Comparatively though I'm just one person:
Most prolife organizations (who have the money, authority, power,
and political lobbyists) maintain zero tolerance towards abortion.

I would allow a choice to be made in the case(s) of
rape, incest, and saving the mother's life.

What, Abortion-On-Demand?
What do you think about Abortion-On-Necessity?

It has to do with what society deems to be 'rights'.
Laws change daily in this country.
god giveth and god taketh away.

Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szk8yf6ywpd.fsf@fnord.io.com>...

Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szku0xx8bii.fsf@fnord.io.com>...

[...cutting to the chase...]

Mr. Humphrey,
I've been trying all day to ge a word in...
Thanks for the ISP server info.
andthe warning about my own side. I feel like a
minorty of 1. LOL

I'm there on a frequent basis, because it goes with the territory of
speaking for yourself (and any others who may have given their consent
for you to include them). It's not always easy, by any means, but my
experience has been that it's worth the effort.

Yes, the issue of choice is something I've found difficult to contend
with. Abortion has been legal in America for over 30 years and
terminology has developed with it. There seems to be some consensus
that pro-abortion and pro-choice can be two different things.

Probably so, since in the English I learned while growing up in Oklahoma
and Texas, the two carry different connotations. "Pro-choice" has meant
being in favor of the woman's right to make her own choice, while
"pro-abortion" indicates the favoring of abortion over all other options.
That's why I'm the former, and not the latter -- because I'm not so
arrogant to assume that I can be a better judge of any woman's situation
than she's likely to be.

I can appreciate the fact that you are pro-choice.
I can appreciate the fact that I am prolife-moderate.

...in your opinion, of course.

Comparatively though I'm just one person:
Most prolife organizations (who have the money, authority, power,
and political lobbyists) maintain zero tolerance towards abortion.
I would allow a choice to be made in the case(s) of
rape, incest, and saving the mother's life.

If you can do likewise then you should should be able to recognize it is
not arrogant to create an environment which is more friendly toward the
unborn. Rather, it is a genuine concern for those in the womb whatever
stage of development they may be in.

That's okay, as long as you also recognize the rights of those of us who are
already here.

What, Abortion-On-Demand?
What do you think about Abortion-On-Necessity?

For me, as a prolife-moderate, I understand the need to sacrifice
choice in favor of the unborn.

The problem is, you're taking rights away from people who have attained
the status of personhood in the eyes of the law and giving them to
something that _may_, given time and the right sequence of events,
attain that same status.

Yes. This is necessary to save the unborn.

You'd better provide something other than your assertion as proof, then. In
other words, why should your opinion be accepted without question as the
status quo?

It has to do with what society deems to be 'rights'.
Laws change daily in this country.
god giveth and god taketh away.

Historically, except for the ~80-year aberration that ended in 1973, in
this country, the rights of those who have been born take precedence
over anything else. It's worked for 228 years, and if it's not broken,
there's no need to fix it.

In the above paragraph you say '...in this country, the rights of those who
have been born take precedence over anything eelse.' In general, I agree
with you here. But the 'stamp of approval' for abortion in 1973 changed the
equation like never before in our history.

...again, in your opinion. What about the first ~80 years or so of this
nation's history, when abortion was legal by dint of it not even being
addressed by the law?

The fact that it had not been addressed by the law also allowed it to be
illegal.

I suppose it depends on what region of the country one lived in and
the local laws associated with it. Also what the social climate was
like.

Again, in the above paragraph you say '...and if it's not broken, there's
no need to fix it. It is broken. It broke in 1973. It needs to be
eliminated and replaced with a more substantial abundance in favor of
those who reside in the womb.

Once more, you're going to have to provide something a lot more substantial
than your assertion that it should be so. Until such time, you're just
reprising Don Quixote, with less effectiveness.

Well, that would be Roe v Wade wouldn't it? Roe V Wade opened the flood gates
to abortion-at-will, for any reason. I think the only legal requirement to
obtain an abortion is you must talk to a doctor. (I wish it would be that
easy to get Marijuana).

On the subject of personhood, the State as an entity can
grant personhood to the unborn. It is my wish that
personhood be written into law.

Be careful of what you wish for -- because what will you do if you get
it? Where are you going to draw the line at the point a woman's right
to make her own choice gets taken away? At conception? Never mind that
there's no way of knowing precisely when that happens, but it'd be all
too convenient to just write the law in such a way that every woman
could potentially be punished because one of her fertilized eggs didn't
implant and was washed out at her next period (which happens in up to
70% of *all* conceptions). You'd be opening the door to rampant abuse
and the abrogation of the personal rights outlined in the Constitution,
and that I don't favor at all. (That's just one of the more obvious
problems you'd have to solve, and there are some devilishly subtle ones
that will pop up to surprise you when it's too late to turn back the
clock. That's not a good way to solve the problem, in my opinion.)

*** You make very good points here and have provided an opportunity to make
others aware. There is a most interesting conversation ocurring about
when 'life begins' on the 'Throw A Log On The Fire' thread. It is worth
reading and contemplating. Look for Osprey's first post ***

Given Heishman's track record, I wouldn't bother with his prattle.

Now, now, we all know babies begin with a Big Bang and lots of good
feelings. it's just simple math 1+1=3.

< Be careful of what you wish for -- because what will you do if you get
it?
I would actually be so scared that I would have to goto church.
After that I'd go to the nearest saloon. :-)

Whatever works for you...me, I need neither of those. (Now, if the church
and the saloon happened to share the same quarters, I'd have to wonder what
was going on, but that's just me. :-)

Jesus, imagine the whole congregation after a couple of drinks.
Everybody would be seeing the holy ghost! :-)

< Be careful of what you wish for -- because what will you do if you get
it? Though I've thought about this from time to time, I never considered
myself having the authority. I always placed myself as a voter on the
subject. I don't have the expertise nor experience to give you a detailed
veiw of what I would do. I do know I would be careful, thoughtful, and
would not institute the death penalty, man or woman. (I need to change my
homepage)

That would be a start. (It definitely gets attention, but if it's not
truthful, it's not necessarily all to the good.)

Right. I'll admit I'm not a lawyer, doctor, scientist, geneticist, so
on...and so on..
I couldn't find any prolife organizations or webesites (people) who
were willing
to allow abortion in some circumstances. If you know of some prolife
sites, let me know.
Back in '85 I realized zero tolerance would not be accetpable to our
society.
If I had sensed otherwise, I would be strickly prolife today.
Plus many politician's public statements, tv programs, polls over the
years
suggest American Society will accept restictions on abortion that
allow it's use for rape, incest, mother's life'.
So I had to come up with a name, hence ProLife-Moderate.

Where are you going to draw the line at the point a woman's right to make
her own choice gets taken away?

If abortion is illegal the choice has been removed in favor of the unborn.

It isn't, and isn't likely to be in any foreseeable future. You'd better
deal with the hand you've got, not the one you want to have at some later
time.

"What We Do Today Affects What Happens To Us Tomorrow"

I really don't want to hurt women. But an average of 1.2-1.4 million
abortions per year is not a reasonable fair use of abortion. It's abortion
abuse!

That's your opinion, of course. Who appointed *you* to make that decision
for all those women, though? Like it or not, they're pretty likely to be
better judges of their particular situations than any third party
(including you *and* me) can ever hope to be. (I'm not going to claim that
there's no abuse, because in 1.3 million abortions, there _will_ inevitably
be a few cases in which the woman makes the choice we wouldn't make for
reasons we'd never consider valid, just by the laws of probability.)

Yes, according to me and my vast knowledge of the universe and all
it's inner workings,
I do hereby proclaim 1.3 million abortions is abortion abuse!
I feel better now...

At conception?

Conception. Yes, this would be the starting point. Conception would have
to be defined by law. I would want the law to be simple enough that common
folk could understand it. It would not be defining the begining of life
from the creation of the world (creationist/evolutionist), but just a
point at which the common man and woman understand.

You just sowed the minefield. What do you do for identical twins? They
don't separate until a few divisions *after* conception. (Not a frequent
instance, I concede, but this is an issue which demands attention be paid
to the details.)

Wow! I had never thought about twins. And all the types of twins.
I think it's 1 sperm fertilizing 1 egg which divides into two
identical individuals.
Now you got me runin' around!
OK, I'll give it a try:
1. Federal: One Authority dispensing one Law from one Source across
the Land.

2. Abortion is illegal.

3. Life begins at conception.

4. The unborn are persons and citizens of the United States.

5. Fedaral Law requires jail time for abortions.

If you kill twins then that should be two counts against you. Right?
What's needed is an exception written into the law for clarity and
simplification of the legal
process, as well as preventing a doubling of the jail sentence.
I'd make aborting twins a single crime.
In this case I would sacrifice one Unborn's rights in order to
expidite the punishment.
In other words, you pay a single debt to society whether you killed
one unborn, twins, triplets, etc...

<Never mind that there's no way of knowing precisely when that happens,
but it'd be all too convenient to just write the law in such a way that
every woman could potentially be punished because one of her fertilized
eggs didn't implant and was washed out at her next period (which happens
in up to 70% of *all* conceptions).
Good point. A law which punishes woman for what happens naturally would be
'illegal' and then I'd have to join your side.

There's a simpler solution -- stick with the standard that's worked for a
millennia or two: human, born, and alive.

Can it work this way? conception, human, born, and alive.

You'd be opening the door to rampant abuse and the abrogation of the
personal rights outlined in the Constitution, and that I don't favor at
all.

I believe a Right-To-Life Constitutional Amendment is necessary. I think
it's time we as a nation should proclaim to the world America Protects
It's Unborn Citizens!

Think it all you want -- unless you come up with a rational explanation of
why it should be as you proclaim, it's not even going to start to happen.
I'm one of those annoying people who thinks the Constitution may not be
perfect, but it's better than what we've got now...and as a lower-case
libertarian, I'm not going to abide measures to increase the State's power
over anyone.

Yes, I too have wondered about giving the state more power. But in order to
provide the unborn with more advantage, I would work with the state this
time. One Authority, One Law, One Source.

Oh, your a libertarian! That's cool. We have some here in Mass.

Tough going for them here considering the Democrates have controlled this
state for 40+ years. Tough going for every party. I personally think it's
time to kick the Dems out. They've become too powerful and arrogant. They
take my state for granted!

I'd like to give another party 8 (two terms)years here to see what would
happen. Maybe the Democrats would learn a lesson (maybe). People (even the
dems) enter politics with good intentions then get absorbed by the
established mannerisms of political trade.

If it's acceptable to you (correct me about the protocol),
I would like to address the other posters on this thread.

It's your post, and this is a public newsgroup...ask whoever you choose,
and frequently. (The only dumb question is the one that you don't
ask. :-)
[...]

By the way...
The Abortion issue is complex since it concerns life, death, and the
future.

That's in keeping with life, which has always been complex.

I've setup outlook express as a reader.

You have my condolences. ;-) If it works for you, more power to you (so to
speak).

I hear ya! I haven't had time to correct it yet. Eventually...

Just some minor problems: password and registry entries.
Fixed soon.

That's one reason I've kept The Cow Without a Herd running Win98 for the
last six years...although adding about 448Mb more RAM would probably smooth
out some of the occasional BSODs. ;-) (Then again, putting in a larger
hard drive would enable me to dual boot in either Win98 or Linux...)

I had WinME so I can feel your pain with BSODs. It happens.
I'm using XP now and like it. Very stable once you get it set up good
enough.

Haven't tried Linux yet, but did check it out somewhat. Open source.
Now that you mention it, you seem like the type to use Linux.

Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:<szk8yf6ywpd.fsf@fnord.io.com>...

poemosophi@poemosophi.com (Poemosophi) writes:

Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:<szku0xx8bii.fsf@fnord.io.com>...

poemosophi@poemosophi.com (Poemosophi) writes:

[...cutting to the chase...]

Mr. Humphrey,
I've been trying all day to ge a word in...
Thanks for the ISP server info.
andthe warning about my own side. I feel like a
minorty of 1. LOL

I'm there on a frequent basis, because it goes with the territory of
speaking for yourself (and any others who may have given their consent
for
you to include them). It's not always easy, by any means, but my
experience has been that it's worth the effort.

Yes, the issue of choice is something I've found difficult to contend
with. Abortion has been legal in America for over 30 years and
terminology
has developed with it. There seems to be some consensus that
pro-abortion
and pro-choice can be two different things.

Probably so, since in the English I learned while growing up in Oklahoma
and Texas, the two carry different connotations. "Pro-choice" has meant
being in favor of the woman's right to make her own choice, while
"pro-abortion" indicates the favoring of abortion over all other options.
That's why I'm the former, and not the latter -- because I'm not so
arrogant to assume that I can be a better judge of any woman's situation
than she's likely to be.

I can appreciate the fact that you are pro-choice.
I can appreciate the fact that I am prolife-moderate.

...in your opinion, of course.

Comparatively though I'm just one person:
Most prolife organizations (who have the money, authority, power,
and political lobbyists) maintain zero tolerance towards abortion.
I would allow a choice to be made in the case(s) of
rape, incest, and saving the mother's life.

Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote in message news:<szk8yf6ywpd.fsf@fnord.io.com>...

What, Abortion-On-Demand?
What do you think about Abortion-On-Necessity?

You'd better provide something other than your assertion as proof, then. In
other words, why should your opinion be accepted without question as the
status quo?

It has to do with what society deems to be 'rights'.

Laws change daily in this country.

god giveth and god taketh away.

...again, in your opinion. What about the first ~80 years or so of this
nation's history, when abortion was legal by dint of it not even being
addressed by the law?

The fact that it had not been addressed by the law also allowed it to
be illegal.

I suppose it depends on what region of the country one lived in and
the local laws associated with it. Also what the social climate was
like.

Once more, you're going to have to provide something a lot more substantial
than your assertion that it should be so. Until such time, you're just
reprising Don Quixote, with less effectiveness.

Well, that would be Roe v Wade wouldn't it? Roe V Wade opened the
flood gates to abortion-at-will, for any reason. I think the only
legal
requirement to obtain an abortion is you must talk to a doctor.

Conception. Yes, this would be the starting point. Conception would have to
be defined by law. I would want the law to be simple enough that common folk
could understand it. It would not be defining the begining of life from the
creation of the world (creationist/evolutionist), but just a point at which
the common man and woman understand.

You just sowed the minefield. What do you do for identical twins? They don't
separate until a few divisions *after* conception. (Not a frequent instance,
I concede, but this is an issue which demands attention be paid to the
details.)

Wow! I had never thought about twins. And all the types of twins.
I think it's 1 sperm fertilizing 1 egg which divides into two
identical individuals.
Now you got me runin' around!

OK, I'll give it a try:
1. Federal: One Authority dispensing one Law from one Source across
the Land.

2. Abortion is illegal.
3. Life begins at conception.

4. The unborn are persons and citizens of the United States.

5. Fedaral Law requires jail time for abortions.

If you kill twins then that should be two counts against you. Right?
What's needed is an exception written into the law for clarity and
simplification of the legal

process, as well as preventing a doubling of the jail sentence.

I'd make aborting twins a single crime.
In this case I would sacrifice one Unborn's rights in order to
expidite the punishment.

In other words, you pay a single debt to society whether you killed
one unborn, twins, triplets, etc...

<Never mind that there's no way of knowing precisely when that happens, but
it'd be all too convenient to just write the law in such a way that every
woman could potentially be punished because one of her fertilized eggs didn't
implant and was washed out at her next period (which happens in up to 70% of
*all* conceptions).

Good point. A law which punishes woman for what happens naturally would be
'illegal' and then I'd have to join your side.

There's a simpler solution -- stick with the standard that's worked for a
millennia or two: human, born, and alive.

Can it work this way?
conception, human, born, and alive.

What, Abortion-On-Demand?
What do you think about Abortion-On-Necessity?