[clue-talk] abolish abortion in america

[David L. Willson]

This, maybe, shows passion and/or lack of objectivity.

On Fri, 30 May 2008 05:53:19 -0600, David Rudder wrote
> David L. Willson wrote:
> >> So, why aren't you campaigning for Hillary?
> > 
> > Because Hillary said this:
> > 
> > http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html
> 
> So, you're willing to sanction what you think of as murdering babies
> because Hillary was kind of a dick about it?

No, because she did the same thing you're about to do, she equated unplanned pregnancy
with the need for an abortion.  They're not the same thing.  Separate them in your mind.

> What part do you disagree with?  This part?
> "Research shows that the primary reason that teenage girls abstain is
> because of their religious and moral values. We should embrace this --
> and support programs that reinforce the idea that abstinence at a young
> age is not just the smart thing to do, it is the right thing to do."
> 
> Oooh...that bitch!

Because this is email, you're going to have to keep your humor and sarcasm obvious and
minimal.  Hillary may be a bitch, but not for teaching young people to abstain.  Because
this is email, I can't figure out what you're actual point is here.

> > If you can't see the misdirection in that speech, if you can't see through the gross
> > mis-representation by association of "pro-life" people with totalitarian nut-jobs, your
> > bullshit and manipulation detector is badly borked.
> 
> Her whole speech was about reducing abortions.  That's your primary goal
> in the political process.  It seems that maybe you and she disagree on
> how to do it, but when she was in the White House this approach worked
> wonders.

No...  I'll say it again.  Hillary's goal is to protect abortion, at any cost, even that
of painting pro-life as being similar to a totalitarian regime.  My goal is to abolish
abortion, in the same way we have abolished slavery, and for the same reasons. 
Unplanned pregnancy does not equal abortion.  Saying that, is like saying that if we
reduce the number of old people, we will reduce euthanasia.  While technically true, it
does not affect the fact that we are accepting as normal, what is atrocious.

> > And Barack for good measure:
> *shrug*  We're not talking about Barack.
> 
> > I'm not out to reduce the number of abortions; I want to abolish abortion.  I want
> > people to see it for what it is. Once upon a time, we didn't see slavery for the
> > atrocity it was.  We dehumanized our slaves.  Scientists made claims that people with
> > non-white skin were less evolved than people with white skin.  And that soothed the
> > consciences of slave-owners, and those that stood idly by while their friends owned
slaves.
> > 
> > We are doing the same thing now.
> 
> So, instead of working towards a compromise that does the best good
> available, you fight against those helping you the most and delay any
> action on the issue by decades?  Wow!  That's an AWESOME plan!!!
> 
> In your analogy, if someone had a way to free 1/3 of the slaves, you
> would have fought against it because it leaves 2/3 of of the slaves in
> bondage?  I'm sure those 1/3 of the slaves that would have been freed
> would be very appreciative.
> 
> You have no plan, except to continue whining, for getting to where you
> want to go.  Rather than telling Michael and I that we're akin to
> slavemasters, why don't you go do some research and come back with how
> you're going to solve this problem?  Complaining and getting in the way
> of progress doesn't seem to be working.

My plan is to continue whining, as you put it, and to continue to ask you how you
justify your political alignment on the issue.  You haven't answered my questions, any
more than Michael has.  You seem to be proposing that the best way to prevent murder is
to keep folks from getting pissed off.  Is it valid?  Yes.  That would reduce the number
of murders.  But, that's not what we do about murder.  We criminalize murder.  Why the
difference?

> > If the law protected none of us, I would keep silent,
> 
> You support the right to murder?

> > and I would be thankful that I had
> > the right to kill stupid people, and that if I got too stupid, I could count on one of
> > you to kill me before I really annoyed somebody.  But that's not the way it is.  We are
> > the post-birth; they are the pre-birth.  We can speak and defend ourselves and earn and
> > vote.  They can do nothing.  They are less than we are, even though they will become
> > everything we are, so we can dehumanize them, if we do it quickly enough.  It's baffling
> > to me that you don't get this.  Just because a bunch of people want a thing to be true,
> > doesn't make it true.  Human babies are human babies.  Humanity doesn't happen at birth,
> > or at some moment shortly before birth, it happens when the new chromosomal pattern is
> > knitted together.  Any other moment, "ensoulment" or viability, is a nebulous fiction,
> > with an easily discovered and selfish motive.  What makes wanted babies, babies, at the
> > moment of their knitting, and unwanted babies, a bit of unwanted tissue in mother's
> > body?  It's convenient fiction, like the differences in human quality that are revealed
> > in skin color.
> 
> I disagree with you.  There's nothing in what you say here or anywhere
> else that has convinced me that you're right.  Without some hard
> evidence, I won't be swayed.  Saying it louder and using insulting
> references won't convince me.  Just because you want this to be murder
> doesn't make it murder.
> 
> We have a system of laws in this country.  It says that abortion is not
> murder.  If you want to accuse 900k women of murder, you need to have
> proof.  That's how America works.  If you don't like it, might I suggest
> a country with a really low abortion rate?  Iran?  Libya?  You might
> like it there.  I'll help you pack.

Love you, too.  The burden of proof is on the changer.  Murder was defined long before
Roe v. Wade.  Roe v. Wade never said abortion wasn't murder.  Roe v. Wade said the
unborn is not an American citizen "by birth" and therefore not entitled to the same
protection the rest of us are.

So, I suppose it's murder, because you have one human intentionally deprived of life, by
the willful act of another.  Do you suppose it's something else?  If so, why?  I'm up to
4 or 5 or even 6 (it's up there, the one about being "wanted") unanswered questions now.
 It would begin to seem as if principle, that thing that under-girds any reliable
systems of ethics, is on my side.

Offering this choice to mothers with unexpected guests in their bodies, or fathers with
their life-plans suddenly in limbo, is an awful thing for us to do.  I made the wrong
choice once.  I should never have had the idea that the choice was mine to make.  I have
regretted it ever since.  If I can remove the choice, I will.  It shouldn't be safe,
convenient, and private.  It should be unacceptable.