[Vision2020] [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Compassion for All Life

[Tom Hansen]

Interesting approach, Scott.

 

This brings up a very fascinating question.

 

How soon after Barbara Bush is diagnosed with Alzheimer's Disease (if it
were to happen) would federal funding be seriously, dramatically increased
for embryonic stem cell research?

 

Tom Hansen

Moscow, Idaho

 

"Only by going too far can one possibly find out how far one can go."

- Jon Dyer 

  _____  

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
On Behalf Of Scott Dredge
Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 10:51 AM
To: Tony
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life

 

Tony,

Not flat Tony.  Right on target.  Your answer is "No, the government should
not be allowed to strap me to a gurney against my will and take half of my
liver to save me in the name of "compassion for all life".  Funny how things
change when it's your body in the mix.

-Scott

----- Original Message ----
From: Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net>
To: Scott Dredge <sdredge at yahoo.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 11:42:13 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life

Hey Scott, how's it hanging?  Say, in your hypothetical scenario, are there
perhaps thousands of individuals and couples waiting in the wings to donate
a liver to you should I refuse?  Oh my, how inconvenient when our metaphor
falls flat.  In the case of abortion, of course, there are literally
thousands of folks waiting around the block to adopt the little human being
in question, so the bio mother's decision to not be involved in it's raising
would not condemn it to death.

 

Really Scott, no bobbing and weaving is required to defend the right to life
of innocent babies, just a modicum of sensitivity and vision.  

 

Best,  -T

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Scott <mailto:sdredge at yahoo.com>  Dredge 

To: vision2020 at moscow.com 

Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:03 PM

Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life

 

Tony,

You can oppose abortion all you want.  The fact is that whether or not
abortion remains legalized or whether it is completely banned will not
directily impact you.  You personally gain no rights nor lose any rights as
abortion restrictions ebb and flow.

But would your position on "compassion for all life" change at all if you
were affected?  For instance, let's say that I need half of your liver to
survive because for [insert any reason] my own liver is failing.  Let's say
that an operation to split your liver carries no more risk of death to you
than that of a woman in child birth.  Let's also say that the recovery time
from this operation is no more burdensome than what women typically go
through from late term pregnancies through child birth.  Your liver will
regenerate back to full size 6 months after the operation.  The question
then I have for you is this: should you be allowed to make the choice of
whether or not to donate half of your liver to save my life or should the
government be allowed to strap you to a gurney against your will and take
half of your liver to save me in the name of "compassion for all life"?

Looking forward to your bobbing and weaving response - if you have any
response at all.

-Scott

----- Original Message ----
From: Tony <tonytime at clearwire.net>
To: Nick Gier <ngier at uidaho.edu>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:42:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life

Nick, your revered logic would dictate to me that the ONLY species out of
how many millions on this planet that is capable of sending space probes
beyond the solar system, composing great works of literature or carving
David from solid marble, is reasonably viewed as superior to the other
lesser endowed species.  Is our existence no more remarkable than a muskrat
when we can compose poetry or construct the Twin Towers?

 

Yes, human being is a biological category, but one of extraordinary
uniqueness, endowed over and above the others in a myriad of ways.  They are
also, according to our Declaration, deserving of and endowed with, certain
unalienable rights, one of which is the right to life.  And therein your
dilemma.  You can cling tenaciously to an irrelevancy, are they persons or
non persons, but you cannot deny their humanity.  It seems Nick, that you
pick and choose which written declarations you will adhere to.  I suppose we
all must.  Is the Supreme Court the entity I most trust in deciding these
matters, or do I rely on the wisdom of those who drafted the Declaration of
Independence and our Constitution?  Guess I'll stick with the latter.  You
apparently prefer the former, as is your right.  I will continue to oppose
the premeditated killing of innocent human beings, but I am willing to agree
to disagree with you if you choose a different path.

 

Sincerely,   -Tony

 

=======================================================
 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
=======================================================

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070128/62d32b3d/attachment-0001.html