178865

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu talk.abortion:120800 talk.politics.misc:178865 talk.religion.misc:83810
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,talk.politics.misc,talk.religion.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cso.uiuc.edu!ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu!parker
From: [e-mail] (Robert S. Parker)
Subject: Re: Tieing Abortion to Health Reform -- Is Clinton Nuts?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1993 03:40:13 GMT
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <1q45pl$[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Net Noise owner)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Lines: 221

[e-mail] (Gregg Skinner) writes:

>[e-mail] (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>Ok, one last time.  (yeah right)  In order for *you* to "not pay for any
>>abortions" through your tax money, *everyone* would have to "not pay for
>>any abortions" through tax money.

>"Ok, one last time.  (yeah right)"

>Many who oppose federal funding for abortions would be quite happy
>simply to specify that their tax money not be used to support programs
>to which they morally object.  Failing that (the House Ways and Means
>Committee has so far rejected similar proposals), their only recourse
>is to object to the program itself.  This they do, but you don't seem
>to like that.  What other choice do you offer?  You suggest they
>should not consider how portions of their individual tax money are
>spent.  Why not?

Suppose you had the option to specify that your tax money can't pay for
abortions.  Do you think that that should entitle you to pay *less* taxes?
Since refusing to fund abortions would lead to an even larger increase in
funding for pre-natal care and delivery, if anything you should pay *more*
taxes.  Suppose we let your taxes stay at the same level.

Do you really think that funding for abortion would be reduced?  No, your
taxes would go towards other things, and more taxes from those who don't
object to paying for abortion would be moved from those other things to
pay for abortions.  All that happens is that the funds get shuffled around,
to give you a clear conscience.  Why put the government through all that
paperwork when the end result is no different?  Why worry about it when
it makes no difference and it doesn't hurt you in the least.

>Your advice,

>     People should stop worrying about where their individual money is
>     going and instead *vote* for how government should spend *all*
>     the money it gets.  Currently the duly-elected president proposes
>     that federal medical programs include abortions in their coverage.
>     If the duly-elected Congress goes along with it, well there you
>     go...that is how our system of representation works.
>     [Parenthetical comments removed.]

>is similar to the horrible advice some offer potential rape victims:
>"It's going to happen anyway, so you might as well just lie back and
>enjoy it".

That is the most rediculous out-of-context analogy I have every heard.  I
do not advocate any such "advice".  There is quite a difference between
the illegal violation called "rape", and the constitutionally granted power
of taxation along with the funding of legal procedures.  If you can't see
the difference you can go to hell.

>Care to respond this time, Mr. Parker?

>The following challenges remain unmet by Mr. Parker.  From his own
>comments we are left to presume they were "too much" for him.

Your yanking followups to posts of mine (from other threads?) does not
demonstrate any deliberate lack of response on my part.  There is a great
deal of bandwidth on talk.abortion, and it can take a long time to get
through to the followups to articles I have posted, and many times responses
expire before I get to reading them.

It is pretty fucking arrogant of you to pull copies here and demand that
I respond to them here when they were posted already and quite possibly
responded to separately.  I believe I *have* indeed responded to some of
the following previously--though probably not each of them.

>--

>[e-mail] (Robert S. Parker) writes:

By the way, thanks *so* much for deleting the context of this next line in
your followup to it.

>>No, I have some objective, *non*-religious reasons with justification for
>>why "personity" makes an appropriate value system. 

>Please define "personity" and enumerate the reasons which justify it
>as an appropriate value system.

I have done so in the past.  It isn't my fault that you never saw it.

Here is a *brief* explanation.

A person has a right to do anything that does not interfere with the rights
of another person.  If you want to hear more about this aspect of "personity"
go read the thread "Why is bodily autonomy so important?" on talk.abortion.
You may have to look at all unexpired posts on that thread to find the post
where I give a fairly detailed explanation.  I believe it was posted on
April 18 or 19.

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.

>--

>[e-mail] (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>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.

>Have you statistics that demonstrate the majority of the population
>has no qualm with government funding for abortions?  I suspect you
>fail to account for the position of the person who wishes abortion
>neither banned nor federally funded.

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.

Do you have statistics that might answer this question?  Or are you just
blowing smoke.

>>A Pro-choice president (1 of 2 who *ran*) was elected.  That means the
>>country basically supports the choice to have an abortion. [...]

>Surely you don't wish to suggest the recent presidential election was
>nothing more than a nationwide referendum on the abortion issue.

I said what I said.  If you had not deleted most of it, everyone could
see for themselves what I said.

>>To refuse to fund abortions [...] is to remove that choice from some
>>women, *and* add the additional burden to society for no reason.

>Are we simply to take it on your authority that there is "no reason"?

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 (or can you provide unbiased statistics?  I doubt you can
because I have never heard of an unbiased poll that has been conducted.)
...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.

>Where does it end?  To refuse to fund the free distribution of guns is
>to remove the choice to own a gun from some women and add the burden
>of police protection to society.

More guns in society does not reduce the burden on the police;
it increases it.

>                                  To refuse to provide everyone with
>an automobile is to remove the choice to drive from some women and add
>the additional burden of public transportation to society.

Now this is rediculous.  Public transportation puts less of a burden on
transportation routes (roads, rails, etc) than private transportation.
It also puts a lesser burden on the environment.

>                                                            To refuse
>to fund a jobs for everyone is to remove the choice to work from some
>women and add the additional burden of unemployment to society.

Oh this makes sense.  Ever hear of "welfare"?  Know what it's all about?

>--

>[e-mail] (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>Not to mention the fact that the people who would get the death
>>penalty are convicted of *horrible* crimes.  Senseless murders,
>>multiple murders, and so on. One could argue that these people have
>>no right to live in our society.

>Please show us this argument.  I suspect it is quite strained, as it
>must include those wrongly convicted, who remain innocent regardless
>of the severity of the crimes.

I said one *could argue* it, I didn't say it was a convincing argument.

>>We do not want them *ever*, and we should not have to pay to keep
>>them alive for as long as they happen to live.

>First infants, now certain adults.  Does anyone have a right to life,
>Mr. Parker?  If so, precisely who?

Not "infants" you idiot.  Infants are born.

Who has a "right to life"?  People who have not violated other's rights,
have a "right to life".  A fetus is not a person.  You can not have a
conversation with them.  They are not biologically independent.  Their
awareness is questionable.  They have no experiences in the "real world"
to make up a personality.

>--

>[e-mail] (Robert S. Parker) writes:

>>[e-mail] (Paul Hudson Jr) writes:

>>>If its a matter of money, we could save a lot of money by killing off 
>>>anyone with an expensive illness.  It may decrease our population a bit,
>>>but we will have plenty of money to go around.

>>Hey, why not?  Oh wait, maybe their family members would object.  Ya think?
>>Their parents/children/brothers/sisters...  Is that the case with abortion?

>And if no family member objects, should we allow this killing?  Should
>we include it as a cost-saving device in our health care reform
>package?  (These questions are not rhetorical.)

Ever hear of "euthanasia"?  Ever hear of insurance companies refusing to
fund potentially life-saving treatment because they don't feel there is
sufficient evidence that it will work to be worth the expense?  Which one
gets you angrier?  Why is that?



-Rob