From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.religion.misc,alt.atheism
Subject: Re: Christian Pro-Choicers
Date: 11 Jan 93 21:11:20 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>In article <adams.726592808@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>
>>No problem.  Now, look at the liberty interest of the woman.  There *is* a
>>conflict here.  Between the liberty interest of both the unborn child and
>>the woman.  Before the fetus is viable, the liberty interest *must* remain
>>with the woman.  Why?  Because it is her body, mind, etc, that are involved,
>>just as much as the unborn.  When the decision has to be made, it is not
>>for the government to decide who can and cannot exert bodily autonomy, and
>>for what reasons.  The governemt should not be able to force carrying to
>>term any more than force organ donation.
>
>Abortion is not a passive act.  It is an act of violence and aggression.
>The government should outlaw murder.  The woman who has an abortion does not
>just decide not to carry her child in her body.  She actually has her child
>killed.  

Self defense is not a passive act, yet a death resulting from it is not
'murder.'  At least in the aspect of a grave risk to the mother's life, you
have to allow such a decision.  Pregnancy can't be a death sentence.  The
Levitical laws made exceptions, as did Christ himself.

>There is a serious inconsistency in government policy.  It is illegal for a 
>mother to abandon her child, or to neglect him in some other way.  One
>can even be arrested for not feeding one's horses in this country.  
There is a huge difference.  A born child is a unique, self-contained
individual, that can be supported by any capable adult, and has demonstrable 
rights.  A fetus, prior to viability, is not self-contained, or supportable in 
any other fashion, and has no demonstrable rights under our laws.

>Generally, parents have a legal responsiblility to their children.  If mothers
>and fathers can legally be held responsible to use their bodies to care for
>their children, then mothers should legally be held responsible to use
>their bodies to protect their children in the womb.  
And they are...if you take drugs during a pregnancy that you intend to
carry to term, you can be prosecuted.

>>>Of COURSE Christianity is about emulating what Christ Himself would do.
>>Of course it is.  And Christ had absolutely NO intention of setting up an
>>earthly kingdom, or forcing his views by law.
>There are several prophecies to the contrary that remain to be fulfilled
>when He returns.
During the millenium there will be no other govt. than Chirst.  My
implication was that Christians are not to set up the kingdom without Him.

>>Christ taught that we
>>should follow the spirit of God's law, and leave secular ruling to our
>>leaders.  Paul said we should bow to secular authority.  In Acts, we see
>>the exception : when we are personally commanded to violate God's law.
>
>Those who excercise civil disobedience to protect these young human lives
>obviously feel that by doing nothing they would be violating God's law to
>protect the innocent.  

Nothing says we can't change the laws...nothing says you can't protest.
But you can't violate someones rights in doing it.  By blockading a clinic
you are inhibiting a woman's right to avail herself of a legal medical
procedure.

Jesus might hold a teach-in, but he wouldn't be sending his pre-teen
followers to lie down in front of cars...

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54913 alt.flame:17808