Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Nancy,
    	I don't know of any "strong religious basis" for a pro-choice
    stand. Abortion was not one of the burning questions of Christ's time
    and I'm not sure it was ever directly and specificly addressed. The
    closest comment to the subject might be "Thou Shalt Not Kill", yet
    there are strong arguments that that does not, or should not, apply to
    a fetus. As you might have gathered, I am strongly in favor or applying
    the Spirit of The Law, and it is THIS that I find allows for abortions.
    	You guessed, I'm Pro-Choice. Did you guess right ? I'm NOT
    Pro-Abortion. I am for allowing a woman to choose, within certain
    restrictions or guidelines, if she will have a child. She should be
    free to choose to practice birth control (the prefered way) or, in some
    situations, to have an abortion. I feel that abortion, like
    over-population, is not a good thing. I can understand how there are
    worse things than having an abortion: having a child due to insest or
    rape or having an unwanted child that would be unloved or having a
    child that would be incurably diseased are some of those things.
    	I do not feel, and am adamant in this, that anyone has nearly the
    right to decide what goes on in a person's body as that person
    themselves. You have no business deciding for me or for my daughter,
    nor we for you. If you love someone you can not justify causing them
    months, or years, or a lifetime of anguish. You cannot. Not if you love
    them.
    	I do feel that you have the right to counsel - but not to badger -
    a woman who is contemplating an abortion. If your negative counsel is
    accepted then you are responsible for easing that woman's burden with
    more than kind words. Are you really ready to take on such a
    responsibility or do you just want to make your point? Are you a loving
    Christian or a bully on a power trip? Do you believe strongly enough to
    back your commitment with your time and money ?  Don't quote me chapter
    and verse, tell me how you love the woman.

    A woman cannot freely choose to have a legal abortion unless she has a
    society that accepts abortion. If you oppose abortion morally,
    then you can not support the right of a woman to have an abortion,
    because she will need support from society to have it. You are as much
    a part of society as those who are are pro-abortion. 

    You may feel that being pro-choice makes you disconnected from abortion,
    but neutrality is often more dangerous than being an activist.

    Winston Churchill said something like, "there are places in hell reserved 
    for those who in time of a moral crises, take a neutral position."
    
    Peace
    Jim

    
    re: .2 (Jim)
    
    But it sounds like Churchill was referring to those people directly 
    involved in making that moral decision.  If I'm not faced with the
    decision personally, then I will never be challenged with my personal
    purgatory.
    
    I'm Pro-choice.  I'm not for abortion.  I have two beautiful children
    that I would do anything for.  But I believe that everyone has to make
    this choice for themselves.
    
    And isn't this the very paradox of what many believe it takes to become
    a Christian?  Ultimately, WE must choose to let HIM/HER in.  No amount of
    legislation will bring that decision about....
    
    guy

    If you have the means to oppose the thing that you find immoral, but
    choose not to, aren't you indirectly responsible for the immorality
    you oppose ?


    Peace
    Jim

    How do people feel about Nancy's request--that "those who disagree
    raise genuine questions but reserve their own views for the pro-life
    string"?  I am inclined to agree that it is a good idea to keep full
    fledged debating in this and the next topic to a minimum, but perhaps
    others would like to see a topic just for debating the issue.  If so,
    then perhaps we can create a new topic for that purpose.

    -- Mike

    
    Jim,
    
    I do oppose the things that I find immoral.  Nothing is so immoral
    as a judgement concerning another's decision when I have NO CLUE in
    any way about their life.  I oppose judgements.
    
    I can hardly claim responsibility for another's actions.
    
    guy

Re: .5  Mike

>    How do people feel about Nancy's request--that "those who disagree
>    raise genuine questions but reserve their own views for the pro-life
>    string"?

As a general rule I'm uncomfortable with restrictions on the free exchange
of ideas.  Of course there's nothing to prevent a pro-lifer from replying
in note 30 to a pro-choice entry in note 29, but it would get confusing
tracking an on-going discussion that was split across two notes.

On the other hand...

The topic of abortion has been beaten to death in other conferences, so I'm
willing to try something new.  A new debating format won't necessarily
lead to new ideas, but it will at least be interesting to see how splitting
the abortion topic into separate notes for the pro-choice and pro-life
sides changes the nature of the debate.  One possible result might be
that people would concentrate on the positive sides of their own arguments
instead of attacking people on the other side.

				-- Bob

    Guy - 
    
    I agree with you but I would take it one step further.  I cannot
    presume to take responsibility for another's conscience or personal
    morals.  What is right for me may not be right for somebody else.  If I
    assume that everyone else's morals are the same as mine then I assume
    that the world is filled with carbon copies of me with my background,
    experiences, upbringing and though patterns.  (How boring for me!  :-)
    
    
    And as far as society deciding what an individual's morals should be -
    I think that there are some things that can be left to personal morals
    on an individual basis.  Otherwise we'll find ourselves in a 1984-style
    world where society doesn't trust the individual enough to make any
    decisions on a personal level.
    
    Nanci

    re .1:
    
    Dave,
    
    I think your reasons for being pro-choice -- "show me how you *love*"
    and applying the Spirit of the Law -- form a pretty "strong religious
    basis" for a pro-choice stand!!  Guess I'm confused that you yourself
    don't see it that way!!
    
    As for the double-string suggestion, that came partly from *one* of the 
    ways abortion is handled in Womannotes.  And, yes, I hope that the
    arguments will be developed better, and be easier to follow, if they
    are presented in separate strings without pro-and-con debate
    intervening.
    
    We shall see...
    
    Nancy

    To be up front, I have mixed feelings about this topic.
    
    I can understand where the Rabid Right is coming from,
    though few of them have little against taking life after
    it gets here (war, capital punishment, etc.).
    
    One the other hand, I can't justify murdering pregnant women
    with illegal, unsanitary, unprofessional conditions as an
    acceptable alternative to unwanted pregnancy, which many
    seem to have no conscience about.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Moderator's note:
    
    I have moved 29.11 to 30.10 in an attempt to maintain the discipline
    requested by the author of basenotes 29.0 and 30.0.
    
    Thanks,
    Richard Jones-Christie
    (Co-)Moderator

    	I missed a point or two in .1, things occured to me on the drive
    home. I'd like to reply first to the accusation that I am neutral to
    abortion and therefore innocent of it. I am not neutral to it, I feel
    that it can be the lesser of two (or many) evils and that it is a valid
    option for some people in some cases. I am not a proponent and I tend
    to offer other solutions when asked - but I try never to condemn anyone
    who must make that difficult decision. No, Jim, I am not neutral.
    
