Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxn!jho
From: jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: The Myth of Neutrality
Message-ID: <766@ihuxn.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Jul-84 19:06:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxn.766
Posted: Sun Jul 15 19:06:16 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Jul-84 00:03:51 EDT
References: <179@ssc-bee.UUCP> <776@pyuxn.UUCP>, <786@pyuxn.UUCP> <146@uwmacc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 31

From Paul DuBois:
>For example:
>
>A person elected to office who holds private views
>favoring abortion because he/she is a feminist attempts to
>have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for
>instance) legislative or judicial means.  No media outcry.
>
>
>A person elected to office who holds private views
>opposing abortion because he/she is a Christian attempts to
>have those views codified in the current legal code, by (for
>instance) legislative or judicial means.  Whoa!! Wait a minute,
>now!  Don't impose your beliefs on us!!

I don't think that these examples are symmetrical.  The pro-choicers
do not require that pro-lifers should go an abortion.  They are
only concerned with a woman's right over her body.  On the
other hand, the pro-lifers are trying to coerce others to conform to
their religious and/or moral codes.  When a pro-choice woman favors an
abortion she favors her abortion.  Whereas, when a pro-lifer opposes 
an abortion, he/she opposes another person abortion. If the pro-choicers
would demand that every woman is required to have an abortion then 
Paul's examples would have a valid point.
-- 

Yosi Hoshen
Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois
(312)-979-7321
Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho