Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ccice2.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!wjh12!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccice5!ccice2!cjk
From: cjk@ccice2.UUCP (Kreilick)
Newsgroups: net.abortion,net.politics,net.religion,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Abortion and Capital Punishment
Message-ID: <505@ccice2.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 14-Nov-84 17:47:41 EST
Article-I.D.: ccice2.505
Posted: Wed Nov 14 17:47:41 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Nov-84 05:24:36 EST
References: <1782@burdvax.UUCP> <779@ariel.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Central Engineering, Rochester, NY
Lines: 45

> I don't give a a damn "what the Bible teaches".  Abortion is NOT murder.  Those
> who advocate the trial and execution of abortionists are the real advocates of
> murder, and that includes YOU, Tom Albrect.  It is a very serious thing for
> you to advocate murder.  Apparently you are willing to do so "because this is
> what the Bible teaches".  You say, "The Bible says that human beings are
> created in the image of God and that the taking of innocent human life is
> wrong, so abortion is wrong. ... the abortionist is performing the act of a
> murderer..."  The Bible may say that humans are created in the image of God,
> but so what?  There is no God.  And the rest of the statements are just as
> ridiculous.  How anyone can jump from 'humans are created in God's image' to
> "human fetuses are human beings possesing rights" is beyond me.  The mis-called
> "right-to-life"ers are really "right-to-murder-or-advocate-murder-for-anyone-
> -who-disagrees-with-my-ridiculous-interpretation-of-a-ridiculous-book"ers.  If
> someone believes in "what the Bible teaches", there's very little point in
> trying to explain to them a philosophical basis for the concept of rights...
> -Norm Andrews  (My opinions are my own, not the Bible's or my employer's...)

Well Norm, it looks like you, daf, csc, and mbets and probably quite
a few others have missed Tom's point.

Let me set you straight.
Tom says:

> > In the case of capital punishment, God's 
> > law requires that an individual should forefit his/her own life for taking 
> > another's life for the exact same reason i.e. 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.

Upon rereading his lines I'm sure you'll reconsider.  Granted Tom does
require a little literary license in creating the word "forefit", but
I think what's important here is the concept.  To require all murderers
to spend the rest of their lives on the golf course ("fore fit") seems a
fitting punishment indeed!  Now I'm not quite sure what he's implying
in his next sentence, maybe that all state employees only play 
"executive" courses?  

I do hope you all stop picking on Tom and let him get to some really
important issues, like the regulation of rape through badminton games.




					RUTH