Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!tektronix!uw-beaver!fluke!ptl
From: ptl@fluke.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Best for Others?
Message-ID: <685@cal-asd.fluke.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 10-Oct-86 12:30:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: cal-asd.685
Posted: Fri Oct 10 12:30:30 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 11-Oct-86 04:39:54 EDT
References: <2710@burdvax.UUCP> <5833@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: ptl@cal-asd.UUCP (Mike Andrews)
Distribution: na
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 63
Keywords: abortion morals



Hi,

In article <1976@curly.ucla-cs.ARPA> oleg%OACVAX.BITNET writes:
>... Talk.abortion is a place to discuss abortion issues.

Faith in God requires facing this serious moral question, anywhere.
If what you said was meant to be true, why then did the remainder of
your article deal strictly with abortion and your pro-choice stance.

>... The PRO-CHOICE view is that a woman's
>rights to privacy and her body over-rule any possible rights to life of
>a miniscule blob of cells that feeds of her body and does weird things
>to her chemistry.

With todays scientific abilities, the laws cannot keep up.  There is a
cutoff of x number of weeks, beyond which a baby is considered not
abortable.  Babies have lived that were born before the cutoff date.
Should the laws be continually updated, for every baby born before
a new cutoff date; or will people realize the baby is a little people.

>... The view of "pro-life" is that a life of a fetus
>is more important than needs and wants of a woman who is sentenced to 
>nurture it within her body and then for 18-20 years as a dependent.

When a parent becomes too old to care for him/her self - you then
believe they too are an unwanted burden which makes it acceptable
for them to be killed.  Simply because they would depend on you?

>... The view of "pro-life" is that the State, governed by the inane logic
>of applying shoddy interpretations of nebulous allusions of a particular
>religious book of questionable authenticity, has a right to force women
>to endanger their lives against their will.
>... Oleg Kiselev, HASA "A" division founder

The current law does not reflect Christian belief in the sanctity of life.
Every law is made with someone's idea of moral right and wrong.  There
is no avoiding it.

I personally don't think there is a hard and fast never on abortion.
When the mother's life is clearly endangered is probably one I see as
possible - I pray I never face such a decision, and neither do you.

Recently in Washington State, some people were pushing for the right
to have abortion on demand when they didn't like the sex of the baby
they were about to have.  It was thrown out.  But where will it end,
and what effect will it have on the elderly.  Replace the words fetus
and baby with infirmed and elderly in pro-choice articles - maybe
this is where it is leading.  Then go another step and put in the
words long term sickness, quadraplegic, ... - another possible direction
things can go.

The women who have already had abortions suffer, too.  Condemning them
is equal to condemning the baby.  A woman I know recently had an
abortion, and she is now in much mental pain.  She doesn't need my
judgment or yours, she needs our love, God's unconditional love.
Christians must love even pro-choice advocates.  If you can't, then think
of them as your enemies, and God's *command* to love our enemies takes over.

God Bless,

Mike Andrews