Conference yukon::christian_v7

 I believe that we must reach those intent on abortion with the gospel of
 Jesus Christ rather than picketing and causing a fuss at abortion clinics.
 I don't believe all of that activity brings a positive view on Christianity
 or Christians, nor does it change hearts.  If we are going to stop 
 abortions, hearts must be changed.  That can't come through legislation,
 nor can it come from picketing and demonstrations.  We can save babies,
 an admirable persuit, but if we haven't saved souls, we haven't accomplished
 that which Christ charged us to do.

 Those intent on abortion and apart from Christ are no different than the
 rest of us were before we came to Christ...Lost, and living in sin.  Once
 our hearts were changed, we were able to see the sin we were living in.



 Jim

    I acutally agree with Jim on this.  We've got to stop treating the
    symptoms of sin and deal with the sin.  And the only way to deal with
    sin is to obey the great commission and bring others to Christ.
    
    Nancy

At a first pass...

I think both are true.  Ultimately, unless we save souls, all our efforts are
fruitless.  So a focus in that direction is essential.

Yet at the same time, to proclaim that the unborn are human beings who are
being indiscriminately killed and do nothing at all about it presents an
incredibly inconsistent message.  If they *ARE* human beings, how can we
possibly stand by quietly while they are killed?

Much though the pro-choice crowd hates it, the fact that people are willing to
undergo prison and persecution proclaims that we really DO believe that these
are human beings.  Without that witness, a claim that they are human beings is
empty and hollow.

Paul

    One of those grey areas?

    My preference would be for what Jim said.  Plus, I think we can help
    through such things as the Crisis Pregnancy Centers, and other ways
    like education on both birth control and abstainance (so?), supporting 
    a place for unwed mothers that will help them in ways such as getting 
    good nutrition, a place to sleep, job training, information on adoption 
    options, teaching them how to care for their child after its born ... 
    those kinds of things.  Being a source of help for those people in need.

    Leslie

    
    Good afternoon Bob!
    
    I do believe that the other methods mentioned here are viewed more
    positively.  The whackos that are out there unfortunately do make
    the non-violent protesters, who should have a right to speak out,
    look like whackos sometimes too.  Too often Christians are expected to
    take their beliefs to their own little corner and not say what we
    believe in the presence of others.  I believe there are some who God
    calls to speak out on the front lines of some issues.  Unfortunately,
    they are going to be labeled among the whackos.  We need to be lifting
    them up in prayer.  But I think they need to know they have a direct
    call from God before doing so because I think they will need Him
    because of all the trouble they are likely to incur.
    
    Jill

    
    There is no excuse for Christians breaking the law.  Those who are
    performing and seeking abortions are not coerced to do so, are not
    required to do so.  No Christian is required to abort their child.
    
    jeff

>   There is no excuse for Christians breaking the law.

Why did Paul write so many letters from jail?  Why was James beheaded?  Why was
it necessary for an angel to rescue Peter from a similar fate?  Why was nearly
every apostle executed by the authorities?

I don't think your blanket statement matches scripture, Jeff.

Paul

    
    Paul and the rest were proclaiming the Gospel.  Rescuing, in general,
    is not the proclamation of the Gospel.  Paul made it clear that the
    civil authorities have been given the power of the sword by God
    Himself.
    
    jeff

So, Jeff you *would* qualify your blanket staement of .9.

								Andrew

    re:  .9

    Jeff, 

>                                                        Those who are
>   performing and seeking abortions are not coerced to do so, are not
>   required to do so.  

    While this may be true at abortion clinics, my understanding is that at
    some (most?) medical schools, it is now required that *all* students be
    trained in abortion techniques.  Is this just lecture, or is there a
    required "lab"?  

    "Ya wanna hang MD after your name, ya gotta kill a few babies first."  

>                       No Christian is required to abort their child.

    Maybe not here, not literally, not yet - but how about the Chinese
    immigrants who came here specifically to escape mandatory abortion? 
    And how about our government's insistence on sending the mothers back
    to China, and their babies to their deaths?  

    As one who sees a strong parallel between the Holocaust of the 1930s and
    our own Holocaust of the 1990s, I suggest you read some of Dietrich
    Bonhoffer's (sp?) writings on his own wrestling with Romans 13:1, and what
    his response to the Third Reich should be. . .

    /John

    
    Yes, Andrew, I would qualify my blanket statement.  Should have done so
    the first time ;)
    
    jeff

>                                                        Those who are
>   performing and seeking abortions are not coerced to do so, are not
>   required to do so.  

>    While this may be true at abortion clinics, my understanding is that at
>    some (most?) medical schools, it is now required that *all* students be
>    trained in abortion techniques.  Is this just lecture, or is there a
>    required "lab"?  

    It is true that medical schools have recently been required to teach
    abortion.  However, I don't know if this requires performing actual
    abortions. It certainly doesn't require performing actual abortions on
    unwilling patients.  There is a resolution before Congress right now
    which is going to eliminate this requirement if it passes.
    
    >                       No Christian is required to abort their child.

>    Maybe not here, not literally, not yet - but how about the Chinese
>    immigrants who came here specifically to escape mandatory abortion? 
>    And how about our government's insistence on sending the mothers back
>    to China, and their babies to their deaths?  

    Not here, not literally, not now.
     
>    As one who sees a strong parallel between the Holocaust of the 1930s and
>    our own Holocaust of the 1990s, I suggest you read some of Dietrich
>    Bonhoffer's (sp?) writings on his own wrestling with Romans 13:1, and what
>    his response to the Third Reich should be. . .

>    /John
    
    Bonhoffer's complicity in the plan to assasinate Hitler reduces his
    Christian witness, in my opinion.
    
    jeff

>It certainly doesn't require performing actual abortions on
>    unwilling patients. 

Which patient?  There are two patients in every abortion, and only one of them
makes it out in one piece.  THAT one might be willing, but the other is never
consulted.

>    Bonhoffer's complicity in the plan to assasinate Hitler reduces his
>    Christian witness, in my opinion.

I agree, and it's a real shame because his witness is so powerful.  But that is
comparable to murdering abortionists, not to blocking clinics.

Paul

	I agree with Jeff on this one. No laws should be broken. 


Glen

    /ME LAUGHING SO HARD I ALMOST FELL OFF MY CHAIR!

	Jeff, I had ALMOST put in my reply the following:






	that will end up being the kiss of death for Jeff's belief!

        Glen, Jeff, et al.

>       I agree with Jeff on this one. No laws should be broken. 

    Then why did they hang Eichmann?  He didn't break the law; he took great
    pride in enforcing it more efficiently than any of his predecessors had
    been able to.  

    Romans 13:1 and following has always troubled me.  Sure, the concept is
    easy when "the powers" are benevolent, but what about those times in
    history when they seem to have been put into power by the Enemy, rather
    than by the Lord?  When Nero was teasing starving lions with
    Christians, for instance, or when Eichmann was developing ever more
    efficient means of executing Jews, processing their corpses for every-
    thing of value, and disposing of the rest.  Imagine, a co-generation
    plant fueled by burning human fat!  

    Do we blindly follow the law of the land, no matter how far from our
    personal values it may lead us?  I believe the answer is NO, that each
    of us must draw a line over which we will not cross.  Daniel's three
    young apprentices drew such a line, and God honored them for it (was
    that Jesus in the oven with them?).  

    When our (those of us in the US) founding fathers drew up the original
    Constitution and Jefferson's Bill of Rights, we were a nation of Godly
    men, who understood that our laws were meaningless and powerless with-
    out the blessing of God; specifically the God of Abraham and Isaac and
    Jacob.  We can no longer consider ourselves so.  Please, God, heal our
    land.  

    I'm usually not much for bumper stickers, but one I saw recently hit
    home:  "If God doesn't do something about America soon, He owes an
    apology to Sodom and Gomorrah".  Specifically, if we don't do something
    about the murder of millions of God's precious children, and do it some
    time real soon, I will not be at all surprised to see God do something
    about it.  

    Jim Dobson tells of his trip to Israel a couple of years ago, in which
    he took the trip across the Sea of Galilee to the opposite shores where
    there are remains of alters to ba'al, surrounded by the bones of
    infants sacrificed to the fire god.  He stood there with tears
    streaming down his face, thinking of all the children sacrificed in our
    own country.  

    Are we compelled to obey just laws?  Unequivocally YES. 

    What about unjust laws?  I just don't know, but for me the answer is
    not an absolute YES.  I do know that if I choose to break any law (just
    or unjust), I must be prepared to pay the civil/criminal penalty.  

    I know I that my line is drawn somewhere this side of shooting/bombing/
    terrorizing abortionists or clinics, although I do see an ethical
    equivalent to killing/etc. an oven operator on his way home from work
    at Dachau...  Such people *should* have to keep constant watch over
    their shoulders.  

    However, I also believe that peaceful, non-violent, civil disobedience
    is as right morally now as it was in 1960.  I believe that what Harvey
    Baines did was in just the same spirit.  

    Are there better ways of accomplishing his goal?  Maybe.  Are there
    other ways?  Sure.  But at least he was doing *something*.  James has
    some hard words for the rest of us who see hunger and do nothing more
    about it than to wish the hungry health and full stomachs.  I'm not
    sure just what it is that I should be doing, but I know it's more than
    just wishing those babies "be well".  

    
    I'm not sure I'm proud about this, but in all honestly having read 
    some of Bonhoffer's writings, I do not believe that my opinion of him 
    is lessened by him being involved in a plot to kill Hitler.  I mean 
    they were in a war.  Even as a commander-in-chief you are considered 
    a soldier and subject to the ravages of war just like anybody else.
    
    Jill

    
    John,
    
    Please, please, please don't confuse my entry with Glen's entry which
    says "no laws should be broken."  I didn't say that, Glen did.  I made
    a qualification and implied several qualifications.  If the govt.
    forces me (or any other Christian) to break God's laws, I will break
    the govt. law.
    
    Furthermore, my belief around Christian responsibility to obey the law
    is based *in the Bible*.  Who knows what Glen's belief is based
    upon...it certainly isn't the Bible.
    
    jeff

 Several off topic notes moved to 57.




 Jim Co mod

    	What can we do?
    
    	We must work to affect social conscience.  We must not stand
    	back silently and allow "the other side" to claim majority
    	because of our silence.  We must vote.  We must speak out.
    
    	We must raise our children with a proper morality so that our
    	lonely voices will be duplicated in the next generation.  (I'll
    	stop short of suggesting that we should have lots of kids so
    	that our morality which we duplicate in them will dilute the
    	evil of humanism that allows our society to embrace abortion...) :^)
    
    	We must speak out in a way that does not hurt our cause -- for
    	instance we must avoid violence, badgering, etc.  We should speak
    	to as many people as we can -- individually, groups, kids, adults.
    	The more to whom we speak, the more we can affect.
    
    	We should foster a concept of society that supports the family.
    	We should avoid jokes about marriage, kids, broken families.  We
    	should support and encourage those who have kids.  Rather than
    	quips like, "you should tie a knot in that!" to a co-worker who
    	is announcing the birth of his 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., kid, (nothing
    	like raining on his parade, huh?), we should shake his hand, and
    	rejoice in his joy.
    
    	We should make ourselves benefactors of our local Birthright or 
    	Family Life Center.  We should volunteer at one of these centers.
    	(Volunteering doesn't have to mean counseling, but can be as
    	simple as cleaning the office, or volunteering to drive patients
    	-- or even other volunteers -- to the center.  It could mean
    	keeping the books, or assembling donated cribs/toys if you are
    	handy.  It could mean babysitting for other volunteers when they
    	are working at the center.  Be creative.)
    
    	We must NEVER consider abortion for ourselves.
    
    	Talk.  Vote pro-life.  Support.  Pray.
    
    
    	Joe

RE: <<< Note 750.26 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

>    	We must raise our children with a proper morality so that our
>    	lonely voices will be duplicated in the next generation.  (I'll
>    	stop short of suggesting that we should have lots of kids so
>    	that our morality which we duplicate in them will dilute the
>    	evil of humanism that allows our society to embrace abortion...) :^)

        Amen!  It is paradoxical that those of the "pro-choice" persuasion
        are likely to select themselves out of the gene pool.  Most of the
        families with whom we fellowship have a lot of kids, and those that
        don't, wish they could have more.  Quite a contrast from those that
        look upon children as disposable nuisances. 
    
>	 a co-worker who
>    	is announcing the birth of his 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., kid, (nothing
>    	like raining on his parade, huh?), we should shake his hand, and
>    	rejoice in his joy.

        One of the tapes in a series called "The Godly Home" addresses the
        "spirit of abortion."  The preacher tells of attending a conference
        of some 2000 pastors.  The featured speaker started by asking how
        many of the men had one or more children.  All hands went up. The
        speaker asked how many had 2 or more, then 3 or more.  Fewer and
        fewer hands went up.  Finally, only one hand went up after he
        polled for 11 or more. The speaker went down the aisle of the
        auditorium, laid hands on the man, and blessed him.  He proceeded
        to castigate those who would say that they'd had enough children
        and wanted no more as exhibiting the spirit of abortion.

        As for participation in the political process in general, and
        in-your-face activism in particular, I have been re-examining my
        prior support for these in light of some recent communications I
        have had.

	As for Romans 13, remember where Paul was when he wrote it.  "%^)

	Christians do their best fighting on their knees. 

	God bless and keep you all,
		TonyC
		

    RE: .29  Tony C.

    / Amen!  It is paradoxical that those of the "pro-choice" persuasion
    / are likely to select themselves out of the gene pool.  Most of the
    / families with whom we fellowship have a lot of kids, and those that
    / don't, wish they could have more.  Quite a contrast from those that
    / look upon children as disposable nuisances. 

    Well, this is a pretty self-serving delusion.  Only people who see
    things the way _you_ do are capable of loving children (and everyone
    else just runs around having nothing but abortions instead, right?)

    Statements like these don't help your 'cause' one bit (because 
    those on the pro-choice side know how wrong you are about them.)
    I thought this was a topic about how to help (not hurt) the
    pro-life movement.

    As it happens, people with money tend to have fewer children (and
    those with less money tend to have more children) in our society.

    The fewer children born to richer parents tend to get more of their
    resources for education, etc., so these fewer children end up with
    more power and influence than the many children born to those with
    less resources.

    People with money (and fewer children) are not the ones getting
    most of the abortions, anyway.  They have fewer pregnancies in
    the first place (which is not an 'abortion mentality' unless you
    regard unfertilized eggs and sperm as being aborted every time
    they fail to result in a pregnancy.)

    / fewer hands went up.  Finally, only one hand went up after he
    / polled for 11 or more. The speaker went down the aisle of the
    / auditorium, laid hands on the man, and blessed him.  He proceeded
    / to castigate those who would say that they'd had enough children
    / and wanted no more as exhibiting the spirit of abortion.

    Castigated??  Really?  Did he stop to ask how many of these people
    could afford to have more children?  If a woman on Welfare stepped
    forward to say she had 11 children, would he have blessed her or
    slapped her in the face?

    / As for participation in the political process in general, and
    / in-your-face activism in particular, I have been re-examining my
    / prior support for these in light of some recent communications I
    / have had.

    You need to re-examine your rhetoric, too.

 Frankly, I'd not be too pleased to be castigated for not wanting any
 more children and would likely excuse myself from any meeting at which
 anyone was so castigated.




 Jim

    I have four boys (just had the 4th on May 17th).  We don't plan on
    having any more kids.  I certainly have never viewed myself as having
    an abortionist mind set.  I thinks its more important what you do with
    the kids you have, rather than the number of children you have.
    
    Bing

	RE: last few

	What does the Bible say about children?
	Who decides when the quiver is full?
	Who is your Lord and Master?
	Who provides for you and your children?
	Where does any of "your" wealth come from?	
	What kind of power does faith in material wealth wield?

    RE: .33  Tony C.
    
    Do you believe that the Bible says that everyone should have as many
    children as humanly possible with no thought at all about how to feed
    or support them?

    	Help me remember, Lord, that nothing will happen to me today that
    	You and I cannot handle together.

           <<< Note 750.31 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

> Frankly, I'd not be too pleased to be castigated for not wanting any
> more children and would likely excuse myself from any meeting at which
> anyone was so castigated.

	I wonder if "castigated" was really the word he meant to use.
    
    	I've been to conferences, retreats, lectures, etc., where we
    	have been CHALLENGED to consider having more children, or
    	where the more "fecund" couples were singled out for extra
    	praise.  I can't recall (nor can I imagine) anyone actually
    	CASTIGATING (ie severely criticizing) childless or small-
    	familied couples.
    

        <<< Note 750.30 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    / Amen!  It is paradoxical that those of the "pro-choice" persuasion
>    / are likely to select themselves out of the gene pool.  Most of the
>    / families with whom we fellowship have a lot of kids, and those that
>    / don't, wish they could have more.  Quite a contrast from those that
>    / look upon children as disposable nuisances. 
>
>    Well, this is a pretty self-serving delusion.  Only people who see
>    things the way _you_ do are capable of loving children (and everyone
>    else just runs around having nothing but abortions instead, right?)
    
    	The delusion is on your part.  What exactly is delusionary in
    	the above statements?  That those who have few (or none) children
    	select themselves out of the gene pool?  That's pretty accurate!
    
    	And don't you agree that the abortion mentality allows for children 
    	(in the womb) to be seen as disposable nuisances?  The same
    	mentality now pervades our society such that we can think about
    	"putting to sleep" the infirm and the aged like we would our
    	family dog.  It pervades our society so that many people consider
    	large families to be contemptible, and the concept "large" has 
    	been downsized to be anything more than two kids.  We have rejected
    	the GIFT that a large family can be, and have instead bartered it 
    	away for a second car, an annual vacation, an extra bathroom.
    	
	No, everyone else is not "running around having abortions", but 
    	the mentality that allows for it HAS tainted most of us in many
    	subtle ways -- myself included.  I find Tony's statements to be
    	challenging.  I don't take them as an attack.  I take them as a
    	prod to reconsider where my priorities lie, and whether my kids
    	would prefer to have my attention this weekend instead of the
    	overtime money I was planning to earn.  No, Tony (nor the speaker
    	he described) did not say that others are incapable of loving
    	children, but the question *IS* being raised: on whose terms are
    	we loving our children -- on the biblical terms of God's plan
    	for us, or on the terms of the modern world's plan for us?  
    
    	A man's wealth is in his children!  (Just ask the man's
    	orthodontist...)   :^)

>    Statements like these don't help your 'cause' one bit (because 
>    those on the pro-choice side know how wrong you are about them.)
    
    	You are the one making the statements more extreme than they
    	were originally made.  Sure, you can make them demonic if you
    	try, but they are demons of your own making.
    
>    People with money (and fewer children) are not the ones getting
>    most of the abortions, anyway.  They have fewer pregnancies in
>    the first place (which is not an 'abortion mentality' unless you
>    regard unfertilized eggs and sperm as being aborted every time
>    they fail to result in a pregnancy.)
    
    	To me it is an "abortion mentality" only if the couple caused
    	an unnatural failure of that pregnancy.  This is a very extreme
    	statement for it includes all artificial birth control in that
    	"abortion mentality".  I only mention it here because you raised
    	the subject, but I never promote such an extreme viewpoint in
    	general abortion discussions except if all participants share
    	similar moral points of view on this issue (or if a premise of 
    	the forum expects that extreme morality) and I do not promote 
    	it here.

    There was a woman who came to our church about 5 years back, she had 12
    children and all were in a musical ministry together.  The children
    were rich in talent, both vocally and instrumentally... but more than
    that they were rich in spirit.  
    
    She spoke to our women on a lady's night out and asked this question
    which always seemed to stick with me:
    
    "Lady's have you asked Jesus to the Lord of your life?  If you have,
    does it include your womb?"
    
    

	RE: replies by Joe and Nancy

        Joe's position on birth control is congruent with mine.  I, too,
        believe that "birth control" is an expression of the "abortion
        mentality".  God bless you, Joe, for placing the stewardship of the
        children with which God has blessed you above temporal gain.

	Nancy, you are truly a Godly woman.  May God richly bless and keep
	you.  Incidentally, I think that I know about the folks with the 12
	musical kids.  They have been in this area, too, and have been a
	blessing to all that see them.  

    I don't know if this is the right topic to put this in, but several
    things have been going through me this past week as a woman, a
    Christian woman in 1995.
    
    I've taken advantage of the 5 day weekend and extended through til
    today.  I have spent every day in my home, leaving only twice for
    necessity and I've felt more whole, more at peace and in tune with God
    than I have in a very long time.  One of my Sisters from church has
    come to visit here and yesterday we were talking as I was painting my
    son's closets and I said to her with an ache, "Man, this is what I'm
    supposed to be doing full time [not painting closets, per se]."
    
    A real honest to goodness grieving for loss of motherhood welled up
    inside of me as I realized my children are near grown and I've never
    had the opportunity to be a full-time Mom.  I suppose I could have had
    I wanted to divorce much sooner and/or be on welfare...but somehow
    neither of those alternatives seem to be fitting.
    
    I know that this is not congruent with feminism or for that matter even
    for Christian women in some circles of faith, but its my heart and I
    cannot deny what it knows to be true for me.
    
    I've cleaned out closets, kitchen cabinets, pulled weeks, watered
    gardens, planted spices, vacuumed, scrubbed toilets, cooked experimental
    dishes and even had time for devotions.  
    
    Its okay for me to grieve this loss, folks, I'm not depressed or in
    condemnation, its just a moaning of the Spirit that keeps me living in
    Psalms 27:10, whether it be for me or for my own children.  Therein
    lies their hope... in God.
    
    Nancy

    RE: .37  Joe Oppelt

    / The delusion is on your part.  What exactly is delusionary in
    / the above statements?  That those who have few (or none) children
    / select themselves out of the gene pool?  That's pretty accurate!

    Well, first off, it's a delusion to imagine that a political position
    (such as being 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life') is found in the genes in
    the first place such that it can be 'selected out' by pro-choice
    individuals having fewer children.

    Second of all, the process of 'natural selection' is not something
    that occurs in a generation (or even a few hundred years.)  It's
    a very, very, very long process.

    Also...

    If the people with money tend to have fewer children (who also happen
    to have the resources to hold enough power and influence in our culture
    to keep abortion legal) then the pro-choice position will live on for
    a long time.

    / And don't you agree that the abortion mentality allows for children 
    / (in the womb) to be seen as disposable nuisances?  

    This is where you hurt your own cause (by suggesting that pro-choice
    people aren't capable of loving their own children and seeing them
    as among the most precious beings ever placed on this Earth.)

    You (like many others) wrongly believe that if a person supports 
    'choice' that they can't possibly care about children the way you
    do.  As long as you promote such a blatant falsehood about the
    pro-choice movement, you will never do anything more than entrench
    the pro-choice position against this falsehood.

    / The same mentality now pervades our society such that we can think 
    / about "putting to sleep" the infirm and the aged like we would our
    / family dog. 

    As far as I know, the big debate is about allowing terminally ill
    people to decide to put *themselves* to sleep (as their own choice,
    not someone else's.)  You may not agree with this - and I don't
    have a strong position on this either way - but it doesn't help your
    cause, either, to make such extreme statements in connection with
    abortion.

    / It pervades our society so that many people consider
    / large families to be contemptible, and the concept "large" has 
    / been downsized to be anything more than two kids.

    A lot of this comes from the conservative (mostly pro-life) demonization
    of large Welfare families.

    / We have rejected the GIFT that a large family can be, and have instead 
    / bartered it away for a second car, an annual vacation, an extra bathroom.

    If a Welfare family tried to tell you that they wanted the gift of a
    large family, you'll tell her she's the scum of the earth, though,
    wouldn't you?

    Or do you support the notion that EVERY family that wants 11 or 12 kids
    should go ahead and have them (in God's blessing) even if the government
    has to support them?

    / No, everyone else is not "running around having abortions", but 
    / the mentality that allows for it HAS tainted most of us in many
    / subtle ways -- myself included.  

    Do you consider yourself a 'victim', then?  Is this your own
    'victimization'?  You have control over whether or not the laws 
    of this country 'taint' your personal actions.

    / I find Tony's statements to be challenging.  I don't take them as an 
    / attack.  I take them as a prod to reconsider where my priorities lie, 
    / and whether my kids would prefer to have my attention this weekend 
    / instead of the overtime money I was planning to earn.  

    These are your own choices.  Neither the pro-choice movement (nor the
    abortion laws) are the ones telling you whether or not to do something
    which you would consider neglecting your kids.

    / No, Tony (nor the speaker he described) did not say that others are 
    / incapable of loving children, but the question *IS* being raised: 
    / on whose terms are we loving our children -- on the biblical terms 
    / of God's plan for us, or on the terms of the modern world's plan for us?  

    The real question seems to be - are we loving our children on Tony's
    terms (or on your terms).  If not, we can't really love our children,
    evidently.

    // Statements like these don't help your 'cause' one bit (because 
    // those on the pro-choice side know how wrong you are about them.)
    
    / You are the one making the statements more extreme than they
    / were originally made.  Sure, you can make them demonic if you
    / try, but they are demons of your own making.

    The position mentioned is extreme on its own.  You describe your
    very next set of statements as an extreme position (and the person
    who wrote the position we've been discussing writes later to agree
    with you about it.)

    But - if you don't mind hurting your cause, so be it.  I'm telling
    you that the pro-choice movement gets stronger every time pro-choicers
    hear things about themselves that they know to be downright false.

    / To me it is an "abortion mentality" only if the couple caused
    / an unnatural failure of that pregnancy.  This is a very extreme
    / statement for it includes all artificial birth control in that
    / "abortion mentality". 

    When you include the measures to *prevent* pregnancy (and, in some
    cases, abortion) as being part of the 'abortion mentality', then you
    really go off the deep end.

    / I only mention it here because you raised the subject, but I never 
    / promote such an extreme viewpoint in general abortion discussions 
    / except if all participants share similar moral points of view on this 
    / issue (or if a premise of the forum expects that extreme morality) 
    / and I do not promote it here.

    Believe me, the pro-choice movement already knows that a significant
    number of pro-lifers are against the prevention of pregnancy (and in
    some cases, abortion) as much as they are against abortion.  It is a
    big help to the pro-choice movement to keep this in mind.

RE: <<< Note 750.41 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

	I'm sorry, I don't know your first name.

        Cyberspace is a cold medium through which to convey warm concern
        and sincere faith, but please allow me to try. 

        My heart aches that you feel compelled to reduce all of this to
        some degenerate political dialectic.  I pray that God working
        through His Holy Ghost will awaken in you the knowledge of Christ
        as the end of vain philosophies.

        Please do not construe this as an attack; it is a prayer for your
        soul, though only God knows your heart.

        Some day you will die, and you will face Creator God, and you will
        be without excuse, because He has revealed Himself in His Word,
        through His prophets, and as a man on earth, the Messiah, Y'shua.

        I was once scornful and angry at those who would show me this Way
        as the only Way, the Truth, and the Life. I was once a believer in
        the dialectic as the political expression of evolution.  I was once
        a humanist, believing in man's innate nobility, and that evolution
        would provide the triumph of that nobility over man's intrinsic
        depravity.  This is not to insinuate that you believe any of these
        things, but to show you that I was once as opposed to the-Bible-as-
        Truth as one could be.  Christ was able to heal the bitterness and
        the anger.  I was able to ask forgivness of those who I thought had
        wronged me, and towards whom I harbored resentment and bitterness.

	I humbly ask your forgiveness for anything I have said that may
	have injured you in any way.  

	God's peace to you all.

	TonyC

    RE: .42  TonyC

    My name is Suzanne, and your name is not God (so you have no idea
    about the state of my soul or the very private practice of my faith,
    which as you state yourself, is not the same thing as politics.)

    Pray for yourself (to help you to stop trying to step in between
    God and the children of God by attempting to assume things about
    the states of their souls.)

    / I humbly ask your forgiveness for anything I have said that may
    / have injured you in any way.  

    I do accept your apology for any and all assumptions you have made
    about me without knowing me (or my soul).

    / God's peace to you all.

    Same to you.

 
Please watch the tone of replies.  There is no need for heated exchanges from
either side and I'll not hesitate to return any notes deemed to be personal
attacks.  I am the only mod available today and I have work to do, but I
will not allow personal attacks by either side of this issue.  There are
several conferences where such tactics are welcome.




Jim Co-Mod

    To all:
    
    I would like to apologize for my half the heated exchange.
    
    Suffice it to say that comments which suggest that pro-choice people
    don't really love children is not helpful to a peaceful resolution
    of this issue (in case this is what anyone is seeking.)
    
    Maybe there *is* no resolution, I don't know.  But this approach
    definitely isn't it (if a resolution does exist.)

    re:     <<< Note 750.47 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
    
>   Maybe there *is* no resolution, I don't know. 
    
    Suzanne, 
    
    I think you have hit the nail on the head.  
    
    From my viewpoint, there is *no* moral or ethical difference between
    Susan Smith's "right of choice" and that of "the person who is in the
    state of pregnancy herself."
    
    For those outside the U.S., Susan Smith is a woman in her early 20s who
    was married with two small children (two and four?).  She has been
    arrested and charged with the murder of her two children by strapping
    them into child car seats and pushing the car into a lake, drowning
    them.  Her motive is alleged to have involved making her more desirable
    to her boyfriend, who did not want to be burdened with her children.  
    
    I believe that *all* human life is sacred, regardless of some arbitrary
    length of time since conception, or whether the time is before or after
    birth.  
    
    I don't see how your view and mine can ever be reconciled.  We can
    agree that we disagree, we can agree on the rules of our disagreement,
    but beyond that, ???
    
    /John

Note 750.47 (Suzanne)    
    
>    Suffice it to say that comments which suggest that pro-choice people
>    don't really love children is not helpful to a peaceful resolution
>    of this issue (in case this is what anyone is seeking.)
 
    No one is suggesting this- at least not how you are representing said
    comments.
    
    
    -steve

 This topic is temporarily write locked.





 Jim Co mod.

    RE: 750.48  John Stock

    / From my viewpoint, there is *no* moral or ethical difference between
    / Susan Smith's "right of choice" and that of "the person who is in the
    / state of pregnancy herself."

    You can equate abortion to blowing up the earth, if you like (if you
    think it will make abortion sound worse) - but to the pro-choice
    movement, a person drowning born children (who could be nourished
    and nurtured by anyone at that point) is not the same thing as making
    the decision (for oneself) about something which is occurring _inside_
    ones own body.

    / I don't see how your view and mine can ever be reconciled.  We can
    / agree that we disagree, we can agree on the rules of our disagreement,
    / but beyond that, ???

    If abortions could be reduced by 90% in this country (by individual
    people making their _own_ choices), would you agree to it?  Would you
    consider it an amazing improvement (or would you hold out for 100% or
    else no improvement at all?)

    Could we agree that a 90% reduction in abortions (by choice) would
    be a worthwhile improvement?

    	90% would be great.  So would only 50%.
    
    	How do you suggest that this 90% reduction would occur purely
    	by individual choice?

    RE: .661  Joe Oppelt

    / 90% would be great.  So would only 50%.
    
    I agree.  (Absolutely!)  See, we do agree on something.  :]

    / How do you suggest that this 90% reduction would occur purely
    / by individual choice?

    Such a reduction can *only* occur 'by individual choice' (because
    only the woman has to know when she first becomes pregnant - even if 
    she doesn't feel many symptoms right away, she can get a home pregnancy
    test and then tell only those who can help in her particular choice.)

    We could get such a reduction by following the example of a country
    (in the Western world) who allows legal abortions yet has an abortion
    rate that is 1/10th (per capita) the rate of abortion in the U.S.A.

    This country also has fewer unplanned pregnancies, of course, and
    their teenagers have sex at a much smaller rate (per capita) than
    U.S. teenagers have sex.  Most teenagers wait until they are older,
    in other words.

    	OK....
    
    	And how do we get everyone to comply?
    
    	Obviously this western country of which you speak does not
    	have the same abortion culture that we do.  What would it
    	take to change ours?  What would it cost?  (Such things
    	don't occur in a vacuum, you know...)  Note that cost does
    	not necessarily mean monetary.  What other freedoms would
    	we lose?  Why don't their teens turn to sex at an early
    	age like ours do?  (I'd also welcome that side effect too!)
    	Understand that I do not put the burden of knowing the
    	answers to these questions on you.  I pose them rhetorically.

    RE: .663  Joe Oppelt

    / OK....
    
    / And how do we get everyone to comply?

    This other country (which has the lowest abortion rate per capita in
    the Western world, even though people from other countries go there
    to get legal abortions) uses education and advertising.

    / Obviously this western country of which you speak does not
    / have the same abortion culture that we do. 

    The key is that they have far, far, far fewer unplanned pregnancies.
    (Abortion is legal there.)

    / What would it take to change ours?  What would it cost?  (Such things
    / don't occur in a vacuum, you know...)  Note that cost does not 
    / necessarily mean monetary.  What other freedoms would we lose? 

    In some ways, they have more freedoms than we have in the U.S.

    / Why don't their teens turn to sex at an early age like ours do?  
    / (I'd also welcome that side effect too!)

    Their teens don't have sex at the rate per capita that our teens do
    because sex is not a big deal in their country (so it doesn't have
    the attraction of either 'teenage rebellion' or 'trying to be grownup'.)

    The adults don't especially care if the teenagers have sex (the adults
    just stress very vigorously that teens - and everyone in the country -
    must do everything possible to avoid disease and unplanned pregnancy.)  
    So the teenagers promise themselves that they won't have sex without 
    using both birth control *and* condoms (yes, this means that each 
    teenager - male and female - uses his/her own methods so they get 
    **double** protection when they do have sex.)

    Except that after all this (with no lure of rebellion or feeling grownup,
    and knowing that *both* kids have to be careful) - most just don't bother 
    having sex at all until they are older.

    It's just too much of a hassle (for little benefit, relatively speaking) 
    to have sex as a teenager over there.  So they choose to wait instead
    (and pregnancy in their high schools is very, very rare.)  One teacher
    I saw interviewed said that he'd only seen *ONE* pregnancy in almost
    20 years of teaching high school (and this girl 'knew better', but
    somehow got pregnant anyway.)

    Many U.S. high schools would consider it almost a miracle if they got
    through a single year without a pregnancy anywhere in their schools.
    
    Can we learn anything from this country?  They do have the lowest
    abortion rate in the Western world.

    Ok - I know that this philosophy presents a problem (because it isn't
    a Christian teaching to say that sex is not a big deal for teenagers
    as long as they do everything possible to avoid disease and unplanned
    pregnancy - again, I'm talking about double protection where the boy
    and the girl both take measures to protect themselves and each other.)

    How about if the Christian parents continue to teach their own
    philosophy to their kids, but we aim the education and the
    advertising to the kids in this country who are most likely to
    have sex no matter what their parents say?

    If we aim education and advertising to these kids, then I think
    it's possible that they will be less likely to have sex (but if
    they do have sex, they will be less likely to have unplanned
    pregnancies if both kids try to prevent it.)

    It would mean buying into a solution that is not Christian-oriented,
    but if it could reduce the abortion rate by even 50%, would you be
    willing to entertain it?  (Again, Christian parents can teach their
    own kids whatever they want.)

    By the way, if you think we already have a society that says it's no
    big deal to have sex, we don't.
    
    We do have a society that generates billions and billions and billions
    of dollars by being in the business of sexual titillation.  (In other
    words, people make billions on movies which show people pretending
    to have sex - and others make billions on movies, magazines, and
    videos which show people actually having sex.)
    
    This isn't an 'open attitude' about sex - it's a 'sex-is-a-thing-we-can-
    make-money-on-by-showing-people-lotsa-dirty-pictures' attitude, which is
    also a 'sex-is-a-very-very-very-BIG-DEAL-or-people-wouldn't-spend-all-
    this-money-on-watching-other-people-doing-it' attitude.

    	Suzanne --
    
    	I agree with your .667, and that presents the crux of the problem. 
    
    	Sex will always be a big deal here.  "Advertising" against teen 
    	sex will not work here.  I'd be willing to entertain your ideas 
    	only if we could change the sexual culture that we have here.  Do
    	you think that could be done?  If so, how?  And how long do you
    	think it would take?

    RE: .668  Joe Oppelt

    > I agree with your .667, and that presents the crux of the problem. 

    Thanks.

    > Sex will always be a big deal here.  "Advertising" against teen 
    > sex will not work here.  

    Actually, they don't 'advertise' against teen sex at all.  They
    strongly advertise in favor of doing everything possible to avoid
    disease and unplanned pregnancies.  

    The teens themselves make the decision to wait to have sex.  When
    you have to stop and think about it (and take precautions) before
    having sex, it just isn't as much fun as what U.S. teenagers do
    (which is to hop into bed with barely a thought in the world for
    what might happen to them.)

    > I'd be willing to entertain your ideas only if we could change the 
    > sexual culture that we have here.  Do you think that could be done?  
    > If so, how?  And how long do you think it would take?

    Well, personally, I think our culture could change - but I don't
    think it would happen with censorship or laws forbidding the video
    and magazines, etc., that we have now.  Such censorship would only
    send the 'sex business' underground (where even more billions could
    be made from it because sex would be an even bigger deal.)

    I think it would take a number of groups which are usually at odds
    with each other to join forces to change our culture.

    Fads and fashion can overtake a culture in a matter of years - could
    this specific cultural change happen this fast?  I honestly don't know.

    OH boy.... 
    
    This really grieves me to read the last few replies.  We basically are
    saying that while the media, radio, movies, newspapers (all
    communications) and schools will promote an open sexuality, there won't
    be an affect on our Christian children who are being taught another 
    morality.
    
    Suzanne, you are a very strong voice regarding this country's
    attitudes. When will you name the country, so that each of us may have
    an opportunity to validate the truths is your last few messages?
   
   Nancy
    
    

    I agree with Suzanne's .667, however, the plan of attack
    (advertisement) has already been less than successful in this country. 
    We do advertise "safe" sex (a misnomer), condoms, aids awareness, etc. 
    Guess what?  Aids and other STD's are still on the rise.  
    
    I think we need to understand the root of the problem before we can
    really do much about it.  All sex-related problems stem from the same
    root- a root that most of society ignores completely.  It is this very
    self-inflicted blindness that will insure that the STD, pregnancy, and
    other sexually related problems will continue.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 108.671 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| This really grieves me to read the last few replies. We basically are saying 
| that while the media, radio, movies, newspapers (all communications) and 
| schools will promote an open sexuality, there won't be an affect on our 
| Christian children who are being taught another morality.

	Peer pressure is a good example that would illistrate the above. Kids
will try things if they are pressured enough. Not all kids, but many. But how
strong the family is, is a big factor in how long they would actually do
something for most kids. I think that is key. If love is present, will a lot of
the peer pressure happen? Some of it might, but imho I believe a good strong
family will help end it sooner than later. 

	But what about pregnancy? Just this weekend I saw a commercial (media)
that had a 15 year old girl with a baby. She was talking about all the things
she is missing out on. I have seen similar commercials as well. The media is
changing in a lot of ways. Hollywood is also starting to make a change. I don't
think you will ever see a 100% change, but the messages that are being put out
there by the ad agencies are a good strong voice. And they are being played
when kids are watching tv, not JUST late night when they are asleep. 

	So I don't think things are as bad as you have made them sound Nancy,
only because you seem to have left out the positive messages that are being put 
out there today. Maybe they don't have them yet on the west coast? I think you
have said that you don't watch tv much, if at all. If that is the case, how can
you talk about the media like you did? (print maybe...)



Glen

| <<< Note 108.672 by CSOA1::LEECH "And then he threw the chimney at us!" >>>

| We do advertise "safe" sex (a misnomer), condoms, aids awareness, etc.
| Guess what?  Aids and other STD's are still on the rise.

	Steve, the ads I saw that were a message to kids talked about not
having sex until you're married. 



Glen

    That's good news, Glen.  I have yet to see these adds in my neck of the
    woods, though.
    
    
    -steve

    Andrew!  Excellent note.  We do fail to recognize the issues of the
    heart which causes the symptoms of a dysfunctional society.  The issue
    as Suzanne would have us believe is our narrow-minded sex is evil
    mentality.  I don't believe that being moral is the issue, we had less
    unwed mothers this society just a mere 20 years ago, while maintaining
    a societal view that sex before marriage was wrong... not that sex was
    wrong.
    
    Nancy
    

    
    This may be something that's already been mentioned, but...
    
    RE: .672
    
        I agree with Suzanne's .667, however, the plan of attack
        (advertisement) has already been less than successful in this
    	country. We do advertise "safe" sex (a misnomer), condoms, aids 
    	awareness, etc.  Guess what?  Aids and other STD's are still on 
    	the rise.
    
    Steve, yeah this is advertised, but is it a louder message than the
    zillion of messages that sell sex?  I don't think so.  We are a society
    bombarded with messages that sex is the ultimate, we absolutely have
    to have it, we can't live without it.  This is especially true of teens:
    TV ads, teen magazines, health class, and music geared for them all 
    tell them they need sex.  If that's the input they are getting, how 
    can we expect a different output?  We can't.  The only way is to change 
    the input.  Adding a few service announcements about "safe" sex to the 
    barrage of "you need sex" messages is not going fix this.
    
    IMHO, Jill

Right, Nancy.  Sex is good.  So good, that it's worth using right, and in 
context for procreation in marriage.  Those who wish to be blind to 
original sin, and to God, have as part of their baggage the denial of any
sort of design in our makeup.  Hence they move towards rejecting that there
are behavioural absolutes.  They lose an awful lot, even down here, let 
alone eternity.

								Andrew

    re: .678
    
    Well, there's truth to that, too.   8^)
    
    -steve

    	I can't believe that the kids in this example "Western Country"
    	refrain from sex without a strong morality leading them in that
    	direction.

    RE: .681  Joe Oppelt
    
    / I can't believe that the kids in this example "Western Country"
    / refrain from sex without a strong morality leading them in that
    / direction.
    
    Well, I know it's difficult for some to imagine, but it's true.
    
    They use a strong sense of responsibility instead of a strong sense
    of morality and it just isn't as much fun for teenagers to have sex
    when they have to think about what they're doing.
    
    Hopping into the sack without a *thought* to the possible consequences
    is a lot easier to do (which is why *so many more* of our teenagers in
    the U.S. find it so attractive.)

    Suzanne,
    
    I, for one, refuse to believe anything further about this country until
    it is named and I can validate your statistics.
    
    Nancy

    My guess...

    either Denmark or The Netherlands (Holland as some know it).

    	re .682
    
    	Given your agenda and your secretiveness about details, I
    	hold doubts about what is really true.  I do not doubt that
    	they have different or better statistics, but I'll need
    	more than just your affirmation about the underlying 
    	motivations.

    The country with the lowest abortion rate in the western world (and
    the nation with an abortion rate per capita that is 1/10th the abortion 
    rate per capita in the United States) is, of course, the Netherlands 
    (also known as Holland.)

    Per capita, they have 90% fewer abortions than the U.S., although 
    abortion is legal there.

    As for why the kids do not have sex - I saw a number of high school
    students interviewed in the Netherlands and the *one common theme*
    among them was that they ALL had promised themselves (early in their
    teen years) that they would never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have
    sex without doing everything possible to protect themselves from
    disease and unplanned pregnancy.  (This promise is made by girls *and*
    boys in Holland.)  When Dutch teenagers do have sex, they have double
    the protection (because *both partners* are using their own.)

