Slightly OT: Pete Ashdown for Utah Senator in 2006
dan at acucore.com
Tue Jul 12 15:03:51 MDT 2005
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 14:49 -0600, Mister E wrote:
> Dan Wilson wrote:
> > So, say I believe that murder is ok if I really, really don't like the
> > person. That's my belief... the government shouldn't force other's
> > beliefs on my.
> This is not a true matter of beliefs. Nor is it entirely about choices.
> It's about free agency and consequences. Free agency never exists
> without consequences and the knowledge of those consequences. There are
> times that such proceedures such as abortion might be necessary. I
> think most would agree on either side that those presented are still
> acceptable despite the scope of the arguments at hand. The real problem
> arises in that people want choices (freedoms) without consequences.
> they want to preserve free agency, yet not pay for those choices.
> Choice without consequnce destroys free agency. If a gal goes and gets
> knocked up on her own initiative (planned or instant gratification
> thingy), does she have the right to escape the consequences of her
> actions? Time tested insight and wisdom usually says no.
As I mentioned before, I believe there should be some way to allow
certain abortions. The current laws are allow it for convenience.
Here's the problem with this debate. We are talking about two different
things. You are talking about allowing the choice. I'm talking about
I am all for allowing choice... when it doesn't interfere with another
human's freedom. But when the choice infringes on another person -- in
this case their freedom to live -- then it's something that needs to be
looked at in a completely different way.
No matter how you look at it though, the consequence of abortion is the
same as murder. A life is terminated.
More information about the PLUG