[Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection

[john Belanger]

herb,
  did you hear? "no man has a dog in this hunt"! lets get back to sailing! 

Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
  EXACTLY!!!!! At least on your first paragraph. Your second only holds 
true based on the stand of the first (more on that in a bit).

That argument though, I can understand (though I disagree with your 
view). However, that wasn't Sir Stanly's stance. He, and many others 
like him, want to equate those who believe that a "human entity" begins 
with conception are somehow trying to "control a woman's insides".

That foolishness, or just a lazy argument, and not really worthy of debate.

As to your assertion that it's a "matter of belief", sorry, no sale 
here. Slaves being legitimate "property" was also once only a "matter of 
belief", and those that held that belief said that the owners of the 
slaves were the only ones entitled to an opinion. Your argument holds 
about the same weight.

If your "belief" is wrong, then women are killing "human entities" for 
their own personal reasons. If your "belief" is wrong, then millions, 
read that correctly MILLIONS of "human entities" are being killed.

Sorry, we have a different "belief" system.


Robert Skinner wrote:
> Herb - where you and I (and many others as well) 
> part company is on the question of when a zygote 
> becomes a human entity. I say that it occurs 
> when the woman parts company with a critter that 
> she (and no one else) has chosen to nurture.
>
> As this is a matter of belief rather than a 
> question of motility, cognition, or other 
> technicality, it is not debatable. As such I 
> hold that no one but the woman in question has 
> any right to define right and wrong with respect 
> to this question. 
>
> I once worked in a Catholic hospital, and 
> watched as the staff deliberately chose to let 
> an unconscious woman (an anonymous victim of an 
> auto accident) die so that they could collect 
> the contents of her body. It was clear both
> before and after the fact that she would have 
> survived if they had chosen to sacrifice the 
> unborn child. The woman never had a chance to 
> express her desires in te matter. The belief 
> structure of the staff defined the outcome.
>
> I was revolted, and left shortly thereafter.
>
> I act on the principle that a woman's own 
> beliefs trump any rights society may claim 
> over the contents of her womb until she 
> delivers a child to the world. 
>
> I do not expect to change your opinion any more 
> than you probably would expect to change mine. 
>
> However, note that my position stops short of 
> defining what a woman may do or not do. Whether 
> as an individual or as a member of society, I 
> claim no property rights or regulatory power 
> over how a woman chooses to handle a pregnancy. 
>
> I do not own her ability to procreate. She does.
> She has as much right to stop the process as she 
> has to start it.
>
> Having said that, I will shut up on the topic 
> and say no more. No man has a dog in this hunt.
>
> /Robert
>
>
> Herb Parsons wrote:
> 
>> You're missing the point Stan (thought I think deliberately). No one
>> argues the woman's right to "use her insides". She's free to screw
>> whoever she wants (as long as he/she is willing and of an age of
>> consent). The woman is free to choose whether or not to also use
>> something on her insides that can prevent a pregnancy.
>>
>> However, when she has made those decisions, and the creation of another
>> human life is the result of her making those decisions; then yes, there
>> are many among us that say her "right" to choose to kill that life
>> should be restricted.
>>
>> I'm among them. However, if you, or anyone else, tries to say that I'm
>> "against a woman choosing to do what she wants with her insides" I'll
>> stridently say, and yes even RANT, that it's a gross misrepresentation
>> of my view.
>>
>> Again, one's rights to their body SHOULD end where another human's
>> rights begin.
>>
>> stan wrote:
>> 
>>> Sorry if I have offended anyone - it is just that I am such a convinced
>>> advocate of a woman's right to choose and I thought McCain was not.
>>>
>>> Most men would admit that if they were the ones who could be told by the
>>> government what they must do with that thing inside their body, they would
>>> take advantage of their constitutional right to bear arms and shoot in self
>>> defense.
>>>
>>> ss
>>> 
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>
> 
__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list


       
---------------------------------
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.