🚀 go-pugleaf

Terrible formatting fixed as it was abominable. Please set to 78 characters or
less!

Bill D wrote:
> 
> The Pervert wrote:
> >
> > A fetus is alive but not a human being per se.  It may become
> > one in time, but it is not one from the moment of conception.  That is
> > my belief with just as much validity as yours.  I am entitled to it much
> > as you are entitled to yours.
> >
> OK. So when does one become a human being?  Please don't duck this
> question, I'm intensly interested in your opinion.

Well, there's a few ways of defining that, one unfortunate technique is that
of simply saying that if it belongs to the species _homo sapiens_ it's
obviously a human being. The point of exception here is sociopaths.

I personally would tend to define the point at which one becomes human is the
point when one demonstrates a capacity for guilt, remorse, contrition, and
possibly even the ability to repent. Unfortunately, not all people live so
long. Some people never acquire any of these abiilties, see some studies of
sociopathy.

Note that sociopaths are technically people, members of species
_homo-sapiens_, but ask any of their victims if they're human.

So there's more to humanity than being descended of [wo]man.

> >
> > Not having an organized religious affiliation not not prevent one from
> > having a moral, religious, or spiritual side.  I, myself, have no
> > religious affiliation,
> >
> But in a previous post you said, ".. my religion does not
> believe in hell as they see it."

This person might very well be pagan. As a rule, pagans aren't all that
organized or "afiliated".

> >
> > I believe in freedom of choice, especially a legal choice in this free
> > country.  You are anti-free choice and anti-free throught.  I consider
> > that offensive and dangerously un-American.
> >
> Abortion is not about choice, it's about killing.

So's having a tumor removed.

> >
> >.. Just as I object to compelling another
> > person into involutary servitude, so too do I object to your compelling
> > people to your particular concept of morality.   I believe that your attempt to impose > your presumed
> > moralistic will on others runs contrary to the basic precepts of this
> > country and is dangerous to American society.  I find you objectionable
> > and your views destructive to the country.
> >

> I never tried to compel anyone to do or believe anything.  This is
> another presumption of yours.  You attack me only because I differ with you.
> In fact, my wife of 21 years is pro-choice.  At one time in her life
> (before we met) she had an abortion.  After we married she became pregnant and
> asked me what I wanted her to do, carry or abort.  I told her in no uncertain
> terms what my views on abortion were but in the end the decision was hers.  I
> would say the same to anyone.  However I believe I have the right to
> demonstrate in front of an abortion clinic (or anywhere) to convince people that 
> the perfectly legal procedure of killing their fetus is wrong.  I claim this right 
> in the name of the First Amendment no matter what the Supreme Court says.
> They've been wrong before.  I kneel before no God and I kneel before no law.  I
> live by my own moral code.  Laws were made to serve men, not the other way
> around.

But you must obey any laws that you don't find to be morally objectionable,
and you must grant to others the freedom of their own consciences. Unless of
course they don't have any, which would make them sociopaths (who can always
rationalize any monstrosity), or perfect candidates for retroactive abortions.

> Your preaching the law to me sounds no different than the fundies preaching
> the gospel.

Yet you cite the Constitution, which is the law of the land. Are you then
preaching the law as fundies preach the godspell?

>  I guess I'm more of an independant thinker than you.
> And since you saw fit to tell me about your political beliefs (as if I
> cared) let me say that I consider myself a Liberal, although not of the
> knee-jerk variety.  On obstructive tactics by pro-lifers I'd like to
> paraphrase a good Republican whom I once admired.
> "Extremism in the defense of decency is no vice."

Decency is a term which is not easily defined.

> 
> Bill D.

-- 
    Be kind to your neighbors, even though they be transgenic chimerae.
          Re-transmission of this e-mail expressly prohibited. 
  Non-UseNet re-transmission of this article is a willful violation of US
 Copyright Law and the Berne Convention. Statutory damages are $250,000.00
Whom thou'st vex'd waxeth wroth: Meow.      http://www.clark.net/pub/klaatu/