difficult. 

I'm so sorry for you and your child.

Collis      

    Nanci,
    
    I admire your courage to share your experience here, Nanci.  Know that
    you have my love and friendship always.
    
    Ro
    

    Nanci,
    
    Brave lady, that took courage.  You have my support.

    Love and friendship,
    Allison
        

    Collis - 
    
    Much as I would love to debate this with you from an impersonal
    perspective, I can't.  And I'm afraid that, because this was a reality
    in my life, my perspective is more immediate and personal than someone
    who has not been there.  I freely admit that my perspective is not
    unbiased.  Can you honestly say that yours is?  
    
    My suppositions about the scenario you presented came from my own 
    perspective of how I felt at the time I went through this and how I think 
    I would have felt had I been that young man.  Fortunately I was never 
    confronted with this type of situation.  I went to a private clinic (a
    friend's mother worked there and was able to get me financial assistance) 
    where I was not encouraged or discouraged about any option.  They did, 
    however, advise me to seek counseling and would not schedule the 
    procedure until I had thought about it for at least a week.
    
    As I'm feeling a bit thin skinned at the moment I'm going to drop out
    of this for awhile.  Talking about this in a public place has made me
    feel as exposed as a science experiment.  I'll try to continue at
    another time.  I won't, however, try to justify my choice to anyone. 
    That is between my conscience and God.  
    
    Ro and Allison - thank you both for your support.  :-)
    
    Nanci
    
    
    
     
    

Nanci .520,

	I understand your sense of exposed raw-ness and feeling particularly
vulnerable at the moment.  You let down your defenses.  And that takes a whole
lot more gutts than keeping up your guard.

An enduring hug,
Richard

Re:  .522

Nanci,

Now is obviously not a good time for you to discuss this
issue with someone who disagrees with your choice.  I
respect that.  I have no desire to plague you with guilt.
In fact, my desire is the very opposite.  I desire (as does
God) that you would be set free from the decisions of the
past to live a life of love and be blessed by God and
be a blessing to others.

I understand that the counseling offered by the CPC for dealing
with abortion has worked wonders in peoples lives.  I pray
that you'll consider doing this or something similar so that
you will be free to move on with your life.

Collis

    Collis - 
    
    I *have* moved on with my life.  The circumstances I described happened
    7 years ago.  At this point you can hardly plague me with guilt since I
    don't feel that I have anything to feel guilty about.  I have made my
    peace with God about this.
    
    Still, I thought it might help to have a firsthand account in here
    rather than opinions from those who haven't been there.
    
    Nanci

Nanci,

thank you for finding the courage to share your story.  ((hugs)) to you.

Allison,

I appreciate you .502 entry, with one point I'd offer.  Men CAN be raped.
They cannot become pregnant, but thet can be raped.  Would that that word 
(and abortion, and so many others) were not necessary in our language.

Peace,

Jim

  Jim,

   I understand what you mean.  I meant something else from a legal
   perspective.

   Peace,
   Allison

Re:  497.132

  >However, I don't perceive abortion as being a violent act.

Perhaps you are uninformed about exactly what happens during
an abortion?  I would not expect so, but I have a hard to
trying to figure out how the taking of life either by burning
the fetus or dismembering it is not a violent act.

Collis

   Collis,

   Having seen various surguries performed, surgury is to the eye a 
   violent act.  Yet it is frequently necessary and lifesaving.

   I think of the term "violent act" as inflamatory language and it's
   use should not get an unexpected response.  Care please...

   Peace,
   Allison

    No, I am not uninformed, Collis.  Perhaps violent was the wrong word to
    use.  There is a difference between violence directed at an animate as
    opposed to an inanimate object.  That is the point that I was trying to
    make, Collis.  To me, it's not "the taking of a life", as you put it,
    unless there is a soul, i.e. there is no life without a soul.  Am I
    making this any clearer?
    
    Nanci

Suction Aspiration (1-3 months)
------------------
Suction aspiration abortion (or menstrual extraction if done early in
pregnancy) is used in 95% of induced abortions.  A powerful suction tube
is inserted into the womb through the dilated cervix.  This dismembers the
body of the developing baby and tears the placenta from the uterus, sucking
them into a container.  These body parts are usually recognizable as arms,
legs, head, etc.  Great care must be used to prevent the uterus from being
punctured during this procedure.  Uterine hemorrhage and infection can
easily result if any fetal or placental tissue is left behind in the uterus.

Dilatation and Curettage (D&C) (1-3 months)
------------------------------
In this technique, the cervix is dilated or stretched to permit insertion of a
loop-shaped steel knife in order to scrape the wall of the uterus.  This cuts
the baby's body into pieces and cuts the placenta from the uterine wall.
Bleeding is sometimes considerable.  This method is used primarily during
the seventh to twelfth week of pregnancy and should not be confused with
therapeutic D&C done with a blunt curette for reasons other than undesired
pregnancy.

Dilatation and Evacuation (D&E) (4-5 months)
-------------------------------
Used to remove a child from the womb who is as old as 18 weeks, this
method is similar to the D&C.  The difference is that a forceps is used to
grasp part of the developing baby who already has calcified bones.  The
parts must be twisted and torn away, the placenta sliced away and bleeding
is profuse.

Salt Poisoning or Saline Method (4-7 months)
-------------------------------
Otherwise known as "saline amniocentesis" or "salting out," this technique
is used after 16 weeks of pregnancy, when enough fluid has accumulated in
the amniotic fluid sac surrounding the baby.  A needle is inserted through the
mother's abdomen directly into the sac, and a solution of concentrated salt
is injected into it.  The baby breathes in, swallowing the salt and is thereby
poisoned.  After about an hour, the chiid dies, and the mother usually goes
into labor approximately a day later, delivering a dead, burned and shriveled
baby. This is the second most common method of inducing abortion.  It is
outlawed in Japan and other countries because of its inherent risks to the
mother.

Prostaglandin (Chemical) (4-8 months)
------------------------
Prostaglandins are hormones which assist the birth process.  Injecting
concentrations of them into the amniotic sac induces violent labor and
premature birth of a child usually too young to survive.  Oftentimes salt or
another toxin is first injected to assure that the baby will be delivered dead,
since some babies have survived the trauma of prostaglandin birth at this
stage, and have been delivered alive.  This method is usually used during the
second half of the pregnancy.  A self-administered prostaglandin suppository
or tampon is also being developed for first trimester abortion.  Serious side
effects and complications from prostaglandin use, including cardiac arrest
and rupture of the uterus, can be unpredictable and very severe.

Hysterotomy (6-8 months)
-----------
Similar to the Cesarean Section, this method is generally used if the salt
poisoning or prostaglandin methods fail.  Sometimes babies are born alive
during this procedure which raises questions as to how and when the infants
are killed and by whom.  Some infants who are attended to after a
hysterotomy have been known to survive and were subsequently accepted
by their natural mothers, or placed in adoptive homes.  This method offers
the highest risk to the health of the mother.  The risk of mortality from
hysterotomy is two times greater than risk from D&E.

RU 486
------
Beginning to be used in Europe.  All reports speak of severe cramping,
nausea, vomiting and bleeding when women take RU486.  The pill is an
abortion causing drug -- not a contraceptive -- since it is taken after
fertilization has occurred and the woman knows she is pregnant usually
because she has missed her period.  Contrary to what proponents have said,
the use of RU486 is unlikely to lessen the woman's emotional trauma over
her abortion.

   John,

   I was really surprized to see hystrectomy as an abortion method.
   Technically yes, it would be an abortion but the removal of the uterus
   is generally not considered the way to procure an abortion considering
   the recovery and permanent effects.  That case is more likely if the
   there is a pre-existing condition that makes preganancy clearly a
   serious health problem.  The infection rate and seriousness of a
   hystrectomy is not trivial, it is sterilization and may also incur
   other problems such as punctured intestine or bladder.  Compared to
   hystrectomy a C-section is trivial as it does not involve ligation
   of magor organs or blood vessels.

   While I'm sure it has been used as a way to mask an abortion I consider
   that as the work of a doctor who is engaged in a crimial activity
   legal or not.  It's very bad medicine.

   I also hope I'm not hearing the reporting of hearsay information with
   facts removed.

   Peace,
   Allison

   A thought on life and souls.

   Are we alive because we breathe, pump blood or is it the essentail
   essence of humanity that we think?  Ensoulment has been debated within
   and without the church, still the question lingers.  I believe until
   the mind is functional the body means little and the cessation of the
   process that may possibly bring forth a functional mind is frought
   with opinion.  Facts do exist regarding bodies not yet formed, at
   some point there is a brain at and that is when life exists and no 
   sooner.  Before then is only potential life no more.  To make that
   assignemnt before then is to believe that any bunch of cells from
   the body are no less than the brain.  That would elevate amputation
   of a finger to the moral equivelent of aborting a fotus.

   Peace,
   Allison

re Note 31.526 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >However, I don't perceive abortion as being a violent act.
> 
> Perhaps you are uninformed about exactly what happens during
> an abortion?  I would not expect so, but I have a hard to
> trying to figure out how the taking of life either by burning
> the fetus or dismembering it is not a violent act.
  
        Collis,

        Part of the problem is that the "radicals" have tried to
        imply that the failure of a fertilized egg to implant is in
        fact an abortion.  If the term "abortion" covers such cases
        as well as later in term, then it is hard to maintain that
        all abortions are violent.

        Bob

>   I was really surprized to see hystrectomy as an abortion method.

You didn't see hysterectomy at all.

/john

Sorry John, but I made the same mistake as Allison, re:

Hysterotomy (6-8 months)
-----------

My time for reading is limited and in my haste I too read it wrong.

Ro

Re:  31.532

The entire problem is that "radicals" (to use your word) fail
to give human life the respect the God demands it.

Beliefs about when a soul enter the body are nice, but they
are not based either on God's revelation or on scientific
proof.  Can it possibly be that a soul can enter a body at
the moment of fertilization?  Even if a soul enters a body
later (and we knew that for a fact), are we not responsible
to God for preserving the life given to us?  Are we not to
trust God and count the developing fetus a gift from God?
Is this not consistent with the Scriptures?

Or are we to look at the worldly problems and say, "I cannot
care for this child" or look at ourselves and say, "I don't want 
a baby" or look at our bodies and say, "I don't want the
pain and the inconvenience".

This is what the question boils down to.  Are we willing to
trust *God* to work through the situation as we are faithful
to Him?  Or not?  God *is* faithful, despite our failures
every day.  God *will be* faithful to those who trust in Him.
Why don't we *see* this????  We refuse to trust God.  We
insist on making on our choices based on our own perceived wants,
desires and "needs".  And everybody suffers.

Collis

re Note 30.48 by COVERT::COVERT:

>       -< It needs repeating today:  Clinton will sign this death warrant >-
  ...
> 	This act may be cited as the "Freedom of Choice Act of 1991".
  
        How about working on the demand side of abortion rather than
        the supply side?

        Outlawing abortion is like outlawing drugs -- it is an
        attempt to make the thing unavailable, to deny the "supply".

        I believe that in both the area of drugs and in the area of
        abortion, history amply illustrates that, where demand is
        unchecked, it will be impossible to stop the supply -- it
        will simply become illegal resulting in the additional
        misery that results from an illegal trade.

        (This may be true for guns, too.)

        How about, for a change, trying to attack such problems from
        the demand side?  In the area of drug abuse, there is ample
        evidence that this is far more effective than attempts to
        cut the supply.

        Perhaps the same is true for abortions.  If women did not
        seek abortions because they did not perceive the problems
        that traditionally result from so-called "unwanted"
        pregnancies, the incidence of abortions would decrease with
        nobody claiming that rights were threatened or that "coat
        hanger" abortions would increase.

        What would it take to do this?  What are the major reasons
        for a woman to seek an abortion?  Can those reasons be abated
        or addressed?

        Bob

One of the best ways to work on the demand side of abortion is to
firmly and unequivocally affirm the baby's right to life.

Education is of utmost importance.  Fetal development is much more
rapid than most people understand.

The work of pro-life organizations to help women with problem pregnancies
must not be discounted by the abortion advocates.  Assistance with pre-natal
care, with child care, with finding work to be able to support the new
child, or with adoption are all available through pro-life organizations.

Society, if it wishes to give women a choice, must firmly state that
abortion is _always_ the wrong choice, unless the mother's life is truly
in danger from the pregnancy.

/john

Re:  31.536

  >How about working on the demand side of abortion rather than
  >the supply side?

I agree wholeheartedly with you on this, Bob.

We have done very poorly as followers of Jesus to help people to
see the positive in keeping their unborn children alive.

I was involved some in the "Ethics of Choice Foundation" which
believed in dialogueing and presenting this information in a
positive way.  Unfortunately, it did not raise enough money to
continue.

This is one of the reasons I am joining the Board of Directors
at the local Crisis Pregnancy Center.  We *can* make a difference,
one woman and one baby at a time.  No matter what the law says
now.

Collis

    There's hope for the United States until we become like China and force
    abortions on women.
    
    I don't know of any pro-life person that is going to give up simply
    because Bill Clinton has been elected.
    
    We'll hold Clinton to his word:  He opposes abortions, but supports
    "choice".

    We need to reach young men *and* women well before the women becomes 
    impregnated....impressing upon them the sanctity of unborn life will 
    have, at best, only minimal results, imo.  It will be part of the
    solution, but we've got to do more.  A lot more. 
    
    It's been weighing on my heart for weeks to discuss this same issue, 
    Bob, but it's difficult to begin and speak about, as it's a deeply 
    personal one.  But this is exactly what we must do.  Thanks for asking
    the question.    
    
    Abortion is clearly a symptom of a MUCH larger, more complex root 
    issue in our society.  We desperately need to acknowledge that and 
    deal with it more honestly and comprehensively.  First, let me say 
    I'm pro-choice, and I'm alarmed and distressed that there has been 
    a drastic increase in the number of abortions taking place over the 
    last 10 - 15 years, particularly among young people.  Like most 
    pro-choice people, that doesn't mean I'm either for or encourage 
    abortions; which may sound contradictory, given that I've been there 
    myself, inside abortion clinics and made the decision to abort, more 
    than once.
    
    That was a long time ago.  Another lifetime it seems.  I know how I 
    felt and remember well what was going on in my life at that time.  
    I've seen what's going on for many others in that situation.  Our 
    "profiles" have many overlaps.  Those days in which I made such 
    decisions were some of the very darkest and bleakest of my life.  
    No, they were the darkest.  I had a poor self-image which was 
    expressed by self-abusive and destructive actions.
    
    I don't know how to say this without sounding like I'm pointing a 
    finger of blame, but let me qualify it by saying the pain I've 
    experienced has also largely been, and is, the road of my salvation.  
    With that said, let me share a bit about the background around my 
    abortions and the insights I've gained.  
    
    Like many people, I'm from a dysfunctional family.  I knew early on 
    as a child I was the object of intense jealousy for my mother, that I 
    was a threat to the relationship between her and my father.  A host 
    of psychological abuse ensued throughout my entire childhood, and I 
    did not have the tools to make sense of any of it, other than to 
    internalize the debilitating message it carried.  Fortunately the 
    love of my father was there for me and I knew it, but he was not 
    around much.  I dealt with the "monster" at home day in and day out, 
    without his help.  Because this early environment is so foundational, 
    it's been the biggest issue I've had to deal with and am dealing with 
    in my healing process.  
    
    Religion and my church was of no help to me.  I was taught as a child 
    that God hears all our prayers, each and every one of us.  I took 
    this to heart.  I begged, pleaded and prayed to God to end the abuse, 
    to save me from it somehow, but he didn't.  It just continued.  That 
    served to reinforce the negative message.  The problem was is I knew 
    with the logic I possessed even at that young age, that deep in my 
    heart and soul I hadn't done anything wrong.  So even abandoned by 
    God, at the age of 12, after all the praying and pleading, I had all 
    but dropped kicked him out of my life and considered Christianity to 
    be little more than a bunch of bullsh*t. 
    
    But what multiplied the effects of abuse, exponentially, was growing 
    up in a society which condoned it by either being apathetic to it, 
    i.e. turning its head to it, or colluded with it by being silent in 
    its face.  By the age of 17, 3 men, in trusted roles, attempted to 
    molest me.  Two succeeded.  In the meantime I found myself attracted 
    to "romantic" relationships in which I would be psycholgically and 
    sexually abused.  
    
    My response to "life" at this time?  I drove fast cars and hard.  I 
    drank a lot, did drugs and became promiscuous.  One of the car 
    accidents I was in, in which I was DUI, finally laid me up in the 
    hospital for a few weeks, then at home even longer.  Gave me lots of 
    time to think and be with me.  That initiated a deep depression, and 
    in retrospect, I know the beginning of the healing process.  But I 
    was in too much pain to recognize it.  A few months later my parents 
    sent me to a psychotherapist to help me deal with the depression.  He 
    shocked, (and yet sadly he didn't) the hell out of me by kissing me 
    passionately on the mouth during the first session while I had my 
    eyes closed.  Is there no safe haven from this f*cking stuff? I 
    thought.  And I went to this creep for help in dealing with 
    depression, and for me its perpetrator - abuse.  
    
    Domestic violence, dysfunctional familes and societies really do a 
    number on everyone, but particularly on children.  They have not yet 
    aquired ways to defend themselves.  Their minds and hearts are 
    totally vulnerable to its utterly debilitating effects.  They really 
    bear the brunt of it.  And they truly do end up living what they 
    learn.
      
    Living in an abusive society is like living with a namesless, 
    faceless enemy who is trying to kill your spirit and take your 
    physical and emotional life away from you, at every turn.  Over the 
    years a rage builds up inside upon a foundation of pain and fear.  A 
    few years later I found myself in the most intensely abusive 
    relationship of them all, and with "unwanted" pregnancies.  And yet, 
    in a twisted way, they were wanted, but it's not easy to say what 
    for.  For a time, what haunted me most was why the decision to abort 
    had been so easy to make.  By that time in my life I was so sick and 
    tired, so ill from being abused -- I didn't realize that deep down 
    inside I literally wanted to kill something.  It was too horrific to 
    face and acknowledge that in myself.  
    
    During the last trip to the clinic I had been lapsing into depression 
    again.  That night afterwards I was totally devasted.  My life just 
    seemed to be on the rocks.  I again began to seriously contemplate 
    suicide as I had been over the last several months.  Finally the 
    desire to kill and destroy began to be directed toward myself.  I 
    then had an experience of God reaching out to me and saving me, of 
    which I've written about elsewhere in this file.  It literally saved 
    my life and turned it around.  I learned *volumes* about God and 
    Christ that night.  I received a crash course in compassion.
    
    But the point of all this is, is that we need to work together to 
    first, recognize dysfunction in our society and communities and 
    families, and in *ourselves* if it exists;  then heal it and its 
    outward symptoms - abuse directed to self and others:  verbal, 
    domestic, psychological, physical and sexual, and related abuses 
    wherever they occur.  Too often in the past, the legal system has 
    turned its head.  Now finally we're getting things like spousal rape 
    laws on the books.  But for those who've died at the hands of abuse, 
    unfortunately, it is too late for them.  Police are only now 
    beginning to go in and stop domestic abuse when it's occuring.  
    
    Too often the church turns its head too, and our teachers.  People 
    who see the signs of abuse.  People whose friends and colleagues 
    might very well be the perpetrators.  Yet, many times, they don't 
    turn them in.  The collusion sends a silent but powerful message - 
    abuse is permissable.  The killing of our born children is 
    permissable.  Because in all seriousness, it's nothing less than 
    that, and the hard truth to swallow is that we're *all* accesories.
    
    Children need to know they're wanted and loved - that their families 
    and communities care and will protect them from abuse and educate 
    them about it and instill a sense of their own inherent goodness.  
    They need to know they're unique and wonderful just for who they are, 
    just by the fact that they were born.  Not make them feel they 
    deserve abuse or are somehow unworthy of anything more than that.  
    They need to know we won't turn our heads and look the other way if 
    they're being harmed.
    
    The other issue I feel lies at the heart of the increase in abortions 
    is that young people feel there is little to hope and plan for.  The 
    future is bleak, not promising.  A friend of mine, a teacher in 
    Maine, recently asked her eighth grade class to write an essay about 
    their perceptions of what life would be like in 200 years.  After 5 
    minutes their papers were still blank.  When asked, they all agreed, 
    unequivocally, that humanity would no longer be around.  
    
    Another extremely distressing statistic is that the number of 
    suicides among young people has risen dramatically over the last 
    decade. 
    
    Abortions (and suicides) are just some of the ways our youth is 
    crying out to us in desperation and letting us know we're killing 
    them - their spirit, their hope, their vision of the future.  And in 
    their deepest rage, fear, pain and confusion, they in turn, in all 
    certainty, will continue to seek and find ways to kill and destroy, 
    until the forces that would destroy them stop.
    
    Karen

   Karen,

   I hear you.

   Allison

    RE: .540  Karen,
    
    
    			Thank you Karen.  Your note just emphasizes the
    fact that there are much deeper issues involved with abortion.  Its 
    easy to condem, but understanding requires effort and love.  Notice I
    didn't say acceptance, but understanding.  As one who will never face
    this issue as an integral part of my life, I have to say that your note
    had a *PROFOUND* effect on my view of this subject.  It serves to
    reinforce the idea that abortion is not *THE* problem but only a
    symptom.  I am proud of you for the level of trust you are showing in
    posting a note like that.  I have no doubt that others may be more
    effective in their desire to help others heal.
    
    Dave

    Karen -
    
    hugs for your bravery, compassion and your own sweet self, my dear friend.
    
    Nanci

    Re: Karen's note
    
    Powerful Stuff! Thankyou for telling us your story.
    
    Marc H.

Thank you Kb for being the strong, courageous, beautiful soul that you 
are.  Your story in .540 touched me deeply.

I too am pro-choice, because I do believe God leaves that decision for 
each of us.  I could never choose for someone else, I haven't lived 
their life or walked in their shoes.  I know if either my son or 
daughter were to tell me they were having a child, I would plead with 
them not to have an abortion and if they did not want the child, I 
would offer to raise it myself.  I would stand by whatever decision 
they made and love them unconditionally.  However, now as a 
stepmother, I would struggle with not knowing how to help or what 
would truly be best if any of them were in the situation.  Their lives 
have been different than my children's.  The dysfunctionality they 
have been exposed to cuts much deeper.  They have not healed from 
the emotional scars they've suffered.  Their wounds are still bleeding.
I would pray for the Holy Spirit to guide me if they asked for my help. 
    
<<    Too often the church turns its head too, and our teachers.  People 
<<    who see the signs of abuse.  People whose friends and colleagues 
<<    might very well be the perpetrators.  Yet, many times, they don't 
<<    turn them in.  The collusion sends a silent but powerful message - 
<<    abuse is permissable.  The killing of our born children is 
<<    permissable.  Because in all seriousness, it's nothing less than 
<<    that, and the hard truth to swallow is that we're *all* accesories.
    
This paragraph hit me the hardest.  Ours is a society in denial - we 
push away what is too painful to see or hear.  I've had to take the 
blinders off and be there for some young people who've turned to me 
for support.  It is overwhelming and scarey for me (even just writing 
about it), but I know I need take whatever action is necessary to be
there for them and get them professional help.  But most importantly,
to believe them and not allow it to continue happening to them. 

<<    Children need to know they're wanted and loved - that their families 
<<    and communities care and will protect them from abuse and educate 
<<    them about it and instill a sense of their own inherent goodness.  
<<    They need to know they're unique and wonderful just for who they are, 
<<    just by the fact that they were born.  Not make them feel they 
<<    deserve abuse or are somehow unworthy of anything more than that.  
<<    They need to know we won't turn our heads and look the other way if 
<<    they're being harmed.

Amen...
 
Thanks again Kb; your words give me strength.

Ro

    
    Karen,
    
    Thanks for your sharing.  Even after all these years of our friendship,
    there are pieces of the past that are still unfolding.
    
    In addition to what you shared, we also need to see that those who
    are the perpetrators of abuse, whatever kind, have most likely been
    abused themselves and are wounded.  We are all the walking wounded.
    I truly believe that we who are living today and consciously working
    on our healing have an opportunity to end this cycle of other- and
    self-abuse.
    
    Hugs and love,
    Carole

    Karen,
    
    It does take guts sharing your story here and I admire your courage for
    doing it.  It demonstrates that all powerful human decisions have a
    whole history behind them and ought not be reduced to campaign
    rhetoric.  
    
    Having myself grown up in a dsyfunctional household I too am totally
    sure that what every child needs and ought to have as a right just
    because they are born is unconditional love.
    
    Thank you for sharing your story.
    
    Peace and love.
    
    Patricia

    Thanks for the support, spoken and unspoken.
    
    The sharing of your own experience, Nanci, had much to do with bringing
    this issue, again, to the fore for me.  Your courage and willingness to
    share at such a level gave me strength.  It's also why I can relate so
    well to your work with your step-children, Ro. It takes a great deal of
    courage to face these issues with them as you have.  
    
    And you're right, we've been living in a society whose way of coping 
    with such issues is to go into denial, but thankfully, this is changing, 
    as Carole said, as more of us consciously work at healing our own issues.  
    Finally, we can say, the buck stops here.  I'm going to do what's 
    necessary to stop this here and now.
    
    Thanks Patricia, Allison, Dave and Marc for your thoughts and support.
    
    Karen

Most modern feminists have made easy access to abortion the very symbol
of the liberation of women.  The literature of the National Organization
for Women repeatedly refers to abortion as "the most fundamental right of
women" -- more important than even the right to vote and the right to
free speech.  NOW has designated the protection of abortion rights as
its top priority.

This is ironic, because abortion does not liberate women.  On the contrary,
abortion -- and the perceived need for it -- validate the patriarchal
world view which holds that women, encumbered as they are by their
reproductive capacity, are inferior to men.

Abortion liberates men, not women.  There are three reasons for this:

  o Efforts to establish abortion as a legitimate solution to the
  problems of being a woman in a male-dominated society surrender
  women to pregnancy discrimination.  Those feminists who demand the
  right to abortion concede the notion that a pregnant woman is
  inferior to a non-pregnant one.  They admit that pregnancy and
  motherhood are incompatible to being a fully functioning adult,
  and that an unencumbered, unattached male is the model for success.
  By settling for abortion instead of working for the social changes
  that would make it possible to combine children and career, pro-abortion
  feminists have agreed to participate in a man's world under a man's
  terms.  They have betrayed the majority of working women -- who want
  to have their children.
  
  o Abortion allows men to escape responsibility for their own sexual
  behavior.  A man whose child is aborted is relieved of the requirement
  that he support his children.  It is not surprising that the Playboy
  Foundation is a major supporter of abortion rights, because abortion
  is a natural consequence of the Playboy's ideal of uncommitted,
  anonymous sex without consequences.  Women can be reduced to the status
  of a consumer item, which if "broken" by pregnancy can be "fixed" by
  abortion.
  
  o Proabortion feminists have corrupted feminism by embracing male
  standards, which hold that it is permissible to treat "unequals"
  unequally, and for the powerful to oppress the weak.  By accepting
  this patriarchal world view, these feminists have capitulated to
  male dominance.  Women who agree to conform to the ideals of a world
  made by and for men are not liberated; they have merely altered their
  roles within the patriarchy.

    ``Feminism is part of a larger philosophy that values all life.''

Truly liberated women reject abortion because they reject the male world
view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict.  Rather
than settling for mere equality -- the right to contribute equally to the
evil of the world -- prolife feminists seek to transform society to create
a world that reflects true feminist ideals.

Feminism is, properly, part of a larger philosophy that values all life.
Feminists believe that all human beings have inherent worth and that this
worth cannot be conferred or denied by another.  True feminist thinking
recognizes the interdependence of all living things and the responsibility
we all have for one another.  This feminism rejects the male view that
sees individuals as functioning separately from their fellows, in mutual
competitition.

Abortion is incompatible with this feminist vision.  Abortion atomizes
women.  It pits them against their own children as competitors for the
favors of the patriarchy.  Abortion is of great benefit to employers
-- who do not have to make concessions to pregnant women and mothers,
to schools -- which do not have to accomodate the needs of parents, and
to irresponsible men -- who do not have to commit themselves to their
mates or their children.  Women who accept abortion have agreed to
sacrifice their children for the convenience of a man's world.

Women who have been liberated from male thought patterns refuse to
participate in their own oppression and in the oppression of their
children.  They refuse to accept abortion, which denigrates the life-giving
capacity of women.  They strive instead to create a world that recognizes
the moral superiority of maternal thinking and is, therefore, gentle,
loving, nurturing, and pro-life.  Every abortion frustrates this goal and
perpetuates the patriarchy.  Liberated women will not cooperate.  They
refuse abortion and all it represents.

Feminists for Life Education Project
811 East 47th Street
Kansas City, Missouri  64110
(816) 753-2130

    Very interesting perspective, /john.  Thanks for posting it.  I'm going
    to spend some serious time reflecting upon them.
    
    Karen                 

re Note 31.549 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Most modern feminists have made easy access to abortion the very symbol
> of the liberation of women.  

        I believe that for most "pro choice" women, the the "very
        symbol of the liberation of women" is not abortion, per se,
        but the ability to make the choice.

        Obviously, there is no right to choose if the choice of
        abortion is not allowed.

> This is ironic, because abortion does not liberate women.  On the contrary,
> abortion -- and the perceived need for it -- validate the patriarchal
> world view which holds that women, encumbered as they are by their
> reproductive capacity, are inferior to men.

        This might be right, but let's let each woman who faces this
        choice decide for herself if this is the case.  The only
        alternative is letting somebody else decide for the woman.

> Truly liberated women reject abortion because they reject the male world
> view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict.  

        I actually agree with this, and I invite women who have the
        right to choose to agree with this as well.

        Bob

    Karen,

    Thanks for sharing hurts that sometimes seem much easier to hide away.  
    I've got a good friend who went through some similar experiences and
    now  all these emotions have JUST surfaced for her.   I try to help her
    by  praying, giving her my time to listen to her hurts, showing her
    compassion  and love, encouraging her in her counseling efforts,
    validating her feelings,  helping bounce thoughts around, and giving
    her a hug and somebody she knows  is willing to help and pointing her
    towards God for complete recovery.  

    I agree with you completely on identifying and stopping the abuse
    early. There are so many people who have suffered deep emotional scars
    from such abuses.  My dad, sister-in-law, and brother have all worked
    in psych and the majority of patients have dealt with such abuse.  My
    dad has stopped being amazed at the things people tell him because it
    is so prevalent.  A change needs to occur and it must be a complete
    society  change.  Fixing one portion of society doesn't help.  The lack
    of love and of  feeling wanted has caused a great many of our social,
    not to mention personal problems.  

    The only thing I wonder about is whether having a choice for abortion
    is a healthy option in healing these social problems.  I mean to think 
    that if my mom had gotten pregnant with me in more modern days that it 
    would have been just as easy if not easier for her to abort me than to 
    have let me live.  What would be her choice's effect be on my life? It
    makes me think of that Christmas story "It's a wonderful life."  Would 
    the world have missed me?  Not overwhelmingly, but yes, I know people 
    who's lives have been changed by me.  Not everybody, especially those
    who  suffered abuse could say that even though it would be true, but
    they just  couldn't say it about themselves in many cases.  Since some
    view a baby  as an "extension" of "themselves", I wonder if maybe
    people who have  emotional wounds from abuse might view abortion as a
    way to end "themselves"  from continuing to exist.  When that doesn't
    stop the pain, they try suicide  or just live life on the edge hoping
    to fall off.   

    Thanks again for sharing Karen.  I admire your courage and your growth.
    I will lift you up in my prayers.  

    Jill

    P.S. I just thought a couple of quotes a read out of my new 1993 prayer
    journal.  Some kind of relate to some of the feelings around this
    topic,  others don't at all and I just liked them.  I know there may be
    another place for them, but I just thought I'd jot them down here. 
    There are after the <FF> if you don't care to read them.

    "Never be afraid to trust an unknown future to a known God."  
    Corrie ten Boom

    "Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it's
    stored than to anything on which it's poured."	The Baptist Beacon

    "If you are suffering from a bad man's injustice, forgive him lest
    there be two bad men."   Augustine

    "You need not cry very loud; he is nearer to us than we think."
    Brother Lawrence

    "If we refuse mercy here, we shall have justice in eternity."	
    Jeremy Taylor

    "Be not angry that you cannot make others as you wish them to be, since
    you cannot make yourself as you wish to be."	Thomas a` Kempis

    "Jesus did not come to explain away suffering or remove it.  He came to
    fill it with His Presence."				Paul Claudel
    

    Jill,
    
    Thanks for your thoughts and kindness, as well as your prayers.
    I'm not able to answer objectively if the choice to abort would help
    heal some of the social ills we've been speaking about.  My sense is
    that it would be one step toward healing but that we couldn't stop there.  
    A woman does need to have sovereignty over her own physical body, and she
    ultimately will answer to the effects of her decisions.  As do we all.
    
    For so long, women have not had this sovereignty.  Most spheres of a
    woman's life have been controlled by men, either explictly through
    abuse or implicitly by installing glass ceilings in many walks of life.
    Many, if not all, of our social ills today are due largely in part to 
    this essential imbalance and lack of equality, imo.
    
    I don't think it is any coincidence that as women continue to make
    in-roads by challenging "glass ceilings" and to speak out against 
    abuse and oppression, there's been a corresponding drastic increase
    in physical abuse directed toward women and children.  Again, last night
    in Massachusetts a young women was murdered when she received a blow to
    the skull from a baseball bat, wielded by an angry ex-boy friend. :-(
    
    Ironically, for me, it was when I lived through the experience of
    abortion that God entered my life, or rather, that I saw God in my life
    for the first time.  When I saw this presence in my life and realized
    it had been there all the time, I cried and cried.  I had done what in
    my heart I considered wretched, and yet, Grace intervened when she was
    least expected and I found that even in the depths of my despair and
    "wretchedness" God was there.  God loved me, and had always, was 
    compassionate and received me, just for who I was and for all I had 
    done.  
    
    I have to wonder if those souls who endeavored to be born through me 
    collaborated purposefully with God to help me realize this essential
    Truth.  I may never know the answer, but I accept that they did and
    there can be no greater gift, no greater sacrifice of one soul for
    another than to give one's life to help another realize the presence 
    of the Most Divine.  Now it is up to me to glorify this precious gift
    with my life.
    
    Karen

You're welcome Karen.  I believe God can heal any hurt if we lift
it up in prayer.   We have a great God and His love and compassion
shines down on us.  What a wonderful thing to receive such grace, grace
so undeserved by all of us.  I really appreciate you're sharing.
Forgive, as I must change gears now to the topic at hand.  

Abortion proponents common argument is that it is a woman's primary and
fundamental right to choose.  But have you thought about it?  For instance,
her right to choose what?  Can a woman choose to steal, using her own body?
Of course not.  Can she choose to do drugs?  Not according to the law.
Can she legally choose to be a prostitute?   Again, no, which establishes,
that there is a precedent for society determining what a woman (or a
man) can and can't do with their bodies.  As a matter of fact, let's look
at a provocative view from a man's perspective:  What if a man claimed the 
right to rape, using the same principle found in the theory that it is his 
body and he has the right to choose?  Both are affecting another life, so 
what's the difference? 

Given all the rights and privileges people enjoy in America, how can
women arbitrarily decide that we are going to exempt ourselves from such
basic responsibility as the preservation of life?  We have to admit that
some of our actions as humans have an impact on society and they have to
be regulated.  If they are not, our one individual action multiplied many
times can corrode the entire moral fiber of the country.  If you multiply
1-1/2 million abortions times the 20 years it's been legal, we've taken
30 million lives.  That individual choice has a massive impact on 
society.

What about the other affects?  There is a doctor in LA who caters to 
women of Pakistani and Indian origin.  He reports that 99% of the abortions
he carries out involve female fetuses.  The mothers come from cultures
where the male child is prized and the female considered worthless.
How far can this "choice" be taken?  If we figure out that their is
a genetic link to being overweight, will children be aborted because their
parents don't want them to suffer humiliation?   Or if a genetic link
is discovered for sexual orientation, will parents abort those children
so that they don't have to suffer abuse?   It's like flirting with eugenics.
Maybe we should change our executive office title from president to fuehrer.

It saddens me to think of the potential we've lost.  Perhaps a genius who
would have discovered a cure for AIDS or cancer.  Or an social activist
who would have some great insight into our racial problems.  Or a mighty
prayer warrior who might have started a revival in our nation.  Or a
brilliant economist who could have come up with a plan to eliminate the
deficit.  Who knows what we've lost in pursuit of "individual choice."

While I agree it's important to remember that there is a story that leads
up to an abortion, also remember there is a story after the abortion too.  
The number of women in counseling due to grief and guilt over an abortion 
they had is quite high.  My father sees them all the time in counseling.
Sometimes it pops up for them many years later after they suppress it and
went on with their lives and careers.  I'm reminded of Shelley Winters.
I saw her in some of her last years on Johnny Carson and she was really 
struggling with having had something like 5 abortions.  Thanks be to God 
for having compassion on us and a forgiving spirit.  

Jill
    

    Jill,
    
    You raise excellent points; yes, I think about them often.  As long as
    there is choice and free will, there will always be the critical issues
    of morality and ethics to wrestle with.  Again, I say the rising
    incidences of abortion point to a much deeper problem, one tht will not
    be solved by taking away the right to choose, and in fact, may serve to
    worsen the already ill situation.
    
    Personally, I would like to see women, and especially couples, receive
    comprehensive counseling on all the alternatives when faced with an
    unwanted, unplanned, or financially unsupportable pregnancy.  I strees
    a couple's need for counseling because when I was in the clinics, it
    was very disturbing to see how many men encouraged the woman, several
    who appeared extremely reluctant, to go ahead and have the abortion. 
    It was difficult to tell if it was truly a mutually-arrived at "choice"
    in those situations.  And clearly, when talking from a responsibility
    perspective, pregnancy is ultimately and undeniably a "couple's
    responsibility."  Yet, there doesn't seem to be much emphasis on this.
    
    I am also verymuch for a "waiting period" before any abortion is
    performed.  It is a decision that should be given time to contemplate
    once counseling on the alternatives has been provided.
    
    But let's say abortion had been illegal and many of these 30 million
    fetuses had been born.  How then can we as a society adequately care
    and provide for these 30 million children, when their parents and
    extended families in many cases cannot or will not?  How can we insure
    these children do not become the forgotten or misbegotten ones?  How
    can we insure they're receive the love and care they deserve, instead
    of apathy and abuse?
    
    I believe it is an important ideal to strive for, and essentially, I'm 
    with you on this one Jill -- a society where abortions are either
    "obsolete" or no longer necessary.  Towards this end, what we perceive
    the root causes of this issue to be, and then determine the actions we 
    can take to resolve those issues is (or should be) the foundation we
    focus our efforts to create and build upon. 
    
    This may not be a "popular" or shared belief, but imo, we _ARE_ 
    responsible, gravely responsible, for the effects our votes and 
    legislation we support have upon society, even those unintended 
    and unforseen.  (Which is also my main point in topic 91 over the 
    last couple of days.)  Gone are the days of innocence when we believed 
    we could vote our conscience on a "single" issue, and that's where it
    ended.  
    
    No, it's becoming profoundly evident that every issue is just 
    one spoke on a wheel, or a strand in a web.  What we enact on one
    issue, does effect what happens to _all_ the others, to varying
    degrees.  It is still in our best interest to vote our conscience, but 
    we must expand our conscience to, (at the very least) accept and be
    _willing_ to account for the inevitable, and sometimes adverse, sometimes 
    unintended "ripple effect" our voting actions will produce throughout 
    the diversity of human lives and conditions that compose the complex 
    fabric of our society.
    
    So if we take away the choice for abortion, though some of these 30 
    million children may have been the next Martin Luther King or the 
    discoverer of the AIDS vaccine, what of _ALL_ the others?  What ripple
    effect might such an action have upon their lives?  Who's going to
    provide for their health and well-being?   Are we ready as a society to
    take *good* care of them?
    
    Karen      

    
    Can't you see it now?  The abortionist or the mother who aborts her
    baby standing there putting the legs, and arms and faces and heads back
    into a nice little pile and Jesus putting his arms around the person
    and saying, "well done, my good and faithful servant. Enter into
    paradise".
    
    jeff

I read an interesting article about the RU486 "morning after" pill in the
lastest "New Republic".  Here is a puzzle for those of you who believe
that life begins at conception, and that therefore taking RU486 a day or
two after having sex is a form of abortion and hence immoral:

You'll agree that two identical twins are not the same person, even though
they have the same genetic structure, right?  Let's say that an embryo is
fertilized.  Since according to the pro-life view the embryo is a person,
let's name the embryo "Harry".  Harry descends from the ovaries through
the fallopian tube and eventually reaches the uterus.  Five days after
conception, Harry has divided into 32 cells but has not yet attached
himself to the uterine wall.  At this point Harry divides into two
identical embryos, which attach themselves to the uterine wall and grow up
into identical twins, named Hal and Hank.  As we've said, Hal and Hank
have the same genetic structure but are separate people; in the Christian
belief system, Hal and Hank have separate souls.

The question is: what happened to Harry?  Did Harry become Hal, but in
that case couldn't Harry just as well have become Hank?  Or did Harry
cease to exist?  In that case did Harry's soul go to heaven, or maybe to
limbo?  Should Harry's parents be mourning his death and offering prayers
on his behalf?

The point, in my opinion, is that a human life is more than just genetic
information (otherwise identical twins would be the same person), so a
fully formed human life does not begin at conception.

				-- Bob

    
    
    Bob,
    
     With all due respect, your arguement doesn't hold water. The christian
    belief that we are " Human beings at the point of conception" is not
    based upon scientific data, but rather the word of God. Hence I knew
    you before you were ever born(somewhere in the bible) is the foundation
    for believing this way. And it logically follows that if he knew "you"
    before you were born, then hence, he knew "us" ( Hank and Hal) before
    they were born..
    
    Nice try tho. New twist,
    David

David,    
    
>    The christian
>    belief that we are " Human beings at the point of conception" is not
>    based upon scientific data, but rather the word of God. Hence I knew
>    you before you were ever born(somewhere in the bible) is the foundation
>    for believing this way. And it logically follows that if he knew "you"
>    before you were born, then hence, he knew "us" ( Hank and Hal) before
>    they were born..
    
But if God is omniscient wouldn't he also know Hank and Hal before they
were conceived?  Why is it specifically the moment of conception that
makes Harry or Hal or Hank a human being with his own soul?  The argument
I've heard is that at the moment of conception the embryo has a unique
genetic identity, but a unique genetic identity isn't enough to make
someone/something a unique person.  Where in the Bible does it mention the
moment of conception?

>    Nice try tho. New twist,

Thanks.  It is sort of nice if someone introduces a new idea every hundred
replies or so. :-)

				-- Bob

    
    
     Bob,
    
      I understand the paradox your exposing.. I suspect that God
    alone holds the final opinion on this.. All I know is when sperm meets
    egg and time goes by a litle human is born..
    
    David

Bob, your scenario doesn't pose a problem at all.  The issue is not just
that the zygote is a unique individual, but that it is life.  Whether
it is one life or two lives doesn't matter -- it is life and deserves
to be respected.

I don't even think we need any religious position on abortion to see that
destroying a life is immoral.  A life is the most valuable thing we know
of -- and destroying it would be even more horrible were the atheists right
and there were no life eternal!

David, your scripture reference is from Psalm 139:  "My bones are not
hid from thee, though I be made secretly, and fashioned beneath in the
earth.  Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being imperfect; and in
thy book were all my members written; Which day by day were fashioned,
when as yet there was none of them."

/john

    My position is that the unborn child is a distinct human life is
    scientific:  The unborn child is genetically distinct from the mother,
    existing within the mother, not a natural growth of tissue within the
    mother or a disease within the mother.
    
    The goal of the abortionist is to destroy the life of the child without
    destroying the life or physical health of the mother.  In an
    "unsuccessful" abortion a child survives.

>Bob, your scenario doesn't pose a problem at all.  The issue is not just
>that the zygote is a unique individual, but that it is life.  Whether
>it is one life or two lives doesn't matter -- it is life and deserves
>to be respected.

John, spermatazoa and ova are also life.  If it's wrong to destroy a zygote,
why isn't also wrong to destroy spermatazoa, e.g. by using a condom or by
abstaining from sex?

>I don't even think we need any religious position on abortion to see that
>destroying a life is immoral.  A life is the most valuable thing we know
>of -- and destroying it would be even more horrible were the atheists right
>and there were no life eternal!

Cows and pigs are alive, yet I don't feel at all guilty when I eat a
hamburger or a pork chop.  Wheat is alive, yet I see nothing wrong with
fixing myself a sandwich.  It's my *own* life that, from my perspective,
it would be horrible to destroy.  By extension, I am also horrified when
other *people* are killed.  I don't think it's immoral to kill animals for
food or to terminate a potential pregancy by taking RU486 the morning
after sex.

				-- Bob

Re: .562 Pat

>    My position is that the unborn child is a distinct human life is
>    scientific:  The unborn child is genetically distinct from the mother,
>    existing within the mother, not a natural growth of tissue within the
>    mother or a disease within the mother.
    
I agree that the unborn child (zygote) is genetically distinct from its
mother, but I don't think that this fact gives it a right to life.

Since you and John are Christians, I have a question for you:  At what
point in its development does an unborn child acquire a soul?

				-- Bob

>John, spermatazoa and ova are also life.

Not in the way they are life after they have united.

>Cows and pigs are alive,

But they aren't human life, and human life (at our current level of
scientific development) requires that we consume other life (either
animal or vegetable) in order to remain alive.

>By extension, I am also horrified when other *people* are killed.

Yes, and this is why I am horrified by abortion, especially once
the fetus has developed to the point that neurons are firing, and
even more so after the point that pain receptors are present.

>Since you and John are Christians, I have a question for you:  At what
>point in its development does an unborn child acquire a soul?

I don't know.  Thus I would counsel someone else to give the zygote the
benefit of the doubt.

/john

Re: .565 John

>>Cows and pigs are alive,
>
>But they aren't human life, and human life (at our current level of
>scientific development) requires that we consume other life (either
>animal or vegetable) in order to remain alive.

It's possible to live without eating animals, yet I eat them.  I don't think
that this is immoral.

>>By extension, I am also horrified when other *people* are killed.
>
>Yes, and this is why I am horrified by abortion, especially once
>the fetus has developed to the point that neurons are firing, and
>even more so after the point that pain receptors are present.

I don't consider a fetus to be a person until it has a functioning brain.
Unfortunately there isn't a precise instant when we can say "a moment ago
this fetus didn't have a functioning brain, and now it does".  I'm sure
that's why many people use the moment of conception as the diving line
between personhood and non-personhood - because it's a precise moment in
time.  But I don't think that this is sufficient reason to deny women the
right to use drugs like RU486.

At what point in its development do fetal neurons fire?  At what point does
the fetus have pain receptors?

				-- Bob

Re: .565 John

>>Since you and John are Christians, I have a question for you:  At what
>>point in its development does an unborn child acquire a soul?
>
>I don't know.  Thus I would counsel someone else to give the zygote the
>benefit of the doubt.

Something else occurred to me after I wrote my previous reply.  You don't
know when an unborn child acquires a soul, so you would counsel someone
else to give the zygote the benefit of the doubt.  Fair enough, but would
you also force a woman who wanted to use RU486 to give the zygote the
benefit of the doubt?  Are you sure enough of your beliefs that you would
impose the consequences of those beliefs on others?

If I were a Christian I might reason this way: only people with souls have
a right to life, and no person has more than one soul.  Therefore a newly
conceived zygote can't have a soul, since it has the possibility of
splitting into identical twins.  Thus there is no problem with using RU486
or an IUD to prevent the zygote from attaching to the uterine wall.

				-- Bob

re Note 31.567 by GRIM::MESSENGER:

> If I were a Christian I might reason this way: only people with souls have
> a right to life, and no person has more than one soul.  Therefore a newly
> conceived zygote can't have a soul, since it has the possibility of
> splitting into identical twins.  

        Well, remember that God has perfect foreknowledge, and God
        KNOWS that the zygote will split in the case of such twins,
        and so God obviously provides the zygote with two souls.

        Bob

    If the splitting of a zygote is one of those non-deterministic results
    of random chaos, then perhaps the creation of twins comes a surprise
    even to God.

    (But then, my guess is that zygote splitting is probably no less random
    an event than the original fertilization.  However, I don't believe
    that God intervenes to determine fertilizations any more than I believe
    that God directs the course of other natural events, like the movements
    of cold fronts or the paths of tornadoes.)

    -- Mike

re:  Note 31.565 by "John R. Covert" 

>>John, spermatazoa and ova are also life.
>
>Not in the way they are life after they have united.

Sounds like the beginning of the slippery slope to me...

Jim

>At what point in its development do fetal neurons fire?  At what point does
>the fetus have pain receptors?

First of all, note that I said "_especially_ after these events" -- so you're
not going to get me to say that abortion is "OK" up until these events occur.
As far as I'm concerned, every human life deserves respect from conception
until death.

But here is a chronology of fetal development.  Neurons are clearly firing
by day 21, long before most women will even know they are pregnant.

DAY 1

Sperm joins with ovum (egg) to form one cell -- smaller than a grain of salt.
The new life has inherited 23 chromosomes from each parent, 46 in all.  This
one cell contains the complex genetic blueprint for every detail of human
development -- the child's sex, hair and eye color, height, skin tone, etc.

DAYS 3-4

The fertilized egg travels down the fallopian tube into the uterus, where the
lining has been prepared for implantation.

DAYS 5-9

During this time, the fertilized egg implants itself in the rich lining of the
uterus and begins to draw nourishment.

DAYS 10-14

The developing embryo signals its presence through placental chemicals and
hormones, preventing the mother from menstruating.

DAY 20

Foundations of the brain, spinal cord and nervous system are already
established.

DAY 21

The heart begins to beat.

DAY 28

The backbone and muscles are forming.  Arms, legs, eyes and ears have begun to
show.

DAY 30

At one month old, the embryo is 10,000 times larger than the original
fertilized egg -- and developing rapidly.  The heart is pumping increasing
quantities of blood through the circulatory system.  The placenta forms a
unique barrier that keeps the mother's blood separate while allowing food
and oxygen to pass through to the embryo.

DAY 35

Five fingers can be discerned in the hand.  The eyes darken as pigment is
produced.

DAY 40

Brain waves can be detected and recorded.

WEEK 6

The liver is now taking over the production of blood cells, and the brain
begins to control movement of muscles and organs.  The mother is about to
miss her second period and has probably confirmed that she is pregnant.

WEEK 7

The embryo begins to move spontaneously.  The jaw forms, including teeth
buds in the gums.  Soon the eyelids will seal to protect the embryo's
developing light-sensitive eyes, and will reopen at about the seventh month.

WEEK 8

At a little more than an inch long, the developing life is now called a
fetus -- Latin for "young one" or "offspring."  Everything is now present
that will be found in a fully developed adult.  The heart has been beating
for more than a month, the stomach produces digestive juices and the kidneys
have begun to function.  Forty muscle sets begin to operate in conjunction
with the nervous system.  The fetus' body responds to touch, although the
mother will not be able to feel movement until the fourth or fifth month.

WEEK 9

Fingerprints are already evident in the skin.  The fetus will curve its
fingers around an object placed in the palm of its hand.

WEEK 10

The uterus has now doubled in size.  The fetus can squint, swallow and wrinkle
its forehead.

WEEK 11

At this time, the fetus is about two inches long.  Urination occurs.  The
face has assumed a baby's profile, and muscle movements are becoming more
coordinated.

WEEK 12

The fetus now sleeps, awakens and exercises its muscles energetically --
turning its head, curling its toes, and opening and closing its mouth.  The
palm, when stroked, will make a tight fist.  The fetus breathes amniotic
fluid to help develop its respiratory system.

WEEK 13

Fine hair has begun to grow on the head, and sexual differentiation has become
apparent.

MONTH 4

By the end of this month, the fetus is eight to ten inches in length and
weighs a half pound or more. The mother will probably start to "show" now.
The ears are functioning, and there is evidence the fetus hears quite a bit:
the mother's voice and heartbeat as well as external noises.  The umbilical
cord has become an engineering marvel, transporting 300 quarts of fluids per
day and completing a round-trip of fluids every 30 seconds.

MONTH 5

Half the pregnancy has now passed, and the fetus is about 12 inches long.
The mother has definitely begun to feel movement by now.  If a sound is
especially loud or startling, the fetus may jump in reaction to it.

MONTH 6

Oil and sweat glands are functioning. The delicate skin of the growing baby
is protected from the fetal waters by a special ointment called "vernix."
If the baby were born in this month and given the proper care, he would
survive.

MONTH 7

The baby now uses the four senses of vision, hearing, taste and touch. He can
recognize his mother's voice.

MONTH 8

The skin begins to thicken, with a layer of fat stored underneath for
insulation and nourishment.  Antibodies increasingly build up.  The baby
absorbs a gallon of amniotic fluid per day; the fluid is completely
replaced every three hours.

MONTH 9

Toward the end of this month, the baby is ready for birth.  The average
duration of pregnancy is 280 days from the first day of the mother's last
menstrual period, but this varies.  Most babies (85 percent to 95 percent)
are born somewhere between 266 and 294 days.  By this time the infant normally
weighs six to nine pounds, and his heart is pumping 300 gallons of blood per
day.  He is fully capable of life outside the womb.

Details on the sentencing of Fr. Carleton, from the Internet:

|> I can't find a recent article, but an article published at the
|> beginning of the trial names two priests, The Rev. R. Thomas Carleton,
|> 46, of Arlington, and The Rev. Francis O. Hagerty, 76, of Boston.

A few days ago, Fr Tom Carleton was sentenced to 2 1/2 years imprisonment,
with 2 years suspended.  Since he will not promise to stop protecting unborn
children, he is likely to serve the whole sentence.  A fellow defendant (a
layman whose name I forget), was acquitted.

Fr Hagerty, SJ, was not on trial in this proceeding.

|> The earlier article appeared at a time when the State prosecutors had
|> filed a motion to prevent the priests from wearing any clothing which
|> would identify them as priests and which would enjoin attorneys and
|> witnesses from referring to them as "Father" during the trial.
|>
|> The State withdrew the motion after major protests were scheduled.
|> It's obvious that the prosecutor's office was in some disarray over
|> this; news articles quoted State Attorney General Harshbarger as
|> saying that the motion was withdrawn because the Church and Operation
|> Rescue were going to start a sideshow that would detract from the
|> actual prosecution, but then a few days later he said that he was
|> going to dismiss the prosecutors who had file the motion.

Even the liberal Boston Globe's columnist Mike Barnicle raked Harshbarger
over the coals for trying to suppress the identity of the two priests.

At the request of the defense attorney, the judge did specifically rule that
all persons in the case should be addressed by their titles.  The prosecutor,
however, persisted in addressing Fr. Carleton as "Mr."

There is a possibility of appeal, on several grounds.

The defendants were not allowed to use the "necessity" defense: that is, to
say that they blocked the abortion facility to prevent an imminent loss of
life.

When the defense attorney asked Fr Carleton why he had blocked the doors, the
prosecutor objected, and the judge had Fr Carleton answer the question while
the jury was out of the room.  He said, "I always admired the "White Rose
Resistance" -- the German students who were put to death by the Nazis....
When I was growing up, the big question was: where was everybody when the Jews
were being killed?  I have to be ready to answer the question myself: where
was I when the babies were being killed?"

The judge, after hearing the answer, forbade the question from being posed
again when the jury returned.

The defense was also not allowed to inform the jury of its right ("jury
nullification") to judge the law as well as the facts, and to acquit the
defendant if they should find the law to be unjust.  The judge, in her
instructions to the jury, specifically said that *she* ruled on questions of
law, and the jury only on questions of fact.

---
Richard Chonak, [email protected],                                    INTP

The vast majority of abortionists who get out of the
abortion industry get out because, at some point, they
experienced a conversion where they viewed their actions
as wrong.  Instead of performing an act where they are
"helping the woman", they now view their actions as
killing an unborn human life that is wrong.

I have the privilege of joining in a ministry of prayer
for local abortionists to entertain such a conversion in
their lives.  The results of such prayers in the past
are astounding.  God is working.

Collis

re: Note 31.573 by Collis "Jesus is the reason for the season" 

>The vast majority of abortionists who get out of the
>abortion industry get out because, at some point, they
>experienced a conversion where they viewed their actions
>as wrong.  

I've heard similar things from people who have gotten out of the nuclear 
weaponry business (one was my old lab partner from college).

On the other hand, I've heard others state their belief that their work 
is vital for the security of the whole world.  Instead of producing 
mega-death, they are making the concept of war too horrific to contemplate.

So I'm not surprised that a change of heart gets them out of the business.
Or that a change of heart could get someone *into* the business, too...
of course, the ones getting out of such a business are probably more 
noticable.

Peace,

Jim

Collis .573,

	Is your group, or any group for that matter, doing anything to
eliminate the cause rather than the effect of unwanted pregnancies?

	I'm serious here.

Peace,
Richard

>Is your group, or any group for that matter, doing anything to
>eliminate the cause rather than the effect of unwanted pregnancies?

There are two parts here.

First, there's the cause of the pregnancy -- we all know what that is --
many groups are trying their best to teach abstinence outside of marriage.

Second, there is the cause that it is unwanted -- once pregnant, many groups
will help a woman at least want the pregnancy to go to term, even if she
does not want the child.

I am a member of NOEL.  We have a home for mothers with problem pregnancies;
we are opening a second one.  That is not enough.  But there are other
organizations with similar operations, which help women through their
pregnancies, help them cope with the loss of adoption (if that is their
choice), and help them get financially independent after the pregnancy is
over.

/john