Abortion or eugenics masquerading as choice?
lege...@hotmail.com
that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
difference are routinely eradicated.
The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
Tankard Reist takes aim at the medical profession, arguing that by
pressing women to terminate their pregnancies when their babies show
signs of disability, it is practising eugenics (the scientific
improvement of the human race) by another name.
She argues that both the extreme form of eugenics, practised in Nazi
Germany and what she sees as its modern-day practice, "are underpinned
by a belief that there is an unacceptable way of being human ... that
you have to get the genetic stamp of approval before you're allowed to
be born".
...
She quotes Australian geneticist Professor Grant Sutherland, who has
said that by preventing the birth of a child with Down syndrome, the
community is saved $1 million or more over the child's life.
"It's become a cost-benefit analysis in which the abortion of a child
with a disability becomes a bargain for everybody," she says.
...
Tankard Reist says women who resist the pressure to abort are made to
feel blame and guilt for producing an imperfect child. "They are made
to feel that they should not be supported because they've made bad
reproductive choices."
Tankard Reist, who has previously written a book about women's grief
after abortion, says she supports a woman's right to a termination.
But she believes that their choice is not really a free one in a
society that regards disability as a burden.
"Many women are aborting not because of choice but because of lack of
it," she says. "Women who choose termination for foetal abnormality are
choosing because they know the resources and the support are not going
to be there for their child."
...
Melbourne woman Leisa Whitaker, who was born with achondroplasia
(dwarfism), recounts in the book that she was asked by her specialist
to consider aborting her first child because it was likely he too would
have the condition.
"He asked us to think about whether we wanted to bring another dwarf
baby into the world," she says.
"It was something I hadn't even thought of. This was our child ... Why
would the world not accept our child?"
She has since given birth to three more children, all with dwarfism,
whom she describes as intelligent, thoughtful and a joy to be around.
Ms Whitaker wonders at the message the culture of perfection sends to
people living with disabilities.
"Does society think we are better off dead?" she asks.
Ray Fischer
>In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>difference are routinely eradicated.
>
>The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
>who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
>includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
>strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
spending nearly enough money on health care.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Johnny
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4431375c$0$58058$742e...@news.sonic.net...
You're not?
Thanks for telling us why everyone else's bills are so high.
And, also that the 'we' you refer to is spending money on abortions and
birth control devices and pills and transsexual operations.
I know we are wasting our health care dollars in the USA.
LC
<lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144060120.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> difference are routinely eradicated.
<snip a bunch of plagiarized crap>
How surprising: disingenuous anti-choicers in Oz like to use the "eugenics"
ruse as well.
Letter in The Age, Tuesday March 7, 2006:
"Melinda Tankard Reist is entitled to hold whatever views she likes about
pre-natal diagnosis and the decisions of women and couples to terminate
their pregnancies in the wake of information they learn from such
techniques. But Age readers should have the information necessary to put
those views in context.So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
high-profile anti-choice campaigner. A former advisor to former Senator
Brian Harradine, Ms Tankard Reist authored two chapters in the 1994 book
published by ACT Right to Life called The Abortion Debate: Pro-Life Essays
and is a Director of Women's Forum Australia, which describes itself as
"Pro-women & Pro-life". She does not, as she told your reporter, support a
woman's right to choose."
Denele Crozier, Women's Health NSW.
The Age, Tuesday March 7, 2006
LC~ Notes that this kind of crap circles the loo the same way on both sides
of the equator.
"Human history becomes more and more a race between education and
catastrophe."~ H. G. Wells
Rudy Canoza
Thanks for admitting it, naziboy.
It's a historical fact that promotion of abortion was always based on
eugenics, starting with Hitler (pro-abortion/-sterilization for 'subhumans')
and Margaret Sanger (pro-abortion/-sterilization for negros and the disabled).
Ray Fischer
>>>In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>>>that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>>>difference are routinely eradicated.
>>>
>>>The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
>>>who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
>>>includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
>>>strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
>>
>> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
>> spending nearly enough money on health care.
>
>You're not?
That's "sarcasm", moron.
and here's a definition since you have problems using dictionaries:
sarcasm: mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter,
caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an
individual
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>> >difference are routinely eradicated.
>> >
>> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
>> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
>> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
>> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
>>
>> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
>> spending nearly enough money on health care.
>
>Thanks for admitting it, naziboy.
Another sarcasm-impared lunatic.
>It's a historical fact that promotion of abortion was always based on
>eugenics,
It's a fact that there is no promotion of abortion at all in the US.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
lege...@hotmail.com
Thanks to bigots like you we are not spending enough on health care for
disabled people.
lege...@hotmail.com
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Rudy Canoza <can...@security.llc> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >>
> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> >> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> >> >difference are routinely eradicated.
> >> >
> >> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
> >> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
> >> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
> >> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
> >>
> >> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
> >> spending nearly enough money on health care.
> >
> >Thanks for admitting it, naziboy.
>
> Another sarcasm-impared lunatic.
It was your sarcasm that was referred to bigot
>
> >It's a historical fact that promotion of abortion was always based on
> >eugenics,
>
> It's a fact that there is no promotion of abortion at all in the US.
Its a fact that you are a liar and a bigot.
lege...@hotmail.com
LC wrote:
> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144060120.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> > that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> > difference are routinely eradicated.
>
> <snip a bunch of plagiarized crap>
>
> How surprising: disingenuous anti-choicers in Oz like to use the "eugenics"
> ruse as well.
Not 'anti choicers', just people who respect life. Calling a spade a
spade is not a ruse.
LC
<lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144143129.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
LOL. You mispelled "control freaks".
Like Ms. Tankard Reist, who has cribbed her 'eugenics' spin from the
grasping-at-straws fringe of the anti-abortion movement.
She's nothing more than their mouthpiece:
"So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
high-profile anti-choice campaigner. A former advisor to former Senator
Brian Harradine, Ms Tankard Reist authored two chapters in the 1994 book
published by ACT Right to Life called The Abortion Debate: Pro-Life Essays
and is a Director of Women's Forum Australia, which describes itself as
"Pro-women & Pro-life". She does not, as she told your reporter, support a
woman's right to choose."
Denele Crozier, Women's Health NSW.
The Age, Tuesday March 7, 2006
> Calling a spade a spade is not a ruse.
BS. The abortion/eugenics connection, a canard that the lunatic fringe of
the anti-choice movement likes to trot out, is nothing more than a ruse.
Of course, you'd know that if you weren't such a liar.
LC~ Scratch an anti-choicer, find a liar for Jebus.
"Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege."~Unknown
Bert Bishop
"Rudy Canoza" <can...@security.llc> wrote in message
news:44319FEB...@security.llc...
It is a historical fact that Margaret Sanger was not pro-abortion and did
not advocate the sterilization of negros as such. She had the support of all
of the major Black leaders of her time most notably W.E.B. Debois. (Who
really thinks the radical Debois would have supported someone who advocated
the sterilization of people just because they were Black?). And she wrote
about abortion
-- Begin Sanger quotes --
It has been manifested in such horrors
as infanticide, child abandonment and abortion.
It is apparent that nothing short of contraceptives can put an end to the
horrors of abortion and infanticide.
(Writing about abortion) Apparently, the numbers of these illegal
operations are increasing from year to year. From year to year more women
will undergo the humiliation, the danger and the horror of them, and the
terrible record, begun with the infanticide of the primitive peoples, will
go on piling up its volume of human misery and racial damage, until society
awakens to the fact that a fundamental remedy must be applied.
Do we
want the millions of abortions performed annually to be multiplied? Do we
want the precious, tender qualities of womanhood, so much needed for our
racial development, to perish in these sordid, abnormal experiences?
an abhorrent operation which kills the tenderness and delicacy of womanhood,
even as it
may injure or kill the body?
a humiliating, repulsive, painful and too often gravely dangerous operation
In plain, everyday language, in an abortion there is always a very serious
risk to the health and often to the life of the patient.
If death does not result, the woman who has undergone an abortion is not
altogether safe from harm. The womb may not return to its natural size, but
remain large and heavy, tending to fall away from its natural position.
Abortion often leaves the uterus in a condition to conceive easily again
and unless prevention is strictly followed another pregnancy will surely
occur. Frequent abortions tend to cause barrenness and serious, painful
pelvic ailments. These and other conditions arising from such operations
are very likely to ruin a woman's general health.
While there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as
justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of
thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to
civilization.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of
ignorance or accident, its children will become the foundation of a new
race. There will be no killing of babies in the womb by abortion...
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>> >difference are routinely eradicated.
>> >
>> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
>> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
>> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
>> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
>>
>> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
>> spending nearly enough money on health care.
>
>Thanks to bigots like you we are not spending enough on health care for
>disabled people.
In fact it is you right-wing neocons who are opposed to public health care.
Not us supposed "liberals".
Sorry, but it is consistently you anti-choicers who demand policies
which promote abortion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
robpar
But the dispute is about a woman's rights to make her own
decisions. The anti choicer's want to deny the woman the right to
choose. So anti choicer is correct. Pro-life is a damn lie. Pro-lifers
are not the least concerned about the life of women, who are in real
danger. Anti-choicer's who call them selves pro-lifers are lying
through their teeth. Their sole concern is control the lives of other
and make them miserable. Pro-lifers are pure evil.
lege...@hotmail.com
LC wrote:
> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144143129.6...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > LC wrote:
> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1144060120.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> > In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> >> > that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> >> > difference are routinely eradicated.
>
> >> <snip a bunch of plagiarized crap>
>
> >> How surprising: disingenuous anti-choicers in Oz like to use the
> >> "eugenics" ruse as well.
>
> > Not 'anti choicers', just people who respect life.
>
> LOL. You mispelled "control freaks".
I never typed "eugenic supporting abortion activists"
> Like Ms. Tankard Reist, who has cribbed her 'eugenics' spin from the
> grasping-at-straws fringe of the anti-abortion movement.
> She's nothing more than their mouthpiece:
Its not spin...humans are being terminated because of their
characteristics. Didn't you read the article. Are you that willing to
defend abortion even when it is being used as a tool of eugenics?
> > Calling a spade a spade is not a ruse.
>
> BS. The abortion/eugenics connection, a canard that the lunatic fringe of
> the anti-choice movement likes to trot out, is nothing more than a ruse.
Abortion is a tool of those who control freaks who promote eugenics
>
> Of course, you'd know that if you weren't such a liar.
So know you resort to patheitc unsupported insults
>
> LC~ Scratch an anti-choicer, find a liar for Jebus.
Scratch an abortion activist, find a eugenic supporting control freak
>
lege...@hotmail.com
Ray Fischer wrote:
> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> >> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> >> >difference are routinely eradicated.
> >> >
> >> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
> >> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
> >> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
> >> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
> >>
> >> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
> >> spending nearly enough money on health care.
> >
> >Thanks to bigots like you we are not spending enough on health care for
> >disabled people.
>
> In fact it is you right-wing neocons who are opposed to public health care.
> Not us supposed "liberals".
Because you care so much hey? We've seen your bigotry towards disabled
humans.
>
> Sorry, but it is consistently you anti-choicers who demand policies
> which promote abortion.
Liar
lege...@hotmail.com
Liar
John Savard
part:
(quoted)
>> In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>> that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>> difference are routinely eradicated.
>How surprising: disingenuous anti-choicers in Oz like to use the "eugenics"
>ruse as well.
(quoted)
>So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
>high-profile anti-choice campaigner.
It certainly is true that people who feel that the distinction between a
fetus and a baby is irrelevant to whether or not people should be
allowed to kill them are more likely to point out negative consequences
of the existence of legal abortion.
