<!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 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>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.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Before you accuse others of "childlike" logic, it
might behoove you to get your facts strait.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>-T</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=deco@moscow.com href="mailto:deco@moscow.com">Art Deco</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=vision2020@moscow.com
href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com">Vision 2020</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 29, 2007 9:07
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Vision2020] Compassion for
All Life</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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>>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>=======================================================<BR> List
services made available by First Step Internet, <BR> serving the
communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<BR>
http://www.fsr.net
<BR>
mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>