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

[Bob Weber]

Boy I make a point of avoiding topics of religion of politics but I can't resist telling you about a bumper sticker I saw two days ago.  An old beater driven my a 40 ish women had the fresh bumper sticker saying "Jesus is pro-choice"  I wished I could see that car parked somewhere and could add another sticker "Good thing Mary wasn't"  That is all the commentary you will get from me.  Bob W> Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:12:53 -0500> From: hparsons at parsonsys.com> To: rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection> > Interesting view Stan... But, I'm SO glad you don't get to dictate what > I, or others, feel they have a right to say in the matter. Your belief > is your belief, and you're certainly entitled to it. That doesn't make > it a fact, but you're entitled to it.> > Would you like a statement by statement answer, or prefer to just > concentrate on one or two? They're really all pretty tired arguments, > and have all been run through the wringer several times as well.> > You know, I heard an interesting, and actually thought-provoking > statement on a TV show last night (it was a fictional drama, but they > can still provoke thought).> > An FBI agent in "Without a Trace" had impregnated (unknowingly) one of > his co-workers. They were trying to work out what to do. He said to her > "You know, this affects me too".> > And she replied "I know, but not as much as it affects me".> > Of course, I'm sure the pro-abortion crowed applauded. I even couldn't > help but think "that's certainly true".> > But then reality came around. Too bad that tiny fetus couldn't talk. > Maybe his line would have been "But it affects me more than even you".> > stan wrote:> > The collective Rhodies comments made me re-think the issue since, at my age, > > it is not an issue:> >> > IF you think that, at least in the instance of a fetus, it is OK for the > > government to take away a woman's decision making relating to her own body, > > And> >> > IF you are a man and can honestly say that if it were You, not the woman, > > having the fetus inside you, You would have no objection to having others > > tell you that you must let that child be born, no matter what defects it > > might be known to have, no matter what it might do to the quality of the > > rest of your entire life or, no matter if its birth might have to proceed > > with your life ending, And> >> > IF you believe in religion and are in favor of freedom of religion for US > > citizens then, at least for Jews whose religion says that life does not > > begin until a different month than many other religions set as their > > definition, you are in favor of any national abortion laws being written to > > adjust for religious variations as to up to what timing an abortion would be > > legal, And most telling of all,> >> > IF you believe in democracy, and that if a vote would turn out to show that > > the majority approves of a women's right to choose (as opposed to the stance > > of some who feel the abortion issue is the exception where the minority has > > some god given power to tell the majority what to do with their body), you > > still have something to say in favor of making abortion illegal, then we can > > talk and maybe even change minds like mine.> >> > Stan, ducking for cover until Monday ...........> >> >> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "KUHN, LELAND" <LKUHN at cnmc.org>> > To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:56 AM> > Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection> >> >> > > >> Thanks Stan! It must have been the comment about euthanatizing the> >> elderly. :)> >>> >>> >> -----Original Message-----> >> From: stan [mailto:stan at rhodes22.com]> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:34 PM> >> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list> >> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection> >>> >> 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> >>> > >> 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 > >> > >> > __________________________________________________> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list> >> >> >> > > __________________________________________________> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
_________________________________________________________________
Use video conversation to talk face-to-face with Windows Live Messenger.
http://www.windowslive.com/messenger/connect_your_way.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_messenger_video_042008