Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Fetus murder - one legal definition
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 8, 2012, 1:40:35 AM4/8/12
to
This excerpt struck me as so significant, I've decided to highlight it
as a repost:
(From http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/cf84fbc920a8e23c)
=====================
> >I expect your aware that in court cases of murder involving pregnant
> >women, the perpetrator is often tried for both lives.
>
> Only if the particular laws in that jurisdiction define a limited
> number of acts as being included in the definition of murder. Such
> laws clearly rest upon intent - and never prevent a voluntary
> abortion.
>
> For example:
>
> California Penal Code
>
> 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
> or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
> (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits
> an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the
> following apply:
> (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act,
> Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of
> Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
> (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and
> surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and
> Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty,
> the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the
> fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not
> medically certain, would be substantially certain or more
> likely than not.
> (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to
> by the mother of the fetus.
> (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
> prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
>
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001...
>
> Note 187. (a), which clearly says "a human being or a fetus". And all
> the exceptions under (b)
That is an EXCELLENT reference. Just look at the very first
statement:
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with
malice aforethought."
The only reason why killing a fetus is not considered murder is
because the law says it's ok to kill your own fetus. Anyone else
kills it and it is murder.
What an astoundingly stark contrast. A woman decides to kill off a
fetus within her body, and it can be considered "therapeutic".
Someone else makes that decision for her, and they are accountable for
murdering that fetus.
=====================
=Dustin
as a repost:
(From http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/cf84fbc920a8e23c)
=====================
> >I expect your aware that in court cases of murder involving pregnant
> >women, the perpetrator is often tried for both lives.
>
> Only if the particular laws in that jurisdiction define a limited
> number of acts as being included in the definition of murder. Such
> laws clearly rest upon intent - and never prevent a voluntary
> abortion.
>
> For example:
>
> California Penal Code
>
> 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
> or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
> (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits
> an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the
> following apply:
> (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act,
> Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of
> Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
> (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and
> surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and
> Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty,
> the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the
> fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not
> medically certain, would be substantially certain or more
> likely than not.
> (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to
> by the mother of the fetus.
> (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
> prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
>
> http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001...
>
> Note 187. (a), which clearly says "a human being or a fetus". And all
> the exceptions under (b)
That is an EXCELLENT reference. Just look at the very first
statement:
"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with
malice aforethought."
The only reason why killing a fetus is not considered murder is
because the law says it's ok to kill your own fetus. Anyone else
kills it and it is murder.
What an astoundingly stark contrast. A woman decides to kill off a
fetus within her body, and it can be considered "therapeutic".
Someone else makes that decision for her, and they are accountable for
murdering that fetus.
=====================
=Dustin
Message has been deleted
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 8, 2012, 2:00:07 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:40:35 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> body.
By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
mother's freedom is being encroached.
Choice: "keeping a person alive"
"any person has control over how their body will be used"
I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
It's not hard to imagine how certain camps reacted to this kind of
legislation, when it was first proposed... "We *can't* have them
treating the fetus as a human being!" Total freak out when it passed
into law. I mean, it opens that ugly door to the day when a mother
will be required to treat her own baby with the respect due to a human
being.
I find it odd that people persist in the position that it's the
mother's body and she can do what she wants with it. The life being
snuffed out has different DNA, different blood - it is distinct from
her body in so many ways. And again, the point above is that after
delivering it, she's obligated to care for it.
The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
words there.)
=Dustin
> On Sat, 7 Apr 2012 22:40:35 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
>
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This excerpt struck me as so significant, I've decided to highlight it
> >as a repost:
> >(Fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/cf84fbc920a8e23c)
>
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >This excerpt struck me as so significant, I've decided to highlight it
> >as a repost:
> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> body.
By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
mother's freedom is being encroached.
Choice: "keeping a person alive"
"any person has control over how their body will be used"
I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
It's not hard to imagine how certain camps reacted to this kind of
legislation, when it was first proposed... "We *can't* have them
treating the fetus as a human being!" Total freak out when it passed
into law. I mean, it opens that ugly door to the day when a mother
will be required to treat her own baby with the respect due to a human
being.
I find it odd that people persist in the position that it's the
mother's body and she can do what she wants with it. The life being
snuffed out has different DNA, different blood - it is distinct from
her body in so many ways. And again, the point above is that after
delivering it, she's obligated to care for it.
The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
words there.)
=Dustin
elizabeth
Apr 8, 2012, 5:13:19 PM4/8/12
to
On Apr 7, 10:40 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This excerpt struck me as so significant, I've decided to highlight it
> as a repost:
> (Fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/cf84fbc920a8e23c)
> This excerpt struck me as so significant, I've decided to highlight it
> as a repost:
> "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with
> malice aforethought."
>
> The only reason why killing a fetus is not considered murder is
> because the law says it's ok to kill your own fetus. Anyone else
> kills it and it is murder.
to be done with her body?
> What an astoundingly stark contrast. A woman decides to kill off a
> fetus within her body, and it can be considered "therapeutic".
Sorry, it's just not your call, and the sooner you get used to it, the
sooner you can do something useful with your life.
> Someone else makes that decision for her, and they are accountable for
> murdering that fetus.
> =====================
incapacation etc to have sex, it's RAPE.
Dustbin Dimwit is an Oopsey with literary pretentions.
elizabeth
Apr 8, 2012, 5:15:12 PM4/8/12
to
> By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> feeding that baby.
make men lactate by shooting 'em up with the same, natural hormones
found in women (and in lesser amounts in men)
> Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> mother's freedom is being encroached.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 8, 2012, 7:56:45 PM4/8/12
to
You're a rightard and you're trying to apply logic.
You rightards don't do logic well.
After a fetus is born, it becomes a -baby-, and babies have rights
independent of the rights of their mothers.
>Choice: "keeping a person alive"
choose to keep their babies alive.
>"any person has control over how their body will be used"
>I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
Nobody else has come to the "logical conclusion" that you have.
(remember what I wrote about rightards and logic?)
>Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
>provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
>would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
is born, rightard.
Neither is she allowed to harm or neglect the baby.
She has a number of legal options that will satisfy both of the above
conditions.
Which one of those options she decides to pursue is entirely up to
her.
>Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
>an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
>(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
The law was written by the anti-abortion crowd, and passed during the
hysteria surrounding the Lacy Peterson murder case.
It was a deliberate ploy to muddy the waters on when a fetus can be
considered a human being, allowing the anti-abortion crowd to make the
exact argument that you're making in your post.
Much of the ProChoice community decided to go along once it was
explicitly written into the law that abortion was exempted from being
covered by the law.
>It's not hard to imagine how certain camps reacted to this kind of
>legislation, when it was first proposed... "We *can't* have them
>treating the fetus as a human being!" Total freak out when it passed
>into law. I mean, it opens that ugly door to the day when a mother
>will be required to treat her own baby with the respect due to a human
>being.
More considered that for someone else to kill a fetus interfered with
the mother's right to choice.
Once it was explicitly written into the law that the law wouldn't
apply to abortion, they stopped objecting.
>I find it odd that people persist in the position that it's the
>mother's body and she can do what she wants with it.
But, you're a rightard.
So, there's no real surprise that you can't follow the more complex
arguments that support choice.
>The life being
>snuffed out has different DNA, different blood - it is distinct from
>her body in so many ways.
And, because it's not part of her body, but is imbedded in her body,
it's frequently detrimental to her health, both physically and
psychologically.
We know you rightards care nothing of women's health.. Or babies
after their born, for that matter.
But, women do care about their bodies, and a lot of other things.
> And again, the point above is that after
>delivering it, she's obligated to care for it.
She is not.
Many women hand away their babies at the point of birth, never to see
them again.
But, after their born, that's an option.
When most abortion are performed, that's not an option.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Message has been deleted
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 9, 2012, 5:18:59 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
> >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> >> body.
>
> >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>
> I see the problem...
>
> You're a rightard and you're trying to apply logic.
>
> You rightards don't do logic well.
How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
> >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> >> body.
>
> >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>
> I see the problem...
>
> You're a rightard and you're trying to apply logic.
>
> You rightards don't do logic well.
> After a fetus is born, it becomes a -baby-, and babies have rights
> independent of the rights of their mothers.
several years back, among plenty of other places, a fetus is granted
rights even while it is living *within* the pregnant woman.
> >Choice: "keeping a person alive"
>
> Why's that surprising, rightard? Many women, even ProChioce women
> choose to keep their babies alive.
pregnancy you ever have. Yes, those who support abortion still impose
a strict set of limitations on abortion. Mother's consent being a
biggie.
> >"any person has control over how their body will be used"
>
> Yes.
>
> >I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
>
> You mean -your- reasoning, rightard.
>
> Nobody else has come to the "logical conclusion" that you have.
> (remember what I wrote about rightards and logic?)
'rightard', it's perfectly clear that you are disparaging to both
Conservatives as well as mentally retarded people.
> >Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
> >provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
> >would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
>
> A mother isn't obligated to provide nourishment the day after a child
> is born, rightard.
>
> Neither is she allowed to harm or neglect the baby.
>
> She has a number of legal options that will satisfy both of the above
> conditions.
>
> Which one of those options she decides to pursue is entirely up to
> her.
meant was: "...if a mother is obligated to ensure that her baby is
provided nourishment on the day after it is born..."
The original point remains.
> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>
> Yes.
>
> The law was written by the anti-abortion crowd, and passed during the
> hysteria surrounding the Lacy Peterson murder case.
>
> It was a deliberate ploy to muddy the waters on when a fetus can be
> considered a human being, allowing the anti-abortion crowd to make the
> exact argument that you're making in your post.
>
> Much of the ProChoice community decided to go along once it was
> explicitly written into the law that abortion was exempted from being
> covered by the law.
"pro-life" camp. Particularly with the legislation enacted at the
federal level.
meant was that "she is obligated to ensure it is cared for." And
again, the point remains.
=Dustin
GeorgeK
Apr 9, 2012, 5:30:01 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > >> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
> > >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> > >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> > >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> > >> body.
>
> > >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> > >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> > >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> > >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> > >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>
> > I see the problem...
>
> > You're a rightard and you're trying to apply logic.
>
> > You rightards don't do logic well.
>
> How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> > >> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
> > >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> > >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> > >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> > >> body.
>
> > >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> > >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> > >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> > >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> > >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>
> > I see the problem...
>
> > You're a rightard and you're trying to apply logic.
>
> > You rightards don't do logic well.
>
> How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
to pretend he is tough.
He can't get away with that behavior in a social setting. And when
anyone disagrees
with him, he immediately assumes they are on the right and calls him a
rightard.
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 9, 2012, 5:47:07 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 8, 7:59 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
<snip>
> a newborn baby. Rarily does a woman have a baby they don't want, that's why
> most abortions are done very early in the pregnancy. You know that some
> mothers are unable to nurse their new born baby, and some new born are
> unable to digest their mothers milk. In the old days those babies died if a
> wet nurse was not available.
In my latest post I clarified what I meant to say. The point was that
the mother is obligated to ensure that the baby is cared for. So the
scenario was that a mother chooses to breastfeed her baby. However
many days later, she changes her mind and then decides to stop feeding
it. The baby dies.
By extending the logic your provided earlier, it would say that is her
right.
> >Choice: "keeping a person alive"
>
> >"any person has control over how their body will be used"
>
> >I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
> >Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
> >provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
> >would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
>
> She isn't but induced pre mature deliveries are common, and often the
> infant is bottle fed, by nurses.
> You women hating anti legal abortion bigots, need to either stop lying or
> learn the truth. After about 4 1/2 months. There are no abortions. There
> are induced premature deliveries for medical reasons none are for birth
> control. Birth control abortions are in the first 3 months.
Statistics I've seen show that fetuses are commonly killed
electively. I guess that group could be called The Procrastinators.
> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>
> Yes and it's always a wanted pregnancy.
Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
> >It's not hard to imagine how certain camps reacted to this kind of
> >legislation, when it was first proposed... "We *can't* have them
> >treating the fetus as a human being!" Total freak out when it passed
> >into law. I mean, it opens that ugly door to the day when a mother
> >will be required to treat her own baby with the respect due to a human
> >being.
>
> Is it that you are ignorant or a deliberate liar. No pro-choice person
> wants abortions, we want to prevent a woman from being forced to have a
> unwanted pregnancy. BTW if a mother doesn't treat her baby with proper
> respect and care, CPS will take the baby away from her. That is the law now
> and has been custom for many years.
Treating a fetus as a human being puts a huge damper on your stated
goal of wanting "to prevent a woman from being forced to have a
unwanted pregnacy."
> >I find it odd that people persist in the position that it's the
> >mother's body and she can do what she wants with it. The life being
> >snuffed out has different DNA, different blood - it is distinct from
> >her body in so many ways. And again, the point above is that after
> >delivering it, she's obligated to care for it.
>
> Another example of a lie or complete ignorance. A new mother can refuse to
> even look at a baby she doesn't want.
(Corrected clarification provided above.)
> >The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
> >vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
> >words there.)
>
> And some times a bad decision, need another bad decision to balance it. One
> more little drink, and wake up with a stranger that only wanted sex. Whores
> and sluts learn early how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Most teen
> pregnancies are innocent young Christian girls that are awash in Christian
> ignorance.
You've stated here that "No pro-choice person wants abortions". Well
obviously no one on the other side of this issue wants abortions too.
I'm baffled as to why both sides don't focus their efforts on
expanding the common interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in
the first place. It can so easily be done these days. Even for the
young Christian girls, there are smart non-sexually active reasons to
get a norplant-kind of insert. In combination with abstinence
education, that would completely solve the problem.
=Dustin
> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
> >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> >> body.
>
> >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>
> When the fetus is born it's a baby. Practially any one can tend to and feed
> >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> >> body.
>
> >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>
> a newborn baby. Rarily does a woman have a baby they don't want, that's why
> most abortions are done very early in the pregnancy. You know that some
> mothers are unable to nurse their new born baby, and some new born are
> unable to digest their mothers milk. In the old days those babies died if a
> wet nurse was not available.
In my latest post I clarified what I meant to say. The point was that
the mother is obligated to ensure that the baby is cared for. So the
scenario was that a mother chooses to breastfeed her baby. However
many days later, she changes her mind and then decides to stop feeding
it. The baby dies.
By extending the logic your provided earlier, it would say that is her
right.
> >Choice: "keeping a person alive"
>
> >"any person has control over how their body will be used"
>
> >I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
> >Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
> >provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
> >would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
>
> infant is bottle fed, by nurses.
> You women hating anti legal abortion bigots, need to either stop lying or
> learn the truth. After about 4 1/2 months. There are no abortions. There
> are induced premature deliveries for medical reasons none are for birth
> control. Birth control abortions are in the first 3 months.
Statistics I've seen show that fetuses are commonly killed
electively. I guess that group could be called The Procrastinators.
> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>
Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
> >It's not hard to imagine how certain camps reacted to this kind of
> >legislation, when it was first proposed... "We *can't* have them
> >treating the fetus as a human being!" Total freak out when it passed
> >into law. I mean, it opens that ugly door to the day when a mother
> >will be required to treat her own baby with the respect due to a human
> >being.
>
> wants abortions, we want to prevent a woman from being forced to have a
> unwanted pregnancy. BTW if a mother doesn't treat her baby with proper
> respect and care, CPS will take the baby away from her. That is the law now
> and has been custom for many years.
Treating a fetus as a human being puts a huge damper on your stated
goal of wanting "to prevent a woman from being forced to have a
unwanted pregnacy."
> >I find it odd that people persist in the position that it's the
> >mother's body and she can do what she wants with it. The life being
> >snuffed out has different DNA, different blood - it is distinct from
> >her body in so many ways. And again, the point above is that after
> >delivering it, she's obligated to care for it.
>
> even look at a baby she doesn't want.
(Corrected clarification provided above.)
> >The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
> >vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
> >words there.)
>
> more little drink, and wake up with a stranger that only wanted sex. Whores
> and sluts learn early how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Most teen
> pregnancies are innocent young Christian girls that are awash in Christian
> ignorance.
You've stated here that "No pro-choice person wants abortions". Well
obviously no one on the other side of this issue wants abortions too.
I'm baffled as to why both sides don't focus their efforts on
expanding the common interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in
the first place. It can so easily be done these days. Even for the
young Christian girls, there are smart non-sexually active reasons to
get a norplant-kind of insert. In combination with abstinence
education, that would completely solve the problem.
=Dustin
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 9, 2012, 7:23:05 PM4/9/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:30:01 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:
>On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > >> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
>> > >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
>> > >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
>> > >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
>> > >> body.
>>
>> > >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
>> > >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
>> > >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
>> > >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
>> > >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>>
>> > I see the problem...
>>
>> > You're a rightard and you're trying to apply logic.
>>
>> > You rightards don't do logic well.
>>
>> How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
>
>
>You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
>to pretend he is tough.
Being dismissive of stupidity and flawed thinking isn't the same as
pretending one is tough.
>He can't get away with that behavior in a social setting. And when
>anyone disagrees
>with him, he immediately assumes they are on the right and calls him a
>rightard.
I usually only weigh in when when I see extremely flawed thinking,
such as that displayed in the post by Dewynne that I responded to.
I can't help it that so much flawed thinking comes from the right.
As Stephen Colbert noted. "Reality has a well known liberal bias".
I know rightards get offended when I call them "rightard".
Oh well...
There's a simple cure.
One need only stop being a rightard.
wrote:
>On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 6:56 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > >> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
>> > >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
>> > >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
>> > >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
>> > >> body.
>>
>> > >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
>> > >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
>> > >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
>> > >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
>> > >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>>
>> > I see the problem...
>>
>> > You're a rightard and you're trying to apply logic.
>>
>> > You rightards don't do logic well.
>>
>> How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
>
>
>You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
>to pretend he is tough.
pretending one is tough.
>He can't get away with that behavior in a social setting. And when
>anyone disagrees
>with him, he immediately assumes they are on the right and calls him a
>rightard.
such as that displayed in the post by Dewynne that I responded to.
I can't help it that so much flawed thinking comes from the right.
As Stephen Colbert noted. "Reality has a well known liberal bias".
I know rightards get offended when I call them "rightard".
Oh well...
There's a simple cure.
One need only stop being a rightard.
Message has been deleted
GeorgeK
Apr 9, 2012, 9:47:44 PM4/9/12
to
On Apr 9, 7:23 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:30:01 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net>
Well, you are stupid and your thinking is without a doubt, very
flawed.
And I seriously doubt you are tough. So, what else is there?
>
> >He can't get away with that behavior in a social setting. And when
> >anyone disagrees
> >with him, he immediately assumes they are on the right and calls him a
> >rightard.
>
> I usually ...
Just stop. The only thing you are interested in doing is calling
people names.
You are not an educated person, you are not capable of rational
thinking, you are not capable to have an intelligent discussion.
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:30:01 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net>
flawed.
And I seriously doubt you are tough. So, what else is there?
>
> >He can't get away with that behavior in a social setting. And when
> >anyone disagrees
> >with him, he immediately assumes they are on the right and calls him a
> >rightard.
>
Just stop. The only thing you are interested in doing is calling
people names.
You are not an educated person, you are not capable of rational
thinking, you are not capable to have an intelligent discussion.
james g. keegan jr.
Apr 10, 2012, 12:56:36 AM4/10/12
to
In article
<af5d9765-8f52-4bd2...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
blatant projection here.
<af5d9765-8f52-4bd2...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
GeorgeK <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
>
>
> You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> to pretend he is tough.
let's see if dustin has done any homework whatsoever and recognizes the
> On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
>
>
> You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> to pretend he is tough.
blatant projection here.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 8:05:35 AM4/10/12
to
On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Yea?
You're the one who doesn't know what overseas interests are, rightard,
not me.
I'm not the one who doesn't know what Ryan's budget plan proposes to
do the Medicare.
I'm not the one who's unaware of the gender gap.
I'm not the one who runs away every time someone asks a question that
doesn't fall into a neat black and white mold.
I'm not the one who snips away points I can't answer and pretend the
points were never made.
You're guilty of all of the above, and that's how you've proven you're
a rightard, rightard.
>And I seriously doubt you are tough. So, what else is there?
>
>
>>
>> >He can't get away with that behavior in a social setting. And when
>> >anyone disagrees
>> >with him, he immediately assumes they are on the right and calls him a
>> >rightard.
>>
>> I usually ...
Otto's Law: The rightardedness of a rightard is in direct proportion
to how much they snip.
>Just stop. The only thing you are interested in doing is calling
>people names.
No, rightard.
I point out why you're full of shit.
And, when I do, you invariably run away.
Calling you a stupid rightard is a bonus.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
wrote:
You're the one who doesn't know what overseas interests are, rightard,
not me.
I'm not the one who doesn't know what Ryan's budget plan proposes to
do the Medicare.
I'm not the one who's unaware of the gender gap.
I'm not the one who runs away every time someone asks a question that
doesn't fall into a neat black and white mold.
I'm not the one who snips away points I can't answer and pretend the
points were never made.
You're guilty of all of the above, and that's how you've proven you're
a rightard, rightard.
>And I seriously doubt you are tough. So, what else is there?
>
>
>>
>> >He can't get away with that behavior in a social setting. And when
>> >anyone disagrees
>> >with him, he immediately assumes they are on the right and calls him a
>> >rightard.
>>
>> I usually ...
to how much they snip.
>Just stop. The only thing you are interested in doing is calling
>people names.
I point out why you're full of shit.
And, when I do, you invariably run away.
Calling you a stupid rightard is a bonus.
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
GeorgeK
Apr 10, 2012, 8:55:56 AM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 8:05 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net>
Yes I do know.
>
> I'm not the one who doesn't know what Ryan's budget plan proposes to
> do the Medicare.
Tell me what his budget plan does.
>
> I'm not the one who's unaware of the gender gap.
You are aware that most men do not want Obama re-elected, right?
All you seem to be concerned about is just women and minorities.
>
> I'm not the one who runs away every time someone asks a question that
> doesn't fall into a neat black and white mold.
You just call names and make accusations.
>
> I'm not the one who snips away points I can't answer and pretend the
> points were never made.
Because you're rants are BORING
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net>
>
> I'm not the one who doesn't know what Ryan's budget plan proposes to
> do the Medicare.
>
> I'm not the one who's unaware of the gender gap.
All you seem to be concerned about is just women and minorities.
>
> I'm not the one who runs away every time someone asks a question that
> doesn't fall into a neat black and white mold.
>
> I'm not the one who snips away points I can't answer and pretend the
> points were never made.
james g. keegan jr.
Apr 10, 2012, 8:58:46 AM4/10/12
to
In article <6288o7dtgqamafcq4...@6ax.com>,
bobby heishman, posting as "GeorgeL" above often makes that accusation
to those to whom he feels inferior. bobby attended a 5th tier diploma
mill likes to pretend he's not on the low end of the scale.
to those to whom he feels inferior. bobby attended a 5th tier diploma
mill likes to pretend he's not on the low end of the scale.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 9:19:48 AM4/10/12
to
Except, nobody but you has applied that logic.
Everyone recognizes that once a baby is born alive, it has rights of
its own that must be respected by everyone, even by the mother.
>> >Choice: "keeping a person alive"
>>
>> >"any person has control over how their body will be used"
>>
>> >I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
>> >Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
>> >provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
>> >would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
>>
>> She isn't but induced pre mature deliveries are common, and often the
>> infant is bottle fed, by nurses.
>> You women hating anti legal abortion bigots, need to either stop lying or
>> learn the truth. After about 4 1/2 months. There are no abortions. There
>> are induced premature deliveries for medical reasons none are for birth
>> control. Birth control abortions are in the first 3 months.
>
>Statistics I've seen show that fetuses are commonly killed
>electively. I guess that group could be called The Procrastinators.
And, who's criteria did they apply as to whether an abortion was
medically necessary or not?
Remember, the anti-abortion crowd aren't above lying.
They're not above committing murder, either.
>> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
>> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
>> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>>
>> Yes and it's always a wanted pregnancy.
>
>Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
>for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
>abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
of the fetus.
>> >It's not hard to imagine how certain camps reacted to this kind of
>> >legislation, when it was first proposed... "We *can't* have them
>> >treating the fetus as a human being!" Total freak out when it passed
>> >into law. I mean, it opens that ugly door to the day when a mother
>> >will be required to treat her own baby with the respect due to a human
>> >being.
>>
>> Is it that you are ignorant or a deliberate liar. No pro-choice person
>> wants abortions, we want to prevent a woman from being forced to have a
>> unwanted pregnancy. BTW if a mother doesn't treat her baby with proper
>> respect and care, CPS will take the baby away from her. That is the law now
>> and has been custom for many years.
>
>Treating a fetus as a human being puts a huge damper on your stated
>goal of wanting "to prevent a woman from being forced to have a
>unwanted pregnacy."
To allow people like you to make the argument you're currently making.
It wasn't to protect fetuses, it was to shift the goal posts.
>> >I find it odd that people persist in the position that it's the
>> >mother's body and she can do what she wants with it. The life being
>> >snuffed out has different DNA, different blood - it is distinct from
>> >her body in so many ways. And again, the point above is that after
>> >delivering it, she's obligated to care for it.
>>
>> Another example of a lie or complete ignorance. A new mother can refuse to
>> even look at a baby she doesn't want.
>
>(Corrected clarification provided above.)
>
>> >The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
>> >vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
>> >words there.)
>>
>> And some times a bad decision, need another bad decision to balance it. One
>> more little drink, and wake up with a stranger that only wanted sex. Whores
>> and sluts learn early how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Most teen
>> pregnancies are innocent young Christian girls that are awash in Christian
>> ignorance.
>
>You've stated here that "No pro-choice person wants abortions". Well
>obviously no one on the other side of this issue wants abortions too.
>I'm baffled as to why both sides don't focus their efforts on
>expanding the common interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in
>the first place. It can so easily be done these days. Even for the
>young Christian girls, there are smart non-sexually active reasons to
>get a norplant-kind of insert. In combination with abstinence
>education, that would completely solve the problem.
One side IS trying to focus their efforts on expanding the common
interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, as you
put it.
The other side is not.
Do I need to explain which side is which?
Why do you sound like you think both sides are equally guilty of
neglecting preventative measures?
They are not.
You seem to be under the serious misapprehension that the abortion
issue is about babies.
While I'm sure that there are some sincere people who truly care about
aborted fetuses, they aren't the ones who are driving the
anti-abortion agenda in the U.S.
The people who are driving the anti-abortion agenda aren't really
interested in preventing abortion.
They're interested in preventing -sex- outside of a religiously
sanctioned relationship, and stopping abortion is only a means to that
end.
The religious right opposes abortion because they see abortion as
enabling people to avoid the rightful punishment of a just God for
having sex outside of marriage.
It's that simple.
Neither is it hyperbole. Every once in a while, members of the anti
abortion crowd will admit it.
Most recently in this group, it was "Duke".
People who get pregnant outside of marriage are -supposed- to suffer
and live their lives in misery. There suffering and misery is
supposed to serve a duel purpose; punishment for living an ungodly
life and to serve as an example to others who might contemplate doing
the same thing.
Until one understands that, then one falls into the trap you fell into
above, wondering why both sides can't work together toward a common
goal of preventing the need for abortion in the first place.
There -is- no common goal.
That's the same reason they oppose teaching children about birth
control.
It's the same reason they don't want to vaccinate children against
HPV.
It's the same reason they don't want their children to know the facts
of human sexuality.
They see teaching anything but abstinence as giving young people
license to have sex outside of marriage.
Until one understands that opposing abortion isn't about abortion at
all, then one will remain confused and frustrated.
james g. keegan jr.
Apr 10, 2012, 9:40:23 AM4/10/12
to
In article
<8e8eee51-2e6d-45f5...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
lied."
coward bobby heishman posting as"SeahawkFan" <deseah...@hotmail.com>
in news:xb6dnQH276BlFX_a...@comcast.com:
<8e8eee51-2e6d-45f5...@db5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
GeorgeK <cra...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 8:05 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > You're the one who doesn't know what overseas interests are, rightard,
> > not me.
>
> Yes I do know.
"If you can't prove it on your next post, by default you admit you
> On Apr 10, 8:05 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > You're the one who doesn't know what overseas interests are, rightard,
> > not me.
>
> Yes I do know.
lied."
coward bobby heishman posting as"SeahawkFan" <deseah...@hotmail.com>
in news:xb6dnQH276BlFX_a...@comcast.com:
elizabeth
Apr 10, 2012, 3:21:21 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 5:58 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article <6288o7dtgqamafcq4dh7c83k6g63tb6...@6ax.com>,
>
> SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net>
new netloon .. .Dustbin Dimwit.
> In article <6288o7dtgqamafcq4dh7c83k6g63tb6...@6ax.com>,
>
> SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 18:47:44 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net>
> > wrote:
> > >You are not an educated person, you are not capable of rational
> > >thinking, you are not capable to have an intelligent discussion.
>
> bobby heishman, posting as "GeorgeL" above often makes that accusation
> to those to whom he feels inferior. bobby attended a 5th tier diploma
> mill likes to pretend he's not on the low end of the scale.
Poor Heishman, he's so hard up for any pals he is sucking up to our
> > >You are not an educated person, you are not capable of rational
> > >thinking, you are not capable to have an intelligent discussion.
>
> bobby heishman, posting as "GeorgeL" above often makes that accusation
> to those to whom he feels inferior. bobby attended a 5th tier diploma
> mill likes to pretend he's not on the low end of the scale.
new netloon .. .Dustbin Dimwit.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 4:20:24 PM4/10/12
to
>> I'm not the one who doesn't know what Ryan's budget plan proposes to
>> do the Medicare.
>
>Tell me what his budget plan does.
It turns Medicare into a voucher program.
>> I'm not the one who's unaware of the gender gap.
>
>You are aware that most men do not want Obama re-elected, right?
Polling has men almost tied, 44% to 42% in favor of Obama.
On the other hand, women favor Obama by 48% to 35%.
And, the gap is even more stark among Hispanics.
>All you seem to be concerned about is just women and minorities.
When men are tied, it's women and Hispanics who are going to decide
the issue.
Understand, rightard?
And, from the looks of things, women and Hispanics are going do decide
the issue in favor of Obama.
But, rightard...
You keep telling yourself that there is no gender gap and I'm just
making it up.
That suits me just fine.
Hahahahahahahha....
>> I'm not the one who runs away every time someone asks a question that
>> doesn't fall into a neat black and white mold.
>
>You just call names and make accusations.
I post facts grounded in reality.
>> I'm not the one who snips away points I can't answer and pretend the
>> points were never made.
>
>Because you're rants are BORING
You snip and flee because you -can't- answer my points.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 4:37:33 PM4/10/12
to
in my previous post, which came out today.
Romney has picked up a bit among men, 52% to 44%.
>On the other hand, women favor Obama by 48% to 35%.
previously undecided women are breaking for Obama.
(Probably due to all that talk by Romney about defunding Planned
Parenthood and the dismissiveness of the Republican establishment on
such matters in general... Hey, they're sort of like you on that
point, pretending that it's all made up by evil leftists... Go
figger...)
Anyway... That's more than enough of a difference to give Obama the
win, even without taking into account the even wider gap among
Hispanics.
You've a lot of foaming at the mouth to do, rightard.
Hahahahahahah...
GeorgeK
Apr 10, 2012, 4:43:39 PM4/10/12
to
The swing states will decide this election.
Look, I"m not too interested in the polls right now. They will change
a hundred times from here to then.
When Romney gets to running and picks his VP, things will change.
As gas prices go higher and the economy does not improve like Obama is
lying about, things will change.
You liberals all predicted doom and gloom when Al Gore ran against
Bush..and you lost.
You predicted doom and gloom for Republicans when Bush ran against
Clinton...and you lost.
No one knows right now what is going to happen. So go ahead...run your
mouth now.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 6:18:32 PM4/10/12
to
Do you really think women and Hispanics don't live in swing states?
Obama is currently winning in polls in -all- of the swing states.
All of them, rightard.
>Look, I"m not too interested in the polls right now.
things you don't know about.
I didn't intend to engage on the minutia.
> They will change
>a hundred times from here to then.
But, the gender gap isn't like the small difference we're seeing among
male voters, which are barely beyond the margin of error.
The gender gap is a -huge- deficit for Republicans to overcome, and
there's an even larger gap among Hispanic voters.
Experts on demographics and voting patterns say that Republicans need
at least 30% of the Hispanic vote to win. They're polling at around
15%.
Considering the Republican stance on immigration policy and the
radical laws they've passed in several states, that's not likely to
change.
>When Romney gets to running and picks his VP, things will change.
And if he picks a hardcore rightard for his running mate, which he may
well be forced to do to get the religious right to the polls, things
could change for the worse.
>As gas prices go higher and the economy does not improve like Obama is
>lying about, things will change.
economy could continue to improve, as it currently is, and things will
change in the other direction.
>You liberals all predicted doom and gloom when Al Gore ran against
>Bush..and you lost.
Gore won the popular vote nationally, and he may well have won Florida
had the recount been completed.
>You predicted doom and gloom for Republicans when Bush ran against
>Clinton...and you lost.
In the only Bush/Clinton match up that ever occurred, Clinton -won-,
rightard.
Are you -really- that rightarded, rightard?
>No one knows right now what is going to happen. So go ahead...run your
>mouth now.
And, so far the only way you rightards have been countering the trends
is to pretend that they don't exist.
Well... That suits me just fine.
Dino
Apr 10, 2012, 7:32:26 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 6:18 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:43:39 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 13:43:39 -0700 (PDT), GeorgeK
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you really think women and Hispanics don't live in swing states?
against Gore.
And you talked like this more when Bush ran against Kerry.
And guess what happened?
So keep on talking, there is a long time until next November.
>
> Obama is currently winning in polls in -all- of the swing states.
>
> All of them, rightard.
Bank on it!!!
>
> >Look, I"m not too interested in the polls right now.
>
> I only mentioned the gender gap in the context of the vast amount of
> things you don't know about.
>
> I didn't intend to engage on the minutia.
>
> > They will change
> >a hundred times from here to then.
>
> Yep.
>
> But, the gender gap isn't like the small difference we're seeing among
> male voters, which are barely beyond the margin of error.
>
> The gender gap is a -huge- deficit for Republicans to overcome, and
> there's an even larger gap among Hispanic voters.
>
> Experts on demographics and voting patterns say that Republicans need
> at least 30% of the Hispanic vote to win. They're polling at around
> 15%.
>
> Considering the Republican stance on immigration policy and the
> radical laws they've passed in several states, that's not likely to
> change.
>
> >When Romney gets to running and picks his VP, things will change.
>
> Yep.
>
> And if he picks a hardcore rightard for his running mate, which he may
> well be forced to do to get the religious right to the polls, things
> could change for the worse.
>
> >As gas prices go higher and the economy does not improve like Obama is
> >lying about, things will change.
>
> Or, gas prices could go lower, as they are starting to now, and the
> economy could continue to improve, as it currently is, and things will
> change in the other direction.
>
> >You liberals all predicted doom and gloom when Al Gore ran against
> >Bush..and you lost.
>
> Only in the Supreme Court.
>
> Gore won the popular vote nationally, and he may well have won Florida
> had the recount been completed.
difference eh?
>
> >You predicted doom and gloom for Republicans when Bush ran against
> >Clinton...and you lost.
>
> Ummmmm....
>
> In the only Bush/Clinton match up that ever occurred, Clinton -won-,
> rightard.
>
> Are you -really- that rightarded, rightard?
during little spurts of time.
Ran a five mile jog today, and that is more important than your
nonsense.
So I made an error...run with it.
>
> >No one knows right now what is going to happen. So go ahead...run your
> >mouth now.
>
> No one knows, but there are several -very- clear trends.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 10, 2012, 8:40:35 PM4/10/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT), Dino <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Can't understand why it was a stupid comment, rightard?
>> Do you really think women and Hispanics don't live in swing states?
>
>Hey, keep talking. You liberals talked like this when Bush ran
>against Gore.
>And you talked like this more when Bush ran against Kerry.
And you talked like that when Palin ran against Obama.
And, yes... I skipped over McCain on purpose.
>And guess what happened?
>
>So keep on talking, there is a long time until next November.
You -still- made a stupid, thoughtless comment, rightard.
>> Obama is currently winning in polls in -all- of the swing states.
>
>Good
I know!
>> All of them, rightard.
>
>Bank on it!!!
I am.
>> >Look, I"m not too interested in the polls right now.
>>
>> I only mentioned the gender gap in the context of the vast amount of
>> things you don't know about.
>>
>> I didn't intend to engage on the minutia.
>>
>> > They will change
>> >a hundred times from here to then.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> But, the gender gap isn't like the small difference we're seeing among
>> male voters, which are barely beyond the margin of error.
>>
>> The gender gap is a -huge- deficit for Republicans to overcome, and
>> there's an even larger gap among Hispanic voters.
>>
>> Experts on demographics and voting patterns say that Republicans need
>> at least 30% of the Hispanic vote to win. They're polling at around
>> 15%.
>>
>> Considering the Republican stance on immigration policy and the
>> radical laws they've passed in several states, that's not likely to
>> change.
>>
>> >When Romney gets to running and picks his VP, things will change.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> And if he picks a hardcore rightard for his running mate, which he may
>> well be forced to do to get the religious right to the polls, things
>> could change for the worse.
>
>Bank on it, put your money up on it.
I am.
>> >As gas prices go higher and the economy does not improve like Obama is
>> >lying about, things will change.
>>
>> Or, gas prices could go lower, as they are starting to now, and the
>> economy could continue to improve, as it currently is, and things will
>> change in the other direction.
>
>Put your money on it.
I am.
>
>>
>> >You liberals all predicted doom and gloom when Al Gore ran against
>> >Bush..and you lost.
>>
>> Only in the Supreme Court.
>
>Waaaa
The facts are what the facts are, rightard.
>> Gore won the popular vote nationally, and he may well have won Florida
>> had the recount been completed.
>
>Right, because those Absentee votes he wanted blocked really made the
>difference eh?
We'll never know, because the SCOTUS stopped the recount, rightard.
>> >You predicted doom and gloom for Republicans when Bush ran against
>> >Clinton...and you lost.
>>
>> Ummmmm....
>>
>> In the only Bush/Clinton match up that ever occurred, Clinton -won-,
>> rightard.
>
>Yea yea, I made an error. Run with it.
It's just more evidence to your stupidity, rightard.
>> Are you -really- that rightarded, rightard?
>
>No, just did a lot of running today and our conversation is just
>during little spurts of time.
>Ran a five mile jog today, and that is more important than your
>nonsense.
>So I made an error...run with it.
It's just more evidence to your stupidity, rightard.
>> >No one knows right now what is going to happen. So go ahead...run your
>> >mouth now.
>>
>> No one knows, but there are several -very- clear trends.
>
>Bank on it..put your money on it.
I am.
wrote:
>> Do you really think women and Hispanics don't live in swing states?
>
>Hey, keep talking. You liberals talked like this when Bush ran
>against Gore.
>And you talked like this more when Bush ran against Kerry.
And, yes... I skipped over McCain on purpose.
>And guess what happened?
>
>So keep on talking, there is a long time until next November.
>> Obama is currently winning in polls in -all- of the swing states.
>
>Good
>> All of them, rightard.
>
>Bank on it!!!
>> >Look, I"m not too interested in the polls right now.
>>
>> I only mentioned the gender gap in the context of the vast amount of
>> things you don't know about.
>>
>> I didn't intend to engage on the minutia.
>>
>> > They will change
>> >a hundred times from here to then.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> But, the gender gap isn't like the small difference we're seeing among
>> male voters, which are barely beyond the margin of error.
>>
>> The gender gap is a -huge- deficit for Republicans to overcome, and
>> there's an even larger gap among Hispanic voters.
>>
>> Experts on demographics and voting patterns say that Republicans need
>> at least 30% of the Hispanic vote to win. They're polling at around
>> 15%.
>>
>> Considering the Republican stance on immigration policy and the
>> radical laws they've passed in several states, that's not likely to
>> change.
>>
>> >When Romney gets to running and picks his VP, things will change.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> And if he picks a hardcore rightard for his running mate, which he may
>> well be forced to do to get the religious right to the polls, things
>> could change for the worse.
>
>Bank on it, put your money up on it.
>> >As gas prices go higher and the economy does not improve like Obama is
>> >lying about, things will change.
>>
>> Or, gas prices could go lower, as they are starting to now, and the
>> economy could continue to improve, as it currently is, and things will
>> change in the other direction.
>
>Put your money on it.
>
>>
>> >You liberals all predicted doom and gloom when Al Gore ran against
>> >Bush..and you lost.
>>
>> Only in the Supreme Court.
>
>Waaaa
>> Gore won the popular vote nationally, and he may well have won Florida
>> had the recount been completed.
>
>Right, because those Absentee votes he wanted blocked really made the
>difference eh?
>> >You predicted doom and gloom for Republicans when Bush ran against
>> >Clinton...and you lost.
>>
>> Ummmmm....
>>
>> In the only Bush/Clinton match up that ever occurred, Clinton -won-,
>> rightard.
>
>Yea yea, I made an error. Run with it.
>> Are you -really- that rightarded, rightard?
>
>No, just did a lot of running today and our conversation is just
>during little spurts of time.
>Ran a five mile jog today, and that is more important than your
>nonsense.
>So I made an error...run with it.
>> >No one knows right now what is going to happen. So go ahead...run your
>> >mouth now.
>>
>> No one knows, but there are several -very- clear trends.
>
>Bank on it..put your money on it.
Dino
Apr 10, 2012, 9:00:48 PM4/10/12
to
On Apr 10, 8:40 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT), Dino <craz...@comcast.net>
Just put your money where your mouth is and we will see what happens.
One thing we can count on, the liberals are ALWAYS their own worst
enemy.
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 16:32:26 -0700 (PDT), Dino <craz...@comcast.net>
One thing we can count on, the liberals are ALWAYS their own worst
enemy.
The_Echo_Chamber
Apr 10, 2012, 10:28:06 PM4/10/12
to
around Bobby. No one, and I mean no one, can do a number of the
right wingers like you rightards do.
Your accumulation of lies of the last several months is so enormous it
probably can't even be completely documented. And, yet, you think
your shit doesn't stink.
LOL!!!
Stupidity...Bobby's doin' it right.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 1:50:21 PM4/11/12
to
On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Dino <cra...@comcast.net>
I you didn't have anything to say, you shouldn't have posted,
rightard.
Otto's Law: The rightardedness of a rightard is in direct proportion
to how much they snip.
Blah, blah, blah...
to how much they snip.
I you didn't have anything to say, you shouldn't have posted,
rightard.
-
Apr 11, 2012, 2:19:44 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 1:50 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Dino <craz...@comcast.net>
Just keep talking leftard...just keep talking.
You may end up humbled when it's all said and done.
Then we will see what you got to say.
I've shown you sources that show the economy is NOT growing like it
should and the Unemployment numbers are NOT good.
And you've completely ignored those sources. So just keep talking.
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 18:00:48 -0700 (PDT), Dino <craz...@comcast.net>
You may end up humbled when it's all said and done.
Then we will see what you got to say.
I've shown you sources that show the economy is NOT growing like it
should and the Unemployment numbers are NOT good.
And you've completely ignored those sources. So just keep talking.
elizabeth
Apr 11, 2012, 4:05:04 PM4/11/12
to
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 4:43:35 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:19:44 -0700 (PDT), - <cra...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Is it part of your ISP contract that you have to LIE in every usenet
post you make, rightard?
You haven't shown -any- sources in this thread. (Or, any other thread
that springs to mind, for that matter.)
You -stated- that the economy isn't growing as you think it should,
and you've -stated- that unemployment numbers are not good,, but
you've not -shown- a fucking thing.
That makes you a LIAR, rightard.
And, I also seem to remember you saying at various times that the
economy has gotten worse and that it's not improving at all.
Both claims are empirically wrong.
The economy may not be improving as fast as we would like, but it's
-not- getting worse and it's -not- remaining stagnant.
I guess that means you're a LIAR too, rightard.
wrote:
post you make, rightard?
You haven't shown -any- sources in this thread. (Or, any other thread
that springs to mind, for that matter.)
You -stated- that the economy isn't growing as you think it should,
and you've -stated- that unemployment numbers are not good,, but
you've not -shown- a fucking thing.
That makes you a LIAR, rightard.
And, I also seem to remember you saying at various times that the
economy has gotten worse and that it's not improving at all.
Both claims are empirically wrong.
The economy may not be improving as fast as we would like, but it's
-not- getting worse and it's -not- remaining stagnant.
I guess that means you're a LIAR too, rightard.
Dino
Apr 11, 2012, 4:45:33 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 4:43 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:19:44 -0700 (PDT), - <craz...@comcast.net>
I suggest you take any complaints up with the ISP.
>
> You haven't shown -any- sources in this thread. (Or, any other thread
> that springs to mind, for that matter.)
>
> You -stated- that the economy isn't growing as you think it should,
> and you've -stated- that unemployment numbers are not good,, but
> you've not -shown- a fucking thing.
I supplied you with the source yesterday, moron.
You ignored it.
Listen, I got a union meeting to go too, I'm part of the board..so I
have to be there.
Then I got to go play drums with the band tonight.
So you will have to whine alone for a while.
See ya
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:19:44 -0700 (PDT), - <craz...@comcast.net>
>
> You haven't shown -any- sources in this thread. (Or, any other thread
> that springs to mind, for that matter.)
>
> You -stated- that the economy isn't growing as you think it should,
> and you've -stated- that unemployment numbers are not good,, but
> you've not -shown- a fucking thing.
You ignored it.
Listen, I got a union meeting to go too, I'm part of the board..so I
have to be there.
Then I got to go play drums with the band tonight.
So you will have to whine alone for a while.
See ya
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 6:26:17 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT), Dino <what...@homemail.com>
wrote:
I didn't see it, and I didn't respond to it at all.
That's not the same as ignoring it, rightard.
I've seen it now though, and I've pointed out that it doesn't support
your claims as well as you seem to think it does.
It your sources shows that the economy is slowly improving and that
unemployment is slowly falling.
It might now be fast enough to suit a rightard like you, (because you
have an irresistible rightard need to attack Obama) but that's not the
same as it not happening.
I love it when rightards supply a cite that I can beat them over the
head with.
Hahahahahahaha...
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
wrote:
That's not the same as ignoring it, rightard.
I've seen it now though, and I've pointed out that it doesn't support
your claims as well as you seem to think it does.
It your sources shows that the economy is slowly improving and that
unemployment is slowly falling.
It might now be fast enough to suit a rightard like you, (because you
have an irresistible rightard need to attack Obama) but that's not the
same as it not happening.
I love it when rightards supply a cite that I can beat them over the
head with.
Hahahahahahaha...
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
Dino
Apr 11, 2012, 10:15:39 PM4/11/12
to
On Apr 11, 6:26 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT), Dino <whate...@homemail.com>
It does. You just don't have an answer for it yet. You got to go check
with your fellow liberals and find some excuse or lie
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 13:45:33 -0700 (PDT), Dino <whate...@homemail.com>
with your fellow liberals and find some excuse or lie
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 11, 2012, 11:13:48 PM4/11/12
to
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT), Dino <what...@homemail.com>
wrote:
Already dealt with, rightard.
Hey, how'd that union meeting go?
Did you manage to persuade your fellow union members they should
support Republicans who want to kill evil leftist unions?
You know.. Like Kasich, Walker and Danials?
Hahahahahhaha...
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
wrote:
Hey, how'd that union meeting go?
Did you manage to persuade your fellow union members they should
support Republicans who want to kill evil leftist unions?
You know.. Like Kasich, Walker and Danials?
Hahahahahhaha...
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
Mr. Malthus
Apr 11, 2012, 11:22:11 PM4/11/12
to
Makes no sense to me.
A fetus is not a person, merely a potential person. Usually in the cunt
of a Baby Momma, which is to say the soon-to-be mother of a BASTARD, an
inferior, illegitimate child of dubious paternity who shall be a burden
upon society all the days of his/her wretched life.
Baby Momma wrecks civilizations.
Down with Baby Momma!
Abort! Abort! Abort!
A fetus is not a person, merely a potential person. Usually in the cunt
of a Baby Momma, which is to say the soon-to-be mother of a BASTARD, an
inferior, illegitimate child of dubious paternity who shall be a burden
upon society all the days of his/her wretched life.
Baby Momma wrecks civilizations.
Down with Baby Momma!
Abort! Abort! Abort!
Dino
Apr 12, 2012, 8:49:46 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 11, 11:13 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT), Dino <whate...@homemail.com>
Pretty good, leftard.
>
> Did you manage to persuade your fellow union members they should
> support Republicans who want to kill evil leftist unions?
Actually we support a lot of Democrats. We don't tell people who to
vote for blockhead, we believe
in letting people decide for themselves. I know that is a foreign
concept for you.
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:39 -0700 (PDT), Dino <whate...@homemail.com>
>
> Did you manage to persuade your fellow union members they should
> support Republicans who want to kill evil leftist unions?
vote for blockhead, we believe
in letting people decide for themselves. I know that is a foreign
concept for you.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 12, 2012, 9:44:34 AM4/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:49:46 -0700 (PDT), Dino <what...@homemail.com>
wrote:
But... But...
You think evil liberals are responsible or all the nation's ills...
>We don't tell people who to
>vote for blockhead, we believe
>in letting people decide for themselves. I know that is a foreign
>concept for you.
I said "persuade", not "order", rightard.
Gee... I guess that means you didn't have any luck explaining how
horrible a job Obama is doing.
wrote:
You think evil liberals are responsible or all the nation's ills...
>We don't tell people who to
>vote for blockhead, we believe
>in letting people decide for themselves. I know that is a foreign
>concept for you.
Gee... I guess that means you didn't have any luck explaining how
horrible a job Obama is doing.
Dino
Apr 12, 2012, 10:07:40 AM4/12/12
to
On Apr 12, 9:44 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:49:46 -0700 (PDT), Dino <whate...@homemail.com>
We do not persuade, influence, nor tell, leftard.
We believe in letting people decide for themselves.
Again, this is a foreign concept for you.
>
> Gee... I guess that means you didn't have any luck explaining how
> horrible a job Obama is doing.
Most people are deciding that for themselves.
Go ask the over 80 million unemployed what they think.
Go ask the people in Florida who worked for NASA and lost
their jobs after the Federal Government stopped funding.
This was after Obama promised them during his campaign that he would
not see them out of a job.
Why don't you go and spout your mouth to them, lets see how far it
goes.
You probably want to remain in hiding behind a keyboard.
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 05:49:46 -0700 (PDT), Dino <whate...@homemail.com>
We believe in letting people decide for themselves.
Again, this is a foreign concept for you.
>
> Gee... I guess that means you didn't have any luck explaining how
> horrible a job Obama is doing.
Go ask the over 80 million unemployed what they think.
Go ask the people in Florida who worked for NASA and lost
their jobs after the Federal Government stopped funding.
This was after Obama promised them during his campaign that he would
not see them out of a job.
Why don't you go and spout your mouth to them, lets see how far it
goes.
You probably want to remain in hiding behind a keyboard.
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 12, 2012, 1:25:36 PM4/12/12
to
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 07:07:40 -0700 (PDT), Dino <what...@homemail.com>
wrote:
I'm quite sure that you're capable of neither persuasion or influence,
rightard.
You'd have to know something beyond "Obama bad" for that.
>We believe in letting people decide for themselves.
Nothing about persuasion prevents people from "deciding for
themselves".
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
You're thinking of "coercion", which is something else all together.
English -is- your first language, yes?
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
wrote:
rightard.
You'd have to know something beyond "Obama bad" for that.
>We believe in letting people decide for themselves.
themselves".
The two aren't mutually exclusive.
You're thinking of "coercion", which is something else all together.
English -is- your first language, yes?
Heh heh...
Lying racist rightard socialists...
Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
elizabeth
Apr 12, 2012, 5:31:14 PM4/12/12
to
> > Is it part of your ISP contract that you have to LIE in every usenet
> > post you make, rightard?
>
> I suggest you take any complaints up with the ISP.
them, but that's not that difficult.
Comcast has a lot of ways to contact them online and offline.
>
>
> > You haven't shown -any- sources in this thread. (Or, any other thread
> > that springs to mind, for that matter.)
>
> > You -stated- that the economy isn't growing as you think it should,
> > and you've -stated- that unemployment numbers are not good,, but
> > you've not -shown- a fucking thing.
>
> I supplied you with the source yesterday, moron.
> You ignored it.
>
> Listen, I got a union meeting to go too, I'm part of the board..so I
> have to be there.
else . ..
> Then I got to go play drums with the band tonight.
> So you will have to whine alone for a while.
> See ya- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dino
Apr 13, 2012, 12:59:49 AM4/13/12
to
>
>
>
> > > You haven't shown -any- sources in this thread. (Or, any other thread
> > > that springs to mind, for that matter.)
>
> > > You -stated- that the economy isn't growing as you think it should,
> > > and you've -stated- that unemployment numbers are not good,, but
> > > you've not -shown- a fucking thing.
>
> > I supplied you with the source yesterday, moron.
> > You ignored it.
>
> > Listen, I got a union meeting to go too, I'm part of the board..so I
> > have to be there.
>
> So, you love socialist unions for yourself, but not for anyone
> else . ..
>
> > Then I got to go play drums with the band tonight.
>
> You got bounced from that.
bubble.
But you got it completely wrong.
elizabeth
Apr 13, 2012, 6:35:05 PM4/13/12
to
On Apr 7, 10:40 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This excerpt struck me as so significant, I've decided to highlight it
> as a repost:
> (Fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/cf84fbc920a8e23c)
>
> =====================
>
>
>
>
>
> > >I expect your aware that in court cases of murder involving pregnant
> > >women, the perpetrator is often tried for both lives.
>
> > Only if the particular laws in that jurisdiction define a limited
> > number of acts as being included in the definition of murder. Such
> > laws clearly rest upon intent - and never prevent a voluntary
> > abortion.
>
> > For example:
>
> > California Penal Code
>
> > 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
> > or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
> > (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits
> > an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the
> > following apply:
> > (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act,
> > Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of
> > Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
> > (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and
> > surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and
> > Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty,
> > the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the
> > fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not
> > medically certain, would be substantially certain or more
> > likely than not.
> > (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to
> > by the mother of the fetus.
> > (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
> > prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
>
> >http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001...
>
> > Note 187. (a), which clearly says "a human being or a fetus". And all
> > the exceptions under (b)
>
> That is an EXCELLENT reference. Just look at the very first
> statement:
>
> "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with
> malice aforethought."
>
> The only reason why killing a fetus is not considered murder is
> because the law says it's ok to kill your own fetus. Anyone else
> kills it and it is murder.
Look up malice. And aforethought.
And then 'splain why you think malice is implied in an abortion.
Oh, hell, you never do any research . ..
so here goes:
Advertisement (Bad banner? Please let us know)
A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or
excuse. A malicious design to
injure. An intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the
life of a human being, or an intent willfully to act in callous and
wanton disregard of the consequences to human life; but malice
aforethought does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred
towards the individual killed.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The
Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
malice aforethought n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great
bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such
malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a
general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is
unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to
hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with
police, there is malice aforethought. (See: malice, murder, first
degree murder)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All
Right reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also: cruelty
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton.
Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, pleadings. In an indictment for murder, these
words, which have a technical force, must be used in charging the
offence; for without them, and the artificial phrase murder, the
indictment will be taken to charge manslaughter only. Fost. 424; Yelv.
205; 1 Chit. Cr. Law, *242, and the authorities and cases there
cited.
2. Whenever malice aforethought is necessary to constitute the
offence, these words must be used in charging the crime in the
indictment. 2 Chit. Cr. Law, *787; 1 East, Pl. Or. 402. 2 Mason, R.
91.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United
States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malice+aforethought
And since pregnancy does harm women, and since everyone is allowed to
use deadly force to prevent bodily harm from another person . .. and
since abortion is actually safer than pregnancy and childbirth . ...
what is your fucking point, Dustbin Dimwit?
Even when abortion was against the law, it was NOT considered to be
murder, in any legal code or under common law.
> This excerpt struck me as so significant, I've decided to highlight it
> as a repost:
> (Fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/cf84fbc920a8e23c)
>
> =====================
>
>
>
>
>
> > >I expect your aware that in court cases of murder involving pregnant
> > >women, the perpetrator is often tried for both lives.
>
> > Only if the particular laws in that jurisdiction define a limited
> > number of acts as being included in the definition of murder. Such
> > laws clearly rest upon intent - and never prevent a voluntary
> > abortion.
>
> > For example:
>
> > California Penal Code
>
> > 187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
> > or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
> > (b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits
> > an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the
> > following apply:
> > (1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act,
> > Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of
> > Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
> > (2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and
> > surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and
> > Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty,
> > the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the
> > fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not
> > medically certain, would be substantially certain or more
> > likely than not.
> > (3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to
> > by the mother of the fetus.
> > (c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
> > prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
>
> >http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001...
>
> > Note 187. (a), which clearly says "a human being or a fetus". And all
> > the exceptions under (b)
>
> That is an EXCELLENT reference. Just look at the very first
> statement:
>
> "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with
> malice aforethought."
>
> The only reason why killing a fetus is not considered murder is
> because the law says it's ok to kill your own fetus. Anyone else
> kills it and it is murder.
Look up malice. And aforethought.
And then 'splain why you think malice is implied in an abortion.
Oh, hell, you never do any research . ..
so here goes:
Advertisement (Bad banner? Please let us know)
A predetermination to commit an act without legal justification or
excuse. A malicious design to
injure. An intent, at the time of a killing, willfully to take the
life of a human being, or an intent willfully to act in callous and
wanton disregard of the consequences to human life; but malice
aforethought does not necessarily imply any ill will, spite or hatred
towards the individual killed.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The
Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
malice aforethought n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great
bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such
malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a
general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is
unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to
hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with
police, there is malice aforethought. (See: malice, murder, first
degree murder)
Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All
Right reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See also: cruelty
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton.
Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MALICE AFORETHOUGHT, pleadings. In an indictment for murder, these
words, which have a technical force, must be used in charging the
offence; for without them, and the artificial phrase murder, the
indictment will be taken to charge manslaughter only. Fost. 424; Yelv.
205; 1 Chit. Cr. Law, *242, and the authorities and cases there
cited.
2. Whenever malice aforethought is necessary to constitute the
offence, these words must be used in charging the crime in the
indictment. 2 Chit. Cr. Law, *787; 1 East, Pl. Or. 402. 2 Mason, R.
91.
A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United
States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/malice+aforethought
And since pregnancy does harm women, and since everyone is allowed to
use deadly force to prevent bodily harm from another person . .. and
since abortion is actually safer than pregnancy and childbirth . ...
what is your fucking point, Dustbin Dimwit?
Even when abortion was against the law, it was NOT considered to be
murder, in any legal code or under common law.
ilbe...@gmail.com
Apr 14, 2012, 11:03:38 AM4/14/12
to
> fetus within her body, and it can be considered "therapeutic".
> Someone else makes that decision for her, and they are accountable for
> murdering that fetus.
> =====================
>
> =Dustin
Here in the U.S., it is a popular pastime to kill developing human
beings in the womb as birth control for Sexual Hedonism gone further
wrong . Afterall, it is imperative that we use one another for a
mere copulation without any consequential liability whatsoever isnt
it ? Its the American-entitleiitis way of doing things.
W.T.S.
Apr 14, 2012, 11:30:54 AM4/14/12
to
In article <9179b469-84be-41c1-9082-
418237...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, ilbe...@gmail.com says...
Pure, lying bull shit! It's called a _fetus_. It's not a baby, or a
human being, it's just fetus filth.
fetus! Abortion is a beautiful, natural way to insure that sexual
pleasure continues and child filth doesn't invade our lives. Stop lying
to people, and help spread the practice of abortion!
>
Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs.
Live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
418237...@f5g2000vby.googlegroups.com>, ilbe...@gmail.com says...
human being, it's just fetus filth.
> Afterall, it is imperative that we use one another for a
> mere copulation without any consequential liability whatsoever isnt
> it ? Its the American-entitleiitis way of doing things.
Our sexual pleasures are a thousand times more important than any filthy
> mere copulation without any consequential liability whatsoever isnt
> it ? Its the American-entitleiitis way of doing things.
fetus! Abortion is a beautiful, natural way to insure that sexual
pleasure continues and child filth doesn't invade our lives. Stop lying
to people, and help spread the practice of abortion!
>
Abortion and sterilization, they save the lives, health and futures of
women and men alike!
>
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/print/14481
>
http://www.jennyjerrome.org/
>
http://tinyurl.com/3j3fkch
>
http://www.egalitarian.biz/Plan-B--Remedy-of-a-Lifetime.html
>
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm
>
Breed like rabbits, live like pigs.
Live like pigs, die like rats!
>
Modern Christian: Someone who can take time out from
complaining about "welfare mothers popping out babies we
have to feed" to complain about welfare mothers getting
abortions that PREVENT more babies to be raised at public
expense.
>
http://www.imnotsorry.net
>
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17gbnyv0yzhevjpg/original.jpg
>
http://tinyurl.com/7q2ft38
ken
Apr 14, 2012, 11:45:59 AM4/14/12
to
On Apr 14, 8:03 am, "IlBenButtfucked @gmail.com" wrote: nothingn
worth repeating
From: DaveinIllinois @webtv.net
Group: alt.discuss.clubs.public.support.misc.darlingbabe
Subject: Re: For the children's sake? (Linda)
Date: Sun, Jan 4, 2004, 6:44am (PDT-1)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Linda,
Thank you for sharing your story ; i read it with tears in my eyes
because
im so glad that you found the forgiveness/healing you needed thru
Christ.
I related to your story because when i was 20 , i got a 17 year old
girl pregnant who was a sister to some good friends of mine. I
encouraged
her to get an abortion to escape the guiltiness and shame ; thats why
i have
a child in Heaven which im going to see one day.
Dave
worth repeating
From: DaveinIllinois @webtv.net
Group: alt.discuss.clubs.public.support.misc.darlingbabe
Subject: Re: For the children's sake? (Linda)
Date: Sun, Jan 4, 2004, 6:44am (PDT-1)
Organization: WebTV Subscriber
Linda,
Thank you for sharing your story ; i read it with tears in my eyes
because
im so glad that you found the forgiveness/healing you needed thru
Christ.
I related to your story because when i was 20 , i got a 17 year old
girl pregnant who was a sister to some good friends of mine. I
encouraged
her to get an abortion to escape the guiltiness and shame ; thats why
i have
a child in Heaven which im going to see one day.
Dave
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 14, 2012, 6:26:28 PM4/14/12
to
You rightards aren't really against abortion...
You're against -sex- outside the bounds of your religious constraints.
Thanks for making my point, rightard.
ken
Apr 14, 2012, 8:56:23 PM4/14/12
to
On Apr 14, 3:26 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
has ACTUALLY bragged about not having sex (with either sex, mind you)
for over 20 years.
And, as a devout paranoid christofascist, he carries a loaded
concealed weapon
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 08:03:38 -0700 (PDT), "IlBenButtfucked @gmail.com wrote this shit:
> >Here in the U.S., it is a popular pastime to kill developing human
> >beings in the womb as birth control for Sexual Hedonism gone further
> >wrong . Afterall, it is imperative that we use one another for a
> >mere copulation without any consequential liability whatsoever isnt
> >it ? Its the American-entitleiitis way of doing things.
>
> And the rightard chimes in with proof of my point.
>
> You rightards aren't really against abortion...
>
> You're against -sex- outside the bounds of your religious constraints.
>
> Thanks for making my point, rightard.
>
> Heh heh...
>
> Lying racist rightard socialists...
>
> Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
>
Ilbebauck (David N Brown of 4194 Whippoorwill Rd Holt Florida, 32564)
> >Here in the U.S., it is a popular pastime to kill developing human
> >beings in the womb as birth control for Sexual Hedonism gone further
> >wrong . Afterall, it is imperative that we use one another for a
> >mere copulation without any consequential liability whatsoever isnt
> >it ? Its the American-entitleiitis way of doing things.
>
> And the rightard chimes in with proof of my point.
>
> You rightards aren't really against abortion...
>
> You're against -sex- outside the bounds of your religious constraints.
>
> Thanks for making my point, rightard.
>
> Heh heh...
>
> Lying racist rightard socialists...
>
> Batshit crazy and dogshit stupid, every single last one of you.
>
>
has ACTUALLY bragged about not having sex (with either sex, mind you)
for over 20 years.
And, as a devout paranoid christofascist, he carries a loaded
concealed weapon
duke
Apr 15, 2012, 11:57:22 AM4/15/12
to
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 10:30:54 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Here in the U.S., it is a popular pastime to kill developing human
>> beings in the womb as birth control for Sexual Hedonism gone further
>> wrong.
>Pure, lying bull shit! It's called a _fetus_. It's not a baby, or a
>human being, it's just fetus filth.
When a pregnant women is murdered, there are 2 murder charges filed. Wanker,
>> Here in the U.S., it is a popular pastime to kill developing human
>> beings in the womb as birth control for Sexual Hedonism gone further
>> wrong.
>Pure, lying bull shit! It's called a _fetus_. It's not a baby, or a
>human being, it's just fetus filth.
you'rs an idiot.
duke, American - American
*****
1 John 3:4-6
4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact,
sin is lawlessness. 5 But you know that he
appeared so that he might take away our sins.
And in him is no sin. 6 No one who lives in
him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to
sin has either seen him or known him.
*****
Alan Ferris
Apr 15, 2012, 12:51:18 PM4/15/12
to
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:57:22 -0500, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Pure, lying bull shit! It's called a _fetus_. It's not a baby, or a
>>human being, it's just fetus filth.
>
>When a pregnant women is murdered, there are 2 murder charges filed. Wanker,
>you'rs an idiot.
Actually you as usual are the idiot. It is very rare for such double
>>Pure, lying bull shit! It's called a _fetus_. It's not a baby, or a
>>human being, it's just fetus filth.
>
>When a pregnant women is murdered, there are 2 murder charges filed. Wanker,
>you'rs an idiot.
charges to be brought. But you never let truth stand in the way of a
lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_murder
"Isn't Ireland to the south of London." - duke (Earl Weber)
"And I never said South." - duke (Earl Weber)
"I never lie" duke (Earl Webber)
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 15, 2012, 4:33:34 PM4/15/12
to
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 17:56:23 -0700 (PDT), ken <flak...@aol.com>
wrote:
A sexually frustrated christofascist...
That's the absolute worst kind of christofascist.
You think he'll shoot up a church that admits gays soon?
wrote:
That's the absolute worst kind of christofascist.
You think he'll shoot up a church that admits gays soon?
elizabeth
Apr 15, 2012, 6:26:25 PM4/15/12
to
On Apr 15, 9:51 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
What's most pathetic is how so many people don't care if a man kills a
woman who isn't pregnant .. . antiaborts value only pregnant women and
unwanted fetuses.
woman who isn't pregnant .. . antiaborts value only pregnant women and
unwanted fetuses.
Dino
Apr 15, 2012, 7:56:26 PM4/15/12
to
From: elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Why Don't Right To Lifers Support Government Paying 50%
of Child Support?
Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 12:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <235e3b5e-1dbb-4e56-9f91-
d3dc2b...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
"Antiabort females should be gangraped to death.
Slowly.
Any female willing to sell out her mother, sister, daughter is worse
than a man who advocates forced gestation."
"I feel that antiabort males should have their genitals ripped off
and forced down their throats, and antiabort females gangraped until
death."
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 16, 2012, 1:21:03 AM4/16/12
to
On Apr 9, 11:56 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <af5d9765-8f52-4bd2-b31e-d1f9e90df...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> blatant projection here.
I take each issue separately. I do not pigeonhole myself into
convenient blanket labels of being in any large group. Any person who
completely sides with any group's positions on all aspects is a person
who has stopped thinking for themself.
And it is especially wasteful when people spend their energy on
polarization of an issue when there is an obvious solution that sits
firmly within the common ground between both sides.
Abortion is a perfect case in point. Here's Melinda Gates's recent
TEDx talk on Birth Control:
http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html
She makes the excellent point that she is not speaking in favor of
abortion. Nor does her talk speak in opposition of abortion. She is
focused on handling the problem upstream so that the unwanted
pregnancy never becomes an issue.
You all can consider Melinda's presentation as a challenge to this
forum. The left can mock the right. The right can in return fight
against the left.
...or both can work together and follow Melinda's lead to *solve* the
problem completely.
I also like the moderator's questions at the end of the talk, because
it speaks to the validity within the points of those who oppose the
negative aspects of birth control. I see the thorough solution to
embrace both birth control as well as the virtues of the methods for
avoiding unwanted pregnancies that do not involve birth control. When
this common ground is expanded on all fronts, that is when the
abortion issue will make huge strides toward becoming history.
=Dustin
> In article
> <af5d9765-8f52-4bd2-b31e-d1f9e90df...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>
> GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
>
> > You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> > to pretend he is tough.
>
> let's see if dustin has done any homework whatsoever and recognizes the
> > > How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
>
> > You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> > to pretend he is tough.
>
> blatant projection here.
I take each issue separately. I do not pigeonhole myself into
convenient blanket labels of being in any large group. Any person who
completely sides with any group's positions on all aspects is a person
who has stopped thinking for themself.
And it is especially wasteful when people spend their energy on
polarization of an issue when there is an obvious solution that sits
firmly within the common ground between both sides.
Abortion is a perfect case in point. Here's Melinda Gates's recent
TEDx talk on Birth Control:
http://www.ted.com/talks/melinda_gates_let_s_put_birth_control_back_on_the_agenda.html
She makes the excellent point that she is not speaking in favor of
abortion. Nor does her talk speak in opposition of abortion. She is
focused on handling the problem upstream so that the unwanted
pregnancy never becomes an issue.
You all can consider Melinda's presentation as a challenge to this
forum. The left can mock the right. The right can in return fight
against the left.
...or both can work together and follow Melinda's lead to *solve* the
problem completely.
I also like the moderator's questions at the end of the talk, because
it speaks to the validity within the points of those who oppose the
negative aspects of birth control. I see the thorough solution to
embrace both birth control as well as the virtues of the methods for
avoiding unwanted pregnancies that do not involve birth control. When
this common ground is expanded on all fronts, that is when the
abortion issue will make huge strides toward becoming history.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 16, 2012, 1:56:19 AM4/16/12
to
On Apr 9, 8:32 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> a newborn baby. Rarily does a woman have a baby they don't want, that's why
> >> most abortions are done very early in the pregnancy. You know that some
> >> mothers are unable to nurse their new born baby, and some new born are
> >> unable to digest their mothers milk. In the old days those babies died if a
> >> wet nurse was not available.
>
> >In my latest post I clarified what I meant to say. The point was that
> >the mother is obligated to ensure that the baby is cared for. So the
> >scenario was that a mother chooses to breastfeed her baby. However
> >many days later, she changes her mind and then decides to stop feeding
> >it. The baby dies.
>
> >By extending the logic your provided earlier, it would say that is her
> >right.
>
> Not at all once born the baby has rights, the mother can not toss a live
> baby into a dumpster. But she can leave the baby at a police station, fire
> station clinic or hospital. If she has the child in a hospital she can
> refuse to take the baby with her. If she doesn't want to feed the child she
> can leave it any place that someone will care for the baby.
The earlier statement was:
leaving the uterus, it gets society's protection. Again, I point to
the irony in how a baby is safer outside the womb than it is within
one.
> >> >Choice: "keeping a person alive"
> >> >Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
> >> >provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
> >> >would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
>
> >> She isn't but induced pre mature deliveries are common, and often the
> >> infant is bottle fed, by nurses.
> >> You women hating anti legal abortion bigots, need to either stop lying or
> >> learn the truth. After about 4 1/2 months. There are no abortions. There
> >> are induced premature deliveries for medical reasons none are for birth
> >> control. Birth control abortions are in the first 3 months.
>
> >Statistics I've seen show that fetuses are commonly killed
> >electively. I guess that group could be called The Procrastinators.
>
> At what stage of development? You are either a liar or very ignorant of how
> life works.
I'll just offer the "histogram of abortions" charts from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method
Both charts show a significant fraction of abortions happening after
the first trimester.
> >> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
> >> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
> >> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>
> >> Yes and it's always a wanted pregnancy.
>
> >Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
> >for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
> >abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
>
> But that's not an abortion.
Yes, and the irony is that one is perfectly legal, while the other is
criminal.
> >> >The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
> >> >vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
> >> >words there.)
>
> >> And some times a bad decision, need another bad decision to balance it. One
> >> more little drink, and wake up with a stranger that only wanted sex. Whores
> >> and sluts learn early how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Most teen
> >> pregnancies are innocent young Christian girls that are awash in Christian
> >> ignorance.
>
> >You've stated here that "No pro-choice person wants abortions". Well
> >obviously no one on the other side of this issue wants abortions too.
> >I'm baffled as to why both sides don't focus their efforts on
> >expanding the common interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in
> >the first place. It can so easily be done these days. Even for the
> >young Christian girls, there are smart non-sexually active reasons to
> >get a norplant-kind of insert. In combination with abstinence
> >education, that would completely solve the problem.
> Because the anti-women pro-life faction fights the hell out of simple
> solution. To wit comprehensive sex education beginning before children are
> old enough to have a pregnancy. Both sexes need education. Readily
> available and affordable birth control. Like cheap condoms with spermcide
> jelly, would reduce unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDS. Public
> health would save million in health care cost. Opposing birth control and
> prevention of STD should be a conservative objective. IOW the right wing
> should be supporting Planned Parenthood Clinics. The GOP is not
> conservative it fascist. Control/slavery is their objective.
I see merit to abstinence education as well. I'd like to see an
expansion on both of those fronts. Absolutely everyone starts out as
a practitioner of abstinence. Then for those who eventually decide to
switch away from that path, the only variables are 'when' and 'why'.
This is what I see to be the healthiest integrated approach. Teach
everyone the beauty of the path of abstinence. Then teach that a
certain fraction of the group will someday choose to become sexually
active. Teach the lessons learned on how that transition has been
made while maintaining the beauty of the path. Learning from other
people's mistakes is a great way to live life with a minimum of your
own mistakes.
Oh yeah, and I also consider it to be very important to teach that
when that time comes when a fork in the road is faced, and a person
decides to switch away from the path of abstinence, there is
absolutely nothing that prohibits returning back to that path of
abstinence at some future point down the way.
What I'm being critical of here is the current, and long entrenched
"virtue" of virginity. I envision a healthy future where absolutely
no emphasis is placed on virginity. What is far more important to
teach is *chastity*. Chastity can be attained at any point in
anyone's life, no matter what decisions they may have made in the
past.
Imagine if society had the same approach to alcohol as it does about
sex. You have one drink of booze, and there is absolutely nothing you
can do to regain your pre-booze state of being. Clearly anyone can
choose at any time to abstain from alcohol. It is how alcoholism is
treated. And there are many other beautiful reasons to abstain from
alcohol for a period of time that have absolutely nothing to do with
alcoholism. How ironic that the bottles tell you that there's a
Virgin Spirit inside.
Chastity can be regained by any woman or any man. It is the state we
all started our lives in. It is a state we can reclaim whenever we
want, for whatever reason we want. Even married couples may choose to
do this for some set time.
=Dustin
> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 8, 7:59 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> >> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
> >> >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> >> >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> >> >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> >> >> body.
>
> >> >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> >> >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> >> >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> >> >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> >> >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>
> >> When the fetus is born it's a baby. Practially any one can tend to and feed
> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> >> It's called pro-choice, which means any person has control over how their
> >> >> body will be used. No person has any right to force another person to keep
> >> >> them alive. There's a considerable difference between, keeping a person
> >> >> alive, and killing that person. A fetus has no right to use of a womans
> >> >> body.
>
> >> >By your logic, there is no problem at all with having a newborn baby,
> >> >and the mother deciding that she doesn't want to enslave her body by
> >> >feeding that baby. Baby starves. Baby dies. If society tries to
> >> >force any mother to keep their baby alive after it is born, then the
> >> >mother's freedom is being encroached.
>
> >> a newborn baby. Rarily does a woman have a baby they don't want, that's why
> >> most abortions are done very early in the pregnancy. You know that some
> >> mothers are unable to nurse their new born baby, and some new born are
> >> unable to digest their mothers milk. In the old days those babies died if a
> >> wet nurse was not available.
>
> >In my latest post I clarified what I meant to say. The point was that
> >the mother is obligated to ensure that the baby is cared for. So the
> >scenario was that a mother chooses to breastfeed her baby. However
> >many days later, she changes her mind and then decides to stop feeding
> >it. The baby dies.
>
> >By extending the logic your provided earlier, it would say that is her
> >right.
>
> Not at all once born the baby has rights, the mother can not toss a live
> baby into a dumpster. But she can leave the baby at a police station, fire
> station clinic or hospital. If she has the child in a hospital she can
> refuse to take the baby with her. If she doesn't want to feed the child she
> can leave it any place that someone will care for the baby.
The earlier statement was:
"any person has control over how their body will be used"
This was the rationale for killing the life before it was born. After
leaving the uterus, it gets society's protection. Again, I point to
the irony in how a baby is safer outside the womb than it is within
one.
> >> >Choice: "keeping a person alive"
>
> >> >"any person has control over how their body will be used"
>
> >> >I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
> >> >"any person has control over how their body will be used"
>
> >> >Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
> >> >provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
> >> >would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
>
> >> She isn't but induced pre mature deliveries are common, and often the
> >> infant is bottle fed, by nurses.
> >> You women hating anti legal abortion bigots, need to either stop lying or
> >> learn the truth. After about 4 1/2 months. There are no abortions. There
> >> are induced premature deliveries for medical reasons none are for birth
> >> control. Birth control abortions are in the first 3 months.
>
> >Statistics I've seen show that fetuses are commonly killed
> >electively. I guess that group could be called The Procrastinators.
>
> At what stage of development? You are either a liar or very ignorant of how
> life works.
I'll just offer the "histogram of abortions" charts from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method
Both charts show a significant fraction of abortions happening after
the first trimester.
> >> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
> >> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
> >> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>
> >> Yes and it's always a wanted pregnancy.
>
> >Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
> >for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
> >abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
>
> But that's not an abortion.
Yes, and the irony is that one is perfectly legal, while the other is
criminal.
> >> >The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
> >> >vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
> >> >words there.)
>
> >> And some times a bad decision, need another bad decision to balance it. One
> >> more little drink, and wake up with a stranger that only wanted sex. Whores
> >> and sluts learn early how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Most teen
> >> pregnancies are innocent young Christian girls that are awash in Christian
> >> ignorance.
>
> >You've stated here that "No pro-choice person wants abortions". Well
> >obviously no one on the other side of this issue wants abortions too.
> >I'm baffled as to why both sides don't focus their efforts on
> >expanding the common interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in
> >the first place. It can so easily be done these days. Even for the
> >young Christian girls, there are smart non-sexually active reasons to
> >get a norplant-kind of insert. In combination with abstinence
> >education, that would completely solve the problem.
> Because the anti-women pro-life faction fights the hell out of simple
> solution. To wit comprehensive sex education beginning before children are
> old enough to have a pregnancy. Both sexes need education. Readily
> available and affordable birth control. Like cheap condoms with spermcide
> jelly, would reduce unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDS. Public
> health would save million in health care cost. Opposing birth control and
> prevention of STD should be a conservative objective. IOW the right wing
> should be supporting Planned Parenthood Clinics. The GOP is not
> conservative it fascist. Control/slavery is their objective.
I see merit to abstinence education as well. I'd like to see an
expansion on both of those fronts. Absolutely everyone starts out as
a practitioner of abstinence. Then for those who eventually decide to
switch away from that path, the only variables are 'when' and 'why'.
This is what I see to be the healthiest integrated approach. Teach
everyone the beauty of the path of abstinence. Then teach that a
certain fraction of the group will someday choose to become sexually
active. Teach the lessons learned on how that transition has been
made while maintaining the beauty of the path. Learning from other
people's mistakes is a great way to live life with a minimum of your
own mistakes.
Oh yeah, and I also consider it to be very important to teach that
when that time comes when a fork in the road is faced, and a person
decides to switch away from the path of abstinence, there is
absolutely nothing that prohibits returning back to that path of
abstinence at some future point down the way.
What I'm being critical of here is the current, and long entrenched
"virtue" of virginity. I envision a healthy future where absolutely
no emphasis is placed on virginity. What is far more important to
teach is *chastity*. Chastity can be attained at any point in
anyone's life, no matter what decisions they may have made in the
past.
Imagine if society had the same approach to alcohol as it does about
sex. You have one drink of booze, and there is absolutely nothing you
can do to regain your pre-booze state of being. Clearly anyone can
choose at any time to abstain from alcohol. It is how alcoholism is
treated. And there are many other beautiful reasons to abstain from
alcohol for a period of time that have absolutely nothing to do with
alcoholism. How ironic that the bottles tell you that there's a
Virgin Spirit inside.
Chastity can be regained by any woman or any man. It is the state we
all started our lives in. It is a state we can reclaim whenever we
want, for whatever reason we want. Even married couples may choose to
do this for some set time.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 16, 2012, 2:20:10 AM4/16/12
to
>
> Except, nobody but you has applied that logic.
>
> Everyone recognizes that once a baby is born alive, it has rights of
> its own that must be respected by everyone, even by the mother.
> >> >Choice: "keeping a person alive"
>
> >> >"any person has control over how their body will be used"
>
> >> >I am certainly glad your reasoning isn't applied outside the womb.
> >> >Now this leads to the question that if a mother is obligated to
> >> >provide nourishment to her baby the day after it is born, then why
> >> >would she not have that same obligation on the day before it is born?
>
> >> She isn't but induced pre mature deliveries are common, and often the
> >> infant is bottle fed, by nurses.
> >> You women hating anti legal abortion bigots, need to either stop lying or
> >> learn the truth. After about 4 1/2 months. There are no abortions. There
> >> are induced premature deliveries for medical reasons none are for birth
> >> control. Birth control abortions are in the first 3 months.
>
> >Statistics I've seen show that fetuses are commonly killed
> >electively. I guess that group could be called The Procrastinators.
>
>
> And, who's criteria did they apply as to whether an abortion was
> medically necessary or not?
>
> Remember, the anti-abortion crowd aren't above lying.
>
> They're not above committing murder, either.
If you happened to see abortion itself as murder, you might choose to
go to extremes in the effort to put an end to it. The rationale is
similar to why soldiers go to war. Certainly there are other ways to
exert influence toward stopping something you are completely opposed
to. I don't condone violence against violence.
Gandhi is quoted as saying, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world
blind."
As to the legitimacy of the stats I had posted above (http://
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method), I
haven't looked into the source of the data, but Wikipedians usually
keep opposing sides to an issue well in check.
> >> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
> >> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
> >> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>
> >> Yes and it's always a wanted pregnancy.
>
> >Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
> >for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
> >abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
>
> of the fetus.
Laws like these are landmark legislation that are totally about the
rights of the fetus. At the Federal level in the US, it goes so far
as to emphasize the rights of a human embryo. The law reads something
to the effect of, "the unborn baby at any stage of development".
I was actually shocked to see the exact wording. It seems very
strange to me to treat a newly implanted zygote as a human being.
One embarrassment of the US Constitution is the "3/5ths compromise".
While today that looks like a stark anachronism, a graduated
fractional approach to human gestation would actually make a lot of
sense. Obviously before conception, the fraction would be zero. And
then at the point of viability, the fraction would be one. How the in-
between gets scaled would be a matter of debate, but it is perfectly
clear that using a fraction of 1/1 at week 1 is going too far.
I'm sure the Federal law will be tested, and that's what it will take
for something much more sensible to take it's place.
Say someone breaks into the Ford assembly line and steals a hubcap.
It does not make any sense to charge that person with grand theft
auto. The parts have not come together to form a car yet.
> >> >It's not hard to imagine how certain camps reacted to this kind of
> >> >legislation, when it was first proposed... "We *can't* have them
> >> >treating the fetus as a human being!" Total freak out when it passed
> >> >into law. I mean, it opens that ugly door to the day when a mother
> >> >will be required to treat her own baby with the respect due to a human
> >> >being.
>
> >> Is it that you are ignorant or a deliberate liar. No pro-choice person
> >> wants abortions, we want to prevent a woman from being forced to have a
> >> unwanted pregnancy. BTW if a mother doesn't treat her baby with proper
> >> respect and care, CPS will take the baby away from her. That is the law now
> >> and has been custom for many years.
>
> >Treating a fetus as a human being puts a huge damper on your stated
> >goal of wanting "to prevent a woman from being forced to have a
> >unwanted pregnacy."
>
> That was precisely the intent of the law.
>
> To allow people like you to make the argument you're currently making.
>
> It wasn't to protect fetuses, it was to shift the goal posts.
> >> >I find it odd that people persist in the position that it's the
> >> >mother's body and she can do what she wants with it. The life being
> >> >snuffed out has different DNA, different blood - it is distinct from
> >> >her body in so many ways. And again, the point above is that after
> >> >delivering it, she's obligated to care for it.
>
> >> Another example of a lie or complete ignorance. A new mother can refuse to
> >> even look at a baby she doesn't want.
>
> >(Corrected clarification provided above.)
>
> >> >The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
> >> >vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
> >> >words there.)
>
> >> And some times a bad decision, need another bad decision to balance it. One
> >> more little drink, and wake up with a stranger that only wanted sex. Whores
> >> and sluts learn early how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Most teen
> >> pregnancies are innocent young Christian girls that are awash in Christian
> >> ignorance.
>
> >You've stated here that "No pro-choice person wants abortions". Well
> >obviously no one on the other side of this issue wants abortions too.
> >I'm baffled as to why both sides don't focus their efforts on
> >expanding the common interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in
> >the first place. It can so easily be done these days. Even for the
> >young Christian girls, there are smart non-sexually active reasons to
> >get a norplant-kind of insert. In combination with abstinence
> >education, that would completely solve the problem.
>
> Sigh...
> >> >The brutal reality of Choice is that our decisions are not made in a
> >> >vacuum free of responsibilities. (Perhaps not the best choice of
> >> >words there.)
>
> >> And some times a bad decision, need another bad decision to balance it. One
> >> more little drink, and wake up with a stranger that only wanted sex. Whores
> >> and sluts learn early how to avoid unwanted pregnancies. Most teen
> >> pregnancies are innocent young Christian girls that are awash in Christian
> >> ignorance.
>
> >You've stated here that "No pro-choice person wants abortions". Well
> >obviously no one on the other side of this issue wants abortions too.
> >I'm baffled as to why both sides don't focus their efforts on
> >expanding the common interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in
> >the first place. It can so easily be done these days. Even for the
> >young Christian girls, there are smart non-sexually active reasons to
> >get a norplant-kind of insert. In combination with abstinence
> >education, that would completely solve the problem.
>
>
> One side IS trying to focus their efforts on expanding the common
> interest of preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place, as you
> put it.
>
> The other side is not.
>
> Do I need to explain which side is which?
>
> Why do you sound like you think both sides are equally guilty of
> neglecting preventative measures?
>
> They are not.
>
> You seem to be under the serious misapprehension that the abortion
> issue is about babies.
>
> While I'm sure that there are some sincere people who truly care about
> aborted fetuses, they aren't the ones who are driving the
> anti-abortion agenda in the U.S.
>
> The people who are driving the anti-abortion agenda aren't really
> interested in preventing abortion.
>
> They're interested in preventing -sex- outside of a religiously
> sanctioned relationship, and stopping abortion is only a means to that
> end.
>
> The religious right opposes abortion because they see abortion as
> enabling people to avoid the rightful punishment of a just God for
> having sex outside of marriage.
>
> It's that simple.
>
> Neither is it hyperbole. Every once in a while, members of the anti
> abortion crowd will admit it.
>
> Most recently in this group, it was "Duke".
>
> People who get pregnant outside of marriage are -supposed- to suffer
> and live their lives in misery. There suffering and misery is
> supposed to serve a duel purpose; punishment for living an ungodly
> life and to serve as an example to others who might contemplate doing
> the same thing.
>
> Until one understands that, then one falls into the trap you fell into
> above, wondering why both sides can't work together toward a common
> goal of preventing the need for abortion in the first place.
>
> There -is- no common goal.
>
> That's the same reason they oppose teaching children about birth
> control.
>
> It's the same reason they don't want to vaccinate children against
> HPV.
>
> It's the same reason they don't want their children to know the facts
> of human sexuality.
>
> They see teaching anything but abstinence as giving young people
> license to have sex outside of marriage.
>
> Until one understands that opposing abortion isn't about abortion at
> all, then one will remain confused and frustrated.
I do not see only one side at fault. What I see is one side refusing
to embrace the validity within the choice of birth control, and I see
the other side refusing to embrace the validity within the choice of
abstinence. The total solution requires embracing both.
=Dustin
james g. keegan jr.
Apr 16, 2012, 3:51:05 AM4/16/12
to
In article
<83ec9de7-0bae-497b...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
upon review.
[...]
<83ec9de7-0bae-497b...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:56 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <af5d9765-8f52-4bd2-b31e-d1f9e90df...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
> >
> > > You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> > > to pretend he is tough.
> >
> > let's see if dustin has done any homework whatsoever and recognizes the
> > blatant projection here.
>
> I take each issue separately. I do not pigeonhole myself into
> convenient blanket labels of being in any large group. Any person who
> completely sides with any group's positions on all aspects is a person
> who has stopped thinking for themself.
so it appears that dustin is unable to recognize his own actions, even
> On Apr 9, 11:56 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <af5d9765-8f52-4bd2-b31e-d1f9e90df...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
> >
> > > You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> > > to pretend he is tough.
> >
> > let's see if dustin has done any homework whatsoever and recognizes the
> > blatant projection here.
>
> I take each issue separately. I do not pigeonhole myself into
> convenient blanket labels of being in any large group. Any person who
> completely sides with any group's positions on all aspects is a person
> who has stopped thinking for themself.
upon review.
[...]
james g. keegan jr.
Apr 16, 2012, 3:52:58 AM4/16/12
to
In article
<ca5103ae-2f0a-4511...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
"I am not interested in you and Whale patty."
- Osprey referring to Patrick Humphrey and his wife in
<o5mdnWE7v_p...@comcast.com>
"Maybe you and Whale should get away from that sick perverted stuff"
- Osprey referring to Patrick Humphrey and his wife in
<_PudnRGGZfw...@comcast.com>
"I wonder if they have to warn the community about him, where ever he
and whale goes?"
- Osprey referring to Patrick Humphrey and his wife in
<5YWdnT9Ahbq...@comcast.com>
"If you don't want to be a woman and accept the natural laws that come
with being a woman and being a mother,
then you shouldn't be a mother at all.
Real women, understand the risks involved and real women decide to be
mothers. Not forced-killers.
Real women are not afraid. Real women do not need excuses to kill.
Real women stand up to the challenge
and give life. Your mother gave life to you. She made those
sacrifices. She did not choose to kill you.
You, are a coward.
You, are not a "real" woman."
- Bobby posting as Dino in
<b570123b-69a7-4d3a...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
<ca5103ae-2f0a-4511...@m18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Dino <what...@homemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:26 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What's most pathetic is how so many people don't care if a man kills a
> > woman who isn't pregnant .. . antiaborts value only pregnant women and
> > unwanted fetuses.
>
> Lets see how Elizabeth feels about her fellow man or woman.
let's look at you first bobby.
> On Apr 15, 6:26 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What's most pathetic is how so many people don't care if a man kills a
> > woman who isn't pregnant .. . antiaborts value only pregnant women and
> > unwanted fetuses.
>
> Lets see how Elizabeth feels about her fellow man or woman.
"I am not interested in you and Whale patty."
- Osprey referring to Patrick Humphrey and his wife in
<o5mdnWE7v_p...@comcast.com>
"Maybe you and Whale should get away from that sick perverted stuff"
- Osprey referring to Patrick Humphrey and his wife in
<_PudnRGGZfw...@comcast.com>
"I wonder if they have to warn the community about him, where ever he
and whale goes?"
- Osprey referring to Patrick Humphrey and his wife in
<5YWdnT9Ahbq...@comcast.com>
"If you don't want to be a woman and accept the natural laws that come
with being a woman and being a mother,
then you shouldn't be a mother at all.
Real women, understand the risks involved and real women decide to be
mothers. Not forced-killers.
Real women are not afraid. Real women do not need excuses to kill.
Real women stand up to the challenge
and give life. Your mother gave life to you. She made those
sacrifices. She did not choose to kill you.
You, are a coward.
You, are not a "real" woman."
- Bobby posting as Dino in
<b570123b-69a7-4d3a...@k6g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 16, 2012, 11:51:32 AM4/16/12
to
> <83ec9de7-0bae-497b-9c30-6f5034758...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
It's clear to me that what I'm unable to recognize here is the point
you are trying to make.
But based upon previous strategies I've observed, it appears your
effort is toward an ad hominem twist to a point I posted that was
strictly a criticism of a grossly inconsistent law. Highlighting
internal contradiction is one of the most clear methods for exposing
something as illogical.
Doing so says little about the person making the point, other than
ability to apply simple reasoning. It says a lot more about that
which is being criticized.
=Dustin
you are trying to make.
But based upon previous strategies I've observed, it appears your
effort is toward an ad hominem twist to a point I posted that was
strictly a criticism of a grossly inconsistent law. Highlighting
internal contradiction is one of the most clear methods for exposing
something as illogical.
Doing so says little about the person making the point, other than
ability to apply simple reasoning. It says a lot more about that
which is being criticized.
=Dustin
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 16, 2012, 2:08:13 PM4/16/12
to
to justify it.
Sloppy thinking...
>Gandhi is quoted as saying, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world
>blind."
Except we're not witnessing "an eye for an eye" are we?
ProChioce supporters haven't murdered anyone.
AntiAbortion supporters -have-.
>As to the legitimacy of the stats I had posted above (http://
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method), I
>haven't looked into the source of the data, but Wikipedians usually
>keep opposing sides to an issue well in check.
abortion was medically necessary or not.
Why would you think that they do?
More sloppy thinking...
>> >> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
>> >> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
>> >> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>>
>> >> Yes and it's always a wanted pregnancy.
>>
>> >Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
>> >for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
>> >abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
>>
>> The law still revolves around the rights of the mother, not the rights
>> of the fetus.
>
>Laws like these are landmark legislation that are totally about the
>rights of the fetus.
There not about the rights of a fetus.
They're to establish that a fetus has rights, which is another matter
entirely.
>At the Federal level in the US, it goes so far
>as to emphasize the rights of a human embryo.
>The law reads something
>to the effect of, "the unborn baby at any stage of development".
Notice they use words like "child" and "baby" as opposed to the
medically correct terms like "zygote" and "fetus".
>I was actually shocked to see the exact wording. It seems very
>strange to me to treat a newly implanted zygote as a human being.
to protect a fetus rather than to shift the goal post on when a person
becomes a person.
We're now witnessing the second act of the play, with personhood laws
and amendments.
And, the final act of the play will be when abortion is made
completely illegal.
>One embarrassment of the US Constitution is the "3/5ths compromise".
>While today that looks like a stark anachronism, a graduated
>fractional approach to human gestation would actually make a lot of
>sense.
That's what the Supreme Court decided when they handed down Roe vs.
Wade.
The decision only eliminated restrictions on abortion for the first
trimester.
Abortions later in the gestational period can be regulated or
proscribed.
How is it that you don't already know this?
From the decision:
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_a.htm
3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except
from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf
without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests
involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a
woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State
cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting
both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life,
each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at
various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.
(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first
trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to
the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp.
163, 164.
(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first
trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the
mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways
that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.
(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its
interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses,
regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in
appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or
health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.
====
States allow exceptions for medically necessary late term abortions.
That's why there's been a big fight over the meaning of "medically
necessary".
Generally speaking, there's a social consensus on allowing abortions
in cases where the mother's physical health is clearly at risk.
However, many people think that psychological reasons are also
medically valid. Other's do not.
That was the complaint against George Tiller by the religious right,
before he was murdered.
He was performing abortions on psychologically shattered women and
girls who had been so badly abused that they were unable to seek an
abortion earlier in their pregnancy. Many were minor incest victims
who were suicidal and their doctors didn't feel that they were
emotionally stable enough to carry the pregnancy to term without being
at serious risk of killing themselves.
That's the part the anti-abortion crowd always forgets to mention,
because they don't believe such reasons are valid and don't really
care about the welfare of the mother in the first place.
While such cases are always judgment calls, are you prepared to tell a
suicidal 13 year old girl who was raped repeatedly by her father that
she has to carry the pregnancy to term?
I'm sure as hell not.
That's not to say that there aren't a lot of real fanatics on the
right who think that if a woman dies in pregnancy, that it's part of
God's plan and that no abortions should be allowed at all, because
there are.
> Obviously before conception, the fraction would be zero. And
>then at the point of viability, the fraction would be one. How the in-
>between gets scaled would be a matter of debate, but it is perfectly
>clear that using a fraction of 1/1 at week 1 is going too far.
where the battle was being fought, and why there is always debate over
exceptions for the health of the mother.
Many also support exceptions for rape and incest because of the way
many women respond to such crimes, hiding their pregnancy in shame
and/or fear, psychologically prevents them from seeking an abortion
earlier in the pregnancy.
>I'm sure the Federal law will be tested, and that's what it will take
>for something much more sensible to take it's place.
>Say someone breaks into the Ford assembly line and steals a hubcap.
>It does not make any sense to charge that person with grand theft
>auto. The parts have not come together to form a car yet.
That's a big part of your problem with understanding this issue.
Because, it -is- mostly one side who is a fault.
>What I see is one side refusing
>to embrace the validity within the choice of birth control, and I see
>the other side refusing to embrace the validity within the choice of
>abstinence.
ProChoice supports don't lobby against teaching abstinence.
They lobby against teaching -only- abstinence.
That's a big difference between the two sides that you seem to be
totally overlooking.
Teaching "abstinence only", which is what the right is pushing for,
precludes teaching about birth control or anything else.
That's why they call their sexual education plans "abstinence only".
You didn't notice that?
The left favors comprehensive sex education, including abstinence,
birth control and masturbation and STDs. For older kids, the
curriculum would be expanded to deal with the real world facts about
real world sexuality.
The right opposes teaching everything above except abstinence.
Again... How could you not notice that?
It's mind boggling...
>The total solution requires embracing both.
the wrong choice.
Because, the left is already down with your ideas.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 16, 2012, 7:59:00 PM4/16/12
to
On Apr 16, 1:08 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 10, 8:19 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 8, 7:59 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >On Apr 10, 8:19 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >On Apr 8, 7:59 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >> >Statistics I've seen show that fetuses are commonly killed
> >> >electively. I guess that group could be called The Procrastinators.
>
> >> Who compiled the statistics?
>
> >> And, who's criteria did they apply as to whether an abortion was
> >> medically necessary or not?
>
> >> Remember, the anti-abortion crowd aren't above lying.
>
> >> They're not above committing murder, either.
>
> >If you happened to see abortion itself as murder, you might choose to
> >go to extremes in the effort to put an end to it. The rationale is
> >similar to why soldiers go to war. Certainly there are other ways to
> >exert influence toward stopping something you are completely opposed
> >to. I don't condone violence against violence.
>
> You may not condone violence, but you certainly fell all over yourself
> to justify it.
>
> Sloppy thinking...
I don't justify it. I was presenting the rationale used by other
> >> >electively. I guess that group could be called The Procrastinators.
>
> >> Who compiled the statistics?
>
> >> And, who's criteria did they apply as to whether an abortion was
> >> medically necessary or not?
>
> >> Remember, the anti-abortion crowd aren't above lying.
>
> >> They're not above committing murder, either.
>
> >If you happened to see abortion itself as murder, you might choose to
> >go to extremes in the effort to put an end to it. The rationale is
> >similar to why soldiers go to war. Certainly there are other ways to
> >exert influence toward stopping something you are completely opposed
> >to. I don't condone violence against violence.
>
> You may not condone violence, but you certainly fell all over yourself
> to justify it.
>
> Sloppy thinking...
people to justify it. And I don't criticize such rationale as
sloppy. I see it as very straight forward. My own criticism of that
justification is that it strikes me as primitive. We have progressed
as a species to now know how to apply other methods that don't involve
killing the killers.
> >Gandhi is quoted as saying, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world
> >blind."
>
> Yea...
>
> Except we're not witnessing "an eye for an eye" are we?
>
> ProChioce supporters haven't murdered anyone.
>
> AntiAbortion supporters -have-.
> >As to the legitimacy of the stats I had posted above (http://
> >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method), I
> >haven't looked into the source of the data, but Wikipedians usually
> >keep opposing sides to an issue well in check.
>
> Statistics that focus on gestational age won't tell one whether an
> abortion was medically necessary or not.
>
> Why would you think that they do?
>
> More sloppy thinking...
separate category for those justified as medical necessity. I was
simply doing a first-order analysis with an understanding that there
is no way that the "medical necessity" category would take up the
majority of those 2nd Trimester numbers.
That is my assumption.
And if you were to show me stats that do identify a significant chunk
of those as "medical necessity", then my first conclusion I'd jump to
is my expectation that the definition of "medical necessity" regarding
abortion is about as distorted as the concept of "medical necessity"
regarding the percentage of prescriptions written for "medicinal"
marijuana. Key & Peele did an excellent skit on this. The reason why
these kinds of comedy routines are so hilarious is because they hit so
close to the truth.
Now I can't stretch my imagination as to how comedians like Key &
Peele could pull off a similar skit on how "medical necessity" excuses
are abused when it comes to abortion. How could any comedian do that
without it just coming off as an atrocious tragedy? I don't know.
George Carlin might have been able to get laughs. He was a brilliant
comedian.
So yeah, the bottom line is a huge question mark on what constitutes a
legitimate "medical necessity", and what percentage are simply an
excuse for the procrastinators to off their, um, growth.
> >> >> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
> >> >> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
> >> >> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>
> >> >> Yes and it's always a wanted pregnancy.
>
> >> >Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
> >> >for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
> >> >abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
>
> >> The law still revolves around the rights of the mother, not the rights
> >> of the fetus.
>
> >Laws like these are landmark legislation that are totally about the
> >rights of the fetus.
>
> Not really.
>
> There not about the rights of a fetus.
>
> They're to establish that a fetus has rights, which is another matter
> entirely.
the fetus are secondary to the rights of the mother, I would agree.
But secondary rights are a huge step up from no rights at all.
> >At the Federal level in the US, it goes so far
> >as to emphasize the rights of a human embryo.
> >The law reads something
> >to the effect of, "the unborn baby at any stage of development".
>
> That's the propaganda aspect of the law.
>
> Notice they use words like "child" and "baby" as opposed to the
> medically correct terms like "zygote" and "fetus".
accurate words for a fetus, particularly if preceded by "unborn".
> >I was actually shocked to see the exact wording. It seems very
> >strange to me to treat a newly implanted zygote as a human being.
>
> You're only shocked because you assume that the intent of the law was
> to protect a fetus rather than to shift the goal post on when a person
> becomes a person.
>
> We're now witnessing the second act of the play, with personhood laws
> and amendments.
>
> And, the final act of the play will be when abortion is made
> completely illegal.
remember when the goal posts were moved from the front of the end zone
to the back of the end zone. This recent legislation is like moving
the goal posts not just off the field and into the stands, but all the
way to the outer edge of the parking lot. I understand the argument
that 'life begins at conception'. But at Day 1, there is no way that
life can be considered a full member of the homosapien species. The
single cell cannot be considered to have achieved the status of a
human being. This is not even achieved after Month 1.
> >One embarrassment of the US Constitution is the "3/5ths compromise".
> >While today that looks like a stark anachronism, a graduated
> >fractional approach to human gestation would actually make a lot of
> >sense.
>
> Ummmmm...
>
> That's what the Supreme Court decided when they handed down Roe vs.
> Wade.
>
> The decision only eliminated restrictions on abortion for the first
> trimester.
>
> Abortions later in the gestational period can be regulated or
> proscribed.
>
> How is it that you don't already know this?
being at various stages of development. R/W gave a binary yes/no
decision as to when it was ok to abort.
Sure there is psychological trauma involved. But there is also the
awareness that the violent event can lead to the creation of new
life. And so if the female has no interest in getting pregnant from
that event, it is her obligation to act as soon as possible. The
morning after is the most obvious time to act. There can be fully
subsidized examinations that reveal verifying evidence, and then
medication provided to prevent a fertilized ovum from advancing into a
pregnancy.
Showing up to the clinic four months after the event, crying about how
traumatized you've been over the past four months does not excuse the
failure to act.
> That's not to say that there aren't a lot of real fanatics on the
> right who think that if a woman dies in pregnancy, that it's part of
> God's plan and that no abortions should be allowed at all, because
> there are.
removed for similar reasons. Perfectly understandable, actually. But
another case of what I would call primitive reasoning.
> > Obviously before conception, the fraction would be zero. And
> >then at the point of viability, the fraction would be one. How the in-
> >between gets scaled would be a matter of debate, but it is perfectly
> >clear that using a fraction of 1/1 at week 1 is going too far.
>
> Until the recent attempts to outlaw abortion all together, that's
> where the battle was being fought, and why there is always debate over
> exceptions for the health of the mother.
>
> Many also support exceptions for rape and incest because of the way
> many women respond to such crimes, hiding their pregnancy in shame
> and/or fear, psychologically prevents them from seeking an abortion
> earlier in the pregnancy.
such "procrastination" (for lack of a better word) then it would
promptly deter such delays. Certainly this can be criticized for a
lack of compassion toward the woman's trauma, but what must be
balanced is the lack of compassion involved in delaying to the stage
of sentience before killing off the pregnancy.
If immediately-after-the-fact pills were made available for such
cases, and exams were conducted in complete privacy and totally
discrete, then that could go a long way toward lowering the inhibition
these women feel. I'm sure others have put a heap load more thought
into solving this. The most effective solutions have probably come
from women who have survived this kind of mess.
> >I'm sure the Federal law will be tested, and that's what it will take
> >for something much more sensible to take it's place.
> >Say someone breaks into the Ford assembly line and steals a hubcap.
> >It does not make any sense to charge that person with grand theft
> >auto. The parts have not come together to form a car yet.
>
> As I've noted above, you're still misinterpreting the intent of the
> law.
have significant pushback against *any* abstinence education. The
smartest approach, I would think, is to reach the youngest level and
begin by teaching them abstinence only. (Again, that's how we all
start.) And then a year or two or three later... follow that up with,
"Um, remember how we taught you this abstinence thing? Well there may
come a time when you may want to do something different from
abstinence, and here's how that can be done smartly..."
> The left favors comprehensive sex education, including abstinence,
> birth control and masturbation and STDs. For older kids, the
> curriculum would be expanded to deal with the real world facts about
> real world sexuality.
was sad. Very sad. It was a step back toward the dark ages.
As for the proper order, I find it likewise sad to *initiate* sex ed
with topics like STDs and birth control. Those are not topics that
need to be covered at the first stage.
> The right opposes teaching everything above except abstinence.
>
> Again... How could you not notice that?
>
> It's mind boggling...
> >The total solution requires embracing both.
>
> Then, all you have to do is persuade the right that abstinency only is
> the wrong choice.
>
> Because, the left is already down with your ideas.
about human sexuality, I'd be horribly shocked if I was learning about
Herpes and HIV the day after I was taught about the monogamous
commitment that Mom & Dad enjoyed. Those topics do not need to be
introduced until at least one year later, after the fundamentals have
had time to take root.
I think a healthy shift would include an increased emphasis on the
virtues of abstinence, and along with that a complete set of
alternative ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy (along with ways to avoid
the other junk that is totally unwanted).
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 16, 2012, 9:00:45 PM4/16/12
to
On Apr 16, 1:20 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> best and safest. Religious nuts demand that nothing else should be allowed.
> The poorest of girls are the most likely to be the most ignorant, and have
> a unwanted pregnancy. Pro-choice and planned Parenthood are working toward
> where abortions are safe, free, and very rare. The religious keep them
> ignorant approach has been around for centuries, and always failed.
> Preaching abstinence, has always failed, disapproval and punishment has
> lead to many suicides. Religion is evil. It's a significant part of all our
> problems.
Religion certainly has its failings. But at the core of any religion
is spirituality, and that is an integral aspect to being human. And
perhaps that is the foundation that is missing from sex-ed that has
led to so many of its failures - both in teaching abstinence as well
as indulgence.
In Melinda Gates's talk she spoke of sex as being sacred. While
speaking that way strikes me as profound, I also see it to be grossly
incomplete. A full education about sex will relate how sex has the
potential to be a sacred experience, but also how it is often
profaned. How it can be a glue that binds the most committed of
relationships and can serve as a vehicle for those engaged in the act
of achieving the highest levels of bliss, but it also is used as the
means toward some of the most painful experiences of human existence.
A thorough sex education would reach all corners of those aspects of
sex.
As for the goal of making abortions safe, free and rare... Perhaps
the biggest problem with that is as soon as you advertise the safe and
free part, it makes it very difficult to achieve that third goal. The
best way I know for achieving rarity is to keep the entire focus on
the promotion of ways and means for avoiding those pregnancies.
Just think of all the women out there who treat abortion as Plan A.
=Dustin
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Because the anti-women pro-life faction fights the hell out of simple
> >> solution. To wit comprehensive sex education beginning before children are
> >> old enough to have a pregnancy. Both sexes need education. Readily
> >> available and affordable birth control. Like cheap condoms with spermcide
> >> jelly, would reduce unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDS. Public
> >> health would save million in health care cost. Opposing birth control and
> >> prevention of STD should be a conservative objective. IOW the right wing
> >> should be supporting Planned Parenthood Clinics. The GOP is not
> >> conservative it fascist. Control/slavery is their objective.
>
> >I see merit to abstinence education as well. I'd like to see an
> >expansion on both of those fronts. Absolutely everyone starts out as
> >a practitioner of abstinence. Then for those who eventually decide to
> >switch away from that path, the only variables are 'when' and 'why'.
>
> All sex education programs that I am aware of include abstinence as the
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Because the anti-women pro-life faction fights the hell out of simple
> >> solution. To wit comprehensive sex education beginning before children are
> >> old enough to have a pregnancy. Both sexes need education. Readily
> >> available and affordable birth control. Like cheap condoms with spermcide
> >> jelly, would reduce unwanted pregnancies and the spread of STDS. Public
> >> health would save million in health care cost. Opposing birth control and
> >> prevention of STD should be a conservative objective. IOW the right wing
> >> should be supporting Planned Parenthood Clinics. The GOP is not
> >> conservative it fascist. Control/slavery is their objective.
>
> >I see merit to abstinence education as well. I'd like to see an
> >expansion on both of those fronts. Absolutely everyone starts out as
> >a practitioner of abstinence. Then for those who eventually decide to
> >switch away from that path, the only variables are 'when' and 'why'.
>
> best and safest. Religious nuts demand that nothing else should be allowed.
> The poorest of girls are the most likely to be the most ignorant, and have
> a unwanted pregnancy. Pro-choice and planned Parenthood are working toward
> where abortions are safe, free, and very rare. The religious keep them
> ignorant approach has been around for centuries, and always failed.
> Preaching abstinence, has always failed, disapproval and punishment has
> lead to many suicides. Religion is evil. It's a significant part of all our
> problems.
Religion certainly has its failings. But at the core of any religion
is spirituality, and that is an integral aspect to being human. And
perhaps that is the foundation that is missing from sex-ed that has
led to so many of its failures - both in teaching abstinence as well
as indulgence.
In Melinda Gates's talk she spoke of sex as being sacred. While
speaking that way strikes me as profound, I also see it to be grossly
incomplete. A full education about sex will relate how sex has the
potential to be a sacred experience, but also how it is often
profaned. How it can be a glue that binds the most committed of
relationships and can serve as a vehicle for those engaged in the act
of achieving the highest levels of bliss, but it also is used as the
means toward some of the most painful experiences of human existence.
A thorough sex education would reach all corners of those aspects of
sex.
As for the goal of making abortions safe, free and rare... Perhaps
the biggest problem with that is as soon as you advertise the safe and
free part, it makes it very difficult to achieve that third goal. The
best way I know for achieving rarity is to keep the entire focus on
the promotion of ways and means for avoiding those pregnancies.
Just think of all the women out there who treat abortion as Plan A.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 16, 2012, 9:30:38 PM4/16/12
to
On Apr 16, 1:38 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> What part of anti-abortion is denying a woman the right to make a choice
> about her reproductive life? Pro-choice is about that right. Do you see the
> illogic of your position?
I'm still not seeing the point that you both are trying to highlight.
Being explicit would help me out a lot here. ...as in posting one
quote from something I said, and then another quote of another thing I
said, to point out that they are not consistent - that they're
incompatible, contradictory or whatever.
As for your line of questioning... You're saying that "pro-choice" is
about asserting the woman's right to make decisions about her
reproductive life. I certainly understand that platform, and I've
voiced a huge objection to that. What part of anti-abortion is
denying women that right? My understanding is that the entire
platform of the "pro-life" position asserts the right of the embryo
and fetus to continue gestation through to term.
I still don't see how that's a criticism of anything I've stated.
As soon as things are spoken of in terms of 'rights', it bounds a
certain territory that others have staked their claim to. The woman's
uterus, in this case. Yes it is hers. She's the owner. But does
that automatically give her the latitude to kill what is growing
there?
Imagine if a landlord was granted the liberty to kill off any tenants
residing in owned property at anytime for any reason. "It's mine and
I can do what I want with it", would be the justification. But the
tenants are not owned by the landlord.
And a fetus is no more owned by the pregnant woman than she would own
any of her born children. If she were the homeowner of the house
these other kids lived in, the woman has no latitude to kill off those
kids living in their bedrooms. No woman cries out how her freedom is
being oppressed by society because she is being denied the right to
kill her 5-year old in that bedroom she's trying to convert into a
music room. The needs and the interests of that 5-year old are
protected by society.
So what possible rationale can there be to justify her deciding to
kill off her 3-month old (3-months from conception)? Again I see it
to be brutally ironic that a child is better protected outside the
womb than within it.
