Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    VATICAN CITY (Jul 10, 1995 - 13:30 EDT) - Pope John Paul on Monday
    issued one of his strongest defences of women's rights in society and 
    he apologised for the Roman Catholic Church's past role in the oppression 
    of women.
    
    But, in a 19-page letter to women, he also reaffirmed his unbending
    stand against women priests in the Church, saying it was justified 
    by the gospel.
    
    Even dissident Catholics welcomed the letter. A major group which
    usually criticises the Pope called it very helpful.
    
    "I'm astonished," said Frances Kissling, president of the U.S.-based
    Catholics for a Free Choice.
    
    "This is largely a helpful document on the secular level and a good
    expression of women's rights."
    
    The Pope said that while those who have an abortion after a rape
    committed a "grave sin," the primary blame should be placed squarely 
    on men and society.
    
    He said that, although the modern feminist movement had made its share
    of mistakes, it had been "a substantially positive one." But much more 
    had to be done "to prevent discrimination against those who have chosen 
    to be wives and mothers."
    
    The unprecedented letter, which the Pope addressed "to each one of you
    as a sign of solidarity and gratitude," was issued ahead of the U.N. 
    Conference on Women in Beijing in September.
    
    In a section of the letter that read almost like a manifesto of women's
    rights, the 75-year-old Polish Pontiff said:
    
    "As far as personal rights are concerned, there is an urgent need to
    achieve real equality in every area: equal pay for equal work, protection 
    for working mothers,fairness in career advancements, equality of spouses 
    with regard to family rights and the recognition of everything that is 
    part of the rights and duties of a citizen in a democratic state."
    
    He continued: "This is a matter of justice but also of necessity. Women
    will increasingly play a part in the solution of the serious problems of 
    the future..."
    
    He said that history had conditioned society and often put up many
    obstacles to the progress of women.
    
    "And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts,
    has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly 
    sorry," he said.
    
    The Pope did not elaborate, but Cardinal Eduardo Pironio told a news
    conference at the Vatican that the Pontiff was referring to the fact 
    that the Church had in the past blocked women from positions short of 
    the priesthood now open to them.
    
    The Pope said sexual violence against women had to stop.
    
    "The time has come to condemn vigorously the types of sexual violence
    which frequently have women for their object and to pass laws which 
    effectively defend them from such violence."
    
    He also condemned the "widespread hedonistic and commercial culture"
    which encouraged the "systematic exploitation" of female sexuality for 
    advertising and prostitution.
    
    "How many women have been and continue to be valued more for their
    physical appearance than for their skill, their professionalism, their 
    intellectual abilities, their deep sensitivity...," he said.
    
    In the letter the Pope also sought to be compassionate towards women
    who had suffered what he called the "atrocity" of rape in war or peace 
    and decided to have an abortion.
    
    "In these cases the choice to have an abortion is always a grave sin.
    But before being something to blame on the woman, it is a crime for which 
    guilt needs to be attributed to men and to the complicity of the general 
    social environment," he said.
    
    The Pope seemed to go out of his way to explain the Catholic position
    on why women cannot be priests.
    
    He reaffirmed that the ruling was "not the result of an arbitrary
    imposition" but based on the fact that Christ willingly and freely 
    chose only men as his apostles.
    
    Kissling, of Catholics for a Free Choice, said: "Women will not be
    equal in the Church system until they are priests."
    
    

    I see it more as placating women.  YMMV

    justme....jacqui

On May 21, 1995, on an abandoned Soviet airfield in Moravia (a battleground of
the ferocious Thirteen Years' War in the 17th century), Pope John Paul II held
Mass before a crowd of 100,000 rain-soaked people.  The Pope asked forgiveness
for the wrongs committed by the Catholic Church against Protestants and people
of other faiths.

     "Today, I, the Pope of the Church of Rome, in the name of all Catholics,
     ask forgiveness for the wrongs inflicted on non-Catholics during the
     turbulent history of these peoples.  At the same time, I pledge the
     Catholic Church's forgiveness for whatever harm her sons and daughters
     have suffered."

