From: troth@ricevm1.rice.edu (Rick Troth)
Newsgroups: tx.politics,rice.politics
Subject: Re: Anti-choice vs. Pro-abortion (was Re: Houston Defending Choice Coalition needs you)
Date: 31 Aug 92 20:43:19 GMT
Organization: Rice University

In article <16852349B.AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>
AHEMP01@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU (Amy Hemphill) writes:
 
>Ah, here is the problem, though.  I don't WANT us to spend the money in
>Iraq and Iran.  Neither do I want to spend MY hard-earned money raising
>the children of those not taught about birth control.
 
        A hearty "amen" to that!   My stance is to go one step further
and not spend MY hard-earned money on abortions either.
 
>>We have a basic disagreement about what a fetus is, so I don't think
>>we'll get anywhere on this line.
>>
>Ah, finally the light shines....THAT my friends, is the basic problem
>with ALL abortion arguments...we will NEVER agree....you think it's
>murder, I don't.
 
        Amy's right on target here.   But I honestly believe a lot of
anti-life/pro-death ppl haven't thought it through that far.   (and I
s'pose a lot of pro-life/anti-abortion-on-demand ppl haven't thought it
through that far either)   Let's all think it through.
 
>So, until someone can prove to me it's murder, you bet I'm going to
>fight with all my energy so that all women have the CHOICE of a safe
>and legal abortion.
 
        This is really a reasonable position.   Amy,  it is possible
that no one can  "prove"  to you that abortion  (terminating a pregnancy
*after* conception)  is  "murder".   I have already been presented with
"enough"  evidence.   But I must applaud you for standing firm until
convinced.
 
>However, in your stance to follow the word of God, you must realize
>that many do not BELIEVE in the word of God, so it would be against the
>basic principles on which this country was founded to try to form the
>laws around your idea of what the 'Word of God', if it exists, says.
 
        Actually,  the foundational laws of this country were based on
English common law,  which was  *heavily*  influenced by the Christian
Bible.   We've gotten away from it;  we've taken liberty out of balance.
 
>                                      (Remember the separtion of Church
>and State?)
 
        Separation of Church and State was supposed to protect the
churches from the state.   We use it in reverse today.   Originally,
you're free to believe whatever you choose.   [and faith is a choice]
But that doesn't mean you can do *anything* you choose.   You *can* do
anything you choose so long as it doesn't screw-up *my* life or someone
else's.
 
        And here's the limit of the pro-life argument:  abortion isn't
"a mortal sin"  in the sense that sexual immorality is.   If it isn't
murder,  then it isn't wrong.   But some may still feel uncomfortable
with it;  that's fair;  that's choice.   But if it isn't murder,  then
it only  "screws-up"  one life,  yours.   Iff it isn't murder.
 
>>Same place.  They should be entitled to follow their laws.
>>And we ours.  All of it. :-)
>
>So, we change the countries laws so the people of different religions
>follow different laws?  I don't think so.  You can just bet that
>somehow,  satanic cults will get themselves recognized as a religion,
>and then look where we are.  Murder, as we ALL see it, is legal.
>No, thank you.  So, one set of laws.
 
        [different thread starting here]
 
        State and local governments have lost a lot of autonomy.
I wish that they could get it back.   "One set of laws"  really doesn't
always make sense.   I say,  "hands off,  Fed!".   Unless there's unfair
treatment of one local group against another local group,  the Fed should
stay out of it.
 
        Our laws desperately need to return to a layered structure:
Fed,  minimal involvement;  state,  a little more detail;  local,
more specific regulations.
 
        I wonder if the founding fathers thought of satanism?   Probably:
maybe that's why they left so much authority in the hands of state and
local government.   It *is* a religion,  so you can't too well stop them
from holding services,  but you can  (legally, if not always practically)
stop them from mulitating cats  (and/or humans).   You also don't have to
give tacit approval to them.
 
Rick Troth <TROTH@RICEVM1.RICE.EDU>, Rice University, I/S VM Systems Support