Anti-choicers play their silly little games
Harry Hope
MADISON, Wis. (Reuter) - Anti-abortion activists
were confident Monday they would collect enough
signatures by Tuesday's deadline to force a recall
vote on Wisconsin's two Democratic U.S. senators.
The activists, grouped in a Milwaukee-based
organization called First Breath Alliance, were
seeking an unprecedented statewide recall vote for
Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl because of
their opposition to federal legislation banning
so-called ``partial birth'' abortions.
Advice to anti-choicers - grow up, kids.
Harry
Skyscraper
So, you think it's alright to kill little children before they are born,
do you?
Who is next on your agenda? Just-born infants of imperfect nature?
Children under the age of 3 who are "too much trouble"? The infirm
elderly? The elderly? The infirm? The mentally deficient? The
politically incorrect? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists?
Moonies?
My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
Skyscraper
Remember: Tyrants and criminals prefer unarmed peasants!
Skyscraper
Satan Claus wrote:
>
> On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:16:09 -0700, Skyscraper
> <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Harry Hope wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> MADISON, Wis. (Reuter) - Anti-abortion activists
> >> were confident Monday they would collect enough
> >> signatures by Tuesday's deadline to force a recall
> >> vote on Wisconsin's two Democratic U.S. senators.
> >>
> >> The activists, grouped in a Milwaukee-based
> >> organization called First Breath Alliance, were
> >> seeking an unprecedented statewide recall vote for
> >> Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl because of
> >> their opposition to federal legislation banning
> >> so-called ``partial birth'' abortions.
> >>
> >> Advice to anti-choicers - grow up, kids.
> >>
> >> Harry
> >
> >So, you think it's alright to kill little children before they are born,
> >do you?
>
> life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
> Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
> a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
> That simple.
>
> >Who is next on your agenda?
>
>
> >Just-born infants of imperfect nature?
> >Children under the age of 3 who are "too much trouble"? The infirm
> >elderly? The elderly? The infirm? The mentally deficient? The
> >politically incorrect? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists?
> >Moonies?
>
> what am I saying? My family's jewish! Wait, maybe that's why I hate
> jews...
>
> Well, you know the definition of a pro-"lifer": They care about you
> before you're born and after you die, but they don't give a shit in
> between.
>
> >My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
>
> their song, "Killing Floor":
>
> "There's this group going around that calls themselves Pro-Life.
> Well, instead they should call themselves Pro-Death!
> Because by taking away our freedom of choice,
> They're going to force many women into the back alley.
> And many women are going to die from these back alley abortions!
> But these people don't seem to care...
> Operation "Rescue"? What do you want me to do?
> SHOVE A COATHANGER UP MY CUNT?
> I had an abortion in a back alley, I had an abortion in a back alley,
> I had an abortion in a back alley, and now I'm bleeding to death,
> On the killing floor."
>
> Matt Singerman
> http://www.pitt.edu/~messt66/
> (Take off the x's to e-mail to me)
>
> High General, IRCWP
> "SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick
>
> Ð’Ð’ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal Ð’Ð’
> Ð’Ð’Ð’ If you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig Ð’Ð’Ð’
> Ð’Ð’Ð’Ð’ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm Ð’Ð’Ð’Ð’
What a fucking psychopath!
Satan Claus
Pat Curley
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 01:54:22 GMT, Satan...@TheSouthPole.net (Satan
Claus) wrote:
>The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
>life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
>Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
>a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
>That simple.
Buhbuhbuhbullshit. Every bill that has come up to ban the partial
birth abortion has contained an exception for the life of the mother.
And The Bergen (New Jersey) Record found out that in one year over
1500 of these abortions were performed in NJ alone, almost all of
which were purely elective. You can check it out for yourself at
http://www.bergen.com/abortion/abort191.htm The Record is not exactly
a conservative newspaper--it endorsed George McGovern in 1972, and
every Democratic presidential nominee since.
I am not a big fan of giving the government any more power than it
already has. I do not support a ban on abortions in general. But
this procedure, unless done to save the life of the mother, is just
plain too close to infanticide (as noted by that conservative Daniel
Patrick Moynihan).
Pat Curley
Brian Carey
Skyscraper wrote:
> So, you think it's alright to kill little children before they are born,
> do you?
>
> Children under the age of 3 who are "too much trouble"? The infirm
> elderly? The elderly? The infirm? The mentally deficient? The
> politically incorrect? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists?
> Moonies?
>
Kevorkian would be so proud of him.
--
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Spurgeon" on #politics on the Undernet!
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political
prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should
labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can
be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the
influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,
reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
--- Excerpts from George Washington's Farewell Address
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> >> My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
>
>
> Showing your intellectual dishonesty again, I see.
>
> Hint, Kevorkian kills nobody, born or unborn.
*Chuckle*
Tell us about it, Andy.
Milt
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
:Andrew Hall wrote:
:> >> My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
:>
:> Brian> Kevorkian would be so proud of him.
:>
:> Showing your intellectual dishonesty again, I see.
:>
:> Hint, Kevorkian kills nobody, born or unborn.
:
:*Chuckle*
:
:Tell us about it, Andy.
:
You have evidence that Kevorkian kills people? I'm sure the state of
Michigan would love to see it, Brian. Where is it?
The *fact* is, Kevorkian has never killed anyone. Kevorkian simply listens
to those who express a sincere wish to die, shows them how to do it
quickly and painlessly, and then leaves them alone to do it to themselves.
Some have even changed their minds...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
"We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
--George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
Brian Carey
Milt wrote:
> :> Hint, Kevorkian kills nobody, born or unborn.
> :
> :*Chuckle*
> :
> :Tell us about it, Andy.
> :
> You have evidence that Kevorkian kills people? I'm sure the state of
> Michigan would love to see it, Brian. Where is it?
>
> The *fact* is, Kevorkian has never killed anyone. Kevorkian simply listens
> to those who express a sincere wish to die, shows them how to do it
> quickly and painlessly, and then leaves them alone to do it to themselves.
> Some have even changed their minds...
*Chuckle* again...
So he doesn't actually take out a gun and shoot people, just helps them
to kill themselves using medical technology. How humane and decent of
him.
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Showing your intellectual dishonesty again, I see.
> Hint, Kevorkian kills nobody, born or unborn.
I suppose this is showing your emotional dishonesty, or ignorance, if you
are referring to Dr. Jack Kervorkian. Although Dr. Jack likes to think of
it as assisted suicide, he is in fact the agent of his patient's deaths.
Whether one agrees with the idea of helping people, who cannot bring
themselves to end their own lives (which is what suicide is all about), to
their deaths, he kills them just as dead.
You have this tendency not to want to call killing, of the born or unborn,
what it is, which is a little like talking while your head is still stuck
in the sand.
--papa budge
------------
"Ring the bells that still can ring.
Forget your perfect offering.
There is a crack in everything:
That's how the light gets in."
--lc
"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
--jc
Gail Thaler
Papa Budge wrote:
>
> Milt wrote:
>
> > The *fact* is, Kevorkian has never killed anyone. Kevorkian simply listens
> > to those who express a sincere wish to die, shows them how to do it
> > quickly and painlessly, and then leaves them alone to do it to themselves.
> > Some have even changed their minds...
>
> Kevorkian's supporters, he hardly leaves his patients alone. He attends
> their deaths, and is quite present when he helps them to their deaths.
> "Assisted suicide" is one of those oxymorons nobody quite likes to assign
> its true mreaning. In a suicide, one person (oddly enough, the one who
> dies) is involved in the killing of a human being. In all of Kevorkian's
> cases, two persons are involved in the killing, one of them always being
> Dr. Jack Kevorkian.
>
It is my understanding that he administers a lethal injection
and watches as the victim (I do not say patient because
Kavorkian is not an attending physician; he has never attended
patients and is a pathologist by training, I think) and/or
others place a plastic bag over her head. His "death with
dignity" includes being killed in the back of a VW van with
the body dumped whereever.
> Kevorkian himself calls what he does "physician-assisted voluntary
> euthanasia." Euthanasia is "the act or practice of killing...hopelessly
> sick or injured individuals...for reasons of mercy." Kevorkian's own
> defense tactics now are "that a person may not be found guilty of
> criminally assisting a suicide if that person had administered medication
> with the intent to relieve pain and suffering, even if it hastens the risk
> of dying." Kevorkian himself administers the lethal injections he now uses
> to kill his patients -- excuse me, relieve their pain and suffering.
>
> Right or wrong, you decide. But it is certainly killing.
>
> --papa budge
I agree with papa. Kavorikian kills people. At least two
people were not suffering from fatal diseases and at least
one may have changed his mind at the last moments. In any
case, Kavorkian is sloppy about looking at medical records,
does not insist on counseling, for instance, and seems more
to be interested in self-promotion than doctoring patients.
He's a jerk and a disgrace, in my opinion.
a
a
a
a
Papa Budge
Milt wrote:
> The *fact* is, Kevorkian has never killed anyone. Kevorkian simply listens
> to those who express a sincere wish to die, shows them how to do it
> quickly and painlessly, and then leaves them alone to do it to themselves.
> Some have even changed their minds...
Yes, but unfortunately after he'd already killed them. According even to
Kevorkian's supporters, he hardly leaves his patients alone. He attends
their deaths, and is quite present when he helps them to their deaths.
"Assisted suicide" is one of those oxymorons nobody quite likes to assign
its true mreaning. In a suicide, one person (oddly enough, the one who
dies) is involved in the killing of a human being. In all of Kevorkian's
cases, two persons are involved in the killing, one of them always being
Dr. Jack Kevorkian.
Kevorkian himself calls what he does "physician-assisted voluntary
euthanasia." Euthanasia is "the act or practice of killing...hopelessly
sick or injured individuals...for reasons of mercy." Kevorkian's own
defense tactics now are "that a person may not be found guilty of
criminally assisting a suicide if that person had administered medication
with the intent to relieve pain and suffering, even if it hastens the risk
of dying." Kevorkian himself administers the lethal injections he now uses
to kill his patients -- excuse me, relieve their pain and suffering.
Right or wrong, you decide. But it is certainly killing.
--papa budge
------------
Joe Myers
Skyscraper <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>So, you think it's alright to kill little children before they are born,
>do you?
>Who is next on your agenda? Just-born infants of imperfect nature?
>Children under the age of 3 who are "too much trouble"? The infirm
>elderly? The elderly? The infirm? The mentally deficient? The
>politically incorrect? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists?
>Moonies?
>My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
You're the one who is "pro-abortion," 'scrap.
You're "Pro-abortion in back alleys."
You're "Pro-abortion by quacks."
You're "Pro-abortion by coathangers"
You're "Pro-abortion by knitting needles."
Before safe abortion services were legally available, 30-40% of most
OB-GYNs' practices (in Kansas) consisted of trying to repair botched
abortion attempts. Dr. Bill Roy, a former Congressman from Kansas,
writes in the Topeka Capital Journal (6-19-96) that when he was
practicing, it was easier to get an abortion in Topeka (when the
procedure was illegal) than it is today.
You want to preach against abortion? Fine. Preach it. Convince your
congregations not to seek to end unwanted pregnancy. But if your
gospel doesn't convert the masses, don't send desperate women back to
the butchers. If, that is, life *after* birth is something you
value.
Satan Claus
On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 23:11:24 -0700, Skyscraper
<skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Satan Claus wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:16:09 -0700, Skyscraper
>> <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Harry Hope wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> MADISON, Wis. (Reuter) - Anti-abortion activists
>> >> were confident Monday they would collect enough
>> >> signatures by Tuesday's deadline to force a recall
>> >> vote on Wisconsin's two Democratic U.S. senators.
>> >>
>> >> The activists, grouped in a Milwaukee-based
>> >> organization called First Breath Alliance, were
>> >> seeking an unprecedented statewide recall vote for
>> >> Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl because of
>> >> their opposition to federal legislation banning
>> >> so-called ``partial birth'' abortions.
>> >>
>> >> Advice to anti-choicers - grow up, kids.
>> >>
>> >> Harry
>> >
>> >So, you think it's alright to kill little children before they are born,
>> >do you?
>>
>> The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
>> life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
>> Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
>> a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
>> That simple.
>>
>> >Who is next on your agenda?
>>
>> You.
>>
>> >Just-born infants of imperfect nature?
>> >Children under the age of 3 who are "too much trouble"? The infirm
>> >elderly? The elderly? The infirm? The mentally deficient? The
>> >politically incorrect? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists?
>> >Moonies?
>>
>> Maybe the moonies. Better, the Jews. I hate the fucking Jews. Wait,
>> what am I saying? My family's jewish! Wait, maybe that's why I hate
>> jews...
>>
>> Well, you know the definition of a pro-"lifer": They care about you
>> before you're born and after you die, but they don't give a shit in
>> between.
>>
>> >My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
>>
>> I will now quote from the wonderful punk band Naked Agression, and
>> their song, "Killing Floor":
>>
>> "There's this group going around that calls themselves Pro-Life.
>> Well, instead they should call themselves Pro-Death!
>> Because by taking away our freedom of choice,
>> They're going to force many women into the back alley.
>> And many women are going to die from these back alley abortions!
>> But these people don't seem to care...
>> Operation "Rescue"? What do you want me to do?
>> SHOVE A COATHANGER UP MY CUNT?
>> I had an abortion in a back alley, I had an abortion in a back alley,
>> I had an abortion in a back alley, and now I'm bleeding to death,
>> On the killing floor."
>>
>> Matt Singerman
>> http://www.pitt.edu/~messt66/
>> (Take off the x's to e-mail to me)
>>
>> High General, IRCWP
>> "SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick
>>
>> Ð’Ð’ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal Ð’Ð’
>> Ð’Ð’Ð’ If you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig Ð’Ð’Ð’
>> Ð’Ð’Ð’Ð’ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm Ð’Ð’Ð’Ð’
>
>
>What a fucking psychopath!
>
>Skyscraper
Damn skippy.
>Remember: Tyrants and criminals prefer unarmed peasants!
So do gang members. Handguns serve no purpose other than to kill
another human being.
Satan Claus
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 02:51:55 GMT, patc...@idt.net (Pat Curley) wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 01:54:22 GMT, Satan...@TheSouthPole.net (Satan
>Claus) wrote:
>
>>The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
>>life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
>>Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
>>a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
>>That simple.
>
>Buhbuhbuhbullshit. Every bill that has come up to ban the partial
>birth abortion has contained an exception for the life of the mother.
>And The Bergen (New Jersey) Record found out that in one year over
>1500 of these abortions were performed in NJ alone, almost all of
>which were purely elective. You can check it out for yourself at
>http://www.bergen.com/abortion/abort191.htm The Record is not exactly
>a conservative newspaper--it endorsed George McGovern in 1972, and
>every Democratic presidential nominee since.
I wouldn't go quoting the Bergen Cty. Record... They recently ran an
editorial demanding that Jesse Tomendequa's lawyer be hanged also.
And no, if you look at the bill introduced recently, there were *no*
exceptions. Rick Strandhoum (I think that's his name), the
white-power senator from PA, specifially said that on televised
debates that ran on C-SPAN2.
And by the way, the NY Times ran an interesting editorial the other
day... Much of the controversy stems from the name given the
procedure by right wing spindoctors. That is why I only refer to it
as a dilated extration abortion.
Milt
On 4 Jun 1997, Andrew Hall wrote:
:>>>>> Milt writes:
:
: Milt> On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
: >> Andrew Hall wrote:
: >>> >> My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
: >>>
: Brian> Kevorkian would be so proud of him.
: >>>
: >>> Showing your intellectual dishonesty again, I see.
: >>>
: >>> Hint, Kevorkian kills nobody, born or unborn.
: >>
: >> *Chuckle*
: >>
: >> Tell us about it, Andy.
: >>
: Milt> You have evidence that Kevorkian kills people? I'm sure the state of
: Milt> Michigan would love to see it, Brian. Where is it?
:
: Milt> The *fact* is, Kevorkian has never killed anyone. Kevorkian simply listens
: Milt> to those who express a sincere wish to die, shows them how to do it
: Milt> quickly and painlessly, and then leaves them alone to do it to themselves.
: Milt> Some have even changed their minds...
:
:As a point of order, I believe he helps procure equipment for
:their suicide and remains with them while they kill themselves.
Actually, he is not with them when they do it. They contact him, then he
counselds them for weeks or months. Then, when he's convinced they are
serious, he shows them how to use the machine, and they go out to his van,
where he leaves them alone for a time. If he comes back, and they're dead,
he tales them to the nearest emergency room. If not, the process is over,
and everyone goes home. In fact, that is one major reason they can't
convict him. He actually does nothing while they are committing suicide...
:
:However, he does not kill them.
:
:ah
:(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
:
:
Milt
On Wed, 4 Jun 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
:Milt wrote:
:> :> Hint, Kevorkian kills nobody, born or unborn.
:> :
:> :*Chuckle*
:> :
:> :Tell us about it, Andy.
:> :
:> You have evidence that Kevorkian kills people? I'm sure the state of
:> Michigan would love to see it, Brian. Where is it?
:>
:> The *fact* is, Kevorkian has never killed anyone. Kevorkian simply listens
:> to those who express a sincere wish to die, shows them how to do it
:> quickly and painlessly, and then leaves them alone to do it to themselves.
:> Some have even changed their minds...
:
:*Chuckle* again...
:
:So he doesn't actually take out a gun and shoot people, just helps them
:to kill themselves using medical technology. How humane and decent of
:him.
:
Actually, it is very humane and decent of him, Brian. Better to allow
people who are suffering choose to die, than to force (that's a word you
like to use a lot, huh?) people to suffer for years and years to satisfy
someone else's idea of "life".
Of course you people who facetiously call yourselves "pro-life", really
don't care about that, do you?
Zepp
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 02:51:55 GMT, patc...@idt.net (Pat Curley) wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 01:54:22 GMT, Satan...@TheSouthPole.net (Satan
>Claus) wrote:
>
>>The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
>>life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
>>Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
>>a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
>>That simple.
>
>Buhbuhbuhbullshit. Every bill that has come up to ban the partial
>birth abortion has contained an exception for the life of the mother.
Yes, but not the health of the mother. That's the sticking point for
the Pubs, who are secretly gleeful that they haven't "solved" the D&X
"problem" and can thus string the religious whacks along for another
year.
>And The Bergen (New Jersey) Record found out that in one year over
>1500 of these abortions were performed in NJ alone, almost all of
>which were purely elective. You can check it out for yourself at
>http://www.bergen.com/abortion/abort191.htm The Record is not exactly
>a conservative newspaper--it endorsed George McGovern in 1972, and
>every Democratic presidential nominee since.
That would be quite an accomplishment, since nationwide, they only
make up about 750 a year. And they are "elective" only insofar as the
mother isn't moments away from death, but instead stands only to be
crippled and barren for the rest of her life and in considerable pain.
>
>I am not a big fan of giving the government any more power than it
>already has. I do not support a ban on abortions in general. But
>this procedure, unless done to save the life of the mother, is just
>plain too close to infanticide (as noted by that conservative Daniel
>Patrick Moynihan).
>
>Pat Curley
It's never done casually, you know. Do you think an eight-month
pregnant woman waddles past an abortion clinic, snaps her fingers, and
says, "Gee, I -knew- there was something I had to do last January!"
and goes in and has it extracted? No, it's done because the fetus is
already dead, or will be still-born, or is anacephalic. Or, in even
more heart-wrenching cases, the fetus is OK, but the mother stands to
die or be permanently crippled because something went disasterously
wrong.
Have you noticed that the coathanger crowd hasn't been able to produce
a woman who claimed to have a D&X in the third trimester just for the
hell of it?
=====================================================================
The eagle soars. He is master of the clouds, the atavar of all that
beat wings. He sees events, minute as a mouse, distant as the horizon.
He is bold, he is fierce, he is magnificent.
But weasels DON'T get sucked into jet engines.
--Based on a sig by mik...@korrnet.org, who probably had no idea what
I would do with it.
Be good, servile little citizen employees, and pay your taxes so the
rich don't have to.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
Zepp
On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 11:44:15 -0400, Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch>
wrote:
>Andrew Hall wrote:
>> >> My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
>>
>> Brian> Kevorkian would be so proud of him.
>>
>> Showing your intellectual dishonesty again, I see.
>>
>> Hint, Kevorkian kills nobody, born or unborn.
>
>*Chuckle*
>
>Tell us about it, Andy.
Andrew's absolutely correct. Kevorkian, to the best of anyone's
knowledge, has never killed another human being. He would be in jail
right now if he had.
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Brian> *Chuckle* again...
>
> Brian> So he doesn't actually take out a gun and shoot people, just helps them
>
> Yes, I am glad you admitted to your dishonesty.
LOL! I never said he DID take out a gun and shoot people!
Talk about grasping for straws...
>
> Brian> to kill themselves using medical technology. How humane and decent of
> Brian> him.
>
> Yes it is. That is why he has been acquitted each and every time
> a statist has tried to deny people in unbearable agony the right
> to choose to die with dignity and without pain.
I didn't know that people who believe in the sanctity of human life were
now classified as statists.
kenfran
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Milt wrote:
> > :
> > :*Chuckle*
> > :
> > :Tell us about it, Andy.
> > You have evidence that Kevorkian kills people? I'm sure the state of
> > Michigan would love to see it, Brian. Where is it?
> >
> > The *fact* is, Kevorkian has never killed anyone. Kevorkian simply listens
> > to those who express a sincere wish to die, shows them how to do it
> > quickly and painlessly, and then leaves them alone to do it to themselves.
> > Some have even changed their minds...
>
> *Chuckle* again...
>
>
> --
> Brian M. Carey
Ans do you approve of the killing of Iraqis, Somailis, Bosnians, and
others by our government?
kenfran
Satan Claus wrote:
>
> On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 02:51:55 GMT, patc...@idt.net (Pat Curley) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 01:54:22 GMT, Satan...@TheSouthPole.net (Satan
> >Claus) wrote:
> >
> >>The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
> >>life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
> >>Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
> >>a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
> >>That simple.
> >
> >Buhbuhbuhbullshit. Every bill that has come up to ban the partial
> >birth abortion has contained an exception for the life of the mother.
