[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[David L. Willson]

Nate, I'm digesting this excellent post, and working on an adequate
response.  Because of the post's excellence, I'm going to let it stand
alone for 24 hours before I respond.  Thanks for thinking,  David

On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 17:56 -0600, Nate Duehr wrote:
> 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".
> 
> :-)
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk