Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion
Karll The Ghoull
If you would like to learn more about Ghoull, his soda posts, or anything
else, please look in your local test group or the like, or send
mail to gho...@akh104.rh.psu.edu to have copies sent to you.
Back issues of volumes 1 & 2 are still available for a nominal network
fee that I am sure your college or place of business would love to pay for.
=)
Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion
Soda Series Volume III, Issue #3.
I am posting this to another news group (one related to the subject)
in order to obtain more feedback. Most feedback comes from some guy
I don't even know drunk in a bar and mumbling "yeah...hickup..erh...
yeah..greattttt ... greap...post..yeah..you..the GGhoulllll bear er..
soda thingy..yeah.."
PLEASE NOTE: I am not pro or con. I am just stating a concept in some
state of mind, preferably, after a good Dr. Pepper.
Here is Ghoull's prediction for the future:
First, a little history.
In the olden days (mid-evil perhaps, wonder how it got that name, ahahah)
a child was not a "man" until a certain age, and until proving himself
(or herself) a man worth living. For up until a certain age, the child
could be bought, sold, given away, or killed depending on the position
of some heavenly body, or the mornings fresh crucifixions.
I.e. not much was worried about abortion, well, not much worth speaking
of.
Then, several years (hundreds perhaps?!?) later, we have the following:
"life begins at conception, (technical definition of conception), and a soul
is placed in the child (not correct, for a child does not have a soul until
birth, says "some god")." Therefore any messing around with this fetus, child
future peace maker or 3rd anti-christ, is "wrong." ?!?!
Is it not then feasible to see into the future, maybe into a hundred years
or so, that conception begins at the time the thought of having a child
crossed your mind? I.e. ...masturbation and the like would be illegal since
you would be killing hundreds of children yet to walk the earth. It is NOT
that far of a stretch when you think about some of the other bizarre things
we humans as scientists and religious people believe(d).
It could be said, that when a mother has a miscarrage that it was
"some god's will." Well, could it not be "some god's will" to have
a mother abort her fetus? Now, you don't here mothers crying, "some
god told me to do it." Then again, you don't have mothers that have
miscarrages saying "some god told me it was going to happen."
If you say it was an act of nature, well than for shame on you. We
all should know that "some god said nature was evil and does the work
of some devil."
Now, personally I find it hard to believe that the "pro lifers" are doing
"some god's work" by inciting violence, protests, and even sometimes bodily
harm. Doesn't "some god" say "do not be violent towards others, and do not
incite violence or encourage it?" I can't remember the last time I saw
a bunch of "pro-deathers (as pro-lifers call 'em)" standing outside the
delivery rooms of hospitals protesting, inciting violence, and the like,
while chanting "don't do it, its wrong to have the baby!" But you do
see the opposite quite often.
With the new abortion laws here in Pennsylvania, I don't understand the
reasoning behind some of the clauses. For instance, an individual
(I use that word since ADULT doesn't mean shit, it all depends on what
time frame you are in, an when you happened to live) under the age of
18 has to get a parent's consent to have an abortion. So, what are
we saying here??!? That the parent is now the child killer? Also,
I know that if I were a bastard of a parent, and my daughter was
pregnant and asked for permission to have an abortion, hell, If I was
a really bad person, (AS SOME PEOPLE ARE!) I would make the child carry
the baby till term, just to be a dick. (And if I can think it up, you know
damn well someone is already doing it.) "Ahahah, she learned her lesson!"
There is that one all time great question that has no answer, (and if you
do have one, please inform the rest of the world): "If a woman was raped,
(or the like) got pregnant, and only the mother or the child could live
through delivery.... who would you let live . . . and who would you kill?"
When did you become "some god?"
-The Ghoull hath spoken, stated, and queried.
S. M. Burnett
>From: gho...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (Karll The Ghoull)
>Subject: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion
>Date: 20 Feb 1994 19:38:39 GMT
>Summary: Soda Series 3.3
>Keywords: Stuff
> First, a little history.
> In the olden days (mid-evil perhaps, wonder how it got that name, ahahah)
>a child was not a "man" until a certain age, and until proving himself
>(or herself) a man worth living.
THIS DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF CULTURE YOU ARE REFERING TO.
> Then, several years (hundreds perhaps?!?) later, we have the following:
>"life begins at conception, (technical definition of conception), and a soul
>is placed in the child (not correct, for a child does not have a soul until
>birth, says "some god")." Therefore any messing around with this fetus, child
>future peace maker or 3rd anti-christ, is "wrong." ?!?!
AGREE, EXCEPT THIS VIEW HAD ALWAYS EXISTED IN JEWISH CULTURE.
> Is it not then feasible to see into the future, maybe into a hundred years
>or so, that conception begins at the time the thought of having a child
>crossed your mind? I.e. ...masturbation and the like would be illegal since
>you would be killing hundreds of children yet to walk the earth. It is NOT
>that far of a stretch when you think about some of the other bizarre things
>we humans as scientists and religious people believe(d).
I WOULD AGREE WITH THE SARCASM. IN TODAY'S WORLD WE (politically and
socially as Americans) ARE GOING INTO EXTREME WITH ISSUES (ie.
Outcome-based Education, Gov't new role as "Provider", Political Correctness,
Nat'l Health Care, and disillusionment of Abosolute Wrongs in society.)
A good example,
How can someone get off on a misdemeanor for assault and battery (LA
riots) because of being in the "heat of the moment"?
So if I <hypothetically>, kicked in the President's head I could get off
on a misdemeanor -- if I said that I was enraged with the way that gov't
is being ran. How ludicrous!
See this is an example of the disillusionment of Absolute Wrongs.
BUT I DISAGREE WITH YOUR PREDICTION, BECAUSE LATELY (past 35 yrs) WE
HAVE BEEN FORCED TO ACCEPT ALL WALKS OF LIFE (NO MATTER HOW SANE OR
INSANE). We must watch what we say (being politically correct) making
sure no gets insulted while critical thinking is condemned. For example,
Saying "You look very nice today." might be taken as sexual harassment.
Gay Right Activist searching for that right to be considered normal.
Children given the right to divorce parants.
MY PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE (on abortion) IS THAT ABORTION WILL BE
ALLOWED, BECAUSE THE MINORITY WILL ALWAYS HAVE THEIR WAY IN GOV'T AND
WE MUST FEEL SORRY FOR THOSE WOMEN WHO ARE VICTEMS TO RAPE AND BECOME
WITH CHILD (.5% OF ABORTIONS).
> It could be said, that when a mother has a miscarrage that it was
>"some god's will." Well, could it not be "some god's will" to have
>a mother abort her fetus?
READ THE BIBLE-- A CHRISTIAN KNOWS ABORTION IS WRONG WITHOUT QUESTION.
> If you say it was an act of nature, well than for shame on you. We
>all should know that "some god said nature was evil and does the work
>of some devil."
WHAT ???? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
> Now, personally I find it hard to believe that the "pro lifers" are doing
>"some god's work" by inciting violence, protests, and even sometimes bodily
>harm.
IN EVERY GROUP YOU ARE GOING TO FIND SOME BAD APPLES. EVEN THE
PRO-ABORTIONERS HAVE RESULTED IN VIOLENCE. AND ANOTHER THING, "PRO LIFERS"
DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE ... THAT IS LIKE SAYING (from one of your own
articles) SEGA SYSTEMS ARE TOO DANGEROUS BECAUSE SOME CHILD MAY STRANGLE
THEMSELVES WITH THE CONTROLLER CORD, OR SUPERMAN CAUSES CHILDREN TO LEAP
OF BUILDINGS, OR RUSH L. INCITES VIOLENCE. IT IS WRONG TO MAKE SUCH AN
ASSUMPTION.
>" I can't remember the last time I saw>a bunch of "
>pro-deathers (as pro-lifers call 'em)" standing outside the>delivery rooms
>of hospitals protesting, inciting violence, and the like, >while chanting "
>don't do it, its wrong to have the baby!" But you do>see the opposite
>quite often.
THE SO-CALLED "PRO-DEATHERS" ARE FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM OF ABORTION, NOT
THE DESTRUCTION OF LIFE. SO WHY SHOULD THEY PROTEST IN DELIVERY ROOMS.
ON THE OTHER HAND, "PRO-LIFERS' ARE FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM FOR LIFE FOR THE
BABY; MOST CERTAINLY YOU WILL FIND THEM OUTSIDE ABORTION CLINICS, PROTESTING,
GIVING LITATURE, AND SHOWING VIDEOS. ANY VIOLENCE THAT OCCURS AT THESE
PLACES IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO ME AND OTHER CHRISTIANS. IN MY OPINION,
I THINK THOSE CHRISTIANS THAT DO SUCH PROTESTING AT THESE SITES CAN DO MUCH
BETTER SHUTING UP AND PROTEST THROUGH WRITING -- EDITORIALS, TV-ADS, LETTERS
TO CONGRESSMEN, AND ETC..
Why I believe in Christianity is a separate subject. But because I believe
in Christianity, I also accept the absolute laws, morals, and standards that
the Bible presents. And no one and/or no nation will take such ideals away
from me. I have been taught via the Bible that abortion is WRONG,
homosexuality is WRONG, and etc. I will not be encouraged by mainstream
society to compromise on my beliefs. And also it is not a matter of
interpretation of the Bible that say such things are wrong, as is for many
other subjects. It states it explicitly in the Bible, like murder and
adultery.
A "PRO-LIFER".
***********************************************************************
*** The only government reform we need is to advocate capitalism, ***
*** self-reliance, competition, and the conservative philosophy-- ***
*** which is the belief that the government is best when governs ***
*** least (socially and economically). Every time gov't becomes ***
*** "the provider" via social programs, the middle-class dwindles ***
*** and the country becomes more apathetic in terms of production ***
*** -- ie. England or any other socialistic society. ***
****** Free our lands from liberals--Don't vote for Clinton! *******
***********************************************************************
esme
>In article <2k8e7v$m...@genesis.ait.psu.edu> gho...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (Karll The Ghoull) writes:
>BUT I DISAGREE WITH YOUR PREDICTION, BECAUSE LATELY (past 35 yrs) WE
>HAVE BEEN FORCED TO ACCEPT ALL WALKS OF LIFE (NO MATTER HOW SANE OR
>INSANE). We must watch what we say (being politically correct) making
>sure no gets insulted while critical thinking is condemned. For example,
> Saying "You look very nice today." might be taken as sexual harassment.
> Gay Right Activist searching for that right to be considered normal.
You mean by that, i suppose, the right not to be fired, beaten to a
bloody pulp, imprisoned, etc.
> Children given the right to divorce parants.
>MY PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE (on abortion) IS THAT ABORTION WILL BE
>ALLOWED, BECAUSE THE MINORITY WILL ALWAYS HAVE THEIR WAY IN GOV'T AND
As though only a minority of people in this country (u.s.) believe that
abortion should be legal. my opinions on morality aside, i think anyone
could agree that it is not the government's job to enforce the mores of
a minority of the populace upon the whole.
>IN EVERY GROUP YOU ARE GOING TO FIND SOME BAD APPLES. EVEN THE
>PRO-ABORTIONERS HAVE RESULTED IN VIOLENCE. AND ANOTHER THING, "PRO LIFERS"
>DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE
No, but the anti-abortionists do.
>
>THE SO-CALLED "PRO-DEATHERS" ARE FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM OF ABORTION, NOT
>THE DESTRUCTION OF LIFE. SO WHY SHOULD THEY PROTEST IN DELIVERY ROOMS.
>ON THE OTHER HAND, "PRO-LIFERS' ARE FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM FOR LIFE FOR THE
>BABY; MOST CERTAINLY YOU WILL FIND THEM OUTSIDE ABORTION CLINICS, PROTESTING,
>GIVING LITATURE, AND SHOWING VIDEOS. ANY VIOLENCE THAT OCCURS AT THESE
>PLACES IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO ME AND OTHER CHRISTIANS. IN MY OPINION,
>I THINK THOSE CHRISTIANS THAT DO SUCH PROTESTING AT THESE SITES CAN DO MUCH
>BETTER SHUTING UP AND PROTEST THROUGH WRITING -- EDITORIALS, TV-ADS, LETTERS
>TO CONGRESSMEN, AND ETC..
>
>Why I believe in Christianity is a separate subject. But because I believe
>in Christianity, I also accept the absolute laws, morals, and standards that
>the Bible presents. And no one and/or no nation will take such ideals away
>from me. I have been taught via the Bible that abortion is WRONG,
>homosexuality is WRONG, and etc. I will not be encouraged by mainstream
>society to compromise on my beliefs. And also it is not a matter of
>interpretation of the Bible that say such things are wrong, as is for many
>other subjects. It states it explicitly in the Bible, like murder and
>adultery.
> A "PRO-LIFER".
And as a resident in a (relatively) free society, I have the inalienable
right to disagree with you about both christianity and its dogmas. this
means that it is *essential* to my religious freedom to be able to live
without being constrained by a dogma that i do not accept.
So, the freedom of religion also includes the freedom to be gay and the
freedom to choose to have an abortion.
I also have the freedom to believe (and I do) that the bible is worthless,
save as an artifact of the longest sustained lie in history, i.e. that
there is a god.
>
>
>
>***********************************************************************
>*** The only government reform we need is to advocate capitalism, ***
>*** self-reliance, competition, and the conservative philosophy-- ***
>*** which is the belief that the government is best when governs ***
>*** least (socially and economically). Every time gov't becomes ***
by governing least (socially) you mean, of course, "governs least (socially
and economically) except where my religion tells me the government must
intrude."
>*** "the provider" via social programs, the middle-class dwindles ***
>*** and the country becomes more apathetic in terms of production ***
We owe you nothing, you've got no control....you are not what you own
--Fugazi
>*** -- ie. England or any other socialistic society. ***
>****** Free our lands from liberals--Don't vote for Clinton! *******
>***********************************************************************
--
kevin esme cowles "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins.
cow...@scf.usc.edu My sin, my soul." -- Nabokov
Andrew K. Heller
: INSANE). We must watch what we say (being politically correct) making
: sure no gets insulted while critical thinking is condemned. For example,
I appreciate your opinion, especially in the way you presented it.
You get a Golden Ghoull Foil Star for being slick.
However, we must be politically correct? No, that changes every month,
from state to state, country to country, person to person.
The one truth: "There is nothing you can say or write, without offending
someone." - Ray Bradbury.
As for the bible, yes, your belief, your truth. Not everyones, and
it is not the only religion. But that doesn't make it any more
false..or truthful.
Whatever..
-The Ghoull
ke...@xanadu.xyplex.com
>In article <smb130.2...@psu.edu> smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett) writes:
>>In article <2k8e7v$m...@genesis.ait.psu.edu> gho...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (Karll The Ghoull) writes:
>> Children given the right to divorce parants.
>>MY PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE (on abortion) IS THAT ABORTION WILL BE
>>ALLOWED, BECAUSE THE MINORITY WILL ALWAYS HAVE THEIR WAY IN GOV'T AND
>
We would not need to give children the "right" to divorce parents if we
followe the Bible which says in Ep 6:4 "And,ye fathers, provoke not your
children to wrath:....."
>>IN EVERY GROUP YOU ARE GOING TO FIND SOME BAD APPLES. EVEN THE
>>PRO-ABORTIONERS HAVE RESULTED IN VIOLENCE. AND ANOTHER THING, "PRO LIFERS"
>>DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE
>
>No, but the anti-abortionists do.
>
I am a pro-life/anti-aborttionist who does not incite violence I choose to
beleive in what Jesus sid in Jn 8:7 "...He that is without sin among you, let
him first cast a stone at her."
>>THE SO-CALLED "PRO-DEATHERS" ARE FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM OF ABORTION, NOT
>>THE DESTRUCTION OF LIFE. SO WHY SHOULD THEY PROTEST IN DELIVERY ROOMS.
>>ON THE OTHER HAND, "PRO-LIFERS' ARE FIGHTING FOR THE FREEDOM FOR LIFE FOR THE
>>BABY; MOST CERTAINLY YOU WILL FIND THEM OUTSIDE ABORTION CLINICS, PROTESTING,
>>GIVING LITATURE, AND SHOWING VIDEOS. ANY VIOLENCE THAT OCCURS AT THESE
>>PLACES IS AN EMBARRASSMENT TO ME AND OTHER CHRISTIANS. IN MY OPINION,
>>I THINK THOSE CHRISTIANS THAT DO SUCH PROTESTING AT THESE SITES CAN DO MUCH
>>BETTER SHUTING UP AND PROTEST THROUGH WRITING -- EDITORIALS, TV-ADS, LETTERS
>>TO CONGRESSMEN, AND ETC..
>>
Yes aas a pro-lifer i would protest at a death chamber(abortion clinics) and i
would block the enterance. I would how ever find it revolting if anyone even
suggested the use of violence as that would go agaist my pro-life stance. Just
a few years back the union that i was a
member of was considering a protest were we would blockade all the exits of the
parking garage ofthe city councila. Woulld you think this is as bad as
blocking an enterance to an abortion clinic. Let us remember that blocking
enterances to factories, offices, ect has a long history in the labor
movemeent. What is the big deal that it is happening at abortion /death
clinics.
>
>And as a resident in a (relatively) free society, I have the inalienable
>right to disagree with you about both christianity and its dogmas. this
>means that it is *essential* to my religious freedom to be able to live
>without being constrained by a dogma that i do not accept.
>
>So, the freedom of religion also includes the freedom to be gay and the
>freedom to choose to have an abortion.
>
>I also have the freedom to believe (and I do) that the bible is worthless,
>save as an artifact of the longest sustained lie in history, i.e. that
>there is a god.
Yes "as a resident in a (relatively) free society" it is your right to reject
the TRUTH and to be gay but if that gives you the right to mmurder than it
would also grant to the pro-lifer the right to murder(note I DO NOT AGREE
WITH THIS STATEMENT AS NO HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER
HUMAN) is the only concludtion you could come to.
>
soon you will not be "a resident in a (relatively) free socety" but will be
a slave of the one world government and will worship "god" whether or not
"it is *essential* to my(your) religious freedom" and you will be "constrianed
by a dogma that i(you) do not accept."
S. M. Burnett
>From: cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme)
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion
>Date: 22 Feb 1994 13:25:09 -0800
>Keywords: Stuff
>> Children given the right to divorce parants.
>>MY PREDICTION FOR THE FUTURE (on abortion) IS THAT ABORTION WILL BE
>>ALLOWED, BECAUSE THE MINORITY WILL ALWAYS HAVE THEIR WAY IN GOV'T AND
>As though only a minority of people in this country (u.s.) believe that
>abortion should be legal. my opinions on morality aside, i think anyone
>could agree that it is not the government's job to enforce the mores of
>a minority of the populace upon the whole.
This is my opinion (like it or not). I agree with you full-heartedly
that it is not the government's job. But unfortunately the gov't will
take a stand -- one that I disagree with. The decision should be left
to the states.
>And as a resident in a (relatively) free society, I have the inalienable
>right to disagree with you about both christianity and its dogmas. this
>means that it is *essential* to my religious freedom to be able to live
>without being constrained by a dogma that i do not accept.
You have that right to disagree. But we need a ruling.
>So, the freedom of religion also includes the freedom to be gay and the
>freedom to choose to have an abortion.
On the subject of homosexuals:
My opinion: a confused lot of individuals -- until there is reliable
documented proof (not speculation) that these confused individuals
can not help being confused; perhaps, I'll consider them normal.
I have my beliefs grounded in the Bible: Answer me, why must I have
to go to a Homophobic Class to encourage me that they are normal, and
that I can not express my ideas.
Does a homosexual ever HAVE to go to a Bible Study. Does any one?
>I also have the freedom to believe (and I do) that the bible is worthless,
>save as an artifact of the longest sustained lie in history, i.e. that
>there is a god.
Yes, you have that freedom.
>by governing least (socially) you mean, of course, "governs least (socially
>and economically) except where my religion tells me the government must
>intrude."
I don't want the federal gov't to decide; it will end up that way though.
I want the people to choose for each state.
And let me explain, by governing least (socially), I mean:
The gov't should not coddle us, provide for us --- in reference to ---
welfare, medicare, social security, and soon coming
nat'l health care. And all the smaller little programs too.
***********************************************************************
*** The only government reform we need is to advocate capitalism, ***
*** self-reliance, competition, and the conservative philosophy-- ***
*** which is the belief that the government is best when governs ***
*** least (socially and economically). Every time gov't becomes ***
*** "the provider" via social programs, the middle-class dwindles ***
*** and the country becomes more apathetic in terms of production ***
esme
In article <2keklb$6...@xap.xyplex.com> ke...@XANADU.XYPLEX.COM writes:
>In article <2kdt7l$q...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>>In article <smb130.2...@psu.edu> smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett) writes:
>>>In article <2k8e7v$m...@genesis.ait.psu.edu> gho...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (Karll The Ghoull) writes:
[...]
>>>IN EVERY GROUP YOU ARE GOING TO FIND SOME BAD APPLES. EVEN THE
>>>PRO-ABORTIONERS HAVE RESULTED IN VIOLENCE. AND ANOTHER THING, "PRO LIFERS"
>>>DO NOT INCITE VIOLENCE
>>
>>No, but the anti-abortionists do.
>>
>I am a pro-life/anti-aborttionist who does not incite violence I choose to
>beleive in what Jesus sid in Jn 8:7 "...He that is without sin among you, let
>him first cast a stone at her."
What a wonderful world it would be if all of the pro-lifers (and christians
in general) followed that maxim.
[...]
>Yes aas a pro-lifer i would protest at a death chamber(abortion clinics) and i
>would block the enterance.
I support your right to protest. However, blocking the entrance to *any*
place is an abuse of constitutional provisions for the freedom of protest.
Physically preventing women (or anyone) from entering an abortion clinic
is harrassment, a public nuisance (how would you like it if someone blocked
your entrance to your home because they thought you were sinning in there?)
and the clearest sign that the pro-life (sic.) movement cannot relie on
reason, but must result to scare tactics.
> I would how ever find it revolting if anyone even
>suggested the use of violence as that would go agaist my pro-life stance. Just
>a few years back the union that i was a member of was considering a protest
>were we would blockade all the exits of the
>parking garage ofthe city councila. Woulld you think this is as bad as
>blocking an enterance to an abortion clinic.
Yes, actually, I would. Blocking *anyone* from freely moving about their
personal business is reprehensible. Protest means the right to voice your
opinion and to have that opinion heard publicly, not to impose your opinion
on those who have no wish to hear it.
> Let us remember that blocking
>enterances to factories, offices, ect has a long history in the labor
>movemeent. What is the big deal that it is happening at abortion /death
>clinics.
Just because it has been happening for a long time doesn't not make it
right. By the logic used in the last two sentences, you would be agreeing
that homosexuality (which has been happening for millenia) is perfectly
alright with you. Are you willing to admit that?
>>And as a resident in a (relatively) free society, I have the inalienable
>>right to disagree with you about both christianity and its dogmas. this
>>means that it is *essential* to my religious freedom to be able to live
>>without being constrained by a dogma that i do not accept.
>>
>>So, the freedom of religion also includes the freedom to be gay and the
>>freedom to choose to have an abortion.
>>
>>I also have the freedom to believe (and I do) that the bible is worthless,
>>save as an artifact of the longest sustained lie in history, i.e. that
>>there is a god.
>
>Yes "as a resident in a (relatively) free society" it is your right to reject
>the TRUTH and to be gay but if that gives you the right to mmurder than it
^^^^^^^^^
I am not rejecting "the TRUTH". I am saying that you do not have the right
to make your OPINION law. That's what the freedom of religion comes down
to. We live in a representative democracy. Not a theocracy. That means
people have rights that cannot be infringed on the basis of one person's
opinion about what a hypothetical god wishes.
>would also grant to the pro-lifer the right to murder(note I DO NOT AGREE
>WITH THIS STATEMENT AS NO HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE LIFE OF ANOTHER
>HUMAN) is the only concludtion you could come to.
>>
>soon you will not be "a resident in a (relatively) free socety" but will be
>a slave of the one world government and will worship "god" whether or not
>"it is *essential* to my(your) religious freedom" and you will be
"constrianed by a dogma that i(you) do not accept."
I will soon be a resident of a totalitarian regime. If, that is, the
christians get the right to enforce their morality (on issues such as
censorship, homosexuality, abortion, school curriculum, and freedom of
religion where the religion is not christian).
christians seem very eager to point out how they are persecuted, and just
as eager to yell and scream freedom of religion whenever they want to be
able to insert their religion into any orifice of public life.
However, those same christians seem to be silent when people who are not
christian are having their rights (religious and otherwise) trampled into
the dirt.
how amusing that christians still whine and bitch about being oppressed
when they have been the establishment (with as many capital letters,
quotation marks, and whatever else as you like) for more than a millenium
in western culture, government, and religion.
and how pathetic that christians blame the 'degradation of society' in
the past few decades on the decline of influence of christian morality,
when, in fact, more people today profess to be christian, to pray, and to
worship the christian god than did so in 1950.
-k.esme
S. M. Burnett
>From: cow...@girtab.usc.edu (esme)
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion
>Date: 23 Feb 1994 13:52:45 -0800
>for the test groups: ignore this.
>and how pathetic that christians blame the 'degradation of society' in
>the past few decades on the decline of influence of christian morality,
>when, in fact, more people today profess to be christian, to pray, and to
>worship the christian god than did so in 1950.
>-k.esme
"In God We Trust"
***********************************************************************
*** The only government reform we need is to advocate capitalism, ***
*** self-reliance, competition, and the conservative philosophy-- ***
*** which is the belief that the government is best when governs ***
*** least (socially and economically). Every time gov't becomes ***
*** "the provider" via social programs, the middle-class dwindles ***
*** and the country becomes more apathetic in terms of production ***
Brian Ward
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."
Of course, this could be a real reason to get them to change our ugly
money. It's unconstitutional.
Craig Powers
>As though only a minority of people in this country (u.s.) believe that
>abortion should be legal. my opinions on morality aside, i think anyone
>could agree that it is not the government's job to enforce the mores of
>a minority of the populace upon the whole.
Which is partly why abortion is legal in the U.S. right now - the
majority of the population feels it should be legal.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Craig Powers
>beleive in what Jesus sid in Jn 8:7 "...He that is without sin among you, let
>him first cast a stone at her."
If everyone believed and practiced that, just think of how few
anti-abortion protests there would be...guess all these active
pro-lifers aren't as good Christians as they would have us believe...
>Yes aas a pro-lifer i would protest at a death chamber(abortion clinics) and i
>would block the enterance. I would how ever find it revolting if anyone even
>suggested the use of violence as that would go agaist my pro-life stance. Just
>a few years back the union that i was a
>member of was considering a protest were we would blockade all the exits of the
>parking garage ofthe city councila. Woulld you think this is as bad as
>blocking an enterance to an abortion clinic.
Actually, if you were to do that, if it weren't illegal the first time
you tried it, there would almost certainly be an injunction against it
the second time. And actually, I think it probably would be almost
comparable. Wait a minute. Which union was this, anyway?
>Let us remember that blocking
>enterances to factories, offices, ect has a long history in the labor
>movemeent. What is the big deal that it is happening at abortion /death
>clinics.
Big difference between labor and pro-life. If labor blocks a factory,
it is workers blocking entrance to their place of work. If pro-life
blocks a clinic, it is outsiders blocking entrance to a place which
practices something they believe to be evil, and which they must prevent
other people from doing-they're not just practicing what they preach,
they're also trying to force it on others...
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
esme
>In article <2kdt7l$q...@phakt.usc.edu> cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>This is my opinion (like it or not). I agree with you full-heartedly
>that it is not the government's job. But unfortunately the gov't will
>take a stand -- one that I disagree with. The decision should be left
>to the states.
abortion is no better than the federal government making the
decision. The fact is that it is an *individual* decision,
not to be made by any one but the pregnant woman.
>You have that right to disagree. But we need a ruling.
specifically claimed by the federal government go to the states,
and that any powers not claimed by them go to the individual.
>On the subject of homosexuals:
> My opinion: a confused lot of individuals -- until there is reliable
> documented proof (not speculation) that these confused individuals
> can not help being confused; perhaps, I'll consider them normal.
larger than a straight woman's hypothalamus. Nearly twice as
large. A gay man's hypothalamus in about the size of a
straight woman's, and a lesbian's hypothalamus is about the
size of a straight man's.
> I have my beliefs grounded in the Bible:
every right to believe whatever you wish.
> Answer me, why must I have
> to go to a Homophobic Class
talking about. I mean, I've been to some pretty homophobic
sunday school classes, but none titled "Homophobic Class"
> to encourage me that they are normal,
abnormal, or "sick". In any event. The main issue is not
whether you think gays are normal, but whether or not they
have the right to be gay.
The bible says clearly that you should not take the lord's
name in vain. But nobody makes fiery speeches in congress in
favor of arresting people for saying 'god damn it.'
The bible says that having sex with someone who you are not
married to is wrong. But you don't see people getting
arrested for having sex out of wedlock.
My point is that you have the right to your opinions, but you
do not have the right to enforce them upon others.
> and that I can not express my ideas.
vocal as you want about your morality, just don't legislate it.
> Does a homosexual ever HAVE to go to a Bible Study. Does any one?
No, really. No one is forced to go to sunday school. And?
>>I also have the freedom to believe (and I do) that the bible is worthless,
>>save as an artifact of the longest sustained lie in history, i.e. that
>>there is a god.
>
>Yes, you have that freedom.
>
>>by governing least (socially) you mean, of course, "governs least (socially
>>and economically) except where my religion tells me the government must
>>intrude."
>
>I don't want the federal gov't to decide; it will end up that way though.
>I want the people to choose for each state.
a personal decision. I am saying that people have the right
to make their own decisions. Saying that anyone can pass a
law prohibiting abortion compromises that right.
>And let me explain, by governing least (socially), I mean:
> The gov't should not coddle us, provide for us --- in reference to ---
> welfare, medicare, social security, and soon coming
> nat'l health care. And all the smaller little programs too.
planet, sell drugs, launder money, and depose legally elected
heads of state?
The purpose of government (or of any society) is to protect
the rights and well-being of the citizens. I think that
welfare, medicare, and national health care all fall under the
"insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare"
of the preamble of the constitution.
-k.esme
Bryan Jensen
> Is it not then feasible to see into the future, maybe into a hundred years
> or so, that conception begins at the time the thought of having a child
> crossed your mind?
No.
Once the sperm and egg join, you have a human. After that it only
takes the proper environment to thrive, something that can be said
for all of us, before or after birth. The fetus needs its mother
to live just as a baby needs its parents to live.
The sperm meeting the egg, and death, are the two discontinuities in
life. The rest of life is a continuum of development.
> With the new abortion laws here in Pennsylvania, I don't understand the
> reasoning behind some of the clauses. For instance, an individual
> (I use that word since ADULT doesn't mean shit, it all depends on what
> time frame you are in, an when you happened to live) under the age of
> 18 has to get a parent's consent to have an abortion. So, what are
> we saying here??!? That the parent is now the child killer? Also,
> I know that if I were a bastard of a parent, and my daughter was
> pregnant and asked for permission to have an abortion, hell, If I was
> a really bad person, (AS SOME PEOPLE ARE!) I would make the child carry
> the baby till term, just to be a dick. (And if I can think it up, you know
> damn well someone is already doing it.) "Ahahah, she learned her lesson!"
You kind of touched on the answer when you said:
> In the olden days (mid-evil perhaps, wonder how it got that name, ahahah)
> a child was not a "man" until a certain age, and until proving himself
> (or herself) a man worth living. For up until a certain age, the child
> could be bought, sold, given away, or killed depending on the position
> of some heavenly body, or the mornings fresh crucifixions.
Humans go through formative years where their environment, particularly
their parents, determine what they will be in later years of life. They
are free, of course, to change themselves later on, but it is extremely
difficult.
It turns out that the easiest way to better yourself is to better your
kids (now I'm viewing life as going on forever, from generation to
generation). Thus, it becomes extremely important how kids are brought up.
There are two common points of view on how this is controlled.
1) The pro-family view (closely related to capitalism).
Each family is allowed to prosper or fail through the generations
according to their own initiative. These people believe that all
other approaches will be ineffective because people, all of whom
are inherently evil, will be motivated only when their work is for
their personal gain (which tends to include the good of their
descendants).
People must be given control of their own future. When an outside
organization begins to take over control, the people become dependent
on it and don't take any initiative of their own, or they begin to
fight the outsiders and waste effort.
Thus, parents are given control over their kids, till some arbitrary
point of time when they go out on their own. Other people are expected
to avoid interference with the family except in the most extreme
circumstances.
These people view a girl as in the process of being formed by her
parents. It is interfering with the parents control when outsiders
abort her child without their approval or knowlege.
As for parents that want "just to be a dick", it's real difficult to
give control of the familiy to the "good" people without also
doing it for the "bad" people. In fact, it's impossible.
2) Hillary's view (closely related to communism).
These people believe that all people are good. Bad behavior
is just the result of being put in bad circumstances.
They see bettering the world as a simple problem. Just use the
government, or anything else, to correct any problems that people
encounter. If you make things easy for them, they will be good
people.
To end poverty, all you need do is feed the children, keep them
from getting AIDS, given them an abortion if they get pregnant,
given them health care, and so on. Parents often just get in the
way of providing a good environment, so the governement frequently
steps in to correct things.
These people will view a teenage girl as an individual with full
rights of her own. To require her parents approval for an abortion
would be preposterous.
Andrew K. Heller
: In the beginning, Karl wrote:
: > Is it not then feasible to see into the future, maybe into a hundred years
: > or so, that conception begins at the time the thought of having a child
: > crossed your mind?
: No.
: Once the sperm and egg join, you have a human. After that it only
: takes the proper environment to thrive, something that can be said
: for all of us, before or after birth. The fetus needs its mother
: to live just as a baby needs its parents to live.
: The sperm meeting the egg, and death, are the two discontinuities in
: life. The rest of life is a continuum of development.
Well, speaking from a "religious point of view," if no one knows when
a soul desends into a "child," when then is abortion such a big deal....
if... it really isnt a child until it has a soul, and in regards to my
previous statement: a soul descends at time of thought of conception.
--
Andrew K. Heller - Making the world safe once again.
------------------------------------------------------------------
hel...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (sysadmin) a...@ecl.psu.edu
hel...@crayola.cse.psu.edu a...@eclx.psu.edu
hel...@cse.psu.edu gh...@mtf108.rh.psu.edu
akh...@psu.edu gh...@fubar.bk.psu.edu
bs...@cleveland.freenet.edu gho...@akh104.rh.psu.edu
ao...@yfn.ysu.edu
Computer Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University.
"If you're in the boat, rock it to hell."
S. M. Burnett
>From: cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme)
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>Date: 25 Feb 1994 14:37:12 -0800
>Keywords: Stuff
>In article <smb130.5...@psu.edu> smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett) writes:
>>In article <2kdt7l$q...@phakt.usc.edu> cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>
>[deleted...]
>
>
>>On the subject of homosexuals:
>> My opinion: a confused lot of individuals -- until there is reliable
>> documented proof (not speculation) that these confused individuals
>> can not help being confused; perhaps, I'll consider them normal.
>
>There is documented proof. A straight man's hypothalamus is
>larger than a straight woman's hypothalamus. Nearly twice as
>large. A gay man's hypothalamus in about the size of a
>straight woman's, and a lesbian's hypothalamus is about the
>size of a straight man's.
>
I did not know that. Before changing my stance on gays, I will have to
check into this myself. If you have any references on the such, please
send them to me at smb...@email.psu.edu or post them.
>
>> Answer me, why must I have
>> to go to a Homophobic Class
>
>Ummm...you left me at the bakery. I have no idea what you are
>talking about. I mean, I've been to some pretty homophobic
>sunday school classes, but none titled "Homophobic Class"
>
>> to encourage me that they are normal,
>
>A homophobic class would encourage you to think that gays are
>abnormal, or "sick". In any event. The main issue is not
>whether you think gays are normal, but whether or not they
>have the right to be gay.
I never realized that these groups placed such an emphasis on punctuation,
capitalization, and wording. I understand such questioning is necessary
for an ambiguous idea; however, I thought I expressed my ideas in reference
to the "Homophobic Class" clearly enough as a whole.
The "Homophobic Class" that I was referring to is a class for homophobes.
Didn't you get this impression after the next sentence? Anyways, I will
try to express my ideas better.
I'd rather not go into details about the situation; but you are entitled to
an explanation of why I had to go to such a class. Some time ago I was
strongly encouraged to attend such a class by my place of work, after my
views about gays in an informal discussion (about some current gay issue,
I don't remember the exact details) with co-workers were overheard.
I suppose someone got offended. That was basically it.
>
>The bible says clearly that you should not take the lord's
>name in vain. But nobody makes fiery speeches in congress in
>favor of arresting people for saying 'god damn it.'
>
>The bible says that having sex with someone who you are not
>married to is wrong. But you don't see people getting
>arrested for having sex out of wedlock.
>
>My point is that you have the right to your opinions, but you
>do not have the right to enforce them upon others.
One of the tasks of gov't (federal, state, or local) is to create laws--
rules of conduct established and enforced by the authority-- for its
applicable jurisdiction. These laws form the cohesiveness, morality, and
ethics of the jurisdiction. So if I or anyone believes that a law needs to
be established to pursue a moral standard (affiliated with religion or not),
they should be able to enforce (rather promote) such standards. As a
democracy (gov't in which people hold the ruling power either directly or
through elected representatives), we (the people) have this right.
Now if such a moral code is not passed due to infringement on some personal
freedom; fine, but those who want the moral code to be passed do not have
to relinquish their pursuit.
>
>
>Not even a majority vote can decide. It is, and must remain,
>a personal decision. I am saying that people have the right
>to make their own decisions. Saying that anyone can pass a
>law prohibiting abortion compromises that right.
Most laws (esp. criminal) takes an aspect of freedom away.
ie. a zoning law may take your freedom to build a fence or swimming
pool away from you.
a criminal law takes your freedom to do a particular crime away
a drinking law takes your freedom to drink when you are under age
Laws simply take some form of freedom away. To decide exactly what should
become law and what should remain a freedom depends the people as a whole.
So when one argues that abortion shouldn't become a law because it is my
right, the remark is pointless. If you still don't understand the
reasoning maybe this example might clarify where I am coming from using your
words from above.
"Saying that anyone can pass a law prohibiting " murder "compromises
that right" [to murder.]
Is that an appropriate defense? I think not.
>
>>And let me explain, by governing least (socially), I mean:
>> The gov't should not coddle us, provide for us --- in reference to ---
>> welfare, medicare, social security, and soon coming
>> nat'l health care. And all the smaller little programs too.
>
>The purpose of government (or of any society) is to protect
>the rights and well-being of the citizens. I think that
>welfare, medicare, and national health care all fall under the
>"insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare"
>of the preamble of the constitution.
Name a gov't social program that without doubt works efficiently and
cost-effectively and most importantly fixes the problem that it was created
for? I haven't found anyone who can?
Social Security ----- fails
Medicare ----- fails
Nat'l Health Care (Germany) ----- bankrupt [hospitals closed twice
this year]
Nat'l Health Care (Canada) ----- I hear that some cross the border
for treatments.
>
>-k.esme
Bryan J Jensen
>The purpose of government (or of any society) is to protect
>the rights and well-being of the citizens. I think that
>welfare, medicare, and national health care all fall under the
>"insure domestic tranquility" and "promote the general welfare"
>of the preamble of the constitution.
You have horribly distorted the constitution by taking
phrases totally out of context. The US constitution
doesn't take a position, one way or the other, on government
programs.
We the People of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of
America.
The constitution was established to "insure domestic tranquility"
and "promote the general welfare." It's done. Welfare, medicare,
and national health care don't have anything to do with it.
Craig Powers
>Name a gov't social program that without doubt works efficiently and
>cost-effectively and most importantly fixes the problem that it was created
>for? I haven't found anyone who can?
> Social Security ----- fails
> Medicare ----- fails
> Nat'l Health Care (Germany) ----- bankrupt [hospitals closed twice
> this year]
> Nat'l Health Care (Canada) ----- I hear that some cross the border
> for treatments.
Actually, Social Security DOES work cost-effectively; at least, contrary
to what some politicians would have you believe, the Social Security
program is running a surplus (or was last time I knew). They would have
you believe otherwise so that they can cut the Social Security budget,
create a larger surplus, and say the the Federal Government is running
less of a deficit.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Bryan J Jensen
>In article <2kluio$m...@aludra.usc.edu> cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>>From: cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme)
>>>On the subject of homosexuals:
>>> My opinion: a confused lot of individuals -- until there is reliable
>>> documented proof (not speculation) that these confused individuals
>>> can not help being confused; perhaps, I'll consider them normal.
>>
>>There is documented proof. A straight man's hypothalamus is
>>larger than a straight woman's hypothalamus. Nearly twice as
>>large. A gay man's hypothalamus in about the size of a
>>straight woman's, and a lesbian's hypothalamus is about the
>>size of a straight man's.
>>
>I did not know that. Before changing my stance on gays, I will have to
>check into this myself. If you have any references on the such, please
>send them to me at smb...@email.psu.edu or post them.
There was some such thing found in some study I've forgotten details on.
Keep in mind:
1) The researcher's goal was to find a genetic cause for homosexuality.
2) No Cause and effect were even suggested. Did the size difference
affect the sexual orientation? Or did sexual activities affect
the size?
The religious conservatives look forward to the day when a "homosexual"
gene is identified and a simple genetic test is available on a fetus
to determine likely sexual orientation. At that time, pro-life will
join with their new friends, the gay activists, in demonstrations
against abortion.
Does it really matter if sexual orientation is genetic? You need
only ask in soc.motss how many chose their sexual orientation.
I suspect most will say they did not. Is their any doubt that
they're telling the truth?
Also keep in mind that there are many cases where gay men have
become convinced that their lifestyle was wrong and then changed,
over time, to a heterosexual orientation.
> Before changing my stance on gays, I will have to check into this myself.
Should you not separate the temptation from the sin? I don't believe
christianity condemns temptation (homosexual desire?), but it does
condemn acting on temptation (the gay lifestyle?).
Can you deny that we are each tempted by different things?
Are you justified in acting wrongly because it wasn't your
fault that you where tempted in that way?
From Cal Thomas this week:
Blackmun's statement [in opposition to capital punishment] is the
last gasp of the liberal view of crime and punishment. That view
says that people are never fully responsible for their actions;
that there are always mitigating circumstances so that we can
never be held accountable for our acts, no matter how heinous.
This is the natural evolution of thinking when a culture forgets
the "laws of nature and of nature's God".
Will you excuse the extreme gay lifestyle because it wasn't their
fault that they were attracted to men instead of women?
So why is there such more animosity towards gays then other "sinners"?
There's the political aspect. From Charles Krauthammer, "A Matter of
Indifference?", the Washington Post, April 30, 1993:
One need only read the manifesto issued by last [April's] Gay and
Lesbian March on Washington to see how sentimental and
anachronistic is the view that gay rights today are about
"freedom".
"We demand, it reads, " inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender studies into multicultural curricula." And "full and
equal inclusion of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgendered
people in the educational system." And "that the definition of
family include the full diversity of all family structures."
Freedom -- the ability to conduct private acts without harassment
or molestation -- of course. But the homosexual movement demands
much more: not toleration but public legitimation of homosexuality
--through such public institutions as gay marriages and gay school
curricula -- as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.
There's the health issue. In the only study of its type, as described in
"Critical Issues", published by Campus Crusade. The study is flawed (the
sample isn't random), however, no more reliable numbers are available.
Homosexual behavior is medically unhealthy, and should not be
promoted among school children as just an "alternate" way of
life. In his study, "The Homosexual Life-Span", Family Research
institute Founder Dr. Paul Cameron found that the average
life-span for homosexuals who do not die of AIDS is 43. In
Cameron's study ( based on a sample of 4,153 homosexual
obituaries), even the minority of homosexuals who did not succumb
to AIDS averaged 32 less years of life than the average married
man. Said Cameron: "The discrepancy between the median life-span
of married men and homosexuals is considerably larger than any
registered discrepancy between lifestyles (e. g., smokers and
non-smokers) which we could locate in the [medical] literature.
There's the moral issue. The gay lifestyle is based on the unrestrained
pursuit of lust. Physical pleasures never provide the satisfaction they
seek, so they escalate to more and more bizarre acts. It's hard to say
much good about the morality of the average American heterosexual, but
consider this. The typical gay man interviewed by the CDC in a 1982
study claimed over 500 different sexual partners. The average lifetime
number of sexual partners for the U.S. population is believed to be
a bit over 7.
Andrew K. Heller
: >
: >The bible says clearly that you should not take the lord's
: >favor of arresting people for saying 'god damn it.'
: >
: >The bible says that having sex with someone who you are not
: >married to is wrong. But you don't see people getting
: >arrested for having sex out of wedlock.
Obviously, people only get uptight about things that they are afraid of.
[Flame away on that one...the "afriad" part, but think about why you
"inform" other people about your position on such matters. Is it to say,
"hey, this might be wrong or . .. it might be okay, what do you think?"
or is it "This is wrong... it is not moral... it degrades.... blah blah.."]
Ghoull's Rulz:
1) Society is fuckedup.
2) The average US citizen, is more fucked up than not.
3) Stating that option A is wrong becuase book F says so
while not paying any regards to the other
rules that book F says to allow or disallow, is
inherently bad logic, and damn annoying.
4) Believing that book F is the only true book is not only
rude to those people who believe books A to E,
but is also logically incorrect ("This book
IS correct.")
(I believe this was touched upon by the
'hair' comments by Mr. Ward and my comments
stating "My dad is better than your dad" and thus
a fight ensues.)
5) Intervention is not a cure.
6) Always remember how ignorant and dumb you are going to
look to those generations down the line.
7) 'Religious' people need proof of something that is 'wrong'
yet blindly believe their religious 'concepts'
without question.
8) Who is to say that I am not a prophet and that I am trying
hard to tell you what 'some god' believes?
9) Always remove your foot from your mouth and shove it up
your butt before trying to be honest.
10) There will always be additions to this list.
a) There is not an answer to the question : "abort or not to
abort?"
b) There is not a 'proof' to the concept of homosexuality
or intelligence related to skin color.
11) Most females do not have a problem with homosexuality.
12) Females will 'accept' gay relationships before lesbian ones.
13) Most males do have a problem with homsexuality, because
14) most males view homosexuality as GAY, yet wouldn't mind
seeing multiple women in a relationship, i.e. lesbian.
15) People in general accept behaviors of the sex they are
attracted to as being okay.
16) People in general have a difficult time accepting the behavior
of those that are the same sex as themselves.
17) Why? See rules #1 and #2.
--
Andrew K. Heller - Making the world safe once again.
------------------------------------------------------------------
hel...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (sysadmin)
Computer Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University.
esme
[deleted...]
>You have horribly distorted the constitution by taking
>phrases totally out of context. The US constitution
>doesn't take a position, one way or the other, on government
>programs.
I never said "The Constitution says, 'welfare is a good idea.'" I
said that any society, this society included, is founded in order
to help people who would otherwise be left to starve/die/etc.
Welfare, medicare, social security, and national health care are
all attempts to fulfill the Constitution's mandate to promote
the general welfare.
Whether they succeed at doing this is another question entirely.
[preamble to the constitution deleted...]
>The constitution was established to "insure domestic tranquility"
>and "promote the general welfare." It's done. Welfare, medicare,
>and national health care don't have anything to do with it.
Umm....no. Actually, you're wrong. Though the constitution was
written 200 years ago, it is still being reinterpreted and reviewed
every day in court and in congress.
-k.esme, who thought this was obvious.
esme
>In article <smb130.12...@psu.edu>, smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett) writes:
>>In article <2kluio$m...@aludra.usc.edu> cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>>>From: cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme)
>>>In article <smb130.5...@psu.edu> smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett) writes:
>>>>On the subject of homosexuals:
>>>> My opinion: a confused lot of individuals -- until there is reliable
>>>> documented proof (not speculation) that these confused individuals
>>>> can not help being confused; perhaps, I'll consider them normal.
>>>
>>>There is documented proof. A straight man's hypothalamus is
>>>larger than a straight woman's hypothalamus. Nearly twice as
>>>large. A gay man's hypothalamus in about the size of a
>>>straight woman's, and a lesbian's hypothalamus is about the
>>>size of a straight man's.
>>>
>>I did not know that. Before changing my stance on gays, I will have to
>>check into this myself. If you have any references on the such, please
>>send them to me at smb...@email.psu.edu or post them.
>
>There was some such thing found in some study I've forgotten details on.
The man's name is LeVay. The study was published in the last 2 or 3 years.
There are two major schools of the biological model of homosexuality.
1) Levay's school which is that the hypothalamus is different in gays than
in straights.
2) (I think the man's name is Swaab)'s school who say that it is a hormonal
difference, either late in pregnancy, or in early childhood.
>Keep in mind:
>
> 1) The researcher's goal was to find a genetic cause for homosexuality.
The researcher's goal was to find anatomical differences between gay men
and straight men. Yes. That doesn't change the fact that he has scientific
data that has been published to support his findings.
> 2) No Cause and effect were even suggested. Did the size difference
> affect the sexual orientation? Or did sexual activities affect
> the size?
No, a cause and effect relationship is not asserted. The importance of an
anatomical link, however, is that it indicts the view that homosexuality
is a phsychological defect.
>The religious conservatives look forward to the day when a "homosexual"
>gene is identified and a simple genetic test is available on a fetus
>to determine likely sexual orientation. At that time, pro-life will
>join with their new friends, the gay activists, in demonstrations
>against abortion.
My only solace is that the christians would have to show their vicious
hypocrisy, when they started to argue for aborting homosexual fetuses.
If Swaab is right, however, the difference might not be detectable before
birth. I wonder if they'd ever be in favor of infanticide?
>Does it really matter if sexual orientation is genetic?
Yes, I think it does matter. If not anatomically based, homosexuality
could be validly considered to be no different from adultery or other
sexual sins. But if anantomically based....homosexuality would be
normal for that person, and even in the most extreme bigot's eyes would
be a disease to be pittied.
> You need
>only ask in soc.motss how many chose their sexual orientation.
>I suspect most will say they did not. Is their any doubt that
>they're telling the truth?
Virtually all of the gays I know say they did not choose, and that
they knew they were gay since infancy. At least as early as straight
people became aware of sexuality.
>Also keep in mind that there are many cases where gay men have
>become convinced that their lifestyle was wrong and then changed,
>over time, to a heterosexual orientation.
And for every gay man who is turned straight, there are five who do
not realize their sexuality until they are married and have children.
That's where the sociological aspect of gayness comes in. Many gay
people are forced into straight lives, because they are taught to
consider homosexuality abhorrent. Many more commit suicide before
they ever reach the point of marriage. (#1 reason for teen suicide
is problems with sexuality, of which a majority are people who cannot
handle the fact that they are gay.)
>> Before changing my stance on gays, I will have to check into this myself.
>
>Should you not separate the temptation from the sin? I don't believe
>christianity condemns temptation (homosexual desire?), but it does
>condemn acting on temptation (the gay lifestyle?).
Actually, christianity does not separate sin from temptation.
KJV matthew 5:28 -- but i say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman
to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
[...]
>Will you excuse the extreme gay lifestyle because it wasn't their
>fault that they were attracted to men instead of women?
>
>So why is there such more animosity towards gays then other "sinners"?
I don't think there is anything to excuse, nor anything extreme about
gay lifestyle. I think that homosexuality is perfectly normal.
After all, remember that other mammals also have homosexuals as well.
>There's the political aspect. From Charles Krauthammer, "A Matter of
>Indifference?", the Washington Post, April 30, 1993:
[...]
> Freedom -- the ability to conduct private acts without harassment
> or molestation -- of course. But the homosexual movement demands
> much more: not toleration but public legitimation of homosexuality
> --through such public institutions as gay marriages and gay school
> curricula -- as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality.
The reason that gays desire inclusion in classroom discussion of family
life is to prevent prejudice. Only by teaching children that homosexuality
is a valid sexual orientation can such atrocities as gay bashing and
discriminatin against gays be stopped.
>There's the health issue. In the only study of its type, as described in
>"Critical Issues", published by Campus Crusade. The study is flawed (the
>sample isn't random), however, no more reliable numbers are available.
First of all, how does he know they didn't die of AIDS? It is not
standard procedure to print such in the newspaper. Rather, bronchitis,
tuberculosis, or whatever AIDS-induced illness is listed.
Second, gay men are much more likely to be beaten to death, or otherwise
murdered than straight men. Was this taken into account? I didn't
think so. Suzanne Pharr has been doing research into violence against
women, and lesbians in particular, in the Pacific Northwest for some
time now. I have heard her speak, and read an article or two of hers.
Unfortunately, I do not have citations for her published findings.
S. M. Burnett
>From: hel...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (Andrew K. Heller)
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>In regards to the HOMOPHOBIC concepts....
>: >
>: >The bible says clearly that you should not take the lord's
>: >name in vain. But nobody makes fiery speeches in congress in
>: >favor of arresting people for saying 'god damn it.'
>: >
>: >The bible says that having sex with someone who you are not
>: >married to is wrong. But you don't see people getting
>: >arrested for having sex out of wedlock.
>: >
> Obviously, people only get uptight about things that they are afraid of.
>[Flame away on that one...the "afriad" part, but think about why you
>"inform" other people about your position on such matters. Is it to say,
>"hey, this might be wrong or . .. it might be okay, what do you think?"
>or is it "This is wrong... it is not moral... it degrades.... blah blah.."]
For a bunch of atheists why trouble yourselves over the problems and issues
of Christendom. All the issues mentioned above, I feel equally compelled
on as the issue of abortion. But the people of our nation wanted a
separation from church and state; thus, that is what we have. The reason
why many Christians are pushing for the "Pro-Life" cause now and not the
others is quite simple. Many Christians (including myself) suggest that
abortion is not completely a religious issue, hence side-stepping the
"separation from church and state" guidelines that exist today. Abortion
is simply wrong because it permits the killing of a baby. Many people
have different definitions of at what stage a "baby"/"fetus" exists.
As you can see I included baby with fetus. This should give you an idea
of of my definition. Why kill a fetus that has the same physical features
of a human and a beating human heart?
> Ghoull's Rulz:
> 1) Society is fuckedup.
I agree. And each person's perception of the screw-up is another's
perception of order.
> 2) The average US citizen, is more fucked up than not.
Why?
> 3) Stating that option A is wrong becuase book F says so
> while not paying any regards to the other
> rules that book F says to allow or disallow, is
> inherently bad logic, and damn annoying.
If I try to follow book F (which may be a very difficult task to accomplish)
and you do not follow book F. Why should you get so annoyed with me?
I told you why I disagreed with abortion religiously and morally. The way I
see it the disagreement has nothing to do with book F. It deals with
whether or not killing a fetus wrong?
> 4) Believing that book F is the only true book is not only
> rude to those people who believe books A to E,
> but is also logically incorrect ("This book
> IS correct.")
> (I believe this was touched upon by the
> 'hair' comments by Mr. Ward and my comments
> stating "My dad is better than your dad" and thus
> a fight ensues.)
Well it is a commandment in book F. If I believe in book F and book F tells
me to ignore books A to E; it would be logically incorect to think
book F is not "the only true Book."
> 5) Intervention is not a cure.
Be specific... A surgeon should intervene with your body if you need an
operation.
> 6) Always remember how ignorant and dumb you are going to
> look to those generations down the line.
What are you talking about?
> 7) 'Religious' people need proof of something that is 'wrong'
> yet blindly believe their religious 'concepts'
> without question.
It took me 8-yrs of asking, searching, reading, and thinking before I became
a Christian. For me it didn't happen over night.
> 8) Who is to say that I am not a prophet and that I am trying
> hard to tell you what 'some god' believes?
Because a prophet never goes against the Word of God. This only applies
to Christians.
> 9) Always remove your foot from your mouth and shove it up
> your butt before trying to be honest.
Oh, If you must.
> 10) There will always be additions to this list.
> a) There is not an answer to the question : "abort or not to
> abort?"
Some people will never reconsider their views.
> b) There is not a 'proof' to the concept of homosexuality
> or intelligence related to skin color.
Does a 'proof' apply to ethics.
>
> 11) Most females do not have a problem with homosexuality.
Well most female Christians do.
> 12) Females will 'accept' gay relationships before lesbian ones.
> 13) Most males do have a problem with homsexuality, because
> 14) most males view homosexuality as GAY, yet wouldn't mind
> seeing multiple women in a relationship, i.e. lesbian.
Gay at one time just meant happy. Thanks for the info.
> 15) People in general accept behaviors of the sex they are
> attracted to as being okay.
What do homosexuals think?
> 16) People in general have a difficult time accepting the behavior
> of those that are the same sex as themselves.
> 17) Why? See rules #1 and #2.
If you say so.
>
>--
>Andrew K. Heller - Making the world safe once again.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>hel...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (sysadmin)
>Computer Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University.
>"If you're in the boat, rock it to hell."
***********************************************************************
Mike Dahmus
It's not running as much of a surplus as it needs to in order to provide for
the astronomical numbers of people who will be retiring in about 20 years.
The problem is that today's retirees almost all take out much more than they
ever put in, even adjusted for interest at the rate of inflation. You get
real familiar with this garbage living in the Land Of The Q Tips.
>
>Craig Powers
>cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
--
Mike Dahmus Curator, rec.sport.football Hall o' Bait
mi...@gate.net also mi...@vnet.ibm.com
Please don't vote me new Kibo! "Something must be BROKEN here at IBM!"
Rick Pries
In article <2l2n19$m...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>, hel...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (Andrew K.
Heller) says:
>
>In regards to the HOMOPHOBIC concepts....
: >
>: >The bible says clearly that you should not take the lord's
>: >name in vain. But nobody makes fiery speeches in congress in
>: >favor of arresting people for saying 'god damn it.'
>: >
>: >The bible says that having sex with someone who you are not
>: >married to is wrong. But you don't see people getting
>: >arrested for having sex out of wedlock.
>: >
>
> Obviously, people only get uptight about things that they are afraid of.
>[Flame away on that one...the "afriad" part, but think about why you
>"inform" other people about your position on such matters. Is it to say,
>"hey, this might be wrong or . .. it might be okay, what do you think?"
>or is it "This is wrong... it is not moral... it degrades.... blah blah.."]
>
Define Norm: See Fuckedup
> Ghoull's Rulz:
> 1) Society is fuckedup.
Please define "fuckedup". Now, as far as I'm concerned, being fuckedup is
being abnormal. Now, is all society is "fuckedup", then isn't the norm
"fuckedup"? So how can society be "fuckedup"? Now, if you are saying that the
American Society is "fuckedup" compared to other societies, please give me a
society that rivals the size of the US, and tell me how they are normal and we
are "fuckedup".
> 2) The average US citizen, is more fucked up than not.
See response to #1...as how being fuckedup is the norm.
> 3) Stating that option A is wrong because book F says so
while not paying any regards to the other
> rules that book F says to allow or disallow, is
> inherently bad logic, and damn annoying.
Please be abit more clear on this....for example...you say nothing about option
Z being available when the rules of book F are used according to book G.
> 4) Believing that book F is the only true book is not only
> rude to those people who believe books A to E,
> but is also logically incorrect ("This book
> IS correct.")
> (I believe this was touched upon by the
> 'hair' comments by Mr. Ward and my comments
> stating "My dad is better than your dad" and thus
> a fight ensues.)
This babble is a sad attempt at humor. This statement (if you care to call it
that), doesn't really say much. Iff (if and only if) the books are a series
then is it remotely true. But if the books are way different the may be right
on different planes.
> 5) Intervention is not a cure.
I believe Schrodinger had something to say about this. If you put a cat in a
box with highly toxic gas, will the cat die? Well, you think so, but you can't
be sure unless you some how monitor the cat (i.e. open the box, check tha cat's
life signs), or somehow intervene. You don't know what the problem is unless
you get involved. If you find a problem, how are you to fix it w/out getting
involved, without intervening?
> 6) Always remember how ignorant and dumb you are going to
look to those generations down the line.
I'm not to sure how being ignorant is a bad thing. "The confession of
ignorance is the beginning of wisdom" - Socrates. Sure, people of
older times were ignorant....but I highly doubt that they were dumb.
Einstein, Hertz, Faraday, Socrates, Newton, Plato, Aristotle, Nepolean
deCarte, Michealangelo....the lisy goes on forever. They were ignorant true,
but I doubt you can argue that anyone one of the people that I mentioned was,
as you call "dumb".
> 7) 'Religious' people need proof of something that is 'wrong'
> yet blindly believe their religious 'concepts'
> without question.
hugh? I'm not to sure what the fuck this means....useally it's the religious
peoples are the ones proving that things are wrong based on religious
concepts.
8) Who is to say that I am not a prophet and that I am trying
> hard to tell you what 'some god' believes?
You might be, but all the other prophets praised the same God. And if you are,
tell us more about your "God". If you don't care to, then shut the fuck up.
> 9) Always remove your foot from your mouth and shove it up
> your butt before trying to be honest.
This again makes no sense...please be a bit more clear in stating these
"rulz".
> 10) There will always be additions to this list.
> a) There is not an answer to the question : "abort or not to
> abort?"
> b) There is not a 'proof' to the concept of homosexuality
or intelligence related to skin color.
Um....yes there is...but talks, and research on the sbuject matter referenced
in part b of rule 10 was banned by various organizations. If you care to look
deeper into this...look around the 1950's or so.
>
> 11) Most females do not have a problem with homosexuality.
Of course they do....it doesn't "threaten" them...it's the same how guys
don't have a "problem" with lesbian relationships before gay ones.
> 12) Females will 'accept' gay relationships before lesbian ones.
see response to #11.
> 13) Most males do have a problem with homsexuality, because
> 14) most males view homosexuality as GAY, yet wouldn't mind
seeing multiple women in a relationship, i.e. lesbian.
see response to #11.
> 15) People in general accept behaviors of the sex they are
> attracted to as being okay.
No shit...of course I believe what I do is okay..or else why would I do it?
Schmuck....
> 16) People in general have a difficult time accepting the behavior
> of those that are the same sex as themselves.
Hmmm...were do you get this from?Please elaborate on this "rule".
> 17) Why? See rules #1 and #2.
See response to #'s 1 and 2.
Define fuckedup: See definition of "Norm"
>
>
o Rick Pries...Pries as in Grand and First.
/&=)--- (rjp...@psuvm.psu.edu; rpr...@fubar.bk.psu.edu)
/'>
"Due to financial constraints, the light at the end of the tunnel will
turned off until further notice. Thank you for your cooperation."
Niall O' Byrne
In article <2l2tr7$k...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
[cut to the chase]
>>The religious conservatives look forward to the day when a "homosexual"
>>gene is identified and a simple genetic test is available on a fetus
>>to determine likely sexual orientation. At that time, pro-life will
>>join with their new friends, the gay activists, in demonstrations
>>against abortion.
Shouldn't that read "pro-life will be joined by their new friends, the gay
activists, in demonstrations against abortions" ?
>My only solace is that the christians would have to show their vicious
>hypocrisy, when they started to argue for aborting homosexual fetuses.
I don't know which Christians would do that but pro-life organisations
which are truely pro-life would not.
>If Swaab is right, however, the difference might not be detectable before
>birth. I wonder if they'd ever be in favor of infanticide?
I guess w'd have to ask them.
>>Does it really matter if sexual orientation is genetic?
It shouldn't but if it is it leaves the door open to class homosexuality
as a defect along with Downs, Spina Bifida, Cystic Fibrosis, cleft-palette
and being a girl when the parents wanted a boy.
>Yes, I think it does matter. If not anatomically based, homosexuality
>could be validly considered to be no different from adultery or other
>sexual sins. But if anantomically based....homosexuality would be
>normal for that person, and even in the most extreme bigot's eyes would
>be a disease to be pittied.
I guess you are refering to Christians again. My understanding of the Bible
teachings is that homosexuality is not a sin. What is a sin is indulging in
homosexual acts.
>
>> You need
>>only ask in soc.motss how many chose their sexual orientation.
>>I suspect most will say they did not. Is their any doubt that
>>they're telling the truth?
>
>Virtually all of the gays I know say they did not choose, and that
>they knew they were gay since infancy. At least as early as straight
>people became aware of sexuality.
>
I became aware of sexuality around puberty. Is this not normal ?
>>Also keep in mind that there are many cases where gay men have
>>become convinced that their lifestyle was wrong and then changed,
>>over time, to a heterosexual orientation.
>
>And for every gay man who is turned straight, there are five who do
>not realize their sexuality until they are married and have children.
>
>That's where the sociological aspect of gayness comes in. Many gay
>people are forced into straight lives, because they are taught to
>consider homosexuality abhorrent. Many more commit suicide before
>they ever reach the point of marriage. (#1 reason for teen suicide
>is problems with sexuality, of which a majority are people who cannot
>handle the fact that they are gay.)
The ethics of searching for a gay gene to enable detection before birth
is not going to do anything except make this attitude to homosexuality
worse.
>>> Before changing my stance on gays, I will have to check into this myself.
>>
>>Should you not separate the temptation from the sin? I don't believe
>>christianity condemns temptation (homosexual desire?), but it does
>>condemn acting on temptation (the gay lifestyle?).
>
>Actually, christianity does not separate sin from temptation.
>KJV matthew 5:28 -- but i say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman
> to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
>
There is a difference between desire, lust and tendencies. Besides, you
listed a heterosexual sin.
>
>>Will you excuse the extreme gay lifestyle because it wasn't their
>>fault that they were attracted to men instead of women?
>>
>>So why is there such more animosity towards gays then other "sinners"?
>
>I don't think there is anything to excuse, nor anything extreme about
>gay lifestyle. I think that homosexuality is perfectly normal.
>After all, remember that other mammals also have homosexuals as well.
>
Interesting concept. Could you point me towards some references, I'd like
to check that out. Are you certain that these animals are acting out of
choice or a preference or is it because they are deprived of members of
the opposite sex. The could even be displaying dominance to set out their
territories or setting up a pecking order.
Niall
--
#include<std.disclaimer>
Niall O Byrne, Motorola B.V./LMPS Dublin, IRELAND
Internet: nia...@comm.mot.com
"On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral
duty to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleaure" --- Oscar Wilde
esme
>In article <2kluio$m...@aludra.usc.edu> cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme) writes:
[deleted...]
>I'd rather not go into details about the situation; but you are entitled to
>an explanation of why I had to go to such a class. Some time ago I was
>strongly encouraged to attend such a class by my place of work, after my
>views about gays in an informal discussion (about some current gay issue,
>I don't remember the exact details) with co-workers were overheard.
>I suppose someone got offended. That was basically it.
Not knowing what you said, it's pretty much impossible for me to comment
with any accuracy on the situation. I can say, however, that your opinion
that homosexuality is wrong is degrading and offensive.
>One of the tasks of gov't (federal, state, or local) is to create laws--
>rules of conduct established and enforced by the authority-- for its
>applicable jurisdiction. These laws form the cohesiveness, morality, and
>ethics of the jurisdiction.
Just as no government has the right to decide the religion of its citizens,
no government has the right to decide the morality or ethics of its
citizens. Ethics, morality, and religion are all intensely personal,
and cannot be decided by a government.
The only jurisdiction a government has over morality/ethics/religion is
to make rules to protect the cohesion of the society.
> So if I or anyone believes that a law needs to
>be established to pursue a moral standard (affiliated with religion or not),
>they should be able to enforce (rather promote) such standards.
Yes. Emphasis on the word 'promote' Never enforce.
Can we say 'freudian slip' ?
> As a
>democracy (gov't in which people hold the ruling power either directly or
>through elected representatives), we (the people) have this right.
As human beings, we have this right. Often, this right is taken away, but
that does not change the fact that the right exists.
>Now if such a moral code is not passed due to infringement on some personal
>freedom; fine, but those who want the moral code to be passed do not have
>to relinquish their pursuit.
Exactly. My argument has always been that outlawing abortion, homosexuality
(or homosexual behaviour) is such an infringement on personal freedom, and,
as such, should not be legislated.
>>Not even a majority vote can decide. It is, and must remain,
>>a personal decision. I am saying that people have the right
>>to make their own decisions. Saying that anyone can pass a
>>law prohibiting abortion compromises that right.
>
>Most laws (esp. criminal) takes an aspect of freedom away.
> ie. a zoning law may take your freedom to build a fence or swimming
> pool away from you.
Yes. But that law is (at least theoretically) to protect the rights of
the other residents in that zone.
> a criminal law takes your freedom to do a particular crime away
> a drinking law takes your freedom to drink when you are under age
>Laws simply take some form of freedom away. To decide exactly what should
>become law and what should remain a freedom depends the people as a whole.
>So when one argues that abortion shouldn't become a law because it is my
>right, the remark is pointless. If you still don't understand the
>reasoning maybe this example might clarify where I am coming from using your
>words from above.
> "Saying that anyone can pass a law prohibiting " murder "compromises
> that right" [to murder.]
> Is that an appropriate defense? I think not.
There is no such thing as a right to murder. That is why it does not make
logical sense. If there were a right to murder, it would make sense.
There is a right to abort a fetus, based upon the rights to privacy and
control over one's own body.
>Name a gov't social program that without doubt works efficiently and
>cost-effectively and most importantly fixes the problem that it was created
>for? I haven't found anyone who can?
I did not say that the programs worked in every case, did I? But they have
the potential to work, and they do work some of the time. And working
some of the time is better than not trying to help at all.
Just ask my mother, who was on AFDC for 9 months, then got her life back
in order, got a good job and an apartment, and has been a productive
member of society (and a responsible mother) ever since.
You think people don't go from being on welfare at one point in life to
buying a house and sending their children to college at another point in
life? They do. My mother did.
Bryan J Jensen
>>The religious conservatives look forward to the day when a "homosexual"
>>gene is identified and a simple genetic test is available on a fetus
>>to determine likely sexual orientation. At that time, pro-life will
>>join with their new friends, the gay activists, in demonstrations
>>against abortion.
>
>My only solace is that the christians would have to show their vicious
>hypocrisy, when they started to argue for aborting homosexual fetuses.
Look who's being vicious now. Your vicious charge is unfounded.
>>Should you not separate the temptation from the sin? I don't believe
>>christianity condemns temptation (homosexual desire?), but it does
>>condemn acting on temptation (the gay lifestyle?).
>
>Actually, christianity does not separate sin from temptation.
>KJV matthew 5:28 -- but i say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman
> to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Thank you for the change from vicious emotional attacks to rationality.
I was thinking of the previous chapter: "Jesus was then led away by
the spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted by the devil." Jesus
never sinned, but he was tempted.
Lust is a strong word, what does it mean? Looking elsewhere in the chapter,
we see other cases presented, including "Anyone who nurses anger against
his brother must be brought to judgement." Perhaps lust, in this case,
refers to wanting, and intention to get.
As an example of someone who was sexually tempted but avoided lust,
we have Joseph (Genesis chapter 39). "Now Joseph was handsome and
good-looking, and a time came when his master's wife took notice of
him and said, 'Come and lie with me.'" Joseph explained that he
couldn't because it would be wrong. She continued to come on to him
day after day, till finally he literally ran from it. If Joseph wasn't
attracted to her, there would have been no need for him to run.
He actively avoided that which he wanted, but knew he shouldn't do.
>The reason that gays desire inclusion in classroom discussion of family
>life is to prevent prejudice. Only by teaching children that homosexuality
>is a valid sexual orientation can such atrocities as gay bashing and
>discrimination against gays be stopped.
The viciousness begins to crop up again. You assume that someone who
believes someone else is wrong is going to turn around and physically
abuse them. This isn't true.
Christians believe that Jesus loved everyone (while they were yet sinners,
as the Bible says), and that he allowed his own death because of this love.
For a christian to attack gays would be a rejection of the very thing
that saved them.
Why not instead teach that there is a value in everyone, not measured in
their accomplishments or abilities. That there is a right and wrong, but
those who do wrong could, and often do, change their lives to do right.
Why not drop that (incorrect) message that everyone is at significant
risk of catching AIDS? That is a scare tactic to get more money for
AIDS research. When people are scared, they are more likely to turn
mean. When people look at the stats and see that 85% of AIDS deaths
are active homosexuals or IV druggies, who are they going to lash out
at in their fear?
Bryan J Jensen
>Just as no government has the right to decide the religion of its citizens,
>no government has the right to decide the morality or ethics of its
>citizens. Ethics, morality, and religion are all intensely personal,
>and cannot be decided by a government.
>
>The only jurisdiction a government has over morality/ethics/religion is
>to make rules to protect the cohesion of the society.
May I bring back what you said in your earlier article?
=The reason that gays desire inclusion in classroom discussion of family
=life is to prevent prejudice. Only by teaching children that homosexuality
=is a valid sexual orientation can such atrocities as gay bashing and
=discriminatin against gays be stopped.
Correct me if I'm wrong, you are explaining why gays want to be
included in school curriculum, but you don't agree?
>There is a right to abort a fetus, based upon the rights to privacy and
>control over one's own body.
Is there also a right to abandon a child? Small children can't survive
on their own. If parents take a camping trip to Alaska, and little
Johnny turns out to be a pain, can they just leave him in a snowdrift?
I mean, don't they have the right to live their own life the way they
want to?
>>Name a gov't social program that without doubt works efficiently and
>>cost-effectively and most importantly fixes the problem that it was
>>created for? I haven't found anyone who can?
>
>I did not say that the programs worked in every case, did I? But they have
>the potential to work, and they do work some of the time. And working
>some of the time is better than not trying to help at all.
>
>Just ask my mother, who was on AFDC for 9 months, then got her life back
>in order, got a good job and an apartment, and has been a productive
>member of society (and a responsible mother) ever since.
I'm delighted that your mother has done well. But there are alternatives
to governement programs, charities for instance.
The objection to government welfare programs isn't just that they are
inefficient at solving our poverty problem, it's that they created the
poverty problem to begin with. It is NOT "better to try then to do
nothing at all", when trying makes things worse then they would have been.
It is not a problem that people spend time living in poverty, it is
expected. The problem is the destruction of the human spirit of
those enslaved by the welfare system, which was created to provide
an enslaved group to re-elect congressman.
The same methods were used in the early 1800's by slave owners -
provide a minimal living for your slaves, make them dependent on you,
they get used to it. It was so effective with some slaves that they
remained with their master after the civil war (as sharecroppers).
James Forgy
>From: b...@ECLD.PSU.EDU (Bryan J Jensen)
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
> We the People of the United States, in order to form a more
> perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
> provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
> secure the blessing of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
> ordain and establish the Constitution of the United States of
> America.
>The constitution was established to "insure domestic tranquility"
>and "promote the general welfare." It's done. Welfare, medicare,
>and national health care don't have anything to do with it.
Moron, get a brain. Under your reasoning Taxes have nothing to do with it
either. If the legislative branch wants welfare, medicare, and health care,
then, idiot, the constitution gives them the right to pass laws for these
things.
Go back to the 1st Grade fool,
Om Baby,
jf
esme
>In article <2l2tr7$k...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
[deleted...]
>I guess you are refering to Christians again. My understanding of the Bible
>teachings is that homosexuality is not a sin. What is a sin is indulging in
>homosexual acts.
Refer to the verse from Matthew below. Christian morality, as I have been
taught it, is that "intention" or "desire" to do something constitues a
sin just a much as the actual action.
[...]
>I became aware of sexuality around puberty. Is this not normal ?
When I was 7, I knew there were anatomical differences between men and
women, about sex, about procreation. I understood the social structure
was that a man and a woman got married and had sex and children.
Before then, most of my memories are either vague and illusive or suspect
of being reconstructed from others telling me about it later. So that is
as early as I can say that I was aware of sexuality.
By "aware of sexuality" I do not mean 'had sexual desires for one sex
as opposed to the other'. That comes later. But even at the pre-sexual
age, gay people realize (or, rather, some do) that they do not fit into
the social order, that they are homosexual.
[...]
>The ethics of searching for a gay gene to enable detection before birth
>is not going to do anything except make this attitude to homosexuality
>worse.
A genetic basis of homosexuality is a double edged sword. Positive: if
gayness is genetic/biological, then it is a fact of life, not something
to be 'corrected' with psychiatry.
Negative: it then becomes a disease that could be changed with gene
therapy, selective reproduction/abortion, etc.
[...]
>>Actually, christianity does not separate sin from temptation.
>>KJV matthew 5:28 -- but i say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman
>> to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
>
>There is a difference between desire, lust and tendencies.
But the fact is that they are all *mental* as opposed to actions. There
is, then, a sin without any action.
>Besides, you listed a heterosexual sin.
Adultery is a 'heterosexual sin'? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. If two
women were married (homosexual marriage is legal in Hawaii) and one of the
women had sex with another woman, I believe that would constitue homosexual
adultery.
>>After all, remember that other mammals also have homosexuals as well.
>
>Interesting concept. Could you point me towards some references, I'd like
>to check that out.
No, I can't supply any citations for that. I read an article about it
2 yrs ago. I've seen non-human homosexuality mentioned in essays a few
times. It's been well-established fact for years.
> Are you certain that these animals are acting out of
>choice or a preference or is it because they are deprived of members of
>the opposite sex. The could even be displaying dominance to set out their
>territories or setting up a pecking order.
Though the reasons for their homosexuality can never be certain, as I
recall, the researchers did say that the animals (rams, I think) were
homosexual for life, that there was no shortage of females, and that
they generally did not fight with their partners (discounting the pecking
order/terretory theory).
esme
>In article <2l2tr7$k...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>>In article <2l1d4r$8...@genesis.ait.psu.edu> b...@ECL.PSU.EDU writes:
>>>The religious conservatives look forward to the day when a "homosexual"
>>>gene is identified and a simple genetic test is available on a fetus
>>>to determine likely sexual orientation. At that time, pro-life will
>>>join with their new friends, the gay activists, in demonstrations
>>>against abortion.
>>
>>My only solace is that the christians would have to show their vicious
>>hypocrisy, when they started to argue for aborting homosexual fetuses.
>
>Look who's being vicious now. Your vicious charge is unfounded.
If christians were to support the abortion of homosexual fetuses, they
would be showing vicious hypocrisy. Just as killing and torturing people
in the name of christ has shown such hypocrisy in the past.
And as for 'unfounded' Galileo, Salem witch trials, Spanish inquisition,
crusades. I don't think the opinion that christianity has and will use
their faith to justify torture, murder, war, and other acts inconsistent
with their dogma is unfounded. Not by a long shot.
>>Actually, christianity does not separate sin from temptation.
>>KJV matthew 5:28 -- but i say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman
>> to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
>
>Thank you for the change from vicious emotional attacks to rationality.
>
>I was thinking of the previous chapter: "Jesus was then led away by
>the spirit into the wilderness, to be tempted by the devil." Jesus
>never sinned, but he was tempted.
Okay, I think our disagreement on this point is purely semantic.
There is a difference between the mental desire to do something and the
act of doing it. Both can be considered sins.
There is also a difference between someone tempting you, and being tempted.
The cite above, I believe, refers to the devil trying to tempt jesus.
This is different from jesus mentally wanting to do what the devil was
asking.
>>The reason that gays desire inclusion in classroom discussion of family
>>life is to prevent prejudice. Only by teaching children that homosexuality
>>is a valid sexual orientation can such atrocities as gay bashing and
>>discrimination against gays be stopped.
>
>The viciousness begins to crop up again. You assume that someone who
>believes someone else is wrong is going to turn around and physically
>abuse them. This isn't true.
Actually, it is true. Not *all* of the people who think homosexuality
is a sin go around beating gays up. But it is the attitude that being
gay is wrong that leads to such attacks.
>Christians believe that Jesus loved everyone (while they were yet sinners,
>as the Bible says), and that he allowed his own death because of this love.
>For a christian to attack gays would be a rejection of the very thing
>that saved them.
Yes, that is true. It doesn't change the fact that christianity has been
used, both historically and recently, to justify hate and violence.
>Why not instead teach that there is a value in everyone, not measured in
>their accomplishments or abilities. That there is a right and wrong, but
>those who do wrong could, and often do, change their lives to do right.
Because teaching that anyone is wrong automatically leads to the idea
that those who are 'wrong' have less value, should be changed, and if
they will not voluntarily change, should be imprisoned, brainwashed,
or otherwise punished.
>Why not drop that (incorrect) message that everyone is at significant
>risk of catching AIDS?
Because the message in not incorrect. Your opinion, in fact, only
increases the problem. When AIDS/HIV was first identified, it's
vitims were 80% gay men. In the twelve yyears since then, gay men
have fallen to 55% or so, and heterosexuals have increased to around
30%. IV drug users have never been more than 10 or 13%. Lesbians have
the lowest incidence (circa 4%).
Indeed, if AIDS is (as I have heard some outrageously homophobic christians
say) 'gods answer to homosexuality' then lesbians are god's chosen people,
as cunnilingus is the most difficult way to transmit the virus.
In fact, the only personal acquaintance of mine to get AIDS is a lesbian
who contracted HIV when she was raped by a homeless man.
> That is a scare tactic to get more money for
>AIDS research. When people are scared, they are more likely to turn
>mean. When people look at the stats and see that 85% of AIDS deaths
>are active homosexuals or IV druggies, who are they going to lash out
>at in their fear?
Actually, the percentage of gay AIDS deaths has been less than 85% for
some time. Heterosexual women are the fastest growing group, with
heterosexual men right behind them, presumably contracting it from
them. The statement that heterosexuals have no need to be worried about
contracting AIDS is a slanderous lie and is socially reprehensible.
You, who have deigned to call me vicious, have shown yourself to be quite
more vicious than I am.
esme
>In article <2l5ki8$c...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>
>>Just as no government has the right to decide the religion of its citizens,
>>no government has the right to decide the morality or ethics of its
>>citizens. Ethics, morality, and religion are all intensely personal,
>>and cannot be decided by a government.
>>
>>The only jurisdiction a government has over morality/ethics/religion is
>>to make rules to protect the cohesion of the society.
>
>May I bring back what you said in your earlier article?
>
>=The reason that gays desire inclusion in classroom discussion of family
>=life is to prevent prejudice. Only by teaching children that homosexuality
>=is a valid sexual orientation can such atrocities as gay bashing and
>=discriminatin against gays be stopped.
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, you are explaining why gays want to be
>included in school curriculum, but you don't agree?
I am very ambivalent. If I had my way, everyone in the whole world
would agree with me that there was absolutely nothing wrong with gay
people or homosexuality in general. Everyone would be left to decide
for him or herself about their sexuality.
Telling five year old kids straight out "Homosexuality is just as
good as heterosexuality." would probably accomplish this in a few
generations.
I am wary of PC in general, of any smiling talking head saying "It's
all OK, boys and girls, we can all just hold hands and get along."
I don't have the right to convert everyone in the world to my point
of view, to impose my opinion on everyone. That is exactly what I am
charging the christians of trying to do. So what do I think should be
done?
The answer is simple: I don't know.
I think that a good first step would be to teach everyone that, even if
you disagree, everyone has a right to his or her own opinions. Tolerance.
From there, your guess is as good as mine.
>
>>There is a right to abort a fetus, based upon the rights to privacy and
>>control over one's own body.
>
>Is there also a right to abandon a child?
No, a small child is a human being, independant of its mother.
>Small children can't survive on their own.
Yes, they can. Not for years on end, but for days on end. They are
not dependent upon their mothers for *everything* the way a fetus is.
(e.g. they can breath, all by themselves. Go ahead and show me a 3
month fetus that can breath by itself. Or even breath with a hospital
respirator's help.)
> If parents take a camping trip to Alaska, and little
>Johnny turns out to be a pain, can they just leave him in a snowdrift?
>I mean, don't they have the right to live their own life the way they
>want to?
Until it infringes upon the rights of another person. Infanticide does
infringe upon the baby's right to life. It is no longer potential, it
is actual life.
>The objection to government welfare programs isn't just that they are
>inefficient at solving our poverty problem, it's that they created the
>poverty problem to begin with.
HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa!!!!!!!!
tell that to hoover.
> It is NOT "better to try then to do
>nothing at all", when trying makes things worse then they would have been.
Dependence on the government for a short period of time, possibly for a
long period of time, is not worse than starvation.
>It is not a problem that people spend time living in poverty, it is
>expected.
And there will always be colds. That doesn't stop people from taking
<insert brand name here> to help unclog their nose.
> The problem is the destruction of the human spirit of
>those enslaved by the welfare system, which was created to provide
>an enslaved group to re-elect congressman.
Ummm....sorry, but I don't think anyone set out to create dependency on
government welfare.
>The same methods were used in the early 1800's by slave owners -
>provide a minimal living for your slaves, make them dependent on you,
>they get used to it. It was so effective with some slaves that they
>remained with their master after the civil war (as sharecroppers).
Yes, the fact is that a majority of people would rather have a nice,
comfortable, secure way of living than have to struggle and worry about
where their next meal is coming from. I can respect that.
I don't think, however, that that is proof enough of a conspiracy to
enslave the poor of this country. Remember that most of the current
welfare programs got their start in the 1930's when there were massive
tent cities of people, perfectly willing to work doing ***anything***
shoveling shit or picking peaches, who were starving nonetheless.
Social security, AFDC, and all the others were intended to help these,
hardworking folks who were simply unable to find work.
seg...@su1bj.harris.com
>>no government has the right to decide the morality or ethics of its
>>citizens. Ethics, morality, and religion are all intensely personal,
>>and cannot be decided by a government.
>>
>>The only jurisdiction a government has over morality/ethics/religion is
>>to make rules to protect the cohesion of the society.
Wrong. Government has an obligation to protect the quality of life for all -
that demands a moral standard. The moral standards for this country
were based on Judao-Christian doctrine (I wonder how that happened).
In fact, the entire legislative process is based on defining what is acceptable
and what is not. And the judiciary is responsible for punishing those who
choose not to be constrained by legislative (or ethical or moral) guidelines.
When your freedoms are harmful to others, expect to lose them.
Government is about maintaining standards, not letting everyone define their
own - although the alternative can be tempting to those without self-control
(Gee - I wonder if I could define how much I felt I should contribute in taxes
this year - or how many wives I can have - the possibilities are endless)
>
>>There is a right to abort a fetus, based upon the rights to privacy and
>>control over one's own body.
When did privacy become a justification to end someone's life? As for control
over one's body - what about age limits for drinking, seatbelt laws,
controlled substance laws, suicide laws, etc?. Personally, I really don't have
much interest in you, your body or your life. But when when you start including
others as part of your body, I have great concerns. You live in a house, that
doesn't make you part of it - if the bank forecloses on it they take the house not
you or your kids.
A pre-born baby is not part of the mothers body any more than she is part of
the fathers body (this is easily supported by the different blood types and DNA)
Hmmm... think about the baby conceived from one woman's egg and
transplanted into another's womb - who's body would this baby belong to?
A recent court decision stated that the woman carrying the baby had no
right to custody of the baby. Custody of a non-human? Interesting.
Maybe the courts are finally coming around.
Abortion is legal today NOT because a fetus was defined as part of the
mothers body, but because a fetus has been legally defined as a non-human.
-GS
Craig Powers
=>>There is a right to abort a fetus, based upon the rights to privacy and
=>>control over one's own body.
=>Is there also a right to abandon a child? Small children can't survive
=>on their own. If parents take a camping trip to Alaska, and little
=>Johnny turns out to be a pain, can they just leave him in a snowdrift?
=>I mean, don't they have the right to live their own life the way they
=>want to?
As has been said before (by me and others), there is a big difference
between small children and z/e/f's: Any parent or parents can support
"little Johnny," so if his parents don't want him, they can just give
him up for adoption. Z/e/f's, however, can be supported (generally) by
only one person: the mother to whom they are attached.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Craig Powers
>When did privacy become a justification to end someone's life? As for control
>over one's body - what about age limits for drinking, seatbelt laws,
>controlled substance laws, suicide laws, etc?. Personally, I really don't have
>much interest in you, your body or your life. But when when you start including
>others as part of your body, I have great concerns. You live in a house, that
>doesn't make you part of it - if the bank forecloses on it they take the house not
>you or your kids.
>A pre-born baby is not part of the mothers body any more than she is part of
>the fathers body (this is easily supported by the different blood types
>and DNA)
If not a part of her body, then definitely in a symbiotic/parasitic
relationship with her.
>Hmmm... think about the baby conceived from one woman's egg and
>transplanted into another's womb - who's body would this baby belong to?
I don't think it would be an issue until after birth - the one who
carries the baby will have agreed to it and have no reason to want to
end the pregnancy. And if she did, there would be an interesting legal
battle. Right to privacy (if the posters on the legal reasons for
legalizing abortion) v. sanctity of a contract.
>Abortion is legal today NOT because a fetus was defined as part of the
>mothers body, but because a fetus has been legally defined as a non-human.
Maybe, but most of us arguing the pro-choice viewpoint admit that not
only is the z/e/f human (although its personhood has been called into
question). Besides, if those posting on the legal justifications for
abortion are correct, the justices ruling in favor of abortion in Roe v.
Wade ignored the question of the humanness/personhood of the z/e/f.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
esme
First of all, when you quote me, attribute. Nice little <cow...@phakt.usc.edu>
at the top isn't so difficult.
Now, then:
In article <CM5vp...@news.ess.harris.com> seg...@su1bj.harris.com writes:
>>>Just as no government has the right to decide the religion of its citizens,
>>>no government has the right to decide the morality or ethics of its
>>>citizens. Ethics, morality, and religion are all intensely personal,
>>>and cannot be decided by a government.
>>>
>>>The only jurisdiction a government has over morality/ethics/religion is
>>>to make rules to protect the cohesion of the society.
>
>Wrong. Government has an obligation to protect the quality of life for all -
>that demands a moral standard. The moral standards for this country
>were based on Judao-Christian doctrine (I wonder how that happened).
>In fact the entire legislative process is based on defining what is acceptable
>and what is not.
This however, does not contradict my statement. Kindly don't tell me I'm
wrong and then fail to even assert a contradictory position. It insults me
and makes you look like a fool.
Government defines what is acceptable. OK. The only valid yardstick to
define what is acceptable in a non-theocratic government is whether or not
an action threatens the cohesion of the society. Any other guage constitutes
an imposition of religous belief.
Take abortion as an example. If a pro-lifer were to say "1) Aborting a
fetus is destroying the potential of life. 2) Allowing the destruction
of a potential life leads to the destruction of actual life, i.e. murder.
3) Murder threatens the cohesion of society." and convince me of all
three steps, I would be a pro-lifer. But the fact is that they jump
to #2, by saying "abortion is murder" without proving anything.
>And the judiciary is responsible for punishing those who
>choose not to be constrained by legislative (or ethical or moral) guidelines.
>When your freedoms are harmful to others, expect to lose them.
Have you actually been **listening** to me? I've said ten times in this
thread alone "freedom to swing your fist stops where someone else's nose
begins." And the main job of the judiciary is not and never will be
punishment. That's the prison system's job. The sole job of the judiciary
is to apply legislation to contemporary society and specific circumstances.
Courts don't punish, they interpret.
>Government is about maintaining standards, not letting everyone define their
>own - although the alternative can be tempting to those without self-control
I have self-control, the simple abscense of obscenity from this post is
evidence of that.
The government should only maintain standards when it is necessary to the
society that it does so. "That government is best which governs least"
as Thoreau said. In the remainder of situations, it is the government's
duty to allow citizens to make their own moral judgments.
>(Gee - I wonder if I could define how much I felt I should contribute in taxes
>this year - or how many wives I can have - the possibilities are endless)
I won't dignify that logically-flawed apostrophe with a response.
>>>There is a right to abort a fetus, based upon the rights to privacy and
>>>control over one's own body.
>
>When did privacy become a justification to end someone's life?
Since your opinion that the fetus is 'alive' cannot be adequately supported
without the use of religious arguments, the law cannot consider abortion
the taking of someone's life. If the law did consider an abortion the
taking of live, I'm sure the census and death certificates would reflect
that. As it is, fetuses are not counted as population, and abortions are
not listed as homocide.
> As for control
>over one's body - what about age limits for drinking, seatbelt laws,
>controlled substance laws, suicide laws, etc?
Drinking laws are made to prevent inexperience from causing damage to the
young drinker and to prevent that young drinker from harming others.
This falls under societal cohesion (i.e. protection of the rights of others).
Seatbelt laws fall under the same category as abortion in that they restrict
personal freedom. However, wearing a seatbelt is ideologically neutral, a
good idea in general, and, being meant to protect the citizen, also protects
society as a whole.
Controlled substance laws are intended to protect the public from the
uncontrollable actions of the intoxicated person.
Suicide laws are a joke. 1) They aren't meant for those who commit suicide,
but are used as a penal basis to incarcerate and force treatment upon failed
suicides. 2) They deprive (or rather, they would deprive if perfectly
enforced) citizens of the control of their body in the most crucial moment
(choosing when to die).
>Personally, I really don't have much interest in you, your body or your
>life. But when when you start including others as part of your body, I
>have great concerns.
A fetus is not an other, and, being a man, I am not defining it as part
of my body, but rather as part of the woman carrying it's body.
>You live in a house, that doesn't make you part of it - if the bank
>forecloses on it they take the house not you or your kids.
Flawed analogy: house-me does not parallel woman-fetus. I can live
outside my house (apartment, actually), but a fetus cannot live outside
of it's mother's womb.
>A pre-born baby is not part of the mothers body any more than she is part of
>the fathers body (this is easily supported by the different blood types and
>DNA)
Actually, a fetus is more a part of its mother than of its father. There
is the physical connection, blood connection, etc. As for blood types and
DNA -- can't a difference in RH factor kill a fetus? Or at least endager
it. And the DNA is half hers.
>Hmmm... think about the baby conceived from one woman's egg and
>transplanted into another's womb - who's body would this baby belong to?
Before birth: the woman carrying it. After birth: the woman and man
whose DNA joined to create it.
>A recent court decision stated that the woman carrying the baby had no
>right to custody of the baby. Custody of a non-human? Interesting.
First of all, they were talking about custody of the baby *after* birth.
The woman who supplied the egg didn't want to have the fetus removed
and implanted in her womb, now did she? Second of all, the reason for
the woman who carried the fetus not having custody rights is that her
genetic material didn't form the child (she was, in a certain sense,
a living test-tube) and because she signed a contract giving up any
custody rights before they let her in the same room as the fertilized
egg they implanted in her.
>Maybe the courts are finally coming around.
>
>Abortion is legal today NOT because a fetus was defined as part of the
>mothers body, but because a fetus has been legally defined as a non-human.
Yes, and my argument is that one of the reasons a fetus is not a human is
that it is not independent from its mother.
Niall O' Byrne
In article <2l84o3$p...@aludra.usc.edu>, cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>In article <CM35E...@pts.mot.com> nia...@comm.mot.com writes:
>>In article <2l2tr7$k...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>
>[deleted...]
>
>>I guess you are refering to Christians again. My understanding of the Bible
>>teachings is that homosexuality is not a sin. What is a sin is indulging in
>>homosexual acts.
>
>Refer to the verse from Matthew below. Christian morality, as I have been
>taught it, is that "intention" or "desire" to do something constitues a
>sin just a much as the actual action.
>
Agreed. But there is a difference between having a tendency and having a
desire especially when that desire becomes lust.
[delete]
>>The ethics of searching for a gay gene to enable detection before birth
>>is not going to do anything except make this attitude to homosexuality
>>worse.
>
>A genetic basis of homosexuality is a double edged sword. Positive: if
>gayness is genetic/biological, then it is a fact of life, not something
>to be 'corrected' with psychiatry.
>
>Negative: it then becomes a disease that could be changed with gene
>therapy, selective reproduction/abortion, etc.
>
Yes, but which way will society jump if this test were available ?
>[...]
>
>>>Actually, christianity does not separate sin from temptation.
>>>KJV matthew 5:28 -- but i say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman
>>> to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
>>
>>There is a difference between desire, lust and tendencies.
>
>But the fact is that they are all *mental* as opposed to actions. There
>is, then, a sin without any action.
The sin is in the heart. The thought "given a chance I would" is the sin.
If the chance were there the sin would be commited because the heart is
already impure in thought.
It is not a sin to be tempted but it is a sin to want to give in to that
temptation.
>>Besides, you listed a heterosexual sin.
>
>Adultery is a 'heterosexual sin'? I'm sorry, but I don't think so. If two
>women were married (homosexual marriage is legal in Hawaii) and one of the
>women had sex with another woman, I believe that would constitue homosexual
>adultery.
Well, I don't think temptation is a sin. In fact, I know it's not because
we are told in the Bible that Jesus was tempted by the Devil for 40 days
and 40 nights and He didn't give in. Could the Son of God continue His
work if He had sinned ?
>>>After all, remember that other mammals also have homosexuals as well.
>>
>>Interesting concept. Could you point me towards some references, I'd like
>>to check that out.
>
>No, I can't supply any citations for that. I read an article about it
>2 yrs ago. I've seen non-human homosexuality mentioned in essays a few
>times. It's been well-established fact for years.
The fact that homosexuality is not a sin has been established for 2,000
years yet you do not accept it. Should I accept your allegation that
homosexuality exists in lower animals without a citation ?
Niall
--
#include<std.disclaimer>
Niall O Byrne, Motorola B.V. Dublin, IRELAND
Niall O' Byrne
In article <2lauo0$n...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Craig
Powers) writes:
>In article <CM5vp...@news.ess.harris.com> seg...@su1bj.harris.com writes:
>
>>When did privacy become a justification to end someone's life? As for
>control
>>over one's body - what about age limits for drinking, seatbelt laws,
>>controlled substance laws, suicide laws, etc?. Personally, I really don't
>have
>>much interest in you, your body or your life. But when when you start
>including
>>others as part of your body, I have great concerns. You live in a house,
>that
>>doesn't make you part of it - if the bank forecloses on it they take the house
>not
>>you or your kids.
>
>>A pre-born baby is not part of the mothers body any more than she is part of
>>the fathers body (this is easily supported by the different blood types
>>and DNA)
>
>If not a part of her body, then definitely in a symbiotic/parasitic
>relationship with her.
Not true. To be symbiotic it must benefit the mother. In the physical sense
it does not.
To be parasitic it must damage the mother. Again in the physical sense it
normally does not damage the mother.
The growth of the child in the uterus is a natural process which is interupted
at birth. After birth the mother continues to do what she did before birth
i.e. feed the child, keep it warm, keep it safe and disposed of it's
waste products.
Greg Segallis
>>A pre-born baby is not part of the mothers body any more than she is part of
>>the fathers body (this is easily supported by the different blood types
>>and DNA)
>
>If not a part of her body, then definitely in a symbiotic/parasitic
>relationship with her.
Given:
The family is a symbiotic unit. Parasite: "having dependence on something
else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return".
Then:
This would also qualify my 2 year old and my 5 year old (and probably most
college students from their parent's perspective). The elderly, terminally
ill, inferm, premature babies, and handicapped would probably be next.
That's one way to welfare reform. This is exactly what scares me the most
about our acceptability of abortion. I hate to see history repeat itself
where lives are terminated because of their perceived lack of contribution
or independence.
My point is this: A newborn is just as dependent on its mother as an
8 month old fetus. Actually, every woman I have asked agrees that it
requires much more effort to care for a newborn than a baby in utero.
>>Hmmm... think about the baby conceived from one woman's egg and
>>transplanted into another's womb - who's body would this baby belong to?
>
>I don't think it would be an issue until after birth - the one who
>carries the baby will have agreed to it and have no reason to want to
>end the pregnancy. And if she did, there would be an interesting legal
>battle. Right to privacy (if the posters on the legal reasons for
>legalizing abortion) v. sanctity of a contract.
This has already become an issue in the courts. These cases are very
related to assumptions made during R v W. R v W has alway been subject
to review of new evidence - this evidence is starting to come to light as
more people now have a vested interest in these "custody" battles. This
is sure to be an exploding issue based on the predicted rise of surrogate
pregnancies. Would abortion be legal for the woman carrying her own child,
but illegal for a woman carrying someone else's?
>>Abortion is legal today NOT because a fetus was defined as part of the
>>mothers body, but because a fetus has been legally defined as a non-human.
>
>Maybe, but most of us arguing the pro-choice viewpoint admit that not
>only is the z/e/f human (although its personhood has been called into
>question). Besides, if those posting on the legal justifications for
>abortion are correct, the justices ruling in favor of abortion in Roe v.
>Wade ignored the question of the humanness/personhood of the z/e/f.
The effect of the court was to declare pre-born babies as "non-human".
You can say "non-person", or to be consitent with the Declaration of
Independence, "non-men" or "non-mankind". This assumption was
fundamental to RvW. "Ignoring their humaness" is a watered-down way
of saying the same thing - if a pre-born baby is a human, then they
are guaranteed the same rights as you. The court said they are not
entitled to the same protection. This is precisely where RvW is weak -
this is where we will continue the legal battle. Technology and
science are becoming our allies.
-GS
gseg...@ic1d.harris.com
>I am very ambivalent. If I had my way, everyone in the whole world
>would agree with me that there was absolutely nothing wrong with gay
>people or homosexuality in general. Everyone would be left to decide
>for him or herself about their sexuality.
>
>Telling five year old kids straight out "Homosexuality is just as
>good as heterosexuality." would probably accomplish this in a few
>generations.
>
>I am wary of PC in general, of any smiling talking head saying "It's
>all OK, boys and girls, we can all just hold hands and get along."
>I don't have the right to convert everyone in the world to my point
>of view, to impose my opinion on everyone. That is exactly what I am
>charging the christians of trying to do. So what do I think should be
>done?
>
>The answer is simple: I don't know.
>
>I think that a good first step would be to teach everyone that, even if
>you disagree, everyone has a right to his or her own opinions. Tolerance.
>From there, your guess is as good as mine.
So I hope you would support my parental right to teach MY children that
homosexuality is wrong, abnormal, and immoral based on my biological and
religious beliefs. (This should not be considered gay-bashing or even
intolerant - I also teach them lying is wrong, not to hate liars, just that
it is wrong).
And you should support my right to oppose anyone trying to teach
them the contrary, whether it be public school or the TV.
>>Is there also a right to abandon a child?
>
>No, a small child is a human being, independant of its mother.
>
>>Small children can't survive on their own.
>
>Yes, they can. Not for years on end, but for days on end. They are
>not dependent upon their mothers for *everything* the way a fetus is.
>(e.g. they can breath, all by themselves. Go ahead and show me a 3
>month fetus that can breath by itself. Or even breath with a hospital
>respirator's help.)
So you would base allowing abortion on the survivability of the baby?
If I could scan a picture, I would show you a picture of my friend's baby
that was born before 7 months and was breathing on her own. I could also
show you pictures of 8 and 9 month old D&X abortion victims that were
perfectly capable of breathing on their own had their brains not been
suctioned out while their entire body, except for the head, was outside
of the mother.
All newborns would die if not for constant intervention by someone else.
Using breath as the criteria is not very equitable either since there
is no air in the amniotic sac. The lungs of a third trimester fetus
are operational - they are busy pumping fluid through them until they
are given the opportunity to pump air. If you use lung development as
the basis you would have to disallow abortion for fetuses in the last
few months or allow the killing of already born premature babies.
-GS
Greg Segallis
>Hey Stupid! Yea you, moron! Listen:
That's telling him !!!
>Do you want the state to tell a
>Buddhist woman that abortion is murder when she beleives that the soul does
>not enter the cell mass until near Birth.
It's a good thing Buddhists believe in gravity or we'd have to re-write all
our physics books. I wonder if they would be able to just float around
while the rest of us were stuck on the ground?
Anyway, somebody should tell her, why not the gov?
> Well, forget it, idiot, you're in the wrong country.
???????
>I have nothing against Christian women not having abortions, pre-martial sex,
>not masturbating, etc...Just don't use this government to enforce your
>primitive beleifs on Buddhists like myself.
Wait... I missed that one... who's the primitive one again?
>Ironically, if I was a Christian, I would still be pro-choice, no place in the
>Bible is abortion explicitely forbiden. That's why you Christian fools must
>quote these obscure poems written by prophets wandering around the desert.
He's right, my two year old has the "Beginner's Bible" also, and the word
"abortion" isn't even in there - just a lot of pictures.
My KJV and NIV, however, are completely obvious about what God thinks about the
"shedding of innocent blood", "sacrificing children to false god's" [convenience,
pleasure, money, etc.], and when life begins.
Email me for a study guide if you like.
-GS
esme
>
>In article <2l88a0$8...@aludra.usc.edu> cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme) writes:
[deleted]
>So I hope you would support my parental right to teach MY children that
>homosexuality is wrong, abnormal, and immoral based on my biological and
>religious beliefs. (This should not be considered gay-bashing or even
>intolerant - I also teach them lying is wrong, not to hate liars, just that
>it is wrong).
Yes, I would support your right to teach your children whatever you wish,
regardless of my personal moral objections to your teachings.
>And you should support my right to oppose anyone trying to teach
>them the contrary, whether it be public school or the TV.
No. I also support the right of others to teach your children other
points of view. Isn't that what school is all about?
And I certainly support the right of television to carry whatever programs
(with whatever messages) it wishes.
>are given the opportunity to pump air. If you use lung development as
>the basis you would have to disallow abortion for fetuses in the last
>few months or allow the killing of already born premature babies.
I don't support the abortion of fetuses in the last few months of
development. I don't think there is anything magical about the act
of birth, as far as defining when a fetus becomes human. Obviously,
there is little or no difference between a baby a day before it is born
and the day after it is born. I think the issue of development is more
important.
Craig Powers
=>In article <2lauo0$n...@lynx.dac.neu.edu> cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Craig Powers) writes:
=>>If not a part of her body, then definitely in a symbiotic/parasitic
=>>relationship with her.
=>Given:
=>The family is a symbiotic unit. Parasite: "having dependence on something
=>else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return".
=>Then:
=>This would also qualify my 2 year old and my 5 year old (and probably most
=>college students from their parent's perspective). The elderly, terminally
=>ill, inferm, premature babies, and handicapped would probably be next.
=>That's one way to welfare reform. This is exactly what scares me the most
=>about our acceptability of abortion. I hate to see history repeat itself
=>where lives are terminated because of their perceived lack of contribution
=>or independence.
The family is not a symbiotic unit in the sense of pregnancy, even if we
are only making an analogy. Why not? In pregnancy, there is only one
person who can support the life of the growing z/e/f. At least, that's
so during the early part of the pregnancy, where most of us have the
least problem with abortion. In a family, however, children can be
taken away (and sometimes are) without being killed.
Other point - if a mother is going to have an abortion, most likely the
z/e/f could be classified as a parasite: giving nothing and taking
quite a lot in return. Childrem, even college students, don't give back
something tangible, but they give back love, and the parent wants to
have them. Or else it is a parasitic relationship, the parent does not
love the child, does not want him/her, and would have been better off
aborting or giving the child up for adoption.
=>My point is this: A newborn is just as dependent on its mother as an
=>8 month old fetus. Actually, every woman I have asked agrees that it
=>requires much more effort to care for a newborn than a baby in utero.
Granted, but only if we are considering taking the fetus out via
C-section or an equivalent operation, or maybe just having the woman
give birth a little early. However, I for one have some severe ethical
qualms about abortion that late except in exceptional circumstances
(i.e., danger to the mother's life or _severe_ health risks).
=>>>Abortion is legal today NOT because a fetus was defined as part of the
=>>>mothers body, but because a fetus has been legally defined as a non-human.
=>>Maybe, but most of us arguing the pro-choice viewpoint admit that not
=>>only is the z/e/f human (although its personhood has been called into
=>>question) [but that is alive throughout the entire pregnancy].
=>>Besides, if those posting on the legal justifications for
=>>abortion are correct, the justices ruling in favor of abortion in Roe v.
=>>Wade ignored the question of the humanness/personhood of the z/e/f.
[note the line that I had intended to put in but never really did.]
=>The effect of the court was to declare pre-born babies as "non-human".
=>You can say "non-person", or to be consitent with the Declaration of
=>Independence, "non-men" or "non-mankind". This assumption was
=>fundamental to RvW. "Ignoring their humaness" is a watered-down way
=>of saying the same thing - if a pre-born baby is a human, then they
=>are guaranteed the same rights as you. The court said they are not
=>entitled to the same protection. This is precisely where RvW is weak -
=>this is where we will continue the legal battle. Technology and
=>science are becoming our allies.
Interestingly enough, most of us accept that the z/e/f is alive; really,
we have no other choice. Many of us are questioning the value of that
life. A number of us feel that whatever the value of the life, we have
no right to interfere in the mother's affairs (I can name at least on
Catholic I know who is anti-abortion but pro-choice).
On the subject of protection of the laws for all legally defined humans,
what about the death penalty? The SJC knows full well that the people
killed are human, it better not have denied that, and it still allows
the death penalty.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Craig Powers
=> So you would base allowing abortion on the survivability of the baby?
=> If I could scan a picture, I would show you a picture of my friend's baby
=> that was born before 7 months and was breathing on her own. I could also
=> show you pictures of 8 and 9 month old D&X abortion victims that were
=> perfectly capable of breathing on their own had their brains not been
=> suctioned out while their entire body, except for the head, was outside
=> of the mother.
=> All newborns would die if not for constant intervention by someone else.
=> Using breath as the criteria is not very equitable either since there
=> is no air in the amniotic sac. The lungs of a third trimester fetus
=> are operational - they are busy pumping fluid through them until they
=> are given the opportunity to pump air. If you use lung development as
=> the basis you would have to disallow abortion for fetuses in the last
=> few months or allow the killing of already born premature babies.
I will take you up on that. I am pro-choice, but I definitely do not
support late-term abortions except in extraordinary circumstances (ie,
danger to the mother's life or _severe_ threat to her health)
Not all of us are "abortion on demand, at any point in the pregnancy."
There are even a few pro-choice people who do not support abortion at
all.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Craig Powers
>In article <2lauo0$n...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Craig
>Powers) writes:
>>In article <CM5vp...@news.ess.harris.com> seg...@su1bj.harris.com writes:
>>>A pre-born baby is not part of the mothers body any more than she is part of
>>>the fathers body (this is easily supported by the different blood types
>>>and DNA)
>>If not a part of her body, then definitely in a symbiotic/parasitic
>>relationship with her.
>Not true. To be symbiotic it must benefit the mother. In the physical sense
>it does not.
>To be parasitic it must damage the mother. Again in the physical sense it
>normally does not damage the mother.
Not so. The fetus does not benefit the mother immediately, but I
consider the relationship symbiotic if the mother wants the child,
because she will derive future gain from having it. Otherwise, it is
parasitic, because it takes resources from the mother while giving
nothing of value in return. Note - by the definition of a parasite that
I have learned, harm is not necessary. For example: leeches do not
necessarily harm you.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
esme
>In article <940304142...@LL.MIT.EDU>, fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy) says:
[...]
>>Do you want the state to tell a
>>Buddhist woman that abortion is murder when she beleives that the soul does
>>not enter the cell mass until near Birth.
>
>It's a good thing Buddhists believe in gravity or we'd have to re-write all
>our physics books. I wonder if they would be able to just float around
>while the rest of us were stuck on the ground?
That's the way to prove 'im wrong! Nothing like confronting ill-argued
logic with smart-though-illogical argument. Or can't you tell the
difference?
>
>Anyway, somebody should tell her, why not the gov?
Actually, no. Somebody shouldn't tell her. But if someone does have
to tell her, let it be the government only if everyone else on the
planet won't do it.
>
>
>> Well, forget it, idiot, you're in the wrong country.
>
>???????
I believe this is a rather lucid reference to the [relatively] oppression-free
history of the United States of America.
>>I have nothing against Christian women not having abortions, pre-martial sex,
>>not masturbating, etc...Just don't use this government to enforce your
>>primitive beleifs on Buddhists like myself.
>
>Wait... I missed that one... who's the primitive one again?
Primitive, i.e. undeveloped. As christian theology has developed fantastically
slowly (due to the 'god said' nature of christian ideology) when compared
to the rapid transformation of buddhist thought.
>My KJV and NIV, however, are completely obvious about what God thinks about
>the "shedding of innocent blood", "sacrificing children to false god's"
>[convenience, pleasure, money, etc.], and when life begins.
I think they meant Baal and Moloch, not pleasure. Call me crazy, but I
think he's right. Since the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion,
it is a matter of interpretation what christian doctrine should say
about abortion.
My guess is that it would say, "He among you who is without sin, cast
the first stone" or something like that, if it were in accordance with
christ's teachings.
esme
>In article <2l84o3$p...@aludra.usc.edu>, cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>>In article <CM35E...@pts.mot.com> nia...@comm.mot.com writes:
>>>In article <2l2tr7$k...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
[deleted...]
>>A genetic basis of homosexuality is a double edged sword. Positive: if
>>gayness is genetic/biological, then it is a fact of life, not something
>>to be 'corrected' with psychiatry.
>>
>>Negative: it then becomes a disease that could be changed with gene
>>therapy, selective reproduction/abortion, etc.
>>
>Yes, but which way will society jump if this test were available ?
It's really impossible to say with any definiteness. My guess is that
most of the people who are opposed to homosexuality would also be
against aboriton, conveniently preventing the genocide of homosexuals.
My guess is that there would simply be a different debate "sick" v.
"normal" like today we have "sin" v "okay"
[...]
>>>>After all, remember that other mammals also have homosexuals as well.
>>>
>>>Interesting concept. Could you point me towards some references, I'd like
>>>to check that out.
>>
>>No, I can't supply any citations for that. I read an article about it
>>2 yrs ago. I've seen non-human homosexuality mentioned in essays a few
>>times. It's been well-established fact for years.
>
>The fact that homosexuality is not a sin has been established for 2,000
>years yet you do not accept it.
I accept that wholeheartedly! (and i realize that is a typo. i did it
just the other day.)
>Should I accept your allegation that homosexuality exists in lower animals
>without a citation ?
If you don't accept the allegation, do some research. Shouldn't be that
hard to find. What I'm saying is that if I kept even just a cite and
abstract for ever article and essay I read, I'd have no room to sleep
or cook! I'd have my own card catalog research center in my living room,
and, since I probably wouldn't have thought to index them, I wouldn't
be able to find a thing.
When somebody makes a claim I don't believe, I find evidence to prove them
wrong (if I care about it enough) Or I just let it go. Your choice.
