NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/talk/abortion/48833

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 11.1 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.722285442@spssig>
Date: 20 Nov 92 18:50:42 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]> <adams.722211463@spssig> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net News Admin)
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 216

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

>In article <adams.722211463@spssig>, [e-mail] (Steve Adams) writes:

>>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.
>
>Yes things illegal happen, and there are punishments for getting caught, the
>punishment for having or preforming an abortion should be death.  Morals are
>set down by law, the moral of promiscous sex is outlawed with prostitution
>for example.

Why should we punish people for violating such laws?  If the parties
consent, then why should we have a law against it.  And secondly, making
prostitution illegal does *nothing* to reduce promiscuous sex.  In fact, if
prostitution were legal, it might actually reduce it!  The person could go
to his/her favorite prostitue when he/she felt the need...

Again, the question is why society should make or enforce such laws...and
on what basis.  What overriding interest does society have in this case?

>>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.

>I only ask that they let me live my life as I wish, the only things I wish to
>change about theirs is the availability of abortion, and the legalization
>of homosexual marriage, that's it, and there are some who want to restrict
>many of the things I  and my family do, so it kinda ballances out.

They do NOT want to restrict any of the things you do with your family.
You keep saying this, but have failed to come up with anything other than
school activities...which I have stated are allowed in certain prescribed
ways.

Keeping abortion legal and making homosexual 'marriages' legal in no way
harms you.  Neither of these infringe on your rights.

>>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.

>I have not heard of this bill (no tv, no newspaper) what does it state.
Basically, it will restore protections removed in some of the latest
Supreme Court rulings.  I beleive the Oregon peyote case is one of them.
Before you say something bad about peyote...sacramental wine could be next.
Think about it - you are serving wine to minors...illegal in most states.

>I know who Clinton will appoint, and they may do some good, but they will
>stop the 12 years we have come towards outlawing abortion (yes I know you
>don't want abortion outlawed, but as you know I do).

If you know their names, please tell!  Otherwise you only are speculating.
There has been little 'progress' towards outlawing abortion.  The best that
could happen is overturning Roe, which will not make abortion illegal.

>>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.
>
>Yes, but the 95% that go willfully will benefit, yes I agree that the 5% will
>want to appear "normal" by going, but it won't hurt them to go and sleep
>for a few minutes, if they don't want to pay attention, and like I said, they
>don't have to go.
You are forcing people into a no-win situation that shouldn't be forced on
them.  What happens when other groups want to do the same thing....and you
don't like it?

>NO! our FCA was NOT ALLOWED TO MEET ON SCHOOL GROUNDS
>ANYTIME!  Yes that's adequate, but we didn't even have a club meeting on the
>campus, only at homes.
If your school allows other clubs to meet on school grounds, your rights
were denied, and you should take action to protect them.

>>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.
>
>Well, sometimes it NEEDS to be out in the open, that's how you influence
>more to become christians, or the ones who are need support sometimes.

It is out in the open.  But it doesn't belong in governmental situations
where it would appear to be sanctioned.  No one is stopping you from going
door-to-door, preaching on the street, handing out tracts, having prayer
rallies, etc.

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

You're welcome.

>>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.
>
>I am glad to see that you have at least some opposition to abortion.  Abortion
>IMHO is the "wimp" way out or an unwanted pregnancy.

Hmm.  Depends on how you look at it...

And my opposition is more than just 'some'...I just can't force my values
on other people.

>>Fair enough...no restrictions, but no sanction, either.
>
>No sanctions, on where I can meet with my friends, no restrictions on where
>you can meet with yours, and I can't tell you what to do in your free time,
>and you can't do the same to me.  And though I will admit I will infringe on
>my last statement with my next, the only restriction I wish to impose is that
>you can't have an abortion in your spare time, other than that, I can't think
>of any other restrictions.

You're close.  How about taking the next step.  "I won't interfere with
your actions, you don't interfere with mine.  I think abortion is wrong, I
won't have one (or be party to one), and will counsel you to not have one
and will provide support whatever you decide."

>>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.
>
>We are trying, my minister took a petition to the school board since I have
>been here, and I have not heard of any action taken (knowing Gaston County
>Schools, and the Super.  it didn't).
You may have to resort to legal counsel.  Hence the comment about The
Rutherford Institute (in Florida, if I recall correctly).

>>>Yes I can, and so can anyone else.
>>
>>So homosexuality isn't a problem then?  Or abortion?
>
>Like I think I said, those are the two things I like least about freedom, but
>there is nothing I can do about homosexual relations, andd therefore do not
>set to restrict them up untill they wish to enter into marriage.

There are LOTS of things I don't like about freedom, but I realize that I
have to tolerate them if I wish to be free to practice what I beleive and
what I like.  It comes with the territory.

>>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.

>Yes, some does, I like to think (vainly, I'll admit) that what we are doing
>is for the good of society.

Perhaps so...but the point is, if someone rejects your ideas, forcing those
ideas on them by law is not proper.  Remember, Christians are to bring the
'word not the sword.'

As Jesus said, shake the dust off your feet and move on...that place is
lost.

>>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.

>Sad but true, I said that I can't restrict homosexuality, but Georgia has
>found a way and defended it SUCCESSFULLY against the constitution.

Only because of the makeup of the court.  I can see no way under the
Constitution that the state could make or defend such a law.  Where exactly
would the state get the power to do so?

>>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).

>I don't remember where, but I explained why I said this, and now am beginning
>to regret saying it.

Yeah, it puts you in a tough position.  I know.  I've been there.  I used
to be strongly anti-abortion.

>>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.

>I HAVE NO FINANCIAL AID, I WORK EVERY TIME I GO HOME TO PAY TO COME HERE.
That is the case for many, many people...that's why I made the comment that
its hard to come by.

>Yes I must agree uphold the constitution in all situations and freedom of
>religion is suppressed (not exterminated) in many public schools.

Freedom of religion does not give you the right to force it on others.  It
says you may practice it.  Note well that if you make the Bible the 'law of
the land' you have effectively established Christianity (or more properly,
your version of it) as the state religion - something that is expressly
prohibited in the Constitution.

 -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]