[clue-talk] Obama, McCain, and the American flag

Sun Nov 2 19:25:33 MST 2008

I was hoping we could walk through a test-case, to dispel a little fear.  It seems to me that there's a lot of fear-mongering going around about the awful things that might happen if we stated clearly that life begins when science says it does.  I have yet to be harmed by the truth, but I've been hurt by lies repeatedly.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Gibson" <bwg1974 at yahoo.com>
To: "CLUE talk" <clue-talk at cluedenver.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2008 2:25:52 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: [clue-talk] Obama, McCain, and the American flag

If you yourself cannot see the legal implications that 48 will have that my meager layman analysis pointed out, then there's no point in trying to convince you otherwise.  I tried to keep the more likely events up front with the more absurd (but certainly still with the realm of possibility) toward the end.  Just remember, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Not mentioning your god does not mean you left the deity out.  It's the same tactic for pushing forth ID (not that I recall you ever doing so).  Besides, "you" was more the generic "you people on the religious right".  I've gotten to the boiling point to where I will be aggressive about by stance against such rhetoric; I can only hope that such clashes do not become militant.

Collins has it right.  You don't ban abortion.  You make it rare.

----- Original Message ----
From: David L. Willson <DLWillson at TheGeek.NU>
To: CLUE talk <clue-talk at cluedenver.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2008 1:48:44 AM
Subject: Re: [clue-talk] Obama, McCain, and the American flag

[...]Some of these things are plausible while others obviously border on the absurd[...]

I think that was ~my~ point, and I was asking you to give flesh to the plausible, yet unacceptable, outcome you dread.  It's possible I read too fast, but I think you failed to do that.

[...]you would rather enshrine your religious beliefs into law[...]

Which religious beliefs of mine are you referring to, Brian?  I think I only mentioned 8th grade biology, and at my school, they didn't teach Creation or Intelligent Design or anything remotely religious alongside the straight biology.  So, I don't think you mean biology.  Or do you mean the fact that I think humans are just the neatest thing to ever touch the surface of this planet?  That ain't religion, sir, that's my form of sanity.  Or do you mean some sincerely-held beliefs I might have about the value of Jesus' example of word and work?  Is that what I'm trying to enshrine?  Hm.  I don't remember trying to do that just then, but please, here are my words below, and I think you'll find CLUE-talk archives have lots of debate of this very issue, and I've been defending unborn human children (ineffectively, I admit) for some time.  I don't mind if you call on old posts of mine.  I'm pretty sure I left my God out of it, but you tell me.  I'm happy to
 discuss my religious beliefs, if that's what you want, but even those that disagree with me, might support me if I claimed not to impose them on others.

----- Original Message ----
From: David L. Willson <DLWillson at TheGeek.NU>
To: CLUE talk <clue-talk at cluedenver.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2008 11:57:08 PM
Subject: Re: [clue-talk] Obama, McCain, and the American flag

Honestly, I meant to express a sincerely-held belief, not open a debate, but I'm sure you're all aware that I'm not unwilling to discuss this issue with the opposition, no matter how many or how well prepared.  With that said:

Brian, how do you suppose that it might come about that a second round of what I might call "normal thinking" will result in situations that are ... let's agree on this ... ridiculous?  You sincerely believe that this, or something like it, would happen, right?  Or you wouldn't have brought it up.  You know that it would be unethical to raise an improbable FUD-spectre just to stymie a rational codification of simple biological fact.  I say "second round" because that's the way we used to think.  We understood, in the old days, that human life began in the womb, and any innocent kid, without an understanding of the political issues at stake, armed only with an 8th grade education, might follow the thread of life back to it's beginning, and ... well, they might reach what I think of as a logical conclusion as to the location in time of that beginning.  Codification of that logic seems like a good idea to me.

But you raised the spectre, so I'll let you knit flesh to bone, and describe how you see it happening.  Describe the ditch we'll find ourselves in if we are so foolish as to ~guess~ when the human person begins, armed with nothing but basic biology and, I'll just speak for myself here, some small amount of faith in our fellows.

I don't normally think of myself as a person with limited imagination, but I just can't imagine the situation you described below, or anything like it, occurring.

You'll pardon my sarcasm as long as I pardon your smoke-screen, I'm sure.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Gibson" <bwg1974 at yahoo.com>
To: "CLUE talk" <clue-talk at cluedenver.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2008 10:34:06 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: Re: [clue-talk] Obama, McCain, and the American flag

I can only guess you plan to vote Yes on 48.  Beware the law of unintended consequences when doing so.  Regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion, granting personhood with all the legal ramifications that come with it to a fertilized egg will more than likely have a disastrous effect on existing and future laws.  You need to look no further than what granting corporate personhood has done.

And if it helps to hear it from someone on the right, here you go: http://thecoloradoindex.typepad.com/the_colorado_index/2008/09/updated-voters.html

> COLORADO AMENDMENT 48  Definition of person
> Would ban abortion by defining personhood as beginning at fertilization. 
The unintended consequences of this initiative are almost 
> certainly
worse than leaving Roe alone.  All of society's laws and customs would
have to be reworked to accommodate this initiative.  
> For example, could
a woman who has a natural miscarriage on the day after fertilization (a
not infrequent event) be prosecuted for 
> child abuse resulting in death
simply because the egg did not attach to the uterus?  This "definition"
says that she could be. 

----- Original Message ----
From: David L. Willson <DLWillson at TheGeek.NU>
To: clue-talk <clue-talk at cluedenver.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2008 6:23:01 PM
Subject: [clue-talk] Obama, McCain, and the American flag

Looks like it's not going through, so I'm resending this...  I hope it doesn't show up twice.

-----

All,

Obama never said anything against the American flag, and he's not friends with a terrorist.  The comments that Obama supposedly made were part of a comedian's satirical work, not intended to be taken seriously, but somebody took it seriously, and they sent out a statement of outrage.  That caused others to believe it was true, so they echoed his outrage.  I looked it up on "that site", Snopes, and found this:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp

Obama is not the enemy within.  If anything, we all are the enemy within when we hate and fear each other, when we trivialize each other's beliefs, rather than taking the time to understand them.  Let us be willing to listen to one another, to understand one another.  Let us be prepared to say what we believe, and why we believe it.  Let us be prepared to be "wrong", and let us be willing to become right, even if it means the loss of some excess pride.

We can vote on facts, rather than hysteria.  I'm sorry some of our religious leaders believe outrageous things.  It seems that fear passes as faith sometimes in the Christian community, but I believe that fear and faith are opposites.  Neither of the candidates I liked made it onto the Colorado ballot, so I'll choose the best man that ~is~ on the ballot, because we are in a too-militarized world, because he has good experience with military conflict, and yet he is a peaceful and loving man, and because his running mate has good common sense and really ~does~ believe that no child should be deprived of life, no matter it's age, if it can possibly be avoided.  I will somehow get over my belief that privately he is willing to continue to tolerate the offering of horrible choices to our young people.  I will get over my perception he is playing political games with the people's money when he offers tax incentives.  I will get past, somehow, my belief that he
will not reform the government, and will instead hold the line, just barely, even if he wins.  I will vote for John McCain, not because I approve of him entirely or even mostly, but because he's the best man on my ballot, that I know of.

I currently have a President who is willing to fight for the right of an unborn human child to continue to live.  I have a President that is unwilling to offer horrible choices to young people.  I have a President who fights my fight, as best he can, and I'm going to lose that in a few months.  I'll vote to preserve what little I can, but I will lose some of that, and in all likelihood, I will lose it all and watch while a black man works ~against~ human rights.  I will have to watch while a smart man continues to erode our understanding of 8th grade biology, because it's "above his pay grade".  It's not above his pay grade; it's inconsistent with his world-view, and he is willing to dehumanize humans, which is miserable irony when just a hundred or so years ago ~he~ would have been in the dehumanized subclass of humanity.

If you're voting this year, please be aware that the issue of human rights will not stay where it is.  Unborn humans will be more or less human in "our" eyes in two years, and again in four, than they are now, because of what our elected representative do on our behalf.  Please care about that.  Please carefully consider how you regard our unborn young, and vote that perception into your government to the best of your ability.

I am now going to state my own belief, arrived at after careful consideration and some experience of all sides of the issue:  I do care about women's rights, unborn, recently born, and not so recently born.  I love women.  I love men.  Young and old.  I do NOT believe that killing unborn humans is choice that should be offered to anyone as a "remedy" to the natural and known result of sex willingly participated in!  I believe that offering that choice is a sign of a sick community.  I believe that sick people will make that choice no matter what the community does to prevent it, but that, as a community, we can only endorse life and health and sanity and responsibility and accountability.  I believe that no political issue is more important than this one.  I think my big house and your second car can be lost profitably if our respect for our unborn children can be restored.

I submit all this humbly, with sincere respect for and understanding of your beliefs, whether or not they agree with my own.  If you feel that I don't understand or respect your beliefs sufficiently, contact me, I stand ready to listen to you with an open mind and heart.

-- David
_______________________________________________
clue-talk mailing list
clue-talk at cluedenver.org
http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk

_______________________________________________
clue-talk mailing list
clue-talk at cluedenver.org
http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
_______________________________________________
clue-talk mailing list
clue-talk at cluedenver.org
http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk

_______________________________________________
clue-talk mailing list
clue-talk at cluedenver.org
http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
_______________________________________________
clue-talk mailing list
clue-talk at cluedenver.org
http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk

_______________________________________________
clue-talk mailing list
clue-talk at cluedenver.org
http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk