| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"david ford" |
| Date: |
09 Mar 2005 04:12:13 PM |
| Object: |
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
partial-birth abortions?
infanticide?
involuntary euthanasia?
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Weikart, Richard. 2004. _From Darwin to Hitler:
Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in Germany_
(USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp. About Weikart's
book:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
On 76:
Haeckel and many other German Darwinists fought
incessantly against all dualistic views of humans, which
endued human life with much greater value than
animals. For Haeckel and most German Darwinists,
humans were not much different from animals, and they
often criticized Christians and other dualists for insisting
on significant qualitative distinctions between humans
and animals.^13
On 90:
Haeckel regularly marshaled Darwinian arguments in
support of inegalitarianism. In _The Natural History of
Creation_ (1868) he explained that
_between the most highly developed animal soul and the
least developed human soul there exists only a small
quantitative, but no qualitative difference_, and that this
difference is much less, than the difference between the
lowest and the highest human souls, or as the difference
between the highest and lowest animal souls.^3
Dawkins, Richard. 2003. _A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections
on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love_ (USA: Houghton Mifflin
Company), 263pp. A paragraph on 26:
I have argued that the discontinuous gap between
humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is
regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the
present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the
result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of
survival and extinction had been different, the gap
would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are
based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as
if cast in stone.
Williams, George C. 1997. _The Pony Fish's Glow: And
Other Clues to Plan and Purpose in Nature_ (USA:
BasicBooks), 184pp. On 155-6:
Our experience of human life histories today, with the
great majority of our babies surviving to adulthood, is
grossly abnormal.
.... The infanticide I mentioned is not a social pathology
found only in abnormal circumstances. It is prevalent
today in diverse human cultures, including some that we
might not think of as primitive; it is widespread in a large
proportion of the animal kingdom; and it is entirely to
be expected from what we know of evolution. These
assertions are abundantly documented in the technical
literature of anthropology and biology, and infanticide is
just one small detail of a monstrous picture. Mountains
of data on parasitism and predation (including
cannibalism) in nature could be amassed to document
the enormity of the pain and mayhem that arise from
adaptations produced by natural selection.
.... This [just-described explanation] is why infanticide
is adaptive for the male [monkey].
A paragraph on 160:
The only realistic view is that a human life arises
gradually. A child’s acquisition of speech, and use of it
to convey ideas to others, is perhaps the most obvious
indication of this process. This gradualism is not much
help in making personal decisions or devising public
policy. We want clear and simple rules as guides for
human behavior and the recognition of who should be
accorded human rights. The recognition of full
humanity in a full-term newborn would be one such
simple rule. I am not inclined to argue that it is the best
possible, but it makes more sense than any recognition
of fetal rights. All the usual arguments for rights before
birth are based either on an untenable biological
definition of humanity or on fetal behavioral
attainments. The observable capabilities of a human
fetus can all be matched in other mammals at
comparable stages of development.
1995 Dennett: "Darwinian thinking helps us see why the
traditional hope of solving these problems (finding a moral
algorithm) is forlorn"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0408021033.78218bde%40posting.google.com
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
Convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual
activity of many varieties.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Secular humanism has everything to do with abortion and
euthanasia.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161826.47fa8898%40posting.google.com
Haeckel's influence on many Germans as with Goldschmidt,
in 1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo
depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407271740.7ae3b80b%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 05:30:56 AM |
|
|
In article <dford3-399aluF5uql89U1@individual.net>,
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
Objectively, there isn't. So what? That doesn't mean that humans
shouldn't value their fellow humans, does it?
You want to complain about people who don't value human life, go comlain
to the rich who call us "human resources" or "headcount." Go talk to the
politicians who use numbers to hide the humanity of the people from
their decision making. If you want to call a group of people "heartless"
because they think humans are disposable, talk t the corprate heads who
do cost-benefit analyses to decide if fixing a product defect will cost
more than the lawsuits that will come becuse of deaths and injuries
their defects will cause.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 12:38:33 PM |
|
|
John Drayton wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<dford3-3a955qF684ll1U1@individual.net>...
Frank J wrote:
david ford wrote:
Frank J wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
Just a note on this. But there is a qualitative difference between
humans and animals.
What is that qualitative difference?
(snip)
Just as I said. One is a species, the other, a kingdom.
Is there a qualitative difference between humans and lab rats?
Sure. There's lots.
For eg, lab rats' front limbs are adapted for locomotion,
while humans' are adapted for grasping and manipulating.
Is there a qualitative difference between:
a human without arms, and a rat without "front limbs"?
Do you think that there is such a thing as a human life not worth living?
If "yes," what are some of these sorts of human lives you think are not
worth living?
Do you think Stephen Hawking's life is not worth living?
Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's life is not worth living?
Which makes me wonder, how are you managing to type?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Drayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
28 Mar 2005 06:03:25 AM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message news:<dford3-3adrcsF675r4kU4@individual.net>...
John Drayton wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:<dford3-3a955qF684ll1U1@individual.net>...
Frank J wrote:
david ford wrote:
Frank J wrote:
david ford wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
Just a note on this. But there is a qualitative difference between
humans and animals.
What is that qualitative difference?
(snip)
Just as I said. One is a species, the other, a kingdom.
Is there a qualitative difference between humans and lab rats?
Sure. There's lots.
For eg, lab rats' front limbs are adapted for locomotion,
while humans' are adapted for grasping and manipulating.
Is there a qualitative difference between:
a human without arms, and a rat without "front limbs"?
Sure. A human without arms can walk whereas a rat
without front limbs can't.
Do you think that there is such a thing as a human life not worth living?
What does this have to do with evolutionary theory?
My personal answer would be that the only life I could
possibly answer that question for is my own.
If "yes," what are some of these sorts of human lives you think are not
worth living?
Do you think Stephen Hawking's life is not worth living?
You'd have to ask him. He seems to think so.
Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's life is not worth living?
Is she not brain dead?
I've answered some questions of yours, here's some of mine:
Do you think scientific theories answer moral questions?
If a person or persons attempt to use a scientific theory
to justify an act of immorality, does that make the
scientific theory incorrect?
Should you lie about such atheory to suppress it?
If a person or persons attempt to use a religion to justify
an act of immorality, does that make the religion incorrect?
Should you lie about such a religion to suppress it?
Which makes me wonder, how are you managing to type?
--
John Drayton
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mitchell Coffey" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 01:05:45 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:12:13 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
1. Why, in your opinion, was Krystal Nacht held on Luther's birthday?
a. If you didn't know, why not?
2. You live in a county that in the 1960s had to be forced by the
courts to integrate its schools.
a. What if anything did adult members of your church do to fight
racial segregation in the 1960s?
b. In case you ask, many members of my temple were active in the
civil rights movement, locally and elsewhere. Several got their heads
beaten by the police for their efforts, in deep South locals that
forbade the teaching of evolution.
c. Why do you think it was in the 1960s that states with official
segregation and official bans on interracial marriage were almost to
the one states with official bans on teaching evolution?
d. Why was it South Africa under apartheid banned the teaching of
evolution?
e. Why did most American large, nationally organized Protestant
churches (e.g., Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian) divide over the
first half of the 19th century into two organizations, over issues of
slavery?
By the way, I won't accept your standard argument that, because you
are ignorant about how other people arrive at their ethical beliefs,
you don't have to defend your claims.
Mitchell Coffey
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
10 Mar 2005 12:01:42 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:12:13 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And would your answer change if you were transsexual lesbian?
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
This Haeckel seems like more of a philosopher than a scientist which
explains why I have barely heard of him. I have a basic distrust of
this profession and eugenics is a good reason why. The concept of
social Darwinism is based on ignorance of both Darwinian evolution and
society.
Whether you like Haeckel or not, he is right about us being animals.
What Haeckel fails to mention (or you fail to quote) is that we are
social animals who depend on each other for survival. That means that
I, as a human, naturally distinguish between humans who may assist me
in survival and other animals which may be food or pests or threats.
In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of behavior
which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
"Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a social animal, I
recognize the importance of ethical behavior. As an atheist, I reject
the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as "pre-dead?"
partial-birth abortions?
Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
infanticide?
No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of orphans
who are not adopted.
involuntary euthanasia?
If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a conscious
individual, I am opposed. And I support universal health care to
provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who is in a
persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement. We have too
many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
hopeless cases.
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:29:19 PM |
|
|
satyr wrote:
On Wed 9 Mar 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
If you were in Germany
a) in the 1890s, and
b) in the 1930s,
would you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And would your answer change if you were transsexual lesbian?
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
And on what basis?
This Haeckel seems like more of a philosopher than a scientist which
explains why I have barely heard of him.
11. Perhaps now is a good time to learn more about him.
Haeckel's influence on many Germans as with Goldschmidt,
in 1983 Bruce Alberts; Haeckel's fraudulent embryo
depictions; 1956 Goldschmidt
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-38m3vrF5o7bk2U1%40individual.net
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407271740.7ae3b80b%40posting.google.com
Dobzhansky, 1900 Haeckel ("the law of the persistence of matter and
force; that law knows nothing of a beginning"), and 1987 Dawkins reject
the position that intelligent design is responsible for common descent
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0401311740.48df353%40posting.google.com
I have a basic distrust of
this profession and eugenics is a good reason why.
12. Which profession-- philosophy? zoology?
The concept of
social Darwinism is based on ignorance of both Darwinian evolution and
society.
13. Meaning of "evolution"?
Do you agree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals?
Whether you like Haeckel or not, he is right about us being animals.
What Haeckel fails to mention (or you fail to quote) is that we are
social animals who depend on each other for survival. That means that
I, as a human, naturally distinguish between humans who may assist me
in survival and other animals which may be food or pests or threats.
14. Do you "distinguish between humans who may assist" you and humans
incapable of helping you? If "yes":
what is your attitude toward the killing of humans incapable of helping
you-- indifference?
Terri Schindler Schiavo is incapable of helping you. Do you oppose, or
are you OK with, the removal of her food and hydration/ water?
Some documents about her are at
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
25 Mar 2005 05:58:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:29:19 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
satyr wrote:
On Wed 9 Mar 2005 david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote:
This Haeckel seems like more of a philosopher than a scientist which
explains why I have barely heard of him.
11. Perhaps now is a good time to learn more about him.
Why? Are eugenics and nazism making a comeback?
I have a basic distrust of
this profession and eugenics is a good reason why.
12. Which profession-- philosophy? zoology?
Philosophy.
The concept of
social Darwinism is based on ignorance of both Darwinian evolution and
society.
13. Meaning of "evolution"?
Do you agree with Haeckel's view that there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals?
Well, as I said in the very next sentence:
Whether you like Haeckel or not, he is right about us being animals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What Haeckel fails to mention (or you fail to quote) is that we are
social animals who depend on each other for survival. That means that
I, as a human, naturally distinguish between humans who may assist me
in survival and other animals which may be food or pests or threats.
14. Do you "distinguish between humans who may assist" you and humans
incapable of helping you? If "yes":
what is your attitude toward the killing of humans incapable of helping
you-- indifference?
That is pretty much the case in Christian America. All these Bible
thumpers up in arms over Terri Schiavo but they don't give a rat's *****
about what is going on in Sudan. Do you?
Terri Schindler Schiavo is incapable of helping you. Do you oppose, or
are you OK with, the removal of her food and hydration/ water?
That was spooky. I actually wrote the Terri Schiavo comment before I
read your reference to her. So, when searching our brains (you know,
the thing that Terri doesn't got no more) to come up with an example
of "indifference toward the killing of humans incapable of helping
you" I come up with Darfur and you come up with Schiavo. Classic.
Thanks for playing.
Some documents about her are at
http://www.hospicepatients.org/terri-schindler-schiavo-docs-links-page.html
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:37:04 PM |
|
|
satyr wrote:
[snip-- replied to]
In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of behavior
which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
"Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a social animal, I
recognize the importance of ethical behavior.
15. Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband engaged in "ethical
behavior" when he:
remained married to her while fathering 2 children with another woman?
pushes hard for her to die via starvation?
As an atheist, I reject
the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
16. In your view, what should be the "basis for our ethical laws"?
1976 Ronald Reagan on a "natural law"/ "higher law of morality"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0412021517.f5e01d1%40posting.google.com
1922 Max Nordau: "Good and bad.... are subject to the laws of evolution
in society and therefore in a constant state of flux"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0411271314.4b84581e%40posting.google.com
[Humanist Manifesto II, at
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html>]"THIRD: We
affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.
Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or
ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."
[Humanist Manifesto III, at
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/3/HumandItsAspirations.htm>]"The
lifestance of Humanism-- guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and
informed by experience-- encourages us to live life well and fully. It
evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts
of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however
carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and
understandings advance."
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as "pre-dead?"
17. If you like.
partial-birth abortions?
Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
18. Interesting. Upon what basis/ grounds do you think there exists a
"right to abortion"?
infanticide?
No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of orphans
who are not adopted.
19. Upon what basis do you oppose infanticide?
involuntary euthanasia?
If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a conscious
individual, I am opposed.
20. Upon what basis? (By 'involuntary euthanasia,' I mean 'in the
absence of the expressed consenting will of the human most directly
affected.')
And I support universal health care to
provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
21. Do you support or oppose the removal of food and hydration from
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who is in a
persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement. We have too
many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
hopeless cases.
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
22. Upon what basis?
.
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
25 Mar 2005 06:55:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 20:37:04 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
satyr wrote:
[snip-- replied to]
In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of behavior
which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
"Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a social animal, I
recognize the importance of ethical behavior.
15. Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband engaged in "ethical
behavior" when he:
remained married to her while fathering 2 children with another woman?
pushes hard for her to die via starvation?
As an atheist, I reject
the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
16. In your view, what should be the "basis for our ethical laws"?
Equity, fairness, personal freedom, public health and safety. These
and more must be carefully weighed when making laws.
[Humanist Manifesto II, at
<http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html>]"THIRD: We
affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience.
Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or
ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."
If I have to choose from among your quotes, I like this one best.
human need and interest ~= Equity, fairness, personal freedom, public
health and safety.
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as "pre-dead?"
17. If you like.
partial-birth abortions?
Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
18. Interesting. Upon what basis/ grounds do you think there exists a
"right to abortion"?
Personal freedom: it's her body. Equity: we have never recognized the
"preborn predead" as persons. Public health and safety: unwanted
pregnancy is very stressful and studies suggest unwanted children end
up causing a lot of crime.
infanticide?
No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of orphans
who are not adopted.
19. Upon what basis do you oppose infanticide?
Personal freedom: the postborn predead is now a person. Equity:
birth has always been recognized in our society as the beginning of
life.
involuntary euthanasia?
If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a conscious
individual, I am opposed.
20. Upon what basis? (By 'involuntary euthanasia,' I mean 'in the
absence of the expressed consenting will of the human most directly
affected.')
If the individual is conscious, he gets to choose. If he is
unconscious but previously expressed wishes, they should be followed
to the extent possible. If he is unconscious and no preference had
been expressed, then next-of-kin should make the decision. Of course
the Doctors are forbidden to do anything outside the bounds of medical
ethics.
And I support universal health care to
provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
21. Do you support or oppose the removal of food and hydration from
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
It is not my decision to make. However, if it were my decision it
would have been done long ago. What a waste. What an indignity. The
human part of Terri is dead. All that is left is a damaged reptilian
brain. Read this, you might learn something:
http://www.crystalinks.com/reptilianbrain.html
If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who is in a
persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement. We have too
many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
hopeless cases.
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
22. Upon what basis?
Equity and naked self interest. I want those rights for me so I grant
them to you.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 07:07:25 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
satyr wrote:
[snip-- replied to]
In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of
behavior
which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
"Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a social
animal, I
recognize the importance of ethical behavior.
15. Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband engaged in
"ethical
behavior" when he:
remained married to her while fathering 2 children with another
woman?
pushes hard for her to die via starvation?
What does this have to do with evolutionary science?
For the record, her husband learned nursing so he could help care for
her and avoid the development of bedsores and other complications. He
flew her to California to try a new therapy. After 5 or 6 years,
Terry's parents gave their approval for him to start dating again. It
was only after he determined there was no hope for her, and decided to
pull the plug, as was her wish, that her parents turned hostile toward
him.
Not that any of this has anything to do with evolutionary science.
As an atheist, I reject
the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
16. In your view, what should be the "basis for our ethical laws"?
The short answer: ethics is how we treat other people.
Not who is on top when we have sex.
Not which drug we decide to get intoxicated with.
Not which day of the week we decide to take off.
Not whether women show their faces, or their ankles, or their boobs,
in public.
<snip>
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as
"pre-dead?"
17. If you like.
Do you support my daughter's right to vote as a pre-adult?
partial-birth abortions?
Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
18. Interesting. Upon what basis/ grounds do you think there exists
a
"right to abortion"?
Bizarre. Upon what grounds do you think you have the right to make a
woman have children? It's certainly not biblical.
infanticide?
No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of
orphans
who are not adopted.
19. Upon what basis do you oppose infanticide?
They are living human beings.
Why do you not oppose infanticcide?
involuntary euthanasia?
If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a
conscious
individual, I am opposed.
20. Upon what basis? (By 'involuntary euthanasia,' I mean 'in the
absence of the expressed consenting will of the human most directly
affected.')
Not clear enough.
Are they objecting? Or incapable of having any opinion?
You are a twisty little toad, David. It's obvious you are being as
ambiguous and misleading as possible, so as to get one of us to say
something which you can twist into some "representative Darwinist"
stance.
You are not trying to find out what any of us actually think about any
issues. You're like those slimy printer cartridge salesdroids that call
the office and try to get one of us to agree that "yes, we'd like to
save money" so they can get us on tape "agreeing" to their dishonest
sales pitch.
And I support universal health care to
provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
21. Do you support or oppose the removal of food and hydration from
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
I support an adult's right to choose; and I support traditional
marriage values - an adult should be able to choose another adult to
have power of attorney. Of either gender. Why don't you think a woman
should be able to choose a husband, who has long had this legal right?
If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who is in
a
persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement. We have
too
many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
hopeless cases.
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
22. Upon what basis?
It's wrong. Don't you know that?
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
22 Mar 2005 02:38:15 PM |
|
|
Kermit <unrestrained_hand@hotmail.com> wrote:
david ford wrote:
satyr wrote:
[snip-- replied to]
In order to exist in a community, we must have standards of
behavior
which we agree upon - what is permitted, what is not. As a
"Darwinist" (as you would no doubt refer to me) and a
social animal, I recognize the importance of
ethical behavior.
15. Do you think Terri Schindler Schiavo's
husband engaged in "ethical behavior" when he:
remained married to her while fathering 2 children
with another woman?
pushes hard for her to die via starvation?
What does this have to do with evolutionary science?
3. I don't know what you mean by "evolutionary science." To me, that
sounds strangely like behavioral science, Freudian psychological
analytic science, film criticism science, dialectical materialism
science, art decondadacriticism science, and hypertextual
innerinterelational cotranscongruent science.
Meaning of "evolutionary"?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-386md9F5lsv5cU1%40individual.net
Below:
1922 Nordau; 1976 Reagan; 1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope
slide from devaluing some human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to
mass killings
For the record, her husband learned nursing so he could help care for
her and avoid the development of bedsores and other complications. He
flew her to California to try a new therapy. After 5 or 6 years,
Terry's parents gave their approval for him to start dating again. It
was only after he determined there was no hope for her, and decided to
pull the plug, as was her wish, that her parents turned hostile toward
him.
4. When you say "pull the plug," that means 'remove food and water,'
yes? If "yes," how do you know it's Terri Schindler Schiavo's "wish" to
stop receiving food and water?
Do you give any credence to reports that Terri Schindler Schiavo made a
partially-successful attempt to say that she wanted to live?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/3/18/174428.shtml
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43383
Not that any of this has anything to do with evolutionary science.
As an atheist, I reject
the use of divine revelation as a basis for our ethical laws.
16. In your view, what should be the "basis for our ethical laws"?
The short answer: ethics is how we treat other people.
Not who is on top when we have sex.
Not which drug we decide to get intoxicated with.
Not which day of the week we decide to take off.
Not whether women show their faces, or their ankles, or their boobs,
in public.
5. You didn't answer my question of, What should be the "basis for our
ethical laws"?
Do you agree with this Nordau?:
Nordau, Max. 1922. _Morals and the Evolution of Man_ [trans. of
_Biologie und Ethik_] (London), 73. Cited in Weikart, Richard. 2004.
_From Darwin to Hitler: Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics, and Racism in
Germany_ (USA: Palgrave Macmillan), 312pp., 30. About Weikart's book:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407030531.19253d93%40posting.google.com
Good and bad.... derive not only their existence but their
measure and their significance from the views of the
community. They are therefore not absolute but variable;
they are not an immutable standard amid the ever-
changing conditions of humanity, a rule by which the
value of the actions and aims of mortals are indisputably
determined, but are subject to the laws of evolution in
society and therefore in a constant state of flux. At
different times and in different places they present the
most varied aspects. What is virtue here and now may
have been vice formerly and at another spot, and _vice
versa_.
<snip>
Do you support or oppose the right of medical personnel to
perform for the sake of convenience:
abortion/ fetuscide/ killing of pre-born human life?
Why stop at "pre-born?" Couldn't we all be referred to as
"pre-dead?"
17. If you like.
Do you support my daughter's right to vote as a pre-adult?
6. No.
Do you support your daughter's right to life?
Do you support pre-born humans' right to life?
Do you support pre-born humans' right to avoid being subjected to
dismemberment?
Which place do you think is a safer place to be:
a Los Angeles inner-city neighborhood, or
in a uterus in the United States?
partial-birth abortions?
Not a medical term, but I support a woman's right to abortion.
18. Interesting. Upon what basis/ grounds do you
think there exists a "right to abortion"?
Bizarre. Upon what grounds do you think you have the right to make a
woman have children? It's certainly not biblical.
7. I don't know what you mean by "biblical."
Upon what grounds do you think you have the right to prevent parents
from killing their own children?
infanticide?
No, I don't support that and I am willing to support care of
orphans who are not adopted.
19. Upon what basis do you oppose infanticide?
They are living human beings.
8. I'm in a room with a pregnant woman; there are 3 beating hearts in
the room. In your view, how many "living human beings" are in the room?
Why do you not oppose infanticcide?
involuntary euthanasia?
If by involuntary you mean against the expressed will of a
conscious individual, I am opposed.
20. Upon what basis? (By 'involuntary euthanasia,' I mean 'in the
absence of the expressed consenting will of the human most directly
affected.')
Not clear enough.
Are they objecting? Or incapable of having any opinion?
9. If a person is extremely young, or severely senile, insane, or
retarded, that person is incapable of even _understanding_ the following
questions:
Do you desire to continue living?
Do you desire to die and assume room temperature?
Do you wish to die by being processed through one of the mobile
asphyxiating and gassing vans that have stopped by?
The Einsatzgruppen has arrived-- would you mind if they put a bullet in
your head?
Would it be okay if diesel fumes were piped into the room in which
you've been placed?
Upon what basis do you oppose involuntary euthanasia, i.e., upon what
basis do you oppose euthanasia/killing of people that haven't consented
to being euthanized/killed?
You are a twisty little toad, David. It's obvious you are being as
ambiguous and misleading as possible, so as to get one of us to say
something which you can twist into some "representative Darwinist"
stance.
You are not trying to find out what any of us actually think about any
issues. You're like those slimy printer cartridge salesdroids that call
the office and try to get one of us to agree that "yes, we'd like to
save money" so they can get us on tape "agreeing" to their dishonest
sales pitch.
For some prominent Darwinists, including Haeckel, Dawkins, and Williams,
taking stands that downgrade the value of human life, see
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
And I support universal health care to
provide all reasonable measures to prolong and improve life.
21. Do you support or oppose the removal of food and hydration from
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
I support an adult's right to choose;
10. Do you support "an adult's right to choose" whether or not to:
kill their newborn child because they wanted a boy and not a girl (a
common practice in atheocratic China)?
keep a slave?
crash a passenger-laden jetliner?
Are you saying that Terri Schindler Schiavo has chosen to:
have food and water removed from her?
be starved to death?
(If "yes," how do you know that?)
and I support traditional
marriage values
11. Do you think homosexuals should be able to get married?
Do you think it's perfectly OK that Terri Schindler Schiavo's husband
fathered 2 children with another woman while still being married to
Terri Schindler Schiavo?
- an adult should be able to choose another adult to
have power of attorney. Of either gender. Why don't you think a woman
should be able to choose a husband, who has long had this legal right?
12. I'm not sure what "legal right" you are talking about. Are you
talking about a "legal right" to withhold food and water from someone in
your care, resulting in that person's death via starvation?
Speaking of killing via starvation:
[Smith]"Once the referees [in Germany] determined that the children were
eligible for euthanasia, they were killed either by intentional
starvation or an overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called
Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this butchery was 'treatment.'"
Speaking of "treatment":
1942 Heydrich: "The Jews... no doubt a large part of them will be
eliminated by natural diminution. The survivors, the hardiest among
them, must be given an appropriate treatment, because they represent a
natural selection...."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407032023.243f5883%40posting.google.com
If by involuntary you mean in the case of an individual who
is in a
persistent state of unconsciousness, then yes I would support
euthanasia if there is no reasonable hope of improvement.
We have too
many people who can benefit from medical care to waste money on
hopeless cases.
mass killings of middle-aged individuals?
Nope. Pretty much against involuntary killing of humans from the
moment of birth until they lose consciousness for the last time.
22. Upon what basis?
It's wrong. Don't you know that?
13. I'm all confused. I don't know what to think.
Do you agree or disagree with Reagan's allegation that there exists
some [Reagan]"natural law," some [Reagan]"higher law of morality"?
Reagan, Ronald. 1976, 1980. _Sincerely, Ronald Reagan_,
edited by Helene von Damm (New York: Berkley
Books), 224pp. A paragraph on 103-4:
I could not have worked in the motion picture industry
for most of my adult life and been a 'blue-nose' or prude.
Still I have to believe that all law is based on natural
law. On the higher law of morality we know that
premarital sex or promiscuity in our entire
Judeo-Christian tradition is a sin. Most of our common
law is based on this concept and belief. In recent years
an adult society has said to our young people in a
thousand different ways, including the classroom and
the lecture hall, that this concept has somehow become
outmoded and, therefore, sex ranks with the physical
appetites with no more importance assigned to it than
eating a ham sandwich when you're hungry. We have,
in fact, been preaching or at least accepting hedonism,
and not for the first time in man's history. The easy
way, of course, is to accept this as a new life-style and
adjust accordingly. The more difficult, but I believe
proper course dictated by the past, is to return to
standards we know are based on solid moral principles.
All of history proves that happiness is to be found by
following such moral precepts.
Do you think there exists some [Reagan]"natural law," some
[Nordau]"immutable standard amid the ever-changing conditions of
humanity," according to which torturing children in front of their
parents in order to extract confessions from the parents (which
Saddam's henchmen did) is "wrong"?
horrific brutality of the Saddam regime
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-37nm2uF5gqtjkU2%40individual.net
[Smith]"These ideas later came to haunt Hoche; he would turn against the
German euthanasia program-- even though much of its rationale derived
from his own writings-- after one of his relatives became a victim."
Of the people currently arguing for the euthanasia, how many are going
to be killed/ 'euthanized' when they become elderly?
How many of those currently arguing for euthanasia will have in future
years relatives of theirs being killed/ 'euthanized'?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Smith, Wesley J. 1997. _Forced Exit: The Slippery Slope from Assisted
Suicide to Legalized Murder_ (USA: Times Books), 291pp. Some highlights
from 69-81:
An ethical tug-of-war has emerged between those who
continue to hold to the equality-of-human-life ethic and
advocates who wish to replace it with a different, less
egalitarian approach, sometimes described
(euphemistically, in my opinion) as the "quality-of-life"
ethic. I prefer to call it "the death culture."
....
[a 1970 _California Medicine_ editorial]"The traditional
Western ethic has always placed great emphasis on the
intrinsic worth and equal value of every human life
regardless of its stage or condition.... This traditional
ethic is . . . being eroded at its core...." .... Others in
this century have walked this way, with disastrous
results....
Wicked ideas are hardest to detect in their own time, even
when they are variations on a theme that has been tried
before. For although there are many substantive
differences between the values that drove the earlier
German death culture and the ones emerging in our day, a
careful analysis of the _actions_ being advocated-- rather
than just the words used to promote those actions-- leads
to the uncomfortable inference that the differences are not
as profound as many would like to believe. ....
Euthanasia, in turn, led directly to the death camps of
Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Dachau, as, in the words of the
psychiatrist and Holocaust historian Robert Jay Lifton,
"the medicalization of killing" became "a crucial . . .
terrible step [toward] systemic genocide."^4 During
these six years [of 1939-45], doctors and nurses
intentionally killed more than 200,000 helpless people:
the cognitively or physically disabled, people with mental
disease, infants born with birth defects, the senile elderly,
even severely wounded German soldiers. German
euthanasia practices were the first movement of the
symphony of slaughter that took the lives of millions of
Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Communists, labor union
members, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics, and other
"undesirables" whose deaths we memorialize in the term
_Holocaust_.
The medical professionals who killed their own patients
did not act under duress, coercion, menace, or out of fear
for their own lives. They were not drafted into
performing euthanasia; they eagerly volunteered. "Those
responsible believed in the necessity of what they were
doing," writes Michael Burleigh of the London School of
Economics.^5 The historian and author Hugh Gregory
Gallagher, who has also written extensively about the
subject of the German euthanasia program, agrees,
stating, "German doctors were not coerced. In fact, it was
doctors who went to the government and suggested it, not
the other way around." .... This unethical approach to
the practice of medicine was already well developed in
Germany by the time Hitler came to power in 1933.
Indeed, euthanasia had been aggressively promoted as a
proper and ethical public policy by the German medical,
legal, and academic intelligentsia since the late nineteenth
century, when Hitler was a child.
The first notable advocate of euthanasia was Adolf Jost,
who publicized his ideas in _The Right to Death_,
published in 1895. .... Such was the social mood when,
in 1920, two venerable German professors published a
book on the subject of euthanasia: _Permitting the
Destruction of Life Not Worthy of Life_. .... One
enthusiastic reader of _Permitting the Destruction of Life
Not Worthy of Life_ was a young army veteran and
rabble-rouser named Adolf Hitler, who viewed the book
as in step with his own value system. Hitler was so taken
with Hoche's theories that he later allowed his name to be
used in connection with advertising the doctor's books.
.... Hoche put it this way: "I have discovered that the
average yearly (per head) cost for maintaining idiots has
till now been thirteen hundred marks.... If we assume an
average life expectancy of fifty years for individual cases,
it is easy to estimate what _incredible capital_ is
withdrawn from the nation's wealth for food, clothing,
and heating-- for an unproductive purpose" (emphasis in
original)." .... These ideas later came to haunt Hoche; he
would turn against the German euthanasia program--
even though much of its rationale derived from his own
writings-- after one of his relatives became a victim. ....
Eugenics was a profound violation of the equality-of-
human-life ethic and resulted in terrible oppression
wherever it found official acceptance. ....
When the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly enacted
laws authorizing involuntary sterilization. .... In the end,
it is estimated that up to 350,000 Germans were sterilized
in the years 1933-1945. ....
Well aware that the German public supported euthanasia,
the new Nazi government proposed to legalize the
practice in 1933. A front-page _New York Times_ article
described the proposal as making it possible for
physicians to end the tortures of incurable patients. ....
This legislation never became law because of an outcry
from the churches. But that did not stop the Nazi
government from campaigning to increase public support
for the killing of "useless eaters." .... Many doctors and
nurses came to accept the idea that they owed a
professional duty to the state as well as to their patients--
in their delivery of medical services. .... By 1938,
more than a year before the outbreak of actual hostilities,
an outpouring of requests from the relatives of severely
disabled infants and young children for permission to end
the lives of their little useless eaters was flowing to the
German government. .... That case came to their
attention in late 1938. A baby had been born with birth
defects: Baby Knauer was blind and had a leg and part of
an arm missing. The parents were distraught and,
accepting the general value system of their time, were
deeply ashamed to have brought a useless eater into the
world. They wrote requesting permission to have their
child "put to sleep." Hitler was quite interested in the
case and sent one of his personal physicians, Karl
Rudolph Brandt, to investigate. Brandt's instructions
from the Fuhrer were to verify the facts of the baby's
condition and, if true, to assure the child's doctors and her
parents that if she was killed, no one would face
punishment or liability. Brandt was then to witness the
euthanasia and report back to Hitler. The doctors in the
case who met with Brandt agreed that there was "no
justification for keeping the child alive," and Baby
Knauer soon became one of the first victims of the
Holocaust.^27 ....
In early 1939, children born with birth defects or with
congenital diseases began to be killed under the
euthanasia program. These unfortunate children were
admitted to medical clinics by their doctors, where they
would be euthanized. Most of these children were
voluntarily turned over to medical authorities by their
own parents; some (but certainly not all) knew, or at least
suspected, that their disabled children were being sent to
their deaths. New reporting rules made it mandatory for
midwives and doctors to notify authorities when a baby
was born with birth defects. Once the referees
determined that the children were eligible for euthanasia,
they were killed either by intentional starvation or an
overdose of a drug, most typically a sedative called
Luminal. The euphemism of choice for this butchery was
"treatment."
It wasn't long before the list of those eligible to be killed
expanded. The next group to be systematically
euthanized, as authorized in an October 1939 decree from
Hitler that was written on his private stationery, were
severely mentally ill and retarded adults, a category that
was expanded to include the criminally insane and people
with conditions such as epilepsy, polio, schizophrenia,
senile diseases, paralysis, and Huntington's disease. This
was known as the T-4 program. As with the children's
euthanasia order, the matter was officially a secret.
.... The killing of adults generally was accomplished
with carbon monoxide, and eventually cyanide gas, with
each center having its own crematorium. Within the
framework of the T-4 program, experiments were
performed to determine the most efficient way to kill
masses of people, making more efficient the later
slaughter at Auschwitz, Treblinka, Dachau, Buchenwald,
and other genocide centers. ....
One of the most powerful voices in opposition to
euthanasia was the Catholic archbishop Clemens August
Graf von Galen, who courageously preached against the
euthanasia program from the pulpit on August 3, 1941,
stating in words still relevant today:
"If you establish and apply the principle that you can
'kill' unproductive human beings, then woe betide us all
when we become old and frail! If one is allowed to kill
unproductive people, then woe betide the invalids who
have used up, sacrificed and lost their health and strength
in the productive process. . . . Poor people, sick people,
unproductive people, so what? Have they somehow
forfeited the right to live? Do you, do I have the right to
live only as long as we are productive? . . . Nobody
would be safe anymore. Who could trust his physician?
It is inconceivable what depraved conduct, what
suspicion would enter family life if this terrible doctrine
is tolerated, adopted, carried out."^36
....
It is important to reiterate that throughout the years in
which euthanasia was performed in Germany, whether
part of the officially sanctioned government program or
otherwise, the government did not force one doctor to kill
a patient nor were any doctors ever punished for refusing
to euthanize a patient. It was the participating doctors
themselves who had become the zealots.
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3a8etdF65smnrU4%40individual.net
[Hoche]"I have discovered that the average yearly (per head) cost for
maintaining idiots has till now been thirteen hundred marks...."
[1940 Nazi film]"Hereditarily sick Jewess cost up to this point 15,000
marks [3,000 marks a year was a good salary].... feeble minded sisters
from a genetically over-burdened family. The mother bore ten children.
These four children have cost the state 90,000 marks up til now."
film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
aka
http://tinyurl.com/4glkm
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 09:22:03 AM |
|
|
Thomas, Cal. 21 March 2005. "Schiavo case matters in symbol and
substance" at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050321.shtml
Why does Terri Schiavo matter? Why has Congress made a federal case out
of her situation? Why did the president of the United States return to
Washington from Texas in order to sign a bill created for the express
purpose of inviting a federal court to review the case and likely
requiring her feeding tube restored while the judge gathers information?
She matters, not only because she has an endowed, inalienable right to
life, but also because she is a symbol - like Rosa Parks was a symbol
when she refused to sit in the back of that Montgomery, Ala., bus; like
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who symbolized freedom by defying Soviet
authorities and chronicling the inhabitants and victims of the gulags;
like astronauts who brave death to explore space. Symbols have meaning.
Terri Schiavo is a symbol in the battle over life-and-death issues
that inconveniently, but necessarily, confront us.
Opponents of federal intervention cry "hypocrisy" because conservatives
pushing for a federal court review claim to support states rights on
issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage and think these matters
should be left to the states under the 10th Amendment.
But the hypocrisy label can be turned around. Didn't liberals reject
states rights when it came to civil rights for African-Americans four
decades ago, and didn't they make federal cases out of such things as
integrated restrooms and universities? They supported sending federal
troops to force integration on unwilling states. They were right to do
so then, and conservatives are right to ask the federal government to
intervene when a Florida judge has, in effect, ordered the murder of
Terri Schiavo by denying her food and water.
Then, as now, when an individual's civil and constitutional rights are
denied by a state, there are instances when federal action is required.
This is such an instance.
Terri Schiavo's life matters as symbol and substance. Her case is only
the latest in a long series that forces us to choose between two
philosophies of life.
One philosophy says we are mere material and energy shaped by pure
chance in a random universe, evolving from slime with no Author of life,
no purpose for living beyond what gives us pleasure and no destination
after we die but the grave.
The other philosophy of life says we are created by an infinite,
personal God who has a plan for every life in every situation and
circumstance and that no one should take a life except under the most
extreme circumstances and only through due process or in self-defense.
The Schiavo case should not be viewed in isolation. It is part of a
flow that began in modern times with abortion-on-demand and will
continue, if not stopped, with euthanasia. Once a single category of
life is devalued, all other categories quickly become vulnerable.
Girls who became pregnant by a drunken father and sought abortions were
the symbolic beginning of a process that has resulted in abortion for
any reason at any stage. Now we are targeting the infirm, and soon the
elderly will be in our sights because of the pressure on Social Security
and Medicare. The "reasoning" will be: rather than raise taxes, reduce
benefits or raise the retirement age, let's eliminate those who are the
biggest "drain" on retirement resources - that is, the elderly and infirm.
Having been conditioned to accept killing, even killing by the state
according to an arbitrary standard of who is "fit" to live and who is
not, it will be a short step to killing Grandma and Grandpa in their
"assisted living" centers, which quickly will be transformed into
centers for assisted dying.
Someone will produce a document or hearsay testimony that the elderly
person would have "wanted to die" in such circumstances and never
intended to be a "burden" to their children. The lawyer will be called,
the will read and the inheritance distributed. It will be larger than
what would have remained had it been spent on the recently departed.
These are the stakes, and how the Schiavo case is decided will determine
what many of us will face in the future.
==================================================================
1922 Nordau; 1976 Reagan; 1997 Wesley Smith on Germany's slippery slope
slide from devaluing some human life to a little euthanasia/ killing to
mass killings
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3abe1cF6ac7t2U1%40individual.net
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
Timeline of Materialism, Spontaneous Generation, and Blindwatchmaking Views
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-348jecF47mfcjU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 03:07:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:22:03 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Opponents of federal intervention cry "hypocrisy" because conservatives
pushing for a federal court review claim to support states rights on
issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage and think these matters
should be left to the states under the 10th Amendment.
But the hypocrisy label can be turned around. Didn't liberals reject
states rights when it came to civil rights for African-Americans four
decades ago, and didn't they make federal cases out of such things as
integrated restrooms and universities?
Cal Thomas needs to read the 14th Amendment.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "satyr" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
25 Mar 2005 07:11:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:22:03 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Girls who became pregnant by a drunken father and sought abortions were
the symbolic beginning of a process that has resulted in abortion for
any reason at any stage.
They were not. The abortion rights movement has always been about
every woman's right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy or not.
When abortion was legalized, there was no restriction on the familial
relationship or sobriety of the would-be father.
--
satyr #1953
Chairman, EAC Church Taxation Subcommittee
Director, Gideon Bible Alternative Fuel Project
Supervisor, EAC Fossil Casting Lab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
23 Mar 2005 11:52:03 AM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
Thomas, Cal. 21 March 2005. "Schiavo case matters in symbol and
substance" at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050321.shtml
Why does Terri Schiavo matter? Why has Congress made a federal case out
of her situation? Why did the president of the United States return to
Washington from Texas in order to sign a bill created for the express
purpose of inviting a federal court to review the case and likely
requiring her feeding tube restored while the judge gathers information?
She matters, not only because she has an endowed, inalienable right to
life, but also because she is a symbol
A symbol that only god has the right to end life
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
25 Mar 2005 12:18:57 PM |
|
|
Ash wrote:
david ford wrote:
Thomas, Cal. 21 March 2005. "Schiavo case matters in symbol and
substance" at
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050321.shtml
Why does Terri Schiavo matter? Why has Congress made a federal case out
of her situation? Why did the president of the United States return to
Washington from Texas in order to sign a bill created for the express
purpose of inviting a federal court to review the case and likely
requiring her feeding tube restored while the judge gathers information?
She matters, not only because she has an endowed, inalienable right to
life, but also because she is a symbol
A symbol that only god has the right to end life
Do you agree with this proposition?:
The unjustified taking of one human's life by another human is immoral/
wrong/ bad/ evil.
(This is practically true by definition, though I've been informed by a
few atheists here that they don't call things "bad"/ "evil." More
significantly, the worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism _can't_
term _any_ act "evil," including rape, slavery, murder, genocide,
bestiality, and infanticide. I invite all atheists who are revolted/
repelled/ repulsed by that to carefully re-examine their commitment to
materialism, and re-examine any reasons they might have for adhering to
materialism. By the way, materialism goes against rational
interpretation of the data from biology and physics.)
Supposing you do agree with the proposition "the unjustified taking of
one human's life by another human is immoral/ wrong/ bad/ evil":
Please list some of the situations in which you think there is
justification for one human to take another human's life:
1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
4. _________________________
5. _________________________
Do you think that personal inconvenience is sufficient to justify the
taking of one human's life by another human?
Do you think that a fetus/ pre-born human is a human life?
Do you think that there is justification for Terri Schindler Schiavo's
life to be taken?
If "yes":
1) What is that justification?
2) Do you think that there is justification for Terri Schindler
Schiavo's life to be taken via:
administration of Zyklon B gas?
lethal injection?
court-imposed starvation?
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Vitz on his socialization in school
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-393h24F5qte75U1%40individual.net
1999 Paul Vitz, 2002 Benjamin Wiker
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-35qe6lF4orjsoU1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
aka
http://tinyurl.com/6uoxb
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
aka
http://tinyurl.com/4glkm
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
25 Mar 2005 01:38:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:18:57 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
Supposing you do agree with the proposition "the unjustified taking of
one human's life by another human is immoral/ wrong/ bad/ evil":
Conditionally, yes, with an emphasis on "unjustified"...
Please list some of the situations in which you think there is
justification for one human to take another human's life:
Asking stupid questions on Usenet immediately comes to mind, but
obviously "self-defense" is virtually universally accepted as being a
justification for the taking of human life. Your point was...?
Do you think that personal inconvenience is sufficient to justify the
taking of one human's life by another human?
No. Of course not. Do you think that your own moral obtuseness about
the issues involved is sufficient to justify you whacking that
Strawman to death?
The courts on every level have upheld time and time again that Terri
Schiavo's own expressed wish, to several witnesses, was that she would
not want to be kept alive in a state like that she has been in for the
past fifteen years. This is not about killing someone for convenience;
this is about a person's right to not be kept in a state of quasi-life
by extraordinary means. Terri Schiavo, by all medical accounts, has no
remaining cerebral cortex. She is incapable of either cognition or
recovery. She is, effectively, already dead as far as personhood is
concerned. Keeping her body functioning may string along the
Schindlers (who, I understand, are being given their legal aid free
from a Fundamentalist organization) in their wishful thinking that she
actually has any level of awareness, or the hope that she might
recover (either possibility being part of the realm of fantasy in
light of the clear-cut medical evidence), but other than that, it
serves no purpose, and goes against what every court along the way has
agreed was Terri's expressed wish that she not be kept alive in such a
condition.
