[clue-talk] abolish abortion in america

[Angelo Bertolli]

David L. Willson wrote:
> 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.
>   

It's so obviously wrong to just about everyone on either side of the 
issue to draw the line "at birth."  Only a handful of brainwashed 
pro-choicers really think that a person isn't a person the day before 
they're born, and magically a person the day after their born.  Either 
that or some people really don't feel that killing someone is really 
"that wrong."  But the consequences of the country conveniently "not 
deciding" when a person is a person is wider reaching than the abortion 
issue:  relatively recently I heard of a case where a pregnant mother 
was killed, and of course it's only one murder instead of two.  I'm 
going to guess the father feels like it's two.

Angelo