The Pope has made similar overtures to Eastern Orthodox churches this month in a
letter.  The language insures the Pope was sincere.  What is amazing about all
this is what it means with respect to the doctrine of Infallibility.  All of a
sudden, the 10's of millions of Christians tortured to death in the past 1,500
years are now "swept behind us."  Pope Innocent III in just one day murdered
more Christians than all the Roman Caesars put together!

Which Pope is fallible and which is infallible?  John Paul II or Innocent III?
How do we know which is fallible?

The timing of Dave Hunt's latest book "A Woman Rides the Beast" couldn't be more
appropriate.

    
    You don't understand the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
    
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 866.3                   Perceptions of the Pope                     3 of 11
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      16 lines  24-FEB-1994 09:56
                            -< Moved from topic 91 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>If I remember correctly, can't the Pope speak ex cathedra, or infallibly,
>if he so chooses or feels so moved?  By no small stretch, believing
>this about the Pope is close to diefication.

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility specifies that when the Pope, in unison
with the bishops of all the world, under the influence of the Holy Spirit,
makes a specific, solemn declaration that a matter of faith or morals is
a revealed doctrine, it must be given the assent of faith by all Catholics.

The doctrine was formally defined only in the last century and has been
used exactly twice.  In both cases it was to end disputes over traditions
almost 2000 years old that, although constantly believed in some form or
other by most Christians in both East and West, did not have sufficient
biblical evidence for a precise, undisputed formulation.

/john

    Re: -1
    
    that doesn't explain the contradiction.  Under Innocent III and John
    Paul II, the entire church supported their declarations and actions.

    Well, in the nearly 800 years since Pope Innocent III, the church has
    continued to grow through the guidance of our living God. Since neither
    pope is (was) infallible in their actions and statements, I don't see a
    contradiction, I see change.

    	Eric

    Why don't they just remove the fallability issue from their
    distinctives right now!?

    I'm not sure I understand the question, Jack...

    I'm not sure either! :-)  
    
    I guess what I'm saying is that according to Catholic doctrine, the
    Pope is considered to have infallablity when determining a church
    doctrine...am I close?  If this be the case and we know that Popes
    edicts have contradicted one another, then wouldn't it be safe to take 
    away this teaching about the Pope?
    
    -Jack

      re: .7
    
      Hi Eric,
    
        It would be comforting for a Protestant who has read history
        of his forefathers to hear a slightly more balanced view from
        you.
    
        It is my belief that Godly men such as John Huss, Jerome, 
        many of the Waldenses, and countless others were butchered
        by the Catholic Church.
    
        All I ask is thatif you want to talk of how 'guided by the 
        living God' the Catholic Church has been in the past 800 years,
        at least make some remark of where she has erred grievously.
    
        I would hope the 'auto dei fei' be removed as a sacred feast.
        That being the burning of heretics.
    
    							Tony

    The catholics had not monopoly of burning heretics.  The protestants
    burned quite a few heretics and innocent women at the same time.
    
    All in the name of trying to decide who decides what is orthordox!

    Yes...I think it's important to recall history as it happened and learn
    from it as well, (Not saying you don't do this Eric).
    
    Chirstianity has been silent during horrendous times in the past.  Even
    Paul the apostle believed when martyring Steven he did it for the glory
    of God.  It did haunt him the rest of his life and it did happen.  
    
    Some may say that Christianity is too silent today.  I agree to a
    point.  The Church has relinquished its role of responsibility to big
    government and has allowed secularism to carry the reigns.
    
    -Jack

  ZZ     All in the name of trying to decide who decides what is orthordox!
    
    Patricia, could you provide a specific example of this?
    
    -Jack

    Calvin himself was instrumental in the burning of Michael Servitus for
    heresy in Geneva.
    
                                           Patricia

    So noted.  I'd be interested in the specifics of that!
    
    -Jack

    
    Yikes! I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought the burning
    of heretics, or anyone else, is *EVER* justified. I don't even support
    the death penalty. 

    My comments regarding growth were not to suggest that everything the
    Roman Catholic church does is in the spirit of Christ. I meant to
    convey that as good men and woman (popes included) truly seek to act
    in the spirit of Christ, the church will change for the better. That is
    to say the recent conciliatory statements by Pope John Paul II are good
    things. They show compassion, penitence, and honesty. Certainly a
    growth since the Dark Ages of Pope Innocent III.

    I think John Covert did a good job explaining the reasons for adopting
    the concept of doctrinal infallibility. Since it was only applied two
    times in the last century, I don't think it's a big deal. So far the
    problem seems to have more to do the people's ignorance of what it is
    than how it is actually used. Although I would agree with you, Jack,
    I'd still sleep nights if the doctrine of Papal Infallibility were
    rescinded. Perhaps John could help us understand better.

    Growing up Catholic I remember many feast days and holy days of
    obligation, but 'auto dei fei' is not one I remember. Perhaps it's a
    repressed memory :-). I'd be interested in pointers to a more detailed
    explanation/discussion of this. 
    
    Eric

    What does 'if objective blame...has belonged to not just a few members
    of the church' mean?
    
    Just wondering,
    
    Dorian

    Infallability is putting a Pope in the position of a prophet.  We
    aren't all given that gift and it isn't a gift inherited by position.
    
    -Jack

      <<< Note 1108.10 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    Pope is considered to have infallablity when determining a church
>    doctrine...am I close?  If this be the case and we know that Popes
>    edicts have contradicted one another ...

    	Edicts are not doctrine.

    re .14
    
    	Jack --  The salem witch burnings are an example.

    ZZZ        Jack --  The salem witch burnings are an example.
    
    I saw a documentary on this many years ago.  They claimed that
    witchcraft was just a vehicle and that the real motive over this was
    land disputes.  I'm not making excuses by any means but just pointing
    out that the motive may have been greed.
    
    -Jack

    
    I think the most interesting aspect of the unbiblical doctrine of the
    Pope's infallibility is the fact that it was codified in 1870, the
    modern era.
    
    jeff

      <<< Note 1108.22 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

>    the motive may have been greed.
    
    	I suspect that the motives for any religious prosecution are
    	no different in nature, though perhaps they may be different
    	in name.

    Boy did this topic get rat holed.
    
    Regardless of our flavor of Christianity, the Pope is an important
    figure in the world.  The present Pope is also one of the most
    conservative(or perhaps reactionary) leaders in the world.
    
    For him to acknowledge the opression of women and the role of the
    Catholic Church for that oppression, is a momentous step forward.
    
    (even if he does misinterpret the Bible to keep the priesthood all
    Male)

    The burning of heretics, is but the most viscious of attempts to try to
    keep One's Orthordoxy pure.
    
    The burning of opposing religious scholars throughout history was no
    where near as widespread as the burning of innocent women as witches all
    over the world during that nasty period of religious history.

    Patricia:
    
    Just out of curiosity, why do you suppose Jesus called the original 12
    apostles as males?  
    
    And if it was becasue of the culture, then how do you feel those same
    cultural barriers could be overcome in parts of the world predominantly
    catholic yet sexist by our American cultural standards...even countries
    who have been that way for thousands of years!
    
    -Jack

Z    The burning of opposing religious scholars throughout history was
Z    no where near as widespread as the burning of innocent women as
Z    witches all over the world during that nasty period of religious history.
    
    Can this be qualified...considering millions died during the
    crusades...and hundreds of thousands during the Roman Empire?
    
    -Jack

    I might be wrong, but I don't think Judaism has female priests.  The
    FCC (First Century Church) allowed female teachers and elders (Phoebe)
    but not pastors.  I don't see where the Church of Rome is violating
    scripture on this point.
    
    Mike

    You answered your own question.  It was cultural.
    
    In the days of Jesus it was unheard of that Jesus would talk with
    women.  unmarried women and men were culturally separated from each
    other.  Can you imagine the scandel if women were full disciples with
    Jesus wandering from town to town, sleeping wherever they could find
    sheltar, being sent out alone to preach, teach, and heal.  And yet
    women, were part of Jesus' inner circle.
    
    The Catholic Church in refusing to ordain women as an established
    church and established part of the culture, has become one of those
    cultural barriers.  Jesus went out shattering culteral barriers.  2000
    years later, churches that still practice segregation and sexism are
    entrenched in this cultural sin.
    