Niall O' Byrne
In article <2lj7bq$d...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Craig
Powers) writes:
>In article <CMAvq...@pts.mot.com> nia...@comm.mot.com writes:
>>In article <2lauo0$n...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Craig
>>Powers) writes:
>>>In article <CM5vp...@news.ess.harris.com> seg...@su1bj.harris.com writes:
>
>>>>A pre-born baby is not part of the mothers body any more than she is part
>of
>>>>the fathers body (this is easily supported by the different blood types
>>>>and DNA)
>
>>>If not a part of her body, then definitely in a symbiotic/parasitic
>>>relationship with her.
>
>>Not true. To be symbiotic it must benefit the mother. In the physical sense
>>it does not.
>>To be parasitic it must damage the mother. Again in the physical sense it
>>normally does not damage the mother.
>
>Not so. The fetus does not benefit the mother immediately, but I
>consider the relationship symbiotic if the mother wants the child,
>because she will derive future gain from having it.
1. The foetus *does* benefit immediately because without the mother it cannot
survive.
2. If you want to use terms like "sybiotic" or "parasitics" to make your point
you have to stick with the known understanding of the terms or otherwise
coin new words to suit the point you want make.
3. There is no guarantee with any child that there will be future gain.
Have you seen the film "Problem Child" ?
> Otherwise, it is
>parasitic, because it takes resources from the mother while giving
>nothing of value in return. Note - by the definition of a parasite that
>I have learned, harm is not necessary. For example: leeches do not
>necessarily harm you.
So you're saying that It's existance, it's life has no value. Ok, at least now
I can see where you are coming from. As long as it can return nothing of value
it should have no rights.
How many people never give anything of value back to their parents ? Should
they have been aborted ?
BTW leeches could carry disease, do abrase the skin and do tap directly
into the blood supply and remove some of it. I guess that's harmless by your
definition ?
Niall O' Byrne
In article <2ljbk5$s...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>In article <CMAvB...@pts.mot.com> nia...@comm.mot.com writes:
>>In article <2l84o3$p...@aludra.usc.edu>, cow...@aludra.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>>>In article <CM35E...@pts.mot.com> nia...@comm.mot.com writes:
>>>>In article <2l2tr7$k...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>
>[deleted...]
>
>>>A genetic basis of homosexuality is a double edged sword. Positive: if
>>>gayness is genetic/biological, then it is a fact of life, not something
>>>to be 'corrected' with psychiatry.
>>>
>>>Negative: it then becomes a disease that could be changed with gene
>>>therapy, selective reproduction/abortion, etc.
>>>
>>Yes, but which way will society jump if this test were available ?
>
>It's really impossible to say with any definiteness. My guess is that
>most of the people who are opposed to homosexuality would also be
>against aboriton, conveniently preventing the genocide of homosexuals.
I don't understand your use of the word "conviently" in the above statement.
My guess is that it is some kind of veiled attack on the people who are
against abortion. I can't speak for all pro-life people but personally I am
against abortion because it kills people of all denominations, colours and
orientation, in other words - human beings.
>My guess is that there would simply be a different debate "sick" v.
>"normal" like today we have "sin" v "okay"
But the "sick" v "normal" debate already exists among those who have no
religion or keep it private. You still haven't answered the question.
[deletions]
>
>>Should I accept your allegation that homosexuality exists in lower animals
>>without a citation ?
>
>If you don't accept the allegation, do some research. Shouldn't be that
>hard to find. What I'm saying is that if I kept even just a cite and
>abstract for ever article and essay I read, I'd have no room to sleep
>or cook! I'd have my own card catalog research center in my living room,
>and, since I probably wouldn't have thought to index them, I wouldn't
>be able to find a thing.
>
>When somebody makes a claim I don't believe, I find evidence to prove them
>wrong (if I care about it enough) Or I just let it go. Your choice.
>
If I were to accept that citation I'd also have to accept the ludicrous
arguments that pro-choice and pro-abortion people put forward e.g.
because ectopic pregnancy happens induced abortion on demand should be
legalized.
Greg Segallis
>
>In article <CMBEK...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com writes:
>>And you should support my right to oppose anyone trying to teach
>>them the contrary, whether it be public school or the TV.
>
>No. I also support the right of others to teach your children other
>points of view. Isn't that what school is all about?
Not really. The parents are considered "responsible" for the their
children, not the gov. Schools are a means available to parents to
administrate this goal. School is not about teaching kids concepts that
are directly opposed to the wishes and religous beliefs of the parents.
It is my duty to protect my children from things (doctrine) that I
consider harmful. I'm not saying I have the right to prevent all
such doctrine from being taught in public school, only that I have the
right to not have _my_ child subjected to it.
If your logic were valid, then someonelse would have the right to daily
teach your children religous doctrine contary to your belief and
against your permission.
>I don't support the abortion of fetuses in the last few months of
>development. I don't think there is anything magical about the act
>of birth, as far as defining when a fetus becomes human. Obviously,
>there is little or no difference between a baby a day before it is born
>and the day after it is born. I think the issue of development is more
>important.
That's exactly how I started (I'm encouraged). I soon found it difficult
to justify abortion at any point in the development. Ultrasound was one
thing that helped blur my ability to determine which babies are deserving
of life and which are not.
Our third baby is only 16 weeks along and she/he was kicking my hand
last night - that still blows my mind. I always break out the baby
development book when my wife's expecting - our baby's heart is pumping
24 quarts of blood per day all by itself. And she/he already can
suck its thumb and reacts in fear to being touched. There's a lot less
developmental difference between this baby at 17 weeks and a newborn, as
compared to a newborn and a 5 year old. There is nothing major missing
at this point - she/he justs need a little time time to grow. Just
as she/he will continue to do so after being born.
I think you'd really be amazed at just how quickly a baby developes in
the womb. Everything is just alittle smaller.
-GS
Greg Segallis
>The family is not a symbiotic unit in the sense of pregnancy, even if we
>are only making an analogy. Why not? In pregnancy, there is only one
>person who can support the life of the growing z/e/f. At least, that's
>so during the early part of the pregnancy, where most of us have the
>least problem with abortion. In a family, however, children can be
>taken away (and sometimes are) without being killed.
I was kind of just trying to make a point with that. However, a family
is symbotic based on the definition alone. Also, dependency on others
is key to this definition being depenednt on society is not much
different than being dependent on only one person.
>
>Other point - if a mother is going to have an abortion, most likely the
>z/e/f could be classified as a parasite: giving nothing and taking
>quite a lot in return. Childrem, even college students, don't give back
>something tangible, but they give back love, and the parent wants to
>have them. Or else it is a parasitic relationship, the parent does not
>love the child, does not want him/her, and would have been better off
>aborting or giving the child up for adoption.
As a father of three, one still in utero, I can tell you that I receive
as much love from this 17 week old pre-born baby as I have from both
my others the day they were born. It's not because of anything they do
(a few day old baby hardly acknowledges dad). It's pretty emotional
to put your hand on you wife's belly and feel this tiny baby play
footsey with you!
If a baby just has to be loved to be of value enough not to kill, I would
contend that there are enough people waiting to adopt that no baby is
unloved.
>
>=>My point is this: A newborn is just as dependent on its mother as an
>=>8 month old fetus. Actually, every woman I have asked agrees that it
>=>requires much more effort to care for a newborn than a baby in utero.
>
>Granted, but only if we are considering taking the fetus out via
>C-section or an equivalent operation, or maybe just having the woman
>give birth a little early. However, I for one have some severe ethical
>qualms about abortion that late except in exceptional circumstances
>(i.e., danger to the mother's life or _severe_ health risks).
What I meant was it takes little concious, active effort on the part of
the mother to care for her baby that is in utero (0-9 months) as compared
to the effort required once that baby is born. You start caring enough
about babies in the "last" stages of pregnancy (enough to oppose killing
them) and I guarantee you'll eventually start feeling the same for ones
just a little bit younger, and younger...
>Interestingly enough, most of us accept that the z/e/f is alive; really,
>we have no other choice. Many of us are questioning the value of that
>life. A number of us feel that whatever the value of the life, we have
>no right to interfere in the mother's affairs (I can name at least on
>Catholic I know who is anti-abortion but pro-choice).
That's what scares me. A couple of well know historians tried to decide
the value of life for people also - just ask any Jewish person over 50.
Are you really sure about the value of that life, or is there some
small possibility you could be wrong?
>
>On the subject of protection of the laws for all legally defined humans,
>what about the death penalty? The SJC knows full well that the people
>killed are human, it better not have denied that, and it still allows
>the death penalty.
After due process, they have been found guilt by a jury of their peers
to have committed a crime deserving of death. Has even one of the 40
something million babies that has been aborted been guilty of any crime?
Is there even due process? Are there laws even requiring that the mother
have full knowledge and facts about the developemnt of the baby inside
her that has been determined to have no value? (in most states no).
-GS
Greg Segallis
>Primitive, i.e. undeveloped. As christian theology has developed fantastically
>slowly (due to the 'god said' nature of christian ideology) when compared
>to the rapid transformation of buddhist thought.
Don't mistake radical for developing. Mathematics has changed very little
over time which is a testimony to its completeness and accurracy. Any
change in Christian theology is due to man's errors, not the Bible's.
>>My KJV and NIV, however, are completely obvious about what God thinks about
>>the "shedding of innocent blood", "sacrificing children to false god's"
>>[convenience, pleasure, money, etc.], and when life begins.
>
>I think they meant Baal and Moloch, not pleasure. Call me crazy, but I
>think he's right. Since the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion,
>it is a matter of interpretation what christian doctrine should say
>about abortion.
You are mistaken. The Bible frequently refers to sacrifice and worship of
money, pleasures, lust, etc. Although the Bible does not contain the
word "abortion" it most certainly does forbid the act of killing a pre-born
babies. The Bible is completely obvious about when life begins - at
conception. Such a fetus is said by God to be made in His image.
The Bible is completely obvious about the act of killing one created
in God's image - it is called murder. The Bible is completely obvious
about the sin of shedding innocent blood. The Bible is completely obvious
about calling a murderer, one who injures a pregnant woman such that the
baby in her womb dies. If you are seriously interested in seeing what God
says in the Bible and in understanding the Word of God, let me know and
I will be happy to email or post a list of Scripture references on these
topics. There are many. When someone has to "interpret" that the Bible
forbids the murder of man, who is created in God's image, that person
has not even begun to understand the first sentence of the Bible.
Show me a person who denies these truths are a part of the Bible, and
I'll show you a person that believes and lives very little else that
the Bible says. This is the major problem with Christians, there are
a lot of of them out there that would be better off calling themselves
something else (like a Buddhist). God's say not all that say Lord, Lord
shall be saved. I'm not saying a person has to believe the Bible on these
matters, only that it is required for a Christian.
>
>My guess is that it would say, "He among you who is without sin, cast
>the first stone" or something like that, if it were in accordance with
>christ's teachings.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. This appears to be the the
most quoted passage of the Bbile by non-Chritians. If only you proclaimed
the rest of God's commands as well. No Chritian believes he is without
sin. We are commande to have mercy in the same that God has mercy on us
(sinners) - this was Jesus' point in saying this. He also said to flee
and hate evil (not the sinner, but the sin).
-GS
Willia...@vos.stratus.com
[deleted "let he who has no sin cast the first stone"]
=>I'm not sure I understand your point here. This appears to be the the
=>most quoted passage of the Bbile by non-Chritians. If only you proclaimed
=>the rest of God's commands as well. No Chritian believes he is without
=>sin. We are commande to have mercy in the same that God has mercy on us
=>(sinners) - this was Jesus' point in saying this. He also said to flee
=>and hate evil (not the sinner, but the sin).
Aren't Christians supposed to treat others they way they wish to
be treated?
Given this fact, a Christian wouldn't want the government telling them
what to do with their bodies, would they?
Given this fact, isn't it totally within the Christian (Christ's words)
boundries to be pro-choice (meaning: I wish not to interfere with
peoples bodies or their lives, I trust people to make decisions, I
give people "free-will").
Cheers!
--Bill M.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Lying on stained, wretched sheets with a bleeding virgin.
We could plan a murder,
or start a religion"
---Jim Morrison
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
hat...@msupa.pa.msu.edu
>In article <2ljat3$r...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>>>My KJV and NIV, however, are completely obvious about what God thinks about
>>>the "shedding of innocent blood", "sacrificing children to false god's"
>>>[convenience, pleasure, money, etc.], and when life begins.
>>
>>I think they meant Baal and Moloch, not pleasure. Call me crazy, but I
>>think he's right. Since the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion,
>>it is a matter of interpretation what christian doctrine should say
>>about abortion.
>
>You are mistaken. The Bible frequently refers to sacrifice and worship of
>money, pleasures, lust, etc. Although the Bible does not contain the
>word "abortion" it most certainly does forbid the act of killing a pre-born
>babies.
And in other cases it REQUIRES it, to wit (I'm assuming Steve Adams won't
mind my heavily quoting from an 27Jun1993 post of his):
|====
|Numbers 5 - punishment for an unfaithful wife
|
| "(27)And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come
| to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done tresspass against her
| husband, the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and
| become bitter, and her belly shall swell and her thigh shall rot: and
| the woman shall be a curse among her people. (28)And if the woman
| be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall
| conceive seed." [KJV]
|
| "(27)If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband,
| then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it
| will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell
| and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her
| people. (28)If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is
| free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to
| have children." [NIV]
|
| NIV Text Notes: (27)OR...suffering; she will have barrenness and a
| miscarrying womb
|
| NIV Study Notes: 5:21 The figurative language here (and in vv. 22,27)
| speaks of the loss of the capacity for childbearing
| (AND, IF PREGNANT, THE MISCARRIAGE OF THE CHILD). This
| is demonstrated by the determination of the fate of a
| woman wrongly charged (v 28). For a woman in the Near
| East to be denied the ability to bear children was a
| personal loss of inestimable proportions. Since it was
| in the bearing of children that the woman's worth was
| realized in the ancient world, this was a grievous
| punishment indeed. [Emphesis mine]
|
| "(27)When he has made her drink the water, then, if she has defiled
| herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, the water that brings
| the curse shall enter into her and shall cause bitter pain, and HER
| WOMB SHALL DISCHARGE, her uterus drop, and the woman shall become
| an excretion among her people. (28)But if the woman has not defiled
| herself and is clean, then she shall be immune and be able to conceive
| children." [NRSV] [Emphesis mine]
|
| NRSV Study Notes: 5:23-28 The oath is followed by the drinking of the
| 'water that brings the curse (v18). It was believed
| that if a person were guilty this potion would have
| effects which would signify the Lord's verdict of
| judgement (Ex32:20,35).
|
| "(27)When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if
| she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that
| the water which brings a curse shall go into her and cause bitterness,
| and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the
| woman will become a curse among her people. (28)But if the woman
| has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and
| conceive children." [NASB]
|
| NASB Study Notes: 5:11-31 These verses describe the "law of jealousy,"
| whereby a woman suspected of marital unfaithfulness
| had to be brought to the priest for trial before the
| Lord (v16), who alone could reveal the truth of the
| matter. The ritual of verse 23 symbolically
| transferred the written words of the curse to the
| water. Verse 27 MAY INDICATE A MISCARRIAGE ('waste
| away' literal means 'fall'; see Job 3:16, where
| a similar Hebrew word refers to untimely birth). The
| practice here prescribed, apparrantly used only in the
| wilderness, prevented jealousy and suspicion from
| corrupting family and community life. God must have
| miraculously controlled the results whenever this test
| was used. [Emphesis mine]
|
| So, we have various translations that use generally the same language.
| It appears that ALL of the translations agree generally, and that the
| three modern translations all agree as to the meaning of the text. The
| NRSV actually puts the direct meaning into the main text, the NIV puts
| it as a Text Note (as an alternate translation), and the NASB notes this
| in the Study Notes.
|
| Although some may claim that the NRSV is a 'liberal' translation, the
| NIV is most certainly not, nor is the NASB, especially since the notes
| are from Dr. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, and is published by Moody Press.
| For those who don't know, Moody Bible Institute is VERY conservative,
| some would say extremely so.
|
| It seems clear that at least in this situation, God not only permits,
| but directly causes a miscarriage. These verses describe an induced
miscarriage. There is not escaping this.
|
| Note well that in addition to a miscarriage, the woman will no longer
| be able to conceive...
|
>The Bible is completely obvious about when life begins - at
>conception.
Obvious to you ... apparently standards vary since it's NOT obvious to me.
But then again, I see it as besides the point. YOU believe in the Bible
and that's okay. But I (and others) don't and feel no compulsion to follow
the myths and tales and assorted writings of shepards and nomads....
>Such a fetus is said by God to be made in His image.
So God looks like a blob? A early term fetus doesn't look much like
a born child, so which is it....
>The Bible is completely obvious about the act of killing one created
>in God's image - it is called murder.
All killing? Even capital punishment? Even the slaughter of animals
for food (hell, if a fetus was made in "His image" then who's to say
that a cow isn't as well).
>The Bible is completely obvious
>about the sin of shedding innocent blood.
Innocent ... as your fellow anti-abortion types say about "sentience":
metaphysical cladstrap. Hell, even your own religion says NO ONE is
truely "innocence" but we are all tainted with sin (of course it also
assigns the blame to Eve).
>The Bible is completely obvious
>about calling a murderer, one who injures a pregnant woman such that the
>baby in her womb dies.
Only in certain circumstances ... namely the father wishes to procescute:
(again from Mr. Adams)
|====
|Exodus 21 - Fighting men cause a miscarriage
|
| "(22)If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
| depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be punished,
| according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay
| as the judges determine. (23) And if any mischief follow, then thou
| shalt give life for life." [KJV]
|
| "(22)When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there
| is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible
| shall be fined what the woman's husband demands, paying as much as the
| judges determine. (23)If any harm follows, then you shall give life
| for life." [NRSV]
|
| "(22)If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she give birth
| prematurely* but there is no serious injury, the offender must be
| fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows.
| (23)But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life" [NIV]
|
| NIV Translation Note:* Or {she has a miscarriage}
|
| "(22)And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child
| so that she has a miscarriage*, yet there is no further injury, he shall
| surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him; and he shall
| pay as the judges decide. (23)But if there is any further injury, then
| you shall appoint as a penalty life for life." [NASB]
|
| NASB Translation Note: * Better {her fruit comes out}
|
| It is fairly clear that if a miscarriage is caused by accident, there is
| no life for life penalty applied. Thus, these verses cannot be used in
| support of an anti-abortion position. It is only if harm other than
| miscarriage is caused that equal damage is inflicted.
|
>If you are seriously interested in seeing what God
>says in the Bible and in understanding the Word of God, let me know and
>I will be happy to email or post a list of Scripture references on these
>topics.
Don't mail me anything ... but here's what I've seen in the past and
it is HARDLY as "obvious" as you purport. Looks like it takes quite a
bit of interpretation to understand it. Not that I really care about the
Bible, like I said it's YOUR business not mine. I just point out the
inconsistencies in your supposed "arguments"
>There are many. When someone has to "interpret" that the Bible
>forbids the murder of man, who is created in God's image, that person
>has not even begun to understand the first sentence of the Bible.
Oh, so you claim that you don't even understand the first sentence ..
glad you admit it. Or were you claiming that anyone who disagrees
with YOUR interpretation is "interpreting" it and you are not? <snicker>
Nice set of blinders you have on.
>Show me a person who denies these truths are a part of the Bible, and
>I'll show you a person that believes and lives very little else that
>the Bible says.
And why should they care? Let me guess ... all the non-believer are going
to burn in Hell unless they repent and immediately agree to YOUR way of
thinking, blah, blah, blah.
>This is the major problem with Christians, there are
>a lot of of them out there that would be better off calling themselves
>something else (like a Buddhist).
Oh, so what you're saying is that being pro-choice is acceptable as long
as you don't call yourself "Christian". Well, that's fine with me, but
some of your co-religionists are bound to disagree. Hmmm, one again we
have two groups each claiming the other isn't a "real Christian" ...
remind us of any historical events (catholic vs. protestant)?
>God's say not all that say Lord, Lord
>shall be saved. I'm not saying a person has to believe the Bible on these
>matters, only that it is required for a Christian.
Fine. Then I guess you're pro-choice as long as those who obtain abortions
don't call themselves Christians. ... I can live with that ... but then
again it doesn't really affect me.
>>My guess is that it would say, "He among you who is without sin, cast
>>the first stone" or something like that, if it were in accordance with
>>christ's teachings.
>
>I'm not sure I understand your point here. This appears to be the the
>most quoted passage of the Bbile by non-Chritians. If only you proclaimed
Maybe because we see it a hypocritical of the self-professed "Christians"
to selectively apply the standards found in the Bible to others than
themselves.
>the rest of God's commands as well. No Chritian believes he is without
>sin. We are commande to have mercy in the same that God has mercy on us
>(sinners) - this was Jesus' point in saying this. He also said to flee
>and hate evil (not the sinner, but the sin).
Alas, few "Christian" seem to manage that one (hate the sin, but not the
sinner) either..... And they seem to forgive their own sins MUCH faster
and easier than they forgive those of non-believers.
>-GS
-robert
esme
>In article <2ljat3$r...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>
>>Primitive, i.e. undeveloped. As christian theology has developed
>>fantastically slowly (due to the 'god said' nature of christian ideology)
>>when compared to the rapid transformation of buddhist thought.
>
>Don't mistake radical for developing.
I don't. To see the development from the original teachings of buddha to
the current schools of buddhism (e.g. soto zen, or pure land) is amazing.
With the exception of the two schisms, christianity has progressed very
little if at all from Hamurabi's code.
>Mathematics has changed very little
>over time which is a testimony to its completeness and accurracy.
Math is not a religion. The parallel is false.
> Any
>change in Christian theology is due to man's errors, not the Bible's.
That is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
>>>My KJV and NIV, however, are completely obvious about what God thinks about
>>>the "shedding of innocent blood", "sacrificing children to false god's"
>>>[convenience, pleasure, money, etc.], and when life begins.
>>
>>I think they meant Baal and Moloch, not pleasure. Call me crazy, but I
>>think he's right. Since the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion,
>>it is a matter of interpretation what christian doctrine should say
>>about abortion.
>
>You are mistaken. The Bible frequently refers to sacrifice and worship of
>money, pleasures, lust, etc.
Yes, but most women who have abortions don't 'worship' money, etc. They
simply realize that reality is, and should be, a factor in determining
whether or not to carry a child to term.
> Although the Bible does not contain the
>word "abortion" it most certainly does forbid the act of killing a pre-born
>babies. The Bible is completely obvious about when life begins - at
>conception. Such a fetus is said by God to be made in His image.
>The Bible is completely obvious about the act of killing one created
>in God's image - it is called murder. The Bible is completely obvious
>about the sin of shedding innocent blood. The Bible is completely obvious
>about calling a murderer, one who injures a pregnant woman such that the
>baby in her womb dies. If you are seriously interested in seeing what God
>says in the Bible and in understanding the Word of God, let me know and
>I will be happy to email or post a list of Scripture references on these
>topics. There are many.
While I don't think I want to understand the word of god in exactly the
way you mean, I would enjoy seeing the cites.
> When someone has to "interpret" that the Bible
>forbids the murder of man, who is created in God's image, that person
>has not even begun to understand the first sentence of the Bible.
No, that person does not believe a single word of the bible on faith.
That is my position.
I agree with you that the bible does say that abortion is a sin. My
point has been all along, that the fact that some book says abortion
is wrong is irrelevant to a secular government. I think the principle
of the seperation of church and state is fairly obvious.
>Show me a person who denies these truths are a part of the Bible, and
>I'll show you a person that believes and lives very little else that
>the Bible says.
Oh, I accept that those opinions are part of the bible. fine and dandy.
My question is "So what?" The bible has nothing to do with me. the
bible says "be fruitful and multiply" but i think that is a very short
sighted bit of advice.
> This is the major problem with Christians, there are
>a lot of of them out there that would be better off calling themselves
>something else (like a Buddhist).
I've met very few christians who were anything like buddhist. do you even
know the basic outlines of buddhism? the four noble truths and the eight
fold path mean anything to you? theravada, zazen, or satori?
I do know many people who go to christian churches who would be best
described as agnostic or deist.
> God's say not all that say Lord, Lord
>shall be saved. I'm not saying a person has to believe the Bible on these
>matters, only that it is required for a Christian.
I think emulating christ should be required for a christian. but then there
would be far fewer christians.
>>My guess is that it would say, "He among you who is without sin, cast
>>the first stone" or something like that, if it were in accordance with
>>christ's teachings.
>
>I'm not sure I understand your point here. This appears to be the the
>most quoted passage of the Bbile by non-Chritians. If only you proclaimed
>the rest of God's commands as well.
It so happens that the above passage is one of the VERY few in the bible
that i agree with. and the reason it is oft quoted by non-christians
is that it is oft forgotten by christians.
> No Chritian believes he is without
>sin. We are commande to have mercy in the same that God has mercy on us
>(sinners) - this was Jesus' point in saying this. He also said to flee
>and hate evil (not the sinner, but the sin).
But wouldn't it make much more sense to actually try to decrease the need
for abortions. Sex ed., advocacy of birth control, etc. instead of just
saying 'abortion is wrong, it says so here in this book. stop it!'
I can tell you this for certain, as long as there are women who want
abortions, there will be doctors who perform them. and given the choice
between having women having abortions in nice, modern clinics; or women
having abortions in seedy, makeshift quarters; i think anyone who uses
a little logic would agree that the legal, modern, clinics would kill
fewer people.
Craig Powers
=>In article <2lj7bq$d...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Craig
Powers) writes:
=>>In article <CMAvq...@pts.mot.com> nia...@comm.mot.com writes:
=>>> Not true. To be symbiotic it must benefit the mother. In the physical
=>>> sense it does not. To be parasitic it must damage the mother. Again
=>>> in the physical sense it normally does not damage the mother.
=>> Not so. The fetus does not benefit the mother immediately, but I
=>> consider the relationship symbiotic if the mother wants the child,
=>> because she will derive future gain from having it.
=> 1. The foetus *does* benefit immediately because without the mother it cannot
=> survive.
I never said it didn't. That is, it _derives_ benefits immediately
_from_ the mother. But it does not benefit the mother immediately (i.e.
give the mother something of value)
=> 2. If you want to use terms like "sybiotic" or "parasitics" to make your point
=> you have to stick with the known understanding of the terms or otherwise
=> coin new words to suit the point you want make.
Excuse me? I understand the words very well. We only seem to have a
little bit of a disagreement about the requirements for parasitism.
=> 3. There is no guarantee with any child that there will be future gain.
=> Have you seen the film "Problem Child" ?
In which case I feel the z/e/f may be said to be in a parasitic
relationship with the mother.
=>> Otherwise, it is
=>> parasitic, because it takes resources from the mother while giving
=>> nothing of value in return. Note - by the definition of a parasite that
=>> I have learned, harm is not necessary. For example: leeches do not
=>> necessarily harm you.
=> So you're saying that It's existance, it's life has no value. Ok, at
=> least now I can see where you are coming from. As long as it can
=> return nothing of value it should have no rights.
Not exactly. In fact, I don't use this parasitic relationship thing as
much of a justification. But I think it might be used as a sort of
justification, in the sense that the mother might have some right not to
be used as a supply of oxygen and nutrients and a depository for wastes.
=> How many people never give anything of value back to their parents ? Should
=> they have been aborted ?
Maybe. How should I know?
=> BTW leeches could carry disease, do abrase the skin and do tap directly
=> into the blood supply and remove some of it. I guess that's harmless by your
=> definition ?
If you must have harm done by the z/e/f, how about:
kinds of sickness caused by pregnancy
necessity of providing bodily nutrients to another "sink" of them
necessity of eliminating anothers wastes
Do these do for possible harm experienced by the mother?
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Michelle J Dumas
: In article <2l2tr7$k...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
: [cut to the chase]
: >>The religious conservatives look forward to the day when a "homosexual"
: >>gene is identified and a simple genetic test is available on a fetus
: >>to determine likely sexual orientation. At that time, pro-life will
: >>join with their new friends, the gay activists, in demonstrations
: >>against abortion.
: Shouldn't that read "pro-life will be joined by their new friends, the gay
: activists, in demonstrations against abortions" ?
: >My only solace is that the christians would have to show their vicious
: >hypocrisy, when they started to argue for aborting homosexual fetuses.
: I don't know which Christians would do that but pro-life organisations
: which are truely pro-life would not.
: >If Swaab is right, however, the difference might not be detectable before
: >birth. I wonder if they'd ever be in favor of infanticide?
: I guess w'd have to ask them.
: >>Does it really matter if sexual orientation is genetic?
: It shouldn't but if it is it leaves the door open to class homosexuality
: as a defect along with Downs, Spina Bifida, Cystic Fibrosis, cleft-palette
: and being a girl when the parents wanted a boy.
: >Yes, I think it does matter. If not anatomically based, homosexuality
: >could be validly considered to be no different from adultery or other
: >sexual sins. But if anantomically based....homosexuality would be
: >normal for that person, and even in the most extreme bigot's eyes would
: >be a disease to be pittied.
: I guess you are refering to Christians again. My understanding of the Bible
: teachings is that homosexuality is not a sin. What is a sin is indulging in
: homosexual acts.
: >
: >> You need
: >>only ask in soc.motss how many chose their sexual orientation.
: >>I suspect most will say they did not. Is their any doubt that
: >>they're telling the truth?
: >
: >Virtually all of the gays I know say they did not choose, and that
: >they knew they were gay since infancy. At least as early as straight
: >people became aware of sexuality.
: >
: I became aware of sexuality around puberty. Is this not normal ?
: >>Also keep in mind that there are many cases where gay men have
: >>become convinced that their lifestyle was wrong and then changed,
: >>over time, to a heterosexual orientation.
: >
: >And for every gay man who is turned straight, there are five who do
: >not realize their sexuality until they are married and have children.
: >
: >That's where the sociological aspect of gayness comes in. Many gay
: >people are forced into straight lives, because they are taught to
: >consider homosexuality abhorrent. Many more commit suicide before
: >they ever reach the point of marriage. (#1 reason for teen suicide
: >is problems with sexuality, of which a majority are people who cannot
: >handle the fact that they are gay.)
: The ethics of searching for a gay gene to enable detection before birth
: is not going to do anything except make this attitude to homosexuality
: worse.
: >>> Before changing my stance on gays, I will have to check into this myself.
: >>
: >>Should you not separate the temptation from the sin? I don't believe
: >>christianity condemns temptation (homosexual desire?), but it does
: >>condemn acting on temptation (the gay lifestyle?).
: >
: >Actually, christianity does not separate sin from temptation.
: >KJV matthew 5:28 -- but i say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman
: > to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
: >
: There is a difference between desire, lust and tendencies. Besides, you
: listed a heterosexual sin.
: >
: >>Will you excuse the extreme gay lifestyle because it wasn't their
: >>fault that they were attracted to men instead of women?
: >>
: >>So why is there such more animosity towards gays then other "sinners"?
: >
: >I don't think there is anything to excuse, nor anything extreme about
: >gay lifestyle. I think that homosexuality is perfectly normal.
: >After all, remember that other mammals also have homosexuals as well.
: >
: Interesting concept. Could you point me towards some references, I'd like
: to check that out. Are you certain that these animals are acting out of
: choice or a preference or is it because they are deprived of members of
: the opposite sex. The could even be displaying dominance to set out their
: territories or setting up a pecking order.
: Niall
: --
: #include<std.disclaimer>
: Niall O Byrne, Motorola B.V./LMPS Dublin, IRELAND
: Internet: nia...@comm.mot.com
: "On an occasion of this kind it becomes more than a moral
: duty to speak one's mind. It becomes a pleaure" --- Oscar Wilde
My dog is gay. Even when the females are in season he chases them away,
but when the males come around, he welcomes them into the yard, which is
odd for him, because he's a total asshole to any stranger (be it human or
animal) that comes in his territory, unless it's a male dog. Don't ask
me to prove it because it's happened too many times to count. He also
goes after the ladies of the house when we "fight" with the men.
Niall O' Byrne
In article <2ltdoi$b...@lynx.dac.neu.edu>, cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu (Craig
Powers) writes:
>=> 1. The foetus *does* benefit immediately because without the mother it
>cannot
>=> survive.
>
>I never said it didn't. That is, it _derives_ benefits immediately
>_from_ the mother. But it does not benefit the mother immediately (i.e.
>give the mother something of value)
Ah ha! The child has no value. I guess we're getting to the crux of the matter
now.
>=> 2. If you want to use terms like "sybiotic" or "parasitics" to make your
>point
>=> you have to stick with the known understanding of the terms or
>otherwise
>=> coin new words to suit the point you want make.
>
>Excuse me? I understand the words very well. We only seem to have a
>little bit of a disagreement about the requirements for parasitism.
No. I disagree with your use of a non-biological definition of a biological
term in a biological situation.
>=> 3. There is no guarantee with any child that there will be future gain.
>=> Have you seen the film "Problem Child" ?
>
>In which case I feel the z/e/f may be said to be in a parasitic
>relationship with the mother.
And the father and society, or didn't you see the film ?
>=>> Otherwise, it is
>=>> parasitic, because it takes resources from the mother while giving
>=>> nothing of value in return. Note - by the definition of a parasite that
>=>> I have learned, harm is not necessary. For example: leeches do not
>=>> necessarily harm you.
>
>=> So you're saying that It's existance, it's life has no value. Ok, at
>=> least now I can see where you are coming from. As long as it can
>=> return nothing of value it should have no rights.
>
>Not exactly.
Well, does it or doesn't it have value ?
> In fact, I don't use this parasitic relationship thing as
>much of a justification. But I think it might be used as a sort of
>justification, in the sense that the mother might have some right not to
>be used as a supply of oxygen and nutrients and a depository for wastes.
Kind of a parasitic relationship as sort of a justification but only in a
non-biological sense but involving blood oxygen exchange along with nutrients
and urea. Why am I resonding to this ???
>=> How many people never give anything of value back to their parents ? Should
>=> they have been aborted ?
>
>Maybe. How should I know?
Well, you've been born, you live in society so you must know people who have
done nothing for their parents except give them grief. Should they have been
aborted ?
>=> BTW leeches could carry disease, do abrase the skin and do tap directly
>=> into the blood supply and remove some of it. I guess that's harmless by
>your
>=> definition ?
>
>If you must have harm done by the z/e/f, how about:
> kinds of sickness caused by pregnancy
> necessity of providing bodily nutrients to another "sink" of them
> necessity of eliminating anothers wastes
>
>Do these do for possible harm experienced by the mother?
"kind of sickness" aggravated by pregnancy does and it is always treatable
without resorting to an induced abortion.
The rest are not "possible harm" unless pregnancy is a totally unnatural
and alien thing for a woman to experience. The female body is designed to
carry the child in this particular version of sexual reproduction. If the
necessity of providing nutrients and eliminating waste during a pregnancy
constituted harm then we would have died out as evolutionary failures a
long time ago.
Andrew K. Heller
So, I can't be a christian if I allow abortions?
also.... for the DUMB RETARDED HOMOPHOBES:
There is no test to prove if someone's homosexuality is "normal."
Can you prove that Heterosexuality is genetic?
--
Andrew K. Heller - Making the world safe once again.
------------------------------------------------------------------
hel...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (sysadmin)
Officially Unofficial Atari Jaguar FTP site.
Computer Engineering at the Pennsylvania State University.
"If you're in the boat, rock it to hell."
Greg Segallis
>
>In article <CMIK...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) writes:
>>In article <2ljat3$r...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>>
>>>Primitive, i.e. undeveloped. As christian theology has developed
>>>fantastically slowly (due to the 'god said' nature of christian ideology)
>>>when compared to the rapid transformation of buddhist thought.
>>
>>Don't mistake radical for developing.
>
>I don't. To see the development from the original teachings of buddha to
>the current schools of buddhism (e.g. soto zen, or pure land) is amazing.
>
>With the exception of the two schisms, christianity has progressed very
>little if at all from Hamurabi's code.
>
>>Mathematics has changed very little
>>over time which is a testimony to its completeness and accurracy.
>
>Math is not a religion. The parallel is false.
Again - you have incorrectly assumed there is some positive aspect to
change in and of itself. The parallel is exactly accurate. The
more accurate any standard, the less the requirement for change.
>
>> Any
>>change in Christian theology is due to man's errors, not the Bible's.
>
>That is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
??? - So we agree the Bible is infallible and man is not?
>
>>>>My KJV and NIV, however, are completely obvious about what God thinks about
>>>>the "shedding of innocent blood", "sacrificing children to false god's"
>>>>[convenience, pleasure, money, etc.], and when life begins.
>>>
>>>I think they meant Baal and Moloch, not pleasure. Call me crazy, but I
>>>think he's right. Since the bible does not explicitly forbid abortion,
>>>it is a matter of interpretation what christian doctrine should say
>>>about abortion.
>>
>>You are mistaken. The Bible frequently refers to sacrifice and worship of
>>money, pleasures, lust, etc.
>
>Yes, but most women who have abortions don't 'worship' money, etc. They
>simply realize that reality is, and should be, a factor in determining
>whether or not to carry a child to term.
Read the Bible again, on the subject of worship. 4500 pre-born
babies are slaughtered every day in this country for "convenience"
or because of the perception that somehow that mom won't have as much
money for herself. This is veruy much the kind of "worship" the Bible
speaks of.
>While I don't think I want to understand the word of god in exactly the
>way you mean, I would enjoy seeing the cites.
I will get this here shortly.
>> When someone has to "interpret" that the Bible
>>forbids the murder of man, who is created in God's image, that person
>>has not even begun to understand the first sentence of the Bible.
>
>No, that person does not believe a single word of the bible on faith.
>That is my position.
>
>I agree with you that the bible does say that abortion is a sin. My
>point has been all along, that the fact that some book says abortion
>is wrong is irrelevant to a secular government. I think the principle
>of the seperation of church and state is fairly obvious.
I think my reason for this comment was addressing the statement someone
made that the Bible does not forbid abortion because it does not use
the word "abortion". We both agree that God forbid's abortion then?
>
>>Show me a person who denies these truths are a part of the Bible, and
>>I'll show you a person that believes and lives very little else that
>>the Bible says.
>
>Oh, I accept that those opinions are part of the bible. fine and dandy.
>My question is "So what?" The bible has nothing to do with me. the
>bible says "be fruitful and multiply" but i think that is a very short
>sighted bit of advice.
The fact that you reject the Bible in no way implies that it has nothing
to do with you. You will be judged by God just as every believer shall.
Think of it like the law of gravity. Just because you don't believe it
or don't understand it, or have never even heard of it; it doesn't mean
it doesn't apply to you.
I'm not sure what you meant concerning Genesis 1:28. I would suggest
that it would be difficult to extract any useful meaning by taking
such a small portion of Sripture out of the context of the book in which
it is contained. However, I suspect that this is one command of God that
even unbelievers are fairly obedient to.
>I do know many people who go to christian churches who would be best
>described as agnostic or deist.
I agree. Going to church doesn't make one a Christian.
>
>> God's say not all that say Lord, Lord
>>shall be saved. I'm not saying a person has to believe the Bible on these
>>matters, only that it is required for a Christian.
>
>I think emulating christ should be required for a christian. but then there
>would be far fewer christians.
It is required. Again, calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one.
>>>My guess is that it would say, "He among you who is without sin, cast
>>>the first stone" or something like that, if it were in accordance with
>>>christ's teachings.
>>
>>I'm not sure I understand your point here. This appears to be the the
>>most quoted passage of the Bbile by non-Chritians. If only you proclaimed
>>the rest of God's commands as well.
>
>It so happens that the above passage is one of the VERY few in the bible
>that i agree with. and the reason it is oft quoted by non-christians
>is that it is oft forgotten by christians.
I re-assert my previous statement. Non-CBut realistically, murder is illegal and we still have it. So I concede
abortion won't go away until we turn the hearts of people.
No - it is easily proveable through the gov's own statistics as well as
research carried out by abortion providers that sex ed and birth control
programs have directly increased the abortion rate (as well as the aids,
ovarian cancer rate, sterility rate, rape rate). Easy sex (with the falsly
advertised safty) only exacerbates these problems. It promotes more
irresponsibility. That is just a fact - and no amount of education will
alter that (as we are currently seeing).
>I can tell you this for certain, as long as there are women who want
>abortions, there will be doctors who perform them. and given the choice
>between having women having abortions in nice, modern clinics; or women
>having abortions in seedy, makeshift quarters; i think anyone who uses
>a little logic would agree that the legal, modern, clinics would kill
>fewer people.
You are grossly misinformed on this one. Abortion clincs are not even
subject to the inspection, insurance or certification requirements that
every other medical facility are subject to. Dr. Randall Whittney had his
license revoked after injuring women in his "legal, modern" office. So he
now performs abortions in a clinic whose only service is abortion, all without
a medical license or insurance. The fact is many hostpitals won't perform
abortions (they are viewed as unethical), so abortion mills are providing
millions of abortions yearly - some on women who are not even pregnant.
-GS
Greg Segallis
>
>=> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) wrote:
>
> [deleted "let he who has no sin cast the first stone"]
>
>=>I'm not sure I understand your point here. This appears to be the the
>=>most quoted passage of the Bbile by non-Chritians. If only you proclaimed
>=>the rest of God's commands as well. No Chritian believes he is without
>=>sin. We are commande to have mercy in the same that God has mercy on us
>=>(sinners) - this was Jesus' point in saying this. He also said to flee
>=>and hate evil (not the sinner, but the sin).
>
> Aren't Christians supposed to treat others they way they wish to
> be treated?
>
> Given this fact, a Christian wouldn't want the government telling them
> what to do with their bodies, would they?
>
> Given this fact, isn't it totally within the Christian (Christ's words)
> boundries to be pro-choice (meaning: I wish not to interfere with
> peoples bodies or their lives, I trust people to make decisions, I
> give people "free-will").
Not at all. A Christian should desire their government to act consistent
with God's word. Where the two part we are to be obedient to God's word.
To be pro-choice is to directly oppose God's law. A position no Christian
should feel comfortable in. I do not have the Christian liberty to
beat someone up just because I may be willing to have it done to me.
Christianity is about believing that God sent His son Jesus to die for
our sins. This "faith" must produce some "fruit" in the life of the
believer. They should "love their neighbor as themself". This is
precisely why Christians are pro-life. We don't hate mothers that
choose to kill their unborn babies, we love the babies so much we
are committed to doing what we can to preserve their lives. This is
also why so many Christians actively participate in helping women
that have elected to keep their babies, as well as the women who are
suffering from the aftermath of abortion.
You will never be successfull in understanding the Bible if you try
to pick out one senetence only and assert that "this is what God"
says. You are missing entirely Jesus' point as well as His follow-up
to the woman in sin.
-GS
GOUTSMIT SAM
>children, not the gov. Schools are a means available to parents to
>administrate this goal. School is not about teaching kids concepts that
>are directly opposed to the wishes and religous beliefs of the parents.
>It is my duty to protect my children from things (doctrine) that I
>consider harmful. I'm not saying I have the right to prevent all
>such doctrine from being taught in public school, only that I have the
>right to not have _my_ child subjected to it.
Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. No matter what your religous
beliefs are, no matter how your look upon the world is, you should
always, *always*, give your kids a FREE CHOICE!
My grand-parents were Catholics, but they gave my father the Choice of
finding his own way, without any influences. When it became clear that
he did not believe in a god, they did not make ANY problem of it, they
accepted his views... When I grew up, my father told me about the
different ways you could look at the world and then he gave me the
choice what I wanted to do. I ended up not believing in God anyway, but
not due to him...
People, get real! It's this conservative, narrow-minded attitude that is
causing the world so much grief today. People who are so stuck up in
their own beliefs, they can't even imagine they might be wrong...
---
Sam Goutsmit
Greg Segallis
>
>>You are mistaken. The Bible frequently refers to sacrifice and worship of
>>money, pleasures, lust, etc. Although the Bible does not contain the
>>word "abortion" it most certainly does forbid the act of killing a pre-born
>>babies.
>
>And in other cases it REQUIRES it, to wit (I'm assuming Steve Adams won't
>mind my heavily quoting from an 27Jun1993 post of his):
Lot's of Scripture, unfortunately none of it deals with man's killing
pre-born babies. If your point was that God can do stuff we can't, I agree.
>>The Bible is completely obvious about when life begins - at
>>conception.
>
>Obvious to you ... apparently standards vary since it's NOT obvious to me.
>But then again, I see it as besides the point. YOU believe in the Bible
>and that's okay. But I (and others) don't and feel no compulsion to follow
>the myths and tales and assorted writings of shepards and nomads....
I think you got closer to the authors of the witting on the internet.
I admit, "obvious" is releative - what is very obvious to someone
that reads the Bible might be hard for the unread to grasp. I, therefore,
provide one of many references to this point:
Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou
camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a
prophet unto the nations.
I don't state that you must believe the Bible, but you have no basis for saying
the Bible is not clear on when life begins.
>
>>Such a fetus is said by God to be made in His image.
>
>So God looks like a blob? A early term fetus doesn't look much like
>a born child, so which is it....
You'd be amazed how much like a newborn, a 10 week old fetus looks.
>>The Bible is completely obvious about the act of killing one created
>>in God's image - it is called murder.
>
>All killing? Even capital punishment? Even the slaughter of animals
>for food (hell, if a fetus was made in "His image" then who's to say
>that a cow isn't as well).
You're gonna have start reading the other posts too. The Bible explicitly
calls the killing of one created in God's image murder. The killing of
animals is most certaintly "killing", it is not "murder". Nor is capital
punishment considered "murder". You wouldn't be so naive - I mean bold as
to imply that the Bible suggest anything different, would you?
>>The Bible is completely obvious
>>about the sin of shedding innocent blood.
>
>Innocent ... as your fellow anti-abortion types say about "sentience":
>metaphysical cladstrap. Hell, even your own religion says NO ONE is
>truely "innocence" but we are all tainted with sin (of course it also
>assigns the blame to Eve).
No one is innocent before God. The theme of innocent blood is never used
in this context. You are off track here - check a concordance.
>>The Bible is completely obvious
>>about calling a murderer, one who injures a pregnant woman such that the
>>baby in her womb dies.
>
>Only in certain circumstances ... namely the father wishes to procescute:
Prosecution has never been the basis for what constitutes a crime (not even
in our present form of government)- it is only used as the basis for punishment
and restitution. This person is guilty of murder whether or not the husband
prosecutes. The scripture you quoted refered to the husband specifying the
amount of restitution - it was not relevant to the penalty should the baby
die.
>>If you are seriously interested in seeing what God
>>says in the Bible and in understanding the Word of God, let me know and
>>I will be happy to email or post a list of Scripture references on these
>>topics.
>
>Don't mail me anything ... but here's what I've seen in the past and
>it is HARDLY as "obvious" as you purport. Looks like it takes quite a
>bit of interpretation to understand it. Not that I really care about the
>Bible, like I said it's YOUR business not mine. I just point out the
>inconsistencies in your supposed "arguments"
No inconsitencies here - just your inability to comprehend fairly obvious
text. OK, If you call "interpretation" the ability to understand verbs and
nouns, I'm guilty, but I call this "reading".
>>There are many. When someone has to "interpret" that the Bible
>>forbids the murder of man, who is created in God's image, that person
>>has not even begun to understand the first sentence of the Bible.
>
>Oh, so you claim that you don't even understand the first sentence ..
>glad you admit it. Or were you claiming that anyone who disagrees
>with YOUR interpretation is "interpreting" it and you are not? <snicker>
>Nice set of blinders you have on.
I maintain that most fundamental concepts in the Bible do not require any
great power of interpretation - this is a claim made by the bible itself. I
am, however, willing to concede that you might have trouble understanding the
Bible.
>>Show me a person who denies these truths are a part of the Bible, and
>>I'll show you a person that believes and lives very little else that
>>the Bible says.
>
>And why should they care? Let me guess ... all the non-believer are going
>to burn in Hell unless they repent and immediately agree to YOUR way of
>thinking, blah, blah, blah.
Salvation has nothing to do do with what I think. This proves you havn't
read the Bible. Does your life disprove this theory?
>>This is the major problem with Christians, there are
>>a lot of of them out there that would be better off calling themselves
>>something else (like a Buddhist).
>
>Oh, so what you're saying is that being pro-choice is acceptable as long
>as you don't call yourself "Christian". Well, that's fine with me, but
>some of your co-religionists are bound to disagree. Hmmm, one again we
>have two groups each claiming the other isn't a "real Christian" ...
>remind us of any historical events (catholic vs. protestant)?
I never said it was acceptable - I believe I was refering to the contradictory
position of calling one's self a Christian and denying the truth of the Bible.
You really should read slower.
>>God's say not all that say Lord, Lord
>>shall be saved. I'm not saying a person has to believe the Bible on these
>>matters, only that it is required for a Christian.
>
>Fine. Then I guess you're pro-choice as long as those who obtain abortions
>don't call themselves Christians. ... I can live with that ... but then
>again it doesn't really affect me.
Wrong again. I totaly missed the whole context of the previous post. This
potion was not dealing whith abortion but with holding to God's Word.
Abortion is wrong because God say it is wrong - just because you're not a
Christian doesn't change the fact that is is still wrong.
>
>>>My guess is that it would say, "He among you who is without sin, cast
>>>the first stone" or something like that, if it were in accorda
seen the power sin has had in my life, so I can be understanding of those
who are in the same position. As for forgiveness, look to Jesus for that -
you ask him, he'll do it.
-GS
esme
>In article <2lt3s4$5...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>>In article <CMIK...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) writes:
>>>In article <2ljat3$r...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>Again - you have incorrectly assumed there is some positive aspect to
>change in and of itself. The parallel is exactly accurate. The
>more accurate any standard, the less the requirement for change.
Everything changes (entropy). Resisting change is not only futile, but
the mark of ignorance.
>>> Any
>>>change in Christian theology is due to man's errors, not the Bible's.
>>
>>That is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
>
>??? - So we agree the Bible is infallible and man is not?
HaHaHaHaHa!
But seriously, no. Let me restate that: The attitude that 'the bible is
an infallible text that should be an everyday guide to living, and that
any percieved errors are not errors in the bible but in humans' is
indicative of the closed mind of christian theology.
>I think my reason for this comment was addressing the statement someone
>made that the Bible does not forbid abortion because it does not use
>the word "abortion". We both agree that God forbid's abortion then?
forbids. yes.
though i would say it more like: god, a character in the bible, sets forth
certain morality that would view abortion as a sin.
>The fact that you reject the Bible in no way implies that it has nothing
>to do with you.
What I meant was: the bible is not something i take into consideration
when making moral decisions.
> You will be judged by God just as every believer shall.
Sha..right. Tell it to the silence.
>Think of it like the law of gravity.
No. Religion is something created by men to explain a world they didn't
understand. the law of gravity is something created by men to explain
a function of the world they did understand.
> Just because you don't believe it or don't understand it, or have never
>even heard of it; it doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
No, but because it is fiction it doesn't apply to me. Just like i won't
grow to be thirty feet high if i eat from the left side of the mushroom
(like Alice did in Wonderland) I won't be judged by god when i die.
And don't preach at me. I've heard it all forty times. Assuming your
conclusion is a faulty arguing tactic, and is insulting.
>I'm not sure what you meant concerning Genesis 1:28. I would suggest
>that it would be difficult to extract any useful meaning by taking
>such a small portion of Sripture out of the context of the book in which
>it is contained. However, I suspect that this is one command of God that
>even unbelievers are fairly obedient to.
much to the detriment of this planet.
>No - it is easily proveable through the gov's own statistics as well as
>research carried out by abortion providers that sex ed and birth control
>programs have directly increased the abortion rate (as well as the aids,
>ovarian cancer rate, sterility rate, rape rate).
Let me get this straight: Sex education and birth control leads to
abortion, a.i.d.s., ovarian cancer, rape, and sterility.
I would like to see a citation for that claim, please. and I mean for
a scientific (i.e. non-christian affiliated) study that asserts and
established causality.
To make my point explicit: I agree that sex education and birth control
advocacy/use have increased in the past few years. And I also agree that
abortion, a.i.d.s., ovarian cancer, rape and sterility have increased
during that same period of time.
But 1) There is not a positive causal link between the two. (i.e. it
is incorrect to say sex ed *causes* blah blah blah)
2) On the contrary, it is precisely sex education and birth control
advocacy/use that have checked the increase of abortion, a.i.d.s.,
ovarian cancer, rape, and sterility.
>>I can tell you this for certain, as long as there are women who want
>>abortions, there will be doctors who perform them. and given the choice
>>between having women having abortions in nice, modern clinics; or women
>>having abortions in seedy, makeshift quarters; i think anyone who uses
>>a little logic would agree that the legal, modern, clinics would kill
>>fewer people.
>
>You are grossly misinformed on this one. Abortion clincs are not even
>subject to the inspection, insurance or certification requirements that
>every other medical facility are subject to.
Abortion clinics should require inspection, insurance, certification, etc.
I have no disagreement with you there.
My point is that legal clinics, even if not regulated, are safer, cleaner,
and better than they would be if they were illegal.
And I would like to point out that you still have not refuted the fact that
legal abortion clinics kill fewer people than illegal clinics do.
S. M. Burnett
>From: cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme)
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion
>Date: 14 Mar 1994 17:31:55 -0800
Kevin Esme Cowles, I don't know if we will ever agree on anything. I've
stated my arguments about government, rights, morality, and abortion as
simply and fundamentally as I can. And to be frank, I am pulling my hair
out with each one of your responses. In my opinion your responses have
been far from adequate. I see nothing wrong with my logic. I'm losing some
patience with you. However, I am willing to try one final and last attempt
to argue these points to you with a change of tactic. First, let's
discuss the definitions of the following terms: RIGHTS, FREEDOM, ETHICS,
MORALITY, NORMS, FETUS, and lastly BABY. ( The reason for this is to
establish some common ground, the foundation of the argument). Second,
let's switch positions. Instead of me laying down the argument; you begin.
Some topics I am especially interested in is your point of view of the
role of government in society; how did ethics, morals, norms, and standards
originate in society; where do rights and freedoms come from -- why is
murder not a right (which you stated some time ago); what religion are
you affiliated with if any (personal interest); how do you classify what
is a right of a person; and what is your defense for abortion. I don't
expect you to tackle every problem at once. Just start with the terms
and run at your own pace.
***********************************************************************
*** The only government reform we need is to advocate capitalism, ***
*** self-reliance, competition, and the conservative philosophy-- ***
*** which is the belief that the government is best when governs ***
*** least (socially and economically). Every time gov't becomes ***
*** "the provider" via social programs, the middle-class dwindles ***
*** and the country becomes more apathetic in terms of production ***
*** -- ie. England or any other socialistic society. ***
****** Free our lands from liberals--Don't vote for Clinton! *******
***********************************************************************
Niall O' Byrne
In article <2m2t09$d...@rc1.vub.ac.be>, we4...@is2e.vub.ac.be (GOUTSMIT SAM)
writes:
[dissertation on the right to atheism deleted]
>
>People, get real! It's this conservative, narrow-minded attitude that is
>causing the world so much grief today. People who are so stuck up in
>their own beliefs, they can't even imagine they might be wrong...
>
>---
>Sam Goutsmit
>
The same can be said of those with no belief. Look at former USSR for
example.
S. M. Burnett
how some of them who disclaim the Bible turn to it to find an applicable
defense.
While I was reading the Bible, I stumbled upon an interesting law.
Anyways, here is the quote for you to peruse:
(NIV) Ex 21:22-23
"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth
prematurely (miscarriage) but there is no serious injury, the
offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and
life for life ..."
In addition to the protection of living persons, God required the protection
of unborn children.
(1) V. 21 refers to woman giving birth prematurely because of violence
done to her. If birth took place, the one causing the premature
birth had to pay a fine.
(2) If there was a serious injury to the mother or the child, then the
offending party had to pay according to the law of retaliation. Note
that if death resulted to the mother or to the child, then the
perpetrator was found guilty of murder and had to pay with his life
(V. 23). In other words, the unborn child is viewed here as a
human being; the fetus's death is considered murder.
I know that this quote says nothing about the mother taking the fetus's
life. But there is a parallelism between human and fetus in regard to
personal injury.
Niall O' Byrne
In article <2m336b$s...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>In article <CMoF3...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg
>Segallis) writes:
>>In article <2lt3s4$5...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>>>In article <CMIK...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg
>Segallis) writes:
>>>>In article <2ljat3$r...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>
>>Again - you have incorrectly assumed there is some positive aspect to
>>change in and of itself. The parallel is exactly accurate. The
>>more accurate any standard, the less the requirement for change.
>
>Everything changes (entropy). Resisting change is not only futile, but
>the mark of ignorance.
Entropy is the movement towards chaos. In society this equates to anarchy.
Are you suggesting that we should kick back, relax and watch the world
continue on it's slide into the mire ?
Resisting change towards entropy is what this world is all about - making order
out of chaos, not helping the world towards chaos. The ignorance is in
believing in the futility of resistance.
>
>>>> Any
>>>>change in Christian theology is due to man's errors, not the Bible's.
>>>
>>>That is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
>>
>>??? - So we agree the Bible is infallible and man is not?
>
>HaHaHaHaHa!
>
>But seriously, no. Let me restate that: The attitude that 'the bible is
>an infallible text that should be an everyday guide to living, and that
>any percieved errors are not errors in the bible but in humans' is
>indicative of the closed mind of christian theology.
I thought that those who wrote the Bible, and they weren't all Christians BTW
were guided by God. Does God then have a closed mind ?
>>I think my reason for this comment was addressing the statement someone
>>made that the Bible does not forbid abortion because it does not use
>>the word "abortion". We both agree that God forbid's abortion then?
>
>forbids. yes.
>
>though i would say it more like: god, a character in the bible, sets forth
>certain morality that would view abortion as a sin.
>
>
>>The fact that you reject the Bible in no way implies that it has nothing
>>to do with you.
>
>What I meant was: the bible is not something i take into consideration
>when making moral decisions.
I guess that makes two of us.
>> You will be judged by God just as every believer shall.
>
>Sha..right. Tell it to the silence.
>
>
>>Think of it like the law of gravity.
>
>No. Religion is something created by men to explain a world they didn't
>understand. the law of gravity is something created by men to explain
>a function of the world they did understand.
And when do you think we will understand it all ?
>> Just because you don't believe it or don't understand it, or have never
>>even heard of it; it doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
>
>No, but because it is fiction it doesn't apply to me. Just like i won't
>grow to be thirty feet high if i eat from the left side of the mushroom
>(like Alice did in Wonderland) I won't be judged by god when i die.
>
>And don't preach at me. I've heard it all forty times. Assuming your
>conclusion is a faulty arguing tactic, and is insulting.
I won't preach at you but for your information the New Testament is not
a work of fiction - it is a work of fact and this has been accepted by
greater atheists than you. Just because you do not believe He was the
Son of God does not mean that a man called Jesus did not exist.
>>I'm not sure what you meant concerning Genesis 1:28. I would suggest
>>that it would be difficult to extract any useful meaning by taking
>>such a small portion of Sripture out of the context of the book in which
>>it is contained. However, I suspect that this is one command of God that
>>even unbelievers are fairly obedient to.
>
>much to the detriment of this planet.
Purely a matter of opinion, me thinks.
>
>>No - it is easily proveable through the gov's own statistics as well as
>>research carried out by abortion providers that sex ed and birth control
>>programs have directly increased the abortion rate (as well as the aids,
>>ovarian cancer rate, sterility rate, rape rate).
>
>Let me get this straight: Sex education and birth control leads to
>abortion, a.i.d.s., ovarian cancer, rape, and sterility.
Early sexual activity has been linked to cervical cancer. Use of the
Pill has been linked to ovarian, cervical, uterine and breast cancer.
Sex has been linked to pregnancy and pregnancy has been linked to abortion.
Abortion has been linked to sterility and a tendency to ectopic pregnancy
and spontaneous abortion. Sex has been linked to rape. Sex has been
linked to sex education and sex education that preaches hedonism i.e. use
birth control because we don't trust you to control yourselves and abstain
until you are really ready has been linked to all of the above and H.I.V.
infection. HIV infection has been linked to A.I.D.S although this is
in dispute in some quarters.
>I would like to see a citation for that claim, please. and I mean for
>a scientific (i.e. non-christian affiliated) study that asserts and
>established causality.
Try WHO, CDC....
>
>To make my point explicit: I agree that sex education and birth control
>advocacy/use have increased in the past few years. And I also agree that
>abortion, a.i.d.s., ovarian cancer, rape and sterility have increased
>during that same period of time.
Strange coincidence that. The Pill arrived in the 60's. This was supposed
to allay all promiscuous and/or sexually active women's fears of an unwanted
pregnancy. Abortion wass legalised in the UK in 1967 and in America in 1973.
>But 1) There is not a positive causal link between the two. (i.e. it
>is incorrect to say sex ed *causes* blah blah blah)
> 2) On the contrary, it is precisely sex education and birth control
>advocacy/use that have checked the increase of abortion, a.i.d.s.,
>ovarian cancer, rape, and sterility.
There is still an increase in abortion. HIV infection rates appear to be
flattening amoung heterosexuals and the numbers have been fudged in Africa.
Thre is evidence to suggest that sex eduacation programs that teach people
that it is ok to say no have had tremandous success but their funding has been
stopped.
>>>I can tell you this for certain, as long as there are women who want
>>>abortions, there will be doctors who perform them. and given the choice
>>>between having women having abortions in nice, modern clinics; or women
>>>having abortions in seedy, makeshift quarters; i think anyone who uses
>>>a little logic would agree that the legal, modern, clinics would kill
>>>fewer people.
>>
>>You are grossly misinformed on this one. Abortion clincs are not even
>>subject to the inspection, insurance or certification requirements that
>>every other medical facility are subject to.
>
>Abortion clinics should require inspection, insurance, certification, etc.
>I have no disagreement with you there.
>
>My point is that legal clinics, even if not regulated, are safer, cleaner,
>and better than they would be if they were illegal.
>
>And I would like to point out that you still have not refuted the fact that
>legal abortion clinics kill fewer people than illegal clinics do.
The fact that any abortion clinic, legal or otherwise, kills anyone at all
should be a cause for concern.
James Forgy
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 22:48:32 GMT
>In article <940304142...@LL.MIT.EDU>, fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy) says:
>>Hey Stupid! Yea you, moron! Listen:
>That's telling him !!!
>>Do you want the state to tell a
>>Buddhist woman that abortion is murder when she beleives that the soul does
>>not enter the cell mass until near Birth.
>It's a good thing Buddhists believe in gravity or we'd have to re-write all
>our physics books. I wonder if they would be able to just float around
>while the rest of us were stuck on the ground?
>Anyway, somebody should tell her, why not the gov?
>> Well, forget it, idiot, you're in the wrong country.
>???????
>>I have nothing against Christian women not having abortions, pre-martial sex,
>>not masturbating, etc...Just don't use this government to enforce your
>>primitive beleifs on Buddhists like myself.
>Wait... I missed that one... who's the primitive one again?
>>Ironically, if I was a Christian, I would still be pro-choice, no place in the
>>Bible is abortion explicitely forbiden. That's why you Christian fools must
>>quote these obscure poems written by prophets wandering around the desert.
>He's right, my two year old has the "Beginner's Bible" also, and the word
>"abortion" isn't even in there - just a lot of pictures.
>My KJV and NIV, however, are completely obvious about what God thinks about the
>"shedding of innocent blood", "sacrificing children to false god's" [convenience,
>pleasure, money, etc.], and when life begins.
>Email me for a study guide if you like.
>-GS
Well segailli, after insulting my religion I can only conclude that you are
jelious. You have a young child and want everyone else to uphold family
values in the same way that you do. Well you are going to have to go to an
Islamic fundementalist state for that, where a specific set of religious and
moral customs are written into law.
You don't belong in this country. There are many women who have no problem
getting abortions, and they are getting them! You Christians are losing, you
cannot force the United States to enforce your ancient boring bible.
And I also found it funny that you ignored the painfull fact that nowhere in
the Bible is abortion explicitly outlawed. If it was such a big deal to
Christ or Moses [who actually are more Buddhist than you will ever be] they
would have mentioned it.
Tell me segalli, do you masturbate, isn't that a sin in the Catholic Church?
Should we outlaw masturbation?
Om Baby,
JF
hat...@msupa.pa.msu.edu
>In article <2lqlie$16...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, hat...@msupa.pa.msu.edu says:
>>
>>>You are mistaken. The Bible frequently refers to sacrifice and worship of
>>>money, pleasures, lust, etc. Although the Bible does not contain the
>>>word "abortion" it most certainly does forbid the act of killing a pre-born
>>>babies.
>>
>>And in other cases it REQUIRES it, to wit (I'm assuming Steve Adams won't
>>mind my heavily quoting from an 27Jun1993 post of his):
>
>Lot's of Scripture, unfortunately none of it deals with man's killing
>pre-born babies. If your point was that God can do stuff we can't, I agree.
Dah, how dense can you be? It has EVERYTHING to do with abortion
Putting back in one of the passages:
| "(27)If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband,
| then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it
| will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell
| and her thigh waste away, and she will become accursed among her
| people. (28)If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is
| free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to
| have children." [NIV]
| NIV Study Notes: 5:21 The figurative language here (and in vv. 22,27)
| speaks of the loss of the capacity for childbearing
| (AND, IF PREGNANT, THE MISCARRIAGE OF THE CHILD). This
see here --- she is FORCED by religious law to drink something that causes
a "miscarriage". By YOUR own definition a deliberate miscarriage *IS*
an abortion.
| is demonstrated by the determination of the fate of a
| woman wrongly charged (v 28). For a woman in the Near
| East to be denied the ability to bear children was a
| personal loss of inestimable proportions. Since it was
| in the bearing of children that the woman's worth was
| realized in the ancient world, this was a grievous
| punishment indeed. [Emphesis mine]
I never thought I'd come down to explaining the Bible to a thumper...
Here's the sequence:
Husband thinks wife has been unfaithful
He (+priest) force her to drink some potion
a) sometimes this causes the e/f to die (abortion)
b) if she is "pure" it does not.
>>>The Bible is completely obvious about when life begins - at
>>>conception.
>>
>>Obvious to you ... apparently standards vary since it's NOT obvious to me.
>>But then again, I see it as besides the point. YOU believe in the Bible
>>and that's okay. But I (and others) don't and feel no compulsion to follow
>>the myths and tales and assorted writings of shepards and nomads....
>
>I think you got closer to the authors of the witting on the internet.
>I admit, "obvious" is releative - what is very obvious to someone
>that reads the Bible might be hard for the unread to grasp. I, therefore,
>provide one of many references to this point:
>
>Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou
>camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a
>prophet unto the nations.
That is *specific* to one person. Or are all people "ordained" to be
"prohets unto the nations"? If not then I don't see how you can
generalize the *first* part of the quote to everyone.
>I don't state that you must believe the Bible, but you have no basis for saying
>the Bible is not clear on when life begins.
I still don't see (clearly) any such statement in the quote you just
provided. Point to the part where it says "personhood begins at conception".
Sorry, but I'll stick to my guns and go with "not clear".
>>>Such a fetus is said by God to be made in His image.
>>
>>So God looks like a blob? A early term fetus doesn't look much like
>>a born child, so which is it....
>
>You'd be amazed how much like a newborn, a 10 week old fetus looks.
No, I wouldn't. Sure it's got arms and legs ... and this big thing coming
out it's belly (oops). It's head seems out of proportion. And for some
reason it's lungs and heart don't seem to work the same as a newborn...
Oh, what was that, I was supposed to restrict myself to simply the
superficial similarities and blind myself to the differences? Sorry.
>>>The Bible is completely obvious about the act of killing one created
>>>in God's image - it is called murder.
>>
>>All killing? Even capital punishment? Even the slaughter of animals
>>for food (hell, if a fetus was made in "His image" then who's to say
>>that a cow isn't as well).
>
>You're gonna have start reading the other posts too. The Bible explicitly
>calls the killing of one created in God's image murder.
Sorry, but I get you guys confused ... in another thread by another
professed "pro-lifer" he's STRONGLY argued that capital punishment is
consistent with "pro-life". Isn't that "killing of one created in God's
image"? Me, personally, am for the most part anti-capital punishment.
For two reasons (1) it is subject to too many "mistakes" (people wrongly
convicted; irrational biases in who gets it vs. life imprisonment) and
(2) it's the killing of a SENTIENT person and has little apparent
influence on other wrongdoers.
>The killing of
>animals is most certaintly "killing", it is not "murder".
But like I said the early term embryo/fetus of those animals look
an awful lot like a e/f of a human ... so why is it okay to kill
one but not the other?
>Nor is capital
>punishment considered "murder".
What? You just said above that....
> The Bible explicitly calls the killing of one
> created in God's image murder.
>You wouldn't be so naive - I mean bold as
>to imply that the Bible suggest anything different, would you?
Oh, so killing done by agents YOU approve of is okey-dokey (the "state",
the church, random nuts shooting doctors in the back). But that done by
those who you disagree with is Wrong(TM). <snort>
>>>The Bible is completely obvious
>>>about the sin of shedding innocent blood.
>>
>>Innocent ... as your fellow anti-abortion types say about "sentience":
>>metaphysical cladstrap. Hell, even your own religion says NO ONE is
>>truely "innocence" but we are all tainted with sin (of course it also
>>assigns the blame to Eve).
>
>No one is innocent before God. The theme of innocent blood is never used
>in this context. You are off track here - check a concordance.
"Never used" because it runs counter to your thesis (ie. contridicts the
"answer" you wish to reach). Now that's great interpretation skills...
Disallow anything that might discredit your argument. Hmmm...now you
won't be hypocritical and get all upset when we in the pro-choice side
"disallow" argument from the Bible will you?
>>>The Bible is completely obvious
>>>about calling a murderer, one who injures a pregnant woman such that the
>>>baby in her womb dies.
>>
>>Only in certain circumstances ... namely the father wishes to procescute:
>
>Prosecution has never been the basis for what constitutes a crime (not even
>in our present form of government)- it is only used as the basis for punishment
>and restitution. This person is guilty of murder whether or not the husband
>prosecutes. The scripture you quoted refered to the husband specifying the
>amount of restitution - it was not relevant to the penalty should the baby
>die.
Ah, explain to me again the part where "amount of restitution" is "not
relevant to the penalty"? I thought the restitution WAS the penalty.
[more of the "Read it my way, or you're a dunce" insults ... Sorry, but
the passages are NOT unambiguous no matter *how* often you claim they are]
>>>God's say not all that say Lord, Lord
>>>shall be saved. I'm not saying a person has to believe the Bible on these
>>>matters, only that it is required for a Christian.
>>
>>Fine. Then I guess you're pro-choice as long as those who obtain abortions
>>don't call themselves Christians. ... I can live with that ... but then
>>again it doesn't really affect me.
>
>Wrong again. I totaly missed the whole context of the previous post. This
>potion was not dealing whith abortion but with holding to God's Word.
>Abortion is wrong because God say it is wrong - just because you're not a
>Christian doesn't change the fact that is is still wrong.
And if my God and Sacred Text(TM) says that NOT burning Christians at the stake
is "wrong" -- and that it is wrong for them not to throw themselves on the
fire willingly. So those Christians not believing doesn't change the
"fact" that is wrong and so I'm perfectly justified in forcing them to act
as *I* believe they should?
Wouldn't it just be all that much simpler if you acted under your beliefs
and I acted under mine --- to the extent that our beliefs don't interfere
with each other's beliefs.
>-GS
-robert
Craig Powers
>In article <2lt3s4$5...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
[deleted "Christianity has developed at a snail's pace" and a follow
that I didn't understand-it seemed irrelevant]
=>> I don't. To see the development from the original teachings of buddha to
=>> the current schools of buddhism (e.g. soto zen, or pure land) is amazing.
=>> With the exception of the two schisms, christianity has progressed very
=>> little if at all from Hamurabi's code.
=>>> Mathematics has changed very little
=>>> over time which is a testimony to its completeness and accurracy.
=>> Math is not a religion. The parallel is false.
=> Again - you have incorrectly assumed there is some positive aspect to
=> change in and of itself. The parallel is exactly accurate. The
=> more accurate any standard, the less the requirement for change.
The problem is that no matter what its completeness and accuracy,
Christianity does not _allow_ any change, whether good or bad. Consider
the progression from the geocentric universe to the heliocentric
universe and beyond. Christianity was wrong in believing the geocentric
universe theory; they have admitted as much. Several hundred years ago,
does the fact that it hadn't changed and was not willing to change make
it right? The Bible has not been changed or updated since it was
written. But since the church allows absolutely no change, we have no
way of knowing if it should have changed to reflect the changing times
and new and arising problems.
BTW, when you say math has not changed, what about differential and
integrational calculus (introduced by Newton)? They were monumental
additions, certainly a tremendous change. And, as time passes, useful
theorems are added to our library to make things easier for ourselves.
Math does change and improve with time. The only things that do not
change are the principles which are necessary to allow math to continue
to exist functionally. Note that the only things necessary for
Christianity to continue functionally are (at least, IMHO) a belief in
the omnipotent, omniscient God and a belief in the correctness of the
moral preached by Christ. A belief in Christ as the son of the
afforementioned God is helpful, but as I see things, it is probably not
necessary.
Any corrections of the above must address the relevance of the
correction to the moral and factual teachings of the church. That is, I
will not accept a correction that "such and so must be included because
it is something that is universally taught by the church."
=>>> Any
=>>> change in Christian theology is due to man's errors, not the Bible's.
=>> That is exactly the attitude I was talking about.
=> ??? - So we agree the Bible is infallible and man is not?
Why should the bible be infallible when it was all written at least
upwards of two millenia ago? Times have changed - a lot. Why should
the Bible be capable of addressing every issue we face today, and
addressing it in the correct manner?
=> Read the Bible again, on the subject of worship. 4500 pre-born
=> babies are slaughtered every day in this country for "convenience"
=> or because of the perception that somehow that mom won't have as much
=> money for herself. This is veruy much the kind of "worship" the Bible
=> speaks of.
What about the fact that mom can't provide for the baby without dropping
out of school and thus forsaking education and an ability to provide for
the child itself? What about the fact that by getting an abortion, a
mom may be allowing her next child to be better-provided for?
=>> Oh, I accept that those opinions are part of the bible. fine and dandy.
=>> My question is "So what?" The bible has nothing to do with me. the
=>> bible says "be fruitful and multiply" but i think that is a very short
=>> sighted bit of advice.
=> The fact that you reject the Bible in no way implies that it has nothing
=> to do with you. You will be judged by God just as every believer shall.
=> Think of it like the law of gravity. Just because you don't believe it
=> or don't understand it, or have never even heard of it; it doesn't mean
=> it doesn't apply to you.
Or we could also think of it like the geocentric universe, or the Greek
conception of gravity.
Who is to say that we will not be judged by Allah and not God? Who
gives you a monopoly on The Truth? You _believe_ we will be judged. We
prefer to decide for ourselves.
=>>> I'm not sure I understand your point here. This appears to be the the
=>>> most quoted passage of the Bbile by non-Chritians. If only you proclaimed
=>>> the rest of God's commands as well.
=>> It so happens that the above passage is one of the VERY few in the bible
=>> that i agree with. and the reason it is oft quoted by non-christians
=>> is that it is oft forgotten by christians.
=> I re-assert my previous statement. Non-C
=> But realistically, murder is illegal and we still have it. So I
=> concede abortion won't go away until we turn the hearts of people.
What? I think your words got mangled in transit.
Does the fact that non-Christians only proclaim one of God's commands
make that one command any less valid?
=> No - it is easily proveable through the gov's own statistics as well as
=> research carried out by abortion providers that sex ed and birth control
=> programs have directly increased the abortion rate (as well as the aids,
=> ovarian cancer rate, sterility rate, rape rate). Easy sex (with the falsly
=> advertised safty) only exacerbates these problems. It promotes more
=> irresponsibility. That is just a fact - and no amount of education will
=> alter that (as we are currently seeing).
However, it is probably also provable that those same problems arise
from the rising (I think) illegitemacy rate. Can't we say that the
problems are arising from a failure of parents to act like parents
(which is exacerbated by the fact that there is only one of them trying
to do the job of two)?
=>> I can tell you this for certain, as long as there are women who want
=>> abortions, there will be doctors who perform them. and given the choice
=>> between having women having abortions in nice, modern clinics; or women
=>> having abortions in seedy, makeshift quarters; i think anyone who uses
=>> a little logic would agree that the legal, modern, clinics would kill
=>> fewer people.
=> You are grossly misinformed on this one. Abortion clincs are not even
=> subject to the inspection, insurance or certification requirements that
=> every other medical facility are subject to. Dr. Randall Whittney had his
=> license revoked after injuring women in his "legal, modern" office. So he
=> now performs abortions in a clinic whose only service is abortion, all without
=> a medical license or insurance. The fact is many hostpitals won't perform
=> abortions (they are viewed as unethical), so abortion mills are providing
=> millions of abortions yearly - some on women who are not even pregnant.
Which makes it more necessary to have some clean, modern facilities. If
everything is as bad as these examples (I doubt it is), then the
question of back-alley abortions will no longer be relevant, because
there will be no difference in conditions and safety between the
back-alley abortions and legal ones.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Craig Powers
>In article <2lqgpq$8...@transfer.stratus.com>, Willia...@vos.stratus.com says:
>>=> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) wrote:
>Not at all. A Christian should desire their government to act consistent
>with God's word. Where the two part we are to be obedient to God's word.
>To be pro-choice is to directly oppose God's law. A position no Christian
>should feel comfortable in. I do not have the Christian liberty to
>beat someone up just because I may be willing to have it done to me.
I'm not sure I really understand what you are saying here. Of course
the government will often part with Christian faith, as it is secular.
Just ask the right-wing Christian fundamentalists about the government
view of homosexuality, for example. Given the large number of
non-Christians in this country (although I'm sure there is at least a
nearly equal number of Christians) I am inclined to suggest that it is
better for Christians to simply act according to their beliefs and let
other people act (more or less) according to the others' beliefs.
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Craig Powers
=>In article <2lqlie$16...@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, hat...@msupa.pa.msu.edu says:
>I admit, "obvious" is releative - what is very obvious to someone
=> provide one of many references to this point:
=> Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou
=============================================
=> camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a
=> prophet unto the nations.
Doesn't say anything about all babies, just about this particular one,
and he seems to be special (ordained by God to be a prophet?).
=> I don't state that you must believe the Bible, but you have no basis for saying
=> the Bible is not clear on when life begins.
True. By the above quote, it begins _before_ conception! I think most
of us agree that _life_ begins at conception, but we disagree about the
value of that life at a given point in the pregnancy. Have fun trying
to find people who think life begins _before_ conception, though.
=>>> The Bible is completely obvious about the act of killing one created
=>>> in God's image - it is called murder.
=>> All killing? Even capital punishment? Even the slaughter of animals
=>> for food (hell, if a fetus was made in "His image" then who's to say
=>> that a cow isn't as well).
=> You're gonna have start reading the other posts too. The Bible explicitly
=> calls the killing of one created in God's image murder. The killing of
=> animals is most certaintly "killing", it is not "murder". Nor is capital
=> punishment considered "murder". You wouldn't be so naive - I mean bold as
=> to imply that the Bible suggest anything different, would you?
Care to demonstrate in what way a fetus is created in God's image while
a criminal who is to be executed is not?
=>>> The Bible is completely obvious
=>>> about calling a murderer, one who injures a pregnant woman such that the
=>>> baby in her womb dies.
=>> Only in certain circumstances ... namely the father wishes to procescute:
=> Prosecution has never been the basis for what constitutes a crime (not even
=> in our present form of government)- it is only used as the basis for punishment
=> and restitution. This person is guilty of murder whether or not the husband
=> prosecutes. The scripture you quoted refered to the husband specifying the
=> amount of restitution - it was not relevant to the penalty should the baby
=> die.
As I recall from the posted quotes, there was no discrimination between
punishment and guilt - the passages were solely about the rights of the
father of the pregnant woman in such a case, and what would happen if
some injury _over_and_above_the_death_of_the_baby_ were to occur.
=>> Don't mail me anything ... but here's what I've seen in the past and
=>> it is HARDLY as "obvious" as you purport. Looks like it takes quite a
=>> bit of interpretation to understand it. Not that I really care about the
=>> Bible, like I said it's YOUR business not mine. I just point out the
=>> inconsistencies in your supposed "arguments"
=> No inconsitencies here - just your inability to comprehend fairly obvious
=> text. OK, If you call "interpretation" the ability to understand verbs and
=> nouns, I'm guilty, but I call this "reading".
I find it hard to believe that a text the components of which vary in
age between four thousand and 1900 years can be read as is and taken as
is without the need for interpretation to bring it up to date. Either
that, or else it has already been interpreted for the reader (namely, in
translation).
=> Wrong again. I totaly missed the whole context of the previous post. This
=> potion was not dealing whith abortion but with holding to God's Word.
=> Abortion is wrong because God say it is wrong - just because you're not a
=> Christian doesn't change the fact that is is still wrong.
Really, I don't have a problem with you saying that you believe abortion
to be wrong because God says it is wrong, but such a blanket assertion
is little more than preaching, since I (and others) either don't believe
in any particular G/god/dess/(e)s (watch it or you will invoke the
mighty wrath of jf. Or does he just read t.a?).
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
esme
writes:
>In my opinion your responses have been far from adequate.
have been arguing have been inadequate. particularly concerning one
point: regardless of your or my personal positions, i fail to see why it
is any of the government's business.
some definitions you asked for:
RIGHTS
actions and freedoms every human being is entitled to, which should not
be restricted, except when abused to infringe upon others' rights.
FREEDOM
lack of restriction and control. the ability, and implicity, permission
to do or not to do something.
ETHICS,
a system of rules that a group of people agree to follow. e.g. medical
ethics a doctor agrees to follow when taking the hippocratic oath.
MORALITY
a system of rules that a group of people agree to follow, distinguished
from ethics in that it is usually derived from religion. e.g. christian
morality.
NORMS
a subset, either of ethics or of morality, which most people follow.
people who do not conform to these rules or standards are generally
considered atypical and assigned some stigma. e.g. heterosexuality is
a norm.
FETUS
a pre-sentient, dependent (perhaps symbiotic or parasitic) organism that
exists in a woman's womb, that will develop and become human if properly
nurtured.
BABY
a human being who has just been born, but has not developed to the point
of walking, talking, etc. i would generally call anyone who could
communicate verbally a child, not a baby.
>Second, let's switch positions. Instead of me laying down the
>argument; you begin.
impose it upon others. but i'll indulge you anyway...
1. role of government in society
the role of government in society is to a) preserve as many individual
rights and freedoms as possible. b) perpetuate the society. and
c) benefit the members of the society.
2. where rights and freedoms come from
freedoms do not come from governments. rights and freedoms are part of
being a sentient being. because i am alive, i can move and think.
because i have a mouth and a brain, i can speak. because i have an
opposable thumb, a written language, and the necessary tools, i can
write. as an individual, i have the right and freedom to do anything
that i am able to do.
being a member of society, however, my freedoms are limited. for
example, i cannot detonate explosives, because the explosion might
infringe upon my neighbors' rights to live and have property.
3. why murder is not a right
murder is not a right because killing another person deprives that
person of his right to live. as an independent, sentient, human being
who understands the difference between life and death (on some level,
at least) i have the right to live. as does every other human being.
in my opinion, that right cannot be revoked.
4. my religion
i am an atheist. a strong atheist. a devout atheist.
i am convinced, and will remain convinced until proven wrong, that god
does not exist.
5. my classification of what is a right of a person
everything is a right of a person, until it infringes upon a more important
right (either of that person, or of someone else). for example, you have
the right to drive a car. but you do not have a right to drive a car in
such a manner that it becomes hazardous to yourself and others.
6. my defense for abortion
A) a fetus is not a human being.
a) it is not independent of the mother. i.e. it is a subset of another
human being.
b) it is not sentient, and cannot, therefore, possibly understand life,
death, its existence.
c) it is obviously physically, mentally, socially, psychologically
different from human beings. e.g. it's neurons can replicate,
while a human being's neurons cannot.
B) the mother's right to have control over her own body, and to privacy is
more important than the fetus' right to be given the chance to develop
into a human being. more simply put: roe v. wade.
C) in some cases, it is more humane to abort a fetus than to allow it the
the chance to develop into a human being. e.g. incest or severe
malformation.
D) to abort or not to abort is a question that should be decided by the
pregnant woman, preferably with the father. not any government.
let me add, as a preventive measure, that no religious argument is valid.
my response to any argument based on religion will be the same: read the
first amendment. "free practice thereof" includes the right not to be
constrained by a religion which i do not accept.
-k.esme, who is sorry if this a repeat.
S. M. Burnett
>From: fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy)
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>In article <CMBGo...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) writes:
>>From: gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis)
>>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>>Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 22:48:32 GMT
>>In article <940304142...@LL.MIT.EDU>, fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy) says:
[deleted]
>Well segailli, after insulting my religion I can only conclude that you are
>jelious. You have a young child and want everyone else to uphold family
>values in the same way that you do. Well you are going to have to go to an
>Islamic fundementalist state for that, where a specific set of religious and
>moral customs are written into law.
Why are you so upset? I think you need to meditate or chant more often
to calm yourself down. Come on now take some deep breaths --
in..........and out. There you go.
No one is imposing religion on you; so calm down. The only impositions
are that of standards.
>You don't belong in this country. There are many women who have no problem
>getting abortions, and they are getting them! You Christians are losing, you
>cannot force the United States to enforce your ancient boring bible.
Not all "Pro-Lifers" are Christians. I am not losing a thing, yet. But just
think, if this Nat'l Health Care ever passes and abortions are covered then
we, the tax-payers, get to pay for America's sexual promiscuities. This is
so because the majority of abortions are for that unpredictable mistake.
>And I also found it funny that you ignored the painfull fact that nowhere in
>the Bible is abortion explicitly outlawed. If it was such a big deal to
>Christ or Moses [who actually are more Buddhist than you will ever be] they
>would have mentioned it.
