"Ed Huntress" wrote in message news:...
wrote in message
oups.com...

It's a subtle piece of law but there are no holes in it. That's what
drives
conservative legal scholars up a wall. All they can do is argue that it
mis-weights the competing interests, or argue that the 14th doesn't apply,
and that the states can do as they wish.

However, if they argue the latter, there goes the ol' 2nd Amendment, among
others.

Catch-22. g

Whoops, I forgot an important conservative argument: that Griswold was
decided wrongly, that states do indeed have a right to tell married couples
that they're not allowed to use contraception, and that there is no right to
privacy. Bork has argued this precisely. Thomas almost certainly would. They
would basically say that the Ninth Amendment is meaningless (Bork has almost
come out and said this), thus limiting our rights to those expressly stated
in the Bill of Rights.

Madison feared such an interpretation, as did Jefferson. The originalists
would solve the problem by saying, simply, that there are no more federally
protected rights than those stated expressly in the first eight Amendments.

This would have the result of tossing the question back to the states, which
Scalia and many others favor. Scalia probably would apply his considerable
talents as a legal juggler and sophist to avoid saying outright that the
Ninth is meaningless. He could say, for example, that the Ninth and Tenth
Amendments provide for the states the right to decide who has additional
rights, and who does not -- and then crossing his fingers that some state
won't decide that someone has a right that contradicts the right of someone
else, under *federal* law. At least, not during his tenure. d8-)

I think that's Catch-23.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Whoops, I forgot an important conservative argument: that Griswold was
decided wrongly, that states do indeed have a right to tell married couples
that they're not allowed to use contraception, and that there is no right to
privacy. Bork has argued this precisely.

Ah, but bork isn't on the USSC, nor will he ever be. He got borked.

My guess is for them to overturn roe v wade they first do have to
dismantle griswold. This is actually already happening when
drugstores refuse to sell birth control to selected folks. But
not codified into law, of course.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...


Whoops, I forgot an important conservative argument: that Griswold was
decided wrongly, that states do indeed have a right to tell married couples
that they're not allowed to use contraception, and that there is no right to
privacy. Bork has argued this precisely.


Ah, but bork isn't on the USSC, nor will he ever be. He got borked.

My guess is for them to overturn roe v wade they first do have to
dismantle griswold. This is actually already happening when
drugstores refuse to sell birth control to selected folks. But
not codified into law, of course.

Well, of course, to take it to the extreme, as neo-conservatives seem
to want to do, you have to .....

1. Outlaw all contraceptives, from condoms to the morning after pill.
Probably outlaw lemons, too, as I think there was a contraceptive
use for lemon peels. If God wants women
to be pregnant, any use of a contraceptive is interfering
in His will.

2. Outlaw ALL use of medicine. Use of medicine to treat disease
is denying God's will to make people sick, or cause them to die.

3. Outlaw medical treatment. Rescind all medical licenses and nursing
certificates. Now, giving medical treatment will be practicing
medicine without a license, a felony. If a person is sick, they
should pray for God to heal them. If the person is VERY sick,
then several people should pray on that person's behalf.

4. A side effect is it will lower medical insurance costs for business,
and will solve all these pesky medicare funding worries.

5. Anyone know where the Cambodians are keeping Pol Pot's carcass?
We might have use for some of his ideas in the new conserative
utopia!

(I do hope that people understand this is a joke. Although the forces
at work that make me try to parody this are not joking!)

Jon

On 20 Jan 2006 12:44:59 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Whoops, I forgot an important conservative argument: that Griswold was
decided wrongly, that states do indeed have a right to tell married couples
that they're not allowed to use contraception, and that there is no right to
privacy. Bork has argued this precisely.

Ah, but bork isn't on the USSC, nor will he ever be. He got borked.

My guess is for them to overturn roe v wade they first do have to
dismantle griswold. This is actually already happening when
drugstores refuse to sell birth control to selected folks. But
not codified into law, of course.

Jim

So you are claiming that a liquor store should be forced to sell
booze, even to drunks?

Or is this an individuals right (business owners) right to serve who
he chooses?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

In article , Gunner says...

Or is this an individuals right (business owners) right to serve who
he chooses?

I don't think the licence on you local drugstore wall, issued
to the pharmacist there, says "If you don't like the looks of
Gunner then you can decide to not sell him his blood pressure
medicine."

I could be wrong though.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 20 Jan 2006 12:44:59 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Whoops, I forgot an important conservative argument: that Griswold was
decided wrongly, that states do indeed have a right to tell married
couples
that they're not allowed to use contraception, and that there is no
right to
privacy. Bork has argued this precisely.

Ah, but bork isn't on the USSC, nor will he ever be. He got borked.

My guess is for them to overturn roe v wade they first do have to
dismantle griswold. This is actually already happening when
drugstores refuse to sell birth control to selected folks. But
not codified into law, of course.

Jim

So you are claiming that a liquor store should be forced to sell
booze, even to drunks?

Or is this an individuals right (business owners) right to serve who
he chooses?

Business ownner have some lattitude. Pharmacists may or may not, depending
on state laws.

Like doctors who can't refuse to treat someone they don't like, or who has a
condition the doctor may believe the patient brought upon himself,
pharmacists in many states can't decide to whom they will dispense drugs.

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

Think of it as "Biblical-based pharmacy." A pharmacist gets to choose
whether you can be treated for anything, based on his biblical world view.
If you fit within his religious beliefs, you get treated. If you don't,
sayonara, baby.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

I think that's a great idea. If anyone's ethics prevent them from
doing their job, they can simply turn in their license to the state
board, and do something else for a living.

g

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 22 Jan 2006 08:44:36 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Or is this an individuals right (business owners) right to serve who
he chooses?

I don't think the licence on you local drugstore wall, issued
to the pharmacist there, says "If you don't like the looks of
Gunner then you can decide to not sell him his blood pressure
medicine."

I could be wrong though.

Jim

No shoes, no shirt..no service

We reserve the right to service...


Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 12:08:41 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 20 Jan 2006 12:44:59 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

Whoops, I forgot an important conservative argument: that Griswold was
decided wrongly, that states do indeed have a right to tell married
couples
that they're not allowed to use contraception, and that there is no
right to
privacy. Bork has argued this precisely.

Ah, but bork isn't on the USSC, nor will he ever be. He got borked.

My guess is for them to overturn roe v wade they first do have to
dismantle griswold. This is actually already happening when
drugstores refuse to sell birth control to selected folks. But
not codified into law, of course.

Jim

So you are claiming that a liquor store should be forced to sell
booze, even to drunks?

Or is this an individuals right (business owners) right to serve who
he chooses?

Business ownner have some lattitude. Pharmacists may or may not, depending
on state laws.

Like doctors who can't refuse to treat someone they don't like, or who has a
condition the doctor may believe the patient brought upon himself,
pharmacists in many states can't decide to whom they will dispense drugs.

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

Think of it as "Biblical-based pharmacy." A pharmacist gets to choose
whether you can be treated for anything, based on his biblical world view.
If you fit within his religious beliefs, you get treated. If you don't,
sayonara, baby.


Or you simply go down to Walgreens who sells you anything from Kotex
to Morning After pills.

No shoes, no shirt, no service....


Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

On 22 Jan 2006 12:34:19 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

I think that's a great idea. If anyone's ethics prevent them from
doing their job, they can simply turn in their license to the state
board, and do something else for a living.

g

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

Jim

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...

|
| Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
| because of their ethics.
|
| Jim

You missed what's going on in the UK......

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan 2006 12:34:19 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be
a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that
require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

I think that's a great idea. If anyone's ethics prevent them from
doing their job, they can simply turn in their license to the state
board, and do something else for a living.

g

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

Jim

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

Hey, nobody's violating anything. This is a free society. Nobody is forcing
them to be pharmacists. They're free to pursue any line of work in which
professional ethics doesn't conflict with their personal morality.

Or the state could accomodate some number of them, zoned in a way that there
is a genuine pharmacist in any area where they open a license for a biblical
pharmacist. And the patients wouldn't even have to search around to find a
professionally ethical pharmacist, if they did it that way. The biblical
pharmacists could have a special symbol over their door: an Rx symbol drawn
inside the outline of a quacking duck.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Gunner says...

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

That comment illustrates the problem here. You have absolutely
no idea what you are talking about. I just realized that.

You think the first amendment applies to private corporations.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan 2006 12:34:19 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress says...

There is an ethical argument going on now about whether there should be
a
"conscience clause" for pharmacists in those states with laws that
require
them to dispense any prescription drug.

I think that's a great idea. If anyone's ethics prevent them from
doing their job, they can simply turn in their license to the state
board, and do something else for a living.

g

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

Jim

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

Hey, nobody's violating anything. This is a free society. Nobody is forcing
them to be pharmacists. They're free to pursue any line of work in which
professional ethics doesn't conflict with their personal morality.

Or the state could accomodate some number of them, zoned in a way that there
is a genuine pharmacist in any area where they open a license for a biblical
pharmacist. And the patients wouldn't even have to search around to find a
professionally ethical pharmacist, if they did it that way. The biblical
pharmacists could have a special symbol over their door: an Rx symbol drawn
inside the outline of a quacking duck.

--
Ed Huntress

I think this whole "conscience clause" argument is kind of silly.
Unless you live in a town where there is only one pharmacist, you could
just go down the street and find another one to dispense whatever drug
you had a prescription for. Is this like a big problem or something?

Does this "un-conscience clause" also apply to doctors? Is a doctor
required to perform abortions just because he's qualified? Should the
doctor do whatever the patient asks for or else get a job in a
'biblical hospital' ? And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

GW

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

I think this whole "conscience clause" argument is kind of silly.
Unless you live in a town where there is only one pharmacist, you could
just go down the street and find another one to dispense whatever drug
you had a prescription for. Is this like a big problem or something?

So far, it's not a big problem. Associations of pharmacists have a
problem -- they profess to have an ethic similar to that of doctors, and I
understand that some pharmacy schools have their graduates sign an oath
that's based on the hippocratic oath, although I haven't read one. But I
haven't heard of it being much of a problem to customers. One case involved
a pharmacy that was the only one in the area that accepted a certain
prescription insurance plan, and that was the genesis of the news story. The
woman in question couldn't get her prescription filled because that
particular pharmacy was the only one she could reach. I assume that's an
extreme case and not representative of the issue in general.


Does this "un-conscience clause" also apply to doctors? Is a doctor
required to perform abortions just because he's qualified?

Another tough question. But they aren't, as far as I've heard, refusing
contraception as well as abortion aid. So they're in a place where the
hippocratic oath can be argued either way.

If they refused prescribing for contraception on grounds of their religious
belief, I'd censure them. If they continued, I'd lift their license. They
serve at the convenience of the public and under strict laws requiring that
they not discriminate in their treatment of patients' health. And
contraception inarguably improves general health.

