Dennis,  I agreed with you last time, and for the most part agree with
you this time as well.  As I stated in my original post, I was ONLY
responding because of the extremely ugly comments being made on this list
about those who object to stem cell research using aborted babies.  There
are many on this list who have concerns about such research and I've
gotten many comments off line thanking me for my stand.  I have no desire
to debate the abortion issue, but object when those on this list lump me
in the same classification as those who  "will not hesitate to blow-up
clinics and kill doctors."  Enough said...Bev c/t

On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 19:28:03 -0500 Dennis Greene <[log in to unmask]>
writes:
> As everybody else is saying this time round exactly what they said
> last time
> round I thought I might as well too.
>
> This is a meaningless argument.  In the final analysis both the pro
> life and
> pro choice arguments are based on an act of faith.  No one has as
> yet been
> able to determine when human life begins and it is highly unlikely
> that
> anyone ever will.  The pro life camp argue that you cannot condone
> the
> wholesale killing of human beings. The pro choice camp argue that we
> are not
> dealing with human beings.  NEITHER side can prove its basic tenet,
> hence my
> comment that each is based on an act of faith.
>
> The rights and wrongs of abortion will not be, CAN NOT BE, resolved
> by this
> forum.  Therefore any time spent discussing it/ arguing about it/
> bickering
> about it, is not only time wasted but also an unnecessary cause of
> stress in
> a community that has a notoriously bad stress response.
>
> I am not suggesting that we should not debate the rights and wrongs
> of using
> the tissue which results from an abortion. (Whatever its
> pre-abortion
> status, tissue is its post abortion status ). I am merely pointing
> out that
> it is more productive to separate the issues.  I think the pro
> choicers
> will find that a great many pro lifers have already separated the
> issues in
> their minds and would be happy to discuss how to deal with aborted
> tissue
> without being ridiculed for holding a belief that there is an issue
> at all.
> It is a fact that there is an issue.  It is not going to go away
> because we
> don't think it should exist.  In terms of being resolved it is only
> an issue
> for the pro lifers (I presume that it is already resolved for the
> pro
> choicers).  However, its resolution will affect society as a whole
> so it is
> reasonable for pro choicers to become involved in the arguments. As
> it
> cannot be resolved by establishing as fact exactly when we become
> human I
> would suggest that if the pro choice camp wants to have any
> meaningful
> involvement in the discussion they need to stop talking as if they
> have a
> monopoly on reason, acknowledge that their beliefs are simply that -
> beliefs - not the laws of the universe, and argue the case for
> foetal
> tissue/stem cell/whatever research on some other grounds than their
> belief
> that the foetus is not human.
>
> (NOTE:  I am not saying that the pro choice position is invalid -
> only that
> it is not relevant of those in the pro life camp who are the ones
> who need
> to work out their position on the use of foetal tissue - and
> consequently it
> becomes a divisive distraction.)
>
> And now - back to sleep - Yawn
>
> Dennis
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Dennis Greene 50/dx 37/ onset 32
> There's nothing wrong with me that dealing with PD won't fix!
> email - [log in to unmask]
> Website - http://members.networx.net.au/~dennisg/
> (most recent update -Nov 5, 1999)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++