<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>I'm pro-life, too, so there's not much here I disagree with. I'm less comfortable applying the term 'person' to the fetus than you are but I maintain that the issue is the sanctity of human life, so it's status as a person does not matter. It is not a shoelace, though I appreciate Chas' point, too.<br><br>Joe Campbell</div><div><br>On Jun 11, 2009, at 10:52 AM, keely emerinemix <<a href="mailto:kjajmix1@msn.com">kjajmix1@msn.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
I disagree that simply "imposing one's personal religious beliefs on others" is at the core of the abortion debate -- a debate not furthered constructively by rhetoric appearing to compare the unborn child with a shoelace, by the way. <br><br>(I don't think Chas intended to make the comparison people will see in his words, but to express the "un-person" he believes the fetus to be; I just wish he hadn't used "shoelace" to express the point).<br><br>Joe, it's not just our religious faith that makes people like me and Gary view the unborn child as not only a human being biologically but, at least later in inter-uterine development, as a person, ontologically, whose life should be protected. Advances in science demonstrate to us that even a week after conception, the fetus has systematic organic function that, if allowed to develop, will mature into a baby capable of living outside of the womb even at 22 weeks of a normal 40-week gestation. That's a surprise to many women. It may factor into her decision to continue or abort the pregnancy, and that decision may well be affected by her religious beliefs. But it's not just "faith" that compels reverence for unborn human life. While it's undoubtedly a significant influence, recognition of the personhood of the unborn -- not the biological species of the fetus, but the "personhood" confirmed by self-awareness, volition, and recognition of the "other," for example -- is what motivates anti-abortion believers.<br><br>I am uncomfortable with legislation prohibiting abortion, even as I believe that abortion ends a human life. My reasons are practical; I regret that pragmatism in this case trumps ideology. As a woman who has miscarried very early in a pregnancy, I'm concerned that outlawing first-trimester abortion may -- may -- require the investigation of normal, unintended miscarriages to see if the termination of the pregnancy was, in fact, natural. While I believe the IUD to be an abortifacent, I don't believe birth control pills are, and so I wonder if outlawing all abortion, always, under every circumstance, could result in pulling the pill from the market. Further, while I understand arguments about "killing the victim," I cannot support legislation that would deny rape victims access to abortion. Legislating that a woman whose pregnancy resulted from the devastation of rape or incest carry the baby to term is, to me, unreasonable. And the nature of "partial-birth" abortion is so grotesque that its very horror argues for its rare, but necessary, legitimacy. It seems to me that a woman requesting a procedure so horrible, so late in her pregnancy, is making that request for medical reasons that only she and her doctor understand -- a casual, "what the hell" approach isn't what motivates partial-birth abortion, I'm sure.<br><br>So, Joe, those are my reasons for being pro-life -- and, regretfully and painfully, opposed to most legislation prohibiting abortion. I am opposed to capital punishment, always, and wish I lived in a world where abortion was never needed. I don't.<br><br>Keely<br><a href="http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/">http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/</a><br><br><br><br><br>> From: philosopher.joe@gmail.com<br>> To: jampot@roadrunner.com<br>> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:17:26 -0700<br>> CC: vision2020@moscow.com<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth Catholic?<br>> <br>> Gary,<br>> <br>> If you think the abortion debate can't be settle by rational debate, <br>> then why on earth are you in favor of laws restricting access to <br>> abortions? Isn't that clearly a case of impossing one's personal <br>> religious beliefs on others? Why not leave issues like this up to <br>> adults to decide for themselves?<br>> <br>> Joe Campbell<br>> <br>> On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:20 AM, "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com> <br>> wrote:<br>> <br>> > Chas is right in one respect, this issue has been argued <br>> > exhaustively on<br>> > this forum and I can't believe that giving it one more lap around <br>> > the block<br>> > will produce anything of value.<br>> ><br>> > Suffice it to say that I don't believe that there is any kind of <br>> > strange<br>> > dichotomy between having respect and reverence for innocent human <br>> > life while<br>> > wanting to be rid of those who have proven beyond a doubt to be <br>> > capable of<br>> > maliciously taking the lives of others for no better reason then <br>> > because<br>> > they can for their own pleasure and gain.<br>> ><br>> > I can't help but go back to the Duncan analogy.<br>> ><br>> > g<br>> > ----- Original Message -----<br>> > From: <bear@moscow.com><br>> > To: "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com><br>> > Cc: <bear@moscow.com>; "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter@yahoo.com>; <br>> > "Moscow<br>> > Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><br>> > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:48 PM<br>> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth <br>> > Catholic?<br>> ><br>> ><br>> >><br>> >> So, the rights of a 30 week old shoe lace equate to that of a 40 <br>> >> week old<br>> >> fetus based on what you wrote?<br>> >><br>> >> Ok, so then what would be the abortion problem?<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --- <br>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> >>> I am hard pressed to think of a right I would extend to a 40 week <br>> >>> old<br>> >>> person<br>> >>> that I wouldn't be happy to afford a 30 week old "shoelace." What <br>> >>> rights<br>> >>> did<br>> >>> you have in mind<br>> >>> that shouldn't apply?<br>> >>><br>> >>> g<br>> >>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> >>> From: <bear@moscow.com><br>> >>> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot@roadrunner.com><br>> >>> Cc: <bear@moscow.com>; "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter@yahoo.com>; <br>> >>> "Moscow<br>> >>> Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><br>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 8:12 PM<br>> >>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth <br>> >>> Catholic?<br>> >>><br>> >>><br>> >>>><br>> >>>> Gary,<br>> >>>><br>> >>>> I see your point, but then the unborn child, or "pre-born" if you <br>> >>>> will<br>> >>>> has<br>> >>>> the same rights as the post born?<br>> >>>><br>> >>>><br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> --- <br>> >>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------<br>> >>>><br>> >>>>> Isn't a pre-born child the very definition of innocence while a<br>> >>>>> convicted<br>> >>>>> murderer epitomizes its polar opposite? The notion of having no <br>> >>>>> regard<br>> >>>>> for<br>> >>>>> the former while extending all consideration to the later seems <br>> >>>>> screwed<br>> >>>>> up<br>> >>>>> and backward in the extreme.<br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>> Murder the infant and lavish mercy on Joseph Duncan? This seems <br>> >>>>> just?<br>> >>>>> Really?<br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>> g<br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----<br>> >>>>> From: <bear@moscow.com><br>> >>>>> To: "Paul Rumelhart" <godshatter@yahoo.com><br>> >>>>> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020@moscow.com><br>> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2009 7:31 PM<br>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Sotomayor: US Supreme Court's Sixth <br>> >>>>> Catholic?<br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>> Ted and Paul,<br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>> I guess i have to ask the question, "Does it make a difference <br>> >>>>>> one way<br>> >>>>>> or<br>> >>>>>> the other"?<br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>> Taking myself as an example, I was raised and am a practicing<br>> >>>>>> Catholic.<br>> >>>>>> I<br>> >>>>>> do not believe in abortions at all, however, I do believe in <br>> >>>>>> choice.<br>> >>>>>> Pro<br>> >>>>>> choice does NOT equal pro-abortion.<br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>> And just as an aside, have you ever noticed how the "anti- <br>> >>>>>> abortion"<br>> >>>>>> folks<br>> >>>>>> are usually pro death penalty? I think those of us that oppose <br>> >>>>>> the<br>> >>>>>> death<br>> >>>>>> penalty (which I do), should just call it post-birth abortions <br>> >>>>>> and we<br>> >>>>>> could get most of the anti-abortion folks on board!<br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>> Wayne<br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> --- <br>> >>>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------<br>> >>>>>>> Ted Moffett wrote:<br>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/09, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter@yahoo.com<br>> >>>>>>>> <mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com>> wrote:<br>> >>>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>>> I used to speculate wildly about whether or not our former<br>> >>>>>>>> President was<br>> >>>>>>>> really a believer or if he was blatantly manipulating the<br>> >>>>>>>> religious<br>> >>>>>>>> right through their own predilictions (or both). What it <br>> >>>>>>>> comes<br>> >>>>>>>> down to<br>> >>>>>>>> is this: we can't look into their hearts. Sotomayor may <br>> >>>>>>>> be the<br>> >>>>>>>> most<br>> >>>>>>>> devout Catholic evar, but doesn't outwardly show it on a<br>> >>>>>>>> day-to-day<br>> >>>>>>>> basis. For all I know, she goes to church three times a <br>> >>>>>>>> week<br>> >>>>>>>> just<br>> >>>>>>>> to<br>> >>>>>>>> get away from her family. We just can't know.<br>> >>>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>>> Why do you state "we just can't know" about Sotomayor's <br>> >>>>>>>> regularity<br>> >>>>>>>> of<br>> >>>>>>>> church attendance?<br>> >>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>> Rereading that, I see I wasn't very clear. I'm not saying "we <br>> >>>>>>> just<br>> >>>>>>> can't know" about her regularity of church attendance. I'm <br>> >>>>>>> saying<br>> >>>>>>> "we<br>> >>>>>>> just can't know" what's in her heart, what she actually <br>> >>>>>>> believes deep<br>> >>>>>>> down inside. The most regular church attender might be a closet<br>> >>>>>>> Luciferan Satanist, people who never go to church may be <br>> >>>>>>> extremely<br>> >>>>>>> spiritual Christians. We can speculate wildly about what they<br>> >>>>>>> actually<br>> >>>>>>> believe. We can even read what they claim to believe, but we'll<br>> >>>>>>> never<br>> >>>>>>> know exactly what they actually believe, because we can't get <br>> >>>>>>> inside<br>> >>>>>>> their heads or their hearts.<br>> >>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>> At the time I wrote it, I didn't know how often she attended <br>> >>>>>>> church,<br>> >>>>>>> so<br>> >>>>>>> I covered both sides of the spectrum. My point still stands - <br>> >>>>>>> we<br>> >>>>>>> can't<br>> >>>>>>> look into her heart so we can't know for certain if she's a <br>> >>>>>>> "true<br>> >>>>>>> believer" or not.<br>> >>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>> Paul<br>> >>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>><br>> >>>>>>> =======================================================<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>> >>>>>>> =======================================================<br>> >>>>>>><br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>>> =======================================================<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>> >>>>>> =======================================================<br>> >>>>>><br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>><br>> >>>>><br>> >>>><br>> >>>><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>> > http://www.fsr.net<br>> > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> > =======================================================<br>> <br>> =======================================================<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>> =======================================================<br><br><hr>Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. <a href="http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009" target="_new">Check it out.</a>
=================<br><br><hr>Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. <a href="http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009" target="_new">Check it out.</a>
ml></div></blockquote></body></html>