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

[KUHN, LELAND]

Herb,

If one should avoid talking about politics and religion, abortion is at
the top of the taboo list for both.

You can't logically argue faith because it's not based on facts.  Anyone
can believe anything.

Medical technology from the 70s determined that a fetus is not viable
prior to 25 weeks.  It would be illogical to assume that one fetus could
be legally aborted at 24 weeks and 6 days while another fetus (who could
be less developed) would have the legal right to live.

If you don't believe that life starts at conception, the next most
logical time would be at birth.  After that, the next most logical time
would be when the child could survive on its own without assistance from
parents or society.  At that point, we could logically abort some of the
disabled and elderly.

Would I ever condemn a woman for having an abortion.  No.  If I were a
woman and had an unwanted pregnancy, would I consider abortion (rape,
deformity, etc.).  Yes.

I like your analogy to slavery.  Those in power, whether it be the
individual woman or the Supreme Court, will choose over those without
power.

Lee

-----Original Message-----
From: Herb Parsons [mailto:hparsons at parsonsys.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:16 AM
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection

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
>
>
>
>   

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended 
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. 
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.