rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (10/19/84)
Can someone tell me why the people who *usually* are strongly against abortion are *usually* strongly for capital punishment? Don't use the "punishment fitting the crime" argument unless you are prepared to defend the amputation of the hands of thieves.
biep@klipper.UUCP (J.A. 'Biep' Durieux) (10/22/84)
In article <> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >Can someone tell me why the people who *usually* are strongly >against abortion are *usually* strongly for capital punishment? Is that so? I for me just think people don't have the right to kill other people, whether born or not, and I think there are many people thinking like me. Perhaps it just is a weaker form of "Thou shalt not judge", and even if not, I guess millions of Christians might think like me because of the command- ment "Thou shalt not kill". (If you're a Christian and don't think like me, please join the discussion!) Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (11/07/84)
In article <ccice5.570> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >Can someone tell me why the people who *usually* are strongly >against abortion are *usually* strongly for capital punishment? The reason I am against abortion and for capital punishment is that this is what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that human beings are created in the image of God and that the taking of innocent human life is wrong, so abortion is wrong. In the case of capital punishment, God's law requires that an individual should forefit his/her own life for taking another's life for the exact same reason i.e. humans are created in the image of God and therefore human life is sacred. The murderer is not innocent and the state is required to execute the individual as punishment for taking another person's life. It's interesting how some confuse the issues of abortion and capital punishment and mistakenly believe if you are against one you should be against the other. While they both involve the taking of life, the abortionist is performing the act of a murderer and not that of the state which carries out an execution. As a result the abortionist should be tried for murder and the penalty for the crime handed out. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (11/08/84)
> The reason I am against abortion and for capital punishment is that > ... humans are created in >the image of God and therefore human life is sacred. The murderer is not >innocent and the state is required to execute the individual as punishment >for taking another person's life. ... >-- >Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. > ...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl But the person who happens to commit a murder is a human, so is his life not sacred as well? Certainly before any crime was committed, it was. So if it is no longer sacred after the crime, then we must concede that something that is sacred at one time may not be sacred at another. You seem to be saying that is ok to destroy something that is not sacred, while it is forbidden and reprehensible to destroy a sacred thing. Thus to be certain that in the act of destroying an object we do not ourselves commit a `sin' if you will, we must be certain that the object is not sacred. Since an objects status may change, we must be very clear when these transitions occur. You mention that for a human life, a transition from the sacred to non-sacred status can occur when it takes another human life. (BTW, I would be very interested in seeing your biblical quotes backing this fact.) But is there not also the possibility that a switch in the other direction may occur, one taking a non-sacred person back to the realm of the sacred? With the principle message of the founder of the Christian religion being one of forgiveness, I find it hard to believe that this would be impossible. If this is true, then one can be permitted to execute a human being only if status as non-sacred is firmly established. Otherwise, one is oneself commiting murder. In fact, if one ever made a mistake in this regard (for instance by finding an innocent man guilty) then one would lose one's *own* sacred status. If you accept the above suggestion that a reversal of this status back to its former state is possible, then all is not lost for you. But then you also must concede that the murderer himself might become sacred again. If, however, you reject the hypothesis that such a reversal can happen, then you yourself are damned. -bob atkinson csc@watmath
mbets@pyuxww.UUCP (Mary Beth Fifield) (11/09/84)
I'd like to know where the Bible says it's okay for another man to take a life. If a man must forfeit with his own life if he kills another then ... those people who have condemned a man to death are subject to the same rules, aren't they?
mbets@pyuxd.UUCP (Mary Beth Fifield) (11/09/84)
I agree wholeheartedly with Bob. I also would like to see the Biblical text which supports murder under certain circumstances. Either you believe that all life is sacred or you believe there are grey areas when certain lives become harmful to society/the individuals involved. pyuxb!mbets
norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) (11/09/84)
> The reason I am against abortion and for capital punishment is that > this is what the Bible teaches. The Bible says that human beings are > created in the image of God and that the taking of innocent human life is > wrong, so abortion is wrong. In the case of capital punishment, God's > law requires that an individual should forefit his/her own life for taking > another's life for the exact same reason i.e. humans are created in > the image of God and therefore human life is sacred. The murderer is not > innocent and the state is required to execute the individual as punishment > for taking another person's life. > It's interesting how some confuse the issues of abortion and > capital punishment and mistakenly believe if you are against one you should > be against the other. While they both involve the taking of life, the > abortionist is performing the act of a murderer and not that of the state > which carries out an execution. As a result the abortionist should be > tried for murder and the penalty for the crime handed out. > Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. > ...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl > > 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. It is a very serious thing for you to advocate murder. Apparently you are willing to do so "because this is what the Bible teaches". You say, "The Bible says that human beings are created in the image of God and that the taking of innocent human life is wrong, so abortion is wrong. ... the abortionist is performing the act of a murderer..." The Bible may say that humans are created in the image of God, but so what? There is no God. And the rest of the statements are just as ridiculous. How anyone can jump from 'humans are created in God's image' to "human fetuses are human beings possesing rights" is beyond me. The mis-called "right-to-life"ers are really "right-to-murder-or-advocate-murder-for-anyone- -who-disagrees-with-my-ridiculous-interpretation-of-a-ridiculous-book"ers. 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...)
lab@qubix.UUCP (Q-Bick) (11/12/84)
Re Biblical grounds for capital punishment:
Cain understood it - he feared he would be killed for murdering Abel.
(Gen 4:14)
After the Flood, when God first allows for man to eat flesh, He also
institutes capital punishment. (Gen 9:5,6) This is the standard
reference, for it preceded the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Christ covenants,
and has not been annulled.
The Law of Moses contains many references to capital crimes. Worthy of
note is that none of the capital crimes were violations of the
*ceremonial* laws - the maximum penalty for that was to be cut off from
the people. The capital crimes were abominations against God Himnself
(contrary to what Boswell/Rizzo says).
--
The Ice Floe of Larry Bickford
{amd,decwrl,sun,idi,ittvax}!qubix!lab
You can't settle the issue until you've settled how to settle the issue.daf@ccice6.UUCP (Amphibian Defender) (11/13/84)
> The Bible says that human beings are created in the image of God and > that the taking of innocent human life is wrong, so abortion is wrong. I can follow that reasoning. > In the case of capital punishment, God's law requires that an individual > should forefit his/her own life for taking another's life for the exact > same reason i.e. humans are created in the image of God and therefore > human life is sacred. Could you show me the verse(s) that say this. > The murderer is not innocent and the state is required to execute the > individual as punishment for taking another person's life. Could you show me the verse(s) that say this. Waiting Eagerly
robison@eosp1.UUCP (Tobias D. Robison) (11/13/84)
In article <136@pyuxww.UUCP> mbets@pyuxww.UUCP (Mary Beth Fifield) writes: > > I'd like to know where the Bible says it's okay for >another man to take a life. If a man must forfeit >with his own life if he kills another then ... those people who >have condemned a man to death are subject to the same rules, aren't >they? Somewhere in the first five books of the bible is a particularly clear counter example, called "the law of the pursuer" in discussions of Jewish law. I will post the specific citation to net.philosophy soon. The situation is that if person A is pursuing person B, possibly with intent to kill, then person C who notices this is allowed, possibly even required, to come B's aid, killing A if necessary to save B's life. By the way, doctors who perform an abortion that is sanctioned under Jewish law (which provides very few justifications for abortion) are deemed to be acting under this law, and thus are themselves not guilty of murder. That is, the fetus is viewed as the pursuer, threatening the mother's life, and the doctor is the innocent bystander who has come to her aid. The bible contains numerous other examples of cases where a person was killed in the public good, and the person committing the killing is obviously not punished. The bible clearly shows by example that certain deaths are permitted. For the acts that the bible prescribes death by stoning, there is no suggestion that the stoners should then be treated as criminals. - Toby Robison (not Robinson!) allegra!eosp1!robison or: decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison or (emergency): princeton!eosp1!robison
ackersviller@watmath.UUCP (Paul Ackersviller) (11/13/84)
In article <779@ariel.UUCP> norm@ariel.UUCP (N.ANDREWS) writes: >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... I agree.
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (11/13/84)
[]
Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does
not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when
it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents
should have the right to "kill" their children till something
like the age of 12. In fact in Japan this is already an accepted
point of view. Why would it suddenly be murder t " kill" a baby
that two days ago still was a "fetus" and so possible subject to
abortion? The natural limit would be this: At the moment a child
would be able to live after being rejected by its parents, it
could. Being removed from a womb is such a form of rejection.
(In fact, this is also a [Ll]ibertarian idea: nobody has the duty
to care for someone else, and children are held responsible for
themselves)
--
Biep.
{seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep
I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am
prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it.
--Voltairebrunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (11/14/84)
>From: mbets@pyuxww.UUCP (Mary Beth Fifield) > I'd like to know where the Bible says it's okay for >another man to take a life. If a man must forfeit >with his own life if he kills another then ... those people who >have condemned a man to death are subject to the same rules, aren't >they? Such questions should be directed to your local Orthodox rabbi -- assuming that you really want to know the answer, that is. -- David Brunson, Goy Extraordinaire
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Kreilick) (11/15/84)
> 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. It is a very serious thing for > you to advocate murder. Apparently you are willing to do so "because this is > what the Bible teaches". You say, "The Bible says that human beings are > created in the image of God and that the taking of innocent human life is > wrong, so abortion is wrong. ... the abortionist is performing the act of a > murderer..." The Bible may say that humans are created in the image of God, > but so what? There is no God. And the rest of the statements are just as > ridiculous. How anyone can jump from 'humans are created in God's image' to > "human fetuses are human beings possesing rights" is beyond me. The mis-called > "right-to-life"ers are really "right-to-murder-or-advocate-murder-for-anyone- > -who-disagrees-with-my-ridiculous-interpretation-of-a-ridiculous-book"ers. 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...) Well Norm, it looks like you, daf, csc, and mbets and probably quite a few others have missed Tom's point. Let me set you straight. Tom says: > > In the case of capital punishment, God's > > law requires that an individual should forefit his/her own life for taking > > another's life for the exact same reason i.e. humans are created in > > the image of God and therefore human life is sacred. The murderer is not > > innocent and the state is required to execute the individual as punishment > > for taking another person's life. Upon rereading his lines I'm sure you'll reconsider. Granted Tom does require a little literary license in creating the word "forefit", but I think what's important here is the concept. To require all murderers to spend the rest of their lives on the golf course ("fore fit") seems a fitting punishment indeed! Now I'm not quite sure what he's implying in his next sentence, maybe that all state employees only play "executive" courses? I do hope you all stop picking on Tom and let him get to some really important issues, like the regulation of rape through badminton games. RUTH
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/15/84)
Hey folks, can we get the abortion discussion out of net.religion? This
newsgroup has enough troubles as it is. Net.abortion was created
precisely so the argument would not "take over" other newsgroups. I
don't want to flame at anyone, so P l e e e a s e!
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bchfaustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/15/84)
> [] > Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does > not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when > it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents > should have the right to "kill" their children till something > like the age of 12. In fact in Japan this is already an accepted > point of view. Why would it suddenly be murder t " kill" a baby > that two days ago still was a "fetus" and so possible subject to > abortion? The natural limit would be this: At the moment a child > would be able to live after being rejected by its parents, it > could. Being removed from a womb is such a form of rejection. > (In fact, this is also a [Ll]ibertarian idea: nobody has the duty > to care for someone else, and children are held responsible for > themselves) As I have pointed out before, probably the only reason that laws against murder exist at all is that people feel, subjectively, that it is a bad thing to do. The way laws get created is that people take things that they feel are bad, and then create rationalizations for them, like "It's bad for society". These may be true but are not the primary motivating reasons for such laws. A law that allowed infanticide would, in our society at least, upset too many people to work, regardless of how you rationalize it. On the other hand, people don't ever get to know their children before they are born, so they tend not to form the sort of emotional ties that would lead them to consider abortion a terrible thing (most people, at least). Wayne
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/15/84)
In article <359@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP (Biep) writes: >[] > Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does > not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when > it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents > should have the right to "kill" their children till something > like the age of 12. In fact in Japan this is already an accepted > point of view. Why would it suddenly be murder t " kill" a baby > that two days ago still was a "fetus" and so possible subject to > abortion? The natural limit would be this: At the moment a child > would be able to live after being rejected by its parents, it > could. Being removed from a womb is such a form of rejection. > (In fact, this is also a [Ll]ibertarian idea: nobody has the duty > to care for someone else, and children are held responsible for > themselves) > >-- > > Biep. > {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep Is this supposed to be a sick joke or what? Either this is an example of how ridiculous abortion is or this man wishes to be flamed to death. 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! Since you know that I'm very conservative, you must have guessed I am anti- abortion. I believe that since all life comes from God, and that a fetus is alive, you are killing a creation of God when you have an abortion done. Only God has the right to take away any life that He gave. I suppose that as time goes on, more and more liberals will view children as a burden and wish to get rid of them at older and older ages. "Oh my, he cries to much. Let's kill him and get another." Is this what I will hear parents saying in the future? How disgusting! This man says removing a child from the womb is a form of rejection. I say it is a form of murder, and the worst kind. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken ------------------
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/17/84)
> > Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does > > not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when > > it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents > > should have the right to "kill" their children till something > > like the age of 12. In fact in Japan this is already an accepted > > point of view. Why would it suddenly be murder t " kill" a baby > > that two days ago still was a "fetus" and so possible subject to > > abortion? The natural limit would be this: At the moment a child > > would be able to live after being rejected by its parents, it > > could. Being removed from a womb is such a form of rejection. > > (In fact, this is also a [Ll]ibertarian idea: nobody has the duty > > to care for someone else, and children are held responsible for > > themselves) > > Is this supposed to be a sick joke or what? Either this is an example of how > ridiculous abortion is or this man wishes to be flamed to death. > > 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! Of course he's not serious. What I don't see is how somebody could possibly miss the ironic intent of the article... Wayne
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (11/19/84)
In article <315@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) writes: >In article <359@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP (Biep) writes: >>[] >> Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does >> not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when >> it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents >> should have the right to "kill" their children till something >> like the age of 12. In fact in Japan this is already an accepted >> point of view. Why would it suddenly be murder t " kill" a baby >> that two days ago still was a "fetus" and so possible subject to >> abortion? The natural limit would be this: At the moment a child >> would be able to live after being rejected by its parents, it >> could. Being removed from a womb is such a form of rejection. >> (In fact, this is also a [Ll]ibertarian idea: nobody has the duty >> to care for someone else, and children are held responsible for >> themselves) >> >>-- >> >> Biep. >> {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep > >Is this supposed to be a sick joke or what? Either this is an example of how >ridiculous abortion is or this man wishes to be flamed to death. > >-- >"...holding forth the Ken Nichols > word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken >------------------ [] No, it's no sick joke. I am against abortion myself, but reading some of the articles on the net, I wondered whether there still were any ethics left. So I put this article on the net, just to see how people would react. Well, you were the only one to attack the attitude pronounced. In fact, except for the two guys who al- ways correct my English, you were the only one at all to react. Either this world is completely rotten, or all net.philosophy readers understood this couldn't be real. I *do* hope the latter, but... So please listen, everybody: THE ABOVE ARTICLE DOES *NOT* REPRESENT MY OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT AT ALL !! I guess the sick joke is that (besides you) nobody thought it worth replying. -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (11/19/84)
In article <ariel.779> 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. It is a very serious thing for >you to advocate murder. How am I advocating murder? I only said that abortion IS murder. I didn't tell anyone to go out and commit murder. And how do you know that abortion is NOT murder? What is your base set of evidence for making such a claim? >... The Bible may say that humans are created in the image of God, >but so what? There is no God. And the rest of the statements are just as >ridiculous. >... 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...) Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that Christians who believe in what the Bible teaches are barred from speaking up. Seriously, I believe that Scripture gives us a consistent world view on which we can form opinions and make decisions. It is an objective standard and starting point. The idea that my opinions are worthless because they are based on the Bible is ludicrous. I could say the same thing about your opinions; they seem even more absurd to me because they have no basis in reality. You only believe them because they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/21/84)
>In article <ccice5.570> rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) writes: >>Can someone tell me why the people who *usually* are strongly >>against abortion are *usually* strongly for capital punishment? > Because I believe in the right to life. Both the unborn baby and the victim of violent crime have that right. P.S. "Capital punishment" is semantically null. I support a death penalty and the reason I do is inherent in the name I give it. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Kreilick) (11/21/84)
> In article <359@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP (Biep) writes: > >[] > > Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does > > not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when > > it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents > > should have the right to "kill" their children till something > > like the age of 12. In fact in Japan this is already an accepted > > point of view. Why would it suddenly be murder t " kill" a baby > > that two days ago still was a "fetus" and so possible subject to > > abortion? The natural limit would be this: At the moment a child > > would be able to live after being rejected by its parents, it > > could. Being removed from a womb is such a form of rejection. > > (In fact, this is also a [Ll]ibertarian idea: nobody has the duty > > to care for someone else, and children are held responsible for > > themselves) > > > >-- > > > > Biep. > > {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep > > Is this supposed to be a sick joke or what? Either this is an example of how > ridiculous abortion is or this man wishes to be flamed to death. > > 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 Perhaps what you meant to say is that you can't believe that others think before spewing drivel to the net. > 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! > > Since you know that I'm very conservative, you must have guessed I am anti- > abortion. I believe that since all life comes from God, and that a fetus is > alive, you are killing a creation of God when you have an abortion done. Only > God has the right to take away any life that He gave. > > I suppose that as time goes on, more and more liberals will view children as > a burden and wish to get rid of them at older and older ages. > > "Oh my, he cries to much. Let's kill him and get another." Is this what I > will hear parents saying in the future? How disgusting! > > This man says removing a child from the womb is a form of rejection. I say > it is a form of murder, and the worst kind. > -- > "...holding forth the Ken Nichols > word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken > ------------------ *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/21/84)
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
csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club) (11/21/84)
> Seriously, I believe that Scripture >gives us a consistent world view on which we can form opinions and make >decisions. It is an objective standard and starting point. The idea >that my opinions are worthless because they are based on the Bible is >ludicrous. I beg to differ with you Tom. Though I agree with you that we will get nowhere if we all jump up and down and scream at each other, as some of are prone to do, 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 could say the same thing about your opinions; they seem >even more absurd to me because they have no basis in reality. You only >believe them because they give you a warm, fuzzy feeling. >Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. Perhaps so. However, I believe that you hold the beliefs that you do regarding devinity and the origin of the universe because they give you and countless others both today and over the course of history a `warm, fuzzy feeling'. We aren't going to get anywhere in any discussion of this sort if we keep relying on emotional arguments and rationalizations. Even when we do appeal to such strategies, we should at least attempt to make our arguments watertight, such that if someone is willing to accept our premisses (on the sacredity (pardon for creating words) of human life or whatever) then he must accept our conclusion. I have yet to see your response to the problem that I raised with regard to your original posting. -bob atkinson csc@watmath
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (11/24/84)
> > > > 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
raghu@rlgvax.UUCP (Raghu Raghunathan) (11/24/84)
> > > 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?
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Kreilick) (11/24/84)
> [] > No, it's no sick joke. I am against abortion myself, but reading > some of the articles on the net, I wondered whether there still > were any ethics left. So I put this article on the net, just to > see how people would react. Well, you were the only one to attack > the attitude pronounced. In fact, except for the two guys who al- > ways correct my English, you were the only one at all to react. > Either this world is completely rotten, or all net.philosophy > readers understood this couldn't be real. > I *do* hope the latter, but... > > So please listen, everybody: THE ABOVE ARTICLE DOES *NOT* > REPRESENT MY OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT AT ALL !! > > I guess the sick joke is that (besides you) nobody thought it > worth replying. Biep, Who is holding your family hostage? Mail me the answer, and we will come an free them so you can retract this nonsense and post some more sound views like the original. Borok.
cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Kreilick) (11/26/84)
> 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
6912ar04@sjuvax.UUCP (rowley) (11/26/84)
()
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"rohn@randvax.UUCP (Laurinda Rohn) (11/26/84)
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. Lauri
jhull@spp2.UUCP (11/28/84)
>In article <359@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP (Biep) writes: >>[] >> Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does >> not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when >> it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents >> should have the right to "kill" their children till something >> like the age of 12... >>-- >> {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep In article <315@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) replies: >Is this supposed to be a sick joke or what? Either this is an example of how >ridiculous abortion is or this man wishes to be flamed to death. > >I have never heard such a evil thing on this network before...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 hold very conservative views on some issues and liberal (or libertarian) views on others (e.g., I see merit to the arguments of both sides of the abortion question). Yet, I, too, am shocked by what I read in biep's article. If he means what I think he means, then Ken Nichol's use of "evil thing" is appropriate and I, for one, want to see no more of it. Perhaps he doesn't mean what it seems to me he says. biep, please followup SOONEST. -- Blessed Be, jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. Hawthorne, CA 90250
tim@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (11/28/84)
> As I have pointed out before, probably the only reason that laws against > murder exist at all is that people feel, subjectively, that it is a bad > thing to do. The way laws get created is that people take things that they > feel are bad, and then create rationalizations for them, like "It's bad > for society". These may be true but are not the primary motivating reasons > for such laws. A law that allowed infanticide would, in our society at least, > upset too many people to work, regardless of how you rationalize it. On the > other hand, people don't ever get to know their children before they are > born, so they tend not to form the sort of emotional ties that would lead > them to consider abortion a terrible thing (most people, at least). > > Wayne There are far deeper reasons than "It seems like a bad thing" to outlaw murder. If that were all there was to it, I would oppose laws against murder. I find religious dogmatism to be the purest moral poison imaginable, but I would never support laws which made it illegal or were in any way prejudicial towards its adherents. The attraction or repulsion we feel for acts and ideas can not be safely allowed to shape our thinking on legal matters. It is simply this: Does an action thwart the opportunity for some person to do their will? If so, it is undesirable and should be prevented if that is the way which minimizes restriction. Humans have banded together in governments to accomplish this and protect each other -- unfortunately, such groupings have often been unconcerned with humans outside a narrow sphere, the protected class. This hurts the entire race. A global perspective, although not necessarily a "world government", is needed. -- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University Computation Center ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim (supposedly) "Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains." Liber AL, II:9.
emh@bonnie.UUCP (Edward M. Hummel) (11/28/84)
>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 >... >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? A much better solution would be to keep them alive in special care centers where they would be available as donors for organ transplants. Thousands of people, many of them children, die each year because of a lack of ready (fresh) donors. Hospitals and prospective organ recipients would be more than willing to foot the bills for the center. I am sure that the people who objected to the Baby Fae experiment because it was cruel to the baboon would welcome alternative organ sources. In fact, maybe it makes sense to do away with animals for experimentation all together! Retarded Ethiopian children would make much better subjects in laboratory experiments. Now if there was only some way to save human fetuses for the same purpose ... Maybe if we require abortions to be postponed until the third month. That wouldn't be too much of an inconvenience for the mother (or temporary life support system) and would give doctors the opportunity to save some percent of the abortions for future use. Ed Hummel {ihnp4,cmcl2,burl,allegra,...}!clyde!bonnie!emh
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (11/30/84)
> >In article <359@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP (Biep) writes: > >>[] > >> Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does > >> not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when > >> it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents > >> should have the right to "kill" their children till something > >> like the age of 12... > >>-- > >> {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep > > > In article <315@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) replies: > >Is this supposed to be a sick joke or what? Either this is an example of how > >ridiculous abortion is or this man wishes to be flamed to death. > > > >I have never heard such a evil thing on this network before...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 hold very conservative views on some issues and liberal (or > libertarian) views on others (e.g., I see merit to the arguments of > both sides of the abortion question). Yet, I, too, am shocked by what > I read in biep's article. If he means what I think he means, then Ken > Nichol's use of "evil thing" is appropriate and I, for one, want to > see no more of it. > > Perhaps he doesn't mean what it seems to me he says. biep, please > followup SOONEST. Some people are just too dense... He did send a followup in which he said that no, in fact he was not serious... I am worried, though, about those people who actually believed that he was serious about this thing and attacked his statements as shocking and terrible. Maybe it says something about the morals of the people who can imagine somebody seriously proposing this sort of thing... Wayne
