Home > Archive > Cobol > April 2006 > The "A" word (was RE: Any comments (The "A" Word ...)...)
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The "A" word (was RE: Any comments (The "A" Word ...)...)
|
|
| Chuck Stevens 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| New post to avoid the "overflow" problem Peter Dashwood first mentioned.
Holly wrote:
<< ... I don't like abortion and think it is a terrible thing. But I don't
want government telling me
what I can and can't do to my own body ... >>
and then, further down,
Daniel responded:
[color=darkred]
> YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. Let's kill the
> innocent babies, and spare the guilty criminals. :) (You don't see that
> this is backwards?)
This looks a whole lot like tarring Holly with the "pro-abortion" label
after her specific and explicit statements to the contrary. Whether a
person feels something is a good idea is completely orthogonal to whether
they feel it should be legal or illegal.
Because a person does not agree that anyone who either performs or allow
themselves to be subjected to an abortion deserves to be charged with
capital murder -- or for that matter charged with any *crime* at all -- does
not make them "pro-abortion". I think it's a moral question that lies
squarely with the participants and their Creator.
And in the particular specific case that Holly cited, I am not of the
opinion that forcing a
fifteen-year-old incest victim to go through with the pregnancy to term is
obviously and unconditionally the best possible answer for all parties. I
am not of the opinion that
counseling her on the advantages of raising the child herself in comparison
to giving it up for adoption is obviously appropriate, as alluded to in your
list of alternatives (apparently to be considered as having equal merit in
all instances) that should be presented to *anyone* s ing an abortion.
Given that in this instance (reading between the lines) it appears to me
that the
*perpetrator* of this incest got off scot-free, making demands of what the
consequences need to be for the *victim* of that crime strikes me as a
"pro-incest" stance. Is that a fair characterization? If not, why is it
any less fair than "pro-abortion" as it has here apparently been applied to
Holly?
I think the *victim* of a violent crime, which I believe includes
*statutory* rape (whether incest or otherwise) should *not* be legally
*forced* to undergo any more suffering or physical affects of the crime than
is possible. In this case a minor child was victimized by a relative. To
force that minor child to carry the child to term is to *sentence* that
minor child to nine months, if not a lifetime, of suffering.
When the "pro-life" stance includes the victims of rape (statutory or
otherwise) and incest, it is indistinguishable to me from the attitude of
those who think the world needs to know what a fundamentally horrible and
despicable person Matthew Shepard was, and who defend the actions of those
who murdered him as an understandable lapse in judgment, nothing more.
Similarly, I don't buy the premise that doctors who provide abortions
deserve to be treated as murderers while those who have shot them down in
cold blood have maybe overstepped the bounds of civility a bit, and ought to
be told "Naughty! Naughty!".
It may be *possible* to counsel a victim of (statutory or otherwise) rape or
incest to the point that that victim *might* be able to carry that pregnancy
to term without horrendous long-lasting effects on her. It might even be
*possible* to counsel her to the point that she would be able to raise the
child as a single mom. But to presume that evey case in which such
counseling does not reach the desired goal is an utter failure --
particularly an utter failure *on the victim's part* -- is, in my opinion, a
decidedly arrogant and self-righteous stance.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| HeyBub 2006-04-10, 6:55 pm |
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> New post to avoid the "overflow" problem Peter Dashwood first
> mentioned.
> Holly wrote:
>
> << ... I don't like abortion and think it is a terrible thing. But I
> don't want government telling me
> what I can and can't do to my own body ... >>
>
> and then, further down,
>
>
> Daniel responded:
>
>
No one is executed for killing another human. Retribution is specifically
not included in the rationale for codes of criminal procedure.
People are executed to deter others from killing.
Given that deterrence is the reason, it then makes no difference whether the
person executed is the actual perpetrator of the original offense.
| |
|
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> New post to avoid the "overflow" problem Peter Dashwood first mentioned.
>
> Holly wrote:
>
> << ... I don't like abortion and think it is a terrible thing. But I don't
> want government telling me
> what I can and can't do to my own body ... >>
>
> and then, further down,
>
>
> Daniel responded:
>
>
> This looks a whole lot like tarring Holly with the "pro-abortion" label
> after her specific and explicit statements to the contrary. Whether a
> person feels something is a good idea is completely orthogonal to whether
> they feel it should be legal or illegal.
But, as Mr. Brazee mentioned (even today) - if it's okay in *certain
cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And, if
you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it would
be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
I understand your experience with this issue, and I understand Holly's.
I have personally been close with someone who has gone through similar
things, though a child did not result. I don't believe the way I do
without having thought them through. Did you read the Kathleen Parker
article I linked? "Sometimes an accident is just an accident."
And, to sort of buttress my point above - last year in New York City,
there were 74 abortions for every 100 live births. That's 42.6% - and
there's *no way* I'm believing that rape and incest are that bad in NYC.
(I thought the junior Senator from New York was the "safe, legal, and
rare" gal. Two out of three ain't bad, some would say...) This is what
we get with the laws as they currently stand.
Estimates I've read put the abortions performed because of R&I at less
than 1%. Even at 1%, in NYC that would be 1 R&I victim forced to carry
a child they may not want to 135 innocent children murdered before they
draw their first breath. I may be the only contributor here that thinks
that's a better deal than 74 babies dead for every 100 births - but it
all comes down to the value placed on human life, and at what point. If
someone doesn't believe that those 74 are babies being murdered, I'm
sure my position seems... oh, how did you put that...
[huge snip]
> a decidedly arrogant and self-righteous stance.
Yeah, that.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| William M. Klein 2006-04-10, 9:55 pm |
| "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:5eb2c$443b0ecd$45491d7a$29040@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
<much snippage>[color=darkred]
> But, as Mr. Brazee mentioned (even today) - if it's okay in *certain cases*,
> then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And, if you can murder
> an innocent child because it resulted from a crime, where's the moral high
> ground in not allowing its murder because it would degrade a teenager's high
> school experience? Or because it would be inconvenient for the rising
> executive who just got a promotion?
>
Daniel,
Am I correct that you understand the question is "what is a human?"
I don't (personally) know of anyone who is for or against "capital punishment"
who questions that criminals are "human".
(FYI, I am against capital punishment).
There are, however, LOTS of questions about when a "fetuts" becomes a "human
being". I understand your view (or think I do - that "human life" begins at
conception). I also understand the position that human life begins at birth -
and the harder to define (but closer to my view) that "human life" begins when a
fetus reaches a stage that it COULD survive outside the womb.
It is my strong belief that all those on the "pro-life" side believe that "human
life" begins sometime before birth
and
that those who are on the "pro-choice" side beleive that fetuses at stages
allowed to be aborted are not "human beings".
I have never understood the purpose of discussions about abortion among those
with different views of when human life begins. I just don't see how they can
ever progress productively.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
| |
|
| William M. Klein wrote:
> It is my strong belief that all those on the "pro-life" side believe that "human
> life" begins sometime before birth
> and
> that those who are on the "pro-choice" side believe that fetuses at stages
> allowed to be aborted are not "human beings".
You got it. (The latter being supported by a hefty chant of "keep your
laws off my body/vagina/womb")
> I have never understood the purpose of discussions about abortion among those
> with different views of when human life begins. I just don't see how they can
> ever progress productively.
Which was why I ended my message to Chuck the way I did. I acknowledged
that my belief on this issue would be seen by some to be not only wrong,
but cold-hearted and self-righteous.
I'm not planning on keeping this thread going much longer (in fact, I
was going to let this post to Chuck be it). But, I thought you deserved
a reply... :)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-11, 7:55 am |
| On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:55:58 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
<charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:
> is, in my opinion, a
>decidedly arrogant and self-righteous stance.
What's the difference between "righteous" and "self-righteous"?
As far as I can tell, the former is the correct stance that I have, as
defined by God, and the latter is the incorrect stance that was
defined by yourself.
Or is it "I'm good, you're righteous, and he's self-righteous"?
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-11, 7:55 am |
| On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 02:20:33 GMT, "William M. Klein"
<wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>There are, however, LOTS of questions about when a "fetuts" becomes a "human
>being". I understand your view (or think I do - that "human life" begins at
>conception). I also understand the position that human life begins at birth -
>and the harder to define (but closer to my view) that "human life" begins when a
>fetus reaches a stage that it COULD survive outside the womb.
There is an argument with backing that says a fetus is a human being
but an embryo is not. This matches the tradition of quickening, and
it is also when some human-like brain activity starts.
But I don't see this in the abortion debates.
| |
| HeyBub 2006-04-11, 6:55 pm |
| LX-i wrote:
>
> But, as Mr. Brazee mentioned (even today) - if it's okay in *certain
> cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And,
> if you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
> where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
> would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it
> would be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
There were about 74,000 abortions in Florida in 1981. These 74,000 were
unable to vote in 2000. Presumably, most would have voted for Al Gore,
descended, as they were, from a more "liberal" family environment. Gore lost
Florida by 520 votes.
The pro-abortion crew is evidently "eating their seed corn" and this
phenomena is so apparant, it has a name: "The Roe Effect."
But that's neither here nor there in the debate. The debate will not end and
there will be no substantial changes to the abortion laws. Both sides are
too heavily invested in the struggle (i.e., the "struggle" provides
employment and life-goals to literally thousands, including politicians).
| |
|
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> You have formed an *opinion* on what a woman ought or ought not to do with
> her body, and you want enforced as *law*. I believe women have more
> standing in determining what is to be done with their bodies than men do,
> just as men have the right to determine what procedures will and will not be
> done to their own bodies.
So women have the lock on truth and right?
>
> Not at the time; looked for it, couldn't track it down via a Google search
> of your messages with the keyword "Parker".
I didn't mention the author. Here 'tis...
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/col.../07/193035.html
> She expressed an opinion based on *her* experience that in the *general*
> case wasn't that different from yours. Because she felt there were
> *some* cases in which it shouldn't be prevented you have indicated that she
> is "pro-abortion" across the board, which means, based on her statement to
> the contrary, that you have called her a liar in public. I think she
> deserves an apology on those grounds.
I did not call her a liar. While she said what she said, the point of
her post to which I responded was a very common pro-abortion comment.
As I've said before (even in the message to which your reply was
written), if it's *ever* permissible, it's *always* permissible.
> This isn't the first time you've categorized people individually with a
> broad brush in this forum, by the way.
And the same has been done to me. This language thing is imprecise -
and, if they (or I) walk like a duck, and quack like a duck...
Believe me, if I felt that I had done wrong, I would apologize.
However, I'm not one to apologize just because someone's feelings were hurt.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| HeyBub 2006-04-11, 9:55 pm |
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> I am not a proponent of abortion for convenience. But I am of the
> firm belief that it is no more appropriate for the law to demand that
> all pregnancies be carried to their natural end than it is for men to
> be required to defecate watermelons or that all of them be
> circumcized (or de-circumcised, for that matter) as adults. And more
> importantly presuming Judaeo-Christian tradition I think the most
> defensible *scriptural* line is at "quickening".
Interrupt. The official Jewish position on abortion is: "Maybe." If
pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, abortion is almost mandatory.
Otherwise, a detailed, individual, analysis of each specific, unique
situation is required. For example, if carrying the pregnancy to term would
probably result in suicidal tendencies by the mother, abortion is permitted.
If the birth would probably result in normal, treatable, post-partum
depression, abortion is not permitted.
Authorities are divided on permissibility where the fetus is deformed,
whether the pregnancy is a result of rape, and, unlike other religions,
whether the impregnation resulted from a "forbidden" union (incest, adultry,
apostate, Democrat*).
There is no "bright-line" test as in the Catholic tradition.
==========
Okay, I made up the last one.
| |
| Pete Dashwood 2006-04-12, 7:55 am |
|
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:e1gob4$eri$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
<snip>
> The pain of childbirth isn't the only issue associated with pregnancy;
> throwing up every morning is not *my* idea of fun and games, nor would
> having a watermelon sitting on top of my bladder be.
>
No, I agree. I dunno why Evolution hasn't enabled women to lay eggs. This
business of carrying something round inside you for 9 months because it
needs protection, well, it just doesn't stack up any more really.
I reckon she could lay an egg, both the parents could put it in an incubator
and get on with their lives until it hatched.
And it would avoid all that unpleasantness over abortion. Too many kids,
don't need another one? OK. Egg goes down the insinkerator... No risk, and
relatively painless for the parents.
We'd probably still be arguing here about when it was an egg and when it was
a child, but the whole process would be much less messy.
It works for the platbilled duckibus and the echidna.
Oviparous mammals. THAT's the future for us...:-)
Pete.
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2006-04-12, 6:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1a129$443c4631$45491d7a$15798@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> And, even if the bad law is repealed, and good laws take its place - we've
> seen the havoc that can be wreaked by the judicial branch that thinks its
> place is to make new law when it disagrees with the current, rather than
> rendering faithful interpretations of existing law.
You're going to have to take that up with Chief Justice John Marshall. It
was his decision in Marbury v. Madison that underlies the precept of
judicial review. He might be a little hard to reach, though.
I tend to feel that, since this decision was promulgated in February 1803,
since a reasonable percentage of the signators to the then-fourteen-year-old
Constitution and other Founding Fathers were still alive and kickng and
presumably reading the news of the day, and since they do not seem to have
raised a significant hue and cry about the violence this decision did to the
Constitution and the balance of powers so carefully crafted into it, they
must not have found the idea all that repugnant at the time.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2006-04-12, 6:55 pm |
| "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:8150e$443c51de$45491d7a$4704@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> I did not call her a liar. While she said what she said, the point of her
> post to which I responded was a very common pro-abortion comment.
She wrote "I don't like abortion and think it's a terrible thing." You
responded "YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. ..."
In what way, in that response, did you discuss with the same emphasis how
you react when *anti*-abortion folks (like Holly) say this?
> I've said before (even in the message to which your reply was written), if
> it's *ever* permissible, it's *always* permissible.
I know you believe that to be the case; I do not follow the logic. Should
the reverse be true? That if it's *ever* prohibited in any case it should
*always* be prohibited in *all* cases?
What about prevention? Should the law specify what means can be taken to
*prevent* a woman from having an abortion or a doctor from performing one,
rather than relying on the idea that a criminal record and jail time are
sufficient?
What do you think the penalty for abortion should be? Should the sentence
guidelines for abortion be more, less, or about the same as that of rape
(statutory or otherwise)? Should it be an infraction, like a traffic
ticket, being drunk in public, or hitting somebody over the head with a
protest sign? What?
> And the same has been done to me.
*By Holly*? I don't think so.
> This language thing is imprecise - and, if they (or I) walk like a duck,
> and quack like a duck...
So if she says "I don't like abortion and think it's a terrible thing", and
then comes out *against* the death penalty, she "walks like" a
*pro-abortionist*?
It seems to me the only difference between her position and yours is that
she does not support the idea of criminalizing abortion *in the case of rape
or incest*, and you apparently do. That does not mean she is *pro-abortion*
or deserves your categorization as being "in that camp".
< Believe me, if I felt that I had done wrong, I would apologize.
> However, I'm not one to apologize just because someone's feelings were
> hurt.
There is such a thing as *rigorous* honesty and there is such a thing as
*brutal* honesty. They are not the same thing, and sometimes the way in
which we present our views or our arguments is brutal, and for that
brutality, sometimes we owe amends even when we are firmly convinced our
underlying position is correct, because our presentation of that position
was ill-concieved. I believe that is true for most of us, and I don't see
much evidence that you need to be excluded from the group represented by the
second-person-plural in this paragraph.
-Chuck Stevens
| |
| Oliver Wong 2006-04-12, 6:55 pm |
|
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:8150e$443c51de$45491d7a$4704@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> So women have the lock on truth and right?
In the very passage that you quoted and responded to, Chuck says "men
have the right to determine what procedures will and will not be done to
their own bodies", so the answer is "no".
> As I've said before (even in the message to which your reply was written),
> if it's *ever* permissible, it's *always* permissible.
I think people are in disagreement with the idea that "ever permissible"
implies "always permissible". In your earlier message, you wrote:
<quote>
if it's okay in *certain
cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And, if
you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it would
be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
</quote>
The emphasis on "certain cases" is yours, and it is an important
emphasis. Yes, it remains to be decided what those cases are, and yes, it's
not always easy to determine whether a given case falls into the
"permissible" or "not permissible" category; but that does not imply that we
should just give up and announce "It's all or nothing".
- Oliver
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-12, 6:55 pm |
| It is interesting that Steven Levitt attributes the big drop in teen
crime that started about a decade ago (when everybody was predicting a
big rise) - to Roe vs Wade.
| |
|
| Oliver Wong wrote:
> <quote>
> if it's okay in *certain
> cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And, if
> you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
> where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
> would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it would
> be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
> </quote>
>
> The emphasis on "certain cases" is yours, and it is an important
> emphasis. Yes, it remains to be decided what those cases are, and yes,
> it's not always easy to determine whether a given case falls into the
> "permissible" or "not permissible" category; but that does not imply
> that we should just give up and announce "It's all or nothing".
But that's my entire point. Short of recognizing abortion as the murder
of an unborn child, any compromises are doomed. Exceptions for rape and
incest become a "commit a murder free" card - and this hypocrisy will
never stand up in court.
So, I'm not giving up - but anything short of complete prohibition will
never last.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
|
| Chuck Stevens wrote:
> "LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:8150e$443c51de$45491d7a$4704@KNOLOG
Y.NET...
>
>
> She wrote "I don't like abortion and think it's a terrible thing." You
> responded "YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. ..."
>
> In what way, in that response, did you discuss with the same emphasis how
> you react when *anti*-abortion folks (like Holly) say this?
Okay - I apologize for the slight mischaracterization, and amend that to
"abortion supporter".
>
> I know you believe that to be the case; I do not follow the logic. Should
> the reverse be true? That if it's *ever* prohibited in any case it should
> *always* be prohibited in *all* cases?
This is an interesting thing. Given my response to Mr. Wong, the answer
is no. (Of course, *I* think it should be prohibited in all cases.)
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
| |
| Howard Brazee 2006-04-13, 7:55 am |
| On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:58:18 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>But that's my entire point. Short of recognizing abortion as the murder
>of an unborn child, any compromises are doomed. Exceptions for rape and
>incest become a "commit a murder free" card - and this hypocrisy will
>never stand up in court.
>
>So, I'm not giving up - but anything short of complete prohibition will
>never last.
Murder is murder. (killing in self-defense is not - but killing
because you don't want to have to live with the other person is)
But there are multiple points where legal and religious tradition have
defined when a life becomes human. The Bible's most explicit
definition is when the head crosses the birth canal, but that works
only for people who accept the Bible as the authority. (Apparently
most anti-abortionists do not accept this authority, which is their
right)
Quickening of an embryo into a fetus might be a compromise that has
traditional backing and which also could fit with some knowledge that
we have gained from technical advances to determine whether the brain
activity was that of a person.
Embryonic miscarriages have not traditionally been accompanied by
funerals, and the remains have not been subject to either human
disposal laws nor church doctrine. It is unusual to have these for
fetal miscarriages. The closer to being carried to term, the more
likely they are to be treated as people.
| |
|
| In article <p6ks32l83gc5a7b8k9i9ktpem6nnsmp9ss@4ax.com>,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:58:18 -0500, LX-i <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>
>Murder is murder. (killing in self-defense is not - but killing
>because you don't want to have to live with the other person is)
Murder is defined by laws. Killing because someone has behaved in a
fashion which causes one's family dishonor is not only, by some codes,
legally sanctioned but socially approved.
DD
| |
| Chuck Stevens 2006-04-28, 6:55 pm |
| I had just left for a motorcycle trip when this came in, and I've been
mulling over a response since my return to the office yesterday morning,
hence the delay.
"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:92a1e$443db145$45491d7a$26377@KNOLO
GY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>
> Okay - I apologize for the slight mischaracterization, and amend that to
> "abortion supporter".
I went all the way back to the entry in which Holly presented her position
and found this:
<<It's not that both sides aren't presented. I don't like abortion and
think it is a terrible thing. But I don't want government telling me
what I can and can't do to my own body. Maybe you would understand
that it isn't just beating my chest but the fact that my best friend
was a victim of incest at 15 and it was a terrible choice she had to
make. She tried to commit suicide and it wasn't until she was in the
hospital at the age of 32 that her parents finally understood what she
had been through.
have you ever felt the pain or the shame of something like that! i
don't think you have. You shouldn't judge everyone the way you do!
[color=darkred]
I don't see in here that Holly's friend *did* have an abortion, only that
the process of arriving at whatever choice she made was a difficult one. I
will acknowledge that the reader *could* draw the conclusion that she did,
but that would be the reader's conclusion.
I don't think she's any more of an "abortion supporter" than you are an
"advocate of suicide for rape victims" or a member of the Incest
Decriminalization League. Based on what I've read of her entries, she
doesn't think it's the *government's* job to prevent abortions.
Why do you insist that the perspectives of *your* particular religious
denomination should, by law, take precedence over the perspectives of other
religious denominations whose position diverges from yours? And if you do
so insist, how would such laws *not* be "respecting the establishment of
religion", as well as "prohibiting the free exercize thereof" for those
whose perspective doesn't match yours?
The WBC has gone a Long Way to putting forth their message that homosexual
behavior ought to be a crime punishable by death, as Leviticus 20 states,
and that this country is in dire jeopardy for failing to institute and
enforce such laws. They feel strongly enough about this that they're
protesting to that effect at the funerals of fallen heroes from the
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lately expanded their efforts to
bring their message to those in military rehabilititation facilities.
Behavior and venue aside, their position is at variance with that of a
number of churches -- including the United Church of Christ, which is the
direct descendant organization of the Pilgrims (a.k.a. Congregationalists).
Why should the WBC's position be supported *by law* and the UCC's position
be ignored?
In the same sense, why should your position on abortion be supported *by
law* and the position of any number of Jewish, Christian and Muslim clergy
be dismissed *as a point of law* as irrelevant? If a significant Jewish
organization holds that the question as to whether to have an abortion or
not lies strictly with the woman, her doctor, and her clergyman, why is it
*not* an imposition of *your* religious beliefs to require them to include
the cops, the judicial system and the local jails and prisons into the mix?
Given the fact that some people feel they can defend the idea that a fetus
is not a child (from the very same scriptures you hold so dear) until it's
outside the mother's womb, why is it incumbent on the law to disabuse them
of their error? Does it not "prohibit the free exercize" of *their*
religion for the law to demand that they follow the teachings of *your*
religion on the subject?
-Chuck Stevens
huck Stevens
|
|
|
|
|