Dilemna...

[Jamie]

First of all, Kurt, there is no such word as "dilemna." This is a rather
sore spot with me, because when I was 12 I misspelled the word "dilemma"
on a spelling test because my father 'corrected' me when I was studying....

Rick
>Well, I was in the same boat about 2 years or so ago. And after studying a
>bit more history I ran across a story from, I think, WWII wherin the POWs
>captured by the Germans were being treated very, very poorly. A British
>unit captured a bunch of Germans and knowing what they knew, wanted to
>treat them the same way. "No, " said their general. "They are not our
>teachers."
>
>That impacted me. We should not resort to the same level as a murderer.
>What he did in a fit of rage or nuttiness is bad enough, but when a calm
>rational society has this person in custody, it seems even more grisly to
>then commit murder on him.
>
>How I would have answered the Dukakis question: I am against the death
>penalty. If my wife were brutally raped and killed by a man, I would kill
>him if I got my hands on him. But if society gets to him first, then
>society, not having my level of rage, should treat the situation without
>emotion. But if they do not get to him and I do, then I shall be on trial
>and I shall serve my time.

Yep. That all sounds good to me, too.

>Now, the people I truly don't get are the people who think abortion is okay
>but the death penalty is not. That, to me, is very twisted.

Oh, well, let me explain it to you, then.

First of all, many who hold that combination of views (that is, regarding
the death penalty: abolitionist; regarding abortion: libertarian) do so
because they don't think fetucide is homicide, so that it is perfectly
consistent to hold both views. (Think of someone who is opposed to
murder but doesn't mind killing innocent turkeys, or even killing
innocent great apes).

Second, many who hold the combination of views are not impressed
by any argument that 'society' has any right to kill someone it has
in custody (I take it you aren't impressed by any argument like that
either), but ARE impressed (as you obviously aren't) by the claim
that people have a right to withdraw life-giving support. So the combination
of views is something like this:

anyone has a right to withdraw life-giving support,
no one has a right to kill another person except in defence of the rights of oth
ers.

There doesn't seem to be anything 'twisted' about that, even if it's false.

Jamie

[Kurt A. Kruschinska]

On Mon, 9 May 1994 14:26:49 GMT+1000 Jamie said:
>First of all, Kurt, there is no such word as "dilemna." This is a rather

"Are you going to argue the header or argue the substance of the post?" :-)
Actually, I wasn't sure, but I was on a terminal away from my desk, no access
to my dictionary...I'll flog myself, thank you...:-)

>Jamie

--------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Afternoons will be measured out, measured out, |
| measured with coffeespoons and T.S. Elliot." |
| - Crash Test Dummies |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
| Kurt Kruschinska Bitnet: KKRUSCH@WAYNEST1 |
| Wayne State University -or- |
| Enrollment Systems Internet: KKR...@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU |
| 2 West, Helen Newberry Joy |
| Detroit, Michigan 48202 Phone: (313) 577-6748 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------