A Stolen Life, A Dying Soul
John Townsend
and the 12/17 TV show. I've also attached the relevant portion of John
Switzer's summary of the radio show for reference:
Copyright 1992 Chicago Tribune Company
Chicago Tribune
December 13, 1992, Sunday, FINAL EDITION
SECTION: TEMPO; Pg. 1; ZONE: C
LENGTH: 764 words
HEADLINE: A stolen life, a dying soul
BYLINE: Bob Greene.
BODY:
In San Jose, Calif., last month, burglars who intended to steal items from a
house found that a resident of the house was unexpectedly at home that day.
Instead of fleeing from the house, or leaving the resident unharmed, the
burglars, according to police, beat the resident, hacked at him with a butcher
knife and a meat cleaver, marched him from room to room, stuffed a sock into his
mouth, wrapped tape around his face, and left him in the house to die slowly.
The resident of the house did, indeed, die.
It is hard to make a case that he presented much of a danger to the burglars.
For the resident of the house was an 8-year-old boy, a 3rd grader who was
staying home from elementary school that day because he had a cold and a fever.
And the killers, according to police, were neighbors, friends of the family.
The killers, according to police, were three teenagers who butchered Melvin
Ancheta, an 8-year-old who knew them and who let them into the house because he
trusted them. The items they stole while Melvin Ancheta lay dying had a market
value of less than $100.
Our nation grows increasingly violent, and children are being killed in
heartbreaking numbers by teenagers who seem to have no concept of the value of
life. We can try to fix the economy, we can strive for a strong military, we can
endeavor to help people in need around the world. But if we cannot solve the
terrifying soullessness that we are seeing among murderous young criminals from
one coast to the other, nothing else will matter. We will be finished.
What happened to Melvin Ancheta defies understanding. He had stayed home from
school that day to try to rest and recover from his cold. There was no one
with him because both of his parents worked.
According to the San Jose police, the three neighborhood teenagers - one of
them was the best friend of Melvin's older brother - had decided to steal items
from the Ancheta house that day.
"Our understanding is that they had made the decision that they would kill
whoever happened to be home," said Sgt. Dennis Luca. "They expected the mother
might be home, but she had left for work."
When the teenagers - 18, 16 and 15 - knocked on the door, Melvin told them
they could not come in.
"He was an 8-year-old boy who had been taught not to let anyone into the
house if his parents weren't home," Sgt. Luca said.
But the teenagers returned. Through the door, they reportedly told Melvin
that one of his brothers had run away from home, and that they had been sent to
pick up some clothes to take to him. Because Melvin knew the teenagers,
apparently he decided he should let them in.
Police say that the teenagers took Melvin upstairs to a bedroom and
apparently beat him, then stabbed him repeatedly with a butcher knife. He did
not die.
"They walked him downstairs," Sgt. Luca said. "At some point they stuffed a
sock into his mouth and then wrapped tape around his head. They put him on a
couch while they looked for items. They turned on a television set to a cartoon
show."
Then, according to the police, one of the teenagers took a meat cleaver and
hacked at Melvin's throat. They left the house with a hand-held video game and a
portable telephone.
Melvin lay face down on the carpet all that day. There were slashes on his
neck and head, and his chest and back were covered with puncture wounds. His
right arm was twisted behind his back, his palm up. His brother Ryan, 14, came
home from school around 3:30 p.m., let himself into the house, and found Melvin.
According to police, Melvin's eyes were wide open, the brown plastic tape
wrapped over his mouth, a cord twisted around his neck.
"The officers who made the arrests talked to all three of the teenagers who
are charged with doing this, and 'remorse' was not a word that came up," Sgt.
Luca said.
Melvin's 3rd-grade classmates struggled to understand what had happened. They
knew he'd had a cold the day before. The San Jose Mercury News reported that
some of his schoolmates talked about the movie "Home Alone." That's what they
could relate it to. A friend of Melvin's, the newspaper reported, agonized that
perhaps he could have saved Melvin by trapping the intruders, like the boy in
the movie.
"You grope for words to explain it," Sgt. Luca said. "But there's no
explaining." And meanwhile our society veers ever out of control. Balance the
budget, repair the highways, feed the hungry. But unless we can figure out a way
to cure the dying national soul, we might as well just turn out the lights and
say a prayer on our way out, because it's over.
GRAPHIC: PHOTO: Melvin Ancheta thought he could trust his attackers.
-----------------------------------
Phone Diane from Ocala, FL
Diane refers to Rush's comment about the 8-year-old who was
killed, and is interested in Rush's views on this. Rush says that
today's column by Bob Green is a real "gut wrencher" about
burglars who broke into a San Jose house and beat a boy, hacked
at him with a meat cleaver, marched him around the house, stuffed
a sock in his mouth, wrapped his face in tape, and then left him
to die slowly. The 8-year-old third-grader, who stayed home from
school because of illness, died.
The killers were three teenagers who were neighbors and friends
of the family. The 8-year-old knew the teenagers, which is why he
let them in the house; the value of the objects stolen from the
house was less than $100. Green writes that children are being
killed more often by teenagers who have no concept of the value
of life. He wonders how this murderous soulness can be solved
since what happened to this boy defies understanding.
"Unless we can figure out a way to cure the dying national soul,"
writes Green, "it's over." Rush rereads Green's paragraph about
how so many teenagers have no concept about the value of life,
and points out that although his own show has discussed this
topic, but it's rarely discussed elsewhere.
Since Green has brought the subject of the nation's soul up, Rush
asks if there is any scientific evidence for any sort of soul.
Science can't provide this, of course, because the soul is not
just the animating aspect of a human being which defines that
human being, but it is a religious, not a scientific, concept.
Rush is glad that others are finally realizing that America is
heading down a course where the value of life is being slighted
and denigrated more and more. He doesn't think it is possible in
a civilized society to kill 1.5 million babies every year and to
have Jack Kevorkian running around praising the "dying process,"
without life being cheapened in the process. These things can't
be done without guilt unless life is cheapened.
Youngsters are highly impressionable, and they realize that
abortion is going on and what it means. Plus, the dominant media
culture, from the movies to MTV to records and books, is
increasingly encouraging children to lessen their respect for the
value of life. When in 20 years, girls' sexual activity is
doubling, there must be some cause.
Of course, every generation's music is criticized by previous
generations, but there is a great difference between what the
Beatles sang and what people like Ice T, 2 Live Crew, and others
are doing. There is also an underlying attitude of permissiveness
which hides behind the First Amendment, and this does affect
kids.
It is not too hard to realize what's wrong when kids are taking
guns to school and the school's response is to simply use metal
detectors. And then some groups such as the ACLU even oppose
these metal detectors. Values can't be taught in school anymore,
unless of course they are the homosexual values of the "Children
of the Rainbow" curriculum.
The Ten Commandments can't be mentioned in public schools, even
though there is no better guide to living together with others.
People have to start looking at the real problems in this, or
there will be no end to kids hacking each other to death. Rush
praises Bob Green for daring to talk about the concept of the
value of life, since so many people who don't want any
consequences attached to their actions are attacking anyone who
dares to talk about limits or values.
--
// John Townsend "I thought I was Legal Conversion Engineering
// Mead Data Central wrong once, but jo...@skibum.meaddata.com
// 8891 Gander Creek Dr. I was mistaken." ...!uunet!meaddata!johnt
// Miamisburg, OH 45342 8-} (513) 865-7250
Simon E. Booth
I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
gas chamber, no appeals.
Call me crude, but something must be done.
Simon
Simon E. Booth
Nathan Engle
>the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
>gas chamber, no appeals.
I read the original post, but my reaction was merely to be saddened.
Perhaps my study of history has inured me to violence, but it's difficult
for me to get too overwrought about individual cases like this one.
>Call me crude, but something must be done.
I think that your gut reaction may lead you to wish for something less
than purely poetic justice. IMHO the most appropriate thing that could be
done would be to throw those three guys and a case of A1 sauce into a cell
with Jeffery Dalhmer. (There you go, Simon, you weren't nearly as crude
as me)
--
Nathan Engle Software Juggler
Psychology Department Indiana University
na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu nen...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
drieux, just drieux
]
] I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
]
thanks simon, I was often confused about
your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....
ciao
drieux
--
Modern Day Problems:
This is Not a .sigfile addendum to the Post.
You are just reading beyond the edge.
John Townsend
|> sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> ] I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
|> ] the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
|> ] gas chamber, no appeals.
|> ]
|> ] Call me crude, but something must be done.
|>
|> your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....
Why should you presume that Simon's pro-life sentiments are any less consistent
than your pro-choice ones? Surely you would agree that even one's right to
choose can also be forfeited, waived, or otherwise mitigated under some
circumstances (e.g. should Jeffery Dahmer be allowed to choose anything he
wants for dinner?). The question is whether a person's desire to abort an
inconvenient pregnancy should be allowed to result in the death of the child.
If you wish to nit-pick, be consistent yourself and recognize both "Pro-Choice"
and "Pro-Life" for the euphemisms they are and use the more accurate labels
"pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion" instead.
John Townsend
|> sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|> >I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
|> >the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
|> >gas chamber, no appeals.
|>
|> I read the original post, but my reaction was merely to be saddened.
|> Perhaps my study of history has inured me to violence, but it's difficult
|> for me to get too overwrought about individual cases like this one.
This is not so much an individual case as an example of a continuing (and
worsening) trend in our society. Even here, in the relatively quiet midwestern
town of Dayton, Ohio, there has just recently been a rash of assaults by teens
on other young people merely for the clothes they were wearing. One man was
shot in the back by a teenager after he complied with demands for his jacket
and shoes. I did a Nexis search, and found the following ABC news transcript
of a November 24 story about Melvin's murder:
PETER JENNINGS: From San Jose, California, tonight, one example of an
alarming rise in teenaged violence. Consider this: nationwide, the number
of juveniles arrested for murder has nearly doubled in the past decade. In
San Jose, this week, an 18 year old boy pleaded not guilty to charges that
he and two companions murdered an eight year old. ABC's Tom Foreman is in
San Jose.
TOM FOREMAN: {POLICE / PHOTO} Even police were shocked when they arrived at
the apartment where Melvin Ancheta had been left home alone with a cold.
The eight year old boy was lying on the floor, his mouth taped shut. He had
been stabbed, hacked with a meat cleaver and strangled to death.
SARGEANT DENNIS LUCA: They had a hard time killing him. They thought they
killed him upstairs. They brought him downstairs and they had to finish
killing him downstairs.
DENISE THORP / NEIGHBOR: Everybody's been crying. It's just something you
don't expect to happen to an eight year old.
TOM FOREMAN: {NEWSPAPER ARTICLES} But the bigger shock was yet to come.
Police charged three teenaged friends of the victim in the murder - a 15
year old, a 16 year old and an 18 year old. {SUSPECT} Police say Melvin
trusted them enough to let them in the front door, then they stole 100
dollars worth of property and killed him because he was a witness. For San
Jose, it is a horrifying example of growing teenaged violence.
MARC BULLER / DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY: We never used to call juveniles
sociopaths. Now that word's coming up all the time.
TOM FOREMAN: {KIDS' BASKETBALL GAME} Melvin's murder was not an isolated
incident. Violent crimes committed by teenagers increased 25 percent here
in the past year. Many blame gangs.
TEENAGE BOY: I think it's getting worse every day because everyone wants to
be like someone that's bigger than them. They want to be like those gangs.
TOM FOREMAN: {GIRL WITH MOM} But even nongang members, like the suspects in
this case, are being swept into the violence. Now, Melvin's playmates dream
of killers outside their doors.
ROSA RAMIREZ / NINE YEARS OLD: Like, he's out there and we're going out to
play and he's right there at the door and he's just, like, trying to stab us
with a knife.
TOM FOREMAN: {FUNERAL} It will be a long time before this town comes to terms
with Melvin's murder. Few here have any clue how to deal with the kind of
teen violence that killed him. Tom Foreman, ABC News, San Jose.
By the way, it was not the 18-year-old who actually killed Melvin. It was the
15-year-old. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for the 18-year-old,
and to try the 16-year-old (who was the lookout and had posession of the stolen
items) as an adult, but the worst that can happen to the 15-year-old is that he
will be held in a juvenile center until he is 25.
What strikes me about this story is the common theme it shares with the Bob
Greene article. The closing line, "Few here have any clue how to deal with the
kind of teen violence that killed him," hauntingly echoes Greene's statement
that "unless we can figure out a way to cure the dying national soul, we might
as well just turn out the lights and say a prayer on our way out, because it's
over." Personally, I think Rush hit the nail on the head in his monologue
about this: life has been cheapened in our culture for the sake of such things
as entertainment and choice, and this is only the logical result.
|> >Call me crude, but something must be done.
|>
|> I think that your gut reaction may lead you to wish for something less
|> than purely poetic justice. IMHO the most appropriate thing that could be
|> done would be to throw those three guys and a case of A1 sauce into a cell
|> with Jeffery Dalhmer. (There you go, Simon, you weren't nearly as crude
|> as me)
Mega-dittos.
keba...@memstvx1.memst.edu
>
> sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>]I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
>]the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
>]gas chamber, no appeals.
>
> I read the original post, but my reaction was merely to be saddened.
> Perhaps my study of history has inured me to violence, but it's difficult
> for me to get too overwrought about individual cases like this one.
Reminds me of a quote (don't infer insult from this):
"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths
is a statistic."--Joseph Stalin
"Uncle Joe" [The Great Satan] knew whereof he spoke.
>]Call me crude, but something must be done.
>
> I think that your gut reaction may lead you to wish for something less
> than purely poetic justice. IMHO the most appropriate thing that could be
> done would be to throw those three guys and a case of A1 sauce into a cell
> with Jeffery Dahmer. (There you go, Simon, you weren't nearly as crude
> as me)
>
> Nathan Engle Software Juggler
What are we to make of the case of Wesley Allan Dodd, convicted serial
child rapist-murderer in Washington state who says he wishes to
be executed by hanging, since that is what he did to the 4-year-old
boy who was his last victim?
I find it discouraging that the ACLU wishes to contest this proposal,
and that the only way it seems for someone such as Dodd to be put
out of his own misery and everyone else's is for him to request that
the execution be carried out, ala: Gary Gilmore's request for a
Utah firing squad.
It also seems curious that liberals who would no doubt fight for
Jack Kervorkian's right to kill, would have any qualms about seeing
this man die, who has violated the civil liberties of the innocent
in the most extreme way. Though I may not agree with Rush's strict
"pro-life" position on abortion, he has a point about the effect
of the cheapening of human life which is brought about by rampant
abortion, and even euthanasia, in a society where the unjust taking
of life goes unpunished in many cases.
Does execution deter?
If we were to execute any criminal who murdered while committing
another felony, we could have our answer. If there were fewer
murders associated with the commission of felonies, the effect
of such a law could readily be demonstrated. The necessity
of convicting the accused twice, first of the felony, and then the
capital murder charge, should add an extra measure of protection
against executing the innocent. It would be a good experiment to
try, and might ease jail overcrowding :-}.
How we should deal with the juveniles in this particular case
[Bob Greene's column] is a far more difficult question.
Might we simply delay executing them until they are adults,
mercifully granting them at least a fraction of their lives?
Or, can such children be "rehabilitated"? Are child criminals
any more capable of "rehabilitation" than adults?
Accepting for the sake of argument that these children became
"soulless" thanks to their parents, or their environment, what
can be done to help other children who are similarly endangered?
For the sake of the victims now, and in the future, our national
"soul" must be found, and healed. And fast.
[Standard disclaimers appply.]
--
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. *
* \' KEBA...@memstvx1.memst.edu *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,7...@compuserve.com**********************
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged
to stick to possibilities, Truth isn't."--Mark Twain
Jared Dahl
|>
|> ]
|> ] I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
|> ] the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
|> ] gas chamber, no appeals.
|> ]
|> ] Call me crude, but something must be done.
|> ]
|> ] Simon
|> ]
|>
|>
|> thanks simon, I was often confused about
|> your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....
This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
all along. They'll get arrested to save a life, but
once the baby is born they could care less. Try to get
some of these folks to support social programs like
WIC or foodstamps. It's a hoot!
Jared Dahl
Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Doug Holtsinger
jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
> This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
> all along. They'll get arrested to save a life, but
> once the baby is born they could care less. Try to get
> some of these folks to support social programs like
> WIC or foodstamps.
Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
programs like WIC and foodstamps. And the poor tend
to be the strongest opponents of abortion.
But I don't follow your reasoning. If someone supports
the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they
support those who wish to commit that act? Does my support
of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of
potential rapists? If not, then what's the difference
between that and abortion?
>Jared Dahl
Doug Holtsinger
Simon E. Booth
>sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>
>]
>] I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
>] the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
>] gas chamber, no appeals.
>]
>] Call me crude, but something must be done.
>]
>] Simon
>]
>
>
>thanks simon, I was often confused about
>your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....
This is precisely why I feel that these murderers should be executed.
Simon
JIM GRAHAM
>In article <nate...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>,
>na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu
>>(Nathan Engle) [Our intelligent-liberal-in-residence] wrote:
>> I think that your gut reaction may lead you to wish for something less
>> than purely poetic justice. IMHO the most appropriate thing that could be
>> done would be to throw those three guys and a case of A1 sauce into a cell
>> with Jeffery Dahmer. (There you go, Simon, you weren't nearly as crude
>> as me)
>>
>> Nathan Engle Software Juggler
>
>What are we to make of the case of Wesley Allan Dodd, convicted serial
>child rapist-murderer in Washington state who says he wishes to
>be executed by hanging, since that is what he did to the 4-year-old
>boy who was his last victim?
>
>I find it discouraging that the ACLU wishes to contest this proposal,
>and that the only way it seems for someone such as Dodd to be put
>out of his own misery and everyone else's is for him to request that
>the execution be carried out, ala: Gary Gilmore's request for a
>Utah firing squad.
Yes. If anyone is being cruel and unusual, it has to be the ACLU,
bouncing those on deathrow back and forth as their political
playthings.
>
>Does execution deter?
>If we were to execute any criminal who murdered while committing
>another felony, we could have our answer. If there were fewer
>murders associated with the commission of felonies, the effect
>of such a law could readily be demonstrated. The necessity
>of convicting the accused twice, first of the felony, and then the
>capital murder charge, should add an extra measure of protection
>against executing the innocent. It would be a good experiment to
>try, and might ease jail overcrowding :-}.
I've always believed that it would be far more of a deterrent to
televise executions. It may seem barbaric and inhuman, but I really
believe it would have a lasting effect on those who watched.
>
>
>For the sake of the victims now, and in the future, our national
>"soul" must be found, and healed. And fast.
Yup. And one doesn't have to force religion on anyone to achieve this,
IMHO.
It makes good common sense.
>
>[Standard disclaimers appply.]
>
>--
>*.x,*dna**************************************************************
>*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. *
>* \' KEBA...@memstvx1.memst.edu *
>*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,7...@compuserve.com**********************
>"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged
>to stick to possibilities, Truth isn't."--Mark Twain
Jim Graham
-> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
Neither do they speak for me.
______________________________________________________________________
| Internet: gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu |
| dolmen!jgr...@moose.cs.indiana.edu |
| BBS: The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
| (812) 334-0418, 24hrs. |
|______________________________________________________________________|
JIM GRAHAM
>In article <1992Dec28.0...@wetware.com>, dri...@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>|> sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
>|>
>|> ]
>|> ] I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
>|> ] the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
>|> ] gas chamber, no appeals.
>|> ]
>|> ] Call me crude, but something must be done.
>|> ]
>|> ] Simon
>|> ]
>|>
>|>
>|> thanks simon, I was often confused about
>|> your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....
>
>This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
>all along. They'll get arrested to save a life, but
>once the baby is born they could care less. Try to get
>some of these folks to support social programs like
>WIC or foodstamps. It's a hoot!
Without admitting to whether I'm pro-life or pro-abortion, I
have to say that whenever these jokes we call "social programs"
become truly fair, I'll consider this a valid argument.
I personally know at least four families who are more interested in
sucking blood from these programs than getting jobs and becoming
responsible.
One of them actually sells their foodstamps to others.
This all makes me sick, and when my tax dollars are spent on those
who truly need them, rather than the welfare society that our know-it-all
liberals have created, I'll be the first to use the above argument.
>
>
>Jared Dahl
>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Jim Graham
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Blah blah blah.. how many times have we heard this ludicrous argument.
In taking a life a murderer forfeits his rights because he has WILLINGLY
with MALICE ended another person's life and given evidence that he cannot
be trusted to participate in society. Laws are designed not only to enforce
morals, but to teach them (Why does it seem like I keep saying this...).
The only way a law can teach is if the punishment fits the crime and
if it is executed SWIFTLY.
An unborn baby has undertaken no conscious action of any kind, nor with
any malice, to threaten any member of society. Thus, without due process,
it is your contention that this baby be found guilty of nothing and
sentenced to death for it.
The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
from the opposite, our concern for human life. Creating a welfare state
inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the
responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).
This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.
Edward Simmonds
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stupid obligatory sig to satisfy Tony Zugates -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
- My opinions are my own and I hope at least somebody doesn't agree -
- with them so I have someone to boost my ego on -
- -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick L Humphrey
Xref: rice alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11276 talk.abortion:101859
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show,talk.abortion
Path: rice!newsfeed.rice.edu!bcm!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ringer!lonestar.utsa.edu!sbooth
From: sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Sender: ne...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: lonestar.utsa.edu
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
References: <1h536u...@meaddata.meaddata.com> <1992Dec24.2...@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> <1992Dec28.0...@wetware.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 03:34:17 GMT
Lines: 21
Thanks for proving drieux's point for him, without your realizing it, of
course...:-)
(You may now claim that it was all just a joke.)
--
Robert Johnston
to read articles before you follow up on them? It seems to me that the lack
of such reading is rampant among fundie/right-wing zealots. Try calling
1-800-ABCDEFG. Supposed to be a wonderful adult literacy program
available.
Now that I'm done trashing your basic stupidity, lets get to the contents of
your post.
C.J. Silverio
First sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
|>] I honestly hope those three killers get the
|>] gas chamber, no appeals.
Then Drieux says:
|>thanks simon, I was often confused about
|>your commitment to the sanctity of all human life....
And Simon says:
|This is precisely why I feel that these murderers should be executed.
GHOD! I love Usenet! Where else can I find such choice irony?
---
c...@eno.esd.sgi.com C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
``Is it really true that strychnine typically contains small traces
of LSD? I want to poison somebody but I wouldn't want them to die
tripping.'' -- John C. Baez
Jared Dahl
|> In article <1992Dec28.1...@rchland.ibm.com>
|> jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
|>
|> > This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
|> > all along. They'll get arrested to save a life, but
|> > once the baby is born they could care less. Try to get
|> > some of these folks to support social programs like
|> > WIC or foodstamps.
|>
|> Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
|> programs like WIC and foodstamps. And the poor tend
|> to be the strongest opponents of abortion.
Not according to many posts already in this group.
|> But I don't follow your reasoning. If someone supports
|> the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they
|> support those who wish to commit that act? Does my support
|> of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of
|> potential rapists? If not, then what's the difference
|> between that and abortion?
Huh? If you're implying that I support goverment funding
of abortions, you're wrong. My statement simply said that
most pro-lifers I know are against feeding people and
would rather ignore hunger in their own country than pay
more in taxes.
Jared Dahl
|> Without admitting to whether I'm pro-life or pro-abortion, I
|> have to say that whenever these jokes we call "social programs"
|> become truly fair, I'll consider this a valid argument.
|>
|> I personally know at least four families who are more interested in
|> sucking blood from these programs than getting jobs and becoming
|> responsible.
|>
|> One of them actually sells their foodstamps to others.
|>
|> This all makes me sick, and when my tax dollars are spent on those
|> who truly need them, rather than the welfare society that our know-it-all
|> liberals have created, I'll be the first to use the above argument.
First of all, I didn't see Reagan, Bush, Ford, or Nixon trying
to reform the welfare laws. They are a product of both parties.
Second, fraud is not as prevalent in these programs as you would
think, but it is a problem.
The real problem with our welfare system is that it "traps" people
into a cycle of poverty, from which they cannot emerge. Many people
cannot afford to live on welfare. So they seek out a job. If they
can find one, it pays less than welfare does, and it will probably
cause them to lose their welfare benefits. So they stay out of work
because they have kids to feed. I think that this is one of the
problems at the base of America's decline. People are unable to
work or can't find a job. They are unable to raise their children
with the values that they were raised with. I think that the number
of people strong willed enough to never want to work and leech off
of society is smaller than you think.
When you give people jobs, you give them dignity. With dignity, they
can raise their children right, pass on morals and help keep a sense
of order in our society.
How are we going to do this? I don't know, but until we figure it
out, these people have to eat somehow. Welfare was never meant to
be a permanent program, and it has not worked well in the long run.
hs...@vax.clarku.edu
>jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
>>all along. They'll get arrested to save a life, but
>>once the baby is born they could care less. Try to get
>>some of these folks to support social programs like
>>WIC or foodstamps. It's a hoot!
>>
>>Jared Dahl
>>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
>
>Blah blah blah.. how many times have we heard this ludicrous argument.
>In taking a life a murderer forfeits his rights because he has WILLINGLY
>with MALICE ended another person's life and given evidence that he cannot
>be trusted to participate in society. Laws are designed not only to enforce
>morals, but to teach them (Why does it seem like I keep saying this...).
>The only way a law can teach is if the punishment fits the crime and
>if it is executed SWIFTLY.
>
>An unborn baby has undertaken no conscious action of any kind, nor with
>any malice, to threaten any member of society. Thus, without due process,
>it is your contention that this baby be found guilty of nothing and
>sentenced to death for it.
Fetuses do pose a threat to members of society - the women that they are
living inside of. Every pregnant woman faces a risk of death that is greater
than 0.00.
>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>from the opposite, our concern for human life. Creating a welfare state
>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the
>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).
Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
>This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
>assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
>better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.
But when it comes to abortion, you would rather have the state take charge
than let the pregnant woman make her own decision about her life and her body?
>Edward Simmonds
.... Heather.
Doug Holtsinger
jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>d...@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>> Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
>> programs like WIC and foodstamps. And the poor tend
>> to be the strongest opponents of abortion.
> Not according to many posts already in this group.
It's hard to tell your point here. You're either claiming
that you know the opinions of my pro-life friends better
than I do, or you're making a generalization about
millions of pro-lifers based upon a few posts in this
newsgroup. Which is it?
>Jared Dahl
Doug Holtsinger
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
So do people driving cars. The issue is whether someone has demonstrated
through an ACTION they have willingly undertaken that they are a LARGE
threat. This is a very weak argument you present here.
>>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>>from the opposite, our concern for human life. Creating a welfare state
>>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the
>>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).
>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
>responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem. You tell me which
is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed. Would any decent
person bring children into this world to watch them starve? I think not.
And yes, wasteful social programs WILL encourage children to be bums because
they learn by the example of their parents.
Only an idiot would hold children responsible for the stupidity and
cruelty of their parents. If programs that help these children could be
enacted that would truly be uncorruptable and beneficial to them, they would
be warranted.
>>This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
>>assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
>>better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.
>But when it comes to abortion, you would rather have the state take charge
>than let the pregnant woman make her own decision about her life and her body?
Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
in fact the state already has control over this issue. The only problem is
in making people aware of what abortion really is... cold blooded, vicious,
violent, painful MURDER.
This isn't the forum to discuss abortion. If you would like to argue it go
to talk.abortion.
>>Edward Simmonds
> .... Heather.
Same as above --^
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>In article <C007F...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>|> Without admitting to whether I'm pro-life or pro-abortion, I
>|> have to say that whenever these jokes we call "social programs"
>|> become truly fair, I'll consider this a valid argument.
>|>
>|> I personally know at least four families who are more interested in
>|> sucking blood from these programs than getting jobs and becoming
>|> responsible.
>|>
>|> One of them actually sells their foodstamps to others.
>|>
>|> This all makes me sick, and when my tax dollars are spent on those
>|> who truly need them, rather than the welfare society that our know-it-all
>|> liberals have created, I'll be the first to use the above argument.
>First of all, I didn't see Reagan, Bush, Ford, or Nixon trying
>to reform the welfare laws. They are a product of both parties.
>Second, fraud is not as prevalent in these programs as you would
>think, but it is a problem.
EXCUUUUSE ME? In New York City the government spends $18,000/year
on EACH homeless person. Where is this money going? If this money
went directly for college you could pay for four years of school using
just one year of these funds for each homeless person. This money has
to be going SOMEWHERE, but for the life of me I can't see where any of
it is going to the homeless people themselves.
>The real problem with our welfare system is that it "traps" people
>into a cycle of poverty, from which they cannot emerge. Many people
>cannot afford to live on welfare. So they seek out a job. If they
>can find one, it pays less than welfare does, and it will probably
>cause them to lose their welfare benefits. So they stay out of work
>because they have kids to feed. I think that this is one of the
>problems at the base of America's decline. People are unable to
>work or can't find a job. They are unable to raise their children
>with the values that they were raised with. I think that the number
>of people strong willed enough to never want to work and leech off
>of society is smaller than you think.
You can earn more money working at McDonalds than on welfare.
Let's talk about welfare then... in this country we spend $7,000/year
per PERSON on welfare. So an average family of 3-4 costs us around
$25,000 per year. Are you trying to tell me there's not some incredible
fraud going on somewhere here? Even if that money is just eaten up in
the bureaucracy it's still fraud. [These figures quoted from Jack Kemp's
speech at the Heritage Foundation to the freshman members of Congress.]
There are opportunities everywhere for those who want them. Millions
of dollars of scholarships for women and minorities go unclaimed every
year. Look at Clarence Thomas, whom liberals despise. He took the
opportunities and became one of the most powerful men in the country.
Liberals can't stand to admit this because he's actually a conservative,
successful black man, and he didn't become successful through any lucky
natural athletic ability, but by educated himself.
God forbid a poor black man should work his way out of poverty without
the liberals there to hold his hand.
>When you give people jobs, you give them dignity. With dignity, they
>can raise their children right, pass on morals and help keep a sense
>of order in our society.
Some might argue that being forced to take handouts eliminates dignity
and therefore the desire to seek a job in the first place. If you want
to get many of these people back to work you have to remove their
incentives to stay in the situation they are currently in.
>How are we going to do this? I don't know, but until we figure it
>out, these people have to eat somehow. Welfare was never meant to
>be a permanent program, and it has not worked well in the long run.
"I don't know"-- spoken like a true liberal. Welfare has become permanent.
Since FDR there are generations of families who have lived on welfare.
It will never work. The cycle of poverty has shifted and is now perpetuated
by the welfare state.
>Jared Dahl
>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Edward Simmonds
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Stupid obligatory sig to satisfy Tony Zugates -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -
- Example of Arrogance- the assumption that because one is an expert in -
- an exact science that one's opinions on a completely unrelated and -
- inexact science are ultimately superior to anyone else's -
- -
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Margolis
>
>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem. You tell me which
>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed. Would any decent
>person bring children into this world to watch them starve? I think not.
Sounds like you're suggesting that if the couple wanted a child, but their
financial situation changed after conception so that they could no longer
afford to have a child, the responsible action would be to get an abortion.
>Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>in fact the state already has control over this issue.
But murder is illegal, and abortion is legal. I guess abortion is *not*
murder after all.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), mar...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
JIM GRAHAM
>In article <C007F...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>|> I personally know at least four families who are more interested in
>|> sucking blood from these programs than getting jobs and becoming
>|> responsible.
>|>
>|> One of them actually sells their foodstamps to others.
>|>
>|> This all makes me sick, and when my tax dollars are spent on those
>|> who truly need them, rather than the welfare society that our know-it-all
>|> liberals have created, I'll be the first to use the above argument.
>
>
>into a cycle of poverty, from which they cannot emerge. Many people
>cannot afford to live on welfare. So they seek out a job. If they
>can find one, it pays less than welfare does, and it will probably
>cause them to lose their welfare benefits. So they stay out of work
>because they have kids to feed. I think that this is one of the
>problems at the base of America's decline. People are unable to
>work or can't find a job. They are unable to raise their children
>with the values that they were raised with. I think that the number
I don't understand what you mean by "values" here.
>
>When you give people jobs, you give them dignity. With dignity, they
>can raise their children right, pass on morals and help keep a sense
>of order in our society.
This hasn't been my experience. It sounds wonderful, but reality
says otherwise.
Those four families I mentioned earlier have all been given numerous
"jobs", and have managed to lose each and every one of them, NOT because
they weren't capable of doing them, but because they were too LAZY and
undisciplined to be there on time, and every day that they should
have. If there was a problem, they didn't even bother calling in.
And they clearly didn't care. Why? Because they knew that welfare
would bale them out. How do I know? They told me.
>
>How are we going to do this? I don't know, but until we figure it
>out, these people have to eat somehow. Welfare was never meant to
>be a permanent program, and it has not worked well in the long run.
All welfare recipients should be required, if physically able, to
perform ... GASP!!!.... some form of community service.
That's a darned good, positive, and constructive beginning.
>
>Jared Dahl
>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Jim Graham
drieux, just drieux
] In article <C007F...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
] |>
] |> This all makes me sick, and when my tax dollars are spent on those
] |> who truly need them, rather than the welfare society that our know-it-all
] |> liberals have created, I'll be the first to use the above argument.
]
] First of all, I didn't see Reagan, Bush, Ford, or Nixon trying
] to reform the welfare laws. They are a product of both parties.
Folks, Folks!
Try to remember that when the GOP fell into the
hands of the "Religious Right" the war against
"welfare queens" went out the window.....
Can't be out there advocating getting them thar
welfare queens off the public dole when it might
be used as an argument that it is far cheaper to
provide federal funding for those persons on
welfare to get an 'abortion' than it is to maintain
the 'baby industry'.....
Nathan Engle
>na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
>>]I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
>>]the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
>>]gas chamber, no appeals.
>> I read the original post, but my reaction was merely to be saddened.
>> Perhaps my study of history has inured me to violence, but it's difficult
>> for me to get too overwrought about individual cases like this one.
>Reminds me of a quote (don't infer insult from this):
Not at all. As a matter of fact I would say that my muted reactions
to violence are perhaps part of a larger problem in that many, many people
feel much the same as I do. It's really tough to listen to reports of
brutal teenage killers without it getting a little old after a while. We
have two other teenage killer cases going on in the news here in Indiana,
one in which a girl was killed by a group of other girls, and one in which
a teenage boy confessed to a murder that occurred down in Florida. I'm sure
that Simon is correct that I should be outraged, but in the context of all
the other stuff going on I just can't work up the energy to be equally
outraged by every single case.
>"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths
>is a statistic."--Joseph Stalin
>"Uncle Joe" [The Great Satan] knew whereof he spoke.
He certainly did.
>>]Call me crude, but something must be done.
>>
>> I think that your gut reaction may lead you to wish for something less
>> than purely poetic justice. IMHO the most appropriate thing that could be
>> done would be to throw those three guys and a case of A1 sauce into a cell
>> with Jeffery Dahmer. (There you go, Simon, you weren't nearly as crude
>> as me)
>What are we to make of the case of Wesley Allan Dodd, convicted serial
>child rapist-murderer in Washington state who says he wishes to
>be executed by hanging, since that is what he did to the 4-year-old
>boy who was his last victim?
I guess we'd better call in "Dr Dripper"; sounds like a prime candidate
for Dr-assisted suicide if every I saw one.
>I find it discouraging that the ACLU wishes to contest this proposal,
>and that the only way it seems for someone such as Dodd to be put
>out of his own misery and everyone else's is for him to request that
>the execution be carried out, ala: Gary Gilmore's request for a
>Utah firing squad.
The ACLU seems to base its fights on principles which are not always
based in practicalities, but I can think of too many examples of other
groups that seem to have that same problem to want to get too deeply into
that topic.
>It also seems curious that liberals who would no doubt fight for
>Jack Kervorkian's right to kill, would have any qualms about seeing
>this man die, who has violated the civil liberties of the innocent
>in the most extreme way.
Yes, some liberals certainly feel that way. I agree that their position
is internally inconsistant, but once again I'm not prepared to get too
deep into that one for fear of opening other cans of worms.
>Though I may not agree with Rush's strict
>"pro-life" position on abortion, he has a point about the effect
>of the cheapening of human life which is brought about by rampant
>abortion, and even euthanasia, in a society where the unjust taking
>of life goes unpunished in many cases.
Honestly I don't think that abortion (which definitely cheapens fetal
life) is the primary contributor to this modern craze for grotesque murders.
For that I would say that we have Hollywood, the film industry, and our old
buddies Stallone and Schwartzeneger(sp?) to thank. When was the last time
you saw graphic visual images of dozens of people getting buttered across
the landscape?
>Does execution deter?
It certainly cuts down on those repeat-offender statistics.
>If we were to execute any criminal who murdered while committing
>another felony, we could have our answer. If there were fewer
>murders associated with the commission of felonies, the effect
>of such a law could readily be demonstrated. The necessity
>of convicting the accused twice, first of the felony, and then the
>capital murder charge, should add an extra measure of protection
>against executing the innocent. It would be a good experiment to
>try, and might ease jail overcrowding :-}.
>How we should deal with the juveniles in this particular case
>[Bob Greene's column] is a far more difficult question.
>Might we simply delay executing them until they are adults,
>mercifully granting them at least a fraction of their lives?
>Or, can such children be "rehabilitated"? Are child criminals
>any more capable of "rehabilitation" than adults?
>Accepting for the sake of argument that these children became
>"soulless" thanks to their parents, or their environment, what
>can be done to help other children who are similarly endangered?
>For the sake of the victims now, and in the future, our national
>"soul" must be found, and healed. And fast.
Perhaps so. To get back to my dispassionate analytical mode, I would
note that violent, "soulless" cultures have a tendency to be fairly
successful empire builders. As long as the inherent tendency towards
violence doesn't impair population growth our prospects for continuing
as a nation are fairly good. If you would like to make the argument that
the current level of violence is excessive then I would agree, but at
least from a historical perspective I would say that the level of violence
we're seeing doesn't necessarily pose an immediate threat to our survival
as a nation. It would certainly be much more pleasant to have nice neighbors
whose kids we're pretty sure aren't going to murder us, but at this point
I think that the murder rate is still less than the birth rate.
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>In article <1992Dec29.1...@rchland.ibm.com>, jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes...
>>In article <C007F...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu (JIM GRAHAM) writes:
>>|> I personally know at least four families who are more interested in
>>|> sucking blood from these programs than getting jobs and becoming
>>|> responsible.
>>|>
>>|> One of them actually sells their foodstamps to others.
>>|>
>>|> This all makes me sick, and when my tax dollars are spent on those
>>|> who truly need them, rather than the welfare society that our know-it-all
>>|> liberals have created, I'll be the first to use the above argument.
>>
>>
>>The real problem with our welfare system is that it "traps" people
>>into a cycle of poverty, from which they cannot emerge. Many people
>>cannot afford to live on welfare. So they seek out a job. If they
>>can find one, it pays less than welfare does, and it will probably
>>cause them to lose their welfare benefits. So they stay out of work
>>because they have kids to feed. I think that this is one of the
>>problems at the base of America's decline. People are unable to
>>work or can't find a job. They are unable to raise their children
>>with the values that they were raised with. I think that the number
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I don't understand what you mean by "values" here.
Liberal Definition of Values: Restrictions stopping us from doing anything
we want without any repercussions or
responsibilities.
It seems to me these values are being taught very well to liberal's children.
Poor kids.
>>
>>When you give people jobs, you give them dignity. With dignity, they
>>can raise their children right, pass on morals and help keep a sense
>>of order in our society.
>This hasn't been my experience. It sounds wonderful, but reality
>says otherwise.
>Those four families I mentioned earlier have all been given numerous
>"jobs", and have managed to lose each and every one of them, NOT because
>they weren't capable of doing them, but because they were too LAZY and
>undisciplined to be there on time, and every day that they should
>have. If there was a problem, they didn't even bother calling in.
>And they clearly didn't care. Why? Because they knew that welfare
>would bale them out. How do I know? They told me.
This is what I have repeatedly labeled the "incentives to stay poor".
>>
>>How are we going to do this? I don't know, but until we figure it
>>out, these people have to eat somehow. Welfare was never meant to
>>be a permanent program, and it has not worked well in the long run.
>All welfare recipients should be required, if physically able, to
>perform ... GASP!!!.... some form of community service.
>That's a darned good, positive, and constructive beginning.
Good idea! They also should be forced to demonstrate a willingness to
educate or prepare themselves for REAL LIFE.
>>
>>Jared Dahl
>>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
>Jim Graham
> -> ->Disclaimer: I do not speak for my company. <- <-
> Neither do they speak for me.
> ______________________________________________________________________
>| Internet: gra...@venus.iucf.indiana.edu |
>| dolmen!jgr...@moose.cs.indiana.edu |
>| BBS: The PORTAL DOLMEN BBS/ParaNet ALPHA-GAMMA (sm) (9:1012/13) |
>| (812) 334-0418, 24hrs. |
>|______________________________________________________________________|
Good job Mr. Graham.
Edward Simmonds
- I am right, liberals are wrong... Long live America's true citizens...
the Conservatives -
J H Woodyatt
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
# You can earn more money working at McDonalds than on welfare.
A dubious claim, probably backed up with dubious statistics.
# Let's talk about welfare then... in this country we spend $7,000/year
# per PERSON on welfare. So an average family of 3-4 costs us around
# $25,000 per year. Are you trying to tell me there's not some incredible
# fraud going on somewhere here?
Evidently.
Lessee... $25K/yr is ~$2100/mo. AFDC for a family composed of a
single mother and two children in California (not a very chincy state
as states go) is $505/mo. WIC comes in at somewhere around $150/mo if
you qualify. Food stamps -- I have no clue; gotta be at least
$100/mo. Still, the numbers don't look promising.
Minimum wage is $4.35/hr, or $754/mo gross with a 40/hr work week.
Typically, no benefits (oh, sorry, I forgot Medicaid doesn't cost
anything and we were talking about cash flow weren't we... oops).
Often not even full time because full-time employees have legal
protection that part-time employees don't.
What was that about fraud?
Anyway, what's the deal here? Is welfare a `cycle of poverty' that
traps people on welfare because they make less money at minimum wage
jobs than on welfare, or are welfare recipients mostly a bunch of
fat, lazy `welfare queens' bilking the taxpayers out of hard-earned
lucre just because they don't want to work for more money than they
get on welfate?
# Even if that money is just eaten up in
# the bureaucracy it's still fraud.
Why? Because bureacracy is *ALWAYS* fraud. (Unless it's *your*
bureaucracy, in which case, it's simply waste, or better yet, fat.)
I wouldn't be so pissy about this if you dittoheads would just admit
that you simply don't want the poor to receive any help whatsoever
from the government. Jeez. At least the Libertarians can do that.
Get some spine, you simpering fools.
--
+---------------------------+ ``Man has not a single right which is
| J H Woodyatt | the product of anything but might.''
| ba...@cutter.ssd.loral.com | -- Mark Twain
+---------------------------+
Michael W. Rowland
> keba...@memstvx1.memst.edu writes:
> >na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
>
> >"soul" must be found, and healed. And fast.
>
> Perhaps so. To get back to my dispassionate analytical mode, I would
> note that violent, "soulless" cultures have a tendency to be fairly
> successful empire builders.
Maybe the word "soulless" is giving you some trouble...how about
"MORAL CHARACTER." Do you honestly believe that an empire can be
build and sustained if its leaders and citizens do not have the
moral character that binds them together for common purpose? And if
you do disagree with me, would you like to live in that society?
> As long as the inherent tendency towards
> violence doesn't impair population growth our prospects for continuing
> as a nation are fairly good.
Sure! But who will want continue putting up with anarchy? A nation
is more than a random collection of human beings! The nation,
today, is being pulled apart by the seams, by special interest
groups, and you sit back and evaluate the prospects of our society
surviving as "fairly good"...I'm sorry, but I hope you are in a distant
minority of this country.
> If you would like to make the argument that
> the current level of violence is excessive then I would agree, but at
> least from a historical perspective I would say that the level of violence
> we're seeing doesn't necessarily pose an immediate threat to our survival
> as a nation.
Okay! But do not continue with the "threat" statement...it clouds the
point. I would rather LIVE than only SURVIVE, as you seem to propose.
You are part of the problem! Where are your standards? Are you happy
being a victim of this mess. The insane idea you have about putting
up with any level of violence is absurd. Until we as a society
reestablish standards and moral guidelines, how do we keep the
violence from getting worse? I do not want to live in YOUR world!
> It would certainly be much more pleasant to have nice neighbors
> whose kids we're pretty sure aren't going to murder us, but at this point
> I think that the murder rate is still less than the birth rate.
>
You have obviously not been privy to first-hand violence recently!
I do not mean to be obnoxious, but where is the common sense in
your passive attitude. Is anyone responsible for anything?!
Mike
Mike Rowland (Contractor), MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: row...@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Ryan Mcneilly
>I wouldn't be so pissy about this if you dittoheads would just admit
>that you simply don't want the poor to receive any help whatsoever
>from the government. Jeez. At least the Libertarians can do that.
>Get some spine, you simpering fools.
>
>
>--
>+---------------------------+ ``Man has not a single right which is
>| J H Woodyatt | the product of anything but might.''
>| ba...@cutter.ssd.loral.com | -- Mark Twain
>+---------------------------+
>
You don't seem to understand that we conservitives (most) do care about
the poor, hungry, and homeless. We just don't think the Fed Gov should
solve the problem by throughing in money and socialistic jobs. Instead
we give through private organizations or directly to bypass the waste and
fraud that has run rampid through congress and the white house.
I think many would agree (correct me if I am wrong) that a small tax hike
would be tollerable if the money actually went to the hungry and homeless,
especially the children. The parents should get vocational training
instead of a dinkey pay nothing job where they are stuck. Only after they
have skills usefull to this country will they be usefull. --Ryan
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ryan McNeilly Internet: ry...@u.washington.edu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"You can't deal from a position of weakness" --Alfred Thayer Mahan
Moral: Protect the 2nd Amendment!
My comments and opinions are my own and nobody elses!!!!!
Jared Dahl
|>
|> Liberal Definition of Values: Restrictions stopping us from doing anything
|> we want without any repercussions or
|> responsibilities.
Conservatives moan and whine about a lack of values and
don't even have a clue what they are talking about. Bush
showed us his values by pardoning a bunch of criminals.
Might makes right.
And what do you know about my or any liberal's values?
NOTHING!
|> It seems to me these values are being taught very well to liberal's children.
|> Poor kids.
Let's see: Tolerance of others who are different, helping
the needy. I say lucky kids. I had to wait until college
to learn many of these things.
|> This is what I have repeatedly labeled the "incentives to stay poor".
The real incentives to stay poor are the lack of jobs
that allow a person to raise a family. People could
get off of welfare if they could get a real job. The
McDonalds example was pure conservative BS. Could you
raise a family on minimum wage in NY or LA? Let's make
jobs, not excuses.
|> Good idea! They also should be forced to demonstrate a willingness to
|> educate or prepare themselves for REAL LIFE.
Education is expensive, are we going to pay for that?
We sure as hell don't now...
And just how would you have these people demonstrate
this willingness? Let's hear your ideas, I'm sure
they are just grand.
JIM GRAHAM
>>--
>>+---------------------------+ ``Man has not a single right which is
>>| J H Woodyatt | the product of anything but might.''
>>| ba...@cutter.ssd.loral.com | -- Mark Twain
>>+---------------------------+
Precisely. Rights are taken, not given by other people.
dods...@memstvx1.memst.edu
> In article <1992Dec30....@wdl.loral.com> ba...@cutter.ssd.loral.com writes:
>>I wouldn't be so pissy about this if you dittoheads would just admit
>>that you simply don't want the poor to receive any help whatsoever
>>from the government. Jeez. At least the Libertarians can do that.
>>Get some spine, you simpering fools.
>
>
> the poor, hungry, and homeless. We just don't think the Fed Gov should
> solve the problem by throughing in money and socialistic jobs. Instead
> we give through private organizations or directly to bypass the waste and
> fraud that has run rampid through congress and the white house.
In most times of prosperity, private donations to charities increased. This
didn't happen in the 1980's. Bush's 'thousand points of light' never really
took off.
> I think many would agree (correct me if I am wrong) that a small tax hike
> would be tollerable if the money actually went to the hungry and homeless,
> especially the children. The parents should get vocational training
> instead of a dinkey pay nothing job where they are stuck. Only after they
> have skills usefull to this country will they be usefull. --Ryan
Sounds like you might be a Clinton supporter.
Don't faint, I was only kidding :)
-Scott
Nathan Engle
moments to burn.
row...@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland) writes:
>na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>> Perhaps so. To get back to my dispassionate analytical mode, I would
>> note that violent, "soulless" cultures have a tendency to be fairly
>> successful empire builders.
>Maybe the word "soulless" is giving you some trouble...how about
>"MORAL CHARACTER." Do you honestly believe that an empire can be
>build and sustained if its leaders and citizens do not have the
>moral character that binds them together for common purpose?
You are absolutely correct that a common purpose is essential to the
growth and maintenance of an empire, however it would be my response that
violent and amoral people can act with a common purpose in the same way
that gentle and upstanding ones can. Please don't get me wrong. "Moral
character" is a wonderful thing, and we should strive to instill it in
our children. All I was trying to do was question the (IMHO) alarmist
premise that our nation is doomed unless we find our way back to the
"kinder, gentler" wholesome America as depicted in Norman Rockwell
prints.
I would agree (as did Machiavelli) with the statement that it's very
difficult for an amoral people to maintain their liberty, and thus the
growing tendency towards amoral teenagers doesn't bode well for our
present form of government or the freedoms it gives us. But I just don't
think that all the doom and gloom predictions that I've been hearing
in the last few days are justified.
In the same way that Rush maintains that what we do to the environment
will not "destroy the planet", I would maintain that what barbaric teens
do to each other will not destroy our nation.
> And if
>you do disagree with me, would you like to live in that society?
Not particularly, but since you asked that question can I take it
that you would agree that it *will* be a society of some form or other?
(i.e.- even if the system of government is overthrown, the people and much
of the culture will endure; remember please that I'm in "dispassionate
historical analysis" mode)
>> As long as the inherent tendency towards
>> violence doesn't impair population growth our prospects for continuing
>> as a nation are fairly good.
>Sure! But who will want continue putting up with anarchy? A nation
>is more than a random collection of human beings! The nation,
>today, is being pulled apart by the seams, by special interest
>groups, and you sit back and evaluate the prospects of our society
>surviving as "fairly good"...I'm sorry, but I hope you are in a distant
>minority of this country.
I have no doubt that I am in a minority; perhaps even in a singularity.
But ours is not the first nation to be torn apart by the seams. Under some
circumstances it can be terminally fatal; for example, if neighboring
barbarians could take advantage of the political turmoil to invade and
conquer. At this point, however, I don't see either Canada or Mexico as
military threats capable of anything like that.
Please, make no mistake. I agree that the trends towards violence and
amorality are indicators of future political turmoil. It might be ugly now,
but IMHO it's likely to get worse before it gets better. As with similar
upheavals in the past, lots of people are likely to assume room temperature
in the process. I'm not saying that any of that is a good thing, and given
the choice I would just as soon not go through it, but I certainly don't see
it as the end of all things.
>> If you would like to make the argument that
>> the current level of violence is excessive then I would agree, but at
>> least from a historical perspective I would say that the level of violence
>> we're seeing doesn't necessarily pose an immediate threat to our survival
>> as a nation.
>Okay! But do not continue with the "threat" statement...it clouds the
>point. I would rather LIVE than only SURVIVE, as you seem to propose.
Well, I would agree that my "threat" analysis clouds your point, but
can you see that it is central to mine? You and I are not so different.
I too would prefer to see our nation thrive and prosper, and I agree with
you that the current indications are not very promising in that respect.
The main difference between us as far as I can see is that you seem to feel
that the turmoil ahead of us is an unthinkable end of civilization as we
know it, whereas I prefer to view it as just a continuation of a cyclic
pattern which has been in motion since the dawn of human history.
Maybe my faith in human resiliency is just greater than yours; I
believe that when our civilization faces the challenges of the future
it will prevail. The fact that it will involve suffering is certainly
deplorable, but that's just part of the human condition.
>You are part of the problem! Where are your standards?
Thanks very much, I'm sure. The last time I checked my standards were
intact to the point that I do not personally go out and murder people, and
I find no trouble in condemning those who do. Neither do I rape or pillage.
I'm not sure what else you want from me besides that. I get the feeling
that you would prefer that I should wail and gnash my teeth at the thought
of our modern descent into barbarism, but I just can't do it.
>Are you happy being a victim of this mess.
Not particularly, but I make it a point to look forward to the
challenges of the future with a positive rational outlook.
>The insane idea you have about putting up with any level of violence is
>absurd.
Yes, that *is* absurd, however I'm not sure just where you got the
idea that I'm proposing that we should put up with any level of violence.
I have nothing against the idea of fighting crime, or of trying to educate
our young people to be gentle and kind rather than violent and brutal.
>Until we as a society reestablish standards and moral guidelines, how do
>we keep the violence from getting worse? I do not want to live in YOUR
>world!
To be honest with you, I'm not exactly certain what we can or should
do to keep the violence from getting worse. It might be a nice start if
we could do something to limit childrens' exposure to graphic images of
violence which they see practically every day on TV. You can push standards
and moral guidelines all you want, but when people go into a theater and
watch Arnold Schwartzeneger blow Sharon Stone's brains out with the line
"Consider that a divorce", and when those same kind, gentle, moral people
*cheer* the killing, I have little faith that your sermons about morals
and standards are actually achieving what you want.
In other words, I'm not convinced that the lack of moral standards
really lies at the root of this problem. IMHO the root cause is that our
young people are being bombarded with the glorification of violence.
>> It would certainly be much more pleasant to have nice neighbors
>> whose kids we're pretty sure aren't going to murder us, but at this point
>> I think that the murder rate is still less than the birth rate.
>You have obviously not been privy to first-hand violence recently!
>I do not mean to be obnoxious, but where is the common sense in
>your passive attitude. Is anyone responsible for anything?!
Yes, in my opinion people are responsible for their own actions. People
who commit violent crimes are responsible for what they've done. People
who indirectly promote violence through their "cultural" and "artistic"
contributions are also indirectly responsible. But I do not commit violent
crimes, nor do I make movies glorifying violence, nor do I condone acts
of violence when they occur.
I appreciate that you do not mean to be obnoxious or to misunderstand
what I've been saying, but I do not have a passive attitude and I believe
that there's a damn sight more common sense in taking a rational analytical
approach to history than there is in making a bunch of unfounded accusations
and alarmist gloom-and-doom predictions based purely on the gut reaction of
being revulsed by violence.
Scott Borders
>ry...@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ryan Mcneilly) writes:
>>
>> You don't seem to understand that we conservitives (most) do care about
>> the poor, hungry, and homeless. We just don't think the Fed Gov should
>> solve the problem by throughing in money and socialistic jobs. Instead
>> we give through private organizations or directly to bypass the waste and
>> fraud that has run rampid through congress and the white house.
>In most times of prosperity, private donations to charities increased. This
>didn't happen in the 1980's. Bush's 'thousand points of light' never really
>took off.
Wrong answer. In the 1980's, charitable contributions *did* increase.
This quote is from Rush's book:
"As reported in the *National Review*, 'charitable donations
by individuals rose from $64.7 billion (1990 dollars) in 1980
to $102 billion in 1989, an increase of 57.7 per cent.
Moreover, after declining relative to national income during
the Seventies, charitable donations rose from 2.1 per cent
of income in 1979 to a record 2.7 per cent in 1989.'"
Hmmmm. Looks like a *few billion* 'points of light' to me. Face it: the
Eighties *worked*. The rich got richer, *and* the poor got richer.
--
Scott Borders
sbor...@nyx.cs.du.edu
border...@tandem.com
Jared Dahl
|> Hmmmm. Looks like a *few billion* 'points of light' to me. Face it: the
|> Eighties *worked*. The rich got richer, *and* the poor got richer.
This is the stupiest thing I have ever seen posted on the
net. The POOR GOT RICHER? Go tell that to all of the
GM workers who lost their jobs, all of the steel mill
employees. Tell it to the homeless and those trapped
on welfare. They'll laugh in your face.
Not only did the poor get poorer, the middle class joined
the poor. Check it out. Record numbers of people slipped
below the poverty line during the eighties.
We're all poor anyway, thanks to VOODOO ECONOMICS and
the Reagan-induced NATIONAL DEBT!
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>In article <C0338...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>|>
>|> Liberal Definition of Values: Restrictions stopping us from doing anything
>|> we want without any repercussions or
>|> responsibilities.
>Conservatives moan and whine about a lack of values and
>don't even have a clue what they are talking about. Bush
>showed us his values by pardoning a bunch of criminals.
>Might makes right.
Those men were not tried. They are not criminals.
>And what do you know about my or any liberal's values?
>NOTHING!
I know that the agenda liberals have set and implemented has resulted
in a decline in morality, and an increase in crime and poverty.
>|> It seems to me these values are being taught very well to liberal's children.
>|> Poor kids.
>Let's see: Tolerance of others who are different, helping
>the needy. I say lucky kids. I had to wait until college
>to learn many of these things.
Let's see: There are no consequences to my actions because other people's
taxes will bail me out. My country OWES me, not vice versa.
Killing and stealing are okay because we were driven to do that
by an uncaring society.
>|> This is what I have repeatedly labeled the "incentives to stay poor".
>The real incentives to stay poor are the lack of jobs
>that allow a person to raise a family. People could
>get off of welfare if they could get a real job. The
>McDonalds example was pure conservative BS. Could you
>raise a family on minimum wage in NY or LA? Let's make
>jobs, not excuses.
I worked at McDonalds. I knew people whose only source of income was
work at McDonalds. They made more money working than they could on welfare.
>|> Good idea! They also should be forced to demonstrate a willingness to
>|> educate or prepare themselves for REAL LIFE.
>Education is expensive, are we going to pay for that?
>We sure as hell don't now...
>And just how would you have these people demonstrate
>this willingness? Let's hear your ideas, I'm sure
>they are just grand.
Compared to the money wasted in the machinery of the welfare bureaucracy
the cost of education is insignificant. Put an absolute limit on
welfare... 4 years. During those four years the beneficiaries of the
welfare MUST go to school and learn a trade or study for a degree.
Day care would be provided. Those who refuse lose welfare benefits.
Provisions to extend this based on extenuating circumstances would of
course be included. The money saved from those who simply want to live
off welfare could be used to fund the schooling and day care.
This might raise welfare costs in the first 4 years, but after that
I suspect they would decrease greatly.
Give tax breaks to parents whose students are getting a B average.
Give teachers salary incentives based on their students' performances
on standardized tests. If the students don't learn, the teachers earn
less. If the students learn more, the teachers benefit financially.
Initiate programs to encourage parents to force their kids to do their
homework.
>Jared Dahl
>Opinions expressed are mine, not my employer's.
>Don't send e-mail - I won't get it.
Edward Simmonds- Not an economist so any economist who can enlighten us
please do so
Robert S. Parker
>In article <1992Dec28.1...@rchland.ibm.com>
>jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>> This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
>> all along. They'll get arrested to save a life, but
>> once the baby is born they could care less. Try to get
>> some of these folks to support social programs like
>> WIC or foodstamps.
>Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
>programs like WIC and foodstamps. And the poor tend
>to be the strongest opponents of abortion.
Something just doesn't sit right when people in poverty are having more
children than people who are well off. And people wonder how a country can
end up with 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth. It's sad.
>But I don't follow your reasoning. If someone supports
>the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they
>support those who wish to commit that act? Does my support
>of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of
>potential rapists? If not, then what's the difference
>between that and abortion?
Hold on. In the case of rape, the attacker is adding a burden to society
through hospital care and police investigation of a violent crime. In the
case of abortion, a burden is *removed* from society. (or an individual,
depending on whether you think society or the parents should be responsible)
It is not the one doing or having the abortion, it is the child that results
from *not* having the choice of abortion that we expect you to support. Your
rape analogy does not hold.
>>Jared Dahl
>Doug Holtsinger
-Rob
Robert S. Parker
It's C: He's saying that the poor do *not* tend to be the strongest opponents
of abortion "according to many posts already in this group". Wake up, Doug.
(I have no idea whether he is right about that.)
Scott Borders
>In article <1992Dec31.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>,
sbor...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Scott Borders) writes:
>|> Hmmmm. Looks like a *few billion* 'points of light' to me. Face it: the
>|> Eighties *worked*. The rich got richer, *and* the poor got richer.
>This is the stupiest thing I have ever seen posted on the
>net. The POOR GOT RICHER? Go tell that to all of the
>GM workers who lost their jobs, all of the steel mill
>employees. Tell it to the homeless and those trapped
>on welfare. They'll laugh in your face.
>Not only did the poor get poorer, the middle class joined
>the poor. Check it out. Record numbers of people slipped
>below the poverty line during the eighties.
>We're all poor anyway, thanks to VOODOO ECONOMICS and
>the Reagan-induced NATIONAL DEBT!
Jared,
Well, take a look at these "stupid" numbers from the Congressional
Budget Office . . .
Under the Carter administration, the poorest fifth of the population
suffered a 17% decrease in real family income. From 1983-1989 (the
years of so-called "voodoo" economics), the poorest 20% saw a 12%
*increase* in family income. Now, you tell me, did the poor get
poorer? During the Reagan years, in fact, family income levels rose
*across the board* (i.e., we all got richer).
As for your claim that we're all poorer because of supply-side
economics, take a look at this quote from Paul Craig Roberts of
*The Wall Street Journal*:
"All of the propagandistic claims of supply-side failure that
dominated the economic news of the 80s have been laid to rest. We
know for certain that the United States did not disinvest, the
United States did not suffer declining productivity growth, did not
become uncompetitive, did not create primarily dead-end, low-
skill jobs and did not experience declining real family income in
the 1980's.
"Prompted by criticism from economists that U.S. government
statistics were failing to detect a weakening in the nation's
industrial base, the Commerce Department undertook a two-and-
a-half-year study of American manufacturing. The study, released
earlier this year, shows the 1980s were years of an almost
unbelievable revival by U.S. industry. In a front-page story that
must have been galling for that paper's editorial writers, the *New
York Times* reported on Feb. 5 that the rate of U.S. manufacturing
productivity growth had tripled during the 1980s and was now on
a par with Japan and Europe, and that manufacturing's share of
gross national product had rebounded to the level of output
achieved in the 1960s when American factories hummed at a
feverish clip. Far from losing its competitiveness then, the report
revealed the U.S. had experienced an unprecedented export boom.
"As far as jobs are concerned, the charge that Reaganomics had
created a nation of hamburger flippers was destroyed in 1988 when
the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the percentage of new
jobs in the higher skill categories was much larger in the 1980s
than in the 1970s. The commisioner of the bureau testified before
Congress in August 1988 that low-skilled jobs are not growing as
fast as those that require a lot of training. The Reagan expansion
created skilled jobs at a more rapid pace than our educational
system could produce to fill them.
"To paint a picture of the rich getting richer as the poor get
poorer, the partisan Congressional Budget Office and a bevy of
Democratic economists had to use unadjusted census data to
construct a measure of average family income biased by rising
divorce rates and the growth of single-parent households. What
these critics discovered was the effects of the decline of the
institution of marriage on family income, not Reagan economic
policies."
I'd be interested in any facts you have to support your claims that
the 80s made us all poorer. Pointing to the national debt, and that
alone, is somewhat simplistic. Not all debt is bad; recessions
become recoveries largely due to deficit spending. Of course, not
all debt is good, either, and we must to work to control our
debt (especially that which is owed to foreign investors). So,
Jared, aside from calling this post "stupid", what do you have to
say on the subject?
Robert S. Parker
>jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>How are we going to do this? I don't know, but until we figure it
>>out, these people have to eat somehow. Welfare was never meant to
>>be a permanent program, and it has not worked well in the long run.
>"I don't know"-- spoken like a true liberal. Welfare has become permanent.
>Since FDR there are generations of families who have lived on welfare.
>It will never work. The cycle of poverty has shifted and is now perpetuated
>by the welfare state.
Hey, I've got an idea: Let's not let anyone in "poverty" (or on welfare) have
any more children. Then children won't be born into poverty and in a couple
generations things would be much better. ;)
I don't think most people would go for that, especially since it could involve
forced-abortion.
>>Jared Dahl
>Edward Simmonds
-Rob
Mike A. McAngus
: jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
:
: >In article <C0338...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writ
es:
: >|> Liberal Definition of Values: Restrictions stopping us from doing anythin
g
: >|> we want without any repercussions or
: >|> responsibilities.
Those are not now, nor have they ever been, THIS liberals values.
:
: >Conservatives moan and whine about a lack of values and
: >don't even have a clue what they are talking about. Bush
: >showed us his values by pardoning a bunch of criminals.
: >Might makes right.
:
: Those men were not tried. They are not criminals.
Some were tried and convicted. Another was pardoned before the trial started,
this leaving us without the necessary information about whether or not he is a
criminal.
:
: >And what do you know about my or any liberal's values?
: >NOTHING!
:
: I know that the agenda liberals have set and implemented has resulted
: in a decline in morality, and an increase in crime and poverty.
:
: >|> It seems to me these values are being taught very well to liberal's child
ren.
: >|> Poor kids.
:
: >Let's see: Tolerance of others who are different, helping
: >the needy. I say lucky kids. I had to wait until college
: >to learn many of these things.
:
: Let's see: There are no consequences to my actions because other people's
: taxes will bail me out. My country OWES me, not vice versa.
: Killing and stealing are okay because we were driven to do that
: by an uncaring society.
These are not not, nor have they ever been, THIS liberals values.
:
:
:
: >|> This is what I have repeatedly labeled the "incentives to stay poor".
:
: >The real incentives to stay poor are the lack of jobs
: >that allow a person to raise a family. People could
: >get off of welfare if they could get a real job. The
: >McDonalds example was pure conservative BS. Could you
: >raise a family on minimum wage in NY or LA? Let's make
: >jobs, not excuses.
:
: I worked at McDonalds. I knew people whose only source of income was
: work at McDonalds. They made more money working than they could on welfare.
For a single person, this may be true. I doubt that this is true for a single
parent.
:
:
: >|> Good idea! They also should be forced to demonstrate a willingness to
: >|> educate or prepare themselves for REAL LIFE.
:
: >Education is expensive, are we going to pay for that?
: >We sure as hell don't now...
: >And just how would you have these people demonstrate
: >this willingness? Let's hear your ideas, I'm sure
: >they are just grand.
:
: Compared to the money wasted in the machinery of the welfare bureaucracy
: the cost of education is insignificant. Put an absolute limit on
: welfare... 4 years. During those four years the beneficiaries of the
: welfare MUST go to school and learn a trade or study for a degree.
: Day care would be provided. Those who refuse lose welfare benefits.
: Provisions to extend this based on extenuating circumstances would of
: course be included. The money saved from those who simply want to live
: off welfare could be used to fund the schooling and day care.
: This might raise welfare costs in the first 4 years, but after that
: I suspect they would decrease greatly.
:
: Give tax breaks to parents whose students are getting a B average.
: Give teachers salary incentives based on their students' performances
: on standardized tests. If the students don't learn, the teachers earn
: less. If the students learn more, the teachers benefit financially.
: Initiate programs to encourage parents to force their kids to do their
: homework.
I honestly don't see anything wrong with the above suggestions.
--
Mike McAngus |You are a fluke of the Universe. You have no
m...@jcnpc.cmhnet.org |right to be here, and whether you can hear it
The Truth is still the Truth |or not the Universe is laughing behind your
Even if you choose to ignore it.|back. -- National Lampoon, Deteriorata
C J Silverio
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
|Let's talk about welfare then... in this country we spend $7,000/year
|per PERSON on welfare. So an average family of 3-4 costs us around
|$25,000 per year. Are you trying to tell me there's not some incredible
|fraud going on somewhere here? Even if that money is just eaten up in
Assuming that 100% of the money goes to the person in need (a
dicey assumption).... Have you tried living on $7000 a year recently?
Followups to somewhere other than talk.abortion.
---
c...@eno.esd.sgi.com C J Silverio/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
"You can't legislate morality. We tried to outlaw comsumption of
alcoholic beverages. We found that violation of the law led to bigger
crimes and bred disrespect for the law." Jimmy Carter, 1976.
Dave O'Shea
> In article <1992Dec31.1...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, sbor...@nyx.cs.du.e
> |> Hmmmm. Looks like a *few billion* 'points of light' to me. Face it: the
> |> Eighties *worked*. The rich got richer, *and* the poor got richer.
>
> This is the stupiest thing I have ever seen posted on the
> net. The POOR GOT RICHER? Go tell that to all of the
> GM workers who lost their jobs, all of the steel mill
> employees. Tell it to the homeless and those trapped
> on welfare. They'll laugh in your face.
Statistics don't apply to individuals; GM, specifically, is a case of
incompetent management having an adversarial relationship with it's
incompetent labor force.
> Not only did the poor get poorer, the middle class joined
> the poor. Check it out. Record numbers of people slipped
> below the poverty line during the eighties.
Every reliable statistic shows that the nation, as a whole, had a
nice-sized jump in it's standard of living. Some statistics can be
misinterpreted to show the opposite, though: Idealogues give you half
the story "record numbers of people joined the ranks of the unemployed",
while not telling you that the population increased at a higher rate,
and those unemployed tended to stay there for a shorted period of time.
> We're all poor anyway, thanks to VOODOO ECONOMICS and
> the Reagan-induced NATIONAL DEBT!
Hehe. Speak for yourself. I just bought a new car, and I'll be sending
several thousand off to the jackals in DC as a result of the profits
I've made on my investments. Hey, better to have 'em working for the
government than to have to step over them on the street.
Funny, all my friends did very well in the eighties (and continue to do
pretty good). Maybe it's you?
--
"To call something 'Public' is to define it as filthy, inefficient and
dangerous. The public toilet is the epitome of social spending."
- P.J. O'Rourke
Kevin Darcy
>hs...@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>
>>In a previous article, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>>>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>>>from the opposite, our concern for human life. Creating a welfare state
>>>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>>>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>>>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the
>>>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).
>
>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
>>responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
>
>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.
It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.
>You tell me which
>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.
In my opinion...
The WORST "crime" is to let children starve.
The second-worst "crime" is to interfere with a woman's decision to abort,
either by mandating or forbidding abortion.
The third-worst "crime" is for government to start interfering in sexual
relations between consenting adults by telling them to "control their
hormones" or whatever.
Fourth on my list of "crimes" is for taxpayers to end up supporting children
of poor people who are otherwise unable to support them adequately themselves.
Look at our GNP sometime -- we can easily provide this support.
>>>This is not meant to imply that certain situations don't exist where some
>>>assistance is warranted, but rather that many more exist that would be
>>>better solved by encouraging self-dependence rather than state-dependence.
>
>>But when it comes to abortion, you would rather have the state take charge
>>than let the pregnant woman make her own decision about her life and her body?
>
>Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>in fact the state already has control over this issue.
Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because
she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
murder"?
- Kevin
Michael W. Rowland
(J H Woodyatt) writes:
> I wouldn't be so pissy about this if you dittoheads would just admit
> that you simply don't want the poor to receive any help whatsoever
> from the government. Jeez. At least the Libertarians can do that.
> Get some spine, you simpering fools.
>
How is it that you get that attitude about ALL US DITTOHEADS!
I really resent that!
There are poor people: that's a fact! BUT which poor people do we
end up helping today? Some would argue, with good reason, that the
government supports the deserving AND the underserving. I think
even you would agree with that. I think what many on this net
would say (at least I hope they would) is that blind government
handouts do little to foster any self-esteem in any of the
benefactors. The quality of self-esteem is internalized in each
individual by what he/she DOES. The government is ill-equiped to
provide incentive for development of moral strength and character
of the undeserving person eating the government's lunch. That's
why, in these cases, the government should stay clear and, hopefully,
someONE will take the time and effort to turn these folks around...
On personal encounters and by example...TEACH THEM! If they do not
learn to survive, they die...it is that simple. This goes back to
what you may have heard others say in the past: "you cannot help
those whom refuse to help themselves." And, I dare say, that you
SHOULD NOT. Not if you want to keep your sanity!
J05...@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
>Something just doesn't sit right when people in poverty are having more
>children than people who are well off. And people wonder how a country can
>end up with 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth. It's sad.
No way. I hate to bring up an ideological clash, but these numbers are *pure,
undiluted* 100% left-wing rhetoric. They aren't even close. Please cite your
source for the "1% owns 99%" figure. And please make it a reputable (i.e.
without leftist agenda) source.
And don't nail me with right-wing stuff. I'm not. I'm a libertarian--not the
loony anarchist fringe that people associate with libertarianism, but just one
who feels we should all try to be a bit more responsible for ourselves before
turning to government, and that government should be a *last resort* (not
eliminated as the anarchists believe).
>Hold on. In the case of rape, the attacker is adding a burden to society
>through hospital care and police investigation of a violent crime. In the
>case of abortion, a burden is *removed* from society. (or an individual,
>depending on whether you think society or the parents should be responsible)
>It is not the one doing or having the abortion, it is the child that results
>from *not* having the choice of abortion that we expect you to support. Your
>rape analogy does not hold.
Although human life shouldn't be considered a mere burden (in my opinion), your
point is well taken. Often staunch pro-lifers (disclaimer: I'm a pro-lifer
*personally*, but I recognize that I have no right to stop anyone from obtain-
ing an abortion. I married someone for whom abortion isn't an option. That
way I can live with my conscience and not enforce my views on anyone) use the
argument that abortions encourage irresponsibility. Well, I'd like to see one
of them look a rape victim in the eye after an abortion and tell her that she
is irresponsible. Some of them were virgins hoping to save themselves for the
right man in marriage. Irresponsible indeed. Some people attack the "pro-life
except for rape and incest" crowd as hypocritical, but from the vantage point
of responsibility, it isn't. Yes, the child is "innocent" in both cases, but
that's where the similarity ends. Rape victims are innocent too.
Tim Irvin
****************************************************************************
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>d...@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.1...@rchland.ibm.com>
>>jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
>>> This is the same attitude I have seen from pro-lifers
>>> all along. They'll get arrested to save a life, but
>>> once the baby is born they could care less. Try to get
>>> some of these folks to support social programs like
>>> WIC or foodstamps.
>>Actually, most pro-lifers that I know support social
>>programs like WIC and foodstamps. And the poor tend
>>to be the strongest opponents of abortion.
>Something just doesn't sit right when people in poverty are having more
>children than people who are well off. And people wonder how a country can
>end up with 1% of the population owning 99% of the wealth. It's sad.
Ahh.. yes.. I understand you here. It's horrible that anybody should
become successful by their work, and the work of their parents. God forbid.
>>But I don't follow your reasoning. If someone supports
>>the criminalization of an immoral act, then why must they
>>support those who wish to commit that act? Does my support
>>of rape laws imply that I must satisfy the desires of
>>potential rapists? If not, then what's the difference
>>between that and abortion?
>Hold on. In the case of rape, the attacker is adding a burden to society
>through hospital care and police investigation of a violent crime. In the
>case of abortion, a burden is *removed* from society. (or an individual,
>depending on whether you think society or the parents should be responsible)
>It is not the one doing or having the abortion, it is the child that results
>from *not* having the choice of abortion that we expect you to support. Your
>rape analogy does not hold.
Ahh.. so removing burdens from society then allows me to ignore any moral
or ethical considerations to the contrary? I think bums are a burden
on society, let's kill them all. We'll cut them into little pieces
just like when we abort babies.
>>>Jared Dahl
>>Doug Holtsinger
>-Rob
Edward Simmonds
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>dsho...@csl36h.csl.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
Many polls have documented this. Of course, polls are only slightly more
credible than Susan Garvin.
>>>Jared Dahl
>>Doug Holtsinger
>-Rob
Edward Simmonds
- standard disclaimers -
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>jd...@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Jared Dahl) writes:
Liberals love violating rights. Go for it.
>>>Jared Dahl
>>Edward Simmonds
>-Rob
Edward Simmonds
- My opinions, etc... -
Nathan Engle
>na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
[about a jillion lines of quotes snipped in which Ken and Simon try to be
serious and I crack a bunch of quick one-liners]
>Engle:
>> Perhaps so. To get back to my dispassionate analytical mode, I would
>> note that violent, "soulless" cultures have a tendency to be fairly
>> successful empire builders. As long as the inherent tendency towards
>> violence doesn't impair population growth our prospects for continuing
>> as a nation are fairly good. If you would like to make the argument that
>> the current level of violence is excessive then I would agree, but at
>> least from a historical perspective I would say that the level of violence
>> we're seeing doesn't necessarily pose an immediate threat to our survival
>> as a nation. It would certainly be much more pleasant to have nice neighbors
>> whose kids we're pretty sure aren't going to murder us, but at this point
>> I think that the murder rate is still less than the birth rate.
>Barnes:
> A remarkably cynical outlook :-}.
Look for my picture in the dictionary under the word 'cynical'.
>We're not seeing levels of violence
>currently that could be compared to the War Between The States, to be
>sure, but to the citizens directly in the line of fire, that point
>makes little difference. Every American should have a reasonable
>expectation that their governments on whatever level, will be able
>to protect their civil rights, and that is clearly not happening
>when the courts fail to provide justice to both the criminal and to
>the victims. What has become of the constitutional right to a
>speedy trial? What has become of the constitutional right to
>due process when so many cases are plea-bargained? What about the
>expectation that one can be secure in life, liberty, and property?
>How about the scandalous fact that the leading cause of death of
>young black men is other young black men? The anarchy that was
>visited on Los Angeles last year is enough of a warning sign, I
>should think. The civil and criminal courts are both overloaded.
Well, you are absolutely correct that the state of individual freedom
is threatened by the moral terpitude. I've been reading history recently
about civilizations being overrun by barbarians from the hinterlands of
their empires, and although our 'empire' doesn't really have hinterlands
any more I would have to say that our current danger of being overrun by
'barbarians' from within is increasing. It's certainly not an analogy I'd
care to push too far, but I keep getting this recurrent mental image of
Ghengis Khan listening to a boom box.
>Our national contempt of government is in no small part due to the
>apparent inability of the responsible authorities to protect even
>the basic rights, while at the same time taxing our wealth away to
>fund an unhealthy dependence on government subsidies by all sectors
>of our society. We're not getting the government we've already
>paid for, to paraphrase Mr. Perot. He, like the rest of us, should
>know about government subsidies.
Hey, you have a lot of nerve to call me cynical (but that's ok, I
*like* being called cynical). I really don't think that things have
slipped to quite the extent you're suggesting here. The trends may be
there but Western Civilization "isn't quite dead yet".
keba...@memstvx1.memst.edu
na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
> keba...@memstvx1.memst.edu (Ken Barnes) writes:
& na...@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
& sbo...@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes:
Booth (referencing previous post concerning Bob Greene's column
about a group of teenagers (13-15) who murdered and mutilated one of
their younger "friends" (7), and the relationship of that crime
to an increasing "soullessness" of American society):
I read this and was sickened by it. All I've got to say is that's what
the death penalty is for. I honestly hope those three killers get the
gas chamber, no appeals.
Engle:
I read the original post, but my reaction was merely to be saddened.
Perhaps my study of history has inured me to violence, but it's difficult
for me to get too overwrought about individual cases like this one.
Barnes:
>>Reminds me of a quote (don't infer insult from this):
Engle:
> Not at all. As a matter of fact I would say that my muted reactions
> to violence are perhaps part of a larger problem in that many, many people
> feel much the same as I do. It's really tough to listen to reports of
> brutal teenage killers without it getting a little old after a while. We
> have two other teenage killer cases going on in the news here in Indiana,
> one in which a girl was killed by a group of other girls, and one in which
> a teenage boy confessed to a murder that occurred down in Florida. I'm sure
> that Simon is correct that I should be outraged, but in the context of all
> the other stuff going on I just can't work up the energy to be equally
> outraged by every single case.
Barnes (cont'd):
>>"A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths
>>is a statistic."--Joseph Stalin
>>
>>"Uncle Joe" [The Great Satan] knew whereof he spoke.
Engle:
> He certainly did.
Booth (stuff deleted):
Call me crude, but something must be done.
Engle:
I think that your gut reaction may lead you to wish for something less
than purely poetic justice. IMHO the most appropriate thing that could be
done would be to throw those three guys and a case of A1 sauce into a cell
with Jeffery Dahmer. (There you go, Simon, you weren't nearly as crude
as me)
Barnes:
>>What are we to make of the case of Wesley Allan Dodd, convicted serial
>>child rapist-murderer in Washington state who says he wishes to
>>be executed by hanging, since that is what he did to the 4-year-old
>>boy who was his last victim?
Engle:
> I guess we'd better call in "Dr Dripper"; sounds like a prime candidate
> for Dr-assisted suicide if every I saw one.
Barnes:
>>I find it discouraging that the ACLU wishes to contest this proposal,
>>and that the only way it seems for someone such as Dodd to be put
>>out of his own misery and everyone else's is for him to request that
>>the execution be carried out, ala: Gary Gilmore's request for a
>>Utah firing squad.
Engle:
> The ACLU seems to base its fights on principles which are not always
> based in practicalities, but I can think of too many examples of other
> groups that seem to have that same problem to want to get too deeply into
> that topic.
Barnes:
>>It also seems curious that liberals who would no doubt fight for
>>Jack Kervorkian's right to kill, would have any qualms about seeing
>>this man die, who has violated the civil liberties of the innocent
>>in the most extreme way.
Engle:
> Yes, some liberals certainly feel that way. I agree that their position
> is internally inconsistant, but once again I'm not prepared to get too
> deep into that one for fear of opening other cans of worms.
Barnes:
>>Though I may not agree with Rush's strict
>>"pro-life" position on abortion, he has a point about the effect
>>of the cheapening of human life which is brought about by rampant
>>abortion, and even euthanasia, in a society where the unjust taking
>>of life goes unpunished in many cases.
Engle:
> Honestly I don't think that abortion (which definitely cheapens fetal
> life) is the primary contributor to this modern craze for grotesque murders.
> For that I would say that we have Hollywood, the film industry, and our old
> buddies Stallone and Schwartzeneger(sp?) to thank. When was the last time
> you saw graphic visual images of dozens of people getting buttered across
> the landscape?
Barnes:
>>> In principle, however, images of violence (except perhaps of
sexual violence) have not been demonstrated to have a debasing
effect on the behavior of "normal" people. At least not to the
extent that they could be said to_cause_an increase in
societal violence and disrespect for human life. The above was,
I thought, a strange argument for an intelligent liberal like
yourself to be making, Mr. Engle. (But so's the one I just made
for a stereotypical conservative. I'm just not aware that the
assertion that life imitates art in this regard has been
convincingly demonstrated.) Granted, drama has gotten more
violent during recent decades.
Barnes:
>>Does execution deter?
Engle:
> It certainly cuts down on those repeat-offender statistics.
Barnes:
>>If we were to execute any criminal who murdered while committing
>>another felony, we could have our answer. If there were fewer
>>murders associated with the commission of felonies, the effect
>>of such a law could readily be demonstrated. The necessity
>>of convicting the accused twice, first of the felony, and then the
>>capital murder charge, should add an extra measure of protection
>>against executing the innocent. It would be a good experiment to
>>try, and might ease jail overcrowding :-}.
>>
>>How we should deal with the juveniles in this particular case
>>[Bob Greene's column] is a far more difficult question.
>>
>>Might we simply delay executing them until they are adults,
>>mercifully granting them at least a fraction of their lives?
>>Or, can such children be "rehabilitated"? Are child criminals
>>any more capable of "rehabilitation" than adults?
>>
>>Accepting for the sake of argument that these children became
>>"soulless" thanks to their parents, or their environment, what
>>can be done to help other children who are similarly endangered?
>>
>>For the sake of the victims now, and in the future, our national
>>"soul" must be found, and healed. And fast.
Engle:
> Perhaps so. To get back to my dispassionate analytical mode, I would
> note that violent, "soulless" cultures have a tendency to be fairly
> successful empire builders. As long as the inherent tendency towards
> violence doesn't impair population growth our prospects for continuing
> as a nation are fairly good. If you would like to make the argument that
> the current level of violence is excessive then I would agree, but at
> least from a historical perspective I would say that the level of violence
> we're seeing doesn't necessarily pose an immediate threat to our survival
> as a nation. It would certainly be much more pleasant to have nice neighbors
> whose kids we're pretty sure aren't going to murder us, but at this point
> I think that the murder rate is still less than the birth rate.
Barnes:
>>> A remarkably cynical outlook :-}. We're not seeing levels of violence
currently that could be compared to the War Between The States, to be
sure, but to the citizens directly in the line of fire, that point
makes little difference. Every American should have a reasonable
expectation that their governments on whatever level, will be able
to protect their civil rights, and that is clearly not happening
when the courts fail to provide justice to both the criminal and to
the victims. What has become of the constitutional right to a
speedy trial? What has become of the constitutional right to
due process when so many cases are plea-bargained? What about the
expectation that one can be secure in life, liberty, and property?
How about the scandalous fact that the leading cause of death of
young black men is other young black men? The anarchy that was
visited on Los Angeles last year is enough of a warning sign, I
should think. The civil and criminal courts are both overloaded.
Our national contempt of government is in no small part due to the
apparent inability of the responsible authorities to protect even
the basic rights, while at the same time taxing our wealth away to
fund an unhealthy dependence on government subsidies by all sectors
of our society. We're not getting the government we've already
paid for, to paraphrase Mr. Perot. He, like the rest of us, should
know about government subsidies.
--
*.x,*dna**************************************************************
*(==) Ken Barnes, LifeSci Bldg. *
* \' KEBA...@memstvx1.memst.edu *
*(-)**Memphis,TN********75320,7...@compuserve.com**********************
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged
to stick to possibilities, Truth isn't."--Mark Twain
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>In article <C01u1...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>hs...@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>
>>>In a previous article, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>>
>>>>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>>>>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>>>>from the opposite, our concern for human life. Creating a welfare state
>>>>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>>>>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>>>>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the
>>>>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).
>>
>>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
>>>responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
>>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
>>
>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.
>It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
>than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
>economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.
Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making intelligent
decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you hold their hand since
you are so superior.
Your statement that the desired result is the "reduction of the birth rate
among poor people" is insulting and narrow-minded. The desired result
is protect the children, born and unborn.
>>You tell me which
>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.
>In my opinion...
>The WORST "crime" is to let children starve.
Is murder a lesser crime than neglect?
>The second-worst "crime" is to interfere with a woman's decision to abort,
>either by mandating or forbidding abortion.
Is murder a lesser crime than this?
>The third-worst "crime" is for government to start interfering in sexual
>relations between consenting adults by telling them to "control their
>hormones" or whatever.
Is murder a lesser crime than this?
>Fourth on my list of "crimes" is for taxpayers to end up supporting children
>of poor people who are otherwise unable to support them adequately themselves.
>Look at our GNP sometime -- we can easily provide this support.
Well then.. since you seem to think murder is okay to end economic problems,
why don't you just run out and kill all the homeless, welfare families,
unemployed, and elderly.
[snip]
>>Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>in fact the state already has control over this issue.
>Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because
>she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
>"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
>murder"?
Of course not.. The women involved are not the murderers. The abortionists
are the murderers. I have written on this extensively in this group
and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't keep up.
Your assumption with this stupid argument is that just because no one
has every been successfully prosecuted of this before, that it is unreasonable
to expect them to be prosecuted for it in the future. Cocaine used to be
legal. Now it isn't.. is this something you can't understand?
> - Kevin
It might help your ability to debate here if you were remotely familiar
with the real facts of the issue, and with what has been said here.
hs...@vax.clarku.edu
>
>>It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
>>than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
>>economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.
>
>Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making intelligent
>decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you hold their hand since
>you are so superior.
You seem to think that female people are incapable of making intelligent
decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you decide for them whether or
not they stay pregnant because you think your views are so superior.
>Your statement that the desired result is the "reduction of the birth rate
>among poor people" is insulting and narrow-minded. The desired result
>is protect the children, born and unborn.
Just out of curiosity, how many children are you busy protecting? Have you
adopted any AIDS babies lately? Taken in disabled foster children?
>>>You tell me which
>>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.
>
>>In my opinion...
>>The WORST "crime" is to let children starve.
>
>Is murder a lesser crime than neglect?
In general, I'd say murder is worse. What does this have to do with abortion?
>>Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because
>>she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
>>"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
>>murder"?
>
>Of course not.. The women involved are not the murderers. The abortionists
>are the murderers. I have written on this extensively in this group
>and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't keep up.
If a woman pays someone to commit murder, she is certainly guilty of a
crime. If abortion is murder, why do you treat women who pay for abortions
different from people who pay someone to bump off their ex? By treating the
two cases differently, you are admitting that abortion and murder are not the
same thing.
>> - Kevin
>
>Edward Simmonds
.... Heather.
James G Keegan Jr
-> You seem to think that female people are incapable
-> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.
-> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or
-> not they stay pregnant because you think your
-> views are so superior.
people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
to as a "pro-forcer."
John Rickert
Just reminded me of what Alphonse Karr, of "plus cela change" fame,
said, "If we are to abolish the death penalty, I should like to see the
first step taken by our friends the murderers."
John Rickert
rick...@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu
Kevin Darcy
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>
>>In article <C01u1...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>hs...@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>In a previous article, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>The resistance you hear from "us" concerning social programs is not
>>>>>a result of our lack of respect or concern for human life, rather it is
>>>>>from the opposite, our concern for human life. Creating a welfare state
>>>>>inhibits people's belief in themselves, promotes and reinforces their
>>>>>feelings of helplessness rather than encouraging the desire to change their
>>>>>situation by themselves, and punishes those who have accepted the
>>>>>responsibility for their own destiny (ie. people who work).
>>>
>>>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
>>>>responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
>>>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
>>>
>>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
>>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.
>
>>It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
>>than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
>>economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.
>
>Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making intelligent
>decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you hold their hand since
>you are so superior.
I'm not making a decision for anyone, "vengeanc", I'm offering them a choice
which, when chosen, happens to have beneficial effects on the national
economy. It is the anti-choice faction who wants to take away the choices
and make decisions for people.
>Your statement that the desired result is the "reduction of the birth rate
>among poor people" is insulting and narrow-minded. The desired result
>is protect the children, born and unborn.
