The "A" word (was RE: Any comments (The "A" Word ...)...)
Chuck Stevens
Holly wrote:
<< ... I don't like abortion and think it is a terrible thing. But I don't
want government telling me
what I can and can't do to my own body ... >>
and then, further down,
>> - they shouldn't vote to allow the
>> government to electrocute or inject people on death row (especially
>> when some of them MAY be innocent)
Daniel responded:
> YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. Let's kill the
> innocent babies, and spare the guilty criminals. :) (You don't see that
> this is backwards?)
This looks a whole lot like tarring Holly with the "pro-abortion" label
after her specific and explicit statements to the contrary. Whether a
person feels something is a good idea is completely orthogonal to whether
they feel it should be legal or illegal.
Because a person does not agree that anyone who either performs or allow
themselves to be subjected to an abortion deserves to be charged with
capital murder -- or for that matter charged with any *crime* at all -- does
not make them "pro-abortion". I think it's a moral question that lies
squarely with the participants and their Creator.
And in the particular specific case that Holly cited, I am not of the
opinion that forcing a
fifteen-year-old incest victim to go through with the pregnancy to term is
obviously and unconditionally the best possible answer for all parties. I
am not of the opinion that
counseling her on the advantages of raising the child herself in comparison
to giving it up for adoption is obviously appropriate, as alluded to in your
list of alternatives (apparently to be considered as having equal merit in
all instances) that should be presented to *anyone* seeking an abortion.
Given that in this instance (reading between the lines) it appears to me
that the
*perpetrator* of this incest got off scot-free, making demands of what the
consequences need to be for the *victim* of that crime strikes me as a
"pro-incest" stance. Is that a fair characterization? If not, why is it
any less fair than "pro-abortion" as it has here apparently been applied to
Holly?
I think the *victim* of a violent crime, which I believe includes
*statutory* rape (whether incest or otherwise) should *not* be legally
*forced* to undergo any more suffering or physical affects of the crime than
is possible. In this case a minor child was victimized by a relative. To
force that minor child to carry the child to term is to *sentence* that
minor child to nine months, if not a lifetime, of suffering.
When the "pro-life" stance includes the victims of rape (statutory or
otherwise) and incest, it is indistinguishable to me from the attitude of
those who think the world needs to know what a fundamentally horrible and
despicable person Matthew Shepard was, and who defend the actions of those
who murdered him as an understandable lapse in judgment, nothing more.
Similarly, I don't buy the premise that doctors who provide abortions
deserve to be treated as murderers while those who have shot them down in
cold blood have maybe overstepped the bounds of civility a bit, and ought to
be told "Naughty! Naughty!".
It may be *possible* to counsel a victim of (statutory or otherwise) rape or
incest to the point that that victim *might* be able to carry that pregnancy
to term without horrendous long-lasting effects on her. It might even be
*possible* to counsel her to the point that she would be able to raise the
child as a single mom. But to presume that evey case in which such
counseling does not reach the desired goal is an utter failure --
particularly an utter failure *on the victim's part* -- is, in my opinion, a
decidedly arrogant and self-righteous stance.
-Chuck Stevens
HeyBub
> New post to avoid the "overflow" problem Peter Dashwood first
> mentioned.
> Holly wrote:
>
> << ... I don't like abortion and think it is a terrible thing. But I
> don't want government telling me
> what I can and can't do to my own body ... >>
>
> and then, further down,
>
>>> - they shouldn't vote to allow the
>>> government to electrocute or inject people on death row (especially
>>> when some of them MAY be innocent)
>
> Daniel responded:
>
>> YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. Let's kill the
>> innocent babies, and spare the guilty criminals. :) (You don't see
>> that this is backwards?)
>
No one is executed for killing another human. Retribution is specifically
not included in the rationale for codes of criminal procedure.
People are executed to deter others from killing.
Given that deterrence is the reason, it then makes no difference whether the
person executed is the actual perpetrator of the original offense.
LX-i
> New post to avoid the "overflow" problem Peter Dashwood first mentioned.
>
> Holly wrote:
>
> << ... I don't like abortion and think it is a terrible thing. But I don't
> want government telling me
> what I can and can't do to my own body ... >>
>
> and then, further down,
>
>>> - they shouldn't vote to allow the
>>> government to electrocute or inject people on death row (especially
>>> when some of them MAY be innocent)
>
> Daniel responded:
>
>> YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. Let's kill the
>> innocent babies, and spare the guilty criminals. :) (You don't see that
>> this is backwards?)
>
> This looks a whole lot like tarring Holly with the "pro-abortion" label
> after her specific and explicit statements to the contrary. Whether a
> person feels something is a good idea is completely orthogonal to whether
> they feel it should be legal or illegal.
But, as Mr. Brazee mentioned (even today) - if it's okay in *certain
cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And, if
you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it would
be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
I understand your experience with this issue, and I understand Holly's.
I have personally been close with someone who has gone through similar
things, though a child did not result. I don't believe the way I do
without having thought them through. Did you read the Kathleen Parker
article I linked? "Sometimes an accident is just an accident."
And, to sort of buttress my point above - last year in New York City,
there were 74 abortions for every 100 live births. That's 42.6% - and
there's *no way* I'm believing that rape and incest are that bad in NYC.
(I thought the junior Senator from New York was the "safe, legal, and
rare" gal. Two out of three ain't bad, some would say...) This is what
we get with the laws as they currently stand.
Estimates I've read put the abortions performed because of R&I at less
than 1%. Even at 1%, in NYC that would be 1 R&I victim forced to carry
a child they may not want to 135 innocent children murdered before they
draw their first breath. I may be the only contributor here that thinks
that's a better deal than 74 babies dead for every 100 births - but it
all comes down to the value placed on human life, and at what point. If
someone doesn't believe that those 74 are babies being murdered, I'm
sure my position seems... oh, how did you put that...
[huge snip]
> a decidedly arrogant and self-righteous stance.
Yeah, that.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ / \ / ~ Live from Montgomery, AL! ~
~ / \/ o ~ ~
~ / /\ - | ~ daniel@thebelowdomain ~
~ _____ / \ | ~ http://www.djs-consulting.com ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++ ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn't see, or
a man who's offended by a God he doesn't believe in?" - Brad Stine
William M. Klein
news:5eb2c$443b0ecd$45491d7a$29...@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>> New post to avoid the "overflow" problem Peter Dashwood first mentioned.
>>
> But, as Mr. Brazee mentioned (even today) - if it's okay in *certain cases*,
> then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And, if you can murder
> an innocent child because it resulted from a crime, where's the moral high
> ground in not allowing its murder because it would degrade a teenager's high
> school experience? Or because it would be inconvenient for the rising
> executive who just got a promotion?
>
Daniel,
Am I correct that you understand the question is "what is a human?"
I don't (personally) know of anyone who is for or against "capital punishment"
who questions that criminals are "human".
(FYI, I am against capital punishment).
There are, however, LOTS of questions about when a "fetuts" becomes a "human
being". I understand your view (or think I do - that "human life" begins at
conception). I also understand the position that human life begins at birth -
and the harder to define (but closer to my view) that "human life" begins when a
fetus reaches a stage that it COULD survive outside the womb.
It is my strong belief that all those on the "pro-life" side believe that "human
life" begins sometime before birth
and
that those who are on the "pro-choice" side beleive that fetuses at stages
allowed to be aborted are not "human beings".
I have never understood the purpose of discussions about abortion among those
with different views of when human life begins. I just don't see how they can
ever progress productively.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
LX-i
> It is my strong belief that all those on the "pro-life" side believe that "human
> life" begins sometime before birth
> and
You got it. (The latter being supported by a hefty chant of "keep your
laws off my body/vagina/womb")
> I have never understood the purpose of discussions about abortion among those
> with different views of when human life begins. I just don't see how they can
> ever progress productively.
Which was why I ended my message to Chuck the way I did. I acknowledged
that my belief on this issue would be seen by some to be not only wrong,
but cold-hearted and self-righteous.
I'm not planning on keeping this thread going much longer (in fact, I
was going to let this post to Chuck be it). But, I thought you deserved
a reply... :)
Howard Brazee
<wmk...@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
>There are, however, LOTS of questions about when a "fetuts" becomes a "human
>being". I understand your view (or think I do - that "human life" begins at
>conception). I also understand the position that human life begins at birth -
>and the harder to define (but closer to my view) that "human life" begins when a
>fetus reaches a stage that it COULD survive outside the womb.
There is an argument with backing that says a fetus is a human being
but an embryo is not. This matches the tradition of quickening, and
it is also when some human-like brain activity starts.
But I don't see this in the abortion debates.
Howard Brazee
<charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
> is, in my opinion, a
>decidedly arrogant and self-righteous stance.
What's the difference between "righteous" and "self-righteous"?
As far as I can tell, the former is the correct stance that I have, as
defined by God, and the latter is the incorrect stance that was
defined by yourself.
Or is it "I'm good, you're righteous, and he's self-righteous"?
HeyBub
>
> But, as Mr. Brazee mentioned (even today) - if it's okay in *certain
> cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And,
> if you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
> where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
> would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it
> would be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
There were about 74,000 abortions in Florida in 1981. These 74,000 were
unable to vote in 2000. Presumably, most would have voted for Al Gore,
descended, as they were, from a more "liberal" family environment. Gore lost
Florida by 520 votes.
The pro-abortion crew is evidently "eating their seed corn" and this
phenomena is so apparant, it has a name: "The Roe Effect."
But that's neither here nor there in the debate. The debate will not end and
there will be no substantial changes to the abortion laws. Both sides are
too heavily invested in the struggle (i.e., the "struggle" provides
employment and life-goals to literally thousands, including politicians).
Chuck Stevens
news:5eb2c$443b0ecd$45491d7a$29...@KNOLOGY.NET...
> I understand your experience with this issue, and I understand Holly's.
No, you don't, not unless you personally have been through it.
> I have personally been close with someone who has gone through similar
> things, though a child did not result.
So it's different from the case Holly described.
> I don't believe the way I do without having thought them through.
And in doing so utterly dismissed the fact that some people respond to such
circumstances in different ways.
You have formed an *opinion* on what a woman ought or ought not to do with
her body, and you want enforced as *law*. I believe women have more
standing in determining what is to be done with their bodies than men do,
just as men have the right to determine what procedures will and will not be
done to their own bodies.
> Did you read the Kathleen Parker article I linked? "Sometimes an accident
> is just an accident."
Not at the time; looked for it, couldn't track it down via a Google search
of your messages with the keyword "Parker".
> And, to sort of buttress my point above - last year in New York City,
> there were 74 abortions for every 100 live births. That's 42.6% - and
> there's *no way* I'm believing that rape and incest are that bad in NYC.
> (I thought the junior Senator from New York was the "safe, legal, and
> rare" gal. Two out of three ain't bad, some would say...) This is what
> we get with the laws as they currently stand.
I don't doubt those figures. What I disagree with is the position that rape
victims (and I count *minor children* who are the victims of incest as being
the victims of statutory rape as well) *must legally* have no option other
than to carry the child to term on the grounds that abortion is too easy for
people who use abortion for convenience.
I am not a proponent of abortion for convenience. But I am of the firm
belief that it is no more appropriate for the law to demand that all
pregnancies be carried to their natural end than it is for men to be
required to defecate watermelons or that all of them be circumcized (or
de-circumcised, for that matter) as adults. And more importantly presuming
Judaeo-Christian tradition I think the most defensible *scriptural* line is
at "quickening".
> Estimates I've read put the abortions performed because of R&I at less
> than 1%. Even at 1%, in NYC that would be 1 R&I victim forced to carry a
> child they may not want to 135 innocent children murdered before they draw
> their first breath.
And it is a *particular* religious position, in an environment in which
"quickening" can be more easily defended as a dividing point for the
permissibility of abortion than conception (and yes, I understand the
arguments; I simply disagree as to which is stronger). Others would hold
*on religious grounds* that the child does not exist until it is separate
from the mother. Why is it appropriate for *your particular* religious view
to be preferred by the U. S. Government over anyone else's when it requires
that *you* decide what *somebody else* must do with her own body?
> I may be the only contributor here that thinks that's a better deal than
> 74 babies dead for every 100 births - but it all comes down to the value
> placed on human life, and at what point. If someone doesn't believe that
> those 74 are babies being murdered, I'm sure my position seems... oh, how
> did you put that...
She expressed an opinion based on *her* experience that in the *general*
case wasn't that different from yours. Because she felt there were
*some* cases in which it shouldn't be prevented you have indicated that she
is "pro-abortion" across the board, which means, based on her statement to
the contrary, that you have called her a liar in public. I think she
deserves an apology on those grounds.
This isn't the first time you've categorized people individually with a
broad brush in this forum, by the way.
-Chuck Stevens
Howard Brazee
<charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
>> I understand your experience with this issue, and I understand Holly's.
>
>No, you don't, not unless you personally have been through it.
Are you saying nobody can understand something unless we have
personally been through that exact same thing?
I know our forgetters work well enough that women are willing to
forget the pain of childbirth, so I'm not sure that "being through it"
means we really know.
Howard Brazee
<charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
>You have formed an *opinion* on what a woman ought or ought not to do with
>her body, and you want enforced as *law*. I believe women have more
>standing in determining what is to be done with their bodies than men do,
>just as men have the right to determine what procedures will and will not be
>done to their own bodies.
Why should one woman have any more standing to tell other women what
those other women should do with their bodies than a man should have?
It's that individual who has to decide - not her gender.
Men don't have the right to decide for men either, nor blacks for
blacks or whites for whites. We are individuals. Our subset within
the human race does not get to decide for all of that subset.
Chuck Stevens
"Chuck Stevens" <charles...@unisys.com> wrote in message news:...
> "LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> Did you read the Kathleen Parker article I linked? "Sometimes an
>> accident is just an accident."
>
> Not at the time; looked for it, couldn't track it down via a Google search
> of your messages with the keyword "Parker".
Believe I found it: "Million dollar fetus".
My take on this is based on Step 9: "Made direct amends to such people
wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others," and
that does go beyond merely paying the medical bills (as the at-fault party
in this case did).
The article lists three choices: abort the baby and have immediate surgery;
postpone the surgery and risk having to re-break all the mother's broken
bones which then might not heal properly; and have the surgery without
having an abortion, which would risk giving birth to a damaged baby.
The second of these does not admit a possibility addressed earlier in the
article: that the radiation from the X-rays might have *already* damaged
the fetus. I think that's a *little* disingenuous, because it fails to
acknowledge that it only differs from the third listed option by degree, not
in substance.
To me, the curiosity is that a fetus is a person under Illinois
wrongful-death law. I don't think this is a common provision among the laws
of other states. From my standpoint, a fetus is not an *individual* until
it is *individual* -- that is, it is no longer fully contained in the mother
and dependent on the placenta for life, and it is at that point that it
becomes a *person*. From a *scriptural* standpoint I think the
"quickening" argument applies directly, but I'm not a big fan of the idea of
taking a specific scriptural point in a particular theological tradition and
demanding that everyone follow it. I'm more interested in *survivability*.
I also think one of the purposes of the Illinois law is to set a legal
precedent by which a pregnant woman can get extra money in a wrongful-death
lawsuit if she loses the child. For that reason, I lly think the law is
wrong-headed -- the *physical* injury that might cause the loss of the child
was to the *mother*, and a miscarriage was one of the effects (both short-
and long-term) of that injury. At the point of the injury, the
*individual* that was harmed was the mother.
So, my take: Having to make the decision to terminate the pregnancy was
almost certainly a painful one for Michelle Williams, but once having made
that decision it was *her* decision. John Manchester didn't force it on
her, and even if I felt the statute on wrongful death was a reasonable one
I'd probably agree with the judge in the lower court. Manchester didn't
force Williams into any one of the alternatives available and thus is not
accountable for the particular one chosen, but he did force her into the
position of having to choose among them and is responsible for putting her
in that position.
Even presuming that the statute under which the civil suit was filed was
reasonable to start with I agree with the court decision that that statute
does not apply here. $1M might be the right number, but for "pain and
suffering", not for "wrongful death".
-Chuck Stevens
Chuck Stevens
news:ulmn32l9ago802kfa...@4ax.com...
I was referring primarily to the short- and long-term effects of rape and
incest on the victim of these crimes. I was also referring to the
difficulties a rape or incest victim might have when she is informed that
the only moral thing for her to do was to go through with the pregnancy and
perhaps even give up all of her dreams to care for the child, particularly
when there's no indication that the perpetrator faced any consequences at
all (as appeared to be the case that Holly described). The pain of
childbirth isn't the only issue associated with pregnancy; throwing up every
morning is not *my* idea of fun and games, nor would having a watermelon
sitting on top of my bladder be.
-Chuck Stevens
Chuck Stevens
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:12:47 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
> <charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>>You have formed an *opinion* on what a woman ought or ought not to do with
>>her body, and you want enforced as *law*. I believe women have more
>>standing in determining what is to be done with their bodies than men do,
>>just as men have the right to determine what procedures will and will not
>>be
>>done to their own bodies.
>
> Why should one woman have any more standing to tell other women what
> those other women should do with their bodies than a man should have?
> It's that individual who has to decide - not her gender.
That wasn't what I was trying to say, though I can see how you might take it
that way. I don't think men have the standing to *counsel* women on this
subject, much less to have a say in determining what the woman is or is not
permitted to do.
> Men don't have the right to decide for men either, nor blacks for
> blacks or whites for whites. We are individuals. Our subset within
> the human race does not get to decide for all of that subset.
Yes, I agree; however, we do have a system of laws, and some subset *does*
end up deciding what is permitted and what is not for the group as a whole.