Should the
doctor do whatever the patient asks for or else get a job in a
'biblical hospital' ?

He or she should do whatever contributes to the health of their patients.
That's their oath.

It happens that I've been doing a dossier on a new oral contraceptive and
I've read a lot of statistics on risks of contraception, births, and
abortion. I wouldn't want to be a doctor trying to argue that refusing an
abortion is in the medical interest of his patient. The evidence is
overwhelmingly against him.

And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

Certainly there are. But almost all of the ones that give trouble in
medicine come from religion.

I'm reminded of an old friend of mine, taught by the Jesuits and
Harvard-educated, an old-time Catholic, who says his God "is an angry God."
g He prefers the Old Testament. And then I was reading today a reference
to a passage from Deuteronomy 21:10 that they must have skipped in parochial
school, but which I had read as an adult, in which the Bible proclaims a
right to capture women in battle, shave their heads, lock them up for a
month, rape them into matrimony, and then deny them the right to an abortion
afterward.

Otherwise, the Bible was pretty easy-going about abortion. So the "biblical"
morality of doctors who refuse abortions, and pharmacists that deny the
means to them, is pretty selective business. I guess it depends on how angry
your personal God is.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

I think this whole "conscience clause" argument is kind of silly.
Unless you live in a town where there is only one pharmacist, you could
just go down the street and find another one to dispense whatever drug
you had a prescription for. Is this like a big problem or something?

So far, it's not a big problem. Associations of pharmacists have a
problem -- they profess to have an ethic similar to that of doctors, and I
understand that some pharmacy schools have their graduates sign an oath
that's based on the hippocratic oath, although I haven't read one. But I
haven't heard of it being much of a problem to customers. One case involved
a pharmacy that was the only one in the area that accepted a certain
prescription insurance plan, and that was the genesis of the news story. The
woman in question couldn't get her prescription filled because that
particular pharmacy was the only one she could reach. I assume that's an
extreme case and not representative of the issue in general.


Does this "un-conscience clause" also apply to doctors? Is a doctor
required to perform abortions just because he's qualified?

Another tough question. But they aren't, as far as I've heard, refusing
contraception as well as abortion aid. So they're in a place where the
hippocratic oath can be argued either way.

If they refused prescribing for contraception on grounds of their religious
belief, I'd censure them. If they continued, I'd lift their license. They
serve at the convenience of the public and under strict laws requiring that
they not discriminate in their treatment of patients' health. And
contraception inarguably improves general health.

Should the
doctor do whatever the patient asks for or else get a job in a
'biblical hospital' ?

He or she should do whatever contributes to the health of their patients.
That's their oath.

It happens that I've been doing a dossier on a new oral contraceptive and
I've read a lot of statistics on risks of contraception, births, and
abortion. I wouldn't want to be a doctor trying to argue that refusing an
abortion is in the medical interest of his patient. The evidence is
overwhelmingly against him.

And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

Certainly there are. But almost all of the ones that give trouble in
medicine come from religion.

I'm reminded of an old friend of mine, taught by the Jesuits and
Harvard-educated, an old-time Catholic, who says his God "is an angry God."
g He prefers the Old Testament. And then I was reading today a reference
to a passage from Deuteronomy 21:10 that they must have skipped in parochial
school, but which I had read as an adult, in which the Bible proclaims a
right to capture women in battle, shave their heads, lock them up for a
month, rape them into matrimony, and then deny them the right to an abortion
afterward.

I guess you have a different version of Deuteronomy 21:10 than I do.

Marriage to a Captive Woman

10 "Suppose you go to war against your enemies and the LORD your God
hands them over to you and you take captives. 11 And suppose you see
among the captives a beautiful woman, and you are attracted to her and
want to marry her. 12 If this happens, you may take her to your home,
where she must shave her head, cut her fingernails, 13 and change all
her clothes. Then she must remain in your home for a full month,
mourning for her father and mother. After that you may marry her. 14
But if you marry her and then decide you do not like her, you must let
her go free. You may not sell her or treat her as a slave, for you have
humiliated her."

I believe that the book of Deuteronomy records what Moses said to the
Israelites while they were in the wilderness. It records history and
does not in any way tell us to go do these same things today.


Otherwise, the Bible was pretty easy-going about abortion. So the "biblical"
morality of doctors who refuse abortions, and pharmacists that deny the
means to them, is pretty selective business. I guess it depends on how angry
your personal God is.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

I guess you have a different version of Deuteronomy 21:10 than I do.

Marriage to a Captive Woman

snip

Yeah, I think you have the "light" translation. g

Here's the King James standard, which is what my family bible is, published
in 1824:

"And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall
remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month:
and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall
be thy wife."

It appears that "thou shalt go in unto her," before "she shall be thy wife,"
got softened up a bit in your version. d8-)

BTW, this "wife" was not to be exclusive. She was to be added to your
collection.

The King James version, which itself comes off lightened up from having been
translated from the Latin, rather than the Greek or Hebrew, continues with
other gems of religious enlightenment in Deut. 21:

18"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will (L)not obey his
father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to
them,

19then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the
elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.

20"They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn
and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'

21"(M)Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so (N)you
shall remove the evil from your midst, and (O)all Israel will hear of it and
fear."

I've threatened my son with this, but he knows I'm not really a big fan of
the Old Testament, and New Jersey isn't Israel, so he doesn't worry.

Then there's all that stuff about how long you can hang a man in a tree. You
can't let him rot on the rope, which would be un--Godly. Plus, it stinks.

But if you want the straight dope, the real old-time religion, get yourself
an old Hebrew translation. The original word for this metaphoric "go in unto
her" crap was 'Anah, which translates into "sexually violent rape."

Those old Jews didn't mince words; they gave us the straight poop. The King
James translators minced like a French fop. d8-)

Have a good night, Gus. I'm going to bed.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

I guess you have a different version of Deuteronomy 21:10 than I do.

Marriage to a Captive Woman

snip

Yeah, I think you have the "light" translation. g

Here's the King James standard, which is what my family bible is, published
in 1824:

"And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall
remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month:
and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall
be thy wife."

It appears that "thou shalt go in unto her," before "she shall be thy wife,"
got softened up a bit in your version. d8-)

BTW, this "wife" was not to be exclusive. She was to be added to your
collection.

The King James version, which itself comes off lightened up from having been
translated from the Latin, rather than the Greek or Hebrew, continues with
other gems of religious enlightenment in Deut. 21:

18"If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will (L)not obey his
father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to
them,

19then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the
elders of his city at the gateway of his hometown.

20"They shall say to the elders of his city, 'This son of ours is stubborn
and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard.'

21"(M)Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so (N)you
shall remove the evil from your midst, and (O)all Israel will hear of it and
fear."

I've threatened my son with this, but he knows I'm not really a big fan of
the Old Testament, and New Jersey isn't Israel, so he doesn't worry.

Then there's all that stuff about how long you can hang a man in a tree. You
can't let him rot on the rope, which would be un--Godly. Plus, it stinks.

But if you want the straight dope, the real old-time religion, get yourself
an old Hebrew translation. The original word for this metaphoric "go in unto
her" crap was 'Anah, which translates into "sexually violent rape."

Those old Jews didn't mince words; they gave us the straight poop. The King
James translators minced like a French fop. d8-)

Have a good night, Gus. I'm going to bed.

Well, whatever the translation it's still what Moses told his people
about 3000 years ago in a totally different kind of society and I think
it is meant as history, not instructions for today. Today, we have the
kinder and gentler New Testament and the Golden Rule. :-)

In article , Ed Huntress says...

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

Hey, nobody's violating anything. This is a free society. Nobody is forcing
them to be pharmacists. They're free to pursue any line of work in which
professional ethics doesn't conflict with their personal morality.

You will notice that he feels that the first amendment applies
to the pharmacy company....

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

Hey, nobody's violating anything. This is a free society. Nobody is
forcing
them to be pharmacists. They're free to pursue any line of work in which
professional ethics doesn't conflict with their personal morality.

You will notice that he feels that the first amendment applies
to the pharmacy company....

Walgreen's will be glad to hear this. They've been thinking of starting a
religion, as a sideline. It requires members to take communion with some
$8/each pills that you can buy at the pharmacy on your way in.

--
Ed Huntress

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Well, whatever the translation it's still what Moses told his people
about 3000 years ago in a totally different kind of society and I think
it is meant as history, not instructions for today. Today, we have the
kinder and gentler New Testament and the Golden Rule. :-)

Yeah, and it's mostly PG-rated. You can read that stuff to the kids, like
_The Cat in the Hat_.

The hard-bitten holy rollers like to take a good nip of the Old Testament
from time to time. I think they get their rocks off on it. A good, honest
Hebrew translation, with none of that wimpy Latin translation in the middle,
would be hard pressed to get an R rating.

As a famous American Patriot once said,

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which
more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we
called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It . . . has served to
corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine

That's a book that can really feed the soul of a compassionate conservative.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Well, whatever the translation it's still what Moses told his people
about 3000 years ago in a totally different kind of society and I think
it is meant as history, not instructions for today. Today, we have the
kinder and gentler New Testament and the Golden Rule. :-)

Yeah, and it's mostly PG-rated. You can read that stuff to the kids, like
_The Cat in the Hat_.

The hard-bitten holy rollers like to take a good nip of the Old Testament
from time to time. I think they get their rocks off on it. A good, honest
Hebrew translation, with none of that wimpy Latin translation in the middle,
would be hard pressed to get an R rating.

As a famous American Patriot once said,

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which
more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we
called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It . . . has served to
corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine

That's a book that can really feed the soul of a compassionate conservative.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

What can I say? I guess we get out of it what we want.

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Well, whatever the translation it's still what Moses told his people
about 3000 years ago in a totally different kind of society and I
think
it is meant as history, not instructions for today. Today, we have the
kinder and gentler New Testament and the Golden Rule. :-)

Yeah, and it's mostly PG-rated. You can read that stuff to the kids,
like
_The Cat in the Hat_.

The hard-bitten holy rollers like to take a good nip of the Old
Testament
from time to time. I think they get their rocks off on it. A good,
honest
Hebrew translation, with none of that wimpy Latin translation in the
middle,
would be hard pressed to get an R rating.

As a famous American Patriot once said,

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with
which
more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we
called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It . . . has served
to
corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine

That's a book that can really feed the soul of a compassionate
conservative.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

What can I say? I guess we get out of it what we want.

And far be it from me to disparage what you or anyone else gets out of it,
as long as it isn't used as a club to bludgeon a secular government or a
secular society. And I hope you don't regard my pugilistic remarks as being
even remotely directed at you. Those remarks are intended for the
sacrimonious. There are plenty of them around and I have to keep my tools
sharp. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

Those remarks are intended for the
sacrimonious.

Jeez. That should have been "sanctimonious." Too many big words in one
paragraph. g

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Well, whatever the translation it's still what Moses told his people
about 3000 years ago in a totally different kind of society and I
think
it is meant as history, not instructions for today. Today, we have the
kinder and gentler New Testament and the Golden Rule. :-)

Yeah, and it's mostly PG-rated. You can read that stuff to the kids,
like
_The Cat in the Hat_.

The hard-bitten holy rollers like to take a good nip of the Old
Testament
from time to time. I think they get their rocks off on it. A good,
honest
Hebrew translation, with none of that wimpy Latin translation in the
middle,
would be hard pressed to get an R rating.

As a famous American Patriot once said,

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the
cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with
which
more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we
called it the word of a demon than the word of God. It . . . has served
to
corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine

That's a book that can really feed the soul of a compassionate
conservative.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

What can I say? I guess we get out of it what we want.

And far be it from me to disparage what you or anyone else gets out of it,
as long as it isn't used as a club to bludgeon a secular government or a
secular society. And I hope you don't regard my pugilistic remarks as being
even remotely directed at you. Those remarks are intended for the
sacrimonious. There are plenty of them around and I have to keep my tools
sharp. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

No problemo. I actually prefer a secular government and society. I do,
however, draw the line at open hostility from either of them.
GW

On 22 Jan 2006 18:42:45 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

That comment illustrates the problem here. You have absolutely
no idea what you are talking about. I just realized that.

You think the first amendment applies to private corporations.

Jim

Is the corporation an entity?

So you are claiming that the government can force a party to violate
their religious beliefs. Interesting world you live in Tovarisch.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On 22 Jan 2006 18:42:45 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

That comment illustrates the problem here. You have absolutely
no idea what you are talking about. I just realized that.

You think the first amendment applies to private corporations.

Jim

Is the corporation an entity?

Yeah, it is an entity.


So you are claiming that the government can force a party to violate
their religious beliefs. Interesting world you live in Tovarisch.

What's the religious belief of Dell Computer?

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Gunner says...

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

That comment illustrates the problem here. You have absolutely
no idea what you are talking about. I just realized that.

You think the first amendment applies to private corporations.

Jim

Is the corporation an entity?

Have you ever *read* the first amendment to the constitution?

Everyone here but you probably knows it verbatim, except for
piotr.

"Congress shall pass no law..."

Last time I checked, Eckert was not run by congress.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:04:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Jan 2006 18:42:45 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Gunner says...

Imagine, say, a nurse saying they won't care for somebody who smokes
because of their ethics.

So your are forcing someone to violate their say..religious beliefs?
What was that pesky First Amendment again?

That comment illustrates the problem here. You have absolutely
no idea what you are talking about. I just realized that.

You think the first amendment applies to private corporations.

Jim

Is the corporation an entity?

Yeah, it is an entity.


So you are claiming that the government can force a party to violate
their religious beliefs. Interesting world you live in Tovarisch.

What's the religious belief of Dell Computer?

No idea. Tell me? Now about the Catholic Church (also another entity)
or Falwells organization (also another entity) and so forth under US
law.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:04:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Jan 2006 18:42:45 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

You think the first amendment applies to private corporations.

Jim

Is the corporation an entity?

Yeah, it is an entity.


So you are claiming that the government can force a party to violate
their religious beliefs. Interesting world you live in Tovarisch.

What's the religious belief of Dell Computer?

No idea. Tell me?

Whatever it is, I think their religious beliefs are safe. First Church of
Holy Capital and the Discount House of Worship, or something like that.
Mainstream stuff.

Now about the Catholic Church (also another entity)
or Falwells organization (also another entity) and so forth under US
law.

They're Ok as long as they don't break the law. The bigger churches in the
West are so sanitized, so far removed from their roots, that they rarely get
into that kind of trouble.

If they start stoning adulterers to death again, they'll have a problem
enjoying their "religious expression." d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:12:30 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:04:09 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On 22 Jan 2006 18:42:45 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

You think the first amendment applies to private corporations.

Jim

Is the corporation an entity?

Yeah, it is an entity.


So you are claiming that the government can force a party to violate
their religious beliefs. Interesting world you live in Tovarisch.

What's the religious belief of Dell Computer?

No idea. Tell me?

Whatever it is, I think their religious beliefs are safe. First Church of
Holy Capital and the Discount House of Worship, or something like that.
Mainstream stuff.

Now about the Catholic Church (also another entity)
or Falwells organization (also another entity) and so forth under US
law.

They're Ok as long as they don't break the law. The bigger churches in the
West are so sanitized, so far removed from their roots, that they rarely get
into that kind of trouble.

If they start stoning adulterers to death again, they'll have a problem
enjoying their "religious expression." d8-)

But you agree that its ok for Muslim Fundies to do this.

Gunner

"Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits"
John Griffin

"Gunner" wrote in message
...

If they start stoning adulterers to death again, they'll have a problem
enjoying their "religious expression." d8-)

But you agree that its ok for Muslim Fundies to do this.

Gunner

"Agree"? No, I don't agree with you about that.

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

Certainly there are. But almost all of the ones that give trouble in
medicine come from religion.

I'm reminded of an old friend of mine, taught by the Jesuits and
Harvard-educated, an old-time Catholic, who says his God "is an angry God."
g He prefers the Old Testament. And then I was reading today a reference
to a passage from Deuteronomy 21:10 that they must have skipped in parochial
school, but which I had read as an adult, in which the Bible proclaims a
right to capture women in battle, shave their heads, lock them up for a
month, rape them into matrimony, and then deny them the right to an abortion
afterward.

