From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: A definition of f.v's?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 23:47:33 GMT

   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.  I disagree with a few more on my
own.  There are a couple of things I even agree with, though.

In article <1992Aug19.102350.1@cua.edu> 78witherspoo@cua.edu writes:

> 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

   If you accept the Church's teaching, then killing an unborn child to
prevent him from being in such a family is no different from killing a
child from such a family _after_ it's born.  Just because someone doesn't
have, or won't have, a "quality life" (in whomever's judgment is used to
determine such a thing), it doesn't justify killing him even if he is
better off dead (in whomever's opinion).

   Freedom of choice?  Whose choice?  The unborn child certainly has no
choice whether or not it is to die.  And I don't see many (if any) children
in such families committing suicide once they are old enough to realize what
a low quality of life they have.

> giving parents the right to choose
> between available public and private schools (with tax credits for
> choosing the latter),
--> so there can be more families rooted in strong religious values (mostly
        chrisitan, let's face it) and have the rest of the country to pay for
        children to go to a school that is outside the taxpayer's faith

   The thing here is that as it is now, those parents who send their
children to parochial schools (so that they can be educated according
to their own religion) are forced to pay for schools (public) that
their children aren't attending.  In fact, such parents (who, don't
forget, are also taxpayers) are being forced to pay for children to go
to a school that is outside their faith (that is, secular).  I don't
really think these parents should get a _full_ credit (because that
would increase the per-child cost for public schools somewhat), but
a partial credit would certainly be fair, because these parents are
already paying taxes specifically to support schools.

> 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.

> 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.

>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.

>What about better insurance coverage for families that have children?

   What would be better is cheaper health care for everyone.  As it is
now, many doctors have few qualms about milking insurance companies for
all they can get.  It may be wrong to overcharge a real person for medical
care, but insurance companies are fair game, right?  The trouble is, real
people have to pay the higher premiums that result from this, which is
is why many people can't afford insurance.

>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.

>What about support for scholarships for college and other higher education?

   That actually can save money in the long run.

>What about financial assistance for families that have fallen on hard
>economic times?  (I'm not >speaking of welfare, something different must be
>done.)

   That would actually be better than the welfare system we have now.  I
really think the churches are better-suited for this kind of thing.  I
would gladly give the tax money I pay which goes to welfare, to the Church
instead.  It certainly would help many times more people.  Having formerly
worked for a government contractor, I know from experience that the federal
government wastes far more money than it puts to productive use.  I would
estimate it at between 10-25% efficient (i.e. for every dollar it takes in,
75 to 90 cents is wasted).

   Basically, I believe there are other ways to accomplish things than
always throwing (other people's) money at them.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia