Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!csc
From: csc@watmath.UUCP (Computer Sci Club)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment
Message-ID: <9761@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 8-Nov-84 13:49:40 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.9761
Posted: Thu Nov  8 13:49:40 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 9-Nov-84 07:19:21 EST
References: <ccice5.570>, <1782@burdvax.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 45

>	The reason I am against abortion and for capital punishment is that
> 					  ...  humans are created in
>the image of God and therefore human life is sacred.  The murderer is not
>innocent and the state is required to execute the individual as punishment
>for taking another person's life.

...

>-- 
>Tom Albrecht 		Burroughs Corp.
>			...{presby|psuvax|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl

But the person who happens to commit a murder is a human, so is his
life not sacred as well?  Certainly before any crime was committed, it
was.  So if it is no longer sacred after the crime, then we must
concede that something that is sacred at one time may not be sacred at
another.

You seem to be saying that is ok to destroy something that is not
sacred, while it is forbidden and reprehensible to destroy a sacred
thing.  Thus to be certain that in the act of destroying an object we
do not ourselves commit a `sin' if you will, we must be certain that the
object is not sacred.  Since an objects status may change, we must be
very clear when these transitions occur.  You mention that for a human
life, a transition from the sacred to non-sacred status can occur when
it takes another human life. (BTW, I would be very interested in seeing
your biblical quotes backing this fact.)  But is there not also the
possibility that a switch in the other direction may occur, one taking
a non-sacred person back to the realm of the sacred?  With the 
principle message of the founder of the Christian religion being one
of forgiveness, I find it hard to believe that this would be impossible.

If this is true, then one can be permitted to execute a human being
only if status as non-sacred is firmly established.  Otherwise,
one is oneself commiting murder.  In fact, if one ever made a mistake
in this regard (for instance by finding an innocent man guilty) then
one would lose one's *own* sacred status.  If you accept the above
suggestion that a reversal of this status back to its former state
is possible, then all is not lost for you.  But then you also must
concede that the murderer himself might become sacred again.  If,
however, you reject the hypothesis that such a reversal can happen, 
then you yourself are damned.

	-bob atkinson
	 csc@watmath