umina@darts.DEC (01/18/85)
I read with some concern the discussion of the definition of
humanity and morality that Brad and Andrew are having.
Neither of you, in your infinite wisdom is capable at this time
of defining morality or humanity. No matter what definition you
propose, it can be picked apart or misinterpeted a piece at a
time until it no longer resembles what you thought you were
origionally defining.
Fear not, for this problem has plagued mankind for centuries, and
was pursued with fervor by every major civilization on the earth.
Perhaps even the great scholars of Rome had no place in defining
morality, for they also failed. It wasn't until the Jews, and a
later Jewish Sect, the Christians, appeared that these issues
acheived any sort of stability within humanity.
They achieved this stability because they were based on faith.
Faith in God. Faith in prophets. Faith in revelation. Faith in
scriptures.
The Judeo-Christian definition of morality and ethics now has
come to be the basis for the advancement of mankind. Can it be
wrong ? You tell me. Is it hard to abide by ? Sometimes. Is
it often misinterpeted to achieve the ends of spcecial interests
? Yes.
The central question to the abortion issue is not wether or not
there are too many people on the earth and its overcrowded (That
premise was put forth centuries ago guys and was proven just as
false then as it is now. Technology has continually 'appeared'
to solve the problems additional population has created.)
Neither is the central question when life begins. If you are
concerned when life begins you obviously are concerned wether or
not you are killing a 'human', but the point of when that life
could achieve some secular status will change with any definition
you are possible of creating as our understanding of life itself
increases.
Neither is the central question what species is 'human'. To be
sure all species have rights. All of the creatures on Earth seem
to have some purpose. It is the purpose of that species that
determines what rights it has.
Neither is the central question wether or not it is right to
murder. One can (and we do) spend a lot of time defining when it
is permissable to kill - not only humans but other species as
well.
The real premise you must struggle with is wether there is or is
not a God, wether or not there is or was a Christ. If there is,
you are in deep trouble trying to rationalize the killing of a
human fetus by either attempting to define humanity, or the point
at which life begins. If there is not, then your attempts to
form a basis for the 'correct' definition of permissable abortion
are in vain as they will change with societies needs and
aspirations anyway.
If you can believe that there has here on Earth somehow occurred
a significant abberration in entropy through which you and your
colleagues have 'evolved' I salute you. You are then quite
obviously far ahead of me in evolution and understanding.
No one can argue that the glory of God is intelligence. To bring
to pass the immortality of man is no small achievement. One
thing is for sure, God's views, instructions, percepts and wisdom
would not change except as we ourselves change. A 'higher' form
of behavior allows an even higher law to be exemplified. (Hence
the New vs the Old Test.) I'd like to move on to the next step
for us all myself.
Do not wonder how we can handle the added population here on
Earth. There will be a way. The technology exists today to give
every inhabitant the same quality of life you enjoy. The oceans
are still full of water, fusion technology threatens to make
energy almost free, and space is to us what the new world was to
Columbus.
What stands in the way is only our own ability to accept these
things for what they are, and to rid ourselves of that stubborn
human traight of selfishness. If you don't believe that take a
look around you for a minute.
Women are concerned about having children because of the
imposition that raising them has on their ability to enjoy life.
Many men don't want the financial responsiblity it entails, even
though they could easily afford it. Some of you don't think that
you have enough whatever and more competitors will result in your
getting even less.
What scares me is that the very people who are not procreating
are wasting their inheritance. Their inheritance is their
genetic gift of intelligence. They squander it on good times and
self indulgence. They are intoxicated in the lives that the
misuse of these technological gifts can create. Meanwhile time
goes by.
The next generation, deprived of the most intelligent among us,
will suffer. There will not be enough among us to effect or deal
with the problems that will face humanity, and the consequences
will be grave. Emotion will lead the masses and the result will
be disaster.
Let's face it guys history tells us that without faith and
attention to the teachings of God every civilization is doomed to
destruction. It's a matter of record. Conversely, every thing
that the human race could throw at certain groups has been
successfully withstood for centuries. Now these things may not
effect your lifetime and you may not care. If you find out that
upon your death you did not die at all though you might want to
be in a better position than having supported the destruction of
innocent human life.ssp@sun.uucp (Stephen Page) (01/19/85)
What, Umina haveta wade through twice as many screens because u double- spaced, wether (sic) a wants ta or not? Sparing you netlanders the trouble, umina introduces a lot of stuff that only has validity within a religious (specifically Judeo-Christian) context. Even then it's pretty weird. It (umina) thinks this debate can be stopped in its tracks because it believes in a God who has revealed the answers to this debate. (and who incidentally will punish dissenters) Listen umina, (partly) because I don't believe in a God, I can't be sure I know the answers. But your sureness *DOESN'T* make you right! It doesn't even make your ideas more right than mine. The abortion clinic bombers, Ayatollah Khomeini, some people on both sides of this debate, etc. *KNOW* they are right. Big deal. See all the articles in this news group that manage to debate morals, ethics and law separately from all this religious crap. Religion guides many people's morals, which is fine, but it doesn't prove anything. I managed to reduce 500 lines of point-by-point refutation, argument, and name-calling to this. Do I get a prize? not my opinions, not my employer's opinions