It is a greater evil, IMO, to bring a child into the world, and inflict on
it (statistically, at least) a life of suffering and misery, than it is to
spare it by aborting before it has the capacity to suffer and be miserable.
This is an example of the quality called "mercy".
>>>You tell me which
>>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.
>
>>In my opinion...
>
>>The WORST "crime" is to let children starve.
>
>Is murder a lesser crime than neglect?
Even outside the technical legal definitions, murder implies malice,
"vengeanc". So, unless you have evidence that ANY abortion ever performed was
motivated by the pregnant woman's malice, I must dismiss your implication that
abortion constitutes "murder" as just empty, run-of-the-mill pro-life rhetoric.
>>The second-worst "crime" is to interfere with a woman's decision to abort,
>>either by mandating or forbidding abortion.
>
>Is murder a lesser crime than this?
No. But there is no murder, since there is an absence of malice. And there is
no manslaughter, since the woman is only asserting her right of Bodily
Autonomy.
>>The third-worst "crime" is for government to start interfering in sexual
>>relations between consenting adults by telling them to "control their
>>hormones" or whatever.
>
>Is murder a lesser crime than this?
No.
>>Fourth on my list of "crimes" is for taxpayers to end up supporting children
>>of poor people who are otherwise unable to support them adequately themselves.
>>Look at our GNP sometime -- we can easily provide this support.
>
>Well then.. since you seem to think murder is okay to end economic problems,
>why don't you just run out and kill all the homeless, welfare families,
>unemployed, and elderly.
Because that would have highly-undesirable non-economic ripple effects.
>>>Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>>the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>>in fact the state already has control over this issue.
>
>>Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because
>>she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
>>"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
>>murder"?
>
>Of course not.. The women involved are not the murderers. The abortionists
>are the murderers. I have written on this extensively in this group
>and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't keep up.
By the same token, I'm not going to waste my time scanning through thousands
of articles trying to find your high-falutin' <snicker> treatises on "murder"...
Suffice it to say though, that I've always found the claim that "abortionists
are murderers, but women aren't" to be rather, er, anomalous. Shouldn't the
"hired gun" and the person who hires them be considered _equally_ guilty?
>Your assumption with this stupid argument is that just because no one
>has every been successfully prosecuted of this before, that it is unreasonable
>to expect them to be prosecuted for it in the future. Cocaine used to be
>legal. Now it isn't.. is this something you can't understand?
What I understand is that "abortion is murder" has no moral or legal validity.
You are welcome to try and persuade me otherwise.
>It might help your ability to debate here if you were remotely familiar
>with the real facts of the issue, and with what has been said here.
Prosecuting abortionists and/or the women who obtain them is not a "real
fact", it's rampant speculation based on incoherent rationales. As for "what
has been said here", to which of the groups in the Newsgroups: line are you
referring? I'm a fairly regular reader of talk.abortion, but I really don't
think the Rush Limbaugh groups are exactly, er, excellent sources of objective
information about abortion, so if you've been dumping your treatises in Rush-
land, I wouldn't necessarily know about it. Or care.
- Kevin
hs...@vax.clarku.edu
>hs...@vax.clarku.edu writes to kebbie:
Actually, I wrote this in response to Edward Simmonds, who wrote something
similar in response to Kevin.
Milo D. Cooper
-: (Someone says:)
-:
-: Compared to the money wasted in the machinery of the welfare bureaucracy
-: the cost of education is insignificant. Put an absolute limit on
-: welfare... 4 years. During those four years the beneficiaries of the
-: welfare MUST go to school and learn a trade or study for a degree.
-: Day care would be provided. Those who refuse lose welfare benefits.
-: Provisions to extend this based on extenuating circumstances would of
-: course be included. The money saved from those who simply want to live
-: off welfare could be used to fund the schooling and day care.
-: This might raise welfare costs in the first 4 years, but after that
-: I suspect they would decrease greatly.
-:
-: Give tax breaks to parents whose students are getting a B average.
-: Give teachers salary incentives based on their students' performances
-: on standardized tests. If the students don't learn, the teachers earn
-: less. If the students learn more, the teachers benefit financially.
-: Initiate programs to encourage parents to force their kids to do their
-: homework.
-
-I honestly don't see anything wrong with the above suggestions.
---
-Mike McAngus |You are a fluke of the Universe. You have no
I do. Marriage is not something that should be rewarded by a
government, not to mention procreation. Marriage and childbirth are not
some beneficial deviations of character or intellect above the abilities
of most people; even the least productive and least contributory members
of society fall in love to the point of desiring a permanent relationship
with another similarly useless individual. Hitler was married. How many
parents will engage in excessive scorn, or even spite, of their children,
due to the children's 'C' (average) GPA? Already in this country we have
parents who hastily resort to physical abuse when their child makes so
much as a 'D' in a particular class. A tendency to shoot first and ask
questions later would certainly arise if adults were unable to recieve
governmental rewards because their kids were of "average" intellect. Would
you be surprised to learn that two people married and had children in or-
der to improve their financial status? The above solution is no better
than the liberal tendency to "throw money at problems," as Limbaugh says.
It is a form of welfare. Monetary acquisition is an invalid incentive to
do anything because money easily manufactures immorality and it ignores
natural inclination. If you had the choice, would you hire a musician
who genuinely loved music, or one who sought the salary you offered? Or,
more contextually, would you rather have your child tought by an instructor
who enjoyed teaching, or one who made sure that your child knew how to
pass a standardized test in order to garner a salary increase? The point
to be made is that money is no reliable medium of adjudication. It is
not like the pill which exposes neglected teeth by covering them with red
matter once chewed. The ability to pass a scan-tron exam does not indi-
cate a good educational system. Probe, if you will, the student and pro-
fessor mentality at today's college campus. Shameful (liberal) things are
being taught and learned there; these colleges include such well-respected
institutions as Harvard and Berkeley (well, Berkeley's always been turvy).
I hope that none of you staunch Democrats will avoid replying to
my messages simply because I'm black.
_m d c_
Milo D. Cooper '92 | 1992 | m...@crash.cts.com
`-------'
-------------------------------- end of file ----------------------------------
James G Keegan Jr
-> In a previous article, kee...@pan.crd.ge.com (James G Keegan Jr) wrote:
-> >hs...@vax.clarku.edu writes to kebbie:
-> Actually, I wrote this in response to Edward Simmonds, who wrote something
-> similar in response to Kevin.
->
-> >-> You seem to think that female people are incapable
-> >-> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.
-> >-> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or
-> >-> not they stay pregnant because you think your
-> >-> views are so superior.
-> >
-> >people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
-> >years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
-> >to as a "pro-forcer."
you're absolutely correct. even i sometimes can't
tell the difference between what kebbie posts and
what other pro-forcers post.
Robert S. Parker
>>d...@eceyv.ncsu.edu (Doug Holtsinger) writes:
I did not say that societal burdens justified abortion or any other killings.
Doug made an attempted analogy to rape and asked if he had an obligation, and
if not why it was different. I answered him by explaining the difference.
>>>Doug Holtsinger
>>-Rob
>Edward Simmonds
-Rob
Ray Fischer
>Liberals love violating rights. Go for it.
Conservative love blaiming liberals for everything that goes wrong.
After all, no true conservative could _ever_ be wrong about anything.
--
Ray Fischer "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
r...@netcom.com than lies." -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Peter Nyikos
>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>hs...@vax.clarku.edu writes:
I have restored alt.fan.rush-limbaugh to the newsgroups. Limbaugh
regularly talks about abortion, and his fans deserve to know just how
foolish the old "child abuse" chestnut really is.
>>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
>>>responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
>>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem. You tell me which
>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed. Would any decent
>>person bring children into this world to watch them starve? I think not.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
While this does happen in some parts of the world, the fact is that in
most countries where abortion is as freely available as in the USA, there
is a chronic shortage of babies for adoption.
>Scenario: unwanted child born into abusive family. The parents would have
>gotten an abortion, but it was "illegal", so they couldn't.
In the first scenario, the parents were free to put up the child for
adoption. Why did they not do so? Could it be because the child
became "wanted" somewhere along the line?
Scenario: badly wanted child born into family which does not think of
itself as abusive, but the parents for various psychological reasons
expect too much of their children, and hence discipline turns into abuse.
Which scenario is more likely, even assuming abortion becomes illegal?
Entries from _Abortion Questions and Answers_, by Dr. and Mrs. J. C.
Willke, but with documentation to original sources, follow. Pro-life
readers are encouraged to go to the original sources and report to
talk.abortion on details gleaned from these sources. The pro-choicers
obviously aren't going to do it for us.
[At the University of Southern California,] Professor Edward Lenoski
studied 674 consecutive battered children who were brought to
the in- and out- patient departments of that medical center. He
was the first to go to the parents and study to what extent they
wanted and planned the pregnancy. To his surprise, he found
that 91% were planned and wanted, compared to 63% for the control
groups nationally. Further, the mothers had began [sic] wearing
on the average, pregnancy clothes at 114 days comparet to 171
days in the control, and the fathers named the boys after them-
selves 24% of the time compared to 4% for the control groups.
E. Lenoski, _Heartbeat_, vol.3, no.4, Dec. 1980
Dr. Phillip Ney, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of
Christ Church, New Zealand, while still at the Univeristy of
British Columbia, published a widely read study...His analysis
clearly pointed to the fact that abortion (and its acceptance of
violence of killing the unborn) lowered a patient's psychic
resistance to violence and abuse of the born.
P. Ney, "Relationship Between Abortion and Child Abuse,"
_Canada Jour. Psychiatry, vol 24, 1979, pp.610-620.
>>Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>in fact the state already has control over this issue. The only problem is
>>in making people aware of what abortion really is... cold blooded, vicious,
>>violent, painful MURDER.
Substitute "homicide" for "murder" and insert "often" before "really,"
and I'll go along.
>Do you know what they do to kittens and puppies (even adult cats and dogs)
>when they have too many of them and can't care for them any more? They "put
>them to sleep". It used to be that they would put them in a bag and drown
>them in a river, but these days the more "humane" technique of lethal injection
>is used.
Would that most abortion techniques were this humane. Some abortion
techniques are the ultimate in child abuse, as in the case of Nancyjo
Mann's daughter killed by saline abortion, about which you can read in
the long foreword to _Aborted Women, Silent No More_.
Even D&E is usually less humane than the technique a group of men here
in Columbia, SC used in killing a dog: they slit its throat and left it
to die in a ditch. For this they were charged under a statute which
provides for a penalty of several years in jail and several thousand
dollars fine.
>An unborn child is alive. So is a kitten. An unborn child can fell pain.
>So can a kitten. An unborn child moves around. So does a kitten. Many people
>find unborn children to be "cute" (they compare them to babies which are
>supposedly "cute"). Many people find kittens to be "cute".
>A kitten would requre support for up to 18 years. A child would require even
>more support for the same time. We don't always have the resources to provide
>for all the kittens that could exist. We don't always have the resources to
>provide for all the children that could be born.
As Adrienne's favorite joke goes, "Who's `we', white man?" At the present
time, in the USA, we do have it. Also in Canada and Australia, to name
just two other countries with chronic shortages of infants up for adoption.
>No one wants to kill kittens, but sometimes it is necessary because people are
>more important. No one wants to kill unborn children, but sometimes it is
>necessary because people are more important.
>And why is this ok? A kitten is not a person . . . and neither is an unborn
>child.
By what standard? Only in the narrowly legal sense can the foregoing
sentence be justified. But pro-choicers are quite willing to work to
change laws, as witness their support of FOCA.
On top of which, not even Blackmun claimed that the unborn child is NOT
a person, except for the very narrow purpose of interpreting the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [410 US at 158]
>>This isn't the forum to discuss abortion. If you would like to argue it go
>>to talk.abortion.
>Who added those other groups? Would someone please tell me what the groups
>alt.fan.rush-limbaugh and alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show have to do with what
>has been discussed here?
Limbaugh very often discusses abortion, as I said. His fans deserve to
know just how weak the case for _Roe v. Wade_-stlye abortion laws really
is. Limbaugh does not go into enough depth on his shows but that is due
to the requirements of appealing to a wide audience.
Peter Nyikos
Kevin Darcy
Darcy> incentivize it, than to rely on people "controlling their hormones",
Darcy> and it achieves the same economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth
Darcy> rate among poor people.
Simmonds> Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making
Simmonds> intelligent decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you
Simmonds> hold their hand since you are so superior.
Sims> You seem to think that female people are incapable
Sims> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.
Sims> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or
Sims> not they stay pregnant because you think your
Sims> views are so superior.
Keegan> people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
Keegan> years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
Keegan> to as a "pro-forcer."
Sims> Actually, I wrote this in response to Edward Simmonds, who wrote
Sims> something similar in response to Kevin.
Thanks for the correction, Heather. Keegan seems to be losing it.
- Kevin
James G Keegan Jr
-> Darcy> It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to
-> Darcy> incentivize it, than to rely on people "controlling their hormones",
-> Darcy> and it achieves the same economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth
-> Darcy> rate among poor people.
->
-> Simmonds> Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making
-> Simmonds> intelligent decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you
-> Simmonds> hold their hand since you are so superior.
->
-> Sims> You seem to think that female people are incapable
-> Sims> of making intelligent decisions by themselves.
-> Sims> You want to make sure you decide for them whether or
-> Sims> not they stay pregnant because you think your
-> Sims> views are so superior.
->
-> Keegan> people have been criticizing kebbie for that for
-> Keegan> years. it's one of the reasons he has been referred
-> Keegan> to as a "pro-forcer."
->
-> Sims> Actually, I wrote this in response to Edward Simmonds, who wrote
-> Sims> something similar in response to Kevin.
->
-> Thanks for the correction, Heather. Keegan seems to be losing it.
somebody has lost something, unless your feed
suffers the same convenient ups and downs of
PHoney's. this was posted two days prior to your
comment.
=======
Message-ID: <1993Jan8.1...@crd.ge.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 12:10:21 GMT
you're absolutely correct. even i sometimes can't
tell the difference between what kebbie posts and
what other pro-forcers post.
=========================
it would appear, on the face of things, that you're
being dishonest again kebbie. feeling threatened,
are you?
Robert S. Parker
>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>In article <C01u1...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>hs...@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>
>>>>In a previous article, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
>>>>responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
>>>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
>>>
>>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
>>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.
>>It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
>>than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
>>economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.
>Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making intelligent
>decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you hold their hand since
>you are so superior.
This from the guy who wants to limit the choices they have available, about
the guy who would provide the choice and let them choose for themselves.
How hipocritical.
>Your statement that the desired result is the "reduction of the birth rate
>among poor people" is insulting and narrow-minded. The desired result
>is protect the children, born and unborn.
I'd settle for protecting those who are born.
>>>You tell me which
>>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.
>>In my opinion...
>>The WORST "crime" is to let children starve.
>Is murder a lesser crime than neglect?
It is better to allow a given unborn to not be born than to allow a child to
be born and suffer. You don't have the right to be created.
>>The second-worst "crime" is to interfere with a woman's decision to abort,
>>either by mandating or forbidding abortion.
>Is murder a lesser crime than this?
The mother is in the best position to make that decision. How can the rest
of society know her situation.
>>The third-worst "crime" is for government to start interfering in sexual
>>relations between consenting adults by telling them to "control their
>>hormones" or whatever.
>Is murder a lesser crime than this?
(Of course this is all *his opinion*. He may feel that murder is a lesser
crime. I think however that "murder" has nothing to do with abortion; the
unborn is not a person.)
>>Fourth on my list of "crimes" is for taxpayers to end up supporting children
>>of poor people who are otherwise unable to support them adequately themselves.
>>Look at our GNP sometime -- we can easily provide this support.
>Well then.. since you seem to think murder is okay to end economic problems,
>why don't you just run out and kill all the homeless, welfare families,
>unemployed, and elderly.
>[snip]
>>>Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>>the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>>in fact the state already has control over this issue.
>>Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because
>>she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
>>"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
>>murder"?
>Of course not.. The women involved are not the murderers. The abortionists
>are the murderers. I have written on this extensively in this group
>and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't keep up.
Good, then we won't have to read through your unsupported contention that
"abortion is murder" after we have repeatedly demonstrated to the contrary.
>> - Kevin
>Edward Simmonds
-Rob
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes ...
>>Liberals love violating rights. Go for it.
>Conservative love blaiming liberals for everything that goes wrong.
>After all, no true conservative could _ever_ be wrong about anything.
You said it, not me. I would disagree however.
>--
>Ray Fischer "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>r...@netcom.com than lies." -- Friedrich Nietszsche
Edward Simmonds- Back from vacation, standard disclaimers
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>In article <C01u1...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>hs...@vax.clarku.edu writes:
>>>>
>>>>>In a previous article, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu wrote:
>>>>>Really, those poor, homeless, and hungry children should just take
>>>>>responsibility for their lives and find a job. Funding programs such as
>>>>>WIC will just encourage infants and children to be lazy bums.
>>>>
>>>>Those poor, homeless and hungry children should have had parents responsible
>>>>enough to realize they couldn't afford to feed children. If they could
>>>>have controlled their hormones there wouldn't be a problem.
>>>It is far more realistic to subsidize abortion, maybe even to incentivize it,
>>>than to rely on people "controlling their hormones", and it achieves the same
>>>economic result, i.e. reduction of the birth rate among poor people.
>>Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making intelligent
>>decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you hold their hand since
>>you are so superior.
>This from the guy who wants to limit the choices they have available, about
>the guy who would provide the choice and let them choose for themselves.
>How hipocritical.
This from the guy who can't even spell hypocritical.
You must learn to differentiate between moral choices and immoral choices.
>>Your statement that the desired result is the "reduction of the birth rate
>>among poor people" is insulting and narrow-minded. The desired result
>>is protect the children, born and unborn.
>I'd settle for protecting those who are born.
>>>>You tell me which
>>>>is the worse crime, society refusing to pay deadbeats or deadbeats knowingly
>>>>bringing children into the world whom they cannot feed.
>>>In my opinion...
>>>The WORST "crime" is to let children starve.
>>Is murder a lesser crime than neglect?
>It is better to allow a given unborn to not be born than to allow a child to
>be born and suffer. You don't have the right to be created.
Do you read anything in this newsgroup? This has already been addressed.
>>>The second-worst "crime" is to interfere with a woman's decision to abort,
>>>either by mandating or forbidding abortion.
>>Is murder a lesser crime than this?
>The mother is in the best position to make that decision. How can the rest
>of society know her situation.
Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
doesn't want that human being around?
>>>The third-worst "crime" is for government to start interfering in sexual
>>>relations between consenting adults by telling them to "control their
>>>hormones" or whatever.
>>Is murder a lesser crime than this?
>(Of course this is all *his opinion*. He may feel that murder is a lesser
>crime. I think however that "murder" has nothing to do with abortion; the
>unborn is not a person.)
And that is *your opinion*.
>>>Fourth on my list of "crimes" is for taxpayers to end up supporting children
>>>of poor people who are otherwise unable to support them adequately themselves.
>>>Look at our GNP sometime -- we can easily provide this support.
>>Well then.. since you seem to think murder is okay to end economic problems,
>>why don't you just run out and kill all the homeless, welfare families,
>>unemployed, and elderly.
>>[snip]
>>>>Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>>>the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>>>in fact the state already has control over this issue.
>>>Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because
>>>she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
>>>"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
>>>murder"?
>>Of course not.. The women involved are not the murderers. The abortionists
>>are the murderers. I have written on this extensively in this group
>>and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't keep up.
>Good, then we won't have to read through your unsupported contention that
>"abortion is murder" after we have repeatedly demonstrated to the contrary.
You have only demonstrated that abortion is not legally considered murder.
This is a far cry from demonstrating it shouldn't be considered as such.
You may not have noticed, but the issue here has never been one about the
EXISTING laws. Why keep regurgitating this argument then?
>>> - Kevin
>>Edward Simmonds
>-Rob
Edward Simmonds- back from vacation, standard disclaimers
Gary Bisaga
|> Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
|> a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
|> doesn't want that human being around?
rhetoric? I guess we'll stop hearing these when they start
understanding that many pro-choice people (myself included) are
also anti-abortion. Oops, admitting that wouldn't be good for
polemic purposes, so never mind.
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
I have admitted this many times.
Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
moo...@yang.earlham.edu
dir
]
close
Robert S. Parker
>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>In article <C01u1...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making intelligent
>>>decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you hold their hand since
>>>you are so superior.
>>This from the guy who wants to limit the choices they have available, about
>>the guy who would provide the choice and let them choose for themselves.
>>How hipocritical.
>This from the guy who can't even spell hypocritical.
So I don't have a spell-checker on-line and didn't feel like looking it up;
it doesn't make you any less *hypocritical*. (that time, I looked it up) 8-P
>You must learn to differentiate between moral choices and immoral choices.
On the other hand, you could stop shovelling and listen to *why* we don't
consider it to be immoral.
>Do you read anything in this newsgroup? This has already been addressed.
It has? Which part was addressed: that suffering is worse than non-creation,
or that you don't have a *right* to be *created*.
What newsgroup are you refering to? I'm reading on talk.abortion, but I
noticed that a few other groups were added (which I don't read).
>>The mother is in the best position to make that decision. How can the rest
>>of society know her situation.
>Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>doesn't want that human being around?
Yes, it's called "abortion". (particularly early in development, when even
Stephen Matheson would have to admit that it can not be sentient--that's
pretty early) A very large number of people (the majority I think) would
accept first-month abortions. (Of course, it is virtually impossible to
find out you are pregnant early enough to get an abortion in the first month.)
>>(Of course this is all *his opinion*. He may feel that murder is a lesser
>>crime. I think however that "murder" has nothing to do with abortion; the
>>unborn is not a person.)
>And that is *your opinion*.
I implied that quite clearly when I said "I think". There is no need for you
to point it out. After all, you did *ask* questions that can only be answered
by *opinion*.
>>>>>Abortion is murder. It's not a question of just the mother's life, but also
>>>>>the baby's. The laws of this country already state that murder is wrong so
>>>>>in fact the state already has control over this issue.
>>>>Has any state ever successfully prosecuted any woman for "murder", because
>>>>she aborted, even BEFORE _Roe v. Wade_? If not, what's your basis for citing
>>>>"the laws of this country" in support of your contention that "abortion is
>>>>murder"?
>>>Of course not.. The women involved are not the murderers. The abortionists
>>>are the murderers. I have written on this extensively in this group
>>>and I'm not going to repeat myself just because you can't keep up.
>>Good, then we won't have to read through your unsupported contention that
>>"abortion is murder" after we have repeatedly demonstrated to the contrary.
>You have only demonstrated that abortion is not legally considered murder.
>This is a far cry from demonstrating it shouldn't be considered as such.
*I* haven't had anything to do with explaining the current legal situation.
I said "we"; that includes the banter above (legal definitions) and my own
postings to the effect that murder is the destruction of a *person* (which
implies sentience), and that the unborn is not a *person*. (I also gave a
lengthy posting as to why it should be considered that way, but I bet you
missed it. Maybe you read a different group than where I post?)
>>>> - Kevin
>>>Edward Simmonds
>>-Rob
>Edward Simmonds- back from vacation, standard disclaimers
{All flee in panic}
-Rob
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>ke...@rotag.mi.org (Kevin Darcy) writes:
>>>>>In article <C01u1...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>Ahh.. I see. You don't think poor people are capable of making intelligent
>>>>decisions by themselves. You want to make sure you hold their hand since
>>>>you are so superior.
>>>This from the guy who wants to limit the choices they have available, about
>>>the guy who would provide the choice and let them choose for themselves.
>>>How hipocritical.
>>This from the guy who can't even spell hypocritical.
>So I don't have a spell-checker on-line and didn't feel like looking it up;
>it doesn't make you any less *hypocritical*. (that time, I looked it up) 8-P
>>You must learn to differentiate between moral choices and immoral choices.
>On the other hand, you could stop shovelling and listen to *why* we don't
>consider it to be immoral.
Believe me, I have listened. This doesn't mean, however, that I agree.
Many arguments you use are often tangential and do not specifically apply.
>>Do you read anything in this newsgroup? This has already been addressed.
>It has? Which part was addressed: that suffering is worse than non-creation,
>or that you don't have a *right* to be *created*.
>What newsgroup are you refering to? I'm reading on talk.abortion, but I
>noticed that a few other groups were added (which I don't read).
Yep. I'm on alt.fan.r-l... I never understood how I ended up on t.a. in
the first place but now I do.
>>>The mother is in the best position to make that decision. How can the rest
>>>of society know her situation.
>>Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>doesn't want that human being around?
>Yes, it's called "abortion". (particularly early in development, when even
>Stephen Matheson would have to admit that it can not be sentient--that's
>pretty early) A very large number of people (the majority I think) would
>accept first-month abortions. (Of course, it is virtually impossible to
>find out you are pregnant early enough to get an abortion in the first month.)
Come on now! The sentience argument is a dead end! If ANYTHING it supports
my position far more than it supports yours!
Person does not imply sentience. There are many non-sentient persons,
and this has been demonstrated already.
>>Edward Simmonds- back from vacation, standard disclaimers
>{All flee in panic}
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^==> You flatter me.
>-Rob
E.S.
Mike Cobb
>dir
>]
>In article <C0wns...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu writes:
>> ga...@maestro.mitre.org (Gary Bisaga) writes:
>>
>>>In article <C0uAs...@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu ()
writes:
>>>|> Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>>|> a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>>|> doesn't want that human being around?
>>>Sheesh. Where would so-called "pro-lifers" be without polemic and
>>>rhetoric? I guess we'll stop hearing these when they start
>>>understanding that many pro-choice people (myself included) are
>>>also anti-abortion. Oops, admitting that wouldn't be good for
>>>polemic purposes, so never mind.
>>
>>
>> I have admitted this many times.
>>
>>
>> Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
>close
A quick question please. Why are you against abortion? If it is the killing
of an innocent human being, why are you pro-choice? If it is not the killing
of an innocent human being, then why are you against abortion?
MAC
of an innoc
Mike Cobb
why it's ok to kill humans that aren't sentient?
Thanks
MAC
Robert S. Parker
>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>
[deletions, of parts that were not responded to]
>>>You must learn to differentiate between moral choices and immoral choices.
>>On the other hand, you could stop shovelling and listen to *why* we don't
>>consider it to be immoral.
>Believe me, I have listened. This doesn't mean, however, that I agree.
>Many arguments you use are often tangential and do not specifically apply.
>>>Do you read anything in this newsgroup? This has already been addressed.
>>It has? Which part was addressed: that suffering is worse than non-creation,
>>or that you don't have a *right* to be *created*.
>>What newsgroup are you refering to? I'm reading on talk.abortion, but I
>>noticed that a few other groups were added (which I don't read).
>Yep. I'm on alt.fan.r-l... I never understood how I ended up on t.a. in
>the first place but now I do.
I don't know who Rush Limbaugh is, but I gather it has something to do with
fanatic pro-life "wisdom"??? (I really hate cross-posts; they cause so much
confusion.)
Perhaps you disagree with my statemtent that "you don't have a *right* to be
*created*"? If so, perhaps you could explain *why* someone (not yet created)
has a *right* to *be* created.
>>>>The mother is in the best position to make that decision. How can the rest
>>>>of society know her situation.
>>>Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>>a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>>doesn't want that human being around?
>>Yes, it's called "abortion". (particularly early in development, when even
>>Stephen Matheson would have to admit that it can not be sentient--that's
>>pretty early) A very large number of people (the majority I think) would
>>accept first-month abortions. (Of course, it is virtually impossible to
>>find out you are pregnant early enough to get an abortion in the first month.)
Just to clear up something in case you aren't clear on it: The situation you
described is no less true immediately after conception than it is at around
5 months. The unborn is technically a human being, is "innocent", and the
hypothetical abortion is no more or less "premeditated" in one than the other.
It may also technically be "homicide", and presumably the hypothetical reason
for abortion is that she "doesn't want that human being around". They are
also both technically "abortion".
You asked if there was a situation in which it would be "judged acceptable"
(I assume you did not mean "judged by the woman" but rather that it was *done*
"by a woman who...".) My response was meant to indicate that yes, indeed,
there are situations like what you described where it could be judged
acceptable (by most people--you'll never get *everyone* to accept something).
>Come on now! The sentience argument is a dead end! If ANYTHING it supports
>my position far more than it supports yours!
How is it dead? Are you claiming that sentience happens at conception? Or
are you claiming that sentience has nothing to do with "morality"?
If you believe that a "soul" gives an embryo sentience, then I challenge you
to find repeatable evidence of "souls" or find repeatable evidence of
sentience in embryos. (Repeatable means that I or anyone could do the same
sort of experiment and obtain the same results.)
As for morality, if you feel that a "soul" is that highest moral existance
which must be protected at all costs, I ask you why. Isn't it because we,
as a species, have a level of thought and awareness beyond other animals we
have encountered? Isn't that sentience why a "soul" is so important?
If "souls" cause sentience, how would you detect a "soul"? Wouldn't it be
by detecting the behavioral traits of sentience? Thus if something is not
sentient, it must not have a "soul". On the other hand, if "souls" do not
cause sentience, then why are "souls" important? Is it because of the
believed immortality of the "soul"? If that is true then destroying it is
not possible, so why worry so much? (Also, try to *prove* that "souls" exist
and are "immortal".)
If you make your position without resorting to the supernatural concept of
"souls", then perhaps you could explain what it is that you feel must be
protected at all costs. Life? (That includes a hell of a lot, you know,
and generally makes *your* life impossible.) Animal life? (why?) Human
life? (why?) whatever...*why*? *Why* is that so important that it must
be protected at all costs? (no proof needed here, just some reasoning)
>>>You have only demonstrated that abortion is not legally considered murder.
>>>This is a far cry from demonstrating it shouldn't be considered as such.
>>*I* haven't had anything to do with explaining the current legal situation.
>>I said "we"; that includes the banter above (legal definitions) and my own
>>postings to the effect that murder is the destruction of a *person* (which
>>implies sentience), and that the unborn is not a *person*. (I also gave a
>>lengthy posting as to why it should be considered that way, but I bet you
>>missed it. Maybe you read a different group than where I post?)
>Person does not imply sentience. There are many non-sentient persons,
>and this has been demonstrated already.
Non-sentient person, what a concept. From "person" we get "personality".
"personality" implies sentient awareness. How can something that is not
sentient have a "personality" (anthropomorphism aside)? (First you must
disregard your conditioning to think that "human" and "person" mean exactly
the same thing.) This is the sort of thing *I* mean by "person". *You*
might use the word interchangable with "human being", but why waste a
perfectly good term (person) to refer to exactly the same thing as is
refered to by another perfectly good term (human being)?
>>>Edward Simmonds- back from vacation, standard disclaimers
>>{All flee in panic}
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^==> You flatter me.
Well, I have to do *something* nice. ;)
>>-Rob
>E.S.
-Rob
Robert S. Parker
>Thanks
Well, it sorta goes like this...
Is it "ok" to kill animals? I mean *when there is a compelling reason*...
even when the animal hasn't done anything itself ("innocent"). (here's a
clue, "food") Is it normally "ok" to kill another person? I mean a human
being who has been living and interacting for a long time...even when there
is a *compelling reason* but the person hasn't done anything "bad"
("innocent"). (here's a clue, "murder")
What is the difference? In one case we have an animal that is not sentient;
it doesn't think about its existence all that much, it just exists. In the
other case we have a sentient being that thinks about its existence a lot,
and likes to argue about how "moral" something is. This is the basic
reasoning behind *sentience* as the "highest moral existence"--that state
which must be protected unless its existence is harmful to others of similar
existence (it is not "innocent").
>MAC
-Rob
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>>
>[deletions, of parts that were not responded to]
>>>>You must learn to differentiate between moral choices and immoral choices.
>>>On the other hand, you could stop shovelling and listen to *why* we don't
>>>consider it to be immoral.
>>Believe me, I have listened. This doesn't mean, however, that I agree.
>>Many arguments you use are often tangential and do not specifically apply.
>>>>Do you read anything in this newsgroup? This has already been addressed.
>>>It has? Which part was addressed: that suffering is worse than non-creation,
>>>or that you don't have a *right* to be *created*.
>>>What newsgroup are you refering to? I'm reading on talk.abortion, but I
>>>noticed that a few other groups were added (which I don't read).
>>Yep. I'm on alt.fan.r-l... I never understood how I ended up on t.a. in
>>the first place but now I do.
>I don't know who Rush Limbaugh is, but I gather it has something to do with
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You've GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! You wouldn't happen to live in Washington D.C.
would you? That would explain alot.
>fanatic pro-life "wisdom"??? (I really hate cross-posts; they cause so much
>confusion.)
Rush rarely addresses abortion.
>Perhaps you disagree with my statemtent that "you don't have a *right* to be
>*created*"? If so, perhaps you could explain *why* someone (not yet created)
>has a *right* to *be* created.
By definition, there is no such thing as someone having a right to be created.
ie. If you are not yet created, how can you have any rights? Are you
trying to make a point or just sound clever?
>>>>>The mother is in the best position to make that decision. How can the rest
>>>>>of society know her situation.
>>>>Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>>>a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>>>doesn't want that human being around?
>>>Yes, it's called "abortion". (particularly early in development, when even
>>>Stephen Matheson would have to admit that it can not be sentient--that's
>>>pretty early) A very large number of people (the majority I think) would
>>>accept first-month abortions. (Of course, it is virtually impossible to
>>>find out you are pregnant early enough to get an abortion in the first month.)
>Just to clear up something in case you aren't clear on it: The situation you
>described is no less true immediately after conception than it is at around
>5 months. The unborn is technically a human being, is "innocent", and the
>hypothetical abortion is no more or less "premeditated" in one than the other.
>It may also technically be "homicide", and presumably the hypothetical reason
>for abortion is that she "doesn't want that human being around". They are
>also both technically "abortion".
>You asked if there was a situation in which it would be "judged acceptable"
>(I assume you did not mean "judged by the woman" but rather that it was *done*
>"by a woman who...".) My response was meant to indicate that yes, indeed,
>there are situations like what you described where it could be judged
>acceptable (by most people--you'll never get *everyone* to accept something).
No. I meant JUDGED BY THE WOMAN. Fathers have no legal right to get their
kid aborted.
>>Come on now! The sentience argument is a dead end! If ANYTHING it supports
>>my position far more than it supports yours!
>How is it dead? Are you claiming that sentience happens at conception? Or
>are you claiming that sentience has nothing to do with "morality"?
If I was claiming these things, I would have stated them.
There are numerous examples of non-sentient citizens and "persons" who
are guaranteed the right not to be hacked into little pieces and dumped
in a garbage can.
>If you believe that a "soul" gives an embryo sentience, then I challenge you
>to find repeatable evidence of "souls" or find repeatable evidence of
>sentience in embryos. (Repeatable means that I or anyone could do the same
>sort of experiment and obtain the same results.)
Did I mention "souls"? Oh.. I didn't?
Oh.. I was educated before the liberals got a hold of the schools, so
I know what "repeatable" means.
>As for morality, if you feel that a "soul" is that highest moral existance
>which must be protected at all costs, I ask you why. Isn't it because we,
>as a species, have a level of thought and awareness beyond other animals we
>have encountered? Isn't that sentience why a "soul" is so important?
>If "souls" cause sentience, how would you detect a "soul"? Wouldn't it be
>by detecting the behavioral traits of sentience? Thus if something is not
>sentient, it must not have a "soul". On the other hand, if "souls" do not
>cause sentience, then why are "souls" important? Is it because of the
>believed immortality of the "soul"? If that is true then destroying it is
>not possible, so why worry so much? (Also, try to *prove* that "souls" exist
>and are "immortal".)
>If you make your position without resorting to the supernatural concept of
>"souls", then perhaps you could explain what it is that you feel must be
>protected at all costs. Life? (That includes a hell of a lot, you know,
>and generally makes *your* life impossible.) Animal life? (why?) Human
>life? (why?) whatever...*why*? *Why* is that so important that it must
>be protected at all costs? (no proof needed here, just some reasoning)
Drop the "soul" thing already... you seem obsessed with this non-issue.
I want to protect innocent HUMAN life. Why should life be protected?
Well, gee... isn't there some really important document or something
which sort of establishes our government and our rights which says
we all have a right to "life"? Hmm.. what's that called again?
Umm... begins with a "C", and the other part has a "B" in front.
>>>>You have only demonstrated that abortion is not legally considered murder.
>>>>This is a far cry from demonstrating it shouldn't be considered as such.
>>>*I* haven't had anything to do with explaining the current legal situation.
>>>I said "we"; that includes the banter above (legal definitions) and my own
>>>postings to the effect that murder is the destruction of a *person* (which
>>>implies sentience), and that the unborn is not a *person*. (I also gave a
>>>lengthy posting as to why it should be considered that way, but I bet you
>>>missed it. Maybe you read a different group than where I post?)
>>Person does not imply sentience. There are many non-sentient persons,
>>and this has been demonstrated already.
>Non-sentient person, what a concept. From "person" we get "personality".
>"personality" implies sentient awareness. How can something that is not
>sentient have a "personality" (anthropomorphism aside)? (First you must
>disregard your conditioning to think that "human" and "person" mean exactly
>the same thing.) This is the sort of thing *I* mean by "person". *You*
>might use the word interchangable with "human being", but why waste a
>perfectly good term (person) to refer to exactly the same thing as is
>refered to by another perfectly good term (human being)?
Ahh.. personality, I see. Well... I would propose to you that there are
many "persons" who lack personalities. For example: newborn babies
do not exhibit any personality traits that differentiate them from any
other newborn babies until they are approximately 9 months old. Can we
kill them too?
Oh.. human and person ARE the same thing. Ever heard of synonyms?
With the awareness that people who quote the dictionary to prove
a point are "net.clueless":
person- 1. a human being
Whereas sentience by DEFINITION means: having the power of perception
by the SENSES
I'm sure you ARE aware that unborn babies have "senses" from VERY early
in their prenatal development. Nor does "sentience" seem to have
ANYTHING to do with "personality". Hmmmm....
Hey, you started arguing semantics... not me.
>>>>Edward Simmonds- back from vacation, standard disclaimers
>>>{All flee in panic}
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^==> You flatter me.
>Well, I have to do *something* nice. ;)
>>>-Rob
>>E.S.
>-Rob
Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>co...@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu (Mike Cobb) writes:
>>Thanks
>>MAC
>-Rob
MAC, Mr. Parker wouldn't know sentience if he had any.
He, for example, is not aware that people in comas are not sentient, and
MAY never BE sentient. Mr. Parker would, by his own logic, therefore get
to KILL them. After all, they are an unwanted BURDEN on society.
Whereas, an unborn baby, which IS virtually GUARANTEED to be sentient
within 9 months, is STILL okay in his mind to be scraped into a garbage
can.
Have a nice day,
Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers, hates abortion
Robert S. Parker
>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
[Isn't this fun?]
This gets kinda long, folks, so if you don't care too much, feel free to
skip it. (but not vengeanc(e), to whom I am responding)
>>I don't know who Rush Limbaugh is, but I gather it has something to do with
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>You've GOTTA BE KIDDING ME! You wouldn't happen to live in Washington D.C.
>would you? That would explain alot.
No, I don't, and [sarcasm on] thanks SO much for explaining who he is.
>Rush rarely addresses abortion.
Really? then why did someone post an abortion post to the r.l groups? Do
you see why I'm confused?
>>Perhaps you disagree with my statemtent that "you don't have a *right* to be
>>*created*"? If so, perhaps you could explain *why* someone (not yet created)
>>has a *right* to *be* created.
>By definition, there is no such thing as someone having a right to be created.
>ie. If you are not yet created, how can you have any rights? Are you
>trying to make a point or just sound clever?
Some people (especially certain pro-lifers) often argue that a fetus has a
right to live because it will *become* a sentient human being in the future.
They argue that this future-sentience has a right to be created. I'm glad
to see you don't agree with that silly reasoning. (I understand, then, that
you disagree with something for a completely different reason and will not
try to persuade you further on this particular point.)
As I have not seen any source or reasoning (or even direct arguments) from
you as to why you disagreed with my statements--not even what part you
disagreed with--I resorted to asking about every counter case that could be
attempted (that I could think of).
>>>>>Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>>>>a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>>>>doesn't want that human being around?
>>>>Yes, it's called "abortion". (particularly early in development, when even
>>>>Stephen Matheson would have to admit that it can not be sentient--that's
>>>>pretty early) A very large number of people (the majority I think) would
>>>>accept first-month abortions. (Of course, it is virtually impossible to
>>>>find out you are pregnant early enough to get an abortion in the first month.)
[I clarify what I meant by that, based on an assuption about what he meant
by the question...(assumption follows)]
>>(I assume you did not mean "judged by the woman" but rather that it was *done*
>>"by a woman who...".) My response was meant to indicate that yes, indeed,
>>there are situations like what you described where it could be judged
>>acceptable (by most people--you'll never get *everyone* to accept something).
>No. I meant JUDGED BY THE WOMAN. Fathers have no legal right to get their
>kid aborted.
Well that's even easier! (I had assumed you woudn't be so silly, I guess
I should not have taken that for granted.) You said:
>>>>>Are you telling me there are situations in which premeditated homicide of
>>>>>a helpless, innocent human being can be judged acceptable by a woman who
>>>>>doesn't want that human being around?
*Obviously*, if the woman choses to have an abortion, she judges it to be
acceptable. Your question (with the clarification you just gave) is thus
a non-point. I had assumed that you were trying to make an intelligent
point by asking a rhetorical question for which you expected a "correct"
answer of "no, killing an innocent human being is never acceptable", but
because of your qualifier of "judged by the woman" the answer is trivially
"yes, there are such situations". And, disregarding your foolish clarification
the answer is still "yes", unless you *meant* "judged by [Edward Simmonds]"
in which case I say f*** **f. ;)
>>>Come on now! The sentience argument is a dead end! If ANYTHING it supports
>>>my position far more than it supports yours!
>>How is it dead? Are you claiming that sentience happens at conception? Or
>>are you claiming that sentience has nothing to do with "morality"?
>If I was claiming these things, I would have stated them.
Apparently you consider it good debating form to make sweeping prounouncements
and then refuse to elaborate on the reasoning. For most people, that only
lowers your credibility.
>There are numerous examples of non-sentient citizens and "persons" who
>are guaranteed the right not to be hacked into little pieces and dumped
>in a garbage can.
Then *list* some. You claimed the sentience argument is a "dead end". (I
misread it as "dead" above, but still the question remains: WHY IS IT A
DEAD END? You never explained yourself on this matter; you merely claimed
it somehow supported your position more than mine.) Well, as it turns out,
sentience alone does not support "my position". My position is actually
based on a more restricted form of sentience that requires independence
(mostly biological autonomy--in the case of biological "people"), interaction
with the environment and (the potential for interaction with) other people,
and a personality that is based on experiences (and thus capable of changing),
in addition to human-level intelligence. Normal adult human beings satisfy
all of these things. The unborn fail on interaction--and thus on most of the
others--until birth. Even after birth, they may not satisfy the intelligence
requirement. (I'll address infanticide below where you bring it up.)
>>If you believe that a "soul" gives an embryo sentience, then I challenge you
>>to find repeatable evidence of "souls" or find repeatable evidence of
>>sentience in embryos. (Repeatable means that I or anyone could do the same
>>sort of experiment and obtain the same results.)
>Did I mention "souls"? Oh.. I didn't?
That's just the thing, you didn't mention *anything* to support your
announcement that the sentience argument is a dead end and/or supports
your position more than mine. I had to resort to guessing what your
argument was (assuming--perhaps incorrectly--you actually *had* one).
>Oh.. I was educated before the liberals got a hold of the schools, so
>I know what "repeatable" means.
As a "liberal" who has a BS degree in Physics, I would like to know why
you insinuate that "liberals" in the schools fail to properly teach the
scientific method, such that people eduacated after "liberals got a hold
of the schools" would not know what "repeatable" means in the context of
"evidence". (Or are you just taking it out of context and saying that you
know what the word means in the normal sense?)
[I go on farther about "if you use souls to support your position"...]
>Drop the "soul" thing already... you seem obsessed with this non-issue.
If you would have *told* me what you thought the issue actually was, I
would not have wasted our time trying to read your mind. My undergrad
degree is in Physics, not "psychics".
>I want to protect innocent HUMAN life. Why should life be protected?
>Well, gee... isn't there some really important document or something
>which sort of establishes our government and our rights which says
>we all have a right to "life"? Hmm.. what's that called again?
>Umm... begins with a "C", and the other part has a "B" in front.
"we all have a right to life" you say? Well, I would have to agree with
that statement in almost any context, as anyone who could reasonably be
included in "we" would have to be capable of understanding the statement
and its implications. (I'll assume that a two-year-old is "capable" of
understanding the words, which is close enough.) Since language comprehension
can't develop without interaction (that's 2-way), and since a fetus can
not interact with other people or the environment they talk about, a fetus
is not capable of understanding the words, so there is no reason they have
to be included in the term "we". I suppose you are going to say that the
"founding fathers" had the unborn in mind as well when they wrote the
Declaration of Independence and the Constitution & Bill of Rights? I suppose
you will then ask if *I* am saying that they didn't... I'll save you the
trouble, I'm not claiming to know the precise intention of the "founding
fathers"; I'm claiming that since no one *could* know their precise intentions
that it is irrelevant what their precise intentions were. Why should the
exact intentions of people who lived 200 years in the past tell us what
we can and can not do in the present? Clearly it is up to modern
interpretation and revision.
>>>Person does not imply sentience. There are many non-sentient persons,
>>>and this has been demonstrated already.
>>Non-sentient person, what a concept. From "person" we get "personality".
>>"personality" implies sentient awareness. How can something that is not
>>sentient have a "personality" (anthropomorphism aside)? (First you must
>>disregard your conditioning to think that "human" and "person" mean exactly
>>the same thing.) This is the sort of thing *I* mean by "person". *You*
>>might use the word interchangable with "human being", but why waste a
>>perfectly good term (person) to refer to exactly the same thing as is
>>refered to by another perfectly good term (human being)?
>Ahh.. personality, I see. Well... I would propose to you that there are
>many "persons" who lack personalities. For example: newborn babies
>do not exhibit any personality traits that differentiate them from any
>other newborn babies until they are approximately 9 months old.
And I would propose that this means they are not "persons", and for that
very reason you give are not morally important...(see below)
> Can we
>kill them too?
Ahhh, the old infanticide argument. "We can't allow infanticide, and we
aren't smart enough to see a difference between infanticide (after birth)
and abortion (before birth), so we must not allow abortion either." (to
paraphrase)
Here is my standard response: Infanticide could still be disallowed while
allowing abortion by the following reasoning... Infanticide would only be
"moral" if done with the consent of all people who have had meaningful
contact with the infant. (It is only "infanticide" if the child is a sub-
person; after that it is murder.) Killing the infant without the consent
of even *one* person that has had meaningful contact (2-way, but does not
require communication) would be a violation of that person's rights. (not
murder, but still not "moral") Presumably, the doctor or midwife (whoever
delivers the baby) would not be ethically allowed to give such consent
unless there were extenuating medical reasons. The father and other close
relatives are also quickly involved, and (if they are) would not want to
lose the new family member. Thus almost all cases of infanticide are
"immoral". Applying a consistent rule to abortion, we notice that the only
person who has had any contact with the unborn child is the mother. To kill
the unborn without her consent is clearly a violation of her rights and is
obviously "immoral". With her consent it is "moral" with no inconsistency
with infanticide being "immoral" (in most cases).
Thus, disallowing infanticide need not be inconsistent with allowing abortion.
(even without "bodily autonomy" arguments) On the other hand... Suppose I
don't go out of my way to show that infanticide is "immoral". Why should it
be? Would we be way off base if we allowed infanticide (if the mother can
prove that the child does not yet have human level awareness)? Why? Why
is it wrong to kill something that does not have human level awareness, just
because it is technically human? Why is the "human" boundary a more proper
one for society to draw than the "person" one (human level awareness, and the
other parts of my "personity" argument) is? (I have never gotten an direct
answer to that question, from anyone. Perhaps I only missed their posts.)
>Oh.. human and person ARE the same thing. Ever heard of synonyms?
Surely you are aware that even synonyms do not have exactly the same meaning.
There are always different connotations--if not different denotations--that
makes one more appropriate in a certain place. That's why they teach us to
use more "expressive" words in English class. If the synonyms truly meant
the same thing, the teachers would have no business marking down a paper that
used the "less expressive" synonym.
Try looking through a thesaurus some time. The words listed do not all mean
exactly the same thing; they only mean *mostly* the same thing. That is what
a thesaurus is used for, to find a more accurate (or precise) word than the
one you first think of, to better express your meaning.
>With the awareness that people who quote the dictionary to prove
>a point are "net.clueless":
>person- 1. a human being
It is especially clueless when you don't even say what dictionary you are
quoting from. It is also improper to only give *part* of the definition,
as if it were the only possible meaning.
>Whereas sentience by DEFINITION means: having the power of perception
> by the SENSES
>I'm sure you ARE aware that unborn babies have "senses" from VERY early
>in their prenatal development. Nor does "sentience" seem to have
>ANYTHING to do with "personality". Hmmmm....
(My dictionary--Funk & Wagnal's Standard Desk Dictionary--lists one meaning
like the one you give, and one meaning of "the mind". Not the brain, the
mind. *That* involves personality. (Mind is an abstraction, as is
personality; Senses are distinct from the mind and the personality, although
the mind/personality is certainly affected by the senses.))
Ok, *suppose* I conceed that your interpretation of sentience is a valid one,
to set the context for what follows... Now I ask you, are all mammals
sentient? (your "definition" seems to include all mammals, as well as all
reptiles, amphibians, birds, and many others) If you answer "no" then read
response #1; if you answer "yes" then read response #2....please read *now*.
#1. You have answered "no", mammals are not sentient in general. The next
question is: Are fetuses sentient? If you answer "no" then read response #3;
if you answer "yes" then read response #4....please read *now*.
#2. You have answered "yes", all mammals are sentient. This answer indicates
that you have a looser interpretation of sentience than I have--which would
explain the confusion on the matter. The next question is: Is killing any
mammal--with only a non-life-threatening reason--always "wrong"? If you
answer "no" then read response #5; if you answer "yes" then read response #6
....please read *now*.
#3. You have answered "no", fetuses are not sentient. This goes against what
you implied above, but lets run with it anyway. This answer indicates that
you interpret "sentience" about the same way I do. The next question is: Is
killing any mammal--with only a non-life-threatening reason--always "wrong"?
If you answer "no" then read response #5; if you answer "yes" then read
response #6....please read *now*.
#4. You have answered "yes", fetuses are sentient. You have now completed a
path of answers. Your job now is to explain how a fetus *could* be sentient
and to explain why a fetus is *probably* sentient. Good luck.
#5. You have answered "no", it is not always wrong to kill most mammals, even
if you don't have a life-threatening reason. You have now completed a path
of answers. You job now is to explain why it is "ok" to kill a mammal (which
you say is sentient), but it is not "ok" to kill a fetus (which you also say
is sentient). Take your time; just describe your reasoning and we may be
able to continue.
#6. You have answered "yes", it is always wrong to kill any mammal unless
there is a life-threatening reason. I assume then that you are either a
veggetarian (or are starving). If not, then your position is inconsistent;
mammals are being killed which you consume for food. Eating such animals
is not a life-threatening reason as it is quite possible to live by eating
only veggetable matter. If so (you are a veggetarian), then your job is to
explain why we must go against our "natural" dietary design. Humans are
omnivores. If we were meant to only eat plants, we would have only molar-
like teeth. Why is it "immoral" for us to follow our "natural" dietary
design by eating both plants and animals, as we can obtain them? Good luck.
Was that fun? Don't forget to tell us your answers to the responses you
selected, and don't forget to give the further explanation where indicated
on the final response you selected with your answers.
As a note, when I use the term "sentience" I refer to "human level awareness"
and not just "animal level awareness". I only use that term because it is
shorter than "human level awareness" and because I felt you were less likely
to know what I meant by "personity". ("personhood" is a confered state, but
"personity" is a trait. I constructed the word, so don't bother trying to
look it up. I also sometimes use it collectively--similar to "humanity"--to
refer to all "people".)
I assert that "person" is distinct from "human". The reasoning is this:
Suppose there were Martians (with technology). They would hypothetically
have a society, and thus must be considered a "people". I thus include
these hypothetical Martians in the terms "person" and "people". I argue
that it would be "immoral" for us to kill these Martians, just as it would
be "immoral" for them to kill us. Similarly, I argue that if certain
"humans" do not have those qualities that we find morally important, that
they are not "people" and thus do not have "rights" and are not expected to
follow moral guidelines. (Would you hold a lion morally responsible for
killing a human that was merely "annoying" it? You would hold a person
morally responsible for such an act. You would not hold a person morally
responsible for killing a lion if it was endangering people--even if it
hadn't *actually* killed anyone.) Thus I argue that is it "personity" that
is morally important, and that it is distinct from "human". And it is that
"personity" that I often refer to by the more common--but less accurate--
term, "sentience".
>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
-Rob
kellmeyer steven l
>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
[much deleted]
>Some people (especially certain pro-lifers) often argue that a fetus has a
>right to live because it will *become* a sentient human being in the future.
>They argue that this future-sentience has a right to be created. I'm glad
>to see you don't agree with that silly reasoning.
I see that you are implying that neither the pregnant woman nor the
sperm supplier has a duty towards the "future-sentience", since that
"future-sentience" has no essential right to be created. In other words,
the choice to have sexual relations is not a choice to procreate;
sexual activity produces no duties for either participant towards
a "future sentience".
[deletions]
>*Obviously*, if the woman choses to have an abortion, she judges it to be
>acceptable. Your question (with the clarification you just gave) (...)
>because of your qualifier of "judged by the woman" the answer is trivially
>"yes, there are such situations".
[deletions]
>Well, as it turns out,
>sentience alone does not support "my position". My position is actually
>based on a more restricted form of sentience that requires independence
>(mostly biological autonomy--in the case of biological "people"), interaction
>with the environment and (the potential for interaction with) other people,
>and a personality that is based on experiences (and thus capable of changing),
>in addition to human-level intelligence. Normal adult human beings satisfy
>all of these things. The unborn fail on interaction--and thus on most of the
>others--until birth. Even after birth, they may not satisfy the intelligence
>requirement. (I'll address infanticide below where you bring it up.)
Thus, the sperm supplier is not, in any sense, a father yet, since
there is no child and the man has no essential interaction with the mass
of tissue in the woman's womb. You have already implied that the man has
no duty towards this "future sentience" simply because he has had sex,
you state above that he has no meaningful interaction with this tissue
that will ascribe personhood to the child, whoops, tissue-mass and thus
the woman cannot be proscribed from aborting the mass.
[deletions]
>"we all have a right to life" you say? Well, I would have to agree with
>that statement in almost any context, as anyone who could reasonably be
>included in "we" would have to be capable of understanding the statement
>and its implications. (I'll assume that a two-year-old is "capable" of
>understanding the words, which is close enough.) Since language comprehension
>can't develop without interaction (that's 2-way), and since a fetus can
>not interact with other people or the environment they talk about, a fetus
>is not capable of understanding the words, so there is no reason they have
>to be included in the term "we".
Merely further confirms statements above.
>>Ahh.. personality, I see. Well... I would propose to you that there are
>>many "persons" who lack personalities. For example: newborn babies
>>do not exhibit any personality traits that differentiate them from any
>>other newborn babies until they are approximately 9 months old.
>And I would propose that this means they are not "persons", and for that
>very reason you give are not morally important...(see below)
[deletions]
>Here is my standard response: Infanticide could still be disallowed while
>allowing abortion by the following reasoning... Infanticide would only be
>"moral" if done with the consent of all people who have had meaningful
>contact with the infant. (It is only "infanticide" if the child is a sub-
>person; after that it is murder.) Killing the infant without the consent
>of even *one* person that has had meaningful contact (2-way, but does not
>require communication) would be a violation of that person's rights. (not
>murder, but still not "moral") Presumably, the doctor or midwife (whoever
>delivers the baby) would not be ethically allowed to give such consent
>unless there were extenuating medical reasons. The father and other close
^^^^^^^?
>relatives are also quickly involved, and (if they are) would not want to
>lose the new family member. Thus almost all cases of infanticide are
>"immoral". Applying a consistent rule to abortion, we notice that the only
>person who has had any contact with the unborn child is the mother. To kill
>the unborn without her consent is clearly a violation of her rights and is
>obviously "immoral". With her consent it is "moral" with no inconsistency
>with infanticide being "immoral" (in most cases).
Now you've confused me. You used that word - "father". What father?
I see a sperm supplier - an anonymous sperm donor who's name we happen
to know, so he isn't quite anonymous, but certainly he is no more than
a sperm donor at the time of sex.
The simple act of sex creates no responsibility towards a "future sentience"
in the woman. Men and women are equal, so the act of sex obviously
creates no responsibility towards a "future sentience" in the man.
Only the woman has an interaction with the baby, whoops, tissue-mass, so
it can't be gestational interaction that made him a father, because you
already said that there ain't any.
The woman gives birth, but why does *that* make him a father, unless he
happens to be standing nearby and catches the little bugger as she pops
out? He's only a supplier of raw materials that were delivered nine months
ago.
Let me sum up:
1) Having sex did not mean choosing to have children.
2) The woman completely controls the decision to manufacture a child.
3) The man does no more than supply raw materials which the woman accepts
(if she did not accept them, she would have aborted or taken a morning-
after pill). In any case, she took them whether or not he really wanted
to deliver (condom failure, etc)
4) The woman supplies 99% of the raw material and 100% of the labor.
5) The man is not part of the manufacturing process (no interaction).
6) If a woman can choose to abort a tissue mass due to emotional/medical/
economic reasons, than her decision to not abort is an acceptance of
emotional/medical/economic sequelae.
Conclusion: According to the reasoning you've displayed in this post,
no man can be a father, since no man is *ever* more than a sperm donor.
We can further inquire as to why men can be compelled to pay child support.
They are not fathers. They did not choose to create children. They
merely delivered material which someone else chose to use. They are no
more responsible for the appearance of a child than US Steel is responsible
for the appearance of a Chevrolet.
Note that anonymous sperm donors are legally denied the possibility of
*ever* being considered a father in any sense whatsoever. Why does it
matter if we happen to know the guy's name? The act doesn't enter into
it, and the results are similarly out of his control.
>Thus, disallowing infanticide need not be inconsistent with allowing abortion.
>(even without "bodily autonomy" arguments) On the other hand... Suppose I
>don't go out of my way to show that infanticide is "immoral". Why should it
>be? Would we be way off base if we allowed infanticide (if the mother can
>prove that the child does not yet have human level awareness)? Why? Why
>is it wrong to kill something that does not have human level awareness, just
>because it is technically human? Why is the "human" boundary a more proper
>one for society to draw than the "person" one (human level awareness, and the
>other parts of my "personity" argument) is? (I have never gotten an direct
>answer to that question, from anyone. Perhaps I only missed their posts.)
Indeed. If we follow your reasoning, there is even less point to the
child support argument, or the assertion that men are somehow fathers.
The argument which permits legal abortion simultaneously denies the
concept of "fatherhood" and "child support". Oddly enough, many
supporters of legal abortion are incapable of following their own logic.
However, I should point out that this is not true of all.
Karen DeCrow, the former president of NOW, has publicly backed the
abolition of child support payments by men. The concept is known as
"Roe vs. Wade for Men". It is supposed to face a court challenge this
year. For those of you who think it will fail, yes, it probably will
at first. But remember, they said that about abortion too.
I'm sure Playboy, Penthouse, and many male abortion-rights supporters
will eagerly support this newest expression of rights - the logical
result of legal abortion.
[many deletions]
>>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
>-Rob
Steve Kellmeyer
--
Steve Kellmeyer
kell...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Larry Margolis
[even more deleted]
You're easily confused.
>You used that word - "father". What father?
The father is the person who fathered the child.
>I see a sperm supplier - an anonymous sperm donor who's name we happen
>to know, so he isn't quite anonymous, but certainly he is no more than
>a sperm donor at the time of sex.
Yes, the man is a sperm donor at the time of sex, just as the woman is
the one who supplies the ovum. If you will note, however, Mr. Parker is
talking about *after* birth. After birth, a child exists, so the man
can appropriately be called a father.
--
Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), mar...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Kevin Darcy
>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>
>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>
>[much deleted]
>
>>Some people (especially certain pro-lifers) often argue that a fetus has a
>>right to live because it will *become* a sentient human being in the future.
>>They argue that this future-sentience has a right to be created. I'm glad
>>to see you don't agree with that silly reasoning.
>
>I see that you are implying that neither the pregnant woman nor the
>sperm supplier has a duty towards the "future-sentience", since that
>"future-sentience" has no essential right to be created. In other words,
>the choice to have sexual relations is not a choice to procreate;
>sexual activity produces no duties for either participant towards
>a "future sentience".
They have SOME duty, Kellmeyer, just not enough to justify a violation of
Bodily Autonomy, IMO.
>>*Obviously*, if the woman choses to have an abortion, she judges it to be
>>acceptable. Your question (with the clarification you just gave) (...)
>>because of your qualifier of "judged by the woman" the answer is trivially
>>"yes, there are such situations".
>[deletions]
>>Well, as it turns out,
>>sentience alone does not support "my position". My position is actually
>>based on a more restricted form of sentience that requires independence
>>(mostly biological autonomy--in the case of biological "people"), interaction
>>with the environment and (the potential for interaction with) other people,
>>and a personality that is based on experiences (and thus capable of changing),
>>in addition to human-level intelligence. Normal adult human beings satisfy
>>all of these things. The unborn fail on interaction--and thus on most of the
>>others--until birth. Even after birth, they may not satisfy the intelligence
>>requirement. (I'll address infanticide below where you bring it up.)
>
>Thus, the sperm supplier is not, in any sense, a father yet, since
>there is no child and the man has no essential interaction with the mass
>of tissue in the woman's womb.
If "father" is such a loaded term for you, Kellmeyer, why don't you pick a
technical term, like "biological contributor" or whatever? You seem to adopt,
as an unproven axiom, that only a "father" or "mother" can be held responsible
for products-of-conception. This is not true. Morally or legally, whoever
causes those products-of-conception can be assigned some duty. I just don't
think that duty extends to requiring a violation of one's Bodily Autonomy.
That makes him a "father", Kellmeyer. Stop feigning ignorance (you _are_
feigning, aren't you?). Obviously, once a child is born, the male contributor
to its DNA pattern is called the child's "father". Everyone seems to
understand this except you.
>Let me sum up:
>1) Having sex did not mean choosing to have children.
>2) The woman completely controls the decision to manufacture a child.
There is no "manufacture". I have already cited the current legal definition of
"manufacturing", and it simply doesn't cover gestation. The important element
that's missing is that "manufacturing" requires VOLITIONAL action. There's
no volition involved in gestating an unwanted z/e/f.
>3) The man does no more than supply raw materials which the woman accepts
> (if she did not accept them, she would have aborted or taken a morning-
> after pill).
Where is the letter of acceptance? The bill of lading? These things ARE
standard procedure when discussing commercial transactions, are they not?
And, strange as it may seem, that's the context in which you seem to view
reproduction...
>4) The woman supplies 99% of the raw material and 100% of the labor.
The woman does not contribute "labor" in the sense that that word is used
in Commercial Law. If you want to make a legal argument, make sure you use
the right words.
>5) The man is not part of the manufacturing process (no interaction).
>6) If a woman can choose to abort a tissue mass due to emotional/medical/
> economic reasons, than her decision to not abort is an acceptance of
> emotional/medical/economic sequelae.
>
>Conclusion: According to the reasoning you've displayed in this post,
>no man can be a father, since no man is *ever* more than a sperm donor.
Define "father" == "contributor to child's DNA"
The man is a "father".
>We can further inquire as to why men can be compelled to pay child support.
>They are not fathers. They did not choose to create children.
Since when does fatherhood have anything to do with CHOOSING to create
children??!?!? Your premise is flawed. Fatherhood is not a purely abstract
concept that just pops into existence when a man chooses to create a child.
It refers to a biological/genetic relationship between two human organisms.
>They
>merely delivered material which someone else chose to use. They are no
>more responsible for the appearance of a child than US Steel is responsible
>for the appearance of a Chevrolet.
US Steel *IS* partly responsible for the appearance of a Chevrolet,
Kellmeyer. What makes you think it isn't? If you're trying to make the
point that US Steel isn't LIABLE for a defective Chevrolet, even if it's
the steel that's defective, then you're overlooking the fact that Chevrolet
has a duty to ensure that the steel it uses in its automobiles is not
defective. We can discuss this in misc.legal if you want, but I can tell
you right now that product liability analogies do NOT support your position
on abortion and child support. My private research into the legal principles
underlying paternity child support is almost certainly deeper than yours.
The tack you're taking is a dead end.
>Note that anonymous sperm donors are legally denied the possibility of
>*ever* being considered a father in any sense whatsoever.
They choose this arrangement. This is not "denial", it's "voluntary waiver".
And the woman who gets impregnated also CHOOSES to abide by the terms of this
arrangement. No-one forces her to enter into it.
>Why does it matter if we happen to know the guy's name?
His reasons for anonymity are his own. Who are you to question them? This is a
private arrangement between consenting adults. It's none of your damn business
what their reasons are.
>>Thus, disallowing infanticide need not be inconsistent with allowing abortion.
>>(even without "bodily autonomy" arguments) On the other hand... Suppose I
>>don't go out of my way to show that infanticide is "immoral". Why should it
>>be? Would we be way off base if we allowed infanticide (if the mother can
>>prove that the child does not yet have human level awareness)? Why? Why
>>is it wrong to kill something that does not have human level awareness, just
>>because it is technically human? Why is the "human" boundary a more proper
>>one for society to draw than the "person" one (human level awareness, and the
>>other parts of my "personity" argument) is? (I have never gotten an direct
>>answer to that question, from anyone. Perhaps I only missed their posts.)
>
>Indeed. If we follow your reasoning, there is even less point to the
>child support argument, or the assertion that men are somehow fathers.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a "father".
- Kevin
kellmeyer steven l
>You're easily confused.
Ah, well, yes. Circular definitions are certainly interesting.
The question at hand is whether or not there exists a person who
"fathered" a child. Given that there is no child at conception,
the act of sex cannot be the act of "fathering" a child. It is merely
the delivery of raw material.
>>I see a sperm supplier - an anonymous sperm donor who's name we happen
>>to know, so he isn't quite anonymous, but certainly he is no more than
>>a sperm donor at the time of sex.
>Yes, the man is a sperm donor at the time of sex, just as the woman is
>the one who supplies the ovum. If you will note, however, Mr. Parker is
>talking about *after* birth. After birth, a child exists, so the man
>can appropriately be called a father.
Ummm, if you bother to read Mr. Parker, he has real questions about when,
exactly, a child exists, and seems unwilling to draw the line at birth.
Indeed, his comments lead one to believe that he might wait to pronounce
on "child" until several months *after* birth.
There exists, in addition, a large gap in your reasoning. Certainly both
the man and woman are no more than gamete donors given today's logic,
but the woman invests time and effort subsequently in order to create that
which is not there at the time of donation i.e. a child. The man does not.
Thus, one can arguably call the woman who has just delivered a mother,
but the man, having done no more than donate gametes, is still just a
gamete donor. Mr. Parker seems to support that when he talks of
"meaningful relationships" being necessary before a human being can be
said to exist. The man does nothing which might establish such a
relationship, thus he remains merely a gamete donor.
>--
>Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), mar...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Steve Kellmeyer
--
Steve Kellmeyer
kell...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
kellmeyer steven l
>In article <C1qII...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> kell...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>
>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>>>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>
>>[much deleted]
>>
>>>Some people (especially certain pro-lifers) often argue that a fetus has a
>>>right to live because it will *become* a sentient human being in the future.
>>>They argue that this future-sentience has a right to be created. I'm glad
>>>to see you don't agree with that silly reasoning.
>>
>>I see that you are implying that neither the pregnant woman nor the
>>sperm supplier has a duty towards the "future-sentience", since that
>>"future-sentience" has no essential right to be created. In other words,
>>the choice to have sexual relations is not a choice to procreate;
>>sexual activity produces no duties for either participant towards
>>a "future sentience".
>They have SOME duty, Kellmeyer, just not enough to justify a violation of
>Bodily Autonomy, IMO.
Indeed. Then the man whose condom ruptured can sue a woman for having
taken his sperm without his permission? For the court in Tennessee did
rule that a man has a right to choose not to be a parent. The woman, by
carrying to term, violates his rights. At the very least, she has no
call on him for child support, don't you agree Mr. Darcy?
>>>*Obviously*, if the woman choses to have an abortion, she judges it to be
>>>acceptable. Your question (with the clarification you just gave) (...)
>>>because of your qualifier of "judged by the woman" the answer is trivially
>>>"yes, there are such situations".
>>[deletions]
>>>Well, as it turns out,
>>>sentience alone does not support "my position". My position is actually
>>>based on a more restricted form of sentience that requires independence
>>>(mostly biological autonomy--in the case of biological "people"), interaction
>>>with the environment and (the potential for interaction with) other people,
>>>and a personality that is based on experiences (and thus capable of changing),
>>>in addition to human-level intelligence. Normal adult human beings satisfy
>>>all of these things. The unborn fail on interaction--and thus on most of the
>>>others--until birth. Even after birth, they may not satisfy the intelligence
>>>requirement. (I'll address infanticide below where you bring it up.)
>>
>>Thus, the sperm supplier is not, in any sense, a father yet, since
>>there is no child and the man has no essential interaction with the mass
>>of tissue in the woman's womb.
>If "father" is such a loaded term for you, Kellmeyer, why don't you pick a
>technical term, like "biological contributor" or whatever? You seem to adopt,
>as an unproven axiom, that only a "father" or "mother" can be held responsible
>for products-of-conception. This is not true. Morally or legally, whoever
>causes those products-of-conception can be assigned some duty. I just don't
>think that duty extends to requiring a violation of one's Bodily Autonomy.
"whoever causes those products-of-conception can be assigned some duty" hmm?
Then the doctor who performs in-vitro fertilization is the party to whom
child support attachments should be directed? And what, exactly, is a
"violation of one's Bodily Autonomy" (sic)? Wouldn't you find 18 years of
labororiously obtained paychecks derived from the use of one's body?
Isn't using the fruits of another's labor without their consent and without
compensation slavery? Many people find slavery to be a violation of
bodily autonomy. Certainly Ms. Clinton, who compared marriage to slavery,
would find it hard to disagree, logically, that forcing men to pay child
support for children which can never be theirs, slavery.
If a man wishes to adopt a child, then he is a father, by today's logic.
Otherwise, he cannot be one, since he merely donates gametes, nothing more.
Pardon, but the laws of the state of Illinois (and several other states)
share my ignorance. The male contributor of a DNA pattern is not ipso facto
a father. Indeed, anonymous sperm donors are legally denied the opportunity
to ever be considered the "father" of the child who happens to have 50%
of that DNA pattern. Egg donors are similarly not considered mothers - only
the surrogate who carries to term is. Perhaps your conclusions are not
so obvious as you might like to think.
>>Let me sum up:
>>1) Having sex did not mean choosing to have children.
>>2) The woman completely controls the decision to manufacture a child.
>There is no "manufacture". I have already cited the current legal definition of
>"manufacturing", and it simply doesn't cover gestation. The important element
>that's missing is that "manufacturing" requires VOLITIONAL action. There's
>no volition involved in gestating an unwanted z/e/f.
Indeed. Does that mean that women who have children by IVF *ARE*
engaged in manufacturing, since it certainly requires volitional action
to do so? And wouldn't you say that the act of sex, by which pregnancy
is undertaken, is volitional? Certainly, given the wide-spread availability
of post-coital chemicals meant to remove those self-same products from the
womb, any woman who fails to take them will certainly be considered as
having made a choice, in the same way that sexually active people who
don't take pre-coital contraceptive measures are attacked today.
>>3) The man does no more than supply raw materials which the woman accepts
>> (if she did not accept them, she would have aborted or taken a morning-
>> after pill).
>Where is the letter of acceptance? The bill of lading? These things ARE
>standard procedure when discussing commercial transactions, are they not?
>And, strange as it may seem, that's the context in which you seem to view
>reproduction...
Donation does not require either, to my knowledge. I donate things
every month. They are not mine after I have made that donation.
I don't get, need, or want receipts, except for tax purposes.
The manufacturing process the woman is involved in does not require
her to buy all of her materials, so why do you insist she show these
unnecessary pieces of paper?
Certainly, for the woman who uses that material despite the man's
vociferous opposition (a circumstance which might well be considered
stealing) a bill of lading is equally unnecessary, since stealing
generally doesn't involve these niceties.
>>4) The woman supplies 99% of the raw material and 100% of the labor.
>The woman does not contribute "labor" in the sense that that word is used
>in Commercial Law. If you want to make a legal argument, make sure you use
>the right words.
Tell that to the woman who is in the delivery room after several hours
of what doctors ignorantly term "labor". I share their ignorance, I suppose.
>>5) The man is not part of the manufacturing process (no interaction).
>>6) If a woman can choose to abort a tissue mass due to emotional/medical/
>> economic reasons, than her decision to not abort is an acceptance of
>> emotional/medical/economic sequelae.
>>
>>Conclusion: According to the reasoning you've displayed in this post,
>>no man can be a father, since no man is *ever* more than a sperm donor.
>Define "father" == "contributor to child's DNA"
>The man is a "father".
Certainly, if that is how you define it, one cannot escape that conclusion.
Yet that is not how the law defines it or anonymous sperm donors would
be fathers.
>>We can further inquire as to why men can be compelled to pay child support.
>>They are not fathers. They did not choose to create children.
>Since when does fatherhood have anything to do with CHOOSING to create
>children??!?!? Your premise is flawed. Fatherhood is not a purely abstract
>concept that just pops into existence when a man chooses to create a child.
>It refers to a biological/genetic relationship between two human organisms.
I'm sorry, but the Supreme Court has already ruled earlier this
century that the right to procreate is a basic right. Basic rights
are not subject to other peoples' whims. If a man cannot be sterilized
because it violates his basic rights, neither can he be forced to
produce children. Indeed, your logic has already demonstrated that he
can *never* produce children in any accepted sense.
Fatherhood *used* to refer to such a biological/genetic relationship.
Technology and law are destroying that definition.
>>They
>>merely delivered material which someone else chose to use. They are no
>>more responsible for the appearance of a child than US Steel is responsible
>>for the appearance of a Chevrolet.
>US Steel *IS* partly responsible for the appearance of a Chevrolet,
I see. They've been named in all sorts of suits as responsible parties
when Chevrolets are involved, have they? Could you cite one or two of
those cases? I can't seem to remember them.
>Kellmeyer. What makes you think it isn't? If you're trying to make the
>point that US Steel isn't LIABLE for a defective Chevrolet, even if it's
>the steel that's defective, then you're overlooking the fact that Chevrolet
>has a duty to ensure that the steel it uses in its automobiles is not
>defective. We can discuss this in misc.legal if you want, but I can tell
>you right now that product liability analogies do NOT support your position
>on abortion and child support. My private research into the legal principles
>underlying paternity child support is almost certainly deeper than yours.
>The tack you're taking is a dead end.
We will see. Certainly no one expected an emanation of a penumbra to
cover the right to an abortion, but it did. Go figure.
>>Note that anonymous sperm donors are legally denied the possibility of
>>*ever* being considered a father in any sense whatsoever.
>They choose this arrangement. This is not "denial", it's "voluntary waiver".
>And the woman who gets impregnated also CHOOSES to abide by the terms of this
>arrangement. No-one forces her to enter into it.
No one forces her to have a child. It is entirely her choice. The man
is not responsible for the decisions of another mature adult.
>>Why does it matter if we happen to know the guy's name?
>His reasons for anonymity are his own. Who are you to question them? This is a
>private arrangement between consenting adults. It's none of your damn business
>what their reasons are.
Indeed it isn't. Nor is it any of his business if the woman has financial
problems. Nor is it any of her business whether or not he's willing to
support her. There isn't even a private arrangement between consenting
adults - it's a private decision by *one* adult. Let her deal with it.
>>>Thus, disallowing infanticide need not be inconsistent with allowing abortion.
>>>(even without "bodily autonomy" arguments) On the other hand... Suppose I
>>>don't go out of my way to show that infanticide is "immoral". Why should it
>>>be? Would we be way off base if we allowed infanticide (if the mother can
>>>prove that the child does not yet have human level awareness)? Why? Why
>>>is it wrong to kill something that does not have human level awareness, just
>>>because it is technically human? Why is the "human" boundary a more proper
>>>one for society to draw than the "person" one (human level awareness, and the
>>>other parts of my "personity" argument) is? (I have never gotten an direct
>>>answer to that question, from anyone. Perhaps I only missed their posts.)
>>
>>Indeed. If we follow your reasoning, there is even less point to the
>>child support argument, or the assertion that men are somehow fathers.
>You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a "father".
You keep saying that. You provide no evidence for the assertion.
> - Kevin
John E Jablonski
|> veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
|> >par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
|> >>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
|> >>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
|> >>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
|> >>>>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
|>
|> [Isn't this fun?]
|>
|> aren't smart enough to see a difference between infanticide (after birth)
|> and abortion (before birth), so we must not allow abortion either." (to
|> paraphrase)
|>
|> Here is my standard response: Infanticide could still be disallowed while
|> allowing abortion by the following reasoning... Infanticide would only be
|> "moral" if done with the consent of all people who have had meaningful
|> contact with the infant. (It is only "infanticide" if the child is a sub-
|> person; after that it is murder.) Killing the infant without the consent
|> of even *one* person that has had meaningful contact (2-way, but does not
|> require communication) would be a violation of that person's rights. (not
|> murder, but still not "moral") Presumably, the doctor or midwife (whoever
|> delivers the baby) would not be ethically allowed to give such consent
|> unless there were extenuating medical reasons. The father and other close
|> relatives are also quickly involved, and (if they are) would not want to
|> lose the new family member. Thus almost all cases of infanticide are
|> "immoral". Applying a consistent rule to abortion, we notice that the only
|> person who has had any contact with the unborn child is the mother. To kill
|> the unborn without her consent is clearly a violation of her rights and is
|> obviously "immoral". With her consent it is "moral" with no inconsistency
|> with infanticide being "immoral" (in most cases).
A couple was recently convicted of infanticide in St. Louis. Evidently
they killed their children because they were girls, and they wanted boys.
The mother and father have the most meaningful contact with the child. What
if they decide to kill the child before grandma sees it? Is it then OK?
As far as a doctor being ethically restrained fromgiving consent,
what about all these doctors (Kevorkian especially) going around killing
terminally ill people. (I don't know if you believe in a right to die or
not) Why not just ask any of these doctors to deliver your child, then, if
you don't want it, I'm sure the 'doctor' would be more than willing to
get rid of it for you.
Is the mother really the only person who has any meaningful contact with
an unborn child the mother? What about the obstrician (probably spelled
wrong--you know, the doctor you see before the baby is delivered)? If the
doctor who delivers the baby has meaningfulcontact with the child, the
doctor who cares for the mother and child before birth must also be considered
to have this meaningful contact. If doctor believes abortion is wrong,
can the woman then decide to have an abortion without this doctor's consent?
---John
Mark A. Cochran
[Deletions]
> As far as a doctor being ethically restrained fromgiving consent,
>what about all these doctors (Kevorkian especially) going around killing
>terminally ill people.
You are either sadly misinformed, or deliberately lying. Dr. Kevorkian
has never killed anyone, or he would have been charged with murder. He
has, of course, provided a number of people with the means to kill
themselves in such a manner that their deaths allowed them to retain a
modicum of dignity. All of these people were considered competent to
make their own choices. All of them suffered from terminal illnesses
which would have lead to their deaths in a manner that they considered
unacceptable. Further, Dr. Kevorkian is not 'going around'. Each of
those people approached him, and requested his assistance in planning
a comfortable, dignified death.
The other error-or-lie in your article is your reference to the
plural. Dr. Kevorkian is working on his own, and I know of no other
physician currently assisting in suicides. Can you provide evidence of
more, or would you prefer to remove the plural from your (still
incorrect) statement?
Is it really your position that a person should be forced to undergo
months of agony? What gives you the right to decide how they should
live their lives, or how they should end their own lives?
>an unborn child the mother? What about the obstrician (probably spelled
>wrong--you know, the doctor you see before the baby is delivered)? If the
>doctor who delivers the baby has meaningfulcontact with the child, the
>doctor who cares for the mother and child before birth must also be considered
>to have this meaningful contact. If doctor believes abortion is wrong,
>can the woman then decide to have an abortion without this doctor's consent?
>
Here's a free clue John. With the exception of very rare cases, the
'doctor you see before the baby is delivered' and the 'doctor who
delivers the baby' are the same person.
veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
>---John
John, there's one thing you are going to have to learn about this whole
mess. The majority of pro-aborters on this net are not really interested
in reasoning out abortion. They are simply trying to find any garbage they
can spew out to support a gut instinct (fear of being a responsible parent).
To quote myself... again: "Even if God himself appeared before these guys
and said abortion is murder, they would still support abortion."
Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
P.S. Remember, the secret to success in debate is to cloud the issue with
miscellaneous trivia
John E Jablonski
|> In article <C1s4o...@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jj6...@meibm31.cen.uiuc.edu (John E Jablonski) writes:
|>
|> [Deletions]
|>
|> >wrong--you know, the doctor you see before the baby is delivered)? If the
|> >doctor who delivers the baby has meaningfulcontact with the child, the
|> >doctor who cares for the mother and child before birth must also be considered
|> >to have this meaningful contact. If doctor believes abortion is wrong,
|> >can the woman then decide to have an abortion without this doctor's consent?
|> >
|> Here's a free clue John. With the exception of very rare cases, the
|> 'doctor you see before the baby is delivered' and the 'doctor who
|> delivers the baby' are the same person.
Well I know that. Sheesh! I was looking for the technical term.
Whoever posted orginally brought up that infanticide would only be allowable
if all who had "meaningful contact" with the child felt it was the right
thing to do, and he mentioned the doctor who delivered the baby as one of those
people. I brought up the "doctor you see before the baby is delivered"
because he--in addition to the woman--also has meaningful contact with the
unborn child.
Why don't you read things in context before flaming your head off?
-----John
Charles Don Hall
>[deletia...]
>"whoever causes those products-of-conception can be assigned some duty" hmm?
>Then the doctor who performs in-vitro fertilization is the party to whom
>child support attachments should be directed? And what, exactly, is a
>"violation of one's Bodily Autonomy" (sic)? Wouldn't you find 18 years of
>labororiously obtained paychecks derived from the use of one's body?
>Isn't using the fruits of another's labor without their consent and without
>compensation slavery? Many people find slavery to be a violation of
>bodily autonomy. Certainly Ms. Clinton, who compared marriage to slavery,
>would find it hard to disagree, logically, that forcing men to pay child
>support for children which can never be theirs, slavery.
>If a man wishes to adopt a child, then he is a father, by today's logic.
>Otherwise, he cannot be one, since he merely donates gametes, nothing more.
>[more deletia...]
I know I'm going to regret this, but here goes...
You talk a lot about "today's logic", and I think that you mean
something like this:
"Old logic": The biological parents of a child have an obligation
to support that child.
"New logic": The biological parents of a child do not neccessarily
have an obligation to support that child. (Example: Anonymous
sperm donors).
I'll state up-front that I agree with the "New logic". I also
believe that non-custodial parents should usually have to pay
child support. You've claimed that this is a contradiction, but I
think you're relying on some unstated assumptions, which I've
tried to show below.
"Old logic": If a child's parents can't provide for it, then
God will somehow make special arrangements, and the child
won't starve to death. If it does starve to death, then we
can only assume that God was punishing it for its wicked,
sinful ways.
"New logic": If a child's guardians can't provide for it, and
nobody else steps in, then it will starve to death. It
might be a good idea to make sure that this doesn't happen
too often.
I hope that's a fair description. I have to confess that I've
never understood the "old logic" very well. I personally agree
with the "new logic" in this case.
Anyway, if we take the "new logic" from group one and the "old
logic" from group two, then we can prove that no one should pay
child support. On the other hand, if we take the "new logic"
from both groups, then it's fairly easy to cobble together a
proof that NCP's should generally pay child support.
[Proof left for the reader. Hints: If NCP's didn't have to
pay child support, then what changes would occur? Would people
use more care in choosing their sexual partners? What would
happen to the percentage of children living in poverty? What
what happen to government expenditures? To the tax base?
Would these problems _always_ occur, or are there some
particular situations (such as IVF) where they wouldn't?]
BTW, would you say that "paying child support" is more like
"being a slave" or more like "paying taxes"? There _is_ a
difference, albeit a subtle one.
>Steve Kellmeyer
>kell...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
Robert S. Parker
>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>par...@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>>>>>>veng...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>>>>>>par...@ehsn21.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:
>[much deleted]
>>Some people (especially certain pro-lifers) often argue that a fetus has a
>>right to live because it will *become* a sentient human being in the future.
>>They argue that this future-sentience has a right to be created. I'm glad
>>to see you don't agree with that silly reasoning.
>I see that you are implying that neither the pregnant woman nor the
>sperm supplier has a duty towards the "future-sentience", since that
>"future-sentience" has no essential right to be created. In other words,
>the choice to have sexual relations is not a choice to procreate;
>sexual activity produces no duties for either participant towards
>a "future sentience".
No. I am asserting that the unborn child (without human-level awareness)
does not have a "right" to be created (as a "person" with human-level
awareness). If it is not so created, no obligation towards it can exist.
If it *is* so created, that is an entirely different matter. The two parents
have caused a "person" (with humal-level awareness) to be created. They
have a "duty" to provide as best they can for that "person" so that he/she
may become a productive member of society and provide for himself/herself
in the future.
Your misunderstanding has lead you off on a wild goose chase, so I am deleting
much of it.
>>Well, as it turns out,
>>sentience alone does not support "my position". My position is actually
>>based on a more restricted form of sentience that requires independence
>>(mostly biological autonomy--in the case of biological "people"), interaction
>>with the environment and (the potential for interaction with) other people,
>>and a personality that is based on experiences (and thus capable of changing),
>>in addition to human-level intelligence. Normal adult human beings satisfy
>>all of these things. The unborn fail on interaction--and thus on most of the
>>others--until birth. Even after birth, they may not satisfy the intelligence
>>requirement. (I'll address infanticide below where you bring it up.)
>Thus, the sperm supplier is not, in any sense, a father yet, since
>there is no child and the man has no essential interaction with the mass
>of tissue in the woman's womb. You have already implied that the man has
>no duty towards this "future sentience" simply because he has had sex,
>you state above that he has no meaningful interaction with this tissue
>that will ascribe personhood to the child, whoops, tissue-mass and thus
>the woman cannot be proscribed from aborting the mass.
You are permitted to say "unborn human child"; it is technically correct.
Not "personhood", "personity". (briefly described above) It is not dependent
upon what we want it to be, but upon what can actually be determined.
Oh, you probably wouldn't know this, but I would support a system whereby
a father can "get out of" his obligation to a "person" (that *is* created)
by *suggesting* an abortion (and providing the funds for it in advance); if
the woman choses not to have an abortion, she can keep the advance payment,
but the father is exempt from all further claim. (she has to make a reasonable
attempt to notify him, if she expects to claim any child-support) If she
is not capable of providing for the child herself, she should not carry it
to term, or should put it up for adoption at birth. (She can't be pressured
into having an abortion, that would be wrong.)
>Now you've confused me. You used that word - "father". What father?
>I see a sperm supplier - an anonymous sperm donor who's name we happen
>to know, so he isn't quite anonymous, but certainly he is no more than
>a sperm donor at the time of sex.
Sperm donors don't donate into a woman's body, she must chose to conceive.
This removes them from any obligation, the woman accepts it all. Sex is
not a choice to conceive--much less give birth. You can not put all of
the responsibility for sex on the woman by forcing her to keep a pregnancy
that the man would never have.
>The simple act of sex creates no responsibility towards a "future sentience"
>in the woman. Men and women are equal, so the act of sex obviously
>creates no responsibility towards a "future sentience" in the man.
See above where I explained that either one should be able to avoid such
responsibility. In the case of the father it is by suggesting and paying
for an abortion. In the case of the mother it is by getting an abortion
(preferably an early one) or by putting the child up for adoption at birth.
(at her choice. The pregnancy alone is a big investment of her time and
resources.)
>Let me sum up:
>1) Having sex did not mean choosing to have children.
Glad you agree.
>2) The woman completely controls the decision to manufacture a child.
...to give birth to a child, rather.
>3) The man does no more than supply raw materials which the woman accepts
> (if she did not accept them, she would have aborted or taken a morning-
> after pill). In any case, she took them whether or not he really wanted
> to deliver (condom failure, etc)
If abortions are legal, you can say that.
>4) The woman supplies 99% of the raw material and 100% of the labor.
Actually, the father's body supplies less than a millionth of the raw material.
A sperm cell has a lot less material in it than the millions of cells in a
newborn baby.
>5) The man is not part of the manufacturing process (no interaction).
No *direct* interaction. He can, of course, interact with the mother and
give her emotional and finnancial support.
>6) If a woman can choose to abort a tissue mass due to emotional/medical/
> economic reasons, than her decision to not abort is an acceptance of
> emotional/medical/economic sequelae.
Huh?
>Conclusion: According to the reasoning you've displayed in this post,
>no man can be a father, since no man is *ever* more than a sperm donor.
That was your misunderstanding, not my reasoning.
>We can further inquire as to why men can be compelled to pay child support.
>They are not fathers. They did not choose to create children. They
>merely delivered material which someone else chose to use. They are no
>more responsible for the appearance of a child than US Steel is responsible
>for the appearance of a Chevrolet.
>Note that anonymous sperm donors are legally denied the possibility of
>*ever* being considered a father in any sense whatsoever. Why does it
>matter if we happen to know the guy's name? The act doesn't enter into
>it, and the results are similarly out of his control.
Because in the case of sex with mutual consent (the normal case) the decision
to have sex is shared, and so must be the responsibility for the outcome.
When the two people have different decisions about how to deal with that
responsibility, the mother has the right to terminate her pregnancy, and the
father (should have) the right to suggest that choice by providing the funds
for an abortion. (The mother has already sunk resources into the pregnancy,
while the father has not. That's why he has to pay *something* to get out
of the responsibility.)
>>>Edward Simmonds- standard disclaimers
>>-Rob
>Steve Kellmeyer
-Rob