NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48610

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 13.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!pagesat!spssig.spss.com!adams
From: [e-mail] (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: ncsu.general,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The FUTURE is HERE!!!!!!!!!
Message-ID: <adams.722211463@spssig>
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:17:43 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <adams.721595322@spssig> <[e-mail]> <adams.721675706@spssig> <[e-mail]> <adams.722035768@spssig> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News Admin)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 259


[e-mail] (JOHNATHAN LEWIS HARRIS) writes:

>In article <adams.722035768@spssig>, [e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:

>>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.

>As you say that is your opinion, and you are entitled to it.  This is both a
>good and a bad thing, it removes a degree of morality and other things
>held by the christians from law, but I must agree that it allows the freedom
>to do as you please, which I support.

Morals enforced by law are not morals...morals are based on beliefs.  Nothing
is gained by society by legislating morals...even if something is illegal,
people will do it if the gain is worthwhile in relation to the risks
presented by enforcement.  Prostitution happens even though it is illegal.
So does speeding, etc.  Perfect proof that simply passing a law doesn't
force people into a behaviour pattern that they do not value.

>>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.

>Yes, atheists and others hold the bible in the same regard as most fiction
>books, and i am sure that many christians hold the same respect for the holy
>books of other religions, and yes, there are even discussions on the accuracy
>of it within the church, but the ones in the church still hold it sacred.

The Bible is held sacred by those who believe it to be revelation (or, at a
minimum a response to revelation).  To others, it is not sacred and they
have no requirement to respect it as such.  You can ask them to respect it,
but you can't make them.  Perhaps if you quit trying to legislate with a
Bible in hand, people won't be so upset about your wanting to base YOUR
life on it.  Their concern is that you want to force them to base THEIR
life on a book with to them is fiction.

>>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.

>I will consider it, you have a valid point.  My father served in Desert Storm,
>and saw first hand the religious beliefs and how they apply to arab society.
>It would not be a bad idea to read some of the background behid this.

Good for you.  A sign of maturity...and perhaps growth.

>>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.

>Not quite, but getting there!

No...it won't get there.  Congress will likely pass the Religious Freedom
Restoration act in 1993...and Clinton will likely get 2 or 3 appointees to
the Supreme Court, to which he is likely to appoint civil libertarians.

>>How so in public schools?  What exactly do you want?  I'd like to know.
>
>I think there should be a time, if nothing else set apart, or even better, an
>optional assembly every day in which organized prayer is held.

But the ones who do not attend may be ostracized by those who do.  It will
be very obvious who is going and who is not.  In some areas, the breakdown
will be equal.  In others, there will be few on one side or the other.  If
95% of the students attend, the other 5 are potentially going to suffer for
not going, or attend out of fear.

You can have something like this before or after school hours, meeting as a
club...that's adequate.  Otherwise, try private schools.

>>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.
>
>To the extent of parents forcing children, then yes, worship can be forced,
>but his goes under parents know what's good for you.  Noone should be
>forced to attend a prayer service, those that did not wish to go could
>go or do something elsew elsewhere.

Ah, but the government (including schools) should not conduct something
like this.  Religion is a personal, private manner.  Setting up a situation
like you want in school forces it out into the open.

>>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.

>Usually, but in some places you can't, I am sure.

I don't doubt your statement, but those places should be challenged as
needed to allow for free and peaceable assembly.

>>'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.

>That is a question that has not been answered yet, wheter it really is
>biological or not.  Graivity sucks, yes we should outlaw it.
While you are technically correct, I'd say the evidence for biological
homosexuality is reasonably good.  It does occur in lower animals as well
as humans...

I assume the gravity comment was a joke...you should use the following
symbol to denote that : :-)

>>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.

>So it is.

Gotta be careful with those blanket statements...


>>What if precautions are taken during sex and they fail???
>
>Then you must deal with the consequences.

With a range of options.  One way of dealing with the consequences is
abortion.  Note well, I am pro-choice, but I personally oppose abortion.

>>>>>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.
>
>I say it isn't happening here, I fight for the broader issue, no restrictions
>ANYWHERE.

Fair enough...no restrictions, but no sanction, either.


>>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.
>
>Like I said noone should be forced to pray with me, and in some public
>schools, like mine, we could not organize christian activities on school
>grounds (like FCA) after school, at lunch It was possible, but not encouraged
>(doesn't have to be)

Good enough...and you are entitled to do exactly what you wish here.  If
you are prevented, you should take the necessary action to enforce your
rights.  If you need to do so in a legal fashion, The Rutherford Institute
makes a point of taking these kinds of religious freedom cases.

>>>>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.

>Yes I can, and so can anyone else.

So homosexuality isn't a problem then?  Or abortion?

>>>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.

>I think some of both is needed.

I agree with the sentiment to some extent.  But that's just not workable in
a diverse society.  Religions conflict...as do values, culture, etc.
That's why religion makes bad law.

>>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.

>Yes, but like you said, homosexual sexual relations, and to some extent
>therfore, homosexuality is ILLEGAL in at least one state.

That's true.  I did.  And the Supreme Court was wrong to uphold the
statute.  That law won't survive a test in a Supreme Court that is more
open to civil liberties cases than the current one is.

>>It is *NOT* pandering to treat all partnerships the same.

>But it is pandering to give a group what it wants, just as Bush has done to
>those who want to outlaw abortion.

Well, then every political act is pandering.  That makes the word useless.


>>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.
>
>I have not ever really supported abortion anytime except when the mother is
>in danger (1 dead is better than 2), but had just come back from talking
>to a minister, who I got the impression from that rape and incest abortions
>were, to some extent, ok, so that is why I said what I did.

Think it through, though.  You'll allow the fetus to be terminated in some
circumstances.  That means you've set conditions that make murder not
murder.  If you really think abortion is murder, then it's still murder in
cases of rape and incest.  (Life of the mother can easily be called
self-defence).

>>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.
>
>Well, my parents can hardly put me here, how are they going to pay to send
>my two siblings to a private school?

That's a good question...one for which I do not have an answer.  There are
scholarships and financial aid available, but not very many of them.  But,
the rules for public schools should not be changed simply because private
schools are not an option.  The constitution must be enforced because the
principles that it protects are integral to our society.

 -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]