I too looked into the bibles available to me, the King James and Young's
Literal Translation, which say more or less the same thing. It's a
statement of either custom and/or law on the handling of captive women,
in the context of the day.

But I cannot see anything about denial of abortion rights, or even the
slightest most oblique reference to the issue. Could you help me find
the thread here? I must say that the reference to abortion mystified
me, as these verses have to be 5,000 years old, long before medical
abortion became remotely practical.

Joe Gwinn


Words from Young's Literal Translation:

Deuteronomy 21

1`When one is found slain on the ground which Jehovah thy God is
giving to thee to possess it -- fallen in a field -- it is not known who
hath smitten him,

2 then have thine elders and thy judges gone out and measured unto
the cities which [are] round about the slain one,

3 and it hath been, the city which [is] near unto the slain one, even
the elders of that city have taken a heifer of the herd, which hath not
been wrought with, which hath not drawn in the yoke,

4 and the elders of that city have brought down the heifer unto a
hard valley, which is not tilled nor sown, and have beheaded there the
heifer in the valley.

5`And the priests, sons of Levi, have come nigh -- for on them hath
Jehovah thy God fixed to serve Him, and to bless in the name of Jehovah,
and by their mouth is every strife, and every stroke --

6 and all the elders of that city, who are near unto the slain one,
do wash their hands over the heifer which is beheaded in the valley,

7 and they have answered and said, Our hands have not shed this
blood, and our eyes have not seen --

8 receive atonement for Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast ransomed, O
Jehovah, and suffer not innocent blood in the midst of Thy people
Israel; and the blood hath been pardoned to them,

9 and thou dost put away the innocent blood out of thy midst, for
thou dost that which [is] right in the eyes of Jehovah.

10`When thou goest out to battle against thine enemies, and Jehovah
thy God hath given them into thy hand, and thou hast taken captive its
captivity,

11 and hast seen in the captivity a woman of fair form, and hast
delighted in her, and hast taken to thee for a wife,

12 then thou hast brought her in unto the midst of thy household, and
she hath shaved her head, and prepared her nails,

13 and turned aside the raiment of her captivity from off her, and
hath dwelt in thy house, and bewailed her father and her mother a month
of days, and afterwards thou dost go in unto her and hast married her,
and she hath been to thee for a wife:

14`And it hath been -- if thou hast not delighted in her, that thou
hast sent her away at her desire, and thou dost not at all sell her for
money; thou dost not tyrannize over her, because that thou hast humbled
her.

15`When a man hath two wives, the one loved and the other hated, and
they have borne to him sons (the loved one and the hated one), and the
first-born son hath been to the hated one;

16 then it hath been, in the day of his causing his sons to inherit
that which he hath, he is not able to declare first-born the son of the
loved one, in the face of the son of the hated one -- the first-born.

17 But the first-born, son of the hated one, he doth acknowledge, to
give to him a double portion of all that is found with him, for he [is]
the beginning of his strength; to him [is] the right of the first-born.

18`When a man hath a son apostatizing and rebellious -- he is not
hearkening to the voice of his father, and to the voice of his mother,
and they have chastised him, and he doth not hearken unto them --

19 then laid hold on him have his father and his mother, and they
have brought him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of
his place,

20 and have said unto the elders of his city, Our son -- this one --
is apostatizing and rebellious; he is not hearkening to our voice -- a
glutton and drunkard;

21 and all the men of his city have stoned him with stones, and he
hath died, and thou hast put away the evil out of thy midst, and all
Israel do hear and fear.

22`And when there is in a man a sin -- a cause of death, and he hath
been put to death, and thou hast hanged him on a tree,

23 his corpse doth not remain on the tree, for thou dost certainly
bury him in that day -- for a thing lightly esteemed of God [is] the
hanged one -- and thou dost not defile thy ground which Jehovah thy God
is giving to thee -- an inheritance.

End of Deut 21. Source is http://bibleresources.bible.com/.

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:53:29 -0500, the renowned Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

Certainly there are. But almost all of the ones that give trouble in
medicine come from religion.

I'm reminded of an old friend of mine, taught by the Jesuits and
Harvard-educated, an old-time Catholic, who says his God "is an angry God."
g He prefers the Old Testament. And then I was reading today a reference
to a passage from Deuteronomy 21:10 that they must have skipped in parochial
school, but which I had read as an adult, in which the Bible proclaims a
right to capture women in battle, shave their heads, lock them up for a
month, rape them into matrimony, and then deny them the right to an abortion
afterward.

I too looked into the bibles available to me, the King James and Young's
Literal Translation, which say more or less the same thing. It's a
statement of either custom and/or law on the handling of captive women,
in the context of the day.

But I cannot see anything about denial of abortion rights, or even the
slightest most oblique reference to the issue. Could you help me find
the thread here? I must say that the reference to abortion mystified
me, as these verses have to be 5,000 years old, long before medical
abortion became remotely practical.

Joe Gwinn

The site http://www.biblegateway.com has more translations than you
can shake a stick at.

The passage seems to say that when you capture an enemy woman you
should let herself get cleaned up, get her some new clothes and give
her a month to get over the fact that your guys have slaughtered her
family. Only then can you take liberties with her, and if you decide
to dump her, you have to just let her go rather than passing your
right of ownership to someone else. I don't see anything there
relating to abortion.

Also, Exodus 22 (New Living Translation)

2"If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is
killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty.
3But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty
of murder.


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

In article ,
Spehro Pefhany wrote:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 10:53:29 -0500, the renowned Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

Certainly there are. But almost all of the ones that give trouble in
medicine come from religion.

I'm reminded of an old friend of mine, taught by the Jesuits and
Harvard-educated, an old-time Catholic, who says his God "is an angry God."
g He prefers the Old Testament. And then I was reading today a reference
to a passage from Deuteronomy 21:10 that they must have skipped in
parochial school, but which I had read as an adult, in which the Bible proclaims a
right to capture women in battle, shave their heads, lock them up for a
month, rape them into matrimony, and then deny them the right to an
abortion afterward.

I too looked into the bibles available to me, the King James and Young's
Literal Translation, which say more or less the same thing. It's a
statement of either custom and/or law on the handling of captive women,
in the context of the day.

But I cannot see anything about denial of abortion rights, or even the
slightest most oblique reference to the issue. Could you help me find
the thread here? I must say that the reference to abortion mystified
me, as these verses have to be 5,000 years old, long before medical
abortion became remotely practical.

Joe Gwinn

The site http://www.biblegateway.com has more translations than you
can shake a stick at.

Thanks for the URL; I'll look into it.


The passage seems to say that when you capture an enemy woman you
should let herself get cleaned up, get her some new clothes and give
her a month to get over the fact that your guys have slaughtered her
family. Only then can you take liberties with her, and if you decide
to dump her, you have to just let her go rather than passing your
right of ownership to someone else. I don't see anything there
relating to abortion.

That's how I read it, except that if you dump her, you must free her
rather than selling her into slavery (a common fate of captives at the
time).


Also, Exodus 22 (New Living Translation)

2" If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is
killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty.
3 But if it happens in daylight, the one who killed the thief is guilty
of murder.

Actually, I think that we still have roughly similar laws in many states.

There is nothing new under the sun.


Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

Certainly there are. But almost all of the ones that give trouble in
medicine come from religion.

I'm reminded of an old friend of mine, taught by the Jesuits and
Harvard-educated, an old-time Catholic, who says his God "is an angry
God."
g He prefers the Old Testament. And then I was reading today a
reference
to a passage from Deuteronomy 21:10 that they must have skipped in
parochial
school, but which I had read as an adult, in which the Bible proclaims a
right to capture women in battle, shave their heads, lock them up for a
month, rape them into matrimony, and then deny them the right to an
abortion
afterward.

I too looked into the bibles available to me, the King James and Young's
Literal Translation, which say more or less the same thing. It's a
statement of either custom and/or law on the handling of captive women,
in the context of the day.

But I cannot see anything about denial of abortion rights, or even the
slightest most oblique reference to the issue. Could you help me find
the thread here?

Ah, the article referred to the irony of the sexual violence explicit in
Deut. 21:10 and the claim made by some religious pro-lifers that Deuteronomy
contains numerous pro-life inferences, in which life is "positive," and that
therefore God was saying that abortion was "negative."

I don't buy that pro-life claim about Deuteronomy, but the ironic comment is
something I've heard before from pro-choice folks, in answer to the supposed
anti-abortion inferences of Deuteronomy as a whole.

I must say that the reference to abortion mystified
me, as these verses have to be 5,000 years old, long before medical
abortion became remotely practical.

Well, biblical scholars mostly place Moses's life around 1200 - 1500 BC or
so, and both physical and herbal (medicinal) methods for inducing abortion
were recorded from before the time of Hippocrates. He wrote of it himself.
So it's been around for a long time. It seems likely that it's been with us
since Moses's time.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

Certainly there are. But almost all of the ones that give trouble in
medicine come from religion.

I'm reminded of an old friend of mine, taught by the Jesuits and
Harvard-educated, an old-time Catholic, who says his God "is an angry
God."
g He prefers the Old Testament. And then I was reading today a
reference
to a passage from Deuteronomy 21:10 that they must have skipped in
parochial
school, but which I had read as an adult, in which the Bible proclaims a
right to capture women in battle, shave their heads, lock them up for a
month, rape them into matrimony, and then deny them the right to an
abortion
afterward.

I too looked into the bibles available to me, the King James and Young's
Literal Translation, which say more or less the same thing. It's a
statement of either custom and/or law on the handling of captive women,
in the context of the day.

But I cannot see anything about denial of abortion rights, or even the
slightest most oblique reference to the issue. Could you help me find
the thread here?

Ah, the article referred to the irony of the sexual violence explicit in
Deut. 21:10 and the claim made by some religious pro-lifers that Deuteronomy
contains numerous pro-life inferences, in which life is "positive," and that
therefore God was saying that abortion was "negative."

I don't buy that pro-life claim about Deuteronomy, but the ironic comment is
something I've heard before from pro-choice folks, in answer to the supposed
anti-abortion inferences of Deuteronomy as a whole.

I must say that the reference to abortion mystified
me, as these verses have to be 5,000 years old, long before medical
abortion became remotely practical.

Well, biblical scholars mostly place Moses's life around 1200 - 1500 BC or
so, and both physical and herbal (medicinal) methods for inducing abortion
were recorded from before the time of Hippocrates. He wrote of it himself.
So it's been around for a long time. It seems likely that it's been with us
since Moses's time.

--
Ed Huntress

Finding abortion in the bible is like finding it in the constitution.
You have to look through the "vapor". g

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Gus" wrote in message
ups.com...

[snip]

And can't there be ethical questions outside of
religion?

Certainly there are. But almost all of the ones that give trouble in
medicine come from religion.

I'm reminded of an old friend of mine, taught by the Jesuits and
Harvard-educated, an old-time Catholic, who says his God "is an angry God."
g He prefers the Old Testament. And then I was reading today a reference
to a passage from Deuteronomy 21:10 that they must have skipped in parochial
school, but which I had read as an adult, in which the Bible proclaims a
right to capture women in battle, shave their heads, lock them up for a
month, rape them into matrimony, and then deny them the right to an abortion
afterward.

I too looked into the bibles available to me, the King James and Young's
Literal Translation, which say more or less the same thing. It's a
statement of either custom and/or law on the handling of captive women,
in the context of the day.

But I cannot see anything about denial of abortion rights, or even the
slightest most oblique reference to the issue. Could you help me find
the thread here?

Ah, the article referred to the irony of the sexual violence explicit in
Deut. 21:10 and the claim made by some religious pro-lifers that Deuteronomy
contains numerous pro-life inferences, in which life is "positive," and that
therefore God was saying that abortion was "negative."

It's a bit remote, to be sure.

A significant bit of the Old Testament (I forget which books) was about
competition between tribes, and one standard way to grow one's tribe was
to conquer a neighboring tribe and steal their women, killing or
enslaving the men. Slaves fetch a good price.

And killing or enslaving any overly resistant women. This is probably
the evolutionary basis for the Stockholm Syndrome.

I would guess that the purpose of the shaved head, new clothes, and
month of grieving in solitude is to cause the woman to "readjust", so
that at the end of the month she will welcome her conquerer.


I don't buy that pro-life claim about Deuteronomy, but the ironic comment is
something I've heard before from pro-choice folks, in answer to the supposed
anti-abortion inferences of Deuteronomy as a whole.

There is a reason I don't try to follow this debate.


I must say that the reference to abortion mystified
me, as these verses have to be 5,000 years old, long before medical
abortion became remotely practical.

Well, biblical scholars mostly place Moses's life around 1200 - 1500 BC or
so, and both physical and herbal (medicinal) methods for inducing abortion
were recorded from before the time of Hippocrates. He wrote of it himself.
So it's been around for a long time. It seems likely that it's been with us
since Moses's time.

One assumes that these were oral traditions long before being written
down, but OK, let's say it's more like 3000-4000 years ago. It's still
millennia before the invention of modern medicine.

Some of those herbs are used to this day, but still the abortion debate
of 1500 BC would turn only on the practical issues of efficacy versus
risk of the few options then available. None were particularly
attractive.

Joe Gwinn

"Gus" wrote in message
oups.com...

Well, biblical scholars mostly place Moses's life around 1200 - 1500 BC
or
so, and both physical and herbal (medicinal) methods for inducing
abortion
were recorded from before the time of Hippocrates. He wrote of it
himself.
So it's been around for a long time. It seems likely that it's been with
us
since Moses's time.

--
Ed Huntress

Finding abortion in the bible is like finding it in the constitution.
You have to look through the "vapor". g

Yeah. They don't seem to have thought much about it.

Tracing the historical record of religious positions on abortion is a really
interesting exercise, BTW. It's been back-and-forth, back-and-forth, for
millenia. At the time the US Constitution was signed, the English common law
and the Catholic Church both had almost identical doctrines (no abortion
after "quickening" under common law; no abortion after "ensoulment" in the
Catholic Church, both of which occurred some time in what we now call the
second trimester). Other churches were mostly mute on the subject in modern
times, until the 1820s. And it didn't become a big religious cause until the
1840s. The Catholic Church didn't reverse St. Thomas Aquinas's "delayed
ensoulment" doctrine until 1869.

All of which leads one to wonder what the drafters and ratifiers of the
Constitution would have thought about laws that would outlaw abortion, in
the 1780s. I wonder if they thought it was within the powers of Congress to
say anything about it at all.

--
Ed Huntress

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...

A significant bit of the Old Testament (I forget which books) was about
competition between tribes, and one standard way to grow one's tribe was
to conquer a neighboring tribe and steal their women, killing or
enslaving the men. Slaves fetch a good price.

And killing or enslaving any overly resistant women. This is probably
the evolutionary basis for the Stockholm Syndrome.

Wow, I haven't heard that connection before, but the principle could be much
the same. That's a very interesting link that you've drawn, Joe.


I would guess that the purpose of the shaved head, new clothes, and
month of grieving in solitude is to cause the woman to "readjust", so
that at the end of the month she will welcome her conquerer.

Well, biblical scholars mostly place Moses's life around 1200 - 1500 BC
or
so, and both physical and herbal (medicinal) methods for inducing
abortion
were recorded from before the time of Hippocrates. He wrote of it
himself.
So it's been around for a long time. It seems likely that it's been with
us
since Moses's time.

One assumes that these were oral traditions long before being written
down, but OK, let's say it's more like 3000-4000 years ago. It's still
millennia before the invention of modern medicine.

Some of those herbs are used to this day, but still the abortion debate
of 1500 BC would turn only on the practical issues of efficacy versus
risk of the few options then available. None were particularly
attractive.

Probably not efficacious, but I wonder if that would be part of an "abortion
debate" in 1500 BC. It more likely would have been all about religion or
philosophy, I would think.

--
Ed Huntress