I get your point about Roe that overturning as a battle for state rights. But then we gotta battle states that are not as pro-freedom, to keep such decisions for the individual.
Somehow our fathers celebration of Supreme Court victories is the chickens coming home to roost!
Eric:
Do you know what the leading cause of death among Blacks in the US
since 1973 is? (CDC statistics):
I'll give you a hint, it's not:
heart disease-2,266,789 deaths,
cancer-1,638,350 deaths,
accidents-370,723
AIDS-203,695
violent crimes-306,313
What I'm thinking about happens 1452 times a day in the Black
community. It has taken over 13 million Black lives within the last
30 years. It has taken 1/3 of the current Black US present
population. What is it? ABORTION!
-Derek
--- In lpsf-discuss@...m, "eric dupree"
<dupreeconsults@...> wrote:
I get your point about Roe that overturning as a battle for state
rights. But then we gotta battle states that are not as pro-freedom,
to keep such decisions for the individual.
Somehow our fathers celebration of Supreme Court victories is the
chickens coming home to roost!
> From: "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [lpsf-discuss] Re: Fw: U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, a Texas
Republican known for his Libertarian views,
> Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 19:40:49 -0000
>
>
> An overturning of Roe has nothing to do with personal privacy and
> everything to do with recognizing that it's the States, not the
> Federal government that have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
>
> >
> > Here's a quick thought experiment. A well-known politician from
> South
> > has come out publicly against Bush's Patriot Act, Medicare drug
> > benefit, and Iraq war. He's for individual privacy rights
(except
> in
> > the bedroom, of course, since Roe must be overturned), he's
against
> > taxes, and he's about as isolationist as one can get. He's a
member
> > of a major party, but he has repeatedly called himself a
> > "libertarian." His only major drawbacks are being anti-
immigrant
> and
> > in favor of laws that make roughly ten percent of the population
> > second-class citizens by way of "separate but equal" public
> > accommodations.
> >
> > Do you support his campaign for President?
> >
> > One quick note: his name is not Ron Paul, but rather David
Duke,
> and
> > his separate but equal treatment is for blacks, not gays.
> >
> > Do you still support his campaign for President?
> >
> > Your answer to this question will display once and for all
which of
> us
> > is more out of touch with the electorate.
> >
> > Rob
> >
> > --- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "brokenladdercalendar"
> > <thebrokenladder@> wrote:
> > >
> > > > If Ron Paul would get over his fear of Mexicans and gays,
I'd
> vote
> > > > Republican for the first time in more than ten years. But,
> sadly,
> > > > just like the socialist regimes he mentioned, his own
vision of
> a
> > > > walled-off Ozzie and Harriet version of the United States is
> doomed to
> > > > failure. I only hope most Libertarians realize this and
> support our
> > > > own party's candidates instead.
> > > > That would be about as counterproductive to libertarian
ideals as
> you
> > > could possibly get. This "all or nothing" approach is
impotent,
> and
> > > suicidal. This is what Bruce Bartlett was talking about when
he
> said
> > > the Libertarians should stop running candidates altogether,
> because
> > > it's counterproductive to their goals.
> > > > Helping Ron Paul make as big a splash as possible, and
giving him
> > > every last spare dime you have to give, should be every
sensible
> > > Libertarian's number one goal. And I mean NUMBER ONE.
Voting for
> > > your own party's candidate is like stomping your feet and
holding
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Derek Jensen" <derekj72@...>
wrote:
What I'm thinking about happens 1452 times a day in the Black
community. It has taken over 13 million Black lives within the last
30 years. It has taken 1/3 of the current Black US present
population. What is it? ABORTION!
Anyone complaining about abortion had damned well better be a vegan, or
else he has ZERO room to talk.
This argument is seriously begging the question. If you assume that the "death" of a fetus is morally equivalent to the death of a human being, then I don't see any way you could NOT be pro-life. You're clearly smart enough to see the fallacy in this reasoning. Try arguing without assuming what you're trying to prove.
Personally, I'm undecided about the abortion issue, simply because the scientific evidence hasn't convinced me either way where life begins. But I do know that silly arguments like this have no place in the debate.
Jeremy
Jeremy:
I was trying to prove that abortion is the leading cause of death
among Blacks in the US. You're smart enough to see that, right?
-Derek
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...>
wrote:
> Eric:
>
> Do you know what the leading cause of death among Blacks in the US
> since 1973 is? (CDC statistics):
>
> What I'm thinking about happens 1452 times a day in the Black
> community. It has taken over 13 million Black lives within the
last
> 30 years. It has taken 1/3 of the current Black US present
> population. What is it? ABORTION!This argument is seriously begging the question. If you assume
that the
"death" of a fetus is morally equivalent to the death of a human
being,
then I don't see any way you could NOT be pro-life. You're clearly
smart
enough to see the fallacy in this reasoning. Try arguing without
assuming
what you're trying to prove.
Personally, I'm undecided about the abortion issue, simply because
the
scientific evidence hasn't convinced me either way where life
begins. But
I do know that silly arguments like this have no place in the
debate.
But it doesn't prove anything of the sort, because you first need to prove that abortion is a death that is equivalent to the death of a human being!
Jeremy
Well, if those abortions hadn't occurred, the Black population in the
US would be roughly 1/3 larger than it is today. Genetically
distinct unborn humans once were here, but are not any longer.
I see we're not going to resolve this here. Go ahead and post your
reply and you can have the last word.
-Derek
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Jeremy Linden <jlinden@...>
wrote:
> Jeremy:
>
> I was trying to prove that abortion is the leading cause of death
> among Blacks in the US. You're smart enough to see that, right?But it doesn't prove anything of the sort, because you first need
to prove
that abortion is a death that is equivalent to the death of a human
being!
Well, if those abortions hadn't occurred, the Black population in the
US would be roughly 1/3 larger than it is today.
That doesn't prove a death has occurred, however. If I have sex with a woman and choose not to use birth control, there is a strong likelihood that she will become pregnant. Choosing to use birth control decreases this chance by a large amount, so it is fair to say that my decision to use birth control results in a population that is one person smaller than if I had not made that decision. However, no one would ever state that a death has occurred due to my actions, because for a death to have occurred, something must be alive FIRST and then its life must be ended.
Genetically distinct unborn humans once were here, but are not any longer.
That depends what you mean by "here." If you mean "here" as in "alive," that is something you need to PROVE. You cannot just state it as a fact. Again, that is called BEGGING THE QUESTION and is a well known logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
I see we're not going to resolve this here. Go ahead and post your reply and you can have the last word.
Basically the point I tried to make is that any pro-life argument must first have an argument for why a fetus is equivalent to a human life. Once that is proved, it is very simple to show why abortion should be banned and treated equivalently to murder. If you have no way to prove this, you'll never convince the pro-choice camp, because they do not accept the validity of your premises.
Jeremy
My reply would be, the mistreatment of a FULLY FORMED, AWARE, AND
PAIN-SENSITIVE PIG is OBJECTIVELY a FAR greater criminal offense than
the abortion of an only moderately developed human fetus. Unless you
invoke some sort of religious hokus pokus that has no scientific
backing or anything that should qualify it as a respectable position
in any sense of the word.
And let's not forget that most abortions are caused by "God".
Clay
I agree and would add that it seems to me that no matter how one defines "life" it still begs the question of it's ethical value. The answer to that questions appears to be a function of emotion and principally the product of how our genes engineer our minds:
- Steve