Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>    How far should religious clergy

	As far as any individual is allowed to go. As far as any non religious
	person or group is allowed to go. As far as you believe that any group
	or person that you agree with should be allowed to go. To say otherwise
	is to descriminate (and punish) on the basis of religion.

	BTW, I assume you want the same limits for Jesse Jackson as for Cardnal
	Law. The same limit of Pat Robertson that you would have wanted on
	Martin Luther King. The same limit on Desmond Tuto as on Jerry Falwel.
	The same limit on the Berrigan brothers as on Billy Graham.

>the point where the line separating church and state gets erased?

	The line is one way. The Constitution says that government may not
	interfer with religion. It does not say that religion may not influence
	government. To talk about the seperation of church and state being a
	limit on the clergy or religious groups is to distort the concept beyond
	recognition.

>    Does anyone have the precise wording of Cardinal Law's message?
>    If so, can you post it?

	I don't have it though I have read it. It's a lot milder then stuff
	I've heard people in NOW say/write. I can understand people being upset 
	if he did not say what he did and I can understand people being upset
	that he didn't speak more forcefully.


>    My personal view:  Clergy have every right to speak out on public
>    issues.  They are free citizens like the rest of us.  However, 
>    when they border on intimidating their parishioners, who are 
>    public-policy makers, I believe the state ought to reconsider
>    organized religion's tax-exempt status as well as other privileges 
>    the state may bestow on organized religion.
 
	My personal view is that you are suggesting blackmail. I believe you
	are saying that if the leaders of the church do the same things that
	non church groups (including tax exempt ones) do that they should be
	punished. I believe that to suggest what you do is to suggest that
	the religious freedom part of the 1st amendment should be voided and
	that the free speech part should not include people with religious
	beliefs who wish to express them. I believe that for Cardinal Law to
	do less than what he has done would be immoral and irresponsible in
	the extreme. I think that people who are critical of Cardinal Law do
	not understand the Constitution, the concept of seperation of church
	and state, and are acting in a purely political and self serving way.

			Alfred

>
> The Constitution says that government may not interfere with religion. 
>

Alfred,

Please explain what you mean by government interference.  I am unfamiliar 
with any such provision in the constitution. The first amendment says that 
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  
prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

I am currently addressing the issue of "separation of church and state" in 
the Humanist notesfile (see GRIM::HUMANISM, "First Amendment Establishment 
Clause", note 95). 

jay ()

>Please explain what you mean by government interference.  I am unfamiliar 
>with any such provision in the constitution. The first amendment says that 
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or  
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

	You mean you don't concider the prohibiting the free exercise of 
	religion interference with it? I see no contradiction between my
	statement and the quoted part of the Constitution.

	The Surpreme Court has ruled that taxing the church is a violation
	of the free exercise of religion. This is as a result of the claim
	long accepted by the Court that "the power to tax is the power to
	destroy." If the government prohibits people from worship, from
	living according to their beliefs, from sharing their beliefs with
	others that is interference. It is "prohibiting the free exercise ..."
	I see that phrase and interference as meaning largely the same.


				Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    I completely misread your statement. Sorry. 
          
    jay ()

re Note 329.3 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>         This is as a result of the claim
> 	long accepted by the Court that "the power to tax is the power to
> 	destroy." 

        Alfred (and others),

        This is a bit of an aside, but where did that quote come
        from?  Every time I've seen somebody quote it, it is in the
        context of taxing some institution, e.g., a church.

        Obviously, it wouldn't be quoted if people didn't see the
        truth in it.  But that itself is very disturbing:  nobody
        ever uses it to argue that individuals shouldn't be taxed. 
        You mean that it's OK for government to destroy individuals,
        just not institutions?

        Bob

    Aside from the question of tax exemption, there is the matter of
    religious authority--and its theological implications.  As a strong
    personal preference, I have to admit that I would never have any use
    for a religious authority, in a denomination to which I belonged,
    ordering me to think (or vote) a certain way because that is supposedly
    the only legitimate expression of my faith.  However, I would also
    point out that I am not a Roman Catholic.  This question ties in to the
    problem of religious authority, which has been discussed elsewhere, and
    I think different people are comfortable with different degrees of
    denominational autocracy.  Roman Catholicism has proclaimed its
    institutional authority on matters of belief (the Magisterium comes to
    mind) which formally defines limits on acceptable thought.  The Roman
    Catholic Church does not claim to be a democracy.  I could not be
    comfortable in such an environment, but I assume that millions of
    Catholics choose to remain in the Church precisely because they believe
    that this authority is Divinely sanctioned.

    I often wonder why so many dissidents remain in a church that, as far
    as I can tell, defines dissent as having no role within itself.  Those
    who prefer the authoritarian structures of the church as it is seem to
    be in tune with how that authority defines its role.  The best that
    dissent can hope for is to percolate change up slowly, through the
    hierarchy, and hope that they will institute change; there is no
    democratic process in place, and the doctrine of apostolic succession
    provides for a self-perpetuating hierarchy.  Dissent can always hope
    that another Pope John XXIII will arrive and bring on more changes, but
    there are no guarantees that this will ever happen.

    Of course, people are attached to their church home, and browbeating
    often does not inspire people to leave; "love it or leave it" is never
    a simple proposition.  Those Catholics who disagree with Cardinal Law
    have their reasons for remaining faithful to their church while
    believing what they do; I would be interested in hearing their own
    feelings about the role of dissent in their church.

    Another thing worth noting is that individuals with strong religious
    and moral convictions often speak out on issues of importance to them. 
    It is a fine line between speaking strongly about a personal conviction
    on a political issue, and exercising institutional authority over
    others as a result of that conviction.  Nevertheless, I believe that
    there is a distinction.  Religious leaders have a moral obligation to
    speak out about those issues that are important to them.  For some
    denominations (apparently Catholicism), this extends to defining how
    lay persons within the faith are obliged to view to issue as well.
    
    -- Mike

re .1   Alfred,

               -< I don't think you've thought this out >-

Actually, more than you realize.  But who cares.

               >    How far should religious clergy

	As far as any individual is allowed to go. As far as any non religious
	person or group is allowed to go. As far as you believe that any group
	or person that you agree with should be allowed to go. To say otherwise
	is to descriminate (and punish) on the basis of religion.

I was simply posing the question, due to so much controversy surrounding
the subject?  You are apparently making assumptions pertaining to my views
on separation of church/state and "how far."  Personally, though I don't
care for Cardinal Law or his subtle snide remarks and intimidating behavior, 
I don't believe he/it is a violation of church/state separation.  The man 
can go as *FAR* as he wants to go in voicing his opinion, even if it involves
intimidation of public-policy makers and his own "flock."  He CLEARLY has 
that right as an American citizen.  Go for it, Bernie.

	BTW, I assume you want the same limits for Jesse Jackson as for Cardnal
	Law. The same limit of Pat Robertson that you would have wanted on
	Martin Luther King. The same limit on Desmond Tuto as on Jerry Falwel.
	The same limit on the Berrigan brothers as on Billy Graham.

You do not assume correctly.  Who said I want "limits" on these guys?
I don't believe in "limiting" any of them. 

             >the point where the line separating church and state gets erased?

	The Constitution says that government may not
	interfer with religion. It does not say that religion may 
        not influence government. 

Generally agree.  However, I think if government *allows* itself to be
influenced by religion in certain ways -- say, in sanctioning prayer 
sessions in public schools, or in giving into the church's attempts to 
get government to suppress someone else's freedom of worship (Mormons 
in 19th century?) -- then I think it *is* a violation of the Constitution.
(The abortion issue actually has more to do with constitutional rights 
of privacy than freedom of worship.)

        To talk about the seperation of church and state being a
	limit on the clergy or religious groups is to distort the concept 
        beyond recognition.

Well, when religious clergy pressure the government to pass laws that
violate the Constitution, and the government gives into these pressures, 
then attempts to "limit" the clergy's influence on government are 
not a distortion and certainly not unreasonable.  They're rather
patriotic, I think.

        >    My personal view:  Clergy have every right to speak out on public
        >    issues.  They are free citizens like the rest of us.  However, 
        >    when they border on intimidating their parishioners, who are 
        >    public-policy makers, I believe the state ought to reconsider
        >    organized religion's tax-exempt status as well as other privileges 
        >    the state may bestow on organized religion.
 
	My personal view is that you are suggesting blackmail. I believe you
	are saying that if the leaders of the church do the same things that
	non church groups (including tax exempt ones) do that they should be
	punished. 

What blackmail?  Let me clarify what I meant ... Regardless of what Cardinal
Law and the church say about anything, I just don't believe in tax-exemption
for organized religion.  I've felt this way for many years.  Irrespective of
the things that come out of Law's snide mouth, legislators everywhere
should wake up and realize tax-exemption for organized religious institutions
is not, and never has been, a good idea, IMHO.

        I believe that to suggest what you do is to suggest that
	the religious freedom part of the 1st amendment should be voided and
	that the free speech part should not include people with religious
	beliefs who wish to express them. 

That's preposterous.

        I believe that for Cardinal Law to
	do less than what he has done would be immoral and irresponsible in
	the extreme. 

Immoral for whom or what?

        I think that people who are critical of Cardinal Law do
	not understand the Constitution, the concept of seperation of church
	and state, and are acting in a purely political and self serving way.

Think again.  I mean, that's quite a sweeping charge.  You believe that
anyone who criticizes Cardinal Law:

     1.  Does not understand the constitution
     2.  Does not understand separation of church/state
     3.  Is acting purely political
     4.  Is -- this is a real scream and a half -- "self serving."

Is this what the archdiocese tells its parishioners?  Is this how the Cardinal 
differentiates between a "good Catholic" and "bad Catholic"?

It boggles the mind how you can lay ALL THIS on someone who does not agree 
with this "man of God."  

Paul

re Note 329.6 by DEMING::VALENZA:

>     I often wonder why so many dissidents remain in a church that, as far
>     as I can tell, defines dissent as having no role within itself.  Those
>     who prefer the authoritarian structures of the church as it is seem to
>     be in tune with how that authority defines its role.  The best that
>     dissent can hope for is to percolate change up slowly, through the
>     hierarchy, and hope that they will institute change; there is no
>     democratic process in place, and the doctrine of apostolic succession
>     provides for a self-perpetuating hierarchy.  Dissent can always hope
>     that another Pope John XXIII will arrive and bring on more changes, but
>     there are no guarantees that this will ever happen.
  
        Well, in the secular realm, monarchies have on occasion given
        way to democracies.  One has to believe that a) one is right
        and b) one's "homeland" (or in this case, one's "home
        church") is "worth it" even in the face of significant
        imperfections that may take many generations to heal.

        It may also help to know or feel that there are many others
        in your church that feel the way you do, most of whom cannot
        even speak out, although many of them can live their lives at
        least to some extent in the way they know is right.

        And, of course, one can pray and hope.  We have a God for
        whom a day is as a thousand years, and who deems it right for
        some things to take billions of years to be accomplished.  We
        who believe that this is a good and compassionate God can use
        that faith to moderate our all-too-human impatience.

        And for those of us who can speak out and act, we must.

        Bob

    RE:0
    Should Catholic politicians campaign in Catholic districts, at Catholic
    functions such as Church Bazaars etc., to show Catholic voters that they
    are indeed Catholic in order to tout the Catholic vote and then vote in 
    opposition to the morality taught by the Catholic Church ?

    These politicians while campaigning, love to have their pictures taken
    with Cardinals and Bishops. They try to use Church influence to get
    elected, the Church at least can hold them to the campaign image that
    they put across to the voters.

    Cardinal Law, and other authorities in the Catholic Church are telling
    these politicians that if you claim that your Catholic in order to
    get votes, your gonna have to be Catholic once your elected.

    Peace
    Jim

>Think again.  I mean, that's quite a sweeping charge.  You believe that
>anyone who criticizes Cardinal Law:
>
>     1.  Does not understand the constitution
>     2.  Does not understand separation of church/state
>     3.  Is acting purely political
>     4.  Is -- this is a real scream and a half -- "self serving."

    Actually that's not what I charge anyone who criticizes Cardinal Law.
    Just those who say that what he is saying/doing violates the
    Constitution. Seems like a fair charge to me.
    
    			Alfred

    re  .10
    
    I did not say what he is doing/saying violates the constitution,
    especially re: the church/state issue.
    
    I said if the *government* does something, as a result of giving into
    religious pressures, that violates the constitution -- and that remains
    to be seen in this case -- then we ought not allow the government to 
    be pressured into passing laws that violate the constitution.  That
    doesn't mean censoring the clergy's right to speak.  It means 
    urging the government to make sure its laws are fully
    constitutional.
    
    On the other hand,  if I want to call Bernard Law's tactics sleazy 
    or creepy (and disrespectful of the constitution) that's my right,
    which does not negate his right to voice as much crap as his heart
    desires.
    
