From: Chuck.Lavazzi@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Chuck Lavazzi)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: THE IMPLICATIONS OF ABORTION ON OUR SOCIETY
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:13:44 GMT
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

In article <1992Apr3.050938.12490@cs.dal.ca> franklin@ug.cs.dal.ca (Steve Franklin) writes:
>>It should be irrelevant what you say your god says.  Or would you argue
>>that your interpretation of your god's law should be the US law?
>>In fact, it's unreasonable to expect anyone to accept any argument that is
>>based on what you say your god says.  No one is required to accept your 
>>religious beliefs.  Further, it would take a pretty large ego for anyone to 
>>think they them-self, of all people, have the inside scoop on the OneTrueGod.
>
>Well, religion and law are a hell of a lot closer than you think. You take
>the ten commandments in on hand, and the charter of rights in another,
>and you tell me they're so different. Well, that's changing now.
>I say it's changing for the worse, you call it progress... That is
>where we differ.
>
	Not sure what "charter of rights" you're referring to.  Can't be the
*Bill* of Rights since this has almost nothing to do with the Xian Ten
Commandments.  Fact is, very little in our legal or political systems in this
country have their antecedents in the Xian Bible.  Sure, they both have 
prohibitions against murder, theft, and the like, but these are pretty much
universal in any organized society, regardless of religious orientation.
	Our legal system is essentially rooted in basics of Anglo-Saxon
common law and other secular legal systems.  Our political structures derive
largely from pre-Xian Greek and Roman models.  The folks who cobbled this
country together had had their fill of theocracies, thanks very much.
	Your religion may certainly shape your opinions and you have the right,
as a citizen, to attempt to implement them.  But no one's Holy Book can be
regarded as a basis for law in a non-theocratic government.  Just as well, too.
about the only political system one can derive from the Bible is the Divine
Right of Kings...>:-)>
[deletions]
>
>   What I _AM_ saying (as you so ineptly paraphrased) is that society
>is setting a trend. By first tackling the _WEAKEST_ of it's members,
>I ask you, what's next? 100 years ago, you tell any "ordinary" joe
>about a homosexual, or abortion, and they'd think you were mad. Well,
>you just let you imagination go crazy and try and envision what society
>will be like in another 100 years if it continues with this trend. 
>Society can't exist like this. It _WILL_ change. Whether under influence
>of people like me, or through natural socio-economic evolution.
>
	Of course it will.  All societies do.  But you've got to deal with
the possibility that it'll also change under the influence of people like
*me*, who are opposed to a lot of what you stand for.  That's the nature of
the ol' ball game, my boy.  Let's just continue to play by the rules as set
down in the Constitution, eh?

[...]
>
>   Then I wait. Watch all the pieces hacks away at it's shreds of
>morality and decency that we've kept this far. Then I guess I'll try
>and pick the pieces up while you guys blame each other for it.
>   steve
>-- 
	You're too young, of course, to remember what a lovely "decent, moral"
world it was before Roe v. Wade.  I'm not.  I'll give you a hint: "Leave It To
Beaver" is *not* realistic.
Chuck


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: talk.abortion