[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[David L. Willson]

On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 19:37 -0700, Brian Gibson wrote:
> Since David addressed me specifically I'll provide a
> response.  I'll _try_ to keep my responses brief.
> 
> > anyway, so why try to stop it?
> >
> There's nothing wrong with trying to stop it, but
> attempting to abolish it is the wrong tactic.
> Eliminate the causes of situations that lead to those
> abortions you don't deem acceptable.

OK, I can't see my way clear to that.  I don't think encouraging people
to choose the noblest choice will really work, if there's nothing
~wrong~ with making another choice, and it's WAY inconvenient to make
that uber-noble choice.  Really, who's going to give up 9 months of her
life, and risk stretch marks when abortion is legal, convenient, and
safe?

Do you really think that eliminating the causes is realistic?  How do
you eliminate the causes of unwanted pregnancy?  Have we tried this, or
have I imagined it?  Do you have a new plan?  If so, describe it.  I
can't wait to hear it.  And, unless you're speaking to some point far in
the future, your plan needs to address the 1% of the time that something
goes wrong and "nature" has her way, in spite of our best efforts.

No, encouraging people to do the right thing won't work, and this is a
smoke-screen.  But please, prove me wrong.  Show me the plan.

> > The unborn is a human, and should have the rights
> > that we associate with
> > our humanity.  
> 
> This is that arbitrary line I mentioned.  At what
> point does a fertilized egg go from a collection of
> cells to being a human baby?  Some say it's the point
> of conception.  Now if that is your stance, there is
> no point in continuing because we're then delving into
> metaphysics.

Yes, that is the line I keep asking you, all of you, about.

I would say that identifying the moment of conception as the moment of
beginning of that new human person as plain, simple, logical.  Please
define "delving into metaphysics".