X-Envelope-to: CATHOLIC@american.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:13:41 PST
From:         J Scott Berg <ALHY@SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Moral Activity (was Re: Asylum)
              15 Dec 92 21:53:42 GMT." <15355397A0A10E52@SCS.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU>

In your message of Tue, 15 Dec 92 21:53:42 GMT you write:
> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>
> >I'm sick and tired of hearing the anti-lifers claim those of us who are
> >opposed to abortion are trying to impress our moral values on the
> >entire country.  The anti-lifers are trying to impress on the country
> >their moral views that women should have the right to abort unborn
> >babies.
>
> >To be honest, I feel that all legislators are trying to impress their
> >beliefs on the country, but the anti-lifers are just being hypocritical
> >about it.
>
> There's an important distinction though.  The "anti-lifers" (I'll use your
> word if you'll use mine :-)) are trying to impress on the country their
> moral views that women have the right to choose what to do with their bodies.
> They are not, however, making that choice for you.
> The "pro-unwantedchildrenwhomaygetlifebutnosupportaftertheirborners" want to
> make that choice for everyone, regardless of the consequences.
>
> The distinction comes in that no legislation by "anti-lifers" is going to
> force you to do something you don't want to do (except maybe going to jail
> for blocking clinics).
>
> Marc Talbot
>
> >--Ted Schuerzinger
> >email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
> >"Den Glaubenden gehoert die Ewigkeit."

Oh, I'll stick my foolish neck into this mess.

To categorize myself into this mess, I'm anti-choice.

I, however, did not vote for a single Republican in this election (or,
for that matter, do I ever recall voting for one).  Why?  Because the
Republicans persist in saying that "you can't have an abortion, but if
you have a child that you can't afford, you're stuck."  They don't
want folks who have more children to get more welfare money to feed
them.  They persistently oppose anything designed to help someone
raise a child if they have one.  (I probably shouldn't be so broad,
but it seems that way!)

If I realistically say "which party is going to prevent more
abortions," I would guess that the Republicans couldn't get much in
the way of anti-abortion legislation passed, while I suspect that if
someone feels that they have a chance of supporting a child, they are
more likely to have the child.

People say that adoption is a good alternative, and while I agree, I
also suspect that a lot of mothers would be very unwilling to give up
a child that they carried for 9 months.  They become rather attached
to it.  (Just a theory that's consistent with observation).

Just my opinions.  Peace and God bless

                                        -Scott Berg

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions expressed here are, of course, my own and nobody else's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Berg
email: ALHY@slac.stanford.edu
real mail: Varian Physics
           Stanford  CA  94305-4060
phone:  (415) 926-4732 (w)
        (415) 326-2631 (h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.catholic