[Vision2020] Palin Candidacy Helps Planned ParenthoodFundraising

[joekc at roadrunner.com]

Roger,

You and I can agree that we're in a bad state in terms of political rhetoric. To change it will take 
some effort from both sides but neither is willing to budge. What do we do?

--
Joe Campbell

---- lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote: 
> I would agree with your last paragraph. The problem is that the main line media goes after her every chance they get and overlook slips made by Obama and Biden.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: joekc at roadrunner.com
> Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 07:48:34 -0700
> To: "g. crabtree" jampot at roadrunner.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Palin Candidacy Helps Planned ParenthoodFundraising
> 
> > A few things.
> > 
> > No one is claiming that the fetus is not a human being, or at least anyone who does 
> > claim that doesn't know what he or she is talking about. "Human" is a species term and a 
> > human fetus is a member of the species, so a human being. The point is whether it is a
> > person, whether it has rights, and whether it deserves protection from the government 
> > for these reasons. The fetus can't have a right to life unless it has a right in the first 
> > place and that depends on whether or not it is a person.
> > 
> > According to an on-line medical dictionary, here is the definition of "fetus": "The unborn 
> > offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have 
> > formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an 
> > embryo." A child is a human being between birth and puberty. No fetus is a child, at least 
> > if you'd like to use biological precision and not try to beg substantive questions with 
> > misused terminology and cheap appeals to emotion.
> > 
> > Second, the argument below is a slippery slope fallacy. You could use the same type of 
> > argument to show that everyone is sane (or insane), that nothing is flat, that there are no 
> > heaps, that no one is bald, etc. Unless you are willing to accept those other claims there is 
> > nothing about the argument itself that should get you to endorse the conclusion that you 
> > hold. So why do you endorse it? What are your real reasons? So far I can't tell.
> > 
> > The issue is not where you or Sarah Palin want to draw the line, or how you or Ms. 
> > Palin should think about this fetus. The issue is what makes you and others think that 
> > your bad arguments are reasons to tell me, or my daughter (were I to have one), where to 
> > draw the line, how to think about the issue? In a previous post you talk about taking "Ms. 
> > Palin's deeply held moral position in favor of life and step[ing] all over it" with the recent
> > Planned Parenthood fundraiser. But how, exactly, is the radical right view that you and Palin endorse not showing an even greater lack of respect for the "deeply held moral 
> > positions" of your political opponents? For you not only disagree you don't even want to 
> > allow them to decide this complex issue for themselves. You think you know better than 
> > them but so far I have not seen one good reason to support your confidence in your views.
> > 
> > Lastly, I don't have a problem with the fundraising campaign nor with the fact that 
> > donators are asked to "list the address of the McCain campaign headquarters or the 
> > Alaska governor's office." For crying out loud the woman is running for VP of the US. 
> > Citizens have the right to let her and McCain know how they fell about the topic. I am 
> > sick of the request that we treat Sarah Palin with kid gloves, as if she couldn't take the 
> > normal abuse that comes with running for office in these times, abuse that is perpetuated, 
> > in fact, by the very radical rightwing fraction that Palin represents. If Palin can't stand the 
> > heat, she should get back in the kitchen. (Sorry, I couldn't resist the turn of phrase!) And 
> > I am not being disrespectful. I'm being very respectful. She should be treated the same as 
> > everyone else running for that office. It is a shame, given the current state of incivility, 
> > what that entails but one need only check out McCain's adds to find out.
> > 
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> > 
> > 
> > ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at roadrunner.com> wrote: 
> > > For someone who derides others for engaging in this sort of discussion you 
> > > sure do chime in with amazing frequency.
> > > 
> > > It seems to be that it is your "brain use" that is in question. If human 
> > > life is not created at conception, when is it? At 91 days, at 24 weeks, or 
> > > at 9 months? When do you superstitiously and arbitrarily deem what is 
> > > unquestionably a living entity "human." By your system there would have to 
> > > be an argument to be made for bestowing the title at year 1, 5, or perhaps 
> > > 18. I don't think that any amount of brain power can determine the exact 
> > > moment that a child meets your criterion (whatever that might be. I've never 
> > > received a satisfactory answer.) As a conservative, I prefer to err on the 
> > > side of caution. No magic required.
> > > 
> > > Now perhaps you could polish up your soup spoon and dip me an answer out of 
> > > dworshak reservoir to the question of the day. When does your mighty brain 
> > > (and the impoundment) tell you that humans come into being? Please be as 
> > > specific as your rational mind allows.
> > > 
> > > g
> > 
> > =======================================================
> >  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
> > =======================================================