NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/49176

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-22 | 5.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!ut-emx!ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
From: [e-mail] (Andrew Hackard)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:35:45 GMT
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Followup-To: talk.abortion
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Lines: 112

[e-mail] (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
>[e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:
  (and it iterates from there)

You gentlemen mind if I join in?

[the gov't, I assume]

>> 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.

That's ridiculous, unless they're teachers, and even then they should be
able to discuss their beliefs, as long as there's no indication of force
or coercion.  If their principal or other school authority doesn't allow
them to discuss their beliefs, then he/she is an ignorant boob.

You can quote me on that.

>I have no problem practicing mine now either, and I think that this should
>apply anywhere, including public schools.

As long as you don't force it on others and don't take school time away
from other students, I fail to see the problem.

>> 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.

Utter balderdash.  What can't be forced is belief.

>>>Yes, but I keep getting accused that just because I practice religion
>>>publicly I infringe on others right to not have to.

That's silly. (Not you, what others say to you.)  If they don't like it,
they can keep walking.  If you disturb others, however, that's a
different story.  Dislike isn't strong enough grounds to shut you up,
however.

>> 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.

Then you're just as bigoted as a hooded Klansman.  Denying the truth
doesn't make it any less true, and oppressing a minority based on their
minority status is bigotry at its worst.

>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.

What if precautions ARE taken?

>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.

That's fine.  You just can't do it on school grounds.  "Caesar's wife
must be above reproach."

>> 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.  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.

A: I don't have the right to impose my view on others.
B: My view is that abortion is wrong.
C: Therefore, I can't impose my view that abortion is wrong on others.
C': I'm going to do my damnedest anyway.  So there.

[back to gays]

>Equal yes, but not special priveledges for being different, including
>marriage.  It is pandering, just as outlawing it would be called pandering
>to the churches.

Wait a sec -- marriage is a special privilege for gays, but it's a right
for hets?  That's so utterly nonsensical I can't begin to argue with it.
(Well, I could -- starting with your assertion that different groups
should be treated differently under the law -- but it's not worth it.)

>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.

So what kind of proof do you want?

Free clue: There isn't any, in many cases.  It comes down to man's word
against woman's.  Cf. date/acquaintance rape.  Besides, why does the
fetus not have any rights when his parents were related?

>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.

You mean personal, private prayer wasn't allowed?  How moronic.  To quote
my math prof, "Why should I regulate what I can't control?"

--
--Andrew Hackard                                 If I spoke for UT, this post
  [e-mail]                        would make even less sense.