X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:26:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Contraception == abortion? (was Re: re:pro-choice)

From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Thanks for the input, but my point was somewhat different.  Someone (I
forget who now) had predicated their support for abortion rights on the
fear that if we "take away" the right to abortion, contraceptive rights
would be the next to go.  My point was simply that, if one sees the
--------------------------------------------------------------------
This is what I think of as the "Domino Theory", after the famous
justification for our involvement in Vietnam.  It said that if Vietnam
went Communist, Laos would be next, then Thailand, then Korea, and
eventually the entire world would become Communist.  It is also used
in gun control arguments (if handguns are made illegal, long guns will
be next, and then...).  Personally, I don't buy it.  I can't see the
reasoning behind accepting an illogical course of action because it
MIGHT prevent speculative future disaster, or NOT accepting a logical
course of action because it MIGHT lead to an illogical action.  If
something is RIGHT now, do it now, and if it leads to something
WRONG in the future, deal with it then.  It is like sending someone
to prison for life because they jaywalked, which (if unpunished)
MIGHT lead to robbery, which MIGHT lead to murder.  Give a jaywalking
sentence when they jaywalk, give a murder sentence when they murder.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry continues:
both.  Furthermore, in all cases, I reject the "you may have a different
set of ethics" argument when it is offerred by Christians.  If we, as
Christians, accept Jesus for who He says He is--Lord--and the Bible for
what it says it is--Truth, then we can not accept someone else's "alternative"
truth as being just as valid for them as ours is for us.  Truth is truth.
We don't have the option of picking it ourselves; God has taken care of that,
not just for Christians, but for everyone.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, if we both share the same Lord (or even different
Lords), and we both believe we understand our Lord's Truth, but for
some odd reason, our Truths don't coincide, we have three options:
1) accept the other person's right to follow their Truth
2) try to peacefully persuade the other person to see YOUR Truth.
   However, you must be willing to allow them to persuade you, and
   expect failure.  People will give up their names before they will
   give up small truths, much less a large Truth.
3) kill them, and silence their infidel words.

IMO, the GREATEST reason why many people refuse to accept religion
is that FAR too many times in the history of most religions, option
#3 has been the method of choice.  Statements like "Truth is truth"
are echoes of those darker periods.  I would swear allegiance to
another god before torturing a man to follow my God.

I\ /\ I\ I\ \/ I   Texas         "Treat the other man's faith
I/ )( I( I( /  I..  Christian      gently; it is all he has to believe
 DJohnson@tcucvms    University     with.  His mind was created for
 DJohnson@gamma.is.tcu.edu         his own thoughts, not yours or
  Big Ugly Signature (tm)         mine" -- Henry S. Haskins