OT: Can a Christian vote for Hillary?

[Lynn McGuire]

Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/

"There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood, especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary Clinton is a
radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that the Democratic Party platform reinforces those radical views, can a Christian vote
for Hillary in good conscience?"

Lynn

[David Johnston]

If God hated abortion that much, why is the biblical punishment for
causing one paying a fine to father?

[Dorothy J Heydt]

Well, I plan to.

[William December Starr]

In article <nolspe$5b9$1...@dont-email.me>,

Ooh, scary word: "radical"!

-- wds

[Alan Baker]

She's not pro-abortion.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:22:56 AM UTC+10, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
> http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/
>
> "There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood, especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary Clinton is a

Strange, it seems to be o.k. if a bear does it for poking fun at a holy man...
What's your feeling on the deaths of children caused by the Gulf War II brought about by republican lies?

> radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that the Democratic Party platform reinforces those radical views, can a Christian vote
> for Hillary in good conscience?"
>

I reckon you'll find a fair bit non-christian in the GOP party platform as well if you read the bible...

[Kevrob]

I wouldn't care if she were "pro-abortion" by self-declared
"pro-lifer's" point of view. If she wants tax money to pay for
abortions, then the tag probably fits. I do not support
re-criminalizing abortion, but see no need to subsidize it.
Wealthy "pro-choicers" like Ms Rodham/Mrs Clinton can voluntarily
fund women who can't pay for the procedure. Until very recently,
Mr Trump would have been one of that number.

Kevin R

[David DeLaney]

Well, since the Bible flat-out _says_ that causing a woman to lose a fetus has
a different, and lesser (depending on what the judge decides, all the way down
to "none at all"), punishment than killing a man (don't believe me? check out
Exodus 21), obviously God hates murder rather MORE than shedding the blood of
by-definition-innocent-because-they're-not-HUMANS-yet fetuses.

So if the people trying to damn Hillary and others to Hell for being pro-
abortion, meaning "not opposed to it in any and all circumstances except where
nobody will ever find out" the way most of the loudly vocal anti-abortion crowd
is?, would instead focus their anger about what evils and wicknedness are being
done in this world on, you know, what's happening to ACTUAL LIVE HUMAN POST-
BORN CHILDREN, they'd be a lot better off and wouldn't be going to be surprised
in the afterlife at how much hypocrisy they're bein charged with.

Being accepting of the fact that abortion _exists_, and has for millennia, and
is LEGAL in the U.S.A., and that you don't GET to tell others that they can't
possibly have it as one of the options available?

Is in no way _radical_.

It may seem so to some of those doing the yelling, but that's mainly because
they're so down on the concepts of women being people, and qualified to decide
how their lives go for themselves, that they'd paint both Richard Nixon and
Ronald Reagan as "radical-left socialist commie hippies".

So the question as phrased is meaningless, because it's assuming facts that
are not at all in evidence.

(Alsotooplus, if being non-totally-anti-abortion is what makes you hold your
nose and vote for Cinnamon Hitler, I submit that you haven't taken NEARLY
enough time to examine the things he's done and that he's espousing that might
maybe possibly be in some wee bit of conflict with what Christianty's founder
actually said...)

Dave, just tired of people trying to slip in "facts" that are nothing like
--
\/David DeLaney posting thru EarthLink - "It's not the pot that grows the flower
It's not the clock that slows the hour The definition's plain for anyone to see
Love is all it takes to make a family" - R&P. VISUALIZE HAPPYNET VRbeable<BLINK>
http://gatekeeper.vic.com/~dbd/ -net.legends/Magic / I WUV you in all CAPS! --K.

[Titus G]

Notes for next weeks, "Sabbath School for Small Children".

"All life is precious until it steps on my property."

Martin Luther King, Wall Street Banker?
Ghandi, Property Magnate?
Jesus, the original White Zombie and Holocaust Denier?
FourBricksinanOtherwiseEmptySkull?
Definitely NOT an Official Pub Licking Policy.
Insert favourite oxymoron or hypocrite here.

P.S.
A Christian in a free country CAN vote for FREE Frikking CHOICE.
Should an honest Christian vote for corruption and obedience to AIPAC
and Wall Street? Hmmmm?

[leif...@dimnakorr.com]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
> Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
> http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/
>
> "There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood,
> especially the blood of children."

Psalm 137:9 deigns to disagree.

--
Leif Roar Moldskred

[Robert Carnegie]

And the answer?

But this is WND. Why are you reading it? Why are we reading it?

[William December Starr]

In article <9a6d4e1c-63cd-4d1c...@googlegroups.com>,

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:

> I wouldn't care if she were "pro-abortion" by self-declared
> "pro-lifer's" point of view. If she wants tax money to pay for
> abortions, then the tag probably fits. I do not support
> re-criminalizing abortion, but see no need to subsidize it.

What do you see a need to subsidize?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <b5751bb6-8d9d-4cfb...@googlegroups.com>,

We aren't.

-- wds

[Quadibloc]

It is regrettable that there are _no_ pro-life candidates available; Donald
Trump has no credentials in this regard either.

It's unfortunate that a widespread consensus has arisen that abortion is normal
and acceptable, and it will take a significant amount of public education to
overcome this.

Trump, however, is not your run-of-the-mill politician. Were he to be elected,
real disaster is possible - and I don't see how that can happen, because among
people who really can't vote for him are blacks, Hispanics, and probably
Asians; right there, that's over half the electorate. Few women will vote for
him either, as he has expressed contempt for women - and has shown his contempt
by his actions. Remember Ivana Trump and Marla Maples?

He might manage to get slightly over half the white male vote (if so, I feel
sorry for America) but how far can that get him?

A loudmouth and a buffoon is what he is; someone like that as President could
well put his foot the wrong way in navigating the terrible challenges America
will face in dealing with Russia, China, ISIL, Iran, and so on.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 8/13/2016 11:20 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:22:56 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
>> http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/
>>
>> "There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood, especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary Clinton is a
>> radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that the Democratic Party platform reinforces those radical views, can a Christian vote
>> for Hillary in good conscience?"
>
> It is regrettable that there are _no_ pro-life candidates available; Donald
> Trump has no credentials in this regard either.
>
> It's unfortunate that a widespread consensus has arisen that abortion is normal
> and acceptable, and it will take a significant amount of public education to
> overcome this.

"Public education" has a limited ability to change people's opinions.

>
> Trump, however, is not your run-of-the-mill politician. Were he to be elected,
> real disaster is possible - and I don't see how that can happen, because among
> people who really can't vote for him are blacks, Hispanics, and probably
> Asians; right there, that's over half the electorate. Few women will vote for
> him either, as he has expressed contempt for women - and has shown his contempt
> by his actions. Remember Ivana Trump and Marla Maples?
>
> He might manage to get slightly over half the white male vote (if so, I feel
> sorry for America) but how far can that get him?
>
> A loudmouth and a buffoon is what he is; someone like that as President could
> well put his foot the wrong way in navigating the terrible challenges America
> will face in dealing with Russia, China, ISIL, Iran, and so on.
>

Oh I don't know about that. To do the kind of things you advocate, you
need a man with no concern for the consequences of his actions. As far
as you go, Trump should be the right man for the job.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:22:46 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<l...@winsim.com> wrote in<news:nolspe$5b9$1...@dont-email.me>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
> http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/

WorldNetDaily?! That’s one of the looniest RWNJ sites on
the net: ‘birtherism’, homophobia, Islamophobia, and sheer
nut jobbery, like the series that made the claim that
eating soy causes homosexuality.

[...]

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

How does anyone buying into that last explain the existence of 1.3
billion Chinese?





--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:46:39 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans
<l...@sff.net> wrote
in<news:i6nuqbpvuur1ie6em...@reader80.eternal-september.org>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:40:01 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

>>On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:22:46 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>><l...@winsim.com> wrote in<news:nolspe$5b9$1...@dont-email.me>
>>in rec.arts.sf.written:

>>> Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
>>> http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/

>>WorldNetDaily?! That’s one of the looniest RWNJ sites on
>>the net: ‘birtherism’, homophobia, Islamophobia, and sheer
>>nut jobbery, like the series that made the claim that
>>eating soy causes homosexuality.

> How does anyone buying into that last explain the existence of 1.3
> billion Chinese?

Lots and lots of really big vats?

Brian
--
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties. The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:46:42 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:40:01 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:

> >like the series that made the claim that
> >eating soy causes homosexuality.

> How does anyone buying into that last explain the existence of 1.3
> billion Chinese?

So-called Chinese food is not really what the Chinese eat, it's just a sinister
plot to destroy the West! See... it's _easy_ when you know how to rationalize
everything to fit one's paranoid theories.

Or, if one is presented with indisputable evidence that soya sauce really is
widely used in China, one could then say that the Chinese have a genetic
immunity to its effects!

John Savard

[Kevrob]

Very little. I vote Libertarian. Even if I considered abortion
just a normal part of health care for women, as it sometimes is,
I don't support state involvement in the provision and/or
funding of health care for men or women.

The 2016 Democratic platform supports repealing the Hyde amendment,
which is supposed to prevent spending federal money on abortions.

HRC is running on that, too.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4572858/hillary-clinton-calls-ending-hyde-amendment

If wanting to spend Fed Funds on abortion can't be called
"pro-abortion," what can be? Making it mandatory?

Kevin R

[Lynn McGuire]

Wow, I heard this speech when Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and
George W. Bush were running. The speech was wrong then and it is wrong now.

And HRC founded ISIS with Obama. She will not deal with ISIS.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

On 8/13/2016 12:46 PM, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 13:40:01 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
> <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Aug 2016 20:22:46 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <l...@winsim.com> wrote in<news:nolspe$5b9$1...@dont-email.me>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>>> Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
>>> http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/
>>
>> WorldNetDaily?! That’s one of the looniest RWNJ sites on
>> the net: ‘birtherism’, homophobia, Islamophobia, and sheer
>> nut jobbery, like the series that made the claim that
>> eating soy causes homosexuality.
>
> How does anyone buying into that last explain the existence of 1.3
> billion Chinese?

And 700+ million of them are men.

Lynn

[Kevrob]

I know I didn't support RWR in 1976 because I thought he might
be too quick to go to war.

> George H. W. Bush,

Republicans in 1988 may have rallied behind the soon-to-be Bush 41,
but the conservative faithful thought him a moderate at heart, a
squish, too much the diplomat. But he ordered the US military to
recover Kuwait from Iraq, and his diplomatic skills forged a
coalition of participants and supporters much wider than what
43 managed in the following century.


Old joke: "They told me that if I voted for Goldwater, we'd be
at war in Viet Nam within a year. Well sure enough, I voted
for Goldwater and now a year later we're at war in Viet Nam!"

Kevin R

[Brian M. Scott]

On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
in<news:99811bc1-ade0-4dd4...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:30:46 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
>> In article <9a6d4e1c-63cd-4d1c...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:
>>
>>> I wouldn't care if she were "pro-abortion" by self-declared
>>> "pro-lifer's" point of view. If she wants tax money to pay for
>>> abortions, then the tag probably fits. I do not support
>>> re-criminalizing abortion, but see no need to subsidize it.
>>
>> What do you see a need to subsidize?
>>
>

> Very little. I vote Libertarian. Even if I considered
> abortion just a normal part of health care for women, as
> it sometimes is, I don't support state involvement in
> the provision and/or funding of health care for men or
> women.

Which in the real world is a position with inhumane
consequences.

> The 2016 Democratic platform supports repealing the Hyde
> amendment, which is supposed to prevent spending federal
> money on abortions.

Thereby discriminating against a single class of medical
procedures on wholly non-medical grounds.

> HRC is running on that, too.

> https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4572858/hillary-clinton-calls-ending-hyde-amendment

> If wanting to spend Fed Funds on abortion can't be called
> "pro-abortion," what can be? Making it mandatory?

That would certainly be a better fit for the term, but one
needn’t go quite that far: running a PR campaign actively
encouraging women to get abortions would qualify. I don’t
think that I’ve ever met anyone who is genuinely
pro-abortion. Your usage is fundamentally propagandistic.

[Kevrob]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 4:52:16 PM UTC-4, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2016 12:38:08 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob
> <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote
> in<news:99811bc1-ade0-4dd4...@googlegroups.com>
> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:30:46 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
> >> In article <9a6d4e1c-63cd-4d1c...@googlegroups.com>,
> >> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:
> >>
> >>> I wouldn't care if she were "pro-abortion" by self-declared
> >>> "pro-lifer's" point of view. If she wants tax money to pay for
> >>> abortions, then the tag probably fits. I do not support
> >>> re-criminalizing abortion, but see no need to subsidize it.
> >>
> >> What do you see a need to subsidize?
> >>
> >
>
> > Very little. I vote Libertarian. Even if I considered
> > abortion just a normal part of health care for women, as
> > it sometimes is, I don't support state involvement in
> > the provision and/or funding of health care for men or
> > women.
>
> Which in the real world is a position with inhumane
> consequences.
>

Go ahead, justify the evil of coercion because it allows
social goals you approve of. I choose voluntarism.

> > The 2016 Democratic platform supports repealing the Hyde
> > amendment, which is supposed to prevent spending federal
> > money on abortions.
>
> Thereby discriminating against a single class of medical
> procedures on wholly non-medical grounds.
>

Abortion, whether you describe it as a medical procedure
or not, is something the country fundamentally disagrees
about on moral grounds. The pro-lifer rank and file sincerely
believe individuals with human rights are being exterminated.
If you, or I, believed that, and we didn't join them, what
would that make us? Now, has that rank & file been manipulated
by people with other motives than protecting the helpless
innocent? I hesitate to jump to a conspiracy, but remember
that abortion laws in the US were, in no small part, an
attempt by MDs to force competitors, such as midwives, out
of business. There was also the fear of immigrant groups
"outbreeding" the WASP ethnicities, especially prior to the
US Civil War.

> > HRC is running on that, too.
>
> > https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4572858/hillary-clinton-calls-ending-hyde-amendment
>
> > If wanting to spend Fed Funds on abortion can't be called
> > "pro-abortion," what can be? Making it mandatory?
>
> That would certainly be a better fit for the term, but one
> needn’t go quite that far: running a PR campaign actively
> encouraging women to get abortions would qualify. I don’t
> think that I’ve ever met anyone who is genuinely
> pro-abortion. Your usage is fundamentally propagandistic.
>

No, I'm taking the position of people I disagree with seriously.

I am in favor of keeping abortion legal. No "pro-lifer"
would count me as part of their camp. I just respect their
moral scruples about paying for what they consider murder.

I would take the same position about a pacifist objecting to
pay taxes for a war.

Kevin R

[William Hyde]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 3:38:11 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 9:30:46 AM UTC-4, William December Starr wrote:
> > In article <9a6d4e1c-63cd-4d1c...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:
> >
> > > I wouldn't care if she were "pro-abortion" by self-declared
> > > "pro-lifer's" point of view. If she wants tax money to pay for
> > > abortions, then the tag probably fits. I do not support
> > > re-criminalizing abortion, but see no need to subsidize it.
> >
> > What do you see a need to subsidize?
> >
>
> Very little. I vote Libertarian. Even if I considered abortion
> just a normal part of health care for women, as it sometimes is,
> I don't support state involvement in the provision and/or
> funding of health care for men or women.
>
> The 2016 Democratic platform supports repealing the Hyde amendment,

On behalf of the entire family, I rejoice.

William Hyde

[William December Starr]

In article <1atuhu5t02m1g.1vikiwhuc3ttn$.d...@40tude.net>,
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> said:

> Kevrob<kev...@my-deja.com> wrote

>
>>> What do you see a need to subsidize?
>>
>> Very little. I vote Libertarian. Even if I considered
>> abortion just a normal part of health care for women, as it
>> sometimes is, I don't support state involvement in the
>> provision and/or funding of health care for men or women.
>
> Which in the real world is a position with inhumane
> consequences.

What's the real world got to do with Libertarianism?

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <e123eb72-9659-4ff8...@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:

> Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote

>>
>>> I vote Libertarian. Even if I considered abortion just a normal
>>> part of health care for women, as it sometimes is, I don't
>>> support state involvement in the provision and/or funding of
>>> health care for men or women.
>>
>> Which in the real world is a position with inhumane
>> consequences.
>
> Go ahead, justify the evil of coercion

Assumes facts not in evidence. Specifically, that your opinion of
what's evil constitutes fact.

> because it allows social goals you approve of. I choose
> voluntarism.

This is the real world. I choose taking money from you at gunpoint
for purposes that I consider contribute to the greater good.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <i6nuqbpvuur1ie6em...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> said:

> "Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote:
>
>> WorldNetDaily?! That's one of the looniest RWNJ sites on the net:
>> 'birtherism', homophobia, Islamophobia, and sheer nut jobbery, like
>> the series that made the claim that eating soy causes homosexuality.
>
> How does anyone buying into that last explain the existence of 1.3
> billion Chinese?

"Imagine how many there'd be if the soy *hadn't* made most of them gay!"

-- wds

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
news:noom9i$pbk$1...@panix3.panix.com:

In the real world, it's not what *you* consider the greater good
that gets funded at gunpoint, it's what the elected politicians
consider the greater good, which is usually, demonstrably, usually
what is of the most benefit to them, personally.

That is the problem with giving a religious belief the force of
law: it won't be *your* religious belief. Ever.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 1:55:00 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> And HRC founded ISIS with Obama.

I thought that it was settled that "Obama founded ISIS" was one of the silliest
things Trump said, and that says a lot.

John Savard

[William December Starr]

In article <XnsA663CC45DF6...@69.16.179.42>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:

> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote
>

>> This is the real world. I choose taking money from you at
>> gunpoint for purposes that I consider contribute to the greater
>> good.
>
> In the real world, it's not what *you* consider the greater good
> that gets funded at gunpoint, it's what the elected politicians
> consider the greater good, which is usually, demonstrably, usually
> what is of the most benefit to them, personally.

