NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48322

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 16.6 KB | 358 lines

Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!rock!taco!jlharris
From: [e-mail] (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Lines: 344
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Reply-To: [e-mail] (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <adams.721595322@spssig> <[e-mail]> <adams.721675706@spssig>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:26:33 GMT


In article <adams.721675706@spssig>, [e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:

|>
|> [e-mail] (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
|>
|> >In article <adams.721595322@spssig>, [e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:
|> >
|> >>In article <[e-mail]>
|> >>[e-mail] (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:
|> >>>Yep, and charge them with murder just like those who kill with guns.
|> >>
|> >>But they have not committed murder by the current standards of our system
|> >>of laws.  In fact, there is no 'person' to be murdered under our
|> >>constitution.  The Constitution speaks of citizens as being 'born' or
|> >>'naturalized'.  It does not apply to the unborn.
|> >>
|> >>You'll have to amend the US Constitution to make abortion murder.
|> >
|> >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.

|>
|> >>>>And this is from history teachers, history texts, AND the neighbors of mine
|> >>>>that are ultra religious, and follow and study the bible very closely.
|> >>>>And your statement "And yes the new testament was written in ad" is quite
|> >>>>condescending, it's damn unlikely for anyone who received a basic education
|> >>>>by 1990 to NOT know that fact if only from having the references in some bad
|> >>>>literature explained in English class.
|> >>>
|> >>>I don't know where you went to high school, but no history of what is in the
|> >>>bible was taught where I grasuated from, only when it was translated, this
|> >>>is not a historical fact, it is a religous fact where I graduated.
|> >
|> >>Huh?  Translation of the Bible is a historical, cultural fact.  Irrespective
|> >>of its content's factual content, the Bible is a historical document and
|> >>its handling, translation, use, etc are all of cultural and historical
|> >>significance.
|> >>
|> >>The only purely religious issues are the application and authority of the
|> >>information contained in the Bible, and which canon one uses.
|> >
|> >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.

|>
|> >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,

|>
|> >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.

|>
|> >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.

|>
|> 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.

|>
|> >>>I can disagree with what you do and demonstrate, fuss, petition and yell
|> >>>until I get my way, the same as you.
|> >
|> >>How about we just let each person do what they want so long as they don't
|> >>violate another persons rights?  Remember, your rights end at your nose or
|> >>your property, depending.  Exactly how does acceptance and tolerance of
|> >>homosexuals infringe on your rights?  How are you personally harmed?
|> >
|> >Yes, but I keep getting accused that just because I practice religion publicly
|> >I infringe on others right to not have to.  And I can always try to make my
|> >environment satisfactory by changing the things that I don't like (i.e. sending
|> >representatives to washington that will do what I want).

|> True enough, but whatever is done must be in line with the Constitution and
|> the laws of the land.
|>
|> 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.

|>
|> >>>Yes homosexual marriages do happen, I just don't think any church should
|> >>>preform them as that is not right in the eyes of many churches, but you can
|> >>>always find one that does, mine wouldn't.
|> >
|> >>Mine doesn't either, but I certainly won't make a *governmental* rule
|> >>preventing it.  In fact, the governemnt should be as neutral as possible in
|> >>such situations, giving no advantage to hetero- or homosexual couples.
|> >>Governemnt shouldn't be involved in condoning or discouraging what are
|> >>basically private relationships between two people.
|> >
|> >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.

|>
|> >>>>>Adultery is when you screw anyone that you are not married to (christian
|> >>>>>definition).
|> >
|> >>Last I checked, that's not the case.  Adultery is hacing a sexual
|> >>relationship where one or both partners are married, but not to each other.
|> >>Sexual acts completely outside of marriage are called fornication.
|> >
|> >Doesn't matter what you call it it is wrong.
|>
|> I corrected your definition...I didn't say it wasn't wrong.

