From: cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us (Clyde Price)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: The March in D.C.
Date: 16 Apr 92 14:47:38 GMT
Organization: Clyde's TreeHut BBS

rfischer@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Ray Fischer) writes:

> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes ...
> >   We are not against health care whatsoever. THis is preposterous. We are
> >aginst our money goin to support the thousands of abortions which we are 
> >so disgusted by.
> I also object to MY money going to support the thousands of churches
> in the country and the disgusting actions of so many militant "Pro-Lifers".

        Ray, to what churches do you donate?  If you object to what a
church does, why do you donate to it?  How would YOUR money go to a
church to which you did not donate directly?  (If you're simply
misunderstanding the tax-deductible donation issue, I address that
later.)

> Even the welfare mother who has 7 children (each by a different father)
> so that she can get more welfare money?  Don't most churches rather
                                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> object to this sort of behavior?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >   We NEVER shou at the woman. We see the woman as a victim like the child.
> >She is at the mercy of society and the political powers. The woman may
> >be a willing participant, but the abortion clinics where people feed off of
> >society's hate for children are where we truly direct our voices.

        Evangelical churches would _object_ to the sin of fornication
and at least seek to bring the woman to repentance and faith in Christ
as Savior and Lord, and would probably look for ways to help her become
an established self-supporting person.  (Unfortunately, not all churches
live up to this.)
        Evangelicals definitely support and promote _chastity_: sexual
abstinence outside of marriage.

        Pro-lifers are also promoting homes for pregnant girls and
adoption services. Sometimes a pregnancy _is_ traumatic and a child
can't be kept, but preserving a human life is worth carrying a pregnancy
to term.

> Ah, I see.  Women are victims who can't decide important issues for 
> themselves.  Thus you take it upon yourself to tell all the women in
> the country to shut up and stay in the kitchen where they belong.
> Having babies is part of the job, eh?  Can't have women getting 
> uppity and making decisions for themselves, eh?  Sounds like the
> game is more about control over women than protecting fetuses.

        One of the "Foundation Doctrines" of Christianity (as listed in
Hebrews 6:1-2) is the doctrine of judgment, or personal accountability
before God for our own actions.  The apostle Paul, addressing a
Christian audience, wrote,
        "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that
each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what
he has done, whether good or bad."  (2nd_Corinthians 5:10 NAS)

        Certainly, some women opt for the "traditional" roles of
housewife and mother (which are severely under-appreciated in modern
society), and individuals of both sexes are sometimes guilty of allowing
themselves to be bullied into doing, or not doing, certain things.
The Bible teaches self-control and personal responsibility before God
for our actions, even when those around us are pressing to do something
evil, such as killing a baby.

        Evangelical (Biblical) Christianity holds people responsible for
their own actions, and offers the freedom of forgiveness and a
Spirit-empowered abundant life through a love/trust relationship with
the Lord Jesus Christ.

> As for the abortion clinics - do they get bombed so that they won't 
> be roaming the streets, pouncing on women and giving them abortions 
> against their wills?

        The NUTS who bomb abortion clinics make it a lot harder for
those of us who are trying to fight "within the system", especially when
they injure or kill people in the process.  But the destruction of
property is in a different arena from the destruction of human life. The
New Testament reaffirms the validity of the death penalty (in Romans
1:34 and 13:1-5), it reserves that to the state.

> Which pales in comparison to the charity and effort put into
> nourishing and supporting the (tax subsidised) church.

        Ray, no church in the USA can be "tax subsidised".  The First
Amendment prohibits the federal establishment (or subsidy) of any
particular religious group.  Since the framers of the constitution
recognized that taxation can become a tool for control, they followed a
general governmental tradition since Constantine and granted exemption
from taxation to churches. Recognized 501(3)(c) nonprofit corporations
are granted non-taxable status and are permitted to give receipts to
donors who are in turn permitted tax deductions.  An organization does
not have to be a church, or even religious, to accept tax-deductible
donations.
        You can _argue_ that the people who donate are paying less
total money to the government, but you can't say that _your_ money is
going to _subsidize_ a non-profit organization because you pay taxes.
The system allows deductions for charitable donations and some folks
take them.

Clyde Price, SysOp: Clyde's TreeHut BBS 404/767-1632/I'm a "whosoever"!
P.O.Box 667      Sec'y: Atlanta Christian Tech Society (meets 3rd Tues)
Red Oak, GA 30272-0667/ CIS#76616,3452 /cprice@treehut.waffle.atl.ga.us
* * John 3:16   F G s l t w t H g H o b S, t w b i H s n p, b h e l.* *