    	First: society has chosen. 80% of the voters in this state have
    said that they feel that abortion should be a socially acceptable
    option. This does not mean that it is not a sin, it certainly means
    that it is not a crime. The religious right tried hard to win that vote
    and the best they could do was win one vote of every five cast. Given
    that more than one in four of those voters was Catholic and that the
    Roman Church offers rabid resistance to abortion, I would say that
    those results represent an unquestionable rejection of the
    Anti-Abortion position, rejection by an informed landslide. The Antis
    called the question and were stomped into the ground.
    	Second: Pro-Choice means that you get to decide for yourself. It
    does not mean that you have to have an abortion, or that you are urged
    to have an abortion, or that abortion is the favored solution to the
    problem of not bearing unwanted children. It means that if a woman does
    NOT want to have a baby AND fails to prevent conception AND feels
    comfortable with choosing to have an abortion, THEN a safe abortion
    should be available to her.
    	Third: we were (supposedly) all created in God's image, an image
    that EXPLICITLY includes "free will". The God-given right to choose to
    do that to which God is opposed. The laws of this country pretty much
    agree with that, given the understanding that your rights end where my
    nose begins. Given that not everyone agrees with the Anti-Abortion
    position, and given that God has given them free will, who are any of
    us to deny anyone the exercise of that free will. Were it a crime we
    would be obliged to oppose it, but it is NOT a crime. If you are
    morally opposed to a legal choice that someone is making then you may
    counsel them, with their tolerance only, about that choice. Any
    stronger action to deny them their right to choose is in direct
    contravention of God's gift to them and their legal rights as a
    citizen. Who are you to question God's wisdom?
    	Fourth: FYI, there are those who oppose even birth control either
    on the grounds that it is against the will of God or because it is
    actually an early abortificant. The ultimate conviction of their logic,
    which I have yet to hear openly espoused, is that every egg is a
    potential baby and it is a sin not to bear every possible child,
    regardless of the costs. These people scare me, fortunatly they are as
    few as they are vociferous.
    	Fifth, and last: I asked the Pro-Lifers to tell me how they would
    love a woman who was driven to seek an abortion. I saw no responses
    that even attempted to speak to that thought. I saw condemnation, is
    this the best you can do for love? I saw cute parlor-trick logic, when
    did Ronnie Regan log in? I saw quibbling about when life begins, a
    debate I might address later. There was nothing saying "I would offer
    to pay the woman's bills and adopt her child, help counsel her parents
    to accept her back into their good graces, help her seek redress from
    the bully who raped her, and promise to hug her every day and twice on
    Sunday". Are you all so morally fine that you can stand apart and
    condemn someone who is being forced - somehow - to do something you
    deem reprehensible without offering a better option? I think that there
    is a special place waiting in Hell, if there is such a place, for
    anyone who would act that way, for they hate rather than love.
    
    Christ IS Love, and Forgiveness
    Judge not, lest ye be judged.
    First, we kill the lawyers.

>    	Fifth, and last: I asked the Pro-Lifers to tell me how they would
>    love a woman who was driven to seek an abortion. I saw no responses
>    that even attempted to speak to that thought.

	I did not see this earlier as I'm not really paying too close 
	attention to this topic (29.*). I have two close relitives who
	have had abortions. I love them no less. However I am proud of
	them both in that after aborting one unwanted pregnancy both
	chose to give a second unwanted baby up for adoption. There families
	were both supportive of this adoption process, helping with love,
	money and other forms of support. This is very common. It's just
	that people tend not to make a big thing of it. It's a private family
	thing. Now I wish they hadn't had any unwanted pregnancies and I
	do believe that they were all avoidable and should have been avoided
	but it is for God to judge them and me to love them.

				Alfred

    Alfred,
    	thank you. I'm glad you have such a loving, supportive and
    understanding family. It would be wonderful if all families were even
    half as marvelous. I hope you all know how lucky you are.

    
                     A question:  Is God pro-choice?  He/she/it does give
    us a choice between heaven and hell.  It *our* choice!
    
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    
    I still have never gotten a clear answer on the biological
    contradictions in re the large number of fertilized eggs that
    fail to implant and when a being is ensouled..
    
    The replies I always get are on the order of 'yeah but, the
    spontaneous abortion involved no conscious choice'  okay, but
    was there a soul there? if not, then why is it wrong to
    end a pregnancy before there is a soul?
    
    so it is not as simple as a choice between heaven and hell....
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
                   I cannot argue the scientific ramifications of the egg
    vs the soul.  My point was...it is your choice to make.  The answers
    you want are not to be found within the relm of science but thru you
    belief in God and the understanding *you* have with your creator.  I
    know what I believe and have made my choice.  Thru the christian belief
    system I will try and help any one thru this horrible choice but the
    ultimate decision is yours and you "own" it.  It is somewhat like my
    Biology teacher in high school asking us (his students) to "define"
    life on the very first day of school.  Its impossible because our
    understanding of life is *so* limited.  Your perception of life differs
    from mine so any all-encompassing defination is impossible...at least
    with our current understanding of "life".
    
    
    Dave

    Dave
    
    I can accept what you just wrote, what I can't accept was your
    previous statement that the choice was one between 'heaven and
    hell'. That to me implies that there is an obvious 'right' choice
    and an 'obvious' wrong choice. Further it implies than any choice
    that involves abortion is a wrong choice.
    
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
                    If God gives us the choice between Heaven or Hell, then
    why are our other choices (abortion) not ours?  To me it is obvious
    that God gives us "freedom" to live our life the way we want.  Of
    course any consequences is also "ours".
    
                    Bonnie, I am not evading your question.  It is a choice
    that only you can make.  My point was God gives us a choice between
    Heaven or Hell.  A more difficult choice cannot be found.  If God
    allows us that choice, why would God interfere in a choice such as
    abortion?  
    
    
    Dave

    Only if you aren't saying that to choose abortion is automatically
    to choose hell..
    
    I agree that God gave us freedom of choice, that He didn't want
    pupetts.
    
    But too often when I get that kind of either or dichotomy from more
    conservative Christians, it is essentially assumed that those of
    us who don't choose against abortion, or some other particular
    issue have chosen hell by such a choice
    
    I don't believe that.
    
    in love
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
                  If you choose to have an abortion, I cannot say to you
    that you *will* go to hell, ok?  What you do in this earth will not
    determine heaven or hell for you....that would be "working" your way to
    heaven.  
    
                 I believe that "Grace" is the only criteria for entrance
    into heaven!  By the way...."Grace" is also yours by choice!
    
    
    Dave

    Bonnie,
                 The question of what "the church" did or did not approve
    is not relevant now.  Its up to you and your God.  I do not believe
    that God will stear you wrong if the question is put with honesty and
    love.  It is *NOT* my place to "tell" you that you are wrong.  I would
    be setting myself up as a god if I did.
    
                Yes, grace is a gift...freely given, but it does not have
    to be accepted.  I am not better than anyone else just because I have
    accepted Gods grace.  A sinner saved by grace is still a sinner..only
    with insurance. :-)
    
    
    Dave

Re:  .16

YES!  God *IS* pro-choice in the sense that you asked the question!

In the sense of this topic, that's another question and since is the
pro-choice view and not the debate (should that be discussion?) note,
I will end my comments here.

Collis

    .23
    
    Hi Bonnie,
    
    You are absolutely incorrect on the "church's" stance on abortion.  It
    has been since very early times addressed and condemned by the
    Catholic church.
    
    jeff

    No Jeff, you are the one who is 'absolutely incorrect'. The
    Roman Catholic church did not regard abortion prior to
    quickening to  be homicide until the late 19th century. Amercian
    Protestant church magazines had discrete ads for abortions aimed
    at ministers well into the mid 20th century.
    
    I recommend for your reading Karen Luker's book Abortion and
    the Politics of Motherhood which is one of the most even handed
    historical analyses of Abortion.
    
    The following two notes are quotes from material that support what I
    said.
    
    Bonnie

The following information is taken from Parade magazine April 22, 1990,
from an article by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan.

"..less than one percent of all tabulated abortions in the United States
are listed in the last three months of pregnancy (and...most such
reports turn out to be due to miscarriage or miscalculation)."

"...40,000 children under 5 [die on our planet] ...every day from
preventable starvation, dehydration, disease and neglect."

"The attempt to find an ethically sound and unambiguous judgment
on when, if ever, abortion is permissible has deep historical roots.
Often, especially in Christian tradition, such attempts were connected
with the question of when the soul enters the body - a matter not
readily amenable to scientific investigation and an issue of controversy
even among learned theologians. Ensoulment has been asserted to occur
in the sperm before conception, at conception, at the time of
'quickening' (when the mother is first able to feel the fetus stirring
within her) and at birth or even later."

"Different religions have different teachings. Among hunter-gatherers
there are usually no prohibitions against abortion, and it was common
in ancient Greece and Rome. The Assyrians impaled women on stakes for
attempting abortions. The Jewish Talmud teaches that the fetus is not
a person and has no rights. ...The Catholic Church's first and long-
standing collection of canon law...held that abortion was homicide only
after the fetus was already 'formed' - roughly, the end of the first
trimester. It was not until 1869 that abortion at any time for any
reason became grounds for excommunication."

    The following material is taken from "Abortion and the Politics of
    Motherhood" by Kristin Luker Phd. Published by the University of
    California Press 1984, ISBN 0-520-005597-7

direct quotes are from chapter 2, pgs. 11 -16.


"Surprising at it may seem, the view that abortion is murder is a relatively
recent belief in American history. To be sure, there has always been a 
school of thought, extending back at least to the Pythagoreans of ancient
Greece, that holds that abortion is wrong because the embryo is the moral
equivalent of the child it will become. Equally ancient, however, is the
belief articulated by the Stoics: that although embryos have some of the
rights of already-born children (and those rights may increase over the
course of the pregnancy), embryos are of a different moral order, and thus
to end their existence by abortion is not tantamount to murder.

reference for this paragraph is:

"Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" ed. James Hastings Vol 6 pp 54-56.
(New York, Scribners)
See also Ludwig Edlestein "the Hippcratic Oath" pp 16-18

"Perhaps the most interesting thing about these two perspectives (which
have coexisted over the last two thousand years) is the fact that modern-day
subscribers to the first point of view - that abortion is always murder -
have been remarkably successful in America at persuading even opponents
that their view is the more ancient and the more prevalent one. Their 
success in this effort is the product of an unusual set of events that occurred
in the nineteenth century, events I call the first 'right to life movement.
.....
Those readers interested in exploring in more detail  the early history
of abortion (or examining the claims made here about that history) can consult
a number of excellent works on that topic."

references:

John Connery "Abortion"
Grisez "Abortion"
Huser "Crime of Abortion"
John Noonan, ed "The Morality of Abortion"
Noonan "Contraception"
Eugene Quay "Justifiable Abortion"
for specific time periods see:
E.Nardi Procurato Aborto Nel Mundo Greaceo-Roman
Jame C, Mohr Abortion in America
R. Hahnel "Der kunstliche Abortus im altertum"
F.J. Dolger "das Lenesrecht"
and
M.Miossides "contribution a l'etude de l'avortement dans 'lantiquite greque"

(I am not going to look up publishers and dates for all of these,
the rest shall be left as an exercise for the serious student,
though I will give them out upon request.)


"In the Roman Empire, abortion was so frequent and widespread that it was
remarked on by a number of authors. Ovid, Juvenal, and Seneca all noted
the existence of abortion, and the natural historian Pliny listed prescriptions
for drugs that would accomplish it. Legal regulation of abortion in the 
Roman law explicity held that the 'child in the belly of its mother' was not
a person, and hence abortion was not murder. After the beginning of the
Christian era, such legal regulation of abortion as existed in the Roman
Empire was designed primarily to protect the rights of fathers rather
than the rights of embryos"

references for this paragraph are:

Juvenal, Sixth Satire ip 149; Seneca "consolation to Helvia" p 473,
Ovid "Heroides and amores" p 425, Grant Showerman p 425, Pliny
"Natural History" pp 142-143..there are also 4 more references on
Roman law.

