Religion is the real demon

[Mike in Cairns]

Religion is the real demon if this is a so-called "christian"


I'd kill again: anti-abortion extremist
From correspondents in Miami
September 3, 2003

AN anti-abortion extremist sentenced to die for slaying an abortion doctor
and his bodyguard said on the eve of his scheduled execution, he would kill
again if given a chance.

A relaxed, smiling Paul Hill said at the Starke prison in northern Florida
that he had no remorse over the 1994 killings, according to US media.

"People might question me and say, well would you do it again, and if I were
put in similar circumstances I believe I would act similarly," Hill, a
former Christian pastor and a father of three, told a group of journalists.

"People ask me if I have any remorse over what I did, and I can honestly say
if I had not acted in the way I did I could not look myself in the mirror."

Hill is set to die by lethal injection for the 1994 shooting death of Dr
John Britton and his bodyguard, James Barrett, outside a Pensacola, Florida,
clinic where abortions are performed. He said more people should have acted
the way he did and that he hoped his death would inspire others to take
"necessary means" to prevent abortions.

Unless he is granted an unlikely last-minute stay, Hill will become the
first person put to death in the United States for killing an abortion
doctor.

"I was determined to do everything in my power to prevent John Britton from
killing any children that day or ever again. I had made up my mind that the
clinic door would not close and lock behind the abortionist, protecting him
(as he had in the past) as he dismembered over 30 unborn children," Hill
said in his web page.

Hill has become a near-hero to anti-abortion extremists, among them a number
of Christian groups and clerics, several of whom plan to stage a protest
outside the Starke prison, where security was tightened ahead of the
execution. Mainstream anti-abortion groups however have consistently
condemned his actions.

Protesters opposing capital punishment also planned to demonstrate against
the execution, warning it would turn Hill into a martyr for those who claim
killing abortion providers is "justifiable homicide."

Hill himself said: "I believe that the state, by executing me, will be
making a martyr of me.

"I expect my soul will enter the presence of the Lord."

Agence France-Presse

[Clon]

Religion is the real demon.

THis part is quite true, it is a shame however that you cannot
distinguish the difference between religion and Christianity.
In today's society many beliefs are attributed to Christianity, Most are merely Religion wrongly labelled Christianity by those in the media who know no better.
Clon

[David Bisman]

Post by Mike in Cairns
Religion is the real demon if this is a so-called "christian"

This is my objection to those yammerheads who want to ban an religious
discussioon on nsq. Idiots can get away with statements like the
above. The person calls himself a Christian, Christianity is a
religion, therefore religion is the problem. This argument is as sound
as the following one: The person calls himself a man, Men are
primates, therefore primates are the problem! Absurd! Are queers the
problem because of Jeffrey Dahmer? Are Iraqis the problem because of
Saddam Hussein? Are Muslims the problem because of Osama bin Laden?
Are ..... ? Your extrapolation is stupid and hurtful.

Post by Mike in Cairns
I'd kill again: anti-abortion extremist
From correspondents in Miami
September 3, 2003
AN anti-abortion extremist sentenced to die for slaying an abortion doctor
and his bodyguard said on the eve of his scheduled execution, he would kill
again if given a chance.

<snip>

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Madeleine]

Paul Hill no Pro-Life Matyr

"Students Organised to Uphold Life (SOUL) publicaly disassociates
itself
from the actions of Paul Hill and disagrees strongly with his advocacy
of
violence against abortion providers" Madeleine Flannagan, National
President
of SOUL stated today.

Paul Hill was executed by the state of Florida at 10 am Thursday
Morning New
Zealand time. SOUL which is currently functions as the youth wing of
the
Society For the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) has no stance on
the
morality of capital punishment.

"Hill's actions are not representative of the pro life community. Hill
is a
defrocked minister, he was excommunicated by Orthodox Presbytarian
Church
and even leaders on the far right of Christendom disagreed with what
he did. Condemnation of his actions has been widespread - in 1994
the neo conservative Journal first things had a symposium in which
over 16 prominent leaders and academics of the pro life movement
criticising Hills beliefs about justifiable homicide. To claim that
Hill's actions represent the pro life movement is like claiming that
Stalin represents secularism or that Bin Laden is supported by all
muslims."

"While we strongly oppose the deliberate killing of millions of human
beings by abortion in the US and the thousands of children killed with
state support in New Zealand, we believe that the best way to fight
unjustified state violence is by witnessing to non-violence, and
opposing the use of lethal force as a solution to social problems"
Madeleine stated.

-------------------------------------------------------

For further comment:
www.soul.org.nz
***@soul.org.nz


Mads

Post by Mike in Cairns
Religion is the real demon if this is a so-called "christian"
I'd kill again: anti-abortion extremist
From correspondents in Miami
September 3, 2003
AN anti-abortion extremist sentenced to die for slaying an abortion doctor
and his bodyguard said on the eve of his scheduled execution, he would kill
again if given a chance.
A relaxed, smiling Paul Hill said at the Starke prison in northern Florida
that he had no remorse over the 1994 killings, according to US media.
"People might question me and say, well would you do it again, and if I were
put in similar circumstances I believe I would act similarly," Hill, a
former Christian pastor and a father of three, told a group of journalists.
"People ask me if I have any remorse over what I did, and I can honestly say
if I had not acted in the way I did I could not look myself in the mirror."
Hill is set to die by lethal injection for the 1994 shooting death of Dr
John Britton and his bodyguard, James Barrett, outside a Pensacola, Florida,
clinic where abortions are performed. He said more people should have acted
the way he did and that he hoped his death would inspire others to take
"necessary means" to prevent abortions.
Unless he is granted an unlikely last-minute stay, Hill will become the
first person put to death in the United States for killing an abortion
doctor.
"I was determined to do everything in my power to prevent John Britton from
killing any children that day or ever again. I had made up my mind that the
clinic door would not close and lock behind the abortionist, protecting him
(as he had in the past) as he dismembered over 30 unborn children," Hill
said in his web page.
Hill has become a near-hero to anti-abortion extremists, among them a number
of Christian groups and clerics, several of whom plan to stage a protest
outside the Starke prison, where security was tightened ahead of the
execution. Mainstream anti-abortion groups however have consistently
condemned his actions.
Protesters opposing capital punishment also planned to demonstrate against
the execution, warning it would turn Hill into a martyr for those who claim
killing abortion providers is "justifiable homicide."
Hill himself said: "I believe that the state, by executing me, will be
making a martyr of me.
"I expect my soul will enter the presence of the Lord."
Agence France-Presse

[Madeleine]

Isn't it interesting who on this ng is prepared to speak out against bigotry?
Cheers
David Bisman

Isn't it interesting who in this newsgroup has to deny affiliations with others of their beliefs.

I didn't have to, I chose to.

I chose to because those who "don't believe in fairy tales" [read:
secular media] seem to like to falsely sweep the likes of Hill and
pro-lifers into one camp. Its un-PC to sweep Muslims in with Bin Laden
but its ok to do the same thing to Pro-Lifers with Paul Hill. Funny
how they never ever think of chucking Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler, et. al.
in with secularists...

It seems they only bother to make these distinctions when it suits.

But yes, the murderer had no excuse for committing those murders, and am pleased to agree with
Madeleine that the murders he committed were not in any way related to the beliefs of pro-life
campaigners here. It is just such a pity that some have idolised him and are treating him as a
martyr.

Of course its a pity, just as its a pity some idolise Bin Laden, just
as some idealised Lenin and Stalin... However the fact some idealise
nutters tells us nothing of the rest of the people who happen to share
some of their worldviews.

Now, what would have happened if he hadn't believed in fairy tales- would he have murdered in the
first place?

Oh come on, are you telling me the only murderers in the world are the
religious and atheists never commit murders? History tells it the
other way round if you want to start counting bodies.

There would have been no mythical being that he could claim that he

was obeying, or

following the words of.

So when communists kill claiming they are following the teachings of a
non-mythical being, i.e. Lenin, that is somehow better because the
obediance is to a material person?

Your horse aint so high Calum.


Madeleine

[Calum Bennachie]

<snip>

Post by Madeleine

Now, what would have happened if he hadn't believed in fairy tales- would he have murdered in

the

Post by Madeleine

first place?

Oh come on, are you telling me the only murderers in the world are the
religious and atheists never commit murders? History tells it the
other way round if you want to start counting bodies.

You are reading me wrong Madeleine. In this case, would he have committed a murder if he did not
follow a religion? The chances are, _probably_ not. That does _not_ mean that all murders are
perpetrated by people of religion, and it *doesn't* rule out that he still _may_ have done so.

But if you want a body count- start at the Crusades. Lots of bodies there in the name of religion.
The Inquisition. Again, lots of bodies there in the name of religion. The Reformation. The Civil
War in the UK. The Troubles in NI. Again, lots of bodies in all those places because of religion.
WWII? Again, lots of bodies there because of religion (or are you going to claim that the Jews
weren't murdered because of their religion?) American Civil War- lots of bodies there over
religion- the Bible being used by both sides to justify their position on slavery.

Calum

[Flannagan]

">

Isn't it interesting who in this newsgroup has to deny affiliations with others of their beliefs.

Actually this is false, several people have disassociated themselves
from various actions of Gay rights activists that I have mentioned on
this group.Incidents which would not have happend had they not
believed in mythical fairy tales such as *there exists a right to not
be discriminated against*

Seeing your an atheist would it be fair to assume you support the
activities of Pol Pot and Stalin? Or seeing you believe in that fairy
tale entities known as a right to no be discriminated against would it
be fair to say you support vandalising Churches the way Lesbain
advengers do.

Now, what would have happened if he hadn't believed in fairy tales- would he have murdered in the
first place? There would have been no mythical being that he could claim that he was obeying, or
following the words of.

First, this is questionable contrary Hill based his actions on the
belief found in Presbytarianism that homicide can be justified in
specific circumstances most notably to defend innocent people from
unjust attack. Do you think that this belief is mythical or a fairy
tale? I doubt it, most atheist I know believe this, which suggests
strongly that he would have held this view regardless of his theistic
beliefs.

Second, even if what you said is true the line of reasoning is
invalid,the fact that Hill would not have done it had he not been a
theist esthablishes nothing at all. Paul Hill would not have done it
if his mother had not had sex with his father either, he would not
have done it if he had not believed that a sot gun kills people, or it
he had not believed it was an abortion clinic and not a toy store.
This does not mean that doing any of these things makes one a killer.

Finally you have repeatedly claimed that God is a mythical being, I
disagree Gods existence is an ontological fact. But I am wondering on
what basis do you claim this is not so?

Matt

[JJ Williams]

Now, what would have happened if he hadn't believed in fairy tales- would

he have murdered in the

first place? There would have been no mythical being that he could claim

that he was obeying, or

following the words of.

I assume he did it because he disapproved of abortion (in the lay sense of
the word) and, unfortunately, happened to be a bit of a nut case. I don't
see that religion is a necessary part of the equation.

J

[brazen]

Now, what would have happened if he hadn't believed in fairy tales- would

he have murdered in the

first place? There would have been no mythical being that he could claim

that he was obeying, or

following the words of.

I assume he did it because he disapproved of abortion (in the lay sense of
the word) and, unfortunately, happened to be a bit of a nut case. I don't
see that religion is a necessary part of the equation.

Religion is often plays a huge part in many peoples mental illness. On the
small end of the scale religious/family (they are often pretty intertwined)
pressure can cause depression and at the big end it can be full out
delusion. If you knew how many people I have met who thought they were
Jesus....

This man had several firm links with religion prior and inferred at his
pre-death press conference (how sick is that!) that he was expecting a
hero's welcome on "the other side". I think you can say that religion played
a part.

Was he a "nut case"? Well I dont know - I guess how you determine "nut
case". Seems there are a lot of people who agree with him and what he did,
holding banners and prayer meeting outside the prison, with the view that
his murders were justifiable homicide, and a lot more that believe that
killing murderers in general (ie capital punishment) is justifiable. People
seem to draw the acceptability line where they want it. Doesnt necessarily
make them nut cases.

Gay

[Flannagan]

Post by brazen
Religion is often plays a huge part in many peoples mental illness. On the
small end of the scale religious/family (they are often pretty intertwined)
pressure can cause depression and at the big end it can be full out
delusion. If you knew how many people I have met who thought they were
Jesus....

Yes but thinking you are Jesus is hardly a mainstream religious
belief, I know of few Christain, Jewish or Islamic denominations that
maintain that there practioners are Jesus and if people want to press
this argument it can be turned against them, I could for example cite
the studies which suggest that homosexuals are more prone to certain
mental illnesses than heterosexuals are.

Post by brazen
This man had several firm links with religion prior and inferred at his
pre-death press conference (how sick is that!) that he was expecting a
hero's welcome on "the other side". I think you can say that religion played
a part.

Yes Hill had a Presbytarian background, though he had been
excommunicated and defrocked.

However I think you miss the point Julia was getting at in that the
religious beliefs in question are ones shared by many people who are
not Presbytarians. So while his religious beliefs played a role they
did not have to For example the idea that it is permissible to kill
in defence of other people, is widely held, rejected only by certain
types of Pacifists, moreover the claim that feticide is homicide is
based on general philosophical and empirical claims. I think Hill
applied these claims wrongly to the case and failed to take into
account other questions such as the permissibility of violent civil
disobedince. But they are not really questions uneque to
Presbytarians.

Post by brazen
Was he a "nut case"? Well I dont know - I guess how you determine "nut
case". Seems there are a lot of people who agree with him and what he did,
holding banners and prayer meeting outside the prison, with the view that
his murders were justifiable homicide, and a lot more that believe that

I don't know about a lot, there was a gathering of people how large I
do not know.

Post by brazen
killing murderers in general (ie capital punishment) is justifiable.

Yes, by the state under certain conditions. Not by private individuals
without those conditions.

Post by brazen
People
seem to draw the acceptability line where they want it. Doesnt necessarily
make them nut cases.

I also would not attempt to ascertain Hills mental health, I suspect
that he may well have been sincerly convinced. He was just sincerly
wrong. It raises interesting questions though, after all is not the
state of Florida in this case imposing their view of when homicide is
justifiable upon Paul Hill and killing him because he refused to
follow these moral beliefs.

The whole case calls into question the liberal mantra of "you should
not impose your beliefs onto others"

Matt

[brazen]

Post by Flannagan

Post by brazen
Religion is often plays a huge part in many peoples mental illness. On the
small end of the scale religious/family (they are often pretty intertwined)
pressure can cause depression and at the big end it can be full out
delusion. If you knew how many people I have met who thought they were
Jesus....

Yes but thinking you are Jesus is hardly a mainstream religious
belief, I know of few Christain, Jewish or Islamic denominations that
maintain that there practioners are Jesus and if people want to press
this argument it can be turned against them, I could for example cite
the studies which suggest that homosexuals are more prone to certain
mental illnesses than heterosexuals are.

And you seem to be missing my point and assuming I am saying something quite
different. I am not saying that religious people are prone to mental health
problems, just that mental institutions are laden with people with a issues
with, or a fixation on, religion. There is a difference. How they got that
way is another matter, some may have had religion in their lives prior to
them becoming ill and some are introduced to it when they are ill. Religion
actively attracts people with problems in their lives (not everybody) and it
can just as much make things worse as well as better.

On the latter score, when I lived in Nelson I lived next door to some young
christians (teens/early twenties), who regularly brought local vulnerable
people (with mental health issues and/or drug & alcohol issues) to their
house for bible sessions. Now I dont have a problem with people trying to
help others but when you are dealing with very vulnerable people with very
complex problems, and gods and rights and wrongs, you have to be very
careful with what you are doing. It could so easily turn into a blue touch
paper situation.

I'm sure these people were doing this with good intentions (as well as for
their own gratification), but it had an icky feel about it as if they were
preying (what an ironic word) on them.

Post by Flannagan

Post by brazen
This man had several firm links with religion prior and inferred at his
pre-death press conference (how sick is that!) that he was expecting a
hero's welcome on "the other side". I think you can say that religion played
a part.

Yes Hill had a Presbytarian background, though he had been
excommunicated and defrocked.
However I think you miss the point Julia was getting at in that the
religious beliefs in question are ones shared by many people who are
not Presbytarians. So while his religious beliefs played a role they
did not have to For example the idea that it is permissible to kill
in defence of other people, is widely held, rejected only by certain
types of Pacifists, moreover the claim that feticide is homicide is
based on general philosophical and empirical claims. I think Hill
applied these claims wrongly to the case and failed to take into
account other questions such as the permissibility of violent civil
disobedince. But they are not really questions uneque to
Presbytarians.

So you are saying that the correctness depends on biblical interpretation,
and in your opinion he was wrong. Well it seems biblical interpretation is a
bit of a wildcard to do what you want, doesnt it?

Do you think he will be in heaven then?

Post by Flannagan

Post by brazen
Was he a "nut case"? Well I dont know - I guess how you determine "nut
case". Seems there are a lot of people who agree with him and what he did,
holding banners and prayer meeting outside the prison, with the view that
his murders were justifiable homicide, and a lot more that believe that

I don't know about a lot, there was a gathering of people how large I
do not know.

Post by brazen
killing murderers in general (ie capital punishment) is justifiable.

Yes, by the state under certain conditions. Not by private individuals
without those conditions.

Post by brazen
People
seem to draw the acceptability line where they want it. Doesnt necessarily
make them nut cases.

I also would not attempt to ascertain Hills mental health, I suspect
that he may well have been sincerly convinced. He was just sincerly
wrong. It raises interesting questions though, after all is not the
state of Florida in this case imposing their view of when homicide is
justifiable upon Paul Hill and killing him because he refused to
follow these moral beliefs.

No - he broke the law. Moral nothing - law.

The only moral issue is whether or not they are justified in killing him for
killing someone else.

Gay

[Ashley]

"brazen" <***@brazenremovemtoreply.com.nz> wrote in message news:***@clear.net.nz...

Seems there are a lot of people who agree with him and what he did,

Post by brazen
holding banners and prayer meeting outside the prison, with the view that
his murders were justifiable homicide, and a lot more that believe that
killing murderers in general (ie capital punishment) is justifiable. People
seem to draw the acceptability line where they want it. Doesnt necessarily
make them nut cases.

Time for a tangent (not least because I've just worked this tangent out
myself and I'm dying to discuss it!)

I am at present reading a fascinating and extremely well-researched book
called "The right to die?" by Miriam Cosic, and Australian journalist. It
is an exploration of the whole voluntary euthanasia debate and, I have to
say, it is superb. It's certainly making me understand those who are
vociferously opposed to it and, I suspect, if they read it, they'd
understand me :-)

As well as that, it has really clarified something for me. I had never been
able to understand how the same person could be: anti-abortion, anti
voluntary euthanasia but militaristic and pro capital punishment. It just
didn't make sense. But she explains beautifully the doctrine of not killing
the innocent, which underpins Christianity, Judaism, Islam and even
Buddhism. So, while not agreeing with this stance, I can now understand it.
Only God has the power to take the life of the innocent and it is a
sacrosanct line across which lies damnation and despair. A moral absolute
(those killed by capital punishment are not innocent, therefore that's
acceptable, death on the battlefield theoretically involves the willing, but
it's a kind of very blurry line, IMO.)

Then I had to think - so what is my sacrosanct line? What is my absolute,
being the pro-choice, pro voluntary euthanasia, anti capital punishment
person that I am? And I realised: do not kill the unwilling sentient.
Three-month-old fetuses have no will, no survival instinct, no ability or
desire to survive by themselves. I do not consider abortion a desirable
thing, but neither do I abhor it, because those with no will and no
sentience cannot be unwilling.

Likewise with voluntary euthanasia - those who, at the end of their lives
and in pain, wish to die are willing and their will about their life should
be followed. If you pushed me and my belief to the limit, I would even say
that I did not object to involuntary euthanasia of those in PVS, although I
would never expect the law to support me in this one.

And that's where the objection to capital punishment comes in. It is (almost
always) carried out on the unwilling sentient. Not quite sure how I'd handle
the case of someone filled with remorse over a violent crime who thought
they deserved to die as a result ... could place me in an interesting
quandary!

[JJ Williams]

Post by Ashley
Three-month-old fetuses have no will, no survival instinct, no ability or
desire to survive by themselves.

But is this true? No ability to be sure but I've no idea if a three month
old fetus has a will or survival instinct - do multiples compete for
resources in utero for example?

You could say that a person in a coma had no will but that you could predict
what their retrospective decision would be if they regained conciousness -
why not apply the same to a fetus?

J

[Ashley]

Post by JJ Williams

Post by Ashley
Three-month-old fetuses have no will, no survival instinct, no ability or
desire to survive by themselves.

But is this true? No ability to be sure but I've no idea if a three month
old fetus has a will or survival instinct - do multiples compete for
resources in utero for example?

Certainly I have never read anything that suggests they do. I would be
interested to read anything you can produce that suggests they do. My
understanding is that the brain is still extremely immature even once born
and though while instincts are present soon before birth, cognitive ability
takes some time after birth to develop. You will note, however, I draw the
line somewhere before the development of cognitive ability (just to stop
that argument before it starts!)

Post by JJ Williams
You could say that a person in a coma had no will but that you could predict
what their retrospective decision would be if they regained conciousness -
why not apply the same to a fetus?

Because a person in a coma is a person in a coma, not a still developing
bunch of cells. Their will has developed, it's simply absented itself for a
while, as opposed to not even existing yet!

Should that coma continue forever, with no chance of the will ever
returning, I, personally, would apply the same rationale to that person as I
would a fetus. I would have no expectation the law would back me up on that.

[JJ Williams]

Post by Ashley

Post by JJ Williams
But is this true? No ability to be sure but I've no idea if a three month
old fetus has a will or survival instinct - do multiples compete for
resources in utero for example?

Certainly I have never read anything that suggests they do. I would be
interested to read anything you can produce that suggests they do.

I suppose we need Kerry - but I've heard it suggested that the unborn
respond to music and voices so I suppose they must be able to develop
preferences.

I recall the Plunket nurse asking me if I'd read to my kids while they were
in utero.

J

[Ashley]

Post by JJ Williams

Post by Ashley

Post by JJ Williams
But is this true? No ability to be sure but I've no idea if a three

month

Post by Ashley

Post by JJ Williams
old fetus has a will or survival instinct - do multiples compete for
resources in utero for example?

Certainly I have never read anything that suggests they do. I would be
interested to read anything you can produce that suggests they do.

I suppose we need Kerry - but I've heard it suggested that the unborn
respond to music and voices so I suppose they must be able to develop
preferences.

Again, going from memory, not until quite late on, around the 6-month mark
or so, IIRC.

[Kerry]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 07:27:17 +1200, "JJ Williams"

Post by JJ Williams

Post by Ashley

Post by JJ Williams
But is this true? No ability to be sure but I've no idea if a three

month

Post by Ashley

Post by JJ Williams
old fetus has a will or survival instinct - do multiples compete for
resources in utero for example?

Certainly I have never read anything that suggests they do. I would be
interested to read anything you can produce that suggests they do.

I suppose we need Kerry - but I've heard it suggested that the unborn
respond to music and voices so I suppose they must be able to develop
preferences.

Newborns certainly feel pain, certainly respond to their parents
voices. Even quite premature infants feel pain. IS that cognitive?

Studies have certainly shown that exposing a newborn to pain in the
immediate post partum period leads to heightened pain reactions
further down the track.....ie they seem to remember the original pain
and react more vigorously to further painful insult some weeks later
if 'primed'


Brains are immature, but premature infants are still sensory beings


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Flannagan]

Post by Ashley

Post by JJ Williams

Post by Ashley
Three-month-old fetuses have no will, no survival instinct, no ability

or

Post by JJ Williams

Post by Ashley
desire to survive by themselves.

But is this true? No ability to be sure but I've no idea if a three month
old fetus has a will or survival instinct - do multiples compete for
resources in utero for example?

Certainly I have never read anything that suggests they do. I would be
interested to read anything you can produce that suggests they do. My
understanding is that the brain is still extremely immature even once born
and though while instincts are present soon before birth, cognitive ability
takes some time after birth to develop. You will note, however, I draw the
line somewhere before the development of cognitive ability (just to stop
that argument before it starts!)

Ashley

Its well documented in the literature (see particularly Tooley's
Abortion and Infanticide the last chapter surveys the cognitive
development of infants very comprehensively ) that infants do not
posses a desire to continue existing. The position you argue is in
fact urged by Tooley and more famously Peter Singer to justify
infanticide. In fact as I noted an infat is less developed than a cow
in these respects. The reasons you cite for the permissibility of
feticide are reasons that justify infanticide. If one is not homicide
on these grounds never is the other.

Post by Ashley
Should that coma continue forever, with no chance of the will ever
returning, I, personally, would apply the same rationale to that person as I
would a fetus. I would have no expectation the law would back me up on that.

Current practise allows ( I believe) one to withdraw life support to a
permanent comatose individual but not to kill them, this reflects the
distinction supported by Christain thinking on this matter between
refraining from killing the innocent non agressor ( an absolute) and
going to great lengths to save anothers life ( an act which is
superogatory). In both cases the person dies.

Matt

[Flannagan]

Post by Ashley
I am at present reading a fascinating and extremely well-researched book
called "The right to die?" by Miriam Cosic, and Australian journalist. It
is an exploration of the whole voluntary euthanasia debate and, I have to
say, it is superb. It's certainly making me understand those who are
vociferously opposed to it and, I suspect, if they read it, they'd
understand me :-)
As well as that, it has really clarified something for me. I had never been
able to understand how the same person could be: anti-abortion, anti
voluntary euthanasia but militaristic and pro capital punishment. It just
didn't make sense. But she explains beautifully the doctrine of not killing
the innocent, which underpins Christianity, Judaism, Islam and even
Buddhism. So, while not agreeing with this stance, I can now understand it.
Only God has the power to take the life of the innocent and it is a
sacrosanct line across which lies damnation and despair. A moral absolute
(those killed by capital punishment are not innocent, therefore that's
acceptable, death on the battlefield theoretically involves the willing, but
it's a kind of very blurry line, IMO.)
Then I had to think - so what is my sacrosanct line? What is my absolute,
being the pro-choice, pro voluntary euthanasia, anti capital punishment
person that I am? And I realised: do not kill the unwilling sentient.
Three-month-old fetuses have no will, no survival instinct, no ability or
desire to survive by themselves. I do not consider abortion a desirable
thing, but neither do I abhor it, because those with no will and no
sentience cannot be unwilling.
Likewise with voluntary euthanasia - those who, at the end of their lives
and in pain, wish to die are willing and their will about their life should
be followed. If you pushed me and my belief to the limit, I would even say
that I did not object to involuntary euthanasia of those in PVS, although I
would never expect the law to support me in this one.
And that's where the objection to capital punishment comes in. It is (almost
always) carried out on the unwilling sentient. Not quite sure how I'd handle
the case of someone filled with remorse over a violent crime who thought
they deserved to die as a result ... could place me in an interesting
quandary!

Ashley

While I think the summary of what you call the Judeo Christain
tradition is a bit caricatured I think you are getting bit .I think if
you prod deeper you will find more to this. I think your conclusions
(which with the exception of militarism ) with are wrong. However I
suspect the reasons stem from ethical assumptions. The most
influential secular nethical theories today are utilitarianism and
rights based theories, H L A Hart one of the leading philosophers of
law today defined a right as a duty conditional upon anothers consent.
Utilitarianism (at least in its classic form) bases right and wrong
upon what action maximises pleasure and minimises pain. Is it not an
odd coinicide then that you find that your ethic of killing is one
that sees consent and sentience as what is important.

Re your other points you raise the issue of mistakes in capital
punishment. I could reply in full to this but I will simply point out
that there can also be mistakes in euthanasia if this counts against
one it counts against the other an arguably the existence of a trail
and appeal means the safe guards around capital punishment are higher.

As to your other points, I am not sure how on your criteria you can
distinguish infanticide from killing a cow, certainly a new born
infant's sentience and will are no more developed than a cows in fact
they are less so.

Matt

[Ashley]

Post by Flannagan
While I think the summary of what you call the Judeo Christain
tradition is a bit caricatured

Of course it's caricatured - I'm summarising. There is a lot more deep and
detailed explanation and discussion in the book and I ain't gonna repeat it
here. But I found it fascinating, and it made lots of sense.

For example, another aspect to it is fairly obvioulsy whether the self
belongs to the self, or whether it belongs to God. That's one where the
opponents are never going to find a common ground.

Post by Flannagan
Re your other points you raise the issue of mistakes in capital
punishment.

I don't raise these. My condemnation of capital punishment is not even
remotely based on the possibility of mistakes. However I occasionally trot
that line out for people who otherwise would agree with capital punishment.


I could reply in full to this but I will simply point out

Post by Flannagan
that there can also be mistakes in euthanasia if this counts against
one it counts against the other an arguably the existence of a trail
and appeal means the safe guards around capital punishment are higher.
As to your other points, I am not sure how on your criteria you can
distinguish infanticide from killing a cow, certainly a new born
infant's sentience and will are no more developed than a cows in fact
they are less so.

That I'd distinguish as speciesism at its best and doing what it's supposed
to do.

[Flannagan]

Post by Ashley
I am at present reading a fascinating and extremely well-researched book
called "The right to die?" by Miriam Cosic, and Australian journalist. It
is an exploration of the whole voluntary euthanasia debate and, I have to
say, it is superb. It's certainly making me understand those who are
vociferously opposed to it and, I suspect, if they read it, they'd
understand me :-)
As well as that, it has really clarified something for me. I had never been
able to understand how the same person could be: anti-abortion, anti
voluntary euthanasia but militaristic and pro capital punishment. It just
didn't make sense. But she explains beautifully the doctrine of not killing
the innocent, which underpins Christianity, Judaism, Islam and even
Buddhism. So, while not agreeing with this stance, I can now understand it.
Only God has the power to take the life of the innocent and it is a
sacrosanct line across which lies damnation and despair. A moral absolute
(those killed by capital punishment are not innocent, therefore that's
acceptable, death on the battlefield theoretically involves the willing, but
it's a kind of very blurry line, IMO.)
Then I had to think - so what is my sacrosanct line? What is my absolute,
being the pro-choice, pro voluntary euthanasia, anti capital punishment
person that I am? And I realised: do not kill the unwilling sentient.
Three-month-old fetuses have no will, no survival instinct, no ability or
desire to survive by themselves. I do not consider abortion a desirable
thing, but neither do I abhor it, because those with no will and no
sentience cannot be unwilling.
Likewise with voluntary euthanasia - those who, at the end of their lives
and in pain, wish to die are willing and their will about their life should
be followed. If you pushed me and my belief to the limit, I would even say
that I did not object to involuntary euthanasia of those in PVS, although I
would never expect the law to support me in this one.
And that's where the objection to capital punishment comes in. It is (almost
always) carried out on the unwilling sentient. Not quite sure how I'd handle
the case of someone filled with remorse over a violent crime who thought
they deserved to die as a result ... could place me in an interesting
quandary!

Ashley

While I think the summary of what you call the Judeo Christain
tradition is a bit caricatured I think you are getting bit .I think if
you prod deeper you will find more to this. I think your conclusions
(which with the exception of militarism ) with are wrong. However I
suspect the reasons stem from ethical assumptions. The most
influential secular nethical theories today are utilitarianism and
rights based theories, H L A Hart one of the leading philosophers of
law today defined a right as a duty conditional upon anothers consent.
Utilitarianism (at least in its classic form) bases right and wrong
upon what action maximises pleasure and minimises pain. Is it not an
odd coinicide then that you find that your ethic of killing is one
that sees consent and sentience as what is important.

Re your other points you raise the issue of mistakes in capital
punishment. I could reply in full to this but I will simply point out
that there can also be mistakes in euthanasia if this counts against
one it counts against the other an arguably the existence of a trail
and appeal means the safe guards around capital punishment are higher.

As to your other points, I am not sure how on your criteria you can
distinguish infanticide from killing a cow, certainly a new born
infant's sentience and will are no more developed than a cows in fact
they are less so.

Matt

[David Bisman]

Post by brazen
Seems there are a lot of people who agree with him and what he did,

Post by brazen
holding banners and prayer meeting outside the prison, with the view that
his murders were justifiable homicide, and a lot more that believe that
killing murderers in general (ie capital punishment) is justifiable.

People

Post by brazen
seem to draw the acceptability line where they want it. Doesnt necessarily
make them nut cases.

Time for a tangent (not least because I've just worked this tangent out
myself and I'm dying to discuss it!)
I am at present reading a fascinating and extremely well-researched book
called "The right to die?" by Miriam Cosic, and Australian journalist. It
is an exploration of the whole voluntary euthanasia debate and, I have to
say, it is superb. It's certainly making me understand those who are
vociferously opposed to it and, I suspect, if they read it, they'd
understand me :-)

Two years ago I embarked on a programme of ruthlessly re-examining all
my preconceptions and dumping, unceremoniously, those that did not
work. This lead to a change of political affiliations, a brutal
reassessment of religion in general and Judaism is particular and I am
in the throes of re-assessing my judgement regarding what is often
referred to by laypeople as abortion. Along the way I swapped from
being a lifelong and strident (indeed, arch) opponent of capital
punishment to a supporter of the death penalty in a small and clearly
defined set of cases. My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by extrapolation) the survival of the human race. By this
narrow definition I would support, indeed I advocate, execution for
terrorists, paederasts, and indiscriminate or mass murderers
(particularly when their crimes involve children). I am not interested
in whether or not such executions deter others or are adequate
punishment or any of that stuff, they prevent those particular
criminals from carrying on their evil. I would happily pull the lever,
administer the drugs, fire the gun, swing the axe... whatever it takes
and I would sleep soundly at night. I would also not fret about
mistakes and innocents dying... if that is the price to be paid for
stopping these monsters then so be it.

As to euthenasia... the waters were muddied in New Zealand recently by
a spectacularly misnamed "Right to Die" Bill which was thankfully
voted down. In New Zealand we all have the right to die, at any time
and by any method of our choosing provided it is self administered.
What the recent Bill would have legislated for and what many (if not
most) proponents of euthenasia want is NOT the right to die but the
right to kill. That must never be granted them. The Dutch experience
shows that coercion is more often used than not and that it is almost
solely directed against the elderly. Proponents of euthenasia often
talk of "empoering" those who are suffering to end their lives... but
this ONLY aqpplies to the elderly. We use very different language and
preconceptions when discussing adolescent angst and teenage suicide!
Why not talk of "empowering" teenage suicide? And I note that NO-ONE
ever does. We live in a youth oriented culture, obsessed with neoteny
and frightened of old age. The elderly embarrass and upset many people
and they simply want to do away with them: shove them into a
retirement village, send them to Tauranga, or kill them. Our society
loses so much wisdom this way. Take a listen to National Radio one
Monday evening at 8:45. You'll hear Alistair Cook's "Letter From
America". He first started broadcasting these pithy talks for the BBC
in the 1930s and hasn't missed one a week since. In his ninety-fifth
year he remains the most astute and on-the-ball political commentator
that I know of and his wealth of personal experience is amazing. A
couple of months ago he contrasted the invasion of Iraq and the news
coverage of it with his personal recollections, as a small boy in the
North of England, of the news coming home of the devestation of the
Battle of the Somme in 1916! So, you get the picture? He's old, he
just rambles on about the past and comments on politics and golf...
there are plenty who would happily euthenase him! Euthenasia is a
fancy word for murder. The Bible does not often give reasons for its
commandments but the care of the elderly is one when it does: "Honour
thy father and mother that thy days may be long in the land." It is
common sense really: take care of the greyhairs now and you will be
taken care of when you are a greyhair.

As I said, I am currently re-looking at my stance on (so called)
abortion. My problem is that the terms are so rarely and arbitrarily
defined. US law permits artificial termination of pregnancy up until
the birth. Abortion, while the baby's head is crowning (as is carried
out in the some US states and routinely in China) is simply
infanticide IMO (regardless of the fact that the baby is less sentient
than a three week old kitten or, as Matt likes to put it, a cow). So
when does the act become infantice? A day earlier? A week? A month? A
trimester? The boundaries of the possible are continually changing and
babies that could not have survived when I was a lad are now routinely
delivered and become healthy people - OK, such premies need a little
more human intervention than the rest of us to survive at the
beginning but survive they do. At what point is a foetus human? When
it is viable? If so, and given the recent advances in that field of
medicine I would say that artificial abortion is murder at any time.
However, those are my intellectual processes at work. I also have
emotions tied up with this question and I can easily envisage
situations where termination seems, to me, the preferable option. So I
am still pondering the subject.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Ashley]

"David Bisman" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@posting.google.com...

years ago I embarked on a programme of ruthlessly re-examining all

Post by David Bisman
my preconceptions and dumping, unceremoniously, those that did not
work.

I most healthy programme. I did a lot of that in my late teens in regard to
Catholicism and more general religion-related beliefs (including abortion)
and I think I'm beginning a process of doing the same, but slightly more
gently, now.

This lead to a change of political affiliations, a brutal

Post by David Bisman
reassessment of religion in general and Judaism is particular and I am
in the throes of re-assessing my judgement regarding what is often
referred to by laypeople as abortion. Along the way I swapped from
being a lifelong and strident (indeed, arch) opponent of capital
punishment to a supporter of the death penalty in a small and clearly
defined set of cases. My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by extrapolation) the survival of the human race. By this
narrow definition I would support, indeed I advocate, execution for
terrorists, paederasts, and indiscriminate or mass murderers
(particularly when their crimes involve children). I am not interested
in whether or not such executions deter others or are adequate
punishment or any of that stuff, they prevent those particular
criminals from carrying on their evil. I would happily pull the lever,
administer the drugs, fire the gun, swing the axe... whatever it takes
and I would sleep soundly at night. I would also not fret about
mistakes and innocents dying... if that is the price to be paid for
stopping these monsters then so be it.

Interesting. I'd have to think about this. I think morally, my beliefs still
would oppose you, but I certainly understand your reasoning.

Post by David Bisman
As to euthenasia... the waters were muddied in New Zealand recently by
a spectacularly misnamed "Right to Die" Bill which was thankfully
voted down. In New Zealand we all have the right to die, at any time
and by any method of our choosing provided it is self administered.

Indeed.

Post by David Bisman
What the recent Bill would have legislated for and what many (if not
most) proponents of euthenasia want is NOT the right to die but the
right to kill.

No. They don't actually. They want the right to help those who ask to die
without being labelled criminals. And the enacting of that right to be
exceptionally tightly controlled.

But you raise far to many points to deal with in a quick morning check
through the posts before going to work ... so I'll leave the rest for now.

Post by David Bisman
As I said, I am currently re-looking at my stance on (so called)
abortion. My problem is that the terms are so rarely and arbitrarily
defined. US law permits artificial termination of pregnancy up until
the birth. Abortion, while the baby's head is crowning (as is carried
out in the some US states and routinely in China) is simply
infanticide IMO (regardless of the fact that the baby is less sentient
than a three week old kitten or, as Matt likes to put it, a cow).

In mine as well. I see no justification at all for such a practice and, like
you, I regard it as infanticide.

So

Post by David Bisman
when does the act become infantice? A day earlier? A week? A month? A
trimester?

It is a difficult one and the honest answer is - I don't know. For me, I
would draw the line at viability, even if that is with medical intervention.
And I distinguish between kittens, cows and babies for the very reason that
baby's are human, kittens and cows aren't and I think treating humans as of
higher value than other animals is a moral absolute.

[Brian Tozer]

Post by Ashley
And I distinguish between kittens, cows and babies for the very reason that
baby's are human, kittens and cows aren't and I think treating humans as of
higher value than other animals is a moral absolute.

And bonobos presumably.
What is the basis for your differentiation?

Brian Tozer

[Ashley]

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by Ashley
And I distinguish between kittens, cows and babies for the very reason

that

Post by Ashley
baby's are human, kittens and cows aren't and I think treating humans as

of

Post by Ashley
higher value than other animals is a moral absolute.

And bonobos presumably.

Yup. Though you'd have to push me almost to the limits of my endurance to
kill a bonobo.

Post by Brian Tozer
What is the basis for your differentiation?

Humanity.

[akratic]

Post by Ashley

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by Ashley
And I distinguish between kittens, cows and babies for the very reason

that

Post by Ashley
baby's are human, kittens and cows aren't and I think treating humans as

of

Post by Ashley
higher value than other animals is a moral absolute.

And bonobos presumably.

Yup. Though you'd have to push me almost to the limits of my endurance to
kill a bonobo.

Post by Brian Tozer
What is the basis for your differentiation?

Humanity.

is that it? you have no other reason except for 'I only value the
existence of (that is: not kill) life like me'.

just curious :)
akratic

:p

'What good is my virtue? It has not yet driven me mad! How weary I am of
my good and my evil! It is all poverty and filth and miserable
self-complacency!' Zarathustra.

[Ashley]

Post by akratic
is that it? you have no other reason except for 'I only value the
existence of (that is: not kill) life like me'.

That is not what I said. What I said is that I value the life of humans
above the lives of other creatures. A not altogether uncommon value system.
Just ask anyone who eats meat but isn't a cannibal.

[Hugh Young]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 08:49:10 +1200, "Ashley"

Post by Ashley

Post by akratic
is that it? you have no other reason except for 'I only value the
existence of (that is: not kill) life like me'.

That is not what I said. What I said is that I value the life of humans
above the lives of other creatures. A not altogether uncommon value system.
Just ask anyone who eats meat but isn't a cannibal.

It is not uncommon, but the value system that valued only people of
the same skin colour used to be not uncommon.

[akratic]

Post by Ashley

Post by akratic
is that it? you have no other reason except for 'I only value the
existence of (that is: not kill) life like me'.

That is not what I said. What I said is that I value the life of humans
above the lives of other creatures.

to clarify: I asked if the only reason you had for not being against the
slaughter of other animinals is 'they are not like me' (ie I will kill
what is different)

you replied...No. I value the life of humans above the lives of other
creatures"

That is the same as your first claim. Which was 'things that are not
like me I have no problem killing' (which implies 'the more things are
like me the less likely I will be to kill them' which is evinced by your
claim about bonobos.).

I'm still interested in hearing your argument that isn't grounded in
'kill what is different'. Do you have one?

Post by Ashley
A not altogether uncommon value system.

that reeks of herd mentality.

akratic

:p

[Ashley]

Post by akratic

Post by Ashley

Post by akratic
is that it? you have no other reason except for 'I only value the
existence of (that is: not kill) life like me'.

That is not what I said. What I said is that I value the life of humans
above the lives of other creatures.

to clarify: I asked if the only reason you had for not being against the
slaughter of other animinals is 'they are not like me' (ie I will kill
what is different)
you replied...No. I value the life of humans above the lives of other
creatures"

You might like to a) ponder the difference betweeen 'I only value the
existence of (that is: not kill) life like me', and 'I asked if the only
reason you had for not being against the slaughter of other animinals is'

Then you might like to think which completely different statement my "I
value the life of humans above the lives of other creatures" was in
response to.

Then you might like to look up the definition of the word "clarify" and the
word "obfuscate" and see how they differ.

Post by akratic
That is the same as your first claim. Which was 'things that are not
like me I have no problem killing' (which implies 'the more things are
like me the less likely I will be to kill them' which is evinced by your
claim about bonobos.).

I never said "things like me I have no problem killing". You might also like
to look up the word "falsehood" and ponder its meaning.

Post by akratic
I'm still interested in hearing your argument that isn't grounded in
'kill what is different'.

Nowhere do I say "kill what is different". Those are your words, not mine.

Do you have one?
Yes, as that is not my argument. It's your rather pathetic attempt at
twisting.

Post by akratic

Post by Ashley
A not altogether uncommon value system.

that reeks of herd mentality.

Right now, the people who know me, and even the ones who don't know me but
have some intelligence, are pissing themselves laughing.

[David Bisman]

Post by David Bisman
years ago I embarked on a programme of ruthlessly re-examining all

Post by David Bisman
my preconceptions and dumping, unceremoniously, those that did not
work.

I most healthy programme. I did a lot of that in my late teens in regard to
Catholicism and more general religion-related beliefs (including abortion)
and I think I'm beginning a process of doing the same, but slightly more
gently, now.

Only healthy if universally applied in my opinion.

<snip>

Post by David Bisman

Post by David Bisman
What the recent Bill would have legislated for and what many (if not
most) proponents of euthenasia want is NOT the right to die but the
right to kill.

No. They don't actually. They want the right to help those who ask to die
without being labelled criminals. And the enacting of that right to be
exceptionally tightly controlled.

I disagree, one hundred percent. I read the legislation and it
legalised murder, pure and simple. I think, having read a variety of
positions on this, that I support that taken by Roman Catholic Canon
Law: every reasonable effort must be taken to preserve life but no
unreasonable effort must be taken. In other words: it may, under
certain circumstances, be permissable to turn OFF the machine that is
keeping a person alive but it is never permissable to turn ON the
machine that will kill someone. That is my position as well, in a
nutshell.

Post by David Bisman
But you raise far to many points to deal with in a quick morning check
through the posts before going to work ... so I'll leave the rest for now.

OK.

Post by David Bisman

Post by David Bisman
As I said, I am currently re-looking at my stance on (so called)
abortion. My problem is that the terms are so rarely and arbitrarily
defined. US law permits artificial termination of pregnancy up until
the birth. Abortion, while the baby's head is crowning (as is carried
out in the some US states and routinely in China) is simply
infanticide IMO (regardless of the fact that the baby is less sentient
than a three week old kitten or, as Matt likes to put it, a cow).

In mine as well. I see no justification at all for such a practice and, like
you, I regard it as infanticide.
So

Post by David Bisman
when does the act become infantice? A day earlier? A week? A month? A
trimester?

It is a difficult one and the honest answer is - I don't know. For me, I
would draw the line at viability, even if that is with medical intervention.
And I distinguish between kittens, cows and babies for the very reason that
baby's are human, kittens and cows aren't and I think treating humans as of
higher value than other animals is a moral absolute.

I think I draw the line at viability too but when is that? It is much
later in developing countries than developed ones and I worry about a
system that says it is morally acceptable to do to the children of
poor black people what would be a crime to do to the children of rich
white ones. As to favouring humans over animals...you got me, I'm a
specieist! I do not support any cruelty to animals or the unnecessary
killing of animals but I eat them cheerfully and in any contest
between an animal and an human I will root for the human every time.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Ashley]

Post by David Bisman
I think I draw the line at viability too but when is that? It is much
later in developing countries than developed ones and I worry about a
system that says it is morally acceptable to do to the children of
poor black people what would be a crime to do to the children of rich
white ones.

Oh, that's easy. My definition of viability is viability if given the best
possible care, not viability given what is accessible in a certain
environment.

[David Bisman]

Post by Ashley

Post by David Bisman
I think I draw the line at viability too but when is that? It is much
later in developing countries than developed ones and I worry about a
system that says it is morally acceptable to do to the children of
poor black people what would be a crime to do to the children of rich
white ones.

Oh, that's easy. My definition of viability is viability if given the best
possible care, not viability given what is accessible in a certain
environment.

Not so easy! The boundaries are constantly being pushed. What fits
this criteria for abortion this week becomes infanticide next week.
That's too close to comfort for me. As I say: I am still in two minds
on the issue but It is not an easy process coming to a conclusion that
I can live with, both intellectually and emotionally.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Flannagan]

1. Earlier I asked you how you justify killing a cow and not an
infant, by the criteria you proposed. I pointed out that cows posses
the qualities you mentioned to a greater extent than infants.

Your response was to say that infants are human beings, if I
understand you correctly here then you are suggesting that its wrong
to kill a being which is not sentient and willing in the way you
suggested, if that being is human.

But now there is a strong argument against abortion, fetuses like
infants are human beings, they are individual living creatures which
are genetically, morphologically and antomically members of the
species homosapiens, like infants they lack self awareness and the
ability to choose, possesing it only potentailly.

Therefore I maintain that your attempt to dilineate infanticide from
feticide is arbitrary. The reason you exclude fetuses ( lack of
certain forms of conciousness) excludes infants. The reason you
include infants (human being) includes fetuses.

2. You now bring in the notion of viability, this is problematic for
two reasons

a)as you define the term viability depends upon the medical technology
of a country. What is viabile in Canada is not viable in Chad,
consider then, a women who is pregnant flies from Canada to Chad, when
she leaves a human being exists in utero when she arrives no human
exists when she flies back a human being exists again. What happend to
the human being while she was in Chad? Did some inter species meta
morphus occur? Did the human being die and rise from the dead?

b) siamese twins are unable to live independently of another person
and therefore would not be human beings.

3) Hugh et al raised serious important questions as well. Why does the
humanity of the infant matter? The usual answer is that human beings
are capable of certain functions such as reason, self awareness,
autonomy etc. But an infant has these things only potentailly and not
actually. Therefore I think there is a dillemia here either potentail
for such activities counts in which case both infants and fetuses are
human. Or actual posession of these features is what matters in which
case neither is.

Matt

[Ashley]

Post by Flannagan
1. Earlier I asked you how you justify killing a cow and not an
infant, by the criteria you proposed. I pointed out that cows posses
the qualities you mentioned to a greater extent than infants.

I assume you're talking to me, but with the passage of time and the lack of
any remnant of the post you're replying to, it's difficult to tell.

Post by Flannagan
Your response was to say that infants are human beings, if I
understand you correctly here then you are suggesting that its wrong
to kill a being which is not sentient and willing in the way you
suggested, if that being is human.

You understand me incorrectly.

Post by Flannagan
But now there is a strong argument against abortion, fetuses like
infants are human beings, they are individual living creatures which
are genetically, morphologically and antomically members of the
species homosapiens, like infants they lack self awareness and the
ability to choose, possesing it only potentailly.

ie, they lack sentience.

Post by Flannagan
Therefore I maintain that your attempt to dilineate infanticide from
feticide is arbitrary. The reason you exclude fetuses ( lack of
certain forms of conciousness) excludes infants. The reason you
include infants (human being) includes fetuses.

Nope, it's not. Because you misunderstood me.

Post by Flannagan
2. You now bring in the notion of viability, this is problematic for
two reasons
a)as you define the term viability depends upon the medical technology
of a country.

No it doesn't. You haven't read all the posts in the thread.

Post by Flannagan
b) siamese twins are unable to live independently of another person
and therefore would not be human beings.

Bollocks.

Post by Flannagan
3) Hugh et al raised serious important questions as well. Why does the
humanity of the infant matter?

Because I'm happily speciesist and see specieism as a moral absolute that
needs no fake attempt at intellectual analysis.

[Brian Tozer]

Post by David Bisman
Two years ago I embarked on a programme of ruthlessly re-examining all
my preconceptions and dumping, unceremoniously, those that did not
work.

And yet I think that you are on record as stating that you consider that
Peter Ellis AND the women ChCh Creche workers charged by the police, should
all be killed, AND that you had not read "A City Possessed".
In spite of Law lecturers, QCs, a Judge et al who have read it considering
that the whole process needs a commission of enquiry to investigate the
whole situation due to the likelihood of Peter's conviction being unsafe.
I hope that I am wrong.
If I am not, in my opinion it undermines your ability to do a unbiased and
unprejudiced reassessment.
We know a lot more about the reliability of children's "memories" and
prejudicial investigating techniques than we did 10 years ago.

Post by David Bisman
At what point is a foetus human? When
it is viable? If so, and given the recent advances in that field of
medicine I would say that artificial abortion is murder at any time.

Presumably this would apply to use of the IUD as a form of birth control,
due to it's method of operation, and the use of the "morning after pill" by
rape victims.

Brian Tozer

[JJ Williams]

Post by Brian Tozer
Presumably this would apply to use of the IUD as a form of birth control,
due to it's method of operation, and the use of the "morning after pill" by
rape victims.

I think even the ordinary old pill can have an abortifacient effect (in
addition to it's main effects) but no doubt Kerry will advise ....<rubs lamp
to summon Kerry>

J

[Kerry]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 18:21:47 +1200, "JJ Williams"

Post by JJ Williams

Post by Brian Tozer
Presumably this would apply to use of the IUD as a form of birth control,
due to it's method of operation, and the use of the "morning after pill"

by

Post by Brian Tozer
rape victims.

I think even the ordinary old pill can have an abortifacient effect (in
addition to it's main effects) but no doubt Kerry will advise ....<rubs lamp
to summon Kerry>
J

Gosh sorry I'm late

Yep the morning after pill is a big dose of the combined oral
contraceptive.

Although now a purpose made combined morning after pill is available.
Use within 72 hours.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four be the things I am wiser to know:
Idleness, sorrow, a friend, and a foe.
Four be the things I'd been better without:
Love, curiousity, freckles, and doubt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[JJ Williams]

Post by Kerry
Although now a purpose made combined morning after pill is available.
Use within 72 hours.

That's alright - I've found a Better Way since my misguided heterosexual
days.

J

[David Bisman]

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman
Two years ago I embarked on a programme of ruthlessly re-examining all
my preconceptions and dumping, unceremoniously, those that did not
work.

And yet I think that you are on record as stating that you consider that
Peter Ellis AND the women ChCh Creche workers charged by the police, should
all be killed, AND that you had not read "A City Possessed".
In spite of Law lecturers, QCs, a Judge et al who have read it considering
that the whole process needs a commission of enquiry to investigate the
whole situation due to the likelihood of Peter's conviction being unsafe.