Am I arguing that persons in her position should have nutrition
withheld routinely? Emphatically no, what I am arguing is that
individual choice in the matter should be respected, especially if
it's been clearly and unequivocally expressed, as *every court* has
ruled it was in this case.
Do you think that a fetus/ pre-born human is a human life?
No. Do you think a fertilized egg is a chicken?
Do you think that there is justification for Terri Schindler Schiavo's
life to be taken?
Red Herring. Her "life" is not being taken; it's no longer being
supported artificially. And philosophically, one could argue that she
hasn't been "alive" for a long time now.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
09 Mar 2005 07:13:37 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 17:12:13 -0500, david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu>
wrote:
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
Err, humans *are* animals.
If you disagree, please elaborate as to on what basis you do so.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
09 Mar 2005 08:58:09 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-399aluF5uql89U1@individual.net...
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
(snip)
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
It's quite true, there is no qualitative difference between humans and
animals, as humans ARE animals. Can you explain how this uncontroversial
truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
And on what basis?
Is this a trick question?
(snip)
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:27:38 PM |
|
|
sAnToLiNa wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-399aluF5uql89U1@individual.net...
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
(snip)
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
It's quite true, there is no qualitative difference between humans and
animals, as humans ARE animals.
I see.
Can you explain how this uncontroversial
truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
No. But I will say that Stalin killed a lot of animals, just as the
beef industry has killed a lot of animals.
[Yockey in 1986]"If humans are only matter, it is no worse to burn a ton
of humans than to burn a ton of coal." Ref:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404100938.e7c05f7%40posting.google.com
And on what basis?
Is this a trick question?
Only if you let it be.
(snip)
.
|
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
20 Mar 2005 07:35:40 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6m83F64n890U5@individual.net...
sAnToLiNa wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-399aluF5uql89U1@individual.net...
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
(snip)
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
It's quite true, there is no qualitative difference between humans and
animals, as humans ARE animals.
I see.
Can you explain how this uncontroversial
truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
No.
I see.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david ford" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 11:30:36 AM |
|
|
sAnToLiNa wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6m83F64n890U5@individual.net...
sAnToLiNa wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-399aluF5uql89U1@individual.net...
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
(snip)
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
It's quite true, there is no qualitative difference between
humans and
animals, as humans ARE animals.
I see.
Can you explain how this uncontroversial
truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
No.
I see.
But I will say that Stalin killed a lot of animals, just
as the beef industry has killed a lot of animals.
[Yockey in 1986]"If humans are only matter, it is no
worse to burn a ton of humans than to burn a ton
of coal." Ref:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404100938.e7c05f7%40posting.google.com
I'll add that Haeckel was absolutely right: there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals.
There is no significant difference between doing the following actions:
1) putting down 1000 elderly dogs and cats
2) putting down 1000 severely-handicapped and mentally-retarded humans
3) putting down 1000 political opponents
4) putting down 1000 carriers of virulent viruses of the mind
5) terminating 1000 inconvenient and unwanted pre-born humans
6) terminating 1000 cheetahs out of an almost-extinct world cheetah
population
7) terminating 1000 elephants to obtain their ivory tusks
8) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through starvation
9) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through administration of
Zyklon B gas.
Taking a firm, godless stand for death
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0410291758.3dfffe4b%40posting.google.com
Haeckel on murdering the disabled
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407271740.7ae3b80b%40posting.google.com
Darwinists downgrading the value of human life
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-399aluF5uql89U1%40individual.net
Secular humanism has everything to do with abortion and euthanasia.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0408161826.47fa8898%40posting.google.com
Convert to secular humanism to enjoy guiltless sexual activity of many
varieties.
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0409241109.17e2611d%40posting.google.com
Do you think that the more one looks at atheists, particularly hard-core
militantly-godless types:
the better atheism looks?
the worse atheism looks?
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-3a19amF65ij6fU2%40individual.net
1940 Nazi film "All Life is Struggle" embraced Darwinian natural selection
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407042043.1c2ccf1f%40posting.google.com
2004 Richard Weikart: "physicians... were committed to a racist
eugenics ideology that the Nazis favored"
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0407120310.7d3f3929%40posting.google.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "sAnToLiNa" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 08:35:06 PM |
|
|
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a8eliF65smnrU1@individual.net...
sAnToLiNa wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-3a6m83F64n890U5@individual.net...
sAnToLiNa wrote:
david ford <dford3@gl.umbc.edu> wrote in message
news:dford3-399aluF5uql89U1@individual.net...
In Haeckel's view, there is no qualitative difference
between humans and animals.
(snip)
c) Today, in 2005, do you support or oppose Haeckel's view?
It's quite true, there is no qualitative difference between
humans and
animals, as humans ARE animals.
I see.
Can you explain how this uncontroversial
truth somehow downgrades the value of human life?
No.
I see.
But I will say that Stalin killed a lot of animals, just
as the beef industry has killed a lot of animals.
[Yockey in 1986]"If humans are only matter, it is no
worse to burn a ton of humans than to burn a ton
of coal." Ref:
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0404100938.e7c05f7%40posting
..google.com
I'll add that Haeckel was absolutely right: there is no qualitative
difference between humans and animals.
There is no significant difference between doing the following actions:
1) putting down 1000 elderly dogs and cats
2) putting down 1000 severely-handicapped and mentally-retarded humans
3) putting down 1000 political opponents
4) putting down 1000 carriers of virulent viruses of the mind
5) terminating 1000 inconvenient and unwanted pre-born humans
6) terminating 1000 cheetahs out of an almost-extinct world cheetah
population
7) terminating 1000 elephants to obtain their ivory tusks
8) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through starvation
9) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through administration of
Zyklon B gas.
Non-responsive obfuscation.
How does the uncontroversial truth that humans are animals downgrade the
value of human life?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Darwinists downgrading the value of human life |
21 Mar 2005 08:13:05 PM |
|
|
david ford wrote:
sAnToLiNa wrote:
There is no significant difference between doing the following actions:
1) putting down 1000 elderly dogs and cats
2) putting down 1000 severely-handicapped and mentally-retarded humans
3) putting down 1000 political opponents
4) putting down 1000 carriers of virulent viruses of the mind
5) terminating 1000 inconvenient and unwanted pre-born humans
6) terminating 1000 cheetahs out of an almost-extinct world cheetah
population
7) terminating 1000 elephants to obtain their ivory tusks
8) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo's life through starvation
9) terminating Terri Schindler Schiavo' | | | | | |
