--- Elisabeth Carvalho wrote: > > Dear Mario, > Thank you for the novella that you've taken time to > write. Thank you also for updating us once again how > right-wing conservatives are so concerned about > abortion and "creating a culture" of life, while > simultaneously not really being concerned about the > living. Why else would they be against gun control, > stem-cell research, gay rights and anything else > that might make life more livable and lovable for a > multitude of people. > Mario replies: > Elisabeth, Your assertions sound exactly like the left-wing Democrat talking-points, but are largely a series of sophistries that require a novella to deal with, just as only novellas can deal with the barrage of falsehoods being thrown into cyberspace by a small army of liberals that have suddenly infested Goanet:-)) It's a lousy job, but someone has to do it:-)) > 1. Concern for the living. > Unlike the socialism that you liberals prefer because it gives free rein to your knowing what's good for everyone else better than they do, conservative-libertarian philosophy based on relatively free markets and low taxes has done far more economic good for more people around the world. > Which is why extreme socialism has been jettisoned by it's most ardent proponents after observing that it created massive economic misery for decades. > Conservatives therefore, help people help themselves, rather than making them dependent on hand-outs from government bureaucrats and self-serving liberal politicians, who then benefit when the problem gets worse, since solving the problem would reduce their importance. > 2. Stem cells. > You seem unaware that the conservative opposition is to the use of TAXPAYER money for stem cells derived from the abhorrent practice of foeticide. There is no objection to research conducted with many other sources of stem cells, and NO RESTRICTIONS in the US on research conducted with PRIVATE funds. > 3. Gun control. > This is a unique American situation that foreigners find hard to understand, but I'll try to explain briefly. The US was formed when common citizen militias defeated the most powerful nation at the time without sophisticated armaments. It led to a tradition where most citizens owned guns for self-defense and food gathering in pioneer days, and has led to a belief among many that citizens need to have the choice to freely own guns, and millions of them have done so for generations. > Also, while it may sound implausible to you, there are studies that show that violent gun-related crime is higher in states that have more stringent controls. It is a logical reality of this long-standing gun culture that "gun control" only inhibits law abiding citizens. In states that allow trained citizens to carry concealed weapons, violent crime actually tends to go down because the bad guys have no idea who is carrying a gun. > It is said that the safest place in the US is at a gun collectors convention:-)) > 4. Gay rights. > You must know that gays have the same legal rights as everyone else. You are probably referring to gays wanting to "marry", which runs counter to the legal definition of marriage, which large majorities in most of the blue states are reluctant to change. There are no restrictions in the US on gays who have committed relationships forming "domestic partnership" arrangements that give them the same legal rights as married couples. > In conclusion, conservative philosophy is not making life less livable and lovable for a multitude of people. Just the opposite. > Elisabeth writes: > > Secondly, just as you are so certain that some > posters on this board are anti-Christian or not > following your rock solid code of conduct, you seem > to be very certain about what lies in the heart of > every parent who decides to take this very painful > decision. That they are just "abortion-happy" as > you put it, and that they would like nothing better > than to tear their babies from limb to limb and > discard them like thrash. > Incidentally, it's spelt trash :) > Mario replies: > Here you are probably referring to your buddy Marlon. > Unlike you, I don't make unsubstantiated assertions about someone being anti-something - I use their own words to do so. I posted the precise URL's regarding one of Marlon's nastiest anti-Christian tirades, in his own words, that did not even exempt his own mother. The archives contain several others. What is instructive is that you seem to have no objection to what Marlon said. Even Vivek made a weak attempt at defending Marlon's tirade as satire. > You say abortion is a "painful decision"? Imagine what the foetus goes through while being torn limb from limb. (Memo to self: watch out for the predictable claims from medical scientists that the foetus feels no pain.) > However, in spite of the "pain" to all concerned, we have had 50 million abortions just in the US alone since Roe V. Wade. Wouldn't it have been far less painful all around to give the child up for adoption? > Elisabeth writes: > > I suspect your outrage is not at all about female > foeticide in India but about abortion in general. As > such I have no desire to get into a protracted > debate about the morality of abortion. It's an > individual decision and each individual is blessed > with their own moral compass to guide them in > taking this decision. I am not their moral > custodian nor do I have any wish to impose my code > of conduct on anyone else. > > If we do so, we are assuming that people primarily > are incapable of making their own decisions in life > and must be "legislated into subservience" at every > point. I find this hard to take coming from a man > who routinely reminds us that micro-managing economy > policy is detrimental to the natural laws of the > market. Apparently micro-managing morality doesn't > have the same effect. > Mario responds: > So, let me get this straight. Passing laws protecting the most innocent lives among us is "micromanaging" morality - about a million and a half a year just in the US? I find this hard to take from someone who believes in micromanaging an entire economy - about 300 million people just in the US - under the apparent assumption that "people primarily are incapable of making their own decisions in life". You need work on your sophistry, Elisabeth. It is hard to be consistent across the board, more so for an admirer of proponents of "provisional" truth. > Incidentally, the word is spelt "micromanage":-)) > How is it an "individual decision" when the individual being killed has no say in the matter? The individuals you want to defer to had options before the life was created. OK, too late for that. However thay also have options after. It's called adoption, to the millions of women who are unable to have a child. > Have you noticed that the "pro-choice" crowd are largely silent on the "choice" of adoption? Why doesn't Planned Parenthood support massive adoption agencies instead of massive abortion clinics? > BTW, there are many dastardly Christians - you know, the ones whose Golden Rule Aristo says is inadequate because it may induce masochists to harm others - including Mother Theresa's nuns, who will take an unwanted child, and help the mother, no questions asked. This is a real "choice" for those who place a higher priority on life over convenience. > At least you are honest enough to call this ghoulish practice "foeticide" which acknowledges that a foetus is being killed. Some of your more sophisticated cohorts refer to a foetus as an "unviable tissue mass". I have suggested a test to some of them: > Leave this tissue mass and a real unviable tissue mass alone for 9 months and then do another comparison, and let me know what you find. > No takers as yet :-)) >
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
