To: Neocon who wrote (17334 ) 4/23/2000 6:01:00 PM From: E Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769667
Please read what I wrote with a more standard interpretation of the use of the concept "sanity prevailing" in discussion of issues that have become polarized to the extreme. I don't believe that your position giving state protection to a still non-sentient (no feelings, no thoughts, no sensations) biological "organism," including a zygote, over the desperate adult woman in whom the organism is growing is "clinically insane," or that, at the opposite end of the spectrum, infanticide (abortion at seven months) is "clinically insane." I think they don't "represent" "sanity" in this debate, and I think both positions are inhumane (even monstrously so; ideology, of which religion can be a species, unfortunately has the ability to turn otherwise decent people into monsters (though it doesn't always, of course)), and destined inevitably to end, in this democratic country. The main reason I am sure of this is that all the people know 1) that a seven month old fetus is a baby, and 2) that a nonsentient inch and a half long "organism" (this is at 8 weeks; at 6 weeks, it's under a half inch; thanks to PROLIFE for the data) isn't a baby; and they know that the politicians and zealots who make hay with this issue will be able to get abortions for their mistresses or daughters or wives when, er, "discommoding," pregnancies occur; and they know that all the rich will always have good medical abortions even if they have to fly to another state or country to get them. Unfairness at a certain level of blatantness bothers people. We all appreciate subtlety. I did put "sanity" in quotes a couple of times-- a clue. If I hurt your feelings in a personal way, I apologize and hope this clarification has undone that harm.