Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder2.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a
 Smear
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 14:40:25 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 154
Message-ID: <vfrdn9$1mfa3$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vdn1t8$3sog6$1@dont-email.me> <vdn4mv$3t78e$2@dont-email.me>
 <9lrbhjth817stv8fotbo3ibig1qpqjpoh5@4ax.com>
 <6ctchjp5n73v2had88s5smaq7eac755vc6@4ax.com> <vf6026$10842$1@dont-email.me>
 <8ehfhj9jphf08ssafje6l45ugf8dd4gjub@4ax.com>
 <027mhjd9dd0b2m87u0a8213ld6mgqt7h5o@4ax.com>
 <0fdd7892-047a-a12d-7596-195e6572c8a6@example.net>
 <lo1lnmFg0hbU1@mid.individual.net> <vfgddv$37obh$1@dont-email.me>
 <162qhjd6bb8kkisqupgvfo0v3pu45m6krn@4ax.com> <vfp60g$16va4$4@dont-email.me>
 <jj02ijp0810eh17tp0vq4gpbj43k6j7hah@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2024 20:40:27 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8f7b607ef7655162e4b76dcb861a7ead";
	logging-data="1785155"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MCMvI1rWKdq6AbTyPHF+wtSgdqplPEOc="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:v2jb4bhxqYt3hFST7xvb7HYvQP0=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <jj02ijp0810eh17tp0vq4gpbj43k6j7hah@4ax.com>
Bytes: 9917

On 10/29/2024 11:02 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 18:16:32 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 10/26/2024 10:31 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 08:27:59 -0700, Bobbie Sellers
>>> <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/25/24 06:45, Chris Buckley wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-10-25, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 24 Oct 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm from BC (Canada) and had our provincial election Saturday. I voted
>>>>>>> in the advance poll at our local recreation center which is about 2-3
>>>>>>> miles from home and fairly close to my favorite grocery store. Can't
>>>>>>> recall whether I voted first shopped after or vice versa but it was
>>>>>>> the same trip away from home. My candidate didn't win but that's not
>>>>>>> the point - far better to have voted and lost than not to have voted
>>>>>>> at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disagree. If there is no candidate that represents my view, I would be
>>>>>> doing democracy a disservice by voting. By not voting, I send a clear
>>>>>> signal that the current politicians are of low quality and/or incompetent,
>>>>>> and that they in no way deserve me participating in the system.
>>>>>
>>>>> I very strongly disagree. Voting is critical; at a minimum we must
>>>>> distinguish our distaste for current candidates from the apathetic not
>>>>> caring about the issue. Vote for the candidate you agree with most; if
>>>>> there actually are none, then write-in "Mickey Mouse" or "Hatsune
>>>>> Miku" if you're somewhat younger. That sends a clear signal; not
>>>>> voting sends nothing at all in the US (it does send a signal in those
>>>>> countries with mandatory voting.) You are not going to find a
>>>>> candidate that represents your view 100% unless you're the candidate
>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is now the third Presidential election in a row that I can't vote
>>>>> for either major party candidate - in the previous 40 years it only
>>>>> happened once. Times are changing. But the need to vote is still there.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In additiona, democracy is a violent act, since it represents you, through
>>>>>> the possible force of the majority, imposing your will on others, by the
>>>>>> threat of violence if they do not comply. This is unethical.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Pacifists and libertarians can, due to their ethics and political beliefs,
>>>>>> not vote in democratic elections and remain consistent with their moral
>>>>>> positions.
>>>>>
>>>>> D, I would not have thought that you were that much a proponent of
>>>>> today's cancel culture. The modern notion that if you object strongly
>>>>> to one belief of a person or group/party you must completely disassociate
>>>>> yourself from that person or group, is tearing apart our society.  We're
>>>>> unable to discuss or even recognize the good qualities of that person/group.
>>>>>
>>>>> There's no reason for pacifists and libertarians not to participate in
>>>>> a democracy despite their disagreement about what some of what a
>>>>> government should do. That's cancel culture.  Would you really not
>>>>> vote for someone like Chase Oliver (Libertarian Party candidate)
>>>>> because of that, D?  Just about the only group who philosophically
>>>>> should not vote are the anarchists.
>>>>>
>>>>> As they say "Democracy sucks; it just sucks less than the alternatives."
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 	All American Anarchists should always vote for the most competent
>>>> candidate.  We should do that because as bad as
>>>> government is it is far better constrained by even imperfect
>>>> basic law than by men acting on whims and without information.
>>>> 	 We see in nations where Government has collapsed and
>>>> anarchy prevales that misery excalates. We see in nations
>>>> ruled by dictatorships of the Left or of the Right that misery
>>>> ensues. So goverment by the Constitution is better but certain
>>>> branches of the Government have resigned their proper functions
>>>> and allowed one or more other branches to improperly
>>>> execute the duty of other branches. One branch has the duty
>>>> of comparing non-basic law to the basic law for conflict
>>>> but the so called justices have dragged the common law of
>>>> superstitious monarchies into the case. They presume to
>>>> place their interpretation of religion against modern science
>>>> and in addition prominent members have accepted large gifts
>>> >from parties who have interests in the presented cases.
>>>
>>> An excellent summary of our current situation. Just two quibbles and
>>> an observation:
>>>
>>> 1. Freedom of religion and a prohibition on a State Church (which
>>> would include Science acting as a religion, BTW) /are/ part of the
>>> basic law (the Constitution, as amended).
>>>
>>> 2. The concept that human life begins at conception /is/ modern
>>> science; they are merely drawing the inevitable consequences from this
>>> belief. It is truly amazing that so many anti-modernist Christians
>>> ("Evangelicals") have adopted the /scientific/ viewpoint and abandoned
>>> the historical Christian viewpoint (that human life begins when the
>>> child draws breath independently of the mother. And, yes, spending
>>> time on a respirator for a while /does/ count.)
>>>
>>> 3. Abortion has been discouraged for a long long time. The Hippocratic
>>> Oath, from 3 or 4 centuries BC, includes a pledge by doctors not to
>>> provide a drug to induce one. But this was because they believed the
>>> fetus to be a human being (except potentially); it was because they
>>> believed it to be the property of the father. Abortion was regarded as
>>> a form of property theft. Keep in mind that the mother was also,
>>> unless hanky-panky was involved, the property of the father.
>>
>> I am confused.  So are you saying that my wife could have been killed at
>> birth in 1958 since she was born three weeks late and had hyaline
>> membrane disease ?  The USA Army doctor in Camp Jama, Japan built a
>> hodgepodge oxygenated incubator for her in which she lived for six weeks
>> until her body absorbed the hyaline membrane and was able to breath
>> normal air.
> 
> This is /exactly/ the sort of response that my statement "And, yes,
> spending time on respirator for a while /does/ count" was intended to
> prevent. Sorry you found it confusing.
> 
> If you prefer, you can use "live birth" as the criterion.
> 
> I think you will find that Texas uses this criterion to decide when a
> human being now exists.
> 
> Most, if not all, States use this criterion and designate a new human
> being by issuing a birth certificate, so the criteria for issuing
> birth certificates is relevant here, particularly since it often (if
> not always) goes back to times that were undeniably part of a
> Christian culture and so reflects the traditional Christian viewpoint.
> Also, the definition of "citizen" in the Constitution is, in part,
> about people /born/ in this country. There is nothing about the as-yet
> unborn being citizens.
> 
> My point was, however, that the SC /was/ using scientific criteria.
> That is, it accepted the scientific viewpoint that human beings are
> just animals and so their lives start at conception and working from
> there. Even Roe v Wade used it -- this is why it started with a long
> period in which there can be no restrictions on abortion and then
> recognizes that the State has a growing interest in the potential
> child. This is basically a matter of "rights in conflict" -- but only
> if you accept that human beings are just animals.
> 
> It is also why, if a National Abortion Policy is ever adopted, it will
> probably look a /lot/ like Roe v Wade. And may even end up in the
> Constitution, with perhaps a few additions, just to prevent future
> hanky-panky.

What is SC ?  State Church ?  Supreme Court ?

BTW, people get really touchy about babies and live births.  One minute 
everything is ok in the delivery process, five minutes later the baby is 
dead.  Been there, done that, got a baby daughter in a cemetery who was 
born dead due to the umbilical cord wrapped three times around her neck. 
  Traumatic does not even begin to describe the process.

Lynn