[net.religion] A modest proposal

mat@mtx5a.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (11/14/85)

I'm cross-posting this because I think it will generate a useful
flame or two.

>>Forgive me for injecting reality, but the Right-To-Life people would
>>never allow it. I mean, if they fight for the potential life contained
>>in a fetus, you'd expect that they'd fight for the lives of condemned
>>criminals and suicidal teenagers.
>
>Untrue... for example many Right-To-Life people are pro-war.
>
>What makes most people against abortion is religious arguments and the fact
>that they can't think clearly about it because it is connected with sex.
>
>"Right-To-Life" people are often the LAST people to be genuinely concerned
>with life.
>
>Alan J Rosenthal				decvax!utzoo!utcs!flaps

WHOA!
	This thinking is more typical of the seven-o'clock news than it
is of educated people ... at least those who should be educated.

	Let's take this an item at a time.  Taking it all at once is
answering a gross distortion with noise.

	As far a a fetus being a ``potential life'', it is exactly the
point of most of the anti-abortion movement that it IS a life.  The
modifier ``potential'' is irrelevant.  Get THAT discussion to net.abortion.

	As far as condemned criminals, many pro-life folks DO fight against
capital punishment.  And many don't.  The belief that a person, by choosing
to be a danger to others, may force the community to decide between his life
and those of his victims is not the same as the belief that an innocent child
ahould not be murdered in its mother's womb.  Flames on the wording to
net.abortion, please.  We're talking what people BELIEVE.

	As far as the prevention of suicide ... is THAT why the Catholic
Church, which seems to end up spearheading the anti-abortion movement,
operates at least a half-a-dozen Covenant House centers for runaway or
abandoned kids in various cities?  Is that why other religious bodies place
so strong an emphasis on community?  A person who really DOES feel in touch
with the people around her will not destroy herself.

	As far as being pro-war ... there are always ideologues in every
crowd who feel that someone or another would do better with a different
government.  Many times they are right.  A few of those ideologues get to
thinking that they could not possibly make things worse, and try to go
to war.

	This DOES NOT MEAN THAT DEFENDING YOURSELF, YOUR FAMILY, OR YOUR
FRIEND comes under the heading of ``murder of innocents''.  Some people feel
it does.  Others feel it does not.

>
>What makes most people against abortion is religious arguments and the fact
>that they can't think clearly about it because it is connected with sex.
>
>"Right-To-Life" people are often the LAST people to be genuinely concerned
>with life.

May I remind you that how we live our lives is a valid concern of religion?
It seems that over the last few hundred ``enlightened'' years, we are denying
the right of people to live their lives according to their beliefs.  And over
the years, sex has been a valid concern of religion.
						  ****If this enlightened
age seeks to reduce religion to a dusty bookshelf of decaying volumes, then
it should not have the right to attack religion on the basis that religion
is what enlightenment has made it.****
				    Conversely, if religion is to be a living
force, a way of life worth retaining, it must be free to challenge ideas
whether those ideas are considered enlightenment or not.

	Most of rhetoric I have heard from the anti-``pro-life'' folk concerns
how it is unfair to subject people to responsibility of carrying a child.  It
seems unsurprising that these same folk don't want religion reminding them
that they may have other responsibilities as well.

	As to being the last people to be genuinely concerned with life: well,
I think that people who spout enlightenment are often the last people to
demonstrate it.  And people whe scream that they must not have their freedoms
impinged upon are among the most enslaved ... they cannot live with things
happenning in their lives that are not of their own choosing.

	This last group scares me.  We (for I am a great example) are among
the least resilient and least resourceful people ever to have lived, and our
civilization may not last if we don't get our individual and collective acts
together.
-- 

	from Mole End			Mark Terribile
		(scrape .. dig )	mtx5b!mat
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.

woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (11/19/85)

> 	As far a a fetus being a ``potential life'', it is exactly the
> point of most of the anti-abortion movement that it IS a life.  The
> modifier ``potential'' is irrelevant.  

  On the contrary, that modifier is the entire issue. If you consider
a fetus to be life from the moment of conception, and I or someone
else happens to disagree, what on earth goves *you* the right to
impose YOUR belief on everyone else? What GALL! What an ego! You
think you can determine morality for everyone. Your way is best for
everyone. People like that make me want to puke.

> The belief that a person, by choosing
> to be a danger to others, may force the community to decide between his life
> and those of his victims is not the same as the belief that an innocent child
> ahould not be murdered in its mother's womb.  We're talking what people 
> BELIEVE.

  Exactly the point. YOU see abortion as murder, many others don't. The pro-
choice people are not FOR abortion. Many of them would not choose to have
an abortion themselves. What pro-choice means is simply the right for
each individual to determine their own morality. It is CLEAR that this is
not so clear-cut an issue as, say, murder. I don't think ANYONE would
argue for the right of someone to take my life because their morality says
it is OK to do so. Abortion is much more controversial. You say abortion
is murder; I say that is your BELIEF, which you state as though it were
a fact. You really have an inflated sense of self-worth.

> 	As far as the prevention of suicide ... is THAT why the Catholic
> Church, which seems to end up spearheading the anti-abortion movement,
> operates at least a half-a-dozen Covenant House centers for runaway or
> abandoned kids in various cities?  

  This is a much better answer to the problem of abortion. If people
had a reasonable alternative they'd be less likely to have abortions.
But no, we have to solve all our problems by making them illegal. What
a crock. Experience shows it doesn't work, so why not try a different
approach? Why are these so-called "pro-lifers" bombing abortion clinics
and killing people instead of offering to take on the 18-year+
responsibility that they want to force these women to take?

> 	As far as being pro-war ... there are always ideologues in every
> crowd who feel that someone or another would do better with a different
> government.  Many times they are right.  

  ...and many more times many people die so they can try and PROVE they are
right. An awfully high price to pay for being right.

> A few of those ideologues get to
> thinking that they could not possibly make things worse, and try to go
> to war.

  Oh, so killing people is better than the current reality. Is that what
you're saying? Sounds like the Organians talking to Captain Kirk (if anyone
is familiar with that Star Trek episode), where Kirk is protesting
the Organians using their powers to stop a war, and the Organian says
"the right to destroy life, kill millions of people. Is that what
you're defending?" Is it?

> we are denying
> the right of people to live their lives according to their beliefs.  

  Couldn't have said it better myself. Even worse, you want them to live
according to YOUR beliefs. How conceited. Barf.

> 	Most of rhetoric I have heard from the anti-``pro-life'' folk concerns
> how it is unfair to subject people to responsibility of carrying a child. 

  And most of the rhetoric I hear from the anti-choice crowd is how
they all know the "right" way for everyone. Bull. All they know is the
right way FOR THEM. And they are all so damned righteous, they make me sick.

  Sorry for the flame, folks, but people like this really make me ill.
Especially when one of them is president.

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!noao}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY

laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (11/20/85)

In article <1863@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
>
>  On the contrary, that modifier is the entire issue. If you consider
>a fetus to be life from the moment of conception, and I or someone
>else happens to disagree, what on earth goves *you* the right to
>impose YOUR belief on everyone else? What GALL! What an ego! You
>think you can determine morality for everyone. Your way is best for
>everyone. People like that make me want to puke.

Greg, you are not thinking straight.  If a fetus is human being, then
abortions are murder.  If a fetus is not a human being, then they are
not. If a fetus is a huamn being at 6 months, but not at 6 weeks, then
an abortion is a murder at 6 months and an abortion is not murder at
6 weeks.  This is the whole issue.

If you think that a fetus is not a human being, and a fetus is, then you
are advocating murder.  That you are doing this in innocence doesn't
lesson that you are advocating murder (though it will certainly influence
my opinion of you).

The question is ``do we know whether a fetus is human or not, and when
it becomes a human if we are agreed that at some time it is a human''?
The answer, as far as I know, is no.  This leaves me with a real
dilemma.  I would like to know whether a fetus is a human so that my moral
position would be very clear cut -- but I can't know this.  So I prefer
to maintain a position that one should not have an abortion, simply because
I am not willing to err on the side of murder.  If it is later determined
that 3 month old fetuses are human I would find it hard to live with myself
if I have been advocating murder.

The real problem is that there is such a fuss made about having a child
out of wedlock. If people could just get pregnant by mistake, have a baby,
hand it over to an adoption agency, and continue on with life without such
a condemnation being made, there might be no need for abortions except
where the life of the pregnant woman was in danger.  But I am not all that
sanguine about the possibility of getting that much of a public attitude
change in a big hurry.

Laura Creighton

-- 
Laura Creighton		
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa

hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (11/20/85)

Please edit the Newsgroups: line to remove this discussion from net.suicide.

Thank you.

-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe)
Citicorp(+)TTI                    The more I work with C, the more I
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.             appreciate the simple elegance of
Santa Monica, CA  90405           FORTRAN.
(213) 450-9111, ext. 2483
{philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe

woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (11/21/85)

> If you think that a fetus is not a human being, and a fetus is, then you
> are advocating murder. 

  The whole point is, we don't *know* this. The fact that it is a subject
of such extensive debate, with large numbers of people (including some
quite well-respected people on both sides) involved is proof of that.
One is only advocation murder if one is advocating killing something that
one believes is a human being. Otherwise all I'm doing is advocating 
what someone *else* considers to be murder. Talking about "reality" is
meaningless when we don't even know what "reality" is. All I'm saying is that
each person should have the freedom to determine that for themself, without
having someone else's opinion forced upon them.

> That you are doing this in innocence doesn't
> lesson that you are advocating murder (though it will certainly influence
> my opinion of you).

  First of all, I do not "advocate" abortion. I advocate letting each person
determine their own morality on an issue which is *not* clearly defined.
Secondly, even if I were, I would only be advocating what someone ELSE
considers murder.

> So I prefer
> to maintain a position that one should not have an abortion, simply because
> I am not willing to err on the side of murder.  

   That is your choice. I say other people should be free to choose differently
and that your choice should not be forced upon them.

> If it is later determined
> that 3 month old fetuses are human I would find it hard to live with myself
> if I have been advocating murder.

   That is your problem, which you choose to solve for yourself by not
having and recommending against abortions. That is fine. I don't think I
would have such a problem; but then, since it's unlikely I'd ever have to make
the choice, it doesn't really matter. The point is that others might not share
your "dilemma". Secondly, how are we going to "determine" when a fetus becomes
human? Simple. One group's opinion becomes law and is therefore forced on
everyone else. Bogus. This is not a determination, it is merely forcing one
group's moral decision onto everyone.

> The real problem is that there is such a fuss made about having a child
> out of wedlock. If people could just get pregnant by mistake, have a baby,
> hand it over to an adoption agency, and continue on with life without such
> a condemnation being made, there might be no need for abortions except
> where the life of the pregnant woman was in danger. 

  This IS the real issue, isn't it? How does one stop abortions effectively?
How do you keep drunks off the road? Etc.? Simple. Provide a reasonable
alternative. Throwing laws at problems does not solve them. Making abortion
illegal would only force the women who want them into the back alleys again.
This would hardly promote the attitude you are looking for in your above
paragraph, which I think is a very realistic and effective approach for
such a problem.

> But I am not all that
> sanguine about the possibility of getting that much of a public attitude
> change in a big hurry.

  Sadly, this too is realistic. But we CERTAINLY won't get this positive 
attitude change by passing laws against abortions, nor will we get it if
we start out by assuming it isn't possible.

> Laura Creighton

--Greg
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo}
       		        !hao!woods

CSNET: woods@NCAR  ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY

ins_apmj@jhunix.UUCP (Patrick M Juola) (11/21/85)

In article <274@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>                                       If a fetus is human being, then
>abortions are murder.  If a fetus is not a human being, then they are
>not. If a fetus is a huamn being at 6 months, but not at 6 weeks, then
>an abortion is a murder at 6 months and an abortion is not murder at
>6 weeks.  This is the whole issue.
>
>If you think that a fetus is not a human being, and a fetus is, then you
>are advocating murder.  That you are doing this in innocence doesn't
>lesson that you are advocating murder (though it will certainly influence
>my opinion of you).

Laura, nicely expressed except for one point -- you are assuming that killing
of a human being is murder in some absolute sense; before the throne of God 
you will be judged on the murder of this poor little fetus regardless of
whether or not you felt it was human.

However, a) murder is a crime -- defined by humans, committed by humans,
punished by humans, all without God's assistance.  There are several instances
where a human can be killed without it being murder -- a soldier in wartime,
a policeman using "deadly force," an honest accident (manslaughter), or
even self-defence.  If (a foetus is human), then (abortions are murder) is
not valid reasoning, since (killing a human) != (murder).  Don't bother to
respond with "Yes, but the fetus isn't harming anyone, so self-defence doesn't
apply"; wars tend to produce thousands of pointless deaths where the soldiers
themselves have nothing to do with the reasons for fighting.

All right, so let's assume that we are talking about the "before the throne"
guilt.  In this context, the "human" discussion is pointless, since the
commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill humans."
Therefore, any abortion is a grevious sin.  q.e.d.  However, this also has
a few problems associated with it (I say as I eat my bacon-double cheese-
burger.)  Even the french fries were once alive....
						Pat Juola
						JHU - Maths

ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (11/22/85)

> Laura, nicely expressed except for one point -- you are assuming that killing
> of a human being is murder in some absolute sense....
> 

Generally, in a society not ruled by tyranny, laws in absoluate terms without
ambiguity define what is murder and what is not.  I don't see your point here.


> However, a) murder is a crime -- defined by humans, committed by humans,
> punished by humans, all without God's assistance.  There are several instances
> where a human can be killed without it being murder -- a soldier in wartime,
> a policeman using "deadly force," an honest accident (manslaughter), or
> even self-defence.  If (a foetus is human), then (abortions are murder) is
> not valid reasoning, since (killing a human) != (murder).
> 
Murder is not a gray area, laws define when killing a human being is murder.
Thus, in most instances within a society, the killing of a human equals murder.

> All right, so let's assume that we are talking about the "before the throne"
> guilt.  In this context, the "human" discussion is pointless, since the
> commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill humans."
> Therefore, any abortion is a grevious sin.  q.e.d.  However, this also has
> a few problems associated with it (I say as I eat my bacon-double cheese-
> burger.)  Even the french fries were once alive....
> 						Pat Juola
> 						JHU - Maths

"Thou shalt not kill applies only to the killing of humans, PERIOD 
If you apply it to all living things, then kindly explain to me how we could
live, we can't live off inorganic substances.

ray (not brain dead as some appear to be) frank

laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (11/22/85)

In article <1868@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
>
>  The whole point is, we don't *know* this. The fact that it is a subject
>of such extensive debate, with large numbers of people (including some
>quite well-respected people on both sides) involved is proof of that.
>One is only advocation murder if one is advocating killing something that
>one believes is a human being. Otherwise all I'm doing is advocating 
>what someone *else* considers to be murder. Talking about "reality" is
>meaningless when we don't even know what "reality" is. All I'm saying is that
>each person should have the freedom to determine that for themself, without
>having someone else's opinion forced upon them.
>
No. talking about reality is not meaningless.  You do not get to determine
what is reality for yourself.  For instance, if person X and person Y
each make a decison about abortion and X sincerely believes that her fetus
is not a human being and Y sincerely believes that her fetus is it does
not follow that X's is not a human being and Y's is on the basis of their
belief.  It follows that either X or Y are making a mistake.

I wonder why this is not obvious.  If I made similar claims about Blacks
(Everyone should have the freedom to determine for themselves whether or
not a Black is a human being, without having someone else's opinion forced
upon them) nobody would let it stand.  I realise that it is easier to
prove that a Black is a human being than a fetus is, but the problem is
exactly the same sort -- what is the nature of a human being?  Does X
have this nature?

-- 
Laura Creighton		
sun!l5!laura		(that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa

aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/23/85)

This abortion discussion is at best tangentially related to net.suicide,
and not terribly closely related to net.religion; I suggest it be removed
from those groups.

-- 
-- Jeff Sargent
{decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq
"Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune(6)...."

dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski) (11/24/85)

In article <274@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>In article <1863@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes:
>>
>>  On the contrary, that modifier is the entire issue. If you consider
>>a fetus to be life from the moment of conception, and I or someone
>>else happens to disagree, what on earth goves *you* the right to
>>impose YOUR belief on everyone else? What GALL! What an ego! You
>>think you can determine morality for everyone. Your way is best for
>>everyone. People like that make me want to puke.
>
>Greg, you are not thinking straight.  If a fetus is human being, then
>abortions are murder.  If a fetus is not a human being, then they are
> ...
>Laura Creighton

Laura, I guess I think you are only partly right.  Greg was confused.
Greg did not seem to realize that the essence of effective civilization
is to avoid unnecessary constraint on others to live together in
adequate harmony.  What you seem to advocate instead is that the full
weight of our most repressive social force should be employed to
suppress activity which a minority evaluates as murder.

Rather than avoiding murder, you advocate that many many people
should be accused of murder.  If the penalty be death, then are you
not similarly liable to accusation of murder for these new deaths?

The argument which takes no cognizance of other aspects is doomed.
The world is very complicated, and trying to simplify it by taking
absolutist, single minded approaches to complex issues can only
further polarize and harden peoples positions.  This does not seem
to lead to resolution of the conflicts.  If you see a way that you
could be led to a broader view of this abortion issue, please let
others know, that they may lead you to enlightenment and joy.

Would it help to know that throughout our human history, the law
regarding abortion has very seldom been the same as the law about
murder.  Freedom of individual choice is another major principle
which we tend to emphasize (and I agree) in Western culture.
Allow others more latitude and life will improve for you, too.

Dick

-- 
Dick Karpinski    Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick   (415) 666-4529 (12-7)
BITNET: dick@ucsfcca   Compuserve: 70215,1277  Telemail: RKarpinski
USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143

dick@ucsfcca.UUCP (Dick Karpinski) (11/24/85)

In article <1248@jhunix.UUCP> ins_apmj@jhunix.ARPA (Patrick M Juola) writes:
>In article <274@l5.uucp> laura@l5.UUCP (Laura Creighton) writes:
>>not. If a fetus is a huamn being at 6 months, but not at 6 weeks, then
>>an abortion is a murder at 6 months and an abortion is not murder at
>>6 weeks.  This is the whole issue.
>
>guilt.  In this context, the "human" discussion is pointless, since the
>commandment reads "Thou shalt not kill," not "Thou shalt not kill humans."
>						Pat Juola

When last I checked in the Interpreter's Bible, the term used originally
meant "the unlawful slaying of a fellow tribesperson" which is how
"righteous people" can go around slaying all them folks in the next
territory over.  Very much a legal definition of murder.  Certainly
not used then to include abortion.  Check it out with your clergy.

Dick

-- 
Dick Karpinski    Manager of Unix Services, UCSF Computer Center
UUCP: ...!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!dick   (415) 666-4529 (12-7)
BITNET: dick@ucsfcca   Compuserve: 70215,1277  Telemail: RKarpinski
USPS: U-76 UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143

arnold@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (12/05/85)

This is really a subject for net.abortion, not net.religion.  Please
remove net.religion (and net.suicide, while you're at it) from the
newgroups list if *you* post an article.
		Ken Arnold