True. But -- amazingly -- sometimes it works out right _anyway_.
Rural electrification, interstate highways, social security, public
defenders[1], stuff like that. These all required or require the
taking of resources at the functional equivalent of gunpoint from
people who don't want to give them up voluntarily, and I'm fine with
that.

-----------
*1: Yeah, just about every public defender program in the land is
massively -- dare I say "criminally"? -- underfunded. But at
least they exist.

-- wds

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:20:44 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:22:56 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> > Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
> > http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/
> >
> > "There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood,
> > especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary Clinton is a
> > radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that the Democratic Party
> > platform reinforces those radical views, can a Christian vote
> > for Hillary in good conscience?"
>
> It is regrettable that there are _no_ pro-life candidates available

Why?

> It's unfortunate that a widespread consensus has arisen that abortion is
> normal and acceptable

Why?

> Trump, however, is not your run-of-the-mill politician. Were he to be
> elected, real disaster is possible

That's possible for any candidate.

> - and I don't see how that can happen, because among
> people who really can't vote for him are blacks, Hispanics, and probably
> Asians; right there, that's over half the electorate.

They *can't* vote for him?

> Few women will vote for him either, as he has expressed contempt for women -
> and has shown his contempt by his actions. Remember Ivana Trump and Marla
> Maples?

In your mind, that extrapolates to contempt for all women? Is his contempt for women equal to yours?

> He might manage to get slightly over half the white male vote (if so, I feel
> sorry for America) but how far can that get him?

You'd be amazed.

> A loudmouth and a buffoon is what he is; someone like that as President could
> well put his foot the wrong way in navigating the terrible challenges America
> will face in dealing with Russia, China, ISIL, Iran, and so on.

That's true of any candidate.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote in
news:noor7n$sh$1...@panix3.panix.com:

> In article <XnsA663CC45DF6...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> said:
>
>> wds...@panix.com (William December Starr) wrote
>>
>>> This is the real world. I choose taking money from you at
>>> gunpoint for purposes that I consider contribute to the
>>> greater good.
>>
>> In the real world, it's not what *you* consider the greater
>> good that gets funded at gunpoint, it's what the elected
>> politicians consider the greater good, which is usually,
>> demonstrably, usually what is of the most benefit to them,
>> personally.
>
> True. But -- amazingly -- sometimes it works out right
> _anyway_.

Stopped clocks, etc.

> Rural electrification, interstate highways, social
> security, public defenders[1], stuff like that. These all
> required or require the taking of resources at the functional
> equivalent of gunpoint from people who don't want to give them
> up voluntarily, and I'm fine with that.

Indeed. It's the social contract. But WDS wasn't talking about
that, he was talking about laws promoting what *he* considered the
greater good. Which is silly.

>
> -----------
> *1: Yeah, just about every public defender program in the land
> is
> massively -- dare I say "criminally"? -- underfunded. But
> at least they exist.
>

Now that Kansas has at least taken a half step back from the
precipice, Missouri is, once again, asserting itself as the only
state government stupider than California's, with the governor (who
is a Democrat, and easily the least crazy state level policitian
there) withholding $3.5 million (out of $4.5 million total) from
the public defender's program, allocated by the stupidest
legislature in the US to hire a couple hundred more badly needed
attorneys. And the head of the program pointing out that, in the
absense of sufficient staff, the law says he can appoint any member
in good standing of the bar to defend indigent defendants. So he
appointed the governor to defend someone. There are hearings
scheduled on whether or not it will stick.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:fc8acd51-a0cf-4d83...@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:20:44 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc
> wrote:
>> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:22:56 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire
>> wrote:
>> > Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
>> > http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillar
>> > y/
>> >
>> > "There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent
>> > blood, especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary
>> > Clinton is a radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that
>> > the Democratic Party platform reinforces those radical views,
>> > can a Christian vote for Hillary in good conscience?"
>>
>> It is regrettable that there are _no_ pro-life candidates
>> available
>
> Why?

Because the entire universe revolves around Quaddie's fantasies
about how the world works. Just ask him.

>
>> It's unfortunate that a widespread consensus has arisen that
>> abortion is normal and acceptable
>
> Why?

Because the entire universe revolves around Quaddie's fantasies
about how the world works. Just ask him.

>
>> Trump, however, is not your run-of-the-mill politician. Were he
>> to be elected, real disaster is possible
>
> That's possible for any candidate.

And equally likely for both the this year's.

>
>> - and I don't see how that can happen, because among
>> people who really can't vote for him are blacks, Hispanics, and
>> probably Asians; right there, that's over half the electorate.
>
> They *can't* vote for him?

In Quaddieworld, if they do, being non-white, they'll be nuked
immediately.

>
>> Few women will vote for him either, as he has expressed
>> contempt for women - and has shown his contempt by his actions.
>> Remember Ivana Trump and Marla Maples?
>
> In your mind, that extrapolates to contempt for all women? Is
> his contempt for women equal to yours?

There's also the polls, which suggest that perhaps women voters are
a bit more complex that Quaddie's insane fantasies based on his
complete, utterly lack of knowledge of boobies, having never been
allowed to touch one.

>
>> He might manage to get slightly over half the white male vote
>> (if so, I feel sorry for America) but how far can that get him?
>
> You'd be amazed.

Most things do amaze him. Little tiny levers that, if you move them
up from the down position, cause light to appear several feet away,
for instance.

>
>> A loudmouth and a buffoon is what he is; someone like that as
>> President could well put his foot the wrong way in navigating
>> the terrible challenges America will face in dealing with
>> Russia, China, ISIL, Iran, and so on.
>
> That's true of any candidate.
>

And equally likely from either of the current candidates. About the
only difference is that Trump will be slightly more unpredictable.
But most of our enemies are too crazy and/or stupid to predict that
if you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 12:23:09 AM UTC-6, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

> But most of our enemies are too crazy and/or stupid to predict that
> if you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground.

Underestimating the enemy is considered a dangerous mistake by those who have had
to deal with the enemies of liberty.

John Savard

[Kevrob]

At least you are _honest_ about your banditry!

Kevin R

[William December Starr]

In article <ed9f6480-5ca8-448c...@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:

> William December Starr wrote:
>
>> This is the real world. I choose taking money from you at
>> gunpoint for purposes that I consider contribute to the greater
>> good.
>
> At least you are _honest_ about your banditry!

Bandit, shmandit. If you live in a state, the state *by definition*
defines what your property rights are, and aren't. (This is a
subset of "The law is what the state says it is," which is part of
the definition _of_ a state.)

-- wds

[Cryptoengineer]

Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in news:nolspe$5b9$1...@dont-email.me:

> Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
> http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/
>
> "There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood,
> especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary Clinton is a
> radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that the Democratic Party
> platform reinforces those radical views, can a Christian vote for
> Hillary in good conscience?"

Let us remember that this is the same religion which said, in reference
to the Cathars "Kill them all; God will know his own".

(yes, I'm aware this has been attributed to other religions as well)

pt

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:21089dc9-6e3e-47f1...@googlegroups.com:

Taking a Canadian seriously on the subject of US politics is
considered as silly, pointless an idea as the Canadian himself.

[Lynn McGuire]

It is a linguistic kill shot.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148844611656/the-greatest-cognitive-dissonance-trap-of-all-time

Lynn

[Alie...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 7:13:28 AM UTC-7, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote in news:nolspe$5b9$1...@dont-email.me:
>
> > Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
> > http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillary/
> >
> > "There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent blood,
> > especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary Clinton is a
> > radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that the Democratic Party
> > platform reinforces those radical views, can a Christian vote for
> > Hillary in good conscience?"
>
> Let us remember that this is the same religion which said, in reference
> to the Cathars "Kill them all; God will know his own".

The Vietnam War version was "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out". And people still cling to "just war doctrine".


Mark L. Fergerson

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 5:19:56 AM UTC-6, William December Starr wrote:

> Bandit, shmandit. If you live in a state, the state *by definition*
> defines what your property rights are, and aren't. (This is a
> subset of "The law is what the state says it is," which is part of
> the definition _of_ a state.)

Ah. What you are saying includes a serious false assumption.

People have rights in the same manner as protons have mass, spin, and
electrical charge. Kings, emperors, and Presidents can only choose whether to
_respect_ those rights, or wrongfully violate them.

This is how we can meaningfully say that the Holocaust and Negro slavery were
*wrong*, as opposed to just saying that we _personally_ dislike them.

Of course, there are "legal rights" which are granted by government, but the
primary meaning of the word "rights" is "human rights"; legal rights are
another thing given a name with the word "rights" in them because they have
_some_ of the properties of real rights.

John Savard

[Alan Baker]

Sorry, Lynn, but there is no more civil way to say this:

That's just bullshit.

[mcdow...@sky.com]

Science Fiction, and especially Fantasy, portrays plenty of societies in which current western notions of self-evident human rights are not recognised. On the dark side, we have Boskone, drawing on real life states that explicitly rejected them. Fantasy gives us societies like that of Feist's Magician, based on an idealized past in which the basic political bargain is "Service in return for Protection". This appears so often that I would nominate this as the likely hard-wired political system for humanity, but I recognize that the hunter-gatherer band is plausible for this. This lacks our view of property rights. For much of the time that we have had writing, the natural state of affairs (according to the experts, the Priests) has been that whoever was in charge was put there by God and our duty is to obey them.

I happen to like Western democracy. I think it has a pretty good record, for good reasons. I think one interesting goal for Science Fiction is to guess under which conditions Western democracy can survive. It seems to be good for rapid technological progress. If that stalled, would it survive? Can it also flourish if technology is still complex, but complex in the same way as it was 100 years ago?

I think there are good arguments in favor of many so-called self-evident rights. For example, they provide incentives to work and make it possible for people with wildly unequal resources to bargain, and to have those bargains enforced. I think you are better off supporting them by pointing out those advantages, which can be measured and observed, albeit with a great deal of effort, rather than claiming them to be self-evident, which amounts to saying that you have an inner revelation of their worth, which cannot be independently judged against whatever inner revelation I chose to proclaim, such as my current certainty that the descendants of King Arthur have been sufficiently enterprising and energetic in spreading their genes that the rightful King of England by primogeniture (not necessarily legitimate) is quite likely to be an Afghan tribal leader.

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 11:33:56 PM UTC-6, mcdow...@sky.com wrote:

> I think there are good arguments in favor of many so-called self-evident
> rights. For example, they provide incentives to work and make it possible for
> people with wildly unequal resources to bargain, and to have those bargains
> enforced. I think you are better off supporting them by pointing out those
> advantages, which can be measured and observed, albeit with a great deal of
> effort, rather than claiming them to be self-evident, which amounts to saying
> that you have an inner revelation of their worth, which cannot be independently
> judged against whatever inner revelation I chose to proclaim,

There are a number of complicated questions here, which I usually don't go into
full detail about.

It certainly *is* true that, just as we don't actually have sarcasm detectors
with little meters on the front with pointers that swing if sarcasm is present,
we also don't have rights detectors.

But, on the other hand, if rights are _only_ something we choose to recognize
because we think it is advantageous for us to do so, then on what basis do we
criticize another society that seems to have made a different decision?

I think that clearly if a moral theory fails to authorize regime change as a
licit response to, say, the _Kristallnacht_, or to Negro slavery, not because
it is pacifist, but because it sees no over-arching moral order by which these
things can be distinguished from freedom, it is seriously flawed.

Basically, one has to distinguish between the _concept_ of natural rights, and
a claim that natural rights are directly accessible and thus useful as a guide
to action. The latter is a stronger claim than that of their _existence_.

My position is that natural rights exist, and that we can grope our way to a
limited understanding of some of their more obvious aspects through reasoning
in the philosophy of ethics. But the understanding we can achieve in this way
is *insufficient* to serve as a complete guide to organizing a democratic
polity.

A specific question that I believe to be beyond the current state-of-the-art in
philosophical reasoning to resolve from a natural rights basis is:

Is it licit for a majority, when operating in a democratic manner (possibly
through representatives), to impose coercions on all members of the community
other than those required to prohibit aggression, such as taxation and
conscription?

I argue for the existing social order, where governments do get to levy taxes,
on other grounds:

- from consequences; the limited freedom which we enjoy in the industrialized
democracies depends on being able to keep at bay totalitarian dictatorships
with vast military establishments and no scruples about making their people
support them;

- also, given the emphasis Libertarians place on the rule "Thou Shalt Not
Steal", the fact that they are *not* advocating giving North America back to
the Indians, but instead come up with rationalizations for keeping it (i.e.
hunting, unlike agriculture, doesn't involve transforming the landscape, so
there is nothing wrong about denying hunter/gatherers access to the land and
wildlife from which they had been feeding themselves)... says something about
whether they _deserve_ to be taken seriously.

Examining that question from a moral perspective, though, I consider the fact
that we all start lives as children who are absolutely dependent on our parents.

I think this is the principal fact that gets neglected in discussions of that
issue.

Then one can reason morally to a conclusion of sorts, although it still appears
to be one that can only be rejected as absurd.

On the one hand, a child should not suffer if, through no fault of his own, his
parents are not responsible.

On the other hand, if available resources are limited, should responsible
parents be limited in what they can do for their children by the demand that
they should also support large numbers of children that irresponsible people
are having?

The conclusion seems to be: bringing a child into existence needs to be
recognized as fundamentally akin to *an act of aggression*, and thus
legitimately subject to regulation. If you want to have kids, prove financial
responsibility, and pay in advance for _insurance_ - *then* a total
free-enterprise society where there is no government that takes from the rich
to give to the poor can exist _without_ leaving disadvantaged children
dependent on charity and so on.

This makes _sense_ in some ways, but for obvious reasons both the Right and the
Left would howl in outrage.

The Right would object to the intrusion into the sanctity of marriage, the
privacy of the bedroom, and so on.

The Left would note that if you had to have money to have kids, the next
generation would be paler than the present one, hence this proposal is
genocidal on its face.

Thus, our existing system, where there is some government provision for the
poor, but it is less than entirely adequate, seems to be the best we can do.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 7:35:09 AM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
> come up with rationalizations for keeping it (i.e.
> hunting, unlike agriculture, doesn't involve transforming the landscape, so
> there is nothing wrong about denying hunter/gatherers access to the land and
> wildlife from which they had been feeding themselves)...

Or, to use plain English and a clear metaphor:

If it is murder to smother someone with a pillow,

then it is also reasonable to view "Buffalo Bill" Cody as engaged in an act of
aggression when he participated in the extermination of the bison on which the
Plains Indians depended.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 2:17:59 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:

> The Vietnam War version was "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out". And people still cling to "just war doctrine".

People _should_ cling to the "just war doctrine", _rather_ than engage in such
violations thereof as the one you've cited.

I presume what you mean is that "people still imagine that any war can be waged
in a just way" because Vietnam illustrates what can be expected in _any_ war,
but that is something different than what you said.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:31:26 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> On 8/13/2016 11:20 AM, Quadibloc wrote:

> > It's unfortunate that a widespread consensus has arisen that abortion is normal
> > and acceptable, and it will take a significant amount of public education to
> > overcome this.

> "Public education" has a limited ability to change people's opinions.

a) I wasn't talking about the public school system.

b) You're quite correct that advocacy and educational efforts have a limited
effectiveness. That's why I said "significant amount" above.

However, because the United States and the other Western democracies still have
a free press and free elections, I feel that the difficulty involved, though
indeed very great, is not _so_ great to make the *alternative* preferable.

And what would the alternative be?

Given that, since Roe vs. Wade, "the government" allows people to kill innocent children with impunity,

one could consider *the armed overthrow of the United States Government* to be
justified.

Never mind just blowing up the odd abortion doctor here and there, stop
abortion the only way that's sure to work - with a revolution.

It is my current estimate, and one with which I think most people will agree, that an insurrection of this sort

a) would lead to a great amount of death and suffering, and

b) if successful, would likely lead to the establishment of a repressive
theocracy as the new government, since in general the most radical advocates of
an idea are the ones who initiate armed action for its sake;

and, thus, serious as the evils of legal abortion may be, the alternative to
ending it through a program of public education and democratic political
participation is _clearly_ much worse.

These considerations, however, would *not* apply if a major industrialized
democracy had successfully made the transition to outlawing those abortions
which are properly regarded as homicide, and decided to engage in regime change
of other nations which had not done so. That _could_ be managed properly as an
appropriate response to a major human-rights violation.

But even then, "could" does not equal "is likely to", and so I'd be inclined to
consider such an intervention licit only in theory, not practice.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 8/15/2016 7:52 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 11:31:26 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 8/13/2016 11:20 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
>
>>> It's unfortunate that a widespread consensus has arisen that abortion is normal
>>> and acceptable, and it will take a significant amount of public education to
>>> overcome this.
>
>> "Public education" has a limited ability to change people's opinions.
>
> a) I wasn't talking about the public school system.

Nor was I.

>
> b) You're quite correct that advocacy and educational efforts have a limited
> effectiveness. That's why I said "significant amount" above.

There's been a huge amount of propaganda already. Hows that working out?

>
> However, because the United States and the other Western democracies still have
> a free press and free elections, I feel that the difficulty involved, though
> indeed very great, is not _so_ great to make the *alternative* preferable.
>
> And what would the alternative be?
>
> Given that, since Roe vs. Wade, "the government" allows people to kill innocent children with impunity,
>
> one could consider *the armed overthrow of the United States Government* to be
> justified.

Good luck with that.

>
> Never mind just blowing up the odd abortion doctor here and there, stop
> abortion the only way that's sure to work - with a revolution.
>
> It is my current estimate, and one with which I think most people will agree, that an insurrection of this sort
>
> a) would lead to a great amount of death and suffering, and
>
> b) if successful, would likely lead to the establishment of a repressive
> theocracy as the new government, since in general the most radical advocates of
> an idea are the ones who initiate armed action for its sake;
>
> and, thus, serious as the evils of legal abortion may be, the alternative to
> ending it through a program of public education and democratic political
> participation is _clearly_ much worse.
>
> These considerations, however, would *not* apply if a major industrialized
> democracy had successfully made the transition to outlawing those abortions
> which are properly regarded as homicide, and decided to engage in regime change
> of other nations which had not done so. That _could_ be managed properly as an
> appropriate response to a major human-rights violation.

OK so now you are recommending that the United States attack Canada. Yay?

[David Johnston]

On 8/15/2016 7:41 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 2:17:59 PM UTC-6, nu...@bid.nes wrote:
>
>> The Vietnam War version was "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out". And people still cling to "just war doctrine".
>
> People _should_ cling to the "just war doctrine", _rather_ than engage in such
> violations thereof as the one you've cited.
>

You would be contradicting yourself if you know what "just war doctrine"
was.

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:32:31 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> You would be contradicting yourself if you know what "just war doctrine"
> was.

I didn't go into detail, or I would have noted that some aspects of just war
doctrine are not, in fact, desirable. Thus, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was
criticized as being in violation of it because the U.S. military had such an
overwhelming advantage over the Iraqis.

This is irrelevant, as Iraq was the aggressor; the more overwhelming the
advantage of the police over the criminals, the less bloodshed there is.

But "Kill them all, and let God sort them out" is indeed contrary to just war doctrine.

John Savard

[David Johnston]

On 8/15/2016 9:21 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:32:31 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> You would be contradicting yourself if you know what "just war doctrine"
>> was.
>
> I didn't go into detail, or I would have noted that some aspects of just war
> doctrine are not, in fact, desirable. Thus, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was
> criticized as being in violation of it because the U.S. military had such an
> overwhelming advantage over the Iraqis.
>
> This is irrelevant, as Iraq was the aggressor;

No it wasn't.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 06:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:4c3c4187-2dbc-4e6d...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

[...]

> Given that, since Roe vs. Wade, "the government" allows
> people to kill innocent children with impunity,

Words have meanings: a fetus is not a child.

[...]

[Quadibloc]

To be technically accurate, the Saddam Hussein regime were the "bad guys", even
though American forces initiated hostilities.

This does not make the Americans the aggressor in the full sense, because:

Iraq _was_ the aggressor in the first Gulf War;

it was spared unconditional surrender on the basis of certain agreements;

it *violated* those agreements, as it did not cooperate fully and in a timely
manner with United Nations weapons inspectors.

Shortly before the second Gulf War began, a CNN news report showed how people
were rushing ahead of U.N. weapons inspectors to warn certain sites that they
were coming.

That is an undeniable fact. That this may have been mere posturing and bravado
on the part of Saddam Hussein, and there were no _actual_ weapons of mass
destruction that were being hidden from U.N. weapons inspectors, is
_irrelevant_ because there was no way for President G. W. Bush or the CIA to
know that *with absolute certainty*.

This is the point that people who keep claiming that Bush lied to America to
get them into that war keep ignoring.

John Savard

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 08:21:20 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:20ba53c9-5a1c-4dd8...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:32:31 AM UTC-6, David
> Johnston wrote:

>> You would be contradicting yourself if you know what
>> "just war doctrine" was.

> I didn't go into detail, or I would have noted that some
> aspects of just war doctrine are not, in fact,
> desirable. Thus, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was
> criticized as being in violation of it because the U.S.
> military had such an overwhelming advantage over the
> Iraqis.

No. It was criticized because it was unprovoked
aggression.

> This is irrelevant, as Iraq was the aggressor; [...]

No. Not even close.

[Quadibloc]

A fetus is not an adult, because he or she is too young. So of *course* a fetus
is a child. Even though a fetus is not the default type of child that springs
to mind when the word "child" is used; normally, one thinks of, say, an
8-year-old or so, not a baby or toddler, but they are children too.

John Savard

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 09:46:09 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:72e34d93-3cde-4895...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 10:29:54 AM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:

>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 06:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>> in<news:4c3c4187-2dbc-4e6d...@googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:

>> [...]

>>> Given that, since Roe vs. Wade, "the government" allows
>>> people to kill innocent children with impunity,

>> Words have meanings: a fetus is not a child.

> A fetus is not an adult, because he or she is too young.

> So of *course* a fetus is a child. [...]

Of course it is not. A fetus is neither an infant, a
child, or an adult. And while there may be some blurring
of categories between infant and child or between child and
adult, there is none between fetus and the others: a fetus
is by definition unborn.

[Peter Trei]

Wrong. Its a fetus.

There can be more than two states. Adult, child, fetus, embryo,
blastocsyst - its a series of conditions. We legally and morally
draw a line at birth. One can reasonably argue that late-stage
fetuses (fetii???) merit having some rights, but to claim that
childhood, and all the rights that adhere thereto starts at
fertilization is silly.

pt

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:03:28 AM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> there is none between fetus and the others: a fetus
> is by definition unborn.

But that doesn't make a fetus not a child, any more than being unweaned makes
some babies not children.

The term "child" is not exclusive of baby or infant, it means any living human
being who is not yet an adult. So the only way a fetus could not be a child is if
a fetus were old enough to vote.

John Savard

[Peter Trei]

Redefining well understood words is a pretty silly way to argue.

pt

[Kevrob]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 1:08:16 PM UTC-4, Peter Trei wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 12:46:12 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 10:29:54 AM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:
> > > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 06:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> > > <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
> > > in<news:4c3c4187-2dbc-4e6d...@googlegroups.com>
> > > in rec.arts.sf.written:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > Given that, since Roe vs. Wade, "the government" allows
> > > > people to kill innocent children with impunity,
> > >
> > > Words have meanings: a fetus is not a child.
> > >
> > > [...]
> >
> > A fetus is not an adult, because he or she is too young. So of *course* a fetus
> > is a child. Even though a fetus is not the default type of child that springs
> > to mind when the word "child" is used; normally, one thinks of, say, an
> > 8-year-old or so, not a baby or toddler, but they are children too.
>
> Wrong. Its a fetus.
>
> There can be more than two states. Adult, child, fetus, embryo,
> blastocsyst - its a series of conditions. We legally and morally
> draw a line at birth. One can reasonably argue that late-stage

> fetuses (fetii???)*

> merit having some rights, but to claim that
> childhood, and all the rights that adhere thereto starts at
> fertilization is silly.
>
> pt

I've often had this discussion with "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers,"
with me in the second camp, but raised in the first one.

I've often thought a reasonable compromise would be pinpointing
when a developing "conceptus" had enough brain development to have
rudimentary thought, and setting that as the dividing line between
treating a zygote/embryo/fetus as a person, rather than a spare body
part. Damned if I know when that would be, though.

Kevin R

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 10:41:07 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>I've often thought a reasonable compromise would be pinpointing
>when a developing "conceptus" had enough brain development to have
>rudimentary thought, and setting that as the dividing line between
>treating a zygote/embryo/fetus as a person, rather than a spare body
>part. Damned if I know when that would be, though.

I used to know when measurable brain activity begins, but I forget. I
used it to ace my Christian Ethics final exam at Princeton -- the
final told us to choose two of three topics, then state and defend a
position on each, and one of the two I chose was abortion.

I knew the professor was vehemently anti-abortion, but I went
pro-choice anyway and presented a position he disagreed with but said
was correctly argued, so I got the A, and part of it, I remember, was
using measurable brain activity as a sign that the fetus was
independently alive and no longer merely part of the mother.

I had also argued for separation of church and state from "render unto
Caesar that which is Caesar's," and got that point, too.

(A classmate, incidentally, parroted back the professor's own position
(from a lecture I'd skipped) and got a C for lack of original
content.)





--
My webpage is at http://www.watt-evans.com

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)]

On 8/15/16 12:46 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 10:29:54 AM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 06:52:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
>> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
>> in<news:4c3c4187-2dbc-4e6d...@googlegroups.com>
>> in rec.arts.sf.written:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Given that, since Roe vs. Wade, "the government" allows
>>> people to kill innocent children with impunity,
>>
>> Words have meanings: a fetus is not a child.
>>
>> [...]
>
> A fetus is not an adult, because he or she is too young. So of *course* a fetus
> is a child.

By some definitions. A just-conceived embryo is not a child as far as
I, and many others, are concerned. Somewhere from that point to the
point of birth it becomes a child. That point to me would be when it's
not going to require heroic medical intervention to keep it alive
outside the mother (assuming it is otherwise healthy). Until then, it's
a symbiote/parasite on the host organism and it's the host's business.


--
Sea Wasp
/^\
;;;
Website: http://www.grandcentralarena.com Blog:
http://seawasp.livejournal.com

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:12:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> By some definitions. A just-conceived embryo is not a child as far as
>I, and many others, are concerned. Somewhere from that point to the
>point of birth it becomes a child. That point to me would be when it's
>not going to require heroic medical intervention to keep it alive
>outside the mother (assuming it is otherwise healthy). Until then, it's
>a symbiote/parasite on the host organism and it's the host's business.

I wish I'd bookmarked it, but I didn't -- I read an article several
months back pointing out that a human fetus is far more parasitic than
most mammalian young, aggressively claiming resources in a way most
species don't. Pregnancy is much harder on humans than on, say, cats
or rabbits or elephants, let alone egg-layers.

Point being, human unborns are NOT symbiotes. They're purely
parasites, and relatively vicious ones.

[David Johnston]

On 8/15/2016 11:10 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 11:03:28 AM UTC-6, Brian M. Scott wrote:
>> there is none between fetus and the others: a fetus
>> is by definition unborn.
>
> But that doesn't make a fetus not a child, any more than being unweaned makes
> some babies not children.
>
> The term "child" is not exclusive of baby or infant, it means any living human
> being who is not yet an adult.

Or it means anyone between birth and adulthood.

[David Goldfarb]

In article <29e4eb27-276c-4d7e...@googlegroups.com>,
Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>fetuses (fetii???)

No. The Latin plural would be "fetus" with a long U. The English
plural is, as you write, "fetuses".

Not all Latin words pluralize as "-i", and rather few with "-ii".

--
David Goldfarb |"The message sent by [turning 'virus' into]
goldf...@gmail.com |'virii' is, 'i iz a intelekchul cuz i knowz ladin'"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | -- John W. Kennedy, on rec.arts.sf.composition

[Kevrob]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 5:15:03 PM UTC-4, David Goldfarb wrote:
> In article <29e4eb27-276c-4d7e...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >fetuses (fetii???)
>
> No. The Latin plural would be "fetus" with a long U. The English
> plural is, as you write, "fetuses".
>
> Not all Latin words pluralize as "-i", and rather few with "-ii".
>

Forgot to write the footnote in my post!

fētūs is the fourth declension plural of the noun.

Kevin R

[William December Starr]

In article <64362264-48fd-4319...@googlegroups.com>,

Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:

> I've often thought a reasonable compromise would be pinpointing
> when a developing "conceptus" had enough brain development to have
> rudimentary thought, and setting that as the dividing line between
> treating a zygote/embryo/fetus as a person, rather than a spare
> body part. Damned if I know when that would be, though.

I've long thought the same thing, using the term "self-awareness,"
the property such that when the body experiences pain, something
thinks, albeit in a very rudimentary way, "*I* hurt."

And yes, I have no idea how to measure that in a fetus.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <7bf3113a-4cdf-42c8...@googlegroups.com>,
Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> said:

> David Goldfarb wrote:
>> Peter Trei <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> fetuses (fetii???)
>>
>> No. The Latin plural would be "fetus" with a long U. The English
>> plural is, as you write, "fetuses".
>>
>> Not all Latin words pluralize as "-i", and rather few with "-ii".
>
> Forgot to write the footnote in my post!
>
> fētūs is the fourth declension plural of the noun.

"Latin is a dead language,
it's very plain to see.
It killed off all the Romans
and now it's killing me."

-- wds

[Michael R N Dolbear]

"William December Starr" wrote

> "Latin is a dead language,
> it's very plain to see.
> It killed off all the Romans
> and now it's killing me."

Surely the Only True Form is :


Latin is a language
As dead as dead can be
It killed the ancient Romans
And now it's killing me.


As quoted in Arthur Ransome's _Missie Lee

--
Mike D

[J. Clarke]

In article <801226a4-2c14-4217...@googlegroups.com>,
jsa...@ecn.ab.ca says...

So how is something with no central nervous system different from a
wart? Both have human DNA. And who is to say that given sufficiently
advanced technology a wart can't be grown into a person? So is a wart a
"child"?

[Kevrob]

If humans reproduced by budding....?

I, too, would wait for some brain cell accretion and some
neural activity before shouting "legal person!" I do not,
however, think the moment an ovum is fertilized that Yahooey
"ensouls" the new cell clump. I would think he'd wait for the
wetware to assemble itself before installing the ecto-ware.

Kevin R

[Joy Beeson]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:12:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
<sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:

> By some definitions. A just-conceived embryo is not a child as far as
> I, and many others, are concerned. Somewhere from that point to the
> point of birth it becomes a child.

People don't have to pretend that unborn children aren't children to
grant women jurisdiction over their own bodies.

State laws concerning abortion are as far out of line as a U.S. law
saying what ought to be done in Mexico and authorizing enforcement
expeditions across the border would be.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at comcast dot net

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:38:49 PM UTC-6, Joy Beeson wrote:

> People don't have to pretend that unborn children aren't children to
> grant women jurisdiction over their own bodies.

> State laws concerning abortion are as far out of line as a U.S. law
> saying what ought to be done in Mexico and authorizing enforcement
> expeditions across the border would be.

That legal theory would allow men the right to beat their wives in the privacy
of their own homes.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 7:41:40 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> So how is something with no central nervous system different from a
> wart? Both have human DNA. And who is to say that given sufficiently
> advanced technology a wart can't be grown into a person? So is a wart a
> "child"?

I wasn't getting into details, but it's quite true that the law shouldn't
impose a particular philosophical viewpoint on everyone, and, thus, when there
is not yet any meaningful brain activity, indeed it isn't sufficiently
unambiguous that there's a "person" there for the law to interfere.

One would normally argue that erring on the side of caution in the defense of
human life is the proper course - but that forgets such situations as women
made pregnant by rape.

So I would expect the law not to interfere with "emergency contraception".
Since the earliest activity between groups of neurons in the brain has been
detected at seven weeks, even mifepristone (if not RU-486) abortions would be
permitted under what I think would be a reasonable law.

And, of course, abortion at any time could be performed for genuine medical
reasons.

John Savard

[Don Bruder]

In article <64362264-48fd-4319...@googlegroups.com>,

My personal cutoff point:
When it reaches the point of development where it can exist outside the
uterus with no more than the typical "feed it, burp it, diaper it, keep
it at a reasonable temperature" level of care that would be provided for
any normal full-term newborn, it's eligible to be considered human.
Prior to that point, it's a parasite on the mother, and she's under
exactly the same obligation to continue hosting it as she would be if it
were a tapeworm.

Further, if you think abortion is wrong, that's perfectly fine! Don't
have one. But take notice that this does not give you any kind of
permission to interfere - in ANY way, verbal, physical, or otherwise -
with anyone else who might choose to have an abortion.

--
Brought to you by the letter K and the number .357
Security provided by Horace S. & Dan W.

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 1:21:22 AM UTC+10, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 8:32:31 AM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>
> > You would be contradicting yourself if you know what "just war doctrine"
> > was.
>
> I didn't go into detail, or I would have noted that some aspects of just war
> doctrine are not, in fact, desirable. Thus, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was
> criticized as being in violation of it because the U.S. military had such an
> overwhelming advantage over the Iraqis.
>

> This is irrelevant, as Iraq was the aggressor;

Um, there was SFA criticism of the first gulf war when Bush senior stopped the invasion of Kuwait.
There was a lot of criticism of gulf war 2 under Shrub when Iraq was not the aggressor...

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 6:23:04 AM UTC+10, Lawrence Watt-Evans wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:12:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > By some definitions. A just-conceived embryo is not a child as far as
> >I, and many others, are concerned. Somewhere from that point to the
> >point of birth it becomes a child. That point to me would be when it's
> >not going to require heroic medical intervention to keep it alive
> >outside the mother (assuming it is otherwise healthy). Until then, it's
> >a symbiote/parasite on the host organism and it's the host's business.
>
> I wish I'd bookmarked it, but I didn't -- I read an article several
> months back pointing out that a human fetus is far more parasitic than
> most mammalian young, aggressively claiming resources in a way most
> species don't. Pregnancy is much harder on humans than on, say, cats
> or rabbits or elephants, let alone egg-layers.
>
> Point being, human unborns are NOT symbiotes. They're purely
> parasites, and relatively vicious ones.
>

based on my observations this continues for a long time after birth (probably until the mid 20s in many cases)

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 16:23:00 -0400, Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net>
wrote:

[snip]

>Point being, human unborns are NOT symbiotes. They're purely
>parasites, and relatively vicious ones.

Turnabout is fair play when you apply for your pension?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[hamis...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 12:38:49 PM UTC+10, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:12:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > By some definitions. A just-conceived embryo is not a child as far as
> > I, and many others, are concerned. Somewhere from that point to the
> > point of birth it becomes a child.
>
> People don't have to pretend that unborn children aren't children

People don't have to project their beliefs on everybody else either...

[Robert Woodward]

In article
<3t84rbtlum87aurae...@reader80.eternal-september.org>,

Lawrence Watt-Evans <l...@sff.net> wrote:

> On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 15:12:53 -0400, "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)"
> <sea...@sgeinc.invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > By some definitions. A just-conceived embryo is not a child as far as
> >I, and many others, are concerned. Somewhere from that point to the
> >point of birth it becomes a child. That point to me would be when it's
> >not going to require heroic medical intervention to keep it alive
> >outside the mother (assuming it is otherwise healthy). Until then, it's
> >a symbiote/parasite on the host organism and it's the host's business.
>
> I wish I'd bookmarked it, but I didn't -- I read an article several
> months back pointing out that a human fetus is far more parasitic than
> most mammalian young, aggressively claiming resources in a way most
> species don't. Pregnancy is much harder on humans than on, say, cats
> or rabbits or elephants, let alone egg-layers.
>
> Point being, human unborns are NOT symbiotes. They're purely
> parasites, and relatively vicious ones.

Since they are a basic part of the species design, they not parasites by
definition. Is it the brain that causes the need for resources?

[Lawrence Watt-Evans]

If your definition of "parasite" excludes them, then so be it, but
they definitely aren't symbiotes.

I don't know why they're so different from the young of other species;
if the article said, I've forgotten.

[Brian M. Scott]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2016 20:04:51 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote
in<news:454f8f5b-c2fc-489d...@googlegroups.com>
in rec.arts.sf.written:

On the contrary, it has exactly the opposite implication.

[Kevrob]

> any normal full-term newborn, it's eligible to be considered human.born

That excludes children with special needs, and we are back to
exposing handicapped newborns on the hillside.

> Prior to that point, it's a parasite on the mother, and she's under
> exactly the same obligation to continue hosting it as she would be if it
> were a tapeworm.
>
> Further, if you think abortion is wrong, that's perfectly fine! Don't
> have one. But take notice that this does not give you any kind of
> permission to interfere - in ANY way, verbal, physical, or otherwise -
> with anyone else who might choose to have an abortion.

That's a typical piece of cant from the "pro-choice" side's
rhetorical bag. It avoids the point we have been discussing:
religious dicta aside, when is it reasonable to extend the
protection of legal personhood to the entity that starts as a
fertilized egg and ends up, barring abortion or miscarriage,
as a born human? Viability outside the womb is a moving target.
I have a siblings, a pair of twins, who were born prematurely.
since they had to be in incubators for a while after delivery,
were they fair game to be smothered with pillows? I'm pretty
sure you wouldn't mean that.

For the record, I'm not a "pro-lifer." I am interested in
getting the US electorate to create a new concensus on the
abortion issue, somewhere between summary death penalty for
onanism and tax-subsidized retroactive abortion until the
66th trimester.

Kevin R

[Peter Trei]

This comes from a world-view that a wife is chattel,
and so under the ownership of her husband.

pt

[Quadibloc]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:17:04 PM UTC-6, Don Bruder wrote:

> Further, if you think abortion is wrong, that's perfectly fine! Don't
> have one. But take notice that this does not give you any kind of
> permission to interfere - in ANY way, verbal, physical, or otherwise -
> with anyone else who might choose to have an abortion.

If you think slavery is wrong, that's perfectly fine. Don't own a slave.

What's wrong with that picture?

The minute one actually acknowledges that black people are real people with
rights of their own, it becomes legitimate for the full force of the law to
protect them against aggression the same as everyone else.

Since we acknowledge that babies that have been born are human beings *before*
they can even talk, and thus trying to kill one of them is dealt with the same
way as trying to kill any other kind of human being, it is _not_ somehow
unreasonable or absurd to reach the conclusion that the embryo or fetus, during
a significant portion of intra-uterine development, is as much a human being
with rights as an ordinary baby after birth.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Yes, what they provide is a means to propagate your genes in future
generations, which, of course, is the goal towards which evolution has designed
us. Without them, we would eventually lose interest in sex. Or we would if
there were any future generations in which such evolution could take place.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Nope. If the fact that a woman owns her body means she has the right to kill a
baby who happens to be living inside it, then the fact that a man owns a house
would give him the same sort of rights over people inside *that*. Both notions
are ludicrously wrong, _for the same reason_.

John Savard

[Tom Kratman]

On Sunday, August 14, 2016 at 2:23:09 AM UTC-4, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
> "nu...@bid.nes" <Alie...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:fc8acd51-a0cf-4d83...@googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Saturday, August 13, 2016 at 10:20:44 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc
> > wrote:
> >> On Friday, August 12, 2016 at 7:22:56 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire
> >> wrote:
> >> > Can a Christian vote for Hillary?
> >> > http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/can-a-christian-vote-for-hillar
> >> > y/
> >> >
> >> > "There are few sins God hates as much as shedding innocent
> >> > blood, especially the blood of children. Seeing that Hillary
> >> > Clinton is a radically pro-abortion candidate and seeing that
> >> > the Democratic Party platform reinforces those radical views,
> >> > can a Christian vote for Hillary in good conscience?"
> >>
> >> It is regrettable that there are _no_ pro-life candidates
> >> available
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the entire universe revolves around Quaddie's fantasies
> about how the world works. Just ask him.
> >
> >> It's unfortunate that a widespread consensus has arisen that
> >> abortion is normal and acceptable
> >
> > Why?
>
> Because the entire universe revolves around Quaddie's fantasies
> about how the world works. Just ask him.
> >
> >> Trump, however, is not your run-of-the-mill politician. Were he
> >> to be elected, real disaster is possible
> >
> > That's possible for any candidate.
>
> And equally likely for both the this year's.
> >
> >> - and I don't see how that can happen, because among
> >> people who really can't vote for him are blacks, Hispanics, and
> >> probably Asians; right there, that's over half the electorate.
> >
> > They *can't* vote for him?
>
> In Quaddieworld, if they do, being non-white, they'll be nuked
> immediately.
> >
> >> Few women will vote for him either, as he has expressed
> >> contempt for women - and has shown his contempt by his actions.
> >> Remember Ivana Trump and Marla Maples?
> >
> > In your mind, that extrapolates to contempt for all women? Is
> > his contempt for women equal to yours?
>
> There's also the polls, which suggest that perhaps women voters are
> a bit more complex that Quaddie's insane fantasies based on his
> complete, utterly lack of knowledge of boobies, having never been
> allowed to touch one.
> >
> >> He might manage to get slightly over half the white male vote
> >> (if so, I feel sorry for America) but how far can that get him?
> >
> > You'd be amazed.
>
> Most things do amaze him. Little tiny levers that, if you move them
> up from the down position, cause light to appear several feet away,
> for instance.
> >
> >> A loudmouth and a buffoon is what he is; someone like that as
> >> President could well put his foot the wrong way in navigating
> >> the terrible challenges America will face in dealing with
> >> Russia, China, ISIL, Iran, and so on.
> >
> > That's true of any candidate.
> >
> And equally likely from either of the current candidates. About the
> only difference is that Trump will be slightly more unpredictable.
> But most of our enemies are too crazy and/or stupid to predict that
> if you drop a rock, it will fall to the ground.
>
> --
> Terry Austin
>
> "Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
> -- David Bilek
>
> Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

It’s a mind that’s cramped; it’s a mind that’s small,
It’s a trollish mind; that’s no mind at all.
It’s a foaming mouthed hack, unacquainted with Jack.
Terry Austin, after all.

Terry Austin after all.
No control so Terry balls.
He’s got no sense, none at all.
Terry Austin after all.

He’s a man deficient in honesty.
He’s a man (well, only just technically).
He’s a dolt; he’s a fool; he’s a moron who drools.
Terry Austin after all.

Terry Austin after all.
No control so Terry balls.
Hopelessly ineffectual,
Terry Austin, after all.

He’s a slimy toad with a Nazi bent.
Of integrity he is quite bereft.
He’s the scum on the pond, the dog shit on the lawn.
Terry Austin after all.

[Kevrob]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:15:29 AM UTC-4, Tom Kratman wrote:

> No control so Terry balls.

In today's vernacular, saying "Terry balls" is a compliment.

Kevin R

[lal_truckee]

On 8/15/16 9:32 AM, Quadibloc wrote:
> That is an undeniable fact. That this may have been mere posturing and bravado
> on the part of Saddam Hussein, and there were no _actual_ weapons of mass
> destruction that were being hidden from U.N. weapons inspectors, is
> _irrelevant_ because there was no way for President G. W. Bush or the CIA to
> know that *with absolute certainty*.
>
> This is the point that people who keep claiming that Bush lied to America to
> get them into that war keep ignoring.

I have no way of knowing, *with absolute certainty*, that Canada is not
preparing to ignite a *doomsday machine*.

Am I therefore justified in invading the Canucks?

[Don Bruder]

In article <5d97612c-63e0-4dff...@googlegroups.com>,

Which, to be perfectly blunt, is something I have little or no objection
to. I'm very much a darwinist in this respect - The unfit die. The fit
live to reproduce. Full-stop. Which brings to mind a point that's just
as "unpopular": As we've advanced technologically, more and more "should
have been fatal" defects are being kept alive to breed and pass on the
defect. The (to me, at least) classic example of this is diabetes and
the discovery of insulin. Prior to the discovery of insulin, juvenile
diabetes was rare, and those who had the trait rarely lived long enough
to pass their defect on. Nowdays, diabetics routinely get supported to
reproductive age, and pass along the defect. And we've got diabetes
(comparatively) off the charts as a result. Likewise Hemophilia - prior
to developing the means to keep a hemophiliac alive, it was a rare
condition. Its sufferers rarely survived to breeding age, and the
disease stayed rare. Today, they live to breed, and while nowhere near
as common as diabetes, there are (again, comparatively) huge numbers of
either full-blown hemophiliacs, or carriers who breed and pass along the
defect. As heartless as it sounds, and despite the fact that I
personally wouldn't be likely to assist, or even stand there and watch
it happen, on a biological basis, diabetics, hemophiliacs, and similar
defects *SHOULD* be "put on an ice floe and set adrift".

>
> > Prior to that point, it's a parasite on the mother, and she's under
> > exactly the same obligation to continue hosting it as she would be if it
> > were a tapeworm.
> >
> > Further, if you think abortion is wrong, that's perfectly fine! Don't
> > have one. But take notice that this does not give you any kind of
> > permission to interfere - in ANY way, verbal, physical, or otherwise -
> > with anyone else who might choose to have an abortion.
>
> That's a typical piece of cant from the "pro-choice" side's
> rhetorical bag. It avoids the point we have been discussing:
> religious dicta aside,

"Cant" or not, it's reality, however unpalatable. (Side note: I'm glad
you had the sense to shove religion out the door, as I consider bringing
religion into ANY debate (that isn't purely about religion in and of
istelf) to be indistinguishable from saying "I ain't got a damned thing
useful to say, but I also don't have the smarts to shut the hell up and
face reality"".

Bluntly, the *ONLY* entity who has any say in whether abortion is right,
wrong, or otherwise, is the woman contemplating it. Nobody else - let me
make my stance perfectly clear: ABSOLUTELY NOBODY ELSE UNDER ANY
CIRCUMSTANCES - has any voice in the matter. That's an absolute so far
as I'm concerned, and I won't even try to entertain a discussion on it.

> when is it reasonable to extend the
> protection of legal personhood to the entity that starts as a
> fertilized egg and ends up, barring abortion or miscarriage,
> as a born human? Viability outside the womb is a moving target.

Not in the least. Can the entity survive outside the uterus without
"heroic measures" (meaning only the "normal" care required by any
newborn - feed, dress, keep it from freezing or broiling, etc)? If the
answer is yes, then fine - it's fit to live. If not, then it was
destined to die. Bummer, but... <shrug> no great loss in the big
biological picture.

> I have a siblings, a pair of twins, who were born prematurely.
> since they had to be in incubators for a while after delivery,
> were they fair game to be smothered with pillows? I'm pretty
> sure you wouldn't mean that.

Smothered with pillows? Oh - I get it - you hyperbolize by suggesting
that actively killing them is what I meant.

Without an incubator, they would have either lived, or died. If they
were fit for survival, they'd do just that: survive. If not, they'd have
died. Again, in the big biological picture, "oh well".

> For the record, I'm not a "pro-lifer." I am interested in
> getting the US electorate to create a new concensus on the
> abortion issue, somewhere between summary death penalty for
> onanism and tax-subsidized retroactive abortion until the
> 66th trimester.

And I'm neither pro-choice or pro-life - I'm a purely darwinian realist:
The fit survive. The unfit die. Prior to the point of being able to
survive outside the uterus, that blob of cells (which I'll grant may
look like a human being) is nothing more than a parasite on the mother,
who is entitled to do whatever she damn well pleases about it, up to and
including taking steps to rid her body of that parasite.

[Don Bruder]

In article <76e642a8-82e6-4c98...@googlegroups.com>,

Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

> On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 9:17:04 PM UTC-6, Don Bruder wrote:
>
> > Further, if you think abortion is wrong, that's perfectly fine! Don't
> > have one. But take notice that this does not give you any kind of
> > permission to interfere - in ANY way, verbal, physical, or otherwise -
> > with anyone else who might choose to have an abortion.
>
> If you think slavery is wrong, that's perfectly fine. Don't own a slave.
>
> What's wrong with that picture?

Nothing - aside from the fact that you're trying to claim a grape is an
elephant. Failure noted and dismissed.

[Michael F. Stemper]

ObSFW: _Stand on Zanzibar_, in which such "defectives" were allowed to
live, but weren't allowed to have children. And, during the story, many
states were adding color-blindness to the list.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Indians scattered on dawn's highway bleeding;
Ghosts crowd the young child's fragile eggshell mind.

[Quadibloc]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 at 10:22:18 AM UTC-6, Don Bruder wrote:
> In article <5d97612c-63e0-4dff...@googlegroups.com>,
> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:

> > That excludes children with special needs, and we are back to
> > exposing handicapped newborns on the hillside.

> Which, to be perfectly blunt, is something I have little or no objection
> to. I'm very much a darwinist in this respect - The unfit die. The fit
> live to reproduce. Full-stop.

I have no sympathy for that point of view.

Human beings have rights.

Therefore, it is forbidden to commit an act of aggression against a human being.

When the means are reasonably available, it is also forbidden, through
inaction, to fail to prevent harm to a human.

That is the basis on which moral action starts.

Unfortunately, it occasionally happens that one human being will attempt to
commit aggression against another human being. Since such acts are avoidable,
on the part of the aggressor, it is clear that total harm to humans is
minimized by preventing the aggression from being successful, by whatever means
are necessary, irrespective of any harm that may result to the aggressor.

Humans have rights; these include the right not to be subjected to aggression,
but not the right to commit, or attempt to commit, aggression.

John Savard

[Quadibloc]

Did Canada invade Kuwait? Did Canada sign a treaty promising not to develop
weapons of mass destruction as one of the penalties for this aggression?

George Bush didn't just pick some random country and make up a pretext. Iraq
was an aggressor, and it was violating a treaty it signed by interfering with
U.N. weapons inspectors.

John Savard

[William December Starr]

In article <novejm$pc2$1...@dont-email.me>,
Don Bruder <dak...@sonic.net> said:

> Kevrob <kev...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> That excludes children with special needs, and we are back to
>> exposing handicapped newborns on the hillside.
>
> Which, to be perfectly blunt, is something I have little or no
> objection to. I'm very much a darwinist in this respect - The
> unfit die. The fit live to reproduce. Full-stop. Which brings to
> mind a point that's just as "unpopular": As we've advanced
> technologically, more and more "should have been fatal" defects
> are being kept alive to breed and pass on the defect.

What "Fit to survive" means is strongly -- or perhaps absolutely --
defined by the environment. When the environment includes social
support and advanced medical science and care, people who survive
only because of that by definition *are* fit to survive. The fact
that they wouldn't survive in some different environment is
irrelevant.

> The (to me, at least) classic example of this is diabetes and the
> discovery of insulin. Prior to the discovery of insulin, juvenile
> diabetes was rare, and those who had the trait rarely lived long
> enough to pass their defect on. Nowdays, diabetics routinely get
> supported to reproductive age, and pass along the defect. And
> we've got diabetes (comparatively) off the charts as a
> result. Likewise Hemophilia - prior to developing the means to
> keep a hemophiliac alive, it was a rare condition. Its sufferers
> rarely survived to breeding age, and the disease stayed
> rare. Today, they live to breed, and while nowhere near as common
> as diabetes, there are (again, comparatively) huge numbers of
> either full-blown hemophiliacs, or carriers who breed and pass
> along the defect. As heartless as it sounds, and despite the fact
> that I personally wouldn't be likely to assist, or even stand
> there and watch it happen, on a biological basis, diabetics,
> hemophiliacs, and similar defects *SHOULD* be "put on an ice floe
> and set adrift".

I don't know where you're getting that 'should' from. Biology
doesn't have a purpose or agenda; it just happens.

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <novfvr$ua6$1...@dont-email.me>,

"Michael F. Stemper" <michael...@gmail.com> said:

> ObSFW: _Stand on Zanzibar_, in which such "defectives" were
> allowed to live, but weren't allowed to have children. And, during
> the story, many states were adding color-blindness to the list.

Free birth-control! Woo hoo!

-- wds

[William December Starr]

In article <e1f4ag...@mid.individual.net>,
"Michael R N Dolbear" <m...@privacy.net> said:

"William December Starr" wrote

>> "Latin is a dead language,
>> it's very plain to see.
>> It killed off all the Romans
>> and now it's killing me."
>
> Surely the Only True Form is :
>
> Latin is a language
> As dead as dead can be
> It killed the ancient Romans
> And now it's killing me.
>
> As quoted in Arthur Ransome's _Missie Lee

I didn't know about that; I was just quoting it the way I
heard it[1] when I was taking Latin[2] in junior high school
(seventh and eighth grade; America these days seems to be
phasing out junior high school in favor of "middle school,"
which is grades six through eight).

-----------
*1: Where, when, or from whom is lost to the mists of
time[3].

*2: At half-speed: the two years of it in junior high
combined would have provided one year's credit in high
school. I honestly can't remember now whether I also
took a year of it in the ninth grade; I know I switched
over to taking Spanish sometime after the eighth grade
but can't remember when.

*3: Or maybe it's smog.

-- wds