From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Position Clarified (long)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 21:01:05 GMT

In article <1992Aug20.103850.1@cua.edu> 78witherspoo@cua.edu writes:
>--> You assume I'm Catholic, I'm not.  Lutheran, actually.  [Moral, don't let
>	the address fool you..<wink>]

   Fair enough. Just making sure third parties don't think those are Catholic
teachings.

>>> Vetoing the Freedom of Choice Act,
>--> Okay, let me clarify my position: I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion.  I am
>	pro-adoption, I am also pro-birth-control.  If this country is going to 
>	outlaw abortion, I say we should at least have some system of
>	birth-control distribution in place, so that abortions will become
>	less necessary.  You will disagree with me, you will say that I am
>	promoting teenage sex.  You are wrong.  Teenagers have been having sex
>	for all of human history, I don't like it, but facts are facts.  Let
>	the teenager make the choice to have sex or not, but if they do choose,
>	let them be protected from STD's at least.  

   I can see your point about being pro-choice but not pro-abortion, but I
disagree with it.  Actually, my belief on birth control is somewhat similar,
as far as "not imposing my morality on others."  Let me clarify this: I don't
think any Catholics should use artificial birth control, but don't think we
should pass laws preventing non-Catholics from using it.  However, Catholics
should still have nothing to do with it (i.e. a Catholic druggist should not
sell it), since it is immoral, according to the Church's teaching.

   However, abortion is a very different issue.  With birth control, there is
no third party being harmed (unless the birth control is an abortifacient).
But we believe that abortion is the killing of a real person.  Therefore,
outlawing abortion is not simply a matter or imposing one's morality on
others -- it is no different than outlawing murder.  Hardly anyone would
argue against outlawing murder on such grounds ("imposing one's morality..."),
but if one believes that unborn children are persons, then abortion must be
considered the killing of a person, i.e. murder.

   I realize not everyone considers the unborn to be people, but based on
what I have just said, the argument must ultimately come down to whether or
not the unborn are people.  If they aren't, then abortion isn't murder (but
according to the Catholic Church, it still would be at least as immoral as
birth control).  However, if the unborn really are people, then abortion
really is murder.

   But what if the unborn become people at some point before they are born?
Well then, at what point is this?  And are you certain enough of your answer
that there is any age of an unborn child that you can be absolutely certain
that they are not yet people?  If not, then by allowing abortion you run the
real risk of allowing real people to be killed.  Certainly if you drive by
someone's house, and shoot through a window with closed curtains, you may
not intend to kill a person, but you run the risk of doing so if you don't
know for certain no one is there.

>>> giving parents the right to choose
>>> between available public and private schools (with tax credits for
>>> choosing the latter),
>
>--> You made some good points, I will withdraw my comments.  I'm not sure how I
>	stand on this issue anymore...

   To tell you the truth, I'm not sure _exactly_ where I stand on it.  I can
see both sides, but I lean more toward the credits.  There should be some
middle ground for this issue.

>>> banning the distribution of condoms in public
>>> schools,
>--> Again, I'm not Catholic.  There is nothing wrong with absitinence, I
>	practice it quite frequently, as do most people.  But don't you think
>	that it is better for our country as a whole to prevent the spread
>	of disease?  Distribution of condoms in school does not promote sexual
>	activity, all it does is make that activity safer.  There are
>	different studies that make points on either side, but let the
>	teenagers decide what is best for them.   

   I disagree with such distribution.  For one thing, it violates the
consciences of those who follow Catholic (and other religions') teaching.
Also, making the taxpayers fund such a thing would be adding insult to
injury (for example, during the Stalin (I believe) regime, families of
executed "criminals" were forced to pay for the ammunition used in the
executions).

   I think we have a double standard in that people fight against distribution
of Bibles (at no cost) to schoolchildren, but then want the taxpayers to fund
distribution of condoms to schoolchildren.  Not that I'm totally for the
distribution of religious material to children in school, but I think it would
be OK with the permission of their parents.

   I also don't think condoms are as effective as they are cracked up to be.
They more likely give people a false sense of security.  Just yesterday, I
was listening to Rush Limbaugh (I don't consider myself a Dittohead), who
gave several examples of schools that distributed condoms, and the pregnancy
rates went way up (one school had to open a day care center for the students'
babies).

   Thanks, Tom, it's good to be able to disagree on some (but not all!) things
and still keep the discussion friendly.

--Steve

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia