List of people likely to be Pro-Choice
Bill....@microsoft.com
======================================
Womanisers:
Abortion has meant the end of male responsibility. Thanks to
abortion these people get what they want without incurring any
obligation whatsoever. With legalised abortion they have it
better than ever before.
Men generally (yeah, them people that feminists hate):
Again, all men being as above (rapists) abortion allows them to
get whatever they want without incurring any obligation on
themselves. And people are led to believe that abortion empowers
women.
KKK, Skinheads, Neonazis, and other assorted racists:
That's right... With the abortion rate for black women a
staggering three times that of white women, and the rate for
hispanics twice that of whites, abortion is certainly furthering
the goal of white domination.
Mysogynists - people Pro-Choicers wrongly characterise
Pro-Lifers as (the "barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen" types):
Clearly the purely utilitarian view by mysogynists of
women-as-cattle is achieved through abortion. Why would
mysogynists want women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen:
pregnancy spoils their fun. A much better picture for these
types would be: barefoot, had-an-abortion, and in the bedroom.
Only with abortion has such an ideal been able to be achieved.
Hack doctors:
Abortion requires little or no surgical skill or expertise, nor
does it require any specialised medical knowledge on the part of
the abortion "doctor". Legalised abortion has allowed the hacks
and incompetents in the medical profession a way to earn an
honest living when previously they were roundly condemned by
society and relegated to their "back-alleys".
--
Anyone like to add more?
bi...@microsoft.com
>
> On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:50:52 +1300, Bill....@microsoft.com wrote:
>
> >Womanisers:
> >
> >Abortion has meant the end of male responsibility. Thanks to
> >abortion these people get what they want without incurring any
> >than ever before.
>
> You mean, like using condoms? Your point is meaningless.
>
But what if the condom fails? Look at all the Choice For Men
advocates on this NG (generally, the male pro-choicers) who
demand the right not to be fathers if the contraceptive fails
and the woman ONLY chooses to have the child.
Clearly, thanks to abortion, they're off the hook anyway - which
is all they care about: to get what they want without any
inconvenience to themselves.
> >Again, all men being as above (rapists) abortion allows them to
> >get whatever they want without incurring any obligation on
> >themselves. And people are led to believe that abortion empowers
> >women.
>
> So you repaste your first point, claiming that all men are
> rapists/womanizers. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
>
Gee, well of course it doesn't. It's a reference to the view of
feminists who view men as rapists. I expect most people here
would have recognised it.
But here's some quotes from feminists that hold that view, in
case you need to get up to speed with things. Nice of you to
already admit that they don't make any sense.
"All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn
French, Author, "The Women's Room"
"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse
occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her
own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine
Editor
"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized
expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is
rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give
meaningful consent," said Catherine MacKinnon in Professing
Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's
Studies.
"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the
average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a
quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The
All-American Crime"
"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" --
Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)
Good to know what some of the most vocal proponents of abortion
- the radical feminists - think, isn't it?
> >KKK, Skinheads, Neonazis, and other assorted racists:
>
> Almost all of the above are fervently anti-abortion.
>
> >Mysogynists - people Pro-Choicers wrongly characterise
> >Pro-Lifers as (the "barefoot, pregnant in the kitchen" types):
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about here.
>
Again it seems to me you're just playing the idiot.
It's a reference to the pro-aborts on this NG who characterise
pro-lifers as trying to "enslave women". Which is exactly what
the abortion culture has made of them: sterile utilities for the
pleasure of womanising men.
> >Hack doctors:
>
> Well, to be able to legally perform abortions, you have to be a
> medical doctor. However, if they're *illegal*, this would create a
> huge market for quacks who *do* know how to perform abortions.
>
Yes, no doubt you would actually accuse the law itself for
causing the actions of those quacks when abortion was illegal,
when in fact the law is there to protect women FROM those
people. And it did, once upon a time, before they had an entire
industry and its teams of lawyers to back them up.
Scum like that were chucked in jail straight away before. Now
they'd be unlucky just to get their license revoked by the
medical authorities, let alone any real punishment.
> ------------------------------------------------------
> "You must be in love with the devil. You probably
> sold your soul to him to learn how to play the banjo.
> May God help you!"
>
> - "Bishop" Norman Boyd
Adam Levenstein
>Gee, well of course it doesn't. It's a reference to the view of
>feminists who view men as rapists. I expect most people here
>would have recognised it.
>
>But here's some quotes from feminists that hold that view, in
>case you need to get up to speed with things. Nice of you to
>already admit that they don't make any sense.
What was it Al Franken said?
"The truth is, I've known many feminists over the years, and I know
only one that holds this view. And we've been married nearly 20
years."
>It's a reference to the pro-aborts on this NG who characterise
>pro-lifers as trying to "enslave women". Which is exactly what
>the abortion culture has made of them: sterile utilities for the
>pleasure of womanising men.
Or men as tools of sex-crazed women. It's a two-way street, and serves
no rational purpose.
>Yes, no doubt you would actually accuse the law itself for
>causing the actions of those quacks when abortion was illegal,
>when in fact the law is there to protect women FROM those
>people. And it did, once upon a time, before they had an entire
>industry and its teams of lawyers to back them up.
>
>Scum like that were chucked in jail straight away before. Now
>they'd be unlucky just to get their license revoked by the
>medical authorities, let alone any real punishment.
Well, look, it's an artificial point. You say that legalizing abortion
creates quacks. Well, with abortion legalized, quacks who would've
made a killing at back-alley abortions now are out of business. Now,
with abortion legalized, women who want or need the procedure can go
to regulated, legal, healthy clinics.
bi...@microsoft.com
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 15:09:58 +1300, bi...@microsoft.com wrote:
>
> >Gee, well of course it doesn't. It's a reference to the view of
> >feminists who view men as rapists. I expect most people here
> >would have recognised it.
> >
> >But here's some quotes from feminists that hold that view, in
> >case you need to get up to speed with things. Nice of you to
> >already admit that they don't make any sense.
>
> What was it Al Franken said?
>
> "The truth is, I've known many feminists over the years, and I know
> only one that holds this view. And we've been married nearly 20
> years."
>
carpet. Not surprisingly you would be ashamed to have freaks
like that on your side.
> >It's a reference to the pro-aborts on this NG who characterise
> >pro-lifers as trying to "enslave women". Which is exactly what
> >the abortion culture has made of them: sterile utilities for the
> >pleasure of womanising men.
>
> Or men as tools of sex-crazed women. It's a two-way street, and serves
> no rational purpose.
>
We will always get at least as much from sex as they do. That's
equal - never the street going the other way. (And women don't
control men; that would be simply how he prefers it...)
Everything else goes "our" way: women will always have to have
the violent act committed against their own nature; and we
won't.
Of course feminists view sexuality as entirely one-way as it is.
This is precisely what feminists realise when they see abortion
as their only way to "get even": to get in control of the
consequences that only _they_ have to face. Read those quotes
again to see the context in which those feminists view abortion:
their utterly degenerate view of (hetero)sexuality. Of course
abortion is just an empty, despairing "solution". Which is why
it's promoted almost exclusively by the kind of women with
nothing at stake.
> >Yes, no doubt you would actually accuse the law itself for
> >causing the actions of those quacks when abortion was illegal,
> >when in fact the law is there to protect women FROM those
> >people. And it did, once upon a time, before they had an entire
> >industry and its teams of lawyers to back them up.
> >
> >Scum like that were chucked in jail straight away before. Now
> >they'd be unlucky just to get their license revoked by the
> >medical authorities, let alone any real punishment.
>
> Well, look, it's an artificial point. You say that legalizing abortion
> creates quacks.
No, they're already there. Legalised abortion has created an
industry for them (and I'm sure some back-alley abortionists
were medically qualified. They were the ones that charged the
most.) I didn't say it created them.
> Well, with abortion legalized, quacks who would've
> made a killing at back-alley abortions now are out of business.
You may not call them quacks but I view all abortionists the
same way that many, many people do: with contempt. It's an
insult to real doctors - who deserve our respect - to compare
them to these assembly-line abortionists.
Even legally, abortionists are merely masquerading as doctors;
devoted to destroying the unborn as quickly as possible to
maximise profits, instead of saving lives and healing people.
Yeah, that's medicine. No wonder they're viewed with relative
professional contempt by the medical community.
> Now,
> with abortion legalized, women who want or need the procedure can go
> to regulated, legal, healthy clinics.
>
Regulated? Healthy? You don't have that assurance any more than
anyone else. You must know that the abortion industry fights
tooth and nail against efforts to have regulatory standards for
abortion clinics raised to the same level as any other type of
medical facility. Therefore: why do YOU assume they are so safe?
The pro-choicers in this NG also consistently oppose enforcing
the same health and safety standards for abortion facilities.
But, they'd pathetically characterise that as protecting a
woman's right to choose - as if it were truly threatened by
enforcing the same safety standards for abortion "clinics" as
for any other surgical facility. Then they will, quite
naturally, turn around calling them safe and regulated.
Adam Levenstein
>You may not call them quacks but I view all abortionists the
>same way that many, many people do: with contempt. It's an
>insult to real doctors - who deserve our respect - to compare
>them to these assembly-line abortionists.
>
>Even legally, abortionists are merely masquerading as doctors;
>devoted to destroying the unborn as quickly as possible to
>maximise profits, instead of saving lives and healing people.
>Yeah, that's medicine. No wonder they're viewed with relative
>professional contempt by the medical community.
Most "abortionists" are ob/gyns; abortion is not usually a main part
of their practice.
>Regulated? Healthy? You don't have that assurance any more than
>anyone else. You must know that the abortion industry fights
>tooth and nail against efforts to have regulatory standards for
>abortion clinics raised to the same level as any other type of
>medical facility. Therefore: why do YOU assume they are so safe?
OK, give me one way in which abortion clinics are regulated LESS than
"mainstream" medical clinics and hospitals.
>The pro-choicers in this NG also consistently oppose enforcing
>the same health and safety standards for abortion facilities.
How?
Chad Snyder
> Adam Levenstein wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 08:50:52 +1300, Bill....@microsoft.com wrote:
> >
> > >Womanisers:
> > >
> > >Abortion has meant the end of male responsibility. Thanks to
> > >abortion these people get what they want without incurring any
> > >obligation whatsoever. With legalised abortion they've better
> > >than ever before.
> >
> > You mean, like using condoms? Your point is meaningless.
> >
> But what if the condom fails? Look at all the Choice For Men
> advocates on this NG (generally, the male pro-choicers) who
> demand the right not to be fathers if the contraceptive fails
> and the woman ONLY chooses to have the child.
>
> Clearly, thanks to abortion, they're off the hook anyway - which
> is all they care about: to get what they want without any
> inconvenience to themselves.
>
> > >Again, all men being as above (rapists) abortion allows them to
> > >get whatever they want without incurring any obligation on
> > >themselves. And people are led to believe that abortion empowers
> > >women.
> >
> > So you repaste your first point, claiming that all men are
> > rapists/womanizers. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
> >
> feminists who view men as rapists. I expect most people here
> would have recognised it.
Don't you think you're generalizing just a tad? I consider myself a
feminist and yet I don't view men as rapists. You shouldn't stereotype
feminists just because a few out-spoken ones seem to have this view of
men.
>
> But here's some quotes from feminists that hold that view, in
> case you need to get up to speed with things. Nice of you to
> already admit that they don't make any sense.
>
> "All men are rapists and that's all they are" -- Marilyn
> French, Author, "The Women's Room"
>
> "I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse
> occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her
> own genuine affection and desire." -- Robin Morgan, MS. Magazine
> Editor
>
> "Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized
> expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin
>
> "In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is
> ape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give
> meaningful consent," said Catherine MacKinnon in Professing
> Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's
> Studies.
> "And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the
> average dominant heterosexual [male], it may be mainly a
> quantitative difference." -- Susan Griffin "Rape: The
> All-American Crime"
> "The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" --
> Ti-Grace Atkinson "Amazon Odyssey" (p. 86)
>
> Good to know what some of the most vocal proponents of abortion
> - the radical feminists - think, isn't it?
Just because they are the most vocal doesn't mean they are representative
of all feminists. Besides, I'd rather hear radicals spout off their
crazy beliefs as opposed to them shooting the opposition. At least these
radical feminists aren't crazy enough to go shooting sprees like those
that have occurred in Florida and New York in the name of the "Pro-Life"
movement.
--Rachael, the Moderate
TerryG
c...@worker.com (Adam Levenstein) wrote:
> OK, give me one way in which abortion clinics are regulated LESS than
> "mainstream" medical clinics and hospitals.
OK. Give us a reliable figure for the number of partial birth abortions
performed in the US and tell us the source. Medical facilities are
required to keep records and counts of all other surgical procedures
except for most types of abortions including partial birth abortions.
And as Bill said, the info is hidden under the guise of protecting
women's privacy. The truth is, the abortion industry doesn't want the
information to come out so people like Bill Clinton can continue to say
they see no problem with partial birth abortions given the small number
that are performed.
--
What we're all involved in here is an exercise in
communications.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
TerryG
myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
>
> --Rachael, the Moderate
>
There is nothing moderate about abortion so stop deluding yourself.
Ron Nicholson
> In article <3843c07e....@news.psu.edu>,
> c...@worker.com (Adam Levenstein) wrote:
> > OK, give me one way in which abortion clinics are regulated LESS than
> > "mainstream" medical clinics and hospitals.
>
> OK. Give us a reliable figure for the number of partial birth abortions
> performed in the US and tell us the source. Medical facilities are
> required to keep records and counts of all other surgical procedures
> except for most types of abortions including partial birth abortions.
> And as Bill said, the info is hidden under the guise of protecting
> women's privacy. The truth is, the abortion industry doesn't want the
> information to come out so people like Bill Clinton can continue to say
> they see no problem with partial birth abortions given the small number
> that are performed.
I didn't realize you had a problem with therapeutic abortions. IDE abortions
for any other purpose is illegal and statistics in most states are required
by statute.
Now, how does your reply answer the question of clinics being under less
regulation than other medical facilities?
Patrick L Humphrey
>In article <MPG.12ae5a4e7...@news.visi.net>,
> myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
>> --Rachael, the Moderate
>There is nothing moderate about abortion so stop deluding yourself.
You have no authority to decide for anyone else what's moderate, so maybe you
should take your own advice for once, eh?
--PLH, having fun watching the latest cafeteria Christian with his
pathologically bloated ego waddle through here, awaiting the inevitable
deflation
Ray Fischer
>> --Rachael, the Moderate
>
>There is nothing moderate about abortion so stop deluding yourself.
Moderation means killing women and forcing them to breed rather than
let them choose what happens with their own bodies.
--
Ray Fischer There is no fury like an ex-wife searching for a new lover.
r...@netcom.com Cyril Connolly 1903-1974
Scott Harrod
Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:82993h$enl$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
>
> >> --Rachael, the Moderate
> >
> >There is nothing moderate about abortion so stop deluding yourself.
>
> Moderation means killing women and forcing them to breed rather than
> let them choose what happens with their own bodies.
Since when did you care if a woman dies or not Ray? Is this something new?
ESC
let them choose what happens with their own bodies.>>>
Or rather others' bodies. And out of all the eugenics-inspired or "mental
health-related" abortions, how many "life-saving" abortions are performed
anyway?
Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:82993h$enl$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
>
> >> --Rachael, the Moderate
> >
> >There is nothing moderate about abortion so stop deluding yourself.
>
> Moderation means killing women and forcing them to breed rather than
> let them choose what happens with their own bodies.
>
hrgr...@my-deja.com
TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <MPG.12ae5a4e7...@news.visi.net>,
> myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
>
> >
> > --Rachael, the Moderate
> >
>
> There is nothing moderate about abortion so stop deluding yourself.
If PL extremist A says that a zygote is a human being from conception
on - and that women should stay in bed after sex to increase the
chances of implantation - and PC extremist B says that a fetus is a
clump of cells as long as the umbilical cord is not cut, then almost
*by definition* Rachael's position is moderate.
Here endeth the first lesson (Preparatory Logic 101).
HRG.
Chad Snyder
> In article <MPG.12ae5a4e7...@news.visi.net>,
> myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
>
> >
> > --Rachael, the Moderate
> >
>
> There is nothing moderate about abortion so stop deluding yourself.
>
Cute...and there's nothing moderate about taking away a woman's right to
choose, so quit deluding yourself.
--Rachael, the MODERATE ;-b
Warnock
question of men getting what they want!
With today's high technology, it is really quite simple ::
You want a child - get pregnant
You don't want a child - don't get pregnant
Abortion is playing with some of God's most intricate laws, not to be played
with
From a spiritual view point abortion is not permitted
From a human view point abortion is a cruel murder - not only the unborn
baby dies, the mother - if she has any emotion - is left bereft for years
Real men don't RAPE, real woman don't have abortions
Life is about facing the music, we have FREE CHOICE - but make the wrong
choice and we must face the consequences
Brian
hereti...@my-deja.com
"ESC" <jcar...@mis.net> wrote:
> Moderation means killing women and forcing them to breed rather than
> let them choose what happens with their own bodies.>>>
>
> Or rather others' bodies.
I see.
You think that YOU can control what women do to their bodies,
but of course, "that's different". Sure.
> And out of all the eugenics-inspired or
"mental
> health-related" abortions,
You mean like the one your mother should have gotten?
> how many "life-saving" abortions are
performed
> anyway?
CAn't be predicted, since the main causes of maternal death,
hemorrhage and embolism, can't be predicted, nor can they
be prevented. And since a woman with a risk factor has no
reason to say why, and since we don't keep track of reasons to
abort early, it is impossible to say.
But since so many children are allowed to die, why do you
care so much about unwanted fetuses? Do you prefer to let
children suffer and die instead? Why?
Ray Fischer
>Apart from Rape, men and woman share responsibility for pregnancies - not a
>question of men getting what they want!
Why?
>With today's high technology,
Something with which you rather obviously unacquainted.
> it is really quite simple ::
>You want a child - get pregnant
How?
>You don't want a child - don't get pregnant
How?
I know of people who have spent thousands of dollars trying to have
one or the other happen. Not always with success. Do you really
think it's as easy as flipping a switch?
>Abortion is playing with some of God's most intricate laws,
Nonsense.
> not to be played
>with
Which is a rather amusing comment, coming from someone using a
computer to comminicate with.
>From a spiritual view point abortion is not permitted
Says who?
>From a human view point abortion is a cruel murder -
Ho would you know?
>- not only the unborn
>baby dies, the mother - if she has any emotion - is left bereft for years
LOL! No, sorry, but your pro-lie disinformation is not the truth.
Chad Snyder
> > myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > --Rachael, the Moderate
> > >
> >
> > There is nothing moderate about abortion so stop deluding yourself.
>
> on - and that women should stay in bed after sex to increase the
> chances of implantation - and PC extremist B says that a fetus is a
> clump of cells as long as the umbilical cord is not cut, then almost
> *by definition* Rachael's position is moderate.
>
> Here endeth the first lesson (Preparatory Logic 101).
>
> HRG.
Thank you! =-)
--Rachael, the Moderate
>
> > --
> > What we're all involved in here is an exercise in
> > communications.
> >
TerryG
myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
> > If PL extremist A says that a zygote is a human being from
conception
> > on - and that women should stay in bed after sex to increase the
> > chances of implantation - and PC extremist B says that a fetus is a
> > clump of cells as long as the umbilical cord is not cut, then almost
> > *by definition* Rachael's position is moderate.
> >
> > Here endeth the first lesson (Preparatory Logic 101).
> >
> > HRG.
>
> Thank you! =-)
>
> --Rachael, the Moderate
I guess I'll say it again. There is nothing moderate about the
destruction of something no one can prove is not human life. And of
course, you're sitting there saying to yourself that no one can prove
that it is, which, in the final analysis, is the exactly basis for the
pro-abortion position. No one can prove that it is life, on the one
hand, and on the other, poor women have to undergo such incredible pain
and inconvenience in allowing the pregnancy to complete naturally.
Gosh, it's a no-brainer, isn't it. Destroy something no one can prove
is life or suffer what has become the intolerable anguish of pregnancy
and childbirth (there was a time when it was a joy). Women have
walked (not been led) down a path to where they just don't have the
character they once did have. Life is full of choices.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <MPG.12b62b3ae...@news.visi.net>,
> myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
>>> If PL extremist A says that a zygote is a human being from conception
>>> on - and that women should stay in bed after sex to increase the
>>> chances of implantation - and PC extremist B says that a fetus is a
>>> clump of cells as long as the umbilical cord is not cut, then almost
>>> *by definition* Rachael's position is moderate.
>>> Here endeth the first lesson (Preparatory Logic 101).
>>>
>>> HRG.
>> Thank you! =-)
>> --Rachael, the Moderate
>I guess I'll say it again. There is nothing moderate about the
>destruction of something no one can prove is not human life.
There's nothing new in your ignoring that you and your colleagues are avoiding
the proof you _should_ be providing -- it's human, and it's alive, but is it a
person? Custom and society say it is -- once it's been born. You're saying
it's a person from the moment of fertilization, but you give no proof of why
it should be regarded as such.
>And of course, you're sitting there saying to yourself that no one can prove
>that it is, which, in the final analysis, is the exactly basis for the
>pro-abortion position.
Have fun flailing at your strawman, Terry, because I've seen a whole three
people come through here in the last ten years who really were pro-abortion --
the rest of them are pro-choice. If you want to muddle the discussion by
using your personal definitions, that's your prerogative.
>No one can prove that it is life, on the one
>hand, and on the other, poor women have to undergo such incredible pain
>and inconvenience in allowing the pregnancy to complete naturally.
It's easily demonstrable that it's life -- so? So is a tumor, but I don't see
you out there campaigning for rights for tumors. I wonder, though -- what
about those poor women who _choose_ to go through that pain and inconvenience?
I'm pro-choice, and despite your illusions, I support their choice. Seems to
me that someone who really _was_ pro-abortion wouldn't support a woman who
chose to carry on through with her pregnancy.
>Gosh, it's a no-brainer, isn't it. Destroy something no one can prove
>is life or suffer what has become the intolerable anguish of pregnancy
>and childbirth (there was a time when it was a joy). Women have
>walked (not been led) down a path to where they just don't have the
>character they once did have. Life is full of choices.
Ain't that the truth...and guess what: you don't get to dictate them for
anyone else. Maybe that's what's twisting your knickers, eh?
--PLH, me, I can live with it -- I have for 44 years and change, so far
Ray Fischer
>I guess I'll say it again. There is nothing moderate about the
>destruction of something no one can prove is not human life.
I guess then that nobody is a moderate, since everybody is guilty of
destroying _something_ that is provably human life.
Chad Snyder
> In article <MPG.12b62b3ae...@news.visi.net>,
> myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
> > > If PL extremist A says that a zygote is a human being from
> conception
> > > on - and that women should stay in bed after sex to increase the
> > > chances of implantation - and PC extremist B says that a fetus is a
> > > clump of cells as long as the umbilical cord is not cut, then almost
> > > *by definition* Rachael's position is moderate.
> > >
> > > Here endeth the first lesson (Preparatory Logic 101).
> > >
> > > HRG.
> >
> > Thank you! =-)
> >
> > --Rachael, the Moderate
>
I never said the fetus wasn't human life. It is human fetal life, but it
is not a baby, person, or human BEING in the early stages of pregnancy.
> course, you're sitting there saying to yourself that no one can prove
> that it is, which, in the final analysis, is the exactly basis for the
> pro-abortion position. No one can prove that it is life, on the one
> hand, and on the other, poor women have to undergo such incredible pain
> and inconvenience in allowing the pregnancy to complete naturally.
> Gosh, it's a no-brainer, isn't it. Destroy something no one can prove
> is life or suffer what has become the intolerable anguish of pregnancy
> and childbirth (there was a time when it was a joy). Women have
I never said the fetus wasn't living. It is living, but it is a non-
sentient, living entity before the brain and nervous system have
developed.
