nt

if it involves the genetically spiffed-up race you see as a possibility for the 23rd century. At the same time, if you find individual women's choice to have an abortion morally (or ethically) repugnant.

I am asking if would find one woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy for reasons she deems good—reasons that could lead to a more intelligent or free individual life, or a better life for any number of private, personal, health or other reasons—WRONG?

AND, I'm asking if you would find terminating the life of an embryo acceptable for the sake of producing a better species of Homo sapiens by the 23rd century.

Thank you for considering my query.

No.

If I were the mother I would want to be able to decide one way or the other whether I wanted to survive a pregnancy or not. I can understand someone wanting to die while giving birth and I can also understand saving the mother's life if giving birth were going to kill her.

I'm not for abortion on demand, but it's not something high on my list of concerns. The issue of unschooling is a number one priority to my mind because everything else devolves from it. How we grow up effects everything else. Nothing will change until the way ppl. grow up changes.

Having said that; if I had a space ship and could go live on another planet, I would and would never think about the earth again. I hate this place and it's dumb misery and primitivism. Mankind is a bore. If I were sitting on a beach on a small planet near Alpha Centauri reading the paper and there was a blurb on the back page about a small blue green planet called Earth losing its orbit and flying into its sun I wouldn't even bother to finish reading the head line, I would go straight to the comics and I wouldn't even think about it. "Earthlings" the article might have read. "All they knew how to do is fight and spit and get emotional... no one misses them".

we owe them their humanity, their dignity. poverty is dehumanizing and undignified, and the poor exist because there are rich. vast wealth in the hands of a few is obcene. i disagree that the future is better than the past at least when it comes to poverty in the western hemisphere. poverty did not exist in north america until the europeans arrived. they transplanted their savage economic system to the "new world". native civilizations like the Inca, Mexica, Tolteca, did not know poverty at all. indeed, when montaigne, the french essayist, asked two natives who had been brought to europe (by force) what they found most interesting about european society, the natives said they were shocked by the extremes in poverty and wealth. they found it odd that so few could live so lavishly while so many went begging, and they wondered why the poor did not slice the throats of the rich and burn their houses. so we owe the poor the end of the western economic system.

nt

When Gandhi was asked what he thought of western civilization, he replied; "It's a good idea." He was being more than polite.

It would help the poor if people stopped killing them.

I think Gandhi replied "It WOULD be a good idea."

**********************************************************

Death by war, famine, pestilence ...


20th century death tolls

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/20centry.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

***********************************

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm

The Death Toll: The American Holocaust

In American Holocaust, Stannard estimates the total cost of the near-extermination of the American Indians as 100,000,000.

The problem here (aside from the question of whether there were even this many people in hemisphere at all) is that Stannard doesn't differentiate between death by massacre and death by disease. He blames the Europeans for bringing new diseases which spread like wildfire -- often faster than than the Europeans themselves -- and depopulated the continent. Since no one disputes the fact that most of the native deaths were caused by alien diseases to which they had never developed immunity, the simple question of categorization is vital.

Traditionally we add death by disease and famine into the total cost of wars and massacres (Anne Frank, after all, died of typhus, not Zyklon-B, but she's still a victim of the Holocaust) so I don't see any problem with doing the same with the American genocides, provided that the deaths occurred after their society had already been disrupted by direct European hostility. If a tribe was enslaved or driven off its lands, the associated increase in deaths by disease would definitely count toward the atrocity (The chain of events which reduced the Indian population of California from 85,000 in 1852 to 18,000 in 1890 certainly counts regardless of the exact agent of death, because by this time, the Indians were being hunted down from one end of California to another.); however, if a tribe was merely sneezed on by the wrong person at first contact, it should not count.

Consider the Powhatans of Virginia. As I mentioned earlier, Stannard cites estimates that the population was 100,000 before contact. In the same paragraph, he states that European depredations and disease had reduced this population to a mere 14,000 by the time the English settled Jamestown in 1607. Now, come on; should we really blame the English for 86,000 deaths that occurred before they even arrived? Sure, he hints at pre-Jamestown "depredations", but he doesn't actually list any. As far as I can tell, the handful of European ventures into the Chesapeake region before 1607 were too small to do much depredating, and in what conflicts there were, the Europeans often got the worst of it. see http://www.mariner.org/baylink/span.html and http://www.nps.gov/fora/roanokerev.htm and http://coastalguide.com/packet/lostcolony01.htm

Think of it this way: if the Europeans had arrived with the most benign intentions and behaved like perfect guests, or for that matter, if Aztec sailors had been the ones to discover Europe instead of vice versa, then the Indians would still have been exposed to unfamiliar diseases and the population would still have been scythed by massive epidemics, but we'd just lump it into the same category as the Black Death, i.e., bad luck.

(Curiously, the Black Death was brought to Europe by the Mongols. Should we blame them for it? And while we're tossing blame around willy-nilly, aren't the Native Americans responsible for introducing tobacco to the world -- and for the 90 million deaths which followed?)

That's an interesting bit of history. Where'd you read/hear it? My wife would totally agree with you. I think just getting rid of some of the govt. corruption and the circular dependency (govt. employees depending on a steady production of dependent people) is too much to ask for.

Thanks,
Raul

YES, I can answer in a brief paragraph, but I won't. Why you ask, perhaps your need to improve your communiction skills. Don't mean to be insulting but your post was extremely DEMANDING with a pinch of dictorship smattered on the plate....

What may help you understand Raul is helping out in soup kitchens

You don't owe anything to the poor Raul.....

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

or, what are the poor owed?

can you answer this in a brief paragraph, no sound-bites (or one-liners) or links (summarize it if it makes your point)?

Thanks Bobby, sincerely. As I said (above), I did not mean to offend anyone. I asked that anyone who VOLUNTARILY wished to respond, not simply present sound bites or one-liners because there's not much to learn from them. I've learned much from this group and I feel that's one of the purposes of this board.

If you were assuming that I have not helped out in soup kitchens, you would be wrong.

As I also said (above), there are those who "roll up their sleeves" and help others and then there's those who like to think about ways to change the systems that enslave ppl. Leftists like to and effectively criticize "corporate America"/Govt. but their solutions are efforts to "level the playing field" for the impoverished, etc. Libertarians, on the other hand, blah, blah, blah.....(I haven't learned enough about their proposals).

Prudence (above) said: >>>"We" need to "break out of the trap," question all of our assumptions and occasionally start fresh, as if we knew nothing, and examine problems in a different light. It is a "rule" of metaphysics that problems cannot be solved on the level and through the thinking where they occurred. Another rule is that only like can know like. An abundance of ideas and good will are needed to solve impoverished ways of life and impoverished, narrow, cramped ways of thinking.<<<

If "we" don't hash out these issues, and simply help those in need at the local level, then we forfeit the global plans to the social engineers. No?

If I promote the dismantling of govt. programs/systems that impoverish people (not just financially) and am challenged to discuss alternatives (i.e., "are you just gonna let people starve to death?"), I'm not as sharp as some folks here to argue the issues.

Or, do we just let whatever happens happen?

I do appreciate for anyone to point out the flaws in my thinking--really!

Raul

I was a grumpy ole schmuck yesterday, and sincerly apologize for being such a jerk to you. A few things happened this week which I explained to Anon in Daves' thread.

I've learned a lot from you and everyone on this board as well. I disagree, I think you are just as sharp as any of the folks on this board, your thinking isn't flawed, mine was, sorry.

It's tax time, we're self employed, need I say more to explain my gumpyness ;-) Our income is a smidgen over the "Poverty line". Here, if income is at the "Poverty Line" we qualify for FREE health care and other perks paid by taxpayers. Unfortunatly the system is flawed, whereas wealthy folks with expensive accountants are able to do write offs below the poverty level, which qualifies them for freebies. One neighbor does that, leases 4 vehicles including a Hummer and Mercedes, SUV for 19yo daughter and sports car for the 17. That's a small portion of their write offs of $2,400./month. Much much more.

Than we have "career" welfare families. There are Fourth generation people learning this career living in our area. Each generation teaches their children how to feed off tax dollars without working.
It's frustrating Raul.

Approx. 20 years ago, Alberta tried to legislate a "work" for welfare program which IMHO wasn't a bad plan. But~but~but the bleedin hearts and people on welfare complained so that plan was scrapped. I still remember the 300# (beer gut) guy wailing on the news, holding a can of beer, complaining about the idea of working for welfare.... eeeeeshhhh Those were the days when canned beer was very expensive. hummmm He didn't look hungry...

Than we have families who truly need help "temporarily" until they get back on track. The system gives those poor folks a difficult time because they aren't trained by the "career welfare experts" on how to deal with government paperwork. (scam) Those folks are the people we as individuals help out, & through food banks and shelters for abused women and children.

Glad you've helped in soup kitchens, it's quite an eye openner isn't it, sorry for assuming Raul. You know the old saying "never assume", it can make an ASS out of U or ME" ;-) This time it was ME ;-)

We need to hash issues like this one over, that's for sure. Raul , I really feel aweful for being such a cranky old bat yesterday. I took my frustration of what went on here out on you and I'm sorry. Next time the neighbor woman boots her kids out for the night to entertain a "friend", leaving them without a place to stay, I'll pay her a visit, rather than giving you a hard time Her kids are 18 and 20, have jobs & pay room and board. Dh, DD & I thought that was a horrible thing to do to them. They stayed with us last night.

Rewinding back to your original question.

"What do we owe the poor or what are the poor owed?"

I'll have to get back to you Raul. Going to run this question by kiddo this week and see what her thoughts are. You already heard my blahh~blah~blahh , would be interesting to hear what a 16 year old thinks..

Bobby in Canuckville enjoying the sounds of
spring finally

Dude,

That was great! I could'nt have put it better myself! I volunteer for a local counciling charity, but also like to stop and chat with 'down & outs' on the street, not just giving money, but me time and company - for what thats worth! Just thought I'd ahare that with you.

Love Sid

I'm poor- monetarily speaking- AND I volunteer in "soup kitchens" AND nobody owes me squat.

People who want housing can, in this countey, get it.
People who want food can, in this country, get it.

Regard for their dignity, acknowledgement that dignity isn't tied to financial worth.
Beyond that, we must decide our own moral responsibility.

Don't mind me. Off to play tennis now. If more people played tennis or racquet ball, there'd probably be less aggression off the court.

With explicit instructions from God or bleeding hearts not to feed the tired, the poor and the hungry to the sharks while toasting success at a fishy pole.

Our respect,and help when they need us....


Raul , you are bossy & arrogant,,,, Are you a schoolteacher?

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

or, what are the poor owed?

can you answer this in a brief paragraph, no sound-bites (or one-liners) or links (summarize it if it makes your point)?

Another member of "the poor", here. There have been times when I raided the pantry to bring staple foodstuffs to a neighbor who was waiting for the foodstamp application to be approved. Or did childcare so someone could look for work. And we often trade resources - lumber for tin, childcare for yard work, housekeeping for automotive repair, heck I've traded work for food in both directions! Owe, hell! When money is not the only medium of exchange, we're rich!

I was wondering the other day if a kind of homesteading program would be successful. We'll give you land and tools, you farm for x number of years, and it's all yours.