From: eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush on Abortion (was Another good reason not to vote for Bush)
Date: 13 Aug 92 21:56:28 GMT
Organization: Duke University; Durham, N.C.

mpolen@gelato.mips.com (Michael Polen) writes:
:eyc@acpub.duke.edu (EMIL CHUCK) writes:
:|> (Michael Polen) writes:
:|> :1	No parlimentary *tricks* were used to prevent the vote by the
:|> :	platform committee.
:|> :
:|> :2	Bush makes an exception, but the platform does not.
:|> :
:|> :3	Bush says he supports the platform as is, although it is stronger
:|> :	than his own beliefs
:|> :
:|> :4	Bush has a different standard for his family than for your family.
:|> 
:|> Oh, so you're against government dictating the moral standards for
:|> individuals, but cry hypocrisy if government dictates uniform standards
:|> for families? And you can't concede that perhaps George Bash [sic] loves
:|> his family? If you say he should also love yours, why do you want some
:|> stranger who works in the government -- much less the government itself
:|> -- to love and take care of your family?
:You are reading something I didn't right or smoking something on the
:controlled substance list.  My comments were on the marked statements.
	I hope I have edited the remarks correctly above. (Don't tell
anyone I'm currently high on laserprinter fluid! :) )

:Frankly, I believe the government should avoid religious and moral
:issues where possible.  The reasons behind choice is one of those areas.
:The individual makes a decision for/against an abortion based upon 
:religious, personal, financial, marital issues.  Your decision is
:not my problem and vice-versa.
	I understand that. But morality doesn't just switch on and off
from one occasion to the next. If this unplanned pregnancy happened to a
married couple, why weren't precautions taken, and did you understand
the risks of becoming pregnant? Are you ready to handle taking care of
children should the unplanned occur? If this pregnancy happened to an
unmarried couple, same questions. Abortion is an issue about sexuality
and responsibility first and foremost because without sex and pregnancy,
an abortion cannot be performed. And this responsibility involves
morals and choices (which is why I am pro-choice in this manner). And
one cannot live 98% of his/her life along his/her morals and lapse the
remaining 2% without getting into trouble and risking his/her own life.
	If someone chooses to live immorally,
fine; it's his/her life. But having me pay for the mistakes he/she made
becomes my problem. In other words, if someone is going to get
completely wasted (either drunk or coked-out), fine; but if he doesn't
have any insurance to take care of emergency room bills, or if he
goes out driving and kills someone while high, it's a societal problem.
Not only in a personal trauma, but society must pay for the bills to
bring him to justice and incarcerate him or put him on drug rehab.
What you probably think is a personal decision does have major
ramifications across all of society, even if the effects aren't
obvious.
	When it comes to the abortion, if abortions were kept
legal but federal funding was stopped, what then? The decision becomes
more "her" problem financially and not ours necessarily. But then you'd
decry that poor mothers won't be able to afford abortions. Then what do
you do to accommodate them and maintain the "it's not my bailiwick"
stance?
	I don't want government mandating religious or moral choices for
me either, but it's the immoral things -- stealing, homicide, abuse --
that we cannot just turn our backs on, for they are the things that left
unchecked will destroy our society. Ask downtown Los Angeles.
-- 
Emil Thomas Chuck		DUKE BLUE DEVILS: 1992 ACC CHAMPIONS!
Biomedical Engineer 1993	1992 EAST REGIONAL CHAMPIONS!!
Duke University, Durham, NC	AND 1992 NCAA NATIONAL CHAMPIONS!!!
August 31, 1992 - May 16, 1993	Duke football? What's that?