Anti-abortionist expects 'great reward'

[Skunk]

There is one loophole for the stoning-issue though. If somebody commits a crime which your society's law states needs him/her to be removed from society that does not necessarily mean to kill him/her if you can just move him/her to a society where his actions would be perfectly legal. So it would be only logical if you help a woman escape from a stoning to ship her to say Europe. After all she is "dead" for her old society and poses no threat in the new one. Until stoning is abolished in her old country however she cannot/should not go back.

All good points to be sure. Now my words last take on the issue with a little bit of the motivation.

My belief (to use Baldur's gate parlence) is that no-one is truely a 'lawful-good' charactor; we are (by my reckoning) 'chaotic good' - we want to follow the rules that society lays down for us (however painful) but we have our limits as far as our fundemental beliefs on good and evil are concerned. Perhaps I am wrong in that belief - but it is one that sustains my faith in humanity - that we will always do what is 'right' in the end; regardless of the trouble that it gets us into. But I could be wrong - only I hope that I'm not...

Finally, a word on Hadd offenses and their punishments. Hadd offenses like adultery and the prescribed hadd punishment of stoning serve a very specific function in the society in which they are administered. To understand the why and wherefores of this, one must consider the three prevailing environmental factors in which Hadd offenses end up on the statute books.

1. The society is normally deeply islamic
2. From a cultural point of view - society is conservative
3. *MOST IMPORTANT*; central governmnent authority is weak (ie nearest policeman is 100+ miles; nearest garrison (police/army) 100+ miles away.

Under these circumstances, society is generally tribal in nature; families form alliances and stick by one another to the end - especially so in rough poorly policed areas where these bonds make the difference between life and death. Far from being disorganised, families have hierarchial structures, villages form hierarchies between families; as one family become subservient to the next. The entire stability of the society hinges on custom and adherence to the rules. When the rules are broken, justice must be swift.

When adultery occurs, there is great dishonour on the family of those concerned. If the family is to retain it's place within the hierarchy it must be seen that it has recieved justice for the 'transgression' against it. There are only two ways that this can be done - either the hadd offense is punished; or retribution is taken upon the other family. Thus the stoning is considered to be the less bloody option. The woman is killed, the family feels that its honour has been satisfied and the matter is closed. When the woman avoids is protected from 'justice' - hell breaks loose as the dishonoured family seeks revenge to satisfy its honour.

In the case of our fictional 'woman to be stoned', far from posing no threat to society, the fact that she has avoided 'justice' would inevitably lead to a great threat to the society that she is leaving behind; because her departure would cause a feud of the most bloody kind. Incidents like this explain are a classic example of what happens when the 'offended' family is denied redress to its 'honour' - and I have no doubt that the family of the slain will want to exact their own revenge on a similar scale...

[Rokenn]

Read this bit here in an article:

Most of the roughly 50 supporters of Mr. Hill were white men, some kneeling and praying, others singing "How Great Thou Art." Abortion rights advocates had said they planned to attend the execution and press their cause, but there was not a single person representing that movement. Three protesters said they were there to condemn Mr. Hill's violent act. About 20 others came to oppose the death penalty. Dan Holman, who said he drove here from Keokuk, Iowa, said Mr. Hill had "raised the standard" for anti-abortion protesters. "Some day, I hope I will have the courage to be as much as a man as he was," said Mr. Holman, who carried a sign that said: "Dead Doctors Can't Kill." Other signs read, "Killing Baby Killers Is Justifiable Homicide," and "Extremism in Defense of Life Is Not Extreme."

Sad when people hold up a terrorist as someone to be admired.

Also John, I am amazed that you are so caviliar about 198 acts of terrorism occuring in the last 26 years, thats an act of terrorism more then once every two months. But then one man's terrorist is another man's hero.

[Sir Taliesin]

Originally posted by Grojlach:

Closing your eyes sure won't help making all of the others disappear.
An excerpt from this newspaper:

Since 1977, there have been 189 arsons, bombings and shootings on abortion clinics throughout the country.

That's a pretty tragic number, but I find this number even worse! This was taken from a US Treasury Department News letter from 2000.

As reported in the Third Year Report of the NCATF, released in January, the Task Force had opened investigations into 827 arsons, bombings and attempted bombings that occurred at houses of worship between January 1, 1995 and October 5, 1999.

SOURCE

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Sir Taliesin: quote: Originally posted by Grojlach:

Closing your eyes sure won't help making all of the others disappear.
An excerpt from this newspaper:

Since 1977, there have been 189 arsons, bombings and shootings on abortion clinics throughout the country.

That's a pretty tragic number, but I find this number even worse! This was taken from a US Treasury Department News letter from 2000.

As reported in the Third Year Report of the NCATF, released in January, the Task Force had opened investigations into 827 arsons, bombings and attempted bombings that occurred at houses of worship between January 1, 1995 and October 5, 1999.