                                 Patricia

    
    I'm soooo glad that feminist "theology" will be a thing of the past in
    not too many years.
    
    jeff

    > The present Pope is also one of the most conservative(or perhaps
    > reactionary) leaders in the world.

    Conservative, certainly, but I don't see him as reactionary. He seems
    extremely reflective and has spent his entire clerical life commenting
    on the issues he now stresses as Pope: abortion, marriage, role of
    women in the catholic church, dignity of humanity, etc.
     
    What do you see as reactionary?

    Eric 

    Yes Jeff,
    
    I too look forward to the day when all persons are truly equal and we
    can do away with the need for feminist thealogy.
    
                                    Patricia

      re: .14
    
      Hi Jack,
    
        I thought I heard that many supporters of Lutherans were
        persecutors of the Anabaptists.
    
        I hope my .11 was taken in the right way.  All I'm saying
        is that we can't gloss over our own accountability; be it
        individual or corporate.  Germany must never gloss over
        what it did in the 1930's/40's.  Any historical discussion 
        of Catholicism, without candid admission of her wrongs is
        just plain wrong.  The same goes for Protestantism and
        the same goes for myself in so far as any wrongs I have
        committed.
    
        History ought be balanced in its recording.  Eric's reply 
        was extremely lacking in that respect (imo).
    
    						Tony
        without candid ack

         <<< Note 1108.30 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    You answered your own question.  It was cultural.
    
>    Jesus went out shattering culteral barriers.  
    
    
    	So why didn't he choose to shatter this one in his day?

    
    Tony,

    I wasn't trying to record history, I was trying to clarify the very
    limited scope and invocation of papal infallibility. I don't know
    exactly what you wanted me to say: that Pope Innocent was a butcher?
    that horrible things were done in the name of the church? that
    Catholics were (are) bloodthirsty? 

    Just as I don't think that every discussion of German law must be
    prefaced with a discourse of Nazi atrocities, neither do I think a
    discussion of Catholic doctrine need's be preceded by a proclamation of
    evils done in the past ~2000 years in the name of the pope. Each may
    deserve it's own topic, however.

    I meant no ill. Nor was I defending the entire history of the Roman
    Catholic church.

    Peace,	
    
    	Eric

    Former Catholic James G. McCarthy has written an excellent book
    comparing Catholicism with Scripture entitled: "The Gospel According to
    Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and the Word of God."
    
    Why Do RC's believe the Pope is infallible?
    -------------------------------------------
    Roman Catholicism teaches that Scripture and tradition together are the
    Word of God.  Since Scripture alone is insufficient, the bishops become
    the teaching authority.  In 1870 it was decreed that "God
    supernaturally protects the [bishops].  The bishops do not err and
    cannot err when teaching doctrine related to faith and morals" (p.
    267).  While the bishops are infallible collectively, not as
    individuals, "the gift of infallibility extends to the teaching of the
    Bishop of Rome [the Pope] in a special way" (p. 267).  His teachings
    "*in no way need the approval of others*" (p. 268).
    
    Scriptural Response
    -------------------
    In contrast, the Bible states Scripture is the Word of God (2 Timothy
    3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21, Revelation 22:18-19).  Tradition is the words
    of men (Mark 7:1-13).  God alone is infallible (Numbers 23:19).  God
    has entrusted revelation to the saints (Jude 3).  Every Christian,
    aided by the Holy Spirit, has the ability and the right to interpret
    Scripture (Acts 17:11, 1 Corinthians 2:12-16).  The Holy Spirit is the
    authoritative teacher of the church (John 14:26, 16:13, 1 John 2:27).

    
    Thanks for the information, Mark. Were the quoted passages from the
    book or from the Catholic doctrine itself? Just curious.

    Eric

    From the book.

      Hi Eric,
    
        Thanks for your reply.  I guess I was just a little unsettled
        by your description of the church "guided by God" or whatever
        you said.  And because you used that qualifier, I then felt
        it of necessary relevence to make allowance that such guidance
        was not always prevailing.
    
