Nikhil, my dear chap,Thanks for the reply.
: The "fetus" is the scientifically accepted term for a child in the womb.
If you had read the beginning of my original post, you would clearly see that this is one of the exact steps used (ie. the codification in textbooks and jargon) to further the dehumanising process. So you prove my point, thank you very much indeed.
:To call the child in the womb during the first few days of conception "human life" is to stretch the truth mercilessly. "Human life" as we use the term has connotations of mental, spiritual and emotional capability- at least the POTENTIAL to feel joy or sorrow (or pain), to make decisions and choices, to ahve a religious experience. Prior to the second trimester, when the baby deve;lops a cerebral cortex, it has none of these capabilities. I don't think you can call a baby without any semblance of a brain quite "human life", and as such, abortion in the first trimester is not murder.
This was the same logic used against invalids, retards, and minorities in the 1930's. The were called untermenschen (sub-human) and were targeted to be rid of. Simply amazing that people in 1999 would still buy this line, isn't it?
On which day, hour, second, milli-second, nano-second does the "first trimester" (notice another dehumanising bureacratic term being applied here, as if the continuous process of life's cell multiplication can be divided into discreet intervals) end?
And if you are so courageous to answer this with a direct answer, then, Why isn't the child living a nano-second prior to that? a nano-second prior to that? a .....? ....
The clear answer is, life begins at conception because it can begin nowhere else. Cell multiplication begins there and continues through gestation all the way until a person dies.
: Ironical how some people abandon all compassion for the children of teh poor once they're born.
Well then, reach out and help them, don't sit there on your bum and cry about it. To set out on a programme to anihilate them is a bit extreme, wouldn't you agree?
: The "Third World", as far as I can tell, is a label accepted by most nations in the Third World. The label stemmed from teh fact that there was no term to describe the grouping of nations that was neitehr industrial-capitalist nor industrial-communist, and that these nations did tenmd to ahve some common interests. What term would you prefer?
I'm sure the term "Third World" is wildly popular amongst a lot of bureacrats regardless of where they come from, that doesn't make it any less dehumanising. The real issue here is that when that term gets translated into a strident effort to depopulate the poor folks who live in these regions, one must stop and say, hang on now something's a bit dodgey here.
: I can't believe I'm reading this. There are millions ofd women throughout the Third World who knwo that they don't want the pain of bearing eight children, only to see several of tehm starve tp death; tehy don't want to get into perpetual debt caring for their eight kids; they crave control over their own childbearing more than anything else. To limit their family size is necessary for their happiness, for teh kids' happiness, for the global environment, and for their nations' economic health. RThe technology exoists, but the US Congress wants to deny to teh women of teh Third World what we in thsi country enjoy- the ability and the freedpom to control and limit teh size of one's family. Nobodyu loses frpom using birth control- absolutely nobody. Can you really wish to deny birth control to the women of Africa, India or Latin America?
Actually, the starvation argument is a red herring. Man has more food per head now than at any time since the Neolithic Revolution. Food commodoties' prices are at an all time low. Since the 1960's, when fully 1/3 of the world's population was starving or on the hunger line the hunger problem has been solved through more food production. All of this whilst the world's population has doubled. So reality doesn't match your intended theory. Pockets that are indeed starving are those who are held captive by some despot (Comrade Kim Jong Il in North Korea comes to mind as an example), not for lack of available food stores.
: We've all got to pull together, sublimate our selfish desires, and agree to limit family size. Otherwise, God help our planet.
Actually, my experience is that those who have numerous children are the most generous of people. They give of themselves to raise the next generation. They deny themselves material benefit so as to give their children the very best they can.
Compare those with the yippie-type couple who, in "climbing the corporate ladder", prefer not to "bother" themselves with kids. Perhaps they value that dream home and BMW more than children. Not exactly a sign of sharing, hey?
As for those poor folks with a lot of kids, I live amongst a lot of them. The last thing that I would characterise them is selfish. That's a big myth, or perhaps an intentional lie, to use that on them.
Again,
Jesus loves the little children,
all the children of the world,
red and yellow, black and white,
they are prescious in His sight,
Jesus loves the little children of the world.
Even you Nikhil. God Bless.
Robert
