NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/talk/abortion/54924

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-09 | 4.3 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:54924 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12086 alt.rush-limbaugh:13496 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show:106
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!unixhub!ditka!wetware!drieux
From: [e-mail] (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh.tv-show
Subject: Article 92, 133, 134? Add Article 7
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 9 Jan 93 22:47:19 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet News Account)
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Lines: 99
Nntp-Posting-Host: vladimir


I presume that Michael's news reader is down....

And hence retransmit this again, and point out that he should
be very careful about how he goes about arguing the matter of
allowing things that one will not do....

I have added article 7 of the UCMJ to the list to point to one
of the more interesting intellecutal complications of his argument.

Yes, article 7 stipulates who is under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ,
and thus argues against binding others to its rules.

I present to him that if He truely holds to the position that a
thing is WRONG IN ALL CASES, then he must find a way to resolve
how he can uphold his obligations to the UCMJ....

Otherwise, he has not only shot his own argumentative foot off,
but has also proven that he can NOT work within the obligations
of the UCMJ.

Having seen the "colnel's coup d' etat" his argument presents me
with a GREAT AMOUNT of angst as to the question of how far he
is willing to go to impose the UCMJ on all, so as to escape
his own ethical dilemma.

ciao
drieux

[e-mail] (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] [e-mail] (Michael P Noonan) writes:
] ] In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] ] |> [e-mail] (Michael P Noonan) writes:
] ] |> ] In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] ] |> ] |> [e-mail] (Paul Lebow) writes:
] ] |> ] |> ]
] ] |> ] |> ] What's the problem?  Most
] ] |> ] |> ] would gladly accept that label.  Unless, of course, you're just a wee bit
] ] |> ] |> ] uneasy with the concept of abortion.  A hint of concsience maybe?
] ] |> ] |>
] ] |> ] |> Just thought I would ask,
] ] |> ] |> or is this too a matter of conscience?
] ] |> ]
] ] |> ] I wouldn't use napalm myself, but I'm for the rights of others to use it.
] ] |> ] So I guess I'm pro-choice.  ;->
] ] |>
] ] |> Is this an Awareness of MoralGuilt Creeping OUT?
] ] |>
] ] |> Its Not that you want to Use Napalm, but you will
] ] |> allow others to use it......
] ] |>
] ] |> Why Not come Right out and Admit that Latently You
] ] |> are AntiMilitary, and Want to Dehumanize All Vets,
] ] |> and deprive them of a Primary Defensive Mechanism....
] ]
] ] I din't respond to this initially since I thought it was a form of
] ] sarcasm and I wasn't sure if I was really being insulted or not.
] ]
] ] I am an officer in the military, sir.  My comment was meant to
] ] point out what I perceive to be an inconsistancy in belief with
] ] those pro-choicers who believe that abortion is wrong, but they
] ] feel that they have no right to lobby for legislation against it.
] ] That is, I believe that if something is wrong for me, it is wrong
] ] for others as well.
]
]
] Minor Point of Logical Contention here:
]
] What are your opinions, in light of your,
] It stands for all approach, to the minor
] matter of the above stipulated UCMJ articles.
]
] Either You have just asserted that You wish
] all to be under the obligations of said stipulated
] articles, or You have just stipulated that you are
] in direct violation of them by opposing them.
]
] If You are any man of Honor, then to follow
] your Code, you are Obliged to resign your
] commission and seek other employment!
]
] Please make a  bid, call, or fold.
]
] ciao
] drieux
]
]
] --
] Modern Day Problems:
]
] "lets get linear, I want to get linear, linear"
]                 Olivia Newton Algegra


--
MajorModernDayProblems: "Olivia Newton-John is the grand-daughter
of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Sir Edmund Newton-John." --Frank

Clear Proof Of Genetic Superiority, eh No????