If abortion either doesn't exist, or the law punishes it like murder,
then, if someone gives birth to a disabled child, this event is going to
be regarded as an accident that could happen to anyone.
If, on the other hand, prenatal diagnosis of fetal abnormality is
routine and common, and only a few people generally regarded as
eccentrics or nut cases see anything objectionable about abortion in
such a circumstance, then one might expect that the priority of treating
what are seen as preventable medical conditions will be questioned.
This isn't a dishonest or even disingenuous thing to point out. It is
true that the well-being of innocent disabled and born children is
emotionally appealing, and is something people can be concerned about
even if they are not against abortion.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Bert Bishop
"John Savard" <jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote in message
news:4433bb76...@news.usenetzone.com...
All and all a thoughtful post. However, the dishonesty that was claimed for
Tankard Reist I think rested on the following from the original post (also
quoted):
"Tankard Reist, ... says she supports a woman's right to a termination."
If this is true and if the quoted part from LC to the effect that she is a
long time well identified "pro-life" activist then the suspicion of
dishonesty is not altogether unjustified.
LC had posted:
Ray Fischer
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>> >> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>> >> >difference are routinely eradicated.
>> >> >
>> >> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
>> >> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
>> >> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
>> >> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
>> >>
>> >> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
>> >> spending nearly enough money on health care.
>> >
>> >Thanks to bigots like you we are not spending enough on health care for
>> >disabled people.
>>
>> In fact it is you right-wing neocons who are opposed to public health care.
>> Not us supposed "liberals".
>
>Because you care so much hey?
The neocon liar changes the subject. What a surprise.
> We've seen your bigotry towards disabled
>humans.
No, liar, you haven't.
>> Sorry, but it is consistently you anti-choicers who demand policies
>> which promote abortion.
>
>Liar
Oooo! What a rebuttal! Ignore your lies, ignore the
anti-contraception anti-educaiton efforts of you anti-choicers
just so that you can try to deny the obvious.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
ALL of your arguments are about forcing women to obey.
None are about helping people. None are about respecting people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:02:43 -0500, "LC" <LCi...@this.com> wrote, in
>part:
>><lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1144060120.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>(quoted)
>>> In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>>> that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>>> difference are routinely eradicated.
>
>>How surprising: disingenuous anti-choicers in Oz like to use the "eugenics"
>>ruse as well.
>
>(quoted)
>>So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
>>high-profile anti-choice campaigner.
>
>It certainly is true that people who feel that the distinction between a
>fetus and a baby is irrelevant to whether or not people should be
>allowed to kill them are more likely to point out negative consequences
And there is the anti-abortion lie. These corrupt zealots demonize
all opposition by portraying people as killers. The truth is that it
is about the right to protect yourself from harm and the right to be
free of the abject servitude these corrupt anti-choice control freaks
wish to impose.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John Savard
part:
>And there is the anti-abortion lie. These corrupt zealots demonize
>all opposition by portraying people as killers. The truth is that it
>is about the right to protect yourself from harm and the right to be
>free of the abject servitude these corrupt anti-choice control freaks
>wish to impose.
As you know, I disagree.
Whether or not abortion is killing depends on what a fetus - or embryo -
is.
It is active interference with an ongoing natural nurturing process. And
so it's still killing even if the unborn child has no right to making
the demands that pregnancy makes of the mother.
The fetus, if a human being, is an incompetent baby. The pregnancy, on
the other hand, is not a human being, but simply a fact of nature, like
the weather.
Taking a woman off the street and implanting a frozen embryo into her
violates her rights - and can't be done even to save the life of an
embryo from a fertility clinic.
By the same token, taking a fetus out of the womb in which it is located
so that it can no longer survive violates the *fetus'* rights - and
can't be done, even to rescue a woman from slavery.
This means that abortions - if they lead to the death of a human being -
can't even be performed in cases of rape. To deal with this, two obvious
things can be done: have grotesquely savage penalties for rape, to show
that we are committed to deterring this monstrous crime - and to allow
abortion when it is not clear that we are dealing with a human being.
Sadly, I think it *is* clear by the seventh week, if not sooner. This
makes it hard to find a consensus that will make almost everyone happy.
In order to allow abortion, and yet be consistent with how we deal with
other cases, we really would have to show that there is a significant
intrinsic difference between a fetus and a baby. Which does not have to
do with the awkwardness of transferring the responsiblility for its
care.
Sex is not a crime, but it is a voluntary act people engage in for their
own pleasure - hence, their own gain. No injustice is involved,
therefore, in holding those who engage in it responsible for any
externalities it may involve. (Admittedly, our society is not uniformly
strict in holding people - and corporations - responsible for
externalities.)
And conceiving a child in one's womb is not like not giving to Unicef or
Oxfam. It is directly causative of the child's dependency. It's like
doing someone an injury.
Of course, that opens up another kettle of fish. If we hold that incest
is really *two* crimes - one, a form of statutory rape, and the other a
crime against offspring placed at risk for genetic defect - then it
might be asked why we don't make genetic screening mandatory for people
who reproduce. Or sterilize all women at some ridiculously low age -
like age 27, when the risk of Down's Syndrome starts increasing more
rapidly with age. So there are problems with this viewpoint as well.
The fact that abortion *is* an act, and not an omission, may not seem
like much - but it can make all the difference in the world.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote, in
>>And there is the anti-abortion lie. These corrupt zealots demonize
>>all opposition by portraying people as killers. The truth is that it
>>is about the right to protect yourself from harm and the right to be
>>free of the abject servitude these corrupt anti-choice control freaks
>>wish to impose.
>
>As you know, I disagree.
Because your hate has corrupted you.
>Whether or not abortion is killing depends on what a fetus - or embryo -
>is.
No, fanatic, it does not.
>It is active interference with an ongoing natural nurturing process.
Just as ALL medical care is interference with an ongoing natural
process of death.
And if you're going to be farting idiocy about "natural" then you'd
better give up that computer you're using. It makes you look like a
dishonest control freak to expect other people to die for "natural"
while you enjoy all the benefits of "artificial".
> And
>so it's still killing even if the unborn child has no right to making
>the demands that pregnancy makes of the mother.
Then YOU ARE A KILLER! Your own words damn you as a cold-blooded killer.
Because YOU choose to willingly and knowingly let children die that
you could have saved, you are worse from a woman who has refused to
sacrifice herself for the benefit of a fetus because you don't even
want to put up with inconvenience.
You're like any other murderous despot who wants to improve people by
killing them.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
lege...@hotmail.com
Maybe she does support their 'right', but does not support this action
unless it is used as a last resort, because she can see that it results
in the loss of a humans life. Can't somone be 'pro choice' but still
pro 'life'?
>
> LC had posted:
> >>So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
> >>high-profile anti-choice campaigner.
I always thought she was a 'pro life' supporter so I was suprised to
see it mentioned that she "...supports a woman's right to a
termination." This does not make her 'anti choice', just one particluar
choice.
lege...@hotmail.com
Ray Fischer wrote:
> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> >> >> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> >> >> >difference are routinely eradicated.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
> >> >> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
> >> >> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
> >> >> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
> >> >> spending nearly enough money on health care.
> >> >
> >> >Thanks to bigots like you we are not spending enough on health care for
> >> >disabled people.
> >>
> >> In fact it is you right-wing neocons who are opposed to public health care.
> >> Not us supposed "liberals".
> >
> >Because you care so much hey?
>
> The neocon liar changes the subject. What a surprise.
You said "Not us supposed "liberals". Does that make me a "liberal"
considering I am not opposed to public health care? If you don't care
do you only support public health care for your own benefit?
>
> > We've seen your bigotry towards disabled
> >humans.
>
> No, liar, you haven't.
Then why are you defending this eugenic practice?
>
> >> Sorry, but it is consistently you anti-choicers who demand policies
> >> which promote abortion.
> >
> >Liar
>
> Oooo! What a rebuttal!
It was all your comment deserved.
Ignore your lies, ignore the
> anti-contraception anti-educaiton efforts of you anti-choicers
> just so that you can try to deny the obvious.
What lies? How can I be "anti contraception", and "anti-educaiton" when
I am paid to educate about contraception in public schools. As a health
teacher it is part of my job. What has this got to do with providing
women with real choices about keeping their disabled children?
lege...@hotmail.com
Ray Fischer wrote:
> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >LC wrote:
> >> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:1144060120.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >> >> > In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> >> >> > that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> >> >> > difference are routinely eradicated.
> >> >>
> >> >> <snip a bunch of plagiarized crap>
> >> >>
> >> >> How surprising: disingenuous anti-choicers in Oz like to use the "eugenics"
> >> >> ruse as well.
> >> >
> >> >Not 'anti choicers', just people who respect life.
> >>
> >> You don't respect life. You demand obedience.
> >
> >Liar
>
> ALL of your arguments are about forcing women to obey.
Nope. Liar.
>
> None are about helping people. None are about respecting people.
You didn't read the article?
"Strangers asked parents of disabled children why they had not had a
prenatal test, patients were pressured against going ahead with births,
with one doctor reportedly telling an expectant mother that her child
"will only
be a pet". She said the women in her book had confronted the impersonal
"quality control" of current practice."
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-defiant-ones/2006/03/29/1143441215883.html
How is terminating disbaled children respcting people? It seems you are
the one who is demanding people obey by supporting eugenic practices.
This article wasn't about abortion per se, but eugenics.
lege...@hotmail.com
Ray Fischer wrote:
> John Savard <jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
> >On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:02:43 -0500, "LC" <LCi...@this.com> wrote, in
> >part:
> >><lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:1144060120.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >(quoted)
> >>> In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> >>> that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> >>> difference are routinely eradicated.
> >
> >>How surprising: disingenuous anti-choicers in Oz like to use the "eugenics"
> >>ruse as well.
> >
> >(quoted)
> >>So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
> >>high-profile anti-choice campaigner.
> >
> >It certainly is true that people who feel that the distinction between a
> >fetus and a baby is irrelevant to whether or not people should be
> >allowed to kill them are more likely to point out negative consequences
>
> And there is the anti-abortion lie. These corrupt zealots demonize
> all opposition by portraying people as killers. The truth is that it
> is about the right to protect yourself from harm
Fine, protect yourself from harm, with reasonable force. Dos this mean
we should not expect any toleranance from people?
and the right to be
> free of the abject servitude these corrupt anti-choice control freaks
> wish to impose.
You are the control freak, such a rabid abortion activist you don't
even care if it's being used as a tool for eugenics.
lege...@hotmail.com
As you can see John, Ray is not so big on being rational. He won't even
admit what a foetal human is. He won't even admit that a foetus is an
organism (I'm not sure if he means all foetal organisms or just human
ones) because of a dictionairy definition that says an organism must be
'seperate' from any other, and must be entirely independent. I don't
know what he thinks parasites are??
Paul Anderson
>Maybe she does support their 'right', but does not support this action
>unless it is used as a last resort, because she can see that it results
>in the loss of a humans life. Can't somone be 'pro choice' but still
>pro 'life'?
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language as
cited by dictionary.com:
pro-choice:.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
pro-life
Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses,
especially by opposing legalized abortion
For someone to claim to the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice they would have to
deny the right of the woman to a legal abortion while supporting the
legal right of the woman to terminate her pregnancy. And by
terminating her pregnancy we do not mean spending the next 7-8 months
being pregnant and then giving birth. This is not possioble, AFAIK.
The Pro-Life position can only be justified by the use of flasehoods
and distortions and ignoring the human rights of pregnant women.
Claiming to be Pro-Choice is one of the many lies used by Pro-Lifers.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>> >> >> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>> >> >> >difference are routinely eradicated.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
>> >> >> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
>> >> >> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
>> >> >> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
>> >> >> spending nearly enough money on health care.
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks to bigots like you we are not spending enough on health care for
>> >> >disabled people.
>> >>
>> >> In fact it is you right-wing neocons who are opposed to public health care.
>> >> Not us supposed "liberals".
>> >
>> >Because you care so much hey?
>>
>> The neocon liar changes the subject. What a surprise.
>
>You said "Not us supposed "liberals".
And then you changed the subject.
> Does that make me a "liberal"
>considering I am not opposed to public health care?
Sure looks that way.
>> > We've seen your bigotry towards disabled
>> >humans.
>>
>> No, liar, you haven't.
>
>Then why are you defending this eugenic practice?
I'm not. That all your evil lie.
>> >> Sorry, but it is consistently you anti-choicers who demand policies
>> >> which promote abortion.
>> >
>> >Liar
>>
>> Oooo! What a rebuttal!
>
>It was all your comment deserved.
Run away, pro-liar.
>> Ignore your lies, ignore the
>> anti-contraception anti-education efforts of you anti-choicers
>> just so that you can try to deny the obvious.
>
>What lies?
"why are you defending this eugenic practice"
> How can I be "anti contraception", and "anti-educaiton" when
>I am paid to educate about contraception in public schools.
You _are_ a liberal.
> As a health
>teacher it is part of my job. What has this got to do with providing
>women with real choices about keeping their disabled children?
What "real choices"? You don't offer any choice at all. You demand
that they do as you wish.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
You seem to think that personal attacks substitute for rational
arguments.
> He won't even
>admit what a foetal human is.
You pro-liar have nothing but lies.
> He won't even admit that a foetus is an
>organism
Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
organism.
>(I'm not sure if he means all foetal organisms or just human
>ones) because of a dictionairy definition that says an organism must be
>'seperate' from any other, and must be entirely independent.
So you think that you're right and dictionaries are wrong?!?
You _are_ an arrogant lunatic.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> John Savard <jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
>> >On Mon, 3 Apr 2006 14:02:43 -0500, "LC" <LCi...@this.com> wrote, in
>> >part:
>> >><lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>news:1144060120.2...@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >(quoted)
>> >>> In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
>> >>> that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
>> >>> difference are routinely eradicated.
>> >
>> >>How surprising: disingenuous anti-choicers in Oz like to use the "eugenics"
>> >>ruse as well.
>> >
>> >(quoted)
>> >>So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
>> >>high-profile anti-choice campaigner.
>> >
>> >It certainly is true that people who feel that the distinction between a
>> >fetus and a baby is irrelevant to whether or not people should be
>> >allowed to kill them are more likely to point out negative consequences
>>
>> And there is the anti-abortion lie. These corrupt zealots demonize
>> all opposition by portraying people as killers. The truth is that it
>> is about the right to protect yourself from harm
>
>Fine, protect yourself from harm, with reasonable force. Dos this mean
>we should not expect any toleranance from people?
This episode of non sequitur theatre has been brought to you by
another anonymous pro-liar.
>> and the right to be
>> free of the abject servitude these corrupt anti-choice control freaks
>> wish to impose.
>
>You are the control freak, such a rabid abortion activist you don't
"I know you are but what am I?"
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Bert Bishop
<lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144579119....@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Interesting use of quotation marks.
The question here is whether she supports the right to termination or not.
To say that one is a a "pro-life" activist means that they activly oppose
the right to termination. It is a matter of defintion. Whethre a person is
" pro 'life' " is another matter altogether. See Paul Anderson's post
for the definitions of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as used by most people in
this context. There is no way we can communicate if we can't agree on the
meaning of these terms.
When she said that she was for the right to terminate she was probably being
dishonest.
>>
>> LC had posted:
>> >>So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
>> >>high-profile anti-choice campaigner.
>
> I always thought she was a 'pro life' supporter so I was suprised to
> see it mentioned that she "...supports a woman's right to a
> termination." This does not make her 'anti choice', just one particluar
> choice.
The above paragraph is just awful. First I never said anything about anyone
being 'anti choice'; despite being "pro-choice" I am not particulary fond of
the kind of rhortical garbage that results in such terms. Second, the use
of quotes in the last sentence is strange since with them it makes no sense
but without them it does make sense. Third, the last sentence without
quotes while logically consistent is just plain silly. If you think someone
is for choice because they allow only one choice you have a deeper
appreciation for semantics than I do or you are fooling youself. Why do I
supect the latter?
lege...@hotmail.com
Paul Anderson wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2006 03:38:39 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> >Maybe she does support their 'right', but does not support this action
> >unless it is used as a last resort, because she can see that it results
> >in the loss of a humans life. Can't somone be 'pro choice' but still
> >pro 'life'?
>
> From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language as
> cited by dictionary.com:
>
> pro-choice:.
> Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
> whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
>
> pro-life
> Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses,
> especially by opposing legalized abortion
>
> For someone to claim to the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice they would have to
> deny the right of the woman to a legal abortion while supporting the
> legal right of the woman to terminate her pregnancy. And by
> terminating her pregnancy we do not mean spending the next 7-8 months
> being pregnant and then giving birth. This is not possioble, AFAIK.
I was merely suggesting that she MAY support the legal termination of a
pregnancy, but see it as a procedure that should not be taken lightly
because of the loss of the young humans life. I should not have used
the slogans used by both sides.
lege...@hotmail.com
You were the one that suggested one groupd cared more than the other. I
merely asked if you cared. Please, try and keep up.
> > Does that make me a "liberal"
> >considering I am not opposed to public health care?
>
> Sure looks that way.
Make your mind up. You called me a 'neocon' earlier in the thread.
>
> >> > We've seen your bigotry towards disabled
> >> >humans.
> >>
> >> No, liar, you haven't.
> >
> >Then why are you defending this eugenic practice?
>
> I'm not. That all your evil lie.
Why else would you respond to this thread unless you were supporting or
condemning this actions. You replied to the original thread with your
sarcastic...."Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans.
We're not spending nearly enough money on health care." It sure sounds
like you are defending it.
>
> >> >> Sorry, but it is consistently you anti-choicers who demand policies
> >> >> which promote abortion.
> >> >
> >> >Liar
> >>
> >> Oooo! What a rebuttal!
> >
> >It was all your comment deserved.
>
> Run away, pro-liar.
Nothing to run away from.
>
> >> Ignore your lies, ignore the
> >> anti-contraception anti-education efforts of you anti-choicers
> >> just so that you can try to deny the obvious.
> >
> >What lies?
>
> "why are you defending this eugenic practice"
Why else would you respond to this thread unless you were supporting or
condemning this actions. You replied to the original thread with your
sarcastic...."Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans.
We're not spending nearly enough money on health care." It sure sounds
like you are defending it.
>
> > How can I be "anti contraception", and "anti-educaiton" when
> >I am paid to educate about contraception in public schools.
>
> You _are_ a liberal.
And I'm a 'neocon', make your mind up.
>
> > As a health
> >teacher it is part of my job. What has this got to do with providing
> >women with real choices about keeping their disabled children?
>
> What "real choices"? You don't offer any choice at all. You demand
> that they do as you wish.
Maybe you should read the article originally cited. It is our (liberal)
society that is demanding women do not give birth to children without
the desired traits.
lege...@hotmail.com
Nope.
>
> > He won't even
> >admit what a foetal human is.
>
> You pro-liar have nothing but lies.
What lie?
>
> > He won't even admit that a foetus is an
> >organism
>
> Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
> organism.
It meets all the 7 criteria needed to be an organism.
Growth
Movement (includes movement inside cells)
Reproduction (of new cells)
Need for nutrition
Respiration
Removes wastes
Responds to external stimuli
>
> >(I'm not sure if he means all foetal organisms or just human
> >ones) because of a dictionairy definition that says an organism must be
> >'seperate' from any other, and must be entirely independent.
>
> So you think that you're right and dictionaries are wrong?!?
Context!!! The embryo is attached but is still seperate, as is a
parasite.
>
> You _are_ an arrogant lunatic.
That would be you. Even after all the definitions I have shown that
DEFINE an embryo as a 'developing organism' or 'young organism' you
cannot admit you are wrong. You are the arrogant one Mr Fisher.
lege...@hotmail.com
The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
ask for.
>
> >> and the right to be
> >> free of the abject servitude these corrupt anti-choice control freaks
> >> wish to impose.
> >
> >You are the control freak, such a rabid abortion activist you don't
>
> "I know you are but what am I?"
A coward that has to snip what I wrote, and is too pathetic to respond
to what I wrote.
It's quite funny that you should use the above line considering all
you do is place labels on people and never actually engange in rational
debate.
lege...@hotmail.com
I should have used different terms, instead of the slogans used. Pro
'life' was a lame attempt to distinguish from the "pro life" position.
>
> The question here is whether she supports the right to termination or not.
> To say that one is a a "pro-life" activist means that they activly oppose
> the right to termination. It is a matter of defintion. Whethre a person is
> " pro 'life' " is another matter altogether. See Paul Anderson's post
> for the definitions of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" as used by most people in
> this context. There is no way we can communicate if we can't agree on the
> meaning of these terms.
I should not have used the slogans which both sides use. I am as
confused as anyone to hear that she supports a "right" to an abortion.
I have never heard that from her.
"Pro-Life is the self-description for those in North America and Great
Britain who are of the general political opinion that abortion,
embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and other issues regarding
the sanctity of life are morally wrong and should be illegal in MOST
cases."
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:Pro+Life&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
>
> When she said that she was for the right to terminate she was probably being
> dishonest.
If that's what she actually said. She might believe that in some cases
an abortion should be legal? but still support the sanctity of life
>
> >>
> >> LC had posted:
> >> >>So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
> >> >>high-profile anti-choice campaigner.
> >
> > I always thought she was a 'pro life' supporter so I was suprised to
> > see it mentioned that she "...supports a woman's right to a
> > termination." This does not make her 'anti choice', just one particluar
> > choice.
>
> The above paragraph is just awful. First I never said anything about anyone
> being 'anti choice';
Not you...
LC had posted:
"So for the record, Tankard Reist is a long-time
high-profile anti-choice campaigner."
despite being "pro-choice" I am not particulary fond of
> the kind of rhortical garbage that results in such terms. Second, the use
> of quotes in the last sentence is strange since with them it makes no sense
> but without them it does make sense. Third, the last sentence without
> quotes while logically consistent is just plain silly. If you think someone
> is for choice because they allow only one choice you have a deeper
> appreciation for semantics than I do or you are fooling youself. Why do I
> supect the latter?
Because someone is against the choice of abortion does not make them
anti choice. I did not post the original thread to waste time debating
semantics. I just wanted to respond that I was surprised to hear that
Tankard Reist supported the 'right' to an abortion. Perhaps I should
have left it at that, without trying to understand why she might have
said such a thing. She has written about the grief mothers experience
after an abortion as well as this latest book relating to eugenic
practices and I'd always considered her to be 'pro life'.
Dutch
<lege...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144828547.8...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
It's not funny, it's pitiful. He's a disgrace to the pro-choice movement.
Paul Anderson
>
>Paul Anderson wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2006 03:38:39 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Maybe she does support their 'right', but does not support this action
>> >unless it is used as a last resort, because she can see that it results
>> >in the loss of a humans life. Can't somone be 'pro choice' but still
>> >pro 'life'?
>>
>> From The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language as
>> cited by dictionary.com:
>>
>> pro-choice:.
>> Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
>> whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
>>
>> pro-life
>> Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses,
>> especially by opposing legalized abortion
>>
>> For someone to claim to the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice they would have to
>> deny the right of the woman to a legal abortion while supporting the
>> legal right of the woman to terminate her pregnancy. And by
>> terminating her pregnancy we do not mean spending the next 7-8 months
>> being pregnant and then giving birth. This is not possioble, AFAIK.
>
>I was merely suggesting that she MAY support the legal termination of a
>pregnancy, but see it as a procedure that should not be taken lightly
>because of the loss of the young humans life. I should not have used
>the slogans used by both sides.
Why should you not? It was a lie and the Pro-Life agenda has nothing
else. It is the Pro-Life claim that an embryo *IS* a human life with
the same rights as a born human being -- and that it is permissible to
kill human beings based upon their genetic origins. If these
positions are not lies then Pro-Life is the most immoral position.
Pro-Choice people are not so uncaring about human life as to accept
killing human beings for convenience.
Paul Anderson
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
.....
>> > He won't even admit that a foetus is an
>> >organism
>>
>> Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
>> organism.
>
>It meets all the 7 criteria needed to be an organism.
>
>Growth
>Movement (includes movement inside cells)
>Reproduction (of new cells)
>Need for nutrition
>Respiration
>Removes wastes
>Responds to external stimuli
1. That is not the definition of an organism.
2. That "definition" makes any human cancer tumor an organism and
thus a human being. Since a cancer tumor is not an organism/human
being your "7 criteria needed to be an organism" is falsified.
Paul Anderson
....
>The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
>ask for.
Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
woman.
Paul Anderson
....
>If that's what she actually said. She might believe that in some cases
>an abortion should be legal? but still support the sanctity of life
How can you support the sanctity of life while accepting that it
should be perfectly legal to kill human beings for convenience?
It is this nonchalance of most Pro-Lifers toward human life that
convinces me that they are lying about the unborn chile being an
actual human life.
...
>Because someone is against the choice of abortion does not make them
>anti choice....
With regard to an early pregnancy the choices are to terminate to
carry to term. In this case there are no other choices. If you are
against one of the choices you are against any choice is this matter.
If you are against the choice of abortion you are anti-choice no
matter how you try to spin the lies.
robpar
>> Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
>> organism.
>
>It meets all the 7 criteria needed to be an organism.
>
As well as meeting the criteria of a parasite.
parasite (pàr´e-sìt´) noun
1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or
in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of
its host.
Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further
reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of
the United States. All rights reserved.
>Growth
Which is at the expense of the Host.
>Movement (includes movement inside cells)
Which is common for all parasites
>Reproduction (of new cells)
At the expense of the host body
>Need for nutrition
Which is supplied by the host body.
>Respiration
At the expense of the host body
>Removes wastes
At the expense of the host body
>Responds to external stimuli
>
Just like other parasites.
In a unwanted pregnancy, the fetus meets all the criteria of a
parasite, and like any parasite, it can cause harm, and even death.
BTW,
I am appalled by abortions, and believe we should do what ever is
possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Women have and should have the right to control their own bodies.
So I am pro-life, but not anti-choice. I believe that women should
choose to carry any pregnancy to term, unless there is a health
problem that makes it dangerous to the woman. I applaud the women that
choose life over abortion.
I am pro-choice because I believe in the rights of women to choose.
Remove that choice, and women are reduced to slavery, with no control
over their own bodies.
Ray Fischer
There is ample evidence that "conservatives" do NOT want to spend
money on health care for others.
>> >> > We've seen your bigotry towards disabled
>> >> >humans.
>> >>
>> >> No, liar, you haven't.
>> >
>> >Then why are you defending this eugenic practice?
>>
>> I'm not. That all your evil lie.
>
>Why else would you respond to this thread unless you were supporting or
>condemning this actions.
To refute your evil lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> John Savard <jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
>> >> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote, in
>> >> > And
>> >> >so it's still killing even if the unborn child has no right to making
>> >> >the demands that pregnancy makes of the mother.
>> >>
>> >> Then YOU ARE A KILLER! Your own words damn you as a cold-blooded killer.
>> >>
>> >> Because YOU choose to willingly and knowingly let children die that
>> >> you could have saved, you are worse from a woman who has refused to
>> >> sacrifice herself for the benefit of a fetus because you don't even
>> >> want to put up with inconvenience.
>> >>
>> >> You're like any other murderous despot who wants to improve people by
>> >> killing them.
>> >
>> >As you can see John, Ray is not so big on being rational.
>>
>> You seem to think that personal attacks substitute for rational
>> arguments.
>
>Nope.
Yes. You cannot even begin to refute what I wrote because it is the
truth.
>> > He won't even
>> >admit what a foetal human is.
>>
>> You pro-liar have nothing but lies.
>
>What lie?
Your statement, moron.
>> > He won't even admit that a foetus is an
>> >organism
>>
>> Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
>> organism.
>
>It meets all the 7 criteria needed to be an organism.
You're lying again by making up your own definition for "organism".
>> >(I'm not sure if he means all foetal organisms or just human
>> >ones) because of a dictionairy definition that says an organism must be
>> >'seperate' from any other, and must be entirely independent.
>>
>> So you think that you're right and dictionaries are wrong?!?
>
>Context!!!
Bullshit!!!
>The embryo is attached but is still seperate,
You're a lying fanatic. You can't even notice that you contradict
yourself. The cognitive dissonance had made you nuts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> This episode of non sequitur theatre has been brought to you by
>> another anonymous pro-liar.
>
>The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy.
Then we are justified in taking YOUR money, YOUR freedom, and parts
of YOUR body.
But you don't like that. You're just another control freak and
hypocrite who wants to make women suffer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dutch
"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
> On 12 Apr 2006 00:55:47 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> ....
>
>>The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
>>ask for.
>
> Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
> and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
It doesn't sound anything like that. It sounds like he is demanding the
woman complete a pregnancy which she began.
> Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
> the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
> woman.
A fetus or embryo *is* a human life. Why do you find it necessary to lie to
promote choice in abortion? Do you not find reproductive freedom a worthy
cause on it's own merits?
Paul Anderson
>
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
>> On 12 Apr 2006 00:55:47 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> ....
>>
>>>The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
>>>ask for.
>>
>> Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
>> and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
>
>It doesn't sound anything like that. It sounds like he is demanding the
>woman complete a pregnancy which she began.
>
>> Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
>> the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
>> woman.
>
>A fetus or embryo *is* a human life.
It is not a human life in the meaning of the life of a human being.
This is a basic Pro-Life lie that has been debunked time and time
again. That you refuse to accept facts is not my problem.
> Why do you find it necessary to lie to promote choice in abortion?
I don't. Why do you find it necessary to lie to try to deny a woman
her basic human rights?
> Do you not find reproductive freedom a worthy
>cause on it's own merits?
The right to reproduce is a basic human right, according to the US
Supreme Court, and enjoys Constitutional protection. I am not out to
support causes. I have been looking for justification to ban abortion
for over a decade.
John Savard
part:
>Because your hate has corrupted you.
Yet your tone and choice of words would seem to be those of one with
that emotion, rather than mine.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote, in
>>Because your hate has corrupted you.
>
>Yet your tone and choice of words would seem to be those of one with
>that emotion, rather than mine.
I know better than to think that hate need to be emotional. The
deadliest are those who hate coldly and dispassionately, because
they can kill, lie, decieve without care or remorse.
6,000,000 people didn't die in WWII because of anger. They died
because of hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>>>The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
>>>ask for.
>>
>> Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
>> and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
>
>It doesn't sound anything like that. It sounds like he is demanding the
>woman complete a pregnancy which she began.
Punishment for crime.
>> Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
>> the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
>> woman.
>
>A fetus or embryo *is* a human life.
Just like sperm and egg.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John Savard
part:
Now, that is something I can agree with.
A false belief, if held to tenaciously, can have as its consequence
other false beliefs, more obviously false to an outside observer, that
have terrible consequences.
So we should think carefully before acting. We should examine our
beliefs carefully, and not only for their logical consistency. This is
why we need to be open to what our emotions tell us, because a negative
emotional response need not be mere squeamishness: it can be a sanity
check on the corollaries of our starting postulates.
Could my thinking be influenced by hate? Certainly, there are things I
dislike strongly, or even abominate.
The people of democratic countries like the United States have, in
recent years, faced three threats.
There was Nazism, a brutal tyranny based on notions of racial supremacy.
Such notions have caused human misery before, such as in the case of
Negro slavery.
There was Communism, another brutal tyranny that obtained power through
demagoguery, and a pretended sympathy for the downtrodden and poor. One
can think of the Terror after the French Revolution as a precedent for
this.
And today there is terrorism. Terrorism fueled by a fanatical and
intolerant brand of Islam. Religious intolerance is also not new; there
was the Inquisition.
One might think it is hard to go wrong, despising those three things.
But down any road lie dangers if it is followed blindly.
(1)
Today, parents in some American cities are afraid that their children
will be robbed of their lunch money at knifepoint while at school. How
did this come to be?
After slavery was abolished, black people were still discriminated
against in the United States. Separate schools were operated for blacks
and whites, and the ones for blacks did not provide an equal quality of
education.
As a result, the courts eventually outlawed school segregation. And they
also forbade various possible subterfuges by which segregation might be
concealed. Such things as 'neighborhood schools', or special schools for
children who had disabilities or behavior problems.
People who remember when schools did not come with metal detectors are
annoyed.
(2)
World War II was a desperate struggle for survival against foes that had
already conquered large portions of the Earth, including the coal fields
of Poland and the oil wells of Indonesia.
Before World War II started, the world had been in the grip of the Great
Depression. During that time, some employers took advantage of their
superior market power to obtain labor at very low prices; the novel "The
Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck illustrates some of the abuses of the
period.
Pearl Harbor took place after Hitler had already invaded Russia. During
World War II, therefore, Russia was presented to the American people as
an ally. A number of American artists and intellectuals sincerely
believed this was valid, as they had previously been looking for new
ideas to deal with the problems seen during the Great Depression.
After World War II ended, however, many people were shocked by what
happened to popular governments set up in newly-liberated Poland,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and the other nations of
Eastern Europe. This led to the U.S. resisting the invasion of South
Korea. Once Americans faced the reality of their sons again dying in
war, this time because of Communism, a national consensus emerged that,
correctly, recognized Communism as an evil comparable to Nazism.
People who have been lied to are, naturally, angry at those who were
lying to them. Artists and intellectuals did not enjoy the power and
importance of industrialists who had said some embarassing things about
Fascism. Thus, some people with other items on their agenda encouraged
the witch-hunt that became famous as McCarthyism, whose wounds still
divide America today.
Since I view as completely wrong-headed any attempt by someone, bitter
over McCarthyism, to attempt to paint Communism as anything but another
form of evil dictatorship, I am not sympathetic to the Left. It strikes
me as bizarre, therefore, that we make such sacrifices in the name of
equality for people of color (why will we risk the safety of our
children, when we refuse to pay a few dollars extra in taxes in order to
really solve the problem by wiping out black poverty) and yet we make it
legal to kill children, just because they haven't been born yet?
Abortion serves the equality of women, and it serves sexual license.
Women are equal, and should be treated equally: but the feminist
movement is clearly dominated by people from the left wing.
So I am indeed emotionally aroused by what I see as hypocrisy. The same
people who so loudly gasp in horror at anything that resembles, or
vaguely resembles, or can be made to resemble racism... are perfectly
happy to declare open season on those of our fellow human beings who are
between the ages of minus point seven five and zero. Or from absolute
zero months to absolute nine months.
In my clear and uncompromising moral vision, free love is the cotton
plantation of the left: the self-interest that blinds them to moral
truth.
In the throes of such emotionalism, perhaps I might be missing
something.
Thus, I try to carefully examine my arguments against abortion. But they
still seem sound.
We don't demand of babies, after birth, that they display the competency
of adults before we extend to them the protection of the homicide laws.
Hence, it seems to me that we need something stronger than a simple
intellectual inferiority to change the status of the fetus. A complete
absence of brain activity, though, would qualify. But for that, we might
have to go back to 27 days, and it seems we can't go beyond seven weeks,
which is already early enough to significantly limit women's abortion
options.
We don't demand endless sacrifices on the part of people to support
needy children either. But we do hold people responsible for the direct
consequences of their own choices. Sex is a choice that can create new
human organisms. Once those organisms become human persons, then we do
hold parents responsible for the care of their children. Therefore, I
think it is entirely reasonable to say that the question is when does a
zygote mature into a child that we may not kill. And to view abortion,
when it leads to the death of a sufficiently developed fetus, as killing
rather than the rejection of an imposition.
To shirk one's duties, one's responsibilities, by placing the burden of
one's sexual choices on one's child, in the form of death by abortion,
rather than enduring them oneself, in the form of pregnancy, is wrong.
This seems to me to be a simple continuation of moral principles applied
elsewhere in life. It isn't that often, I admit, that we have burdens of
responsibility that we are stuck with; most of the time, we live as
independent individuals, occasionally choosing to make some effort to
help others. But that does not mean this case does not arise. Basically,
the just place for a cost is on the shoulders of those whose choices
created the cost.
At least we are both consistent; you reject child support and support
abortion, and I accept child support and oppose abortion. Neither of us
seeks one rule for women, and another rule for men.
robpar
>I know better than to think that hate need to be emotional. The
>deadliest are those who hate coldly and dispassionately, because
>they can kill, lie, decieve without care or remorse.
>
>6,000,000 people didn't die in WWII because of anger. They died
>because of hate.
Hate and anger go hand in hand. Anger causes fear, fear leads to
hate. Fear and anger can and often is caused by religious leaders,
demonizing a group that is different. The ****** are committing
crimes, stealing property, living off our charity. Taking away jobs
from our workers, clogging our medical systems. Soon we will be on the
streets and the ****** will be ruling us. We have to do something
about those ******.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote, in
>>John Savard <jsa...@excxn.aNOSPAMb.cdn.invalid> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote, in
>
>>>>Because your hate has corrupted you.
>
>>>Yet your tone and choice of words would seem to be those of one with
>>>that emotion, rather than mine.
>
>>I know better than to think that hate need to be emotional. The
>>deadliest are those who hate coldly and dispassionately, because
>>they can kill, lie, decieve without care or remorse.
>
>>6,000,000 people didn't die in WWII because of anger. They died
>>because of hate.
>
>Now, that is something I can agree with.
>
>A false belief, if held to tenaciously, can have as its consequence
>other false beliefs, more obviously false to an outside observer, that
>have terrible consequences.
Terrible consequences like what we see in religious fundamentalist
societies like the one anti-choicers advocate.
>So we should think carefully before acting.
Alas, few religious zealots think at all. It's all about religion and
not at all about thinking.
[...]
>And today there is terrorism. Terrorism fueled by a fanatical and
>intolerant brand of Islam.
That's hate. It is NOT just Islam, but also Judaism and Christianity.
The anti-abortion assassins have been Christians.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dutch
"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:443db097....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:58:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
>>> On 12 Apr 2006 00:55:47 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> ....
>>>
>>>>The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
>>>>ask for.
>>>
>>> Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
>>> and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
>>
>>It doesn't sound anything like that. It sounds like he is demanding the
>>woman complete a pregnancy which she began.
>>
>>> Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
>>> the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
>>> woman.
>>
>>A fetus or embryo *is* a human life.
>
> It is not a human life in the meaning of the life of a human being.
Yes it is, it is a human being in every respect except stage of development.
> This is a basic Pro-Life lie that has been debunked time and time
> again. That you refuse to accept facts is not my problem.
It has never been debunked and never will be because it's a glaringly
obvious FACT.
>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to promote choice in abortion?
>
> I don't.
Yes you do, every time you claim a fetus is not a human life.
> Why do you find it necessary to lie to try to deny a woman
> her basic human rights?
I'm not trying to deny women anything, I am trying to bring these pro-choice
positions out of the gutter.
>> Do you not find reproductive freedom a worthy
>>cause on it's own merits?
> The right to reproduce is a basic human right, according to the US
> Supreme Court, and enjoys Constitutional protection.
I am not talking about the right to reproduce, I am referring to right to an
abortion.
> I am not out to
> support causes. I have been looking for justification to ban abortion
> for over a decade.
Would you mind explaining that comment a bit further please?
Ray Fischer
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>>>>The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
>>>>>ask for.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
>>>> and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
>>>
>>>It doesn't sound anything like that. It sounds like he is demanding the
>>>woman complete a pregnancy which she began.
>>>
>>>> Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
>>>> the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
>>>> woman.
>>>
>>>A fetus or embryo *is* a human life.
>>
>> It is not a human life in the meaning of the life of a human being.
>
>Yes it is, it is a human being in every respect except stage of development.
Dutch is insane. He thinks he can ignore all the facts and alter
reality just by saying so.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Paul Anderson
>
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>news:443db097....@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 11:58:54 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
>>>> On 12 Apr 2006 00:55:47 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ....
>>>>
>>>>>The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
>>>>>ask for.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
>>>> and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
>>>
>>>It doesn't sound anything like that. It sounds like he is demanding the
>>>woman complete a pregnancy which she began.
>>>
>>>> Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
>>>> the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
>>>> woman.
>>>
>>>A fetus or embryo *is* a human life.
>>
>> It is not a human life in the meaning of the life of a human being.
>
>Yes it is, it is a human being in every respect except stage of development.
A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>> This is a basic Pro-Life lie that has been debunked time and time
>> again. That you refuse to accept facts is not my problem.
>
>It has never been debunked and never will be because it's a glaringly
>obvious FACT.
>
>>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to promote choice in abortion?
>>
>> I don't.
>
>Yes you do, every time you claim a fetus is not a human life.
It is not my "claim." It is a fact.
>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to try to deny a woman
>> her basic human rights?
>
>I'm not trying to deny women anything, I am trying to bring these pro-choice
>positions out of the gutter.
>
>>> Do you not find reproductive freedom a worthy
>>>cause on it's own merits?
>
>> The right to reproduce is a basic human right, according to the US
>> Supreme Court, and enjoys Constitutional protection.
>
>I am not talking about the right to reproduce, I am referring to right to an
>abortion.
IMO, there is no right to an abortion. There is a right to terminate
the pregnancy. It is the dishonesty of Pro-Lifers that claim that
this is a right to abort a pregnancy "up to the moment of birth."
>> I am not out to
>> support causes. I have been looking for justification to ban abortion
>> for over a decade.
>
>Would you mind explaining that comment a bit further please?
Yes.
cashme...@yahoo.com
> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> >difference are routinely eradicated.
> >
> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
>
> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
> spending nearly enough money on health care.
>
You can look forward to covert DNA screening and sterilization after
abortion rights are eliminated. Bitch and complain all you want, as
there are ways of accomplishing this task with or without your
knowledge or consent these days.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
Dutch
You can make all the pronouncements you want, you cannot change the fact
that a fetus is an unborn human being.
>>> This is a basic Pro-Life lie that has been debunked time and time
>>> again. That you refuse to accept facts is not my problem.
>>
>>It has never been debunked and never will be because it's a glaringly
>>obvious FACT.
>>
>>>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to promote choice in abortion?
>>>
>>> I don't.
>>
>>Yes you do, every time you claim a fetus is not a human life.
>
> It is not my "claim." It is a fact.
It's a claim, a false one. If a fetus were not a human life then pregnancy
would not result in the birth of a person.
>>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to try to deny a woman
>>> her basic human rights?
>>
>>I'm not trying to deny women anything, I am trying to bring these
>>pro-choice
>>positions out of the gutter.
>>
>>>> Do you not find reproductive freedom a worthy
>>>>cause on it's own merits?
>>
>>> The right to reproduce is a basic human right, according to the US
>>> Supreme Court, and enjoys Constitutional protection.
>>
>>I am not talking about the right to reproduce, I am referring to right to
>>an
>>abortion.
>
> IMO, there is no right to an abortion. There is a right to terminate
> the pregnancy.
More doubletalk.
> It is the dishonesty of Pro-Lifers that claim that
> this is a right to abort a pregnancy "up to the moment of birth."
Why should there not be such a right? That appears to inconsistent with your
earlier statement "A human being is that which is born, human and alive", if
that is true what possible justification could there be to deny a woman's
right at ANY stage?
>>> I am not out to
>>> support causes. I have been looking for justification to ban abortion
>>> for over a decade.
>>
>>Would you mind explaining that comment a bit further please?
>
> Yes.
Fine, leave it as a meaningless, dangling comment, it fits with the rest of
the crap you spewed.
Paul Anderson
>
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote....
>>>>>A fetus or embryo *is* a human life.
>>>>
>>>> It is not a human life in the meaning of the life of a human being.
>>>
>>>Yes it is, it is a human being in every respect except stage of
>>>development.
>>
>> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
>> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
>> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
>> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>
>You can make all the pronouncements you want, you cannot change the fact
>that a fetus is an unborn human being.
Yes, a fetus is an UNBORN human being. Unborn means "1 : not born :
not brought into life 2 : still to appear : FUTURE" -- a fetus is
that which will become a human being in the future, when it is brought
into life at birth. As I said, language agrees with the fact that a
human being is that which is born, human, and alive.
>>>> This is a basic Pro-Life lie that has been debunked time and time
>>>> again. That you refuse to accept facts is not my problem.
>>>
>>>It has never been debunked and never will be because it's a glaringly
>>>obvious FACT.
>>>
>>>>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to promote choice in abortion?
>>>>
>>>> I don't.
>>>
>>>Yes you do, every time you claim a fetus is not a human life.
>>
>> It is not my "claim." It is a fact.
>
>It's a claim, a false one. If a fetus were not a human life then pregnancy
>would not result in the birth of a person.
I fetus is that which becomes a human life at birth. Prior to birth
you have an unborn human being, not yet existing, not brought into
life. Birth is the begining of life. (m-w.com: life: the period
from birth to death.)
>>>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to try to deny a woman
>>>> her basic human rights?
>>>
>>>I'm not trying to deny women anything, I am trying to bring these
>>>pro-choice
>>>positions out of the gutter.
>>>
>>>>> Do you not find reproductive freedom a worthy
>>>>>cause on it's own merits?
>>>
>>>> The right to reproduce is a basic human right, according to the US
>>>> Supreme Court, and enjoys Constitutional protection.
>>>
>>>I am not talking about the right to reproduce, I am referring to right to
>>>an
>>>abortion.
>>
>> IMO, there is no right to an abortion. There is a right to terminate
>> the pregnancy.
>
>More doubletalk.
How can anyone discuss the issue when you are too stupid to understand
the meaning of words?
>> It is the dishonesty of Pro-Lifers that claim that
>> this is a right to abort a pregnancy "up to the moment of birth."
>
>Why should there not be such a right? That appears to inconsistent with your
>earlier statement "A human being is that which is born, human and alive", if
>that is true what possible justification could there be to deny a woman's
>right at ANY stage?
"....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....."
Ray Fischer
>> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
>> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
>> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
>> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>
>You can make all the pronouncements you want, you cannot change the fact
>that a fetus is an unborn human being.
Law, science language, religion, tradition, all say that a human
being's life begins at birth. You, being an irrational and arrogant
zealot, annnounce that you are right and all of humanity is wrong.
You think that everybody should just accept your pronouncement.
Kook.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
robpar
(John Savard) wrote:
>Thus, I try to carefully examine my arguments against abortion. But they
>still seem sound.
You ignore the only argument for legal abortions, the rights of
women to control their own bodies. You obliviously do not believe that
women should have any rights at all. It's very plain to see that you
women that are not obedient to your religious beliefs.
You are a small brained, big mouth, self righteous, religious bigot.
That would restore women to their former status as chattel property.
Dutch
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 23:35:20 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote....
>
>>>>>>A fetus or embryo *is* a human life.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is not a human life in the meaning of the life of a human being.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it is, it is a human being in every respect except stage of
>>>>development.
>>>
>>> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
>>> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
>>> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
>>> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>>
>>You can make all the pronouncements you want, you cannot change the fact
>>that a fetus is an unborn human being.
>
> Yes, a fetus is an UNBORN human being.
Exactly, a human being.
Unborn means "1 : not born :
Tautology
> not brought into life
It *is* alive.
2 : still to appear :
Hidden, so what?
> FUTURE" -- a fetus is
> that which will become a human being in the future,
Wow!
>when it is brought
> into life at birth.
It's already in life.
> As I said, language agrees with the fact that a
> human being is that which is born, human, and alive.
Sure, and a fetus is an unborn human being.
>>>>> This is a basic Pro-Life lie that has been debunked time and time
>>>>> again. That you refuse to accept facts is not my problem.
>>>>
>>>>It has never been debunked and never will be because it's a glaringly
>>>>obvious FACT.
>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to promote choice in abortion?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't.
>>>>
>>>>Yes you do, every time you claim a fetus is not a human life.
>>>
>>> It is not my "claim." It is a fact.
>>
>>It's a claim, a false one. If a fetus were not a human life then pregnancy
>>would not result in the birth of a person.
>
> I fetus is that which becomes a human life at birth.
False.
> Prior to birth
> you have an unborn human being,
True
not yet existing,
False, it exists, and is alive, and is developing.
> not brought into
> life.
It is already "in life".
> Birth is the begining of life.
False
> (m-w.com: life: the period
> from birth to death.)
Ooo you are so desperate to define unborn humans out of existence. Are you
terrified that abortion will become illegal if you face the truth?
>>>>> Why do you find it necessary to lie to try to deny a woman
>>>>> her basic human rights?
>>>>
>>>>I'm not trying to deny women anything, I am trying to bring these
>>>>pro-choice
>>>>positions out of the gutter.
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you not find reproductive freedom a worthy
>>>>>>cause on it's own merits?
>>>>
>>>>> The right to reproduce is a basic human right, according to the US
>>>>> Supreme Court, and enjoys Constitutional protection.
>>>>
>>>>I am not talking about the right to reproduce, I am referring to right
>>>>to
>>>>an
>>>>abortion.
>>>
>>> IMO, there is no right to an abortion. There is a right to terminate
>>> the pregnancy.
>>
>>More doubletalk.
>
> How can anyone discuss the issue when you are too stupid to understand
> the meaning of words?
You're not "discussing the issue" you are spinning sophistry. What's the
difference between having an abortion an terminating a pregnancy?
>>> It is the dishonesty of Pro-Lifers that claim that
>>> this is a right to abort a pregnancy "up to the moment of birth."
>>
>>Why should there not be such a right? That appears to inconsistent with
>>your
>>earlier statement "A human being is that which is born, human and alive",
>>if
>>that is true what possible justification could there be to deny a woman's
>>right at ANY stage?
>
> "....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....."
The "potentiality of human life" as they put it, does not suddenly occur at
7 months, it exists right from the beginning of pregnancy.
Paul Anderson
>
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote....
>>>You can make all the pronouncements you want, you cannot change the fact
>>>that a fetus is an unborn human being.
>>
>> Yes, a fetus is an UNBORN human being.
>
>Exactly, a human being.
No, it is, as you wrote, an unborn human being. That you deny the
meaning of unborn does not change the facts.
....
>Ooo you are so desperate to define unborn humans out of existence. Are you
>terrified that abortion will become illegal if you face the truth?
I am not trying to define unborn human beings out of existence. I am,
and have been for many years, looking for justification for making
abortion illegal. Unfortunately, I cannot accept falsehoods as
justification. It would help if you would work with me instead of
playing your silly word games.
....
>>>> IMO, there is no right to an abortion. There is a right to terminate
>>>> the pregnancy.
>>>
>>>More doubletalk.
>>
>> How can anyone discuss the issue when you are too stupid to understand
>> the meaning of words?
>
>You're not "discussing the issue" you are spinning sophistry. What's the
>difference between having an abortion an terminating a pregnancy?
One is a subset of the other. It is only Pro-Lifers who insist on a
dead fetus at the termination of pregnancy.
Dutch
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:18:21 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote....
>
>>>>You can make all the pronouncements you want, you cannot change the fact
>>>>that a fetus is an unborn human being.
>>>
>>> Yes, a fetus is an UNBORN human being.
>>
>>Exactly, a human being.
>
> No, it is, as you wrote, an unborn human being. That you deny the
> meaning of unborn does not change the facts.
I don't deny the meaning of unborn, it means still residing within the
mother. I am denying that it means "non-existent" as you imply. An unripe
apple is still an apple.
> ....
>>Ooo you are so desperate to define unborn humans out of existence. Are you
>>terrified that abortion will become illegal if you face the truth?
>
> I am not trying to define unborn human beings out of existence.
Yes you are, that is precisely what you are doing.
> I am,
> and have been for many years, looking for justification for making
> abortion illegal.
Why in the world would you want to make abortion illegal? What a terrible
idea.
> Unfortunately, I cannot accept falsehoods as
> justification.
I'm not proposing any falsehoods.
> It would help if you would work with me instead of
> playing your silly word games.
Curious, it appears to me that's what YOU are doing when you infer such
tremendous significance to the point of birth, when in reality birth is
usually nothing more significant than a momentary transitional event for a
human organism that has already attained the ability to live completely on
it's own months earlier. The fact is that the great importance we place on
the event of birth has mostly to do with tradition and ritual.
> ....
>>>>> IMO, there is no right to an abortion. There is a right to terminate
>>>>> the pregnancy.
>>>>
>>>>More doubletalk.
>>>
>>> How can anyone discuss the issue when you are too stupid to understand
>>> the meaning of words?
>>
>>You're not "discussing the issue" you are spinning sophistry. What's the
>>difference between having an abortion an terminating a pregnancy?
>
> One is a subset of the other. It is only Pro-Lifers who insist on a
> dead fetus at the termination of pregnancy.
What in the world is your point?
Paul Anderson
>
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>news:44456a46...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:18:21 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote....
>>
>>>>>You can make all the pronouncements you want, you cannot change the fact
>>>>>that a fetus is an unborn human being.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, a fetus is an UNBORN human being.
>>>
>>>Exactly, a human being.
>>
>> No, it is, as you wrote, an unborn human being. That you deny the
>> meaning of unborn does not change the facts.
>
>I don't deny the meaning of unborn, it means still residing within the
>mother.
Why post easily proven falsehoods? www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: unborn
1 : not born : not brought into life
2 : still to appear : FUTURE
> I am denying that it means "non-existent" as you imply. An unripe
>apple is still an apple.
>
>> ....
>>>Ooo you are so desperate to define unborn humans out of existence. Are you
>>>terrified that abortion will become illegal if you face the truth?
>>
>> I am not trying to define unborn human beings out of existence.
>
>Yes you are, that is precisely what you are doing.
No, that is just your inability to understand simple English.
>> I am,
>> and have been for many years, looking for justification for making
>> abortion illegal.
>
>Why in the world would you want to make abortion illegal? What a terrible
>idea.
>
>> Unfortunately, I cannot accept falsehoods as
>> justification.
>
>I'm not proposing any falsehoods.
On the contrary -- you constantly lie about what a human fetus is.
>> It would help if you would work with me instead of
>> playing your silly word games.
>
>Curious, it appears to me that's what YOU are doing when you infer such
>tremendous significance to the point of birth, when in reality birth is
>usually nothing more significant than a momentary transitional event for a
>human organism that has already attained the ability to live completely on
>it's own months earlier. The fact is that the great importance we place on
>the event of birth has mostly to do with tradition and ritual.
That paragraph simply shows that you do not understand the drastic
changes that occur at birth.
Dutch
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 20:13:12 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>>news:44456a46...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
>>> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:18:21 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote....
>>>
>>>>>>You can make all the pronouncements you want, you cannot change the
>>>>>>fact
>>>>>>that a fetus is an unborn human being.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, a fetus is an UNBORN human being.
>>>>
>>>>Exactly, a human being.
>>>
>>> No, it is, as you wrote, an unborn human being. That you deny the
>>> meaning of unborn does not change the facts.
>>
>>I don't deny the meaning of unborn, it means still residing within the
>>mother.
>
> Why post easily proven falsehoods?
Falsehoods? Are you completely brain-dead? To be born means to emerge from
the mother, so *un*-born means not yet emerged from the mother
See
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=unborn*1+0&dict=A
unborn
adjective [not gradable]
not yet born; in the mother's uterus
> www.m-w.com:
> Main Entry: unborn
> 1 : not born : not brought into life
> 2 : still to appear : FUTURE
Tch tch, why did you snip away this meaning?
3 : existing without birth
Why post easily proven deceptions?
Check out this..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unborn
*Main Entry*: un搓orn
Function: adjective
: not yet born : existing in utero <unborn children>
And try
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861707585
not born yet: not yet born, but usually already conceived and gestating
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/unborn?view=uk
unborn . adjective (of a baby) not yet born.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=86031&dict=CALD
unborn
adjective
not yet born; in the mother's womb:
'the protection of the unborn child'
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=unborn*1+0&dict=A
unborn
adjective [not gradable]
not yet born; in the mother's uterus
>> I am denying that it means "non-existent" as you imply. An unripe
>>apple is still an apple.
>>
>>> ....
>>>>Ooo you are so desperate to define unborn humans out of existence. Are
>>>>you
>>>>terrified that abortion will become illegal if you face the truth?
>>>
>>> I am not trying to define unborn human beings out of existence.
>>
>>Yes you are, that is precisely what you are doing.
>
> No, that is just your inability to understand simple English.
No, it's you desperately, and amateurishly attempting to spin language to
make it appear that unborn humans, embryos and fetuses, are somehow less
than living human organisms.
>>> I am,
>>> and have been for many years, looking for justification for making
>>> abortion illegal.
>>
>>Why in the world would you want to make abortion illegal? What a terrible
>>idea.
>>
>>> Unfortunately, I cannot accept falsehoods as
>>> justification.
>>
>>I'm not proposing any falsehoods.
>
> On the contrary -- you constantly lie about what a human fetus is.
Such as?
>>> It would help if you would work with me instead of
>>> playing your silly word games.
>>
>>Curious, it appears to me that's what YOU are doing when you infer such
>>tremendous significance to the point of birth, when in reality birth is
>>usually nothing more significant than a momentary transitional event for a
>>human organism that has already attained the ability to live completely on
>>it's own months earlier. The fact is that the great importance we place on
>>the event of birth has mostly to do with tradition and ritual.
