XPost: talk.politics, alt.law-enforcement, alt.true-crime   
   XPost: talk.philosophy.humanism   
   From: swayser@optonline.net   
      
   under_the_bridge wrote:   
   > golddodgearies@yahoo.com (golddodgearies) wrote in message new   
   :<44e87bc2.0311261933.bf92616@posting.google.com>...   
   >   
   >>supertroll47@xmsg.com (under_the_bridge) wrote in message news   
   ...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>My recomendation is to have abortions within the first three months of   
   >>>pregnancy.   
   >>   
   >>Doesn't prove it's not murder, dum-dum. (The parents prove it is.)   
   >   
   > It doesn't prove anything.  That was just my recommendation.   
   >   
   > Is it a greater sin to abort an unwanted fetus, or to have an unwanted   
   > child which you may not financially and personally be able to care   
   > for?   
   Unwanted by whom. There's a long waiting lists for adoptions.   
      
   > Since the question is partially concerned with the will of the   
   > fetus, it is close to unanswerable.  What does the baby want?  A   
   > similar question is one of  euthanasia.  Should we kill poor people if   
   > their lives are miserable?   
      
   Seems two entirely different situations. If a chile is unwanted it   
   should be surrendered for adoption. And who is to determine what a child   
   makes of their lives? Many children in such circumstances overcome that   
   handicap to lead extraordinarily productive lives while children of   
   privledge lead lives od disapation and despair. Its for no one to   
   determine but the child. On the other hand eutanasia might be welcome to   
   some while anethma to others. But these people have already lived their   
   lives and found it wanting.   
      
   > Do babies want to come to this world and   
   > be poor and uncared for if that is their only option?   
      
   Already answered.   
      
   > It's probable   
   > the answer requires some knowledge of the before and afterlife.  We   
   > must a) inquire, if possible into the will of the baby and b) possibly   
   > examine the baby's fate for ourselves.   
   >   
   Keep it sensible and debatable. The "afterlife" has nothing to do with   
   since everyone may face it and no one can state its qualities or lack   
   thereof.   
      
      
   > We are free to make choices.  Should murder be legal?  The death   
   > penalty is.  The fetus, if it feels itself to be murdered, simply has   
   > no recourse.  But then, killing a killer is not much recourse in my   
   > opinion.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  All you do when you   
   > "punish" someone is destroy not one, but two people.   
      
   Falacious premise and conclusion drawn from it. You (society) don't   
   destroy two people. The killer has destroyed one. Destroying the   
   destroyer prevent him or her from destroying another human life. That's   
   the principal justification for the death penalty.   
      
   Another is deterence. No matter what the blleding hearts say the death   
   oenalty is a deterent except to the mad dogs. It HAS TO BE. Survival is   
   the strongest instinct in all animals. Knowing that if you will be   
   killed for taking anothers life places the killers life at risk. It may   
   not be a deterent in emotional cases but it surely is when a cold   
   blooded decision is made to kill someone if it is just more convenient   
   to have them dead than deal with them alive.   
      
      
   > Injustice   
   > against innocents is all I see in the world.  No one "deserves"   
   > anything less than everything they want.   
      
   Oh? What if they want someone dead? :)   
      
   > Thus monetary restitution is   
   > the only reasonable and sane solution to crime.  However, as I said,   
   > tell that to the victims.  Sometimes people become pissed, angry,   
   > mean, and vengeful.  Just desert is seen as sweet as hell and avengers   
   > gleefully recognize that payback is a bitch.  Psychopaths enjoy   
   > murdering too.  It doesn't mean it's right, just psychotic, but who   
   > can blame the apparent victims of this world.  I suppose everyone's   
   > responsible for everything that happens to them.   
   >   
   > Note though, that if you were sane, the mere idea of harming someone   
   > would seem incredible.   
      
   A bit of an exaggeration. I'd use the word damage here if I understand   
   your intent.   
      
   > To harm or kill someone is, on different   
   > levels, to harm or kill yourself.  Murder is suicide, and only the   
   > insane attempt to choose death.   
      
   Nonsense. Sheer Hallmark rhetoric.   
      
   > Despair at the situation of the world   
   > perhaps excepted, for without the knowledge that leads to faith, those   
   > who are in bad situations perhaps do not hope for a better existence,   
   > in which case their suicide is not so much a choosing of death but a   
   > hope for a way out.  Perhaps such hope itself is misguided, and we   
   > must change our minds to change our situations.  Without knowledge of   
   > the before and afterlife, no one can know for sure.   Thus murder is   
   > seen as the choice of death for oneself and one's enemies, even more   
   > than suicide, and is quite clearly insane.  As I said, who can blame   
   > the victims of this world.  The insanity drives them to it.   
      
   Some of your arguments are cogent but highly idealistic as in one who   
   has not seen much of life. Much of what you say is so highly idealistic   
   it seems to have come from a philosophy book. Ideals are alright to   
   strive for until you learn life just isn't like that, but it comes   
   across as something which makes one's head spin.   
   --   
   If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an   
   equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.   
   Carl Schurz (1829-1906)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)