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

[stan]

and that's what I love about the List.

Lee, thanks for your input.  (your sailing input is good too)

ss

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "KUHN, LELAND" <LKUHN at cnmc.org>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection


> 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.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list