POLL: Abortion - Yeah or Ney?

Somehow, I don't think we're all united in our agreement on point number 1...

 

Doesn't mean that it still should be regulated by those teachings, based on personal belief. It's no coincidence that religion's influence diminished with the Age of Enlightenment. Religion is (or should be) a private matter; something that people who use the argument "because God said so" apparently haven't grasped.

 

This sounds much better than "our laws and values aren't dictated by what a fictitious spook in the sky said.".

As for: "Religion is (or should be) a private matter; something that people who use the argument "because God said so" apparently haven't grasped."

That's a matter of opinion and you present yours here. However, any and all individual has the right to his religious views and expression thereof, in public as well.

Those people disagree with your opinion and "grasping" anything has nothing to do with this.

People who disagree with you aren't necessarily any less aware than you are.

Slith's point when he mentioned the 53% worshipping God was not that the minority should give in, but that you carelessly offended the feelings of some half of the Earth's population.

 

Not true. By purely scientific standards, the fetus is "human" right from conception. It has entirely human DNA, distinct from chickens, dogs, apes, whatever. To say otherwise would require that there be two different species of "human" with the same DNA code - distinguished only locationally by whether the critter happens to be inside or outside the womb. We don't do that for any other species, and it would be arbitrary (though politically useful) to do such for the human species. The "scientific" argument against the fetus' humanity is very poor.

But if we move beyond science into philosophy...

I think what you mean is that although a fetus may be "human", it doesn't acquire human rights until a certain point. Many people (with a less scientific bent) conflate the two and assume that if someone lacks human rights, of course they ain't human. The better argument is that a fetus is undeniably human, but it lacks the same rights, value, and protection that we afford to born humans.

There are indeed cogent arguments to be made for such positions - and these coherent positions, as you imply, let their holders "sleep at night". I don't agree with 'em, but they are defensible. Let's go through them one by one:

Some people don't believe that it's a human being until its born.

This is locational bias - the baby's position (inside or outside the womb) dictates its value - but that's not necessarily a bad thing. We use locational bias all the time. If someone is born inside America's borders, they automatically get American citizenship; if they're born outside, they have to jump through all sorts of hoops to win entry. That's a form of locational bias, but it's a useful form. The awkward bit about this argument is that it means that a six-month-old prematurely-born baby is somehow "more" human than a fetus aborted at seven months.

Others believe that it's a human when, if born prematurely, it stood a reasonable chance of surviving to live a "normal" life (even with heroic medical measures required for the beginning of that life).

This makes humanity contextually dependent on scientific advance. Again, not necessarily a problem. But suppose one fetus is born prematurely in a state-of-the-art New York hospital, and another fetus (same age) is born prematurely in an African slum. Is the one baby "more" human because doctors were available to save it?

Still others believe that, if there's any chance it could survive if born, no matter how slim and no matter how wretched that life, then it's human.

This is connected to the above argument, but neatly solves the New York-Africa dilemma by supposing that the kid is human based not on the immediately available medical attention, but on the medical quality ANYWHERE in the world. So since the African fetus could survive if born in New York (but couldn't possibly survive if born in Africa), it's still worthy of being assigned human value. 'Course, this still makes humanity contextually dependent on scientific advance...it just broadens the parameters globally.

Finally, there are those who believe it's human at the moment of conception.

Scientifically this is true. Philosophically...maybe. I think it is, but I can't prove it. But then, I tend to defer to science and rationality anyway.

To my mind, there are really only two worthy philosophical arguments in favor of abortion, and Chandos has touched on both (if unintentionally). The first is that the fetus is indeed human, but its rights must be balanced against the mother's rights. Even though the fetus has human rights, its right to life is ultimately trumped by the mother's own right to liberty (and happiness, if you want the whole Declaration set). So while abortion is a tragedy - even a murderous one - it is still a legitimate and moral action.

The second is that the fetus is human, but human rights gradually mature as a human grows older and wiser. Life is a process, and what matters is the quality of the humanity. So a well-educated twenty-something is "more" human than an unborn kid, by dint of having richer experiences and social connections. If given a choice between a young woman who has a fresh life ahead of herself, versus a human just beginning in the womb, the choice is obvious - sacrifice the lesser human for the greater. It certainly wouldn't make sense to sacrifice the woman's greater humanity for the kid's mere potential, unless you suppose that humans are equal in value.

'Course, if you buy either of these two arguments, you'll have a hard time figuring out why we arbitrarily stop at birth...and THAT'S when you'll have trouble sleeping at night.

 

Don't bother to patronize me when it was clearly your intention to be offensive.

Actually most Americans are not "bound" by the documents of the Founders, but are the reverse, freed by them. The rest of the world I leave to your concern.

Two things here: One, Hamilton, Washington and John Marshall served in the Continental Army. Your knowledge of American history is really rather shallow, since you don't know that at least George Washington had not only fought in the Revolution, but often led his troops from the "front of the pack." Two, my post stated "those of the Revolutionary generation," which was meant to include more than just the Founding Brothers of the generation, but the larger population as well.

No they can only cause it to happen. That would only make them "accessories" to the "crime."

No, you brought the dialogue down to the level of "partying." That is something I never would have considered in a real debate about serious issues. So much for being "dead serious about life."

You were the one who implied that marriage was "like slavery." That was one of the statements that I took to mean that this was no longer a serious deabte of the issues.

Well, what can be said for such a statement? You rant on about how important life is; yet, you don't even understand the diminsions of a crime such as rape. I think most women who are raped would consider themselves to have been brutalized. In fact, that is probably one of the most offensive lines I have ever seen posted on these boards. My feeling is that there is nothing more to gained from this "debate."

But:

I don't need to, since you are doing such a good job of it on your own.

[ June 05, 2004, 07:52: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

OK

You guys woke me up for THIS!

I have to confess that I've not been able to read every post in this thread, although I've tried to at least keep abreast of it...but what disturbs me most is to see two friends, chevalier and Chandos, developing hard feelings over this issue.

Fellas, let me make a virtual headlock on each of you and draw you to the table for a drink...

Chandos here is a great fan of the Democratic process, and as such, has a huge passion for personal liberties and self determination. I used to argue with him, until I realized that his love of truth and Justice really made him a friend and an ally. Even though the "American" principles that he speaks of are distinctly American...we are still a melting pot of every culture and "ism" in the world, and it is that fusion that is our greatest strength and weakness. Chev, some of the things that you have said to Chandos are rather insulting, particularly when dealing with an issue as volatile as abortion. Chandos the Red (as well as Death Rabbit ) are great Americans...try to see them as they stand in defense of the ideals they support, apart from the beliefs that you and I hold.

Now, about chevalier...I love chev (NO, not in that way, you Godless homos ). His theology mirrors mine, yet he has the gift to apply logical proofs to matters of Faith. chev and I both hold to a system of beliefs that tells us that a life begins at conception...and is able to provide us with backup (based on the Faith we hold) that that is indeed the case. When you speak of an issue that seems to you to be the matter of preference of the rights of a woman over the rights of a fetus...it is to us a matter of murder. Clear and simple. There are no "rights" involved when what we see is the murder of innocence to atone for the errors of another (didn't we get away from that with the "New Covenant" )

There it is in a nutshell. The reason why this issue is so polarizing. The Pro-Choice advocates lump the so-called "birth rights" issue along with other matters as mundane as Affirmative Action and Civil Rights.

The "Pro-Life" forces see that every abortion committed is an act of murder against innocence (and what does the Bible say is the greatest sin, short of blaspheming the Holy Spirit?...)

I completely agree with chev, and have envied the calm rationale used by GM in every post he's made, while at the same time admiring the love of Liberty shown by Chandos, and others who support "Choice". Let's take this opportunity to learn a little more from each other, and to look past what we say and try to focus on why we say it. Regardless of where you stand...there are lives at stake...whether the life of an in-eutero fetus, a teenage girl, or a young man who's in way over his head. Try to remember EVERY life involved in such a situation...and not focus just on one.

There you have it...my attempt at pulling both sides into a more fruitful discussion. If for some reason I've broken forum rules and get in trouble for this...oh well, I need some sleep anyway.

 

There’s been a lot of discussion and assumptions as to pro-choicers’ beliefs as to when a fetus becomes human, and they all seem to revolve around the ability to survive outside the womb. I’m not going to speak for everyone else, but IMO that’s irrelevant; after all, a newborn can’t survive on its own without outside help (feeding, for example).

To me, the issue centres around when does a fetus begin to demonstrate those characteristics, behaviors, emotions, etc. that set humans apart from other animals. I’m not talking about fully-developed abilities here, but rather the first signs of those abilities. I don’t accept that simple DNA of a newly-fertilized egg fits the bill.

Central to being human is the brain. The basic structure of the human brain is formed at about 8 weeks, so that would be the earliest that I could accept as the cut-off point for when abortions could be performed. However, at that point, it’s not really doing anything that a non-human brain does. I couldn’t find any definitive information as to when a brain starts to exhibit human processes, so I’m open at this point to further discussion. However, for the sake of argument, let’s say that it occurs after 13 weeks (the end of the first trimester). So to me, it would be up to that point that abortions would be OK.

Now, I realize there are arguments as to why it’s not appropriate to look at brain development as the basis for determining humanity, but I haven’t seen any so far that have convinced me that I’m wrong.

 

Then does an adult human, who is in a "vegetative" state due to an accident or other means, cease to be human?

What about a baby who is born full term, yet has severe neurological defects, such as Holoprosencephali (sp), Normal brain functions are not present, at least not to sustain life, and they will die...whether it's minutes, hours, days...

What about a very old person with advanced Alzheimers? I've seen it, and it ain't pretty...there certainly are no normal brain functions there.

The inherent problem with defining "human" using any kind of man-made measure...is that the measurement can change. It is open to a myriad of interpretations that can vary depending on who is holding the yardstick, and introduces an entire realm of ethics that are derived to fit each different situation...instead of the same ethical code applied to each situation.

"Physical" (or perhaps we should say "Scientific") definition of Humanity is a great trap that starts with something that seems as rational as first trimester abortions (or the use of artificial birth control ), and happily leads to Executions, Euthanasia, Genocide, Ethnic Cleansing...

That last comment will probably get me in hot water, as some will think that I'm calling the Abortionists "Genocidal Maniacs" ***hmmmmm***, but I am only trying to illustrate the slippery slope that is inevitable when mankind attempts to define human life, using only the skills and abilities of mankind.

Human life begins at conception, when the union of sperm and ovum creates the new organism that is then imbued with a soul. That's the defining element...the soul. It's what makes us a little higher than the animals, and why the life of EVERY human should be preserved to the greatest extent possible.

A spiritual view of "Human" is so much cleaner, unwavering and effective.

 

Well, I agree. But until a soul is recognised as a legal definition it seems that there is no choice but to ignore that worthy argument when discussing the legality of abortion...

 

Please define "soul", and explain how it defines, in a non-circular way, "being human". And since I am not religious, please refrain from defining it in religious terms.

 

Wow!

Quoted twice in a row by two esteemed members...I feel special .

@Vukodlak...I understand the logic you employ when you say

...but that is also part of the slippery slope. It is another example of reliance of human skill in the determination of morality...imagine if today a panel of the most esteemed doctors and scientists were able to agree, that based on the best measurements available, that human indicative brain activity began at 56 days after conception. Laws are enacted based on these findings, and abortions are performed only prior to that point.

One year later, due to the invention of a new gizmo, the panel again meets and determines that human indicative brain activity can be measured as early as 42 days after conception, and the laws are changed accordingly.

The change of law does not change the fact that thousands of newly defined humans (between 42 and 55 days old) were murdered over the last year, and although you couldn't necessarily prove any premeditation...human lives were lost due to the decision of another human...and ethically someone is responsible...someone is now guilty of a crime.

Of course, the doctors who performed the procedures won't be charged, they are just doing their job...the women who chose the abortion won't be charged, they just did what the law allowed them to do...the men who impregnated the women won't be charged, they were just looking for a place to put their dick...and the panel of experts won't be charged, because they are "top men".

So, we arrive at a point where an ethical standard, even proven by the limited ability of mankind, is ignored. The door is now open to ignore the murder or displacement of anyone else who fails to meet a human derived standard.

You see where this is going?


@Splunge...I will try, my friend...although I think that GM or chev might be better educated and equipped to deal with your question. I am confident that a soul can be discussed in non-religious terms...although a certain spirtual sense may be required. Being that you are primarily agnostic...that shouldn't be a problem .

 

Humanity isn't measured by human characteristics. How many of us indulge in anthropormorphism - assigning human characteristics to animals - with our pets? But though our dogs and cats may exhibit certain human-like qualities, that doesn't make them the least bit human. Similarly, if a human goes crazy and imagines that he's a cat - or takes the role in a bad Broadway musical - that doesn't make the person any less human. Characteristics are indicators of substance, not the substance itself.

