Poll

What

is
0 (0%)
your
0 (0%)
stance
0 (0%)
on
1 (9.1%)
abortion
0 (0%)
?
10 (90.9%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Author Topic: QUESTION  (Read 6681 times)

Emillith

  • Level 3
  • ***
  • Posts: 43
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
    • Joyful Light of the Stargarden
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #60 on: September 12, 2008, 07:17:48 PM »
Does anyone here think abortion is a fundamentally good thing to do? Leaving aside possible exceptions like health and rape.

I don't think the government should be a nursemaid that watches out for every bad behavior, but I think there are some things that are bad enough that they should not be allowed. Abortion is one of those things. It negatively impacts more than just the mother's life.

Well, I've been hesitating to say it but I've HAD an abortion and I felt - feel - that I had very good reasoning for it. I'm glad that there weren't any restrictions that would have disallowed this opportunity for me in a monitored, healthy environment. (As opposed to the "back alley/dirty knife.") Now, situations have changed a lot in the intervening ten years so if I was presented with the option again, I would chose otherwise. However, for the entire situation at the time I think I made the best choice. The situation was not based on health or rape, but I still feel it warranted it. But then, part of my decision was the belief (which is ok that we all differ on this point) that a fetus is not a child until it's life can be supported either on its own or through machines as opposed to by being a 'parasite.' (Gods, that sounds awful!) Plus, I was within the 12 weeks window set by the law, and many people with much more experience and education than I have even now decided that it was safe to do so before that point (with the assumption that past that point the ethics get more gray.)

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #61 on: September 12, 2008, 07:42:12 PM »
I respect your willingness to share your experience, and I see no reason not to respect you as a person as well. Your experience is not something that I, being male, would ever go through. You didn't share your reasons, but I assume they were extremely personal, and even if you did share them, it wouldn't affect my reaction.

I'm not afraid to stand up for right and wrong. Right and wrong are concepts that exist. I am saddened by the arguments put forth by other people in our culture which you believed when you made your decision. I don't think that decision ever should have been possible or legal to make. And I lament the lack of support which would lead anyone to contemplate back alleys and dirty knives. But I don't think wrong choices should be made legal just to make them safer to one party.

Just responding to a minor point in what you said, machines right now aren't good enough to support the life of a fetus, but it's inevitable that someday they will be. (See earlier in the thread.) To me that says that's not a reliable dividing line.

Also, when something "sounds awful," that's often an indicator that it very well may be.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2008, 09:08:47 PM by Ookla The Mok »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #62 on: September 12, 2008, 09:20:10 PM »
Sometimes things sound awful because of an unfair cultural distinction between what is acceptable and what is not without reason.  In fact, that's usually why things sound awful--right and wrong are concepts that exist, but you'd be hard pressed to get everybody to agree to your perspective of right and wrong.  How do you know yours is right with such conviction that you'd be willing to trample on other people's ability to live their lives.

If I thought that believing in God was wrong because it caused people to waste their lives in a pointless chase after a non-existent entity, which essentially led them to a pointless life of pain followed by death, is it okay for me to outlaw the belief in God?  Or the belief in a God other than my own?

If I think that defending yourself against an attacker with fatal force, even when it is the only means necessary, was wrong because I perscribed to the "turn the other cheek" mentality, is it okay for me to outlaw killings in defense?  What YOU think is right and wrong because of your personal beliefs are what YOU believe.  Until you can use a non-biased reasoning for it (like, for example, getting a large amount of scientists to agree that an embryo can feel pain and is thus warranted the right to not be harmed), you have no right to press your morals on another person, no matter how strongly you feel.  If you want to be able to press your own morality into law, live in a theocracy.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

Loud_G

  • Level 11
  • *
  • Posts: 438
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Drawer of Dragons
    • View Profile
    • George the Dragon
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #63 on: September 12, 2008, 09:52:52 PM »
My reason for disliking abortion are not religious. There exist certain reasons in the religious sphere that also add strength to my reasons, but the religious/'moral' reasons are not the driving force.

I will never understand the logic of saying that one person's right to happiness overrides another's right to life. It doesn't even compare. If I had to choose between disaster and death, I would choose disaster. The Anti-Life advocates always take the most extreme views on this subject to try and ridicule the Anti-Choice people (and yes, I used both groups most hated names).

As I wrote in my last post, it is all about life. Not just human life. (Missed the post? go back and read it, I'd be curious as to your take on my ideas)

Leave religion out of it, that's fine. There are PLENTY of non-religious reasons not to allow this in most cases.
George the Dragon   <---- My webcomic. 

