Abortion is an evil for the mother and the baby
IkthusMD
I believe abortion is one of the biggest evils of our land. Not just
because there's a victim that has never seen the light of day is tortured
and murdered in worst ways than we treat our criminals. The woman is also
a victim. The woman's problems just begin that day. The medical community
and groups pressure and deceive women into having it.
"Glamour" (2/94) the popular woman's magazine, after receiving input from
300 women reported, "Virtually all of those who'd had abortions in the
past said that if they'd only known how much they'd regret having an
abortion, they would never have agreed to the procedure...The births of
subsequent children or some other exposures to the intricacies of child
development were often listed as experiences that helped them see how
misguided thy had been in deciding to abort." One woman said, ""Society
told me it (abortion) was save and legal. And the abortionist and her
medical crew never counseled me on anything - the procedure itself and the
risks, the alternatives, and what my choices were...I wonder why, if I had
participating in this wonderful, self liberating experience, I did not
feel a sense of deliverance, but a loss of self-respect, and little by
little a loss of myself.
<IXOYE><
Ikthus of Maryland
(Main Email: Ikt...@juno.com)
(Juno is FREE email)
Christine A. Owens
>I believe abortion is one of the biggest evils of our land.
Many disagree with you.
>The medical community
>and groups pressure and deceive women into having it.
Evidence?
>
>
> "Glamour" (2/94) the popular woman's magazine, after receiving input
from
>300 women reported,
Biased surveys prove nothing. ALL statistically accurate studies on
this issue show that the vast majority of women who have had an
abortion do not believe that they made a mistake.
Chris Owens
Your bark is my dinner bell.
Christine A. Owens (cao...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >I believe abortion is one of the biggest evils of our land.
:
: Many disagree with you.
I'm one of those who disagrees.
: > "Glamour" (2/94) the popular woman's magazine, after receiving input
: from
: >300 women reported,
: Biased surveys prove nothing.
Chris is right. Voluntary surveys (especially put out by popular
magazines such as "Glamour," which don't use adequate statistical analysys
when reporting their findings) are a pretty bad method of collecting
information like this. Why? Because usually it's the people who have had
a terrible experience and want to complain or "warn others" who are
motivated enough to respond. People who were more indifferent or who even
felt relief without regret later simply don't have that "anguish" about
the issue that drives them to respond to such a survey. Out of the
thousands of magazines that Glamour puts out, only 300 women responded *at
all* to the survey. Statistically speaking, there are probably *many,
many* more women who read Glamour who have also had abortions who did
*not* respond to the survey. The simple fact that most of these women did
*not* care to respond to the survey makes the survey statistically
unreliable.
: ALL statistically accurate studies on
: this issue show that the vast majority of women who have had an
: abortion do not believe that they made a mistake.
Chris,
I would be very interested in any information you have concerning these
studies, and their methods of statistical analysis.
Kris
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <4q62h1$7...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>,
cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote:
>>I believe abortion is one of the biggest evils of our land.
>
>Many disagree with you.
>
>
>>and groups pressure and deceive women into having it.
>
>Evidence?
>>
>>
>from
>>300 women reported,
>
>Biased surveys prove nothing.
Yeah, you've got to watch out for that anti-choice pushing bunch at Glamour."
ALL statistically accurate studies on
>this issue show that the vast majority of women who have had an
>abortion do not believe that they made a mistake.
>
All? Name five.
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4q5aeb$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
IkthusMD <ikth...@aol.com> wrote:
>I believe abortion is one of the biggest evils of our land. Not just
>because there's a victim that has never seen the light of day is tortured
>and murdered in worst ways than we treat our criminals. The woman is also
>and groups pressure and deceive women into having it.
>
The woman is the one who makes the decision to have abortion. She seeks
a doctor to perform it. How can she be a victim? Is it that you
generally view women as incapable of making decisions and not legally
responsible or is it just abortion?
Was Susan Smith a victim in your view?
Osmo
STEPHANIE GREAVES
On 19 Jun 1996, Osmo Ronkanen wrote:
> Date: 19 JUN 1996 21:06:37 +0300 > From: Osmo Ronkanen
<ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi> > Newgroups: alt.feminism,
alt.feminism.individualism, alt.feminazis, > alt.abortion.inequity,
talk.abortion, alt.support.abortion, > alt.flame.abortion > Subject: Re:
Abortion is an evil for the mother and the baby > > In article
view? > > Osmo > > Why do women need to have abortions anyway? I wonder
how often it is because of the stigma associated with being pregnant and
un-married. If there wasn't this stigma, then perhaps there would be less
abortion, nobody WANTS to see more of it, whether they support it or not.
I find it strange that the sort of people who most vehemently oppose
abortion are also the ones who have the strongest things to say about the
morals of being pregnant and un-married, and against support like single
mothers' pension etc. On one hand they fight against abortion and on the
other they add to the pressure to have one.
*baffling*
Steph.
Mike B
On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, STEPHANIE GREAVES wrote:
[snip]
> Why do women need to have abortions anyway? I wonder
> how often it is because of the stigma associated with being pregnant and
> un-married. If there wasn't this stigma, then perhaps there would be less
> abortion, nobody WANTS to see more of it, whether they support it or not.
> I find it strange that the sort of people who most vehemently oppose
> abortion are also the ones who have the strongest things to say about the
> morals of being pregnant and un-married, and against support like single
> mothers' pension etc. On one hand they fight against abortion and on the
> other they add to the pressure to have one.
>
> *baffling*
>
> Steph.
And how many wrongs do you think makes a right?
Morality is not just a nasty stigma. Well to you maybe, but so what?
It's baffling that you would think "those sort of people" can manage to
create a "stigma" so powerful as to render women of choice helpless
against it, driving them to to have abortions, when we can't manage to
create a stigma about abortion itself.
It's not enough that we can't get a law banning abortion, you want us to
shut up too.
My point........if some women are affected by "stigma" surrounding unwed
pregnancy, why aren't those same women affected by the "stigma"
surrounding abortion.
Of course, if you like the idea of treating morals as stigmas that are, at
best, questionable in your mind, then perhaps you'd like to rethink all
the others and tell me what kind of world it might be then?
Some men don't think rape is all that bad, what do you think?
And what makes you think your opinion on the matter is the right one?
Mike
(Hitler outlawed abortion, he needed more z/e/f's to fight the world with)
Mike B
Ray, don't you ever get tired of splitting posts into fragmented sentences
and commenting on each and every thought and idea.........at all? Cute
comebacks are amusing at best the first time, but they get OLD
fast........pplleeaassee......spare us.......
Christine A. Owens
>My point........if some women are affected by "stigma" surrounding
unwed
>pregnancy, why aren't those same women affected by the "stigma"
>surrounding abortion.
How do you know that they aren't? However, may I suggest that unwed
pregnancy is a very PUBLIC state, where abortion is not.
Chris Owens
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <4qe12b$7...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
You may not. Abortion clinics are quite public, and haven't you heard from
your pro-abort friends that they are "under seige" by the anti-choicers
screaming at them and taking their pictures?
Christine is right! If we had so much influence on the guilt feelings of
others, there wouldn't be 4,400 abortions per day.
S.
Steven T. Gladin
In <Pine.SOL.3.91.96062...@qni.com>, Mike B
<mbri...@qni.com> wrote:
MB> Ray, don't you ever get tired of splitting posts into fragmented
MB> sentences and commenting on each and every thought and idea
What's the matter? Can't your lies stand up under scrutiny and criticism?
MB> Cute comebacks are amusing at best the first time, but they get OLD
MB> fast
Pro-lie posters tend to be amusing for a while because of the novelty of
their absurdity. They get old fast.
MB> ........pplleeaassee......spare us.......
Please take your own advice.
MB> (Hitler outlawed abortion, he needed more z/e/f's to fight the world with)
And like Hitler, the pro-lie crowd seems to think that if they repeat
their lies often enough, they will be believed.
IkthusMD
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96...@qni.com>, Mike B
<mbri...@qni.com> writes:
>
>(Hitler outlawed abortion, he needed more z/e/f's to fight the world
with)
>
>
Actually he outlawed it for Aryians. The "lessor" people it was
encouraged.
Plan Parenthood targets the "lessor" people just like it's founders.
Connection?
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96...@qni.com>,
Mike B <mbri...@qni.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Jun 1996, STEPHANIE GREAVES wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>> Why do women need to have abortions anyway? I wonder
>> how often it is because of the stigma associated with being pregnant and
>> un-married. If there wasn't this stigma, then perhaps there would be less
>> abortion, nobody WANTS to see more of it, whether they support it or not.
>> I find it strange that the sort of people who most vehemently oppose
>> abortion are also the ones who have the strongest things to say about the
>> morals of being pregnant and un-married, and against support like single
>> mothers' pension etc. On one hand they fight against abortion and on the
>> other they add to the pressure to have one.
>>
>> *baffling*
>>
>> Steph.
>
>And how many wrongs do you think makes a right?
What wrongs are you talking about?
>
>Morality is not just a nasty stigma. Well to you maybe, but so what?
What has having sex to do with morality?
>It's baffling that you would think "those sort of people" can manage to
>create a "stigma" so powerful as to render women of choice helpless
>against it, driving them to to have abortions, when we can't manage to
>create a stigma about abortion itself.
>
There has always been stigma on abortion, but that has not prevented
women from having them. It just means that those women will not brag on
their abortions.
>It's not enough that we can't get a law banning abortion, you want us to
>shut up too.
If you really want to prevent abortions, speak for birth control,
campaign for free and confidential availability thereof for every woman
regardless of age or wealth. Campaign for sex education etc.
>
>My point........if some women are affected by "stigma" surrounding unwed
>pregnancy, why aren't those same women affected by the "stigma"
>surrounding abortion.
Abortion is a private matter, having a child is not. Think about it. It
is a fact that when the society condemns female sexuality and unwed
mothers, women are more willing to seek abortions legally or illegally.
>
>Of course, if you like the idea of treating morals as stigmas that are, at
>best, questionable in your mind, then perhaps you'd like to rethink all
>the others and tell me what kind of world it might be then?
>
Not all people view sex as immoral.
>Some men don't think rape is all that bad, what do you think?
>And what makes you think your opinion on the matter is the right one?
Rape is brutal violation of the rights of the victim.
Osmo
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <4qgil3$a...@huron.eel.ufl.edu>,
afn0...@freenet2.afn.org (Steven T. Gladin) wrote:
>In <Pine.SOL.3.91.96062...@qni.com>, Mike B
><mbri...@qni.com> wrote:
>
>MB> Ray, don't you ever get tired of splitting posts into fragmented
>MB> sentences and commenting on each and every thought and idea
>
>What's the matter? Can't your lies stand up under scrutiny and criticism?
>
>MB> Cute comebacks are amusing at best the first time, but they get OLD
>MB> fast
>
>Pro-lie posters tend to be amusing for a while because of the novelty of
>their absurdity. They get old fast.
>
>MB> ........pplleeaassee......spare us.......
>
>Please take your own advice.
>
with)
>
>And like Hitler, the pro-lie crowd seems to think that if they repeat
>their lies often enough, they will be believed.
Wooo! I guess we've been outflanked. We've been compared to Hitler! I guess
people with brown hair and brown eyes better shut up too since that makes them
"like Hitler."
The bald assertion that people lie simply proves nothing. You have to prove
they are wrong, that they knew that thaey were wrong, and that they continued
anyway in hopes the lie would eventually be believed in order to compare
people to Hitler on the basis which you have used. You haven't even proven
that the pro-lifers are wrong yet, much less the rest.
S.
IkthusMD
>You may not. Abortion clinics are quite public, and haven't you heard
from
>your pro-abort friends that they are "under seige" by the anti-choicers
>screaming at them and taking their pictures?
>Christine is right! If we had so much influence on the guilt feelings of
>others, there wouldn't be 4,400 abortions per day.
1 -- We need to pray for them. (both the doctor and mother)
2 -- And we need to show pregnant women a few things
A -- The life inside of them is a human being
B -- That they too will suffer from this
C -- That they is help.
I think the last one is the most important. Too often pro-lifers
concentrate on the education side of the first two (which is important)
while Crisis Pregnancy Centers are under-funded and under-staffed. Put
your treasure, time and talent where your mouth is. Even if we can make
abortion illegal and stop all illegal abortions, the women will still need
CPC's. There are plenty for you to do. Seek out one today.
John Graley
In article <4qhuaj$n...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
writes:
> You haven't even proven
>that the pro-lifers are wrong yet, much less the rest.
Your pathetic, whiny demands for proof are sickening. No political point
of view can be proved right or wrong, only believed or disbelieved.
Your demands for proof have failed to make me believe your side of the
story. So while I had avoided this thread and remained impartial I am
forced to jump in and inform you you are talking out of your arse.
--
John Graley, jo...@hugebass.demon.co.uk
2 Belvedere Villas, Lansdown Road, Home: (+44) (01225) 466530
Bath, Somerset, England BA1 5HS Work: (+44) (01225) 444888
elizabeth frantes
John Graley <Jo...@hugebass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <4qhuaj$n...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
>writes:
>> You haven't even proven
>>that the pro-lifers are wrong yet, much less the rest.
>
>Your pathetic, whiny demands for proof are sickening.
Well, most sane folks like proof before they will accept
something as true, so I can understand why you don't see a need for
proof.
No political point
>of view can be proved right or wrong, only believed or disbelieved.
So we should not even try to verify facts?
goodgosha mighty, so the Reformation was all wet!~
All you need is faith! To hell with all that
scientific method crap, right?
>Your demands for proof have failed to make me believe your side of the
>story.
Most of us with functional brains go with the evidence.
I know you don't get that simple fact.
So while I had avoided this thread and remained impartial I am
>forced to jump in and inform you you are talking out of your arse.
Well, you ARE an expert in talking out of your anal orifice,
although it's amazing your head doesn't get in the way.
eaf
Siegen
>>I believe abortion is one of the biggest evils of our land.
>Many disagree with you.
>>The medical community
>>and groups pressure and deceive women into having it.
>Evidence?
>>
>>
>> "Glamour" (2/94) the popular woman's magazine, after receiving input
>>from 300 women reported,
>Biased surveys prove nothing. ALL statistically accurate studies on
>this issue show that the vast majority of women who have had an
>abortion do not believe that they made a mistake.
>Chris Owens
Like the girl said. "Biased surveys prove nothing".
-- Siegen
Siegen
>Christine A. Owens (cao...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: >I believe abortion is one of the biggest evils of our land.
>:
>: Many disagree with you.
>I'm one of those who disagrees.
>
>: > "Glamour" (2/94) the popular woman's magazine, after receiving input
>: from
>: >300 women reported,
>: Biased surveys prove nothing.
>Chris is right. Voluntary surveys (especially put out by popular
>magazines such as "Glamour," which don't use adequate statistical analysys
>when reporting their findings) are a pretty bad method of collecting
>information like this. Why?
Because they produce results which don't confirm claims made by
"pro-choicers".
>Because usually it's the people who have had
>a terrible experience and want to complain or "warn others" who are
>motivated enough to respond.
Notice the allusion to a personal knowledge of the respondents
and their motivations?
>People who were more indifferent or who even
>felt relief without regret later simply don't have that "anguish" about
>the issue that drives them to respond to such a survey. Out of the
>thousands of magazines that Glamour puts out, only 300 women responded *at
>all* to the survey. Statistically speaking, there are probably *many,
>many* more women who read Glamour who have also had abortions who did
>*not* respond to the survey. The simple fact that most of these women did
>*not* care to respond to the survey makes the survey statistically
>unreliable.
Those who did not regret their decisions to have an abortion
failed to materialise, so you say the result is "statistically
unreliable". I think you mean "statistically damaging to the
'pro-choice' case".
>: ALL statistically accurate studies on
>: this issue show that the vast majority of women who have had an
>: abortion do not believe that they made a mistake.
[snip]
>Kris
"statistically accurate studies" being those presented to us by
of the 'pro-choicers'.
-- Siegen
Neuron
In <4qptlb$c...@jeeves.usfca.edu> elizabeth frantes
<efra...@foghorn.usfca.edu> writes:
>
>John Graley <Jo...@hugebass.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In article <4qhuaj$n...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com
>>writes:
>>> You haven't even proven
>>>that the pro-lifers are wrong yet, much less the rest.
>>
>>Your pathetic, whiny demands for proof are sickening.
>
>Well, most sane folks like proof before they will accept
>something as true, so I can understand why you don't see a need for
>proof.
>
You can't prove an opinion, go bake to the 3rd grade and take english
over again because you claerly didn't get it the first go round.
> No political point
>>of view can be proved right or wrong, only believed or disbelieved.
>
>So we should not even try to verify facts?
>goodgosha mighty, so the Reformation was all wet!~
>All you need is faith! To hell with all that
>scientific method crap, right?
>
You fucking moron, can't you read either? A political point of view
can't be proven, he said nothing about not being able to varify facts.
What pro-liar "facts" do you want disproven? I can blast most out of
the water, and the rest are either opinion or pointless. I challenge
any pro-liar to a debte, I'll crush you.
>>Your demands for proof have failed to make me believe your side of
the
>>story.
>
>
>Most of us with functional brains go with the evidence.
>I know you don't get that simple fact.
That is a fact? Where is your proof that "most of us go with the
evidence." What evidence is this, and who is "us?" You are the one
talking out your ass with vauge referances rather than facts to back up
your bullshit.
>
>So while I had avoided this thread and remained impartial I am
>>forced to jump in and inform you you are talking out of your arse.
>
>Well, you ARE an expert in talking out of your anal orifice,
>although it's amazing your head doesn't get in the way.
>
>eaf
Well like a true pro-liar you have avoided anything of content or
varifiable fact, and insted gone with lame ranting bullshit to uphold
your point. Well if you get near a real debate feel free to post it,
and I will show you your ignorance.
Until you have a debate worth my time, fuck off!
--
-Nuron
Cruising down the Infomation Super Highway...
with my seat belt hanging out the door making sparks on the road.
\\
\\ ~* ~*
[o] ~*
Steven T. Gladin
In <4qhuaj$n...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com wrote:
s> In article <4qgil3$a...@huron.eel.ufl.edu>,
s> afn0...@freenet2.afn.org (Steven T. Gladin) wrote:
SG> And like Hitler, the pro-lie crowd seems to think that if they repeat
SG> their lies often enough, they will be believed.
s> Wooo! I guess we've been outflanked. We've been compared to Hitler!
Congratulations, you are not as stupid as I thought.
s> I guess people with brown hair and brown eyes better shut up too since
s> that makes them "like Hitler."
Why should I shut up? At least I am not telling lies.
s> The bald assertion that people lie simply proves nothing. You have to
s> prove they are wrong,
I suggest you review the many nuances of the word lie. A perfectly true
statement may also be a lie. Witness, for example, Mary Colleli:
{In response to a post indicating an annual rate of 100-150 abortions
performed after seven months of gestation she replied}:
MC> 100-150 late-term abortions in the U.S. annually? More like 15,000,
MC> performed after 21 weeks, according to a report from the Center for
MC> Disease Control,
Now I have no quibble with with a claim of 15,000 abortions annually after
21 weeks of gestation, but I do have a problem with the willful conversion
of seven 4-week months to seven 3-week months in order to make an appeal
to authority that pro-choice figures are off by two orders of magnitude.
When called on the discrepency she replied:
MC> The Center for Disease Control is an abortion-issue-neutral bunch of
MC> folks, and their report states that 15,000+ abortions occur annually
MC> in the U.S. AFTER 21 weeks, not AT 21 weeks only. This means that
MC> THEY consider anything after 21 weeks late-term,
Of course the CDC is not a neutral bunch of folks witness their funding
on gun control studies and the idiot figures they accept as statistics.
Of course the 15,000 figure relates to the annual abortions performed
after 21 weeks gestation and certainly it includes the 100-150 performed
after seven months. What this pro-liar blythly chooses to ignore is that
abortions occur between 21 weeks gestation and 28 weeks gestation and her
figures prove nothing with regards to the number after 28 weeks (other
than there are not more than 15000). Typical pro-lie, grab any factoid
remotely related to your position and claim it proves it or disproves a
pro-choice assertion.
And of course the fact that the CDC produces summary figures for 21+ weeks
of gestation is not an indication that they consider post 21 week abortions
"late term", but only that such abortions constitute such a small proportion
of abortions that there is no useful function to be served by dividing the
interval further in their summary.
You have lied to yourself so often, even you believe your own propaganda.
s> that they knew that thaey were wrong,
Again review the nuances of the definition of a lie. A person may make
a false statement in the belief that it is true; it is still a lie.
Witness, for example, Joe Belk:
>>When restricting analysis to parous women, those with a history of
>>abortion exhibited an elevated OR suggesting a 29 percent risk
>>increase if the incomplete pregnancy occurred before first
>>birth (CI = 1.16-1.36)
JB>The easy way to interpret this statistic is to consider a large
JB>population drawn from American women today, half with an early
JB>abortion and half with no pregnancy. If the population is large enough
JB>to produce 10,000 deaths from cancer among the women who never
JB>conceived, the women who aborted must show between 11600 and 13600
JB>deaths. That result is scientifically proved. Abortion caused 1600 to
JB>3600 deaths in this population.
Explain to me how a woman who never conceives can be parous.
If you select the appropriate confidence interval from the data presented
to match the scenerio postulated by Belk, you will conclude then number
of deaths from cancer to be anticipated is between 6800 and 10800, an
average of 1400 FEWER deaths from screwing and aborting as opposed to
remaining celibate. This is the exact opposite of the claims of pro-liar
Belk. Belk probably believed his statement to be true; it is still a lie.
s> and that they continued anyway in hopes the lie would eventually be
s> believed in order to compare people to Hitler on the basis which you
s> have used.
And how many times must I hear a zygote possess a human life from the
moment of conception before I am permitted to make this comparison? A
zygote does not yet possess those traits of life which differentiate a
living human from a human corpse. Cannot you separate what will be from
what is?
Again witness Joe Belk:
JB>Very nice. You produce evidence that I am right and proclaim it makes
JB>me wrong.
He takes the refuting evidence and claims it supports him (either thru
willful malice or terminal stupidity) as if repeating his position
validates it.
s> You haven't even proven that the pro-lifers are wrong yet, much less
s> the rest.
Perhaps you prefer Peter Nyikos:
PN> The body count game had to do with the number of abortions
PN> per year in the USA that *I* think should be called murder,
and
PN> Andrew "drieux" Hempe kept trying to claim in e-mail that I had
PN> called abortion murder, and I kept trying to assure him that I
PN> had not done so.
Trying to pin down a pro-liar is like trying to nail jelly to the
wall. I guess its OK to hide behind the subjunctive if you demand
absolute proof, but as far as I am concerned Nyikos is a typical
two-faced pro-liar. He changes his facts to fit the occasion.
*** FQ/2.0 *** If priests could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.
Sparkchaser
I find it extremely interesting that most of those who called returning
vets from Vietnam "Baby Killers" (when in reality 99.99999% were not)
would turn around and call abortion (which is the destruction of a
nascent life, ie: a Baby) "choice". How much hypocracy is a human being
capable of? If you want to kill your children in the womb, that's
actually fine with me; that means there will be less of your kind as time
passes, and the rest of us can build a society that actually lives
responsibly and not according to the selfish
"me-first-and-damn-the-consequences" crowd.
--
X-Signature: Sparkchaser
"Welcome to Arkansas... At Least Our Cows Are Sane..."
Sparkchaser, esq. Springdale,Ark... AKA Poultry Hell
.
GARY
For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
Bruce Forest
> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
To save their life, or preserve their health?
--
Bruce Forest...
bfo...@interramp.com
bfo...@futuris.net
bfo...@bliss.demon.co.uk
10416...@compuserve.com
dro...@aol.com...
PGP key on http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
"Throw back the little ones, and pan fry the big ones..
Use tact, poise and reason, and gently squeeze them."
Becker/Fagen 'Katy Lied'
Louis Cypher
In article <4rnc2r$1g...@ct1.snet.net>, GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
>For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
The off-chance that YOU might be the father?
Steve
GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
>For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
For social reasons, perhaps they feel that the world is not a good
place, or perhaps they feel that cannot raise a child
Steven T. Gladin
In <4rnc2r$1g...@CT1.SNET.Net>, GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
G> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
Do you understand what an ectopic pregnancy is? Of course, neither
the woman nor the fetus will survive, but at least your conscious
will be assuaged if the pregnancy is not terminated. Now who is the
selfish one?
As for an unselfish reason, consider the economics of a poor
mother -- she is better able to provide for her existing children
by refusing to bear more. This is as natural as a bird which
pushes a chick out of the nest to insure the survival of the rest.
In as much as this is done for the benefit of others (the existing
children) it cannot be described as a selfish act, except by those
who have their own selfish need to exculpate their interference in
the lives of others.
OTOH, you seem to think of being selfish as synonymous with evil.
I suggest you read Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_ for a
different perspective.
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Steven T. Gladin (afn0...@freenet3.afn.org) wrote:
: G> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
: ===<snip>===
: As for an unselfish reason, consider the economics of a poor
: mother -- she is better able to provide for her existing children
: by refusing to bear more. This is as natural as a bird which
: pushes a chick out of the nest to insure the survival of the rest.
: In as much as this is done for the benefit of others (the existing
: children) it cannot be described as a selfish act, except by those
: who have their own selfish need to exculpate their interference in
: the lives of others.
I have seen many ludricous arguments, but yours takes the cake. I
suppose, that for the sake of true gender-equality, you will propose next
that a mother or father can be allowed to kill the children they don't
want to permit them to be "better able to provide for" the surviving
"children by refusing to" provide for them any longer. All of that for
the sake of the "natural" unselfishness of the birds that you so admire.
Don't forget that people are not birds, and that, if you want to draw
comparisons between birds and people, the equivalent of the birds' nest is
the human's family. As well, don't forget the fact that the fledgelings
that the birds push out of their nests are beings that are alive! By your
line of reasoning, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with human
parents to either kill or abandon their children if they feel that they
have too many of them and feel that they can't adequately provide for
them--all for the sake of this being "natural". You reasoning could be
applied even if a parent has only a single child and feels that he can't
adequately provide for it.
You don't only want to eliminate civilization and bring us back to the
time of the cavemen, you want to take us back to the time of the
dinosaurs.
: OTOH, you seem to think of being selfish as synonymous with evil.
: I suggest you read Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_ for a
: different perspective.
Is that were you got your horrific idea from? Get a life! Let there be
no mistake about how I feel about your idea: *I think that it is evil.*
--
Walter H. Schneider Bruderheim, Alberta, Canada
jim brinkmann
They're doing it (infanticide) in China, not birds- humans. It's an
individual decision, you can't legislate that.
JimIn <4rr3v0$f...@news.sas.ab.ca> sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca ()
writes:
Neuron
>I have seen many ludricous arguments, but yours takes the cake. I
>suppose, that for the sake of true gender-equality, you will propose next
>that a mother or father can be allowed to kill the children they don't
>want to permit them to be "better able to provide for" the surviving
>"children by refusing to" provide for them any longer. All of that for
>the sake of the "natural" unselfishness of the birds that you so admire.
>
That was not the point he was making, somebody asked for an example of an
unselfish reason and one was given. It was not a justification for
killing living breathing children. However it is understandable that,
since pro-liars have no logical fact-based arguments to back their claims,
you would rather take the emotional route and try to change the point to
an emotional attack.
>Don't forget that people are not birds, and that, if you want to draw
>comparisons between birds and people, the equivalent of the birds' nest
is
>the human's family. As well, don't forget the fact that the fledgelings
>that the birds push out of their nests are beings that are alive! By your
>line of reasoning, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with human
>parents to either kill or abandon their children if they feel that they
>have too many of them and feel that they can't adequately provide for
>them--all for the sake of this being "natural". You reasoning could be
>applied even if a parent has only a single child and feels that he can't
>adequately provide for it.
You idiot, he was not drawing a moral argument you fucking twit! He was
showing quite well that death is offten a part of survival, and
selfishness plays no part in it, however with an IQ lower than your shoe
size I don't expect you to grasp such a concept.
>
>You don't only want to eliminate civilization and bring us back to the
>time of the cavemen, you want to take us back to the time of the
>dinosaurs.
>
Huh? I'll take you back to the time of the dinosaurs, and you can be
the guy who steps on the butterfly.
>: OTOH, you seem to think of being selfish as synonymous with evil.
>: I suggest you read Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_ for a
>: different perspective.
>
>Is that were you got your horrific idea from? Get a life! Let there
be
>no mistake about how I feel about your idea: *I think that it is
evil.*
>--
Define evil. Evil is a subjective concept created by moralist who have
no real argument to negate something.
Asharte
GARY wrote:
>
> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
Because either her body or her wallet can't handle a pregnancy.
--Asharte
Jillian
I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have a
child she did not want? Isn't imposing your own will on the life of
another selfish? No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself
outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for it is
the mother.
Hmmmm, if you are against abortion, DON'T have one. And I wonder if all
these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all the
children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster care? I
am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
Jillian
Papa Jack
Jillian wrote:
=================================================
>Jillian wrote:
> I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have a
> child she did not want? Isn't imposing your own will on the life of
> another selfish? No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself
> outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for it is
> the mother. =================================================
Papa Jack comments:
I am truely wondering how anyone could kill an innocent unborn?
Isn't taking the very life of another human for convenience the
most selfish act a human could commit? Of course the unborn is
alive from the very day of conception. You are saying it is
different -- but different from what? The newborn infant. The
12 year old adolescent? The middle-aged businessman? The
elderly grandmother? Now, stop and look at how very different
they are from one another -- BUT WE DON'T KILL THEM FOR BEING
DIFFERENT. You say "IT" mimicks life -- look at:
http://www.infinet.com/~life/qa/qawomb.htm
(give the photos some time to load -- they are worth it)
=================================================
Jillian wrote:
> Hmmmm, if you are against abortion, DON'T have one. And I wonder if all
> these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all the
> children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster care? I
> am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
=================================================
Papa Jack comments:
"Then don't have one." You know, Jullian, I thought that was
corny the first time I heard it a long time ago. Don't you
have any original thoughts?
Then, you pull the "guilt trip" routine. Pretty pathetic!
BYW, no I never gave foster care, but I did adopt my oldest
son 31 years ago. One of the greatest things I ever did.
He has made me very proud of him -- and he's given me
two perfect grandsons to love.
Your post makes you come across as a very shallow person.
You probably aren't really that way. Try giving a little
more thought to your posts -- don't just be a parrot.
Cheers.
--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Neuron
In <31E317...@express-news.net> Papa Jack
<papa...@express-news.net> writes:
>
>Jillian wrote:
>
> =================================================
>>Jillian wrote:
>> I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have
a
>> child she did not want? Isn't imposing your own will on the life of
>> another selfish? No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain
itself
>> outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for
it is
>> the mother.
=================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>I am truely wondering how anyone could kill an innocent unborn?
Innocent? Nope, the term innocent implies, and in fact requiers, the
possibility to lose said innocence, which a non-sentient fetus can't
do. By your definition rocks, spam, and warts are all innocent.
An unborn is, just that UNborn, it is not a person yet.
>Isn't taking the very life of another human for convenience the
>most selfish act a human could commit?
A fetus is not another human, it is a developing human. You don't call
a wad of dough bread, so why call a fetus a person?
Of course the unborn is
>alive from the very day of conception.
It is alive before conception, unless you know of a dead sperm
fertilizing a dead egg. Life is an unending cycle that has been going
of for billions of years.
You are saying it is
>different -- but different from what? The newborn infant.
Which one can live outside of the womb?
The
>12 year old adolescent?
Which one can live outside of the womb?
> The middle-aged businessman?
Which one can live outside of the womb?
>The elderly grandmother?
Which one can live outside of the womb?
> Now, stop and look at how very different
>they are from one another -- BUT WE DON'T KILL THEM FOR BEING
>DIFFERENT.
What is your point? We don't kill them because they are living
breathing, sentient beings, while a fetus is not.
> You say "IT" mimicks life -- look at:
>
> http://www.infinet.com/~life/qa/qawomb.htm
>
> (give the photos some time to load -- they are worth it)
>
What? A fetus is alive, it is not a person. Get your argument
streight.
> =================================================
>Jillian wrote:
>> Hmmmm, if you are against abortion, DON'T have one. And I wonder if
all
>> these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all
the
>> children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster
care? I
>> am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
>
> =================================================
>Papa Jack comments:
>"Then don't have one." You know, Jullian, I thought that was
>corny the first time I heard it a long time ago. Don't you
>have any original thoughts?
>
Can you negate the point? Obvouosly not. Where do you get the right
to say what somebody else can or can't do with their body? If you
don't support abortion, that is your right, but it is not your right to
force that view on another.
>Then, you pull the "guilt trip" routine. Pretty pathetic!
>BYW, no I never gave foster care, but I did adopt my oldest
>son 31 years ago. One of the greatest things I ever did.
>He has made me very proud of him -- and he's given me
>two perfect grandsons to love.
>
>Your post makes you come across as a very shallow person.
>You probably aren't really that way. Try giving a little
>more thought to your posts -- don't just be a parrot.
>
>Cheers.
Nice dodge, now try debating the point.
>
>--
>{ Papa Jack
>{
>{ http://www.express-news.net/papajack
>
> "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
> men are created equal; that they are endowed by
> their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
> among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Funny is says creator, doesn't that mean the mother? If the
mother/creator is the one endowing the basic rights, does that not
imply that she also has the power to halt said creation and endowment?
Ray Fischer
followups
Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net> wrote:
>I am truely wondering how anyone could kill an innocent unborn?
Why don't you ask yourself that question? After all, children die by
the tens of thousands daily while you sit around and do nothing to
save them. Why should a woman be forced to go through childbirth when
you can't even be bothered to be inconvenienced?
>Isn't taking the very life of another human for convenience the
>most selfish act a human could commit?
Is it? Are you that selfish?
Apparently so. And apparently a hypocrite as well.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
nobl...@centum.utulsa.edu
(Jillian) writes:
> I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have a
> child she did not want? Isn't imposing your own will on the life of
> another selfish?
Isn't killing someone for your own convenience selfish also? The road goes
both ways. I do not have a right to impose my will on others, but neither do
you.
> No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself
> outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for it is
> the mother.
This has been debated over and over again. Why do doctors tell women not to
take drugs or to drink while they are pregnant if the child in the womb is not
alive? I mean it is not like the child is the same as your liver. Your liver
does not kick you, does not suck its thumb. But a child in the womb does. Why
can't anyone get that into their heads. The child is alive!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Hmmmm, if you are against abortion, DON'T have one. And I wonder if all
> these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all the
> children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster care? I
> am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
> Jillian
No I haven't. I cant have an abortion either because I am a man. But I am
looking forward to raising my very alive and human child that is due here in
Oct. Any questions!!!!! We not talking about foster care ( I think it is
needed, so don't go there), we are talking about the fundamental right to life
and how women expect their rights to be protected even at the expense of
someone else's. You might as well stop now, because after what I have
experienced with my wife, there is NO WAY you can convince me that my child is
not alive while he/she is developing in the womb. Care for children goes even
farther than foster care. We all do what we can. You attempt at making the
pro-life camp sound heartless has failed. Go back to grade school!
Mike
Ray Fischer
followups
<nobl...@centum.utulsa.edu> wrote:
>(Jillian) writes:
>> I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have a
>> child she did not want? Isn't imposing your own will on the life of
>> another selfish?
>
>Isn't killing someone for your own convenience selfish also?
Maybe, but you are just as selfish because you let people die for the
sake of your conveniences.
> The road goes
>both ways. I do not have a right to impose my will on others, but neither do
>you.
Fine. The woman and the embryo get to go their separate ways, neither
imposing upon the other.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
John Schwartz
god...@intac.com (Jillian) wrote:
>I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have a
>child she did not want?
First of all, many pro-lifers would never propose a woman take
to term a baby that was the result of those rare instances of
rape, or when the life of the mother is in clear physical
peril. I have as much of a problem with pro-lifers who
espouse the notion that abortion is wrong in any context as
with pro-choicers who believe any reason is a good reason to
abort.
Isn't imposing your own will on the life of
>another selfish?
This must be looked at in relation to the context. Imposing
my will on someone who breaks into my home is justifiable.
Imposing my will on someone who is clearly diagnosed with a
mental illness that leads them to be dangerous to others is
justifiable. Neither constitutes "selfish" in a negative way.
No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself
>outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for it is
>the mother.
Simply not true. The z/e/f is most definitely alive, by any
definition. Whether that life is what we would arbitrarily
call "human" is open to debate. And as long as it is not
absolutely proveable, one way or the other, then how can
anyone justify taking what is even possibly a "human life" for
no better reason than convenience?
>Hmmmm, if you are against abortion, DON'T have one. And I wonder if all
>these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all the
>children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster care? I
>am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
So, using your logic, we shouldn't have a problem with
abortion because it would create too many unwanted babies,
right? I agree, there would be a glut of unwanted kids. But
the answer is increased use of contraception, and a change in
the behavior of sexually active adults, NOT the taking of a
possible human life after the fact. And if we cannot evoke
that change through education and peer pressure, then we
simply must deal with the increased number of unwanted kids.
We're a smart species, relatively speaking, and we tend to do
just fine when faced with seemingly unsolvable dilemmas.
It's glib to take the easy way out and condone abortion for
convenience as a means of last-ditch contraception. I'd be
the first to defend abortion for any reason if it could be
shown that the z/e/f is not a "human life" until the instant
of birth. If it's just life, and not "human life," then it
would be no different than plucking a weed, or stepping on an
ant. As it stands now, though, there is no irrefutable
evidence that completely vindicates the notion that birth is
the point at which we should call the entity a "human life."
So, we should not be so care-free with how we treat a possible
"human life." If a choice must be made because the mother's
life is in demonstrable peril, then of course we should choose
the definite "human life" (mother) over the possible "human
life" (z/e/f). But for nothing more than convenience,
choosing to end a possible "human life" is absurd and just
plain wrong, by any known standards.
John
kelly thibodeau
John Schwartz wrote:
> ...the answer is increased use of contraception, and a change in
> the behavior of sexually active adults, NOT the taking of a
> possible human life after the fact. And if we cannot evoke
> that change through education and peer pressure, then we
> simply must deal with the increased number of unwanted kids.
Contraception and education is important, but it will never do away
with the need for abortion, which is a backstop measure. Dr. Henry
Morgentaler, Canada's foremost abortion doctor, makes a case that
because of legalized abortion over the last generation, we are seeing
a substantial decrease in violent crime now. He sees abortion as a
moral good and a positive choice, not only for the woman, who knows
best how many children she is capable of taking care of properly,
but for society at large, which does not have to pay the high price of
dealing with the consequences of unwanted kids. I agree with him.
> ... But for nothing more than convenience,
> choosing to end a possible "human life" is absurd and just
> plain wrong, by any known standards.
Let women decide whether it's a real human life or a possible
human life. The relative value of a embryo/fetus is entirely subjective
anyway. Everyone has their own opinion. Why shouldn't women be allowed
to rely on theirs when making their decision? But as far as
law and society is concerned, you're not a person with any meaningful place
in society until you're born. Fetuses clearly have less less value to
society than existing people.
Having a baby is not an inconvenience. It is a major decision that changes
your whole life. If women are not ready for it, they are acting responsibly
and morally when they choose to abort. They are doing themselves, their family,
everyone around them, society at large, and the unwanted baby a big favour.
As the Bible says, better to have died in the womb than live a miserable life.
Joyce Arthur
Neuron
>No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself
>>outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for
it is
>>the mother.
>
>Simply not true. The z/e/f is most definitely alive, by any
>definition. Whether that life is what we would arbitrarily
>call "human" is open to debate. And as long as it is not
>absolutely proveable, one way or the other, then how can
>anyone justify taking what is even possibly a "human life" for
>no better reason than convenience?
Nope, sorry it can be proven that a fetus is not yet a person. A fetus
is not sentient until the cerebrum develops, the cerebrum is the part
of the human brain responcable for higher brain functions like thought,
emotion, memory, and perception. As long as a fetus is lacking a
cerebrum it is nothing more than a lump of human shaped flesh.
>>Hmmmm, if you are against abortion, DON'T have one. And I wonder if
all
>>these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all the
>>children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster care?
I
>>am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
>
>So, using your logic, we shouldn't have a problem with
>abortion because it would create too many unwanted babies,
>right? I agree, there would be a glut of unwanted kids. But
>the answer is increased use of contraception, and a change in
>the behavior of sexually active adults, NOT the taking of a
>possible human life after the fact. And if we cannot evoke
>that change through education and peer pressure, then we
>simply must deal with the increased number of unwanted kids.
>We're a smart species, relatively speaking, and we tend to do
>just fine when faced with seemingly unsolvable dilemmas.
>It's glib to take the easy way out and condone abortion for
>convenience as a means of last-ditch contraception. I'd be
>the first to defend abortion for any reason if it could be
>shown that the z/e/f is not a "human life" until the instant
>of birth. If it's just life, and not "human life," then it
>would be no different than plucking a weed, or stepping on an
>ant.
Birth is not the moment a fetus becomes a human, but it is not until
the 7th month that a fetus develops a cerebrum. The safe cut off point
would be when a fetus can survive outside of the womb without any
special effort like incubation. Which is around the 7th month as well.
So since most abortions occure in the first trimester you should have
no problem with this.
>As it stands now, though, there is no irrefutable
>evidence that completely vindicates the notion that birth is
>the point at which we should call the entity a "human life."
>So, we should not be so care-free with how we treat a possible
>"human life." If a choice must be made because the mother's
>life is in demonstrable peril, then of course we should choose
>the definite "human life" (mother) over the possible "human
>life" (z/e/f). But for nothing more than convenience,
>choosing to end a possible "human life" is absurd and just
>plain wrong, by any known standards.
Can you give an example of any 8th or 9th month abortions that don't
happen because the mother's health is in danger? The fact is most
abortions are done so early in the pregnancy that it is claer the fetus
is not a human yet.
John Graley
I couldn't care less if a woman has an abortion or not. It's none of my
business.
So stop wasting my download time, assholes.
Cheers, John
Steven T. Gladin
In <31E317...@express-news.net>, Papa Jack <papa...@express-news.net>
wrote:
PJ> I am truely wondering how anyone could kill an innocent unborn?
Several methods are available. Do you really need a catalog of
abortion methodologies?
PJ> Isn't taking the very life of another human for convenience the
PJ> most selfish act a human could commit?
You beg the question of "convenience", abortions may well be a
medical necessity. Or is your continued existance just a personal
convience we should also overlook?
Are you another of these pro-liars who cannot separate the decision
to engage in coitus from the decison to reproduce? The two decisions
are distinct and severable.
PJ> Of course the unborn is alive from the very day of conception.
Is it now? Up to about twenty-two days post conception, two blastocysts
are capable of fusing and developing as a single fetus. Where does the
extra life go? Is this fetus really two people, entitled to two votes
on election day?
You really need to learn to distinguish between living tissue and a life.
If you need help, look at organ transplant donors. Many no longer have
a life, but their tissue is still living. Show me what distinguishes
between those who still have a life from those who do not. Then show me
that aborted concepti possessed the traits of those with a life prior to
the abortions.
PJ> You are saying it is different -- but different from what?
A human being. Show me a human being which is capable of asexual
reproduction.
PJ> The newborn infant.
For that matter, show me a newborn infant which is capable of asexual
OR sexual reproduction.
PJ> -- BUT WE DON'T KILL THEM FOR BEING DIFFERENT.
What makes you think pregnancies are terminated because the conceptus
is different. Pregnancies are terminated because the woman does
not wish to reproduce.
*** FQ/2.0 *** Your mother should have an abortion, post partum.
Steven T. Gladin
WS> In <4rr3v0$f...@news.sas.ab.ca>, sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
WS> Steven T. Gladin (afn0...@freenet3.afn.org) wrote:
SG> In <4rnc2r$1g...@CT1.SNET.Net>, GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
G>> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
SG> ===<snip>===
I note you conviently overlook the selfish woman who aborts her
pregnancy to preserve her own life when she knows continuation
will be fatal to both her and her fetus.
SG> As for an unselfish reason, consider the economics of a poor
SG> mother -- she is better able to provide for her existing children
SG> by refusing to bear more. This is as natural as a bird which
SG> pushes a chick out of the nest to insure the survival of the rest.
SG> In as much as this is done for the benefit of others (the existing
SG> children) it cannot be described as a selfish act, except by those
SG> who have their own selfish need to exculpate their interference in
SG> the lives of others.
WS> I have seen many ludricous arguments, but yours takes the cake.
Well let's see whose argument is ludicrous.
WS> I suppose, that for the sake of true gender-equality, you will
WS> propose next that a mother or father can be allowed to kill the
WS> children they don't want to permit them to be "better able to
WS> provide for" the surviving "children by refusing to" provide
WS> for them any longer.
Nothing above suggests that I would advocate same. OTOH, I would
maintain that such would not be a "selfish act" as it based on the
the needs of others besides those performing the act.
WS> All of that for the sake of the "natural" unselfishness of the
WS> birds that you so admire.
Why would killing a child or aborting a pregnancy be for the purpose
or advantage of a bird's unselfishness? I guess your musings are
typical of pro-liars, nonsensical.
WS> Don't forget that people are not birds,
So? Don't both try to provide for their offspring? Why should one
species be different from another in seeking to keep family size
within bounds of available resourses?
WS> if you want to draw comparisons between birds and people the
WS> equivalent of the birds' nest is the human's family.
Really? I would compare the nest to a house or an apartment.
WS> As well, don't forget the fact that the fledgelings that the
WS> birds push out of their nests are beings that are alive!
Do you think the mother bird overlooked this?
WS> By your line of reasoning, there would be absolutely nothing
WS> wrong with human parents to either kill or abandon their children
WS> if they feel that they have too many of them and feel that they
WS> can't adequately provide for them--all for the sake of this being
WS> "natural".
Most birds don't have adoption agencies; people do. To get closer
to abortion, I guess I would have to refer to pushing a egg out of
the nest as opposed to one which has hatched. This also occurs.
BTW, a fledgling has feathers, and most birds have reduced their
brood to managable size before this occurs. As for humans, I see
nothing wrong with parents of deformed babies insisting that life
support be withdrawn rather than sink the family finances maintaining
its life to salve your conscious. What you personally chose to do
in such circumstances is your business, not mine.
WS> You reasoning could be applied even if a parent has only a single
WS> child and feels that he can't adequately provide for it.
You are straying far afield of the original question which was "why
would anybody seek an abortion, for other than selfish reasons". I
indicated a specific cicumstance where I felt it would not be an
unselfish act, but would be for the benefit of others, in specific
the existing children in need of sustanance. Now in your extension
of my reasoning, who benefits from the killing of the only child.
OTOH, in the case of teen pregnancies, the abortion of a first
pregnancy may well be of benefit to future children, both in terms
of the mother's probable increase in economic abilities to care for
them as well as her physical capability of bearing and rearing them.
(This is not meant to overlook the posibility of induced sterility
or the increased risk of future miscarriages in individual cases,
only to reflect on the average result).
Your entire argument is not directed to the scenario I sketched, but
is devoted to creating additional strawmen which you attempt to knock
down. Let us ignore abortion and consider only children. Postulate a
single mother barely maintaining three children and herself at
starvation level in isolation. She gives birth to a fourth child (don't
ask me how she got pregnant in isolation) and any attempt to provide
for this child with available resourses will result in all persons
dropping below sustanance level. Why is it selfish for the woman to
kill the newborn child? Is it better that all die? Of course the
woman could be selfless and kill herself, but then would the other
children be capable of taking care of themselves and the new born?
The issue in "selfishness" is the degree of personal benefit or gain
accruing to the person performing the act vis a vis others. Your
"argument" has done nothing to demonstrate that abortions in such
circumstances are "selfish" acts.
WS> You don't only want to eliminate civilization and bring us back
WS> to the time of the cavemen,
To the contrary, cavewomen didn't have safe, reliable abortions
available to them. I have no desire to return to those times.
WS> you want to take us back to the time of the dinosaurs.
If pro-liars could ever get their facts straight, you would realize
that there were NO humans in the time of the dinosaurs, or did you
get too engrossed in _Jurassic Park_? Of course the lack of a
sense of time is the pro-liars great failing, the inability to
separate what is from what will be.
SG> OTOH, you seem to think of being selfish as synonymous with evil.
SG> I suggest you read Ayn Rand's _The Virtue of Selfishness_ for a
SG> different perspective.
WS> Is that were you got your horrific idea from?
Does acting in your own behalf make you tremble? Why is thinking of
yourself first an evil act? Or are you one of these socialists who
belive we are only permited to exist for the benefit of others?
WS> Get a life!
I already have one, thank you. And while we are on the subject, a
fetus needs to acquire a life before it can invoke constitutional
protections.
WS> Let there be no mistake about how I feel about your idea:
WS> *I think that it is evil.*
I don't question your ability to feel, only your ability to think.
*** FQ/2.0 *** The church hates a thinker like a robber hates a cop.
nobl...@centum.utulsa.edu
kelly thibodeau <kthi...@direct.ca> writes:
> Contraception and education is important, but it will never do away
> with the need for abortion, which is a backstop measure. Dr. Henry
> Morgentaler, Canada's foremost abortion doctor, makes a case that
> because of legalized abortion over the last generation, we are seeing
> a substantial decrease in violent crime now.
Really. I would like to see the studies on this. In our state we cannot
make a claim like that. I assume however, that he is talking specifically
about Canada?
> He sees abortion as a
> moral good and a positive choice, not only for the woman, who knows
> best how many children she is capable of taking care of properly,
If the woman knows how many children she can take care, fine. But do what
it takes to not get pregnant. If that fails, seek the assistance of one of
crisis pregnancy centers who will help with finding a good home for the child.
Killing a child is never moral.
> but for society at large, which does not have to pay the high price of
> dealing with the consequences of unwanted kids. I agree with him.
> Let women decide whether it's a real human life or a possible
> human life.
Do we women have some special power that the rest of us don't? I don't think
so. I am telling you that when we decide who lives and who dies, we are
asking for trouble!
> The relative value of a embryo/fetus is entirely subjective
> anyway. Everyone has their own opinion. Why shouldn't women be allowed
> to rely on theirs when making their decision?
Because someone's life ending should not be subject to someone's opinion!
> But as far as
> law and society is concerned, you're not a person with any meaningful place
> in society until you're born. Fetuses clearly have less less value to
> society than existing people.
Then change the law. Who gave you and the other lawmakers the right to
decide who is alive and who isn't?
> Having a baby is not an inconvenience. It is a major decision that changes
> your whole life. If women are not ready for it, they are acting responsibly
> and morally when they choose to abort.
They are snuffing a life out. That is neither moral nor responsible. There
are ways to get around that, but evidently some people do not want to look
at that other way (adoption). They make excuses as to how hard it is to do
that, when all they are wanting is an EASY way out.
> They are doing themselves, their family,
> everyone around them, society at large, and the unwanted baby a big favour.
I suppose Charles Manson was doing Sharon Tate and her baby a favor when he
deprived them of their lives. BTW it is only unwanted in that persons mind,
not everyone elses. The Crisis pregnancy centers that I know of, try very
hard to help the mother and the baby.
> As the Bible says, better to have died in the womb than live a miserable life.
> Joyce Arthur
As is custom on Usenet I am asking for a citation on this. If memory serves
this is out of Job. If you are going to quote it, then do so in context. The
Bible does not say that it is better to have died than have a miserable life.
Job said that. And he was frustrated, scared, sick, depressed. He is the one
who felt it better to die in the womb rather than live his life. We have all
on occassion felt sometimes that dying was better than what we are going through
but surprise, surprise. Life is hard for everyone. BTW Job soon after began
to realize that his attitude was wrong. The end of the story shows him being
blessed even more than he had been before everything went into the toilet.
This is the reason why so many think that the Bible contradicts itself. If
people are going to quote it then find out what the whole passage says. See
why it is there. Or can we assume that the practice of splitting babies in
half to solve differences should be welcome! No. (If you are not sure about
that reference, Solomon offered to divide a baby so that the one who was the
mother would come forward. He never intended to divide the child.)
Mike
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577
In article <goddess-0907...@ns2.intac.com>, god...@intac.com (Jillian) writes:
> I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have a
> another selfish? No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself
> outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for it is
> the mother.
>
> these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all the
> children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster care? I
> am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
>
Sorry to sound anal, but the foetus is unquestionably alive and kicking (at
least at the later stages of pregnancy; certainly it is alive and growing
from the point of implantation). But you are otherwise correct;
the notion that we force women to be broodslaves is slightly repugnant, and
the point may be moot anyway with the advent of drugs such as RU-486 and
even the common birth control pill being used as abortifacents in the privacy
of one's own bathroom. (Shall we violate the 4th amendment to make sure that
women don't have these drugs?)
Please note that what I said was that it is alive; it is not clear to me that
it is a fully-qualified human being until the point of birth.
In any event, welcome to a sometimes argumentative discussion. :-)
--
eric_w...@mentorg.com
The preceding is *not* to be construed in any way as an official (or unofficial)
public policy statement by Mentor Graphics, Incorporated, my employer, or
any of its employees, legal representatives, affiliates, customers, or vendors.
mpa...@pacbell.com
John Schwartz <ze...@ntr.net> wrote:
ZE>First of all, many pro-lifers would never propose a woman take
ZE>to term a baby that was the result of those rare instances of
ZE>rape....
And I wonder on what grounds they so violently oppose abortion. Unless
you are saving the life of a human being there are no grounds for
forcing a woman to not abort.
But on the other hand, if you do believe the unborn to be a human being
from conception and you allow abortion in the case of rape -- you are
advocating the murder of a human being on the basis of his/her origin.
What other origins are pro-lifers ready to single out to be murdered?
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş An' harm it none, do as thy will.
>> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #UNREGISTERED
John Schwartz
neur...@ix.netcom.com(Neuron) wrote:
>
>Nope, sorry it can be proven that a fetus is not yet a person. A fetus
>is not sentient until the cerebrum develops, the cerebrum is the part
>of the human brain responcable for higher brain functions like thought,
>emotion, memory, and perception. As long as a fetus is lacking a
>cerebrum it is nothing more than a lump of human shaped flesh.
I wish it was this easy, I truly do. The fact remains, however,
that sentience is not universally accepted in the medical world as
the defining point when "humanness" is present. It may be a valid
defining point in terms of brain physiology to use the
development of the cerebrum, or maybe more specifically the
limbic system (especially the hippocampus and amygdala) to make
your case, but what point would you choose in regards to other
physical attributes that define us as specifically human? How
about the opposable thumb, or the physiological structures
necessary for bipedalism? See what I mean -- there is no easy
answer when the focus of your argument is debatable.
>>I'd be
>>the first to defend abortion for any reason if it could be
>>shown that the z/e/f is not a "human life" until the instant
>>of birth. If it's just life, and not "human life," then it
>>would be no different than plucking a weed, or stepping on an
>>ant.
>
>Birth is not the moment a fetus becomes a human, but it is not until
>the 7th month that a fetus develops a cerebrum. The safe cut off point
>would be when a fetus can survive outside of the womb without any
>special effort like incubation. Which is around the 7th month as well.
>So since most abortions occure in the first trimester you should have
>no problem with this.
I respect your argument, I really do, because I can tell you have
given it some factually-based, unemotional thought. I wish more
pro-choicers were as rigorous. Again, my only problem with this
interpretation is the same as above. I reject the argument that
the fetus is not human because it cannot survive outside of the
womb without intervention. My reasons are simple, as before. The
label "human" is not contingent upon an entity's ability to
survive without assistance. There are many examples of
individuals living only because of intervention, and we do not
hesitate to call them "human." We may jokingly refer to them as
"vegetables," but no one is seriously denying their "humanness."
>>As it stands now, though, there is no irrefutable
>>evidence that completely vindicates the notion that birth is
>>the point at which we should call the entity a "human life."
>>So, we should not be so care-free with how we treat a possible
>>"human life." If a choice must be made because the mother's
>>life is in demonstrable peril, then of course we should choose
>>the definite "human life" (mother) over the possible "human
>>life" (z/e/f). But for nothing more than convenience,
>>choosing to end a possible "human life" is absurd and just
>>plain wrong, by any known standards.
>
>
>Can you give an example of any 8th or 9th month abortions that don't
>happen because the mother's health is in danger? The fact is most
>abortions are done so early in the pregnancy that it is claer the fetus
>is not a human yet.
I realize that this statement wraps up your argument, and is based
upon your previous statements. Again, I respect your logic and
your ability to refrain from name-calling and emotional,
off-the-subject ranting. You are a good debater! However, I
refer you to my above rebuttals to illustrate why your conclusion
here does not convince me. I do not claim to have all the
answers, but the content of your argument does not sway me, even
if the manner in which you presented it is admirable.
John
John Schwartz
kelly thibodeau <kthi...@direct.ca> wrote:
>John Schwartz wrote:
>
>> ...the answer is increased use of contraception, and a change in
>> the behavior of sexually active adults, NOT the taking of a
>> possible human life after the fact. And if we cannot evoke
>> that change through education and peer pressure, then we
>> simply must deal with the increased number of unwanted kids.
>
>with the need for abortion, which is a backstop measure.
I'm not suggesting we should do away with abortion in all cases.
I only believe abortion is wrong when the reason for it is as
frivolous as convenience.
Dr. Henry
>Morgentaler, Canada's foremost abortion doctor, makes a case that
>because of legalized abortion over the last generation, we are seeing
>a substantial decrease in violent crime now.
Where? In Canada? I reject the notion that violent crime has
decreased in the US over the last generation, if this is what you
mean. Please cite the statistical source of that claim, if you
know it. I would be very interested to read of it. If you mean a
decrease in a very small time increment, like the last few months,
or a couple of years, I would argue that cyclical ups and downs
are normal when tracking many aspects of society. The macro view
should be used, not the micro.
He sees abortion as a
>moral good and a positive choice, not only for the woman, who knows
>best how many children she is capable of taking care of properly,
>but for society at large, which does not have to pay the high price of
>dealing with the consequences of unwanted kids. I agree with him.
I would agree with him in a heartbeat, except for one issue that
drives the debate. What if all the z/e/f's we're aborting can be
shown conclusively to be "human" lives? Right now, with present
knowledge, that is a debatable issue. But would you support
abortion in cases of making life easier for the mother and society
as a whole if it meant the definite taking of a human life? Just
that possibility is enough to scare me.
>> ... But for nothing more than convenience,
>> choosing to end a possible "human life" is absurd and just
>> plain wrong, by any known standards.
>
>Let women decide whether it's a real human life or a possible
>human life.
I disagree strongly! What about the progress of science, and the
fact that someday (and maybe not too far away) we may be able to
pinpoint the precise point, in clear and defineable language, that
a z/e/f can be called "human?" Should we disregard that, and
continue to allow subjective opinion to drive the decision to take
a life through abortion?
The relative value of a embryo/fetus is entirely subjective
>anyway. Everyone has their own opinion.
Relative to what? If it is shown to be "human," with all the
incumbent rights afforded to out-of-the-womb humans, how is that
to be called subjective?
Why shouldn't women be allowed
>to rely on theirs when making their decision?
Well, of course under the current system, they do. I am saying
that just the possibility that the life being taken is "human"
demands that we not allow opinion to be the determining factor.
Right now we're erring on the side of public opinion, which may
turn out to be vindicated by science someday soon. But it is
equally likely that our collective decision to abort for
convenience reasons may turn out to be horribly wrong, and that
all those abortions for convenience were actually murder. Not
knowing for sure, I for one advocate erring on the side of the
possibility that the 1st and 2nd trimester entities are indeed
"human."
But as far as
>law and society is concerned, you're not a person with any meaningful place
>in society until you're born. Fetuses clearly have less less value to
>society than existing people.
I don't understand how a fetus' value is less to society than an
existing person's. Can you elaborate on this?
>Having a baby is not an inconvenience.
I never said that it was. I merely pointed out that the reason
for the majority of abortions is that women choose their
convenience over the life of the z/e/f.
It is a major decision that changes
>your whole life. If women are not ready for it, they are acting responsibly
>and morally when they choose to abort.
I disagree, but only because it is unclear whether what they are
aborting is "human," or just alive. If it can be shown
conclusively that the z/e/f is not "human" until X-time, then I
say scrape and suck all you want up until X-time. It is the very
inconclusivity of that time that forces me to side with the
pro-life camp. My mind will not accept that it's ok to disregard
the possibility that we are killing "humans."
They are doing themselves, their family,
>everyone around them, society at large, and the unwanted baby a big favour.
Who but the baby can determine whether they have been done a
favor?
>As the Bible says, better to have died in the womb than live a miserable life.
I am not a Christian. As such, Biblical quotes make no more of an
impact on me in regards to issues like abortion than any other
work of fiction. And unless you're psychic or a fortune-teller,
the only way to know if the life lived was miserable is to have
lived it out.
John
Neuron
In <4s7dsa$3...@rome.ntr.net> John Schwartz <ze...@ntr.net> writes:
>
>neur...@ix.netcom.com(Neuron) wrote:
>>
>>Nope, sorry it can be proven that a fetus is not yet a person. A
fetus
>>is not sentient until the cerebrum develops, the cerebrum is the part
>>of the human brain responcable for higher brain functions like
thought,
>>emotion, memory, and perception. As long as a fetus is lacking a
>>cerebrum it is nothing more than a lump of human shaped flesh.
>
>I wish it was this easy, I truly do. The fact remains, however,
>that sentience is not universally accepted in the medical world as
>the defining point when "humanness" is present. It may be a valid
>defining point in terms of brain physiology to use the
>development of the cerebrum, or maybe more specifically the
>limbic system (especially the hippocampus and amygdala) to make
>your case, but what point would you choose in regards to other
>physical attributes that define us as specifically human? How
>about the opposable thumb, or the physiological structures
>necessary for bipedalism? See what I mean -- there is no easy
>answer when the focus of your argument is debatable.
>
You fucking idiot, humanity is not defined by purly physical criteria,
were that the case a well crafted doll would meet your specifications
for being human. To be a human being, one must meet the physical
criteria and be sentient on even at least a minor level, which a fetus
which has no cerebrum is not.
>>>I'd be
>>>the first to defend abortion for any reason if it could be
>>>shown that the z/e/f is not a "human life" until the instant
>>>of birth. If it's just life, and not "human life," then it
>>>would be no different than plucking a weed, or stepping on an
>>>ant.
>>
>>Birth is not the moment a fetus becomes a human, but it is not until
>>the 7th month that a fetus develops a cerebrum. The safe cut off
point
>>would be when a fetus can survive outside of the womb without any
>>special effort like incubation. Which is around the 7th month as
well.
>>So since most abortions occure in the first trimester you should have
>>no problem with this.
>
>I respect your argument, I really do, because I can tell you have
>given it some factually-based, unemotional thought. I wish more
>pro-choicers were as rigorous. Again, my only problem with this
>interpretation is the same as above. I reject the argument that
>the fetus is not human because it cannot survive outside of the
>womb without intervention.
No fetus that is taken from the womb before the 6th month can survive
outside of the womb no matter what efforts are made to keep it alive.
I think there has been one case of a 5th month fetus surviving, and it
has such serious brain damage that they needn't have bothered.
The argument is based in the development, you say we don't know for
sure when a fetus becomes human, so would you maintain that 2 cells is
human, or does it take until 4 or 8, 16, 32? You argument is the one
that is flawed.
>My reasons are simple, as before. The
>label "human" is not contingent upon an entity's ability to
>survive without assistance. There are many examples of
>individuals living only because of intervention, and we do not
>hesitate to call them "human." We may jokingly refer to them as
>"vegetables," but no one is seriously denying their "humanness."
Yes they are, you just said it yourself, they are called "vegetables!"
Why do you think they are refered to as such???? It's true their
humanness is not being denyed, because they are still of humans. What
is denyed is that they are human beings, the term beings being the
point here. They are nothing but empty shells keept alive be machines.
I feel the same about a 20 year old brain dead huamn, as I do about a
20 week old gustational human, neither are human beings because neither
is sentient.
>>>As it stands now, though, there is no irrefutable
>>>evidence that completely vindicates the notion that birth is
>>>the point at which we should call the entity a "human life."
>>>So, we should not be so care-free with how we treat a possible
>>>"human life." If a choice must be made because the mother's
>>>life is in demonstrable peril, then of course we should choose
>>>the definite "human life" (mother) over the possible "human
>>>life" (z/e/f). But for nothing more than convenience,
>>>choosing to end a possible "human life" is absurd and just
>>>plain wrong, by any known standards.
>>
>>
>>Can you give an example of any 8th or 9th month abortions that don't
>>happen because the mother's health is in danger? The fact is most
>>abortions are done so early in the pregnancy that it is claer the
fetus
>>is not a human yet.
>
>I realize that this statement wraps up your argument, and is based
>upon your previous statements. Again, I respect your logic and
>your ability to refrain from name-calling and emotional,
>off-the-subject ranting. You are a good debater! However, I
>refer you to my above rebuttals to illustrate why your conclusion
>here does not convince me. I do not claim to have all the
>answers, but the content of your argument does not sway me, even
>if the manner in which you presented it is admirable.
>
>John
>
But your rebuttals, did nothing but point out that you don't understand
the fact behind fetal development. Your position is unclear, because
you are aiming for a stalemate rather than a conclusion. You're trying
to claim that nobody can tell when a fetus is human or not, which is
bunk. Rather like saying you can't tell when dough becomes bread,
which is not true. You may not be able to pin down the exact second
the chage takes place, but you most certinly can determin that before a
point it is definitly dough, and after a point it is definitly bread.
That point in the case of a fetus would be the 7th month, because of
the brain development. Can you claim that a 2 week old fetus is a
human, or a month, or two months? Why or why not? Define your
position.
Because if you can't claim a two celled zygoat is a human, than you
must admit there is a point when a fetus is not a human. In doing so
you must also admit then that there is a point when a fetus becomes
human. So abortion before this point would not kill a fetus.
You claim this point can't be determined, i say it can be does easily.
Simply determin if the cerebrum is developed, because without it the
fetus is not sentient, it is not a human being.
Sami's Mom and Dad
Steve (mdo...@nando.net) wrote:
: GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
: >For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
: For social reasons, perhaps they feel that the world is not a good
: place, or perhaps they feel that cannot raise a child
Then "perhaps" they should do a better job at preventing a pregnancy...
most pregnancies that end in abortion were totally aviodable pregnancies...
Your reasons are not reason, they are excuses...and bad ones at that.
--
****************************************************************************
* Tim and Stacy | Abortion is costly... Children are priceless! *
****************************************************************************
* Email address to contact us: ti...@ccnet.com *
****************************************************************************
Sami's Mom and Dad
Asharte (ash...@blarg.net) wrote:
: GARY wrote:
: >
: > For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
: Because either her body or her wallet can't handle a pregnancy.
Too bad someones wallet wasnt handling a condom or some spermicide, huh?
And why is it HER wallet?? What about HIS?
: --Asharte
: http://www.blarg.net/~asharte
Sami's Mom and Dad
: G> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
: Do you understand what an ectopic pregnancy is? Of course, neither
: the woman nor the fetus will survive, but at least your conscious
: will be assuaged if the pregnancy is not terminated. Now who is the
: selfish one?
Hello?? Anyone home?? Do you HONESTLY think that someone who is pro life
would go as far as to flame an abortion due to an eptopic pregnancy??
Give me a break! We all know there are GOOD reason for a few of the
millions of abortions performed... any pro life advocate that would flame
an abortion due to eptopic pregnancy of any other life threatening
condition ( and IM not talking MAYBE's ... these are CONFIRMED "you are
GONNA die without an abortion" abortion ) is a LOON!
: As for an unselfish reason, consider the economics of a poor
: mother -- she is better able to provide for her existing children
: by refusing to bear more. This is as natural as a bird which
: pushes a chick out of the nest to insure the survival of the rest.
: In as much as this is done for the benefit of others (the existing
: children) it cannot be described as a selfish act, except by those
: who have their own selfish need to exculpate their interference in
: the lives of others.
Are you really saying that poor people have no place in the world?
Are you saying that the poor shouldnt pro create? If a woman or couple
that is considered poor, do not want children for that reason... fine...
but its hardly an excuse for abortion.
Sami's Mom and Dad
Jillian (god...@intac.com) wrote:
: I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have a
: child she did not want? Isn't imposing your own will on the life of
: another selfish? No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself
: outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for it is
: the mother.
So... its dead until that point?
: Hmmmm, if you are against abortion, DON'T have one. And I wonder if all
: these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all the
: children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster care? I
: am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
By the same token... if you are against pregnancy, prevent it.
Nice horn you toot... Want a medal? "I advocate the killing of the human
fetus, AND I foster children at the same time" ...
That statement borders an Oxymoron... if not already being one.
: Jillian
Sami's Mom and Dad
Neuron (neur...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <31E317...@express-news.net> Papa Jack
: <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
: >
<bla bla bla>
: An unborn is, just that UNborn, it is not a person yet.
Person:
1. A Human Being, esp. as distinguished from a
thing or lower animal. Individual, Man, Woman, Child.
2. An indiviadual reguarded slightingly, as one of a lower
status.
3. a: A living Human Body
b: bodily forn or appearance to be neat about ones person.
4. Personality, self being
5. Division into 3 sets of pronouns.
6. A roll in a play, a characture.
7. Any individual, or incoorporated group, having certain
legal rights, and responsibilities.
8. Any of the three modes of Being in the Trinity,
Father Son and Holy Ghost. In person actually present; personhood
Person:
1. A combining form meaning person, of either sex,
in a specified activity; Used in coinages to avoid the
masculine implecation of man. Ex: Chairperson.
Human:
1. Of, belonging to, or typical of mankind.
2. Consisting of OR produced by people.
Being:
1. The state or fact of being in exsistance.
2. Fundimental or essential nature.
3. One who lives or exsists.
WHATever you say.....
: >Isn't taking the very life of another human for convenience the
: >most selfish act a human could commit?
: A fetus is not another human, it is a developing human. You don't call
: a wad of dough bread, so why call a fetus a person?
A 2 year old is a developing human.. whay exactly is your point?
A teen is a developing human...
: Of course the unborn is
: >alive from the very day of conception.
: It is alive before conception, unless you know of a dead sperm
: fertilizing a dead egg. Life is an unending cycle that has been going
: of for billions of years.
A statement I can actually agree with.... WHOA....
: You are saying it is
: >different -- but different from what? The newborn infant.
: Which one can live outside of the womb?
Why should that make a differnce? Give it a few weeks, and it CAB live
outside the womb... My God... if we take the value of life in that
context ( your context ) .. we should be extinct shortly.
: > Now, stop and look at how very different
: >they are from one another -- BUT WE DON'T KILL THEM FOR BEING
: >DIFFERENT.
: What is your point? We don't kill them because they are living
: breathing, sentient beings, while a fetus is not.
WE are DOOMED with that kind of outlook! So WHAT if the fetus isnt
sentient yet... ( although I sure would love to know how anyone can
REALLY know that ) .... the point is that it, givin the chance, CAN be....
We are doomed!
: What? A fetus is alive, it is not a person. Get your argument
: streight.
: Can you negate the point? Obvouosly not. Where do you get the right
: to say what somebody else can or can't do with their body? If you
: don't support abortion, that is your right, but it is not your right to
: force that view on another.
There are laws against suicide... and if you are caught attempting it..
you get thrown in the loony bin!
THIS person HAS sentient!
Bruce Forest
In article <4s9ai9$k...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>, ti...@ccnet.com (Sami's Mom and
Dad) wrote:
> Neuron (neur...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> : In <31E317...@express-news.net> Papa Jack
Where are these references from?
[...]
--
Bruce Forest...
bfo...@interramp.com
bfo...@futuris.net
bfo...@bliss.demon.co.uk
10416...@compuserve.com
dro...@aol.com...
PGP key on http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
.......
"It's not a pizza till it comes out of the oven."
"No, no..it's a pizza the minute you stick your hands in the dough!!"
Seinfeld
Milt Shook
On 13 Jul 1996, Sami's Mom and Dad wrote:
:Steve (mdo...@nando.net) wrote:
:: GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
:
:: >For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
:
:: For social reasons, perhaps they feel that the world is not a good
:: place, or perhaps they feel that cannot raise a child
:
:Then "perhaps" they should do a better job at preventing a pregnancy...
:most pregnancies that end in abortion were totally aviodable pregnancies...
:Your reasons are not reason, they are excuses...and bad ones at that.
Please, some stats to back up this totally outrageous statement. MOST
abortions happen because birth control failed, according to PP. But if you
have other info, let's see it...
Milt
"I think Elizabeth ought to debate Hillary."
--Bob Dole, when asked his views on presidential debates.
Milt Shook
On 13 Jul 1996, Sami's Mom and Dad wrote:
:Jillian (god...@intac.com) wrote:
:: I am truely wondering why anyone would want to force a woman to have a
:: child she did not want? Isn't imposing your own will on the life of
:: another selfish? No the fetus is not alive until it can sustain itself
:: outside the uterus. Until then the only thing that mimicks life for it is
:: the mother.
:
: So... its dead until that point?
:
Dead? Does inability to breathe, pump blood, and a complete and utter
abscence of brain function count? I prefer "not alive" as an alternative
to "dead", but if things are only either alive or dead to you, then yes,
it is dead.
:: Hmmmm, if you are against abortion, DON'T have one. And I wonder if all
:: these "pro-life" people are out there adopting and caring for all the
:: children who are already here and not wanted. Ever give foster care? I
:: am pro-CHOICE and I give foster care. Have you?
:
:By the same token... if you are against pregnancy, prevent it.
And if the prevention doesn't work, then too damn bad, is that it? You're
for making people have children against their will? Are you also aware
that MOST forms of birth control prevent implantation. If you believe that
life begins at concertion, then she's limited pretty much to condoms.
Condoms don't always work. Hmm, a quandary?
:Nice horn you toot... Want a medal? "I advocate the killing of the human
:fetus, AND I foster children at the same time" ...
:That statement borders an Oxymoron... if not already being one.
:
She doesn't advocate killing a human being. She advocates terminating a
pregnancy. You can't advocate abortion as killing a human being, if you
don't believe the fetus is a human being.
Therefore, no oxymoron. The only moron here is... you figure it out...
Neuron
>: An unborn is, just that UNborn, it is not a person yet.
>
>
>
> Person:
> 1. A Human Being, esp. as distinguished from a
> thing or lower animal. Individual, Man, Woman, Child.
Gosh it doesn't say fetus, what exactly distinguishes a fetus from that
of a lower animal.
> 2. An indiviadual reguarded slightingly, as one of a lower
> status.
> 3. a: A living Human Body
> b: bodily forn or appearance to be neat about ones person.
> 4. Personality, self being
> 5. Division into 3 sets of pronouns.
> 6. A roll in a play, a characture.
> 7. Any individual, or incoorporated group, having certain
> legal rights, and responsibilities.
> 8. Any of the three modes of Being in the Trinity,
> Father Son and Holy Ghost. In person actually present; personhood
What dictionary is this from? And please show exactly which definition
you are using in the context of this argument.
>Person:
> 1. A combining form meaning person, of either sex,
> in a specified activity; Used in coinages to avoid the
> masculine implecation of man. Ex: Chairperson.
>
>
> Human:
> 1. Of, belonging to, or typical of mankind.
> 2. Consisting of OR produced by people.
>
>
> Being:
> 1. The state or fact of being in exsistance.
> 2. Fundimental or essential nature.
> 3. One who lives or exsists.
>
>
> WHATever you say.....
>
Please define your premis, that a fetus is a person. By which
dfinition, and how does that argue against abortion?
A fetus is not sentient, tat is a fact.
>
>
>: >Isn't taking the very life of another human for convenience the
>: >most selfish act a human could commit?
>
>: A fetus is not another human, it is a developing human. You don't
call
>: a wad of dough bread, so why call a fetus a person?
>
> A 2 year old is a developing human.. whay exactly is your point?
>A teen is a developing human...
>
A teen and a two year old can live outside of the womb, and both have
cerebrums. A fetus does not have a cerebrum and therefore has no
higher brain function. A two year old is not a developing human, it is
a GROWING human, it has developed it's organs and brain etc.
A fetus is developing, it is not yet done.
>
>
>: Of course the unborn is
>: >alive from the very day of conception.
>
>: It is alive before conception, unless you know of a dead sperm
>: fertilizing a dead egg. Life is an unending cycle that has been
going
>: of for billions of years.
>
>
> A statement I can actually agree with.... WHOA....
The point being nothing special is defined by conception, save for a
change in the development pattern of the cells.
>: You are saying it is
>: >different -- but different from what? The newborn infant.
>
>: Which one can live outside of the womb?
>
> Why should that make a differnce? Give it a few weeks, and it CAB
live
>outside the womb... My God... if we take the value of life in that
>context ( your context ) .. we should be extinct shortly.
>
>
Really, proof please? That value of life is a fact, deal with it. The
point is that a fetus is not yet a human, because a human being can
live outside of the womb.
>
>: > Now, stop and look at how very different
>: >they are from one another -- BUT WE DON'T KILL THEM FOR BEING
>: >DIFFERENT.
>
>: What is your point? We don't kill them because they are living
>: breathing, sentient beings, while a fetus is not.
>
> WE are DOOMED with that kind of outlook! So WHAT if the fetus isnt
>sentient yet... ( although I sure would love to know how anyone can
>REALLY know that ) .... the point is that it, givin the chance, CAN
be....
>
>We are doomed!
>
It is a proven fact in that we can identify the section of the human
brain that is responcable for the higher brain functions, and the fetus
doesn't develop it until the 7th month.
Lack of sentients means the fetus is nothing but flesh, not capable of
want, pian, thought, or suffering. So killing it causes me no problem.
>
>: What? A fetus is alive, it is not a person. Get your argument
>: streight.
>
>
>: Can you negate the point? Obvouosly not. Where do you get the
right
>: to say what somebody else can or can't do with their body? If you
>: don't support abortion, that is your right, but it is not your right
to
>: force that view on another.
>
>There are laws against suicide... and if you are caught attempting
it..
>you get thrown in the loony bin!
>THIS person HAS sentient!
There are no laws against killing yourself. If you do it and fail you
can end up in the loony bin because you are a danger to yourself, but
there are no laws against it.
Hell even assisted suicide is ok now, so your point is not only moot
but totaly wrong.
Neuron
>: So... its dead until that point?
>:
>Dead? Does inability to breathe, pump blood, and a complete and utter
>abscence of brain function count? I prefer "not alive" as an
alternative
>to "dead", but if things are only either alive or dead to you, then
yes,
>it is dead.
No, it is not dead, it is alive but life is nothing special. A potato
is alive, that is not the issue life is cheep because it is everywhere.
The issue is what makes a fetus so special that it sould be treated
the same as a living breathing human being with a cerebrum.
Siegen
sh...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca () wrote:
>Steven T. Gladin (afn0...@freenet3.afn.org) wrote:
>: In <4rnc2r$1g...@CT1.SNET.Net>, GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
>: G> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
>: ===<snip>===
>: As for an unselfish reason, consider the economics of a poor
>: mother -- she is better able to provide for her existing children
>: by refusing to bear more. This is as natural as a bird which
>: pushes a chick out of the nest to insure the survival of the rest.
>: In as much as this is done for the benefit of others (the existing
>: children) it cannot be described as a selfish act, except by those
>: who have their own selfish need to exculpate their interference in
>: the lives of others.
>I have seen many ludricous arguments, but yours takes the cake. I
>suppose, that for the sake of true gender-equality, you will propose next
>that a mother or father can be allowed to kill the children they don't
>want to permit them to be "better able to provide for" the surviving
>"children by refusing to" provide for them any longer. All of that for
>the sake of the "natural" unselfishness of the birds that you so admire.
>Don't forget that people are not birds, and that, if you want to draw
>comparisons between birds and people, the equivalent of the birds' nest is
>the human's family. As well, don't forget the fact that the fledgelings
>that the birds push out of their nests are beings that are alive! By your
>line of reasoning, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with human
>parents to either kill or abandon their children if they feel that they
>have too many of them and feel that they can't adequately provide for
>them--all for the sake of this being "natural". You reasoning could be
>applied even if a parent has only a single child and feels that he can't
>adequately provide for it.
>You don't only want to eliminate civilization and bring us back to the
>time of the cavemen, you want to take us back to the time of the
>dinosaurs.
[snip]
>Walter H. Schneider Bruderheim, Alberta, Canada
The "pro-choicers" ARE dinosaurs. They're clinging to a past
only made possible by a now old, outdated legal decision in the
seventies.
-- Siegen
Louis Cypher
In article <4s995p$j...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>,
Sami's Mom and Dad <ti...@ccnet.com> wrote:
>Steve (mdo...@nando.net) wrote:
>: GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
>
>
>: For social reasons, perhaps they feel that the world is not a good
>: place, or perhaps they feel that cannot raise a child
>
>Then "perhaps" they should do a better job at preventing a pregnancy...
>most pregnancies that end in abortion were totally aviodable pregnancies...
>Your reasons are not reason, they are excuses...and bad ones at that.
Wow. That's great. You want to cut down on unwanted pregnancies? You are
quite unlike most pro-liars. Most are against contraception and sex
education in schools.
You are quite the rebel.
Siegen
mdo...@nando.net (Steve) wrote:
>GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
>>For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
>For social reasons, perhaps they feel that the world is not a good
>place, or perhaps they feel that cannot raise a child
...or perhaps they get a "frequent flyer" (type) points with
every abortion.
-- Siegen
Steven T. Gladin
JS> I wish it was this easy, I truly do. The fact remains, however,
JS> that sentience is not universally accepted in the medical world
JS> as the defining point when "humanness" is present.
The issue in personhood, not humanness. John Wayne Bobbit's severed
penis was human; it was not a human nor a person. A hiaditform mole
is certainly human (adj); it has the requisite chromosome structure.
It is not a human (n), nor will it ever become one.
Sentience or variations thereof is used to determine the absence of
life for the purpose of harvesting organs for transplant. Certainly
the tissue is living (or there would be no point in seeking to
transplant it), but there is also a recognized absence of life. If
we can reach a point where living tissue ceases to have a life, why
cannot we also have living tissue which has yet to attain a life?
JS> I respect your argument, I really do, because I can tell you have
JS> given it some factually-based, unemotional thought. I wish more
JS> pro-choicers were as rigorous. Again, my only problem with this
JS> interpretation is the same as above. I reject the argument that
JS> the fetus is not human because it cannot survive outside of the
JS> womb without intervention. My reasons are simple, as before. The
JS> label "human" is not contingent upon an entity's ability to
JS> survive without assistance.
And I wish more pro-liars would be more rigorous in their use of
homographs. The fact that human (adj) and human (n) are represented
by the same grouping of letters does not equate their meaning. A
human fetus is definitly human (just as a bovine fetus is bovine).
A human fetus is not yet a human any more than a bovine fetus is
a calf. Learn to separate what is from what will be.
JS> There are many examples of individuals living only because of
JS> intervention, and we do not hesitate to call them "human." We
JS> may jokingly refer to them as "vegetables," but no one is
JS> seriously denying their "humanness."
The absence of certain brain waves does not require a family to bury
that which they choose to maintain. OTOH, the absence of certain
brain waves (not all, just those representing a degree of sentience)
permits a family to harvest the organs for use by others and bury what
is left. Noone denies the tissue is living, or that it is human (adj)
in such cases. What is denied is that it is a living human (n). If we
can accept that living human tissue has ceased to be a person, why
cannot we agree that other living tissue has yet to become a person?
*** FQ/2.0 *** A human fetus is no more a human than a diary cow is a dairy.
Steven T. Gladin
In <4s6db9$m...@gw.PacBell.COM>, mpa...@pacbell.com wrote:
m> John Schwartz <ze...@ntr.net> wrote:
JS> First of all, many pro-lifers would never propose a woman take
JS> to term a baby that was the result of those rare instances of
JS> rape....
m> And I wonder on what grounds they so violently oppose abortion.
They want to reexert domination over women.
m> Unless you are saving the life of a human being there are no
m> grounds for forcing a woman to not abort.
But if you pretend a fetus is a person, there is no end of control
you can exert over the activities of women in the name of protecting
potential feti. The Zygote Protection Force won't let you imbibe in
alcohol, smoke, or engage in any other endeavors which might harm a
possible fetus. Outlawing abortion is only the first step in the
redomination of women. It is being sold by equating abortion with
the axe murder of a cooing baby in arms.
m> But on the other hand, if you do believe the unborn to be a human
m> being from conception and you allow abortion in the case of rape
m> -- you are advocating the murder of a human being on the basis of
m> his/her origin.
Certainly this "innocent baby" is innocent of the rape, hell it didn't
even exist at the time of the crime. But as I say, outlawing abortion
is not about protecting innocent children, it is about dominating
women. The exception in the case of rape is to permit the pro-liar
to legally obtain an abortion in the instance they desire one.
I am reminded of a former employer, a good Catholic whose daughter
would never elect to engage in premarital sex, SHE WAS RAPED. Just
another typical pro-liar planning in advance for their own needs.
Steven T. Gladin
In <4s621i$g...@oddball.sje.MENTORG.COM>, ew...@hpewill.sje.mentorg.com (Eric
Williams @ PCB x5577) wrote:
EW> Sorry to sound anal, but the foetus is unquestionably alive
EW> and kicking (at least at the later stages of pregnancy;
EW> certainly it is alive and growing from the point of implantation).
EW> .... Please note that what I said was that it is alive; it is
EW> not clear to me that it is a fully-qualified human being until
EW> the point of birth.
That is the crux of the abortion debate. Certainly a conceptus
is living tissue (except for a few pathological cases when the
term abortion is inappropriatly used for the removal of an object
which would be still-born at best and septic at worst). The
question is whether the conceptus is a person entitled to legal
rights. Certainly the pro-liars are correct in that it DOES have
a DNA identity seperate from its host. Living and with separate
identity, but does it have a life? Consider a transplanted organ;
it fits the same criteria. Do they have rights also? Of course a
transplanted organ is not expected to develop into another distinct
human. Therein lies the fallacy of the pro-liars; they fail to
separate what is from what will be. At the time of an abortion, a
conceptus is not yet a person; it is only a person-possibly-to-be.
A woman has every right to determine whether to continue the process
of making another person, or to terminate that process prior to
completion.
EW> But you are otherwise correct; the notion that we force women
EW> to be broodslaves is slightly repugnant, and the point may be
EW> moot anyway with the advent of drugs such as RU-486 and even the
EW> common birth control pill being used as abortifacents in the
EW> privacy of one's own bathroom. (Shall we violate the 4th
EW> amendment to make sure that women don't have these drugs?)
The desire to reexert control over women is the driving force behind
the pro-liars. They relied on the spectre of un-wed pregnancy to
control the sexuality of women. Now they claim to protect the rights
of the unborn as a means to exert control over women's activities.
It is not so far fetched to anticipate women needing a certificate
of sterility in order to be able to consume alcoholic beverages least
they harm some poor innocent life resting in their womb.
Cheryl Morris
Cheryl Morris responds:
Neuron wrote:
>
> Why do you think they are refered to as such???? It's true their
> humanness is not being denyed, because they are still of humans. What
> is denyed is that they are human beings, the term beings being the
> point here. They are nothing but empty shells keept alive be machines.
> I feel the same about a 20 year old brain dead huamn, as I do about a
> 20 week old gustational human, neither are human beings because neither
> is sentient.
>
While many pro-choicers disagree with this poster, this is the attitude
which many pro-lifers fear. We are accused of the slippery slope mentality
when we say that the pro-choice attitude toward the unborn will lead to
attitudes such as this, but here you have it, someone calling what many
pro-choicers would say is a human being, because they have been born, saying
it just ain't so.
Cheryl
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <4s99fq$j...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>,
ti...@ccnet.com (Sami's Mom and Dad) wrote:
>Steven T. Gladin (afn0...@freenet3.afn.org) wrote:
>: In <4rnc2r$1g...@CT1.SNET.Net>, GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
>
>
>: Do you understand what an ectopic pregnancy is? Of course, neither
>: the woman nor the fetus will survive, but at least your conscious
>: will be assuaged if the pregnancy is not terminated. Now who is the
>: selfish one?
>
>Hello?? Anyone home?? Do you HONESTLY think that someone who is pro life
>would go as far as to flame an abortion due to an eptopic pregnancy??
>Give me a break! We all know there are GOOD reason for a few of the
>millions of abortions performed... any pro life advocate that would flame
>an abortion due to eptopic pregnancy of any other life threatening
>condition ( and IM not talking MAYBE's ... these are CONFIRMED "you are
>GONNA die without an abortion" abortion ) is a LOON!
>
tubal ligation (which, as a secondary effect, results in the death of a
child). There is NO condition which would threaten the life of the mother
which would necessitate an abortion procedure as its "cure."
S.
Stephen Arthur -or- Joyce Arthur
sabu...@teleport.com wrote:
> Alan Guttmacher Institute (a research arm of PP) has concluded that 96% of
> abortions are done for "social" reasons. Few are "failed birth control." Less
> than 1% are for rape and about 2% for "fetal deformity."
> Call them yourself and they'll supply the figures.
Please use some logic -- Women don't have abortions BECAUSE their birth
control failed; they get PREGNANT because their birth control failed.
Their reasons for having an abortion are different than the reasons
for getting pregnant in the first place. What the Alan Guttmacher Institute
REALLY said was that 43% of women having abortions got pregnant because
their contraceptives failed. Most of the rest weren't using them at all.
Joyce Arthur
Lawrence E. McKnight
bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>In article <4s9ai9$k...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>, ti...@ccnet.com (Sami's Mom and
>Dad) wrote:
>
>> Neuron (neur...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>> : In <31E317...@express-news.net> Papa Jack
>> : <papa...@express-news.net> writes:
>> : >
>>
>> <bla bla bla>
>>
>>
>> : An unborn is, just that UNborn, it is not a person yet.
>>
>>
>>
>> Person:
>> 1. A Human Being, esp. as distinguished from a
>> thing or lower animal. Individual, Man, Woman, Child.
>> 2. An indiviadual reguarded slightingly, as one of a lower
>> status.
>> 3. a: A living Human Body
>> b: bodily forn or appearance to be neat about ones person.
>> 4. Personality, self being
>> 5. Division into 3 sets of pronouns.
>> 6. A roll in a play, a characture.
>> 7. Any individual, or incoorporated group, having certain
>> legal rights, and responsibilities.
>> 8. Any of the three modes of Being in the Trinity,
>> Father Son and Holy Ghost. In person actually present; personhood
>> Person:
>> 1. A combining form meaning person, of either sex,
>> in a specified activity; Used in coinages to avoid the
>> masculine implecation of man. Ex: Chairperson.
>>
>>
>> Human:
>> 1. Of, belonging to, or typical of mankind.
>> 2. Consisting of OR produced by people.
>>
>>
>> Being:
>> 1. The state or fact of being in exsistance.
>> 2. Fundimental or essential nature.
>> 3. One who lives or exsists.
>
>Where are these references from?
I have figured out the source of Sami's parents' confusion.. they read
'roll in a play' as 'roll in the hay', and thought that some dictionary
proved that a single sexual act was equivalent to a person. Note to the
humor impaired: spell checkers don't help when somebody uses the wrong
word, especially a homophone.
>
>[...]
>
>--
>Bruce Forest...
>bfo...@interramp.com
>bfo...@futuris.net
>bfo...@bliss.demon.co.uk
>10416...@compuserve.com
>dro...@aol.com...
>
>PGP key on http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
>.......
>"It's not a pizza till it comes out of the oven."
>"No, no..it's a pizza the minute you stick your hands in the dough!!"
>Seinfeld
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....
Ray Fischer
followups to talk.abortion
Sami's Mom and Dad <ti...@ccnet.com> wrote:
>Hello?? Anyone home?? Do you HONESTLY think that someone who is pro life
>would go as far as to flame an abortion due to an eptopic pregnancy??