> >1500 of these abortions were performed in NJ alone, almost all of
> >which were purely elective. You can check it out for yourself at
> >http://www.bergen.com/abortion/abort191.htm The Record is not exactly
> >a conservative newspaper--it endorsed George McGovern in 1972, and
> >every Democratic presidential nominee since.
>
> editorial demanding that Jesse Tomendequa's lawyer be hanged also.
>
> And no, if you look at the bill introduced recently, there were *no*
> exceptions. Rick Strandhoum (I think that's his name), the
> white-power senator from PA, specifially said that on televised
> debates that ran on C-SPAN2.
>
> And by the way, the NY Times ran an interesting editorial the other
> day... Much of the controversy stems from the name given the
> procedure by right wing spindoctors. That is why I only refer to it
> as a dilated extration abortion.
The coathanger crowd has done as I predicted they would. First make up a
term for a specific procedure, then demonize it, then widen their own
definition to include all late-term abortions.
Rich Johnson
Zepp (ze...@snowcrest.net) wrote:
: On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 02:51:55 GMT, patc...@idt.net (Pat Curley) wrote:
: >On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 01:54:22 GMT, Satan...@TheSouthPole.net (Satan
: >Claus) wrote:
: >
: >>The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
: >>life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
: >>Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
: >>a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
: >>That simple.
: >
: >Buhbuhbuhbullshit. Every bill that has come up to ban the partial
: >birth abortion has contained an exception for the life of the mother.
: Yes, but not the health of the mother. That's the sticking point for
: the Pubs, who are secretly gleeful that they haven't "solved" the D&X
: "problem" and can thus string the religious whacks along for another
: year.
: >And The Bergen (New Jersey) Record found out that in one year over
: >1500 of these abortions were performed in NJ alone, almost all of
: >which were purely elective. You can check it out for yourself at
: >http://www.bergen.com/abortion/abort191.htm The Record is not exactly
: >a conservative newspaper--it endorsed George McGovern in 1972, and
: >every Democratic presidential nominee since.
: That would be quite an accomplishment, since nationwide, they only
: make up about 750 a year. And they are "elective" only insofar as the
: mother isn't moments away from death, but instead stands only to be
: crippled and barren for the rest of her life and in considerable pain.
: >
: >I am not a big fan of giving the government any more power than it
: >already has. I do not support a ban on abortions in general. But
: >this procedure, unless done to save the life of the mother, is just
: >plain too close to infanticide (as noted by that conservative Daniel
: >Patrick Moynihan).
: >
: >Pat Curley
: It's never done casually, you know. Do you think an eight-month
: pregnant woman waddles past an abortion clinic, snaps her fingers, and
: says, "Gee, I -knew- there was something I had to do last January!"
: and goes in and has it extracted? No, it's done because the fetus is
: already dead, or will be still-born, or is anacephalic. Or, in even
: more heart-wrenching cases, the fetus is OK, but the mother stands to
: die or be permanently crippled because something went disasterously
: wrong.
: Have you noticed that the coathanger crowd hasn't been able to produce
: a woman who claimed to have a D&X in the third trimester just for the
: hell of it?
I'm not going to make any judgements on this issue but lets at least get
our facts straight. The statements you made echo the words of a guy named
Fitzsimmons on Nightline during the debate over this procedure when this bill
went before the president the last time. Mr. Fitzsimmons was (is?) the
Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. Since then
he admitted that he "lied through his teeth" and that, in fact, thousands of
these procedures are performed every year and in 90% of the cases the health
of the mother is not in danger. The are performed mostly on teenagers who are
in denial over their pregnancy and wait way too long to get an abortion.
Rich
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Yes it is. That is why he has been acquitted each and every time
> a statist has tried to deny people in unbearable agony the right
> to choose to die with dignity and without pain.
Just as a point of order, there are a good number of people Dr. Kevorkian
has helped to kill who were nowhere near unbearable (physical) agony. You
can read about them for yourself on the web site called "The Kevorkian
Files."
By the way, the web site is pro-Kevorkian.
kenfran
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> Skyscraper wrote:
> > So, you think it's alright to kill little children before they are born,
> > do you?
> >
> > Children under the age of 3 who are "too much trouble"? The infirm
> > elderly? The elderly? The infirm? The mentally deficient? The
> > politically incorrect? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists?
> > Moonies?
> >
How did YOU feel about killing human beings on TV while U.S. generals
laughed about it?
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Brian> LOL! I never said he DID take out a gun and shoot people!
>
> No,. you said he killed them. Now you have admitted he does
> not. That he merely helps them kill themselves. Thank you
> for admitting your dishonesty for once.
>
This is a lie.
I never once said that Kevorkian killed anybody.
Andy, if you consult Deja News, you will find that this is the sum total
of what I said: "Kevorkian would be proud of him."
That's it. That's all. Nothing more until you blabbed.
> Brian> I didn't know that people who believe in the sanctity of human life were
> Brian> now classified as statists.
>
> People that attempt to use the power of the state to
> force people to die in agony rather than have the ability
> to choose to die with dignity and without pain are statists.
> Obviously.
Oh, obviously. And everyone that Kevorkian "assists" would have died in
agony? And if physician assisted suicide becomes legal only the ones in
agony qualify? And is this agony curable by any means besides death?
>
> People that try to talk people in agonizing pain out of
> killing themselves because of their personal religious beliefs
> are not statists. Obviously.
>
> Do you see the difference?
I see the difference between the two types of people you describe, I
just don't see how people who advocate that the government understand
and recognize the sanctity of human life are statists.
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Brian> *Chuckle*
>
>
> Again Briany, you are showing your dishonesty.
>
> Why do you do that so much?
Again, Andy, you make spurious claims with no evidence to back them up.
Why do you do that so much?
Papa Budge
Zepp wrote:
> Kevorkian, to the best of anyone's
> knowledge, has never killed another human being. He would be in jail
> right now if he had.
Uh, you mean like O.J. Simpson?
James R. Shiflett
Too many FACTS to post here, so have a look at this important WEB page.
Ray Fischer
>> Yes it is. That is why he has been acquitted each and every time
>> a statist has tried to deny people in unbearable agony the right
>> to choose to die with dignity and without pain.
>
>Just as a point of order, there are a good number of people Dr. Kevorkian
>has helped to kill
Helped to commit suicide.
>who were nowhere near unbearable (physical) agony.
So what? Are people only allowed to kill themselves if you think
their reasons are good enough?
> You
>can read about them for yourself on the web site called "The Kevorkian
>Files."
>
>By the way, the web site is pro-Kevorkian.
--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis
Papa Budge
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Papa Budge wrote:
> >Just as a point of order, there are a good number of people Dr. Kevorkian
> >has helped to kill
> Helped to commit suicide.
Oxymoron. By definition suicide is the work of one person.
> >who were nowhere near unbearable (physical) agony.
> So what? Are people only allowed to kill themselves if you think
> their reasons are good enough?
Presumably you are not arguing in defense of a stupid death, for example,
in which a jilted teenager decides to open his veins because he can't live
without his lover of two weeks.
But even if you are, the operative concept is "kill themselves," not have
a friend help them do it, or hire a practitioner of medicide.
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> >> Again Briany, you are showing your dishonesty.
> >>
> >> Why do you do that so much?
>
>
> Brian> Why do you do that so much?
>
> Briany, the evidence was all there. You, as is
> altogether to often the case, snipped it, thus
> showing more dishonestly.
Andy, I snipped simply to save bandwidth, and nothing that I snipped
indicates any dishonesty on my part.
You can disabuse me of that notion, however, by retrieving the dishonest
part from Deja News, but you'll find that there is none.
Zepp
On 5 Jun 1997 18:05:08 GMT, ri...@fc.hp.com (Rich Johnson) wrote:
>: It's never done casually, you know. Do you think an eight-month
>: pregnant woman waddles past an abortion clinic, snaps her fingers, and
>: says, "Gee, I -knew- there was something I had to do last January!"
>: and goes in and has it extracted? No, it's done because the fetus is
>: already dead, or will be still-born, or is anacephalic. Or, in even
>: more heart-wrenching cases, the fetus is OK, but the mother stands to
>: die or be permanently crippled because something went disasterously
>: wrong.
>: Have you noticed that the coathanger crowd hasn't been able to produce
>: a woman who claimed to have a D&X in the third trimester just for the
>: hell of it?
>
>I'm not going to make any judgements on this issue but lets at least get
>our facts straight. The statements you made echo the words of a guy named
>Fitzsimmons on Nightline during the debate over this procedure when this bill
>went before the president the last time. Mr. Fitzsimmons was (is?) the
>Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. Since then
>he admitted that he "lied through his teeth" and that, in fact, thousands of
>these procedures are performed every year and in 90% of the cases the health
>of the mother is not in danger. The are performed mostly on teenagers who are
>in denial over their pregnancy and wait way too long to get an abortion.
I know about the Fitzsimmons quote. What I don't know is what became
of him afterward. He seems to have dropped from sight. Did he only
collect enough money to sell out ONCE? How come the coathanger
coalition isn't parading him around as their poster boy?
There's a movie coming out with Laura Dern that is called "Citizen
Ruth", and it's about a pregnant woman (Dern) who gets caught between
the two sides on the abortion debate. Dern, no prize, is a
paint-sniffing junkie who is pregant with her fifth child by a fifth
father, and the other four are in foster care. When she gets nailed
for sniffing glue, the judge threatens to nail her for endangering her
fetus (a felony) but will drop it if she "takes care of the
pregancy"--ie., gets an abortion. She is taken back to jail to think
it over, and ends up sharing a cell with some clinic protestors.
Thats' when the fun begins.
By the end of the movie, both sides are offering her larges sums of
money to abort/not abort.
It sounds like it might be the funniest movie of the year. It also
sounds like it nails the extremists on both sides of the issue, and
shows how skewed from reality the whole thing has become.
So how much did Fitzsimmons collect to sell out, do you think?
>
>Rich
Papa Budge
Zepp wrote:
> Nobody has charged (Dr. Jack Kevorkian--pb) with murder. Now, why is that?
Probably because they charged him with being an accomplice to a killing.
> Nor is anyone pressured to committ suicide.
Something tells me you don't know the first thing about suicide.
Zepp
On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:28:40 -0500, papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge)
wrote:
>Zepp wrote:
>
>> Kevorkian, to the best of anyone's
>> knowledge, has never killed another human being. He would be in jail
>> right now if he had.
>
>Uh, you mean like O.J. Simpson?
No, I mean as in, up on murder charges. Nobody has charged him with
murder. Now, why is that?
Suicide is not a crime. In fact, you could say it's your most
ultimate right. Being present at a suicide is not a crime. Nor is
anyone pressured to committ suicide.
>
>--papa budge
>
>------------
>
>"Ring the bells that still can ring.
>Forget your perfect offering.
>There is a crack in everything:
>That's how the light gets in."
>
> --lc
>
>
>"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
>
> --jc
=====================================================================
Bryce Hudnall
S owaht? If you die while breaking the law, you shouldn't of been breaking
the law. U pro baby death people are truly sick.
--
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/3642/cwa.htm
Satan Claus <Satan...@TheSouthPole.net> wrote in article
<3395e943...@news.pipeline.com>...
> On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 23:11:24 -0700, Skyscraper
> <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Satan Claus wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:16:09 -0700, Skyscraper
> >> <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Harry Hope wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> MADISON, Wis. (Reuter) - Anti-abortion activists
> >> >> were confident Monday they would collect enough
> >> >> signatures by Tuesday's deadline to force a recall
> >> >> vote on Wisconsin's two Democratic U.S. senators.
> >> >>
> >> >> The activists, grouped in a Milwaukee-based
> >> >> organization called First Breath Alliance, were
> >> >> seeking an unprecedented statewide recall vote for
> >> >> Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl because of
> >> >> their opposition to federal legislation banning
> >> >> so-called ``partial birth'' abortions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Advice to anti-choicers - grow up, kids.
> >> >>
> >> >> Harry
> >> >
> >> >So, you think it's alright to kill little children before they are
born,
> >> >do you?
> >>
> >> The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
> >> life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
> >> Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
> >> a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
> >> That simple.
> >>
> >> >Who is next on your agenda?
> >>
> >> You.
> >>
> >> >Just-born infants of imperfect nature?
> >> >Children under the age of 3 who are "too much trouble"? The infirm
> >> >elderly? The elderly? The infirm? The mentally deficient? The
> >> >politically incorrect? Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists?
> >> >Moonies?
> >>
> >> Maybe the moonies. Better, the Jews. I hate the fucking Jews. Wait,
> >> what am I saying? My family's jewish! Wait, maybe that's why I hate
> >> jews...
> >>
> >> Well, you know the definition of a pro-"lifer": They care about you
> >> before you're born and after you die, but they don't give a shit in
> >> between.
> >>
> >> >My, but you must take great joy in killing human beings.
> >>
> >> I will now quote from the wonderful punk band Naked Agression, and
> >> their song, "Killing Floor":
> >>
> >> "There's this group going around that calls themselves Pro-Life.
> >> Well, instead they should call themselves Pro-Death!
> >> Because by taking away our freedom of choice,
> >> They're going to force many women into the back alley.
> >> And many women are going to die from these back alley abortions!
> >> But these people don't seem to care...
> >> Operation "Rescue"? What do you want me to do?
> >> SHOVE A COATHANGER UP MY CUNT?
> >> I had an abortion in a back alley, I had an abortion in a back alley,
> >> I had an abortion in a back alley, and now I'm bleeding to death,
> >> On the killing floor."
> >>
> >> Matt Singerman
> >> http://www.pitt.edu/~messt66/
> >> (Take off the x's to e-mail to me)
> >>
> >> High General, IRCWP
> >> "SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick
> >>
> >> Ð’Ð’ Stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal Ð’Ð’
> >> Ð’Ð’Ð’ If you agree copy these 3 sentences in your own sig Ð’Ð’Ð’
> >> Ð’Ð’Ð’Ð’ more info: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tank/spg-l/sigaction.htm Ð’Ð’Ð’Ð’
> >
> >
> >What a fucking psychopath!
> >
> >Skyscraper
>
> Damn skippy.
>
> >Remember: Tyrants and criminals prefer unarmed peasants!
>
> So do gang members. Handguns serve no purpose other than to kill
> another human being.
>
> Matt Singerman
> http://www.pitt.edu/~messt66/
> (Take off the x's to e-mail to me)
>
> High General, IRCWP
> "SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick
>
Zepp
On Fri, 06 Jun 1997 16:41:29 -0500, papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge)
wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> Papa Budge wrote:
>
>> >Just as a point of order, there are a good number of people Dr. Kevorkian
>> >has helped to kill
>
>> Helped to commit suicide.
>
>Oxymoron. By definition suicide is the work of one person.
By that logic, the architects and engineers and laborers who worked on
the Golden Gate bridge are guilty of murder.
>
>> >who were nowhere near unbearable (physical) agony.
>
>> So what? Are people only allowed to kill themselves if you think
>> their reasons are good enough?
>
>Presumably you are not arguing in defense of a stupid death, for example,
>in which a jilted teenager decides to open his veins because he can't live
>without his lover of two weeks.
>
I haven't heard of Kevorkian involving himself in any Romeo & Juliet
type deaths.
>But even if you are, the operative concept is "kill themselves," not have
>a friend help them do it, or hire a practitioner of medicide.
Honest, I made the R&J reference before reading this, and now I'm
chuckling. Both, of course, were supplied with the instruments by
which they took their own lives.
>
>--papa budge
>
>------------
>
>"Ring the bells that still can ring.
>Forget your perfect offering.
>There is a crack in everything:
>That's how the light gets in."
>
> --lc
>
>
>"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
>
> --jc
=====================================================================
Mayra Montero, the Cuban novelist, avers that "a country [America]
composed of promiscuous Puritans was never going to be at
ease with itself."
Zepp
On Thu, 05 Jun 1997 11:22:17 -0500, papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge)
wrote:
>Andrew Hall wrote:
>
>> Yes it is. That is why he has been acquitted each and every time
>> a statist has tried to deny people in unbearable agony the right
>> to choose to die with dignity and without pain.
>
>Just as a point of order, there are a good number of people Dr. Kevorkian
>has helped to kill who were nowhere near unbearable (physical) agony. You
>can read about them for yourself on the web site called "The Kevorkian
>Files."
So do you think that people should defer a decision about taking their
own lives until they reach a point where they are completely out of
their minds with pain? That doesn't make much sense.
>
>By the way, the web site is pro-Kevorkian.
>
K. Knopp
In article <339647c8....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
(Zepp) wrote:
> On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 02:51:55 GMT, patc...@idt.net (Pat Curley) wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 01:54:22 GMT, Satan...@TheSouthPole.net (Satan
> >Claus) wrote:
> >
> >>The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
> >>life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
> >>Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
> >>a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
> >>That simple.
> >
> >Buhbuhbuhbullshit. Every bill that has come up to ban the partial
> >birth abortion has contained an exception for the life of the mother.
>
> Yes, but not the health of the mother. That's the sticking point for
> the Pubs, who are secretly gleeful that they haven't "solved" the D&X
> "problem" and can thus string the religious whacks along for another
> year.
According to the AMA, there isn't a situation in which a partial birth
abortion is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion in order to
protect the health of a mother. Therefore such a requirement is moot.
> >And The Bergen (New Jersey) Record found out that in one year over
> >1500 of these abortions were performed in NJ alone, almost all of
> >which were purely elective. You can check it out for yourself at
> >http://www.bergen.com/abortion/abort191.htm The Record is not exactly
> >a conservative newspaper--it endorsed George McGovern in 1972, and
> >every Democratic presidential nominee since.
>
> That would be quite an accomplishment, since nationwide, they only
> make up about 750 a year. And they are "elective" only insofar as the
> mother isn't moments away from death, but instead stands only to be
> crippled and barren for the rest of her life and in considerable pain.
Full of all kinds of "facts" aren't you? Please provide some back-up for
that "750 a year" info. I can show you were abortion industry folks
themselves estimate at around 3,000 take place. As far as you insistence
that, "and they are "elective" only insofar as the mother isn't moments
away from death, but instead stands only to be crippled and barren for the
rest of her life and in considerable pain", the facts seemed to point away
from your veiw point:
According to Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National
Coalition of Abortion Providers:
"In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy
mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons
said. "The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it,
and so, probably, does everyone else," he said in the article in the
Medical News, an American Medical Association publication."
> >I am not a big fan of giving the government any more power than it
> >already has. I do not support a ban on abortions in general. But
> >this procedure, unless done to save the life of the mother, is just
> >plain too close to infanticide (as noted by that conservative Daniel
> >Patrick Moynihan).
> >
> >Pat Curley
>
>
> It's never done casually, you know. Do you think an eight-month
> pregnant woman waddles past an abortion clinic, snaps her fingers, and
> says, "Gee, I -knew- there was something I had to do last January!"
Why is this procedure being done on healthy mothers and babies then?
> and goes in and has it extracted? No, it's done because the fetus is
> already dead, or will be still-born, or is anacephalic. Or, in even
False
> more heart-wrenching cases, the fetus is OK, but the mother stands to
> die or be permanently crippled because something went disasterously
> wrong.
Propaganda
> Have you noticed that the coathanger crowd hasn't been able to produce
> a woman who claimed to have a D&X in the third trimester just for the
> hell of it?
Neither have they found a woman in their first trimester who would testify
about her having a regular abortion "just for the hell of it". Who would
be that brave?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delete the "ha." from my adress to reply via e-mail
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
K. Knopp
In article <3394c8fc...@news.pipeline.com>, xmsing...@pipeline.com
wrote:
> On Tue, 03 Jun 1997 08:16:09 -0700, Skyscraper
> <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Harry Hope wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> MADISON, Wis. (Reuter) - Anti-abortion activists
> >> were confident Monday they would collect enough
> >> signatures by Tuesday's deadline to force a recall
> >> vote on Wisconsin's two Democratic U.S. senators.
> >>
> >> The activists, grouped in a Milwaukee-based
> >> organization called First Breath Alliance, were
> >> seeking an unprecedented statewide recall vote for
> >> Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl because of
> >> their opposition to federal legislation banning
> >> so-called ``partial birth'' abortions.
> >>
> >> Advice to anti-choicers - grow up, kids.
> >>
> >> Harry
> >
> >So, you think it's alright to kill little children before they are born,
> >do you?
>
> The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
> life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
Then why is it mostly done on healthy women with healthy babies?
> Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
> a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
> That simple.
Chock full o' facts huh? Please provide a source for your claims.
kenfran
K. Knopp wrote:
>
> In article <339647c8....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
> (Zepp) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 02:51:55 GMT, patc...@idt.net (Pat Curley) wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 01:54:22 GMT, Satan...@TheSouthPole.net (Satan
> > >Claus) wrote:
> > >
> > >>life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
> > >>a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
> > >>That simple.
> > >
the hell of it?" And that is why no one has produced one?
And the motivation is unimportant anyway. You seek to deny women
control over their own bodies. That is unacceptable.
Tobacco has been shown to cause hundreds of thousands of excruciatindly
painful deaths every year in this country. Why have the "pro-life"
people not demanded that tobacco be illegalized?
kenfran
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Papa Budge writes:
>
> Papa> Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Papa Budge wrote:
>
> >> >has helped to kill
>
>
> Papa> Oxymoron. By definition suicide is the work of one person.
>
> No mention of "one person" appears in my dictionary. If the
> person who dies chooses to die, of their free will (which of
> course implies being of sound mind), then the death is suicide.
>
> ah
> (Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)
Where else would the term "mass suicide" come from? Were the recent cult
deaths calssed as suicide? Yes, and there were many people involved.
Skyscraper
kenfran wrote:
(Big-time snip)
> Has it occurred to you that perhaps women don't have abortions "just for
> the hell of it?" And that is why no one has produced one?
> And the motivation is unimportant anyway. You seek to deny women
> control over their own bodies. That is unacceptable.
> Tobacco has been shown to cause hundreds of thousands of excruciatindly
> painful deaths every year in this country. Why have the "pro-life"
> people not demanded that tobacco be illegalized?
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------> > Delete the "ha." from my adress to reply via e-mail
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
be pregnant; no life-threatening situation, no badly deformed children,
just "I don't want to be pregnant any more."
This comes from the Alan Guttmacher (sp) Institute, a branch of Planned
Parenthood of America.
