Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site spp1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwspp!spp1!johnston
From: johnston@spp1.UUCP (Micheal L. Johnston)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: Re: Gosh poll
Message-ID: <170@spp1.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 27-Feb-85 16:24:47 EST
Article-I.D.: spp1.170
Posted: Wed Feb 27 16:24:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 3-Mar-85 05:43:13 EST
References: <250@ttidcc.UUCP>
Organization: TRW, Redondo Beach  CA
Lines: 31

> I think that most persons on each side of the abortion issue are honest in
> their convictions, and most truly have deeply considered the aspects they
> consider germaine to the argument.  However, on the Pro-life side, I think
> they are determined to shove their ideology/moral standards down other
> people's throats (which is what anti-abortion legislation would do) where
> as the Pro-choice side is willing to leave things up to the individual
> (which is what pro-abortion legislation would do).  If the issue were left
> up to the individual, then s/he is free to choose on the basis of his/er
> own beliefs.  However, those who believe it is murder cannot square their
> belief with the current laws of the land.  The belief itself requires
> enactment of anti-abortion laws and penalty for the choice.
> 
> Feel free to summarize as need be for your followup.  Thanks, A. Regard

Take any law that states that a particular action is unlawful and you'll
find a case of a moral standard being "shoved" down the throats of all
that don't consider that action to be immoral. But that's what the law
books are full of. I can't think of an action that's as divisive as
abortion for analogy. Most laws forbidding a particular action deal with
an action almost universally considered immoral. But's let's take murder
as an example anyway (performed on one already born).

Lets's say murder is unlawful but not everybody considers it immoral. And
then one day the supreme court decides that states can't make laws
proscribing murder and now murder can be performed with no legal
consequences. But you think murder is immoral and should be outlawed.
Would you consider action by you and others who felt like you to legislate
against murder to be "shoving" morality down other people's throats?
Would this stop you from attempting to right what you consider to be wrong?

		Mike Johnston