From: cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 92 14:07:29 GMT
Organization: WINCO
Subject: Re: Quayle on abortion
Summary: 
Followup-To: 
Organization: WINCO
Keywords: 

In article <1830@celia.UUCP> celia!steve@usc.edu (Steve Tyree) writes:
>In article <1992Aug20.003055.17909@pmafire.inel.gov> cdm@pmafire.inel.gov (Dale Cook) writes:
>->You say you have faith in the people of this country.  I share that faith.
>->That's why I don't want a pure democracy.  But OK.  Suppose we take your
>->"advisory" vote, and 51% of the people think that *human* life does NOT
>->begin at conception.  Are you willing to live with the results of that?
>->Does that change the reality of the situation?  Suppose science demonstrates
>->that *human* life begins at conception.  Suppose the people vote that it
>->doesn't.  What purpose did the vote serve?
>
> Look at this. Im the one saying that we need a vote to settle an issue
>which is tearing the country apart, and im being labelled a control freak.
>Your main reason for not doing the voter research is that it may conflict
>with science ? 

I'm not labelling you as a control freak, Steve.  Calm down.  The only 
thing I'm doing is accusing you of ignoring important consequences of
your proposed "vote".

Steve, take a deep breath and go back and *really* read what I've been 
saying.  If you think the only reason I fear such a vote is that it may
conflict with science, then you have completely missed the point.  I'm
going to ask you some straightforward, simple questions, for which I'd
like to see the same kind of answers.  Can we do that?

(1) If we held a vote today on this issue, "to settle it", would you feel
    the issue were "settled", once and for all, if the majority of the 
    people voted that life does *not* begin at conception?  Be honest, now.

(2) Suppose, in the future, the aging population is causing tremendous
    problems for the government.  To "solve" the problem, someone proposes
    we hold a vote "Should all people unable to care for themselves be
    euthanized?", and the vote passed.  Would that "settle" the issue for
    you?  Furthermore, in order to promote unity on the issue, the people
    who injected the poison would be selected at random, and your number
    came up.  What would you do?

(3) Do you now see that I do not fear *this* vote, but the precedent it
    would set?  After all, if we can settle this issue, we can settle
    _any_ issue with a vote, right?

(4) Now.  Do you *really* believe that your vote is going to keep this
    issue from "tearing the country apart"?  No matter what the outcome,
    the issue will NOT be "settled" for the losing side.  Do you agree
    with that?

>The old big government scare tactic. Lets have the vote and
>examine the results. It may even educate ourselfs about ourselfs. What are
>you afraid of ?

So now we're going to hold this vote to "educate ourelves about ourselves".
I thought it was going to "settle the issue".  If this is an educational
exercise, I don't want to pay for it.  Do you?  Maybe we should hold a
vote to see if we want to hold the vote... :-)

You ask me what I'm afraid of.  I would ask the same question of you.  
Is your distrust of science so great that you would place the outcome
of these *important* decisions in the hands of a huge mass of emotional
people?  You say you're afraid of big government.  I share your distrust,
but I *fear* a majority rule.  Don't you have even the slightest concern
that you may be in the minority someday?

> I am an individualist who thinks that socialist are trying to empower them-
>selves via divisionary issues. We must draw the line somewhere or we will
>eventually lose our individualism. Everyone will end up wearing the latest
>clothes and speaking the latest political correctness. We wont even dare
>think freely anymore. We may eventually allow the socialist to kill at will.

Frankly, I'm amazed.  If you start allowing the majority of the people
to dictate laws in this country, what does that do to your precious
individualism?  You want to see dictation of behaviour, you follow your
path.  Don't you see that your "majority" of voters will become the
new "politically correct"???  You don't dare hold a view contrary to the
majority; they might hold a vote about you!!!  Your path has even more
potential to allow the majority to kill at will.

What is so difficult about this concept?

BTW, read my .sig.  It applies here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Dale Cook    "There is no animal so spooky as the True Believer."
                   ---Edward Abbey
The opinions are mine only (i.e., they are NOT my employer's)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:4753 alt.politics.clinton:2578