You all are certainly free to dismiss these arguments as illogical or
whatever. But if you're trying to help me to realize that they are,
it would help if you went a bit farther toward showing me how that is
so.
=Dustin
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 08:51:32 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> about her reproductive life? Pro-choice is about that right. Do you see the
> illogic of your position?
I'm still not seeing the point that you both are trying to highlight.
Being explicit would help me out a lot here. ...as in posting one
quote from something I said, and then another quote of another thing I
said, to point out that they are not consistent - that they're
incompatible, contradictory or whatever.
As for your line of questioning... You're saying that "pro-choice" is
about asserting the woman's right to make decisions about her
reproductive life. I certainly understand that platform, and I've
voiced a huge objection to that. What part of anti-abortion is
denying women that right? My understanding is that the entire
platform of the "pro-life" position asserts the right of the embryo
and fetus to continue gestation through to term.
I still don't see how that's a criticism of anything I've stated.
As soon as things are spoken of in terms of 'rights', it bounds a
certain territory that others have staked their claim to. The woman's
uterus, in this case. Yes it is hers. She's the owner. But does
that automatically give her the latitude to kill what is growing
there?
Imagine if a landlord was granted the liberty to kill off any tenants
residing in owned property at anytime for any reason. "It's mine and
I can do what I want with it", would be the justification. But the
tenants are not owned by the landlord.
And a fetus is no more owned by the pregnant woman than she would own
any of her born children. If she were the homeowner of the house
these other kids lived in, the woman has no latitude to kill off those
kids living in their bedrooms. No woman cries out how her freedom is
being oppressed by society because she is being denied the right to
kill her 5-year old in that bedroom she's trying to convert into a
music room. The needs and the interests of that 5-year old are
protected by society.
So what possible rationale can there be to justify her deciding to
kill off her 3-month old (3-months from conception)? Again I see it
to be brutally ironic that a child is better protected outside the
womb than within it.
You all are certainly free to dismiss these arguments as illogical or
whatever. But if you're trying to help me to realize that they are,
it would help if you went a bit farther toward showing me how that is
so.
=Dustin
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 17, 2012, 2:19:15 AM4/17/12
to
option.
Killing abortion providers is -not- a valid option, and our laws
reflect that social consensus.
That such killers are being logically consistent doesn't add to the
validity one bit.
>> >Gandhi is quoted as saying, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world
>> >blind."
>>
>> Yea...
>>
>> Except we're not witnessing "an eye for an eye" are we?
>>
>> ProChioce supporters haven't murdered anyone.
>>
>> AntiAbortion supporters -have-.
>
>Again, that's not how they see it. They do see it as murder.
Are you also this understanding of their point of view, or is your
understanding reserved for those who murder abortion providers?
>> >As to the legitimacy of the stats I had posted above (http://
>> >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method), I
>> >haven't looked into the source of the data, but Wikipedians usually
>> >keep opposing sides to an issue well in check.
>>
>> Statistics that focus on gestational age won't tell one whether an
>> abortion was medically necessary or not.
>>
>> Why would you think that they do?
>>
>> More sloppy thinking...
>
>I totally agree that the graph isn't highlighting abortions into a
>separate category for those justified as medical necessity. I was
>simply doing a first-order analysis with an understanding that there
>is no way that the "medical necessity" category would take up the
>majority of those 2nd Trimester numbers.
>
>That is my assumption.
abortions are performed after the first trimester.
While I would agree that probably not all of those abortions are
medically necessary, I would argue that the later an abortion is
performed, the more likely it is to be for medical reasons, including
medical reasons on the part of the fetus, of course.
You'll notice that hardly any abortions are performed in the third
trimester, and I'd wager that almost all of those were performed for
medically legitimate reasons of one sort or another.
>And if you were to show me stats that do identify a significant chunk
>of those as "medical necessity", then my first conclusion I'd jump to
>is my expectation that the definition of "medical necessity" regarding
>abortion is about as distorted as the concept of "medical necessity"
>regarding the percentage of prescriptions written for "medicinal"
>marijuana. Key & Peele did an excellent skit on this. The reason why
>these kinds of comedy routines are so hilarious is because they hit so
>close to the truth.
>
>Now I can't stretch my imagination as to how comedians like Key &
>Peele could pull off a similar skit on how "medical necessity" excuses
>are abused when it comes to abortion. How could any comedian do that
>without it just coming off as an atrocious tragedy? I don't know.
>George Carlin might have been able to get laughs. He was a brilliant
>comedian.
>
>So yeah, the bottom line is a huge question mark on what constitutes a
>legitimate "medical necessity", and what percentage are simply an
>excuse for the procrastinators to off their, um, growth.
point of great contention.
>> >> >> >Notice that the law, under certain circumstances, treats that fetus as
>> >> >> >an individual human life, totally distinct from the mother's life.
>> >> >> >(And it does so earlier than 4 months into its gestation.)
>>
>> >> >> Yes and it's always a wanted pregnancy.
>>
>> >> >Not at all. There is nothing in that law that provides an exemption
>> >> >for cases where the fetus is killed while the mother is driving to an
>> >> >abortion clinic, or even if it happens *at* an abortion clinic.
>>
>> >> The law still revolves around the rights of the mother, not the rights
>> >> of the fetus.
>>
>> >Laws like these are landmark legislation that are totally about the
>> >rights of the fetus.
>>
>> Not really.
>>
>> There not about the rights of a fetus.
>>
>> They're to establish that a fetus has rights, which is another matter
>> entirely.
>
>I fail to see any distinction.
federal level, a fetus had no rights at all.
Now, it can be argued that a fetus does have rights, and these laws
are cited as evidence.
It was a successful attempt to create legal precedent for fetal
rights, which didn't exist before and therefore couldn't be cited as
precedent, without making a direct attack on abortion.
But, once the precedent is established, then fetal rights can be
expanded to include abortion.
>If your point is that the rights of
>the fetus are secondary to the rights of the mother, I would agree.
>But secondary rights are a huge step up from no rights at all.
laws, inspired by the Peterson case, were the only place they could
take such a huge step without being shut down.
>> >At the Federal level in the US, it goes so far
>> >as to emphasize the rights of a human embryo.
>> >The law reads something
>> >to the effect of, "the unborn baby at any stage of development".
>>
>> That's the propaganda aspect of the law.
>>
>> Notice they use words like "child" and "baby" as opposed to the
>> medically correct terms like "zygote" and "fetus".
>
>Yes, I did notice that. But the words "baby" and "child" can be
>accurate words for a fetus, particularly if preceded by "unborn".
When ever a lawyer settles on a vague term instead of a precise term,
it's a deliberate choice.
The words were chosen for their propaganda value.
>> >I was actually shocked to see the exact wording. It seems very
>> >strange to me to treat a newly implanted zygote as a human being.
>>
>> You're only shocked because you assume that the intent of the law was
>> to protect a fetus rather than to shift the goal post on when a person
>> becomes a person.
>>
>> We're now witnessing the second act of the play, with personhood laws
>> and amendments.
>>
>> And, the final act of the play will be when abortion is made
>> completely illegal.
>
>Yeah, it was certainly a shift of the goal posts. Older NFL fans can
>remember when the goal posts were moved from the front of the end zone
>to the back of the end zone. This recent legislation is like moving
>the goal posts not just off the field and into the stands, but all the
>way to the outer edge of the parking lot. I understand the argument
>that 'life begins at conception'. But at Day 1, there is no way that
>life can be considered a full member of the homosapien species. The
>single cell cannot be considered to have achieved the status of a
>human being. This is not even achieved after Month 1.
>>> >One embarrassment of the US Constitution is the "3/5ths compromise".
>> >While today that looks like a stark anachronism, a graduated
>> >fractional approach to human gestation would actually make a lot of
>> >sense.
>>
>> Ummmmm...
>>
>> That's what the Supreme Court decided when they handed down Roe vs.
>> Wade.
>>
>> The decision only eliminated restrictions on abortion for the first
>> trimester.
>>
>> Abortions later in the gestational period can be regulated or
>> proscribed.
>>
>> How is it that you don't already know this?
>
>Roe/Wade did not establish a fractional equivalence to a full human
>being at various stages of development. R/W gave a binary yes/no
>decision as to when it was ok to abort.
But, it did draw a distinction between a newly fertilized egg and a
nearly developed fetus, as you did above.
The SCOTUS recognized continuum of increasing humanity, so to speak.
rational choice, a mentally ill person will choose rationally.
Mentally ill people are frequently incapable of choosing rationally.
That's why we refer to the mentally ill as being "irrational" as
opposed to being "rational".
>> That's not to say that there aren't a lot of real fanatics on the
>> right who think that if a woman dies in pregnancy, that it's part of
>> God's plan and that no abortions should be allowed at all, because
>> there are.
>
>Yeah, and there are those who would refuse to have a burst appendix
>removed for similar reasons. Perfectly understandable, actually. But
>another case of what I would call primitive reasoning.
wouldn't call it understandable.
But, that's a broader topic...
>> > Obviously before conception, the fraction would be zero. And
>> >then at the point of viability, the fraction would be one. How the in-
>> >between gets scaled would be a matter of debate, but it is perfectly
>> >clear that using a fraction of 1/1 at week 1 is going too far.
>>
>> Until the recent attempts to outlaw abortion all together, that's
>> where the battle was being fought, and why there is always debate over
>> exceptions for the health of the mother.
>>
>> Many also support exceptions for rape and incest because of the way
>> many women respond to such crimes, hiding their pregnancy in shame
>> and/or fear, psychologically prevents them from seeking an abortion
>> earlier in the pregnancy.
>
>Well after the word gets out that women will be held accountable for
>such "procrastination" (for lack of a better word) then it would
>promptly deter such delays. Certainly this can be criticized for a
>lack of compassion toward the woman's trauma, but what must be
>balanced is the lack of compassion involved in delaying to the stage
>of sentience before killing off the pregnancy.
"calloused".
I can only repeat what I said above.
I think it would have very little effect on when women sought
abortion.
While it would definitely decrease the number of legally performed
second and third trimester abortions, that decrease would almost
certainly be accompanied by an increase in suicides or attempted
suicides.
It would also likely increase the number of self-performed attempts at
abortion, with their attendant complications.
>If immediately-after-the-fact pills were made available for such
>cases, and exams were conducted in complete privacy and totally
>discrete, then that could go a long way toward lowering the inhibition
>these women feel.
The problem is getting traumatized/ mentally ill women to avail
themselves of treatment.
It comes back to that rationality thing.
> I'm sure others have put a heap load more thought
>into solving this. The most effective solutions have probably come
>from women who have survived this kind of mess.
them easily obtainable?
Name a proposed sex education curriculum from the left that didn't
contain an abstinence section.
I've never heard of one.
The left's big complaint with abstinence education is that it doesn't
often work. They've no philosophical difficulty with it and aren't
opposed to teaching it. They're just opposed to teaching it to the
exclusion of everything else.
On the other hand, the right sees comprehensive sex education as
little more than "how to fuck" indoctrination.
> The
>smartest approach, I would think, is to reach the youngest level and
>begin by teaching them abstinence only. (Again, that's how we all
>start.) And then a year or two or three later... follow that up with,
>"Um, remember how we taught you this abstinence thing? Well there may
>come a time when you may want to do something different from
>abstinence, and here's how that can be done smartly..."
It's already been done for us.
Look to Northern Europe and the Noric countries and see how they do
it.
Collectively, they have the lowest teen pregnancy/abortion/STD rates
in the world.
The problem isn't one of not knowing what to do.
We do know.
The problem is persuading the right to stop opposing practices with a
proven track record of success.
And, it -is- the right who are in opposition.
>> The left favors comprehensive sex education, including abstinence,
>> birth control and masturbation and STDs. For older kids, the
>> curriculum would be expanded to deal with the real world facts about
>> real world sexuality.
>
>Firing that Surgeon General for promoting education about masturbation
>was sad. Very sad. It was a step back toward the dark ages.
just didn't want to deal with the uproar.
>As for the proper order, I find it likewise sad to *initiate* sex ed
>with topics like STDs and birth control. Those are not topics that
>need to be covered at the first stage.
The hard work has already been done by countries like Denmark and the
Netherlands.
>> The right opposes teaching everything above except abstinence.
>>
>> Again... How could you not notice that?
>>
>> It's mind boggling...
>
>Yes, I know how there's a big push for 'abstinence only' sex ed.
>> >The total solution requires embracing both.
>>
>> Then, all you have to do is persuade the right that abstinency only is
>> the wrong choice.
>>
>> Because, the left is already down with your ideas.
>
>Not completely. If I was a kid and I was getting my first course
>about human sexuality, I'd be horribly shocked if I was learning about
>Herpes and HIV the day after I was taught about the monogamous
>commitment that Mom & Dad enjoyed. Those topics do not need to be
>introduced until at least one year later, after the fundamentals have
>had time to take root.
Every plan I've heard from the left on sex education contains the
words "age appropriate".
And, every plan proposed by the right contains the words "abstinence
only".
Until the above is settled, arguing about details about exactly when
one should teach what is a bit pointless when considering the big
picture.
>I think a healthy shift would include an increased emphasis on the
>virtues of abstinence, and along with that a complete set of
>alternative ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy (along with ways to avoid
>the other junk that is totally unwanted).
You lost the religious right with the second half of your sentence.
Here's the Republican take on sex education from the 2008 Republican
Platform. I don't know exactly what it is for this year, but I'd be
shocked if it had substantially changed:
"We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens
with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception."
See the problem?
It's not with the left, it's with the right.
Both sides are -not- equally guilty.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
james g. keegan jr.
Apr 17, 2012, 8:50:10 AM4/17/12
to
In article
<863d65d7-fe03-4dfc...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
actions."
<863d65d7-fe03-4dfc...@s7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Dustin Dewynne <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 2:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <83ec9de7-0bae-497b-9c30-6f5034758...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 11:56 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <af5d9765-8f52-4bd2-b31e-d1f9e90df...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
> >
> > > > > You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> > > > > to pretend he is tough.
> >
> > > > let's see if dustin has done any homework whatsoever and recognizes the
> > > > blatant projection here.
> >
> > > I take each issue separately. I do not pigeonhole myself into
> > > convenient blanket labels of being in any large group. Any person who
> > > completely sides with any group's positions on all aspects is a person
> > > who has stopped thinking for themself.
> >
> > so it appears that dustin is unable to recognize his own actions, even
> > upon review.
> >
> > [...]
>
> It's clear to me that what I'm unable to recognize here is the point
> you are trying to make.
i have quoted it for you here: "dustin is unable to recognize his own
> On Apr 16, 2:51 am, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <83ec9de7-0bae-497b-9c30-6f5034758...@35g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
> > Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 9, 11:56 pm, "james g. keegan jr." <jgkee...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <af5d9765-8f52-4bd2-b31e-d1f9e90df...@36g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > > > GeorgeK <craz...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 9, 5:18 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > How strange that my Right Wing friends see me as a leftist hippie.
> >
> > > > > You got to understand with him, this is the only place he is allowed
> > > > > to pretend he is tough.
> >
> > > > let's see if dustin has done any homework whatsoever and recognizes the
> > > > blatant projection here.
> >
> > > I take each issue separately. I do not pigeonhole myself into
> > > convenient blanket labels of being in any large group. Any person who
> > > completely sides with any group's positions on all aspects is a person
> > > who has stopped thinking for themself.
> >
> > so it appears that dustin is unable to recognize his own actions, even
> > upon review.
> >
> > [...]
>
> It's clear to me that what I'm unable to recognize here is the point
> you are trying to make.
actions."
elizabeth
Apr 17, 2012, 3:11:48 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 15, 4:56 pm, Dino <whate...@homemail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 6:26 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 9:51 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:57:22 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >>Pure, lying bull shit! It's called a _fetus_. It's not a baby, or a
> > > >>human being, it's just fetus filth.
>
> > > >When a pregnant women is murdered, there are 2 murder charges filed. Wanker,
> > > >you'rs an idiot.
>
> > > Actually you as usual are the idiot. It is very rare for such double
> > > charges to be brought. But you never let truth stand in the way of a
> > > lie.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_murder
>
> > > "Isn't Ireland to the south of London." - duke (Earl Weber)
>
> > > "And I never said South." - duke (Earl Weber)
>
> > > "I never lie" duke (Earl Webber)
>
> > What's most pathetic is how so many people don't care if a man kills a
> > woman who isn't pregnant .. . antiaborts value only pregnant women and
> > unwanted fetuses.
>
> Lets see how Elizabeth feels about her fellow man or woman.
>
> From: elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Why Don't Right To Lifers Support Government Paying 50%
> of Child Support?
> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 12:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <235e3b5e-1dbb-4e56-9f91-
> d3dc2bda2...@34g2000pru.googlegroups.com>
> On Apr 15, 6:26 pm, elizabeth <elizabethfran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 9:51 am, Alan Ferris <hairy.fer...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 10:57:22 -0500, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >>Pure, lying bull shit! It's called a _fetus_. It's not a baby, or a
> > > >>human being, it's just fetus filth.
>
> > > >When a pregnant women is murdered, there are 2 murder charges filed. Wanker,
> > > >you'rs an idiot.
>
> > > Actually you as usual are the idiot. It is very rare for such double
> > > charges to be brought. But you never let truth stand in the way of a
> > > lie.
>
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_murder
>
> > > "Isn't Ireland to the south of London." - duke (Earl Weber)
>
> > > "And I never said South." - duke (Earl Weber)
>
> > > "I never lie" duke (Earl Webber)
>
> > What's most pathetic is how so many people don't care if a man kills a
> > woman who isn't pregnant .. . antiaborts value only pregnant women and
> > unwanted fetuses.
>
> Lets see how Elizabeth feels about her fellow man or woman.
>
> From: elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Why Don't Right To Lifers Support Government Paying 50%
> of Child Support?
> Date: Sat, 21 May 2011 12:10:33 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <235e3b5e-1dbb-4e56-9f91-
Now, where did I say I wanted to see this happen?
> "Antiabort females should be gangraped to death.
> Slowly.
> Any female willing to sell out her mother, sister, daughter is worse
> than a man who advocates forced gestation."
>
> "I feel that antiabort males should have their genitals ripped off
> and forced down their throats, and antiabort females gangraped until
Yup ... but only you seem to want to see it ...
> - Show quoted text -
elizabeth
Apr 17, 2012, 3:20:23 PM4/17/12
to
On Apr 16, 4:59 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 1:08 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
snip
> On Apr 16, 1:08 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >> Who compiled the statistics?
>
> > >> And, who's criteria did they apply as to whether an abortion was
> > >> medically necessary or not?
No response?
>
> > >> And, who's criteria did they apply as to whether an abortion was
> > >> medically necessary or not?
> > >> Remember, the anti-abortion crowd aren't above lying.
>
> > >> They're not above committing murder, either.
>
> > >If you happened to see abortion itself as murder, you might choose to
> > >go to extremes in the effort to put an end to it. The rationale is
> > >similar to why soldiers go to war. Certainly there are other ways to
> > >exert influence toward stopping something you are completely opposed
> > >to. I don't condone violence against violence.
>
> > You may not condone violence, but you certainly fell all over yourself
> > to justify it.
>
> > Sloppy thinking...
> I don't justify it. I was presenting the rationale used by other
> people to justify it.
real world cases?
And since you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of the
medical issues, how would you know about medical necessity? And since
there are no statistics kept on why a woman aborts ... where are you
getting your "facts?" You've been asked to provide sources, and so
far, have proven yourself to be completely ignorant of the basics.
> And I don't criticize such rationale as
> sloppy. I see it as very straight forward. My own criticism of that
> justification is that it strikes me as primitive.
what constitutes a 'good" reason to abort? And since you have no idea
of the medical realities of abortion, it's best to leave those calls
to PROFESSIONALS.
>We have progressed
> as a species to now know how to apply other methods that don't involve
> killing the killers.
But even wanted pregnancies fail and must be terminated. Which you
would know had you even a high school bio class.
> > >Gandhi is quoted as saying, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world
> > >blind."
>
> > Yea...
>
> > Except we're not witnessing "an eye for an eye" are we?
>
> > ProChioce supporters haven't murdered anyone.
>
> > AntiAbortion supporters -have-.
>
> Again, that's not how they see it. They do see it as murder.
was illegal. But shooting doctors after lying in wait IS MURDER.
> > >As to the legitimacy of the stats I had posted above (http://
> > >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion#By_gestational_age_and_method), I
> > >haven't looked into the source of the data, but Wikipedians usually
> > >keep opposing sides to an issue well in check.
>
> > Statistics that focus on gestational age won't tell one whether an
> > abortion was medically necessary or not.
>
> > Why would you think that they do?
>
> > More sloppy thinking...
>
> I totally agree that the graph isn't highlighting abortions into a
> separate category for those justified as medical necessity. I was
> simply doing a first-order analysis with an understanding that there
> is no way that the "medical necessity" category would take up the
> majority of those 2nd Trimester numbers.
> That is my assumption.
And your ass is wrong.
elizabeth
Apr 17, 2012, 3:23:09 PM4/17/12
to
> In Melinda Gates's talk she spoke of sex as being sacred.
have to pray to god to endure . . .maybe . .. she is entitled to feel
sex is whatever she wishes.
I've always felt it can be a lot of fun if you want it.
snip
> As for the goal of making abortions safe, free and rare... Perhaps
> the biggest problem with that is as soon as you advertise the safe and
> free part, it makes it very difficult to achieve that third goal.
So let's go back to when girls who got "in trouble" had their lives
> the biggest problem with that is as soon as you advertise the safe and
> free part, it makes it very difficult to achieve that third goal.
ruined and men got to run free of child support .. ..NOT>
The
> best way I know for achieving rarity is to keep the entire focus on
> the promotion of ways and means for avoiding those pregnancies.
>
> Just think of all the women out there who treat abortion as Plan A.
the woman when "SHE" gets pregnant.
> =Dustin- Hide quoted text -
Dino
Apr 17, 2012, 6:32:24 PM4/17/12
to
June G
Apr 18, 2012, 2:55:45 PM4/18/12
to
Piggybacking.
[snip]
[snip]
This is the best post I've read this year.
--
June G
# 364
[snip]
This is the best post I've read this year.
--
June G
# 364
elizabeth
Apr 18, 2012, 3:12:47 PM4/18/12
to
>
>
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 18, 2012, 4:47:35 PM4/18/12
to
about FAR more than just the act of aborting a pregnancy. It is about
the attitudes that are set *well* before the owners of the vagina and
penis decide to have intercourse. And that is exactly why the
solution - a comprehensive solution - will focus on bringing about a
change to those attitudes, which brings about a change in how people
decide to act.
Yes, there are fundamentally extreme people who maintain that there is
no proper way for copulation to happen outside of marriage. I agree
that this is part of the attitude that needs to be examined for
change.
...but a far bigger problem I see is in the attitude of those who see
no merit at all in the view that the healthiest way for sex to happen
is within a permanently bonded relationship between two spouses.
The institution of marriage itself is in a crisis. Prior to the
liberation of females, marriage was in a somewhat stable state.
Oppressive, but stable. After society made the shift toward gender
equality, the huge casualty of that was marriage. It continues to
this day as critically unstable.
The ones who pay the biggest price for that is the children. In this
respect, abortion could be viewed as a "mercy killing" because society
has blatantly decided that they will not do much at all to preserve
the family foundation that would serve as the healthiest known form of
"nest" to raise that would-be child. Just look at the concept of "no
fault" divorce. Imagine if various social contracts could be promptly
exited simply because on party decided they changed their mind. We
could have...
- No-fault roofing contracts, where the workers could walk away while
you've got a gaping hole in your roof.
- No-fault restaurants, where the waiters could choose, depending on
the day, to not bring your food to your table
...or not show up to work.
- No-fault airlines, where after takeoff, the pilots would question
their commitment on whether they should see the flight through to
landing. You all had an agreement when you boarded the plane and when
it left the ground.
The "religious fanatics" are the ones who hold that there is an
obligation to land the plane. Crazy, huh. And they also believe that
there is a proper set of guidelines that need to be followed before
that plane ever leaves the ground. The passengers should follow a
disciplined set of steps that involve paying for their ticket,
dressing with a minimal sense of decency, acting in an orderly manner
in the terminal, while queuing up to board, while seating, and
throughout the entire duration of the flight. They believe the pilots
and flight attendants have a high professional standard to maintain.
Speaking of 'maintain', these "fanatics" believe that all such planes
need to be well maintained. THAT is how a healthy society operates.
Now can it not be seen that the "pro-choice" camp is pushing for a
total de-regulation of the airline industry? Where there is not Good
Book of how to properly maintain an airplane. Where anyone can get
onboard without paying a certain price, without showering, without
wearing pants if they feel like it. And the pilots don't need any
certification of any kind. And the flight attendants can give you
your drinks and meals, unless they don't feel like it at the time.
FREEDOM.
Blessed glorious freedom. Don't tread on me. Don't tread on my right
to get an abortion. Don't tread on my right to have sex before so
much as *thinking* about a committed relationship. The pro-choice
mantra is personal liberty. Who cares if the plane's about to crash?
You can fix that problem by aborting the flight. It's society's
golden parachute for curing our utter lack of due preparation.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 18, 2012, 4:07:50 PM4/18/12
to
On Apr 16, 1:34 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> Actually you don't see the one fault that anti-legal abortion,
> comprehensive sex education preachers have. That's the rights of a woman
> to make her own decisions. She has the right to expel any unwanted intruder
> from her body at any time. The fetus has no right that any woman can not
> deny. Clearly as I can make it. No person(fetus) has any right to compel
> any person(woman) support it. What I hate about the religious anti -legal
> abortion, comprehensive sex education. Is their hatred of civil rights of
> other and women. A fetus has no right to enslave the woman.
But that embryo/fetus is *not* an "unwanted intruder". It is an
*invited* guest who got there by her not only leaving the door to her
house open, but with her full knowledge that her not placing some kind
of barrier, that open door that she willingly brings one guest inside
will have a significant chance of bringing this other being along with
the first guest.
The only exception to that is for those rare cases where she was not a
willing participant. She did not open her door for anyone. And she
did not invite a single person inside.
In all cases, the only entity that did *not* ask to be there is the
baby. You are trying to turn that around with a view that the baby is
enslaving her, as though she had no responsibility for the situation.
=Dustin
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> comprehensive sex education preachers have. That's the rights of a woman
> to make her own decisions. She has the right to expel any unwanted intruder
> from her body at any time. The fetus has no right that any woman can not
> deny. Clearly as I can make it. No person(fetus) has any right to compel
> any person(woman) support it. What I hate about the religious anti -legal
> abortion, comprehensive sex education. Is their hatred of civil rights of
> other and women. A fetus has no right to enslave the woman.
But that embryo/fetus is *not* an "unwanted intruder". It is an
*invited* guest who got there by her not only leaving the door to her
house open, but with her full knowledge that her not placing some kind
of barrier, that open door that she willingly brings one guest inside
will have a significant chance of bringing this other being along with
the first guest.
The only exception to that is for those rare cases where she was not a
willing participant. She did not open her door for anyone. And she
did not invite a single person inside.
In all cases, the only entity that did *not* ask to be there is the
baby. You are trying to turn that around with a view that the baby is
enslaving her, as though she had no responsibility for the situation.
=Dustin
Dino
Apr 18, 2012, 4:14:38 PM4/18/12
to
It is just that easy for you.
Rockinghorse Winner
Apr 18, 2012, 8:47:39 PM4/18/12
to
In article <e2faad2f-b940-42a9...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
Thank you for your contribution.
Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
badass linux - gentoo 3.1.6
Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
badass linux - gentoo 3.1.6
June G
Apr 19, 2012, 12:27:32 AM4/19/12
to
"Dustin Dewynne" <dustin....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e2faad2f-b940-42a9...@g38g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 16, 1:34 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I do not see only one side at fault. What I see is one side refusing
> >> to embrace the validity within the choice of birth control, and I see
> >> the other side refusing to embrace the validity within the choice of
> >> abstinence. The total solution requires embracing both.
>
>> Actually you don't see the one fault that anti-legal abortion,
>> comprehensive sex education preachers have. That's the rights of a woman
>> to make her own decisions. She has the right to expel any unwanted
>> intruder
>> from her body at any time. The fetus has no right that any woman can not
>> deny. Clearly as I can make it. No person(fetus) has any right to compel
>> any person(woman) support it. What I hate about the religious anti -legal
>> abortion, comprehensive sex education. Is their hatred of civil rights of
>> other and women. A fetus has no right to enslave the woman.
> But that embryo/fetus is *not* an "unwanted intruder". It is an
> *invited* guest who got there by her not only leaving the door to her
> house open, but with her full knowledge that her not placing some kind
> of barrier, that open door that she willingly brings one guest inside
> will have a significant chance of bringing this other being along with
> the first guest.
