NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48397

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-18 | 12.1 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!destroyer!news.iastate.edu!iscsvax.uni.edu!clifton9220
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 18 Nov 92 01:27:33 -0600
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Northern Iowa
Lines: 250

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (dean.kaflowitz) writes:
> Clifton, leave the attributions in next time.
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] writes:
>>  1)
>> Things like life of the mother, incest (which would cause death of the infant,
>> and rape would still be allowed after laws were passed.  It is because many see
>> these as 'abortions' that the issue has dragged on.
>
> The above stuff from you is garbled and fairly incoherent, but I'll
> try to decipher it and respond.  First of all, why would incest
> cause the death of an infant?  Second, when is an abortion not
> an abortion?  That is, you seem to be saying that an abortion
> for reasons of the woman's health, incest, or rape is not an
> abortion.  That is simply playing with words.  It is what it is.

Seeeing that aparently there are those on here that do not know this subject as
with you, I will say it more clearly.  Many say that abortion is right because
a baby concieved with incest might die so it should be aborted.  That will not
change, because the life of the mother is always seperate from abortions.
Also, those raped can still go and remove the sperms before they form with the
egg or shortly thereafter.

>
>> 2)
>> I wish that people would make up their mind about it.  People say "I don't
>> think abortion is right, but I will allow it."  That is the biggest non- answer
>> I have heard.  Are you for it or against it.
>
> This is utter nonsense.  I am opposed to people being bigots but
> I would not pass a law saying that nobody may be a bigot.  I am
> opposed to people being idiots, but I would not pass a law outlawing
> idiocy.  I also oppose people playing their car stereos very
> loudly, but I wouldn't outlaw that.  There are a lot of things
> of which I disapprove that I would not seek to prohibit via
> legislation.  Your argument doesn't make any sense.

This wasn't legislation.  It was a request.

>
>> >>Again, I make the point.  will a FETUS become a cow or a horse?  No!  It will
>> >>only be a baby.  By stoping its development, you are taking away the potential
>> >>for life. Correct (I did say potential)?
>> > And by stopping conception, you are taking away the potential for life.
>> > This puts abortion in the same category as birth-control.  Removing
>> > potential life.
>> As you know I am a Christian and know that christians (real ones) do as our God
>> says and saves sex for marriage.  It is a gift that we have abused.
>
> Your response here is a non sequitur.
>
>> > You still haven't said what you want to do with the millions of
>> > "child-killers" running loose in this nation.  If you decide they can
>> > go unpunished, then you are saying abortion is no big deal.  If you
>> > want to punish these "child-killers", then you have committed political
>> > suicide for your side.  I can see why you side-stepped this point.
>> Christians are doing something about it.  That is why we have come out of the
>> churches to do as Jesus said to and tell the truth.
>
> And this is non-responsive.
>
>> >>How did the choice of living or not for a unborn person get to be that of
>> >>another person?
>> > By default.  Since the fetus is INCAPABLE of making a choice on this
>> > issue, the choice falls to someone else.  The question then, is:
>> > do we rely on good old family values (woman decides) or do we rely on
>> > government regulation?
>> At least with government reg., you won't take the chance of killing.  Why don't
>> we repeal the murder law and let our family values decide on that?
>
> This is simply wrong.  The government can only make laws that
> punish people for disobediance in this instance.  That will
> undoubtedly have some deterrent effect, although I think it
> will be small now that the genie is out of the bottle.  In addition,
> I don't think you, Clifton, understand the issues involved here
> or what whoever you were discussing this with (want to leave the
> attributions in next time, please?) was saying.  Once you
> establish that it is the proper role of government to regulate
> our reproductive behaviors, the government is then given the
> power to say that you can't have children as well as to say that
> you can be punished for not having children or for aborting
> a pregnancy.  Your values become dependent on expedience.
> Furthermore, your point about murder is pretty far off the mark
> as well.  The laws against murder only punish murderers and there
> is very little evidence that they deter anyone from committing
> murder.  There are a hell of a lot of murders in the US
> every year.  In fact, homicide is currently the leading cause of
> death among young black males.  Yet I doubt that if the laws
> against murder were repealed (and they are state laws, by the
> way, not federal laws - in other words the federal government
> does not guarantee your right to live) a lot of people would
> begin committing murder.
>
> As an side rant, every now and then alt.atheism is visited by some
> right-thought Christian who tells us that since we don't believe
> in a god we ought to run right out and commit murder.  It never
> ceases to amaze me how some people think the only reason
> people in general don't commit mayhem is because of fear of
> some sort of ultimate retribution.  I personally believe that
> people in general are just not inclined towards mayhem.  We
> tend to seek order.  While theories that the notion of gods
> arose to explain the inexplicable are popular, my theory is that
> the notion of god arose in order to establish a sense of order
> in what appears at first to be chaos.

I do not care for the legal matters.  What matters is God's laws.  I would
definitely break the law of man if it conflicted with that of God.

>
>> God spoke on his own in the word. You should read it sometime.
>
> Did your god write it down himself?  What kind of pen did he
> use?  Felt tip or ball point?  He should have made a video.

Aactually it was the type of writing instruement of the first century.

>
>> We need to help our children to grow up in a society that they can know what is
>> right and what is wrong.
>
> Agreed.  So?  You and I have fundamental disagreements about what
> is right and wrong, based on fundamental disparities in values.
> Are you trying to say that the government should legislate
> a value system that eliminates all such disparities?  WHile there
> are areas inw hich you and I would agree on values, and which
> receive such general agreement that legislation in such areas
> is not objectionable, there are other areas in which not only
> you and I disagree, but in which there is a huge variation
> in opinion across society as a whole.  Religion, which is so
> important to you, is one of these.  I have seen postings in
> which Catholics were called Mary worshippers and idolators,
> Jehovah's Witnesses derided as deluded, Hindus derided as
> pagans, Buddhists derided as flakes, Jews derided as evil,
> and atheists derided as particularly pernicious.  Would you
> have legislation outlawing any of these religions, or any
> religions?  Which one true religion should the government
> pick?
If you are so wanting morals for our kids, why don't you do something about it?
>
>> > Praying about an abortion decision is difficult.  Praying before going
>> > into battle during a war is difficult.  Honoring life (or potential life)
>> > at any costs is not always the right thing to do.
>> War is killing, isn't it?
>
> Why do so many good Christians initiate wars?  Just wondering.
> It's a question that's come up before.

Because we are the only ones to stand up for right.

>
>> I totally agree that those who just sit back and distort what God wants is not
>> right.  That is why I am doing something.
>
> How do you know what your god wants?  How do you know it is any
> more correct than those who are equally sincere and equally
> certain about what their god wants and their god wants something
> different from your own?

As the bible says, there is one God,  the others are deamons.

>
>> We were given the ability to do as we want, even against God, to have freedom.
>> Isn't God great to give us the ability to hate him or the choice to live in
>> him.
>
> This anthropomorphising has always been a great source of amusement
> to me.  Your god always behaves in a very human fashion, and according
> to very human values, when it is convenient and comforting for him to
> do so.  He does all these things because he 'loves' his 'creation.'
> That's awfully human of him.

Oh?  If it is human to love, why do we kill?

>
>> >>Again, as I said I am coming from the "the world needs Jesus" standpoint.
>
> This reminds me.  You still haven't responded to what I said
> about your "JC makes the good times better and the bad times better"
> posting.  You don't know one thing about me.  And now those
> 6 good times that he couldn't possibly make better, and that
> are about 10 times better than the best good time you ever had,
> have become 7.  And if the weather is good they'll be 8 and 9
> by the end of the weekend.
>
>> I know.  Staggering isn't it(divorse rate)?  That is why we need to help our
>> kids to grow up with morals.
>
> Are you saying divorce is immoral?  Please elaborate on that notion.

I am saying that exactly what psych. says.  We often lead ourselves into
problem relationships.  If we would only slow down and think, this wouldn't be
true.

>
>> > You do not want someone to tell a woman she MUST have an abortion.
>> > I do not want someone to tell a woman she CAN'T have an abortion.
>> Or can't kill or can't do drugs or ...
>
> That's not what he said.  I see when you don't have any kind of
> reasoned argument you say stupid little nasty things.  I must
> say, that is very Christian of you.  The notion is, of course, that
> because he doesn't share your value system, he must have a totally
> screwed up value system.
>
>> Much of religion is organized because there REALLY IS a God out there directing
>> us.  A seperate nation.  One that is open to everyone.  Please consider it.
>> Don't let our difference of opinion keep you out.
>
> I disagree entirely with this.  Do you think there should be
> legislation against my differing viewpoint?

Don't you get it.  I don't care about laws.  God wants you not your agreement.

>
>> Also, I don't think we should support a law only if it agrees with special
>> interest groups such as planned parenthood.
>
> The voters of Maryland just expressed their agreement with a law
> that I think you would say agrees with Planned Parenthood's views.
> By a margin of 62 to 38 percent.  Any way, your argument is a non-
> argument.  It's just a crock.  The law you refer to
> agrees with constitutional principles and for the most
> part with at least half of the people in this country.  Tossing
> out 'Planned Parenthood' is a silly remark.  I could as easily
> say we shouldn't support a law just because it agrees with
> groups such as the PTL Club.

Really?  Haven't you seen the news about the money they gave Clinton, or were
you looking?

>
>> > But I do not wish to hear politicians or athletes say "I have won,
>> > because God is on my side".  I would find that blasphemous.
>> It is true.  God clears our minds and helps us to train.  Why don't you wake up
>> to the truth you are looking staight at.
>
> And I say your god clouds your mind and keeps you from learning.
> Okay, so we have disparate views.  Now, can you defend your original
> assertion, or are you going to play "True because I say so"
> forever?

Believe what you will.  I don't care.  I am only obligated to tell you the
truth.  The rest is up to you and God.

>
>
> Dean Kaflowitz

...Ken!
>