        I really appreciate the tone of your replies and can do no
        better than to close my reply as you closed your own.
    
    						Peace,
    
    						Tony

    re .18
    
    Gee Dorian,
    
    you snuck right in there and I almost did not notice.
    
    Welcome back
    
    
    Patricia

    
    Re.0,.2
    
    I am greatly encouraged by this.
    
    Cindy

    I am greatly encouraged to see Cindy back.  I thought you left Cindy!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1108.43 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| I thought you left Cindy!

	Jack, why would Cindy leave Cindy???? :-)

    AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
    
    (Envision me chasing Glen out of a room with a pan in my hand....)
    
    I CAIN'T STANDS IT ANYMORE...COME BACK...COME BACK......YOU CAN'T GET
    AWAY.......................................................

hee hee hee.....

    
    Why thank you, Jack!  (;^)
    
    I got sold to an outsourcing company - the same one that Mark Metcalfe
    also got sold to - and we're now being 'leased back' (however Mark has
    now left for another company as you probably know).  So I'm no longer
    an official Digital employee, however I'm still in the same place,
    doing the same job, and have full access to the network.  Just popped
    in here for a brief visit.  
    
    Cindy

                                                                          
    I am greatly encouraged especially by what the Pope said regarding 
    male responsibility and accountability in cases of rape and incest.
    
    I wish those males who would picket and bomb abortion clinics, would 
    instead spend their time educating and policing their male gender
    counterparts so that there would be no need for women to have to make
    the choice to abort or not abort in cases of rape and incest.
    
    Yes, I do feel that the Pope's message does fall short in some places,
    however I also applaud what he did say, and hope this serves to propell
    the Catholic Church in a more positive direction regarding the general
    attitudes toward women.  Time will tell. 
    
    Cindy

    Cindy,
    
    That is about how I felt about it also.  I think it is a great step
    forward.  It is not the final step though and change sometimes does
    come real slow.
    
                                 Patricia

    ZZ so that there would be no need for women to have to make
    ZZ    the choice to abort or not abort in cases of rape and incest.
    
    True but what about the majority of abortions which is for birth
    control purposes which everybody abhors but supports through silence???
    
    -Jack

    "One rule is that any time you have the passive voice or an 'if', it
    isn't really an apology."
    
    --U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, quoted in "The Art of Saying 'I'm Sorry'",
    Boston Globe, 7/16/95 (Focus section)
    

    
    Re.50
    
    Jack,
    
    Can you please quote me reliable statistics on the proportion of people 
    who use abortion as a primary means of birth control? 
    
    And if this is indeed the case, then males can certainly use their
    voices and influence in a far better way by insisting that sex not 
    happen *before proper birth control measures are in place*.  Or abstain
    if that is the only option, even if the woman wants to go ahead.  It
    takes two to create the problem of a woman waiting in the lobby to have
    an abortion.
    
    Given that women do not get pregnant unless there is a male involved,
    let's start putting the focus on what happens *before* an unwanted 
    conception - which is what I believe the Pope was trying to get at. 
    This is a far better use of time and effort, rather than resorting to 
    what amounts to terrorist tactics in many cases, aimed at solely the 
    woman - along with all the guilt and blame - *after* the unwanted 
    conception has already taken place.  
    
    Cindy

    Oh Cindy, I certainly agree to that.  I was actually addressing your
    generalization that men bomb abortion clinics...when there in fact may
    be conspiracies involving both genders!  Granted I have yet to see a
    woman get caught or booked on such a thing.  However, bombings are too
    infrequent to label it a man thing!
    
    -Jack

             <<< Note 1108.52 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>
    
>    Can you please quote me reliable statistics on the proportion of people 
>    who use abortion as a primary means of birth control? 

	I didn't interpret Jack's entry as suggesting that anyone is 
	using it as PRIMARY means of birth control.  (I'd bet that some 
	are, but that's not the point.)  Abortion shouldn't be used for 
	birth control at all -- not primary, nor secondary, nor tertiary, 
	etc.
    
