From: roby@chopin.udel.edu (Scott W Roby)
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Organization: University of Delaware
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:00:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.131522.8439@iscsvax.uni.edu> clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>    =...Ken(again)!
>>   = Scott W. Roby           
>>>  =...Ken!
>>>> = --PLH 

>>>>>I find it interesting that when the pro-child killers speak they can only twist
>>>>>others words instead of using straight logical answers.
>>>> 
>>>> Like calling pro-choice people "pro-child killers"?  Yep, talk about your
>>>> basic straight, logical answer there...
>>>> 

>>>That is no  twist of words.  It is the truth.  

I did not mention it before, but you are assuming that pro-choice = 
pro-abortion, which is not necessarily the case.  Therefore, 
pro-choice does not equal pro-child killer.  Also, a "child" 
is not a "fetus" in my world view.
 
>> So you think all people who have abortions are "child killers"?
>> Do you want to hang them all for murder?  We could try them in court 
>> and easily execute millions of women for the crime of child-killer.
>> Is that what you want?  If not, then your "truth" has no important 
>> consequences.  I would never use the term "child-killer" myself, 
>> unless I was referring to someone so despicable that I knew they 
>> should be tried and punished.

>I wasn't going to even give this article the time of day because of blind bias,

Whose blind bias... yours or mine?  :-)

>but it is too delicious for that.

>Again, I make the point.  will a FETUS become a cow or a horse?  No!  It will
>only be a baby.  By stoping its development, you are taking away the potential
>for life. Correct (I did say potential)?  

And by stopping conception, you are taking away the potential for life.  
This puts abortion in the same category as birth-control.  Removing 
potential life.

>If it is not going to be able to live
>then you are ending its life before life-- Correct?  What do you think killing
>is besides the ending of life?  

Since it's potential life, why don't you call it potential killing?

If you had said fetus-killing, I wouldn't have balked so much.
If you hadn't equated pro-choice with pro-abortion i wouldn't have 
objected so much.

You still haven't said what you want to do with the millions of 
"child-killers" running loose in this nation.  If you decide they can 
go unpunished, then you are saying abortion is no big deal.  If you 
want to punish these "child-killers", then you have committed political 
suicide for your side.  I can see why you side-stepped this point.

>>>For someone to call it
>>>pro-choice is a twist of words.  
 
>>>The baby had no choice, did it?  
 
>> Never had.  Never will.  Simply not capable of decision-making yet.  The 
>> choice is the woman's (unless the government decides to choose for her).

>How did the choice of living or not for a unborn person get to be that of
>another person?

By default.  Since the fetus is INCAPABLE of making a choice on this 
issue, the choice falls to someone else.  The question then, is: 
do we rely on good old family values (woman decides) or do we rely on 
government regulation?

>>>When was it asked about not living?  

>> How would it answer?  How could it think intelligently about 
>> the meaning of the question having never been outside of the womb?
>> Now who is playing with words????

>Ok.  That was just a stab just like you with the choice issue.
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Me? or Patrick??

>> Many people pray to God before an abortion, asking which is the right way 
>> for them.  If you prefer, you can think of the fetus being asked 
>> (through God) at this time.  And apparently the fetus replies "Don't 
>> wanna get born", if the prayer session ends with person deciding to abort.

NOTE: when I wrote the paragraph above, I followed it with the sentence 
you'll see *way* below "See? I can play with words, too!".  The above paragraph 
was a facetious counter-example to the silly notion of the fetus having an 
opinion on their own abortion.

>This was the question that made me decide to write.  As you know if you have
>read my latest postings, I have changed somewhat and now approach the issue
>from the "the world needs Jesus" standpoint.  How long have you been a
>christian?  I was just wondering since you seem to be speaking for God here. 

I never presume to speak for God.  People who do so worry me.
Again the paragraph above was not meant to be taken seriously, as indicated 
by the sentence that followed it (now way below, near end of article).

>The truth is that God only answers us if we TRUELY are looking for an answer. 

Yes, I believe God gives us what we need rather than what we want.
Pray for the will to do what's right rather than for a new Cadillac.
I honestly believe that sometimes abortion is the right thing to do, even 
though I don't imagine myself ever making that choice.

>Somehow, I think that if someone is considering abortion that they are not
>looking for answers but instead solutions.  

Praying about an abortion decision is difficult.  Praying before going 
into battle during a war is difficult.  Honoring life (or potential life) 
at any costs is not always the right thing to do.

>As you know if you are a christian,
>God has us wait in faith at times to test our willingness to wait on him. 

Now who is talking for God?  :-)
Technically, I am not a Christian (it should be capitolized, right?), but 
I find most Christian principles admirable and utilize them as much as 
possible in my daily life.  I do believe in a higher power.  I don't 
believe in organized religion, as I fear it has a tendency (often 
unintentional) to currupt the faith.  If Jesus came back today, I do 
not think he would be excited or honored by organized religion -- he wasn't 
the first time around.  NOTE: I am NOT speaking for Jesus, just offering 
my own humble opinion.  Another example:  I do not believe that the Book 
of Revelations belongs in the New Testament.  It simply does not fit in well 
with the spirit, demeanor, and message of the other chapters.  I suspect it 
was put in simply to assuage the would-be prophets of the early Christian 
era who made a living by telling people of what was yet to come (good and bad).
I came to this opinion after reading the New Testament from front to back.  
I had absolutely no pre-conceived ideas about the Book of Revelations.  
My reading it for the first time following the other chapters led to my 
own "revelation", as I have already stated above.

Back on track...
I *believe* that sometimes God puts us in situatuions where a decision 
needs to be made soon -- such as a housefire where you have enough time 
to save one person, but not two and need to make a choice.
An unplanned pregnancy is not a time for putting off decisions in my view.

>Also, if God has told us to do what is 'natural' with our bodies, I wouldn't
>myself ask him if he was sure about that.  God gave us the ability to have
>babies for a reason.  I am not going to be the one to question him.  It would
>be like me saying, "Lord, are you sure I can't have sex before marriage?" 

One wonders why God made the sexual instinct stronger than the social 
contract instinct.  Perhaps to insure survival if a man and a woman 
are shipwrecked on an island with noone to administer the marriage rites?  
I believe in monogamy and the family unit.  I don't believe that a 
religious ritual is needed to sanctify marriage.  I believe that 
compacts with God can be made directly and do not necessitate the use 
of a "middleman", although weddings do make for pleasant social 
gatherings.

>Again, as I said I am coming from the "the world needs Jesus" standpoint.  How
>many less people would have abortions if they did not have sex before marriage?

Some, but not all.  Sorry, I don't remember the statistic.  I think you 
would be surprised at the number of abortions inside marriage.  I am 
still surprised at the divorce rate in modern America (my folks are 
still morried).

>We cannot change the truth to fit us.

And we cannot clobber others with our own percieved truths (golden rule).
You do not want someone to tell a woman she MUST have an abortion.
I do not want someone to tell a woman she CAN'T have an abortion.

>Before you flame me, think about it.  Your arguement is to keep abortion legal
>and for the religious to just tell their views personally, rather than through
>legal means.  I think we need to do both with the personal comming first. 
>Therefore, if you flame me, are you saying that the religious should stay out
>of it all togather.

I don't think I flamed you.  If I did, apologies.

I do believe that religion is personal.  That is why I object to organized 
religion. I don't mind suggestions on how to believe, but I detest being 
told dogmatically how to believe.  (You have NOT done that -- I am 
referring to some aspects of organized religion.)  I don't believe in 
repetitious rituals either -- they take the life-blood out of a working faith.
Jesus offerred the "Lord's prayer" as an example of how to pray uniquely and 
avoid ritual.  It is sad that this prayer has been abused in ritual by 
organized regligion.  

Government, of course, is not personal, it must be public. The proper 
way to argue the pro's and con's of government legislation is in terms 
of the effect it will have on society.  I do not think it proper (in 
a pluralistic society) to argue that a law should be passed because 
it agrees with someone's religion, the argument must be about 
public merit, and not personal religion.  We are all part of the 
public, but we have separate and different personal religions.  
Would you support a law banning all slaughter of cows because it 
agrees with the Hindu religion?  I would not.  Do I think an 
argument supporting abortion rights based on some religion is a valid 
argument for making abortions lawful?  I do not.

Certainly one's personal religious views come into play in how they 
vote, etc., but I think public law must be argued on public merit.

I do not think religious people should stay out of politics.  
I do not think religious people should stay out of athletics.
But I do not wish to hear politicians or athletes say "I have won, 
because God is on my side".  I would find that blasphemous.
Likewise, I do not want to hear a legislator say "We pass this 
law because God has willed it."  Which God?  The Hindu one? 
The Judaic one?  The Christian one?  The Islamic one? etc.
I do not want Pat Robertson for President, but I will support 
his right to run.


[FINALLY... here's the sentence I wrote that followed that facetious 
paragraph way up top.]
>> See -- I can play with words, too.  Doesn't mean anything, does it?



-- 
Scott W. Roby           *This sentence no verb.*      "No Matter where you go..
Phys.& Astr.Dept.    ///// / /  /  *|*  \  \ \ \\\\\      there you are!"
Univ.of Delaware    ((((( ( (  (  * + *  )  ) ) )))))   -> Buckaroo Banzai
roby@brahms.udel.edu \\\\\ \ \  \  *|*  /  / / /////   *Standard Disclaimer*