pg 264 of Luker


"Similarly, although early Christians were actively pro-natalist
and their rhetoric denounced abortion, contraception, homosexuality,
and castration, as all being morally equivalent to murder, the legal
and moral treatment of these acts - and particularly the treatment
of abortion - was never consistent with the rhetoric"

source for the above Noonan, Contraception pp 88-106

"For instance, induced abortion is ignored in the most central Judeo-
Christian writings: it is not mentioned in the Christian or the Jewish
Bible, or in the Jewish Mishnah or Talmud." (a footnote here discusses
Exodus 21-22-23) "Abortion, it is true, was denounced by early Christian
authors such as Clement of Alexandria, Tertullain and St. Basil. But
church councils, such as those of Elvira and Ancyra, which were called
to specify the legal groundwork for Christian communities, outlined
penalties only for those women who committed abortion after a sexual
crime such as adultery or prostitution. Most importantly, perhaps, from
the third century A.D. onward, Christian thought was divided as to whether
early abortion - the abortion of an 'unformed' embryo - was in fact murder."

reference here to the distinction between the formed and unformed embryo,
with multiple references, main one being Noonan "Contraception" 10-12
and Huser "The Crime of Abortion" p 18 and Grisez "Abortion" pp137-55
but also several ancient references such as the Septuagint and Tertullian
and Jerome, and Ivo of Chartres and Gratian.

"Different sources of church teachings and laws simply did not agree
on the penalties for abortion or on whether early abortion was wrong".

The references for this one sentence run to over a paragraph, and in 
the interests of getting this in the file tonight, I will send them
to whomever is interested, rather than typing them in. References
include, Dicache, Grisez, Noonan, Terullain, Simon Wood, Huser, etc.

"In the year 1100 A.D., this debate was clarified, but hardly in the
direction of making abortion at all times unequivocally murder. Ivo
of Chartres, a prominent church scholar, condemned abortion but held
that abortion of the 'unformed' embryo was not homicide, and his work was 
the beginning of a new consensus. Fifty years later Gratian, in a work
which became the basis of canon law for the next seven hundred years,
reiterated this stand."

references for the above paragraph are:

Huser, "Crime of Abortion" pp 38-39 (on Ivo of Chartres) on Gratian
see ibid p 41, (previous classical reference) Noonan ed. "Morality 
of Abortion" p 20 and Grisez, Abortion p 152.

"The 'formation' of an embryo (sometimes known as 'annimation' or 
'vivication') was held to happen at forty days for a male embryo and
at eighty days for a female embryo; the cannonist Roger Huser argues 
that in questions of ambiguity the embryo was considered female."

[interesting side light here, those numbers entered into the folk
lore, I recall my Italian (Scilian) illiterate, landlady telling
me when I was pregnant that it was 40 days for a boy and 80 days
for a girl, and having *no idea* what she was talking about!]

"In practice then, Gratian's rulings, which remained intact until
the nineteenth century, meant that even Catholic moral theology and
canon law - which were, in effect, the moral and legal standard
for the courts - did not treat what we would now call first trimester
abortions as murder." (And given the difficulty in ascertaining
when pregnancy actually began, in practice this toleration must have
included later abortions as well.)"

references for this paragraph are

"For the place of canon law in Western history see R.C. Mortimer, 
"Western Cannon Law"

I would encourage anyone who is truly interested in this subject
to read Dr. Luker's book and to reference her sources.

Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    	"The Church" has changed its mind on a number of issues over the
    past few centuries. Very few religious organizations continue to sell
    salvation, and those who still do are quite public about it. No
    religion that I know of still supports the ruler's rite de seignor, the
    right - among other things - to sleep with all new brides. None, that I
    know of, still consider a child to be the property of the father, to do
    with as he will. Some things change for the better, others change to
    preserve the rights of the churches to dominate their members.
    
    Jeff,
    	you seem to have had a protected education, protected from that
    which your teachers were ashamed of. Some teachers - preachers?- feel
    justified in re-writing history either through selective memory or
    out-right lie. The nuns at my high school chose selective memory, they
    denied knowlege of any information that showed the church to be
    culpable. They never said it wasn't true, just that they weren't aware
    of it. My public school teachers would share the information if asked
    but it was not in the syllabus nor was it volunteered. 
    
    	DaveM

    DaveM
    
    I'm quite aware that 'the church' has changed its mind on many
    different areas over the years. When I was growing up, for
    example, most Roman Catholic churches preached that Prostestants
    were not Christians and were doomed to hell. Some of the more
    conservative Protestants called the Romans 'idol worshipers' and
    returned the favor of not considering them Christian.
    
    sigh.
    
    Bonnie

    	Yeah, I didn't mention that those same nuns called all you
    non-Catholics heretics - and quoted the Bible for support. It really
    hurt my Mom when they had to stop using Latin and start saying the Mass
    in words people could understand. Now, who wants to understand what the
    priest is saying? Never mind, I can be a little cruel when I hearken
    back to my days as a Mackeral Snapper. 
    
    DaveM (to avoid confusion with DaveD)

    By the way, I would like to say that I didn't get into this dicussion
    to try and 'convert' people or start a soapbox type discussion, it is
    just that I've never been able to get into a serious discussion with
    Christian people on the ensoulment issue, i.e. when does a developing
    fetus receive a soul. From my view point as a Biologist I can't accept
    conception. I tend towards the traditional time of 'quickening' since
    it does have scriptural basis (as mentioned in earlier notes abot
    babies leaping in wombs etc.) which is actually younger than the age
    when there is true brain wave activity (to balance the beginning of
    life with our standard of ending life, the loss of brain wave
    activity.)
    
    This is actually the point I'd like to discuss.
    
    Thank you all for your patience.
    
    Bonnie

    re: -1 Bonnie
    
                     I don't *know* when "ensoulment" takes place...and
    neither do you.  "I" would not want to take the chance I might be
    wrong.  IMHO of course... and also since I'm a man, its a moot
    question. :-)
    
    
    Dave

    Why wouldn't ensoulment be at the same time that the fetus becomes a
    person?  What's the difference?  (See new string -- #40 -- for
    discussion of what a soul is.)

    Nancy
    
    That is what I belive, that the soul enters the developing body
    at about the time it becomes a person, i.e. becomes able to
    think with the mind.
    
    I have a problem with an undying soul being sent to each 
    fertilized egg where it would have no consciouness, and where
    40% or more would have an earthly life of hours or days. 
    
    Bonnie

    Richard,
    
    I sure can't see anything in Bonnie's note that you quoted that is
    slamming the R.C. church specifically!  Brought up a Protestant in the
    Bible belt, I can certainly tell you -- as the note you quoted from
    Bonnie said -- that Protestants thought Roman Catholics were doomed
    just as much as vice versa.
    
    Sorry if you're feeling uncomfortable here; :( we don't want you to!
    For many centuries, the Roman Catholic Church *was* the only Christian
    church there was -- and it changed its mind on many things during those
    hundreds of years.  That's historical fact that does not in any way IMHO
    represent a criticism of today's R.C. church.  If any criticism is
    involved it is directed at *all* of us Christians who trace our history
    to the early R.C. Church!
    
    
    Nancy

    Re: .36 Bonnie
    
                   No, Bonnie, don't ingore facts as you see them, but when
    it comes to a "life" that God has made then I believe that God should
    be the final authority.  Speculating on scientific evidence is fine and
    lots of fun manytimes.
    
    RE: Jim
    
                 This conference *needs* all viewpoints and if you should
    leave and decide not to note here anymore, we will be that much less. I
    have known Bonnie for several years (thru notes and Vaxmail only) and I
    will assure you that any insult or put down that you might percieve was
    unintentional on her part.  I am sure that Bonnie will tell you that
    herself.  I for one would regret you decision to leave.
    
    
    Dave 
    

    Jim .38,
    
    I don't see that Bonnie's statement was a slander to the Catholic
    Church.  I see the statement of hers which you quoted as an example 
    of how the churches have changed opinions over the years.
    
    Another example which I can offer is that when my mother (a Protestant)
    was in her early twenties her best girlfriend (a Catholic) was to be
    married and wanted my mother to be her maid of honor.  The Catholic
    Church strictly forbade it, nor for her to even be in the wedding party
    because she was Protestant.  Since then the Catholic Church has relaxed
    those kinds of views.
    
    I really don't believe any slander was meant to you or your religion.
    
    As far as feing a little uncomfortable here, it is a very uncomfortable
    emotional topic.  I don't think there is any way a discussion can take
    place without someone (everyone) feeling uncomfortable.  I hope you'll
    consider staying.
    
    As far as 
    
    > ...whenever pro-life people challenge pro-choice statements, we're
    > told take it to another note.
    
    it may be a little confusing because we have 3 notes set up in this
    conference to discuss similar themes.  Notes 29 & 30 are supposed to be
    more for discussion purposes, note 31 is for debate.  
    
    I'm not clear in understanding your feeling that there is a
    double-standard being upheld here;  do you mean individually or as a
    conference?  If you're feeling that this note conference is upholding a
    double-standard, I would like to become aware of it and address the
    issue.
    
    peace,
    
    Karen
    (co-moderator)

   re:41

    
>    I don't see that Bonnie's statement was a slander to the Catholic
>    Church.  I see the statement of hers which you quoted as an example 
>    of how the churches have changed opinions over the years.

    Making statements about the Catholic Church's teaching that are either
    false or at least inaccurate in the context of this note and conference, 
    to me is slanderous.    
  
    >  Another example which I can offer is that when my mother (a Protestant)
>    was in her early twenties her best girlfriend (a Catholic) was to be
>    married and wanted my mother to be her maid of honor.  The Catholic
>    Church strictly forbade it, nor for her to even be in the wedding party
>    because she was Protestant.  Since then the Catholic Church has relaxed
>    those kinds of views.

So I'll ask you also. What does this have to do with the base note ?
        
>    I really don't believe any slander was meant to you or your religion.

     The intent my be innocent, but the note is out of context with the 
     base note and I don't understand why it wasn't addressed.

>    As far as feing a little uncomfortable here, it is a very uncomfortable
>    emotional topic.  I don't think there is any way a discussion can take
>    place without someone (everyone) feeling uncomfortable.  I hope you'll
>    consider staying.

    Well, I don't agree. When a particular religion is being spoken about
    which is out of context from the base note, I get the idea that the
    moderators are insensitive to those of that religion.
         
>    As far as 
>    
>    > ...whenever pro-life people challenge pro-choice statements, we're
    > told take it to another note.
    
>    it may be a little confusing because we have 3 notes set up in this
>    conference to discuss similar themes.  Notes 29 & 30 are supposed to be
>    more for discussion purposes, note 31 is for debate.  

>    I'm not clear in understanding your feeling that there is a
>    double-standard being upheld here;  do you mean individually or as a
>    conference?  If you're feeling that this note conference is upholding a
>    double-standard, I would like to become aware of it and address the
>    issue.

    Read .5 of this note and note 30.24 and perhaps you'll see why I'm a
    little confused why Bonnie's notes that addressed Catholic teaching were
    not adressed the same way.


    Jim

        
    

    I also didn't see Bonnie's comments as a slam against Roman
    Catholicism.  As I saw it, she was making the observation that Roman
    Catholics and Protestants are more tolerant of one another than they
    used to be.  If anything, that sounds more like a compliment of modern
    Catholicism (and modern Protestantism) than an insult of either faith.

    -- Mike

re Note 29.40 by DPDMAI::DAWSON:

>     Re: .36 Bonnie
>     
>                    No, Bonnie, don't ignore facts as you see them, but when
>     it comes to a "life" that God has made then I believe that God should
>     be the final authority.  Speculating on scientific evidence is fine and
>     lots of fun manytimes.
  
        I have no doubt that God not only should be but IS the final
        authority.

        However, God's not available for questioning (at least not in
        a way that we can all witness together).

        What do exist are many examples of the handiwork of God. 
        Perhaps the foremost of these are biological systems.  Another
        example of God's handiwork are the inspired Scriptures.

        I suspect that if Bonnie feels as I do then she feels that
        one has an obligation to study all the evidence that God has
        given us -- both Scriptural and physical.  Certainly, the
        interpretation of the physical world is subject to errors and
        the bias of preconceived notions -- but so is the
        interpretation of Scripture.  The person who studies one to
        the exclusion of the other has just magnified their chances
        of being wrong in their conclusions -- perhaps very wrong.

        Jesus said that he would send the Holy Spirit to teach us all
        things (John 14:26).  "All things" would certainly include
        biology, and a lot of other subjects not discussed, or only
        briefly mentioned, in Scripture.

        Bob

    Jim .42,
    
    If there is something in error in the Catholic teachings that you
    quoted in .38, please correct it.  I grew up Protestant and what
    I was taught is consistent with what Bonnie noted.  If your experience
    is different, please offer some clarity.
    
    > So I'll ask you also.  What does this have to do with the base note?
    
    The church's viewpoint (and evidence of changing viewpoints) has 
    everything to do with the base note.  That is one of the main points 
    of debate on this subject.  The specific examples cited were not about
    pro-life or pro-choice if that's what you mean.  For that maybe we
    digressed from the subject, but I still don't understand the intensity
    of your emotional response to them Jim.
    
    Again, if something was said that was in error, it would be most
    helpful if you offered clarification.  Also, what is the connection
    between Bonnie's note and .5 of this string (Mike Valenza) and 30.24
    (Nancy Smith) which you referred to?
    
    Karen

        In light of some of the recent discussion under this note
        about slander, unfair characterization of certain groups, and
        using names for others that are not of their own choosing,
        does this conference need some sort of a topic for such
        discussions, in order to keep them from disrupting the main
        discussion of a string?

        I think that we need to be able to mention and discuss such
        problems, but separately.

        (Don't reply to this note;  reply to me or one of the
        moderators, or start such a topic!)

        Bob

         <<< LGP30::DUA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 29.38                Abortion: the Pro-Choice View                 38 of 46
PCCAD1::RICHARDJ "Bluegrass,Music Aged to Perfectio" 21 lines   3-OCT-1990 08:25
                   -< Double Standard's For Pro-Abortionist >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    re:Bonnie
    
>    I'm quite aware that 'the church' has changed its mind on many
>    different areas over the years. When I was growing up, for
>    example, most Roman Catholic churches preached that Prostestants
>    were not Christians and were doomed to hell. Some of the more
>    conservative Protestants called the Romans 'idol worshipers' and
>    returned the favor of not considering them Christian.
    
What does this ambiguous statement have to do with the pro-choice view ?    

    Seems like there's a double standard being upheld here. Pro-abortionist
    can slander the Catholic Church, which has nothing to do with
    pro-choice, but whenever pro-life people challenge pro-choice
    statements, we're told take it to another note.

    As a Roman Catholic, I'm starting to feel a little uncomfortable here
    and may decide not to note in this conference anymore.


    Jim

    I would like to appologise for the misunderstanding about my note.
    Those who said that I was using the changes in how Roman Catholics
    and Protestants view each other are indeed correct. I meant no
    insult to any Roman Catholic. That church and the protestant churches
    have changed greatly in the past 30+ years in their understanding
    of each other.
    
    Bonnie

    Well Bonnie,
    	       after re-reading everything here, I feel I should apologize
    to you, for shooting from the hip as I did. I hereby offer you my
    peace pipe and hope that I did not disrupt any harmony in your day.


    Peace
    Jim

    Bonnie & Jim,
    	I'm glad you two made up, it was starting to look like we had a war
    starting and it might have been MY fault. Bonnie got a little off the
    topic by mentioning the historical attitude changes and then I took it
    about three steps further and included some stuff that might offend a
    younger Catholic. I apologize to both of you (and to those who have
    waded through the results) for that slip. As an X-Catholic I sometimes
    make free with expounding upon the worst past excesses of the church,
    thus leaving the mistaken impression either that it is still that way
    or that those excesses once defined it. Neither is true. The RC church
    has much good in its past to balance its faults there and it has
    changed considerably even within the life of the youngest college
    graduate (never mind how far back *I* remember).
    	Now, back to the debate.

    thankyou Jim
    
    Since we've been mail friends before out of the birding notes file
    I was especially upset to have offended you (tho I'd be upset to
    offend anyone).
    
    I don't know if the practices of small town local churches were
    actually the policy of the world wide Roman Catholic church at
    the time. However, the Roman church has changed wonderfully
    since the Vatican councils.
    
    peace
    
    Bonnie

    By the way, 

    I don't know where the note is, these three separate notes on
    abortion confuse me, but someone countered my quotes from
    Sagan and Luker by a long series of references about how the
    Roman Catholic church has always been against abortion. I see
    no contradiction between what I wrote and the quotes entered,
    as long as it is understood that those writings were about
    abortion *after* the stage of viability, not before. I personally
    would not support abortion after viability/ensoulment unless
    you are talking about saving the life of the mother, rape or
    incest.

    I'd like to add here that our 3rd son, 4th child by age and 5th
    by when he was adopted, is a special needs child. He is microcephalic,
    legally blind, motor impaired, and mildly retarded. He has an older
    biological sister (same bio parents) who is gifted and talented. His
    father, when he was born had two normal bio children. He has no
    genetic defects. The cause of his impairment is given as 'fetal
    insult' due to high fever experienced by his mother during the
    early months of pregnancy. It is my feeling that he was damaged by
    a failed self induced abortion. To prevent more kids like Stevie
    is one reason that I support safe legal early abortion. and no, I
    don't think Stevie would have been better off not having lived..
    I love him, and he is one of the big joys of my life...I just wanted
    to say that when women are desperate and there is no legal abortion,
    and thus no way to council women about the choices, there are living
    children that suffer too.

    peace

    Bonnie

    Thanks Bonnie,
    		    this morning is off to a good start !


    I think the biggest cause of stress in this issue is that we're trying
    to speak about a lot of things concerning abortion in the context of
    three files. If something is said here that I would like to address, I
    feel handcuffed, because I would have to go to the debate note in order
    to make my point. This seems to blow away any sense of continuity.

    At any rate, I've come to realize that there are as many arguments to
    justify pro-choice as there are to justify pro-life. It's like there
    are as many good reasons to be an atheist as their are to be a
    believer.
     
    As a result, I'm going to take a retreat from the issue for a while, in 
    order to develop more understanding, and take time to listen to God.

    I feel however that notes 29, & 30 should be combined into 31. So that
    there can be a better means to have constructive dialog. But that's just 
    my opinion.


    Peace
    Jim

    Not all may have noticed that the title of this topic has had
    SRO added; SRO meaning Sympathetic Replies Only.
    
    It can be safely assumed that entries made in 29 and 30 are not
    intended for purposes of debate.  Both are SRO topics.
    
    Entries in 31 are subject to debate as indicated in 31.0.
    
    Thank you,
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-Moderator

re Note 29.53 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Not all may have noticed that the title of this topic has had
>     SRO added; SRO meaning Sympathetic Replies Only.
  
        And I thought that SRO stood for "Supportive Replies Only".
                                          ----------

        Bob

    Well, in either case, it doesn't stand for "Standing Room Only".  :-)
    
    -- Mike

I am Pro-Choice for a woman to make the choice for aborting her
fetus. I am against abortion unless it's the ONLY way to save the
woman for emotional or physical health. I know from personal
experience that aborting a fetus can wreck emotional and
spiritual havoic.

