NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/12827

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 12.6 KB

Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:12827 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:11270 alt.politics.clinton:19482 alt.politics.bush:15379 alt.politics.homosexuality:8823
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.homosexuality
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!kellmeye
From: [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 00:35:29 GMT
Lines: 271

[e-mail] (Lawrence C. Foard) writes:

>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (kellmeyer steven l) writes:
>>[e-mail] (Evelyn C. Leeper) writes:
>>
>>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Doug Dillhoff) writes:

>>Why is *secular* reasoning superior to religious reasoning?

>I'm sitting 10 feet from a machine that can produce 3d images of your
>internal organs, it was designed by secular reasoning.

And it was designed in a country founded upon a belief in God.  The
country founded upon atheism and a belief in man no longer exists.

>>Let's take a clear look at a couple of examples of *secular* reasoning:
>>
>>Hillary Clinton et.al. have reasoned, secularly, that children should be
>>given the same legal rights and representation as adults, including the
>>right to divorce their parents.

>I totally agree with her, children are not slaves or property, parents are
>there to provide for and protect children.

Sorry, that isn't what she said.  She said that no individual should be
considered incompetent until proven otherwise.  Didn't say a word about
parents being there to provide for and protect children.  In fact, she
believes that at least one of those parents is a slave due to the fact
that marriage is an institution comparable to slavery, according to
Ms. Clinton.

>>If this is true, why is everyone so
>>upset about the young girls left alone in Chicago?

>Because they abandoned there obligations. However by your "religious
>reasoning" this would be fine since children are nothing more than
>property and the parents decisions to abandon them cannot be questioned...

Again, sorry, but that fits your mentor's preconceptions about slavery
a lot better than it does any religion's conceptions about the purpose
of marriage and family.  There exists no religion of which I am aware
which holds that children are property and/or that a parent's
decision to abandon said children is acceptable.

>>Perhaps the parents
>>merely found secular reasons for believing the 9-year old was mature
>>enough to care for the 4-year old.
>>Similarly, if a 9,10,11,or 12-year old can divorce hs/her parents because
>>of their maturity, then why can't those same mature individuals move in
>>with a 30-year old same sex lover?

>Or a 30 year old opposite sex lover?

Certainly.

>>If they're mature enough to unchoose
>>parents, they are certainly mature enough to choose who they want to live
>>with.  The National Man-Boy Love Association would certainly support that
>>reasoning.  Why can anyone, secularly, object to pedophilia if the child
>>doesn't object?

>Why can anyone religiously object to sex between a 10 and 30 year old
>who are married and have sex only in the correct positions? After all
>the bible doesn't mention intergenerational sex.

Are they married?  All the religions of which I am aware require sex to
take place within marriage.  I didn't know 10-year olds were considered
to be of marriageable age.  Certainly there are few secular reasons to
oppose such a proposition, but I certainly doubt that many religions
would permit it, and those which do (Hinduism, for example) generally
see the marriage as pro forma until sexual maturity is reached.

>>Or if the "child" no longer exists, legally, because that
>>child has been ruled an adult by the courts?
>>
>>Why is incest wrong, by secular reasoning?

>Because it produces genetic diseases.

>>With so many diverse forms of
>>birth control, including genetic testing and legal abortion, it's not like
>>biological reasons could possibly hold water anymore.  As long as both
>>parties agree, where's the harm?

>If two related people want to have sex and not produce kids thats fine
>with me.

Another one joins in.

>>Secular reasoning has found that no human being exists at conception, that
>>women have the right to do with that non-viable tissue what they want,
>>unilaterally, because men have no right to interfere.  Fine.  Then secular
>>reasoning also makes it clear that men are not and can never be parents,
>>since they never create children.

>??

>>At most, men supply only raw material -
>>it is the woman who chooses to manufacture a child.

>True but that doesn't make the father not a parent, after all the
>child has 1/2 his DNA.

Big deal.  Your parents have half your DNA as well, but you are under
no legal obligation to support them.  Your twin brother has ALL your DNA,
but neither is under a legal obligation to support the other one.
Sperm donors supply 1/2 the DNA, but they CANNOT be required to provide
support.  Egg donors supply 1/2 the DNA, but they aren't considered
mothers per se - only the surrogate who carries to term is, and the child
has NONE of her DNA.  DNA has nix, zero, nada, zilch, empty set, goose egg
to do with parenthood, according to secular reasoning.

>>If a woman can decide
>>to have an abortion for purely personal economic reasons, then her decision
>>to have a child must also be based on purely personal economic reasons, and
>>there is no secularly logical way she can coerce an involuntary tax out
>>of the man for a decision she makes unilaterally about her own economic
>>future.

>Strange I thought men chose to have sex?

Strange, but I thought the decision to have sex was not a decision to
have kids?  If it was, the woman couldn't very well get an abortion, now
could she?

>>  According to secular reasoning, genetic comparisons are pointless,
>>since a man's twin bears the same genetic relationship to the child, yet
>>isn't legally bound to support the child manufactured via the use of his
>>brother's sperm.

>It might have something to do with the mans twin not having sex with
>the woman?

How do you know?  What if he was also seeing her?  If he has sex with
her but didn't supply the sperm, does that make him liable anyway?
What does sex have to do with procreation nowadays?  According to secular
reasoning, and thanks to the wonders of biotechnology, sex is divorced
from child creation.  It is eminently possible to do one without doing
the other.  Sex is merely a form of physical pleasure and gratification.
Having sex does not mean you wish to have children.

>>Currently, anonymous sperm donors can NEVER be legally
>>held for child support - what difference does knowing the sperm donor's
>>name make?

>Does it make a difference? If a woman signs the right papers I assume
>a known sperm donor will not be held accountable. However it is generally
>understood that the result of having sex is both peoples responsibility.

Doesn't matter what the woman signs.  Child support is a duty from a
parent to a _child_ not to another parent.  Read the law.  Sperm donors
can NEVER be a parent since the law denies that they can ever be
considered a parent, thus they can NEVER be held for child support, even
if *ALL* the parties involved desire it.  The sperm donor would have to
go through a formal adoption process, just like any other total stranger.

>>It's not like he gets any more choice, or makes a child.

>"Yes your honor she tied me down and forced me to get her pregnant"

Oh, so you think the man controls whether or not conception occurs?
Say, where _did_ you learn biology, anyway?  He chose to have sex,
she chose to have sex, what happens after sex is entirely the woman's
prerogative, the man is specifically denied any part in any decision
whatsoever.  If she chooses to use raw material to manufacture a child,
what does that have to do with him?  He's out of the picture after
sperm delivery.  Why can she tax him when he isn't represented in any
of the decisions?  According to secular logic, such a concept is absurd.

>>Do you think this reasoning is crazy?  It's coming to court in New York
>>this very month.  And Karen DeCrow, former president of NOW, is on
>>record as supporting this reasoning.
>>
>>What about infibulation, the practice of mutilating female genitalia
>>that is common in Africa?  Secularly speaking, we have no right to
>>condemn another culture's practices.

>Who said that?

Secular logic.

>>As long as their society finds
>>it acceptable, how can we western Europeans dare to impose OUR moral
>>inhibitions on a functioning society?

>If this is wrong then I assume you have no problem with secular culture
>doing something about religions that teach there children to believe lies
>about how the earth came into existance? :)

I do insofar as it is a violation of what secular culture says about itself.
It claims that no one has a right to impose beliefs, then hypocritically
does so whenever it finds a belief set that doesn't match it's own.

>>That's what secular reasoning gets you.  Sorry, but I don't see how
>>secular reasoning is superior to religiously based reasoning.

>Ever hear of a strawman?

Yes.  Glittering generalities is one of the forms of rhetoric, I believe.
Are you indulging in name-calling perhaps?

>>You know, this society complains to high heaven about drunk drivers.
>>We say they are suffering from an illness (alcoholism) but we punish
>>them if they dare to be ill in the wrong place.

>And you won't mind if I puke on the salad bar :-)

Go ahead.  I'll eat elsewhere.

>>How many people have
>>gone to jail for having the flu while driving?

>If you drive while impaired and kill someone you are probably going to jail.

But a drunk driver can be jailed simply for being drunk, even if no damage
resulted from their illness.

>>What if they vomited
>>and hit someone, whay aren't they jailed for DWI (driving while
>>influenzaed)?  Then why don't we jail the AIDS infected for condemning other
>>people to death by being ill in the wrong place (while have sex)?

>If two people want to go drunk driving on there own property and crash into
>each other at 60MPH thats there own business. There is no law against
>driving drunk on your own land.

Ahem. You are wrong.  If that accident resulted in death or injury of either
party, one or both can go to jail.

>>Especially now that the AZT-resistant strains are obviously being spread
>>by precisely these people?  According to secular reasoning, a drunk driver
>>and a sexually active AIDS carrier are no different.

>No according to religious reasoning they are no different.
>In secular reasoning the idea of consent plays a role. An HIV+ rapist is a
>murderer if someone dies as a result. A person who chooses to have sex with
>someone who is HIV+ and dies as a result was not murdered.

Again, you are wrong.  A person who chooses to ride with a drunk, and is
subsequently killed in an accident, sets the drunk up for manslaugher at
the very least.  Consent to the first act does not provide consent for the
second.  Similarly, the HIV rapist can only be nailed for murder if the
prosecution can show an intent to kill the rapee via HIV infection.
Otherwise, the rapist is not necessarily guilty of murder, but may well be
guilty of manslaughter.  Finally, an HIV+ consensual sex partner should,
according to secular reasoning, be up for manslaughter on the death of
an infected consensual partner.  Funny, but I ain't heard of that happening
yet.  Wonder why?

Finally, if what you said about consent to sex negating either the murder
or the manslaughter charge were true, any woman who consented to sex
would, ipso facto, consent to pregnancy, and no man could be held liable
for even the pregnancy, much less any products of pregnancy the woman
chose to manufacture.

As it is, the man cannot logically be held liable for a child that he
did not create, whose existence he did not consent to, whose manufacture
he did not take part in, and whose existence resulted from an act which,
according to secular logic, is meant purely for gratuitous pleasure.

>--
>------          Join the Pythagorean Reform Church!               .
>\    /        Repent of your evil irrational numbers             . .
> \  /   and bean eating ways. Accept 10 into your heart!        . . .
>  \/   Call the Pythagorean Reform Church BBS at 508-793-9568  . . . .

Steve
--

Steve Kellmeyer
[e-mail]