From: 78witherspoo@cua.edu
Subject: Position Clarified (long)
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:38:50 GMT

In article <Bt98r9.62y@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes:
>    Tom, some things you said in most of these points does not sound like
> traditional _Catholic_ values, let alone family values.  I'm saying this
> because you are writing from Catholic University, but a few things you
> said contradict the Church's teaching.  

--> You assume I'm Catholic, I'm not.  Lutheran, actually.  [Moral, don't let
	the address fool you..<wink>]
 
>> Vetoing the Freedom of Choice Act,
> --> so there can be more families, whether or not the mother is capable of
>         handling the responsibilities of raising a family

--> Okay, let me clarify my position: I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.  I am
	pro-adoption, I am also pro-birth-control.  If this country is going to 
	outlaw abortion, I say we should at least have some system of
	birth-control distribution in place, so that abortions will become
	less necessary.  You will disagree with me, you will say that I am
	promoting teenage sex.  You are wrong.  Teenagers have been having sex
	for all of human history, I don't like it, but facts are facts.  Let
	the teenager make the choice to have sex or not, but if they do choose,
	let them be protected from STD's at least.  
 
>> giving parents the right to choose
>> between available public and private schools (with tax credits for
>> choosing the latter),

--> You made some good points, I will withdraw my comments.  I'm not sure how I
	stand on this issue anymore...

>> banning the distribution of condoms in public
>> schools,
> --> so there can be more children raising children, ergo, more families; and
>         let's not forget more sexually transmitted diseases, more babies born
>         with aids and other diseases, ergo, more dysfunctional families
> 
>    What's wrong with teaching abstinence instead?  It's more effective
> than condoms for all those evils.  Again, your view here contradicts
> Church teaching.

--> Again, I'm not Catholic.  There is nothing wrong with absitinence, I
	practice it quite frequently, as do most people.  But don't you think
	that it is better for our country as a whole to prevent the spread
	of disease?  Distribution of condoms in school does not promote sexual
	activity, all it does is make that activity safer.  There are
	different studies that make points on either side, but let the
	teenagers decide what is best for them.   

>> Where is the increased support for daycare?
> 
>    Why should the taxpayers pay for babysitters for other people's kids?
> This point contradicts what you said about tax credits for private school
> parents.

--> Point taken.  I guess with more families having to have dual-incomes to 
	stay alive, this makes daycare a necessary thing to have.  For some 
	people, this is not necessary.  I think that industry should pick up 
	the ball on this one.  My mother works for Mobil Oil, and they have
	their own daycare facility that deducts fees from the emplyee's
	paycheck.
 
>>What about better maternity leave?
> 
>    Again, this would be payed for by the taxpayers.  Why should it be?
> I think it should be left to the employers.

--> Agreed, see above.
  
>>Restructuring the basic educational system so that _all_ children are
>>taught the same things at the same time?
> 
>    What do you mean here?  Do you mean giving all children the same
> educational opportunities, or the same indoctrination?  I favor the
> former, but not the latter.

--> I am always for education, always against indoctrination.
 
> Steve Creps, Indiana University
> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu

Steve--

	Thank you for your points.  They made me think about where I stand on
these issues.  I think I'll go stand on Mars....

Love and good walking,

Tom Witherspoon

78witherspoo@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU