exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor, The Sounding Board) writes:  >In article <C5tE71.7CM@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:  >Read the whole thing.  There's some pretty hot stuff in here...  Apparently you *didn't* read the whole thing.  You continue to miss the point.  >>skinner@sp94.csrd.uiuc.edu (Gregg Skinner) writes:  >>>parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu (Robert S. Parker) writes:  [deletions]  >[soapbox on]  >If it's ok to pay for legal procedures with gov't money, then let's get the  >government to pay for counselling that provides abortion alternatives.   >Let's get the government to pay for adoption fees.  Let's get the government  >to pay for all the things that make abortion "necessary".  Why not?  They  >are certainly legal procedures.  Counselling that only provides alternatives to abortion would be just as biased as counselling that only provides *abortion* information.  How about providing counselling that will give a woman help in finding what *she* is comfortable with.  Your adoption-funding idea may be a good one.  Any idea if it is feasable?   >The only way hell is involved is that it is going to be a good skiing resort  >before I give in to paying for abortions.  I believe it is wrong, and I  >won't pay for it without a gripe.  I'm not for making them unlawful; I'd  >rather spend money on saving lives than a bunch of investigations and court  >hearings and all this other CRAP we are spending our time on.   >You know who's really cleaning up on all this abortion stuff?  Lawyers.  I  >say let's pass laws to make adoption cheaper, easier, and infinitely more  >supportive of the birth mother.  Let's eradicate the stigma, reduce the  >cost, pay the price for life.  Making adoption easier on the birth-mother may help reduce abortion, but it will *not* eliminate the need for it.  Abortion is not done just because the mother can't care for the child and doesn't feel good about giving it to strangers.  Abortion is done because the mother can not afford the *pregnancy*.  >[soapbox off]   >>A person has a right to do anything that does not interfere with the rights >>of another person.    >Cool enough.  You'll have more trouble defining the terms in that statement  >than getting people to agree to it.  For example, I perceive I have a right  >not to participate in what I feel is murder.  I don't think the government  >should, either.  On the other hand, since we are having trouble proving that  >it is murder, there is no right to stop someone from doing it if they so  >choose, either by legal means or harassment.  Of course, persuasion is  >allowed, but watch that line between persuasive and harassing.  >>The second part is a definition of a person.  A simplistic explanation is >>that a "person" is a member of society.  Most normal adult human beings are >>good examples of "people".  Most children over two years old are "people" as >>well.  The simple way of determining this is that you can have a conversation >>with them.  It is actually more complicated than that, but I have no desire >>to spend the time it would take to explain it to you.  Read the thread "Why >>is bodily autonomy so important?" for more explanation and justification.  >But why is your definition authoritative enough for the whoe US?  Surely >you can understand there are other definitions with equal "right" of  >consideration?  Then please justify why being "human" automatically makes something valuable. And why that includes the unborn.   >>>>If the government refused >>>>to fun abortions (due to the qualms of a minority of the population) then >>>>it would then have to pay *far more* in the delivery of babies whose >>>>mothers wanted an abortion, but could not afford one, and now that baby >>>>will also require care for 18 years.  >True.  That needs to be fixed.  It is part of the problem.  If Clinton has a  >medical program to get underway, let him address this, too.  It is cheaper  >in the long run to save lives; later they will be productive members of  >society.  At least, if his plan works...  No, they are not guaranteed to become productive members of society.  Even if they do that is *MANY YEARS* in the future--until which they are a burden on someone, or society.  There is also the matter of the mother.  Forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term at a critical time in her life could prevent her from being a productive member of society.  >>Actually, I was refering to the minority that objects to abortion, not >>those who object to federal funding.  I admit I did not say it very >>clearly, and apologize for that.   >>>>To refuse to fund abortions [...] is to remove that choice from some >>>>women, *and* add the additional burden to society for no reason.  >No.  This is really flawed logic.  It would be like me saying "I was born  >with a disfigured face and I want cosmetic repair.  It is  >discriminatory that I cannot make that choice, and so you must pay for it."    >That a person has a right to make a choice does not imply legally or  >otherwise that someone else should Foot the Bill [sic] for that choice.  Ok, look.  It's like this.  We *are* footing the bill.  Maybe they will take choice A.  Maybe they will take choice B.  Maybe they will take choice C.  They can't afford any *one* of them.  If they take choice A we'd have to pay them, say $5.  If they take choice B it would cost us $20.  If they take choice C it will cost us $20 now and a hell of a lot more for the next 18 years.  Which one sounds the most realistic for us to be willing to pay for?  Now some people happen not to like choice A.  Other people happen not to like choice C (paying for it, that is).  C has been around and paid for for years.  Even though it means we spend a lot of money, we can't in conscience refuse to pay for it.  Now A has been around and is perfectly legal, but it hasn't been funded in the past.  Now A is going to be funded but some people object.  They don't like the idea of their tax money going to pay for choice A.  So we could refuse to fund A at all.  Then those women who can't afford any of those choices will be forced to take choice B or C, which will cost *all of us* more money.  Most of us don't see any reason at all why *more money* should be spent to the effect of *removing personal choice* from some women.  The alternative is to fund A if that is what the mother chooses.  We will also still fund B and even C if *that* is what the mother chooses.  However, some women will certainly choose A, and that will then save us $15 we otherwise would have had to spend.  Your "taxes" are not being raised to fund a choice you object, they are being *lowered* because we will fund a choice that is *legal*, despite your objections to it.  (Actually, your taxes are not really going to go down, as I'm sure you would point out.  But the amount that is saved in that area can help out in another--like our massive debt.)   >>If you disagree then give us some "reasons".  Given that abortion is >>*LEGAL* and the right to abortion is supported by the majority of the >>population ... >>...it is not justifiable to refuse abortions to women who can not afford >>them, who will simply require even greater funds for the delivery you >>would force upon them.  I refuse to pay *more taxes* to remove choice >>from those women just because you object to a legal medical procedure.  >WHAT?  >I say objection to the procedure is irrelevant.  Uncle Bill doesn't pay for  >breast augmentation, facelifts, etc...  Why abortions?  It's elective  >surgery!    Those other procedures you mention only cost money.  There is no savings in other procedures that would be required down the road without them. (In fact, there could be additional costs down the road *because* of them.) This is quite different from the case of abortion.  >As for your argument, you are enticing a young girl to kill a baby by making  >it affordable and refusing to make the alternative affordable too, SO YOU  >ARE JUST AS GUILTY OF REMOVING A CHOICE BY WITHHOLDING FUNDS!  Think about  >it.  A poor girl is pregnant and abortions are federally funded, what's she  >gonna do.  What choice have YOUR PLANS given her.  Your kind of double- >talk really makes me ill.  This is bullshit.  We are *not* refusing "to make the alternative affordable too".  If we refused to pay for the more expensive choice of birth, *then* your statement would make sense.  But that is not the case, so it doesn't. If Clinton tried to block funding for pre-natal care and delivery (or left it out of his health-care plan), I would certainly object.  I would also be quite surprised.   >"Pro-choice".  Ha!  Pro-Abortion really fits in your case.  Yes, but probably not your definition of it, or for the reasons you think.  >If you're gonna fund one choice, you have to fund them all, at the very  >least.  YOU STUPID FUCK!  *WE DO* want to fund *all* the choices.  *YOU* are the one who wants to *NOT* fund all the choices.  >        IMHO if we fund the adoption choice right, (meaning not just  >throwing money at it but cutting costs, esp. legal costs) we won't need  >abortion anymore.  Your humble opinion is still wrong.  Even with easy adoption, there is still the fact that pregnancy takes several months.  Months in which a young woman could need to be getting an education.  (like finishing High School, entering college, finishing college, getting a job...things that are much harder to do if you have to "take a break" for a few months...things that have a massive impact on her future productivity.)   >>have a "right to life".  A fetus is not a person.  You can not have a >>conversation with them.    >Ah.  Let's kill the mentally incompetant as well.  Or how about people we  >just don't like, since we can't have a conversation with them...  You *can* have a conversation with the "mentally incompetant".  And even though *you* personally may refuse to have a conversation with "people you just don't like", it is still *possible* for others to have a conversation with them.  It is *not* possible for *anyone* to have a conversation with a fetus.  >>They are not biologically independent.    >Nor was my son at the age of 6 weeks.  He was breastfed, and would not take >a bottle.  Just what does "biologically independent" mean?  I'll be happy to  >punch any definition full of loopholes.  He was still biologically independent.  At least to the same extent you are now.  He consumed nutrients and digested them in the normal manner.  He breathed his own air.  A fetus on the other hand, gets it's nutrients already digested by the mother.  It gets its oxygen from the mother as well.  That is not biologically independent.  >>Their >>awareness is questionable.    >Aha! You admit it is questionable.  Yet you are willing to kill it, even if  >it *may* be very aware.  I suggest you re-think your viewpoint.  Awareness is only *part* of what makes a "member of society".  It is the minimal conceivable requirement, yet many people seem to think that something without awareness could still be important enough to justify the suffereing of a true member of society.  I keep asking, but I still haven't seen a real justification for why the life of a non-sentient creature should be worth the suffering of a sentient being.  (I haven't read every response on the threads I've been asking on, yet, so we'll see if I see one later.)  >>They have no experiences in the "real world" to make up a personality.  >This is also true of quite a few Unix programmers.  So what.  :-D  Anyone who can program in UNIX has a lot of experiences in the real world.