From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Newsgroups: alt.abortion.inequity
Subject: Re: Freethinkers & Abortion
Date: 30 Sep 92 04:22:40 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

In article <1992Sep23.112908.1@uncavx.unca.edu> bthurman@uncavx.unca.edu writes:
>Couldn't one say that academic and other, e.g. 'professional', segments of our
>society tend to teem with 'freethinkers'? 

Uh, sure. We could say that. Could we say the 'world is flat'. Sure.


>Might not one also say that
>'freethinkers' tend to look upon 'believing Christians' as persons who have a
>superstitious reverence for a dead book or books?

I think you might address the real issue of one dead man, but I see your point.

>Do not many church members
>share such a 'freethinker viewpoint'?

Huh?

>Do not some persons, e.g. C. S. Lewis or
>Malcolm Muggeridge, spend many years among the 'freethinker ranks' and then
>convert?

Ah, there is a deliberate attempt to lend credibility to Christianity. We
could certainly come up with counter examples now couldn't we. I won't
even *bring up* the crusades.

I mean I respect C.S. Lewis (as he was) a great deal, but I would not expect
him to provide a rigorous analysis in epistemological issues. Which is to
say that, no, I don't consider him to be a very 'free' thinker.  By 
definition he bound himself to one avenue of religion which makes him
just the opposite of 'free.'


>Does not such conversion almost inevitably bring a reversal in
>opinion on the 'abortion question'?

Again, sure, we could say that but, 'inevitable'? No.

>(not necessarily regarding the exact legal
>ramifications, but at least on the question of the inherent righteousness of
>the act?)  Do persons like Muggeridge, who come to claim a deep personal
>assurance about God and the Scriptures, offer reasons for their assurance?  Do
>they not usually respond that they have received the Holy Spirit?

Did not Jim and Tammy Fae recieve the holy spirit? Jimmy Swaggart?

>Do they not
>also often suggest that that Spirit of God has caused them to pay attention to
>the Scriptures and not longer to dismiss these writings as ignorant products of
>superstition? 

Yeah, sure, what of it?

>Does one not find some heart-persuading subject matter in the
>Bible on status of 'little ones in the womb'?

There is the crux of the issue. It is 'heart warming' as often truth is not.

>Did not John the Baptist, still
>within the womb of Elizabeth, 'jump for joy' (eskirtesen) at the greeting of
>Mary, who came to visit her when she was pregnant with Jesus?

We will never know as there is no objective documentation available on 
that subject.

>Would not a real
>convert to Christianity (in the more original sense of the word) not also
>realize that, when Joseph's fiancee Mary reported her pregnancy to him along
>with her explanation, that abortion would at once be counselled by many, many
>'professionals' in today's America?

A 'real' as in 'genuine' convert, that you would personally judge as such?

>Does this series of questions illustrate
>the 'consciousness gap' between persons like Joseph Foreman and Justice
>Blackmun? 

Not in the least, sir.

>How can persons who see themselves as mere accidental products of a
>matter-energy/space-time continuum be expected to 'hear' appeals based upon
>'the Shepherd's voice'?

Which shepard would that be? You can infer a lot from words with no direction
or articulation. The second you say 'space time continuum' out of the context
of physics, you are sounding like a mystic.

>Would such claims not seem utterly foolish?

Let's just think about that for a moment, shall we?

>And yet,
>if they are so sure that it's OK to destroy them before they are born, what
>compelling reason could stop them from destroying them after they are born? 

That depends on the society they live in.  Ask one of the crusaders, the 
converts, about destroying a 'post-born'. Or how about a member of the 
IRA? Pick your christian religion. Depending on who you ask at what time,
killing for god is a great thing. Why don't we just consider all the abortions
as something that god thinks is a good idea?

>Was theocratic Caiaphas (Blackmun) really on target, because all human beings
>can be described as 'potential life'?


No.

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Perpetual Student                                   knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Xref: sparky alt.abortion.inequity:4277 talk.abortion:40884