[Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
Tony
tonytime at clearwire.net
Tue Jan 30 09:42:21 PST 2007
Nick, E.T. was a character in a movie. A fictitious non being. Could you please try to ground yourself in reality when addressing such a profound issue as abortion?
Thanks, -T
----- Original Message -----
From: Nick Gier
To: Art Deco
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
Hi Wayne:
Thanks for your post on abortion, which, as always, was well reasoned. You are correct that getting the terms of the debate right is the key to clearing the surrounding emotional and rhetorical fog.
The term "human being" is equivocal, especially when it is used in the abortion debate. That's why I insist on the distinction between moral and legal persons and human being as a biological category.
The fact that all reasonable people would recognize non-human ET as a person protected by our Constitution demonstrates that the clear meaning of human being in the Declaration of Independence is a moral and legal person.
Do the rest of you sense a lot of flailing about down there in the Potlatch smog?
Nick Gier
The issue of abortion has many facets. One should be very obvious: Those at
odds are arguing in part over the meaning of terms like "the beginning of
life", "human being", etc. Such arguments are only useful if recognized as
such and a set of definitions agreed upon so that the real issues can be
debated. If either or both parties fail to do this, the resulting arguments
are just emotional puffery on the part of those insisting that their
definitions are the correct ones. People are free to choose how they define
and use language.
The abortion issue is a very emotional one. I do not know any pro-choice
person who thinks that abortion is something that should be warmly
encouraged except in special cases. I, for one, wish that the number of
situations where an abortion is an option could be reduced through various
strategies including the educated use of birth control. I take this
position because I don't believe that in a free society people can be
persuaded in any great number from engaging in activities that could result
in conception. The fact remains that unfortunately undesired pregnancies do
occur. The point of contention is that who should decide what to do about
such occurrences: Should it be the woman who is pregnant and most likely
the one who will be impacted the greatest by the decision to abort or not or
someone else?
Another very troubling aspect of this debate is that frequently pro-life
advocates base their position solely or in large part on their particular
superstitious/religious beliefs. For Christians, there is very little
biblical justification for being pro-life without a great deal of contortion
of scripture. In fact, in the two places in the Bible where abortion is
directly discussed the position taken is morally neutral except with respect
to a private property damage claim in one case, or in the other case,
prescribes an action which would most likely lead to an aborted fetus.
One aspect of this debate is fraught with dishonesty and hypocrisy: So
called libertarians arguing against personal choice.
The fundamental belief of classical libertarianism is that the government
(and others) should stay out of individuals' personal choices in their
lives.
Those so-called libertarians who are pro-life (mostly men) apparently
believe that personal choice should not be limited only when it is their
personal choice, not some other's choice whose lives mostly likely would be
greatly affected by such choices. Many so-called "religious libertarians"
are truly hypocrites. Their credo is that personal choice should not be
limited except when it conflicts with their particular religious
beliefs/superstitions, many of which are very restrictive and horribly
draconian.
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
deco at moscow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "david sarff" <davesway at hotmail.com>
To: <debismith at moscow.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
> Yes, this is a troubling factor.
> I'm pretty sure there really is not a Soy version of Tony Baloney. He is
> now
> engaged in seeing his own reflection in others and is striking out at the
> ugliness. Frankly, I openly suppose that he was not loved when he needed
> it
> most, during developmental years and uses attention seeking tools to
> verify
> his existence. We literally have the screaming tantrum of a baby when not
> getting attention his way. Sadly this format is used as little more than a
> squeaky toy, like a pet dog might. A child in this position likely needs
> outside forces tending to it, but that is his job now and the best action
> when this situation occurs is to not respond. As you are indeed basically
> pointing out.
> We can talk around it though.
> This kind of problem will continue on this list and across the globe. To
> be
> sure there are many persons of differing beliefs, sensitivities, shapes,
> colors and sexes that wisely avoid any emotional stabbing. The content of
> this and other topics is important to many. If the list is to stay open,
> we
> must cope with even the most selfish and cognitively handicapped.
>
> Thank you Debi, with no demands or expectations, my invitation remains.
> Dave
>
>
>>>This is why more women are not involved in this particular thread...
>>Debi R-S
>
>
>>
>>From: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
>>To: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
>>Date sent: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:35:46 -0800
>>Copies to: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
>>
>>Tom, for God's sake, would you call what Charles Manson had his
>>followers do to Sharon Tate, an "operation?" How then can you
>>characterize the equally barbaric practice of ripping an innocent
>>child from it's mother's womb and then summarily trash canning the
>>bloody remains, as a medical procedure??
>>
>>Think, you misguided enabler! A man who intentionally causes the
>>violent death of an innocent child, is NOT a "physician" but simply a
>>more polished Charley Manson. The result is the same: violent and
>>unnecessary death.
>>
>>When judgment day comes, if there is such a thing, may God have mercy
>>on your soul, Tom, for countenancing our modern age's most horrific
>>crime.
>>
>>-T
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Tom Hansen
>> To: 'Scott Dredge' ; vision2020 at moscow.com
>> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:05 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
>>
>>
>> Two things that legalizing abortions (prior to the third trimester)
>> accomplishes:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Reduces mandated influence of the government over women's
>> personal lives.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2) Provides availability of sterilized environments and
>> trained/qualified physicians for such an operation.
>>
>>
>>
>> To believe that abortions will not occur if they are not legal is
>> absolutely ludicrous. To believe that the number of abortions has
>> increased since Roe v. Wade is just as ignorant. Perhaps the number
>> of REPORTED abortions has increased, possibly due to a drastic
>> reduction in abortions being performed in back alleys with coat
>> hangers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom "I'm Pro-Choice and I Vote" Hansen
>>
>> Moscow, Idaho
>>
>>
>>
>> "Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church."
>>
>>
>>
>> - Author Unknown
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------
>>
>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>> [ mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com] On Behalf Of Scott Dredge
>> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:03 PM To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>--------
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>=======================================================
>> 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
>>=======================================================
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
> http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> =======================================================
> 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
> =======================================================
=======================================================
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
=======================================================
"Truth is the summit of being; justice is the application of it to human affairs."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Abstract truth has no value unless it incarnates in human beings who represent it, by proving their readiness to die for it."
--Mohandas Gandhi
"Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part by itself. . . .We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on the interconnection between the parts. The same is true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts." --Max Planck
Nicholas F. Gier
Professor Emeritus, Department of Philosophy, University of Idaho
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/home.htm
208-882-9212/FAX 885-8950
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
http://users.adelphia.net/~nickgier/ift.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
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/20070130/b838b2c0/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list