[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Michael Fierro]

On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 03:37:59PM -0600, David L. Willson wrote:

> > As a member of an "infertile couple" I'm insulted that you think you 
> > know what is important to me.  Please feel free to ask if you'd like to 
> > really know what I think of activist groups using my perfectly natural 
> > (infertility happens in nature) situation as a political crutch to gain 
> > empathy for their causes sometime.  After we cover that, you can ask 
> > what I think of the topics themselves.
 
> Obviously, you don't like your example being used as a defense for the
> value of unborn life.  Are you in the majority, within your class, or do
> you know?  There are women that are happy with their abortions, but they
> aren't in the majority, so it would be inappropriate for one of them to
> speak on behalf of the class.

It is always tempting fate to bring up abortion in a discussion. Most people
cannot talk rationally about it, and such "debates" often turn into intensely
emotional fights, mainly centered around religious issues. I tend to try to
stay as far away from such debates as I can.

From what I have seen and heard, though, it seems like almost everyone agress
that abortions are Bad Things. And they should be minimized wherever
possible. One excellent way to do that is to educate people about using birth
control and protection to avoid unwanted pregnancies, since unwanted
pregnancies end up being a very large percentage of abortions that are
performed every year.

However, I also think that it is morally reprehensible for a government to
tell a woman that she has no choice but to carry a pregnancy to term. Where
in the world (or in the Constitution) does a government get this type of
control? The entire concept is sickening to me. The government should not be
able to dictate what type of medical procedures anyone has - women or men.
And the government should not be interfering in this type of decision.
 
> "Why are human rights conferred at birth?  Do people conceive dog babies
> that turn human when they come out?"  The second question seems
> ridiculous, because it is, but it is also perfectly illustrative.

Sorry, David, but that question is not illustrative of anything. Until a baby
is born, it only has the potential to be a person. What if the baby is
stillborn? What if the woman miscarries? What if the mother's health is in
danger? These are all questions that are illustrative of the argument.
 
> country by reducing or eliminating other indigent classes, not just the
> unborn?  There are a good number of people with no regard for the
> homeless and hungry, perhaps we could start a Soylent Green initiative.
> Hey, that reminds me of embryonic stem-cell testing.  Someone wiser than
> I am will have to explain the significant difference to me.

As I stated above, discussions about abortion apparently cannot remain
rational.

-- 
Michael Fierro                                  miguelito at biffster.org
Y! Messenger: miguelito_fierro                           AIM: mfierro1
http://biffster.org                           http://weightjournal.com
--
"Am I going MAD, or did the word "think" escape your lips? You were not hired
for your brains, you hippopotamic LAND MASS!"
- Vizzini, "The Princess Bride"
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://cluedenver.org/pipermail/clue-talk/attachments/20070925/b0226cb4/attachment-0002.bin