I thought that about Ellis and his co-offenders before Lynley Hood
wrote her book. Last time I was asked the question I had not read the
book, only skimmed it, and I answered honestly. I have now read the
book. I have not changed my mind. Especially since my mind was largely
made up by examination of the primary sources and Ms Hood's book, as
scholarly and well researched as it is, is merely a secondary source.
I cannot speak for why others feel this way or that about the case
only myself. I have always done so and will continue in future.

Post by Brian Tozer
I hope that I am wrong.

You are...about many things :)

Post by Brian Tozer
If I am not, in my opinion it undermines your ability to do a unbiased and
unprejudiced reassessment.
We know a lot more about the reliability of children's "memories" and
prejudicial investigating techniques than we did 10 years ago.

Not relevant in my opinion.

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman
At what point is a foetus human? When
it is viable? If so, and given the recent advances in that field of
medicine I would say that artificial abortion is murder at any time.

Presumably this would apply to use of the IUD as a form of birth control,
due to it's method of operation, and the use of the "morning after pill" by
rape victims.

Yes, and many other methods also.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Brian Tozer]

< I have now read the

Post by David Bisman
book. I have not changed my mind. Especially since my mind was largely
made up by examination of the primary sources and Ms Hood's book, as
scholarly and well researched as it is, is merely a secondary source.

Has there been any evidence provided by anyone that the truth has been
compromised by LH in her presentation?
If not, can you proffer any that supports your implication that this is so?

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer
I hope that I am wrong.

You are...about many things :)

Indubitably, undoubtably, and indisputably. :-))

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer
If I am not, in my opinion it undermines your ability to do a unbiased and
unprejudiced reassessment.
We know a lot more about the reliability of children's "memories" and
prejudicial investigating techniques than we did 10 years ago.

Not relevant in my opinion.

A most surprising comment that I predict will return to bite you.
I consider that it is at the heart of the situation.

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman
At what point is a foetus human? When
it is viable? If so, and given the recent advances in that field of
medicine I would say that artificial abortion is murder at any time.

Presumably this would apply to use of the IUD as a form of birth control,
due to it's method of operation, and the use of the "morning after pill" by
rape victims.

Yes, and many other methods also.

David, you are supposed to become more liberal as you get older.
Are you doing a Muggeridge?

Brian Tozer

[David Bisman]

Post by Brian Tozer
< I have now read the

Post by David Bisman
book. I have not changed my mind. Especially since my mind was largely
made up by examination of the primary sources and Ms Hood's book, as
scholarly and well researched as it is, is merely a secondary source.

Has there been any evidence provided by anyone that the truth has been
compromised by LH in her presentation?
If not, can you proffer any that supports your implication that this is so?

I apologise if I gave the impression that I thought LH had compromised
the truth. I did not. I was simply commenting that she had worked from
primary sources to pass on the information to others via her book. Her
book, then, is accurately described as a secondary source. I made up
my mind by researching the primary sources (as, indeed, did Ms Hood).

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer
I hope that I am wrong.

You are...about many things :)

Indubitably, undoubtably, and indisputably. :-))

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer
If I am not, in my opinion it undermines your ability to do a unbiased

and

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer
unprejudiced reassessment.
We know a lot more about the reliability of children's "memories" and
prejudicial investigating techniques than we did 10 years ago.

Not relevant in my opinion.

A most surprising comment that I predict will return to bite you.
I consider that it is at the heart of the situation.

No. The heart of the situation is that Ellis and his accomplices
abused children over a period of time. The abuse was primarily
psychological in nature but also included sexual and physical abuse.
Only Ellis was convicted because of a prevailing climate of scepticism
which Ellis and his supporters have ruthlessly exploited.

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman
At what point is a foetus human? When
it is viable? If so, and given the recent advances in that field of
medicine I would say that artificial abortion is murder at any time.

Presumably this would apply to use of the IUD as a form of birth

control,

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer
due to it's method of operation, and the use of the "morning after pill"

by

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer
rape victims.

Yes, and many other methods also.

David, you are supposed to become more liberal as you get older.
Are you doing a Muggeridge?

I think I am - only with more style and less conservatism than he I
hope.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[JJ Williams]

Post by David Bisman
My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by extrapolation) the survival of the human race.

I've never understood what you mean by this

J

[David Bisman]

Post by JJ Williams

Post by David Bisman
My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by extrapolation) the survival of the human race.

I've never understood what you mean by this

Sorry. I'll try to explain briefly. Let me know if I succeed.

Most crimes, if left unchecked would either not effect most of us or
be merely an annoyance. Some (drug usage and speeding and flying
without a licence for instance) would actually be self correcting and
terminal. Some others would not change the situation significantly
from what it is now: rape and murder for instance - at least in most
instances where these things are neither planned in advance nor aimed
randomly or generally but are specific to a single or a few victims.
Then there are those crimes which left unchecked have the potential to
end the human race. I specifically include terrorism, random mass and
serial murders (particularly those that involve children), paederasty
and anyone who supports, promotes or advocates any of these.

I trust that the terrorist and murder categories are self explanatory.
I will deal now with the protection of children. I will do so without
appeal to religion or to God although please understand that, in this
as in all things, I am informed by my religion. The human race has
evolved for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. It is true to
say, from an evolutionary perspective, that the only purpose of adults
is to create, nurture and safeguard children. If this is true (and I
believe it is) then anything that threatens children is
counter-survival. This gives us an easy rule of thumb to use in
judging events: a starving family who choose to eat their baby in
order to survive are counter survival even though they can, if they
survive, later have more children. A mother who sacrifices her own
life to protect her child is pro-survival and hero and martyr for
life. On apersonal level, I follow this belief through in my actions
insofar as i make it my purpose in life to make children happy.

Is that clear?

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[JJ Williams]

Post by David Bisman
The human race has
evolved for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. It is true to
say, from an evolutionary perspective, that the only purpose of adults
is to create, nurture and safeguard children. If this is true (and I
believe it is) then anything that threatens children is
counter-survival. This gives us an easy rule of thumb to use in
judging events: a starving family who choose to eat their baby in
order to survive are counter survival even though they can, if they
survive, later have more children. A mother who sacrifices her own
life to protect her child is pro-survival and hero and martyr for
life. On apersonal level, I follow this belief through in my actions
insofar as i make it my purpose in life to make children happy.
Is that clear?

Well not entirely. If the purpose of adults it to reproduce then why single
out children? Why not say that anyone who has the potential to reproduce is
more worthy of protection than anyone who hasn't? That would include all men
and premenopausal women (excepting those who happen to be sterile).

You could thin the numbers down a bit by estimating the likelihood that they
would reproduce. Unfortunately that would suggest that it's less of a crime
to kill a gay person than a straight person ....

[David Bisman]

Post by JJ Williams

Post by David Bisman
The human race has
evolved for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. It is true to
say, from an evolutionary perspective, that the only purpose of adults
is to create, nurture and safeguard children. If this is true (and I
believe it is) then anything that threatens children is
counter-survival. This gives us an easy rule of thumb to use in
judging events: a starving family who choose to eat their baby in
order to survive are counter survival even though they can, if they
survive, later have more children. A mother who sacrifices her own
life to protect her child is pro-survival and hero and martyr for
life. On apersonal level, I follow this belief through in my actions
insofar as i make it my purpose in life to make children happy.
Is that clear?

Well not entirely. If the purpose of adults it to reproduce then why single
out children? Why not say that anyone who has the potential to reproduce is
more worthy of protection than anyone who hasn't? That would include all men
and premenopausal women (excepting those who happen to be sterile).
You could thin the numbers down a bit by estimating the likelihood that they
would reproduce. Unfortunately that would suggest that it's less of a crime
to kill a gay person than a straight person ....

Some problems here. I think ALL murder reprehensible and the taking of
any life is as bad as any other. No killing of a person is less
morally wrong than any other (this includes by judicial execution
which occupies a special case in that we agree that it is wrong but
agree to carry it out in preference to the greater wrong of not doing
so). And the reason for singling out children is that minors, by
definition, are less capable of protecting themselves and are more
vulnerable to predators (in every sense of that word). Adults like
thee and me can still be the victims of abuse and murder but (big but
here) we can be expected to resist and to fight tooth and claw to try
to prevent it. In any battle with another adult we stand a chance.
Child versus adult is always an uneven contest.

As to making differentiation based on breeding potential, I would not.
However, I would say that pregnant and nursing mothers need the
greatest protection of the "human herd" and those of us who do not
personally reproduce carry out our part of the biological imperative
by protecting them and other children.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Hugh Young]

Post by David Bisman

Post by JJ Williams

Post by David Bisman
My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by extrapolation) the survival of the human race.

I've never understood what you mean by this

Sorry. I'll try to explain briefly. Let me know if I succeed.
Most crimes, if left unchecked would either not effect most of us or
be merely an annoyance. Some (drug usage and speeding and flying
without a licence for instance) would actually be self correcting and
terminal. Some others would not change the situation significantly
from what it is now: rape and murder for instance - at least in most
instances where these things are neither planned in advance nor aimed
randomly or generally but are specific to a single or a few victims.
Then there are those crimes which left unchecked have the potential to
end the human race. I specifically include terrorism, random mass and
serial murders (particularly those that involve children), paederasty
and anyone who supports, promotes or advocates any of these.

Even if left unchecked, none of these have even the potential to end
the human race. There is no natural propensity in humans for
terrorism, random mass or serial murder or paederasty. The number of
people inclined towards these things always has been, and always will
be, a very small proportion of the population.

Much more dangerous for the survival of the human race is its
limitless capacity to exploit and use up the earth's limited
resources. This does seem in danger of expanding unchecked until
everything is gone, and it is sheer folly to leave it to the market to
control it.

Post by David Bisman
I trust that the terrorist and murder categories are self explanatory.
I will deal now with the protection of children. I will do so without
appeal to religion or to God although please understand that, in this
as in all things, I am informed by my religion. The human race has
evolved for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. It is true to
say, from an evolutionary perspective, that the only purpose of adults
is to create, nurture and safeguard children.

No, evolution does not have purposes. Purposes, being intentions,
require sentience. Consider the evolution of every other plant and
animal species than humans. They are all guided by the same
principles. None of them involve purposes. The flower does not have
bright colours in order to attact bees. The flower doesn't know that
it has bright colours, and for all the flower can see, the flower has
no colours. The flower just has bright colours because its ancestors
were flowers that happened to have brighter colours than the other
flowers, and thereby attracted bees better. There was never any
purpose to it. So it is with humans. Our intentions and our purposes
came very late to the party.

The whole infrastructure that sustains adults is also essential for
creating, sustaining and nurturing children. Many of the things we do
that have no direct bearing on children have very important indirect
effects, by enriching the lives of adults and making the world a
better place for children to grow up into.

Post by David Bisman
If this is true (and I
believe it is) then anything that threatens children is
counter-survival. This gives us an easy rule of thumb to use in
judging events: a starving family who choose to eat their baby in
order to survive are counter survival even though they can, if they
survive, later have more children.

No. It would be contrary to sense to say a family that refrains from
eating their baby and thereby *starves to death* is "pro-survival",
while a family that eats their baby and thereby survives that crisis
to have *more than the one baby they lost* is "counter-survival".

Of course I think this is a ghastly (and far-fetched) example, and a
couple who chose to starve with their children rather than kill and
eat their baby would have my admiration, but not because they behaved
"pro-survivally".

If you're going to argue from an evolutionary point of view, than you
have to accept that nature is indeed red in tooth and claw, and
sometimes cruel and painful options are what evolution has worked out.
Darwin agonised over this, starting with the caterpiller that is eaten
from the inside out.

New alpha males of various species routinely kill the cubs of their
predecessors because the survival of their genes demands that all
their and their mates' energy now go into the nurture of their own
cubs. That is certainly not pro-survival of the predecessors' cubs,
yet it is perfectly "natural" and according to evolution.

I could work out a horrible example where gene-survival would demand
that humans kill someone else's children to promote the survival of
their own (and it's no coincidence that step-children are
disproportionately abused compared to birth-children, and this is well
known, ever since Cinderella, etc.), but what would be the point? We
have evolved beyond being victims of our evolution.

Post by David Bisman
A mother who sacrifices her own
life to protect her child is pro-survival

Not if two or more of her other children die with her.

Post by David Bisman
and hero and martyr for
life.

Um, that wasn't very long, was it.

Post by David Bisman
On apersonal level, I follow this belief through in my actions
insofar as i make it my purpose in life to make children happy.

But "happy" is a very different part of the field. Should we all give
up what we're doing and dress like Ronald MacDonald? He makes children
happier than anything else.

[David Bisman]

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by JJ Williams

Post by David Bisman
My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by extrapolation) the survival of the human race.

I've never understood what you mean by this

Sorry. I'll try to explain briefly. Let me know if I succeed.
Most crimes, if left unchecked would either not effect most of us or
be merely an annoyance. Some (drug usage and speeding and flying
without a licence for instance) would actually be self correcting and
terminal. Some others would not change the situation significantly
from what it is now: rape and murder for instance - at least in most
instances where these things are neither planned in advance nor aimed
randomly or generally but are specific to a single or a few victims.
Then there are those crimes which left unchecked have the potential to
end the human race. I specifically include terrorism, random mass and
serial murders (particularly those that involve children), paederasty
and anyone who supports, promotes or advocates any of these.

Even if left unchecked, none of these have even the potential to end
the human race. There is no natural propensity in humans for
terrorism, random mass or serial murder or paederasty. The number of
people inclined towards these things always has been, and always will
be, a very small proportion of the population.

Your logic is shonky - numbers are irrelevant. How many terrorists
does it take to set of a nuclear device in a major city? Less than the
known number of existing terrorists! So numbers and propensities are
irrelevant to my point.

Post by Hugh Young
Much more dangerous for the survival of the human race is its
limitless capacity to exploit and use up the earth's limited
resources. This does seem in danger of expanding unchecked until
everything is gone, and it is sheer folly to leave it to the market to
control it.

Oh please! Not the old Malthus canard again. It is patently absurd. We
are not overpopulated and we have no trouble feeding ourselves. There
are plenty of resources. It is wowsers like Jeannette Fitsimons and
her dodgy band of control freaks that fuel such absurdities yet their
voting record shows that they are more of a threat than anything they
rail against.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
I trust that the terrorist and murder categories are self explanatory.
I will deal now with the protection of children. I will do so without
appeal to religion or to God although please understand that, in this
as in all things, I am informed by my religion. The human race has
evolved for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. It is true to
say, from an evolutionary perspective, that the only purpose of adults
is to create, nurture and safeguard children.

No, evolution does not have purposes. Purposes, being intentions,
require sentience. Consider the evolution of every other plant and
animal species than humans. They are all guided by the same
principles. None of them involve purposes. The flower does not have
bright colours in order to attact bees. The flower doesn't know that
it has bright colours, and for all the flower can see, the flower has
no colours. The flower just has bright colours because its ancestors
were flowers that happened to have brighter colours than the other
flowers, and thereby attracted bees better. There was never any
purpose to it. So it is with humans. Our intentions and our purposes
came very late to the party.

I was sloppy in my use of the word "purpose", for which I apologise. I
do notthink that this alters the overall thrust of my point.

Post by Hugh Young
The whole infrastructure that sustains adults is also essential for
creating, sustaining and nurturing children. Many of the things we do
that have no direct bearing on children have very important indirect
effects, by enriching the lives of adults and making the world a
better place for children to grow up into.

I agree, 100%.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
If this is true (and I
believe it is) then anything that threatens children is
counter-survival. This gives us an easy rule of thumb to use in
judging events: a starving family who choose to eat their baby in
order to survive are counter survival even though they can, if they
survive, later have more children.

No. It would be contrary to sense to say a family that refrains from
eating their baby and thereby *starves to death* is "pro-survival",
while a family that eats their baby and thereby survives that crisis
to have *more than the one baby they lost* is "counter-survival".

I disagree.

Post by Hugh Young
Of course I think this is a ghastly (and far-fetched) example, and a
couple who chose to starve with their children rather than kill and
eat their baby would have my admiration, but not because they behaved
"pro-survivally".

Less than 100 years ago in China this (and even more horrific things)
actually happened. I did not pluck the example out of thin air.
Similar episodes are recounted throughout history as far back and
including in the Bible. And so I do not think it far fetched.

Post by Hugh Young
If you're going to argue from an evolutionary point of view, than you
have to accept that nature is indeed red in tooth and claw, and
sometimes cruel and painful options are what evolution has worked out.
Darwin agonised over this, starting with the caterpiller that is eaten
from the inside out.

Done.

Post by Hugh Young
New alpha males of various species routinely kill the cubs of their
predecessors because the survival of their genes demands that all
their and their mates' energy now go into the nurture of their own
cubs. That is certainly not pro-survival of the predecessors' cubs,
yet it is perfectly "natural" and according to evolution.

Agreed.

Post by Hugh Young
I could work out a horrible example where gene-survival would demand
that humans kill someone else's children to promote the survival of
their own (and it's no coincidence that step-children are
disproportionately abused compared to birth-children, and this is well
known, ever since Cinderella, etc.), but what would be the point? We
have evolved beyond being victims of our evolution.

Nolo contendere. That does not mean that we can ignore our
evolutionary imperatives.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
A mother who sacrifices her own
life to protect her child is pro-survival

Not if two or more of her other children die with her.

Provided the choice she makes sees her genes continue to live so that
they can reproduce themselves later then her act is pro survival.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
and hero and martyr for
life.

Um, that wasn't very long, was it.

Sorry, I meant "for Life".

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
On apersonal level, I follow this belief through in my actions
insofar as i make it my purpose in life to make children happy.

But "happy" is a very different part of the field. Should we all give
up what we're doing and dress like Ronald MacDonald? He makes children
happier than anything else.

Not any of the kids I know. Even the ones that like to eat at
McDonalds loathe Ronald!

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Hugh Young]

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by JJ Williams

Post by David Bisman
My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by extrapolation) the survival of the human race.

I've never understood what you mean by this

Sorry. I'll try to explain briefly. Let me know if I succeed.
Most crimes, if left unchecked would either not effect most of us or
be merely an annoyance. Some (drug usage and speeding and flying
without a licence for instance) would actually be self correcting and
terminal. Some others would not change the situation significantly
from what it is now: rape and murder for instance - at least in most
instances where these things are neither planned in advance nor aimed
randomly or generally but are specific to a single or a few victims.
Then there are those crimes which left unchecked have the potential to
end the human race. I specifically include terrorism, random mass and
serial murders (particularly those that involve children), paederasty
and anyone who supports, promotes or advocates any of these.

Even if left unchecked, none of these have even the potential to end
the human race. There is no natural propensity in humans for
terrorism, random mass or serial murder or paederasty. The number of
people inclined towards these things always has been, and always will
be, a very small proportion of the population.

Your logic is shonky - numbers are irrelevant. How many terrorists
does it take to set of a nuclear device in a major city? Less than the
known number of existing terrorists! So numbers and propensities are
irrelevant to my point.

Post by Hugh Young
Much more dangerous for the survival of the human race is its
limitless capacity to exploit and use up the earth's limited
resources. This does seem in danger of expanding unchecked until
everything is gone, and it is sheer folly to leave it to the market to
control it.

Oh please! Not the old Malthus canard again. It is patently absurd. We
are not overpopulated and we have no trouble feeding ourselves. There
are plenty of resources.

"All is well!" called the man as he fell past the 15th floor.

Derek Wilson has a letter in the latest Listener (Sept 20) about the
Ecological Footprint, a measure of the amount of land and water we
need. It turns out "the [total] EF is now 15 times larger than the
ecological capacity of the world" - we're using our resources faster
than we're replacing them.

Post by David Bisman
It is wowsers like Jeannette Fitsimons and
her dodgy band of control freaks

argument ad hominem

Post by David Bisman
that fuel such absurdities yet their
voting record shows that they are more of a threat than anything they
rail against.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
I trust that the terrorist and murder categories are self explanatory.
I will deal now with the protection of children. I will do so without
appeal to religion or to God although please understand that, in this
as in all things, I am informed by my religion. The human race has
evolved for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. It is true to
say, from an evolutionary perspective, that the only purpose of adults
is to create, nurture and safeguard children.

No, evolution does not have purposes. Purposes, being intentions,
require sentience. Consider the evolution of every other plant and
animal species than humans. They are all guided by the same
principles. None of them involve purposes. The flower does not have
bright colours in order to attact bees. The flower doesn't know that
it has bright colours, and for all the flower can see, the flower has
no colours. The flower just has bright colours because its ancestors
were flowers that happened to have brighter colours than the other
flowers, and thereby attracted bees better. There was never any
purpose to it. So it is with humans. Our intentions and our purposes
came very late to the party.

I was sloppy in my use of the word "purpose", for which I apologise. I
do notthink that this alters the overall thrust of my point.

Also in your use of the word "only".

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young
The whole infrastructure that sustains adults is also essential for
creating, sustaining and nurturing children. Many of the things we do
that have no direct bearing on children have very important indirect
effects, by enriching the lives of adults and making the world a
better place for children to grow up into.

I agree, 100%.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
If this is true (and I
believe it is) then anything that threatens children is
counter-survival. This gives us an easy rule of thumb to use in
judging events: a starving family who choose to eat their baby in
order to survive are counter survival even though they can, if they
survive, later have more children.

No. It would be contrary to sense to say a family that refrains from
eating their baby and thereby *starves to death* is "pro-survival",
while a family that eats their baby and thereby survives that crisis
to have *more than the one baby they lost* is "counter-survival".

I disagree.

You're using "survival" in a very funny way if the total number of
individuals after "survival" is lower than the number before.

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young
Of course I think this is a ghastly (and far-fetched) example, and a
couple who chose to starve with their children rather than kill and
eat their baby would have my admiration, but not because they behaved
"pro-survivally".

Less than 100 years ago in China this (and even more horrific things)
actually happened. I did not pluck the example out of thin air.
Similar episodes are recounted throughout history as far back and
including in the Bible. And so I do not think it far fetched.

Fine, but nobody else calls it counter-survival.

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young
If you're going to argue from an evolutionary point of view, than you
have to accept that nature is indeed red in tooth and claw, and
sometimes cruel and painful options are what evolution has worked out.
Darwin agonised over this, starting with the caterpiller that is eaten
from the inside out.

Done.

Post by Hugh Young
New alpha males of various species routinely kill the cubs of their
predecessors because the survival of their genes demands that all
their and their mates' energy now go into the nurture of their own
cubs. That is certainly not pro-survival of the predecessors' cubs,
yet it is perfectly "natural" and according to evolution.

Agreed.

Post by Hugh Young
I could work out a horrible example where gene-survival would demand
that humans kill someone else's children to promote the survival of
their own (and it's no coincidence that step-children are
disproportionately abused compared to birth-children, and this is well
known, ever since Cinderella, etc.), but what would be the point? We
have evolved beyond being victims of our evolution.

Nolo contendere. That does not mean that we can ignore our
evolutionary imperatives.

"imperative" has exactly the same problem as "purpose".

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
A mother who sacrifices her own
life to protect her child is pro-survival

Not if two or more of her other children die with her.

Provided the choice she makes sees her genes continue to live so that
they can reproduce themselves later then her act is pro survival.

I specified precisely a condition under which that does not happen.

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
and hero and martyr for
life.

Um, that wasn't very long, was it.

Sorry, I meant "for Life".

Nicely finessed. Not if the total number of potentially reproductive
individuals afterward is lower than the number before.

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
On apersonal level, I follow this belief through in my actions
insofar as i make it my purpose in life to make children happy.

But "happy" is a very different part of the field. Should we all give
up what we're doing and dress like Ronald MacDonald? He makes children
happier than anything else.

Not any of the kids I know. Even the ones that like to eat at
McDonalds loathe Ronald!

Whatever. Give them all ice creams, then.

[David Bisman]

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by JJ Williams

Post by David Bisman
My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by extrapolation) the survival of the human race.

I've never understood what you mean by this

Sorry. I'll try to explain briefly. Let me know if I succeed.
Most crimes, if left unchecked would either not effect most of us or
be merely an annoyance. Some (drug usage and speeding and flying
without a licence for instance) would actually be self correcting and
terminal. Some others would not change the situation significantly
from what it is now: rape and murder for instance - at least in most
instances where these things are neither planned in advance nor aimed
randomly or generally but are specific to a single or a few victims.
Then there are those crimes which left unchecked have the potential to
end the human race. I specifically include terrorism, random mass and
serial murders (particularly those that involve children), paederasty
and anyone who supports, promotes or advocates any of these.

Even if left unchecked, none of these have even the potential to end
the human race. There is no natural propensity in humans for
terrorism, random mass or serial murder or paederasty. The number of
people inclined towards these things always has been, and always will
be, a very small proportion of the population.

Your logic is shonky - numbers are irrelevant. How many terrorists
does it take to set of a nuclear device in a major city? Less than the
known number of existing terrorists! So numbers and propensities are
irrelevant to my point.

Post by Hugh Young
Much more dangerous for the survival of the human race is its
limitless capacity to exploit and use up the earth's limited
resources. This does seem in danger of expanding unchecked until
everything is gone, and it is sheer folly to leave it to the market to
control it.

Oh please! Not the old Malthus canard again. It is patently absurd. We
are not overpopulated and we have no trouble feeding ourselves. There
are plenty of resources.

"All is well!" called the man as he fell past the 15th floor.
Derek Wilson has a letter in the latest Listener (Sept 20) about the
Ecological Footprint, a measure of the amount of land and water we
need. It turns out "the [total] EF is now 15 times larger than the
ecological capacity of the world" - we're using our resources faster
than we're replacing them.

Why does it not surprise me that you would read and seriously quote
that left wing propaganda rag? I have seen similar reports and their
refutations. The EF is a shonky, ill-defined and highly disputed
measurement. It is as easy to 'prove' that we have unlimited resources
as to 'prove' what you say Wilson does. Neither Malthus nor the EF
hypothesis takes into account human ingenuity or inventiveness.
Technologies like GM and cloning have the potential to increase our
production dramatically while exposing us to far less waste and
pollution. It is interesting to see who opposes this!

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
It is wowsers like Jeannette Fitsimons and
her dodgy band of control freaks

argument ad hominem

Actually, argument by shortcut. I did not spell out all the steps of
my argument. There is more above. However, I stand by my accurate
description of the Greens and say that it is relevant to the
discussion.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
that fuel such absurdities yet their
voting record shows that they are more of a threat than anything they
rail against.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
I trust that the terrorist and murder categories are self explanatory.
I will deal now with the protection of children. I will do so without
appeal to religion or to God although please understand that, in this
as in all things, I am informed by my religion. The human race has
evolved for the sole purpose of perpetuating itself. It is true to
say, from an evolutionary perspective, that the only purpose of adults
is to create, nurture and safeguard children.

No, evolution does not have purposes. Purposes, being intentions,
require sentience. Consider the evolution of every other plant and
animal species than humans. They are all guided by the same
principles. None of them involve purposes. The flower does not have
bright colours in order to attact bees. The flower doesn't know that
it has bright colours, and for all the flower can see, the flower has
no colours. The flower just has bright colours because its ancestors
were flowers that happened to have brighter colours than the other
flowers, and thereby attracted bees better. There was never any
purpose to it. So it is with humans. Our intentions and our purposes
came very late to the party.

I was sloppy in my use of the word "purpose", for which I apologise. I
do notthink that this alters the overall thrust of my point.

Also in your use of the word "only".

No.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young
The whole infrastructure that sustains adults is also essential for
creating, sustaining and nurturing children. Many of the things we do
that have no direct bearing on children have very important indirect
effects, by enriching the lives of adults and making the world a
better place for children to grow up into.

I agree, 100%.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
If this is true (and I
believe it is) then anything that threatens children is
counter-survival. This gives us an easy rule of thumb to use in
judging events: a starving family who choose to eat their baby in
order to survive are counter survival even though they can, if they
survive, later have more children.

No. It would be contrary to sense to say a family that refrains from
eating their baby and thereby *starves to death* is "pro-survival",
while a family that eats their baby and thereby survives that crisis
to have *more than the one baby they lost* is "counter-survival".

I disagree.

You're using "survival" in a very funny way if the total number of
individuals after "survival" is lower than the number before.

The number (if sufficiently large - currently about 6 billion) is
quite irrelevant. The ability for the genetic material to be carried
into the future, generation by generation, is the only relevant
factor.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young
Of course I think this is a ghastly (and far-fetched) example, and a
couple who chose to starve with their children rather than kill and
eat their baby would have my admiration, but not because they behaved
"pro-survivally".

Less than 100 years ago in China this (and even more horrific things)
actually happened. I did not pluck the example out of thin air.
Similar episodes are recounted throughout history as far back and
including in the Bible. And so I do not think it far fetched.

Fine, but nobody else calls it counter-survival.

Yes they do. I first came across the argument in writings over half a
century old from people in the USA. The argument is spelled out
explicitly in the novels of the late Robert Anson Heinlein.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young
If you're going to argue from an evolutionary point of view, than you
have to accept that nature is indeed red in tooth and claw, and
sometimes cruel and painful options are what evolution has worked out.
Darwin agonised over this, starting with the caterpiller that is eaten
from the inside out.

Done.

Post by Hugh Young
New alpha males of various species routinely kill the cubs of their
predecessors because the survival of their genes demands that all
their and their mates' energy now go into the nurture of their own
cubs. That is certainly not pro-survival of the predecessors' cubs,
yet it is perfectly "natural" and according to evolution.

Agreed.

Post by Hugh Young
I could work out a horrible example where gene-survival would demand
that humans kill someone else's children to promote the survival of
their own (and it's no coincidence that step-children are
disproportionately abused compared to birth-children, and this is well
known, ever since Cinderella, etc.), but what would be the point? We
have evolved beyond being victims of our evolution.

Nolo contendere. That does not mean that we can ignore our
evolutionary imperatives.

"imperative" has exactly the same problem as "purpose".

No it does not. It is possible to be impelled without purpose or even
direction. However, evolution impels us all ruthlessly onward and
discards the slow and sick and ill prepared.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
A mother who sacrifices her own
life to protect her child is pro-survival

Not if two or more of her other children die with her.

Provided the choice she makes sees her genes continue to live so that
they can reproduce themselves later then her act is pro survival.

I specified precisely a condition under which that does not happen.

No you did not. You specified that a single child survived while
multiple children and the mother died. If the child that survived was
the most fitted for the job then that is pro-survival. If that is not
the case then the conclusion is different.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
and hero and martyr for
life.

Um, that wasn't very long, was it.

Sorry, I meant "for Life".

Nicely finessed. Not if the total number of potentially reproductive
individuals afterward is lower than the number before.

No finesse. My original meaning. The total number of potentially
reproductive individuals is irrelevant. While the number of
potentially reproductive females is more relevant but not critical a
male can service fifty females for the purpose of repoduction without
any problem whatsoever. Eleven twelfths of the earth's population
could die without actually imperiling the race or critically altering
my hypothesis. Nevertheless, the actions of each individual,
particularly towards children, is critical already.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
On apersonal level, I follow this belief through in my actions
insofar as i make it my purpose in life to make children happy.

But "happy" is a very different part of the field. Should we all give
up what we're doing and dress like Ronald MacDonald? He makes children
happier than anything else.

Not any of the kids I know. Even the ones that like to eat at
McDonalds loathe Ronald!

Whatever. Give them all ice creams, then.

You don't much like children do you? No wonder you support child
abusers. Children only think that such things make them happy if they
are taught it by sick adults. In reality, what makes children happy is
to be safe and cared for and loved and peaceful and competitive and
enjoyed and boisterous and disciplined and fed and informed and
valued. Nothing to do with ice cream! Given the high incidence of
intolerance to dairy products in New Zealand and the appalling amount
and variety of additives (both toxic and noxious) that are added to
commercial ice-creams here, most of the children I know would turn up
their noses at the stuff immediately.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Hugh Young]

Post by David Bisman
Along the way I swapped from
being a lifelong and strident (indeed, arch) opponent of capital
punishment to a supporter of the death penalty in a small and clearly
defined set of cases. My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by

wild

Post by David Bisman
extrapolation) the survival of the human race. By this
narrow definition I would support, indeed I advocate, execution for
terrorists, paederasts, and indiscriminate or mass murderers
(particularly when their crimes involve children). I am not interested
in whether or not such executions deter others or are adequate
punishment or any of that stuff, they prevent those particular
criminals from carrying on their evil.

And so would life sentences.

Post by David Bisman
I would happily pull the lever,
administer the drugs, fire the gun, swing the axe... whatever it takes
and I would sleep soundly at night. I would also not fret about
mistakes and innocents dying...

So justice goes out the window. "Kill them all, God will know his
own."

Post by David Bisman
if that is the price to be paid for
stopping these monsters

It's a big if. "these monsters" are only the ones you catch, so
"stopping" them has a limited field of reference.

Post by David Bisman
then so be it.
What the recent Bill would have legislated for and what many (if not
most) proponents of euthenasia want is NOT the right to die but the
right to kill. That must never be granted them.

Um, didn't DB just advocate the right to kill "these monsters"?

Post by David Bisman
Euthenasia is a
fancy word for murder.

And capital punishment when you do "not fret about mistakes and
innocents dying..." is just a fancy word for ...?

Post by David Bisman
The Bible does not often give reasons for its
commandments but the care of the elderly is one when it does: "Honour
thy father and mother that thy days may be long in the land." It is
common sense really: take care of the greyhairs now and you will be
taken care of when you are a greyhair.

It doesn't follow. Did King Lear take care of his parents? Probably.

[David Bisman]

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
Along the way I swapped from
being a lifelong and strident (indeed, arch) opponent of capital
punishment to a supporter of the death penalty in a small and clearly
defined set of cases. My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by

wild

In your opinion. I do not think this is so far outside the square.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
extrapolation) the survival of the human race. By this
narrow definition I would support, indeed I advocate, execution for
terrorists, paederasts, and indiscriminate or mass murderers
(particularly when their crimes involve children). I am not interested
in whether or not such executions deter others or are adequate
punishment or any of that stuff, they prevent those particular
criminals from carrying on their evil.

And so would life sentences.

No. Not to my satisfaction. Prison escapes can happen and I object to
spending large sums of taxpayers' money to coddle these scum. Kill
them all.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
I would happily pull the lever,
administer the drugs, fire the gun, swing the axe... whatever it takes
and I would sleep soundly at night. I would also not fret about
mistakes and innocents dying...

So justice goes out the window. "Kill them all, God will know his
own."

At its base...yes. Although the judicial process should be such that
mistakes a so rare as to be non-existant but the possibility of
mistakes is not enough reason to risk allowing these people to
continue breathing.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
if that is the price to be paid for
stopping these monsters

It's a big if. "these monsters" are only the ones you catch, so
"stopping" them has a limited field of reference.

That is no different from now except that now they are later freed to
commit more crimes or, like Ellis, to re-abuse the same victims with
rape by media ad infinitum. Capital Punishment would prevent that.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
then so be it.
What the recent Bill would have legislated for and what many (if not
most) proponents of euthenasia want is NOT the right to die but the
right to kill. That must never be granted them.

Um, didn't DB just advocate the right to kill "these monsters"?

The Bill was about the individuals killing I am advocating society
killing. The Bill is about getting rid of embarrassing old people I am
advocating protecting children. The two things are not in any way
analogous.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
Euthenasia is a
fancy word for murder.

And capital punishment when you do "not fret about mistakes and
innocents dying..." is just a fancy word for ...?

There is no valid comparison.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
The Bible does not often give reasons for its
commandments but the care of the elderly is one when it does: "Honour
thy father and mother that thy days may be long in the land." It is
common sense really: take care of the greyhairs now and you will be
taken care of when you are a greyhair.

It doesn't follow. Did King Lear take care of his parents? Probably.

Sorry to break this to you Hugh. But King Lear is fiction - he did not
exist...like the tooth fairy and Satan Claws.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[A L P]

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young
It's a big if. "these monsters" are only the ones you catch, so
"stopping" them has a limited field of reference.

That is no different from now except that now they are later freed to
commit more crimes or, like Ellis, to re-abuse the same victims with
rape by media ad infinitum. Capital Punishment would prevent that.

I don't think you can blame Peter Ellis for Lynley Hood's book. Authors
have for a long time sought to examine cases where they believe
something is "not t right" e.g. the one (it became a movie) about the
simple-minded young man and his friend who murdered and were hanged in
England. I think the boy's name was Bentley. They were dead but the
controversy went on. Do you think that if Peter had been killed nobody
would be asking questions about the trial and whether it had been
conducted correctly?

A L P

[JJ Williams]

Post by A L P
I don't think you can blame Peter Ellis for Lynley Hood's book. Authors
have for a long time sought to examine cases where they believe
something is "not t right" e.g. the one (it became a movie) about the
simple-minded young man and his friend who murdered and were hanged in
England. I think the boy's name was Bentley.

If you mean the Craig and Bentley case then you've got it mixed up.
Christopher Craig shot a policeman and he and his friend Robert Bentley were
convicted of murder. As Craig was 16 and Bentley 19, only Bentley was hung.
The case was controversial because, as you say, Bentley was subnormal and he
was found guilty because he was heard to shout "let him have it, Chris" as
Craig, with a gun, faced a policeman. It wasn't clear if he meant "shoot
him" or "give him the gun".

I remember reading about the case when we were living in Bedfordshire
because Craig had just been released (after 10 years) and was settling in
the area.

J

[Hugh Young]

On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 17:31:03 +1200, "JJ Williams"

Post by JJ Williams

Post by A L P
I don't think you can blame Peter Ellis for Lynley Hood's book. Authors
have for a long time sought to examine cases where they believe
something is "not t right" e.g. the one (it became a movie) about the
simple-minded young man and his friend who murdered and were hanged in
England. I think the boy's name was Bentley.

If you mean the Craig and Bentley case then you've got it mixed up.
Christopher Craig shot a policeman and he and his friend Robert Bentley were
convicted of murder. As Craig was 16 and Bentley 19, only Bentley was hung.
The case was controversial because, as you say, Bentley was subnormal and he
was found guilty because he was heard to shout "let him have it, Chris" as
Craig, with a gun, faced a policeman. It wasn't clear if he meant "shoot
him" or "give him the gun".
I remember reading about the case when we were living in Bedfordshire
because Craig had just been released (after 10 years) and was settling in
the area.

There was a heartwrenching film about it a few years ago called "Let
Him Have It". I think Craig was pardoned a year or two ago - a lot of
good it did him.

[David Bisman]

Post by A L P

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young
It's a big if. "these monsters" are only the ones you catch, so
"stopping" them has a limited field of reference.

That is no different from now except that now they are later freed to
commit more crimes or, like Ellis, to re-abuse the same victims with
rape by media ad infinitum. Capital Punishment would prevent that.

I don't think you can blame Peter Ellis for Lynley Hood's book. Authors
have for a long time sought to examine cases where they believe
something is "not t right" e.g. the one (it became a movie) about the
simple-minded young man and his friend who murdered and were hanged in
England. I think the boy's name was Bentley. They were dead but the
controversy went on. Do you think that if Peter had been killed nobody
would be asking questions about the trial and whether it had been
conducted correctly?

I wasn't I was blaming him for his ceaseless campaign in the media to
villify his victims. Lynley Hood's book is another kettle of fish
altogether. And no, I do not think anyone would be questionaing the
Ellis case if he and his supporters had not embarked on their very
bublic campaign of abuse by proxy.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Brian Tozer]

Post by David Bisman
And no, I do not think anyone would be questionaing the
Ellis case if he and his supporters had not embarked on their very
public campaign of abuse by proxy.

Isn't this a rather dismissive, derisory, arrogant even, assessment of the
intellectual capabilities of the eminent legal experts who have expressed
grave concerns about the legal aspects of Peter's conviction and the
management of the entire case?

Brian Tozer

[David Bisman]

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman
And no, I do not think anyone would be questionaing the
Ellis case if he and his supporters had not embarked on their very
public campaign of abuse by proxy.

Isn't this a rather dismissive, derisory, arrogant even, assessment of the
intellectual capabilities of the eminent legal experts who have expressed
grave concerns about the legal aspects of Peter's conviction and the
management of the entire case?

No. it is accurate. Not one of them raised a single concern at the
time of the original trial or in its immediate wake. Their "concerns"
have been raised in direct proportion to the noise raised by the
paederast and his supporters. And, I might add, in direct inverse
proportion to the concern for the victims of his crimes.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Hugh Young]

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman
And no, I do not think anyone would be questionaing the
Ellis case if he and his supporters had not embarked on their very
public campaign of abuse by proxy.

Isn't this a rather dismissive, derisory, arrogant even, assessment of the
intellectual capabilities of the eminent legal experts who have expressed
grave concerns about the legal aspects of Peter's conviction and the
management of the entire case?

No. it is accurate. Not one of them raised a single concern at the
time of the original trial or in its immediate wake.

Again drawing a conclusion from silence. The lurid fantasies were not
made public then.

Post by David Bisman
Their "concerns"
have been raised in direct proportion to the noise raised by the
paederast and his supporters.

Begging the question that he is a paederast. Are these "supporters"
the same "supporters" you want put to death?

Post by David Bisman
And, I might add, in direct inverse
proportion to the concern for the victims of his crimes.

If/Since he commited no crimes, no concern for that is needed. Concern
is appropriate for the victims of the abusive interviewing.

[David Bisman]

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Brian Tozer

Post by David Bisman
And no, I do not think anyone would be questionaing the
Ellis case if he and his supporters had not embarked on their very
public campaign of abuse by proxy.

Isn't this a rather dismissive, derisory, arrogant even, assessment of the
intellectual capabilities of the eminent legal experts who have expressed
grave concerns about the legal aspects of Peter's conviction and the
management of the entire case?

No. it is accurate. Not one of them raised a single concern at the
time of the original trial or in its immediate wake.

Again drawing a conclusion from silence. The lurid fantasies were not
made public then.

The conclusion that I draw from their silence is that they were
silent. Is that incorrect? If, by "the lurid fantasies" you mean the
children's accounts of the 'Circle incident', the 'Giraffe incident',
the 'Baby killing incident' and so forth - yes they were. They were
openly being discussed at the time of and in the wake of the trial in
Christchurch. I remember it quite distinctly. In fact I recall a day
spent in court at the trial followed by an evening playing Canasta at
the Lambda Centre (queer drop-in centre) with a group of people where
we discussed all those things. I also recall that, of that group of a
dozen or so people, all queer, only one: Hugh Gaw was convinced of
Ellis' innocence.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
Their "concerns"
have been raised in direct proportion to the noise raised by the
paederast and his supporters.

Begging the question that he is a paederast. Are these "supporters"
the same "supporters" you want put to death?

He is a convicted paederast. The law says he is a paederast. Were I to
call Joe Bloggs off the street a paederast he could sue me and win a
defamation action, I have called (and continue to call) Peter Ellis a
paederast and he cannot sue me and win a defamation action. He is a
paederast. I do not understand how there can be any distinction
between "supporters" and "supporters"! They are one and the same. And
I still support capital punishment for all paederasts AND their
supporters. However, you do me an injustice: just because I support
such a measure does not mean that I "want" to put anyone to death.
Simply that I see its advisability.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
And, I might add, in direct inverse
proportion to the concern for the victims of his crimes.

If/Since he commited no crimes, no concern for that is needed. Concern
is appropriate for the victims of the abusive interviewing.

He committed the crimes, three courts and as many reviews have all,
unanimously concluded the same thing. However Hugh, I am not surprised
that you have made up your mind based solely of partial sources
(secondary ones at that). It reincorces my initial impression of your
calibre as a researcher.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Hugh Young]

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
Along the way I swapped from
being a lifelong and strident (indeed, arch) opponent of capital
punishment to a supporter of the death penalty in a small and clearly
defined set of cases. My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by

wild

In your opinion. I do not think this is so far outside the square.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
extrapolation) the survival of the human race. By this
narrow definition I would support, indeed I advocate, execution for
terrorists, paederasts, and indiscriminate or mass murderers
(particularly when their crimes involve children). I am not interested
in whether or not such executions deter others or are adequate
punishment or any of that stuff, they prevent those particular
criminals from carrying on their evil.

And so would life sentences.

No. Not to my satisfaction. Prison escapes can happen and I object to
spending large sums of taxpayers' money to coddle these scum. Kill
them all.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
I would happily pull the lever,
administer the drugs, fire the gun, swing the axe... whatever it takes
and I would sleep soundly at night. I would also not fret about
mistakes and innocents dying...

So justice goes out the window. "Kill them all, God will know his
own."

At its base...yes. Although the judicial process should be such that
mistakes a so rare as to be non-existant but the possibility of
mistakes is not enough reason to risk allowing these people to
continue breathing.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
if that is the price to be paid for
stopping these monsters

It's a big if. "these monsters" are only the ones you catch, so
"stopping" them has a limited field of reference.

That is no different from now except that now they are later freed to
commit more crimes or, like Ellis, to re-abuse the same victims with
rape by media ad infinitum. Capital Punishment would prevent that.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
then so be it.
What the recent Bill would have legislated for and what many (if not
most) proponents of euthenasia want is NOT the right to die but the
right to kill. That must never be granted them.

Um, didn't DB just advocate the right to kill "these monsters"?

The Bill was about the individuals killing I am advocating society
killing. The Bill is about getting rid of embarrassing old people

This is a grotesque misstatement of the bill.

Post by David Bisman
I am
advocating protecting children. The two things are not in any way
analogous.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
Euthenasia is a
fancy word for murder.

And capital punishment when you do "not fret about mistakes and
innocents dying..." is just a fancy word for ...?

There is no valid comparison.

What a mess of illogic is buried in that "valid"!

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
The Bible does not often give reasons for its
commandments but the care of the elderly is one when it does: "Honour
thy father and mother that thy days may be long in the land." It is
common sense really: take care of the greyhairs now and you will be
taken care of when you are a greyhair.

It doesn't follow. Did King Lear take care of his parents? Probably.

Sorry to break this to you Hugh. But King Lear is fiction

I knew that of course, but now that you mention it, I don't think he
necessarily is.

from http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/kinglear001.html

The legend of Lear had unquestionably been dramatized before
Shakespeare produced his tragedy. "The true Chronicle History of King
Leir and his three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan and Cordelia, as it hath
been divers and sundry times lately acted," was printed, probably for
the first time, in 1605; but there can be no doubt that it belongs to
a period some ten or perhaps twenty years earlier. In 1594 an entry
was made at Stationer's hall, of "The moste famous Chronicle Hystorie
of Leire King of England, and his Three Daughters." Shakespeare's
story of Lear is taken from Holinshed's account of the legend, one
dated back to the time when Joas reigned over Judah, or, according to
Geoffrey of Monmouth's, to the days of Isaiah and Hosea.

Whatever, my point was that grateful children do not necessarily
become rewarded parents.

In any case, why appeal to selfishness? We should honour our parents
and all older people, with no hope of reward, just because they're our
fellow human beings.

[David Bisman]

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
Along the way I swapped from
being a lifelong and strident (indeed, arch) opponent of capital
punishment to a supporter of the death penalty in a small and clearly
defined set of cases. My criteria are that the person is likely to
offend again given the chance and that their crimes be such that they
threaten (by

wild

In your opinion. I do not think this is so far outside the square.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
extrapolation) the survival of the human race. By this
narrow definition I would support, indeed I advocate, execution for
terrorists, paederasts, and indiscriminate or mass murderers
(particularly when their crimes involve children). I am not interested
in whether or not such executions deter others or are adequate
punishment or any of that stuff, they prevent those particular
criminals from carrying on their evil.

And so would life sentences.

No. Not to my satisfaction. Prison escapes can happen and I object to
spending large sums of taxpayers' money to coddle these scum. Kill
them all.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
I would happily pull the lever,
administer the drugs, fire the gun, swing the axe... whatever it takes
and I would sleep soundly at night. I would also not fret about
mistakes and innocents dying...

So justice goes out the window. "Kill them all, God will know his
own."

At its base...yes. Although the judicial process should be such that
mistakes a so rare as to be non-existant but the possibility of
mistakes is not enough reason to risk allowing these people to
continue breathing.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
if that is the price to be paid for
stopping these monsters

It's a big if. "these monsters" are only the ones you catch, so
"stopping" them has a limited field of reference.

That is no different from now except that now they are later freed to
commit more crimes or, like Ellis, to re-abuse the same victims with
rape by media ad infinitum. Capital Punishment would prevent that.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
then so be it.
What the recent Bill would have legislated for and what many (if not
most) proponents of euthenasia want is NOT the right to die but the
right to kill. That must never be granted them.

Um, didn't DB just advocate the right to kill "these monsters"?

The Bill was about the individuals killing I am advocating society
killing. The Bill is about getting rid of embarrassing old people

This is a grotesque misstatement of the bill.

No. I do not think it is. To call it a death with dignity bill or some
such claptrap would be a gross misstatement. It was about empowering
families to legally murder emabarrassing or costly relatives.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
I am
advocating protecting children. The two things are not in any way
analogous.

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
Euthenasia is a
fancy word for murder.

And capital punishment when you do "not fret about mistakes and
innocents dying..." is just a fancy word for ...?

There is no valid comparison.

What a mess of illogic is buried in that "valid"!

"Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing".

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman

Post by Hugh Young

Post by David Bisman
The Bible does not often give reasons for its
commandments but the care of the elderly is one when it does: "Honour
thy father and mother that thy days may be long in the land." It is
common sense really: take care of the greyhairs now and you will be
taken care of when you are a greyhair.

It doesn't follow. Did King Lear take care of his parents? Probably.

Sorry to break this to you Hugh. But King Lear is fiction

I knew that of course, but now that you mention it, I don't think he
necessarily is.
from http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/kinglear001.html
The legend of Lear had unquestionably been dramatized before
Shakespeare produced his tragedy. "The true Chronicle History of King
Leir and his three Daughters, Gonorill, Ragan and Cordelia, as it hath
been divers and sundry times lately acted," was printed, probably for
the first time, in 1605; but there can be no doubt that it belongs to
a period some ten or perhaps twenty years earlier. In 1594 an entry
was made at Stationer's hall, of "The moste famous Chronicle Hystorie
of Leire King of England, and his Three Daughters." Shakespeare's
story of Lear is taken from Holinshed's account of the legend, one
dated back to the time when Joas reigned over Judah, or, according to
Geoffrey of Monmouth's, to the days of Isaiah and Hosea.

Pathetic. As real as Arthur and Camelot and the Round Table!

Post by Hugh Young
Whatever, my point was that grateful children do not necessarily
become rewarded parents.

No contest.

Post by Hugh Young
In any case, why appeal to selfishness? We should honour our parents
and all older people, with no hope of reward, just because they're our
fellow human beings.

I cannot answer as to why the authors of the Bible put in anything
only what, which I did.

Cheers
David Bisman
Dunedin
New Zealand

[Calum Bennachie]

Post by Mike in Cairns
Religion is the real demon if this is a so-called "christian"

If I were to claim that Gays were demons because one homosexual man
was convicted of child molestation would that be a legitmate fair
generalisation.
In fact this news piece repeats the usual deliberate sterotyping and
generalisations which when used in any other context is called
bigotry. Hill was a member of the Orthodox Presbytarian Church a very

The fact that there are those who are seeking to idolise him as a martyr is even more disturbing-
and in this case, it is clear that the belief in a fairy tale was the reason for those murders.
Hill stated he was following the commands of a fairy tale, that he was obeying the wishes of a fairy
tale. If there had been no fairy tale, there would have been no way he could justify his act of
murder to himself or to those who now idolise him as a martyr.

Calum

[Brian Logan]

Post by Mike in Cairns
Religion is the real demon if this is a so-called "christian"

Why is this cross-posted to nz.soc.queer?

b.

[Mike in Cairns]

Post by Brian Logan

Post by Mike in Cairns
Religion is the real demon if this is a so-called "christian"

Why is this cross-posted to nz.soc.queer?
b.

God made me do it.

[Flannagan]

Post by Mike in Cairns
God made me do it.

Paul Hill did not say *God made me do it* the media claim that he
believed that God had told him to do what he did is misleading his
background was Presbytarian not Pentecostal. What he claimed was that
the are conditions under which homicide is justified, i.e. self
defence are met in the case of shooting abortionists. If your going to
mock someones beliefs at least understand what they are.

Matt

[Flannagan]

I assumed your response to Brian was intended to be a sarcastic
allusion to Hills jutification for killing Brittion. I apologise if I
was incorrect.

Matt

Post by Flannagan

Post by Mike in Cairns
God made me do it.

Paul Hill did not say *God made me do it* the media claim that he
believed that God had told him to do what he did is misleading his
background was Presbytarian not Pentecostal. What he claimed was that
the are conditions under which homicide is justified, i.e. self
defence are met in the case of shooting abortionists. If your going to
mock someones beliefs at least understand what they are.
Matt

Matt, you are not reading what I was answering to...

Post by Flannagan
Why is this cross-posted to nz.soc.queer?
b.

I said: "God made me do it."

[Mike in Cairns]

Post by Flannagan
I assumed your response to Brian was intended to be a sarcastic
allusion to Hills jutification for killing Brittion. I apologise if I
was incorrect.
Matt

You were.

[Bob Howard]

Post by Mike in Cairns
Religion is the real demon if this is a so-called "christian"

Most Christians would be horrified at his actions. It is more likely he is a
twisted individual or psychopath acting under the guise of Christianity.


Bob Howard.