Gene Kearns wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 12:36:27 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

Gene Kearns wrote:

It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Dave


I am sitting here with my mouth hanging open..... This has to the
most incredibly outrageously stupid statement I have *ever* read...
anywhere.


Really? Stupid? I am forced to conclude one of two possibilities. You
either:

A. failed to understand the point I was making. Or:

B. Are a hopeless liberal, who advocates a "cradle to grave" entitlement
philosophy, in leau of earning your lifestyle.

I'm hedging toward "A", since if "B" were true, while we may have a
idealogical difference in how one maintains their lifestyle, most mature
people would be able to refute the rationale without resorting to
labeling, out of hand, those disagreements as "stupid".

In this country, you are free to the pursuit of life, liberty and
happiness, but there are no guarantees. Part of the price of freedom, is
the responsibility to take the proper care of yourself. If you fail to
do that, it's not government's or society's place to bail you out for
more than a temporary measure.

Dave


Bearing in mind the context:

...only care about preventing the abortion of a fetus. Once there is a
live birth into an impoverished family, the "right to life" ends.

Perhaps I totally missed the point. You said,

"It stands to reason that a liberal fails to comprehend the difference
between "right to life" and "guarantee of it".

Thus, I conclude that every child has the right to be born, but to
starve to death, thereafter, is reasonable, since there is no
guarantee of life. It follows that, from your premisses, that each
newborn has the responsibility to take the proper care of themselves
and any ensuing death is the fault of the infant.

C'mon, that's a little ridiculous, in light of our society. No one would
advocate that an infant be left to care for themselves. My statement was
more of a testament that every person has a right to life, but no
guarantees of any particular lifestyle.


Come to think of it, what does, "guarantee of life mean?" Seems a
non-sensical concept since all of us are terminally ill, anyway.

Think of it in the more colloquial usage, such as in the statement: "get
a life".



I don't subscribe to the ultra-liberal craving for crade-to-grave
care, nor do I buy into the ultra conservative belief that human life
begins with the first lustful thought.

Neither do I. But at some point there is a life, and is has a right to
be recognized, and has a right o be given the chance to "make a life"
for itself at some point.

Until the ultra conservatives
became obsessed with abortion as an anti-liberal idea, it was not such
an issue

Of course not. When liberals desensitize people to what an abortion is
actually doing, and boil it down to a simple medical procedure, it's
easy to buy into the whole deal.

The barometer of how you feel depends on whether you feel that abortion
has no more impact than removing a wart, or whether you feel that
abortion is killing another independent life.


and in practice, it still isn't. As proof, I offer a point to
ponder. If abortion is the ending of a human life, have you ever
been to a funeral for a miscarriage? Why not?

Never thought of it. Although if you knew a few women who had gone
through a miscarriage, the emotional trauma and depression that follows
is just as sad.


And no, I'm neither mindless, nor a "liberal." And I don't see the
dichotomy of abortion vs. welfare, either.

The two issues are not connected at the hip. Although statistically, the
number of lower income people who get abortions is somewhat higher than
those in higher income brackets.

Dave