    Dutch teenagers have sex in *fewer numbers* (per capita) than U.S.
    teenagers have sex, though.  Many teenagers interviewed said that
    although they had also made the promise to themselves about never,
    ever having sex without doing everything possible to protect them-
    selves, many had further decided not to have sex at all until later
    (by their own decision, after a lot of thinking about what to do).

    Holland has the vital statistics to prove what has happened in their
    country:  fewer teenagers have sex per capita, fewer people experience
    unplanned pregnancies per capita, and they have the lowest abortion 
    rate in the western world (1/10th the rate per capita in the U.S.)

    Yet - it also isn't too unusual to see full frontal nudity in TV 
    commercials there, or so I've heard.  Sex just isn't a 'big deal'
    over there, so a display of the human body isn't a source of mass 
    hysteria or mass titillation for the Dutch.

 My eldest son thinks that The Netherlands is heaven on earth.  He can go
 and use drugs 24 hours a day/7 Days a week and nobody will say a word..




 JIm

Hi Suzanne,

Sounds as if this promise is based on a self-centred fear, rather than on 
a proper awe of God, and honour and respect for His creational design.  
While the result is commendable as far as it goes, we do not yet see the 
full results, and are unlikely to in this dimension.  It sounds like a time 
bomb, where nature has to be moulded to a law of fear.

Just think how much better such a society would be if behaviour were 
instead based on a true understanding of the place God has made for each of 
us, and our function here; an awareness of His love for each of mankind!

Not only would the side effects of sin be reduced (in terms of 
extra-marital sex), the honour and respect of the individual would be 
maintained (in terms of sanctity and decency).  And .. we would then be 
moving towards 1 Timothy 2:2

   "...that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and 
    holiness.  This is good, and pleases God our Saviour, Who wants all 
    men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."


Any compromise is opening a door to later trouble, and a general loss of 
holiness and consequent isolation from God.

							Andrew

    	"Or so I've heard."

    RE: .689  Joe Oppelt
    
    / -< Key phrase upon which the thesis is built: >-

    / "Or so I've heard."
    
    Actually, this phrase was about TV commercials in the Netherlands 
    (and it was mentioned in passing and is not under discussion in this 
    topic.)
    
    And, by the way, I got this one piece of information (about TV) from 
    a citizen of the Netherlands in mail yesterday.

    RE: .688  Andrew Yuille
    
    /Sounds as if this promise is based on a self-centred fear, rather than on 
    /a proper awe of God, and honour and respect for His creational design.  
    
    So, you would pass up an opportunity to reduce abortions by 90% if you
    believed people were avoiding pregnancy and abortion for the 'wrong' 
    reasons?
    
    Does this mean you have a priority which is higher than the lives of
    the 'babies' which could be saved by this approach?

 In this conference we approach issues from a Biblical point of view (as
 pointed out in 2.*).  I believe Andrew was stating his views from the Biblical
 point of view.  It's wonderful that lives are being saved, and I hope that
 trend continues.  From a Biblical point of view, to which most in this
 conference subscribe, it is sad that God's pronouncements re: premarital
 sex are ignored, and seemingly encouraged.




 Jim

    RE: .692  Jim Henderson
    
    / In this conference we approach issues from a Biblical point of view (as
    / pointed out in 2.*).  I believe Andrew was stating his views from the 
    / Biblical point of view. 
    
    Thanks, Jim - I do understand this.
    
    I'm concerned about Andrew's apparent rejection of a method which
    has succeeded in keeping abortions down to 10% of the U.S. rate, 
    though, which he seems to do in this statement:
    
	"Any compromise is opening a door to later trouble, and a 
    	general loss of holiness and consequent isolation from God."
    
    Would it really be more appropriate to reject the Netherlands'
    success if it doesn't fit into a Biblical point of view?
    
    (I'm just asking this - it's ok if no one wants to answer.)

    The answer is yes, Suzanne.  There are things in the life that are
    extrabiblical and things which are contrabiblical... this falls into
    the latter, cars fall into aforementioned.
    
    Nancy

    It sounds like some are saying that they *would* reject a method
    that could reduce abortions by 90% if it came from an idea that
    was not in the Biblical point of view.
    
    This does start to sound as if a higher priority than the lives
    of 'babies' is at stake, here.  
    
    (Remember, we're talking about a method employed in society at large 
    and *not* something that every Christian would have to incorporate 
    into his/her own life.  Christians would still be free to teach their 
    children whatever they like.)

>	"Any compromise is opening a door to later trouble, and a 
>    	general loss of holiness and consequent isolation from God."
    
>    Would it really be more appropriate to reject the Netherlands'
>    success if it doesn't fit into a Biblical point of view?
    
 


     There are a couple of verses in the Bible, which off the top of my head
     seem to address this.  One in Proverbs 14 "There is a way which seemeth
     right to a man, but the end thereof is destruction [actually I think it
     says 'ways of death']" and in 1st Corinthians "The wisdom of the World is
     but foolishness in God's eyes".


     It is wonderful that babies are being saved..I don't think any one will
     argue with that.  However, the process by which these babies are conceived
     is ungodly.  It seems right to us that lives are being saved, but the sin
     that leads to their conception leads to the destruction (separation from
     God for eternity).  The (nonChristian) World comes up with all sorts of
     ways to make things *seem* right, but apart from God, they are the ways
     of death.  The Wisdom that comes up with this is foolishness in God's 
     eyes.




 Jim

    RE: .696  Jim Henderson
    
    / It is wonderful that babies are being saved..I don't think any one will
    / argue with that. However, the process by which these babies are conceived
    / is ungodly. 
    
    Jim, I think you missed a big part of my note - the rate of unplanned
    pregnancies (and teenage sex) is way, way lower in Holland than it is
    in the U.S., too.
    
    The babies are saved (mostly) by not being conceived in the first place.
    
    / It seems right to us that lives are being saved, but the sin that leads 
    / to their conception leads to the destruction (separation from God for 
    / eternity). 
    
    As I mentioned, the babies are saved by not being conceived (and fewer
    teenagers have sex in the Netherlands.)
    
    If teenagers refrain from sex for reasons of responsibility rather than
    morality, is this bad?  Or is it ok that they *do* refrain from having
    sex (for whatever reason)?
    
    / The (nonChristian) World comes up with all sorts of ways to make things 
    / *seem* right, but apart from God, they are the ways of death.  The 
    / Wisdom that comes up with this is foolishness in God's eyes.
    
    Would God want to save the lives of 'babies' even if the answer came
    from a non-Biblical approach, do you suppose?

    How about if we reduced the abortion rate by 90% by teaching all our
    kids abstinence, having them promise not to have sex until they are
    married, getting rid of the constant bombardment of sexual messages,
    and an aggressive education on purity, virtue, self-esteem,
    consequences of premarital sex both physically, spiritually, and
    emotionally, and the physical consequences of abortion on a woman's
    body?
    
    None of us want to reject a 90% reduction rate in abortion.  What we
    can reject is the promotion of that which is sinful as a means of doing
    it. I think it's great that some kids are choosing not to have sex.  I
    think it's unfortunate that others are and that society is going to
    "bless" it because the are using double protection and it doesn't cost
    them anything. I think that stinks.  So much for caring about the
    spiritual and emotional well being of these kids!
    
    Jill

    
>    Jim, I think you missed a big part of my note - the rate of unplanned
>    pregnancies (and teenage sex) is way, way lower in Holland than it is
>    in the U.S., too.
 

   Well, perhaps I did..sorry.  File that reply for another time ;-)

   
    
>    If teenagers refrain from sex for reasons of responsibility rather than
>    morality, is this bad?  Or is it ok that they *do* refrain from having
>    sex (for whatever reason)?
    
     What is "bad" is that they (apparantly) have not come to know Jesus Christ
     It is wonderful that they refrain from sex, as God intended.  


>      Would God want to save the lives of 'babies' even if the answer came
>    from a non-Biblical approach, do you suppose?

      My understanding of God says that he would love that the babies are being
      saved, but ignoring the fact that He died to save their souls and that
      is being ignored (apparantly) would cause Him great sadness.
   
 


  Jim

Snarf

As I sit here and watch the notes go back and forth, it is easy 
to understand both sides. But, I agree with Andrew and others, that if something
does not line up with the bible(God's direction for our lives - the living word
of God), then no matter how good something looks or the how great the results
are, it is not the way to go. There were many circumstances in the bible where a
direction from God seemed wrong(why go into battle and kill off hundreds of
people?), but obedience was the key to God's blessings and his presence with his
people. Why should Abraham lay his son Isaac on the Altar and sacrifice him? 
Bizaar request from God?? Obedience was all that was required and God's mercy
came about and Isaac was spared. 

my two cents,

Steve  

    RE: .698  Jill Kinsella
    
    / How about if we reduced the abortion rate by 90% by teaching all our
    / kids abstinence, having them promise not to have sex until they are
    / married, getting rid of the constant bombardment of sexual messages,
    / and an aggressive education on purity, virtue, self-esteem,
    / consequences of premarital sex both physically, spiritually, and
    / emotionally, and the physical consequences of abortion on a woman's
    / body?    
    
    To a great extent, you seem to be suggesting that we look at the
    western country with the *greatest success* in keeping down the
    abortion rate and do (pretty much) the exact opposite of what they
    are doing.
    
    Sorry, but it doesn't sound like the wisest thing our society could do.
    
    / None of us want to reject a 90% reduction rate in abortion.  What we
    / can reject is the promotion of that which is sinful as a means of doing
    / it.
    
    The Netherlands does not 'promote' sex for teenagers.  Far from it.
    They simply promote responsibility for those who choose to have sex.
    (More Dutch teeangers than American teenagers choose not to have sex.)
    
    / I think it's great that some kids are choosing not to have sex.  I
    / think it's unfortunate that others are and that society is going to
    / "bless" it because the are using double protection and it doesn't cost
    / them anything. I think that stinks.  So much for caring about the
    / spiritual and emotional well being of these kids!
    
    If some kids are bound and determined to have sex, would you rather they
    got AIDS, STDs, pregnant (and that the fetus was aborted) instead?
    
    Dutch society doesn't 'bless' kids for having sex.
    
    Dutch society 'blesses' the absence of disease and unplanned pregnancies
    (and the low abortion rate.)  They make sure that those relatively few
    teenagers (compared to the U.S.) who *do* have sex are not in as much
    danger of disease, unplanned pregnancy (with a possible abortion) as 
    American teenagers are in danger of going through these things.
    
    Would you rather that the American teenagers who are bound and determined
    to have sex *remain in danger* (and continue to get diseases, unplanned
    pregnancies and possible abortions by whatever means they can find)?

    Okay we've heard of the successes...
    
    I'm confused at this point what you are saying accomplished these
    statistics.
    
    Susan describe exactly the society's way of accomplishing these
    successes and then we can decide whether they are contrabiblical.
    

    RE: .703  Nancy
    
    / I'm confused at this point what you are saying accomplished these
    / statistics.
    
    As mentioned earlier, education and advertising.
    
    / Suzanne describe exactly the society's way of accomplishing these
    / successes and then we can decide whether they are contrabiblical.
    
