Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!cdshaw
From: cdshaw@watmath.UUCP (Chris Shaw)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: God is Pro-Choice
Message-ID: <9724@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Nov-84 01:11:35 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.9724
Posted: Tue Nov  6 01:11:35 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Nov-84 05:40:14 EST
References: <209@looking.UUCP>, <629@ihopb.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 50

(Steven Spearman said)

> Arguing that God did not mean mankind to enforce his laws is
> totally incorrect.  There are numerous examples thoughout the
> old and new testaments where laws and even specific punishments
> are given, sometimes directly by God.

Please give specific references.

> In many cases, the punishments appear to be an attempt to reduce
> the severity of punishments common at the time.  But there is no
> evidence that God or Jesus did not respect the right of a society
> to impose rules and sanctions.  The example given of Jesus and
> the prostitute who was to be stoned is an example of mercy and
> perhaps even a moderation of the punishment specified by the law,
> but it in now way implied that there was to be no law.

I think you made the mistake of taking a straw man to task here.
The basic thrust of Brad T's argument was that making law on God's
authority is terrifically bad news. Nowhere in Templeton's article
was it implied that God & company thought that laws are a bad idea in
general. Otherwise, it makes the Ten Commandment look pretty foolish,
doesn't it?

Looked at from a modern perspective, the "don't throw stones" directive is
really a statement about making laws which concern moral issues. "Don't
be too quick to punish transgressions, for you may be the next on the list"
is the basic point, I think. Abortion is no different is this respect. The
argument to legalize abortion (totally free of stupid hassles) is, at bottom,
the argument that since no one can make the perfect moral decision that
can be imposed on everyone, INDIVIDUAL moral decisions must be made. This
is especially true here, since we live in a pluralistic and democratic society.

Laws against things like murder, however, are **NOT LAWS ABOUT MORAL ISSUES**.
To get Hobbesian for a moment, the state exists to keep people off each 
others' throats, for without a law against murder, "life would be nasty,
brutish, and short".  It is perfectly obvious, in this light, why murder is
illegal. After all, every sane person would agree that murder should be
illegal. Equating abortion to murder is a totally different matter, however.
The reason is fairly obvious... no ten people gathered randomly can agree
on the issue. Net.abortion wouldn't exist if you *could* find agreement.

Given a paucity of perfect moral decision-makers, and no universal feeling
on the abortion issue, it is clear that any law banning abortion is a form
of moral fascism, pure and simple. 

Eagerly awaiting your thoughtful (not spiteful) response,
					I remain,
					  CD Shaw