Yes, I know, they are one and the same, I recognize that, I was just restating
my point

|>
|> >>>>>And no, there is nothing wrong with recreational sex in marriage.
|> >
|> >>Nor is there anything fundamentally wrong with recreation sex outside of
|> >>marriage from a purely secular viewpoint.  Noone will force you to have sex
|> >>outside of marriage.  You can chose that option yourself.  But society has
|> >>no business interfering with the sexual relationship between consenting
|> >>partners, so long as both partners are 'adult' (*not* 18, but mature enough
|> >>to make such a decision).
|> >
|> >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.

|>
|> >And if you are 'adult' enough to have sex you are 'adult' enough to raise a
|> >child.
|> But you shouldn't be forced to raise a child, nor to carry one to term if
|> you do not want to.  Why should agreeing to have sex implicitly imply
|> agreeing to carry to term?
|>
|> >>>>>But abortion and religion are two different issues, and man and woman have
|> >>>>>the right to say that it should be illegal, THAT gives me the right to say
|> >>>>>abortion is wrong.
|> >
|> >>You absolutely have the right to *SAY* that abortion is wrong.  But you do
|> >>NOT have the right to enforce that view on others.  You want to impose your
|> >>religious values by law - that is totally unacceptable.
|> >
|> >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.

|>
|> >>>You try to use the biblical quote "do unto others as you would have them do
|> >>>unto you" against me, while this is a good try, as others are ALREADY doing
|> >>>it to me, I can try to do it to them (not very nice or holy I know, but if
|> >>>you corner something it will fight)  many are in government doing just that,
|> >>>and you protest when I want to tell you that you can't marry unless it is
|> >>>a woman.
|>
|> >>Doing what to you, personally?  Exactly what are they doing to *YOU*
|> >>personally?
|> >
|> >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.

|>
|> >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.

|>
|> You can stand in front of a clinic and pray or carry signs, etc, so long as
|> you don't harras anyone going in.
|>
|> >>Why shouldn't he be able to marry anyone he wants?  How does his marrying a
|> >>man infringe your rights?  Hmm?  How does it hurt you?
|> >>
|> >>>You obviously haven't read that part of the bible very well
|> >
|> >>"Et tu, Brute."  You seemed to have missed the part about love and
|> >>tolerance, and that laws were not the way to gain salvation, nor should we
|> >>bring the Word by the sword, but by the word.  In other words, preach,
|> >>evangelize, teach, but do not coerce.  A coerced person is no more saved
|> >>than the one who coerced him.  "You hypocrites...you convert a man and make
|> >>him twice as much a child of hell as you."..."You hypocrites, you slam the
|> >>gates of heaven on others when you yourselves will not enter there".
|> >>
|> >>Remember, remove the log from your eye so that you can see clearly to
|> >>remove the speck of sawdust from your neighbors eye.  You cannot possibly
|> >>survive judgement by the same LEVEL of standards as you are applying to
|> >>others.  Remember, all sin is equal in God's eyes.  When you lie, you sin
|> >>as much as any person who fornicates, commits adultery, etc.
|> >
|> >Very good!  I can, by this do what I want religously, as you do what you want,
|> >as long as one makes no restrictions on the other by a law.  I do not attempt
|> >to judge others, it is not my place to do so.
|>
|> 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.

|>
|> >>You shouldn't like it.  Because one day you might just be in the group that
|> >>is NOT pandered to, and get the short end of the stick.  I don't think
|> >>you'll like that very much.
|> >
|> >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.
It is pandering, just as outlawing it would be called pandering to the churches.
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.

|>
|> >>>To put it bluntly, homosexuality is explicitly outlawed by the bible, and
|> >>>therfore I disaprove of rights for them above normal individual rights.
|> >
|> >>The Bible is NOT the law of the land, nor should it be.  This country was
|> >>founded on principles of freedom and liberty.  NOT on the Bible.
|>
|> >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.

|>
|> >>>To put it bluntly, it is the benefit of being "normal"
|> >
|> >>Define normal.
|> >
|> >If you read the posts in order today you should already get the answer to this.


|> Let me guess :  heterosexual American Fundamentalist Christians.

WHO?

-Johnathan