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

[Herb Parsons]

I'm sorry John, but you totally diverted the issue. No one is advocating 
forcing any individual to raise a child. Every fire station and hospital 
in the country will take a child dropped off, no questions asked (as 
long as they haven't be injured).



john Belanger wrote:
> herb,
>   truth be told, a womans decision to have a child is often decided, in her mind and soul, by the actions, attitude, and integrity, of the man who is/was responsible. i once offered to marry a woman who was pregnant with another man's child. she said no, because she did not want to have the child of a man who had turned his back on her. i am in favor of a womans right to choose. when children are valued correctly for their true worth, then, maybe i will back off that position. but right now, children in every part of the world, are a wasted resource. neglected, abused, at a minimum unloved, and unwanted. would you want to be required by law to raise the child of a man who raped you wife or daughter. sorry, i wouldn't.
>
> Herb Parsons <hparsons at parsonsys.com> wrote:
>   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 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     
> __________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>