[Vision2020] Fwd: Is there a correlation between "Fore Gras"Killing Babies!

[Joe Campbell]

Dear Doug,

This is my last reply to you, since you don't even read what I'm writing. Instead of responding to my arguments you keep responding to the views of Mr. Idiot-Liberal. Maybe his views are "toxic" but if you actually took the time to try to figure out my views you'd see that they are not.

1. Abortion is a bad thing and should be avoided. Likewise with eating foie gras. But the law is not the right vehicle for creating a moral society. Just because X is immoral it doesn't automatically follow that X should be illegal.

2. The law is a great vehicle for protecting people from harm. The law should only be concerned with cases of clear harms to clear persons (rape, etc.). 

3. Several days is less than 15-18 days, so you still have not said anything to suggest that abortion is worse than foie gras preparation. This is a relative claim, though. I agree that both are bad. (See no. 1 above.)

I have to get back to my day job!

Best, Joe

--
Joe Campbell

---- heirdoug at netscape.net wrote: 

=============
Yes Joe, I did read it carefully.

After the poor woman is given the death drug it can take several days 
for the baby to be killed. All the while the mother is in great pain 
 from cramps and bleeding and the baby thrashing around in side of her. 
Then when she goes and gets the next death drug it can take several 
hours or days to deliver a dead baby. The follow up visit of Step 3 is 
to make sure that the mother is still alive and no infection has onset 
in her womb. This only serves to reduce the liability of the clinic in 
a law suit.

You may not have used the term of compassion for the woman but many 
others who promote abortion use it. Now you say that you do not promote 
abortion but your desire to remain philosophical is just as toxic as 
the misoprostol.

Do you think that the above time line if very compassionate? Do you 
know that there are instances of that time line extending out for 
several weeks? Did you know that some of those babies that have been 
attacked by the 'clinician' survived and are now alive to tell the 
story?

I think it's good that you believe abortion is a bad thing but what is 
so good about separating the 'philosophy of law' from moral theory? You 
say that folks need to be left alone to make their own personal 
decisions with out the interference of the government. Do you think 
that a rapist has that same right about his 'own personal decision'? Do 
you think that the government should leave him alone with his victim to 
do what his conscience dictates? Maybe you could share your philosophy 
with the victim. I'm sure she would like to have a say in this 
philosophical discussion.

The same goes for the helpless baby dying in side of the mother. Will 
he like your 'philosophy of law' devoid of all moral theory? Or would 
he like it if you steped in, help pay for the ultrasound and give his 
mother some real facts about life!

As to your claim that coat hangers were the instument of choice. 
Chances are none were ever used!

As to your belief that I take joy in passing insults upon sodomites in 
public, I don't. I have no joy in the destruction of a soul.


-----Original Message-----
From: joekc at adelphia.net
To: heirdoug at netscape.net
Cc: donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fwd: Is there a correlation between "Fore 
Gras"Killing Babies!

Did you read this carefully, Doug, before you posted it? There is no 
information
here suggesting that abortion takes 15-18 days, like the torture 
necessary for
foie gras.

For instance, you say that there are three steps to the one particular 
procedure
you note below but in Step 2 it says "This is the abortion." Step 3 is 
listed as
a "follow-up visit."

In any event, you're missing the point. I don't don't need you to tell 
me that
abortion is a bad thing, for I already believe that it is. Our 
disagreement has
more to do with issues in philosophy of law than moral theory.

You write: "I love that argument about having compassion for the 
woman." I have
no idea what argument you're talking about here but it wasn't mine. My 
reasons
for not restricting abortion any more than it already is has nothing to 
do with
compassion for women. Rather it has to do with respect for people to 
make their
own personal decisions about these matters instead of the government. 
I've talked
about this. What is your response?

I don't want to read the website for Care Net of the Palouse. I feel 
confident
that some of that money is going to go toward shifting the burden of 
our
personal moral choices from the individual to the government. I think I 
spelled
out pretty clearly why I think that this is not the right thing to do. 
What is
your response to those arguments?

Yes, I did know the below fact about the pill. Did you know that, back 
when
abortion and the pill were illegal, women used coat hangers to do the 
job?

Lastly, I wonder why you take so much joy in insulting gays and 
lesbians in
public. Do you think that this is somehow going to win them over to 
your side?
What, really, is your goal in being continually offensive in this way? 
(Here I'm
referring to your more detailed replies to Keely -- not just the 
"sodomite"
reference below.) And, given that you and others are so offensive, why 
does it
surprise you when others use terms like "Androids" to refer to NSA 
students?
These are not rhetorical questions. I just don't get it.

Best, Joe
________________________________________________________________________
Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and 
industry-leading spam and email virus protection.