[Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
Art Deco
deco at moscow.com
Tue Jan 30 12:58:03 PST 2007
Tony writes:
" under NO circumstances will a sperm cell develope [sic] into a human"
and then contradicts himself forthwith by exactly specifying part of the conditions needed for a sperm to develop into a human:
"must first join with an egg, at which point it becomes an embryo [sic]"
I have never asserted that a sperm or ovum are a person. So, first of all, stop lying.
Pretending not to understand the continuum of the stream of life that goes back millions of years and the language problems that such engenders, you are left to make a foolishly erroneous reply ignoring the actual facts, show your lack of understanding of what a persuasive definition is, and again show your pusillanimous reluctance to explore the real, solvable issues.
Try it one more time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Again, I point out to you that if you really think that abortion is murder, then by your "Fred Phelps" rhetoric, you are helping to prevent a solution, and thus retarding the efforts to reduce the rate of abortions, and thus you are more a murderer than most others.
If you really care about reducing the number of abortions, stop screeching, insulting people who most likely care more about and know more about this issue than you do, and pretending to be a know-it-all on this issue -- it only turns off those that would also like to see the rate of abortions reduced by practical means such as birth control and reducing the stigma and burden of single motherhood. You are not part of the solution now, but a repugnant part of the problem.
W.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony
To: Art Deco
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
Wayne, a valiant effort, but a few minor distinctions: under NO circumstances will a sperm cell develope into a human. It must first join with an egg, at which point it becomes an embryo. It is the product of BOTH egg and sperm, the embryo, which grows into a human. Therefore you and Nick are incorrect when you insist that a sperm might logically be granted the status of human.
Before you accuse others of "childlike" logic, it might behoove you to get your facts strait.
-T
----- Original Message -----
From: Art Deco
To: Vision 2020
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
Tony writes:
"There is no question that unborn people are by our English dictionary definition, human beings."
Wrong! There are several different dictionary definitions of "human being." Not all of them can be reasonably construed to include fetuses.
I am sorry do not understand this part of the issue, but is a matter of choice of language use, not a matter of fact, of when in the development of a one-celled zygote into a baby born fully formed the word "person" or "human being" is applicable. In a neutral case, the same question: when does an acorn become an oak?
By arguing that your definition of "human being" or "person" is the only "correct" one, you not only show your misunderstanding of the nature of these kind of disputes, but ignore the real issues to which at least some factual material may be applied. There is no doubt that in most cases most zygotes will develop into babies under the right conditions. The same can be said of a spermatozoa or an ovum under the right conditions. By simplifying a very complex issue by childlike insistence on your own definitions you make progress toward a time when fewer and fewer abortions will be needed, desired, or occur far more difficult.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
It has been through the practical efforts of people researching, developing, promoting, and educating about birth control that the rate of abortions has decreased, not through the turn-off efforts of the "Fred Phelps" type of pro-life screechers. Unfortunately your ego will not let you see any of this, and hence you are unable to carry on a civil dialogue with those with whom you disagree and who would also like to see the number of abortions performed decreased, and thus are promoting more abortions by your distracting raillery. If you really wish to reduce the rate of abortions instead of acting like an angry, petulant god to please your own ego, you will have more success if you work with those of us who are pro-choice in finding practical, realistic ways to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and finding ways to change the conditions under which pregnancies might be considered unwanted by the women who, in fact, find themselves pregnant.
You also show your lack of understanding of ethical/value issues by saying:
"...such moral relativism, as condemned brilliantly by Allan Bloom some years ago..."
Lots of people have condemned moral relativism. Condemning it is not the same as showing once and for all that it is in error. The problem of those condemning moral relativism is problematic because:
All of those who condemn moral relativism wish to impose a system of absolute morality. Unfortunately, there are many different "absolute" systems all of which are inconsistent with each other with no tested, accepted rational means to decide which, if any of them, is the "true" system. That is the reason for democratic type of governments -- so that we can continually discuss issues, especially the factual components, test the "truth" of solutions, and attempt to make progress toward an ethic acceptable to the majority of those in a particular democracy. It is not a foolproof endeavor.
Value/ethical questions have been debated since the earliest times of humankind. Although the much progress has been made toward understanding the nature of the issues, especially in the last 150 years with the advent of analytical methods and an increased understanding of the nature of language, no demonstrably true ethical system has yet to be agreed upon, unlike such things like gravity, electricity, mitosis, operant conditioning, etc.
Even among those who allege themselves to Christians and who based their belief on the Bible, there is little agreement upon some very primary issues: the death penalty, same-sex relations, abortion, making war, etc.
"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio than are dreamed of in all of your philosophy." -- Shakespeare
W.
--- Original Message -----
From: "Tony" <tonytime at clearwire.net>
To: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>
Cc: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
> Wayne, if you are correct that people are free to choose how they define
> language, then we need print no more dictionaries. Everyone just attaches
> his or her own meaning to each word or phrase. Think of the paper we would
> save!
>
> Seriously though Wayne, such moral relativism, as condemned brilliantly by
> Allan Bloom some years ago, is precisely what causes communication to break
> down and consensus more difficult to reach.
>
> There is no question that unborn people are by our English dictionary
> definition, human beings. The founding documents pledged to human beings an
> unalienable right to life. Therefore logic demands that one accept that in
> this country our unborn citizens should enjoy constitutional protections as
> the rest of us do.
>
> Also, the woman is not the individual most directly affected by an
> abortion - the innocent baby who is being ripped apart is.
>
> More truth later, -T
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Art Deco" <deco at moscow.com>
> To: "Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life
>
>
>> 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
>> =======================================================
>>
>>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=======================================================
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/20070130/5fabfa37/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list