<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Tony,<br><br>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.<br><br>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"?<br><br>Looking forward to your bobbing and weaving response - if you have any response at all.<br><br>-Scott<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: Tony <tonytime@clearwire.net><br>To: Nick Gier <ngier@uidaho.edu><br>Cc: vision2020@moscow.com<br>Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 5:42:19 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life<br><br>
<style></style>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">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?</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">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.</font></div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2"></font> </div>
<div><font face="Arial" size="2">Sincerely, -Tony</font></div>
</div><br></div></div></body></html>