SOURCE [/QUOTE]I'm sure Mr Harris will poo-poo this as well.

[Night Stalker]

The problem with all of your examples Skunk, is that other than the 'crimes' they are committing by helping someone, they aren't harming anyone in the process. The ProLife Nuts seem to think that it is OK to take a life to save a life.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Ignorance of the law is an excuse in Britain

I don't think so. [/QUOTE]Agreed. Unless some statute changed the common law tradition.

Ignorance of the fact is an excuse. "I didn't know it was illegal to shoot a bald eagle" does not matter. "I thought it was a gold eagle" does matter. That's why the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act includes both -- the gold eagle benefits from its look-alike's status as endangered.

[Mouse]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Donut: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Ignorance of the law is an excuse in Britain

I don't think so. [/QUOTE]Agreed. Unless some statute changed the common law tradition.

Ignorance of the fact is an excuse. "I didn't know it was illegal to shoot a bald eagle" does not matter. "I thought it was a gold eagle" does matter. That's why the Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act includes both -- the gold eagle benefits from its look-alike's status as endangered. [/QUOTE]Hmmm, as TL well knows (and I have expounded at length elsewhere) generally, ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is especially true in quasi-criminal or administrative breaches of statute. Just try argueing in the U.K. that you didn't know you need a T.V. licence and see where it gets you [img]smile.gif[/img]

Such instances concentrate on the actus reus and tend to ignore the mens rea aspect of common law offences.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Faceman: "Calculated deaths" "Is it ethical to make cars legal?" Stupid question you say, BUT We know that abouy 50000 people/year will die in car accidents. We also know that we can use restrictions and laws to lower that figure but not to quell it completely. So basically we allow behaviour that benefits our society via killing people. We do so all the time. Our current economy would crash if there weren't some African/Asian kids living and dying under poor live conditions making our shoes/T-shirts/... and our cities would breakdown powerless without nuclear power plants of which we know one will fallout someday. This is all a cause of probability. If you have a powert plant and say it's chance of fallout is 1 in 10000 every year (just guessing numbers) you think: "That's pretty safe" But if you have 1000 power plants this means that about every ten years one will break down. Same with cars: One car is arguably safe but in large numbers some of the will break down. Now the (I think) easy answer to all of the above is: It is not necessarily unethical as long as people themselves choose to drive/live with nuclear power/... and have some control (or illusion of control ) over it. * People have died in accidents since some caveguy got hit by a falling tree. * More people => more accidents * we are willing to risk more of (our) lives to enjoy a better lifestyle. Believe it or not but every drive you take to work is a statement of: "LIve fast, die young"

Are these the same type of laws that are designed to stop muder, rape, or robbery, I couldn't help but notice how well they work I agree with your point about the cars, that's just pain old common sense.
But you missed the point of my post, which was complianing about 189 incidents in 26 years like it is an major problem, while ignoring real problems is a definate case of "Choking on a nat, but shallowing a camel" or in this case a Brontosuarus look at the opening post and the statemnet "How many are out there" When the facts show there are less then the number of serial murderers, or terrorist groups that have attacked and killed US citizens during the same time period. But people want to blow things out of proportion(sp?) because of their own views, which is fine as long as they don't get upset if others do the same thing just from a differant point of view. But I'll bet Dollars to pennies that they will get upset when others do the same thing. In fact they'll protest, then complain that there are others that are protesting on the other side.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

While your at it ask the Souix, Nez Perse (sp?) about the Blackfoot, or the Toltecs about the Aztecs, any of the tribes around the Maya, or any of the tibes that engaged in wars. Yes, they all did. "Hale" the Aztecs didn't even give you the chance to convert they just sliced your heart out of your chest and offered it up to their gods. How about the Hutto(sp?) and Tuttis(sp?) in Ronwanda a couple of years ago ask them about man's inhumanity to man.

The point you are missing is that none of your examples were religiously motivated. All of them were wars fought over land and hunting grounds.The Aztecs , much like the romans, went out and conqured other nations simply because they were there.

On the otherhand , Cortez and his men slaughtred them because their chief threw the bible he was offered on the ground and stomped on it. facts here: http://www.pbs.org/conquistadors/piz...zarro_g00.html

Dont forget the inqusion, where "Heresy" became a crime punishable by death, or the crusades to retake the "Holy Land" back from the heathen Muslims.From almost its inception, christianity has promoted the philosophy of believe as we do or die. Just read through the first half of the bible to see my point.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Mouse: Just try argueing in the U.K. that you didn't know you need a T.V. licence and see where it gets you [img]smile.gif[/img]

Same thing in Austria. However you can just state that you have no TV. They'd need a search warrant to enter you apartement and disprove you
and they're not likely to get one for the suspicion of such a minor offense. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Bah...I pay anyway (even if I can't afford it), because I watch sat and it's quite hard to tell them you have no TV when the dish is right in front of your window.