-Chuck Stevens
Howard Brazee
<charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
>I was referring primarily to the short- and long-term effects of rape and
>incest on the victim of these crimes. I was also referring to the
>difficulties a rape or incest victim might have when she is informed that
>the only moral thing for her to do was to go through with the pregnancy and
>perhaps even give up all of her dreams to care for the child, particularly
>when there's no indication that the perpetrator faced any consequences at
>all (as appeared to be the case that Holly described). The pain of
>childbirth isn't the only issue associated with pregnancy; throwing up every
>morning is not *my* idea of fun and games, nor would having a watermelon
>sitting on top of my bladder be.
And I'm saying that being a woman is not sufficient reason to be able
to tell another person what to do in these circumstances.
The whole argument that says "you're a man - why should you tell a
woman what to do when she get's raped?" implies that other women
should have that right.
I disagree with that implication.
Chuck Stevens
I don't think I have the qualifications to *counsel* a woman on the subject,
because I don't have the experience of being a woman and of dealing with the
internalization of both sexuality and childbearing. That means I have even
*less* in the way of qualifications to *demand* that a woman deal with them
in a certain way.
-Chuck Stevens
<top post, no more below>
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:vfsn32p8mjlauth8m...@4ax.com...
LX-i
> LX-i wrote:
>> But, as Mr. Brazee mentioned (even today) - if it's okay in *certain
>> cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And,
>> if you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
>> where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
>> would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it
>> would be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
>
> There were about 74,000 abortions in Florida in 1981. These 74,000 were
> unable to vote in 2000. Presumably, most would have voted for Al Gore,
> descended, as they were, from a more "liberal" family environment. Gore lost
> Florida by 520 votes.
>
> The pro-abortion crew is evidently "eating their seed corn" and this
> phenomena is so apparant, it has a name: "The Roe Effect."
Yep - I'm familiar with it.
> But that's neither here nor there in the debate. The debate will not end and
> there will be no substantial changes to the abortion laws. Both sides are
> too heavily invested in the struggle (i.e., the "struggle" provides
> employment and life-goals to literally thousands, including politicians).
That's because, now that's its couched in the realm of "rights", and
means that some people may have to modify their behavior (also seen as a
violation of their "rights"), they'll never accept anything less than
their prenatal chop shops (aka "abortion clinics") sprinkled liberally
throughout every city in the land.
And, even if the bad law is repealed, and good laws take its place -
we've seen the havoc that can be wreaked by the judicial branch that
thinks its place is to make new law when it disagrees with the current,
rather than rendering faithful interpretations of existing law. So,
even *if* abortion is outlawed in every red state in the Union, the
fight will *still* not be over, because we'll have to continually be on
our guard.
LX-i
> You have formed an *opinion* on what a woman ought or ought not to do with
> her body, and you want enforced as *law*. I believe women have more
> standing in determining what is to be done with their bodies than men do,
> just as men have the right to determine what procedures will and will not be
> done to their own bodies.
So women have the lock on truth and right?
>> Did you read the Kathleen Parker article I linked? "Sometimes an accident
>> is just an accident."
>
> Not at the time; looked for it, couldn't track it down via a Google search
> of your messages with the keyword "Parker".
I didn't mention the author. Here 'tis...
http://www.townhall.com/opinion/column/kathleenparker/2006/04/07/193035.html
> She expressed an opinion based on *her* experience that in the *general*
> case wasn't that different from yours. Because she felt there were
> *some* cases in which it shouldn't be prevented you have indicated that she
> is "pro-abortion" across the board, which means, based on her statement to
> the contrary, that you have called her a liar in public. I think she
> deserves an apology on those grounds.
I did not call her a liar. While she said what she said, the point of
her post to which I responded was a very common pro-abortion comment.
As I've said before (even in the message to which your reply was
written), if it's *ever* permissible, it's *always* permissible.
> This isn't the first time you've categorized people individually with a
> broad brush in this forum, by the way.
And the same has been done to me. This language thing is imprecise -
and, if they (or I) walk like a duck, and quack like a duck...
Believe me, if I felt that I had done wrong, I would apologize.
However, I'm not one to apologize just because someone's feelings were hurt.
HeyBub
>
> I am not a proponent of abortion for convenience. But I am of the
> firm belief that it is no more appropriate for the law to demand that
> all pregnancies be carried to their natural end than it is for men to
> be required to defecate watermelons or that all of them be
> circumcized (or de-circumcised, for that matter) as adults. And more
> importantly presuming Judaeo-Christian tradition I think the most
> defensible *scriptural* line is at "quickening".
Interrupt. The official Jewish position on abortion is: "Maybe." If
pregnancy threatens the life of the mother, abortion is almost mandatory.
Otherwise, a detailed, individual, analysis of each specific, unique
situation is required. For example, if carrying the pregnancy to term would
probably result in suicidal tendencies by the mother, abortion is permitted.
If the birth would probably result in normal, treatable, post-partum
depression, abortion is not permitted.
Authorities are divided on permissibility where the fetus is deformed,
whether the pregnancy is a result of rape, and, unlike other religions,
whether the impregnation resulted from a "forbidden" union (incest, adultry,
apostate, Democrat*).
There is no "bright-line" test as in the Catholic tradition.
==========
Okay, I made up the last one.
Pete Dashwood
<snip>
> The pain of childbirth isn't the only issue associated with pregnancy;
> throwing up every morning is not *my* idea of fun and games, nor would
> having a watermelon sitting on top of my bladder be.
>
business of carrying something round inside you for 9 months because it
needs protection, well, it just doesn't stack up any more really.
I reckon she could lay an egg, both the parents could put it in an incubator
and get on with their lives until it hatched.
And it would avoid all that unpleasantness over abortion. Too many kids,
don't need another one? OK. Egg goes down the insinkerator... No risk, and
relatively painless for the parents.
We'd probably still be arguing here about when it was an egg and when it was
a child, but the whole process would be much less messy.
It works for the platbilled duckibus and the echidna.
Oviparous mammals. THAT's the future for us...:-)
Pete.
Chuck Stevens
> And, even if the bad law is repealed, and good laws take its place - we've
> seen the havoc that can be wreaked by the judicial branch that thinks its
> place is to make new law when it disagrees with the current, rather than
> rendering faithful interpretations of existing law.
You're going to have to take that up with Chief Justice John Marshall. It
was his decision in Marbury v. Madison that underlies the precept of
judicial review. He might be a little hard to reach, though.
I tend to feel that, since this decision was promulgated in February 1803,
since a reasonable percentage of the signators to the then-fourteen-year-old
Constitution and other Founding Fathers were still alive and kickng and
presumably reading the news of the day, and since they do not seem to have
raised a significant hue and cry about the violence this decision did to the
Constitution and the balance of powers so carefully crafted into it, they
must not have found the idea all that repugnant at the time.
-Chuck Stevens
Chuck Stevens
> I did not call her a liar. While she said what she said, the point of her
> post to which I responded was a very common pro-abortion comment.
She wrote "I don't like abortion and think it's a terrible thing." You
responded "YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. ..."
In what way, in that response, did you discuss with the same emphasis how
you react when *anti*-abortion folks (like Holly) say this?
> I've said before (even in the message to which your reply was written), if
> it's *ever* permissible, it's *always* permissible.
I know you believe that to be the case; I do not follow the logic. Should
the reverse be true? That if it's *ever* prohibited in any case it should
*always* be prohibited in *all* cases?
What about prevention? Should the law specify what means can be taken to
*prevent* a woman from having an abortion or a doctor from performing one,
rather than relying on the idea that a criminal record and jail time are
sufficient?
What do you think the penalty for abortion should be? Should the sentence
guidelines for abortion be more, less, or about the same as that of rape
(statutory or otherwise)? Should it be an infraction, like a traffic
ticket, being drunk in public, or hitting somebody over the head with a
protest sign? What?
> And the same has been done to me.
*By Holly*? I don't think so.
> This language thing is imprecise - and, if they (or I) walk like a duck,
> and quack like a duck...
So if she says "I don't like abortion and think it's a terrible thing", and
then comes out *against* the death penalty, she "walks like" a
*pro-abortionist*?
It seems to me the only difference between her position and yours is that
she does not support the idea of criminalizing abortion *in the case of rape
or incest*, and you apparently do. That does not mean she is *pro-abortion*
or deserves your categorization as being "in that camp".
< Believe me, if I felt that I had done wrong, I would apologize.
> However, I'm not one to apologize just because someone's feelings were
> hurt.
There is such a thing as *rigorous* honesty and there is such a thing as
*brutal* honesty. They are not the same thing, and sometimes the way in
which we present our views or our arguments is brutal, and for that
brutality, sometimes we owe amends even when we are firmly convinced our
underlying position is correct, because our presentation of that position
was ill-concieved. I believe that is true for most of us, and I don't see
much evidence that you need to be excluded from the group represented by the
second-person-plural in this paragraph.
-Chuck Stevens
Oliver Wong
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>> You have formed an *opinion* on what a woman ought or ought not to do
>> with her body, and you want enforced as *law*. I believe women have
>> more standing in determining what is to be done with their bodies than
>> men do, just as men have the right to determine what procedures will and
>> will not be done to their own bodies.
>
> So women have the lock on truth and right?
In the very passage that you quoted and responded to, Chuck says "men
have the right to determine what procedures will and will not be done to
their own bodies", so the answer is "no".
> As I've said before (even in the message to which your reply was written),
> if it's *ever* permissible, it's *always* permissible.
I think people are in disagreement with the idea that "ever permissible"
implies "always permissible". In your earlier message, you wrote:
<quote>
if it's okay in *certain
cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And, if
you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it would
be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
</quote>
The emphasis on "certain cases" is yours, and it is an important
emphasis. Yes, it remains to be decided what those cases are, and yes, it's
not always easy to determine whether a given case falls into the
"permissible" or "not permissible" category; but that does not imply that we
should just give up and announce "It's all or nothing".
- Oliver
Richard
Because it takes millions of years ?
> I reckon she could lay an egg, both the parents could put it in an incubator
> and get on with their lives until it hatched.
They are working on this. When technology has developed the full term
test tube babies then this will allow development beyond the pelvic
restrictions that have held back our head size. New generations will be
able to continue the evolution of techo-man and eventually the
womb-breeding humans will be left behind as they will not be able to
inter-breed with this new species.
Howard Brazee
>> No, I agree. I dunno why Evolution hasn't enabled women to lay eggs.
>
>Because it takes millions of years ?
Natural selection has gone the other way around. Live birth
apparently has survival benefits.
But...
>> I reckon she could lay an egg, both the parents could put it in an incubator
>> and get on with their lives until it hatched.
>
>They are working on this. When technology has developed the full term
>test tube babies then this will allow development beyond the pelvic
>restrictions that have held back our head size. New generations will be
>able to continue the evolution of techo-man and eventually the
>womb-breeding humans will be left behind as they will not be able to
>inter-breed with this new species.
Evolution could accelerate once "natural" is supplemented in the
selection process. Or in this case, bypassed with artificial wombs.
Howard Brazee
crime that started about a decade ago (when everybody was predicting a
big rise) - to Roe vs Wade.
Donald Tees
> On 12 Apr 2006 12:52:59 -0700, "Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
>>>No, I agree. I dunno why Evolution hasn't enabled women to lay eggs.
>>
>>Because it takes millions of years ?
>
>
> Natural selection has gone the other way around. Live birth
> apparently has survival benefits.
A womb is better incubator than sitting on an egg. That is fairly
important as the gestation period increases.
Donald
Richard
> important as the gestation period increases.
An egg (in non-mammals) is also rather limiting in that it contains
_all_ the food that is available and must contain the waste products
limiting growth and restricting gestation period.
Most mammal eggs do not contain food, they are just the yolk.
Marsupials are an intermediate stage where they provide additional food
externally during a two step gestation.
