OK, I've been AFK at work all day and am finally getting back to this. Jim and Ralph, thanks for the votes of confidence.
Patti, Tim, and Mike, you just don't get it, do you? Have you lost a child? Do you know what that feels like? DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF HELL THAT IS TO GO THROUGH, TO HOLD YOUR SON IN YOUR ARMS AFTER AN INDUCED LABOR, HOPING AGAINST HOPE THAT JUST MAYBE HE'LL START TO BREATHE ON HIS OWN, THAT HE WOULD COME BACK TO THIS LIFE? TO SEE THE POTENTIAL OF WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN BE SNATCHED AWAY AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DO A DAMN THING ABOUT IT? I've been there. I've done that. I will carry that huge scar every day until the day I weep for joy when my daughter is born. Then and only then will I have a long-awaited and much-needed catharsis. And you call me shallow? Get a clue! How dare you! Walk through my hell and then maybe you will see where I come from. Until then, you had best keep quiet until you know what you are talking about. In a political world we deal with legalisms as much as we do emotions. When all is said and done, the emotion leaves and the legalism remains. That was my entire point about natalism, which you refer to as "tapdancing." What it comes down to is that my beliefs are rooted in the deepest roots possible-my own personal experience. Those beliefs are quite simple: I do not advocate nor promote abortion. I understand what that loss feels like without having made that choice. But the only legitimate way for people to truly understand the ramifications of that decision is to go through it for themselves. I wish they didn't have to learn it the hard way, but a lot do. It is not inherent upon me, you, or anybody, to prevent people from learning the hard way. It's called personally pro-choice-of-life, politically pro-choice-period. See here, a choice of A or B doesn't always mean A(bortion). Sometimes it means B(irth). Both choices should be made by either the individuals or by Nature (or God or whatever you want to call it). An artificial entity such as a state is best to decide things of an artificial nature. Things of a natural nature, like life and death, are best left to those things of nature, such as people. What was it that the Christ said? "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." (Mt. 22:21). Keep the things not of nature away from nature. And keep the things of nature with nature. This is but one of many meanings of this passage. The choice of life and death should reside with the person, not the state. The anti-choice crowd is based on control of others, which is anathema to libertarian principles of self-control and personal responsibility. Those in the anti-choice crowd would take away that responsibility and in doing so renounce libertarian principles. Now I must ask you, which is it? Are you a libertarian or not? Mike PS: Believe it or not, I have to agree with John that the entire argument is not germane to developing a platform. I think that leaving the decision to abort or not is best left to the individual, and that such freedom of choice is in direct agreement with the freedom of the soul that the libertarian spirit so wonderfully evokes and strives for. Myself, I have made that choice, and it is for life, but that choice has no meaning unless each individual makes it for themselves. -----Original Message----- From: Jim Vance [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 2:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Platform From: "Patti & Tim Jacobs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Platform Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 14:14:49 -0700 Tim or Patti (I'm not sure which) said: >I am no religious nut. Ask around. I was thrown out of my parent's >church >when Vance was a gleam in his father's eye, and have not >darkened the door >of a church in forty years." Ah --- the ever juvenile cry of an ageist claiming his age makes him automatically right. I so love being told I'm too young to know what I'm talking about. I love how we each pick our own methods of bias (or is it bigotry perhaps) and call them acceptable. >The issue of abortion has to do with the definition of life, and all >the >pro-abortion arguments in this context are selfish and self->serving. We >are a society of hedonists who have cheapened life for our >own selfish >reasons, and we're paying the price." How are they selfish? The organism that grows within the host (the mother) cannot survive on it's own until at least 25-26 weeks of gestation (this is all but FACT in western medicine) - and even then, they typically only survive thanks to medical science (respirators, incubators, etc, etc, etc). Why do we need to define them as anything other than embryotic organisms - UNTIL come to term, are birthed, and then survive that process? This is why children were often NOT given names in many cultures until their 3rd or 4th birthdays (and this practices continues in some) - because (this is called evolution here for you non-anthropolically minded) sometimes they were too weak to survive the harsh conditions of life. Better to leave them as sort of non-beings to the parents in their opinion I guess. Easier to deal with the grief of loss perhaps? And what is so wrong with hedonism? I know many libertarians (and Libertarians) that are hedonists by the commonly accepted definition. They're very nice people, fun loving, and great to party with. ALL of them are at least more open minded that half the people or more I've met in this party. That's saying something about a lot of topics I won't get in to. >There is an undercurrent of racism in the pro-abortion camp. They are, >in >effect, quite willing to abort that minority fetus..." Oh bullshit. First off - this topic and more importantly I, am not a PRO-ABORTIONIST. Abortion is painful for the host, I know that. I've seen the films too. Abortion is a process I'd never WILL on anyone... but the fact is this is a matter of FREEDOM OF DOMINION - AND CHOICE over what happens to one's own body... this particular strain being specifically female oriented. The issue of the right of dominion over your body - male or female, is blind to color of skin or ethnic heritage. I'm sure there are little teenage white girls in Beverley Hills are in just as much need for the RIGHT TO DOMINION --- to have an abortion --- if the CHOOSE as would be a minority woman from Little Havana. >"Moreover, the pro-abortion movement is inextricably intertwined with >the >socialist/communist women's libbers, and as such is completely >unworthy of >our party...." Can you pull any other more bizarre concept out of your gray matter? I won't even give that comment any more thought because it was so totally thoughtless in its conception. <Snipped> >The whole idea of abortion is in direct opposition to one of the main > >tenets of our party: personal responsibility. Personal responsibility >is >the linchpin of our political philosophy; without it, we are >nothing. That's right - and part of that philosophy is also DOMAIN over oneself (one's body and what one does with it) without interference from others, the government, etc. Would that not have equal - IF NOT HIGHER - consideration? THAT is the point you are missing. YOU are willing to give up the rights of the individual over their own biology in favor of an organism that may or may not ever be a human being. Something about that screams fascism. >Abortion epitomizes the exact opposite to that concept, substituting >a >notion that your actions don't have consequences, and that you and >you >alone matter, the rest of the world be damned. ALL actions have consequences. The fact of the matter is - that under current medical technology - one can TAKE RESPONSIBILITY to take care of themselves. If that means, that they have an abortion, because having a child would mean they'd be on the streets, with no income, no help, no food, clothing, shelter, etc... which is the better option? You know what - if you answer that question - you're STILL missing the point - because it IS NOT OUR DECISION! >Forty million abortions over thirty years is unconscionable, and a stinging >indictment of our society. If you think otherwise, fine. But >don't expect >my respect as you voice that opinion, or expect me to be >any more civil in >my discourse than Vance, the self-proclaimed >feminist, is in his emails. Self proclaimed??? Ha! I was labeled before I agreed, thank you very much. You know - let's rip a page out of the "patriotism" running rampant around our nation. If you have such a problem with legalized abortion in our nation - why have you stuck around? Why haven't you moved? Why? Because even with its flaws - this is still the greatest nation on the planet where you can disagree with me and me with you and NOBODY can say we can't hold this disagreement. Is this country screwed up? Hell yes. But the screwed up part isn't in the issue of DOMINION over one's body - it's in what the lawmakers are doing to take away our other fundamental rights of speech, gathering, association, etc, etc, etc... something I think we should ALL be thinking about right now... instead of this Right-to-Life/Right-to-Choose issue. Damn - just once I'd like to have a NICE Monday. The weather was there... but noooooooo. Vance _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