Besides - if a fetus doesn't become human 'til it exhibits a certain level of brain activity, then what is it beforehand? It's clearly alive. Is it a separate species? We don't make this distinction with any other species - giraffe fetuses are considered giraffes right from the get-go. Science usually does "accept that simple DNA of a newly fertilized egg fits the bill" - largely because dogs don't give birth to cats and vice-versa.

Actually, the pro-choice position is the one benefited by the idea of a "soul". Humanism posits that humans have rights by dint of being human; the fetus is human; therefore, the fetus has human rights (including the right to life). But with the idea of a soul, one can suppose that a human doesn't gain value until it's infused with a soul. And that soul is infused at some post-conception point - say, when brain activity begins. (Or, more properly, brain activity begins when the soul is infused.)

'Course, I haven't heard many pro-choicers make this argument...but one of the four Sunni Islamic legal schools held that the soul was infused in the 120th day, so abortions before that point were acceptable. Just one more reason for pro-choicers to support Shariah law!

 

@ Hacken Slash

Wow, I've been called esteemed. I feel special too

Slightly off topic: Your example touches upon an interesting point - the fallibility of science (in general as well as in this specific case) which might be worth creating a separate topic for.

Back on topic:

But, as long as laws are made by humans, we have no choice but to rely on human assessment of right and wrong (and I would argue that this influences religious thinking to a far greater effect).

Basically, I think your first post hit the nail on the head:

Well, quite. And if you percieve abortion as murder - you are vehemently against it (and it would be monstrous to be anything else). Case closed.

If you do not percieve abortion as murder (as I do not), you are free to consider other ethical implications - the foremost being the wellbeing of the mother.

 

First of all, Hacken Slash makes a point about things going personal. So much as some of what I say may appear personal, or even be very personal, it's not directed against anyone, personally or not. Given the gravity of the issue under discussion, it's impossible to debate on it the way you talk about which tiles fit better in the kitchen, right? The same goes for inconsistencies - assumptions that aren't true for everyone, conclusions that aren't so obvious, statements with internal contradictions and so on. Still, it doesn't extend to relations on personal level. Even when I use sarcasm, or question the logic of someone's inference, or ethical or moral value of some act, it's not with an intention to offend. This may sound arrogant, but offending someone isn't worth the loss of breath involved. When I press harder on someone, it's usually meant to cause him to question his views or his perspective. Priorities and focal points are hard stuff.

To avoid the classical who said what, I'm going to reply to points rather than to quotes, much Like Grey Magistrate did:

The binding power of the Declaration

We may discuss whether it's binding or actually freeing, but that's a matter for a separate philoshophical debate. In the sense of obligation, ie obligation to respect and protect the rights stated in the Declaration, the Declaration is only binding for Americans. Non-Americans can't be held to it. In the world's scale, Declaration doesn't have the same power as within the United States. The rest of the world is not subject to it's moral authority.

Founding Fathers risking life for the right to liberty

One or two or three doesn't make all. It's a different thing to argue for some principle in a legislative body, and to give your life in defence of it. That's one thing

But the basic problem was that a conclusion that Founding Fathers would support abortion and that the Continental Army and militia were giving life for it, requires something more to prove than the right to liberty being there in the Declaration. After all, the baby also has right to liberty.

Marriage being a bit like slavery

Not in the direct sense, as neither of the spouses has any recognised right to enforce his or her will physically on the other, but circumstances arising from marriage put limits on the spouses' personal liberty. No sleeping around, sharing property rights, having in-laws to care for, apart from one's biological family, and so on. No one says marriage is in violation of the right to liberty. Neither are environmental circumstances. Basically, dying at the age of 95 (or even as a result of a car accident) doesn't violate your civil/human right to life. A lightning bolt damaging your car doesn't infringe on your property rights to that car. Pregnancy, as a natural function of female organism, can't violate a civil (society-based, or legal) right to whatever. It violates your liberty rights no more than a river that blocks your passage.

Rape and brutality

Rape always involves brutality, I said that. However, there's a difference between rape and brutal rape. When you say a woman who was raped, you speak about a woman who was raped certainly with some level of brutality (by definition, you can't rape anyone without being brutal), but no more than the average for rape. However, when you say a woman who was brutally raped, you indicate that the woman was raped in an especially violent fashion. More brutally than rape is usually done.

This is the same distinction as between murder and brutal murder.

To imply that I have no compassion to victims by recognising the difference in level of brutality associated with different accounts of rape is deeply offensive. In fact, it's a very serious accusation with no proof to back it and a grave offence that would make me stand up and leave the room in a real life situation, probably going straight to the court. It's an obvious twist of my words and the summary of my argument so directly contradicts my real words that it must be obvious for anyone who bothers to compare my words as they are written and my words as they are "quoted".

Implying that in my view raping a woman is tolerable is... it's beyond words. There are many bad things that can be said about me, but this... I'm not going to address it.

The presence of soul in the foetus

Not all anti-abortionists believe in souls. Ensoulment is not the central point here. I don't know if any religion has a definite and agreed upon answer as to when the soul enter the body... or if it actually enters the body at all, or if clones or in vitro foeti have souls (does God put souls in clones that are made by humans in laboratories?) et al. It comes down to personal belief or wide moral teaching of a church.

The brain

The full development of the brain isn't a valid criterion for humanity or lack thereof. The problem of brain in the beginning of life is as difficult as the same problem in the end of life, with people who are put in coma serving as an example.

The foetus is distinctly human from the moment of the joing of the uterus and sperm, being a living human entity and bearing a complete human DNA distinct from other species.

There are children who are born without a developed brain. They don't survive for long and still, they aren't being put to death. Let die, maybe, if a child with chances for survival needs the equipment used to sustain the child's life, but not put to death.

It lives!

Everything that lives has a right not to be killed. When it comes to animals, some calculations may be acceptable, but not when it's about humans. The foetus is a human being. It's human. It's not to be killed.

Rape, incest, disability, bad economic status...

Those are external circumstances and external circumstances don't alter the value of a human being as a human being. People aren't second rate because they're illegitimate, born from incest, poor or disabled. They are humans like everyone.

Dependency, weakness

To some extent we all depend on one another. Humans don't live each on his own. We're not Robinson. The weak are to be protected, not further oppressed. The fragile and delicate is to be cherished, not to be erased altogether.

Being able to survive without sustaining machinery isn't a good criteria. Some born babies need that to breath normally (like I myself did) or have their heart beat.

The woman's burden

The woman's burden is about the woman, not about the child. The child shouldn't be penalised for it.

But should the woman be penalised?

The woman is not being penalised if she gets pregnant as a biological result of consenting sex.

If she gets impregnated against her will, barring her from killing a human being in order to alleviate her suffering is not right. It would penalise the child who is innocent. And there's no other way - only keep it or kill it. It can't be killed. No human should be killed to make another human's life easier.

It should be the woman's decision

It can't be if it involves a distinct human being. The foetus is human, genetically different from other species and a separate genetically distinct being. Its life and death can't be left up to another human's will.

Liberty

There's no freedom without responsibility. Freedom is about taking responsibility for your actions on yourself. This responsibility is not to be removed. Certainly not at a cost to be paid by another human.

Liberty is not about well-being and comfort. Also, liberty of one person doesn't override the liberty of another. Nor does it override other human rights.

Conflict of interest; whom to support?

There are conflicting interests and conflicting rights. But they aren't of the same rank. The woman isn't a candidate for being put to death here, only the child is. Life has priority over comfort. Raising a child is difficult and burdensome, but it isn't a fate worse than death.

Religious arguments

People's morals are shaped by their religion if they have any. However, if they advocate those morals, it doesn't mean that they force their religion on other people. Other people may infer the same values from different sources. For example, not all anti-abortionists are religious.

Drawing arguments from religion is perfectly all right if discussing with people who share (some of) the speaker's beliefs, or with people who specifically ask for it ("What does church X say on abortion?"), or for people who have already used religion-based arguments to support their position ("Where in the Bible does it say abortion is bad?").

So much as religion can't be forced on people, religion-shaped morals shouldn't be downplayed on the grounds that they are based on a religion and not, let's say, a lay philosophy.

Truly, you don't need to be a believer to cherish the value of life. As the soul in the foetus isn't the crux of the problem, you needn't to believe in souls at all, either. You needn't to believe in any deity at all, as well. No argument of those I raised above requires any faith at all, in so much as moral principles aren't a faith per se.

[ June 06, 2004, 01:00: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

The "thing" they kill when abortion is made is not even aware of its own existance and therefore may be killed quite freely for all I care.

A teatcher in biology once told me that a foetus can be called a human being when one can clearly see in ultra-wave pictures that the foetus will develop into a human being and not some other creature, and I pretty much agree with that definition and so does our law. And she also told me that in biology there is no such things as "god" or "soul".

 

Well, I could not resist another post or two, since the reputation of the Founders was at stake.

No it was not. Try reading comprehension for a change. Or at least debate with some honesty. What really was said is that "liberty was valued above life, or death." All the Founders put their lives on the line when they signed the Declaration of Independence. The English would have hunted them down and hanged everyone of them for it. It is excusable that you are ignorant of American history. It may be a cultural problem. But it is not excusable to misquote someone the way in which you have.

That is my quote. Your comment was that the value of "Life was supreme." My response was that Life without Freedom had little meaning. And also notice, in speaking of the Founders and the revolutionary generation, I did even mention "all" but "many of whom." Again, some integrity to the facts of what was actually said would be helpful here.

Let's try another. Here's my post:

Maybe you are really just agreeing with me here, since I said the same thing only with less words.

This is exactly why I stopped debating the issue of abortion on this thread. Why give someone further opportunity to rant on (in a completely self-serving and self-justifying manner) about himself rather than the issue at hand? And then to further rant on about "responsibility," while at the same time refusing to show enough courage or honesty to accept the responsibilty for his own words. Those who would use such tired platitudes, as "with freedom comes responsibility," should sometimes take their own advice.

I do have to comment that Grey has shown remarkable integrity of thought to the issue and that his posts have been superb. I wish I could agree with his thoughts on equal rights, but the reality of a male dominated society that diminishes the woman's right to choose (in certain crucial situations) is not something I can agree with. I cannot agree with tyranny, despite its good intentions.

 

First of all, someone who disagrees with your opinions on matters of American history doesn't have to be ignorant as to facts.

Next, being ignorant of American history is not a "cultural problem". It's not a problem at all, unless you're American. Surprising as it may be to you, the rest of the world is under no obligation to defer to the US, study their history and so on.

Integrity?

"Many of whom" is not two or three as you actually mentioned later - so far as referring to Founding Fathers and not the whole of the revolutionary generation. That's one. When the revolutionary generation were going to death for freedom and independence, they didn't really have the "right to choice" in mind and there's no way you can claim that.

Next, you said that allowing abortion was an obligation following from the right to freedom and pursue of happiness, adding that the pursuit of happiness and liberty were the rights Founding Fathers held dear and risked their lives for.

You used the moral authority of Founding Fathers to support your pro-abortionist stance. I replied that liberty and pursuit of happiness were indeed there, but Founding Fathers wouldn't necessarily support your pro-abortionist understanding of liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Life without liberty may mean nothing to you, but not necessarily to everyone else. Life is necessary to enjoy liberty - dead people, after all, don't have. Life is, in fact, the base of all other rights since it's required first of all to live to have those rights.

Next, there's the liberty of the child as well, and pursuit of happiness, not only of the mother. There's no way for you to support your claim that the Founding Fathers would value the liberty of the mother higher than the liberty of the child.

Also, no matter what right - liberty or life or pursuit of happiness - you value higher, there's no right to murder people in order to achieve your desired level of happiness or liberty.

As for misquoting of which you accuse me, I've shown in my post above the way in which you twist my words. You aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with yourself since you make both the questions and the answers.

No. When I referred to the binding power of the Declaration, ie it may have qausi-legal character in the US, but it's not binding elsewhere, you artfully dodged it saying that it's not binding but actually freeing.

You may retort in a lofty fashion that you "leave the rest of the world to my concern", but it doesn't make it any more right for you to call upon the Declaration when you are discussing human rights with non-Americans.

I'm not holding you to Polish constitutional traditions, so be kind and don't hold me to your Declaration, OK?

Last but not least, let's again ponder what you really said and what I really said about bothering to read your posts:

You said:

To that I replied:

The idea is that your posts aren't the centre of my world and I don't have to "bother" to follow your posts. I am under no obligation, explicit or implicit, moral, ethical, of scientific curiosity or whatever to trace your posting history. There's nothing to "bother".

I could "actually have bothered" to read a celebrated political writer, perhaps, but not you as you, correct me if I'm wrong, are not a celebrated political writer whose writings everyone should read. Discussing the Declaration as a side-topic in abortion debate hardly obligates me to read your posts as a matter of necessary preparation. Some modesty, please.

[ June 06, 2004, 13:50: Message edited by: chevalier ]