(3573)   Thu 17 Aug 95 18:53                             
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: Pope v life 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:4ba1 1f1196a0
Reposted with permission from droogoy@aol.com

THAT EVANGELIUM ENCYCLICAL

By now most unbelievers must be thoroughly accustomed to Pope John 
Paul 
II's literary antics. His Crossing the Threshold of Hope has now 
been on 
the New York Times Bestseller lists some x-plus weeks and has 
grossed many 
millions of dollars to enrich the Vatican's coffers. He has also 
penned two 
encyclicals in the past year - one Veritatis Splendor extolling the 
usual 
hopelessly impractical ideal of Catholic sexless love, while 
condemning all 
deviations to that norm including use of artificial contraception. 
The 
other Evangelium Vitae taking the bold stance that all human life 
must be 
regarded as 'sacred', and that abortion and euthanasia, as well as 
capital 
punishment are to be disallowed. The last is a particularly naive 
tract 
which has justifiably drawn fire from many quarters. Why 
''justifiably'?

At last count, the human numbers on this planet totalled nearly 5.8 
billion 
and threatened to overwhelm all the remaining ecosystems and 
unsullied 
natural resources (water, rain forests, fresh air). I believe it was 
science writer Isaac Asimov who first pointed out that each 
incremental 
increase of 100 million in the human population displaces  
permanently some 
648 plant and animal species. At this rate, it does not take a 
rocket 
scientist to perceive that - in another century say, when the global 
population is projected to reach 25 billion - there will be little 
in the 
way of non-human life remaining except for hardy weeds, rats and 
cockroaches. Already hundreds of species of birds, fish and 
amphibians are 
racing toward certain extinction - and we haven't even completed the 
century!

These facts bring up some harsh realities regarding the worth to be 
ascribed to human life. Indeed, one is left with two contradictory 
propositions to consider - which cannot be upheld simultaneously. 
The one 
favored by the pontiff - and many deluded religious thinkers - is 
that the 
worth of human life is not relative but absolute.  Accordingly, 
there can 
never be any condition or circumstance wherein human life may be 
sacrificed, or compromised. If it possesses an intrinsic absolute 
worth, 
then logically it has an absolute right to persist no matter what. A 
corollary to this is that if life has an absolute worth - there is 
no need 
to limit it! Indeed, both artificial contraception and abortion are 
excluded automatically on these grounds - as is euthanasia (from the 
opposite direction, e.g. extending life rather than inhibiting its 
initiation).

The alternative proposition is that human life cannot possibly 
possess an 
absolute worth - since this would (illogically) confer more 
importance upon 
the transitory life form (humans) than the life support system 
(Earth) 
needed to sustain it. This proposition - in fact - is embedded with 
a 
higher level of appreciation (and respect) for life (all life not 
just 
human) since it is recognized that once the planetary support 
system is 
compromised - no life can survive. We therefore arrive at the 'more 
human 
life = death' paradox which besets the proposition that the worth 
of human 
life is absolute. For if it is, ultimately all human life will 
perish! In 
effect, we have the paradox that the absolute worth of human life 
trivializes human life!

The multifold evidence for this already exists. I am referring, of 
course, 
to the progressive increase in greenhouse gases leading to global 
warming - 
and to the destruction of the ozone layer. Both effects are fuelled 
and 
driven by human population increases, and both - continued 
indefinitely, 
could result in the extinction of the human species and all other 
species.

In the case of global warming - the immediate effects are disastrous 
droughts, monster storms and rising sea levels, which could 
inundate more 
than 100 cities around the world by the end of the next century. The
The other 
effects - fuelling worldwide famine, would be disastrous in 
themselves. The 
ozone erosion - meanwhile, if extreme enough - could see the 
destruction  
by ultraviolet radiation of all the phyto-plankton in the oceans - 
which we 
all know produce 90% of the planet's oxygen (the land based flora 
produce a 
'mere' 10%, which statistic always seems to shock the unaware). In 
the 
latter case, it is a certainty that no human - or any other species 
(possible exception some viruses and anaerobic bacteria) would be 
left 
alive.

Now, given that each American - for example, produces some 600 tons 
of  
landfill waste each year, and expels some 20,000 pounds of 
greenhouse gases 
into the atmosphere (using the automobile), as well as erodes 
millions of 
ozone molecules (through the use of air conditioners and 
refrigerators, and 
various solvents) then where is the benefit in fanatically fighting 
to 
preserve an (American) life? (The other peoples of the world make 
their 
respective contributions to the planet's misery index as well - but 
we 
consider only Americans here, since they are the world's resource 
despoilers  and polluters par excellence.) 


