h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Josh
You won't have met me, although I did follow the progress of your evolution debate thingumebob.
Anyhow, it's not very often that anyone catagorises their opinions and invites people to respond, so I'll take advantage of the fact and question your views. You don't have to reply of course.

Specifically, the death penalty and abortion. You argue that the death penalty is necessary, although you argue that abortion is not. I'd be interested to know why you think one is acceptable and not the other, although if you're interested in a debate on abortion I'd like to know whether you're male or female (that's not quite such as silly question as it seems).

Also, if you'd like to take it further, how about embryology?

Actually, I'd debate almost anything you've got on that list Not because I'm antisocial or have anything against you, just because I like to question things all the time.

You're list of idols is rather good though. Bill Watterson and C.S.Lewis are both great, although I laughed at the inclusion of Bush. But maybe you were being intentionally funny.

Dastardly

PS If you've mentioned Doyle's knighthood, then maybe you should add a 'Sir' to Lloyd Webber as well? He was knighted in (*rushes off to look it up*) 1997.

Hi, Dastardly!

I live in an area where everyone either agrees with me, or has no idea why they disagree with me, so I'm always ready to debate with someone from far away!

To start with, abortion destroys innocent lives, whereas the death penalty destroys lives that, well, deserve to be destroyed. Oh, and I'm Male. As for embryology, if you are referring to the study of the tissues of aborted embryos, I'd have to say that's really playing with fire. I disagree with that to the point that, if I got a disease that could be cured through medicine developed in this way, I hope I would be brave enough to refuse the treatment.

As for good ol' Bush, I do admire him, but I put that on the list mainly to tweak certain people's noses.

I had no idea Lloyd Webber was a knight (although, now that I think about it, it doesn't surprise me). Thanks for the tip!

Hello
Sorry I've taken so long replying- it's nothing personal

Abortion.... so, would you like to see it outlawed, or would you prefer to try to convince women not to have abortions?
What do you think of aborting disabled babies? Ones where continuing the pregnancy could harm the mother? Babies as a result of rape?

Death penalty.... Jesus didn't really like things like that did he? And how about if someone's proven innocent? In the UK one man was freed for murder afetr spending over *20* years in prison (and please don't say that couldn't happen in America- it can happen anywhere). How much worse would it have been if he'd been killed?.
If the death penalty is so fair then why are so many of the condemned men black, compared to so few in the population? Why is there a higher percentage of men murderers killed than woman murderers (for the same crime)?
If it's a biased system should it be allowed to continue?

Embryology... so what do you think of Bush supporting it when he disagrees with abortion? You have an admirable stance though

Yeah, good old Sir Andrew Cats is closing in London after about 17 years... hope that's not a sign that he's on the way out.

If I argue agressively please don't take it personally. I just have to many points to make at once and so they all rush out And I phrase most things in questions, which annoys some people. If you don't want me to do so then please say.

"Abortion.... so, would you like to see it outlawed, or would you prefer to try to convince women not to have abortions?"

Both. It would be nice if babies were protected by the law, but for now, giving women other options, such as adoption will suffice.

"disabled babies?"

Absolutely not. Disabled people can live just as wonderful and happy lives as the rest of us. Would you say a disabled adult was not entitled to the same rights as a normal adult? Why should in be any different for the unborn?

pregnancy could harm the mother?

I think it's okay in this instance, though I would commend the mother who chose to take the risk for her child. In any case, the literature I have read seems to indicate that this is really an unrealistic scenario accounting for less than .01% of abortions.

as a result of rape?

Hmm. That's a tough one. The way I see it, if you abort the baby, isn't that the same as letting the rapist win?

As for the death penalty, while Jesus doesn't cite an opinion, that I know of, the ancient Israeli law, which was given to Moses by God calls for it as a punishment for certain crimes. While the risk of executing innocent people is alarming, crime fighting techniques and forensic technology have made it almost impossible to pin murder on someone else. For this reason, I believe the death penalty should only be used in cases where the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

If it's biased, that's not the death penalty's fault. It is the fault of unjust, biased juries or judges. The law itself is just and unbiased.

I think Bush needs to stop walking the fence. I am quite certain that absolutely no viable research will come from embryology.

So what do you think about starting an agressive agruers anonymous?

Oh dear, this is a long post. Sorry.

#"Abortion.... so, would you like to see it outlawed, or would you prefer to try to convince women not to have abortions?"

Both. It would be nice if babies were protected by the law, but for now, giving women other options, such as adoption will suffice.#

Personally I'd never want it to be banned because there will always be women who desperately want abortions, and it would mean they'd have to go for backstreet operations, which, because standards would not be monitered by anyone, could be very dangerous.

I'd go so far as to say, if I were a doctor with sufficient resources etc, I hope I'd perform the backstreet abortions myself merely to stop women going to unqualified people in deperation. Whether or not I agreed with abortion, I would never let those women put their lives at risk if I could help it.

For some women adoption isn't an option.
For example (fictitious).... a woman is married to an abusive husband. If he knew about the baby he wouldn't let her give it away because it's his. But... she doesn't feel happy having his baby or bringing up a child in such a dangerous environment.

#"disabled babies?"

Absolutely not. Disabled people can live just as wonderful and happy lives as the rest of us. Would you say a disabled adult was not entitled to the same rights as a normal adult? Why should in be any different for the unborn?#

I wasn't condoning the viewpoint, just mentioning it. But I'd draw your attention to the very serious disorders- I can't think of any specific ones but there's one awful one where there are too many x chromosomes, and things like cretinism. If a child has a life expectancy of maybe ten years, during which it will have to be cared for night and day, and in which it will be unable to communicate... maybe abortion is better?

Personally I would never have my baby tested for any disease except those that would need pre-birth treatment. Because I really wouldn't want to know, and I wouldn't want to be given the power to make that sort of decision.

#pregnancy could harm the mother?

I think it's okay in this instance, though I would commend the mother who chose to take the risk for her child. In any case, the literature I have read seems to indicate that this is really an unrealistic scenario accounting for less than .01% of abortions#

Was this pro-life literature? Or is it just talking about risk of death, rather than risk to health? Because that figure seems *way* too low from what I've heard- I'll do a bit more research for next time. But you're right- it is an admirable stance for a woman to take. I was just questioning whether you'd like her to be denied the right to abort.

#as a result of rape?

Hmm. That's a tough one. The way I see it, if you abort the baby, isn't that the same as letting the rapist win?#

What? Surely giving birth to his child, being reminded every day of your life would be a far better way of letting him win? Mother and child would suffer immensly, however much they love each other, from knowing just how their relationship came about.

Jesus I'll let go. I am religious, but everyone has different interpretations. And probably different bibles (over here a few centries back one run of bibles commanded the people 'thou shall commit adultery' Quite a lot of copies were distributed before the mistake was discovered)

#While the risk of executing innocent people is alarming, crime fighting techniques and forensic technology have made it almost impossible to pin murder on someone else. For this reason, I believe the death penalty should only be used in cases where the defendant is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.#

*sigh* Forensic technology isn't infalliable. Apart from anything else, there is contamination of evidence, especially if a case if a few years old. And although it is very difficult to frame someone without the co-operation of the police, it isn't so difficult merely to get away with the crime- and then, eventually, the blame may fall at someone else's door.

And, out of curiosity, what do you think of the way some other countries, aside from the US, implement the death penalty? Stoning homosexuals to death is still a part of life in some places, as is beheading for murder and theft.

Why do you belive the death penalty is right? Is it because you think it acts as a deterrent to other potential criminals, or because you think that the dead should be avenged, or because you think that the rest of society should be protected? Or something else?

#If it's biased, that's not the death penalty's fault. It is the fault of unjust, biased juries or judges. The law itself is just and unbiased.#

But if people are dying unfairly, surely the practice should be stopped regardless of who's to blame?
There's also the fact that those who can afford good lawyers have a better chance of escaping the death penalty, which is another argument for the legal system being biased.

#I think Bush needs to stop walking the fence. I am quite certain that absolutely no viable research will come from embryology.#

I think it will help, but that doesn't affect whether or not it is right.

#So what do you think about starting an agressive agruers anonymous? #

Are you suggesting I'm an aggressive arguer? Why you...when I get my hands on you....******....

Hmm. Maybe you have a point.

"Personally I'd never want it to be banned because there will always be women who desperately want abortions, and it would mean they'd have to go for backstreet operations, which, because standards would not be monitered by anyone, could be very dangerous."

I see! Let's apply this to rape. Using your argument, I can justify rape:

"Personally I'd never want rape banned because there will always be men who desperately want to rape, and it would mean they'd have to go and rape a woman in some backstreet, which, because standards would not be monitored by anyone, could be very dangerous."

Therefore, let us set up facilities in which men can abduct women to and rape them in a safe private location, minimizing the danger. See? Abortion is wrong whether it is dangerous or not.

"For some women adoption isn't an option."

Perhaps, but there is always an option besides abortion.

#"disabled babies?"

All disabilities no matter how crippling can be overcome. Look at people like Stephen Hawking. Even if a child will only live to ten years of age, he or she is still capable of love and intelligence.

"What? Surely giving birth to his child, being reminded every day of your life would be a far better way of letting him win? Mother and child would suffer immensly, however much they love each other, from knowing just how their relationship came about."

Which is better? Suffering or Dying? I would rather suffer, and I think that unborn child must feel the same way.

"*sigh* Forensic technology isn't infalliable. Apart from anything else, there is contamination of evidence, especially if a case if a few years old. And although it is very difficult to frame someone without the co-operation of the police, it isn't so difficult merely to get away with the crime- and then, eventually, the blame may fall at someone else's door."

Yes, that is a risk which is why I said that the death penalty should only be used in a case where someone is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.

"And, out of curiosity, what do you think of the way some other countries, aside from the US, implement the death penalty?"

You're right. Too many countries take the death penalty way to far. I think the US does the best job of any country so far.

"Why do you belive the death penalty is right? Is it because you think it acts as a deterrent to other potential criminals, or because you think that the dead should be avenged, or because you think that the rest of society should be protected? Or something else?"

Vengance is not the issue here. I don't believe in avenging. The death penalty is a discouragement to pontetial criminals, but more importantly it is punishment. It is a consequence of a very bad decision.

"But if people are dying unfairly, surely the practice should be stopped regardless of who's to blame?
There's also the fact that those who can afford good lawyers have a better chance of escaping the death penalty, which is another argument for the legal system being biased."

In the US there is now an appeal process to determine whether a trial was done in a fair and biased way before an execution. This is why it takes years before someone is executed.

Speaking of long posts, how is this one?

Just butting in...I think that abortion is a really thorny issue, but (don't shout at me!), I think it's a situation that men see in an entirely different light to women. When I was 17, I went for a pregnancy test and I can honestly say that it was one of the single most terrifying experiences in my life. I was still at school, as was my then boyfriend, doing 5 A-levels, and I couldn't have had the child had I actually been pregnant, for so many reasons. Also, saying that women with unwanted pregnancies should have them put up for adoption is also easier said than done - a child is not a 'thing' from which one can become emotionally detached. Many women who do have abortions grieve terribly afterwards. Can you imagine what it must be like, knowing that somewhere out there, you have a child who knows nothing about you, and may be desperately unhappy as a consequence?

I see! Let's apply this to rape. Using your argument, I can justify rape:

"Personally I'd never want rape banned because there will always be men who desperately want to
rape, and it would mean they'd have to go and rape a woman in some backstreet, which, because
standards would not be monitored by anyone, could be very dangerous."

Therefore, let us set up facilities in which men can abduct women to and rape them in a safe private
location, minimizing the danger. See? Abortion is wrong whether it is dangerous or not.

I think you've entirely skewed the original argument, Josh, and you know it. You will never have to undergo any such situation, but it is one that so many women fear. Your argument for 'rape centres' is entirely different. Women don't just 'want' abortions because they are callous and uncaring - they can be very traumatic procedures, both mentally and physically. Your comparison to rape makes it seem that these women somehow *enjoy* having an abortion, which is incredibly ignorant. A backstreet abortion can lead to infections that can end with a horrible death for the woman, and in the case of rape, all because some b*****d decided to prey upon her. As for suffering or dying? I would die. And which is worse - an abortion, which ends the existence of a buch of cells, or the death of a sentient human being, as well as the bunch of cells that pro-lifers are so concerned about?

I can see I'm going to have to come back here when it's not half five in the morning, but a quick thing about the death penalty - if, as you say, the death penalty is a punishment, what's the point? At the end, I'll be dead, it'll be over, and I'll have learned nothing. I'd find life in prison a far greater punishment, being forced to reflect, being denied access to everything I loved, being plagued by thoughts and memories of the actions that led me to be here.

As for racial profiling, I find it genuinely appalling as a concept. I was born in Britain, I have a British passport, an English accent (well, several, actually) and a terribly English-sounding name. Unfortunately I don't look it - I'm half Chinese, and physically look very much so. My mother is Chinese, my father is white, and my brother and sister look very much more European than I do. Perhaps its coincidence that my father and siblings seldom have their (British) passports checked, whilst my mother and I seldom get through an airport *without* having our passports checked and our luggage emptied. Perhaps, but I doubt it. You'd be surprised at the amount of racism that comes from people who 'don't realise they're doing it'. One of the most amusing is the way that people react when they see me in person, rather than speaking on the phone or reading a letter. And no, I'm not perfectly happy when it happens, accepting that this is a 'necessary safeguard to security'. It's an immensely annoying example of institutional racism. Pathetic, but ironic, in some ways was the treatment my mother recieved when she sat down on a bus recently next to a white person. The person in question told her, in no uncertain terms, that he didn't want to sit next to a dirty yellow person, who ate up this country's resources, and that she should f**k off back where she came from. The irony is that my mother pays so much in tax that she is a veritable asset to this country's resources.

I should go to bed now...

I sympathize with your mother. I must confess that in the past I have had problems with racism, very ironic considering I spent most of the first five years of my life in Japan (I'm a blond-haired, blue-eyed caucasian). I'm trying hard not to be racist, which must sound strange to you, but where I live it is a big temptation.

Life in prison-
I think that under most circumstances, life in prison is actually the best option. The death penalty is, in my opinion, only for those who are so brutal, so sadistic, so evil, that they will never repent or ever even feel the least bit sorry for their actions.

I have to go. I'll respond to your other thoughts as soon as I can

Sorry about that.

I am troubled by your comparison of a fetus to "a bunch of cells." Am I not a bunch of cells? Are you not a bunch of cells? Even in the womb, a baby is capable of thought, growth, and even personality. I don't think it's fair of you to say that you are superior to this bunch of cells in the same way that a wolf is superior to a lamb just because this bunch of cells depends on you for survival.

"Can you imagine what it must be like, knowing that somewhere out there, you have a child who knows nothing about you, and may be desperately unhappy as a consequence?"

It must be very difficult for the mother. I don't pretend that adoption isn't a difficult experience, but I know lots of people that were adopted and eeveryone of them is glad that their mother put them up for adoption rather that aborting them. I can personally say that I am glad I was born. I can, however see a situation where a person wished that they hadn't been born. In that case, the person could make their own decision as to whether to live or not. Is this not the true "pro-choice" situation? Shouldn't mothers allow their children to decide for themselves whether dying or suffering is better?

My comparison of rape to abortion was not intended to make it seem as though abortive mothers enjoyed abortion. The association between the two issues is thus: The bigger, stronger group takes advantage of the smaller, weaker group.

Josh, defender of the underdog

Long post also. I am not normally this aggressive but have you seen that 'Homophobia' thread? Enough!

1: If you live somewhere that tempts you to be racist, shouldn't you move? Or perhaps show some spine by thinking independently.
2: It's a good thing that you will never personally have the problem of unwanted pregnancy. I hope if you were the cause of one you'd support the woman financially and emotionally to the last, including respecting her wishes if she wanted to keep it rather than adopt, even if you did not have the means. As Emily said, women don't 'want' abortions. It's a last resort. (I'd certainly take that option- And if there are other options besides adoption, list them. It's not a valid argument if you don't.)
Also, would you ever consider adopting an unwanted totally disabled child? I would rather die quickly than suffer, personally. How's your stance on euthanasia- should a terminally ill person who is aware of the degeneration of their body but unable to stop it not be allowed to end their life easily, simply because suffering is somehow 'better'?
There is no proof that babies, foetuses, bunches of cells etc. have 'personalities' in the womb. How would you measure such a thing, for a start? Of course they grow- so do ears. What's the point? Thought- again, how is this measured?
-Of course they're glad they were adopted rather than aborted! The dead can't form opinions. You ask anyone with a relatively normal life, "Would you rather be alive than dead?" and see what the answer is. This is a complete non-argument.
Certain disabilities would remove the individual's understanding of concepts such as life/death. How then would the mother ask their opinion?
Defending the underdog, presumably by removing the right to choose- you, as a man, are presumably the 'bigger, stronger group' in relation to women. And you are inflicting your opinions on those who might not want to hear them. Ever thought that some smaller, weaker groups might not want your 'defending'?
4: There is something referred to as 'the abortion pill' by some, the 'morning after' pill by most. It can now be got from chemists in this country (UK), some think this is deeply wrong. It's taken up to 3 days after unprotected sex. Do you think this is wrong? It's just a 'bunch of cells' and certainly has no personality. No thought, either. Your criteria for existing seem to be thought and personality, which are both products of the mind/brain (I'm a dualist, personally.) So the bunch of cells would have to develop a brain before it was human, right? such a thing would not exist in this case.
5: Woman who was carrying octuplets. She refused to have any of them aborted, despite great concern for her/their health (some say for financial gain, but I refrain from judging on that issue) and all eight of them died. Well?
6: Contraception. Is that wrong, in that it denies a possible life any chance?
7: Spontaneous abortion. Foetal absorption.
8: How awful must it be to have a child who you know can only live for, say, 10 years- you get to know them, can keep them for a decade, then they're gone. Better to save both them and their family the upset. Imagine how they'd feel having 10 years of life and knowing that's it. (It'd be difficult to keep that from them.)
9: Off that issue now. I'm white, but I don't look it. Described variously as 'Polynesian', 'Chinese', 'from the Subcontinent', 'Mexican' etc. If any of these areas were under suspicion, would it be right for me to be likewise suspect?
10: Religion. Are all religions other than Christianity wrong? (I'm non-specific pagan so they're all valid to me. I have found the majority of Christians I have met- not to say the whole- to be ignorant, intolerant and narrow-minded. ('Cept for Theory, who is a sweetie.) I'll respect yours if you respect mine.)
11: you state that whatever you do is irrelevent since you've accepted Jesus etc. So you can do every forbidden thing and that's alright? Personally I'd agree with the 'other Christians' who believe in loss of salvation. Following this opt-out policy, would you accept the theory of the Elect and the Reprobate? I would not like to be in your Heaven if the only criteria is accepting Jesus and not necessarily living a Christian life.
12: Statistically, the death penalty has no effect on crime figures whatsoever, however way you look at it, so it's no deterrent. It costs more to execute someone than to keep them incarcerated for life.
13: Following your Introductory statements, usually those who are Republican/anti-choice/pro-death penalty/basic Christians are also against the following: single parents (especially mothers), homosexuality and sex outside marriage. The latter I have no specific issue with provided it's not inflicted on me, which unfortunately it is. Often.
so...
maybe you should move, it's not good to live where everyone is either a yay-sayer or too dim to disagree with you. Not healthy.

Long post also. I am not normally this aggressive but have you seen that 'Homophobia' thread? Enough!

1: If you live somewhere that tempts you to be racist, shouldn't you move? Or perhaps show some spine by thinking independently.
2: It's a good thing that you will never personally have the problem of unwanted pregnancy. I hope if you were the cause of one you'd support the woman financially and emotionally to the last, including respecting her wishes if she wanted to keep it rather than adopt, even if you did not have the means. As Emily said, women don't 'want' abortions. It's a last resort. (I'd certainly take that option- And if there are other options besides adoption, list them. It's not a valid argument if you don't.)
Also, would you ever consider adopting an unwanted totally disabled child? I would rather die quickly than suffer, personally. How's your stance on euthanasia- should a terminally ill person who is aware of the degeneration of their body but unable to stop it not be allowed to end their life easily, simply because suffering is somehow 'better'?
There is no proof that babies, foetuses, bunches of cells etc. have 'personalities' in the womb. How would you measure such a thing, for a start? Of course they grow- so do ears. What's the point? Thought- again, how is this measured?
-Of course they're glad they were adopted rather than aborted! The dead can't form opinions. You ask anyone with a relatively normal life, "Would you rather be alive than dead?" and see what the answer is. This is a complete non-argument.
Certain disabilities would remove the individual's understanding of concepts such as life/death. How then would the mother ask their opinion?
Defending the underdog, presumably by removing the right to choose- you, as a man, are presumably the 'bigger, stronger group' in relation to women. And you are inflicting your opinions on those who might not want to hear them. Ever thought that some smaller, weaker groups might not want your 'defending'?
4: There is something referred to as 'the abortion pill' by some, the 'morning after' pill by most. It can now be got from chemists in this country (UK), some think this is deeply wrong. It's taken up to 3 days after unprotected sex. Do you think this is wrong? It's just a 'bunch of cells' and certainly has no personality. No thought, either. Your criteria for existing seem to be thought and personality, which are both products of the mind/brain (I'm a dualist, personally.) So the bunch of cells would have to develop a brain before it was human, right? such a thing would not exist in this case.
5: Woman who was carrying octuplets. She refused to have any of them aborted, despite great concern for her/their health (some say for financial gain, but I refrain from judging on that issue) and all eight of them died. Well?
6: Contraception. Is that wrong, in that it denies a possible life any chance?
7: Spontaneous abortion. Foetal absorption.
8: How awful must it be to have a child who you know can only live for, say, 10 years- you get to know them, can keep them for a decade, then they're gone. Better to save both them and their family the upset. Imagine how they'd feel having 10 years of life and knowing that's it. (It'd be difficult to keep that from them.)
9: Off that issue now. I'm white, but I don't look it. Described variously as 'Polynesian', 'Chinese', 'from the Subcontinent', 'Mexican' etc. If any of these areas were under suspicion, would it be right for me to be likewise suspect?
10: Religion. Are all religions other than Christianity wrong? (I'm non-specific pagan so they're all valid to me. I have found the majority of Christians I have met- not to say the whole- to be ignorant, intolerant and narrow-minded. ('Cept for Theory, who is a sweetie.) I'll respect yours if you respect mine.)
11: you state that whatever you do is irrelevent since you've accepted Jesus etc. So you can do every forbidden thing and that's alright? Personally I'd agree with the 'other Christians' who believe in loss of salvation. Following this opt-out policy, would you accept the theory of the Elect and the Reprobate? I would not like to be in your Heaven if the only criteria is accepting Jesus and not necessarily living a Christian life.
12: Statistically, the death penalty has no effect on crime figures whatsoever, however way you look at it, so it's no deterrent. It costs more to execute someone than to keep them incarcerated for life.
13: Following your Introductory statements, usually those who are Republican/anti-choice/pro-death penalty/basic Christians are also against the following: single parents (especially mothers), homosexuality and sex outside marriage. The latter I have no specific issue with provided it's not inflicted on me, which unfortunately it is. Often.
so...
maybe you should move, it's not good to live where everyone is either a yay-sayer or too dim to disagree with you. Not healthy.

fadge.... ignore one of those. But only one, mind.

Hello, Mandragora... nice to be acknowledged.

My 'bunch of cells' argument? That's what foetuses are. Cells only become muscles and organs and tissues and systems through the process of differentiation - all the body's cells start out identical, as 'stem cells': these are generic cell types that can become a nerve cell, a muscle cell, a skin cell, etc. depending on the stimulus. I know a lot of people have taken issue with this, but unfortunately, it's true - the foetus is a parasite. It hijacks the mother's resources and diverts them to its own ends. Ever wondered why so many women end up with dental problems after pregnancy? All her calcium was being used by the foetus to make its bones and teeth. As for *why* the foetus is actually a parasite, it's quite simple - it is a foreign body within the mother. She has to supress her immune system to prevent her body from rejecting it. Don't believe me? Look at all the problems of mothers and babies with opposing rhesus qualities in their blood. As far as humanity is concerned? I don't think it's something given to a being who has a certain genetic make-up. It's something else - something in the mind, born from experience - experience that an early term lump of cells doesn't have. Look at chimpanzees - 99% of their DNA is the same as a human's. Now look at someone with Down's Syndrome - they have trisomy on chromosome 21 (they have three copies of this chromosome, rather than the usual two). If we say that it's genetic make-up that makes someone human, then someone with Down's Syndrome would count as being 'less human' than a chimpanzee, because their genetic structure is by definition less than 99% similar to that of the average human being. This is obviously a load of rubbish - a person with Down's Syndrome is as human as anyone else. And why? Because they have a mind, with human experience.

Hi, Mandragora

Please excuse the tardiness of this reply.

"If you live somewhere that tempts you to be racist, shouldn't you move?"

I wish I could. I'm only sixteen. In a few more years, I'll be outta here.

"Also, would you ever consider adopting an unwanted totally disabled child?"

Absolutely. and I say that with complete sincerity. You may not be willing to raise such a child, but there are people out there who don't care whether a child is disabled or not. They love him or her anyway.

"How's your stance on euthanasia- should a terminally ill person who is aware of the degeneration of their body but unable to stop it not be allowed to end their life easily, simply because suffering is somehow 'better'?"

It's a difficult issue. My main bone to pick with euthanasia is that it is often performed on people who still have several years to live. I also think that a lot of old folks would be pressured into an early death, partly because they feel they are a bother, and sometimes they are actually urged by their younger family members.

"There is no proof that babies, foetuses, bunches of cells etc. have 'personalities' in the womb."

I take this a proof that you have never carried a child. Some babies are rather rambucious in the womb. Some are more calm. The baby has brain waves, can get excited (heart rate speeds up, etc.), and is growing a maturing every minute.

"Of course they grow- so do ears."

I like my ears. My ears are important to me. I wouldn't cut my ears off.

"You ask anyone with a relatively normal life, "Would you rather be alive than dead?" and see what the answer is."

Some people wish they were dead. The point is, babies don't have a choice. If you think dying will help them avoid a lousy life, why not let them decide for themselves?

"Certain disabilities would remove the individual's understanding of concepts such as life/death."

How true. But that doesn't give us the right to make the decision for them. Out of curiosity, why do you assume that anyone with a disability will lead a horrid life?

"Defending the underdog, presumably by removing the right to choose- you, as a man, are presumably the 'bigger, stronger group' in relation to women."

I don't think men are the "bigger, stronger group. Do you? And I'm not out to take away your right to chose, just giving children the right to chose.

"There is something referred to as 'the abortion pill' by some, the 'morning after' pill by most."

Sorry, it's no different than an abortion. I believe life begins at conception. Regarding the expression, "bunch of cells", I'd like you to examine what you are. You are a bunch of cells. My criteria for life is potential. Sperm, by itself, has no potential You can put it in any kind of environment, but it won't change a whole lot. An egg is the same. But if you unite these, then, given the right environment (the womb), it will grow on it's own. It has the potential to become something better than what it is.

"Contraception."

I have no problem with that. As I explained before, I don't regard sex cells to be separate life forms.

"How awful must it be to have a child who you know can only live for, say, 10 years- you get to know them, can keep them for a decade, then they're gone."

But what a sweet ten years it would be.

"If any of these areas were under suspicion, would it be right for me to be likewise suspect?"

I hope not. But I'm not sure how you're going to get rid of the prejudices engrained in the minds of those guarding airports.

"Are all religions other than Christianity wrong?"

Yes. I'm not going to split hairs on this one. It is irrational to think that all religions are true. Religions contradict each other. How can there be both polytheism and monotheism?

I must go, but I enjoyed your thoughts and will respond to you other comments as soon as possible.

(even longer post! I got carried away.)
OK Josh, thanks.
I didn't expect you to be able to move, chap- just that it's not a good idea to live somewhere unhealthy. I live in a very small-minded place- not racist, but just rather closed... aesthetically displeasing, too. Can't wait to go somewhere prettier.

I don't care if a child is disabled or not, no way- I was just testing your convictions. I admire you for that, since a lot of people with similar views would say 'I'd love to but I can't' i.e. they wouldn't. Nice to see you're consistent.
I support only voluntary euthanasia, in that the person themselves makes the choice. Or makes provisions for it before they lose the faculty to do it themselves. They may have several years to live in theory, but those years may involve great pain and to be honest if I were unable to accomplish anything, and if I was confined to a useless body yet still had my mind, that would be the worst thing. (btw Stephen Hawking was not born disabled but got motor neurone disease; he's still functional. So if I were in that position I'd be happy with it, but if I were totally gone I'd want to end it.) Anyone who pressures a relative into early death is a bit of a scoundrel, really... I doubt this happens as often as the media makes out, anyway. Rarely ever does. If euthanasia is legal, or at least permitted, by the time I'm likely to die (average lifespan, not accounting for accidentos bizarros that is) I will have provisions made. Such things could be made exploit-proof. No one would be euthanised for simply being old.
Nope, I haven't dropped sprogs yet... but then, you never will. Simply because a baby, or foetus, moves in a certain way is not indicative of its personality- also, the legal limit for abortion is set when the foetus is still undeveloped and thus cannot be felt. Besides, corpses move! and they're not alive. Does that mean that people who were rambunctious (great word!) in life will make excitable bodies? Beyond the basic emotions, which may be present to more-or-less degrees, no newborns I've encountered really have much of a personality until they've been around for a few months.
Foetuses (foeti?) may get excited, in the same way that particles do. Both respond to heat, for instance.
The point about the ears was to counteract your (apparent) argument for foetuses being on the same level as babies because they grow. I'd be happy to have my ear removed if it were, say, cancerous and therefore dangerous to my own health... or if they were of such a comically huge size that they hindered everyday life.
Aye, some people wish they were dead. I did once. If I were given the understanding necessary to grasp the concept of life/death at a pre-aware state, and knew that I would have to go through life with a condition that would keep me constantly in great pain and render me unable to do anything for myself, I would rather not exist. That is honestly how I feel. But the foetus does not have that awareness, so you cannot ask it. Once they are born: if you asked me that question and I was able to answer, then obviously I'd have a functional mind and therefore prefer to be alive. But there are some conditions that would make me think I'd be better off dead.
Certain disabilities, you agree, would remove such an understanding. Your point was, they should always be asked if they should be killed. I was saying that this is not always possible and therefore answering this point.
Nowhere and in no way do I suggest that a disabled person will have a horrid life, because this is obviously not true. Like I said, though, there are conditions and situations that I would rather be dead than suffer from or be in- ones which would limit my quality of life to the extent that it would be nonexistant.
Men are the bigger, stronger group in society. Generally it is men who control more (capital, property etc.), earn more, have more authority in society/the workplace (based on m/f ratios etc.) and, although not exclusively, it's usually men who beat women up. If, as you seem to be suggesting, men and women are equal and as such there is no bigger, stronger group, why do we need feminism? or constant pushes for better equality? Men still are the more powerful and as such will tend to exert their influence over women where it's not needed. Personally I think that it's a woman's decision entirely. Admittedly, it is a shared responsibility, but like contraception (good threads on that at the moment) the consequences for women are much more drastic. Just like it's ultimately a woman's decision to go on the pill or not.
Morning-after pill: this makes me wonder how much you actually know about female physiology. If you believe that life begins at conception, i.e. the moment the sperm/egg fuse, that doesn't take place in the womb. That is also not its right environment. If it's been fertilised- and therefore, to you, is alive- it will implant itself in the womb, but that can be up to 7 days afterwards. And this 'life' can exist in the wrong environment, as an ectopic pregnancy which implants in the Fallopian tube. These pregnancies can never survive and if allowed to develop sufficiently, cause great pain and eventually death to the mother. That isn't a baby, it's a dangerous parasite, and they are always removed with no qualms whatsoever. Yet according to you, that's life and should be respected just as much as if it were a living person.
Bearing this in mind I would like to know your definition of conception.
It would be an awful ten years! Both parents, family, friends and the child itself- who would have an understanding of its condition since, by your terms and mine, it would be unfair to keep it in ignorance- counting the days until it died. Forget the child itself for a moment and think about the parents' situation. It would drive me close to suicide, and then for the rest of my life I'd feel guilty that I didn't spare it and those around me such agony. Even if you did keep it blissfully unknowing, there wouldn't be much quality of life for its family.
I notice that in your answer to the idea that adoption isn't always viable, you simply state that there are 'always options besides abortion'. Mind listing them? otherwise, that isn't an argument.
If those guarding airports are visually racist, they should lose their jobs. That's how I'd deal with it. You seemed to be siding with the idea of suspicion based on looks, apologies if that's incorrect.
Why is it irrational to think that all religions are true? Most of them share central beliefs. Many religions afford equal status to others on the grounds that as long as you're not doing wrong, where's the problem? The 'You don't worship my god- destroy' argument always seemed to be rooted in territorial name-calling.
Polytheistic/monotheistic religions- are you saying Christianity is the only monotheistic religion? seems to be your criteria for distinguishing between it and the rest. Most male-orientated religions are monotheistic, and as such is it so hard to accept that Allah/God/Yahweh/Jehovah and all his many names are just different titles?
And you can have agreement with polytheists. I afford equal credence to your God, I just don't worship him. Jesus had the right idea, though. I couldn't care less whether he was the Son of God or merely a trendy rabbi with a penchant for crowd-pleasing because either way he got his message across. It's just that where you see the manifestation of the Divine as an omnipotent etc. man in your own image, I see it in nature, chemical reactions, chaos etc. I was discussing my thoughts on this with The Theory, who said (s?)he couldn't not look at living things and see God in them. I said I just cut out the middle-man by seeing nature itself and all that goes with it as worthy of praise. Ultimately I think all religions are based on anthropomorphism because it's easier to think of the Divine in terms of your own kind. For instance, the cycle of the seasons in terms of a sacrificial God and His Wife/Mother makes a much better story.
As for contradictions, Christians contradict each other. Kill each other, even. Schisms galore! The Bible contradicts itself. Does it make it any less valued to its public? course not.
Question I have never received a satisfactory answer to. If accepting Jesus is the only way to salvation, what happened to all those who were died before his time? Honestly, just curious.
If I accept your right to worship the way you want and think your religion is just as viable as my faith (not a religion, since there's no dogma beyond 'Harm none, do what you will'), why can you not afford the same respect to me? also when you realise I'm not for converting, do you leave off? Personally I wouldn't want just anyone in my faith, i.e. those with an incomplete understanding of it who do it because they've either had it forced on them or think they should.
btw. how do you feel about the fact most Christians are ignorant of the pagan origins of their own festivals? Most think we are 'devil worshippers'. I don't believe in the devil, i.e an evil presence who is the cause of all upset. I think only people are the cause of evil, and it's our responsibility to do good also. I think crying 'the Devil made me do it!' is a bit of a cop-out... like saying God worked through you to make you do a good thing is denying the fact that we choose to do good.
Take all the major Christian festivals (now obviously I'm most familiar with the CofE since that's where I live, or 16th century Catholicism and the Reformation since I studied it. ps. I'd like an answer on the Elect/Reprobate question.)
Christian festivals and Sabbats/Esbats:
- Starting with Xmas: 25th December. Birth of Christ, the Light.
-Yule, the Winter Solstice: 21-23 December. Birth of the Sun, return of the Light.
-Candlemas: 2nd February.
-Imbolc, or Brigid: 1st February. Ewes would start giving milk again around this time, hence signifies renourishment and coming of spring etc. Luvly.
-Easter: never remember when this is, moveable feast. Around March/April, a whole week of resurrection fun. -Eostar, the Spring Equinox: 21-23 March. Named after a Teutonic Goddess of Spring, this is when life comes back to the earth etc. In this resurrection myth it's a Persephone-like goddess who returns to life. Eggs!Also close to the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25.
-May Day: 1 May. Celebrated in villages by little children.
-Beltane, May Eve: 30 April/1 May. Fertility, basically. This is where the weather gets warm enough to go and muck about outside, this year I'll be celebrating by going outside, enjoying the sun, going 'Ooh, look at the flowers', troughing cakes, singing, working on my tan, and doing madcap stuff. Basically you make it up yourself. (We do get sun in England sometimes- it's gorgeous at the moment, but probably considered cool in the States.)
-Midsummer, the Longest Day. 22 June.
-Litha, the Summer Solstice: 21-23 June. Longest day! From hereon in the sun will diminish and leave, goin' undaground to gather strength in the dark part of the year.
-Lammas/Harvest Festival: 1 August. Give thanks for the year's harvest, little children give canned goods to old people's homes, etc.
-Lughnasadh: 1 August. Sacrifice of the God, death of the Sun, so life will go into the grain and be consumed. Well, it has to happen sometime. Very Communion-style.
-Michaelmas Day.
-Autumn Equinox or Mabon: 21-23 September. Balanced light & dark, prepare for the darker months.
-All Hallow's Eve/Hallowe'en: 31 October. Feast of All Saints when evil things are banished. Not, as some suggest, a 'Satanic' invention. Also All Souls', Nov. 2nd.
-Samhain: 31 October/1 November. Festival of the Returning Dead, mischief and comedy. Not violent, malicious or cruel, definately not Satanic. Closer to Day of the Dead.

