[extropy-chat] Stem Cell Politics

[Olga Bourlin]

From: "justin corwin" <outlawpoet at gmail.com>

> On 5/18/05, Olga Bourlin <fauxever at sprynet.com> wrote:
>> Ahaaaaaaaaaaa, so you say "OK" to abortion in some cases.  (Oh, oh ...>> 
>> what's that ahead there? ... Why it appears to be a slippery slope!)> 
>> <snip>
>
> Perhaps I missed something, but are you suggesting that Mr. Lorrey is
> against abortion in all cases and that this represents some kind of
> inconsistency?

(Oooh, Mr. Lorrey, now, is it?  Well, all right ...) Mr. Lorrey wrote:

[From: "Mike Lorrey" <mlorrey at yahoo.com>

I never said I did. I am entirely fine with aborting a fetus less than, say, 
two weeks old. It is incredibly hard for anyone to justify that is either an 
individual or with sensory capacity of any sort whatsoever. Iam increasingly 
less fine as the fetus ages.]

> I could have sworn some pages back Mike clearly
> enunciated that he was a hunter, okay with death ...

And what does shooting birds or other animals (excepting humans) have to do 
with abortion as we've been discussing?

>,  and that he was in > fact, simply advocating clear and honest admission 
>of responsibility, > and that the decisions be made with regard to what he 
>calls> contractual obligations.

Some people can't spell even spell at fourth grade level (the evidence is 
all over the Internet) ... much less be able to conceive of what contractual 
obligations may mean.  Some people are coo coo.  Some people are immature. 
Things happen.  Being "responsible" is a subjective term in many cases.

> It's amusing to me, that Mike gets pushed into arguments so much on
> this list, and is almost always implicitly blamed for it. It's true
> that he tends to rant a bit on the Right side of things, when many
> here lean Left, but here, like so many cases, his Right-like speech is
> being twisted into some caricature of full on Republicanism, when he
> hasn't said anything of the kind.

What?  Mike gets *pushed* into arguments?

Furthermore,  Mike has been wrong before, and on issues that have nothing to 
do with right/left or Democraticism/Republicanism.

> And no doubt Mr. Lorrey will angrily
> come back, adding details which may in themselves contain further fuel for 
> the fire.

OK, but why "angrily?"

 > In another amusingness, I have to point out that the term "slippery
> slope" actually enters modern politics from the american gun lobby,
> the NRA. I don't think this particular argument can really be applied
> to all situations. After all, if all points on any continous
> relationship are identical, we might as well give up trying to make
> any decisions in any situation. Mike is simply acknowledging that
> people may have to make a decision based on complicated input.

Again, there are many "uncomplicated people" in the world - what are they 
going to do with complicated input?  Until we can all benefit of "better 
living through chemistry" ... we will have to make do with what we have.

>> And in any and all cases ... who's going to be the judge, anyway?

> I don't think it's best to just throw our hands up and decide that
> since something is complex, it should be broadly brushed in either
> direction for convenience's sake.

I didn't imply it should be broadly brushed aside.  I'm just saying there 
are too many variants of situations and individuals - some freedom of choice 
("right-to-choose") necessarily needs to be in place for individuals to make 
decisions.

Somewhat like pornography - who's to say where it ends and where it begins? 
And who's to say there's anything wrong with it (as long as it is not 
breaking the laws as they stand at the present time)?

People have tried to define what's "obscene" and what't not ... but not to 
much success.

Therefore, we have choice.


Olga