[Spam] [Vision2020] Tony has not been paying attention

[lfalen]

Nick
I don't wish to get in on the Abortion argument, but would like to make a comment. Other than saying conservative, a better term would be Religious Conservative. There are plenty on comparatives that do not adhere to the Robertson-Falwell line. Some Religious conservatives are not conservative in the economic sence. Also A statement that was attributed to you(I didn't read it in any think I read of yours) that people are the only ones that deliberately inflict violence is in error(Paraphrased). A lot of animals kill for the fun of it. Dogs kill Chickens, sheep and other animals for the fun of it and not for something to eat.
Abortion is a tricky subject, there probably is no set right or wrong.The various viewpoints are good to debate however.

Roger
-----Original message-----
From: nickgier at adelphia.net
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:42:14 -0700
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Spam] [Vision2020] Tony has not been paying attention

> Hi Tony,
> 
> I'm posting parts of a letter that first appeared on this list and then in the Daily News. There are more details in my abortion article at www.class.edu/ngier/abortion, which evidently you have still not read. 
> 
> Please note that Paul Jewett (mentioned below) is a conservative Christian at Fuller Seminary, a famous evangelical school in Pasadena.  I didn't make up these laws/rules; I'm just passing on our legal, moral, and religious tradition.  Good luck in changing them.
> 
> Just for clarity: I do not encourage the killing of an living being, but I do support the right of women, if that is their choice, to abort fetuses who are not moral and legal persons.  I belive that abortions must be few and safe, something that America's conservatives have not made possible.
> 
> Here are parts of that letter:
> 
> I don’t know what to make of Michelle Asplund’s rude and incoherent response 
> (Jan. 30) to my column on abortion (Jan. 20).  I’m just happy that the ultimate 
> decision on this complex matter is in the hands of learned jurists rather than 
> voters such as Asplund. 
>  
> Ms. Asplund sounds like a conservative, but a conservative has more respect for 
> tradition than she does. For example, Thomas Aquinas, who was declared 
> infallible by Pope Pius IX, believed that the fetus was not a person until late 
> in pregnancy. 
>  
> When I asked Doug Wilson what a person was for our debate on abortion in 1983, 
> he answered that a person possesses the “image of God.” Evangelical theologian 
> Paul Jewett sums up the traditional Christian understanding of a person with the 
> image of God as “a rational, moral, and religious agent.” 
>  
> Until the “quickening” of the fetus in the womb was accepted as a standard 
> (again soon enough for most abortions today), Sir Edward Coke expressed English 
> law in the 17th Century when he said that a fetus is a “reasonable creature. . . 
> when it is born alive."
> 
> If this is "whacked," then offer a good argument for an alternative view. You've failed to do that and you are now left with just nasting rhetoric.  You will not change any laws with sophmorics such as yours.
> 
> You still owe me an apology for calling me a Nazi.
> 
> Nick
> 
> _____________________________________________________
>  List services made available by First Step Internet, 
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>                http://www.fsr.net                       
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
>