Perhaps humans could revert to pseudo marsupials by birthing early into
incubators. No wait, we are starting to do that.
(to try to drag this back on topic: note that 'period' is used here to
mean from start to finish and not just 'the bit on the end acting as a
terminator or "full stop"' ;-)
Donald Tees
>>A womb is better incubator than sitting on an egg. That is fairly
>>important as the gestation period increases.
>
>
> An egg (in non-mammals) is also rather limiting in that it contains
> _all_ the food that is available and must contain the waste products
> limiting growth and restricting gestation period.
True enough. Never thought of that.
I can see a pair of ducks nesting on the grass in front of my building,
about 18 inches off the sidewalk. As I live in a downtown area, on a 4
lane busy city street, that is somewhat unusual. There is only a strip
of grass about 3 feet wide. It must be spring.
Donald
Richard
Feeding them on orages, or sage and onions, improves the flavour. ;-)
Clark Morris
Except the current thinking is that womb bearing is an advance over
egg laying in the evolutionary scheme of things. Frankly, I believe
that there are two mechanisms going, natural selection within groups
such as dogs, cats, trees, etc. and something else that allows a
drastically different specie to develop. With all the work that has
been done with fruit flies, has anyone gotten a substantially
different type of insect from experiments in breeding, mutation
through radiation, etc.?
LX-i
> <quote>
> if it's okay in *certain
> cases*, then all that's left it deciding what those cases are. And, if
> you can murder an innocent child because it resulted from a crime,
> where's the moral high ground in not allowing its murder because it
> would degrade a teenager's high school experience? Or because it would
> be inconvenient for the rising executive who just got a promotion?
> </quote>
>
> The emphasis on "certain cases" is yours, and it is an important
> emphasis. Yes, it remains to be decided what those cases are, and yes,
> it's not always easy to determine whether a given case falls into the
> "permissible" or "not permissible" category; but that does not imply
> that we should just give up and announce "It's all or nothing".
But that's my entire point. Short of recognizing abortion as the murder
of an unborn child, any compromises are doomed. Exceptions for rape and
incest become a "commit a murder free" card - and this hypocrisy will
never stand up in court.
So, I'm not giving up - but anything short of complete prohibition will
never last.
LX-i
> "LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:8150e$443c51de$45491d7a$47...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>
>> I did not call her a liar. While she said what she said, the point of her
>> post to which I responded was a very common pro-abortion comment.
>
> She wrote "I don't like abortion and think it's a terrible thing." You
> responded "YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. ..."
>
> In what way, in that response, did you discuss with the same emphasis how
> you react when *anti*-abortion folks (like Holly) say this?
Okay - I apologize for the slight mischaracterization, and amend that to
"abortion supporter".
>> I've said before (even in the message to which your reply was written), if
>> it's *ever* permissible, it's *always* permissible.
>
> I know you believe that to be the case; I do not follow the logic. Should
> the reverse be true? That if it's *ever* prohibited in any case it should
> *always* be prohibited in *all* cases?
This is an interesting thing. Given my response to Mr. Wong, the answer
is no. (Of course, *I* think it should be prohibited in all cases.)
Alistair
Richard wrote:
> > A womb is better incubator than sitting on an egg. That is fairly
> > important as the gestation period increases.
>
> An egg (in non-mammals) is also rather limiting in that it contains
> _all_ the food that is available and must contain the waste products
> limiting growth and restricting gestation period.
>
> Most mammal eggs do not contain food, they are just the yolk.
Yolk is lecithin which constitutes a food source.
Alistair
No, we allow other subsets (senators/congressmen, MPs/Lords) to decide
for us all and then, individually, we choose whether to conform or not.
Howard Brazee
>But that's my entire point. Short of recognizing abortion as the murder
>of an unborn child, any compromises are doomed. Exceptions for rape and
>incest become a "commit a murder free" card - and this hypocrisy will
>never stand up in court.
>
>So, I'm not giving up - but anything short of complete prohibition will
>never last.
Murder is murder. (killing in self-defense is not - but killing
because you don't want to have to live with the other person is)
But there are multiple points where legal and religious tradition have
defined when a life becomes human. The Bible's most explicit
definition is when the head crosses the birth canal, but that works
only for people who accept the Bible as the authority. (Apparently
most anti-abortionists do not accept this authority, which is their
right)
Quickening of an embryo into a fetus might be a compromise that has
traditional backing and which also could fit with some knowledge that
we have gained from technical advances to determine whether the brain
activity was that of a person.
Embryonic miscarriages have not traditionally been accompanied by
funerals, and the remains have not been subject to either human
disposal laws nor church doctrine. It is unusual to have these for
fetal miscarriages. The closer to being carried to term, the more
likely they are to be treated as people.
Alistair
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:12:47 -0700, "Chuck Stevens"
> <charles...@unisys.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why should one woman have any more standing to tell other women what
> those other women should do with their bodies than a man should have?
> It's that individual who has to decide - not her gender.
>
> Men don't have the right to decide for men either, nor blacks for
> blacks or whites for whites. We are individuals. Our subset within
> the human race does not get to decide for all of that subset.
I should have added:
In Eire (Southern Ireland) the law was (and may still be) against
abortion. That caused certain well publicised cases of rape victims
being forced to go to full term against their wishes. I did wonder if,
should the victim obtain an abortion in England, they would be subject
to the full might and majesty of the law and, when convicted,
imprisoned?
There is a management belief that committee decisions usually provide
the correct decision. In my experience they are usually decisions which
adhere to the middle of the road and are really rarely worth the time
invested in making them. It seems that abortion law is a good example
of well-intentioned committee produced law falling well short of
practicality in the real world. Hardly surprising since, even this
forum, can not reach a collective decision as to at which point an
egg/blastocyst/foetus can be deemed to be alive and human and whether
it should be eligible for abortion or stem cell research.
FYI:
95% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort (usually before the parent
is aware of being pregnant).
A foetus is capable of survival outside of the womb from the age of 24
weeks. Unfortunately, that is not without the aid of an incubator,
breathing apparatus and artificial feeding. Medical science is pushing
that limit down towards 21 weeks.
A recent article (Guardian newspaper?) pointed out that a 24 week
foetus being raised outside of the womb is most likely to die before
the 9 month gestation period is reached.
In the event that it survived it was likely to suffer from serious
internal organ problems (due to the organs not having properly formed),
brain damage (again because the organ did not fully form), learning
difficulties and general life-long ill health. Most (uninformed)
opinion would have us apply a 24 week (or fewer) limit to abortion on
the principle of the foetal survivability in artificial conditions.
Perhaps JJG could confirm that the Catholic Church considers that human
life begins at the point of conception? In which case, the majority of
conceptions end up in unmarked graves.
Alistair
I was always of the opinion (probably uninformed) that Church law
forbade the burial of unbaptised souls in Church grounds. A
foetus/unbaptised baby would not be buried.
docd...@panix.com
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:58:18 -0500, LX-i <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>But that's my entire point. Short of recognizing abortion as the murder
>>of an unborn child, any compromises are doomed. Exceptions for rape and
>>incest become a "commit a murder free" card - and this hypocrisy will
>>never stand up in court.
>>
>>So, I'm not giving up - but anything short of complete prohibition will
>>never last.
>
>Murder is murder. (killing in self-defense is not - but killing
>because you don't want to have to live with the other person is)
Murder is defined by laws. Killing because someone has behaved in a
fashion which causes one's family dishonor is not only, by some codes,
legally sanctioned but socially approved.
DD
Howard Brazee
<alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Perhaps JJG could confirm that the Catholic Church considers that human
>life begins at the point of conception? In which case, the majority of
>conceptions end up in unmarked graves.
Early miscarriages aren't always obvious. If such need to be treated
by the Church identically to pre-baptism deaths of children, then
examination of menses should be increased.
If they are not to be treated the same, the implication is that they
are not the same.
Pete Dashwood
"Clark Morris" <cfm...@istar.ca> wrote in message
news:a2ar32pg1uoj2p6vq...@4ax.com...
Why haven't they taken genes from a spider, implanted them in a chicken and
got an 8 legged chicken so the whole family gets a drumstick? Should I
write to Colonel Sanders... sorry, he's gone to the big Kentucky barbeque in
the sky, maybe I should write to KFC (the new 'no greasy unhealthy food
here' company).
Just as an aside to our international audience... KFC is SO popular with
Islanders here (that's people from the Cook Islands, Tokelaus, Tonga, Samoa,
and a few others, who have the right of entry to NZ because some of the
places where they live are NZ protecorates) that they take large hampers of
it back to the islands when they go home for visits. (It is apparently
unobtainable in the islands...). I can just see them going through
Customs...
"Anything to declare?"
"30 drumsticks, 50 wings, 25 breasts, some fries... cole slaw, and a bucket
of gravy."
"Gifts for the family?"
"No it's all for personal use..."
"How long are you staying?"
"Until tomorrow..."
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
"Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1144871579.5...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> No, I agree. I dunno why Evolution hasn't enabled women to lay eggs.
>
> Because it takes millions of years ?
Well, Gee, Richard, we've been around for 3 million years that we know of...
Do you suppose it took the platypus that long? :-)
>
>> I reckon she could lay an egg, both the parents could put it in an
>> incubator
>> and get on with their lives until it hatched.
>
> They are working on this. When technology has developed the full term
> test tube babies then this will allow development beyond the pelvic
> restrictions that have held back our head size. New generations will be
> able to continue the evolution of techo-man and eventually the
> womb-breeding humans will be left behind as they will not be able to
> inter-breed with this new species.
>
Oh Man, I can't wait to see women who look like the Mekong in Dan Dare and
whom I can't breed with... :-) Guess I just need to live for a few hundred
years... :-)
Pete.
Pete Dashwood
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:3omq3290kgvs3sj97...@4ax.com...
So, if God is so powerful and all-knowing, how come we have to do His job
for Him? :-)
Pete.
Howard Brazee
<dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>> Evolution could accelerate once "natural" is supplemented in the
>> selection process. Or in this case, bypassed with artificial wombs.
>
>So, if God is so powerful and all-knowing, how come we have to do His job
>for Him? :-)
We always have contributed to building the world as He wants.
Obviously Creation is not finished.
HeyBub
> Oh Man, I can't wait to see women who look like the Mekong in Dan
> Dare and whom I can't breed with... :-) Guess I just need to live for
> a few hundred years... :-)
For males, "breeding" has never been a goal...
Howard Brazee
wrote:
It hasn't always been the goal. But often it is.
Pete Dashwood
It was meant to be tongue in cheek and I wasn't expecting a response.
However, it is no surprise to me that the response received would have to be
the old single valued logic response. It's the same argumment as Fatalism,
and is no argument at all. As it is impossible to argue a case which only
has one truth value, I shall decline. I know when I'm licked :-)
Pete.
Alistair
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> "Clark Morris" <cfm...@istar.ca> wrote in message
> news:a2ar32pg1uoj2p6vq...@4ax.com...
> > On 12 Apr 2006 12:52:59 -0700, "Richard" <rip...@Azonic.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Why haven't they taken genes from a spider, implanted them in a chicken and
> got an 8 legged chicken so the whole family gets a drumstick?
Because the little beggars would run so fast that no-one would be able
to catch them (it's an old joke about three legged chickens. How do
they taste? Dunno, never been able to catch one!)
Alistair
Howard Brazee wrote:
> On 13 Apr 2006 06:44:26 -0700, "Alistair"
> <alis...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Perhaps JJG could confirm that the Catholic Church considers that human
> >life begins at the point of conception? In which case, the majority of
> >conceptions end up in unmarked graves.
>
> Early miscarriages aren't always obvious. If such need to be treated
> by the Church identically to pre-baptism deaths of children, then
> examination of menses should be increased.
My point stands.
>
> If they are not to be treated the same, the implication is that they
> are not the same.
Or that, through ignorance or laziness, they are not recognized as
being the same even though they clearly are.
Howard Brazee
<dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>>>So, if God is so powerful and all-knowing, how come we have to do His job
>>>for Him? :-)
>>
>> We always have contributed to building the world as He wants.
>> Obviously Creation is not finished.
>
>It was meant to be tongue in cheek and I wasn't expecting a response.
>However, it is no surprise to me that the response received would have to be
>the old single valued logic response. It's the same argumment as Fatalism,
>and is no argument at all. As it is impossible to argue a case which only
>has one truth value, I shall decline. I know when I'm licked :-)
And I also didn't expect a response, especially given that you know I
am an atheist. But your reply puzzles me. How does one give a
multi-valued logic response, or a "new single valued logic response to
your question?
For those who believe in Creation - most seem to think that Creation
has been completed. My response said "obviously" it isn't. It was
designed as a starting point to thought and debate.
Pete Dashwood
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 10:09:18 +1200, "Pete Dashwood"
> <dash...@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>>So, if God is so powerful and all-knowing, how come we have to do His
>>>>job
>>>>for Him? :-)
>>>
>>> We always have contributed to building the world as He wants.
>>> Obviously Creation is not finished.
>>
>>It was meant to be tongue in cheek and I wasn't expecting a response.
>>However, it is no surprise to me that the response received would have to
>>be
>>the old single valued logic response. It's the same argumment as
>>Fatalism,
>>and is no argument at all. As it is impossible to argue a case which only
>>has one truth value, I shall decline. I know when I'm licked :-)
>
> And I also didn't expect a response, especially given that you know I
> am an atheist. But your reply puzzles me. How does one give a
> multi-valued logic response, or a "new single valued logic response to
> your question?
>
values or 'Aristotlean'), or partially right or partially wrong
(multi-valued). It is therefore possible to argue them.
> For those who believe in Creation - most seem to think that Creation
> has been completed. My response said "obviously" it isn't. It was
> designed as a starting point to thought and debate.
Yes, but, more importantly your response was an observation in the form: "We
always have contributed to building the world as He wants." In other words,
whatever we do is the will of God. This is the same single valued logic
system used by Fatalists. And it is irrefutable. I don't personally believe
in Fate but I cannot refute it by logical argument. (I guess my 'not buying
it' is a leap of faith :-)) For every instance I can show of Free Will, the
Fatalist can argue that it was pre-ordained by God. Single truth value; the
will of God. So everythng evaluated by this system is logically 'true'. As
there is no chance of winning such an argument, attempting to do so is just
a waste of time...
Pete.
Chuck Stevens
mulling over a response since my return to the office yesterday morning,
hence the delay.
"LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:92a1e$443db145$45491d7a$26...@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Chuck Stevens wrote:
>> "LX-i" <lxi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>> news:8150e$443c51de$45491d7a$47...@KNOLOGY.NET...
>>
>>> I did not call her a liar. While she said what she said, the point of
>>> her post to which I responded was a very common pro-abortion comment.
>>
>> She wrote "I don't like abortion and think it's a terrible thing." You
>> responded "YES! I *LOVE* it when pro-abortion people say this. ..."
>>
>> In what way, in that response, did you discuss with the same emphasis how
>> you react when *anti*-abortion folks (like Holly) say this?
>
> Okay - I apologize for the slight mischaracterization, and amend that to
> "abortion supporter".
I went all the way back to the entry in which Holly presented her position
and found this:
<<It's not that both sides aren't presented. I don't like abortion and
think it is a terrible thing. But I don't want government telling me
what I can and can't do to my own body. Maybe you would understand
that it isn't just beating my chest but the fact that my best friend
was a victim of incest at 15 and it was a terrible choice she had to
make. She tried to commit suicide and it wasn't until she was in the
hospital at the age of 32 that her parents finally understood what she
had been through.
have you ever felt the pain or the shame of something like that! i
don't think you have. You shouldn't judge everyone the way you do!
>>
I don't see in here that Holly's friend *did* have an abortion, only that
the process of arriving at whatever choice she made was a difficult one. I
will acknowledge that the reader *could* draw the conclusion that she did,
but that would be the reader's conclusion.
I don't think she's any more of an "abortion supporter" than you are an
"advocate of suicide for rape victims" or a member of the Incest
Decriminalization League. Based on what I've read of her entries, she
doesn't think it's the *government's* job to prevent abortions.
Why do you insist that the perspectives of *your* particular religious
denomination should, by law, take precedence over the perspectives of other
religious denominations whose position diverges from yours? And if you do
so insist, how would such laws *not* be "respecting the establishment of
religion", as well as "prohibiting the free exercize thereof" for those
whose perspective doesn't match yours?
The WBC has gone a Long Way to putting forth their message that homosexual
behavior ought to be a crime punishable by death, as Leviticus 20 states,
and that this country is in dire jeopardy for failing to institute and
enforce such laws. They feel strongly enough about this that they're
protesting to that effect at the funerals of fallen heroes from the
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lately expanded their efforts to
bring their message to those in military rehabilititation facilities.
Behavior and venue aside, their position is at variance with that of a
number of churches -- including the United Church of Christ, which is the
direct descendant organization of the Pilgrims (a.k.a. Congregationalists).
Why should the WBC's position be supported *by law* and the UCC's position
be ignored?
In the same sense, why should your position on abortion be supported *by
law* and the position of any number of Jewish, Christian and Muslim clergy
be dismissed *as a point of law* as irrelevant? If a significant Jewish
organization holds that the question as to whether to have an abortion or
not lies strictly with the woman, her doctor, and her clergyman, why is it
*not* an imposition of *your* religious beliefs to require them to include
the cops, the judicial system and the local jails and prisons into the mix?
Given the fact that some people feel they can defend the idea that a fetus
is not a child (from the very same scriptures you hold so dear) until it's
outside the mother's womb, why is it incumbent on the law to disabuse them
of their error? Does it not "prohibit the free exercize" of *their*
religion for the law to demand that they follow the teachings of *your*
religion on the subject?
-Chuck Stevens
huck Stevens