Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:31:07 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: democratic platform

          G. Racz says, in response to Robert (> is Robert):

> Legalized, taxpayer funded abortion.  Using statistics recently posted on
> this list, this is a slap in the face to almost half the population of the
> U.S.  It also represents a total surrender to the paganism within our
> population.  A society that not only allows but also funds the slaughter
> of its young is not worthy of survival.


    Of course, the repulican platform advocates a constitutional amendment
  denying the right to abortion under any circumstances, which is a slap in
  the face to even more people.  Also, I find that, of course, a majority
  of people feel that abortion is not good, but also feel that people
  shouldn't cram their views down other people's throats.  Therefore, choice
  is preferrable to abortion prohibition.  And, making people who can't afford
  pay is the same as forcing your views on them.

                         Excuse me?  Making people seeking a service who
                         can't afford to pay for it do so is the same as
                         forcing your views on them?  The Court has
                         emphatically stated that there is no duty of
                         the government to pay for people's efforts to
                         to exercise even their consitutional rights.
                         And why isn't forcing anti-abortion taxpayers
                         to fund something that violates their most
                         deeply held moral beliefs every bit as much
                         "forcing" (somebody's) views on them?  Are
                         we not, on pain of prison, required to pay
                         taxes?


> Implementation of the recommendations of the National Commission on Aids.
> Oh boy.  I wonder if this will result in anything more than brainwashing our
> children into the acceptance of *alternate* (sick) life styles?  Perhaps the
> distribution of information further distorting the truth of the origin of
> the disease (homosexuality).  Maybe we can teach our children to admire a
> man (Magic) that has whored around for years.  Sounds great.


    I guess you would rather see children dead.

                                   Can you say "inconsistency?"
                                   Robert would rather see children
                                   alive (not aborted) and responsible
                                   (not emulating the promiscuity of
                                   someone like Magic Johnson).  Your
                                   responses indicate that you would
                                   prefer 1/3 of the children of this
                                   generation dead (congratualtions, you
                                   got your wish) and the rest encouraged
                                   to take senseless risks by betting
                                   their *lives* on a little piece of
                                   latex.  *Some* of those children
                                   *will* end up dead, if they engage in
                                   that behavior.  Are we doing them
                                   a favor by encouraging them to play
                                   *those* odds?

    1. The Constitution is the governing document in America, and it
  plainly states that there is to be a seperation of church and state.
  That means there can be NO STATE RELIGION.

                                    "Separation of church and state"
                                    does not appear in the Constitution.
                                    The wording in the First Amendment
                                    means that there is to be no
                                    *established* *church* (as in
                                    Church of England.)  The Founders
                                    created a state founded on
                                    Christian principles, not secular
                                    ones (for that, see the French
                                    Revolution, not the American one.)
                                    Whether that has obtained is a
                                    question for another time.  None-
                                    theless, if quoting the
                                    Constitution, one ought to read
                                    it first.

                                          --Missy P 2 B