>> Susan Hogarth wrote:
>> > You don't have a penis, but I suppose you feel right about saying that
> > rape is unequivocally wrong, don't you?
> *pondering the logic here* does the possesion of a penis entitle one to define
> rape? Who knows better about rape than the one that it is being acted
Umm, that was actually my *point*. All I was trying to say is that once
abortion is defined as killing, it becomes pretty clear to a certain
segment of people that it is wrong.
> > Sorry to stray so far off-topic, and I don't want to get into a
> > reproductive-rights discussion, but it certainly doesn't help the
> > "dialogue" about abortion if *you* percieve it as a "control issue"
> > while *they* are percieving it as a "moral issue".
>> moral-shmoral, that is the weakest of positions to come from. Why should i
> allow "them" to cast the "abortion" debate in the morals light? It is simply a
> matter of control issues. Morality implies the acceptance of quite a vast
> dogmatic infrastructure that not all of us in this debate have agreed to.
Well, I *do* agree with you - but my point was that *communication* is
Not Enhanced by a refusal to attempt to understand "their" language.
This is of course a failing on both "sides"....
> have not nor will I ever. There is simply no Imminent Domain
<giggle> I think you mean "eminent domain" :-)
> over my uterus by
Fine. As I said, I don't wish to debate abortion. I was only pointing
out that the issue means different things to different people.
> But this is really digression from Alice's post and I feel if a reply
> must be made to this post it should be taken to a much more appropriate
> newsgroup, say, alt.abortion.debate or what ever exists for such a
Blech. How 'bout we just drop it altogether. I hate nothing more than
arguing with someone I *agree* with.
"Cow envy is more common than you would think." - doghair