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (11/30/84)
In article <276@spp2.UUCP> jhull@spp2.UUCP (Jeff Hull) writes: >>In article <359@klipper.UUCP> biep@klipper.UUCP (Biep) writes: >>>[] >>> Human fetuses are no humans, and may be aborted. Since birth does >>> not miraculously brew "humans", the only logical limit is when >>> it becomes clear that a child is reasonable. So I think parents >>> should have the right to "kill" their children till something >>> like the age of 12... >>>-- >>> {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep > > >In article <315@qantel.UUCP> ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) replies: >>Is this supposed to be a sick joke or what? Either this is an example of how >>ridiculous abortion is or this man wishes to be flamed to death. >> >>I have never heard such a evil thing on this network before...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 hold very conservative views on some issues and liberal (or >libertarian) views on others (e.g., I see merit to the arguments of >both sides of the abortion question). Yet, I, too, am shocked by what >I read in biep's article. If he means what I think he means, then Ken >Nichol's use of "evil thing" is appropriate and I, for one, want to >see no more of it. > >Perhaps he doesn't mean what it seems to me he says. biep, please >followup SOONEST. > >-- > Blessed Be, > > jhull@spp2.UUCP Jeff Hull > trwspp!spp2!jhull@trwrb.UUCP 13817 Yukon Ave. > Hawthorne, CA 90250 [] Well, I had already followed up to ken's article, but since it doesn't seem to have reached everybody: - I am generally against abortion - I wondered what reactions an article like this would cause - I wondered how abortion advocators would go about showing out the errors in my argument. Hoping to have calmed everybody this time, -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. --Voltaire
daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) (12/02/84)
> [] > Well, I had already followed up to ken's article, but since it > doesn't seem to have reached everybody: > > - I am generally against abortion > - I wondered what reactions an article like this would cause > - I wondered how abortion advocators would go about showing out > the errors in my argument. > > > Hoping to have calmed everybody this time, > -- > > Biep. > {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep > > I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am > prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. > --Voltaire Biep, I believe you've mispoken. Now while it may be true that you are against abortion, and wonder what reactions an article like this might cause, that's no excuse for not putting periods at the end of your sentences. I've spent quite a bit of time correnting your articles and frankly, I had thought we crossed that hurdle. Please respond. P.S. In the future: "Look before you roll a stone out of the frying paunch and prepare yourself to be basted to the death for your right to ignore Karl's mail based on unfounded precepts." cjk P.P.S. Who the heck is this Voltaire anyway?
johnston@spp1.UUCP (12/04/84)
This is concerning Biep's no infamous letter which I won't repeat: > > Some people are just too dense... He did send a followup in which he > said that no, in fact he was not serious... I am worried, though, about > those people who actually believed that he was serious about this thing > and attacked his statements as shocking and terrible. Maybe it says > something about the morals of the people who can imagine somebody > seriously proposing this sort of thing... > > Wayne Is the holocaust that far back in history. I'm not trying to tie Hitler's ideas directly into this, but he seriously proposed (and carried out) some quite shocking ideas. Where would we be, if no on could imagine him being serious about his satements. I'm much more worried about the responders who also believed the article to be his true sentiments and espoused them to the point that they were in disbelief when he retracted them. There's some dangerous babysitters. Mike Johnston
biep@klipper.UUCP (J. A. "Biep" Durieux) (12/11/84)
In article <252@ccice6.UUCP> daf@ccice6.UUCP (David Fader) writes: >> [] >> Well, I had already followed up to ken's article, but since it >> doesn't seem to have reached everybody: >> >> - I am generally against abortion >> - I wondered what reactions an article like this would cause >> - I wondered how abortion advocators would go about showing out >> the errors in my argument. >> >> >> Hoping to have calmed everybody this time, >> -- >> >> Biep. >> {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep >> >> I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am >> prepared to fight myself to death for your right to say it. >> --Voltaire > >Biep, I believe you've mispoken. > >Now while it may be true that you are against abortion, and wonder >what reactions an article like this might cause, that's no excuse >for not putting periods at the end of your sentences. I've spent >quite a bit of time correnting your articles and frankly, I had >thought we crossed that hurdle. Please respond. > > >P.S. > > In the future: > > "Look before you roll a stone out of the frying paunch > and prepare yourself to be basted to the death for your > right to ignore Karl's mail based on unfounded precepts." > > > cjk > > >P.P.S. > > Who the heck is this Voltaire anyway? I'm so sorry... I can't tell you how hard I've been trying not to misspell things and to write proper syntax. I really don't see what I did wrong (I put periods after both of my phrases), but you must be correct. Perhaps I don't understand what you mean because I don't know what "correnting" means... Please, please, forgive me, please lead me out of the dark, and let the sun of English style shine upon (on ?) me... No, no, please, not the whip!! I'll never do it again!! I promise!! ... . . . And in his fears he fought himself to death. Once more the Great Voltaire proved correct. In his will he left me this login, and charged cjk to take care of his huge debts. I think to act according to what he would have done by posting this his last article to the net. I've changed the quote, however, since it has already taken too many lives. Please let's honor this netlander with two minutes of silence. 1 minute passed... ok. -- Biep. {seismo|decvax|philabs}!mcvax!vu44!botter!klipper!biep I utterly disagree with everything you are saying, but I am prepared to fight to the death for your right to say it. --Voltaire