[Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection

[stan]

The collective Rhodies comments made me re-think the issue since, at my age, 
it is not an issue:

IF you think that, at least in the instance of a fetus, it is OK for the 
government to take away a woman's decision making relating to her own body, 
And

IF you are a man and can honestly say that if it were You, not the woman, 
having the fetus inside you, You would have no objection to having others 
tell you that you must let that child be born, no matter what defects it 
might be known to have, no matter what it might do to the quality of the 
rest of your entire life or, no matter if its birth might have to proceed 
with your life ending, And

IF you believe in religion and are in favor of freedom of religion for US 
citizens then, at least for Jews whose religion says that life does not 
begin until a different month than many other religions set as their 
definition, you are in favor of any national abortion laws being written to 
adjust for religious variations as to up to what timing an abortion would be 
legal, And most telling of all,

IF you believe in democracy, and that if a vote would turn out to show that 
the majority approves of a women's right to choose (as opposed to the stance 
of some who feel the abortion issue is the exception where the minority has 
some god given power to tell the majority what to do with their body), you 
still have something to say in favor of making abortion illegal, then we can 
talk and maybe even change minds like mine.

Stan, ducking for cover until Monday ...........


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "KUHN, LELAND" <LKUHN at cnmc.org>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection


>
> Thanks Stan!  It must have been the comment about euthanatizing the
> elderly. :)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: stan [mailto:stan at rhodes22.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:34 PM
> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection
>
> and that's what I love about the List.
>
> Lee, thanks for your input.  (your sailing input is good too)
>
> ss
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "KUHN, LELAND" <LKUHN at cnmc.org>
> To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 12:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection
>
>
>> Herb,
>>
>> If one should avoid talking about politics and religion, abortion is
> at
>> the top of the taboo list for both.
>>
>> You can't logically argue faith because it's not based on facts.
> Anyone
>> can believe anything.
>>
>> Medical technology from the 70s determined that a fetus is not viable
>> prior to 25 weeks.  It would be illogical to assume that one fetus
> could
>> be legally aborted at 24 weeks and 6 days while another fetus (who
> could
>> be less developed) would have the legal right to live.
>>
>> If you don't believe that life starts at conception, the next most
>> logical time would be at birth.  After that, the next most logical
> time
>> would be when the child could survive on its own without assistance
> from
>> parents or society.  At that point, we could logically abort some of
> the
>> disabled and elderly.
>>
>> Would I ever condemn a woman for having an abortion.  No.  If I were a
>> woman and had an unwanted pregnancy, would I consider abortion (rape,
>> deformity, etc.).  Yes.
>>
>> I like your analogy to slavery.  Those in power, whether it be the
>> individual woman or the Supreme Court, will choose over those without
>> power.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Herb Parsons [mailto:hparsons at parsonsys.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 4:16 AM
>> To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
>> Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Spitzer's Choice: An irreverent selection
>>
>> EXACTLY!!!!! At least on your first paragraph. Your second only holds
>> true based on the stand of the first (more on that in a bit).
>>
>> That argument though, I can understand (though I disagree with your
>> view). However, that wasn't Sir Stanly's stance. He, and many others
>> like him, want to equate those who believe that a "human entity"
> begins
>> with conception are somehow trying to "control a woman's insides".
>>
>> That foolishness, or just a lazy argument, and not really worthy of
>> debate.
>>
>> As to your assertion that it's a "matter of belief", sorry, no sale
>> here. Slaves being legitimate "property" was also once only a "matter
> of
>>
>> belief", and those that held that belief said that the owners of the
>> slaves were the only ones entitled to an opinion. Your argument holds
>> about the same weight.
>>
>> If your "belief" is wrong, then women are killing "human entities" for
>> their own personal reasons. If your "belief" is wrong, then millions,
>> read that correctly MILLIONS of "human entities" are being killed.
>>
>> Sorry, we have a different "belief" system.
>>
>>
>> Robert Skinner wrote:
>>> Herb - where you and I (and many others as well)
>>> part company is on the question of when a zygote
>>> becomes a human entity.  I say that it occurs
>>> when the woman parts company with a critter that
>>> she (and no one else) has chosen to nurture.
>>>
>>> As this is a matter of belief rather than a
>>> question of motility, cognition, or other
>>> technicality, it is not debatable.  As such I
>>> hold that no one but the woman in question has
>>> any right to define right and wrong with respect
>>> to this question.
>>>
>>> I once worked in a Catholic hospital, and
>>> watched as the staff deliberately chose to let
>>> an unconscious woman (an anonymous victim of an
>>> auto accident) die so that they could collect
>>> the contents of her body.  It was clear both
>>> before and after the fact that she would have
>>> survived if they had chosen to sacrifice the
>>> unborn child.  The woman never had a chance to
>>> express her desires in te matter.  The belief
>>> structure of the staff defined the outcome.
>>>
>>> I was revolted, and left shortly thereafter.
>>>
>>> I act on the principle that a woman's own
>>> beliefs trump any rights society may claim
>>> over the contents of her womb until she
>>> delivers a child to the world.
>>>
>>> I do not expect to change your opinion any more
>>> than you probably would expect to change mine.
>>>
>>> However, note that my position stops short of
>>> defining what a woman may do or not do.  Whether
>>> as an individual or as a member of society, I
>>> claim no property rights or regulatory power
>>> over how a woman chooses to handle a pregnancy.
>>>
>>> I do not own her ability to procreate.  She does.
>>> She has as much right to stop the process as she
>>> has to start it.
>>>
>>> Having said that, I will shut up on the topic
>>> and say no more.  No man has a dog in this hunt.
>>>
>>> /Robert
>>>
>>>
>>> Herb Parsons wrote:
>>>
>>>> You're missing the point Stan (thought I think deliberately). No one
>>>> argues the woman's right to "use her insides". She's free to screw
>>>> whoever she wants (as long as he/she is willing and of an age of
>>>> consent). The woman is free to choose whether or not to also use
>>>> something on her insides that can prevent a pregnancy.
>>>>
>>>> However, when she has made those decisions, and the creation of
>> another
>>>> human life is the result of her making those decisions; then yes,
>> there
>>>> are many among us that say her "right" to choose to kill that life
>>>> should be restricted.
>>>>
>>>> I'm among them. However, if you, or anyone else, tries to say that
>> I'm
>>>> "against a woman choosing to do what she wants with her insides"
> I'll
>>>> stridently say, and yes even RANT, that it's a gross
>> misrepresentation
>>>> of my view.
>>>>
>>>> Again, one's rights to their body SHOULD end where another human's
>>>> rights begin.
>>>>
>>>> stan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if I have offended anyone - it is just that I am such a
>> convinced
>>>>> advocate of a woman's right to choose and I thought McCain was not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Most men would admit that if they were the ones who could be told
> by
>> the
>>>>> government what they must do with that thing inside their body,
> they
>> would
>>>>> take advantage of their constitutional right to bear arms and shoot
>> in self
>>>>> defense.
>>>>>
>>>>> ss
>>>>>
>>> __________________________________________________
>>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
> attachments, is
>> for the sole use of the intended
>> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
> Any
>> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
>> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
> reply
>> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is 
> for the sole use of the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any 
> unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply 
> e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list