"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
in message news:<ck7bq2$fgm$1@titan.btinternet.com>...

Papa Jack replied:
June, you help me prove my point. All sensible folks understand
that pregnancy and childbirth involves great courage and pain.
Most cultures have ways of expressing respect for that -- i.e.,
Mother's Day,

However, as you expressed so well, NORMAL women have a desire
toward motherhood. They instinctly want the experience of
"growing" a brand new human being.

The FACT is that pregnancy is a truely inconvenient and
uncomfortable experience. I've watched enough women close
to me over the years to fully understand that. We also
comprehend that birth is a dangerous and painful experience.

But, since so many women are like you, June -- i.e., willing
to forgo the discomfort and pain to gain the children you
yearn for, I have a problem with using that as justification
for healthy women "choosing" to kill their unborn children.

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
in message news:<ck7bq2$fgm$1@titan.btinternet.com>...

===========================================================================

June Gill wrote:
The simple answer is that I wanted children so much that I was prepared to
go through that hell in order to get them and there was no other way at the
time. I'd have been first in line for a surrogate to have them for me! :)
My first child arrived at a very inconvenient time (contraceptive failure),
when we just didn't have the money to raise one - my husband was at college
doing his teacher-training and I was only paid a pittance for the work I was
doing (because I was a woman) and I was fired as soon as my employer knew I
was pregnant - but we knew that our parents wouldn't let us starve, so
abortion was never even considered. I know you've read my account of her
birth at:

http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/cb/cb.html

and certainly I did vow at the time that there would be no more, but after
five years I ached for another baby, so we planned one. Unfortunately the
best laid plans of mice and men 'gang aft aglay' and I lost the second one
at 12 weeks. So we tried again and my elder son was born a year or so
later. Not just unfortunately, but tragically, he was autistic, see:

http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/autism/autism.html

and after that there was no way that we would risk having another child.
However, another contraceptive failure produced my younger son - to our
unmitigated delight, so there you have it: why I went through hell four
times (well, three really - the miscarriage didn't hurt me physically, just
emotionally).

===========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:

But, since so many women are like you, June -- i.e., willing
to forgo the discomfort and pain to gain the children you
yearn for, I have a problem with using that as justification
for healthy women "choosing" to kill their unborn children.

"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
in message news:<ck7bq2$fgm$1@titan.btinternet.com>...

June Gill wrote:
I know that you are a Christian, and I respect your right to
believe what you wish, but to me the above is just a fairy tale
- do you respect my right to believe that?...

Papa Jack responded:
Yep, I believed much the same for over 30 years until I
returned to the religion of my youth awhile back.

I respect your "RIGHT" to believe the Bible is a "fairy
tale" -- but, remember I certainly don't agree with your
evaluation.

June Gill wrote:
...If so, why should what you believe be the standard
for the behaviour of everyone else, via the law,...

Papa Jack commented:
I DON'T.

Remember, we're talking about abortion -- the killing of
living human beings in an early stage of development. The
taking of human life is a major legal issue in every
culture -- regardless of the religious beliefs they hold.

I'm sure the great majority of athiests and agnostics
would agree governments must establish clear laws on the
subject of killing human beings. We have codified various
laws on the topic of homicides -- i.e., murders, manslaugh-
ters, executions, and so forth.

Abortion is NOT a religious issue. It's an issue as to whether
or not women should have the right to pay someone to kill their
unborn children.

It's an issue of the scope of human rights.

June Gill wrote:
...especially since no-one has come up with one shred of
objective proof for that belief?

Papa Jack smiled:
This is not the time or place for THAT discussion. But,
have you ever looked at the mathamatical probility that
an entire universe of the mindbending complexity of ours
just happened by accident? 8^)

June Gill wrote:
...Urge other Christians to accept your ways by all means,
because it would be unlikely to be an imposition on them,

Papa Jack laughed:
Actually, various Christian groups experience great difficulties
in finding common ground on religious beliefs.

June Gill wrote:
...but the law affects everyone, believers and non-believers
alike. Would you seriously try to force vegetarians to eat
meat because you think it's OK to do so? Or would you be
prepared to forego meat yourself at the behest of vegetarians?
Their beliefs are equally as strong as yours, and this can be
said for all the religions in the world.

Papa Jack commented:
June, I'm not trying to force you to pray three times a day
while facing East. Nor am I proposing that you be required
to give a set percentage of your income to a state church.

Again, we're talking about stopping the killing of healthy
unborn children for the convenience of their parents.

not religious -- that's civilization.

June Gill wrote:
The legality of abortion is not a prescriptive law: those
who believe it to be wrong are not obliged to have an
abortion, anymore than teetotallers are forced to drink
alcohol even though the law permits it.

Papa Jack commented:
That's a illogical example.

How about, comparing legal abortion limitations to legal child
abuse limitations?

don't believe in beating or starving children, then just
don't beat or starve your own -- but, quit trying to force
your moral standards on everyone else?

That wouldn't sell very well, would it, June? Stop and
think why not? All normal adults have protective feelings
toward little children -- even strangers' children. It's
almost an instinct.

countries, I would guess that's a common trait among most
of the civilizations of the world.

But, you Pro-Aborts try to deny that protective feeling
when it comes to unborn children.

convince others that these wee living beings are not
really human beings because they're small -- or less
developed.

small, helpless, and less developed.

On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 00:36:18 +0000 (UTC), "junegill"
<junegill@btinternet.com> wrote, in part:

I know that you are a Christian, and I respect your right to believe what
you wish, but to me the above is just a fairy tale - do you respect my

to believe that? If so, why should what you believe be the standard for

behaviour of everyone else, via the law, especially since no-one has come

with one shred of objective proof for that belief? Urge other Christians

accept your ways by all means, because it would be unlikely to be an
imposition on them, but the law affects everyone, believers and
non-believers alike. Would you seriously try to force vegetarians to eat
meat because you think it's OK to do so? Or would you be prepared to

meat yourself at the behest of vegetarians? Their beliefs are equally as
strong as yours, and this can be said for all the religions in the world.
The legality of abortion is not a prescriptive law: those who believe it

be wrong are not obliged to have an abortion, anymore than teetotallers

forced to drink alcohol even though the law permits it.

The legality of slavery in the United States prior to the Civil War was
not a prescriptive law. White people who believed it wrong to own slaves
were not obliged to do so.

Many of the opponents of Negro slavery were motivated by their religious
beliefs; for example, the Quakers were noted for their opposition to
slavery.

Having an abortion is more like owning a slave than it is like having a
martini.

is something that they believe God says is polluting or defiling to the
one who has an abortion, like drinking alcohol, or eating pork. People
who are against abortion are against it because it is the killing of a
living human being with rights.

Of course the law against Negro slavery affects every white person,
regardless of what he or she may personally believe about slavery. If it
didn't, black people wouldn't have the right to be free.

For those who are religious, religion is the source of their core
beliefs about what is right and wrong. It is to a significant extent
from their religious belief that they reject dishonesty, thievery, and
violence. Although you don't have to be religious to believe these
things are wrong, religion supplies a simple answer to why anything can
be described as "right" or "wrong".

For this reason, while I reject teaching Creationism, however disguised,
in the public schools, I do think that some cultural sensitivity with
respect to the teaching of evolution is appropriate.

not vegetarians. Since evolution erodes the authority of the Bible, and
blurs the boundaries between cattle that we may kill for profit and
humans who have rights, teaching it at a tender age to children whose
moral education rested narrowly on religious authority... could create
serial killers and other such monstrosities.

It takes a certain amount of growth and development before people can
think independently in a moral fashion, instead of relying on authority.