>
> That paragraph simply shows that you do not understand the drastic
> changes that occur at birth.
Pfftt! More bullshit. None of the adjustments that a baby undergoes at
birth, *on it's own*, instantaneously, change what it is. You're sellin a
bill of goods pal and I ain't buyin'.
junegill
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:1243di5...@news.supernews.com...
>
> "Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:44456a46...@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
> > On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 14:18:21 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Curious, it appears to me that's what YOU are doing when you infer such
> tremendous significance to the point of birth, when in reality birth is
> usually nothing more significant than a momentary transitional event for a
> human organism that has already attained the ability to live completely on
> it's own months earlier. The fact is that the great importance we place on
> the event of birth has mostly to do with tradition and ritual.
Momentary transitional event? It's a bloody long moment! (Rats! I've
broken my cardinal rule of never swearing on Usenet.) The great importance
we place on the event of birth has nothing to do with ritual; it's because a
woman has gone through hours and hours of hellish agony in a very dangerous
process and her baby has survived, which has a huge significance. I wonder
why men who pontificate about foetal rights and the 'moment of birth' never
refer to all that pain ... oh, that's right, it's because they'll never have
to endure it themselves.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/june...@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
Dutch
"junegill" <june...@btinternet.com> wrote
I don't deny that pregnancy and childbirth can be an arduous ordeal, which
is one reason I support choice, but we were discussing birth from point of
view of the fetus/child. The process of birth does not fundamentally change
the fetus, it was a human before birth and remains one after.
lege...@hotmail.com
Paul Anderson wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2006 00:21:44 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >
> >Paul Anderson wrote:
> >> On 9 Apr 2006 03:38:39 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >Maybe she does support their 'right', but does not support this action
> >> >unless it is used as a last resort, because she can see that it results
> >> >in the loss of a humans life. Can't somone be 'pro choice' but still
> >> >pro 'life'?
> >>
> >> From The American Heritage=AE Dictionary of the English Language as
> >> cited by dictionary.com:
> >>
> >> pro-choice:.
> >> Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
> >> whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
> >>
> >> pro-life
> >> Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses,
> >> especially by opposing legalized abortion
> >>
> >> For someone to claim to the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice they would have to
> >> deny the right of the woman to a legal abortion while supporting the
> >> legal right of the woman to terminate her pregnancy. And by
> >> terminating her pregnancy we do not mean spending the next 7-8 months
> >> being pregnant and then giving birth. This is not possioble, AFAIK.
> >
> >I was merely suggesting that she MAY support the legal termination of a
> >pregnancy, but see it as a procedure that should not be taken lightly
> >because of the loss of the young humans life. I should not have used
> >the slogans used by both sides.
>
> Why should you not?
Because I was not referring to those 'sides' merely the respect for
human life as well as allowing legal abortion if needed.
It was a lie
No it wasn't, it was my opinion.
and the Pro-Life agenda has nothing
> else.
The 'pro life' agenda is believing in the sanctity of human life.
It is the Pro-Life claim that an embryo *IS* a human life with
> the same rights as a born human being
No, it's scientific fact that an embryonic human is a human life, the
rights given to these rudimentary humans is another matter
-- and that it is permissible to
> kill human beings based upon their genetic origins.
Can you explain this? I've never heard this from someone who believes
in the sanctity of human life.
If these
> positions are not lies then Pro-Life is the most immoral position.
what lie?
>
> Pro-Choice people are not so uncaring about human life as to accept
> killing human beings for convenience.
So you pretend it doesn't happen...
lege...@hotmail.com
Paul Anderson wrote:> .....
>
> >> > He won't even admit that a foetus is an
> >> >organism
> >>
> >> Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
> >> organism.
> >
> >It meets all the 7 criteria needed to be an organism.
> >
> >Growth
> >Movement (includes movement inside cells)
> >Reproduction (of new cells)
> >Need for nutrition
> >Respiration
> >Removes wastes
> >Responds to external stimuli
>
> 1. That is not the definition of an organism.
No, its the characteristics all organisms have.
This is the definition of embryo...
The stage of an organism's development directly following fertilization
and zygote formation. The term embryo is often used to describe all
developmental phases between the first cell cleavage and birth/hatching
of a developing organism. Source : PhRMA Genomics
www.genomecanada.ca/GCglossaire/glossaire/index.asp
And a definition of organism...
a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function
independently
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
> 2. That "definition" makes any human cancer tumor an organism and
> thus a human being. Since a cancer tumor is not an organism/human
> being your "7 criteria needed to be an organism" is falsified.
No it just shares the some characterisitcs
lege...@hotmail.com
Paul Anderson wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2006 00:55:47 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> ....
>
> >The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
> >ask for.
>
> Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
> and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
I mention tolerance and you mention some quote from a racist because
they used the same word, you really are a coward.
>
> Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
> the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
> woman.
And her unborn offspring... why must you lie?
lege...@hotmail.com
Paul Anderson wrote:
> On 12 Apr 2006 01:17:10 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> ....
>
> >If that's what she actually said. She might believe that in some cases
> >an abortion should be legal? but still support the sanctity of life
>
> How can you support the sanctity of life while accepting that it
> should be perfectly legal to kill human beings for convenience?
Not for convenience, but when it is needed.
>
> It is this nonchalance of most Pro-Lifers toward human life that
> convinces me that they are lying about the unborn chile being an
> actual human life.
The facts speak for themselves. An embryo is an organism in a stage of
development.
>
> ...
>
> >Because someone is against the choice of abortion does not make them
> >anti choice....
>
> With regard to an early pregnancy the choices are to terminate to
> carry to term. In this case there are no other choices.
And if you don't support one choice doesn't make you anti choice.
Anymore than if you support counselling for potential suiciders.
If you are
> against one of the choices you are against any choice is this matter.
Yes against one choice
> If you are against the choice of abortion you are anti-choice no
> matter how you try to spin the lies.
No you are, as you said..."against the choice of abortion " Not anti
choice.
lege...@hotmail.com
Ray Fischer wrote:
> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> >> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> >> >> >> >> >that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> >> >> >> >> >difference are routinely eradicated.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >The book is a collection of stories by women from Australia and abroad
> >> >> >> >> >who have resisted pressure to abort a less-than-perfect baby. It also
> >> >> >> >> >includes accounts from disabled women and women with HIV who were
> >> >> >> >> >strongly encouraged not to reproduce for the sake of their offspring.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Because after all, we NEED to have more disabled orphans. We're not
> >> >> >> >> spending nearly enough money on health care.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >disabled people.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In fact it is you right-wing neocons who are opposed to public health care.
> >> >> >> Not us supposed "liberals".
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Because you care so much hey?
> >> >>
> >> >> The neocon liar changes the subject. What a surprise.
> >> >
> >> >You said "Not us supposed "liberals".
> >>
> >> And then you changed the subject.
> >
> >You were the one that suggested one groupd cared more than the other.
>
> There is ample evidence that "conservatives" do NOT want to spend
> money on health care for others.
Then shame on 'conservatives'.
>
> >> >> > We've seen your bigotry towards disabled
> >> >> >humans.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, liar, you haven't.
> >> >
> >> >Then why are you defending this eugenic practice?
> >>
> >> I'm not. That all your evil lie.
> >
> >Why else would you respond to this thread unless you were supporting or
> >condemning this actions.
>
> To refute your evil lies.
So you deny this practice is taking place?
lege...@hotmail.com
Ray Fischer wrote:
> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> >> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote, in
>
> >> >> >so it's still killing even if the unborn child has no right to making
> >> >> >the demands that pregnancy makes of the mother.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then YOU ARE A KILLER! Your own words damn you as a cold-blooded killer.
> >> >>
> >> >> Because YOU choose to willingly and knowingly let children die that
> >> >> you could have saved, you are worse from a woman who has refused to
> >> >> sacrifice herself for the benefit of a fetus because you don't even
> >> >> want to put up with inconvenience.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're like any other murderous despot who wants to improve people by
> >> >> killing them.
> >> >
> >> >As you can see John, Ray is not so big on being rational.
> >>
> >> You seem to think that personal attacks substitute for rational
> >> arguments.
> >
> >Nope.
>
> Yes. You cannot even begin to refute what I wrote because it is the
> truth.
The truth is 'embryo' refers to a stage of development in a organisms
life. That fact has been shown to you time and time again. Your denial
of this fact makes you one of the biggest fools in talk.abortion,
alt.abortion.
>
> >> > He won't even
> >> >admit what a foetal human is.
> >>
> >> You pro-liar have nothing but lies.
> >
> >What lie?
>
> Your statement, moron.
It wasn't a lie, just a fact of life.
>
> >> > He won't even admit that a foetus is an
> >> >organism
> >>
> >> Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
> >> organism.
> >
> >It meets all the 7 criteria needed to be an organism.
>
> You're lying again by making up your own definition for "organism".
No, that is what year 7 students learn in high school. Not my fault if
you never went to school.
>
> >> >(I'm not sure if he means all foetal organisms or just human
> >> >ones) because of a dictionairy definition that says an organism must be
> >> >'seperate' from any other, and must be entirely independent.
> >>
> >> So you think that you're right and dictionaries are wrong?!?
> >
> >Context!!!
>
> Bullshit!!!
Why do you think you know better than experts?
An embryo is an organism in its early stages of development prior to
birth
www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/lab_safety/app15_msds_gloss.htm
>
> >The embryo is attached but is still seperate,
>
> You're a lying fanatic. You can't even notice that you contradict
> yourself. The cognitive dissonance had made you nuts.
You are the one who is nuts. You need to get out more and get some
fresh air. Embryonic is a stage of an organisms development, thats a
fact, deal with it.
lege...@hotmail.com
> >> another anonymous pro-liar.
> >
> >The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy.
>
> of YOUR body.
No. But if someone is dependent on me for survival I will not remove
myself from the situation which will result in their death.
>
> But you don't like that. You're just another control freak and
> hypocrite who wants to make women suffer.
So you're back to name calling again. Thats what you always say when
you can't refute the truth.
lege...@hotmail.com
> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
No matter how many times you say these lies they don't becaome true
Paul.
Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual
terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens
(Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the
superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas,
orangutans, and gibbons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being
Human being is synonymous with human (n). An embryonic human is just as
human as an adolescent human. Deal with it and then join the real
debate about abortion. I.e. what stage of a humans life do we afford
them rights? & Do we afford rights to anyone simply for being human of
for what characteristics they have. Are you too cowardly to debae this?
So much so that you can't even acknowledge what the term 'embryonic
stage of devleopment' means?
Paul Anderson
...
>The 'pro life' agenda is believing in the sanctity of human life.
That is the rhetoric. Their actions prove the rhetoric to be lies.
> It is the Pro-Life claim that an embryo *IS* a human life with
>> the same rights as a born human being
>
>No, it's scientific fact that an embryonic human is a human life, the
>rights given to these rudimentary humans is another matter
Again, this bullshit has been disproven time and time again.
> -- and that it is permissible to
>> kill human beings based upon their genetic origins.
>
>Can you explain this? I've never heard this from someone who believes
>in the sanctity of human life.
It is the Pro-Lifers who support exceptions for rape and incest -- the
genetic origins of the child. Not to mention that that only support
killing the unborn bastard, once the child is born they no longer
support it's murder; again proving that they do not believe a human
being exists prior to birth.
Paul Anderson
Prolepsis.
>And a definition of organism...
>a living thing that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function
>independently
>wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
While it fits the above definition, a spasming muscle is not an
organism -- try a better source.
>> 2. That "definition" makes any human cancer tumor an organism and
>> thus a human being. Since a cancer tumor is not an organism/human
>> being your "7 criteria needed to be an organism" is falsified.
>
>No it just shares the some characterisitcs
By the same criteria you use to claim an embryo is an organism a
cancer growth is an organism -- thus your claim fails.
Paul Anderson
>
>Paul Anderson wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2006 00:55:47 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> ....
>>
>> >The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy. Tolerance is all we can
>> >ask for.
>>
>> Sounds familiar.... "We feed and clothe and house our nigger slaves
>> and give them a living. Tolerance is all we can ask for."
>
>I mention tolerance and you mention some quote from a racist because
>they used the same word, you really are a coward.
You are the one who is trying to enslave women.
>> Except with slavery we were talking about actual human beings. With
>> the abortion issue the only life of a human involved is the pregnant
>> woman.
>
>And her unborn offspring... why must you lie?
Unborn = not brought into life. There is only one human life
involved.
Paul Anderson
>
>Paul Anderson wrote:
>> On 12 Apr 2006 01:17:10 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>> ....
>>
>> >If that's what she actually said. She might believe that in some cases
>> >an abortion should be legal? but still support the sanctity of life
>>
>> How can you support the sanctity of life while accepting that it
>> should be perfectly legal to kill human beings for convenience?
>
>Not for convenience, but when it is needed.
You NEED to kill the offspring of rapists and siblings?
>> It is this nonchalance of most Pro-Lifers toward human life that
>> convinces me that they are lying about the unborn chile being an
>> actual human life.
>
>The facts speak for themselves. An embryo is an organism in a stage of
>development.
Sure. Which is why it is no longer needful to kill the offspring of
rapists and siblings after they have been born.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> >Because someone is against the choice of abortion does not make them
>> >anti choice....
>>
>> With regard to an early pregnancy the choices are to terminate to
>> carry to term. In this case there are no other choices.
>
>And if you don't support one choice doesn't make you anti choice.
Given there is no other choice, yes it does.
Paul Anderson
>
>> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
>> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
>> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
>> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>
>No matter how many times you say these lies they don't becaome true
>Paul.
Not lies. Anyone can verify for themselves if they are honest enough.
Ray Fischer
Circular argument: Dutch assumes that no "fundamental" change occurs
at birth in order to argue that the fetus isn't changed by birth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>
>> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
>> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
>> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
>> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>
>No matter how many times you say these lies they don't becaome true
>Paul.
What "lies"? You haven't been able to show any.
>Human beings define themselves in biological, social, and spiritual
>terms. Biologically, humans are classified as the species Homo sapiens
>(Latin for "knowing man"): a bipedal primate belonging to the
>superfamily of Hominoidea, with all of the apes: chimpanzees, gorillas,
>orangutans, and gibbons.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_being
"Homo sapiens" refers to the species - not to individuals.
>Human being is synonymous with human (n). An embryonic human is just as
>human as an adolescent human.
Equivocation: You equate the noun "human" in your first use of the
word with the adjective "human" in your second use. They're not the
same thing and it is typical stupidity/dishonesty to pretend that
they're the same.
> Deal with it
Learn to tell the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> <lege...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> This episode of non sequitur theatre has been brought to you by
>> >> another anonymous pro-liar.
>> >
>> >The life of a human V's 9 months of pregnancy.
>>
>> Then we are justified in taking YOUR money, YOUR freedom, and parts
>> of YOUR body.
>
>No.
Because your real goal is to subjugate women - saving lives is of no
interest whatever. When it's the life of a human vs. YOUR money,
freedom, and life then the human can go ahead and die.
You're just a hypocritical control freak.
> But if someone is dependent on me for survival I will not remove
>myself from the situation which will result in their death.
You already do.
>> But you don't like that. You're just another control freak and
>> hypocrite who wants to make women suffer.
>
>So you're back to name calling again.
It's not "name calling" if it's the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
But, like gamete, it is not an organism itself.
And you're changing the subject. Because YOU choose to willingly and
knowingly let children die that you could have saved, you are worse
from a woman who has refused to sacrifice herself for the benefit of a
fetus because you don't even want to put up with inconvenience.
>> >> > He won't even admit that a foetus is an
>> >> >organism
>> >>
>> >> Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
>> >> organism.
>> >
>> >It meets all the 7 criteria needed to be an organism.
>>
>> You're lying again by making up your own definition for "organism".
>
>No,
Yes.
>> >> >(I'm not sure if he means all foetal organisms or just human
>> >> >ones) because of a dictionairy definition that says an organism must be
>> >> >'seperate' from any other, and must be entirely independent.
>> >>
>> >> So you think that you're right and dictionaries are wrong?!?
>> >
>> >Context!!!
>>
>> Bullshit!!!
>
>Why do you think you know better than experts?
You're not an expert. You're a pro-liar who makes up definition in
order to justify your perverse need to subjugate women.
> An embryo is an organism in its early stages of development prior to
>birth
>www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/lab_safety/app15_msds_gloss.htm
A medical glossary produced by unqualified people is evidence of
nothing at all.
>> >The embryo is attached but is still seperate,
>>
>> You're a lying fanatic. You can't even notice that you contradict
>> yourself. The cognitive dissonance had made you nuts.
>
>You are the one who is nuts.
If it is ATTACHED then it is not SEPARATE.
The two words are mutually exclusive.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dutch
uraniumc...@yahoo.com
lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
> In a stance that is likely to be controversial, Tankard Reist argues
> that Australia is at risk of becoming a society in which disability and
> difference are routinely eradicated.
What's wrong with that? The Greeks and Romans did it!
Ray Fischer
But, like a gamete, it is not an organism itself.
And you're changing the subject. Because YOU choose to willingly and
knowingly let children die that you could have saved, you are worse
than a woman who has refused to sacrifice herself for the benefit of a
fetus because you don't even want to put up with inconvenience.
>> >> > He won't even admit that a foetus is an
>> >> >organism
>> >>
>> >> Since it does not meet the definition of "organism" it is not an
>> >> organism.
>> >
>> >It meets all the 7 criteria needed to be an organism.
>>
>> You're lying again by making up your own definition for "organism".
>
>No,
Yes.
>> >> >(I'm not sure if he means all foetal organisms or just human
>> >> >ones) because of a dictionairy definition that says an organism must be
>> >> >'seperate' from any other, and must be entirely independent.
>> >>
>> >> So you think that you're right and dictionaries are wrong?!?
>> >
>> >Context!!!
>>
>> Bullshit!!!
>
>Why do you think you know better than experts?
You're not an expert. You're a pro-liar who makes up definitions in
order to justify your perverse need to subjugate women.
> An embryo is an organism in its early stages of development prior to
>birth
>www.nmsu.edu/~safety/programs/lab_safety/app15_msds_gloss.htm
A medical glossary produced by unqualified people is evidence of
nothing at all.
>> >The embryo is attached but is still seperate,
>>
>> You're a lying fanatic. You can't even notice that you contradict
>> yourself. The cognitive dissonance had made you nuts.
>
>You are the one who is nuts.
If it is ATTACHED then it is not SEPARATE.
John Savard
part:
>lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
For one thing, they were pagans. The early Christians didn't do it, and
the Jews didn't do it, and *they're* the ones who God instructed in the
difference between right and wrong.
For another, euthanasia for the disabled was how the Nazis started
acclimatizing Germans to their plans for the Jews.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
robpar
(John Savard) wrote:
>>What's wrong with that? The Greeks and Romans did it!
>
>For one thing, they were pagans. The early Christians didn't do it, and
>the Jews didn't do it, and *they're* the ones who God instructed in the
>difference between right and wrong.
>
>For another, euthanasia for the disabled was how the Nazis started
>acclimatizing Germans to their plans for the Jews.
And when the Christians came into power, they wiped out millions of
people. The Nazis were the last Christians to pull it off to some
degree.
If you ignore the massive bombing of Iraq cities.
Dutch
"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
Language, tradition, custom, law, religion, those are all quite subjective
or changing concepts. I would not call them facts. A fact that transcends
all of them is that a pregnant woman, before birth, has a whole human
individual inside her with it's own genetic signature, brain, and heart.
Anyone can verify this fact, honest or not, simply by observing an
ultrasound, or the result of any c-section.
Ray Fischer
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
>> lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
>>>> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
>>>> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
>>>> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>>>
>>>No matter how many times you say these lies they don't becaome true
>>>Paul.
>>
>> Not lies. Anyone can verify for themselves if they are honest enough.
>
>Language, tradition, custom, law, religion, those are all quite subjective
>or changing concepts.
Unlike your personal opinion, which is unchanging and always correct.
> I would not call them facts. A fact that transcends
>all of them is that a pregnant woman, before birth, has a whole human
>individual inside her
An obvious lie. If it was an individual then it would be separate.
It would not be part of a pregnant woman.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Paul Anderson
>
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
>> On 17 Apr 2006 04:57:45 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
>>>> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
>>>> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
>>>> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>>>
>>>No matter how many times you say these lies they don't becaome true
>>>Paul.
>>
>> Not lies. Anyone can verify for themselves if they are honest enough.
>
>Language, tradition, custom, law, religion, those are all quite subjective
>or changing concepts. I would not call them facts. A fact that transcends
>all of them is that a pregnant woman, before birth, has a whole human
>individual inside....
See -- you must lie about what an individual is to make your point.
Dutch
Look up the word "lie" Paul. The meaning is NOT "Information which disturbs
one's preconceptions"
Also look up individual, a single human
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=individual A fetus is a single
human.
Ray Fischer
>
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
>> On Fri, 21 Apr 2006 01:36:18 -0700, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
>>>> On 17 Apr 2006 04:57:45 -0700, lege...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> A human being is that which is born, human and alive -- this is in
>>>>>> accordance with language, religion, tradition, and is coded into law.
>>>>>> This is a fact, not an opinion. I cannot change facts. Neither can
>>>>>> you no matter how often you lie about the facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>No matter how many times you say these lies they don't becaome true
>>>>>Paul.
>>>>
>>>> Not lies. Anyone can verify for themselves if they are honest enough.
>>>
>>>Language, tradition, custom, law, religion, those are all quite subjective
>>>or changing concepts. I would not call them facts. A fact that transcends
>>>all of them is that a pregnant woman, before birth, has a whole human
>>>individual inside....
>>
>> See -- you must lie about what an individual is to make your point.
>
>Look up the word "lie" Paul. The meaning is NOT "Information which disturbs
>one's preconceptions"
And "truth" is not whatever Dutch says.
>Also look up individual, a single human
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=individual A fetus is a single
>human.
You seem to think that your lies should be regarded as truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Paul Anderson
>
>"Paul Anderson" <elco...@netzero.net> wrote
....
>>> A fact that transcends
>>>all of them is that a pregnant woman, before birth, has a whole human
>>>individual inside....
>>
>> See -- you must lie about what an individual is to make your point.
>
>Look up the word "lie" Paul. The meaning is NOT "Information which disturbs
>one's preconceptions"
That is not what makes calling the fetus an individual a lie.
>Also look up individual, a single human
>http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=individual A fetus is a single
>human.
That cited definition reference does not say "A fetus is a single
human." It says:
Of or relating to an individual, especially a single human:
individual consciousness.
...
Existing as a distinct entity; separate: individual drops of rain.
Marked by or expressing individuality.
The fetus is a part of a single human, and has no consciousness.
The fetus is not marked by or expresses individuality -- which is why
it is possible to switch babies at birth.