    Paul 
    

	I spent 10 minutes in a library Monday and found 4 references in
	Supreme Court rulings that use the phrase "power to tax [...] the
	power to destroy." None of them having to do, as far as I could tell,
	with religion. There were other similar quotes some of which did have
	to do with religion. I quote a few.

	"That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
	destroy may defeat..are propositions not to be denied."
	Justice Marshall - McCullock v. Maryland

	"The power to tax is the power to destroy only in the sense that
	those who have the power can misuse it."
	Justice Reed - Murdock v. Pennsylvania

	"One of the basic rights is to be free of taxation to support a
	transgression of the constitutional command that authorities 
	'shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or 
	prohibiting the free exercise thereof'"
	Justice Jackson - Everson v. Board of Education

	There was an other statement that I didn't copy that said in effect
	that it was proper to tax a preachers wage but not to tax his right
	to preach. 

	The jest of all the quotes I read was that is was not ok to create
	a tax that got in the way of the practice of religion. My
	interpretation is that rulings against property tax on church
	property, for example, were to prevent people from using the ability
	to tax to prevent churches from functioning. Certainly it is unlikely
	that there would be many, if any, churches in downtown Manhattan if
	those churches had to pay normal property tax. Even if people were
	not trying to be unfair.

	When people suggest taxing the churches my question is, tax them on
	what? Clergy owned property is already taxed. As is clergy salary.
	Churches are exempt from sales tax, but so are other non-profits.
	Should they all be taxed? Some would say yes I'm sure. However as
	most do many good works that would otherwise fall on government to
	do this seems inefficient. On church income perhaps? As with a sales
	tax this seems most inefficient and must, to be fair, be applied to
	all non-profits. Not only that but it would seriously limit the
	ability of marginal churches to maintain houses of worship, full time
	clergy and other services of their religion.

	As Justice Murphy (Jones v Oprlika) said " Taxes on the circulation
	of ideas have a long history of misuse against freedom of thought."

			Alfred

    RE: .11 It's so nice to see that the Cardinal is not the only
    one who likes to engage in snide remarks.
    
    		Alfred

Re: .12  Alfred

> Clergy owned property is already taxed.

But *church* owned property is not.

				-- Bob

    RE: .14 That is partly correct. In recent years the courts have
    allowed profit producing property owned by churches to be taxed.
    And in some places they are taxed. I think I addressed the handling
    of other Church property.

    BTW, church owned homes for clergy is not usually taxed. However
    this allows churches to have full time clergy that they could not
    pay enough to have. An 80 year old house, long paid for, is a lot
    easier for a church than to pay rent for clergy.

    			Alfred

    PS: I grew up in an 80-90 year old church owned house so I know
    how little in the way of frills most clergy have in their homes.

    re  .13
    
    And it's so nice to see that you admit that the Cardinal engages
    in snide remarks.   
    
    Paul
    
    P.S.  It could be worse, though.  Bernard Law, at least, isn't
    as hypocritical as Jimmy Swaggart, who got caught (again) with another
    prostitute last week.  Don't you just love those men of God telling
    the rest of us how to live a "clean" life?
               

re.16

Paul,

> Don't you just love those men of God telling
>    the rest of us how to live a "clean" life?

	God vindicates Himself. All works of darkness will be exposed but it
seems that He takes special interest in those works which are *alleged* to be
associated with Him. 
	
Regards,
ace

    re  .17
    
    Works like what?
    
    Paul
    

RE.18

>Works like what?

Works: Anything done. In this case, something done in the name of God.

ace

	Should Christians attempt to get there beliefs written into law?
	For example, is it ok for Christians to try and get anti-gay laws
	repealed? Or to get more liberal abortion laws written? or should
	they avoid trying to legislate morality?

			Alfred

   RE: .20

   Alfred,

   No it is not a good thing for Christians to do nor be involved in.
   I know, the ADA has a specific exclusion clause and my situation
   is in there.  That law was to help disabled people get better 
   services than the origional 1973 disability act.  What it actually
   accomplished was to write off many people as undesirables.  It also
   by implication classed me and others with people I'd not share oxygen
   with.

   Allison

Alfred,

IMO, people should support laws that are consistent with their moral beliefs.
One of my own moral beliefs that we should be tolerant of the lifestyle of
other people, so for example I think it would be admirable to support gay
rights legislation based on one's moral beliefs but it would be be the opposite
of admirable to oppose gay rights legislation based on one's moral beliefs.

				-- Bob

    re:22
    Bob,
         your reply sounds contradictory. What if a particular civil rights
    piece of legislation for a special group of people, infringes on the 
    moral belief's of others ? Should we oppose that legislation ?
    And example could be that a woman's right to have an abortion would
    require any member of a hospital staff  to assist in an abortion
    whether they were morally opposed to abortion or not. For a staff
    member to refuse would be denying that woman's legal right.



    Peace
    Jim

Re: .23  Jim

>    And example could be that a woman's right to have an abortion would
>    require any member of a hospital staff  to assist in an abortion
>    whether they were morally opposed to abortion or not. For a staff
>    member to refuse would be denying that woman's legal right.

A woman's right to an abortion doesn't obligate any particular person to
perform the abortion, at least IMO.  True, if no one in the entire country
were willing to perform the abortion then the woman's right to an abortion
would become meaningless, but as a practical matter that's not likely to
happen.

				-- Bob

    RE:24
    Bob,
    	I'm talking if they make legislation that gives women legal right
    to an abortion, anyone who refused her that right would be violating
    her legal rights and therefore subject to legal action. A doctor or
    nurse could have their license revoked. Hospitals could be refused
    federal funding for refusing as well. It is happening BTW. Our
    government is moving towards legislation that would make abortion
    on demand a woman's legal right. 

    So voting against such legislation based on my moral values is valid.


     Peace
    Jim

Jim,

I'd also vote against legislation that obligated hospital personnel to perform
abortions.

				-- Bob

   Setting personal beliefs aside and looking at the law in a unemotional
   mode...

   There is a long step from making it a right to control ones body and
   obtain medical services where available to making it law to provide
   specific medical services.  They are not the same thing.  Right now
   getting a histerectomy is not a legal issue, yet no medical person
   has to do it if they feel is is inappropriate or beyond their scope.
   Do not confuse civil actions (malpractice) with issues of law they
   are very different.

   The situation that some groups propose regarding abortion is to make
   it illegal to obtain therefore denying a woman the right to control
   her body.  In a very direct way women are then denied rights granted
   freely to the other half of the population.  I cannot think of any
   common male analogue to the situation, so there would not be any
   equivalent male situation to consider in the same legal realm.  So
   men do have the right then totally control their body but women do
   not, or so it appears in the realm of reproductive freedom.

   peace,
   Allison

	RE: .27 Just remember that to some people abortion does not map
	to a woman controlling her own body but to a woman having the right
	to kill her child. A right women have that men do not.

			Alfred

    re:27

    I'm not talking malpractice  here. If they make abortion a 
    legal right, then hospitals would be required by law to perform
    abortions, because hospitals receive federal funds. Hospitals
    then would be required to higher only those who are willing
    to perform or assist in abortions and dismiss those that don't.
    
    Any institution that receives federal money must comply to the
    law. 
     
    Peace
    Jim

   Alfred,

   That may be true what some people believe but it is not relevent to
   the issue as presented.  It is only relevent to the woman involved
   and the law.  Right now the law is defines what constitutes a child
   that deserves legal protection.

   If we are to carry this further on abortion another topic might be a
   better place as it becomes to specific to discuss here under a generic
   topic.  Under this topic I would actually prefer not to use abortion as
   an issue of going to far.  It is difficult to find other situations
   that has the direct impact only some people in such a biased way.  I
   could think of hypothetical situations that are good for examining
   the "gone too far" situation but reality exists and better solutions
   are always needed.

   Peace,
   Allison

Re: .29 Jim

Are you saying that it is impossible for abortion to be legal without requiring
all hospitals to perform abortions?

Just because one law is badly written doesn't mean that it's impossible to
write a good law.

				-- Bob

   RE: .29

   Jim,

   That is not true.  Again, there is a difference between not outlawing
   a procedure and making it a legal mandated procedure.  

   Define the law that makes it required for a hospital to provide any
   specific service.  They don't have to make it a legal right, they
   can only make it illegal to perform.  Do you understand what I am
   offering.  As it stands right this moment a woman can be denied an
   abortion (during the first trimester) and it is not an issue of law.
   She does have the right to persue an abortion but, a hospital does
   not have to perform the service.  If however the service is offered
   it must available to everyone who requests it.  Who pays only extends
   the issue of rights and responsabilities and make the issue less clear.

   Peace,
   Allison

    
    Wait a minute....I'm confused here.  Isn't abortion a legal right
    currently, or are you using the term in a different way?  Abortion
    is legal today and no one is forced to perform them.
    
    Did I miss something somewhere? 8^%!
    
    Carole

<   <<< Note 329.33 by WILLEE::FRETTS "if u want to heal u have to *feel*" >>>
<    
<    Wait a minute....I'm confused here.  Isn't abortion a legal right
<    currently, or are you using the term in a different way?  Abortion
<    is legal today and no one is forced to perform them.
<    
<    Did I miss something somewhere? 8^%!
<    
<    Carole

   Carole,

   No you didn't miss a thing, but there people that would make it
   illegal.  What isn't a right in this country is equal access to 
   medical help.  

   The issue from my standpoint is when does a person become less than
   sovereign over their own body.  That is the point where we have gone 
   too far.

   Peace,
   Allison

    There are no laws that state that a women has a right to an abortion.
    Woe v. Wade determined that a woman could not be prevented from
    having an abortion because the supreme court could not find anything
    in the Constitution that guaranteed protection to the unborn child.
    If legislation is made that makes abortion a right, then it can not be 
    denied. 

    Hospitals have laws that they must abide by. One is they can not
    refuse medical treatment to anyone. If abortion is a medical
    treatment that a woman has legal right to, they must provide it.
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like someone said, the point is off the basis of this note. Should 
    I vote against legislation that I personally find immoral. I say yes, 
    vote according to your conscience. It's your right. This is what democracy
    is about anyway. 

    Peace
    Jim

Re: .35 Jim

>    Hospitals have laws that they must abide by. One is they can not
>    refuse medical treatment to anyone. If abortion is a medical
>    treatment that a woman has legal right to, they must provide it.
    
I disagree.  It all depends on how the law is worded.  I would not support
a law that obligated all hospitals to perform abortions.

				-- Bob

Re: .35 Jim

>    Hospitals have laws that they must abide by. One is they can not
>    refuse medical treatment to anyone. If abortion is a medical
>    treatment that a woman has legal right to, they must provide it.
    
   I've worked in hospitals.  They have policies and rules and they are
   very different from "laws" that come from the state or federal
   government.  Most of the hospital policies do allow for people 
   whos beliefs are contrdictory to not have to be involved.  

   As to refusing medical treatment, it does happen and often!  If
   a hospital does not have an emergency room or trama unit they
   can and do refuse.  For the poor and indigent medical services
   are spotty to poor. 

   Allison

    I've been 'READ-ONLY" for a while now, but parts of this topic have
    gotten my curiosity up enough to reply.  PLEASE don't give me a hard
    time because I may be oversimplifying this, but is (will) an abortion
    be considered an elective surgery (procedure) kind of like getting your
    nose fixed (I said I'd be oversimplifying) and if it is considered
    elective, how can any hospital be legally forced to provide the 
    'service'?  I'm on the understanding that elective surgery is an
    optional kind of thing.  Am I wrong or isn't this even remotely
    related?
    
    Thanks for the info,
    Brian
    

    Well, we can agree to disagree on this I guess.
    
    But, do take into consideration that not other medical procedure,
    to my knowledge has been made a legal right. Abortion is the first
    attempt at this, so all argurments are speculative, I know, even mine.
    
    Peace
    Jim

   RE: .38

   Brian,

   Yes and no.  Case by case.  If the life of the woman is at risk or
   the fetus is determined to be beyond help(just my words for lack of
   better) then it is considered theraputic(life preserving).  If 
   however the there are no medical reasons other than termination
   of pregnancy then it is considered elective.  Of course I have not
   added and other considerations that may be non life threating such
   as a child concieved as a result of rape (there may be other 
   situations).

   Not all inclusive by any means, not a simple subject.

   Peace,
   Allison
    

    I just received this bit of information.

    The City Council of Colorado Springs ruled that Memorial Hospital,
    a municipal hospital, MUST provide abortions because it is  city
    (tax) funded. 

    It is my understanding that Colorado has made abortion a woman's
    legal right just recently.

    Jim

        Moderator warning:

        This is becoming another abortion discussion topic.

        There are several others of long-standing to choose.

        Bob