[clue-talk] How do CLUEbies vote?

[David L. Willson]

I took the liberty of looking up metaphysics, Brian.  Now, would you
please explain, on behalf of the pro-choice crowd, how your admittedly
arbitrary definition of the starting point of human rights is not
metaphysical, but mine is?  In fact mine seems just plain physical, to
me, and any other point, looks like blank denial.  But I'll hold for
your answer.

As the only person arguing pro-life, I challenge any of you to show why
you or I have the right to life but the unborn doesn't.  Use simple
words, so I can use them to teach my sons and nieces and nephews and any
future daughters I might have.  If you can't do that, then recognize
that 47 million of some act that ~you~ can't tell from murder are
happening every year.  You all say that Iraq is worth voting over, yes?
At the worst estimate, our invasion of Iraq has cost 655,000 lives in
six years.  You all say that financial issues are worth voting over,
right?  Wouldn't you give up your second car to save some kid's life?
47 million people are being sacrificed to the great god Self every year,
and you're keeping silent.  You fight for something as intangible as
free software... doesn't this matter more than that?

This is not a "stupid issue".  This is ~the~ issue.  It might not be
trendy, but that doesn't matter, does it?  It might not even be
winnable, but wouldn't you lose a fight if you might save some kids life
in the process?  Some guy is giving the  best years of his life to
increase worldwide awareness of the genocide-in-progress in Darfur, and
he's not doing it to be cool.  Some other guy is building houses in New
Orleans, and paying for the bus ride there, so he's not doing it to be
cool.  Winning isn't everything, but fighting the good fight, just might
be.

On Tue, 2007-09-25 at 22:26 -0600, David L. Willson wrote:
> 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".
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk