arndt@lymph.DEC (01/30/85)
From: ROLL::USENET "USENET Newsgroup Distributor" 29-NOV-1984 01:37 To: LYMPH::ARNDT Subj: USENET net.philosophy newsgroup articles Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!qumix!pesnta!hplabs!hao!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!cjk Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment Posted: Mon Nov 26 22:43:52 1984 > In article <779@ariel.UUCP> norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) writes: > >I don't give a a damn "what the Bible teaches". Abortion is NOT murder. Those > >who advocate the trial and execution of abortionists are the real advocates of > >murder, and that includes YOU, Tom Albrect. ... <MUCH DELETED> ... If > >someone believes in "what the Bible teaches", there's very little point in > >trying to explain to them a philosophical basis for the concept of rights... > >-Norm Andrews (My opinions are my own, not the Bible's or my employer's...) > > I want to respond to this. I REALLY do. But there's nothing to > respond to. > > > -- > Blessed Be, > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. > Hawthorne, CA 90250 "Grunt went the pig, Neigh went the horse, and moo went the cow as a matter of course." Bumble Be Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!qumix!pesnta!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!raghu Subject: Re: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment Posted: Fri Nov 23 13:41:32 1984 > > > > I have never heard such a evil thing on this network before. I can't believe > > people really think like this. I hope no one else out there has this demented > > view of children, whether you are pro-abortion or not. Does this man propose > > that we set ourselves up higher than any other authority and kill children > > because they can't take care of themselves? I just can't believe anyone could > > say such a thing! > I am not for killing children at will; but just for the sake for argument consider this: If you hold that it is immoral to kill children because they cannot take care of themselves, why isn't it immoral to kill animals for the same reason? Why do people believe it is ok for humans to set themselves as higher authorities over animals which depend on them, but not against other humans who also depend on them. To carry it further; When a baboon is killed and it's heart transplanted in a human, it is hailed as a scientific breakthrough; but can you imagine what the reaction from the world community would be if a human baby (however sick or retarted) were to be killed so it's heart can be transplanted in a baboon, which would be an equally great scientific breakthrough? - raghu Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!qumix!pesnta!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!raghu Subject: Re: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment Posted: Fri Nov 23 14:03:59 1984 > > > So I think parents > > > should have the right to "kill" their children till something > > > like the age of 12. Maybe this guy is on to something revolutionary in evolution of humans (:-)). Though I don't at all agree with his ideas, I must confess there are times when killing humans seems to be the most humane thing to do. A case in point: the starving children of Ethiopia and other African countries. Scientists tell us that these children are already so severly malnourished that even if they were to survive and grow up, they would be so severly retarted (mentally, that is) that they wouldn't be able to take care of themselves and live a normal life. Which means Ethiopia would have a whole generation of retarted citizens (what an awful thought) who would be incapable of looking after or feeding themselves or their children, which means their children would grow up malnourished and retarded. And since the government is too poor (and the international community too unwilling) to guarantee nourishment for these children throughout their lives, isn't it the most humane thing to kill those children (who would otherwise grow up retarded) and end the misery now, rather than propagate it for generations to come? Newsgroups: net.philosophy Path: decwrl!decvax!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!dual!zehntel!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!ea!mwm Subject: Sotware vs. "meat" Posted: Fri Nov 23 13:14:00 1984 Nf-ID: #N:ea:9800040:000:1256 Nf-From: ea!mwm Nov 23 15:14:00 1984 /***** ea:net.politics / wucs!esk / 9:16 pm Nov 20, 1984 */ > Remember, you don't HAVE a body, you ARE a body. > Russ Herman {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!aesat!rwh > You may be a body, but I *have* one. I hope to be uploaded to something > more durable in the future -- > "Protect your software at all costs; the rest is meat." > <mike ( mwm@ea.UUCP ) Russ was right. Software without "meat" is worth nothing. > -- (and off we go into another net.philosophy debate.) Ready when you are! --The untiring iconoclast, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 /* ---------- */ Ok, here we go: Of course software without "meat" is worthless. But "meat" without software has only nutritional value; which makes it worthless as far as this discussion goes. Now, read the last line from me carefully: "I hope to be uploaded to *something* ... ." Key word: "something." I claim that "I" can function on other hardware, be it meat, silicon, plasma, or whatever. [I also claim I can *prove* that that can happen, barring dualism!] Therefore, I can change "bodies" - so I am not a body, any more than I am a house. Both are things that "I" temporarily make use of. Therefore, I "have" a body, in the same manner that I "have" a house. Newsgroups: net.philosophy Path: decwrl!flairvax!baba Subject: Re: Sotware vs. "meat" Posted: Tue Nov 27 22:58:33 1984 (Sotware. Is that a new euphemism for booze?) >From: mwm@ea.UUCP > Now, read the last line from me carefully: "I hope to be uploaded to > *something* ... ." Key word: "something." I claim that "I" can function on > other hardware, be it meat, silicon, plasma, or whatever. [I also claim I > can *prove* that that can happen, barring dualism!] Therefore, I can change > "bodies" - so I am not a body, any more than I am a house. Both are things > that "I" temporarily make use of. Therefore, I "have" a body, in the same > manner that I "have" a house. > less-than-mike Well, thank goodness someone has solved the enigma of personal identity. ;-) Seriously, granting for the sake of the discussion that the state and dynamics of the brain are what define individual awareness (or whatever *your* "I" is), and that a reproduction of the same state and functionality is possible in some other medium, isn't your current fleshmobile still going to die, and isn't your current "I" still going to experience that death, regardless of whether or not your soul-appliance is infected with something that will generate net.news? Approximately-Baba Newsgroups: net.religion,net.philosophy Path: decwrl!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:aeq Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment -- digression Posted: Tue Nov 27 01:22:10 1984 From Bob Atkinson (watmath!csc): > ... I think it is important for us to realize that the > bible is NOT an OBJECTIVE piece of literature, any more than any other > work that has been transcribed by man is. For generations it was > passed down by word of mouth, subject to all the biases and interpretations > of those who passed it on. Even in written form, it has been through > countless translations and rewriting. I find it extremely difficult > to believe that its content is exactly the same as when it began. And so what? Jesus promised, "When...the Spirit of truth comes, He will guide you into all truth." The Bible is still a good guidebook, useful to have; but it is only an assistant, an adjunct to the Spirit, Who bears witness with our spirit that we are His, and Who guides us into all truth. -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Clearing /tmp Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy Path: decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!rohn Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment Posted: Mon Nov 26 12:56:15 1984 Xref: dcdwest net.abortion:849 net.politics:3786 net.religion:3125 net.philosophy:744 Yet another appeal. Please get the #*%&$ abortion articles OUT OF ALL NEWSGROUPS EXCEPT NET.ABORTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The newsgroup was created to keep abortion articles out of other newsgroups. Please recall the suggestions for net courtesy. The discussion of abortion doesn't belong anywhere other than net.abortion. Please keep it there. Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy Path: decwrl!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!eagle!ulysses!allegra!sjuvax!6912ar04 Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment Posted: Mon Nov 26 11:13:49 1984 () If you really advocate the theory which you stated equating humanness with independence, you are not only advocating abortion but the needless deaths of all those who require long-term care and as such are not selfreliant. Would you put a gun to the head of your senile grandparent,your mentally or physically-impaired relative, or your own pre-adolescent child and pull the trigger if they did something to inconvenience you? A little sacrifice is good for everyone once in a while. If you can answer yes to ant of the previously stated rhetorical questions, you possess that which I lack; a complete ignorance of morality. I am not a religious person; indeed, I am forced by my present circumstances to attend services regardless of my own feelings on the matter. However, I DO believe in a universal set of morals, which the concept which you seem to be a proponent of violates. -- A. J. Rowley "see, no problem!" There is no dark side of the moon really; as a matter of fact, it's all dark.... - Pink Floyd, "Eclipse"
arndt@lymph.DEC (02/01/85)
I would like to speak to the following comment by Bob Atkinson. ------------------------- Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment -- digression Posted: Tue Nov 27 01:22:10 1984 From Bob Atkinson (watmath!csc): > ... I think it is important for us to realize that the > bible is NOT an OBJECTIVE piece of literature, any more than any other > work that has been transcribed by man is. For generations it was > passed down by word of mouth, subject to all the biases and interpretations > of those who passed it on. Even in written form, it has been through > countless translations and rewriting. I find it extremely difficult > to believe that its content is exactly the same as when it began. --------------------------- I wonder just what a definition of OBJECTIVE literature would be, given Bob's comment "any more than any other work that has been transcribed by man is." I mean, isn't EVERY piece of literature 'transcribed' by man. By printing (typesetting), copying in any format, even READING is an act of transcribing! There is very little of the Bible that is now believed to have been 'passed down by word of mouth' given the early date now known for the skill of writing. Not only that but the first book of the bible, while believed to be compiled by Moses, is in the format of Summerian tablets, ie. titles last, last phrase on bottem of tablet repeated on top of next tablet to be read, etc. So it is not at all out of place to speculate that Moses compiled from tablets or paper copies of the origional family tablets of Abraham, etc. As for the changes thought to have taken place (and those that did) during the written transmission of the text - well, the bible is THE most reliable body of writing we have in this regard!!!! No other body of writing comes close. Bob writes as if he knows nothing of current knowledge. The Dead Sea Scrolls have given us a look back hundreds of years from the date of the privious known manuscripts. And the texts are relatively unchanged! It IS possible to base doctrune on the texts because only minor changes in words, etc. have occured. NOT ONLY THAT BUT WE HAVE TEXTS WIDLY SEPARATED IN TIME AND PLACE BESIDES THE SCROLLS THAT ALSO SHOW ONLY MINOR CHANGES. It was 19th C. scholarship that believed that the texts must have changed - an argument from silence I might add - and now the EVIDENCE has shown them to be wrong! Just so it used to be believed that oral traditions must have changed with the passage of time. Then anthropological field work showed how reliable the passage of stories, etc. was. That some peoples took great pains to ensure the accurate transmission of their histories. "Primative" people could memorize long passages and pass them on over generations! Don't believe the bible, but don't use this argument. It doesn't hold up. No the content is not EXACTLY the same, but as a matter of judgement, it seems to me to be close enough. I would ask Bob to rethink his statement. Regards, Ken Arndt