>    This is a far better use of time and effort, rather than resorting to 
>    what amounts to terrorist tactics in many cases, 
    
    	First of all let me be perfectly clear that I in no way support
    	or condone the violence, but at the same time I want to point
    	out that violence is the exception, not the rule.  "Many" is
    	a pretty relative term.  Some may still characterize the violence
    	as "many".  If you are using many to say that even one is too
    	many, I agree with you.

.48

I am encouraged, as well.
    
You know, I've always sort of liked John Paul.  George and Ringo, too.

;-}

Richard

    >You know, I've always sort of liked John Paul.  George and Ringo, too.
    
    ...and Michael, Davey, Peter, and Mickey.

    
    Re.54
    
    >	I didn't interpret Jack's entry as suggesting that anyone is 
    >	using it as PRIMARY means of birth control.  
    
    I did, however I don't really see a difference between 'primary, 
    secondary, etc.' in the example I'm using.  'Anyone who relies on 
    abortion as their means of birth control to the exclusion of all 
    other forms of birth control' is the group I'm referring to.
    
    >   (I'd bet that some are, but that's not the point.)  
    
    Yes it is the point, actually.
    
    >   Abortion shouldn't be used for birth control at all -- not primary, 
    >   nor secondary, nor tertiary, etc.
                                         
    Depending upon your original definition and whether it matches mine, we
    may or may not agree.
    
    >	First of all let me be perfectly clear that I in no way support
    >	or condone the violence, but at the same time I want to point
    >	out that violence is the exception, not the rule.  "Many" is
    >	a pretty relative term.  Some may still characterize the violence
    >	as "many".  If you are using many to say that even one is too
    >	many, I agree with you.
    
    Given the first half of your first statement, along with your last 
    statement, it appears that we do agree.
    
    As for the various meanings of 'many', I'll take your word for it. (;^)
    For me, it falls somewhere between 'few' and 'most', and yes you're
    right - it is a fairly relative term.
    
    Cindy

             <<< Note 1108.57 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>

>    however I don't really see a difference between 'primary, 
>    secondary, etc.' in the example I'm using.  'Anyone who relies on 
>    abortion as their means of birth control to the exclusion of all 
>    other forms of birth control' is the group I'm referring to.
    
    	Primary:  what you said.
    
    	Secondary:  "The condom broke, and now we're pregnant.  We
    			need an abortion."  (for example)
    
    	(Interesting tid-bit.  A study of condom breakage and slippage
    	was published in the journal "Contraception" -- Aug 1994.  In
    	two-thirds of the breakage episodes, clients were aware of the 
    	break before ejaculation occurred.)
    
>    >   (I'd bet that some are, but that's not the point.)  
>    
>    Yes it is the point, actually.
    
    	OK.  If that's your point, I'd bet that there are relatively
    	few who do this.  That does not mean that there are relatively
    	few who use abortion for birth control, though.
    
>    >   Abortion shouldn't be used for birth control at all -- not primary, 
>    >   nor secondary, nor tertiary, etc.
>                                         
>    Depending upon your original definition and whether it matches mine, we
>    may or may not agree.
    
    	OK.  When should abortion be acceptable as birth control?  We
    	seem to agree about primary use as abortion, but how about
    	other times?

                                                       
    Re.58
    
    You are right, we don't necessarily agree, however we are not so far
    apart either.
    
     >	Primary:  what you said.
     >	Secondary:  "The condom broke, and now we're pregnant.  We
    			need an abortion."  (for example)
    
    >	(Interesting tid-bit.  A study of condom breakage and slippage
    >	was published in the journal "Contraception" -- Aug 1994.  In
    >	two-thirds of the breakage episodes, clients were aware of the 
    >	break before ejaculation occurred.)
    
    Then for these two-thirds people, they weren't adequately protected and
    they knew it, so this would put it back at as using abortion as a
    primary means of birth control, and therefore back in the category that 
    I do not agree with.
    
    >	OK.  If that's your point, I'd bet that there are relatively
    >	few who do this.  That does not mean that there are relatively
    >	few who use abortion for birth control, though.
    
    Perhaps.  I don't know the statistics on this one.
    
    I'm thinking more also of those who are either misinformed or
    uninformed - who didn't know, for example, that you 'could get pregnant
    the first time' because they were either unaware or deliberately lied
    to by their male partner.
    
    >	OK.  When should abortion be acceptable as birth control?  We
    >	seem to agree about primary use as abortion, but how about
    >	other times?
    
    Using your definitions, I would support a secondary, tertiary, (etc.)
    use of abortion in such times.  I feel abortion is a terrible tragedy,
    and yet I also feel that an unwanted child brought into the world and
    possibly being abused or unloved and unwanted is also a terrible
    tragedy, so this is why I stand on this issue in this way. 
    
    As such, I don't really fit into either of the extreme positions that
    are typically taken, but rather stand firmly in the gray area, and hope
    that more will join me in that area so that we can begin to get at the
    real core of the problem, which is preventing unwanted conceptions to
    begin with.
    
    Cindy

             <<< Note 1108.59 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>

>    Then for these two-thirds people, they weren't adequately protected and
    
    	But these cases are still paraded as "failed birth control".
    
>    and yet I also feel that an unwanted child brought into the world and
>    possibly being abused or unloved and unwanted is also a terrible
>    tragedy, so this is why I stand on this issue in this way. 
    
    	I also agree that this is tragic if the child remains unwanted.
    	But there are so very many other couples who WOULD want them,
    	so what really is "unwanted"?
    
>    real core of the problem, which is preventing unwanted conceptions to
>    begin with.
    
	I'll stand there with you, Cindy.

    
    Re.60
    
    Back again...forgot to reply - sorry!
    
    > "Wanna see my scar?"  
    
    No...I'll take your word for it.  (;^)
    
>>   Then for these two-thirds people, they weren't adequately protected and
    >	But these cases are still paraded as "failed birth control".
    
    I cannot do much about that, except to say that is not how *I*
    personally see it.
    
    >	I also agree that this is tragic if the child remains unwanted.
    >	But there are so very many other couples who WOULD want them,
    >	so what really is "unwanted"?
    
    That's a tough one, and I have no easy reply.  I see your point,
    and respect and acknowledge it completely. Yet I can also think of 
    situations where this would not be a feasable option.  
    
    It's also a very hard decision to make too, to put a baby up for 
    adoption, though fortunately with the more open adoptions we have 
    today, it does make it easier.
    
    In any case, this is why I focus more energy on preventing conceptions
    to begin with...to avoid such situations as abortion and adoption
    altogether.
    
    >	I'll stand there with you, Cindy.
    
    I welcome that. It's a start, and a far more productive use of time and
    energy, rather than to spend it in the useless pro vs. anti stuff that
    continues to go on and on and on.
    
    Cindy
                                     

             <<< Note 1108.61 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon" >>>

>    > "Wanna see my scar?"  
>    
>    No...I'll take your word for it.  (;^)
    
    	Hmmm...  I should probably change that...  I can hardly find
    	the scar myself anymore.  :^)
    
>    I cannot do much about that, except to say that is not how *I*
>    personally see it.
    
    	Fair enough.  I agree with you.  Now we just have to be sure
    	that we understand what OTHERS believe when their opinions are
    	counted and rolled into statistics.
    
>    Yet I can also think of 
>    situations where this would not be a feasable option.  
    
    	While I can't think of a situation where adoption would
    	not be the preferred course, I'll accept your statement
    	with the caution that we should not allow the exception
    	case to govern how we conduct ourselves in general.
    
>    In any case, this is why I focus more energy on preventing conceptions
>    to begin with...to avoid such situations as abortion and adoption
>    altogether.
    
    	Agreed.  Just recently in either this conference or the other
    	there was a hypothetical question raised regarding the lesser 
    	of two evils.  "Which is the greater sin?", it was asked.  My 
    	response was along the lines that it would be better not to 
    	have to choose between the two evils in the first place.
    	Regarding abortion/adoption/etc., avoiding the problem altogether
    	is a solution that is often poo-poo'd.

    
    Re.62
    
    Thanks for that reply.  I really don't have anything more to add to the
    topic, and would like to say that I do enjoy notes like this where we 
    can find much common ground to work from, despite our differing 
    perspectives.
    
    Much appreciated,
    
    Cindy