[PLUG-TALK] Re: Misc.

Jeme A Brelin jeme at brelin.net
Tue Oct 5 01:51:57 UTC 2004


On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, AthlonRob wrote:
> I think there's a rather significant difference between being willing to
> seriously injure or kill somebody trying to do you harm or take your
> property and being willing to kill an unborn child because he or she is
> inconvenient for you at the moment.

Um, killing to protect property is nothing more than killing to prevent
inconvenience.  And the inconvenience of saving up for another laptop (or
car or wedding ring or whatever) is nothing compared with the
inconvenience of trying to raise a proper human being when you haven't the
time, money, or skills to do so (or, if you swing that way, the
inconvenience of living a life knowing there is a person that is your
offspring in blood, but not spirit).

> That's like the difference between being willing to shoot people for
> being infront of you in line at the supermarket versus being willing to
> shoot somebody pointing a rifle at you.

Woah... are you implying that the inconvenience of an unwanted child is
similar to the inconvenience of waiting a few minutes in a supermarket
line in any way at all?

Later, the same fellow wrote:
> Maybe make the choice before you're doing something high-risk that could
> land you pregnant?
>
> Actions have consequences... 'tis a fact of life.

And why shouldn't we do everything we can to mitigate those consequences
and make behavior less dangerous?

All in all, I think Russell is trying to state (if I may) is that it is
neither your right nor your responsibility to judge whether someone else
is taking what you consider to be appropriate precaution or not in their
personal lives.

We have the means to help some people lessen the negative impact of a
situation and I think we should give access to those means to the folks
who are most impacted.

The goal, in my eyes, is high quality of life for present and future
generations of living things.  I think very few people out there in the
world are going to tell you that abortion is a GOOD thing.  It's a
situationally necessary evil.  I think everyone in the whole world would
LOVE to see a day when no pregnancy is ever aborted.  But we take care of
that not by simply drawing a line in the sand and forcing all pregnant
women to suffer.  We take care of that by building a world in which all
women are able to feel safe and secure in their choice to bear a child
before getting pregnant.  You're not going to get there on some abstinence
agenda.  That's like giving folks the internet and then telling them it's
wrong and bad to share information.  It ain't going to happen and that's
not even a remotely bad thing.

Sexual relationships can be enormously rewarding and an amazing
opportunity for personal growth.  I think the longer a person maintains an
intimate (and likely sexual) relationship with another human being in the
flesh, the better parent they will be.  I think it's best to allow people
to explore their sexuality and intimately bond with the folks around them
before you saddle them with the greatest intimacy life has to offer -- the
bond between a biological parent and child.

Don't punish folks for seeking intimacy.  It's a stepping stone that all
potential parents should experience on their path to raising a child.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list