WARNING:
Features a very silly dragon. Hilarity MAY ensue.

darxbane

  • Level 17
  • *
  • Posts: 839
  • Fell Points: 0
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #64 on: September 12, 2008, 10:11:42 PM »
Yet by stating someone can't press their morals into someone, you are putting your moral belief above theirs.  There are many who believe it should be OK for full grown men to have sex with young boys.  Is that wrong, or are we just imposing our morality on them as well?  Let's get more specific regarding abortion.  I have said that I am OK with 1st trimester abortions (less than 12 weeks), but would hope that the decision is not taken lightly, or done because it is the easy or convenient thing to do.  This means no regulation.  However, I feel very differently about partial birth abortion.  So I will ask you, Gorgon; Should late-term and/or partial birth abortions be legal?
I wanted to write something profound here, but I couldn't think of anything.

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #65 on: September 13, 2008, 12:02:27 AM »
Loud_G, your reason for not wanting abortion outlawed is the most valid reason, and that is preservation of life (not HUMAN life, but life).

However, your argument from your last post and your second-to-last post conflict.  You say that it is okay to kill any living being (you went as low as germs) if they harm us, and you said that the only reason germs are killed is because they endanger humans.  That is blatantly false, we kill things every day because they are inconvenient.  We do our best to kill light flus and colds which are not fatal (to over 99% of the population), and we are so willing to do so that we are okay potentially making them stronger.  We rip out tree because they block our satellite dishes (and in doing so kill plenty of animals who were using our subdivisions as an ecosystem).  Should it be illegal to build homes because they inflict damage and take lives of animals, plants and germs?  It would make us uncomfortable, but you said that being uncomfortable is never a reason to kill.  We allow dogs to be put down because they bark too aggressively, even if they've never attacked a person--in fact, if a dog seems to aggressive it is LAW that it is killed.

And saying that it is immoral to push one's views on another, and therefor it should not be done is only pushing morality in a very slight sense of protecting myself.  It is not putting ANY law in place telling others what to do, nor am I suggesting we do so.  I am not advocating any national FORCE to push this morality into order.  That is the difference.

Darxbane, like I said, at the point that the fetus is functioning enough to be able to recognize suffering (which is AT EARLIEST the third trimester according to modern estimates, and CERTAINLY not within the first several weeks of pregnancy), it should be protected as a sentient creature, and should be given the natural rights of a sentient creature, which includes not being forced to suffer needlessly.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #66 on: September 13, 2008, 12:17:28 AM »
Non-biased reasoning does not exist.

Additionally, humans are reasoning creatures, but humans are also irrational creatures. A solution that only takes one of those into account is not a complete solution. There are plenty of things which are entirely valid to the human experience which are plain not rational.

Also, I find it ironic that you talk about trampling on other people's ability to live their lives, when that is exactly what abortion does.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #67 on: September 13, 2008, 12:37:01 AM »
I misspoke.  I meant not non-biased, but I meant a reasoning that is something that can be used universally despite creed based on provable, logical or scientific fact/probability.  This is biased, of course, but it is also something that all people can be shown.

And abortion only tramples life if you count a fetus or an embryo as a life.  It is technically living, but so is grass--we don't worry about its rights.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

Necroben

  • Level 14
  • *
  • Posts: 633
  • Fell Points: 0
  • What use the ability to read if one never uses it?
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #68 on: September 13, 2008, 01:41:15 AM »
I agree that abortion should not be a means of birth control.  That being said, I'm glad that it is available to all women who might need or want it.  When my 14-yro sister was raped, she was Not ready to have a child, nor by her words, could she have loved this child of violence.  If that could be true to this day or not, I cannot say, but she is doing wonderfully now.  So I do not want to see some law come to pass that tells the women in my life what they can and cannot do.  This is not out of any belief that I may have, but that it is my responsibility, to protect the rights of my daughter, wife, mother, or any future children or grandchildren.  It is their choice.
I don't suffer from insanity...  I enjoy every minuet of it!

It's ok to be strange, as long as it's on paper. :)

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #69 on: September 13, 2008, 02:24:13 AM »
Gorgon, Grass does not grow up to laugh if you don't mow it. Your arguments against counting a fetus as human are ridiculous—indeed, they deserve to be ridiculed—even if many people have convinced themselves they are not.

Remember what I said about humans being irrational as well as reasoning creatures. If you rely solely upon reason, you fall into a (popular) trap. You're also going to fail in your goal to find an argument for allowing abortion that can be used universally and that all people, when shown, will accept as valid and reasonable.

Necroben, I am not going to argue against possible exceptions like rape. And I have never met anyone who believes a woman impregnated through rape should be forced to keep and love the baby.

It has never been about "telling women what they can and cannot do." It has always been about protecting the most defenseless of our human family. Indeed, you should protect the rights of any future children.
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

Necroben

  • Level 14
  • *
  • Posts: 633
  • Fell Points: 0
  • What use the ability to read if one never uses it?
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #70 on: September 13, 2008, 04:08:07 AM »
Necroben, I am not going to argue against possible exceptions like rape. And I have never met anyone who believes a woman impregnated through rape should be forced to keep and love the baby.

It has never been about "telling women what they can and cannot do." It has always been about protecting the most defenseless of our human family. Indeed, you should protect the rights of any future children.

Unfortunately, I have met those who do believe, "a woman impregnated through rape should be forced to keep and love the baby."  There are far too many who would just make a blanket statement and say, "No, you may not do this,” period.  Heck, I've seen that in some of the posts here.  It's unfortunate that some of the people who take one stance or another, have never seen or spoken to a woman, or a girl, who has to agonize over this decision.

To the discussion on whether it would continue upon being abolished.  Yes, I think it would.  The practice has been around for thousands of years, why would it stop now?  Discounting alleyway practices, Herbs have been used in the past and would no doubt be used again.  Yeah, there would be risks as to dosage but, well, it never stopped anyone before.
I don't suffer from insanity...  I enjoy every minuet of it!

It's ok to be strange, as long as it's on paper. :)

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #71 on: September 13, 2008, 05:19:56 AM »
Adoption would be much more kind to the child than being raised by someone who was forced to have a living, breathing reminder of rape near them every day. That would be cruel and unusual punishment.

It's very hard to make any kind of statistically valid statement about historical use of herb-type abortions, because that's generally not something that any record was ever kept of. I don't have any idea how widespread it might have been. I do know that people used to have a ton more children than they typically do nowadays. (The child mortality rate was also much, much higher of course.)
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #72 on: September 13, 2008, 06:44:39 AM »
Yeah, people had more children because of cultural differences, specifically NEED for more children.  Children used to be livelihood, without them you didn't have enough WORKERS to survive, nor did your genes get passed on because chances are your child wouldn't live to adulthood.  We don't have fewer children now because we have more abortions (we might have more abortions, I don't know, but that's not the reason we have fewer children).

The fact that we should make any rule that encompasses all people in all situations based on irrationality is silly.  Also, saying what something WILL be and what something IS are two different stories.  You said grass doesn't grow up to laugh, but that means you are judging a situation based on what could be, not what is.  The fact of the matter is the fetus cannot feel, it cannot think, it barely reacts to its environment (in early stages) and an embryo is even less so.  It isn't protected based on what it could be.

Also, who do you think is going to adopt all of the children who are now being born (assuming that outlawing abortion even works, which it probably wouldn't)?  We have too many children who can't find families and spend most if not all of their youth moving from foster care to foster care or adoption clinic.

You're not taking a life by preventing a life, or we should use every facet at our disposal to create as many children as possible, seeing how we have the ability to have far more children than we do.  You say my argument is ridiculous because I try to base it on sense, and fact, rather than bluntly on my own emotions.  You'll note I've never said what I personally think of abortions, and that is because my opinion on whether or not abortions in certain situations are okay--the question is commanding other people to think how you think by threat of force okay?  Depending on your point of view abortions could be anywhere from appalling to nothing of any concern--and putting your opinion into law is not the way of a democracy, nor is it the way of an enlightened people (which at this point I would hope we are).  We ALREADY have too many laws dictating what is okay and what isn't when it should be a person's own choice.  Most laws are unnecessary dictatorial garbage, because one party thought it was more important or somehow more naturally correct than another.  One party thought itself superior to another and thus it must protect the other from itself.  If I want to screw up my own life, it should be my own choice.  If I want to remove a parasite from my body (which a fetus is BY DEFINITION) and it does NO HARM to the parasite whatsoever, who are you to stop me? 

And how COULD you?  Like Necroben said, abortion can and will be done or attempted in as many ways as can be conceived--from using doctors who will work illegally because they believe it is immoral to dictate to somebody what she can do to her body, to trying to use a coat hanger, to drinking Pennyroyal Tea or using other herbs.

