B. Royce

Well, it is easy to see that the idea of "homeland security" will appeal to concrete-bound mentalities, and that "securing individual rights" will not be grasped, and hence will be violated. The title of this thread, ominous as it is, is right on the money.

I envy you, Jose, that you still have the supreme beauty of Swinburne's "Tristram of Lyonesse" and the grandeur of his "Erechtheus" ahead of you. Though I add, I still read them with enjoyment every year since my first reading some 38 years ago.

You're right; I missed that "reading aloud" dot About reading poetry, I have run across the following problem: apparently quite a few people have the mistaken idea that if they enjoy reading light-hearted poetry, or enjoyable rhyming poetry, they are being immature and childish. They think that poetry should be deeply serious and nothing else. If they have that idea (consciously or subconsciously) they have the most difficult time trying to read aloud happy poems. It's as though their minds are saying, "If you let yourself enjoy this, it will be proof that you are immature," similar to the disapproving, "You want to be like a hero? grow up!" Having said that, for beginners I would recommend an older anthology of poems of various types (love lyrics, story poems, childrens' poems, patriotic poems, and humorous). Read some of each type, aloud, let yourself enjoy the sound of your own voice as it follows rhythms and hits rhymes. If you're not sure about a meaning, don't stop, flow on ahead; you can come back at a second or third reading to get the fuller meaning. But, if you run across a phrase or line that really delights you, go ahead and repeat it a few times; get the taste of it in your mouth! I remember the first time I read "One misty moisty morning" (the first line of a children's poem which I ran across when I was in my twenties). I repeated it ten times or so before I went on with the poem. "Hey, was that mature? was that philosophical? What a child!" If your voice doesn't satisfy you, if it's not strong or vibrant enough, or if you just don't really enjoy it, get a book of oral exercises from the library and after a week or two of exercises you'll be sure to notice a vast improvement and increase of selfish enjoyment. Make your voice an instrument of personal pleasure.

I always read poetry aloud; after all, it is idealized speech, and without the speaking of it, it must fail to realize its full potential. Art is an end in itself, and I, in recitation, alone, speaker and hearer at once, experience the pleasure of my speaking as an end in myself. When I listen to others recite poetry, even poems which I love and which are recited well, my enjoyment is much less intense, like seeing a poster of a painting instead of the painting itself. To enjoy in solitude one's own reading, one must have developed the skill of oral reading, and since that skill is not usually taught these days, few people develope a love for poetry. There are, instead, thousands of anti-poets who gather at ant-poetry jams and "recite" all kinds of bad prose. These people call themselves lovers of poetry, and give the impression that poetry is essentially an irrational, ugly, and primarily public form of entertainment. But the enjoyment of poetry requires one of the most prescious of values---solitude, plus the love of giving pleasureable expression to meaningful thought. When one has recited, or said, such poetry, one can realize as well that "I am the meaning".

In verse, The Way It Oughta Be "A million dollars on the artist's head," the evil cleric said. With right on his side, the artist replied, "Too late, you're through; There's more than two on you."

How about a two million bounty on that cleric's head?

Five Point O My perfect grade's Not four point O, But five points made That grow and grow: One, you are the one; Two, you know it's true; Three, 'twill always be; Four, what'd have you more? Five, just let it thrive! The tests are done, All courses passed; Diplomas burn In one held fast. _____________________ Brian Faulkner

A simple one for Valentine's Day. Mine Two hearts be beating, Four lips repeating, "Mine! Mine! Mine!" Two eyes are winking, Two minds are thinking, "Mine! Mine! Mine!" True bodies stun, True spirits one, "Mine! Mine! Mine!" __________________________ Brian Faulkner

It would help to restate 1) and 2): If 1) I am identical with myself, and 2)each thing in reality is identical with itself; or, if each thing that exists is what it is, how is it that some things (including me) are able to be aware of other things? The problem in your formulation was that you spoke of yourself as a concrete, but of reality as a floating generality.