there, just thought you might find it relevent. Interesting certainly. Not that I think Christians have any less right to celebrate certain pivotal seasonal events- sad that some of them miss the actual meaning though. (And it's a lot easier to convert a population when the festivals are basically unchanged, eh?

-See you about.

Question I have never received a satisfactory answer to. If accepting Jesus is the only way to
salvation, what happened to all those who were died before his time? Honestly, just curious.

Strictly speaking? They went to Hell. However, according to 'Paradise Lost' and Dante's 'Circles of Hell', after his crucifixion, Jesus performed the 'Scouring of Hell', in which he brought up all the good souls (like Moses, Isiah, etc.) who'd gone to Hell because they were before Jesus' time. Reading James Joyce is a good way of getting familiar with the ins and outs of Christianity - well, Roman Catholicism at least. Like limbo - all children who died before they were baptised stayed in limbo, separate from heaven, hell and purgatory, but were still denied the possibility of being bathed in the glory of God because of original sin. They decided that limbo didn't exist in the 20th Century, though.

If I accept your right to worship the way you want and think your religion is just as viable as my faith
(not a religion, since there's no dogma beyond 'Harm none, do what you will'),

It is, really - Buddhism says that: 'Seek thine own salvation with diligence'. Okay, technically Buddhism is more philosophy than religion, since there is no worship of a divine being - or worship of anyone, done properly. I'm not a 'real' Buddhist, most would say - I carry out all the Taoist ceremonies because of the cultural element.

Your religion sounds sensible, Mandragora.

Scouring of Hell- sounds like bad planning.

So does yours (religion, sensible etc.- not bad planning.) I always liked the kind where there was individual responsibility. Credit where it's due, and all.

They're all like that - Islam has an ethos much the same - 'Trust in God and look after your camels' - ie, it's all well and good believing in divine intervention, but it's just as well to be sensible. Ditto Christianity - 'God helps those who help themselves'.

...in which case, Josh, I'll help meself thanks.

I appreciate the bit on pagan holidays and Christianity. This shows that one does not have to give up his or her culture to become a Christian. However, clinging to your old gods and old religion demonstrates a severe lack of faith.

I would encourage both of you to pick up a copy of George MacDonald's short essay entitled, "Life". His "Universe" and "Everything" are still pending. Anyway, it's about euthanasia, and, though it's about 150 years old, it is extremely prophetic. It speaks of an old man who wishes he were dead. But MacDonald argues that what this man really wants not death, but more life. Death, he says, is not rest. More life is the unconscious cry of all creation. It's an interesting philosophy which he justifies much better than I do.

Now, on this business of all religions being true, I still don't see how you could possibly believe that. At the core of religion is the state of man. Christians believe that humanity is hopelessly doomed without God. Muslims believe that Adam and Eve were forgiven for their sin right after they ate the fruit, so as long as we stay pretty close to what God wants, we're okay. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism all believe in one final afterlife, but Buddhism and Hinduism say we're reincarnated several times over. These are things that can't be reconciled unless one religion gives something up, which may certainly happen with some of the other religions, but not Christianity.

Religion is man's attempts to get to God, but Christianity teaches that we can't get to God, but that God can to us in the form of Jesus to save us. These two philosophies are in stark contrast. It's easy to say that everything is true so I can do whatever I want or nothing is true, so I'll pick the best lie, but the fact is, there is only one truth.

B.C.
Before Jesus, the Jews sacrificed sheep for atonement. This was insufficient, though. A perfect, final sacrifice was needed, and Jesus was this sacrifice.

"The Bible contradicts itself."
Care to give an example or two? I've found most "contradictions" in the Bible are easily and rationally explained.