Yes.
>Give me a break! We all know there are GOOD reason for a few of the
>millions of abortions performed... any pro life advocate that would flame
>an abortion due to eptopic pregnancy of any other life threatening
>condition ( and IM not talking MAYBE's ... these are CONFIRMED "you are
>GONNA die without an abortion" abortion ) is a LOON!
There are good reasons for most, probably almost all, of the abortions
performed each year. Whether the reasons are good enough for you, or
whether they are good enough for an extremist, is another matter
altogether.
Which brings us back to the crux of the whole issue: Who decides?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Steven T. Gladin
In <4s9ai9$k...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>, ti...@ccnet.com (Sami's Mom and Dad) wrote:
SMa> Neuron (neur...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
N> An unborn is, just that UNborn, it is not a person yet.
SMa> Person:
SMa> 1. A Human Being, esp. as distinguished from a
SMa> thing or lower animal. Individual, Man, Woman, Child.
SMA> ....
SMa> Human:
SMa> 1. Of, belonging to, or typical of mankind.
SMa> ....
SMa> Being:
SMa> 1. The state or fact of being in exsistance.
SMa> ....
SMa> WHATever you say.....
> Representative and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the
> several states which may be included within this Union, according to
> their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the
> whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a
> term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all
> other persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years
> after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and
> within every subsequent term of ten years in such manner as they shall
> be law direct.
How many fetal "persons" were in the United States in 1800? In 1990?
It would seem your dictionary definition should reflect the common
usage that feti are not persons.
Of course our lovely idiot Rep Hyde of Illinois wants to do a Jeckle
routine and pass a constitutional amendment which will declare zygotes
persons from the moment of conception. Can you imagine the indignity
that will result as all females are required to undergo pelvic exams
on 1 Apr every ten years so the government can count these "people".
Or the establishment of the Federal Zygote Protection Force to protect
these children. We have already seen the result of Janet Reno's efforts
to protect the children at Mt Carmel. If you think fundamentalist
Muslim purdah is demeaning, just wait until the pro-lie loons get this
in hand. Cotton Mather will look like a piker.
N> Which one can live outside of the womb?
SMa> Why should that make a differnce? Give it a few weeks, and it CAB
SMA> live outside the womb...
Herein lies a major fallacy of pro-liars, the refusal to seperate
what is from what will be.
SMa> My God... if we take the value of life in that context ( your
SMa> context ) .. we should be extinct shortly.
Why? Are pro-liars incapable of breeding? What makes you think
pro-choicers will refuse to bear children at all, rather than just
determine how many and when? Of course logic from a pro-liar is
too much to expect.
SMa> So WHAT if the fetus isnt sentient yet... ( although I sure would
SMa> love to know how anyone can REALLY know that )
Go back to your dictionary for the definition, then explain how
a fetus can be sentient without the organs and neural pathways
necessary for perception. Or do you postulate a "feeling soul"
hovering over the fetus waiting for the development of these organs.
SMA> .... the point is that it, givin the chance, CAN be....
No, the point is that pro-liars will not separate what is from what
will be. A woman has the right to chose whether to engage in sex,
and she has the right to chose whether to reproduce. The decisions
may be combined (at her option) but they are distinct and severable
(one can do one without the other). If a woman discovers she has
begun the process of reproduction, she is under no compunction to
continue that process to fruition.
SMa> We are doomed!
Well, pro-lie argument is doomed.
N> If you don't support abortion, that is your right, but it is not
N> your right to force that view on another.
SMa> There are laws against suicide...
There shouldn't be, just like there shouldn't be laws against
abortion.
SMa> and if you are caught attempting it.. you get thrown in the
SMa> loony bin!
*** FQ/2.0 *** ATTEMPTED SUICIDE: a capital crime against the state
Steven T. Gladin
In <4s99fq$j...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>, ti...@ccnet.com (Sami's Mom and Dad) wrote:
SMa> Steven T. Gladin (afn0...@freenet3.afn.org) wrote:
SG> In <4rnc2r$1g...@CT1.SNET.Net>, GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
G> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
SG> Do you understand what an ectopic pregnancy is? Of course, neither
SG> the woman nor the fetus will survive, but at least your conscious
SG> will be assuaged if the pregnancy is not terminated. Now who is the
SG> selfish one?
SMa> Hello?? Anyone home??
Apparently not in your cranium.
SMa> Do you HONESTLY think that someone who is pro life would go as far
SMa> as to flame an abortion due to an eptopic pregnancy??
Look at Gary's question. He made no exceptions. And abortion of
an ectopic pregnancy is for a selfish reason, the preservation of
her own life.
SMa> any pro life advocate that would flame an abortion due to eptopic
SMa> pregnancy of any other life threatening condition ... is a LOON!
In my opinion, all pro-lie advocates are LOONS. And I repeat, it does
not alter the selfish nature of the decision to abort an ectopic
pregnancy.
SG> As for an unselfish reason, consider the economics of a poor
SG> mother -- she is better able to provide for her existing children
SG> by refusing to bear more.... In as much as this is done for the
SG> benefit of others (the existing children) it cannot be described
SG> as a selfish act, except by those who have their own selfish need
SG> to exculpate their interference in the lives of others.
SMa> Are you really saying that poor people have no place in the world?
No.
SMa> Are you saying that the poor shouldnt pro create?
I am suggesting that couples should not produce more children than they
can support (unless they desire to be brood sows for adoption mills).
SMa> If a woman or couple that is considered poor, do not want children
SMa> for that reason... fine... but its hardly an excuse for abortion.
It is also not a reason to refrain from coitus. Abortion is a more
painful and more expensive birth control method than contraception,
and I would not recommend it as a primary methodology. OTOH, you
cannot deny it is an effective means of birth control.
Being poor with existing children to support is not an appology or
an excuse for having an abortion; it is a rational and unselfish
reason for having one.
Bruce Forest
In article <4sb5k1$o...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com wrote:
[...]
> >
> Besides which, the "cure" for an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion,
it is a
> tubal ligation (which, as a secondary effect, results in the death of a
> child).
Huh? Where did you get this fantasy? A tubal ligation is a method of
sterilization, and has absolutely nothing to do with surgery to remove an
ectopic, which is, of course, a surgical abortion. Certainly you aren't
suggesting that ectopic pregnancy is the same as 'tubal' pregnancy, are
you?
>There is NO condition which would threaten the life of the mother
> which would necessitate an abortion procedure as its "cure."
That's wrong, dangerous, and ignorant. There are HUNDREDS of conditions
that will kill the mother if the pregnancy is not ended. Abortion saves
hundreds of thousands of women's lives per year. Would you like a list of
life-threatening conditions?
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.960713...@kitts.u.arizona.edu>,
Milt Shook <msh...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>On 13 Jul 1996, Sami's Mom and Dad wrote:
>
>:Steve (mdo...@nando.net) wrote:
>:: GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
>:
>:
>:: For social reasons, perhaps they feel that the world is not a good
>:: place, or perhaps they feel that cannot raise a child
>:Then "perhaps" they should do a better job at preventing a pregnancy...
>:Your reasons are not reason, they are excuses...and bad ones at that.
>
>
>abortions happen because birth control failed, according to PP. But if you
>have other info, let's see it...
>
abortions are done for "social" reasons. Few are "failed birth control." Less
than 1% are for rape and about 2% for "fetal deformity."
Call them yourself and they'll supply the figures.
S.
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4sa7bq$n...@mippet.ci.com.au>, Siegen <r...@wisenet.net.au> wrote:
>The "pro-choicers" ARE dinosaurs. They're clinging to a past
>only made possible by a now old, outdated legal decision in the
>seventies.
>
Do you really think Roe v. Wade is the only thing that is related to the
abortion rights. The abortion rights here and in many other countries
are in no way related to Roe.
Osmo
MINXS
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>Osmo
There are about 50 million abortions a year worldwide--about 1 in
every 4 pregnancies terminated deliberately.
MINXS Website closed for renovation
sabu...@teleport.com
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <4s99fq$j...@ccnet3.ccnet.com>,
>
>: G> For other than selfish reasons, why would anybody seek an abortion??
>
>: Do you understand what an ectopic pregnancy is? Of course, neither
>: the woman nor the fetus will survive, but at least your conscious
>: will be assuaged if the pregnancy is not terminated. Now who is the
>: selfish one?
>
>would go as far as to flame an abortion due to an eptopic pregnancy??
>millions of abortions performed... any pro life advocate that would flame
>an abortion due to eptopic pregnancy of any other life threatening
>condition ( and IM not talking MAYBE's ... these are CONFIRMED "you are
>GONNA die without an abortion" abortion ) is a LOON!
>
tubal ligation (which, as a secondary effect, results in the death of a
S.
Lawrence E. McKnight
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>In article <4sb5k1$o...@nadine.teleport.com>, <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>Besides which, the "cure" for an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion, it is a
>>tubal ligation (which, as a secondary effect, results in the death of a
>>child). There is NO condition which would threaten the life of the mother
>>which would necessitate an abortion procedure as its "cure."
>>
>
>ROTFL. Tubal ligation fore ectopic pregnancy. Where do you get this
>stuff? Even if the woman is sterilized, one has to remove the embryo.
>That means one has to kill it.
>
>Do not try to push the Catholic principle of double effect. It requires
>that the bad cannot be the means for the good. So it it cannot be
>applied here. The principle can be applied when the woman's health is
>endangered by some other, unrelated cause. For example if she has a
>cancer in the uterus, they can remove the whole uterus and the death of
>the fetus is just a side effect. Note that is the fetus causes the
>danger, the according to the principle of double effect the uterus cannot
>be removed. Of course I think the principle is just b/s, but you seem
>to use it.
Actually Osmo, when I studied Catholic moral theology, I was told (by
people with initials like S.T.D. after their names) that the principle
of the double effect was formulated specifically because of ectopic
pregnancies. The theologians knew that the woman would die, and no baby
would ever appear, no matter what, and they realized they needed to do
something.
>
>Osmo
Neuron
In <4sbemn$2...@ultra.sonic.net> mi...@sonic.net (MINXS) writes:
>
>ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>
wrote:
>>>The "pro-choicers" ARE dinosaurs. They're clinging to a past
>>>only made possible by a now old, outdated legal decision in the
>>>seventies.
>>>
>
>>Do you really think Roe v. Wade is the only thing that is related to
the
>>abortion rights. The abortion rights here and in many other countries
>>are in no way related to Roe.
>
>>Osmo
>
>There are about 50 million abortions a year worldwide--about 1 in
>every 4 pregnancies terminated deliberately.
>
>
And only 1 million take place in america
--
-Nuron
Cruising down the Infomation Super Highway...
with my seat belt hanging out the door making sparks on the road.
\\
\\ ~* ~*
[o] ~*
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4scn2r$n...@nadine.teleport.com>, <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <4sc1vn$m...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
> ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>>In article <4sb5k1$o...@nadine.teleport.com>, <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>Besides which, the "cure" for an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion, it is
>a
>>>tubal ligation (which, as a secondary effect, results in the death of a
>>>child). There is NO condition which would threaten the life of the mother
>>>which would necessitate an abortion procedure as its "cure."
>>>
>>
>>ROTFL. Tubal ligation fore ectopic pregnancy. Where do you get this
>>stuff? Even if the woman is sterilized, one has to remove the embryo.
>>That means one has to kill it.
>
>sterilization, but it is the same procedure for removing a Fallopina tube with
> an unborn attached inside. The only way to remove the embryo is to remove the
>tube. A surgical abortion technique does not reach inside the Fallopian tube
>-- where the unborn is in a tubal pregnancy.
Why won't you check your dictionary what ligation means (Hint it means
binding). The fallopian tubes are NOT removed in tubal ligation.
See
http://www.ami-med.com/peds/scr/002913sc.htm
http://203.17.138.60/websex/adult/ingredients/TubalLigation.html
Also there is no need to remove entire tube to remove the embryo.
see http://www.ami-med.com/peds/scr/000895sc.htm
One can use for example Methotrexate, you know the drug that can also be
used fro abortions.
>>
>>Do not try to push the Catholic principle of double effect. It requires
>>that the bad cannot be the means for the good. So it it cannot be
>>applied here. The principle can be applied when the woman's health is
>>endangered by some other, unrelated cause. For example if she has a
>>cancer in the uterus, they can remove the whole uterus and the death of
>>the fetus is just a side effect. Note that is the fetus causes the
>>danger, the according to the principle of double effect the uterus cannot
>>be removed. Of course I think the principle is just b/s, but you seem
>>to use it.
>>
>>Osmo
>
>Read a book, Osmo. The philosophical principle of "double effect" is not a
>"Catholic" idea. It pre-dates the Catholic Church by centuries. Don't let your
>anti-Catholic bias blind you to good philosophical reasoning.
The fact that it predates catholicism does not mean it is not a
Catholic principle.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
followups to t.a
In article <31e9cbf4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Lawrence E. McKnight <mckn...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
...
>>
>>Do not try to push the Catholic principle of double effect. It requires
>>that the bad cannot be the means for the good. So it it cannot be
>>applied here. The principle can be applied when the woman's health is
>>endangered by some other, unrelated cause. For example if she has a
>>cancer in the uterus, they can remove the whole uterus and the death of
>>the fetus is just a side effect. Note that is the fetus causes the
>>danger, the according to the principle of double effect the uterus cannot
>>be removed. Of course I think the principle is just b/s, but you seem
>>to use it.
>
>Actually Osmo, when I studied Catholic moral theology, I was told (by
>people with initials like S.T.D. after their names) that the principle
>of the double effect was formulated specifically because of ectopic
>pregnancies. The theologians knew that the woman would die, and no baby
>would ever appear, no matter what, and they realized they needed to do
>something.
Then use the principle to allow treating ectopic pregnancies and make
sure that the same reasoning does not allow treating equally fatal cases
in utero (which the church does not approve).
The principle of double effect is to my knowledge a little older than
treatment or even knowledge of ectopic pregnancies.
Osmo
Neuron
You are misunderstanding, the brain dead person is a human, it is not a
being. The term being requiers the higher brain functions that a brain
dead human and a fetus both lack.
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <4sc1vn$m...@kruuna.helsinki.fi>,
ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>In article <4sb5k1$o...@nadine.teleport.com>, <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>Besides which, the "cure" for an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion, it is
a
>>tubal ligation (which, as a secondary effect, results in the death of a
>>child). There is NO condition which would threaten the life of the mother
>>which would necessitate an abortion procedure as its "cure."
>>
>
>ROTFL. Tubal ligation fore ectopic pregnancy. Where do you get this
>stuff? Even if the woman is sterilized, one has to remove the embryo.
>That means one has to kill it.
Tubal ligation is the removal of the Fallopian tube. It us done routinely for
sterilization, but it is the same procedure for removing a Fallopina tube with
an unborn attached inside. The only way to remove the embryo is to remove the
tube. A surgical abortion technique does not reach inside the Fallopian tube
-- where the unborn is in a tubal pregnancy.
>
>Do not try to push the Catholic principle of double effect. It requires
>that the bad cannot be the means for the good. So it it cannot be
>applied here. The principle can be applied when the woman's health is
>endangered by some other, unrelated cause. For example if she has a
>cancer in the uterus, they can remove the whole uterus and the death of
>the fetus is just a side effect. Note that is the fetus causes the
>danger, the according to the principle of double effect the uterus cannot
>be removed. Of course I think the principle is just b/s, but you seem
>to use it.
>
>Osmo
Read a book, Osmo. The philosophical principle of "double effect" is not a
"Catholic" idea. It pre-dates the Catholic Church by centuries. Don't let your
anti-Catholic bias blind you to good philosophical reasoning.
S.
>
>
>
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <4sc2ko$2...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
neur...@ix.netcom.com(Neuron) wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Please, some stats to back up this totally outrageous statement. MOST
>>>abortions happen because birth control failed, according to PP. But
>if you
>>>have other info, let's see it...
>>>
>>Alan Guttmacher Institute (a research arm of PP) has concluded that
>96% of
>>abortions are done for "social" reasons. Few are "failed birth
>control." Less
>>than 1% are for rape and about 2% for "fetal deformity."
>>Call them yourself and they'll supply the figures.
>>
>>S.
>
>
>to get knocked up and don't want to have a kid? Most abortions are
>because the birth control is not effective enough.
Alan Gutmacher Institute disputes this.
>
>If you are asked why are you having an abortion, chances are you are
>going to say because you don't want to have a child or I can't aford to
>have it. You won't say because the condome broke. So I thin this poll
>is moot.
>
>You would have to ask what percentage of those having abortions, used
>birth control. So try again.
This is precisely the question asked. PP "counseling" include questions about
previous use of BC. Alan Guttmacher Institute compiled its figures from there.
S.
>
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4sc2ko$2...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
Neuron <neur...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Please, some stats to back up this totally outrageous statement. MOST
>>>abortions happen because birth control failed, according to PP. But
>if you
>>>have other info, let's see it...
>>>
>>Alan Guttmacher Institute (a research arm of PP) has concluded that
>96% of
>>abortions are done for "social" reasons. Few are "failed birth
>control." Less
>>than 1% are for rape and about 2% for "fetal deformity."
>>Call them yourself and they'll supply the figures.
>>
>>S.
>
>
>Ahhh and what exactly is "social reasons"? Could that be I didn't mean
>to get knocked up and don't want to have a kid? Most abortions are
>because the birth control is not effective enough.
>
Please when you make such claims back them up.
Osmo
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <4se5id$9...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote:
>In <4scn2v$n...@nadine.teleport.com> sabu...@teleport.com writes:
>>
>>In article <4sc2ko$2...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Please, some stats to back up this totally outrageous statement.
>MOST
>>>>>abortions happen because birth control failed, according to PP. But
>>>if you
>>>>>have other info, let's see it...
>>>>>
>>>>Alan Guttmacher Institute (a research arm of PP) has concluded that
>>>96% of
>>>>abortions are done for "social" reasons. Few are "failed birth
>>>control." Less
>>>>than 1% are for rape and about 2% for "fetal deformity."
>>>>Call them yourself and they'll supply the figures.
>>>>
>>>>S.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ahhh and what exactly is "social reasons"? Could that be I didn't
>mean
>>>to get knocked up and don't want to have a kid? Most abortions are
>>>because the birth control is not effective enough.
>>
>>>
>>>If you are asked why are you having an abortion, chances are you are
>>>going to say because you don't want to have a child or I can't aford
>to
>>>have it. You won't say because the condome broke. So I thin this
>poll
>>>is moot.
>>>
>>>You would have to ask what percentage of those having abortions, used
>>>birth control. So try again.
>>
>>This is precisely the question asked. PP "counseling" include
>questions about
>>previous use of BC. Alan Guttmacher Institute compiled its figures
>from there.
>
>this country, and since their client population is KNOWN to be skewed,
>the conclusions which can be drawn from PP's data are applicable ONLY
>to the PP client population -- NOT the world as a whole, or even this
>country as a whole. Try again.
>
PP is the largest abortion provider in the world. 130,000 per year in the US.
That is a pretty large statistical sampling. I imagine you would want a 100%
statistical sampling to prove anything to you that you were in denial about --
and then you would find some other escape hatch.
Please prove your claim that PP's client population is "skewed" in any way.
Data? Facts? I doubt you have them.
S.
sabu...@teleport.com
In article <31e9cbf4...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
mckn...@ix.netcom.com (Lawrence E. McKnight) wrote:
>ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo Ronkanen) wrote:
>
>>In article <4sb5k1$o...@nadine.teleport.com>, <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>>>Besides which, the "cure" for an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion, it
is a
>>>tubal ligation (which, as a secondary effect, results in the death of a
>>>child). There is NO condition which would threaten the life of the mother
>>>which would necessitate an abortion procedure as its "cure."
>>>
>>
>>ROTFL. Tubal ligation fore ectopic pregnancy. Where do you get this
>>stuff? Even if the woman is sterilized, one has to remove the embryo.
>>That means one has to kill it.
>>
>>that the bad cannot be the means for the good. So it it cannot be
>>applied here. The principle can be applied when the woman's health is
>>endangered by some other, unrelated cause. For example if she has a
>>cancer in the uterus, they can remove the whole uterus and the death of
>>the fetus is just a side effect. Note that is the fetus causes the
>>danger, the according to the principle of double effect the uterus cannot
>>be removed. Of course I think the principle is just b/s, but you seem
>>to use it.
>
>people with initials like S.T.D. after their names) that the principle
>of the double effect was formulated specifically because of ectopic
>pregnancies. The theologians knew that the woman would die, and no baby
>would ever appear, no matter what, and they realized they needed to do
>something.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>---------------
>Larry McKnight
>(this space unintentionally left blank.....
Sorry, Larry. That's what you get for believing everthing you hear (even if it
comes from someone whose initials are STD). (Doint hat leaves ANOTHER space
blank . . . but we won't go into that.) The "double effect" idea was around
long before the Catholic Church, and the Catholic Church adopted a variation
of it through Thomas Aquinas who lived long before people knew of the
existance of ectopic pregnancies.
S.
Christine A. Owens
Chris Owens
sabu...@teleport.com
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <31E88C...@cannet.com>,
Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> wrote:
>Cheryl Morris responds:
>
>Neuron wrote:
>>
>> Why do you think they are refered to as such???? It's true their
>> humanness is not being denyed, because they are still of humans. What
>> is denyed is that they are human beings, the term beings being the
>> point here. They are nothing but empty shells keept alive be machines.
>> I feel the same about a 20 year old brain dead huamn, as I do about a
>> 20 week old gustational human, neither are human beings because neither
>> is sentient.
>>
>
>While many pro-choicers disagree with this poster, this is the attitude
>which many pro-lifers fear. We are accused of the slippery slope mentality
>when we say that the pro-choice attitude toward the unborn will lead to
>attitudes such as this, but here you have it, someone calling what many
>pro-choicers would say is a human being, because they have been born, saying
>it just ain't so.
Brain dead means dead. Do you think dead people should be kept in machines?
>
>Cheryl
>
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <4sb5k1$o...@nadine.teleport.com>, <sabu...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Besides which, the "cure" for an ectopic pregnancy is NOT an abortion, it is a
>tubal ligation (which, as a secondary effect, results in the death of a
>child). There is NO condition which would threaten the life of the mother
>which would necessitate an abortion procedure as its "cure."
>
ROTFL. Tubal ligation fore ectopic pregnancy. Where do you get this
stuff? Even if the woman is sterilized, one has to remove the embryo.
That means one has to kill it.
Do not try to push the Catholic principle of double effect. It requires
that the bad cannot be the means for the good. So it it cannot be
applied here. The principle can be applied when the woman's health is
endangered by some other, unrelated cause. For example if she has a
cancer in the uterus, they can remove the whole uterus and the death of
the fetus is just a side effect. Note that is the fetus causes the
danger, the according to the principle of double effect the uterus cannot
be removed. Of course I think the principle is just b/s, but you seem
to use it.
Osmo
Neuron
>>
>>Please, some stats to back up this totally outrageous statement. MOST
>>abortions happen because birth control failed, according to PP. But
if you
>>have other info, let's see it...
>>
>Alan Guttmacher Institute (a research arm of PP) has concluded that
96% of
>abortions are done for "social" reasons. Few are "failed birth
control." Less
>than 1% are for rape and about 2% for "fetal deformity."
>Call them yourself and they'll supply the figures.
>
>S.
Ahhh and what exactly is "social reasons"? Could that be I didn't mean
to get knocked up and don't want to have a kid? Most abortions are
because the birth control is not effective enough.
If you are asked why are you having an abortion, chances are you are
going to say because you don't want to have a child or I can't aford to
have it. You won't say because the condome broke. So I thin this poll
is moot.
You would have to ask what percentage of those having abortions, used
birth control. So try again.
--
Christine A. Owens
In <4seel4$h...@nadine.teleport.com> sabu...@teleport.com writes:
>
>In article <4se5id$9...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
> cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote:
>>In <4scn2v$n...@nadine.teleport.com> sabu...@teleport.com writes:
>>>
>>>In article <4sc2ko$2...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
>>> neur...@ix.netcom.com(Neuron) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>MOST
>>>>>>abortions happen because birth control failed, according to PP.
But
>>>>if you
>>>>>>have other info, let's see it...
>>>>>>
>>>>>Alan Guttmacher Institute (a research arm of PP) has concluded
that
>>>>96% of
>>>>>abortions are done for "social" reasons. Few are "failed birth
>>>>control." Less
>>>>>than 1% are for rape and about 2% for "fetal deformity."
>>>>>Call them yourself and they'll supply the figures.
>>>>>
>>>>>S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ahhh and what exactly is "social reasons"? Could that be I didn't
>>mean
>>>>to get knocked up and don't want to have a kid? Most abortions are
>>>>because the birth control is not effective enough.
>>>
>>>>
are
>>>>going to say because you don't want to have a child or I can't
aford
>>to
>>>>have it. You won't say because the condome broke. So I thin this
>>poll
>>>>is moot.
>>>>
>>>>You would have to ask what percentage of those having abortions,
used
>>>>birth control. So try again.
>>>
>>questions about
>>>previous use of BC. Alan Guttmacher Institute compiled its figures
>>from there.
>>
>>Since Planned Parenthood performs only about 10% of the abortions in
>>this country, and since their client population is KNOWN to be
skewed,
>>the conclusions which can be drawn from PP's data are applicable ONLY
>>to the PP client population -- NOT the world as a whole, or even this
>>country as a whole. Try again.
>>
>PP is the largest abortion provider in the world. 130,000 per year in
the US.
>That is a pretty large statistical sampling. I imagine you would want
a 100%
>statistical sampling to prove anything to you that you were in denial
about --
>and then you would find some other escape hatch.
>Please prove your claim that PP's client population is "skewed" in any
way.
>Data? Facts? I doubt you have them.
If you will wander on down to the PP website, you can find the same
sets of stats that were used by the AGI to prepare their report. The
PP client population is younger, has more minorities, and is less
likely to be married than the fertile female population . . . hence the
statistics are, a priori, skewed. BTW, since math does not seem to be
your strong point 130K IS 10% of 1.3M.
Chris Owens
Zanna
Louis Cypher wrote:
> Sami's Mom and Dad <ti...@ccnet.com> wrote:
> >Steve (mdo...@nando.net) wrote:
> >: GARY <u3...@mail.snet.net> wrote:
(snip)
> >Then "perhaps" they should do a better job at preventing a pregnancy...
> >most pregnancies that end in abortion were totally aviodable pregnancies...
> >Your reasons are not reason, they are excuses...and bad ones at that.
> Wow. That's great. You want to cut down on unwanted pregnancies? You are
> quite unlike most pro-liars. Most are against contraception and sex
> education in schools.
It would be so nice if we could refrain from using the labels that some person
thought up to refer to an entire diverse group of people. I am opposed to the
concept of abortion as an easily accessible, guilt-free escape from the
consequences of irresponsible activities, but certainly do not oppose
contraception or the responsible teaching of sex education. I do believe that
you are thinking of the Catholics, who (officially) oppose any forms of
contraception, and Fundamentalists, who often seem to wish that sex didn't
exist; neither approach represents the ideas of so much as all the members of
those labels, not to mention the rest of us. There are probably non-religious
people involved in the debate (although, truth be known, I don't know of any
myself) who are opposed similarly to contraception/sex ed, so I don't want to
appear to be landing the christians with ALL the blame.
Let's recap: not all those who oppose abortion are religious; not all
"religious" people call themselves Christians; not all who call themselves
Christians were raised as Catholics; not all who call themselves Catholics
follow the strict teachings of the Catholic Church. Therefore, not all who
oppose abortion automatically have either a Pope or a moral reason not to use
contraception etc.
Suzanne
> You are quite the rebel.
So was Jesus Christ in his day...
Suzanne
--
**The reasonable man will adapt to the world around him, while the
**unreasonable man insists on attempting to adapt the world to him;
**therefore, all progress depends upon the unreasonable man.
** George Bernard Shaw
Bruce Forest
In article <4sgs9j$s...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com wrote:
[...]
> When any portion of the Fallopian tube is removed, both ends are "bound" --
> thus tubal ligation for sterilization (you don't think they still just tie a
> square knot in the tube and leave it at thatlike they did when the procedure
> was first developed, do you?) or for diseased tube or for tubal pregnancy.
>
Tubal ligation is NOT the procedure for removing an ectopic. Many ectopics
are not in the Fallopian tube at all, and the exact location is not
discernable until a laparotomy, or laparoscopy is done. What is done once
inside is up to the surgeon. But, even though a very small ectopic might
lead merely to the ligation of the Fallopian tube, no one would call the
surgery a tubal ligation.
Ligation is 'to tie,' and 'tubal ligation' is only a simplistic term for a
innocuous sterilization procedure. Surgery for an ectopic is rarely that
simple. But one thing is common...all surgery for extrauterine pregnancy
is abortive.
mpa...@pacbell.com
AF>SMa> There are laws against suicide...
AF>There shouldn't be, just like there shouldn't be laws against
AF>abortion.
California does not have a lwas against suicide. What state does? Can
someone quote their state law against suicide and what the punishment is
for a successful suicide?
---
ş SLMR 2.1a ş An' harm it none, do as thy will.
>> Slipstream Jet - The QWK solution for Usenets #UNREGISTERED
Zanna
Bruce Forest wrote:
> In article <4sb5k1$o...@nadine.teleport.com>, sabu...@teleport.com wrote:
(snip)
> >There is NO condition which would threaten the life of the mother
> > which would necessitate an abortion procedure as its "cure."
> There are HUNDREDS of conditions that will kill the mother if the
> pregnancy is not ended. Would you like a list of life-threatening
> conditions?
Yes, please - with medical specifics, if you've got them. It's always
interesting, nay vital, to know more about the discernible facts of the
case.
mpa...@pacbell.com
<snip>
JR>> I feel the same about a 20 year old brain dead huamn
<snip>
JR>While many pro-choicers disagree with this poster, this is the attitude
JR>which many pro-lifers fear. We are accused of the slippery slope mentality
JR>when we say that the pro-choice attitude toward the unborn will lead to
JR>attitudes such as this, but here you have it, someone calling what many
JR>pro-choicers would say is a human being, because they have been born, saying
JR>it just ain't so.
Are you trying to say that most pro-choicers consider a brain dead body
to still be a human being? Do you? How do you feel about the following
story which happened years ago:
A pregnant woman was somehow hurt. She was pronounced brain dead, her
fetus was still alive. Her body was kept alive on machines for a few
months until the baby could be removed by C-section. The machines were
then turned off and the woman's body allowed to die.
Was her brain dead body a "human being" for those long months of
gestation? If so, was turning off the machines murder? Why or why not?
Should brain-dead female bodies be kept alive on machines so that pro-
lifers may have sex with them and produce babies for their adoption
businesses?