Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site valid.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!pesnta!valid!pete
From: pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: a task for those opposed to abortion
Message-ID: <39@valid.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Jan-86 00:40:39 EST
Article-I.D.: valid.39
Posted: Tue Jan 21 00:40:39 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 22-Jan-86 02:02:05 EST
References: <1100@oddjob.UUCP> <1730@druxu.UUCP> <30@valid.UUCP> <412@cisden.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Valid Logic, San Jose, CA
Lines: 54

> In article <30@valid.UUCP> pete@valid.UUCP (Pete Zakel) writes:
> >Certainly, if you murder adult humans, you will be seen as a murderer by
> >other adult humans, and subject to being "removed" yourself.  (Definition
> >of "removed": Killed, jailed, or otherwise having your freedom to kill
> >other human beings taken away).
> 
> All this argument shows is that, in general, it's imprudent and unwise
> to murder adults.  But if you were *certain* that nobody would ever find
> out about some proposed murder, or that some legal loophole would get you
> off scot free, your argument wouldn't apply.  And yet the murder would
> still be wrong.
> 
> It's not the possibility of punishment that makes an action wrong.
> -- 
> 				Peace and Good!,
> 				      Fr. John Woolley

I believe the question was to give a reason for not murdering that doesn't
rely on a moral stand (I'm sorry, but I don't have a copy of the original
task request).  My response basically was showing why the Golden Rule is
a good rule to follow.  If you help other people, and don't show yourself
to be a threat, you are likely to be well-treated and protected by people
around you.  I, personally, believe murder to be wrong - partly for moral
and religious reasons - but the request was for a non-religious and non-moral
stance.  I believe I gave a valid stance.

I also believe it is possible for a moral person to murder someone else
and STILL be moral, it would require much thinking, reasoning, and planning
and the person would have to live with himself afterward.  Also, women
who have abortions also have to live with themselves.  Although I do not
believe abortion to be murder, it must be very difficult for a woman NOT
to think of it that way.  But as long as the fetus is part of that woman,
dependent on her for sustenance, and incapable of living on its own, I
believe she, AND SHE ALONE, has the right to decide whether that fetus
should continue on toward birth or be aborted.

-- People not interested in religious arguments may go on to the next
article now --

My religious stance is that I do not believe a soul enters the child till
just prior to birth.  I do believe in reincarnation (I also believe
Christ's "born again" references REFER to reincarnation) and I also believe
that the soul will have another chance in another child and does not suffer
from abortion.  BUT, my religious stance should have no bearing on the law
concerning abortions.  I also believe in STRICT separation of church and
state, ESPECIALLY in reference to abortion legislation.  A person from
one church has no right to legislate that church's position into law.
Government arbitrates Man's laws.  God (or whatever higher power you wish
to ascribe to) arbitrates God's laws.  Atheists must rely on The Golden Rule.
Please don't respond to my religious views in this newsgroup, I will be happy
to argue them in net.religion if anyone is interested.

Love and Peace be with you all.
-Pete Zakel (..!{hplabs,amd,pyramid,ihnp4}!pesnta!valid!pete)