I'm delighted that you read the Bible. Maybe you should read it again.
What book is your belief from. Maybe I will read it, since I have been
accused implicitly of being narrow-minded.
>Tell me segalli, do you masturbate, isn't that a sin in the Catholic Church?
>Should we outlaw masturbation?
Let's see ... copy and paste
I guess you told him !!!!!!!!!
>Om Baby,
^^^^^^^^^ What does this mean?
>JF
S. M. Burnett
>From: cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme)
>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion
>In article <smb130.16...@psu.edu> smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett)
>writes:
>
>>In my opinion your responses have been far from adequate.
>
>and in my opinion, the responses i have gotten in all of the threads i
>have been arguing have been inadequate. particularly concerning one
>point: regardless of your or my personal positions, i fail to see why it
>is any of the government's business.
>
>some definitions you asked for:
>
>RIGHTS
>actions and freedoms every human being is entitled to, which should not
>be restricted, except when abused to infringe upon others' rights.
Who or what entitles these actions and freedoms?
>
>
>MORALITY
>a system of rules that a group of people agree to follow, distinguished
>from ethics in that it is usually derived from religion. e.g. christian
>morality.
But it does not have to derive from religion. Right? If so, where else
can they be derived from?
>
>1. role of government in society
>
>the role of government in society is to a) preserve as many individual
>rights and freedoms as possible. b) perpetuate the society. and
>c) benefit the members of the society.
Where do these rights and freedoms comes from?
>
>
>2. where rights and freedoms come from
>
>freedoms do not come from governments. rights and freedoms are part of
>being a sentient being. because i am alive, i can move and think.
>because i have a mouth and a brain, i can speak. because i have an
>opposable thumb, a written language, and the necessary tools, i can
>write. as an individual, i have the right and freedom to do anything
>that i am able to do.
OK, they are not from government. But where do they come from? Are we
born knowing our rights and freedoms without anyone telling us? And if
we were told, who told them? Where do they come from? Does everyone
perceive these rights or lack of to be the same rights?
>
>being a member of society, however, my freedoms are limited. for
>example, i cannot detonate explosives, because the explosion might
>infringe upon my neighbors' rights to live and have property.
So are you saying that government limits your freedoms -- like a freedom to
murder -- and using your definition above -- right to murder. But you
told me earlier (some time back) that murder is not a right. And if that
is the case, you detonating explosives is not a right. But above you stated
it could be a right if it wasn't for society.
Above you mentioned what I said; and you argued then. I don't get it.
Well,well how appropriate.
!
\!/
>3. why murder is not a right
>
>murder is not a right because killing another person deprives that
>person of his right to live. as an independent, sentient, human being
>who understands the difference between life and death (on some level,
>at least) i have the right to live. as does every other human being.
>in my opinion, that right cannot be revoked.
>
>
>5. my classification of what is a right of a person
>
>everything is a right of a person, until it infringes upon a more important
>right (either of that person, or of someone else). for example, you have
>the right to drive a car. but you do not have a right to drive a car in
>such a manner that it becomes hazardous to yourself and others.
>
Where do rights come from and how do you prioritize them? Who or what
establishes the priority? Does every one have different priorities as far
as rights go?
>
>6. my defense for abortion
>
>A) a fetus is not a human being.
> WHY??? Because they are not sentient beings.
Webster --- sentient
to perceive by the senses, of having, or capable
of feeling or perception; conscious
I see we can argue this issue. But I know I won't be able to
convince you otherwise.
See the whole abortion issue boils down to answering this
question.
a) it is not independent of the mother. i.e. it is a subset of another
> human being.
So is a baby.
> b) it is not sentient, and cannot, therefore, possibly understand life,
> death, its existence.
Most of us today can't understand life and death and our
existence. Why do we exist? Sorry for being a little
philosophical, I understand your point; however, sentience
is a more general definition than the one you gave.
> c) it is obviously physically, mentally, socially, psychologically
> different from human beings. e.g. it's neurons can replicate,
> while a human being's neurons cannot.
>
>B) the mother's right to have control over her own body, and to privacy is
> more important than the fetus' right to be given the chance to develop
> into a human being. more simply put: roe v. wade.
Some believe that.
>
>C) in some cases, it is more humane to abort a fetus than to allow it the
> the chance to develop into a human being. e.g. incest or severe
> malformation.
The majority of abortions do not serve this purpose. And it is a shame to
see that the majority consist of teens and those in the early twenties,
using abortion to fix a "mistake".
>
>D) to abort or not to abort is a question that should be decided by the
> pregnant woman, preferably with the father. not any government.
But most of these women are high-school girls....
>
>let me add, as a preventive measure, that no religious argument is valid.
>my response to any argument based on religion will be the same: read the
>first amendment. "free practice thereof" includes the right not to be
>constrained by a religion which i do not accept.
Hey, you still have not told me where rights and freedoms come from ?
>
>-k.esme, who is sorry if this a repeat.
Look I am trying to understand you?
>--
> kevin esme cowles "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins.
> cow...@scf.usc.edu My sin, my soul." -- Nabokov
esme
>In article <2m336b$s...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>>In article <CMoF3...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg
>>Segallis) writes:
>>>In article <2lt3s4$5...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>>>>In article <CMIK...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg
>>Segallis) writes:
>>>>>In article <2ljat3$r...@phakt.usc.edu>, cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) says:
>>Everything changes (entropy). Resisting change is not only futile, but
>>the mark of ignorance.
>
>Entropy is the movement towards chaos. In society this equates to anarchy.
>Are you suggesting that we should kick back, relax and watch the world
>continue on it's slide into the mire ?
No, and that is not what I said. Resisting change is futile. However, if
you want to avoid the 'slide into the mire' i would bet that resurrection
from the ashes like the pheonix is a lot more effective than holding on
to the ashes.
>Resisting change towards entropy is what this world is all about-making order
>out of chaos, not helping the world towards chaos. The ignorance is in
>believing in the futility of resistance.
Let me set this out in premis form, and you tell what you disagree with:
1. everything changes and moves towards chaos in general.
2. resisting that change, both locally and generally is impossible.
3. order can be made from chaos, but only locally.
.: creating new order is the only way to avoid utter chaos.
>I thought that those who wrote the Bible, and they weren't all Christians BTW
>were guided by God. Does God then have a closed mind ?
1. i don't accept the existence of god.
2. i also think that those who wrote the bible (a majority of whom were jewish,
not christian, i realize) were guided by egotism, delusions of grandeur,
insanity, or a need to find order in the world around them.
>>>Think of it like the law of gravity.
>>
>>No. Religion is something created by men to explain a world they didn't
>>understand. the law of gravity is something created by men to explain
>>a function of the world they did understand.
>
>And when do you think we will understand it all ?
i don't. i think some events in the world are inherently unknowable. for
example, the state of the universe at or before the big bang.
>>> Just because you don't believe it or don't understand it, or have never
>>>even heard of it; it doesn't mean it doesn't apply to you.
>>
>>No, but because it is fiction it doesn't apply to me. Just like i won't
>>grow to be thirty feet high if i eat from the left side of the mushroom
>>(like Alice did in Wonderland) I won't be judged by god when i die.
>>
>>And don't preach at me. I've heard it all forty times. Assuming your
>>conclusion is a faulty arguing tactic, and is insulting.
>
>I won't preach at you but for your information the New Testament is not
>a work of fiction - it is a work of fact and this has been accepted by
>greater atheists than you. Just because you do not believe He was the
>Son of God does not mean that a man called Jesus did not exist.
the epistles are factual, in that they are letters that were obviously
written by early christians.
if one does not believe in the *divinity* of jesus christ (i accept that
there was a man named jesus, from nazareth, who spoke aramaic) then a
majority of the gospels are ficticious.
as for revelation....well, let's just say it sounds like an acid trip
to me.
>>Let me get this straight: Sex education and birth control leads to
>>abortion, a.i.d.s., ovarian cancer, rape, and sterility.
>
>Early sexual activity has been linked to cervical cancer.
Yes, but you lack the premise "sex education and birth control leads to
early sexual activity." therefore the point is meaningless.
>Use of the Pill has been linked to ovarian, cervical, uterine and breast
>cancer.
Yes, it has.
>Sex has been linked to pregnancy
Really?
>and pregnancy has been linked to abortion.
Quite a jump, yes?
like your first assertion, this lacks any connection with birth control
or sex education.
>Abortion has been linked to sterility and a tendency to ectopic pregnancy
>and spontaneous abortion.
Yes, but you are still lacking the connection between abortion and sex
education and birth control.
> Sex has been linked to rape.
Wait a minute. What the....???
What does this have to do with ANYTHING???
>Sex has been linked to sex education and sex education that preaches
>hedonism i.e. use birth control because we don't trust you to control
>yourselves and abstain until you are really ready has been linked to all
>of the above and H.I.V. infection.
Do you have a cite for the assertion "Sex education encourages students
to have sex" ?
and "use birth control" is not hedonism, it's common sense.
>HIV infection has been linked to A.I.D.S although this is in dispute in
>some quarters.
yes, there is a small, but vocal, minority of researchers who claim there
is reason to believe hiv does not cause aids.
>>I would like to see a citation for that claim, please. and I mean for
>>a scientific (i.e. non-christian affiliated) study that asserts and
>>established causality.
>
>Try WHO, CDC....
that's not a cite. a cite would be author, title, publication, and year
published.
>Strange coincidence that. The Pill arrived in the 60's. This was supposed
>to allay all promiscuous and/or sexually active women's fears of an unwanted
>pregnancy. Abortion wass legalised in the UK in 1967 and in America in 1973.
and, hopefully, with the advent of ru486, the problems of physical abortion
will be greatly diminished, and there will be no clinics for anti-choicers
to protest outside of.
>The fact that any abortion clinic, legal or otherwise, kills anyone at all
>should be a cause for concern.
I agree completely. And I am very pleased that drugs such as ru486 will
virtually stop the death of women during/from abortion. not to mention
the fact that the physical trauma will be greatly reduced.
esme
>In article <2m7pn9$5...@phakt.usc.edu> cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
>>In article <smb130.16...@psu.edu> smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett)
>>writes:
>>RIGHTS
>>actions and freedoms every human being is entitled to, which should not
>>be restricted, except when abused to infringe upon others' rights.
>
>Who or what entitles these actions and freedoms?
have you read any Rousseau? his idea was 'the noble savage'. that
originally, men were solitary creatures, and that the rights were innate.
i don't know if i buy that, exactly. but i do believe that the rights are
inherent to the individual.
as for 'who' or 'what' who knows? and better yet, who cares?
does it really matter where a right comes from? you can call that an
'authority' and, furthermore, you can call it 'god'. i don't think
it has any real significance.
>>MORALITY
>>a system of rules that a group of people agree to follow, distinguished
>>from ethics in that it is usually derived from religion. e.g. christian
>>morality.
>But it does not have to derive from religion. Right? If so, where else
>can they be derived from?
morality is derived from a religion, philosophy, or any other 'belief system'
religions have the most extensive moral guidelines, because they usually
involve a text that lays down morality. though i suppose you could develop
a morality from 'the canterbury tales' or from shakespeare, if you wanted.
>>1. role of government in society
>>
>>the role of government in society is to a) preserve as many individual
>>rights and freedoms as possible. b) perpetuate the society. and
>>c) benefit the members of the society.
>
>Where do these rights and freedoms comes from?
again, why does it matter?
it certainly has nothing to do with the society. the rights were extent
in the individual before the society was formed.
>>2. where rights and freedoms come from
>>
>>freedoms do not come from governments. rights and freedoms are part of
>>being a sentient being. because i am alive, i can move and think.
>>because i have a mouth and a brain, i can speak. because i have an
>>opposable thumb, a written language, and the necessary tools, i can
>>write. as an individual, i have the right and freedom to do anything
>>that i am able to do.
>
>OK, they are not from government. But where do they come from? Are we
>born knowing our rights and freedoms without anyone telling us?
i don't think so. i'm a tabula rasa fan, myself.
>And if we were told, who told them?
everyone and everything tells us. governments, parents, actions, etc.
>Where do they come from?
i think you're fixated.
>Does everyone perceive these rights or lack of to be the same rights?
i don't even want to talk about perception. but if you mean 'does
everyone have the same rights?' yes.
>>being a member of society, however, my freedoms are limited. for
>>example, i cannot detonate explosives, because the explosion might
>>infringe upon my neighbors' rights to live and have property.
>
>So are you saying that government limits your freedoms -- like a freedom to
>murder -- and using your definition above -- right to murder. But you
>told me earlier (some time back) that murder is not a right. And if that
>is the case, you detonating explosives is not a right. But above you stated
>it could be a right if it wasn't for society.
>Above you mentioned what I said; and you argued then. I don't get it.
>Well,well how appropriate.
i have a right to detonate explosives. as a lone individual, i could blow
up anything i could get my hands on. society limits that right by requiring
that i don't explode people.
>>5. my classification of what is a right of a person
>>
>>everything is a right of a person, until it infringes upon a more important
>>right (either of that person, or of someone else). for example, you have
>>the right to drive a car. but you do not have a right to drive a car in
>>such a manner that it becomes hazardous to yourself and others.
>Where do rights come from
getting a little obsessed?
>and how do you prioritize them? Who or what establishes the priority?
>Does every one have different priorities as far as rights go?
i think that both morality and society play roles in prioritizing rights.
i think that gets to the heart of the abortion and homosexuality debates.
christian morality forbids abortion and homosexuality. the government,
however, recognizes those as rights that individuals would have that
should be protected.
the government recognizes christianity's right to have different morals.
christianity does not recognize the government's right to have allow
rights that christians view as immoral.
>>6. my defense for abortion
>>
>>A) a fetus is not a human being.
> WHY??? Because they are not sentient beings.
> Webster --- sentient
> to perceive by the senses, of having, or capable
> of feeling or perception; conscious
and if you look up 'conscious' you will find 'aware of oneself as a thinking
being; knowing what one is doing and why.'
it has been my position all along that fetuses are not capable of this
level of thinking.
> a) it is not independent of the mother. i.e. it is a subset of another
>> human being.
>So is a baby.
No. a baby can be taken care of by any woman. or by a man. but an infant
is physically atatched, draws blood, oxygen, etc directly from the mother.
>> b) it is not sentient, and cannot, therefore, possibly understand life,
>> death, its existence.
>Most of us today can't understand life and death and our
>existence. Why do we exist? Sorry for being a little
>philosophical, I understand your point; however, sentience
>is a more general definition than the one you gave.
see my definition, above, for conscious.
>> c) it is obviously physically, mentally, socially, psychologically
>> different from human beings. e.g. it's neurons can replicate,
>> while a human being's neurons cannot.
>>B) the mother's right to have control over her own body, and to privacy is
>> more important than the fetus' right to be given the chance to develop
>> into a human being. more simply put: roe v. wade.
>Some believe that.
that is the position of our government at present. and if christians want
to believe differently, go ahead. but forcing that view on others is
not acceptable.
>>C) in some cases, it is more humane to abort a fetus than to allow it the
>> the chance to develop into a human being. e.g. incest or severe
>> malformation.
>The majority of abortions do not serve this purpose. And it is a shame to
>see that the majority consist of teens and those in the early twenties,
>using abortion to fix a "mistake".
in my opinion, it is more humane for a teen-aged girl to abort than to carry
the child to term. she is not responsible enough to care for the child,
and she has other obligations (e.g. school)
>>D) to abort or not to abort is a question that should be decided by the
>> pregnant woman, preferably with the father. not any government.
>
>But most of these women are high-school girls....
okay, then. the girl, the father, and the involved parents. still, not
the government.
>>let me add, as a preventive measure, that no religious argument is valid.
>>my response to any argument based on religion will be the same: read the
>>first amendment. "free practice thereof" includes the right not to be
>>constrained by a religion which i do not accept.
>
>Hey, you still have not told me where rights and freedoms come from ?
freud would love you.
Bryan J Jensen
hel...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (Andrew K. Heller) writes:
>
> So, I can't be a christian if I allow abortions?
Becoming a Christian doesn't instantaneously change one's views that
have been set over a lifetime. However, it could jeopardize one's
pro-choice view, and a lot of other views too.
There are various ways a Christian can rationalize wrong views.
Bill Clinton provides an excellent example of how this can happen.
Now, I have no idea if Bill Clinton is a Christian, but this still
is a good example of how we all sometimes function.
Clinton started out pro-choice, his religion had no bearing on this
position. He then set about trying to conform his religion with his
views. His problem was solved when he learned that the Hebrew words
for breathe and spirit are related. This taken from Time Magazine's
Clinton special a year ago.
Someone who objectively studied the Christian Bible to find its
position on abortion may well come to a different conclusion.
Christians do place their faulty views in jeopardy because they
have already admitted they are deficient and have choosen to rely
on God. "If it feels good, do it" is not a Christian view.
From Jeremiah 10, 23:
I know, O Lord, that man's ways are not of his own choosing;
nor is it for a man to determine his course in life.
Correct us, O Lord, but with justice, not with anger,
lest thou bring us almost to nothing.
Or, Proverbs 3, 5:
Put all your trust in the Lord and
do not rely on your own understanding.
In article <2lqgpq$8...@transfer.stratus.com>, Willia...@vos.stratus.com says
> Aren't Christians supposed to treat others they way they wish to
> be treated?
>
> Given this fact, a Christian wouldn't want the government telling them
> what to do with their bodies, would they?
>
> Given this fact, isn't it totally within the Christian (Christ's words)
> boundries to be pro-choice (meaning: I wish not to interfere with
> peoples bodies or their lives, I trust people to make decisions, I
> give people "free-will").
This doesn't address the abortion issue at all, since the pro-life motivation
is to protect the baby, not to interfere with the mother. However...
Freedom only works when there is some internal restraining force governing
the people. Christianity provides this, as shown above. There are numerous
other sources of restraint too, for instance, the Japanese sense of duty.
Russia is an example of where they are likely to lose a lot of their freedoms
because too many of the people lack self-restraint. The rampant corruption
creates a demand for government control.
In article <2m2t09$d...@rc1.vub.ac.be>, we4...@is2e.vub.ac.be (GOUTSMITSAM) says
>Sorry, but I just can't agree with that. No matter what your religous
>beliefs are, no matter how your look upon the world is, you should
>always, *always*, give your kids a FREE CHOICE!
Well, in the case of Christianity, this is true, since becoming a
Christian is a matter of choice. In the case of Islam, I'm not so
sure this is true, since you are born a Moslim.
>My grand-parents were Catholics, but they gave my father the Choice of
>finding his own way, without any influences. When it became clear that
>he did not believe in a god, they did not make ANY problem of it, they
>accepted his views... When I grew up, my father told me about the
>different ways you could look at the world and then he gave me the
>choice what I wanted to do. I ended up not believing in God anyway, but
>not due to him...
Sounds like your grand-parents were either not Christians, or they had no
love for your father, or you are mis-representing reality. How could
parents be unconcerned if their child chooses to go to hell?
To say "without any influences" is wrong. If your father looked at your
grand-parents and saw religion dead in their lifes, that would influence
him to reject that religion.
In addition, it is proper that parents do all they can to guide their
children in their choices. That is how we build up, or destroy, our
family over the generations. It is vital that we teach children what
is right, because it is so hard for an older person to change their
views. It is a common view among some cultures that a child must
follow their parents in choice of religion. This isn't true (there
must be examples of people who have changed...), but it is true that
by the time we reach adulthood we have a view of life that makes it
very difficult to change, and that view was determined largely by
our parents.
In article <2m29v6$m...@hearst.cac.psu.edu>,
hel...@akh104.rh.psu.edu (Andrew K. Heller) writes:
> also.... for the DUMB RETARDED HOMOPHOBES:
>
> There is no test to prove if someone's homosexuality is "normal."
>Can you prove that Heterosexuality is genetic?
If Darwin were alive today, he might have something to say on this.
I'm going to assume you are joking.
On the subject of gays.... The gay lifestyle is a good example of
the opposite of Christianity. It is hard to believe that any Christian
could participate in this lifestyle. You have to choose whether you
will make God your lord, or your own pleasure.
Edited from webster:
DEFINE GAY
1a: happily excited: MERRY
2a: BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows>
3: given to social pleasures; also: LICENTIOUS
4a: HOMOSEXUAL
4b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <gay liberation>
<a gay bar>
DEFINE LICENTIOUS
1: lacking legal or moral restraints;
esp: disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness
Although people use "gay" according to definition 4, I won't.
We already have a word for that - homosexual - there is no reason to
give up a perfectly good word - gay - to mean something totally unrelated.
However, since it is so rare to find a 4a that isn't also 3,
the distinction may be academic, at least in politics.
esme
[deleted...]
>In addition, it is proper that parents do all they can to guide their
>children in their choices. That is how we build up, or destroy, our
>family over the generations. It is vital that we teach children what
>is right, because it is so hard for an older person to change their
>views.
Here, you take the short-sighted, closed-minded view to rasing children.
It is NOT a parent's duty to tell their child "what is right" Everyone
would be better served if the parent taught the child to think for
himself, to make his own decisions, and to decide what was right.
Memorizing a set of rules, whether it be "Mommy said not to...." or "Thou
shalt not...." is inadequate and impractical for living in the real world.
Learning evaluative thinking (in the sense of Bloom's tax.) is much more
valuable and realistic.
[...]
>On the subject of gays.... The gay lifestyle is a good example of
>the opposite of Christianity. It is hard to believe that any Christian
>could participate in this lifestyle.
Actually, my roommate is both a lesbian and a christian. There is, in fact,
a christian church that is geared toward gays and lesbians, I believe the
name is the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC) and there are many of them,
worldwide (thought mostly in the US and Europe).
Even if you believe that homosexuality is wrong (and your judgementalness
is clear) the statement 'It is hard to believe that any Christian could
be gay' is as inconsistent with christianity as 'it is hard to believe that
any Christian could ever sin'
>You have to choose whether you will make God your lord, or your own pleasure.
>
>Edited from webster:
>
> DEFINE GAY
> 1a: happily excited: MERRY
> 2a: BRIGHT, LIVELY <gay sunny meadows>
> 3: given to social pleasures; also: LICENTIOUS
> 4a: HOMOSEXUAL
> 4b: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals <gay liberation>
> <a gay bar>
>
> DEFINE LICENTIOUS
> 1: lacking legal or moral restraints;
> esp: disregarding sexual restraints
> 2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness
>
>Although people use "gay" according to definition 4, I won't.
>We already have a word for that - homosexual - there is no reason to
>give up a perfectly good word - gay - to mean something totally unrelated.
Have you been living in a cave? Have you ever used the word 'cool' to mean
anything other than 'not hot' ? And even Webster's (that paragon of average
American usage) includes homosexuality in the definition of 'gay'.
Your prejudice is disgusting. Do you actually know any gays? Do you have
even the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about?
I don't think so.
The gays and lesbians I know are every bit as moral as the straights I know,
and no less friendly, compassionate, or honest.
>However, since it is so rare to find a 4a that isn't also 3,
>the distinction may be academic, at least in politics.
fuck off and die, hypocrite.
-k.esme
S. M. Burnett
>From: fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy)
>Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 10:48:43 -0500
>In article <smb130.18...@psu.edu> smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett) writes:
>>From: smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett)
>>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>>Date: Thu, 17 Mar 1994 09:08:07 GMT
>>In article <940315093...@LL.MIT.EDU> fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy) writes:
>>>From: fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy)
>>>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>>>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 09:38:30 -0500
>>>In article <CMBGo...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) writes:
>>>>From: gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis)
>>>>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>>>>Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 22:48:32 GMT
>>>>In article <940304142...@LL.MIT.EDU>, fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy) says:
[ deleted -- not worth reading]
You got the WRONG person; You idiot !!!!!
^^^^^
If you are still lost, READ the beginning of the post. I expected better
from mit.edu.
Craig Powers
=>In article <2m7pn9$5...@phakt.usc.edu> cow...@phakt.usc.edu (esme) writes:
=>>In article <smb130.16...@psu.edu> smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett)
=>>writes:
=>> RIGHTS
=>> actions and freedoms every human being is entitled to, which should not
=>> be restricted, except when abused to infringe upon others' rights.
=> Who or what entitles these actions and freedoms?
Good question. But, does it matter if almost everyone agrees that they
are rights?
=>> MORALITY
=>> a system of rules that a group of people agree to follow, distinguished
=>> from ethics in that it is usually derived from religion. e.g. christian
=>> morality.
=> But it does not have to derive from religion. Right? If so, where else
=> can they be derived from?
Well, if it is a system of rules that a group of people agree to
follow, we could even call government a morality. We all agree to
follow the rules of the United States by living here, instead of
somewhere else.
=> So are you saying that government limits your freedoms -- like a freedom to
=> murder -- and using your definition above -- right to murder. But you
=> told me earlier (some time back) that murder is not a right. And if that
=> is the case, you detonating explosives is not a right. But above you stated
=> it could be a right if it wasn't for society.
=> Above you mentioned what I said; and you argued then. I don't get it.
=> Well,well how appropriate.
I understand it perfectly. Every right ends where someone else's rights
begin. Murder is not a right because it infringes on someone else's
rights, like the right not to have their bodily integrity violated
without giving permission. Detonating explosives is a right as long as
there is no chance it will harm anyone but you.
=>> a) it is not independent of the mother. i.e. it is a subset of another
=>> human being.
=> So is a baby.
No, No, NO!!! How many times do we have to tell people that a baby,
while dependent upon another human being is independent of ANY
PARTICULAR human being?!?
[snip]
=> But most of these women are high-school girls....
So that makes them responsible enough to take care of a baby, but not
responsible enough to get an abortion?
Craig Powers
cpo...@lynx.dac.neu.edu
Marcus Christ Schiermeier
growth would be finsished for the foetus and it would be a baby. So its
murder, if you can't deal with that, then get over it. People are killing
eachother over stupider things for thousands of years. Kill all you want,
we'll make more.
Although I think that the fact that it is too much trouble to give birth
to a baby and give it up for adoption says alot about our society and
were it's values are.
-Marc17
James Forgy
>From: smb...@psu.edu (S. M. Burnett)
>In article <940315093...@LL.MIT.EDU> fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy) writes:
>>From: fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy)
>>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>>Date: Tue, 15 Mar 94 09:38:30 -0500
>>In article <CMBGo...@news.ess.harris.com> gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis) writes:
>>>From: gseg...@ic1d.harris.com (Greg Segallis)
>>>Subject: Re: Ghoullish Concepts on Abortion [ autoresponders: ignore ]
>>>Date: Mon, 7 Mar 1994 22:48:32 GMT
>>>In article <940304142...@LL.MIT.EDU>, fo...@ll.mit.edu (James Forgy) says:
>[deleted]
>>Well segailli, after insulting my religion I can only conclude that you are
>>jelious. You have a young child and want everyone else to uphold family
>>values in the same way that you do. Well you are going to have to go to an
>>Islamic fundementalist state for that, where a specific set of religious and
>>moral customs are written into law.
>Why are you so upset? I think you need to meditate or chant more often
>to calm yourself down. Come on now take some deep breaths --
>in..........and out. There you go.
Is that a pick-up line Segalli, are you attracted to me.
>No one is imposing religion on you; so calm down. The only impositions
>are that of standards.
Standards based on warped Christian doctrine.
>>You don't belong in this country. There are many women who have no problem
>>getting abortions, and they are getting them! You Christians are losing, you
>>cannot force the United States to enforce your ancient boring bible.
>Not all "Pro-Lifers" are Christians. I am not losing a thing, yet. But just
>think, if this Nat'l Health Care ever passes and abortions are covered then
>we, the tax-payers, get to pay for America's sexual promiscuities. This is
>so because the majority of abortions are for that unpredictable mistake.
Why not just perform abortions at the local junior high schools and high
schools, and give out contraciptive devices this would cost 1% of the moeny
needed to raise un-wanted children through welfare, learn your math you idiot.
And you use promiscuity negatively, Is sex bad, you Christian weirdo?
>>And I also found it funny that you ignored the painfull fact that nowhere in
>>the Bible is abortion explicitly outlawed. If it was such a big deal to
>>Christ or Moses [who actually are more Buddhist than you will ever be] they
>>would have mentioned it.
>I'm delighted that you read the Bible. Maybe you should read it again.
>What book is your belief from. Maybe I will read it, since I have been
>accused implicitly of being narrow-minded.
You still avoid the fact that abortion is no where mentioned negatively in the
Bible, man you are an Ostrich, sticking your head in the sand.
>>Tell me segalli, do you masturbate, isn't that a sin in the Catholic Church?
>>Should we outlaw masturbation?
>Let's see ... copy and paste
>I guess you told him !!!!!!!!!
Answer the question wimp!. should the state outlaw masturbation becuase many
Christians beleive it a sin?
Om Baby,
jf