<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Tony writes:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>"There is no question that unborn people are by our
English dictionary definition, human beings."</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Wrong! There are several different dictionary definitions of "human
being." Not all of them can be reasonably construed to include
fetuses.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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 <FONT color=#ff0000>under the right
conditions.</FONT> The same can be said of a spermatozoa or an ovum <FONT
color=#ff0000>under the right conditions</FONT>. 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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasive_definition</A></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You also show your lack of understanding of ethical/value issues by
saying:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>"...such moral relativism, as condemned brilliantly by Allan Bloom
some years ago..."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff>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. </FONT><FONT color=#000000>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio than are
dreamed of in all of your philosophy." -- Shakespeare</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>W.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>--- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>From: "Tony" <<A
href="mailto:tonytime@clearwire.net">tonytime@clearwire.net</A>></DIV>
<DIV>To: "Art Deco" <<A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Cc: <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>></DIV>
<DIV>Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 7:34 PM</DIV>
<DIV>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All Life</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>> Wayne, if you are correct that people are free to choose how
they define <BR>> language, then we need print no more dictionaries.
Everyone just attaches <BR>> his or her own meaning to each word or
phrase. Think of the paper we would <BR>> save!<BR>> <BR>>
Seriously though Wayne, such moral relativism, as condemned brilliantly by
<BR>> Allan Bloom some years ago, is precisely what causes communication to
break <BR>> down and consensus more difficult to reach.<BR>> <BR>>
There is no question that unborn people are by our English dictionary <BR>>
definition, human beings. The founding documents pledged to human beings
an <BR>> unalienable right to life. Therefore logic demands that one
accept that in <BR>> this country our unborn citizens should enjoy
constitutional protections as <BR>> the rest of us do.<BR>> <BR>> Also,
the woman is not the individual most directly affected by an <BR>> abortion -
the innocent baby who is being ripped apart is.<BR>> <BR>> More truth
later, -T<BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From:
"Art Deco" <<A href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A>><BR>>
To: "Vision 2020" <<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>> Sent:
Monday, January 29, 2007 9:22 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion
for All Life<BR>> <BR>> <BR>>> The issue of abortion has many
facets. One should be very obvious: Those <BR>>> at<BR>>> odds
are arguing in part over the meaning of terms like "the beginning of<BR>>>
life", "human being", etc. Such arguments are only useful if recognized
<BR>>> as<BR>>> such and a set of definitions agreed upon so that
the real issues can be<BR>>> debated. If either or both parties fail
to do this, the resulting <BR>>> arguments<BR>>> are just emotional
puffery on the part of those insisting that their<BR>>> definitions are
the correct ones. People are free to choose how they <BR>>>
define<BR>>> and use language.<BR>>><BR>>> The abortion issue
is a very emotional one. I do not know any pro-choice<BR>>> person
who thinks that abortion is something that should be warmly<BR>>>
encouraged except in special cases. I, for one, wish that the number
of<BR>>> situations where an abortion is an option could be reduced
through various<BR>>> strategies including the educated use of birth
control. I take this<BR>>> position because I don't believe that in
a free society people can be<BR>>> persuaded in any great number from
engaging in activities that could <BR>>> result<BR>>> in
conception. The fact remains that unfortunately undesired pregnancies
<BR>>> do<BR>>> occur. The point of contention is that who
should decide what to do about<BR>>> such occurrences: Should it be
the woman who is pregnant and most likely<BR>>> the one who will be
impacted the greatest by the decision to abort or not <BR>>>
or<BR>>> someone else?<BR>>><BR>>> Another very troubling
aspect of this debate is that frequently pro-life<BR>>> advocates base
their position solely or in large part on their particular<BR>>>
superstitious/religious beliefs. For Christians, there is very
little<BR>>> biblical justification for being pro-life without a great
deal of <BR>>> contortion<BR>>> of scripture. In fact, in the
two places in the Bible where abortion is<BR>>> directly discussed the
position taken is morally neutral except with <BR>>> respect<BR>>>
to a private property damage claim in one case, or in the other
case,<BR>>> prescribes an action which would most likely lead to an
aborted fetus.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> One aspect of this debate is
fraught with dishonesty and hypocrisy: So<BR>>> called libertarians
arguing against personal choice.<BR>>><BR>>> The fundamental belief
of classical libertarianism is that the government<BR>>> (and others)
should stay out of individuals' personal choices in their<BR>>>
lives.<BR>>><BR>>> Those so-called libertarians who are pro-life
(mostly men) apparently<BR>>> believe that personal choice should not be
limited only when it is their<BR>>> personal choice, not some other's
choice whose lives mostly likely would <BR>>> be<BR>>> greatly
affected by such choices. Many so-called "religious
libertarians"<BR>>> are truly hypocrites. Their credo is that
personal choice should not be<BR>>> limited except when it conflicts with
their particular religious<BR>>> beliefs/superstitions, many of which are
very restrictive and horribly<BR>>>
draconian.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Art Deco (Wayne A.
Fox)<BR>>> <A
href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">deco@moscow.com</A><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>>> From: "david sarff" <<A
href="mailto:davesway@hotmail.com">davesway@hotmail.com</A>><BR>>> To:
<<A
href="mailto:debismith@moscow.com">debismith@moscow.com</A>><BR>>> Cc:
<<A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A>><BR>>>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 8:06 AM<BR>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020]
Compassion for All Life<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>> Yes, this is a
troubling factor.<BR>>>> I'm pretty sure there really is not a Soy
version of Tony Baloney. He is<BR>>>> now<BR>>>> engaged in
seeing his own reflection in others and is striking out at the<BR>>>>
ugliness. Frankly, I openly suppose that he was not loved when he
needed<BR>>>> it<BR>>>> most, during developmental years and
uses attention seeking tools to<BR>>>> verify<BR>>>> his
existence. We literally have the screaming tantrum of a baby when
not<BR>>>> getting attention his way. Sadly this format is used as
little more than <BR>>>> a<BR>>>> squeaky toy, like a pet dog
might. A child in this position likely needs<BR>>>> outside forces
tending to it, but that is his job now and the best action<BR>>>> when
this situation occurs is to not respond. As you are indeed
basically<BR>>>> pointing out.<BR>>>> We can talk around it
though.<BR>>>> This kind of problem will continue on this list and
across the globe. To<BR>>>> be<BR>>>> sure there are many
persons of differing beliefs, sensitivities, shapes,<BR>>>> colors and
sexes that wisely avoid any emotional stabbing. The content of<BR>>>>
this and other topics is important to many. If the list is to stay
open,<BR>>>> we<BR>>>> must cope with even the most selfish
and cognitively handicapped.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Thank you
Debi, with no demands or expectations, my invitation
remains.<BR>>>>
Dave<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>>>This is why more
women are not involved in this particular thread...<BR>>>>>Debi
R-S<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>From:
"Tony" <<A
href="mailto:tonytime@clearwire.net">tonytime@clearwire.net</A>><BR>>>>>To:
"Tom Hansen" <<A
href="mailto:thansen@moscow.com">thansen@moscow.com</A>><BR>>>>>Date
sent: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:35:46
-0800<BR>>>>>Copies to: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>Subject:
Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All
Life<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>Tom, for God's sake, would you call
what Charles Manson had his<BR>>>>>followers do to Sharon Tate, an
"operation?" How then can you<BR>>>>>characterize the equally
barbaric practice of ripping an innocent<BR>>>>>child from it's
mother's womb and then summarily trash canning the<BR>>>>>bloody
remains, as a medical procedure??<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>Think,
you misguided enabler! A man who intentionally causes
the<BR>>>>>violent death of an innocent child, is NOT a "physician"
but simply a<BR>>>>>more polished Charley Manson. The result
is the same: violent and<BR>>>>>unnecessary
death.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>When judgment day comes, if there
is such a thing, may God have mercy<BR>>>>>on your soul, Tom, for
countenancing our modern age's most
horrific<BR>>>>>crime.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>-T<BR>>>>>
----- Original Message -----<BR>>>>> From: Tom
Hansen<BR>>>>> To: 'Scott Dredge' ; <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>
Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 6:05 AM<BR>>>>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All
Life<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Two
things that legalizing abortions (prior to the third
trimester)<BR>>>>>
accomplishes:<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
1) Reduces mandated influence of the government over
women's<BR>>>>> personal
lives.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
2) Provides availability of sterilized environments
and<BR>>>>> trained/qualified physicians for such an
operation.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
To believe that abortions will not occur if they are not legal
is<BR>>>>> absolutely ludicrous. To believe that
the number of abortions has<BR>>>>> increased since Roe
v. Wade is just as ignorant. Perhaps the
number<BR>>>>> of REPORTED abortions has increased,
possibly due to a drastic<BR>>>>> reduction in abortions
being performed in back alleys with coat<BR>>>>>
hangers.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Seeya round town,
Moscow.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Tom "I'm Pro-Choice and I Vote"
Hansen<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Moscow,
Idaho<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
"Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your
church."<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
- Author
Unknown<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>--------<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
From: <A
href="mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com">vision2020-bounces@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>
[mailto:vision2020-bounces@moscow.com] On Behalf Of Scott
Dredge<BR>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:03 PM
To: <A
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for All
Life<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
Tony,<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> You can oppose
abortion all you want. The fact is that whether
or<BR>>>>> not abortion remains legalized or whether it
is completely banned<BR>>>>> will not directily impact
you. You personally gain no rights nor<BR>>>>>
lose any rights as abortion restrictions ebb and
flow.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> But would your
position on "compassion for all life" change at
all<BR>>>>> if you were affected? For instance,
let's say that I need half of<BR>>>>> your liver to
survive because for [insert any reason] my own
liver<BR>>>>> is failing. Let's say that an
operation to split your liver carries<BR>>>>> no more
risk of death to you than that of a woman in child
birth.<BR>>>>> Let's also say that the recovery time
from this operation is no more<BR>>>>> burdensome than
what women typically go through from late term<BR>>>>>
pregnancies through child birth. Your liver will regenerate back
to<BR>>>>> full size 6 months after the operation.
The question then I have<BR>>>>> for you is this: should
you be allowed to make the choice of whether<BR>>>>> or
not to donate half of your liver to save my life or should
the<BR>>>>> government be allowed to strap you to a
gurney against your will and<BR>>>>> take half of your
liver to save me in the name of "compassion for<BR>>>>>
all life"?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> Looking forward
to your bobbing and weaving response - if you
have<BR>>>>> any response at
all.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
-Scott<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>>>>--------<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>>
List services made available by First Step
Internet,<BR>>>>> serving the communities of the
Palouse since
1994.<BR>>>>>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>>><BR>>>>>=======================================================<BR>>>>>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>>>>
serving the communities of the Palouse since
1994.<BR>>>>>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>>=======================================================<BR>>>><BR>>>>
_________________________________________________________________<BR>>>>
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football
Page<BR>>>> <A
href="http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football">http://www.live.com/?addtemplate=football</A><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>>> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since
1994.<BR>>>>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>>
=======================================================<BR>>><BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>> List
services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>> serving the
communities of the Palouse since
1994.<BR>>>
<A
href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</A><BR>>>
<A
href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</A><BR>>>
=======================================================<BR>>><BR>>>
<BR>> <BR>></BODY></HTML>