[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[Nate Duehr]

By the way, I never responded to your questions, apologies David.

David L. Willson wrote:

> 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.

I don't have to know whether I'm in the majority or minority of any 
particular group to ask that the group not be used as a stereotype in a 
discussion -- it's inappropriate to claim you speak for other groups.

Fair?

(Life's not fair, but we'll try to find a common agreement point on that 
point...)

It's not a loss to me to concede that maybe the "majority" of infertile 
couples believe as you say they do, but is that majority 90%?  51%?

And how many people does "infertile couples" represent against the whole?

It's a weak point without that information... so no big deal for me to 
capitulate on it, it stands on it's own lack of merit, I guess.  I don't 
need to whine about it.

:-)

>> But trust me, most infertile couples don't need/want radical groups out 
>>   distracting politicians and the public with religious debates, and we 
>> find it appalling that they do it "in our name"... like we're not here, 
>> with our own opinions.  Feel free to stop using me to make points in 
>> your arguments about YOUR religious beliefs.   :-)
> 
> Oops, there's the answer to my question, most infertile couples don't
> want to be used as fodder in this argument.  I'm not sure how an
> interested party is fodder, but let's stipulate the point for now...
> Since I've stipulated your point, please listen to mine.  

Okay.

> As a
> Christian, I am getting annoyed with secularists assuming that pro-life
> is/must be a religious issue, because most of the people fighting the
> battle are God-worshipers of one sort or another.  The issue itself is
> human, not religious, and I kept it in that context.  

I can honestly say I've never met a pro-lifer who didn't claim they were 
Christian.  I simply haven't.  I'm sure they're out there, but I haven't 
personally met any.

So I'm only going from experience.  And as Mike Rosen on KOA in the 
mornings says, "I knew where you sit before you told me where you 
stand."  I knew you profess to be an evangelical Christian.  And I have 
no problem with that.

I mistakenly took the conversation across that "line" not realizing that 
you didn't want to be yourself for a moment, I guess.  (????)  Very 
confusing.  To thine own self, be true...

I used to be more pro-life than I am today, and I also still profess to 
be Christian -- but I've tempered some of that rhetoric with my desire 
to see people being responsible for their own actions.

Sadly, that responsibility people need to take on, includes the 
suffering that comes from making the decision to choose abortion.

People that do that (like others that make the same tough choices we all 
make in life) are permanently changed in ways I'll never understand, and 
the baby is murdered.  I never argued those points.

First off, anyone in that situation can also choose life, and give the 
baby up to people who will care for him or her.

Additionally, the "stigma" of being a single mom is virtually gone from 
our society (thank goodness), and it's rare to find people who wouldn't 
support "mom" during a pregnancy knowing full well she was going to give 
the baby up to adoption.

I'm not saying it'll be easy for any single moms, I'm just saying at 
least it's not the 1950's where they threw single moms to the curb.  I 
know far too many single moms and dads to EVER say that life will ever 
be easy for a single parent of either gender.

Finally, a point: Far too many people on BOTH sides of the pro-life AND 
pro-choice groups, make the whole debate out like the issue is black and 
white, and that abortion IS the issue.  It's not.

The lack of adoption as a serious alternative where society HELPS mom 
have the child, REALLY helps... is.

Instead of pro-life groups taking care of mom, giving her a warm place 
to live, meals, and a bed, and paying for her needs and the baby's, they 
leave her out in the manger, in the hay, with no room at the Inn.

(Yep, I went there.  It's not intended to inflame, it's intended to 
cause pause and serious thought for those pro-life folks professing 
certain faiths.)

I think if more pro-life people were pragmatists, instead of idealists, 
there would be a lot less "need" for "guilt" and "shame" and a hell of a 
lot more work to do.

If any pregnant girl could walk into the closest church and know her 
medical and human needs would be taken care of until the baby was born 
-- how many would choose the abortion clinic?

It's certainly got the potential to be a lot more viable and effective 
than fighting all the idealistic and legal battles.

You'd think with the numbers of individuals participating in organized 
religion in the U.S. -- who attend churches that profess that no child 
should die by abortion -- that you'd see a lot more action to help 
pregnant women faced with tough choices, by churches.  Not "education", 
not "marches", not "protests", not any of that crap -- before handing 
her the keys to your house, and your car, and your money out of your 
wallet.

Ain't going to happen, is it?

Church members far outweigh the number of abortion doctors in the U.S., 
but can't mount an effective help organization, nationwide?

I see no lack of new church buildings going up, nor is their size 
getting any smaller.

I see no shortage of funds to build mega-churches, and send millions to 
overseas missions, etc... it's HUGE business.

To be fair, so you know where I sit on the topic of organized religion:

I was HEAVILY involved in churches in my youth, including spending 3 
months living and working at that homeless shelter/soup 
kitchen/hotel/apartment complex/yadda yadda in Chicago run by a church.

I was ready to evangelize the world, and even stood on street corners in 
Chicago's bar-scene district doing that obnoxious loud preaching thing.

I had papers in-hand to enroll in the Moody Bible Institute to go learn 
to be a missionary pilot.  I toured their facility in Elizabethon, TN.

I've been there.  I'm not there anymore.  I saw the corruption in the 
system, from the inside.  And it stinks.

BIG money, BIG politics, BAD motivations.  Not good.

At first I felt betrayed, but as I've gotten older, I realize that it's 
just humans, doing what humans do.  Nothing for me to judge or be angry 
about anymore.  That's over too.

The majority of church "leaders" are just trying to maintaining their 
status quo, in most cases.

Not meaning to do harm, but the road to hell is paved with good 
intentions... with a church on every corner along the way, too busy 
counting the money from the plate, to ask people inside.

I've supported some pastors I have met over the years, but never will I 
ever give to a "church" ever again.  It's like handing money to WalMart 
and letting the executives keep it and not give it to the workers.

> I didn't bring up
> religion in this context, I brought up "human rights".  You brought up
> religion, ~and~ clipped enough of my argument, that you changed it
> fundamentally.  Since we will for the moment assume that you speak for
> your class, I'll drop your class from the group of three or four
> post-birth humans that I am seeking to represent.  I'll keep the groups
> that I'm personally speaking for, and I'll reiterate the basic question.
> "Why are human rights conferred at birth?  Do people conceive dog babies
> that turn human when they come out?"  

You might be surprised to find I'm "on your side" on the point you're 
making here, but not in the same way you are.

I find it sad to hear about mom's killing their unborn babies, but I 
respect that they must have done what was best for them and their 
circumstances.

I'd rather see those who have a problem with mom being forced into 
situations that drive her to make that decision, help fix the 
circumstances first -- before worrying about legislation on the topic.

My wife and I have discussed adoption, and we're somewhat insulted at 
the adoption process...

We have to go through interviews, background checks, financial 
documentation, and basically be "screened", if we want to be parents.

Idiots and couples without fertility issues just have sex and then reap 
the blessings or the pain, depending on just how stupid they were.

They're not "screened" to see if they'd make good parents.

Guess what?  Looking from where I sit, if they can't control themselves, 
some of that reality the next day is going to be painful.  Tough.

Same thing happens to me if I run up a $20K credit card bill.  The only 
difference is that I don't have to kill to get out of the situation.

Personal responsibility.

(I also favor STIFF monetary penalties for males who run away from 
pregnant women carrying their children.  And frankly, I favor forced DNA 
paternity testing, damn the "rights" issues.  It ultimately only "hurts" 
the idiot who's already hurt himself.  The five other guys she slept 
with can also sweat it out.  Keep your dick in your pants if you don't 
want to deal with these kinds of problems.  Find something else to do 
besides sex as a recreational hobby.  Again, personal responsibility, 
forced if necessary.)

I have no disagreement with your point that you believe conception of a 
human is conception of a human.

The problem remains that the majority in our society want to have the 
ability to kill humans before they're a certain age.  I see that for 
what it is.

I don't think that can be fixed with legislation -- One needs to 
understand why our society thinks that way, first.

> The second question seems
> ridiculous, because it is, but it is also perfectly illustrative.
> 
> This is, in my mind, not a political distraction, but one of the primary
> reasons for the existence of government, to establish a system whereby
> predatory behavior is discouraged by the community in some structured
> way.  

I disagree, and I think the forefathers of the country did too.  They 
wanted people to have the ability to defend THEMSELVES.

(But that'd lead back to 2nd Amendment stuff we've already discussed in 
this group... no need to be circular -- I have a new topic down below 
here for us all...)

> No one is allowed to take my life or property, without my having
> done something to deserve it, in general.  

Ha... I'll let the IRS know you want your taxes back.  :-)  Another 
person that wants life to be fair.  Good luck with that.

> Is production and profit to
> be prioritized before principle?  

No.  But who's principles?

> Couldn't we be more profitable as a
> 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.

One is fiction, one is real -- and the cost/benefit analysis to 
individuals is VERY difficult on the real one.

The fiction is a metaphorical warning to us to pay close attention to 
the real and things like it.  But it gives no answers.

As you'll note also in the book, the revelation that "Soylent Green IS 
PEOPLE!" -- complete with overacting in the movie :-) --  didn't stop it 
from happening, and didn't stop it from BEGINNING either.

Individual choices make up "society" unless the choices are rammed down 
our throats by those who would make more laws and more government.

Thus my fascination with the question... Are we really getting more 
sociopathic as a society?

What does that mean about the individuals that make up our society?

The economists in the group will nod and smile knowingly: People do what 
benefits them the most.  You can't stop them from doing so without 
killing them or forcing them to stop in other ways, all of which are a 
removal of their rights by force.

Does sociopathic behaviour have benefits for some that outweigh the 
costs?  I think it does, and that makes me feel a little strange, 
honestly.  We certainly see it regularly in political leaders, or at 
least in their "captains" who get them elected.

---- A New Topic ----

As far as "homeless and hungry", I worked for 3 months as a full-time 
job in Chicago at a Christian homeless shelter, and single mother "help" 
center that put single moms in affordable church-built and subsidized 
housing.  A long time ago.

I learned and saw things about the homeless that many of my suburbanite 
friends don't believe.

The most difficult one for many to swallow was the group of four males 
who were homeless, but all were able and willing to take day jobs and 
had done so whenever they needed money, from the local day-labor 
company... they all had the earning potential to make enough money to 
leave the streets and get apartments elsewhere in the city.

When I asked them respectfully why they were still on the street, their 
answer was:  "Because these guys are my family.  I couldn't get a job 
and leave them!"

No kidding.

The instinct to have people around them who cared about them was 
stronger than the need for shelter, and this was in Chicago -- where I 
would argue that I've never felt colder, outside in the winter.

For the group:

I am curious about what this group thinks about Denver's latest 
anti-homeless initiative, and the things like the Homeless Parking 
Meters in Downtown Denver, etc.

I think it'll work to a point, but it'd never pull those four guys in 
Chicago off the streets.  They had friends/"family", they could get 
shelter at the homeless shelter I worked at in cases of dire need, and 
food -- always.  And they even had pitiful but workable health care for 
things that would kill them -- across town at the infamous Cook County 
Hospital.

(I regularly chuckled when watching "ER" at how nice "Cook County" looks 
on NBC.  The place was a war-torn hell-hole, over-run with masses of 
people on Friday nights, and I've took more than one homeless person 
there for the shelter.  Even the homeless would put off medical care 
until Saturday or Sunday if they could, to avoid going there.  The only 
reason I saw it on a Friday night is that one man, whom I only knew as 
"Red" due to the color of his hair, had had his head cracked open with a 
baseball bat by another homeless man who was schizophrenic.  But to this 
day, Cook County is one of the things I worry about when I hear 
"Socialized Medicine".)

I think my brain hurts now... time to stop.  :-)

Nate

p.s. Okay I didn't stop... LOL...

David, many of your formal debating methods are lost on me.  I've never 
had any formal debate training, and only have a rudimentary knowledge of 
the debate "rules".

I don't see a debate here, I see a discussion.

If you wish to play for "points" where one point is "stipulated" while 
another is made, I'm not interested.

I'm interested in how we all view this grand, crazy, unfair, but often 
fun thing, we call life.

And I'm glad we're having this conversation, even if it turns out to be 
an utter waste of time.  Why?

Because it's better than trying to discuss it with my TV, or to act like 
a discussion is really going on in "talk radio".

Real people having real interactions (even if I'm losing the 
argument???? GRIN...) is still better time spent than sitting drooling 
being spoon-fed my thoughts by "the media".

:-)