The embryo/foetus is not an invited guest. To take your analogy further, if
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I do not see only one side at fault. What I see is one side refusing
> >> to embrace the validity within the choice of birth control, and I see
> >> the other side refusing to embrace the validity within the choice of
> >> abstinence. The total solution requires embracing both.
>
>> Actually you don't see the one fault that anti-legal abortion,
>> comprehensive sex education preachers have. That's the rights of a woman
>> to make her own decisions. She has the right to expel any unwanted
>> intruder
>> from her body at any time. The fetus has no right that any woman can not
>> deny. Clearly as I can make it. No person(fetus) has any right to compel
>> any person(woman) support it. What I hate about the religious anti -legal
>> abortion, comprehensive sex education. Is their hatred of civil rights of
>> other and women. A fetus has no right to enslave the woman.
> But that embryo/fetus is *not* an "unwanted intruder". It is an
> *invited* guest who got there by her not only leaving the door to her
> house open, but with her full knowledge that her not placing some kind
> of barrier, that open door that she willingly brings one guest inside
> will have a significant chance of bringing this other being along with
> the first guest.
you leave your outer door wide open on a hot day in order to get some fresh
air, that does not constitute an invitation to a stranger to enter your
house, and you have every right to eject that person. Similarly, if you
invite someone to your house and they bring someone else to whom you have
objections, you have every right to ask them to leave.
> The only exception to that is for those rare cases where she was not a
> willing participant. She did not open her door for anyone. And she
> did not invite a single person inside.
willingly had sex must be made to suffer, eh? You're subscribing to the
view held by vociferous religious pro-lifers. As Silent Otto so eloquently
pointed out to you, it's not about abortion, it's about punishing women for
having sex, particularly outside of marriage.
> In all cases, the only entity that did *not* ask to be there is the
> baby. You are trying to turn that around with a view that the baby is
> enslaving her, as though she had no responsibility for the situation.
'guest'. No woman can make herself pregnant - ask any couple who have been
trying unsuccessfully to conceive. Everything to do with pregnancy and
childbirth is initiated by: in the first place, the ovum, then the
fertilised egg, then the zygote, the embryo and the foetus. The woman has
no control whatsoever, so the 'baby' did ask to be there, and it does
enslave her if she is unwilling to gestate it.
June G
Apr 19, 2012, 1:31:28 AM4/19/12
to
news:debcf5d4-3f11-4756...@b2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
> The institution of marriage itself is in a crisis. Prior to the
> liberation of females, marriage was in a somewhat stable state.
> Oppressive, but stable.
Yes, it was oppressive. Like to go back to that, would you?
> After society made the shift toward gender
> equality, the huge casualty of that was marriage. It continues to
> this day as critically unstable.
Have you ever wondered why marriage was a casualty of gender equality? It
was largely because women would not endure the treatment that was meted out
to their mothers and grandmothers, and, at last, they didn't have to. You
have to remember that back in the 1950's, marriage was the only game in town
for women, because they earned only half as much as men, so were not in a
position to live independently.
> The ones who pay the biggest price for that is the children. In this
> respect, abortion could be viewed as a "mercy killing" because society
> has blatantly decided that they will not do much at all to preserve
> the family foundation that would serve as the healthiest known form of
> "nest" to raise that would-be child.
Yes, it is the best 'nest', provided that the marriage is a good one.
> Just look at the concept of "no
> fault" divorce. Imagine if various social contracts could be promptly
> exited simply because on party decided they changed their mind.
'No fault' divorces prevent a lot of pain for the participants and any
children they may have - especially the children. Imagine what the children
would go through if the newspapers gave a blow-by-blow account of physical
or mental cruelty, infidelity, addictions to drugs, alcohol or gambling, so
that all their neighbours and friends knew all their private business.
[snip weak analogies]
> FREEDOM.
> Blessed glorious freedom. Don't tread on me. Don't tread on my right
> to get an abortion. Don't tread on my right to have sex before so
> much as *thinking* about a committed relationship. The pro-choice
> mantra is personal liberty.
Yes, that's partly true, but you omitted personal responsibility. What is
your mantra? No freedom? Or just no freedom for women?
[snip]
> The institution of marriage itself is in a crisis. Prior to the
> liberation of females, marriage was in a somewhat stable state.
> Oppressive, but stable.
> After society made the shift toward gender
> equality, the huge casualty of that was marriage. It continues to
> this day as critically unstable.
was largely because women would not endure the treatment that was meted out
to their mothers and grandmothers, and, at last, they didn't have to. You
have to remember that back in the 1950's, marriage was the only game in town
for women, because they earned only half as much as men, so were not in a
position to live independently.
> The ones who pay the biggest price for that is the children. In this
> respect, abortion could be viewed as a "mercy killing" because society
> has blatantly decided that they will not do much at all to preserve
> the family foundation that would serve as the healthiest known form of
> "nest" to raise that would-be child.
> Just look at the concept of "no
> fault" divorce. Imagine if various social contracts could be promptly
> exited simply because on party decided they changed their mind.
children they may have - especially the children. Imagine what the children
would go through if the newspapers gave a blow-by-blow account of physical
or mental cruelty, infidelity, addictions to drugs, alcohol or gambling, so
that all their neighbours and friends knew all their private business.
[snip weak analogies]
> FREEDOM.
> Blessed glorious freedom. Don't tread on me. Don't tread on my right
> to get an abortion. Don't tread on my right to have sex before so
> much as *thinking* about a committed relationship. The pro-choice
> mantra is personal liberty.
your mantra? No freedom? Or just no freedom for women?
elizabeth
Apr 19, 2012, 2:18:40 AM4/19/12
to
On Apr 18, 1:07 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 1:34 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I do not see only one side at fault. What I see is one side refusing
> > >to embrace the validity within the choice of birth control, and I see
> > >the other side refusing to embrace the validity within the choice of
> > >abstinence. The total solution requires embracing both.
>
> > Actually you don't see the one fault that anti-legal abortion,
> > comprehensive sex education preachers have. That's the rights of a woman
> > to make her own decisions. She has the right to expel any unwanted intruder
> > from her body at any time. The fetus has no right that any woman can not
> > deny. Clearly as I can make it. No person(fetus) has any right to compel
> > any person(woman) support it. What I hate about the religious anti -legal
> > abortion, comprehensive sex education. Is their hatred of civil rights of
> > other and women. A fetus has no right to enslave the woman.
You can't get pregnant, and like a lot of men, prefer to deny the ugly
> On Apr 16, 1:34 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I do not see only one side at fault. What I see is one side refusing
> > >to embrace the validity within the choice of birth control, and I see
> > >the other side refusing to embrace the validity within the choice of
> > >abstinence. The total solution requires embracing both.
>
> > Actually you don't see the one fault that anti-legal abortion,
> > comprehensive sex education preachers have. That's the rights of a woman
> > to make her own decisions. She has the right to expel any unwanted intruder
> > from her body at any time. The fetus has no right that any woman can not
> > deny. Clearly as I can make it. No person(fetus) has any right to compel
> > any person(woman) support it. What I hate about the religious anti -legal
> > abortion, comprehensive sex education. Is their hatred of civil rights of
> > other and women. A fetus has no right to enslave the woman.
realities of pregnancy.
>
> But that embryo/fetus is *not* an "unwanted intruder". It is an
> *invited* guest
Nope. Not by any stretch. The fetus is a parasite that has to fake
> But that embryo/fetus is *not* an "unwanted intruder". It is an
> *invited* guest
out the woman's immune system so that it is not destroyed.
> who got there by her not only leaving the door to her
> house open, but with her full knowledge that her not placing some kind
> of barrier, that open door that she willingly brings one guest inside
> will have a significant chance of bringing this other being along with
> the first guest.
sex?
Are you completely out of your mind?
> The only exception to that is for those rare cases where she was not a
> willing participant. She did not open her door for anyone. And she
> did not invite a single person inside.
having sex THAT ISN'T RAPE
> In all cases, the only entity that did *not* ask to be there is the
> baby. You are trying to turn that around with a view that the baby is
> enslaving her, as though she had no responsibility for the situation.
be that responsible is reprehensible
> =Dustin
james g. keegan jr.
Apr 19, 2012, 2:31:34 AM4/19/12
to
In article
<7db636b5-1f97-452f...@fo16g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Dino <what...@homemail.com> wrote:
> Lying comes very easy
wow. heishman posts a truthful statement.
<7db636b5-1f97-452f...@fo16g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Dino <what...@homemail.com> wrote:
> Lying comes very easy
wow. heishman posts a truthful statement.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Rockinghorse Winner
Apr 19, 2012, 10:05:57 AM4/19/12
to
In article <4ef5bd0a-10bf-460e...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
traumatic experience in your past. No one with a 'normal' upbringing would
ever come out with something like this...
>
>> who got there by her not only leaving the door to her
>> house open, but with her full knowledge that her not placing some kind
>> of barrier, that open door that she willingly brings one guest inside
>> will have a significant chance of bringing this other being along with
>> the first guest.
>
>So, rape doesn't happen and there are no women in any way coerced into
>sex?
>
>Are you completely out of your mind?
There's hardly a bold, bright line between raping a woman and killing an
unborn child. I wouldn't get too comfortable up on your high horse,
sweetheart.
>> The only exception to that is for those rare cases where she was not a
>> willing participant. She did not open her door for anyone. And she
>> did not invite a single person inside.
>
>So, it's not about an unwanted fetus, it's about punishing women for
>having sex THAT ISN'T RAPE
>
>> In all cases, the only entity that did *not* ask to be there is the
>> baby. You are trying to turn that around with a view that the baby is
>> enslaving her, as though she had no responsibility for the situation.
>
>Ya know, men telling women to be responsible when they never have to
>be that responsible is reprehensible
>
>> =Dustin
>
elizabeth <elizabet...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Apr 18, 1:07 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 1:34 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>>
>> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >I do not see only one side at fault. What I see is one side refusing
>> > >to embrace the validity within the choice of birth control, and I see
>> > >the other side refusing to embrace the validity within the choice of
>> > >abstinence. The total solution requires embracing both.
>>
>> > Actually you don't see the one fault that anti-legal abortion,
>> > comprehensive sex education preachers have. That's the rights of a woman
>> > to make her own decisions. She has the right to expel any unwanted intruder
>> > from her body at any time. The fetus has no right that any woman can not
>> > deny. Clearly as I can make it. No person(fetus) has any right to compel
>> > any person(woman) support it. What I hate about the religious anti -legal
>> > abortion, comprehensive sex education. Is their hatred of civil rights of
>> > other and women. A fetus has no right to enslave the woman.
>
>You can't get pregnant, and like a lot of men, prefer to deny the ugly
>realities of pregnancy.
>>
>> But that embryo/fetus is *not* an "unwanted intruder". It is an
>> *invited* guest
>
>Nope. Not by any stretch. The fetus is a parasite that has to fake
>out the woman's immune system so that it is not destroyed.
This is a sign of seriously disordered affections. I suspect you've had a
>On Apr 18, 1:07 pm, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 16, 1:34 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>>
>> > <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >I do not see only one side at fault. What I see is one side refusing
>> > >to embrace the validity within the choice of birth control, and I see
>> > >the other side refusing to embrace the validity within the choice of
>> > >abstinence. The total solution requires embracing both.
>>
>> > Actually you don't see the one fault that anti-legal abortion,
>> > comprehensive sex education preachers have. That's the rights of a woman
>> > to make her own decisions. She has the right to expel any unwanted intruder
>> > from her body at any time. The fetus has no right that any woman can not
>> > deny. Clearly as I can make it. No person(fetus) has any right to compel
>> > any person(woman) support it. What I hate about the religious anti -legal
>> > abortion, comprehensive sex education. Is their hatred of civil rights of
>> > other and women. A fetus has no right to enslave the woman.
>
>You can't get pregnant, and like a lot of men, prefer to deny the ugly
>realities of pregnancy.
>>
>> But that embryo/fetus is *not* an "unwanted intruder". It is an
>> *invited* guest
>
>Nope. Not by any stretch. The fetus is a parasite that has to fake
>out the woman's immune system so that it is not destroyed.
traumatic experience in your past. No one with a 'normal' upbringing would
ever come out with something like this...
>
>> who got there by her not only leaving the door to her
>> house open, but with her full knowledge that her not placing some kind
>> of barrier, that open door that she willingly brings one guest inside
>> will have a significant chance of bringing this other being along with
>> the first guest.
>
>So, rape doesn't happen and there are no women in any way coerced into
>sex?
>
>Are you completely out of your mind?
unborn child. I wouldn't get too comfortable up on your high horse,
sweetheart.
>> The only exception to that is for those rare cases where she was not a
>> willing participant. She did not open her door for anyone. And she
>> did not invite a single person inside.
>
>So, it's not about an unwanted fetus, it's about punishing women for
>having sex THAT ISN'T RAPE
>
>> In all cases, the only entity that did *not* ask to be there is the
>> baby. You are trying to turn that around with a view that the baby is
>> enslaving her, as though she had no responsibility for the situation.
>
>Ya know, men telling women to be responsible when they never have to
>be that responsible is reprehensible
>
>> =Dustin
>
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 19, 2012, 2:23:57 PM4/19/12
to
On Apr 19, 12:31 am, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> "Dustin Dewynne" <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
rather go back to that than I would want to go back to slavery. And
the status of women prior to that 60s-70s transition *was* a form of
slavery.
> > After society made the shift toward gender
> > equality, the huge casualty of that was marriage. It continues to
> > this day as critically unstable.
>
> Have you ever wondered why marriage was a casualty of gender equality? It
> was largely because women would not endure the treatment that was meted out
> to their mothers and grandmothers, and, at last, they didn't have to. You
> have to remember that back in the 1950's, marriage was the only game in town
> for women, because they earned only half as much as men, so were not in a
> position to live independently.
And the pay imbalance has *still* not been fully rectified. Certain
quotes coming out of the current presidential race are very sad. We
will be much better off when society gets to a place where women are
fully appreciated for working in the home as well as in the office as
they choose. A key part of that appreciation is financial
compensation.
> > The ones who pay the biggest price for that is the children. In this
> > respect, abortion could be viewed as a "mercy killing" because society
> > has blatantly decided that they will not do much at all to preserve
> > the family foundation that would serve as the healthiest known form of
> > "nest" to raise that would-be child.
>
> Yes, it is the best 'nest', provided that the marriage is a good one.
And here's where the focus needs to be. Giving people the tools so
that marriages are far more likely to succeed. And the best area to
emphasize that I know of is with parenting. Teach spouses how to be
excellent parents to their children, and an entire generation of much
healthier kids will be raised. And I see that as the cure for
marriage problems because the vast majority of marriage problems I see
stems from baggage that adults carry into relationships that came
about from damage done to them when they were children. If a child is
raised by example of respect and healthy conflict resolution, they
become an adult that treats others with respect and handles conflict
in smart ways. That generation will enter marriages with a complete
set of skills necessary for succeeding in that marriage.
And soon there will be far less that these spouses will need to be
taught in order for them to become solid parents, because the methods
of discipline will have been ingrained in them from a very young age.
The meme will spread as readily as the ability to speak. Young
children do not go to school to learn how to speak. They grow up in
an environment saturated in verbal communication. They readily pick
it up from the examples around them.
This is how it will be for acquiring the skills necessary for
marriages to succeed. The atmosphere in the home will be permeated
with those skills. It will spread to the schools, and to the offices,
and to the governments.
When parents learn alternatives on how to discipline their kids
without spanking or beating them, a generation later these skills will
have been carried to the top levels of corporations and governments.
And that generation of world leaders will know alternatives to war,
just as surely as they know it is not necessary to beat a child in
order to get one's needs met.
Solving parenting means solving violence. That transforms into the
solution for war. And the form of violence we're focused on here in
this forum is that of abortion. It is a very short step from treating
our young children with respect to that of treating our unborn with
respect.
Recapping our history... and looking to the future that is leading us
to:
Blacks were liberated from slavery. Women were liberated from
domestic slavery. These transitions are over "the hump", yet ongoing
today. What hasn't reached the hump yet is the level of respect given
to our children. They are still treated as property in many ways.
And there are highly regarded child psychologists who remain staunch
advocates of corporal punishment. (Brazelton is the first name that
comes to mind.)
We will cross that threshold of treating our children with decency.
And that will lead us into a land where marriages will solidify into
the foundations they were meant to be. A land where war will be
unthinkable. A land where abortion will be as well.
We are not far from that land. Martin Luther King shared his dream
back in the 60s. It took less than half a century to get to the point
where a black man is at the helm of the most powerful position on the
planet. And in the race that led to that huge turning point of
history, the runner-up was a woman. Just around the corner is the
promised land for kids. Where their homes will be places of nurturing
that is free from parental terror.
And one more turn from that - simply with the passage of time of
having that generation of kids grow up to become the leaders of
society - that is when the dream will be realized of having a world
where spousal battery, and wars, and abortion - all these forms of
human violence - will be no more.
And the one form of human violence that wasn't mentioned above? It is
something that permeated our culture to the point where the vast
majority don't even think of it as violence. It is the enslavement
and murder of animals for the fleeting pleasure given to our
tastebuds. Animals are similar to human fetuses in that they have no
voice of their own to protect their interests.
Their interests must be protected through human empathy. And that is
the key that will bring about the entire shift to our society. As
soon as people gain a sufficient degree of empathy, *all* of these
problems get solved. Because empathy is at the root of the Golden
Rule. As soon as we make a shift in consciousness where we can relate
to the experience of the other being, it manifests as a shift in our
actions in how we choose to treat those others.
That applies to the way men treat women. The way a married person
treats their spouse. The way a parent treats their child. The way
nations treat each other. The way fertile adults treat their
decisions that lead toward potential new life.
If you want to be part of this movement, one major step you can take
is look at the food on your plate. Challenge yourself to see if you
can empathize with the life it used to be. If your answer is that you
can, the you've taken the first step into the wonderful culinary
delights of the vegetarian way. The way of non-violence for all the
world.
> > Just look at the concept of "no
> > fault" divorce. Imagine if various social contracts could be promptly
> > exited simply because on party decided they changed their mind.
>
> 'No fault' divorces prevent a lot of pain for the participants and any
> children they may have - especially the children. Imagine what the children
> would go through if the newspapers gave a blow-by-blow account of physical
> or mental cruelty, infidelity, addictions to drugs, alcohol or gambling, so
> that all their neighbours and friends knew all their private business.
Yes, I'm well aware of where and how the whole no-fault thing came to
be.
> [snip weak analogies]
>
> > FREEDOM.
> > Blessed glorious freedom. Don't tread on me. Don't tread on my right
> > to get an abortion. Don't tread on my right to have sex before so
> > much as *thinking* about a committed relationship. The pro-choice
> > mantra is personal liberty.
>
> Yes, that's partly true, but you omitted personal responsibility. What is
> your mantra? No freedom? Or just no freedom for women?
Well it is important to understand what freedom actually is. People
talk about freedom as though it is something that is given or taken
away. It is not. You often hear people say things like, "I had no
choice". And in the context of abortion, an entire movement labels
themselves as "pro-choice". These are all erroneous constructs.
Does anyone say, "I am pro-gravity". "I believe in gravity." "Don't
tread on my gravity." "I need my gravity." "Your laws are
encroaching my gravity."?
No. No one says that. No one so much as thinks that. And if anyone
did verbalize a thought like that, we would immediately recognize that
as silly. Yet people think and say those things about freedom and
about choice all the time. But freedom of choice is Natural Law.
Humans have free will that is as permanent to the human condition as
gravity is. No one can take away your freedom to choose ever. Just
as no one can take gravity away from anyone. Even in a rocketship,
you hear people talk about being in "zero gravity", but they are just
as deluded as those who feel like they've had their freedom taken
away. An astronaut in orbit or going to the Moon or anywhere is still
under the influence of gravity. What has changed is that they are
falling with it, so it acts as though it had been turned off. But it
is still there. A person standing in a river feels the force of the
current. Then if you stop fighting that force and float with the
current, you no longer feel that force. But you are still very wet
with water. Saying an astronaut is in "zero gravity" is a silly as
saying that the person floating down the river is "dry". Both are
simply floating along with the force they had once stood against.
Ok, this is a long way to explain that freedom is an inseparable part
of the human condition. Consider the most dark, oppressive situation
that a person can be subjected to. Shackled in a dungeon, or worse.
Even under such horrible conditions, the human being is totally free
in their ability to choose. No shackle can be put on you that reduces
your freedom of will nor your freedom of choice by one iota. In such
shackles at the depths of a dungeon, a person can still choose to fly
like a bird if they want to. Of course they would not be successful.
But that limitation of outcome does not encroach at all their ability
to *try*.
So this range of what is possible and what is made available leads to
what people really mean when they say "freedom". What they are
actually talking about, and what the "pro-choice" movement really
means when they complain about their restriction of free choice is
actually liberty.
The distinction between freedom and liberty is extremely significant,
yet so often blurred.
Freedom is a constant of the human condition. Liberty is the variable
that delineates the latitude that we are given in bounds to our
freedom. One illustrative analogy that might appeal to those who are
into computer games is that freedom is represented by moving anywhere
on the screen. Liberty is the restriction placed by the programmer in
constructing walls and such that define boundaries to our freedom.
Laws against abortion, say, is an example of one such artificially
constructed boundary to our natural state of freedom. Pass a law that
prohibits abortion, and the woman is still entirely free to get one.
"Pro-choice", her freedom to choose to get an abortion, was not
affected by the law in any way at all. Both before as well as after
the law, she is totally free to choose to get an abortion. But after
the law is enacted, she is no longer *at liberty* to get one. The
tools and means for her to succeed in her choice to go down that route
is what is encroached. And her motivation to choose that is
artificially encroached through threats of punishment if she were to
so choose.
So too, the person shackled in the dungeon is not at liberty to fly.
No matter how intently this choice may be made, it will not succeed.
Now if a key is placed next to that person so they have the ability to
unshackle themself, and an airplane is placed right outside of the
dungeon, then the person has been given the tools needed to fly. And
their success in that choice will then depend upon their level of
piloting skill.
My mantra? I am all about enabling people to fly, if they so choose.
I want a society that upholds and maintains the greatest level of
individual liberty while simultaneously maintaining respect for
others.
What's the difference between my mantra and what the "pro-choice" camp
strives for? It's all encapsulated by that pesky last part of the
phrase in maintaining respect for others. Killing off an embryo or
fetus without due regard does *not* maintain respect for that life.
And this mantra branches out into many other aspects of society as
indicated above in this post.
I do not omit personal responsibility. I do not want to deny liberty
to women. I want people's liberty to be expanded. One excellent way
for people to realize possibilities that were right there before them,
but they could not recognize them as such, is through education. One
tool for educating girls and boys about the life of a fetus is by
showing them a "4D" video of one in the womb. The more we learn and
understand about the human fetus, the more we will be able to
empathize with it. And with greater ability to put ourselves into its
"shoes", the more likely it will be that we will find alternatives to
killing it. The best alternative I know of is to avoid our careless
decisions that bring it into being in the first place.
That is my mantra.
More education will lead to more awareness, which will lead to more
empathy, which will lead to more compassion. This will spread from
person to person, from neighborhood to neighborhood, from society to
society. Before you know it, our world will have evolved into a very
different place. A much healthier place.
People cling tightly in resistance to change. They fear having their
freedom taken away (oblivious to the fact that no one can do this to
them - they can only do it to themselves). You yourself question this
perception that I desire a world where liberty is grossly encroached.
Women will not be able to get abortions, and that would be a horrible
world.
Alternatively, let's try to imagine a future where the level of
humanity has been enlightenment to the point where women will *not
want* an abortion, and they will act so that they will never get
themselves into a situation of never thinking about the issue - and a
future where men too will have their consciousness expanded to the
level where they too will avoid all situations of unwanted pregnancy.
Is that a future of horror, where personal liberty has been clamped
down upon? Not at all. I see that as a future of beauty. Where
personal liberty has *expanded*, because society will have embraced
the liberty that is due to the unborn child.
No one will feel oppressed by their lack of ability to get an
abortion. Think about how human evolution has dealt with slavery.
Remember back to how much fear there was that elimination of slavery
would threaten the very livelihood of slave owners. Well ask anyone
today. Is there a single person you can find who feels oppressed by
society not upholding their right to own slaves? Does anybody see our
current society to be one that has *less liberty* than the previous
society that condoned and embraced slavery? Not at all. Not with
anyone I know or have ever met.
No one goes around with the attitude that, "Slavery was a wonderful
thing and I really miss it." So is it really that hard to envision a
future where abortion is no more? And if you are capable of
visualizing that future, can you picture yourself walking around in
that world saying that, "Abortion was a wonderful thing and I really
miss it."
I understand that today abortion is viewed as a necessity. But let's
keep in mind that there was a time not so long ago where slavery was
viewed as a necessity also. What enabled us to take that step away
from slavery is that we developed machines that could do a huge part
of the work that needed to be done. It was no longer necessary to
have human labor to get all that work done. These technologies are
what enabled the liberty of the Negro, and it also enabled the liberty
of the domestic woman. It was advances like indoor plumbing, the
washing machine, the vacuum cleaner and the dishwasher that brought
emancipation to the domestic slave.
Today we have advances in medical technology that offer the solution
to abortion, because they make avoiding unwanted pregnancy so easy.
The Pill was an important step toward that procreative emancipation,
albeit a crude step. Now we have things a single injection that will
prevent pregnancy for a whole quarter of a year, or Norplant-like
implant technologies that will time-release those chemicals so that
pregnancy can be prevented for a whole stretch of years. That is
total reproductive control. Along with other methods that prevent
conception, some of which go a long way toward preventing STDs (the
most obvious method being abstinence), these form a comprehensive
solution that can make 2012 the year that abortion ended.
The technology is already here. All that is lacking is our will. So
we're only facing one major hurdle. And that is our fear of what we'd
find on the other side once we've attempted a world without abortion.
I see a very beautiful world over there.
=Dustin
> "Dustin Dewynne" <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:debcf5d4-3f11-4756...@b2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > The institution of marriage itself is in a crisis. Prior to the
> > liberation of females, marriage was in a somewhat stable state.
> > Oppressive, but stable.
>
> Yes, it was oppressive. Like to go back to that, would you?
I am very glad that we've progressed beyond that stage. I would no
> news:debcf5d4-3f11-4756...@b2g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > The institution of marriage itself is in a crisis. Prior to the
> > liberation of females, marriage was in a somewhat stable state.
> > Oppressive, but stable.
>
> Yes, it was oppressive. Like to go back to that, would you?
rather go back to that than I would want to go back to slavery. And
the status of women prior to that 60s-70s transition *was* a form of
slavery.
> > After society made the shift toward gender
> > equality, the huge casualty of that was marriage. It continues to
> > this day as critically unstable.
>
> Have you ever wondered why marriage was a casualty of gender equality? It
> was largely because women would not endure the treatment that was meted out
> to their mothers and grandmothers, and, at last, they didn't have to. You
> have to remember that back in the 1950's, marriage was the only game in town
> for women, because they earned only half as much as men, so were not in a
> position to live independently.
quotes coming out of the current presidential race are very sad. We
will be much better off when society gets to a place where women are
fully appreciated for working in the home as well as in the office as
they choose. A key part of that appreciation is financial
compensation.
> > The ones who pay the biggest price for that is the children. In this
> > respect, abortion could be viewed as a "mercy killing" because society
> > has blatantly decided that they will not do much at all to preserve
> > the family foundation that would serve as the healthiest known form of
> > "nest" to raise that would-be child.
>
> Yes, it is the best 'nest', provided that the marriage is a good one.
that marriages are far more likely to succeed. And the best area to
emphasize that I know of is with parenting. Teach spouses how to be
excellent parents to their children, and an entire generation of much
healthier kids will be raised. And I see that as the cure for
marriage problems because the vast majority of marriage problems I see
stems from baggage that adults carry into relationships that came
about from damage done to them when they were children. If a child is
raised by example of respect and healthy conflict resolution, they
become an adult that treats others with respect and handles conflict
in smart ways. That generation will enter marriages with a complete
set of skills necessary for succeeding in that marriage.
And soon there will be far less that these spouses will need to be
taught in order for them to become solid parents, because the methods
of discipline will have been ingrained in them from a very young age.
The meme will spread as readily as the ability to speak. Young
children do not go to school to learn how to speak. They grow up in
an environment saturated in verbal communication. They readily pick
it up from the examples around them.
This is how it will be for acquiring the skills necessary for
marriages to succeed. The atmosphere in the home will be permeated
with those skills. It will spread to the schools, and to the offices,
and to the governments.
When parents learn alternatives on how to discipline their kids
without spanking or beating them, a generation later these skills will
have been carried to the top levels of corporations and governments.
And that generation of world leaders will know alternatives to war,
just as surely as they know it is not necessary to beat a child in
order to get one's needs met.
Solving parenting means solving violence. That transforms into the
solution for war. And the form of violence we're focused on here in
this forum is that of abortion. It is a very short step from treating
our young children with respect to that of treating our unborn with
respect.
Recapping our history... and looking to the future that is leading us
to:
Blacks were liberated from slavery. Women were liberated from
domestic slavery. These transitions are over "the hump", yet ongoing
today. What hasn't reached the hump yet is the level of respect given
to our children. They are still treated as property in many ways.
And there are highly regarded child psychologists who remain staunch
advocates of corporal punishment. (Brazelton is the first name that
comes to mind.)
We will cross that threshold of treating our children with decency.
And that will lead us into a land where marriages will solidify into
the foundations they were meant to be. A land where war will be
unthinkable. A land where abortion will be as well.
We are not far from that land. Martin Luther King shared his dream
back in the 60s. It took less than half a century to get to the point
where a black man is at the helm of the most powerful position on the
planet. And in the race that led to that huge turning point of
history, the runner-up was a woman. Just around the corner is the
promised land for kids. Where their homes will be places of nurturing
that is free from parental terror.
And one more turn from that - simply with the passage of time of
having that generation of kids grow up to become the leaders of
society - that is when the dream will be realized of having a world
where spousal battery, and wars, and abortion - all these forms of
human violence - will be no more.
And the one form of human violence that wasn't mentioned above? It is
something that permeated our culture to the point where the vast
majority don't even think of it as violence. It is the enslavement
and murder of animals for the fleeting pleasure given to our
tastebuds. Animals are similar to human fetuses in that they have no
voice of their own to protect their interests.
Their interests must be protected through human empathy. And that is
the key that will bring about the entire shift to our society. As
soon as people gain a sufficient degree of empathy, *all* of these
problems get solved. Because empathy is at the root of the Golden
Rule. As soon as we make a shift in consciousness where we can relate
to the experience of the other being, it manifests as a shift in our
actions in how we choose to treat those others.
That applies to the way men treat women. The way a married person
treats their spouse. The way a parent treats their child. The way
nations treat each other. The way fertile adults treat their
decisions that lead toward potential new life.
If you want to be part of this movement, one major step you can take
is look at the food on your plate. Challenge yourself to see if you
can empathize with the life it used to be. If your answer is that you
can, the you've taken the first step into the wonderful culinary
delights of the vegetarian way. The way of non-violence for all the
world.
> > Just look at the concept of "no
> > fault" divorce. Imagine if various social contracts could be promptly
> > exited simply because on party decided they changed their mind.
>
> 'No fault' divorces prevent a lot of pain for the participants and any
> children they may have - especially the children. Imagine what the children
> would go through if the newspapers gave a blow-by-blow account of physical
> or mental cruelty, infidelity, addictions to drugs, alcohol or gambling, so
> that all their neighbours and friends knew all their private business.
be.
> [snip weak analogies]
>
> > FREEDOM.
> > Blessed glorious freedom. Don't tread on me. Don't tread on my right
> > to get an abortion. Don't tread on my right to have sex before so
> > much as *thinking* about a committed relationship. The pro-choice
> > mantra is personal liberty.
>
> Yes, that's partly true, but you omitted personal responsibility. What is
> your mantra? No freedom? Or just no freedom for women?
talk about freedom as though it is something that is given or taken
away. It is not. You often hear people say things like, "I had no
choice". And in the context of abortion, an entire movement labels
themselves as "pro-choice". These are all erroneous constructs.
Does anyone say, "I am pro-gravity". "I believe in gravity." "Don't
tread on my gravity." "I need my gravity." "Your laws are
encroaching my gravity."?
No. No one says that. No one so much as thinks that. And if anyone
did verbalize a thought like that, we would immediately recognize that
as silly. Yet people think and say those things about freedom and
about choice all the time. But freedom of choice is Natural Law.
Humans have free will that is as permanent to the human condition as
gravity is. No one can take away your freedom to choose ever. Just
as no one can take gravity away from anyone. Even in a rocketship,
you hear people talk about being in "zero gravity", but they are just
as deluded as those who feel like they've had their freedom taken
away. An astronaut in orbit or going to the Moon or anywhere is still
under the influence of gravity. What has changed is that they are
falling with it, so it acts as though it had been turned off. But it
is still there. A person standing in a river feels the force of the
current. Then if you stop fighting that force and float with the
current, you no longer feel that force. But you are still very wet
with water. Saying an astronaut is in "zero gravity" is a silly as
saying that the person floating down the river is "dry". Both are
simply floating along with the force they had once stood against.
Ok, this is a long way to explain that freedom is an inseparable part
of the human condition. Consider the most dark, oppressive situation
that a person can be subjected to. Shackled in a dungeon, or worse.
Even under such horrible conditions, the human being is totally free
in their ability to choose. No shackle can be put on you that reduces
your freedom of will nor your freedom of choice by one iota. In such
shackles at the depths of a dungeon, a person can still choose to fly
like a bird if they want to. Of course they would not be successful.
But that limitation of outcome does not encroach at all their ability
to *try*.
So this range of what is possible and what is made available leads to
what people really mean when they say "freedom". What they are
actually talking about, and what the "pro-choice" movement really
means when they complain about their restriction of free choice is
actually liberty.
The distinction between freedom and liberty is extremely significant,
yet so often blurred.
Freedom is a constant of the human condition. Liberty is the variable
that delineates the latitude that we are given in bounds to our
freedom. One illustrative analogy that might appeal to those who are
into computer games is that freedom is represented by moving anywhere
on the screen. Liberty is the restriction placed by the programmer in
constructing walls and such that define boundaries to our freedom.
Laws against abortion, say, is an example of one such artificially
constructed boundary to our natural state of freedom. Pass a law that
prohibits abortion, and the woman is still entirely free to get one.
"Pro-choice", her freedom to choose to get an abortion, was not
affected by the law in any way at all. Both before as well as after
the law, she is totally free to choose to get an abortion. But after
the law is enacted, she is no longer *at liberty* to get one. The
tools and means for her to succeed in her choice to go down that route
is what is encroached. And her motivation to choose that is
artificially encroached through threats of punishment if she were to
so choose.
So too, the person shackled in the dungeon is not at liberty to fly.
No matter how intently this choice may be made, it will not succeed.
Now if a key is placed next to that person so they have the ability to
unshackle themself, and an airplane is placed right outside of the
dungeon, then the person has been given the tools needed to fly. And
their success in that choice will then depend upon their level of
piloting skill.
My mantra? I am all about enabling people to fly, if they so choose.
I want a society that upholds and maintains the greatest level of
individual liberty while simultaneously maintaining respect for
others.
What's the difference between my mantra and what the "pro-choice" camp
strives for? It's all encapsulated by that pesky last part of the
phrase in maintaining respect for others. Killing off an embryo or
fetus without due regard does *not* maintain respect for that life.
And this mantra branches out into many other aspects of society as
indicated above in this post.
I do not omit personal responsibility. I do not want to deny liberty
to women. I want people's liberty to be expanded. One excellent way
for people to realize possibilities that were right there before them,
but they could not recognize them as such, is through education. One
tool for educating girls and boys about the life of a fetus is by
showing them a "4D" video of one in the womb. The more we learn and
understand about the human fetus, the more we will be able to
empathize with it. And with greater ability to put ourselves into its
"shoes", the more likely it will be that we will find alternatives to
killing it. The best alternative I know of is to avoid our careless
decisions that bring it into being in the first place.
That is my mantra.
More education will lead to more awareness, which will lead to more
empathy, which will lead to more compassion. This will spread from
person to person, from neighborhood to neighborhood, from society to
society. Before you know it, our world will have evolved into a very
different place. A much healthier place.
People cling tightly in resistance to change. They fear having their
freedom taken away (oblivious to the fact that no one can do this to
them - they can only do it to themselves). You yourself question this
perception that I desire a world where liberty is grossly encroached.
Women will not be able to get abortions, and that would be a horrible
world.
Alternatively, let's try to imagine a future where the level of
humanity has been enlightenment to the point where women will *not
want* an abortion, and they will act so that they will never get
themselves into a situation of never thinking about the issue - and a
future where men too will have their consciousness expanded to the
level where they too will avoid all situations of unwanted pregnancy.
Is that a future of horror, where personal liberty has been clamped
down upon? Not at all. I see that as a future of beauty. Where
personal liberty has *expanded*, because society will have embraced
the liberty that is due to the unborn child.
No one will feel oppressed by their lack of ability to get an
abortion. Think about how human evolution has dealt with slavery.
Remember back to how much fear there was that elimination of slavery
would threaten the very livelihood of slave owners. Well ask anyone
today. Is there a single person you can find who feels oppressed by
society not upholding their right to own slaves? Does anybody see our
current society to be one that has *less liberty* than the previous
society that condoned and embraced slavery? Not at all. Not with
anyone I know or have ever met.
No one goes around with the attitude that, "Slavery was a wonderful
thing and I really miss it." So is it really that hard to envision a
future where abortion is no more? And if you are capable of
visualizing that future, can you picture yourself walking around in
that world saying that, "Abortion was a wonderful thing and I really
miss it."
I understand that today abortion is viewed as a necessity. But let's
keep in mind that there was a time not so long ago where slavery was
viewed as a necessity also. What enabled us to take that step away
from slavery is that we developed machines that could do a huge part
of the work that needed to be done. It was no longer necessary to
have human labor to get all that work done. These technologies are
what enabled the liberty of the Negro, and it also enabled the liberty
of the domestic woman. It was advances like indoor plumbing, the
washing machine, the vacuum cleaner and the dishwasher that brought
emancipation to the domestic slave.
Today we have advances in medical technology that offer the solution
to abortion, because they make avoiding unwanted pregnancy so easy.
The Pill was an important step toward that procreative emancipation,
albeit a crude step. Now we have things a single injection that will
prevent pregnancy for a whole quarter of a year, or Norplant-like
implant technologies that will time-release those chemicals so that
pregnancy can be prevented for a whole stretch of years. That is
total reproductive control. Along with other methods that prevent
conception, some of which go a long way toward preventing STDs (the
most obvious method being abstinence), these form a comprehensive
solution that can make 2012 the year that abortion ended.
The technology is already here. All that is lacking is our will. So
we're only facing one major hurdle. And that is our fear of what we'd
find on the other side once we've attempted a world without abortion.
I see a very beautiful world over there.
=Dustin
elizabeth
Apr 19, 2012, 3:03:52 PM4/19/12
to
On Apr 19, 5:40 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> So she made a mistake, does that justify forcing her to have a unwanted
> baby, screwing up her life and the unwanted child life? Are you totally
> daft as to the frequency of a single mothers child becoming anti social and
> criminal? Do you in your self righteous bigotry have no compassion or
> respect for a ignorant young girl led astray. Dustin in my opinion you are
> a stupid and evil person. As well as a false Christian,Jesus Christ of
> myths
> taught against every thing you stand for. Your evil cult is at the roots of
> every thing wrong with our society. You are as evil as any person that ever
> lived.- Hide quoted text -
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:07:50 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> baby, screwing up her life and the unwanted child life? Are you totally
> daft as to the frequency of a single mothers child becoming anti social and
> criminal? Do you in your self righteous bigotry have no compassion or
> respect for a ignorant young girl led astray. Dustin in my opinion you are
> a stupid and evil person. As well as a false Christian,Jesus Christ of
> myths
> taught against every thing you stand for. Your evil cult is at the roots of
> every thing wrong with our society. You are as evil as any person that ever
> lived.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Uh, this is what they want.
> - Show quoted text -
elizabeth
Apr 19, 2012, 3:12:40 PM4/19/12
to
On Apr 19, 11:23 am, Dustin Dewynne <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 19, 12:31 am, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
You have to learn to stop trying to write a new bible with every post.
> On Apr 19, 12:31 am, "June G" <juneg...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
And stop with the invalid comparisons, deal with reality.
snip> > Yes, it was oppressive. Like to go back to that, would you?
>
> I am very glad that we've progressed beyond that stage. I would no
> rather go back to that than I would want to go back to slavery. And
> the status of women prior to that 60s-70s transition *was* a form of
> slavery.
And yet, you preach the gospel of keeping women barefoot and pregnant,
> I am very glad that we've progressed beyond that stage. I would no
> rather go back to that than I would want to go back to slavery. And
> the status of women prior to that 60s-70s transition *was* a form of
> slavery.
with the same view of women as ambulatory incubators.
> > > After society made the shift toward gender
> > > equality, the huge casualty of that was marriage. It continues to
> > > this day as critically unstable.
>
> > Have you ever wondered why marriage was a casualty of gender equality? It
> > was largely because women would not endure the treatment that was meted out
> > to their mothers and grandmothers, and, at last, they didn't have to. You
> > have to remember that back in the 1950's, marriage was the only game in town
> > for women, because they earned only half as much as men, so were not in a
> > position to live independently.
>
> And the pay imbalance has *still* not been fully rectified.
sni[> > Yes, it is the best 'nest', provided that the marriage is a
good one.
>
> And here's where the focus needs to be. Giving people the tools so
> that marriages are far more likely to succeed.
Some folks should not marry, some folks should not have children, and
>
> And here's where the focus needs to be. Giving people the tools so
> that marriages are far more likely to succeed.
to make it the default setting is where the problems lie. If mere
education were enough to make everyone into good parents, there would
be no bad parents left! so your long winded tribute to ideal marriage
and parenting is just more of your verbose diarrhea. If we didn't put
so much social pressure on people to marry and breed, if we accepted
that it's not for everyone, then we would naturally self select for
only those best suited to indulge.
It's not like the nation, or the world, needs more people.
snip
snip
antra is personal liberty.
>
> > Yes, that's partly true, but you omitted personal responsibility. What is
> > your mantra? No freedom? Or just no freedom for women?
>
> Well it is important to understand what freedom actually is.
Since you will always be free from unwanted pregnancy, your yapping on
>
> > Yes, that's partly true, but you omitted personal responsibility. What is
> > your mantra? No freedom? Or just no freedom for women?
>
> Well it is important to understand what freedom actually is.
this is totally insignificant and has no merit.
snip long winded bullshit.
elizabeth
Apr 19, 2012, 3:05:44 PM4/19/12
to
On Apr 19, 7:05 am, r...@badass.edu (Rockinghorse Winner) wrote:
> In article <4ef5bd0a-10bf-460e-87f0-9a43e2888...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
Another one whose mother regrets not aborting.
> There's hardly a bold, bright line between raping a woman and killing an
> unborn child. I wouldn't get too comfortable up on your high horse,
> sweetheart.
So, you are in favor of raping women and forcing gestation.
So, your mother should have aborted.
I wouldn't get too comfortable pushing that agenda, look where it got
the Ceaucescus, sweetheart.
if you want to go back to the days before Roe, it's time you gave
death a try, as Hellgirl suggests to other lost and forgotten souls
like you.
>
>
>
>
> >> The only exception to that is for those rare cases where she was not a
> >> willing participant. She did not open her door for anyone. And she
> >> did not invite a single person inside.
>
> >So, it's not about an unwanted fetus, it's about punishing women for
> >having sex THAT ISN'T RAPE
>
> >> In all cases, the only entity that did *not* ask to be there is the
> >> baby. You are trying to turn that around with a view that the baby is
> >> enslaving her, as though she had no responsibility for the situation.
>
> >Ya know, men telling women to be responsible when they never have to
> >be that responsible is reprehensible
>
> >> =Dustin
>
> Terry
>
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
> badass linux - gentoo 3.1.6- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> In article <4ef5bd0a-10bf-460e-87f0-9a43e2888...@w6g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
> There's hardly a bold, bright line between raping a woman and killing an
> unborn child. I wouldn't get too comfortable up on your high horse,
> sweetheart.
So, your mother should have aborted.
I wouldn't get too comfortable pushing that agenda, look where it got
the Ceaucescus, sweetheart.
if you want to go back to the days before Roe, it's time you gave
death a try, as Hellgirl suggests to other lost and forgotten souls
like you.
>
>
>
>
> >> The only exception to that is for those rare cases where she was not a
> >> willing participant. She did not open her door for anyone. And she
> >> did not invite a single person inside.
>
> >So, it's not about an unwanted fetus, it's about punishing women for
> >having sex THAT ISN'T RAPE
>
> >> In all cases, the only entity that did *not* ask to be there is the
> >> baby. You are trying to turn that around with a view that the baby is
> >> enslaving her, as though she had no responsibility for the situation.
>
> >Ya know, men telling women to be responsible when they never have to
> >be that responsible is reprehensible
>
> >> =Dustin
>
> Terry
>
> --
> "There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
> -Albert Schweitzer
>
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dino
Apr 19, 2012, 4:21:04 PM4/19/12
to
death?
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 20, 2012, 5:56:33 AM4/20/12
to
think people should act rather than dealing with the reality of how
people do act.
You fail to draw the distinction between what can be modified through
education and what cannot. Neither does it seem you fully grasp the
difference between the desire to have sex and the desire to procreate.
You recognize that the so called stability of marriage in the past was
purchased with varying degrees of oppression, yet fail to take the
next step and realize that any system that relies on oppression can
only provide an illusion of stability.
You also seem to look back to a time when peoples sexual behavior was
substantially differently than it is now, when careful thought on the
matter reveals that the only real changes have been largely
superficial.
Your tortured analogies reflect a fundamental denial about the
thoughts and goals of those on different sides of the issues and
reveal more about your prejudices than reality.
It's hard to see your post as anything but nostalgic ode to the
Bibliocentric, paternalistic social structure of the past, slightly
updated with some tweaking around the edges and some fresh paint
slapped on it
Rockinghorse Winner
Apr 20, 2012, 11:12:00 AM4/20/12
to
In article <8782p7lleb9nsldgq...@6ax.com>,
Which social structure of the past would you have preferred to the one you
inherited?
Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
badass linux - 3.2.12-gentoo
inherited?
Terry
--
"There are two means of refuge from the miseries of life: music and cats."
-Albert Schweitzer
Silen...@hotmail.com
Apr 20, 2012, 1:40:12 PM4/20/12
to
rockinghorsewinner
Apr 20, 2012, 3:30:24 PM4/20/12
to
In article <7r73p7p1r3oic1258...@6ax.com>,
<Silen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>You also seem to look back to a time when peoples sexual behavior was
>>>substantially differently than it is now, when careful thought on the
>>>matter reveals that the only real changes have been largely
>>>superficial.
>>>
>>>Your tortured analogies reflect a fundamental denial about the
>>>thoughts and goals of those on different sides of the issues and
>>>reveal more about your prejudices than reality.
>>>
>>>It's hard to see your post as anything but nostalgic ode to the
>>>Bibliocentric, paternalistic social structure of the past, slightly
>>>updated with some tweaking around the edges and some fresh paint
>>>slapped on it
>>>
>>
>>Which social structure of the past would you have preferred to the one you
>>inherited?
>
>None.
>
:)
>>>
>>>You also seem to look back to a time when peoples sexual behavior was
>>>substantially differently than it is now, when careful thought on the
>>>matter reveals that the only real changes have been largely
>>>superficial.
>>>
>>>Your tortured analogies reflect a fundamental denial about the
>>>thoughts and goals of those on different sides of the issues and
>>>reveal more about your prejudices than reality.
>>>
>>>It's hard to see your post as anything but nostalgic ode to the
>>>Bibliocentric, paternalistic social structure of the past, slightly
>>>updated with some tweaking around the edges and some fresh paint
>>>slapped on it
>>>
>>
>>Which social structure of the past would you have preferred to the one you
>>inherited?
>
>None.
>
elizabeth
Apr 20, 2012, 6:00:50 PM4/20/12
to
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yup, women who would ban abortion (especially those women who freely
> - Show quoted text -
abort but want to make it illegal for others, and yes, there are such
women, mostly the wealthy women of the GOP. Rich women could always
afford to bribe an OB/GYN!) and those who aid and abet men in abusing
women. Women who prostitute their own daughters, that sort of woman.
But you probably like women who happily fuck over other
women . . .doing what you wish you could do . ..but not even
mainlining viagra would help you with your problems ....
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 21, 2012, 2:13:26 AM4/21/12
to
On Apr 17, 7:18 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 16, 1:20 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> >In Melinda Gates's talk she spoke of sex as being sacred. While
> >speaking that way strikes me as profound, I also see it to be grossly
> >incomplete. A full education about sex will relate how sex has the
> >potential to be a sacred experience, but also how it is often
> >profaned. How it can be a glue that binds the most committed of
> >relationships and can serve as a vehicle for those engaged in the act
> >of achieving the highest levels of bliss, but it also is used as the
> >means toward some of the most painful experiences of human existence.
>
> >A thorough sex education would reach all corners of those aspects of
> >sex.
>
> Bullshit few if any women treat abortion as Plan A. Abortion is the only
> option to a unwanted pregnancy, where birth control failed or was
> unavailable. Women that plan on having sex, seldom get pregnant, it's spur
> of the moment when passion over rides common sense, that unwanted pregnancy
> occurs. The morning after pill readily available and inexpensive is the
> answer. But the common condom with spermicide if made popular with
> education and advertising would be best. Unwanted pregnancy is only one
> STD.
If by "birth control [being] unavailable" you mean neither of them
cared enough to go buy a condom, then I suggest to you that is a case
where both of them were using abortion as Plan A for avoiding birth.
Dismiss it as bullshit if you want. It appears to me that you are
just using a much lower standard of accountability by excusing birth
control as unavailable. Oral sex is one method of birth control.
Birth control is available to everyone.
=Dustin
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 18:00:45 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 16, 1:20 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 22:56:19 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> >speaking that way strikes me as profound, I also see it to be grossly
> >incomplete. A full education about sex will relate how sex has the
> >potential to be a sacred experience, but also how it is often
> >profaned. How it can be a glue that binds the most committed of
> >relationships and can serve as a vehicle for those engaged in the act
> >of achieving the highest levels of bliss, but it also is used as the
> >means toward some of the most painful experiences of human existence.
>
> >A thorough sex education would reach all corners of those aspects of
> >sex.
>
> >As for the goal of making abortions safe, free and rare... Perhaps
> >the biggest problem with that is as soon as you advertise the safe and
> >free part, it makes it very difficult to achieve that third goal. The
> >As for the goal of making abortions safe, free and rare... Perhaps
> >the biggest problem with that is as soon as you advertise the safe and
> >best way I know for achieving rarity is to keep the entire focus on
> >the promotion of ways and means for avoiding those pregnancies.
>
> >Just think of all the women out there who treat abortion as Plan A.
>
> >=Dustin
> >the promotion of ways and means for avoiding those pregnancies.
>
> >Just think of all the women out there who treat abortion as Plan A.
>
>
> Bullshit few if any women treat abortion as Plan A. Abortion is the only
> option to a unwanted pregnancy, where birth control failed or was
> unavailable. Women that plan on having sex, seldom get pregnant, it's spur
> of the moment when passion over rides common sense, that unwanted pregnancy
> occurs. The morning after pill readily available and inexpensive is the
> answer. But the common condom with spermicide if made popular with
> education and advertising would be best. Unwanted pregnancy is only one
> STD.
If by "birth control [being] unavailable" you mean neither of them
cared enough to go buy a condom, then I suggest to you that is a case
where both of them were using abortion as Plan A for avoiding birth.
Dismiss it as bullshit if you want. It appears to me that you are
just using a much lower standard of accountability by excusing birth
control as unavailable. Oral sex is one method of birth control.
Birth control is available to everyone.
=Dustin
Dustin Dewynne
Apr 21, 2012, 1:58:15 AM4/21/12
to
On Apr 17, 1:19 am, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 16, 1:08 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> >> >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 8, 7:59 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> >> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >I don't justify it. I was presenting the rationale used by other
> >people to justify it. And I don't criticize such rationale as
> >sloppy. I see it as very straight forward. My own criticism of that
> >justification is that it strikes me as primitive. We have progressed
> >as a species to now know how to apply other methods that don't involve
> >killing the killers.
>
> I feel like you treated the matter as if it's a valid, if distasteful,
> option.
>
> Killing abortion providers is -not- a valid option, and our laws
> reflect that social consensus.
>
> That such killers are being logically consistent doesn't add to the
> validity one bit.
What is clear to both of us is that one form of killing is legal, and
the other form of killing is illegal. You point out that the illegal
form is not valid. But it is clear to me that killing an abortion
doctor has a definite effect.
I myself am abhorred by the fact that animals are killed for our
food. Now if I really cared about animals, would I not myself take
more extreme action in an effort to influence the choices people
make? The answer I come up with is that the larger issue is respect
for all. And I fail myself in upholding respect for all if I choose
any path that engages in violence.
The only forms of opposition to abortion that I support are, likewise,
those that do not use violence or any threat of violence.
> >> >Gandhi is quoted as saying, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world
> >> >blind."
>
> >> Yea...
>
> >> Except we're not witnessing "an eye for an eye" are we?
>
> >> ProChioce supporters haven't murdered anyone.
>
> >> AntiAbortion supporters -have-.
>
> >Again, that's not how they see it. They do see it as murder.
>
> Rapists see rape as being acceptable.
>
> Are you also this understanding of their point of view, or is your
> understanding reserved for those who murder abortion providers?
Yes, actually, I *do* try to be as understanding and compassionate for
the rapist as I am for the person who was raped. No matter how
horrible anything is that anyone does, I have an understanding that if
I were to put myself in their shoes, having been raised as they were,
experienced all the abuses they experienced and everything, I would
have the same set of values as they do. I would think the same way
that they do. And I myself would have done what they did.
I am the stormtrooper. But for a switch of circumstances. Here's how
the Prophet Mick put it...
"I shouted out who killed the Kennedy's, when after all it was you and
me."
<snip>
> >I totally agree that the graph isn't highlighting abortions into a
> >separate category for those justified as medical necessity. I was
> >simply doing a first-order analysis with an understanding that there
> >is no way that the "medical necessity" category would take up the
> >majority of those 2nd Trimester numbers.
>
> >That is my assumption.
>
> According to the wiki article you cited, only about 16-17% of
> abortions are performed after the first trimester.
>
> While I would agree that probably not all of those abortions are
> medically necessary, I would argue that the later an abortion is
> performed, the more likely it is to be for medical reasons, including
> medical reasons on the part of the fetus, of course.
>
> You'll notice that hardly any abortions are performed in the third
> trimester, and I'd wager that almost all of those were performed for
> medically legitimate reasons of one sort or another.
I would certainly agree that many abortions done that late are for non-
elective reasons. As for the exact percentage, I do hope your
estimate is more accurate than mine.
> >And if you were to show me stats that do identify a significant chunk
> >of those as "medical necessity", then my first conclusion I'd jump to
> >is my expectation that the definition of "medical necessity" regarding
> >abortion is about as distorted as the concept of "medical necessity"
> >regarding the percentage of prescriptions written for "medicinal"
> >marijuana. Key & Peele did an excellent skit on this. The reason why
> >these kinds of comedy routines are so hilarious is because they hit so
> >close to the truth.
>
> >Now I can't stretch my imagination as to how comedians like Key &
> >Peele could pull off a similar skit on how "medical necessity" excuses
> >are abused when it comes to abortion. How could any comedian do that
> >without it just coming off as an atrocious tragedy? I don't know.
> >George Carlin might have been able to get laughs. He was a brilliant
> >comedian.
>
> >So yeah, the bottom line is a huge question mark on what constitutes a
> >legitimate "medical necessity", and what percentage are simply an
> >excuse for the procrastinators to off their, um, growth.
>
> As I noted below, the definition of "medical necessity" has been a
> point of great contention.
<snip>
> >> >Laws like these are landmark legislation that are totally about the
> >> >rights of the fetus.
>
> >> Not really.
>
> >> There not about the rights of a fetus.
>
> >> They're to establish that a fetus has rights, which is another matter
> >> entirely.
>
> >I fail to see any distinction.
>
> The distinction is that up until these laws were passed at a state and
> federal level, a fetus had no rights at all.
>
> Now, it can be argued that a fetus does have rights, and these laws
> are cited as evidence.
>
> It was a successful attempt to create legal precedent for fetal
> rights, which didn't exist before and therefore couldn't be cited as
> precedent, without making a direct attack on abortion.
>
> But, once the precedent is established, then fetal rights can be
> expanded to include abortion.
That is certainly their goal.
> >If your point is that the rights of
> >the fetus are secondary to the rights of the mother, I would agree.
>
> That's what I think, but that wasn't my point.
>
> >But secondary rights are a huge step up from no rights at all.
>
> Exactly. A huge step. And, that was the point of the law. These
> laws, inspired by the Peterson case, were the only place they could
> take such a huge step without being shut down.
>
> >> >At the Federal level in the US, it goes so far
> >> >as to emphasize the rights of a human embryo.
> >> >The law reads something
> >> >to the effect of, "the unborn baby at any stage of development".
>
> >> That's the propaganda aspect of the law.
>
> >> Notice they use words like "child" and "baby" as opposed to the
> >> medically correct terms like "zygote" and "fetus".
>
> >Yes, I did notice that. But the words "baby" and "child" can be
> >accurate words for a fetus, particularly if preceded by "unborn".
>
> They can be accurate, but accuracy clearly wasn't the goal.
>
> When ever a lawyer settles on a vague term instead of a precise term,
> it's a deliberate choice.
>
> The words were chosen for their propaganda value.
Yes, I see a lot of propaganda surrounding this issue.
> >>> >One embarrassment of the US Constitution is the "3/5ths compromise".
> >> >While today that looks like a stark anachronism, a graduated
> >> >fractional approach to human gestation would actually make a lot of
> >> >sense.
>
> >> Ummmmm...
>
> >> That's what the Supreme Court decided when they handed down Roe vs.
> >> Wade.
>
> >> The decision only eliminated restrictions on abortion for the first
> >> trimester.
>
> >> Abortions later in the gestational period can be regulated or
> >> proscribed.
>
> >> How is it that you don't already know this?
>
> >Roe/Wade did not establish a fractional equivalence to a full human
> >being at various stages of development. R/W gave a binary yes/no
> >decision as to when it was ok to abort.
>
> OK... I take your point.
>
> But, it did draw a distinction between a newly fertilized egg and a
> nearly developed fetus, as you did above.
>
> The SCOTUS recognized continuum of increasing humanity, so to speak.
>
> >> From the decision:
<snip>
> >> States allow exceptions for medically necessary late term abortions.
>
> >> That's why there's been a big fight over the meaning of "medically
> >> necessary".
>
> >> Generally speaking, there's a social consensus on allowing abortions
> >> in cases where the mother's physical health is clearly at risk.
>
> >> However, many people think that psychological reasons are also
> >> medically valid. Other's do not.
>
> >> That was the complaint against George Tiller by the religious right,
> >> before he was murdered.
>
> >> He was performing abortions on psychologically shattered women and
> >> girls who had been so badly abused that they were unable to seek an
> >> abortion earlier in their pregnancy. Many were minor incest victims
> >> who were suicidal and their doctors didn't feel that they were
> >> emotionally stable enough to carry the pregnancy to term without being
> >> at serious risk of killing themselves.
>
> >> That's the part the anti-abortion crowd always forgets to mention,
> >> because they don't believe such reasons are valid and don't really
> >> care about the welfare of the mother in the first place.
>
> >> While such cases are always judgment calls, are you prepared to tell a
> >> suicidal 13 year old girl who was raped repeatedly by her father that
> >> she has to carry the pregnancy to term?
>
> >> I'm sure as hell not.
>
> >O Rly? Rape victims have a responsibility to act promptly.
>
> >Sure there is psychological trauma involved. But there is also the
> >awareness that the violent event can lead to the creation of new
> >life. And so if the female has no interest in getting pregnant from
> >that event, it is her obligation to act as soon as possible. The
> >morning after is the most obvious time to act. There can be fully
> >subsidized examinations that reveal verifying evidence, and then
> >medication provided to prevent a fertilized ovum from advancing into a
> >pregnancy.
> >Showing up to the clinic four months after the event, crying about how
> >traumatized you've been over the past four months does not excuse the
> >failure to act.
>
> You're making a common mistake of presuming that when presented with a
> rational choice, a mentally ill person will choose rationally.
>
> Mentally ill people are frequently incapable of choosing rationally.
>
> That's why we refer to the mentally ill as being "irrational" as
> opposed to being "rational".
Yes, and even actions as extreme as murder are nearly excused by the
defense of insanity.
> >> That's not to say that there aren't a lot of real fanatics on the
> >> right who think that if a woman dies in pregnancy, that it's part of
> >> God's plan and that no abortions should be allowed at all, because
> >> there are.
>
> >Yeah, and there are those who would refuse to have a burst appendix
> >removed for similar reasons. Perfectly understandable, actually. But
> >another case of what I would call primitive reasoning.
>
> It may be logically consistent with their other beliefs, but I
> wouldn't call it understandable.
>
> But, that's a broader topic...
As I indicated above, I strive to be thoroughly understanding of
others, even if there are huge differences between them and me. Of
course understanding does not mean supportive. Nor does it mean
sympathetic.
What it leads to is being empathetic. And that can be healing.
> >> > Obviously before conception, the fraction would be zero. And
> >> >then at the point of viability, the fraction would be one. How the in-
> >> >between gets scaled would be a matter of debate, but it is perfectly
> >> >clear that using a fraction of 1/1 at week 1 is going too far.
>
> >> Until the recent attempts to outlaw abortion all together, that's
> >> where the battle was being fought, and why there is always debate over
> >> exceptions for the health of the mother.
>
> >> Many also support exceptions for rape and incest because of the way
> >> many women respond to such crimes, hiding their pregnancy in shame
> >> and/or fear, psychologically prevents them from seeking an abortion
> >> earlier in the pregnancy.
>
> >Well after the word gets out that women will be held accountable for
> >such "procrastination" (for lack of a better word) then it would
> >promptly deter such delays. Certainly this can be criticized for a
> >lack of compassion toward the woman's trauma, but what must be
> >balanced is the lack of compassion involved in delaying to the stage
> >of sentience before killing off the pregnancy.
>
> I don't think "lack of compassion" is strong enough. I would go with
> "calloused".
>
> I can only repeat what I said above.
>
> I think it would have very little effect on when women sought
> abortion.
>
> While it would definitely decrease the number of legally performed
> second and third trimester abortions, that decrease would almost
> certainly be accompanied by an increase in suicides or attempted
> suicides.
>
> It would also likely increase the number of self-performed attempts at
> abortion, with their attendant complications.
Yes, I see your point about it being callous. But there is a definite
callousness to later abortions too. This is a definite dilemma.
> >If immediately-after-the-fact pills were made available for such
> >cases, and exams were conducted in complete privacy and totally
> >discrete, then that could go a long way toward lowering the inhibition
> >these women feel.
>
> They -are- available. Right now.
>
> The problem is getting traumatized/ mentally ill women to avail
> themselves of treatment.
>
> It comes back to that rationality thing.
Yes, I see that. Now if those medications were as readily available
as in some kind of vending machine, that would bring the barrier way
down for the traumatized woman. But it would cause major problems for
others who did not have this need.
> > I'm sure others have put a heap load more thought
> >into solving this. The most effective solutions have probably come
> >from women who have survived this kind of mess.
>
> Guess which side is in opposition to morning after pills and making
> them easily obtainable?
Yes, I recognize that as a fault in their position.
<snip>
> >> ProChoice supports don't lobby against teaching abstinence.
>
> >> They lobby against teaching -only- abstinence.
>
> >> That's a big difference between the two sides that you seem to be
> >> totally overlooking.
>
> >> Teaching "abstinence only", which is what the right is pushing for,
> >> precludes teaching about birth control or anything else.
>
> >> That's why they call their sexual education plans "abstinence only".
>
> >> You didn't notice that?
>
> >Of course. But I've also noticed how the 'pro-choice' camp seems to
> >have significant pushback against *any* abstinence education.
>
> Where did you notice that?
>
> Name a proposed sex education curriculum from the left that didn't
> contain an abstinence section.
>
> I've never heard of one.
Ok, that would be a misperception of mine then.
> The left's big complaint with abstinence education is that it doesn't
> often work. They've no philosophical difficulty with it and aren't
> opposed to teaching it. They're just opposed to teaching it to the
> exclusion of everything else.
>
> On the other hand, the right sees comprehensive sex education as
> little more than "how to fuck" indoctrination.
>
> > The
> >smartest approach, I would think, is to reach the youngest level and
> >begin by teaching them abstinence only. (Again, that's how we all
> >start.) And then a year or two or three later... follow that up with,
> >"Um, remember how we taught you this abstinence thing? Well there may
> >come a time when you may want to do something different from
> >abstinence, and here's how that can be done smartly..."
>
> We don't need to develop a curriculum.
>
> It's already been done for us.
>
> Look to Northern Europe and the Noric countries and see how they do
> it.
>
> Collectively, they have the lowest teen pregnancy/abortion/STD rates
> in the world.
>
> The problem isn't one of not knowing what to do.
>
> We do know.
>
> The problem is persuading the right to stop opposing practices with a
> proven track record of success.
>
> And, it -is- the right who are in opposition.
I agree that there are many major problems caused by that position.
> >As for the proper order, I find it likewise sad to *initiate* sex ed
> >with topics like STDs and birth control. Those are not topics that
> >need to be covered at the first stage.
>
> Like I said above...
>
> The hard work has already been done by countries like Denmark and the
> Netherlands.
>
> >> The right opposes teaching everything above except abstinence.
>
> >> Again... How could you not notice that?
>
> >> It's mind boggling...
>
> >Yes, I know how there's a big push for 'abstinence only' sex ed.
>
> Then how can you claim that the fault lies equally with both sides?
The huge fault I see on the "pro-choice" side is a devastating lack of
due regard for the unborn life. But as for the approach to
comprehensive sex ed, even with what you are saying I am not so sure
that enough emphasis is being placed on the sacredness that sex can be
treated with. Merely talking about abstinence is not necessarily
promoting abstinence. That's where teaching lessons learned by the
older generation can be very helpful. Kids could be taught abstinence
from an adult who is passionate about it, whether they got that way
from being promiscuous and learning about the problems it caused or
because they chose that path from the beginning. And then kids could
be taught uninhibited sexuality from someone who fully believes in the
positive aspects of that lifestyle as well.
> >> >The total solution requires embracing both.
>
> >> Then, all you have to do is persuade the right that abstinency only is
> >> the wrong choice.
>
> >> Because, the left is already down with your ideas.
>
> >Not completely. If I was a kid and I was getting my first course
> >about human sexuality, I'd be horribly shocked if I was learning about
> >Herpes and HIV the day after I was taught about the monogamous
> >commitment that Mom & Dad enjoyed. Those topics do not need to be
> >introduced until at least one year later, after the fundamentals have
> >had time to take root.
>
> You're arguing over minutia that you're not even sure exists.
>
> Every plan I've heard from the left on sex education contains the
> words "age appropriate".
>
> And, every plan proposed by the right contains the words "abstinence
> only".
>
> Until the above is settled, arguing about details about exactly when
> one should teach what is a bit pointless when considering the big
> picture.
Ok. And I guess I'd need to see examples of what you are saying is
adequate and thorough sex education before I'd be as convinced as you
are that they're where they need to be.
> >I think a healthy shift would include an increased emphasis on the
> >virtues of abstinence, and along with that a complete set of
> >alternative ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy (along with ways to avoid
> >the other junk that is totally unwanted).
>
> Aaaannnnddd....
>
> You lost the religious right with the second half of your sentence.
I have a lot more criticism for the religious right than just their
stand on human sexuality.
> Here's the Republican take on sex education from the 2008 Republican
> Platform. I don't know exactly what it is for this year, but I'd be
> shocked if it had substantially changed:
>
> "We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens
> with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
> abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
> behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
> is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
> sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
> sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
> counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception."
>
> See the problem?
>
> It's not with the left, it's with the right.
>
> Both sides are -not- equally guilty.
I agree with your criticism of the right. I understand what you're
saying about how the left is promoting a much healthier way. I'd just
need to see more in order to get to the point of being convinced of
that.
=Dustin
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2012 16:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 16, 1:08 pm, SilentO...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:20:10 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
> >> >> On Mon, 9 Apr 2012 14:47:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Apr 8, 7:59 pm, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 11:00:07 -0700 (PDT), Dustin Dewynne
>
> >> >> >> <dustin.dewy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >On Apr 8, 7:20 am, Robert Parker <Dontbot...@netportusa.com> wrote:
<snip>
> >I don't justify it. I was presenting the rationale used by other
> >people to justify it. And I don't criticize such rationale as
> >sloppy. I see it as very straight forward. My own criticism of that
> >justification is that it strikes me as primitive. We have progressed
> >as a species to now know how to apply other methods that don't involve
> >killing the killers.
>
> I feel like you treated the matter as if it's a valid, if distasteful,
> option.
>
> Killing abortion providers is -not- a valid option, and our laws
> reflect that social consensus.
>
> That such killers are being logically consistent doesn't add to the
> validity one bit.
What is clear to both of us is that one form of killing is legal, and
the other form of killing is illegal. You point out that the illegal
form is not valid. But it is clear to me that killing an abortion
doctor has a definite effect.
I myself am abhorred by the fact that animals are killed for our
food. Now if I really cared about animals, would I not myself take
more extreme action in an effort to influence the choices people
make? The answer I come up with is that the larger issue is respect
for all. And I fail myself in upholding respect for all if I choose
any path that engages in violence.
The only forms of opposition to abortion that I support are, likewise,
those that do not use violence or any threat of violence.
> >> >Gandhi is quoted as saying, "an eye for an eye, making the whole world
> >> >blind."
>
> >> Yea...
>
> >> Except we're not witnessing "an eye for an eye" are we?
>
> >> ProChioce supporters haven't murdered anyone.
>
> >> AntiAbortion supporters -have-.
>
> >Again, that's not how they see it. They do see it as murder.
>
> Rapists see rape as being acceptable.
>
> Are you also this understanding of their point of view, or is your
> understanding reserved for those who murder abortion providers?
Yes, actually, I *do* try to be as understanding and compassionate for
the rapist as I am for the person who was raped. No matter how
horrible anything is that anyone does, I have an understanding that if
I were to put myself in their shoes, having been raised as they were,
experienced all the abuses they experienced and everything, I would
have the same set of values as they do. I would think the same way
that they do. And I myself would have done what they did.
I am the stormtrooper. But for a switch of circumstances. Here's how
the Prophet Mick put it...
"I shouted out who killed the Kennedy's, when after all it was you and
me."
<snip>
> >I totally agree that the graph isn't highlighting abortions into a
> >separate category for those justified as medical necessity. I was
> >simply doing a first-order analysis with an understanding that there
> >is no way that the "medical necessity" category would take up the
> >majority of those 2nd Trimester numbers.
>
> >That is my assumption.
>
> According to the wiki article you cited, only about 16-17% of
> abortions are performed after the first trimester.
>
> While I would agree that probably not all of those abortions are
> medically necessary, I would argue that the later an abortion is
> performed, the more likely it is to be for medical reasons, including
> medical reasons on the part of the fetus, of course.
>
> You'll notice that hardly any abortions are performed in the third
> trimester, and I'd wager that almost all of those were performed for
> medically legitimate reasons of one sort or another.
I would certainly agree that many abortions done that late are for non-
elective reasons. As for the exact percentage, I do hope your
estimate is more accurate than mine.
> >And if you were to show me stats that do identify a significant chunk
> >of those as "medical necessity", then my first conclusion I'd jump to
> >is my expectation that the definition of "medical necessity" regarding
> >abortion is about as distorted as the concept of "medical necessity"
> >regarding the percentage of prescriptions written for "medicinal"
> >marijuana. Key & Peele did an excellent skit on this. The reason why
> >these kinds of comedy routines are so hilarious is because they hit so
> >close to the truth.
>
> >Now I can't stretch my imagination as to how comedians like Key &
> >Peele could pull off a similar skit on how "medical necessity" excuses
> >are abused when it comes to abortion. How could any comedian do that
> >without it just coming off as an atrocious tragedy? I don't know.
> >George Carlin might have been able to get laughs. He was a brilliant
> >comedian.
>
> >So yeah, the bottom line is a huge question mark on what constitutes a
> >legitimate "medical necessity", and what percentage are simply an
> >excuse for the procrastinators to off their, um, growth.
>
> As I noted below, the definition of "medical necessity" has been a
> point of great contention.
<snip>
> >> >Laws like these are landmark legislation that are totally about the
> >> >rights of the fetus.
>
> >> Not really.
>
> >> There not about the rights of a fetus.
>
> >> They're to establish that a fetus has rights, which is another matter
> >> entirely.
>
> >I fail to see any distinction.
>
> The distinction is that up until these laws were passed at a state and
> federal level, a fetus had no rights at all.
>
> Now, it can be argued that a fetus does have rights, and these laws
> are cited as evidence.
>
> It was a successful attempt to create legal precedent for fetal
> rights, which didn't exist before and therefore couldn't be cited as
> precedent, without making a direct attack on abortion.
>
> But, once the precedent is established, then fetal rights can be
> expanded to include abortion.
That is certainly their goal.
> >If your point is that the rights of
> >the fetus are secondary to the rights of the mother, I would agree.
>
> That's what I think, but that wasn't my point.
>
> >But secondary rights are a huge step up from no rights at all.
>
> Exactly. A huge step. And, that was the point of the law. These
> laws, inspired by the Peterson case, were the only place they could
> take such a huge step without being shut down.
>
> >> >At the Federal level in the US, it goes so far
> >> >as to emphasize the rights of a human embryo.
> >> >The law reads something
> >> >to the effect of, "the unborn baby at any stage of development".
>
> >> That's the propaganda aspect of the law.
>
> >> Notice they use words like "child" and "baby" as opposed to the
> >> medically correct terms like "zygote" and "fetus".
>
> >Yes, I did notice that. But the words "baby" and "child" can be
> >accurate words for a fetus, particularly if preceded by "unborn".
>
> They can be accurate, but accuracy clearly wasn't the goal.
>
> When ever a lawyer settles on a vague term instead of a precise term,
> it's a deliberate choice.
>
> The words were chosen for their propaganda value.
Yes, I see a lot of propaganda surrounding this issue.
> >>> >One embarrassment of the US Constitution is the "3/5ths compromise".
> >> >While today that looks like a stark anachronism, a graduated
> >> >fractional approach to human gestation would actually make a lot of
> >> >sense.
>
> >> Ummmmm...
>
> >> That's what the Supreme Court decided when they handed down Roe vs.
> >> Wade.
>
> >> The decision only eliminated restrictions on abortion for the first
> >> trimester.
>
> >> Abortions later in the gestational period can be regulated or
> >> proscribed.
>
> >> How is it that you don't already know this?
>
> >Roe/Wade did not establish a fractional equivalence to a full human
> >being at various stages of development. R/W gave a binary yes/no
> >decision as to when it was ok to abort.
>
> OK... I take your point.
>
> But, it did draw a distinction between a newly fertilized egg and a
> nearly developed fetus, as you did above.
>
> The SCOTUS recognized continuum of increasing humanity, so to speak.
>
> >> From the decision:
<snip>
> >> States allow exceptions for medically necessary late term abortions.
>
> >> That's why there's been a big fight over the meaning of "medically
> >> necessary".
>
> >> Generally speaking, there's a social consensus on allowing abortions
> >> in cases where the mother's physical health is clearly at risk.
>
> >> However, many people think that psychological reasons are also
> >> medically valid. Other's do not.
>
> >> That was the complaint against George Tiller by the religious right,
> >> before he was murdered.
>
> >> He was performing abortions on psychologically shattered women and
> >> girls who had been so badly abused that they were unable to seek an
> >> abortion earlier in their pregnancy. Many were minor incest victims
> >> who were suicidal and their doctors didn't feel that they were
> >> emotionally stable enough to carry the pregnancy to term without being
> >> at serious risk of killing themselves.
>
> >> That's the part the anti-abortion crowd always forgets to mention,
> >> because they don't believe such reasons are valid and don't really
> >> care about the welfare of the mother in the first place.
>
> >> While such cases are always judgment calls, are you prepared to tell a
> >> suicidal 13 year old girl who was raped repeatedly by her father that
> >> she has to carry the pregnancy to term?
>
> >> I'm sure as hell not.
>
> >O Rly? Rape victims have a responsibility to act promptly.
>
> >Sure there is psychological trauma involved. But there is also the
> >awareness that the violent event can lead to the creation of new
> >life. And so if the female has no interest in getting pregnant from
> >that event, it is her obligation to act as soon as possible. The
> >morning after is the most obvious time to act. There can be fully
> >subsidized examinations that reveal verifying evidence, and then
> >medication provided to prevent a fertilized ovum from advancing into a
> >pregnancy.
> >Showing up to the clinic four months after the event, crying about how
> >traumatized you've been over the past four months does not excuse the
> >failure to act.
>
> You're making a common mistake of presuming that when presented with a
> rational choice, a mentally ill person will choose rationally.
>
> Mentally ill people are frequently incapable of choosing rationally.
>
> That's why we refer to the mentally ill as being "irrational" as
> opposed to being "rational".
Yes, and even actions as extreme as murder are nearly excused by the
defense of insanity.
> >> That's not to say that there aren't a lot of real fanatics on the
> >> right who think that if a woman dies in pregnancy, that it's part of
> >> God's plan and that no abortions should be allowed at all, because
> >> there are.
>
> >Yeah, and there are those who would refuse to have a burst appendix
> >removed for similar reasons. Perfectly understandable, actually. But
> >another case of what I would call primitive reasoning.
>
> It may be logically consistent with their other beliefs, but I
> wouldn't call it understandable.
>
> But, that's a broader topic...
As I indicated above, I strive to be thoroughly understanding of
others, even if there are huge differences between them and me. Of
course understanding does not mean supportive. Nor does it mean
sympathetic.
What it leads to is being empathetic. And that can be healing.
> >> > Obviously before conception, the fraction would be zero. And
> >> >then at the point of viability, the fraction would be one. How the in-
> >> >between gets scaled would be a matter of debate, but it is perfectly
> >> >clear that using a fraction of 1/1 at week 1 is going too far.
>
> >> Until the recent attempts to outlaw abortion all together, that's
> >> where the battle was being fought, and why there is always debate over
> >> exceptions for the health of the mother.
>
> >> Many also support exceptions for rape and incest because of the way
> >> many women respond to such crimes, hiding their pregnancy in shame
> >> and/or fear, psychologically prevents them from seeking an abortion
> >> earlier in the pregnancy.
>
> >Well after the word gets out that women will be held accountable for
> >such "procrastination" (for lack of a better word) then it would
> >promptly deter such delays. Certainly this can be criticized for a
> >lack of compassion toward the woman's trauma, but what must be
> >balanced is the lack of compassion involved in delaying to the stage
> >of sentience before killing off the pregnancy.
>
> I don't think "lack of compassion" is strong enough. I would go with
> "calloused".
>
> I can only repeat what I said above.
>
> I think it would have very little effect on when women sought
> abortion.
>
> While it would definitely decrease the number of legally performed
> second and third trimester abortions, that decrease would almost
> certainly be accompanied by an increase in suicides or attempted
> suicides.
>
> It would also likely increase the number of self-performed attempts at
> abortion, with their attendant complications.
Yes, I see your point about it being callous. But there is a definite
callousness to later abortions too. This is a definite dilemma.
> >If immediately-after-the-fact pills were made available for such
> >cases, and exams were conducted in complete privacy and totally
> >discrete, then that could go a long way toward lowering the inhibition
> >these women feel.
>
> They -are- available. Right now.
>
> The problem is getting traumatized/ mentally ill women to avail
> themselves of treatment.
>
> It comes back to that rationality thing.
Yes, I see that. Now if those medications were as readily available
as in some kind of vending machine, that would bring the barrier way
down for the traumatized woman. But it would cause major problems for
others who did not have this need.
> > I'm sure others have put a heap load more thought
> >into solving this. The most effective solutions have probably come
> >from women who have survived this kind of mess.
>
> Guess which side is in opposition to morning after pills and making
> them easily obtainable?
Yes, I recognize that as a fault in their position.
<snip>
> >> ProChoice supports don't lobby against teaching abstinence.
>
> >> They lobby against teaching -only- abstinence.
>
> >> That's a big difference between the two sides that you seem to be
> >> totally overlooking.
>
> >> Teaching "abstinence only", which is what the right is pushing for,
> >> precludes teaching about birth control or anything else.
>
> >> That's why they call their sexual education plans "abstinence only".
>
> >> You didn't notice that?
>
> >Of course. But I've also noticed how the 'pro-choice' camp seems to
> >have significant pushback against *any* abstinence education.
>
> Where did you notice that?
>
> Name a proposed sex education curriculum from the left that didn't
> contain an abstinence section.
>
> I've never heard of one.
Ok, that would be a misperception of mine then.
> The left's big complaint with abstinence education is that it doesn't
> often work. They've no philosophical difficulty with it and aren't
> opposed to teaching it. They're just opposed to teaching it to the
> exclusion of everything else.
>
> On the other hand, the right sees comprehensive sex education as
> little more than "how to fuck" indoctrination.
>
> > The
> >smartest approach, I would think, is to reach the youngest level and
> >begin by teaching them abstinence only. (Again, that's how we all
> >start.) And then a year or two or three later... follow that up with,
> >"Um, remember how we taught you this abstinence thing? Well there may
> >come a time when you may want to do something different from
> >abstinence, and here's how that can be done smartly..."
>
> We don't need to develop a curriculum.
>
> It's already been done for us.
>
> Look to Northern Europe and the Noric countries and see how they do
> it.
>
> Collectively, they have the lowest teen pregnancy/abortion/STD rates
> in the world.
>
> The problem isn't one of not knowing what to do.
>
> We do know.
>
> The problem is persuading the right to stop opposing practices with a
> proven track record of success.
>
> And, it -is- the right who are in opposition.
I agree that there are many major problems caused by that position.
> >As for the proper order, I find it likewise sad to *initiate* sex ed
> >with topics like STDs and birth control. Those are not topics that
> >need to be covered at the first stage.
>
> Like I said above...
>
> The hard work has already been done by countries like Denmark and the
> Netherlands.
>
> >> The right opposes teaching everything above except abstinence.
>
> >> Again... How could you not notice that?
>
> >> It's mind boggling...
>
> >Yes, I know how there's a big push for 'abstinence only' sex ed.
>
> Then how can you claim that the fault lies equally with both sides?
The huge fault I see on the "pro-choice" side is a devastating lack of
due regard for the unborn life. But as for the approach to
comprehensive sex ed, even with what you are saying I am not so sure
that enough emphasis is being placed on the sacredness that sex can be
treated with. Merely talking about abstinence is not necessarily
promoting abstinence. That's where teaching lessons learned by the
older generation can be very helpful. Kids could be taught abstinence
from an adult who is passionate about it, whether they got that way
from being promiscuous and learning about the problems it caused or
because they chose that path from the beginning. And then kids could
be taught uninhibited sexuality from someone who fully believes in the
positive aspects of that lifestyle as well.
> >> >The total solution requires embracing both.
>
> >> the wrong choice.
>
> >> Because, the left is already down with your ideas.
>
> >Not completely. If I was a kid and I was getting my first course
> >about human sexuality, I'd be horribly shocked if I was learning about
> >Herpes and HIV the day after I was taught about the monogamous
> >commitment that Mom & Dad enjoyed. Those topics do not need to be
> >introduced until at least one year later, after the fundamentals have
> >had time to take root.
>
> You're arguing over minutia that you're not even sure exists.
>
> Every plan I've heard from the left on sex education contains the
> words "age appropriate".
>
> And, every plan proposed by the right contains the words "abstinence
> only".
>
> Until the above is settled, arguing about details about exactly when
> one should teach what is a bit pointless when considering the big
> picture.
Ok. And I guess I'd need to see examples of what you are saying is
adequate and thorough sex education before I'd be as convinced as you
are that they're where they need to be.
> >I think a healthy shift would include an increased emphasis on the
> >virtues of abstinence, and along with that a complete set of
> >alternative ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy (along with ways to avoid
> >the other junk that is totally unwanted).
>
> Aaaannnnddd....
>
> You lost the religious right with the second half of your sentence.
I have a lot more criticism for the religious right than just their
stand on human sexuality.
> Here's the Republican take on sex education from the 2008 Republican
> Platform. I don't know exactly what it is for this year, but I'd be
> shocked if it had substantially changed:
>
> "We renew our call for replacing “family planning” programs for teens
> with increased funding for abstinence education, which teaches
> abstinence until marriage as the responsible and expected standard of
> behavior. Abstinence from sexual activity is the only protection that
> is 100 percent effective against out-of-wedlock pregnancies and
> sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS when transmitted
> sexually. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referrals,
> counseling, and related services for abortion and contraception."
>
> See the problem?
>
> It's not with the left, it's with the right.
>
> Both sides are -not- equally guilty.
I agree with your criticism of the right. I understand what you're
saying about how the left is promoting a much healthier way. I'd just
need to see more in order to get to the point of being convinced of
that.
=Dustin
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages