NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48328

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 13.9 KB | 279 lines

Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!a2i!pagesat!spssig.spss.com!adams
From: [e-mail] (Steve Adams)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Message-ID: <adams.722035768@spssig>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News Admin)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <adams.721595322@spssig> <[e-mail]> <adams.721675706@spssig> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:29:28 GMT
Lines: 267

[e-mail] (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>In article <adams.721675706@spssig>, [e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:
>>[e-mail] (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>>>
>>>No but I think it should be, and it was pretty much before Roe v Wade the
>>>constitution and how the court interprets it will be the deciding matter in
>>>this issue.
>>
>>Before Roe, the matter was left to the individual states to regulate.  Roe,
>>in line with Griswold determined that there is a basic right to privacy and
>>that abortion was a private matter between a woman and her doctor, which
>>the State had no overriding interest in.  It said nothing about abortion
>>being murder or not.
>
>Right and you couldn't get one in most.  I know, noone has ever made a law
>saying abortion was illegal, it is a religous belief.

There were laws restricting the right to abortion.  In general, though,
much early US law was based on Christian teachings (blue laws, etc).  The
courts have in the past few decades removed a good portion of such law when
it can be shown that is has no basis other than religious belief.  This is
a good thing, IMHO.


>>>Yes and that is all that it treated as in some places (not as the religious
>>>document it is.)
>
>>In a purely historical sense, the Bible is rightly grouped with other
>>ancient and modern religious texts.  What's wrong with this?  Surely you
>>don't need some sort of secular approval for the Bible!  Either you believe
>>or you don't...passing a law 'approving' or 'sanctioning' the Bible doesn't
>>do one whit to increase or decrease the level of truth contained therein,
>>nor should it affect ones view of that truth.
>
>No, but I amn trying to get some credibility for it. And trying to make it not
>just another old book.

To non-Christians it *is* just another old book.  And among Christians, you
will find a wide variety of opinion on exactly what the Bible says, what it
means and whether or not it is directly inspired (ie God-breathed, or
'plenary verbal inspiration) or a response to revelation.  You only have to
look at the number of Christian denominations to discover this diversity.
Why should any non-Christian think of the Bible as anything more than
Aesop's Fables?  Or Mother Goose?  Or the Illiad?  And an atheist surely
will look at it that same way.

>>>Most people don't use the bible for anything more than a bookend.
>>Which is there perogative.  What would you do with a copy of the Koran or
>>the Baghavad Gita?
>I would give it away to someone who would use it,
Why not read them?  Can't they be useful in some way to you?  I've read the
Baghavad Gita and parts of a translation of the Qur'an.  As a Christian I
can still make use of these documets...at a minimum they help me understand
other people...you ought to read these kinds of texts if you haven't done
so already.

>>>Well, it is sort of the other way around, they have already imposed their
>>>will on me and I am just now trying to try to convince them to see things my
>>>way.
>
>>Exactly how have they imposed their will on you personally?
>
>Not me neccessarily anymore, but my family yes, I have two sisters who
>cannot show any religous preference in their school.

Can't wear a necklace with a Crucifix on it?  Can't read a Bible during
study hall?  If these two things (among others) are being prohbitied, their
rights are being denied and they can likely bring suit to allow them.
Others have successfully defended such issues.

>>>I would have no choice but to obey what they say and practice my religion
>>>underground.
>
>>I'm an Evangelical Christian...I don't seem to have any trouble practicing
>>my religion in the open.  My church is listed in the phone directory, has a
>>sign next to the street and conducts services.  I do not hide the fact that
>>I am a Christian.
>
>I have no problem practicing mine now either, and I think that this should
>apply anywhere, including public schools.

How so in public schools?  What exactly do you want?  I'd like to know.

>>If you are referring to public sanction of religion, then no, they are not
>>forcing their will on you, they are preventing you from forcing it on them.
>>A much different topic.
>
>Some are and some aren't and noone can be "forced" to practice religion.

Sure they can...forced practice of religion is common...I was required by
my mother to attend Roman Catholic services every Sunday.  My opinion
didn't matter.  I wasn't forced to 'believe', but that's a different topic.
Being required to pray with the class is a method forcing religious
practice.

>>I bet you can go stand on the street corner and hand out tracts, or pray
>>aloud, or read the Bible, etc without too much trouble.  I bet you can even
>>have a prayer service in front of a local Govt. building on 'state'
>>property.
>
>Maybe maybe not, depends on what mood the government and police are in that
>day.

You are legally entitled to do all of those things (except perhaps the tracts,
depending on local laws).  The police and local authorities may not agree,
but as long as you are peaceful and do not disturb the peace, you may do
these things.

>>>Fine, leave things like they are now.
>>
>>But the way things are now *IS* discriminatory and gives special privledges
>>to those who marry, and then only those who marry spouses of the opposite
>>sex.  How is this fair?
>
>It isn't truthfully, but I support this because I do not support the legality
>of homosexuality as an attribute like race or sex.
'Legality'??   It appears to be a biological state.  Perhaps you'd like to
outlaw gravity...you'll have just as much luck.  Nature can't be
legislated.

>>>Yes from a secular standpoint it is ok, and that is the world's perogative,
>>>not mine.  You have the option to have sex if you wish just as I choose not
>>>to.
>>
>>Bingo.  Now you will cease to insist that your version of morality should
>>be enforced on others, right?  You just admitted that 'from a secular
>>standpoint it is ok'...and since our system of government is secular, then
>>there shouldn't be laws against such actions.
>
>There are no laws against having sex, and there should not be any, there
>SHOULD be laws prohibiting the ending of a life if precautions are not taken
>while having sex.

Perhaps you should check the law in Georgia.  Sodomy is illegal in Georgia.
Sounds like a law against having sex (or certain types) to me.

What if precautions are taken during sex and they fail???

>>>Yes and others want to take those values away... by law.
>>
>>NO ONE, I repeat *NO ONE* is trying to pass laws that will make you violate
>>your own personal morals.  No one will pass a law that *forces* you to have
>>an abortion, or *forces* you to engage in pre-marital sex, etc.  You can
>>make your own choices based on your moral system.  Just because society
>>doesn't agree with your moral system doesn't mean that you can't follow it.
>>Look at the Shakers, for example.  Or the Amish.  Or the Mennonites.
>
>Some have...in other countries, so it can, but won't happen here, because of
>our political system.
Then what is your concern?  You say it won't happen here.

>>>Let's see, can't have prayer in public schools (my family=me),
>
>>You can pray all you want.  Even aloud.  No official from the school can
>>lead a prayer.  How exactly does that violate your rights?  You can still
>>pray!  And, by the way, what of Jesus command that you should go and pray
>>in private to God, who is in private, and not stand in public like the
>>hypocrites???  Hmm?
>
>OK, good point, I may have gotten carried away, and exagerated, even to
>myself, but yes praying in public is prohibited, even if led by a student
>taking the place of a leader.  Yes prayer is  private thing most of the time,
>but sometimes public prayer is neccessary.

I agree that organized prayer is illegal, in a school setting.  But, the
school is required to make facilities available for religious student
groups just as they do for other groups.  And, on your own time ('recess'
or 'lunch') you can certainly pray in a group or read the Bible, or
whatever.  The restrictions are minimal...and are meant to make sure that
no students are ostracized for failing to participate in some organized
religious activity, or that no student is offended by that activity.

>>>can't demonstrate in front of abortion clinics while people can strike
>>>companies all day.
>
>>That's just not true!  You can demonstrate all you want.  Want you can't do
>>is block access to a business.  Strikers who do that usually *ARE* breaking
>>the law, and in many cases you will see riot police there to protect
>>line-crossers.
>
>Yes, but legally it's the same thing, I was in Mount Holly during the
>Freightliner strike, and yes, there were police on hand, but the strikers
>still tried to prevent access, (one even was struck by a car attempting to
>enter the complex), and none of them were arrested, but if I went downtown
>Raleigh with 50 of my friends, I would be arrested if I tried to stand in
>front of an abortion clinic, remember that the last major organized abortion
>protest had arrests for anyone trying to cross the street, not those trying
>to stand in front of the clinic.
The strike was a dispute between the workers and management.  Protests are
disputes between interested parties and the business owner.  The business
owner has a right to conduct business in both cases.  Any impediemnt to
that business should be handled by the police.  Unfortunately, political
realities interfere with the actions taken by law enforcement officials.

>>You want to impose your values by law.  That would *require* the government
>>to judge others by the standard you set up.  That sir, is still you doing
>>the judging, you've just appointed a surrogate.
>
>I did not mean to imply that I only want the right, by law to keep my values.
You do.  In fact, you don't need any law to give you that right.  You can
set any moral parameters for yourself that you wish.

>And as I have said numerous times, I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO JUDGE OTHERS.
>Others can do as they want, just as long as it is legal, and yes one of my
>values is that abortion is murder and that value, yes I do wish to impose by
>law on others.
Well the rule should come down to ethics, grounded in logic, not to morals,
grounded in beliefs (generally formed by religion).  'Legal' and 'illegal'
are simply codification of morals and/or ethics.  Those laws which codify
morals should be eliminated.  Murder would still be illegal...no religious
definition is needed to demonstrate that it is a bad thing.

>>>Well, lets see I should get my chance when Clinton panders to abortion and
>>>homosexual rights activists, so we'll see.
>>
>>I don't see how this is going to hurt you personally...don't you think that
>>gays deserve equal protection under the law?  And how is keeping abortion
>>legal 'pandering' to the abortion-rights activists.  Most Americans believe
>>that at least some abortions should be legal.  And the Supreme Court has
>>said they should be legal, even though there were lots of judges appointed
>>by Reagan and Bush.
>Equal yes, but not special priveledges for being different, including marriage.
Equal is equal.  Either the government gives the same advantage to all
forms of 'domestic partnership' or removes the advantages for the current
approved ones.  That is equal.  Right now, heterosexuals are given special
priveldges for being 'different' - they just happen to be the majority.

>It is pandering, just as outlawing it would be called pandering to the
>churches.
It is *NOT* pandering to treat all partnerships the same.

>Abortion I *gasp* support in the case of rape or incest, or when the mothers
>life is in danger, but there must be some (dunno how) way to prove that a
>rape has happened, that remember is (yes I already said this) what the woman
>now know as Jane Roe said happened to her, and later admitted was a lie.
Well there you go.  You've allowed for situational murder.  You defined
abortion as murder above, but now say it's OK in some instances.  I assume
then I can set some criteria where I find murder to be permissable, say, I
were to find my SO cheating on me, for example.

There is a major problem with situational morality....

>>>Yes and we lose our freedoms every day, including the right to practice
>>>religion.
>
>>True, but not in the sense you mean.  You mean state sanctioning of
>>religion.  Sorry, but there should *NOT* be sanctioned prayer in schools.
>>The religious freedom we have lost is due to recent Supreme Court rulings
>>about states overriding interest vs neutral application.  'Prayer in public
>>schools' *is* legal...sanctioning prayer is not.
>>
>>No one has taken your rights away.
>
>Sanctioned to exist yes, required, no.  NO! prayer in many schools in NOT
>legal.  I came from one where it was and then wasn't depending on the day,
>week or month.
Public schools should not conduct any form of prayer, etc during school
hours.  If you want that, go to private school.  In fact, if you want to
'protect' your children from the 'heathen' secular world, send them to a
private school that beleives the same as you.  Plenty of them exist.

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   [e-mail]                                  Phone: [phone]
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   [phone]