From: decay@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (dean.kaflowitz)
Subject: Re: twisting (Thans for life)Read!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:18:03 GMT

Clifton, leave the attributions in next time.

In article <1992Nov11.184430.8657@iscsvax.uni.edu>, clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu writes:
>  1)
> Things like life of the mother, incest (which would cause death of the infant,
> and rape would still be allowed after laws were passed.  It is because many see
> these as 'abortions' that the issue has dragged on.

The above stuff from you is garbled and fairly incoherent, but I'll
try to decipher it and respond.  First of all, why would incest
cause the death of an infant?  Second, when is an abortion not
an abortion?  That is, you seem to be saying that an abortion
for reasons of the woman's health, incest, or rape is not an
abortion.  That is simply playing with words.  It is what it is.

> 2)
> I wish that people would make up their mind about it.  People say "I don't
> think abortion is right, but I will allow it."  That is the biggest non- answer
> I have heard.  Are you for it or against it.

This is utter nonsense.  I am opposed to people being bigots but
I would not pass a law saying that nobody may be a bigot.  I am
opposed to people being idiots, but I would not pass a law outlawing
idiocy.  I also oppose people playing their car stereos very
loudly, but I wouldn't outlaw that.  There are a lot of things
of which I disapprove that I would not seek to prohibit via
legislation.  Your argument doesn't make any sense.

> >>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.
> As you know I am a Christian and know that christians (real ones) do as our God
> says and saves sex for marriage.  It is a gift that we have abused.

Your response here is a non sequitur.

> > 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.
> Christians are doing something about it.  That is why we have come out of the
> churches to do as Jesus said to and tell the truth.

And this is non-responsive.

> >>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?
> At least with government reg., you won't take the chance of killing.  Why don't
> we repeal the murder law and let our family values decide on that?

This is simply wrong.  The government can only make laws that
punish people for disobediance in this instance.  That will
undoubtedly have some deterrent effect, although I think it
will be small now that the genie is out of the bottle.  In addition,
I don't think you, Clifton, understand the issues involved here
or what whoever you were discussing this with (want to leave the
attributions in next time, please?) was saying.  Once you
establish that it is the proper role of government to regulate
our reproductive behaviors, the government is then given the
power to say that you can't have children as well as to say that
you can be punished for not having children or for aborting
a pregnancy.  Your values become dependent on expedience.
Furthermore, your point about murder is pretty far off the mark
as well.  The laws against murder only punish murderers and there
is very little evidence that they deter anyone from committing
murder.  There are a hell of a lot of murders in the US
every year.  In fact, homicide is currently the leading cause of
death among young black males.  Yet I doubt that if the laws
against murder were repealed (and they are state laws, by the
way, not federal laws - in other words the federal government
does not guarantee your right to live) a lot of people would
begin committing murder.

As an side rant, every now and then alt.atheism is visited by some
right-thought Christian who tells us that since we don't believe
in a god we ought to run right out and commit murder.  It never
ceases to amaze me how some people think the only reason
people in general don't commit mayhem is because of fear of
some sort of ultimate retribution.  I personally believe that
people in general are just not inclined towards mayhem.  We
tend to seek order.  While theories that the notion of gods
arose to explain the inexplicable are popular, my theory is that
the notion of god arose in order to establish a sense of order
in what appears at first to be chaos.

> God spoke on his own in the word. You should read it sometime.

Did your god write it down himself?  What kind of pen did he
use?  Felt tip or ball point?  He should have made a video.

> We need to help our children to grow up in a society that they can know what is
> right and what is wrong. 

Agreed.  So?  You and I have fundamental disagreements about what
is right and wrong, based on fundamental disparities in values.
Are you trying to say that the government should legislate
a value system that eliminates all such disparities?  WHile there
are areas inw hich you and I would agree on values, and which
receive such general agreement that legislation in such areas
is not objectionable, there are other areas in which not only
you and I disagree, but in which there is a huge variation
in opinion across society as a whole.  Religion, which is so
important to you, is one of these.  I have seen postings in
which Catholics were called Mary worshippers and idolators,
Jehovah's Witnesses derided as deluded, Hindus derided as
pagans, Buddhists derided as flakes, Jews derided as evil,
and atheists derided as particularly pernicious.  Would you
have legislation outlawing any of these religions, or any
religions?  Which one true religion should the government
pick?

> > 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.
> War is killing, isn't it?

Why do so many good Christians initiate wars?  Just wondering.
It's a question that's come up before.

> I totally agree that those who just sit back and distort what God wants is not
> right.  That is why I am doing something.

How do you know what your god wants?  How do you know it is any
more correct than those who are equally sincere and equally
certain about what their god wants and their god wants something
different from your own?

> We were given the ability to do as we want, even against God, to have freedom. 
> Isn't God great to give us the ability to hate him or the choice to live in
> him.

This anthropomorphising has always been a great source of amusement
to me.  Your god always behaves in a very human fashion, and according
to very human values, when it is convenient and comforting for him to
do so.  He does all these things because he 'loves' his 'creation.'
That's awfully human of him.
 
> >>Again, as I said I am coming from the "the world needs Jesus" standpoint.

This reminds me.  You still haven't responded to what I said
about your "JC makes the good times better and the bad times better"
posting.  You don't know one thing about me.  And now those
6 good times that he couldn't possibly make better, and that
are about 10 times better than the best good time you ever had,
have become 7.  And if the weather is good they'll be 8 and 9
by the end of the weekend.

> I know.  Staggering isn't it(divorse rate)?  That is why we need to help our
> kids to grow up with morals.

Are you saying divorce is immoral?  Please elaborate on that notion.
 
> > 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.
> Or can't kill or can't do drugs or ...

That's not what he said.  I see when you don't have any kind of
reasoned argument you say stupid little nasty things.  I must
say, that is very Christian of you.  The notion is, of course, that
because he doesn't share your value system, he must have a totally
screwed up value system.

> Much of religion is organized because there REALLY IS a God out there directing
> us.  A seperate nation.  One that is open to everyone.  Please consider it. 
> Don't let our difference of opinion keep you out.

I disagree entirely with this.  Do you think there should be
legislation against my differing viewpoint?

> Also, I don't think we should support a law only if it agrees with special
> interest groups such as planned parenthood.

The voters of Maryland just expressed their agreement with a law
that I think you would say agrees with Planned Parenthood's views.
By a margin of 62 to 38 percent.  Any way, your argument is a non-
argument.  It's just a crock.  The law you refer to
agrees with constitutional principles and for the most
part with at least half of the people in this country.  Tossing
out 'Planned Parenthood' is a silly remark.  I could as easily
say we shouldn't support a law just because it agrees with
groups such as the PTL Club.

> > 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.
> It is true.  God clears our minds and helps us to train.  Why don't you wake up
> to the truth you are looking staight at.

And I say your god clouds your mind and keeps you from learning.
Okay, so we have disparate views.  Now, can you defend your original
assertion, or are you going to play "True because I say so"
forever?
 

Dean Kaflowitz

Newsgroups: talk.abortion