Re: OT: My letter to Ron Paul

"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaughter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_FhPi.2293$lD6.1217@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Does that include yourself at a somewhat earlier age?

Maybe... One has to start somewhere. Theres a difference between
killing a
child and stopping a fetus from growing into a child. That fetus is not
a
human being and does not think and cannot do anything for itself. Some
might
say the same about a child too.

Let's lay it out in stages:
1. Conception
2. Fetus becomes a child (generally accepted as birth)
3. Child becomes a person
4. Person may become a person who has accomplished something

The best I can tell, you approve of termination between stages 1 and 2, but
on the condition that the object hasn't (!?) succeeded to stage 4,
producing any accomplishment. Is this correct?

Then, isn't it rather strange of you to terminate that object before it has
shown any inkling of accomplishment? Time doesn't flow backwards. What is
your decision based on?

And indeed, if your biggest concern is not abortion but human
accomplishment, then surely you should agree that no abortions should be
performed, so that all fetuses are able to grow up to stage 3, therefore
maximizing the number which may reach stage 4; and that those which spend
an inordinate amount of time and resources at stage three without
accomplishing anything should only then be disposed of? Would this be
satisfactory? If not, why?

You would rather have millions of people exist just to exist? Whats the
point then?

Oh, I see- your interest is not abortion or choice, but overpopulation and
waste? Interesting.

By the way, "millions of people exist[ing] just to exist" sounds like the
definition of society. Ouch, reality again.

How bout try and solve the real problems that humanity has and
then worry about trying to make life perfect for everyone?

Eh, murder is generally accepted as a "real problem" that humanity has. My
argument is that a human is a human at any point in development and
therefore terminating it at any point in development is murder, which is
"bad". So frankly I'm not sure what your problem is with my argument, as
your philosophy seems to be aligned in some respects to mine.

What you want to do is pile more *** on top of our problems until we
drown
in it. I propose that we solve our problems first.

Well, changing subject; on the matter of overpopulation, what's wrong with
people just not having as much sex? Sex makes babies, and you don't have
to kill babies if those people making them don't have sex. Or they can use
contraceptives. A more permanent solution, sterilization, isn't murder in
a legal sense, but most certainly murder in a Darwinian sense, so I would
not condone it.

(Note that contraceptives are similar to abortion in philosophical and
theological terms, in regards to the act of sexual intercourse itself.
That is the other side of the religious issue, one which needn't be argued
here.)

Life is inconsistent. I agree. But do you expect to give every fetus a
chance at life only to realize that 99% of them have proven worthless?

You forget your statistics, Jon. If you (unselectively*) terminate 99% of
those fetuses, only 1% (using your figure) of the surviving 1% will show
"worthiness", a much worse situation than the kind you seem to be in favor
of.

*And if you do it selectively, how do you decide which ones are worthy and
which ones will die? Socioeconomic status? Family history? Breeding is
all well and good, but you'll only increase that percentage so much.
History is full of influential people who came from mean origins. A flood
of reasons says this is not an acceptable direction to go. So logically,
you must go the other way.

This is about pro choice. Not your choice but the choice of WHO MADE THE
FUCKING FETUS.

When the fetus is created, that person became a parent and lost certain
rights. I've covered this.

You rather them bring the fetus up in an environment they
have virtually no chance to be anything but another moron wasting
precious
resources just because of some stupid and irrational belief in some
higher
being.

Eh? You'll notice I haven't yet said anything about my religious
affiliation. Strike one for sweeping generalizations, Jon.

You'll also note at this point that I never said anything about "bring[ing]
the fetus up in a [bad] environment ...". People with environments
unsuitable for children shouldn't have children. Is this really so
difficult? Really, why?

There you go again... I never said children were not uselss. Your a
fucking
***.

Oops, strike two: ad hominem. Personal attacks and vulgarities aren't very
fruitful.

If you read my posts carefully, you'll note I am not an ***, let alone
a "fucking" one (imagining the mechanics of that euphamism boggles the
mind), but rather I have been calm and reasoned. In fact, by calling me
names, you seem to be the irrational one, but I'll forgive you any case.

Concerning the usefulness of children, you said:

Children are useless, as is any human being, if it does not give itself
a purpose.

So, I am neither putting words in your mouth nor an ***, I am quoting
your own words verbatim.

Sure I object cause your a moron. Your arguing about things I never
talked
about. You said I said children are useless. SHOW ME MOTHER FUCKER!

SHOW ME!

Well, I've shown you. Is that satisfactory?

Admittedly, you said "IF it doesn't give itself a purpose", but a child
cannot show a "purpose" at least until it's a few years of age, and often
even until adulthood. Because there is a wide gap of time between your
preferred termination period (i.e., in the womb) and any "purposefulness",
you have effectively said "children are useless". That's where I'm coming
from on this particular statement.

Do I not have the choice to do what I want with what I created?

The law states very clearly that you can be held liable for child
endangerment and whatnot, so yes, that is correct.

(That is not the way
I am but I have the sense not to have children until I can offer them a
better life.

Strange, we do indeed think the same thing. And yet your opinion is very
far diverged from mine. That implies at least one of us hasn't followed
this statement to its logical conclusion.

Considering the syllogism I have produced in these two posts, it seems
clear that you should reconsider your position.

Tim

--
Deep Fryer: A very philosophical monk.
Website @ http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms


.

Quantcast