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

[Herb Parsons]

John,

Did you hear? I don't agree. It's men's children that are being 
slaughtered by the millions.

john Belanger wrote:
> 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.
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
>
>