God forbid!

A few lines based on The New Testament: "Go thou, and love thine enemy," he said. I heard, and how I love that he's now dead. "When thou art stricken, turn thy cheek, be kind". I turned, walloped, made him meek-inclined. "He plucked thine eye? Give him the other one." I gave him perfect site of my loud gun. "He thirsts; give him for drink thy living blood". O vile teacher, evil son of God. ____________________________________ Brian Faulkner

I don't have the information you want, just wanted to say, "Congratulations". I'm assuming that that "part" is of a religious nature. I hope you get what you want---in that, and in all things.

Hmm, just as I thought---programming which goes in aimless circles. If anyone else on this forum wishes to express their thoughts regarding the programming, I hope that you will remember that you are not debating any thing or any one. I am now going to look for an interesting way to spend my time. Adios.

The "if's" that you refer to mean "since", but, since you have been programmed to disregard context, you have no choice, and if you should now respond that you do understand context, you will have been programmed to respond to assertions of your lack of understanding with denials. Unless, of course, You have been programmed to not respond at all. So, we will now see how you have been programmed; then we can judge if it is an interesting form of programming or not. You cannot judge; all you can do is manifest your programming, which your are doing right now as you read this. Hmm, I wonder if he is programmed to read this post?

Life does not exist. What exists are individual living things. The meaning of your life is what you have chosen, and will chose, what to do and what to make of it. Once you leave the stratospheric no man's land of floating abstractions, you will find questions like this much easier to answer. That should read "what to do_ with_".

Here are two unrelated poems. Night's Done Are these mere baby's eyes That claim all starry skies their own? There is no crown here But a soft brown down For queen or kingly sign. One finger points, puts out Mars; One calm palm pats the moon. Baby smiles, and we know night's done soon. Done soon? Done now! Shade eclipsed by radiant lips and brow, By smile mild face that leaves no trace in ours Of sorrow's powers or twilight hours. Some fools be wait till day to see light; We but see our baby---the sun is bright. _________________________________________ Determined I have not chosen to say That I have no choice what I say, And I have not chosen to post it Or pick up my drink and toast it. I'm a robot in all that I do, A robot in all that I am, Determined to sit with my brew Remembering choice is a sham. "The bar is closing; it's one." Wait! You can see I'm not done! My God! How can you so dare!? You're not, evidently, fair! "I have not chosen to meet The seat of your pants with the street, But it comes with a bit of a smile, oh, A choiceless, choicy style---oh?" _______________________________________ Brian Faulkner

I have re-thought this and I agree; cutting the cord does not confer manhood. The cord is just a temporary leftover from a previous state, the state which was left behind upon ejection from the womb.

All your young life you have been making the (implicit) choice to live, by eating, learning, playing. Later, you can make it a consciously formulated choice. Or, if you find yourself so miserable, you can choose to kill yourself. But as long as you don't choose that, you are choosing to live, consistently or not, depending on the ideas in your head.

To go back to the beginning: as I see it, the question should be What is the dividing line between fetus and baby? I'm assuming a normal context---a healthy pregnant woman gives a natural birth to a normal healthy baby. the unnatural, the exceptional, the rare cases, should be discussed after, not before, the usual and normal. The answer to the above question is simply, A fetus, whole, or any part thereof, is that which is in the womb; when it is free of the womb, which includes cutting the umbilical cord, you have a baby, a human being in its first natural state---free. The purpose of rights is to protect this ferst free natural state from the initiation of force by others. If a pregnant woman wants to abort her fetus at the last hour, it is her, the right she herself was born with, and which she does not forfeit because she is pregnant, to do so. Being pregnant is not a crime. As you can see, to me this is a very simple issue. I see no need to make it complex. Historically, of course, the initiators of complexity regarding this issue have been the Christians with their idea that at conception God plants a soul in "the seed of life". But the human soul is self-made, and begins when the faculty of volition is free to perceive the world around it with its senses, free to move its arms, legs and head---free, as a new, soveriegn, independent, end-in-itself individual.

Yes, essentially that is my view. But it is not a specific amount of time that is significant, but the actual exercising of independent (non-womb, non-incubator) ability to live. Specifying a particular time (especially if made law) would ignore differing development rates; that is, would ignore individuals just as they become individuals. Individual rights would be meaningless.

In terms of its intended use (its final cause, as Aristotle would say) an incubator IS an extended womb. And, just as an incubator needs energy(electricity) to run properly, so does a pregnant woman's body need energy (food) to run properly. You go from broken incubators to dead women, instead of from an incubator with a broken part (which can be replaced or fixed) to a woman who has a broken part (like an arm, that can be fixed). Thus your reasoning is a little skewed. "When it is born---expelled from the mother"... (what is now its mother) "...it is no longer a fetus..." To this I agree. But, if the fetus is not, through natural processes (even when that process is aided, it is at root natural), expelled from its carrier, it still remains a fetus IF it must be hooked up to womb-like apparatus. Its basic condition is not changed just because it can exist for a short while going from the womb to the incubator. It is no nearer to breast-feeding than it was in the natural womb.

But what is the incubator (in the specific context of a malfunctioning womb) if not an extension of a healthy womb? A person who needs oxygen is able to use it because his previous state was that of being capable to live. The same with the sailor and the astronaut, and you being electrocuted. What exists inside the womb, (natural or artificial) is not a person; it is only a fetus.

Viability, in its most general sense, means capable of living. A fetus is not capable of living---rather, the woman whose womb it is in is capable of keeping her fetus alive. When a fetus is placed in an incubator the fetus is not capable of living. If there is a power failure in the morning, at the end of the day the doctor in charge will still be capable of living, but the fetus will never reach that stage. The term "viable" is never used by anti-abortionists in its widest sense; they depend on its continued narrow usage. They want, also, to continue to use words like "child" and "baby" when referring to the fetus. Why? Because they don't want reality to get in the way. For example, when a pregnant woman's friend comes up and puts her hand on her belly and says, "How's the baby doing today?" is she picturing in her mind a placenta-covered, curled up fetus, or a smiling, open-eyed, hand-waving baby? If the latter, then she is regarding her imagination as if it were reality, and the word "abortion" will become synonymous with murder in her mind. In most discussions of abortion the terms "mother" and "father" are also often missused. A pregnant woman is not a mother, the impregnating man is not a father, until there is a baby to be a mother and father of. The same goes with "sister" and "brother" and all other terms of family relations. But note that, outside of philosophical and scientific discussion, the use of these terms is perfectly legitimate----AS LONG AS the users keep in mind that they are speaking in terms of future expectations. You can easily see that in a society in which Aristotelean logic and precise definitions are not taught, the misuse of these terms in discussion is going to be rampant. Which is why it behooves those who ARE capable of knowing better to use terms properly.

To state that the use of "kid' or "child" for "fetus" is sloppy thinking is not an insult, just a proper evaluation. Nothing personal was intended. If, as you assert, a human fetus can survive without the aid of its carrier at 7 or 8 months, then why don't we just cut the embilical cord at THAT time, then wait and see what happens?

Here, again, is sloppy thinking. A fetus is not a "kid" or a "child", wanted or unwanted. Viability does not change a fetus into a baby. A fetus does not have the right to be taken out of a woman's womb. If it did have such a right, it could only be exercised, not by itself, but by a doctor, which would mean that a doctor would have the right to violate the rights of the woman. He would not be using retaliatory force, he would be initiating it (this is excluding instances involving her request, of course). If a woman is told that her fetus can mature only in an artificial womb, no one has the right to force her onto an operating table. The woman is an individual (independent, apart, separate) human being. Her (belonging to her, owned by her) fetus is not. It is not society's or the world's, or even her husband's, fetus. It is hers alone. She alone has the right to decide what to do with it. Anything else is the unholy, primitive, sacrifice of the individual.