 Larry Sites <LGSites@connectnet.com> JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 
 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
 * WR 1.31 # 398 * That was ZEN -- this is TAO
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 <v.32B> (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 835 890 943 1013 1326 147/7 270/101 
280/1 9 10 25
SEEN-BY: 280/31 45 52 115 135 333 378 398 290/627 396/1
@PATH: 202/212 201 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 835 943

----------------------------------------------------------------------
(3574)   Thu 17 Aug 95 18:55                             
By: LARRY SITES
To: ALL
Re: Pope v life 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
@EID:4ae1 1f1196e0
Loose thinking religionists, of course, will interpret and distort 
the 
above to imply that we can go out and do whatever to life to 
deplete it - 
but they miss the point. The second proposition does not disrespect 
life at 
all, it only places it into a relative context. Consider: a woman 
has just 
been impregnated and has no feeling for the fetus, and moreover 
regards it 
as an emotional and physical burden - apart from recognizing the 
burden it 
will pose to the planet! Even worse, the woman agonizes and suffers 
from 
prolonged periods of depression as the pregnancy progresses - 
threatening 
to kill both herself and the fetus. What is the justification to 
preserve 
it? There is none that is objective. Indeed, from an objective 
perspective, 
a young chimp - with many sentient abilities (including limited 
language 
skills) has more relative worth than the fetus - which is at or 
near the 
level of an advanced worm. Religionists - of course, will scream 
that the 
fetus has a 'soul', but we are talking here about things which are 
at least 
evidentiary, if not with full proof.

The same thing applies to the case of a person with advanced cancer 
of the 
stomach - now to the point that the agonizing pain is continuous 
and no 
nourishment can be retained. What is the point of remaining alive? 
There is 
none that is objective (though it is always interesting to see how 
those 
NOT in this position of suffering seem to have the 'answers'!) More 
to the 
point, where is the benefit of allowing this being to suffer (any 
more than 
allowing a young chimpanzee to suffer in barbaric medical 
experiments 
wherein it is claimed, idiotically: 'Well...duh..uh. the animal 
feels no 
pain, yuh know??' Oh yeah - well about trading places with it, or 
better 
yet a head-neurological transplant while we throw the zapper one 
more time 
or flay the skin off its belly!)

The relative worth proposition, in effect, does not go against 
human life - 
but rather human life at all costs. Indeed, in the Materialist 
underpinning 
of Atheism, human life is indeed valued highly - since it is 
acknowledged 
that this earthly life is the only one there is. However, the 
Atheist/Materialist seeks not only life but also a certain quality 
thereof 
which makes it worth living in the first place. Assuredly this 
quality is 
not found in a world polluted by greenhouse gases - with daily 
temperature 
lows 120F or more, and next to no oxygen because all the plant life 
has 
been annhiliated by UV radiation pouring through holes in the ozone 
layer.

What about capital punishment? Certainly, this should not be 
barbaric - any 
more than putting a rabid wolf to sleep that has killed a number of 
cattle. 
At the same time - fanatically fighting to preserve the life of a 
murderer, 
especially one who shows no remorse, is illogical - given the 
population 
and resource pressures to which the planet is currently subject. 
Preserving 
a life - any life - simply for the sake of preserving it, can no 
longer be 
rationally justified. And, if the goodly pontiff has a problem with 
this - 
then perhaps all those now on death rows worldwide could instead be 
dispatched to the Vatican where their needs can be properly met in a 
pro-life context. Let the Vatican feed and house them for the 
remainder of 
their natural lifetimes - if indeed, the Pope seriously believes 
all human 
life is so precious and is not merely paying lip service. Let him 
put up or 
shut up, in other words.

In the final anaysis, words are cheap - especially the torrent of 
papal 
pedantry that pours out of various encyclicals. The problem is that 
these 
words seldom touch base with hard reality, as was the case with the 
ill-conceived Humanae Vitae, penned by Pope Paul VI in 1968, and 
generally 
held to be the single most important factor responsible for the 
dramatic 
increase in human suffering and depradation on the planet since then 
(Yallop, 1984) For those who may have forgotten, that encyclical 
was the 
one that roundly condemned all form of artificial contraception. 
Less well 
known, is that the pontiff rejected the unanimous advice of his own 
specially appointed papal commission - in coming down on the 
conservative 
side. (For details, see the excellent book In God's Name, by David 
Yallop, 
Corgi Books, 1984).  Perhaps the hidden motive in these encyclicals 
is best 
articulated by Paul Avis in his excellent work Eros and the Sacred 
(SPCK 
Books, Gr. Britain, 1989, pp 61-62):

"It is essential to the survival of the more authoritarian Churches 
to keep 
their members in a state of oral passivity and dependence in which 
- being 
continually reminded that they have no good in themselves - they 
receive 
their sustenance from the supportive hands of 'mother' Church - as 
they 
wait with open mouths at her altars...
To inculcate an attitude of docile passivity and dependence, or 
orality - 
on the part of the faithful masses - requires on the part of those 
who do 
so, a corresponding attitude of rigidity, conservatism, and 
punctiliousness 
expressed in a concern for correct belief and practice... Executors 
of this 
policy betray themselves as belonging to that character type in 
Freud's 
phenomenology that corresponds to the anal stage of infant 
auto-eroticism.."


To which we can only say to the Pope, and the formulators of the new 
Catholic Catechism: "if the shoe fits, wear it".



 Larry Sites <LGSites@connectnet.com> JC's Fireman: Luke 12:49 
 Freq FORGERY.ZIP, Falisfy Fundi father fakery
___
 * WR 1.31 # 398 * Inspiration in the Bible depends on ignorance of 
reader.
--- FMailX/386 1.0g
 * Origin: The Open Forum SD CA (619)284-2924 <v.32B> (1:202/212)
SEEN-BY: 102/2 138 435 752 835 890 943 1013 1326 147/7 270/101 
280/1 9 10 25
SEEN-BY: 280/31 45 52 115 135 333 378 398 290/627 396/1
@PATH: 202/212 201 777 3615/50 396/1 280/1 102/2 835 943