    The Netherlands has an 'open' attitude about sex (which means that
    the mention of sex does not have the vast titillation effect that we
    get here in the United States.)
    
    They do vast education and advertising about disease and unplanned
    pregnancy, so kids are very aware of the stupidity of even 
    *considering* to have sex without both people taking precautions
    to prevent disease and unplanned pregnancy.
    
    In the course of all this openess, more Dutch teenagers (than U.S.
    teenagers) decide *not to have sex at all* until they are older.
    They think about the subject enough to make this decision.
    
    Those Dutch teenagers who regard it as a question of morality make
    the decision for reasons of morality, of course.  The education and
    advertising is aimed at providing information on how to protect
    oneself from disease and unplanned pregnancy.  Families can teach
    the moral aspects of all this on their own.

    .704
    
    Suzanne, you *are* in the ::Christian notes conference.  We are trying
    to understand your proposal but quite honestly, "openness" about sex
    and "open sex" are too different things.  Which are you saying is the
    methodology in the Netherlands.

    
    >    To a great extent, you seem to be suggesting that we look at the
    >    western country with the *greatest success* in keeping down the
    >    abortion rate and do (pretty much) the exact opposite of what they
    >    are doing.
    
    Suzanne I don't think this is a fair assessment of what I said.  You
    said that the kids in Holland aren't put under pressure to have sex.  I
    believe the kids in the US are under intense pressure with all the
    sexual messages they get, so I say we should take this pressure away.  
    So far, the same. You said that the kids in Holland are taught
    responsibility, I said teach our kids about the physically,
    spiritually, and emotionally effects of premarital sex and abortion and
    ask them to be responsible not to have sex until marriage and to show
    respect for themselves and others.  Again... along the same lines. 
    Where am I saying the exact opposite?  I brought a spiritual dimension
    into it of purity, virtue and self-esteem, but that's not totally
    opposite of anything you said IMO.
    
    >    Sorry, but it doesn't sound like the wisest thing our society
    >	 could do.
    
    Following God's precepts is always the wisest thing anyone can do.
    
    >    If some kids are bound and determined to have sex, would you
    >    rather they got AIDS, STDs, pregnant (and that the fetus was 
    >    aborted) instead?
    
    No, I did not say this either.  I think many kids get married young and
    need to be probably educated about their bodies at an appropriate age. 
    I don't think that is a sin.  It has been warped almost beyond repair
    in the current school system and that whole mode of teaching needs to
    be thrown out and a comprehensive program of educating kids to respect
    themselves from K-12 grades.  This doesn't not mean you tell little kids
    about sex...it means you teach them respect for themselves and others
    and build on that.  I think that adequate sex education should be
    taught in high school but within the context that this is information
    for when they get married which for some will be right after they
    graduate.  Actually, I think a whole course on marriage and adult
    responsibility would be a good requirement.  Will some kids choose 
    to use this information before then?  Probably so.  But they cannot 
    claim ignorance for their irresponsibility. 
    
    Jill         
    

    RE: .706  Nancy Morales
    
    / Suzanne, you *are* in the ::Christian notes conference.  We are trying
    / to understand your proposal but quite honestly, "openness" about sex
    / and "open sex" are too different things.  Which are you saying is the
    / methodology in the Netherlands.
    
    'Openness', not 'open sex'.
    
    An 'open' attitude lacks the titillation and mass hysteria (grasping
    for every sexual inuendo and 'peek' at body parts) that we have in
    the U.S.
    
    In other words, they have a responsible attitude towards sex (while
    the entire U.S. is a snickering, giggling child in comparison.)

    RE: .707  Jill Kinsella

    / You said that the kids in Holland aren't put under pressure to have sex. 
    / I believe the kids in the US are under intense pressure with all the
    / sexual messages they get, so I say we should take this pressure away.  
    / So far, the same. 

    Holland doesn't pressure kids to have sex or not have sex.  Sexuality
    is an open subject in the Netherlands - for example, I saw part of a
    TV show which featured a group of teenagers speaking openly about sex
    (with an adult moderating the program).  The kids decide for themselves
    not to have sex.

    You're talking about pressuring kids to *not* have sex and what sounds
    like an avoidance of the subject of sex in the media (which is not the
    same thing Holland is doing.)

    / You said that the kids in Holland are taught responsibility, I said 
    / teach our kids about the physically, spiritually, and emotionally 
    / effects of premarital sex and abortion and ask them to be responsible 
    / not to have sex until marriage and to show respect for themselves and 
    / others.  Again... along the same lines. 

    Again, you're talking about pressuring kids *not* to have sex (by
    equating responsibility with abstinence, so that once kids are not
    abstinent, they will do nothing further to protect themselves since
    they've already 'shot' the definition of 'responsible'.)

    This is precisely the opposite of the very successful Dutch methodology.

    Being responsible means considering the consequences of sex and taking
    care of themselves if they do have sex.  Once kids think about all
    this in Holland, they often choose not to have sex.  They aren't
    pressured into not having sex.

    / Where am I saying the exact opposite?  I brought a spiritual dimension
    / into it of purity, virtue and self-esteem, but that's not totally
    / opposite of anything you said IMO.

    You are turning 180 degrees away from what they are doing (by trying
    to equate responsibility with abstinence so that any teenagers who
    break their abstinence will have no other protection from disease or
    unplanned pregnancy.)  

    This couldn't be further from the methodology that has been successful 
    in the Netherlands.

    Well, I'm about as open as a person can get and have used this openness
    with my children to discuss sex.  I've taken the titillation out of it
    as much as any parent can do... but my boys still blush at the beauty
    of a woman, whether clothed or only half clothed.
    
    My church recently had a youth conference in which it used films to
    educate our teens on abortion.  These films were films used you
    colleges for medical students.
    
    As the testimony in the "Our progeny, but His children" topic, declares
    my son came out in shock and horror of what actually is abortion.  He
    has since had that impact his way of thinking, even more so than
    probably *our* conversations which have included things such as "Mom,
    do girls like sex?"
    
    I think we do need more education in the right direction and less
    titillation regarding our sexuality.  But I don't think that education
    without morality is the answer.
    
    Its awfully hard to bring about sexual responsibility when our entire
    familial structure has deteriorated to the point that few Mom's and
    Dad's are responsible for their homes.
    
    My biggest concern in this country is *accountability* for our
    children.  Which breeds responsibility.
    
    

    
    Thanks for expounding on that Suzanne.

        <<< Note 108.709 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

	Suzanne, all we have is your assertion that Holland kids do not
    	abstain from sex out of moral responsibility and do so absent a 
    	spiritual dimension in their decision-making.
    
>    for example, I saw part of a
>    TV show which featured a group of teenagers speaking openly about sex
>    (with an adult moderating the program).  The kids decide for themselves
>    not to have sex.
    
    	I have seen no less in my church's senior youth group.
    
    	I really believe that you have filtered into (and out of) the
    	Holland situation what you need to make your argument.
    
>    This is precisely the opposite of the very successful Dutch methodology.
    
    	So far I only see evidence that this is a methodology of your
    	own making.  

>    This couldn't be further from the methodology that has been successful 
>    in the Netherlands.
    
    	Ditto.  
    
    	If you could, please point us to some study or text that describes
    	their society in this area so that we could assess for ourselves
    	what transpires there.  I need more than one agendized person's 
    	assertions to be convinced of what happens in Holland.

    RE: .710  Nancy Morales

    Of course, whatever an individual church or family wants to say to
    their own kids about all this is up to the church and the family.

    / My biggest concern in this country is *accountability* for our
    / children.  Which breeds responsibility.

    Well, my take on this is that it doesn't teach children to have
    responsibility for their own actions if their parents are the
    ones to get into trouble for what the kids (themselves) do.

    It only gives the kids power over their parents (by knowing that
    if the parents make them mad, they can get the parents into major 
    hot water by doing something bad for which the parents will have
    to pay, not the kids.)

    I know that it seems as though the parents would exert more control
    over the kids if the parents knew that THEY would get into trouble
    if the kids misbehaved - but if the kids are determined to get BACK
    at their parents for strict rules about behaving themselves, an easy
    way to do it is to get their parents into legal trouble.

    RE: .712  Joe Oppelt
    
    / Suzanne, all we have is your assertion that Holland kids do not
    / abstain from sex out of moral responsibility and do so absent a 
    / spiritual dimension in their decision-making.
    
    Actually, I did say that the Dutch teenagers who consider this an
    issue of morality make their decisions based on reasons of morality.
    
    The education and advertising on this subject doesn't press a specific
    moral stance, though.
    
    / If you could, please point us to some study or text that describes
    / their society in this area so that we could assess for ourselves
    / what transpires there. 
    
    Sure - I'll see what I can find and will post it here as soon as I can.

    .713
    
    I'm sorry I wasn't very clear... Parental responsibility and
    accountability is not all that was intended in my note.
    
    Children should be accountable to their parents, parents should be
    responsible for their children.  This does not mean that I condone a
    society where parents are punished for their children's law breaking...
    though that is throught provoking. :-)
    
    The above is an implied contract between parent and child to uphold
    certain virtues/actions towards each other.  This kind of agreement can
    only be had via respect or fear.  I prefer the aforementioned.
    
    I see what you are describing in all of Holland in many of our
    Christian teens already.  I know in the Christian school my children
    attend, in the last 19 years 5 teenagers have become pregnant.  Not bad
    statistics.  I must admit that I do not know of abortions, but to be
    fair, I believe there must have been at least 5 to match the number of
    known pregnancies.
    
    All-in-all not bad statistics in a school that has housed over 1100
    female students in 19 years.
    
    

        <<< Note 108.714 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

>    Actually, I did say that the Dutch teenagers who consider this an
>    issue of morality make their decisions based on reasons of morality.
    
    	And how do we know that this is not the majority (say, 90%?)
    	of the Dutch teens?
    
>    The education and advertising on this subject doesn't press a specific
>    moral stance, though.
    
    	Again, how can I be sure of this?
    

The write lock established in 750.51 has not yet been lifted.

Following the write lock, this discussion was continued in note 108.  This
is an unacceptable subterfuge.  Replies have now been moved back to this note. 

The write lock will be reviewed by the moderators in due course. 

						Andrew Yuille
						co-moderator 

Several notes entered here are significantly out of line for the CHRISTIAN 
conference.  This is being addressed with the author.

							Andrew Yuille
							co-moderator

Here's something we CAN do!!

As I was driving home yesterday, I was listening to Focus on the Family.
Dobson was talking about some legislation they are going to vote on TODAY,
July 20 in the House Appropriations Committee.

There are 4 initiatives:

1) title 10 monies.  The initiative is to do away with the monies given to
   title 10 programs, such as planned parenthood.  The main reason being
   the abortion counselling that they provide.

2) Mandatory elective abortion training needs to be conducted in all medical
   schools in order for them to be accredited.  Interns have a choice as to
   perform them or not, but the medical school, regardless of its convictions
   on this issue and the hospitals must teach this to gain the accredition.
   Pro-life avocates want this stopped.

3) Late term abortions.  It is now legal to perform a particular type of
   late term abortion in the last trimester of pregnancy.  The procedure
   is done during labor (or induced labor).  They allow the baby to be
   "born" up to the birth canal and then cut into the skull and use some
   sort of device to suck the brains out of the child.   I think the reason
   why they wait so long in the birth process is so that the baby's body 
   parts can be used for experienmentation or as donated organs (not sure 
   on this).

4) Research monies from our taxes are being used for fetal tissue 
   experimentation.  Scientists and doctors are being allowed to test on
   fertilized eggs or embryos to try to find out more about human development.
   Then they discard of the embryos when their testing is complete.

I am trying to be as accurate as I can be in explaining the legistation.  No
doubt I may have missed some points, this is complicated legistalation.
What I do feel strongly about is the use of my tax dollars to fund projects
that allow or encourage the abortion of a pregnancy and the experiementation
on embryos.  I am all for science and improving the health of our society
but I am distressed at how easily we can jump to the conclusion on what is
life and what isn't and the arrogance of us to think we can make these kind 
of judgements on what "quality" of life is.  

For more information on this you can contact Focus on the Family at
(719)531-5181.

Dobson is urging those who are pro-life to call the congressmen on the 
appropriations committee who tend to be the swing votes, concerning this
passing.  You can call any or all of them at the main switchboard at 
(202) 224-3121. or call or fax them individually at the numbers below.

                                 office phone      fax phone
Ralph Regula  Rep Ohio           202 225-3876       225-3059
Jerry Lewis   Rep Calif          202 225-5861       225-6498
Joe Skeen     Rep New Mexico         225-2365       225-9599
David Hopson  Rep Ohio               225-4324           1984
Henry Bonilla Rep Texas              225-4511           2237
Dan Miller    Rep Florida            225-5015           0828
Jim Kolbe     Rep Arizona            225-2542           0378
Frank Riggs   Rep Calif              225-3311           3403
George Nethercutt Rep Washington     225-2006           3392
Tom Bevill    Dem Alabama            225-4876           1604
Marcy Kaptur  Dem Ohio               225-4146           7711
Ray Thorton   Dem Arkansas           225-2506           9273
Bill Hefner   Dem North Carolina     225-3715           4036


If you feel strongly about this please call them and urge them to support
the pro-life amendments that are coming up to vote today.

The abortion method mentioned in point 3) is described in grisly detail in
note 109.  I believe that the fetal brain tissue is used in the treatment if
Alzheimer's disease.

Paul

| <<< Note 750.111 by CAMONE::LINDSEY >>>


| 1) title 10 monies. The initiative is to do away with the monies given to 
| title 10 programs, such as planned parenthood. The main reason being the 
| abortion counselling that they provide.

	This COULD be a good idea if it were done right. Planned Parenthood
does a lot of very good things for women. To do away with the money they
receive because their beliefs on abortion is different than your own, is
defeating more than it is helping. If the money they receive has the
stipulation that it can not be used for abortion related issues, then you would
have a bill that will fit what you are against, and not punish a group that
does women a lot of good.

| 2) Mandatory elective abortion training needs to be conducted in all medical
| schools in order for them to be accredited. Interns have a choice as to 
| perform them or not, but the medical school, regardless of its convictions
| on this issue and the hospitals must teach this to gain the accredition.
| Pro-life avocates want this stopped.

	In theory, this makes perfect sense. But what happens if a woman comes
into a hospital, and the mother's life is in danger? If you are the only one
around, and you do not know what to do, the mother will die. I think, anyway,
that this is the reason why all must do it. 

| 3) Late term abortions. It is now legal to perform a particular type of late 
| term abortion in the last trimester of pregnancy.  

	Does anyone know what the circumstances have to be for this type of an
abortion to take place? Is it a free for all, or do certain conditions have to
be in place first?

| 4) Research monies from our taxes are being used for fetal tissue
| experimentation. Scientists and doctors are being allowed to test on 
| fertilized eggs or embryos to try to find out more about human development.
| Then they discard of the embryos when their testing is complete.

	Do they create the fetilized eggs in the lab, or do they take them
directly from the mother?



Glen

    
    I don't want to get into a big discussion back and forth on this but
    I will make some comments on your points.
    
    I am not exactly sure whether the title 10 monies specifically targets
    abortions.  I agree that planned parenthood does do some good thing for
    women and the community.  Personally, I just don't want my tax monies
    paying for abortions.  Pregnancy prevention in my opinion is fine and
    I would support that with my tax dollars.
    
    Mandatory ELECTIVE abortion training is the wording.  I agree that if
    the mother's life is in danger, a doctor would need training in some
    abortion procedure.  I believe that they are given this already.  
    
    I believe the wording they used is funding for Abortion on DEMAND.
    The irony of this is that if the child was born, they would have to
    perserve its life by law, but if they kill it before it exits the 
    birth canal, it is not illegal.  I don't want to fund this activity.
    Personally I would like it to be illegal.  It is just getting too
    close for me to "making children" for use of spare parts.  This also
    would be an incredibly painful abortion mention since the child is 
    alive during the initial stages of the process.
    
    To me, it is an non-issue as to wheter they create them in the lab or
    take them from the mother.  Certainly using eggs/sperm without the
    donors knowledge would be morally wrong in my opinion, and in fact
    it has happened recently in the news that someone elses child was 
    given to another woman (accidently or deliberately is yet to be 
    determined).  Either way it is a growing group of cells that has the
    potential to become a human being and in fact has reached the embryo
    stage where parts of the body are performing their function.  I am 
    all for research to be done but there needs to be some limits on this.
    After all, I am sure pro-animal rights activists would be "up in arms"
    if this was happening to animals.  Shouldn't we be just as upset when
    it is happening to little people??
    
    My goal was in adding the previous note was to make people aware of 
    the legislation and for them as individuals to find out the details
    of the issues and then to vote their conscience.  I agree my synopsis
    was a bit sketchy, and that's why I included the numbers there for you
    to call and find out more.
    
    BTW, title 10 I was told has passed with a vote of 28 to 25.
    
    Sue

| <<< Note 750.114 by CAMONE::LINDSEY >>>


| I am not exactly sure whether the title 10 monies specifically targets 
| abortions.  

	I think this is key though. If it targets abortions, then I can see why
you would want that part of it stopped. If it does not target abortions, then I
can't see why you, or anyone for that matter, would want to have the money
stopped, when it is being used for something good. To call the numbers listed
without knowing what it is all about is plain wrong. Know why you are calling
and then you can make a decision based on fact, and not some fact, some
hysteria.

| Personally, I just don't want my tax monies paying for abortions.  

	I agree with this. I don't want my tax money to pay the salaries of
some of our countries leaders! :-)  Some of them should be paying us back! But
if we as a nation start to only give monies to those things we would like to
see funded, you would see a lot go wrong with a lot of things. True, you and I
both would like to see abortions stopped. But unless those in charge actually
want to address all the issues that go along with it, we will never see this
done. 

| Pregnancy prevention in my opinion is fine and I would support that with my 
| tax dollars.

	Agreed.

| Mandatory ELECTIVE abortion training is the wording. I agree that if the 
| mother's life is in danger, a doctor would need training in some abortion 
| procedure. I believe that they are given this already.

	I'm confused here. Are you saying the are given abortion training for
emergency situations, along with abortion training that they have to have
mandatory? If they are one in the same, then I can not see it becoming an
elective. 

| To me, it is an non-issue as to wheter they create them in the lab or take 
| them from the mother.  

	Sue, I take it then you are one who believes that artifitial
insemination is ok, right? A baby created in the lab. 



Glen

    
    I didn't make myself clear.  What they are trying to make mandatory in
    the medical schools and hospitials is teaching how to perform elective 
    (not saving the life of the mother) abortions.  I see this as intrusive
    to an individuals or organizations conscience.
    
    Artificial Insemination is an entirely different topic which I don't
    want to muddy the waters and discuss here.  The point I was making is
    that regardless of how the embryo was gotten, it is human life that
    they are discarding after  they do their research.
    
       

    Sue,
    
    There is some extensive discussion in Womannotes about this topic.  The
    particular type of abortion is very rarely done and only when the
    woman's life is in danger or when the fetus is so deformed that it has
    no chance of viability.  The legislation would make it illegal even
    when being performed to save the life of a woman.
    
                                       Patricia

| <<< Note 750.117 by CAM3::LINDSEY >>>


| I didn't make myself clear. What they are trying to make mandatory in the 
| medical schools and hospitials is teaching how to perform elective (not saving
| the life of the mother) abortions. I see this as intrusive to an individuals 
| or organizations conscience.

	Hmmmm.... maybe you could clear this up for me. I see the following
things:

	Med students are taught how to do an abortion incase they need to do
	an emergency abortion to save the mothers life.

	Med students are ALSO being taught how to do an abortion in a non-
	emergency situation. 

	Each of the two examples above are taught at different times. 


If the above is true, then I DO agree with you 100%. As long as they are both
being taught at different times. If they are only taught abortions once, then
they need to know how to do one incase of an emergency. So it comes down to how
many times are they taught?


Glen

	If a mother's life were truly in danger, it would be far
	more expedient to deliver the child be Caesarian section.

	Karen

	Ok, here is some info I got from a friend of mine. You can contact your
local PP office to check it's validity.


	1) Title X money to PP ONLY is for pregnancy prevention and 
           contraception, it does not pay for abortions in  any way 
	   shape or form.  

	The title 10 money should not be touched based on the above. 

	2) There are only a handful of Dr.s that perform late-term 
	   abortions in this country. (Three the last time I checked)  
	   They are performed only in the case of endangerment of the 
	   woman, or if the fetus is so deformed there is no hope of 
	   survival.  

	This is a key part of what I was looking for. A better clarification of
what deformed is would be helpful. I do agree that endangerment is a good
reason to have one of these. The way Dr. Dopson makes it sound, it is something
that just happens at a whim. Apparently this is not the case. Apparently the
Dr's only perform them for 2 reasons.

	3) The alternate late-term abortion method for a fetus which 
	    is too large to pass through the birth canal is hysterotomy, 
	    which is a c-section for all intents and purposes.  

	This is consistant with what someone said earlier.

	4) This has serious risks to the woman, inluding hemorrage, 
	   infection,.. uterine scarring and weakness, with possible 
	   rupture of the uterus in later pregnancies. FWIW late-term 
 	   abortions are tradgedies for all involved. D&X is grisly, 
	   but the preferred method in some cases. The law as written
           currently has no provisions for life of the woman at risk 
	   for anything other than a possible defense for the Dr. 
	   performing the procedure. This IMNSHO is putting women at risk.  

	5) FWIW, PP in X is offering full prenatal, delivery, and postnatal
           care to its clients. PP has been responsible for the healthy 
	   delivery of 24 babies so-far this year. Since the average client 
	   makes less than 11K/year and is uninsured, and the average cost 
	   of a vaginal delivery with pre-natal care is about 5K, you can 
	   see another use of the title X money at work. Pre-natal care 
	   saves babies, but that is a facet which may be lost if the 
	   title X money goes.


	Again, based on the above, I can't see the title X money being taken
away. I think this will hurt, not help.



Glen

 DoBson, Dr. DoBson.

	Jim, you forgot the NNTTM!!!  :-)

    	De-funding of title 10 passed committee yesterday.  Now it goes
    	to the full house for vote.
    
    	The paper today said that the money is earmarked for "family
    	planning", but that it is issued as block grants to states, and
    	the states do not have to necessarily use it for that.  In the
    	same way, I can't see what stops Planned Parenthood from using
    	the money however they want once they get it.  (Or why they
    	couldn't do creative bookkeeping to use for abortion funding 
    	what they would have spent on other things had they not received 
    	the grant money.)
    
    	So now this goes to the full House, and if it passes there, it
    	goes to the Senate, and if it passes there it goes to Clinton
    	for his signature or veto.
    
    	This is far from a done deal.

	I hope it does not pass, or that Clinton vetos it. From what I can see,
this is something that will hurt, not help. 


Glen

>	I hope it does not pass, or that Clinton vetos it. From what I can see,
>this is something that will hurt, not help. 

	Can't hurt as much as being torn apart while still alive.

	How many of those that oppose animal vivisection oppose the same
	for human babies?
	

    .126
    
    Amen Tony!

                  <<< Note 750.113 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	This COULD be a good idea if it were done right. Planned Parenthood
>does a lot of very good things for women. To do away with the money they
>receive because their beliefs on abortion is different than your own, is
>defeating more than it is helping. 
    
    	From the New York Times News Service:
    
    	Planned Parenthood director resigns in dispute over goals
    
    
    	Pamela J. Maraldo ... resigned friday after apparently failing
    	to muster a vote of confidence at a board meeting last weekend.
    
    	Sources both inside Planned Parenthood and outside said that
    	Maraldo had aroused opposition with her emphasis on reshaping
    	Planned Parenthood into a broad health organization ...
    	a focus that some of the group's affiliates felt would 
    	inevitably diminish their role as advocates for abortion
    	rights...

 Fascinating...I heard the report on CNN last night.  




 Jim

| <<< Note 750.126 by WRKSYS::CAMUSO "alphabits" >>>

| >	I hope it does not pass, or that Clinton vetos it. From what I can see,
| >this is something that will hurt, not help.

| Can't hurt as much as being torn apart while still alive.

	Title X money is NOT used for abortions. Title X funding is estimated 
to have prevented 50K pregnancies in Colorado alone. Given that 40-50% of 
unplanned pregnancies are terminated in the US, that is 20-25K abortions that 
didn't happen.  So to get rid of it would be foolish.

	It also has paid for prenatal care at clinics, pap smears, and breast 
cancer screening.  Again, to get rid of it would be foolish.


Glen

| <<< Note 750.128 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| From the New York Times News Service:


	Joe, how much of that note was from the paper, and how much of it was
your own opinion?

    	Everything I posted was quoted from the paper.
    
    	As you see from another note, CNN reported it too.

 The report I saw on TV stated precisely what Joe posted.





 Jim

 re .130


 and your source for that info is..?

    A couple of thoughts...
    
    If it comes down to deciding who is telling the truth, the Family
    Research Council (most likely the source for Dr. Dobson's request), or
    Planned Parenthood - whom will you trust?
    
    Some of us view 1.6 million babies killed by abortion each year as a
    horror on the same scale as the Jewish Holocaust.  In as much as it
    would be difficult for a Jew to see the good in anything the Totenkampf
    SS did (the building of a new road, for instance), it is difficult for
    us to see the good in anything Planned Parenthood does, even when not
    directly connected with abortion. 
    
    The thought of ANY public money going to them, for any reason, offends me.  
    
    /John

	You know, if one goes by the last note, aren't you taking everything
they do, whether it be good or bad, and dumping it into the bad catagory? If
they are doing something to prevent pregnancies, one would think you would try
and support something like that. Not to mention all the other things they do to 
help women. You shouldn't condemn the good. 

	If one were to go by the analogy used in the last note, you could not
work for a company that would support things you feel are unChristian. In other
words, you could not work for Digital. 

	I look at where the source would come from on the other side, and I
would have my doubts about it. But if the same person does something good,
their action should not be condemned based on something else. 



Glen

| <<< Note 750.135 by CIVPR1::STOCK >>>

| -< Whom do you trust? >-

	Actually, one last thing..... you should trust God. If there is any
condemning to be done, He will do it. We should not be doing that.


Glen

    	re .136
    
    	I guess the outcome of the internal power struggle as reported 
    	in .128 is meaningless to you.  They don't want you to lose
    	focus of their abortion activities, Glen.  You want to give
    	them credit for more than they want you to!  Surely their 
    	self-description should have more merit than your description
    	of them...  "Why don't you ask them what they are saying, instead 
    	of just telling them ..."

    Margaret Sanger was the founder of the modern birth control movement
    in America during the early 1900's.  An ardent feminist, she opened her
    first birth control clinic in 1916 in Brooklyn, NY.  In 1921 she
    launched the American Birth Control League.  And she founded the Birth
    Control Federation of American in 1939, which was later renamed to the
    Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

    Margaret Sanger's goal was to promote birth control policies designed
    to discourage minorities from having babies and, as she put it, to
    "create a race of thoroughbreds."  In 1919, Sanger wrote: "More
    children from the fit, less from the unfit - that is the chief issue of
    birth control."  In 1916, in her book "Woman and the New Race," Sanger
    wrote that: "The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of
    its infants is kill it."  Remarking on funds given to the blind, the
    deaf and the poor, Sanger argued that the public should be made aware
    of the "terrific cost to the community of this dead weight of human
    waste."  
    
    {Christian Coalition newsletter}

    - Planned Parenthood operates the nation's largest chain of abortion
    facilities.

    - Planned Parenthood's clinics perform between 130,000 and 134,000
    abortions each year in the U.S. and another 6,000 elsewhere in the world.

    - Planned Parenthood's sale of birth control pills provide an estimated
    $65 to $70 million in profits each year to the organization.

    - Planned Parenthood helped form the National Abortion Federation, a
    trade association of abortion clinic operators.

    - Planned Parenthood is a federation of nearly 170 separately
    incorporated corporations with 900 clinics in 49 states.

    - Planned Parenthood's annual budget is $443 million, of which it
    receives about $158 million in grants from the government.

    {Christian Coalition newsletter}

    The 2 main goals of Planned Parenthood, according to their literature
    are:
    
    1. Destroy the innocence of children regarding sexuality at the
    youngest possible age; and
    
    2. Undermine parental authority and the bond between parents and their
    children.
    
    From Planned Parenthood's book "Changing Bodies, Changing Lives":
    
    "If your parents or other adults who play a parental role in your life
    have talked to you about sex, their voice may be saying, 'you're too
    young to be in the back seat with a girl!'  If you feel your parents
    are overprotective, their message may not be helpful.  If they seem to
    fear your sexuality, or if they don't want you to be sexual at all
    until some distant time, you may feel you have to tune out their voice
    entirely."
    
    From Planned Parenthood's "Sex, the First Time or Anytime":
    
    "New Partner?  More than one partner?  Use them!  Condoms prevent
    infection."
    
    From former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton in "How to Talk
    to your Child about Sexuality":
    
    "Using a condom gives effective protection against STDs (sexually
    transmitted diseases) to both partners."
    
    THIS IS FALSE.  The failure rate of condoms in preventing pregnancy is
    10-30%, according to a 1986 study conducted by the U.S. Surgeon General
    Task Force.  But the HIV virus is 450 times smaller than a single sperm
    and 600 times smaller than a typical flaw in the condom.  Moreover, a
    woman can only get pregnant 3-5 days in a month, while she is
    potentially vulnderable to the AIDS virus every day of the year.  In
    other words, condoms are far from safe and do not provide an effective
    barrier to the HIV virus.
    
    {Christian Coalition newsletter}

| <<< Note 750.140 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| - Planned Parenthood's sale of birth control pills provide an estimated
| $65 to $70 million in profits each year to the organization.

	There is something wrong with this?

| - Planned Parenthood is a federation of nearly 170 separately
| incorporated corporations with 900 clinics in 49 states.

	Again, what does this do to discredit them?

| - Planned Parenthood's annual budget is $443 million, of which it
| receives about $158 million in grants from the government.

	What are the grants used for? I think that is key.

	I don't particurly care for the abortions they perform, but it does not
take away the good they do for women. 


Glen

| <<< Note 750.141 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| 1. Destroy the innocence of children regarding sexuality at the youngest 
| possible age; 

	You really should put iyho. I don't see it that way.

| 2. Undermine parental authority and the bond between parents and their 
| children.

	Same as above.

| From Planned Parenthood's "Sex, the First Time or Anytime":
| "New Partner?  More than one partner?  Use them!  Condoms prevent
| infection."

	Hey, this looks like the same things people do to warp what a Bible
passage is talking about. They take one line, and print it. The end result is
it has been taked totally out of context. Let me look this up and see if this
is the case.

| From former Planned Parenthood president Faye Wattleton in "How to Talk
| to your Child about Sexuality":
| "Using a condom gives effective protection against STDs (sexually
| transmitted diseases) to both partners."

	Gee, I wonder what year this was taken from? I will get back to you on
that as well.



Glen

    	Good note!

    .144
    
    Didn't know you could hear me from there. :-)

    The Bible has much to say about innocence of children and parental
    authority.

From:	MPSG::DIEWALD "jill diewald" 26-JUL-1995 09:08:31.99
Subj:	Right-to-life - a concrete thing to do 

Here is something concrete to do to prevent abortions, help people,
and save lives both physically and spiritually.
 
This group came to our Church one sunday about a year ago.
I was very impressed.  Some of our church members help out.
One family is even hosting a girl.

Life Saver Ministries, Inc
P.O. Box 2036
Westford Ma, 01886
508-692-3617

This group takes young pregnant girls who have been thrown
out of their homes because their family rejected them. 
These girls have no where to go.  This group sets up 
"Shepherding Homes", and has a group home too.  These 
homes are Christian homes.  They teach Christian values.
What I like the most about this is that they wind up saving
1 life physically and 2 lives spiritually!  All through
helping lost and confused young girls.  

This is the paragraph from their newletter that I have:
As our name suggests, Life Saver Ministries is about life.  It is about the 
opportunity for young women to give their babies life instead of death.  It is 
about helping young women realize their self worth as unique creations of God.  
It is about teaching young women to restructure their lives so their futures
and those of their children can be lived to their fullest potential.  Life
Saver Ministries is also about rebirth - the finding of new life in a personal 
relationship with Jesus Christ.  

Our Girls:
Of the girls actively involved in Life Saver Ministries at this time
(this newletter is a year old) we have:
4 living in Shepherding Homes
4 living in their own apartments
3 sophomores in high school
one finishing GED program
2 attending college
1 accepted in college for the fall
6 new babies born this year
three 1 year olds
2 two year olds
Biggest baby to date - 10lbs, 15oz

They are looking for:
money, volunteers, people to just talk to the girls, more homes,
help on upkeep on existing homes, churches to sponsor rooms
in their next group home, ...  

Jill2