So then it's a no-brainer that supporting the death penalty and the
military is extremist since you are definitely killing human lives in
those examples? I wonder what kinds of life do you support? Only
human life? How about plant and animal life?
--Rachael the Moderate
P.S. I'm not sure if your a "Christian" Pro-Lifer or not, but if you
are, do you know why God asked Abraham to sacrifice his baby (who was
even sentient and living physically independent of its mother) instead
of his wife? If not, then feel free to disregard this question.
> walked (not been led) down a path to where they just don't have the
> character they once did have. Life is full of choices.
>
> >
> > >
TerryG
right. And I will do everything I can to change that fact. Other than
that I don't know what you're talking about. But then again why should
I be any different. You don't know what you're talking about either.
In article <82kc4p$mer$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >I guess I'll say it again. There is nothing moderate about the
> >destruction of something no one can prove is not human life.
>
> I guess then that nobody is a moderate, since everybody is guilty of
> destroying _something_ that is provably human life.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer There is no fury like an ex-wife searching for a new
lover.
> r...@netcom.com Cyril Connolly 1903-1974
>
--
Ray Fischer
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >I guess I'll say it again. There is nothing moderate about the
>> >destruction of something no one can prove is not human life.
>>
>> I guess then that nobody is a moderate, since everybody is guilty of
>> destroying _something_ that is provably human life.
>>
>If you mean that taxes I pay are used to pay for abortions, then you're
>right.
Pro-lie disinformation. Taxes are not used to pay for abortions.
No, I refer to the billions of cells you have killed. Skin cells,
blood cells, gametes, muscle cells, etc. All provably human life.
> Other than
>that I don't know what you're talking about.
No kidding?
--
Ray Fischer Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs
r...@netcom.com should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
amandine.chaubet
TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> a écrit dans le message :
82j7dj$bd0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <MPG.12b62b3ae...@news.visi.net>,
> myst...@visi.net (Chad Snyder) wrote:
> > > If PL extremist A says that a zygote is a human being from
> conception
> > > on - and that women should stay in bed after sex to increase the
> > > chances of implantation - and PC extremist B says that a fetus is a
> > > clump of cells as long as the umbilical cord is not cut, then almost
> > > *by definition* Rachael's position is moderate.
> > >
> > > Here endeth the first lesson (Preparatory Logic 101).
> > >
> > > HRG.
> >
> > Thank you! =-)
> >
> > --Rachael, the Moderate
>
> course, you're sitting there saying to yourself that no one can prove
> that it is, which, in the final analysis, is the exactly basis for the
> pro-abortion position. No one can prove that it is life, on the one
> hand, and on the other, poor women have to undergo such incredible pain
> and inconvenience in allowing the pregnancy to complete naturally.
> Gosh, it's a no-brainer, isn't it. Destroy something no one can prove
> is life or suffer what has become the intolerable anguish of pregnancy
> and childbirth (there was a time when it was a joy). Women have
> character they once did have. Life is full of choices.
>
> >
> > >
> > > > What we're all involved in here is an exercise in
> > > > communications.
> > > >
> > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > Before you buy.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> >
>
> --
> What we're all involved in here is an exercise in
> communications.
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
Ithink that human being begins not at the conception but when the baby has
got a brain and can think, and if a baby can destroy his mother's life and
so itself, I think the mum may use abortion
amandine.chaubet
Moreover I just recall you that abortion is a right and so even if it's not
used always as a good means it's illegal toimpeach it
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on 9 Dec 1999 21:43:32 GMT <82p7q4$q9$1...@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>:
>TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>> >destruction of something no one can prove is not human life.
>>>
>>> destroying _something_ that is provably human life.
>>>
>>If you mean that taxes I pay are used to pay for abortions, then you're
>>right.
>
>Pro-lie disinformation. Taxes are not used to pay for abortions.
>
>No, I refer to the billions of cells you have killed. Skin cells,
>blood cells, gametes, muscle cells, etc. All provably human life.
I'm a little surprised there's no government assistance program
somewhere for the purposes of securing an induced abortion, although
it's definitely the case that the ultraconservatives would raise a
huge stink if there was, at the federal level.
Perhaps Planned Parenthood has a program...?
[rest snipped]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here