My spouse has been warned not to get pregnant since she will
suffer more damage to her already fragile health.

My views of abortion are not that of the Episcopal Church.

calvin

    
    	I think in an earlier note (maybe the base) that questions were
    allowed.  There are some burning questions that I have wanted to ask
    Pro-choice folks for a looong time.
    
    	1) Are there any dependable statistics the document the number
    	   of abortions (%-wise) that are for the reasons of rape, incest,
    	   or of possible physical defects of the fetus?  (since this seems
    	   to be the primary reasons that most people support abortion)
    
    	2) Honestly, what would be the first council that you would give
    	   to a young highschool girl that is pregnant and doesn't want
    	   or couldn't afford to have a baby.
    
    	3) When would you say that life begins; and if you are not sure
    	   (who 'really' is) how can you justify terminating what may be
    	   one living being for the 'conveinence' of another.
    

Re: .57  Ed

>    	I think in an earlier note (maybe the base) that questions were
>    allowed.

Yes, in her base note Nancy said that people opposed to the pro-choice
position could ask genuine questions, but should reserve their own comments
for the pro-life not.

>    	1) Are there any dependable statistics the document the number
>    	   of abortions (%-wise) that are for the reasons of rape, incest,
>    	   or of possible physical defects of the fetus?  (since this seems
>    	   to be the primary reasons that most people support abortion)
    
I don't know the statistics, but I suspect that it's a low percentage?
However, that isn't the primary reason that I support the right to abortion.
My primary reason is that I think a woman has a right to control her own
body.  I wouldn't take away that right unless there were *clear* evidence
that the fetus was a person in his or her own right.

>    	2) Honestly, what would be the first council that you would give
>    	   to a young highschool girl that is pregnant and doesn't want
>    	   or couldn't afford to have a baby.
    
My first question (assuming that I wasn't her father) would be whether she
had discussed this with her parents.  If her family was supportive then
maybe she'd find that having the baby and keeping it wasn't out of the
question after all.  I'd strongly encourage her to talk about it with her
parents, but if she refused to do this than I wouldn't force her.

The next option, if she doesn't want to give birth and keep the baby, would
be to give the baby up for adoption.  This would be hard to do without her
parents knowing about it, though (another plug for telling her parents).

The third option would be abortion.

>    	3) When would you say that life begins; and if you are not sure
>    	   (who 'really' is) how can you justify terminating what may be
>    	   one living being for the 'conveinence' of another.
    
Life is a continuing process, so it's somewhat arbitrary to say at one point
an individual life begins.  Genetically I tend to agree that life begins at
conception.  I don't consider this to be an important moment for deciding
when a pregancy can be terminate, though.  A more important cut-off point,
IMO, is when the fetus develops brain activtity (alpha waves, for example) and
becomes conscious.  If the fetus doesn't have a sufficiently developed brain
then it can't suffer during the abortion and it can't be aware that it is
being killed; it isn't a person but only a potential person.

As for how I can justify abortion, see my answer to question 1.

To respect the format that Nancy has set up, if you'd like to respond with
your own comments in note 30 (the pro-life view) or 31 (abortion debate).

				-- Bob

    re: .l57
    
    Basically I agree with Bob (.58) except to add that it is frequently 
    (possibly "usually") *not* good for the physical health of a "young high 
    school girl" to go through a pregnancy and birth.  Too often, she is
    not through growing herself, even though she is capable of becoming
    pregnant.  
    
    I do not believe it is good for the health and welfare of any "young"
    high school girl to carry a pregnancy to term and to give birth.  That
    does *not* mean, however, that I would pressure her into having an
    abortion.  It *does* mean that her youth and maturity would be
    important considerations for me.
    
    Nancy

                                                                
    I would like to see focus brought to the issue of conception
    prevention.    
    
    Pro-choice and pro-life are after-the-fact.
    
    There is this place where both 'sides' could work together for the
    betterment of all.  Yet the fights and debates continue, and millions
    of dollars are being wasted in the process.
    
    Cindy

< Note 29.60 by CGVAX2::PAINTER "And on Earth, peace..." >
                        -< A different view altogether >-
Cindy,

Pro-choice is not a "side"; rather, it maintains that a person
has a choice to make.

Pro-abortion or pro-life are, indeed after that fact that a
person had already made the fact.

To me, I have a choice (seeming condoned by all) when I have to
make a choice about going to war. I can get into a bomber and
kill all lives that the bombs fall on or I can object and not go
to war at all. The only difference is, society says that I do
have that choice even though most people is against me being a
war objector.

It's the same when the choice comes to abortion. I maintain that
a person has that choice. In this case, some folks are saying
that the person CAN NOT make that choice.

THAT is my different point of view.

calvin

    Cal,
    
    I hear what you are saying.  At the same time, I hear Cindy
    saying "What preventive measures are we willing to consider
    so that a choice won't have to be made later on?"
    
    Abstinence?  Contraception?  Surgical preventive measures?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

           -< Does "right to life" means I cannot die with dignity? >-

In today's newspaper, there was the news of Nancy Cruzan's death;
eight years after she "died" in a car crash. Now, her family may
live in solice that she is finally "dead" and can be buried.

What really got to me was the same folks who are the
PRO-LIFE are there to try to re-force feed her comatose
body. I am really glad that I live in a state that recognizes my
right to death when that is my wish not to be a living vegetable
by my signed "living will".

calvin

    re: .63
    Me too.
    
    Nancy

    I have recently signed a Living Will, also!
    
    Richard

Richard,

Have you been following the news about a Colorado state senator,
Bob Schaffer? He has proposed legislation that you designate a
spokesperson to speak for you when you are in a coma and wish to
die. This locks out any friends from coming forward and say that
you had a conversation that you did not want to live as a
vegetative being. The senator wants to be sure that friends like
Nancy Cruzan cannot come forward later to convince that you had a
wish to die with dignity.

This legislation also wants to limit how far in advance that you
may have a living will.

Bob Schaffer is a right-to-lifer with a hidden agenda. A few
years back, he proposed legislation that ANY form of
contrecepation be limited to minors with parental consent.

Those of us that does not support abortion as a method of birth
control but support the right for choice had better watch the
company we keep (I included).

calvin

    
    Since this is a prochoice point of view, I'm entering it in this
    string rather than in 30.
    
    I'm posting here some information on how the U.S. abortion ruling
    called the Mexico City Policy, has affected maternal health and
    abortion rates in the third world.
   
    The information is exerpted from Scientific American August, 1991.
    The source of the information is the World Health Organization,
    Population Council and Worldwatch Institue. Earlier this summer
    the Boston Globe which is my local paper published a much longer
    exerpt of the WHO report, and I assume that many other papers must
    have done so also.

    "The Mexico City policy was announced at a family-planning conference
    in Mexico city in 1984. The rule denies U.S. foreign aid to any
    organization that performs abortions, advises women on abortions,
    or lobbies on behalf of rights, even if these activities are supported
    by non-US funds."

    "...Sally J. Paterson, a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood, contends
    that the Mexico City policy may actually have led to a rise in
    the number of unitended pregnancies and abortions in the Third
    World by reducing the availability of other forms of contraception.
    'We suspect,' she adds, that the policy has caused and increase
    in the number of women dying from unsafe abortions.'

    This increase,  btw, is due to abortions being performed by
    untrained midwives, who use unhygenic methods, since help
    from medical personel is not available. 

    Lack of U.S. funds and research into alternatives to abortion,
    lack of funds to teach midwives hygenic procedures, lack of
    local funds to provide for clinics, especially in rural areas
    have all contributed to this problem. (summary mine)

    According to WHO "abortion related deaths are rising throughout 
    Asia (China excepted) and Africa"..."such deaths now account for 
    31 percent of all recorded maternal deaths in Bengladesh and 25 
    percent in Ethiopia.''...in six Latin American countries...unsafe 
    abortion is already the leading killer of women in their twenties 
    and thirties and the second leading cause in another six.''
    
   "The World Health Organization has estimated that some 200,000 women 
    die every year of complications from improper abortions."" ""...birth 
    control remains largely unpracticed in many nations."" ""...50 to 60 
    percent of couples in Latin America, 60 to 80 percent in low-income 
    Asian nations (China excepted), 75 percent in the Middle East and 
    North Africa and 90 percent in sub-Saharan Africa do not use any form 
    of modern contraception. Yet most couples in Latin America and Asia 
    and a growing percentage in the Middle East ...wish to space the 
    timeing or limit the number of their children."
    
    With out contraceptives and modern medical clinics, the incidence
    of unsafe abortions can do nothing but climb. Especially in parts
    of the world that will be increasingly hard hit by the effects of
    poverty. (thoughts mine)
    
    It appears to me that the direct result of banning U.S. funds has
    been an increase in abortion in general and unsafe abortion and
    maternal deaths in particular in third world countries.

    I personally feel that for a well fed American to sit in judgement
    of a third world couple and decree that the only acceptable choices
    to them are to abstain from marital relations, or to bring childre
    into the world to starve is totally unacceptable, and contrary to
    what it means to be a Christian.

    Bonnie
    

    In re 30.51
    
    Collis
    
    Then how do you suggest dealing with the problem outlined in 29.67
    
    Bonnie

    Jack,
    
    You missed 
    
    Contraception, including prescriptions and fittings for Diaphrams and
    Cervical caps.
    
    Sterilization or Sterilization referrals and counseling.   (men and
    women)
    
    Cancer screening and some cancer treatments.  Referrals to Dr's who are
    willing to treat medically indigent women. (One reason a friend omine
    is still alive, after having a 3 pound cancerous tumor and her uterus
    removed, and one friend had her fears relieved after they referred her
    for a needle biopsy.
    
    Adoption referral and counseling, both for bio and adoptive parents.  
    
    Keeping your baby couseling referals to groups, such as Lifesupport for
    assistance with clothing, baby furniture, 
    
    Referrals to WIC, social services, and anyone else who can be of
    assistance for families in crisis.  
    
    STD screening, treatment and referral, as well as treatment for other
    GYN problems.  
    
    referral for counseling and drug/alcohol abuse treatment
    
    Gyn/OB care for women in the prison system.  
    
    Well Baby clinics in some locations.
    
    child care referrals
    
    Shelter referrals for both homelessness and battering victims
    
    Studies for treatment of gyn problems, new contraceptive devices, and
    training for Dr's on fitting some devices, such as cervical caps.   
    
    housing referrals.
    
    Menopausal treatments and care
    
    VERY GOOD books on reproduction, change of life (pre and post
    menstrual) issues, as well as marriage, life choices and gay
    acceptance.  
    
    Fact's of life and life skills curriculums for teens.  
    
    Other places may offer even more services.  This has been brought to
    light over and over, however some people prefer to ignore this and
    focus on abortions which some clinics offer and others may refer to. 
    Not every PP clinic does abortions, and all offer services other than
    abortion
    meg

	Meg, thanks for the list. 

	Jack.... I think the last paragraph of what Meg wrote rings true for
you. Can you clarify on if that is true or not?

 Well, let's repost it and see....
    
 Z   Other places may offer even more services.  This has been brought to
 Z   light over and over, however some people prefer to ignore this and
 Z   focus on abortions which some clinics offer and others may refer
 Z   to.  Not every PP clinic does abortions, and all offer services other
 Z   than abortion
    
   Yes Glen...I do ignore all those other positive attributes.  I acknowledge
    they are there, and I find them to be commendable.
    
    Think of it this way Glen.  You have a friend who just built a house on
    a hill.  It has a beautiful interior and is impressive in its
    architecture.  Now imagine if you will that somehow a raccoon crawled
    through a flu pipe and the vent abutts the inside of a closet.  The
    raccoon dies and is wedged in the pipe.  It's been a few weeks now and
    everytime the heater kicks on, a god awful death odor permeates
    throughout the house.
    
    See my point Glen?  The house is beautiful but there is something dead
    in there.  This, unfortunately negates any goodness the house has to
    offer.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, that would only work if you knew what the good was with PP> You
did not know until Meg listed them. Face it, your assumptions on PP are based
on abortions, and you knew nothing of what they really do there as a whole.

    A reminder that this is the SRO topic.  Opposing views that are up for
    discussion should be entered into the "Discussion and debate" topic,
    Note 31.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE
    

    Meg,
    
    I really do appreciate those at the Colorado Springs PP who refer those
    not inclined to abortion to the Colorado Springs Pregnancy Center.
    
    Leonard

    Leonard,
    
    and did you know PP volunteers also work at Life Support?