And, Ookla, before you joined the discussion nobody name-called, nor ridiculed each other.  It was a purely hypothetical discussion for entertainment and enlightenment on all parties parts.  I would hope that you would be more mature than to blurt out negative statements about other parties--it is pretty common to bash an opponent instead of defending yourself.  I would expect better from the people on these boards.  And as it stands, I haven't seen any argument of counting a fetus as a human other than "it will grow into one", which is also ridiculous.  You don't count an egg as a chicken, and they are the same equivalency in life cycle.  I can't sell you wooden planks and give you a tree because that is what it will become.  Why is it different if the thing in question will be a human?
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!

Peter Ahlstrom

  • Administrator
  • Level 59
  • *****
  • Posts: 4902
  • Fell Points: 2
  • Assistant to Mr. Sanderson
    • View Profile
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2008, 07:42:29 AM »
I haven't ridiculed anyone or called any names. I don't believe in name-calling. I have ridiculed a few ideas in this thread that deserved it. You came in here and started throwing around words like "trampling" and "disgusting" and making farfetched analogies in your first post in the thread. Before your first post, we were having a hypothetical discussion for entertainment and enlightenment.

I also said that both reason and irrationality need to be considered, not just one or the other. I did NOT say you should base your argument bluntly on emotions.

If you've never said what you personally think of abortions, what the heck have you been doing in all your long-winded rants in this thread? You've basically been saying your opinion about fetuses is the only rationally acceptable one. I'm saying you're wrong and that your opinion about fetuses is not rational. Even if you disagree with me, can you say what I'm doing is worse than what you're doing?

Killing is not doing no harm. Sorry! You're advocating allowing killing. I am advocating not allowing killing. Which is preferable is obvious.

If something is against the law, and you want to do it anyway, who's going to stop you? That doesn't mean something that's wrong shouldn't be against the law. I don't buy the argument that things that are difficult to enforce shouldn't be illegal. Personally, I don't know what kind of legal punishment would be appropriate for illegal abortions. But I do think something that's wrong should be against the law.

I would indeed count a fertilized chicken egg as a chicken. Is it not a parasite though because it's outside the chicken's body and all it has to do is sit on it to make it hatch? Or does the need for sitting make it a parasite? (I wouldn't count a fertilized egg as a hatched chicken, because it might not hatch. Sometimes things go wrong. Miscarriages happen.)

Yes, unborn babies need their mothers in order to survive. So do born babies.

I don't count unborn children the same as adults. I don't count born children the same as adults either. Children take time to develop. My daughter will be 8 months old in two days; I've seen her every step of the way and it's been amazing to see how she grows and learns. She didn't suddenly turn human when she was born; I was there. She may have started out as a clump of cells that didn't feel anything or think anything, but she grew and developed because that's the way nature works. You can't say there's suddenly some point in some trimester when a fetus turns into a human; it's a gradual transformative process that takes years. When do wisdom teeth come in? Age 19? 20? Growth and change. That's what human life is, and it starts as a fertilized egg. (Though I believe another important part of human life is the spirit, which is the offspring of God rather than the body that's the offspring of the earthly parents, and I do not know at what point the spirit enters the body.)

I know people who are jumping through hoops in order to adopt. I also know that the foster system can be very difficult too, though.

I don't expect to convince you. You sound as convinced of your ways as I am. But I do want you to know that you're wrong and that this is not a place where everyone will toe the rationalist line. (I'm not saying that everyone here will agree with me, but this is a place where it's acceptable to be pro-life without being laughed at and scorned.) You didn't come in here respecting other people's opinions or saying "I think this" or "I think that." You came here spouting your opinions as facts. If you hadn't tried to ram your opinions down everyone's throats, I would have responded quite differently.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2008, 07:56:17 AM by Ookla The Mok »
All Saiyuki fans should check out Dazzle! Emotionally wrenching action-adventure and quirky humor! (At least read chapter 6 and tell me if you're not hooked.) Volume 10 out now!

GorgonlaVacaTremendo

  • Level 29
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
  • Fell Points: 1
  • If we can teach a monkey to use a Rubic's Cube...
    • View Profile
    • Kinase Moves the Audio
Re: QUESTION
« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2008, 09:11:32 AM »
Alright, Ookla--if somehow me expressing my opinion and not expressly saying, "I think" before every statement offended you, I apologize.  Obviously what I say is opinion.  Secondly, the idea behind a debate is to convince the other side of your point of view (well, actually the idea is to convince those not participating of your view, but that's really getting into a different area of discussion).  If I wasn't attempting to make my point seen, then I wouldn't be talking.  I never ridiculed anybody's ideas, no matter if I thought they were stupid or not.  I simply countered them with my take.  I used words like "disgusting" as imagery to strengthen what I am saying, not as an attack on what somebody else had said.  I didn't call somebody else disgusting, I didn't say somebody else's idea disgusting--I said that I considered a specific act disgusting--and I was NOT the first to do so.  Nobody except you seems to have misconstrued my intent, as I haven't heard a complaint from any other person.  This leads me to believe that my intent was clear, and if you misconstrued it, it is of your own doing. 

I, however, may have been vague or unclear, and if I was, I offer my sincerest apologies to all who feel I have intended to insult their views or themselves.

Secondly, I have been expressing my opinion of a law about abortions, not my opinion about abortions themselves.  Based on this thread, you could make assumptions about whether or not I would support a friend of mine, a girlfriend of mine or a relative of mine getting an abortion, but you would have no way to know for sure.  Because it is irrelevant if I would support it or not--the fact that I dislike something does not give me the right to not allow somebody else to do it.

As for abortion not doing harm, science shows it is extraordinarily unlikely that pain is caused by early abortions.  At risk of repeating myself, killing a fetus is simply not killing a baby--it has the same outcome with the same amount of suffering as not having the pregnancy at all.  Now, personally, do I consider that fetus a person--I may.  But I understand that others may not, and since I have no evidence to show otherwise, I refuse to push onto another by law what they do not believe.

I would definitely be in favor of laws that require abortion education before abortion, in which a to-be mother must be told what will happen in an abortion, and that while it is considered unlikely by medicine, it is possible that the fetus may be able to feel pain.  I would also be in favor of a law that prohibits abortion past the seventh month, at which point modern medicine states it is much more likely the fetus can feel pain.  I would even support a law that stated those who want to receive abortions must do so on a waiting list or three or four days, to make sure that she has had time to think about the decision.  None of these solutions trample her ability to do so, but they do encourage serious thought on the serious issue before engaging in abortions, and they also draw a line of when an abortion can be had at a point that all people can see, using science, that suffering is caused.

A fetus isn't a parasite because it needs its mother to survive.  It's a parasite because it drains resources from inside of another creature for survival without giving resources in return.  A chicken egg doesn't do that, neither does a born baby.

There are people who jump through hoops to get a child in adoption, that doesn't change the fact that there are tons of children who don't get adopted.  There aren't going to be more people jumping through hoops to get children when there are more of them, there will just be more kids who wont get adopted (at least this is the most likely outcome).

I don't believe that not making a law because it is difficult to enforce is okay, either.  I do believe, however, that if there is a law which is so difficult for people to agree on even being a good law to make, the fact that it would be difficult to enforce is a piece of information which should be weighed, since clearly morality is difficult to determine.

And, as I have stated earlier, I'm just expressing my views, I'm not hell bent on convincing anybody.  If I do, great, if I don't, also great.  I'm more interested in the friendly exchange of ideas than I am of the results of said exchange.  I never "laughed at" anybody, nor did I scorn a single person.  I simply took their ideas, and gave a response.  I never made any personal insults at ideas or people, nor did I tell anybody  explicitly they are wrong (I only did so by disagreeing, which is perfectly acceptable), and I openly said that I was not expecting to persuade anybody of anything, but that I was just expressing my opinion.  If me being long-winded is a sign of "ramming" opinions down throats, simply because I like to speak my mind and try to do so clearly, then I guess I have a habit of ramming my opinion down others' throats.  Fortunately, free speech allows me to do so, ESPECIALLY when I'm doing so in a manner which does not include any negative remarks about the ideas of others--you have the right to ignore me, and you have the right to ridicule me or my ideas.  I was just suggesting ridicule is probably not the best route, and not something I would have expected from such a distinguished member of such a fine community.  Especially somebody who feels so strongly about the issue, as I'm sure you've heard you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.

If I gave you the impression that I was laughing at your ideas, I think you were reading my messages with an intent that they did not have, and I apologize for the misunderstanding.  I never meant to make you or anybody else feel alienated or undercut simply because I disagree--I just meant to disagree.
"Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other 'sins' are invented nonsense."
Robert Heinlein

"Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could do only a little."
Edmund Burke

www.kinasemovestheaudio.com for a good time!