As for women having control over their bodies, women have that control
all throughout the process of sex. If a woman gets pregnant, then 1) the
woman has the responsibility to have the baby; 2) the man has the
responsibility to provide financial support for the baby. This is
because the child in the womb is a human being, entitled to the same
rights and protections as any other human being under 18.
Skyscraper
Skyscraper
Papa Budge
Zepp wrote:
> So do you think that people should defer a decision about taking their
> own lives until they reach a point where they are completely out of
> their minds with pain?
Oddly enough, I think the people who take their own lives should be the
people who take their own lives.
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Papa Budge writes:
>> By definition suicide is the work of one person.
> No mention of "one person" appears in my dictionary.
You need to get a better dictionary, or a better reader.
kenfran
Skyscraper wrote:
>
> kenfran wrote:
> (Big-time snip)
> > Has it occurred to you that perhaps women don't have abortions "just for
> > the hell of it?" And that is why no one has produced one?
> > And the motivation is unimportant anyway. You seek to deny women
> > control over their own bodies. That is unacceptable.
> > Tobacco has been shown to cause hundreds of thousands of excruciatindly
> > painful deaths every year in this country. Why have the "pro-life"
> > people not demanded that tobacco be illegalized?
> The vast majority of abortions occur because women simply don't want to be
> pregnant; no life-threatening situation, no badly deformed children, just "I
> don't want to be pregnant any more."
>
> This comes from the Alan Guttmacher (sp) Institute, a branch of Planned
> Parenthood of America.
Your selective, out-of-context, irrelevant quotes are noted, but not
impressing anyone. Of course a woman has an abortion because she doesn't
want to be pregnant. Equating that with having an abortion for the hell
of it is crazy.
Saying women are allowed to control their bodies except when they really
need to is absurd.
>
> As for women having control over their bodies, women have that control all
> throughout the process of sex. If a woman gets pregnant, then 1) the woman
> has the responsibility to have the baby; 2) the man has the responsibility to
> provide financial support for the baby. This is because the child in the
> womb is a human being, entitled to the same rights and protections as any
> other human being under 18.
>
There is no such thing as a child in the womb. And fetuses have no
rights.
You still refuse to address the question of why so-called "pro-life"
people are more interested in those who are not alive than those who are
alive. Are you against the killing of civilians in war? Even if your own
country does it? (It's easy to be against some country you don't like
doing bad things. A bit harder to come out against your own country
doing the morally indefensible)
Platypus
kenfran wrote (yes, he really did):
> There is no such thing as a child in the womb. And fetuses have no
> rights.
> You still refuse to address the question of why so-called "pro-life"
> people are more interested in those who are not alive than those who are
> alive... (snipperoo.)
To anyone willing to listen, this is what it comes to. This really is it
in a nutshell: to be for abortion, *you must believe this*, as kenfran
does: What women carry in their bellies for 9 months, which then pops
out, is named, fed, clothed, and so on, is *not* a child. They are not
alive, and can no more be *killed* than can a chunk of granite. If you
believe that, you'll have no problem with it.
Do you?
Platypus (Ornithorhynchus Anatinus)
Zepp
On Sun, 08 Jun 1997 23:14:53 -0400, kkn...@citynet.ha.net (K. Knopp)
wrote:
>In article <339647c8....@news.snowcrest.net>, ze...@snowcrest.net
>(Zepp) wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 02:51:55 GMT, patc...@idt.net (Pat Curley) wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 04 Jun 1997 01:54:22 GMT, Satan...@TheSouthPole.net (Satan
>> >Claus) wrote:
>> >
>> >>The purpose of the dialted extracted abortion is to save the mother's
>> >>life if the child has little to no chance of survival. That simple.
>> >>Making this procedure illegal would cost slightly more than 500 women
>> >>a year their lives. That simple. Their blood will be on your hands.
>> >>That simple.
>> >
>> >Buhbuhbuhbullshit. Every bill that has come up to ban the partial
>> >birth abortion has contained an exception for the life of the mother.
>>
>> Yes, but not the health of the mother. That's the sticking point for
>> the Pubs, who are secretly gleeful that they haven't "solved" the D&X
>> "problem" and can thus string the religious whacks along for another
>> year.
>
>According to the AMA, there isn't a situation in which a partial birth
>abortion is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion in order to
>protect the health of a mother. Therefore such a requirement is moot.
The AMA are a group of political whores who caved in on the D&X thing
in order to secure immunity for doctors on the issue, and to get
protection for doctors on medicare cuts. You'll recall that they ALSO
opposed putting warning labels on cigarette packs in 1964 in return
for a promise from the GOP to fight the then-proposed medicare.
>
>> >And The Bergen (New Jersey) Record found out that in one year over
>> >1500 of these abortions were performed in NJ alone, almost all of
>> >which were purely elective. You can check it out for yourself at
>> >http://www.bergen.com/abortion/abort191.htm The Record is not exactly
>> >a conservative newspaper--it endorsed George McGovern in 1972, and
>> >every Democratic presidential nominee since.
>>
>> That would be quite an accomplishment, since nationwide, they only
>> make up about 750 a year. And they are "elective" only insofar as the
>> mother isn't moments away from death, but instead stands only to be
>> crippled and barren for the rest of her life and in considerable pain.
>
>Full of all kinds of "facts" aren't you? Please provide some back-up for
>that "750 a year" info. I can show you were abortion industry folks
>themselves estimate at around 3,000 take place. As far as you insistence
>that, "and they are "elective" only insofar as the mother isn't moments
>away from death, but instead stands only to be crippled and barren for the
>rest of her life and in considerable pain", the facts seemed to point away
>from your veiw point:
The 750 a year comes from testimony before Congress on the issue. The
only "abortion industry folk" you can produce is that clinic
association flack, who seems to have vanished.
>
>According to Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National
>Coalition of Abortion Providers:
>
> "In the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy
>mother with a healthy fetus that is 20 weeks or more along, Fitzsimmons
>said. "The abortion-rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it,
>and so, probably, does everyone else," he said in the article in the
>Medical News, an American Medical Association publication."
>
Yeah. That one. Where did he GO, anyway?
>> >I am not a big fan of giving the government any more power than it
>> >already has. I do not support a ban on abortions in general. But
>> >this procedure, unless done to save the life of the mother, is just
>> >plain too close to infanticide (as noted by that conservative Daniel
>> >Patrick Moynihan).
>> >
>> >Pat Curley
>>
>>
>> It's never done casually, you know. Do you think an eight-month
>> pregnant woman waddles past an abortion clinic, snaps her fingers, and
>> says, "Gee, I -knew- there was something I had to do last January!"
>
>Why is this procedure being done on healthy mothers and babies then?
It isn't.
>
>> and goes in and has it extracted? No, it's done because the fetus is
>> already dead, or will be still-born, or is anacephalic. Or, in even
>
>False
>
>> more heart-wrenching cases, the fetus is OK, but the mother stands to
>> die or be permanently crippled because something went disasterously
>> wrong.
>
>Propaganda
Never happens at all, in your opinion, I take it. ALL late term
abortions are casual, done because they tickle or something. You're a
sick bastard, you know that?
>
>> Have you noticed that the coathanger crowd hasn't been able to produce
>> a woman who claimed to have a D&X in the third trimester just for the
>> hell of it?
>
>Neither have they found a woman in their first trimester who would testify
>about her having a regular abortion "just for the hell of it". Who would
>be that brave?
>
Yeah, yeah--"The fact that we've found no signs of a conspiracy is, in
itself, an onimous development". So tied up in your psuedo-religious
mania that you can't recognize a complete lack of evidence for what it
is?
Zepp
On Mon, 09 Jun 1997 09:22:39 -0500, papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge)
wrote:
>Zepp wrote:
>
>> So do you think that people should defer a decision about taking their
>> own lives until they reach a point where they are completely out of
>> their minds with pain?
>
>Oddly enough, I think the people who take their own lives should be the
>people who take their own lives.
Oddly enough, Kevorkian agrees with this. That's one reason he
insists that the people he is with have their own hands on the switch.
The three of us appear to be in agreement on this one.
>
>--papa budge
>
>------------
>
>"Ring the bells that still can ring.
>Forget your perfect offering.
>There is a crack in everything:
>That's how the light gets in."
>
> --lc
>
>
>"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
>
> --jc
=====================================================================
Papa Budge
Skyscraper wrote:
> This is because the child in the womb is a human being, entitled to the same
> rights and protections as any other human being under 18.
Not to mention the human beings over and under 18 who possess those wombs.
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Why did you snip the part where I defined the essence
> of what makes a death a suicide? The free, informed
> _choice_ of the person that dies?
> Not very honest of you.
You confuse dishonesty with the judicious pruning of the inessential. But
because you want to discuss it, what do you suppose happens to me if I
fire the bullet into your brain that made the free, informed choice to ask
me to shoot you because you hadn't the courage or conviction to shoot
yourself?
Papa Budge
ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> There is no such thing as a child in the womb. And fetuses have no
> rights.
Just as a point of order, calling a living being by a name that makes you
feel more comfortable when you kill it, makes it neither less living
(until you've killed it) nor less of a being. It does, however, shrink the
size of your own humanity.
Papa Budge
ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> Where else would the term "mass suicide" come from? Were the recent cult
> deaths calssed as suicide? Yes, and there were many people involved.
The difference concerning Kevorkian being, of course, that in mass
suicides, the "mass" kills itself, including the facilitators who make the
kool-aid, set the fires, etc. As far as most people can tell, Kevorkian is
still alive.
Milt
On Tue, 10 Jun 1997, Papa Budge wrote:
:Andrew Hall wrote:
:
:> Why did you snip the part where I defined the essence
:> of what makes a death a suicide? The free, informed
:> _choice_ of the person that dies?
:
:> Not very honest of you.
:
:You confuse dishonesty with the judicious pruning of the inessential. But
:because you want to discuss it, what do you suppose happens to me if I
:fire the bullet into your brain that made the free, informed choice to ask
:me to shoot you because you hadn't the courage or conviction to shoot
:yourself?
:
:--papa budge
Papa, I agree with most of the stuff you post, but you have Kevorkian all
wrong, and I can't just sit by and let you keep perpetrating it. This is
what Kevorkian does; I dare you to tell me that he kills people. I get
this from trial transcripts, and other materials, and I had to do 15 page
research paper for a class, so I am intimately familiar with it.
First off, Kevorkian NEVER solicits. In fact, until he was on the Donahue
program some years back to discuss this issue, he had never even
considered helping people do this. But so many people contacted him for
details, he decided that there was a need; that people were suffering, and
he could help end it. Kevorkian's subjects contact him. He schedules a
meeting with them for an evaluation, and then he schedules a series of
counselling sessions, and medical evaluations, to be sure that the patient
isn't just depressed, and is in quite serious pain. Fact is, he has turned
down far greater numbers of people than he's helped. IF, through the
counselling sessions and medical evaluations, he concludes that this
person is truly suffering, and is rationally choosing to end his/her life,
then he explains to them how his suicide machine works. He then makes them
wait for a period of time, which varies according to the level of
suffering, during which time he takes lots of video, and gets them to say,
on camera, that they wish to die.
When the time comes for the death, he parks his van outside their house,
or at a designated location, where he leaves them alone with the suicide
machine. He does not touch anything; he does not flip any switches. He
does not discuss anything with them. If he comes back to the van, and
they're alive, that's the end of it, and he won't even allow them to
attempt it again. If he comes back, and they're dead, he takes them to the
nearest hospital and drops them off.
I say it's the ultimate freedom to decide when and how you should live.
Life is not simply the act of breathing and pumping blood, and I think the
individual is the only person capable of deciding whether they should live
or die, and how they wish to do so.
Personally, i don't like Jack Kevorkian. He's one of the top assholes of
all time. I wish someone more personable had taken up this issue, but no
one has, and Kevorkian has brought up a lot of great questions. If I am
sane, and do not wish to continue with my life, why shouold my only choice
be to put a bullet through my brain, or slit my wrists? Why should I be
given a humane, painless way out? Why should I have to live for many years
in intense pain that others can only imagine, pain that is relentless,
just to satisfy someone else's idea of morality?
Kevorkian, for all of his faults, in no way kills anyone. He shows them
how to do it, and they are free to NOT do so if they wish. I'm not going
to say that there is no pressure on them, but considering the fact that
they call him, the pressure would seem to come from someone or (more
likely) something other than Kevorkian...
--Milt
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~mshook
"We are taught to believe that there's an invisible man, who lives in the
sky, who has a list of ten things he doesn't want you to do, who watches
you every minute, and if you do something he doesn't like, you're going to
burn forever. YET HE LOVES YOU!"
--George Carlin, on Politically Incorect, May 29, 1997
Ray Fischer
>> There is no such thing as a child in the womb. And fetuses have no
>> rights.
>
>Just as a point of order, calling a living being by a name that makes you
>feel more comfortable when you kill it, makes it neither less living
>(until you've killed it) nor less of a being. It does, however, shrink the
>size of your own humanity.
Is that anything like referring to cattle as "animals"?
--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis
kenfran
Papa Budge wrote:
>
> ken...@concentric.net wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as a child in the womb. And fetuses have no
> > rights.
>
> Just as a point of order, calling a living being by a name that makes you
> feel more comfortable when you kill it, makes it neither less living
> (until you've killed it) nor less of a being. It does, however, shrink the
> size of your own humanity.
>
>
> ------------
>
> "Ring the bells that still can ring.
> Forget your perfect offering.
> There is a crack in everything:
> That's how the light gets in."
>
> --lc
>
> "I am a liar who always tells the truth."
>
> --jc
that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own body.
Skyscraper
kenfran wrote:
> Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the fact
> that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
> the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own body.
So until a human being attains "sentience" it is not really a person?
This is the same logic that the Nazis used to destroy the Jews. The Nazis
declared that the Jews were non-persons, no better than animals, never mind
the fact that they had a flourishing culture.
So who's next on your agenda to kill? Deformed babies? Unruly children?
The elderly? The infirm? Those who bruise easily? The blacks? The asians?
Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists? Moonies?
Something to think about.
Norman Duck
In message <339C4D...@concentric.net> - kenfran
<ken...@concentric.net>Mon, 09 Jun 1997 14:35:52 -0400 writes:
:>
:>Skyscraper wrote:>> As for women having control over their bodies, women have that control all
:>> throughout the process of sex. If a woman gets pregnant, then 1) the woman
:>> has the responsibility to have the baby; 2) the man has the responsibility to
:>> womb is a human being, entitled to the same rights and protections as any
:>> other human being under 18.
:>There is no such thing as a child in the womb. And fetuses have no
:>rights.
:>You still refuse to address the question of why so-called "pro-life"
:>people are more interested in those who are not alive than those who are
:>country does it? (It's easy to be against some country you don't like
:>doing bad things. A bit harder to come out against your own country
:>doing the morally indefensible)
The answer is simple even though you won't accept it. A smoker makes a choice
about their own lives, an abortion is a choice made for someone else who
doesn't have a voice, the unborn child.
Nedwood Duck
Milt
On Wed, 11 Jun 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
:kenfran wrote:
:> Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the fact
:> that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
:> the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own body.
:
:Problem is, it isn't her own body that we're talking about.
:
How so? Are you saying you know how to develop a fetus without using a
woman's womb?
Brian Carey
kenfran wrote:
> Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the fact
> that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
> the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own body.
Problem is, it isn't her own body that we're talking about.
--
Brian M. Carey car...@mci2000.com
"Spurgeon" on #politics on the Undernet!
"Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political
prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In
vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should
labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these
firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens."
"And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can
be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the
influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,
reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
--- Excerpts from George Washington's Farewell Address
Brian Carey
Papa Budge wrote:
>
> Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> > Why did you snip the part where I defined the essence
> > of what makes a death a suicide? The free, informed
> > _choice_ of the person that dies?
>
> > Not very honest of you.
>
> You confuse dishonesty with the judicious pruning of the inessential.
Don't bother trying to explain that to him. He doesn't get it.
Frequently when the nonessentials are cut out of his posts in replies he
resorts the lazy and unsubstantiated "You're being dishonest" tactic.
Oh well.
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Had you procured the gun and loaded it for me, then
> I fired the bullet (of my own free will) that would be suicide,
> perhaps assisted suicide.
And that would be a crime. One does not put a loaded gun into the hand of
a suicidal friend (or even a suicidal enemy) and then be entitled to view
oneself as an angel of mercy.
I have worked with far too many suicidal clients, and the hopelessly
dying, not to know that suicidal thoughts, like all others, are themselves
subject to birth and death. Today's suicidal human being may be one filled
with hope tomorrow; today's mentally and even physically agonized human
being may be one relishing the teachings of death tomorrow, and finding
his or her suffering an incomparable blessing, while suffering just the
same.
My point is that it is not up to me to help them to their death; my role
is to help them clearly see both their life and their death.
Dr. Kevorkian's allegiance is to death, which in my mind is a lopsided
view of the process. Suicide is a step virtually anyone can take; it is
not nuclear science, and there are painless methods available. Anyone more
afraid of the suffering they must endure to die than the suffering they
endure in life is not ready to commit suicide, and I am not willing to
push them past the barrier that keeps them alive. Where there is life I
know there is the potential for learning something, about life and death.
I know it because I have seen it countless times and have remembered.
About death and the potential for learning we are all far less certain.
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Are you claiming that the woman's body is not being used
> by the fetus without her permission?
Apart from rape, I think you'd have to acknowledge at least implied consent.
This is, incidentally, one of the sillier pro-choice arguments I've
encountered, viewing the fetus itself as rapist. Surely there are better
arguments to muster to defend a woman's inherent right to choose.
Papa Budge
ken...@concentric.net wrote:
> Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the fact
> that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
> the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own body.
Ypu evidently have trouble with understanding what sentience means,
psychologically in the first trimester, biologically thereafter.
And incidentally, I wouldn't dream of denying something not remotely
within the realm of my moral authority.
kenfran
Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> >>>>> Brian Carey writes:
>
> Brian> kenfran wrote:
> >> Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate
> >> the fact that you are trying to deny the rights of a living,
> >> thing human being, the woman in whose womb the tissue is
> >> residing, to control her own body.
>
>
> Are you claiming that the woman's body is not being used
> by the fetus without her permission?
>
The conservatives would have you believe that it is immoral to take a
person's money without his (deliberate gender) consent, but it is OK to
force a woman to be an unwilling host for 9 months.
kenfran
Brian Carey wrote:
>
> kenfran wrote:
> > Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the fact
> > that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
> > the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own body.
>
>
> Brian M. Carey .
I know you conservatives don't like to consider a woman's body her own.
You just rarely admit it.
Gail Thaler
Papa Budge wrote:
>
> Andrew Hall wrote:
>
> > by the fetus without her permission?
>
>
> This is, incidentally, one of the sillier pro-choice arguments I've
> encountered, viewing the fetus itself as rapist. Surely there are better
> arguments to muster to defend a woman's inherent right to choose.
>
> --papa budge
>
with it the possibiliy of pregnancy. Women, as a matter
of fact, counter arguments to men who claim that women
got "themselves pregnant" with the argrument that men
consented by not using protection.
Many women object to the "women consenting to sex is consenting
to pregnancy and its consequences" because some people are
basing this on general disliking of women and their sexuality
and the underlying double standard. (I don't get this message
from papa budge.) Not to mention that the consequences used
to fall much more heavily on women. I'm not sure that's the
case these days. There's DNA evidence, women have more of
the force of law to force men to support children (though
it could be better) and there are higher expectations of
fathers.
I agree with papa. The right to choose can be supported
without using this argument. This argument can actually
hurt women's autonomy and equal rights because it gives
the choice-for-men (really anti-choice for women) movement
more credence.
Gail
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Brian> Problem is, it isn't her own body that we're talking about.
>
> Are you claiming that the woman's body is not being used
> by the fetus without her permission?
>
No, I'm claiming that when a doctor partially delivers a baby and then
turns it over, and jabs it in the base of the head, that that is not the
mother's body that is being affected. It is the baby's.
kenfran
my post.
Platypus
kenfran wrote:
>
> Andrew Hall wrote:
> >
> > >>>>> Brian Carey writes:
> >
> > >> Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate
> > >> the fact that you are trying to deny the rights of a living,
> > >> thing human being, the woman in whose womb the tissue is
> > >> residing, to control her own body.
> >
> >
> > Are you claiming that the woman's body is not being used
> > by the fetus without her permission?
> >
>
> The conservatives would have you believe that it is immoral to take a
> person's money without his (deliberate gender) consent, but it is OK to
> force a woman to be an unwilling host for 9 months.
Whereas Kenfran would have you believe both that a) it is *not* immoral
to take a person's money without his consent, AND b) that a woman who
consents to sex, and gets pregnant, is properly termed an 'unwilling
host' of (yes, he did specifically say the following:) a thing which is
not alive. Notice I don't hang this weird ideology around the neck of
(all) 'liberals'. From those I have met, most don't agree with him; they
both agree with the legal definition of theft, AND they think gestating
humans are 'alive'. As to the 'unwilling' crap, they also usually think
that women have been known to get pregnant willingly.
Platypus (Ornithorhynchus Anatinus)
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> He cut out the essence of my post. Hardly inessential.
> He has also, like you, taken things out of context and
> misrepresented what was actually said. Unlike you, he
> does not make a habit of it.
>
And, unlike you, he doesn't make a habit out of unsubstantiated claims.
Jill E. Deel
Zepp <ze...@snowcrest.net> wrote in article
<33992ac8....@news.snowcrest.net>...
> On 5 Jun 1997 18:05:08 GMT, ri...@fc.hp.com (Rich Johnson) wrote:
>
>
> >: It's never done casually, you know. Do you think an eight-month
> >: pregnant woman waddles past an abortion clinic, snaps her fingers, and
> >: says, "Gee, I -knew- there was something I had to do last January!"
> >: and goes in and has it extracted? No, it's done because the fetus is
> >: already dead, or will be still-born, or is anacephalic.
<blah blah blah snip!>
> I know about the Fitzsimmons quote. What I don't know is what became
> of him afterward. He seems to have dropped from sight. Did he only
> collect enough money to sell out ONCE?
Get this! First there is the dishonesty of claiming only sick or dead
babies are aborted--A total lie that was refuted by Ron Fitzsimmons. Then
there is the one shining example of honesty by the pro-abortion crowd.
They think that telling the truth for once is <get this!> selling out! Mr.
Fitzsimmons sold out by telling the truth?
If telling the truth is selling out, what does that say about your entire
movement. Quite an interesting perspective, don't you think?
Jill E. Deel
vale...@iwaynet.net
Jill E. Deel
Skyscraper <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
<339EC6...@earthlink.net>...
> kenfran wrote:
>
> > Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the
fact
> > that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
> > the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own
body.
>
> So until a human being attains "sentience" it is not really a person?
>
> This is the same logic that the Nazis used to destroy the Jews. The
Nazis
> declared that the Jews were non-persons, no better than animals, never
mind
> the fact that they had a flourishing culture.
>
> So who's next on your agenda to kill? Deformed babies? Unruly children?
> The elderly? The infirm? Those who bruise easily? The blacks? The
asians?
> Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists? Moonies?
>
> Something to think about.
Quite true, but even that doesn't address the real issue. How can you call
someone non-sentient, when that someone possesses a fully-functioning human
brain, as every fetus does by the fifth and sixth month? (as any
pro-abortionist would know if they ever bothered to find out the facts
about the unborn, before they made their politically loaded statements)
Yet, abortionists still cling to the lies that a fetus is only a clump of
tissue, yadda yadda yadda. I think every idiot who mimics that line should
be required to watch at least two ultra sounds.
Tell me something you experts on "clumps of tissue?" How does a "clump of
tissue" move? I am 8 months pregnant, and I can tell you this kid is
constatly on the move. She (yes we know the sex) turns, pushes with her
feet, stretches her arms, and turns over sometimes. Those are deliberate
movements. A clump of tissue cannot make deliberate movements.
Honestly, the culpable ignorance you abortionists display is appalling.
Jill E. Deel
vale...@iwaynet.net
Jill E. Deel
Zepp
On 5 Jun 1997 18:05:08 GMT, ri...@fc.hp.com (Rich Johnson) wrote:
>I'm not going to make any judgements on this issue but lets at least get
>our facts straight. The statements you made echo the words of a guy named
>Fitzsimmons on Nightline during the debate over this procedure when this bill
>went before the president the last time. Mr. Fitzsimmons was (is?) the
>Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. Since then
>he admitted that he "lied through his teeth" and that, in fact, thousands of
>these procedures are performed every year and in 90% of the cases the health
>of the mother is not in danger. The are performed mostly on teenagers who are
>in denial over their pregnancy and wait way too long to get an abortion.
>
Yeah, yeah. We keep hearing about Fitzsimmons. But where is he now?
How come the religious whacks are having big parades with him as their
grand marshall? How come we aren't seeing him on every talk show on
CBN and CNN and C-Span? Where IS he? Did he take his sellout money
and move to Europe?
=====================================================================
Mayra Montero, the Cuban novelist, avers that "a country [America]
composed of promiscuous Puritans was never going to be at
ease with itself."
Be good, servile little citizen employees, and pay your taxes so the
rich don't have to.
Novus Ordo Seclorum Volpus de Marina
=====================================================================
When replying by e-mail, remove the third "P" placed there to foil
spambots.
Zepp
>kenfran wrote:
>
>> Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the fact
>> that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
>> the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own body.
>
>So until a human being attains "sentience" it is not really a person?
>
>This is the same logic that the Nazis used to destroy the Jews. The Nazis
>declared that the Jews were non-persons, no better than animals, never mind
>the fact that they had a flourishing culture.
>
As soon as you show that fetuses have a flourishing culture, we'll
drop our arguments.
>So who's next on your agenda to kill? Deformed babies? Unruly children?
>The elderly? The infirm? Those who bruise easily? The blacks? The asians?
> Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists? Moonies?
>
>Something to think about.
We leave that for the neo-Conservatives to mull over. As far at they
are concerned, life ends when a fetus is born, and restarts when he or
she wants to die.
>
>Skyscraper
>Remember: Tyrants and criminals prefer unarmed peasants!
No they don't. They prefer cowards who feel artificially secure
because they have guns and thus won't stand up for any other rights.
Zepp
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 10:21:06 -0500, papa...@aol.com (Papa Budge)
wrote:
>ken...@concentric.net wrote:
>
>> Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the fact
>> that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
>> the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own body.
>
>Ypu evidently have trouble with understanding what sentience means,
>psychologically in the first trimester, biologically thereafter.
Sentience means "self awareness". Are you proposing that a first
trimester fetus is self-aware?
>
>And incidentally, I wouldn't dream of denying something not remotely
>within the realm of my moral authority.
>
>--papa budge
>
>------------
>
>"Ring the bells that still can ring.
>Forget your perfect offering.
>There is a crack in everything:
>That's how the light gets in."
>
> --lc
>
>
>"I am a liar who always tells the truth."
>
> --jc
=====================================================================
Zepp
On 9 Jun 1997 19:26:44 GMT, ri...@fc.hp.com (Rich Johnson) wrote:
>Zepp (ze...@snowcrest.net) wrote:
>: On 5 Jun 1997 18:05:08 GMT, ri...@fc.hp.com (Rich Johnson) wrote:
>
>
>: >: It's never done casually, you know. Do you think an eight-month
>: >: pregnant woman waddles past an abortion clinic, snaps her fingers, and
>: >: says, "Gee, I -knew- there was something I had to do last January!"
>: >: and goes in and has it extracted? No, it's done because the fetus is
>: >: already dead, or will be still-born, or is anacephalic. Or, in even
>: >: more heart-wrenching cases, the fetus is OK, but the mother stands to
>: >: die or be permanently crippled because something went disasterously
>: >: wrong.
>: >: Have you noticed that the coathanger crowd hasn't been able to produce
>: >: a woman who claimed to have a D&X in the third trimester just for the
>: >: hell of it?
>: >
>: >I'm not going to make any judgements on this issue but lets at least get
>: >our facts straight. The statements you made echo the words of a guy named
>: >Fitzsimmons on Nightline during the debate over this procedure when this bill
>: >went before the president the last time. Mr. Fitzsimmons was (is?) the
>: >Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers. Since then
>: >he admitted that he "lied through his teeth" and that, in fact, thousands of
>: >these procedures are performed every year and in 90% of the cases the health
>: >of the mother is not in danger. The are performed mostly on teenagers who are
>: >in denial over their pregnancy and wait way too long to get an abortion.
>
>: I know about the Fitzsimmons quote. What I don't know is what became
>: of him afterward. He seems to have dropped from sight. Did he only
>: collect enough money to sell out ONCE? How come the coathanger
>: coalition isn't parading him around as their poster boy?
>
>What are you implying here? Are you suggesting that Mr. Fitzsimmons was
>telling the truth the first time and now has taken for lying for the
>pro-life cause because they gave him some money. If so, I think you are
>in denial.
I think something very strange happened there. If he -did- have a
genuine change of heart of some sort, why didn't he stick to it. Why
did he vanish?
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Yes, I completely agree that helping someday that is mentally
> ill or depressed (somewhat redundant) to kill themselves is
> wrong. But helping somebody that is in agony from a terminal
> illness is not necessarily wrong.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about Jack Kevorkian, whose work I may
mistakenly have thought you champion. Kevorkian has helped to kill a
number of people whose precipitating suicidal factor is depression. His
very first assisted suicide was of a woman who was in no pain whatsoever,
who was in the early stages of Alzheimer's, the same early stages during
which another of that disease's victims served as President of the United
States.
> For the physically disabled it is not always so easy.
Again, I thought we were talking about Jack Kevorkian. But to your point,
the decision to end one's life may be too important to look for the easy
way.
> What about the quadrapoligic that really wants to die?
> And is in sound mind? Can you see a moral was to assist
> that person?
Sure, by getting out of his or her way. A quadriplegic of sound mind is
rarely a helpless human being. I believe Dr. Stephen Hawking (sorry if I
mangled his name) is a quadriplegic. If he can figure out the universe, he
can figure out a way to die, if that's what he wants. He doesn't need me,
or Jack Kevorkian, to make what should be the most difficult decision of
his life, an easy call because someone else is doing the calling.
Brian Carey
Zepp wrote:
> >So who's next on your agenda to kill? Deformed babies? Unruly children?
> >The elderly? The infirm? Those who bruise easily? The blacks? The asians?
> > Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists? Moonies?
> >
> >Something to think about.
>
> We leave that for the neo-Conservatives to mull over. As far at they
> are concerned, life ends when a fetus is born, and restarts when he or
> she wants to die.
Cool. More unsubstantied slander on Usenet. We definitely don't enough
of that.
> >
> >Skyscraper
> >Remember: Tyrants and criminals prefer unarmed peasants!
>
> No they don't. They prefer cowards who feel artificially secure
> because they have guns and thus won't stand up for any other rights.
>
If that's so, then why do they try to disarm the populace?
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote:
> >> Are you claiming that the woman's body is not being used by the
> >> fetus without her permission?
> Papa> This is, incidentally, one of the sillier pro-choice
> Papa> arguments I've encountered, viewing the fetus itself as
> Papa> rapist. Surely there are better arguments to muster to defend
> Papa> a woman's inherent right to choose.
> The fact that it is her body seems to be at the core
> of position. You came up with the rape stuff, not me.
Interesting: where I come from, using a woman's body (or anyone's, for
that matter), without her permission is customarily viewed as a violation
of her person, which we legally like to call rape.
Brian Carey
Andrew Hall wrote:
> Brian> And, unlike you, he doesn't make a habit out of
> Brian> unsubstantiated claims.
>
> I have substantiated your dishonesty repeatedly. Please
> have the courage to tell the truth.
It doesn't take much courage to tell this truth. All I have ever seen
you do is squawk about "dishonesty" frequently, as you did with papa
budge, but never actually substantiate it.
Shame.
Brian Carey
Zepp wrote:
> Yeah, yeah. We keep hearing about Fitzsimmons. But where is he now?
> How come the religious whacks are having big parades with him as their
> grand marshall? How come we aren't seeing him on every talk show on
> CBN and CNN and C-Span? Where IS he? Did he take his sellout money
> and move to Europe?
What makes you think that he was paid anything for what he did?
Milt
On Fri, 13 Jun 1997, Papa Budge wrote:
:Andrew Hall wrote:
:
:> >> Are you claiming that the woman's body is not being used by the
:> >> fetus without her permission?
:
:> Papa> This is, incidentally, one of the sillier pro-choice
:> Papa> arguments I've encountered, viewing the fetus itself as
:> Papa> rapist. Surely there are better arguments to muster to defend
:> Papa> a woman's inherent right to choose.
Papa, I agree with you, and Andrew may, too. But Brian, here, was implying
that ONLY the fetal mass was involved in the decision on abortion, and
Andrew was responding appropriately to it.
The ONLY argument, as far as I'm concerned, is that the woman, and not the
government, should decide if she wants to be pregnant...
:> The fact that it is her body seems to be at the core
:> of position. You came up with the rape stuff, not me.
:
:Interesting: where I come from, using a woman's body (or anyone's, for
:that matter), without her permission is customarily viewed as a violation
:of her person, which we legally like to call rape.
Which means that we should take out the fetus and try it for a crime?
A few years in pre-juvenile hall might straighten things out.
(I'm sorry, but this conversation is just getting too silly...)
Milt
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Brian Carey wrote:
:Andrew Hall wrote:
:> Brian> Problem is, it isn't her own body that we're talking about.
:>
:> Are you claiming that the woman's body is not being used
:> by the fetus without her permission?
:>
:
:No, I'm claiming that when a doctor partially delivers a baby and then
:turns it over, and jabs it in the base of the head, that that is not the
:mother's body that is being affected. It is the baby's.
:
But what you choose to leave out is the fact that doctors do not perform
this procedure unless the mother's body would be affected by the birth, or
the fetus's body is so deformed that it would not be able to live beyond
birth.
So, you're still wrong...
Papa Budge
Zepp wrote:
> Sentience means "self awareness". Are you proposing that a first
> trimester fetus is self-aware?
It means nothing of the sort, and by your faux definition a child well
past the point of birth would not be considered sentient, because it is
not self-aware.
Sentience refers to the capacity of feeling or sensation, which a fetus
possesses quite early even from a solely biological perspective.
Psychologically, I do indeed propose that a first-trimester fetus is
sentient, though I would hesitate to call it self-aware.
Ray Fischer
Brian Carey <ba...@the.ranch> wrote:
>Andrew Hall wrote:
>> Are you claiming that the woman's body is not being used
>> by the fetus without her permission?
>
>No, I'm claiming that when a doctor partially delivers a baby and then
>turns it over, and jabs it in the base of the head, that that is not the
>mother's body that is being affected. It is the baby's.
Then it's a good thing that that never happens, isn't it?
--
Ray Fischer "The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding." Louis Brandeis
Ray Fischer
>> I know about the Fitzsimmons quote. What I don't know is what became
>> of him afterward. He seems to have dropped from sight. Did he only
>> collect enough money to sell out ONCE?
>
>Get this! First there is the dishonesty of claiming only sick or dead
>babies are aborted--A total lie that was refuted by Ron Fitzsimmons.
If you choose to believe him the second time and not the first.
> Then
>there is the one shining example of honesty by the pro-abortion crowd.
Gee, you found one pro-choice liar, while I'm having difficulty
finding just one honest "pro-lifer".
Ray Fischer
>someone non-sentient, when that someone possesses a fully-functioning human
>brain, as every fetus does by the fifth and sixth month?
MOre pro-lie bullshit. Estimate that the brain begins to function
when myelination occurs at around the 7th months of gestation. That's
in a normal fetus, of course. 99% of abortions are done before the
7th month and those few that are done that late are generally done for
compelling health reasons.
>(as any
>pro-abortionist would know if they ever bothered to find out the facts
>about the unborn, before they made their politically loaded statements)
Done that, even though I'm not "pro-abortion". Now then, why don't
you stop relying on pro-lie propaganda and find out the truth for
yourself?
>Tell me something you experts on "clumps of tissue?"
Fallacy of the excluded middle.
Stupid bigot.
Ray Fischer
Jill E. Deel <vale...@iway.net> wrote:
>Quite true, but even that doesn't address the real issue. How can you call
>someone non-sentient, when that someone possesses a fully-functioning human
>brain, as every fetus does by the fifth and sixth month?
Fetuses do not begin to develop brain functions until the 7th month,
a point that is after when 99% of all abortions are done.
Papa Budge
Milt wrote:
> ...you have Kevorkian all wrong...I dare you to tell me that he kills
> people.
I've never sat with Jack Kevorkian when he's helped a person end their
life, so I cannot -- and never have, I believe -- say he kills people. I
say he helps kill them. His attorney says he helps kill people. He says he
helps kill people.
Part of their stated goal, at least in Michigan, was to challenge the
constitutionality of that state's assisted-suicide law. To assist a
suicide -- a successful suicide -- there has to be a body; the body has to
be killed.
Kevorkian calls what he does "medicide." I don't have to tell you what the
root of that word signifies.
Kevorkian's attorney, Geoffrey Fieger, said in opening arguments to one of
Kevorkian's trials, "You will be deciding one of the great issues in
the struggle for human rights....His intent is never to kill someone,
but only to reduce suffering." That statement acknowledges that someone is
killed; its argument speaks to intent, not fact.
> First off, Kevorkian NEVER solicits. In fact, until he was on the Donahue
> program some years back to discuss this issue, he had never even
> considered helping people do this. But so many people contacted him for
> details, he decided that there was a need; that people were suffering, and
> he could help end it. Kevorkian's subjects contact him.
Only in the same sense that if I place an ad in the paper to sell a dog,
then somebody calls me to buy my dog, then I claim the idea was the
buyer's. Yup, it was his idea to buy my dog; it was my idea to sell it.
Kevorkian himself states in his book "Prescription: Medicide," that he
initiated a search for candidates for medicide in 1987 by placing ads in
the newspaper classified section. He handed out business cards that read:
"Jack Kevorkian, MD... Bioethics and Obitiatry... Special Death
Counseling. By Appointment Only." Again in his own book, Kevorkian
complains about the publishers of local newspapers who rejected his
display ads for his medicide device.
I don't know about you, but when someone hands me a business card, or
places an ad in the newspaper, I just naturally tend to believe he is
soliciting business.
> He schedules a meeting with them for an evaluation, and then he
schedules a > series of counselling sessions, and medical evaluations, to
be sure that the > patient isn't just depressed, and is in quite serious
pain.
A 1996 article in The New Republic cites Kalman Kaplan, director of the
Suicide Research Center at Columbia-Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago, who
did an analysis of Kevorkian's patients. "We see," the article says, "that
most of the Kevorkian women were not diagnosed terminal and had not been
complaining
of severe or constant pain. We see conditions like breast cancer (for
which there is now great hope), emphysema, rheumatoid arthritis and
Alzheimer's (a condition that usually burdens relatives more than the
people who have it)."
> Fact is, he has turned down far greater numbers of people than he's helped.
So many depressed people, so little time.
> He then...gets them to say, on camera, that they wish to die.
I wouldn't really call that making sure they really want to die; I'd call
that making sure he doesn't go to jail for helping them to die.
> When the time comes for the death, he parks his van outside their house,
> or at a designated location, where he leaves them alone with the suicide
> machine. He does not touch anything; he does not flip any switches. He
> does not discuss anything with them. If he comes back to the van, and
> they're alive, that's the end of it, and he won't even allow them to
> attempt it again. If he comes back, and they're dead, he takes them to the
> nearest hospital and drops them off.
Well, that interesting. This is what Kevorkian told Vanity Fair in 1994
what he does:
At his first assisted suicide, of Janet Adkins, he was in the van with her
the whole time. He said that as he watched her die, as the EKG flattened,
"Her eyelids flickered a little, and she looked like she was rising up to
almost kiss me. I leaned over and the first thing that came to mind is to
say, `Have a nice trip.' That's all. `Have a nice trip.' Those were the
last words said."
Kevorkian also related to Vanity Fair the case of Thomas Hyde, who truly
was suffering, dying from Lou Gehrig's Disease: Kevorkian helped him into
the white van, put an oxygen mask on his thin face, and connected it to a
tank of carbon monoxide with a plastic tube. Kevorkian put a clip on the
tube and tied a string to the clip and around the fingers on Hyde's left
hand. "Are you sure?" the doctor asked. The young man smiled a twisted
smile, croaked out something that sounded like "I'm fine," and jerked the
clip off the tube that led to the black canister. But his angel of mercy
was shaken when Hyde let out
a long, loud moan as the slow flow of gas began to trickle through the
tube. Kevorkian's worst fear has always been that he will be discovered in
the middle of an assisted suicide by someone who will try to stop it. Why
the dying man moaned is unknown, but it's unlikely that he was in any
discomfort from the carbon monoxide.
Incidentally, Kevorkian likes to carry around an extra bottle of carbon
monoxide in the van, in case the first one fails to cause death. In such a
case, who do you suppose would hook it up to the unconscious "patient?"
> I say it's the ultimate freedom to decide when and how you should live.
> Life is not simply the act of breathing and pumping blood, and I think the
> individual is the only person capable of deciding whether they should live
> or die, and how they wish to do so.
I think so, too. That's why I think Jack Kevorkian should go back to
playing with dead bodies (his first passion), and leave the dying to the
dying.
> If I am sane, and do not wish to continue with my life, why shouold my
only > choice be to put a bullet through my brain, or slit my wrists? Why
> should(n't--pb) I be given a humane, painless way out?
If that's what you're looking for, you can use the same thing Kevorkian
uses: carbon monoxide. It's a little more expensive than the stuff he used
to arrange to shoot into his patients' veins, back when he had a medical
license, but anyone can get it.
> I'm not going to say that there is no pressure on (people who decide to
kill > themselves), but considering the fact that they call him, the
pressure would > seem to come from someone or (more likely) something
other than Kevorkian...
Yes, it's called depression, and Kevorkian gives them something they can't
get without him: a fall guy for the last and most important decision of
their lives, a decision responsibility for which no truly compassionate
human being would take from them in their last moments.
kenfran
Jill E. Deel wrote:
>
> Skyscraper <skysc...@earthlink.net> wrote in article
> <339EC6...@earthlink.net>...
> >
> > > Calling a non-sentient clump of tissue a child does not obviate the
> fact
> > > that you are trying to deny the rights of a living, thing human being,
> > > the woman in whose womb the tissue is residing, to control her own
> body.
> >
> >
> > This is the same logic that the Nazis used to destroy the Jews. The
> Nazis
> > declared that the Jews were non-persons, no better than animals, never
> mind
> > the fact that they had a flourishing culture.
> >
>
> > The elderly? The infirm? Those who bruise easily? The blacks? The
> asians?
> > Christians? Jews? Muslims? Scientologists? Moonies?
> >
> > Something to think about.
>
> someone non-sentient, when that someone possesses a fully-functioning human
> pro-abortionist would know if they ever bothered to find out the facts
> about the unborn, before they made their politically loaded statements)
>
> tissue, yadda yadda yadda. I think every idiot who mimics that line should
> be required to watch at least two ultra sounds.
>
> Tell me something you experts on "clumps of tissue?" How does a "clump of
> tissue" move? I am 8 months pregnant, and I can tell you this kid is
> constatly on the move. She (yes we know the sex) turns, pushes with her
> feet, stretches her arms, and turns over sometimes. Those are deliberate
> movements. A clump of tissue cannot make deliberate movements.
>
> Honestly, the culpable ignorance you abortionists display is appalling.
>
> Jill E. Deel
> vale...@iwaynet.net
>
>
>
sentient. A fetus has not developed a functioning brain at six months,
contrary to what you said. And if that WERE the case, would you want to
allow abortions before that? You believe ANY abortion is murder. Taking
the morning-after pill is murder in your eyes. Your views are totally
out of synch with society.
And you are expectng other people to subsidize your reckless
procreation. Not only stupid, but greedy.
kenfran
> > On 5 Jun 1997 18:05:08 GMT, ri...@fc.hp.com (Rich Johnson) wrote:
> >
> >
> > >: It's never done casually, you know. Do you think an eight-month
> > >: pregnant woman waddles past an abortion clinic, snaps her fingers, and
> > >: says, "Gee, I -knew- there was something I had to do last January!"
> > >: and goes in and has it extracted? No, it's done because the fetus is
> > >: already dead, or will be still-born, or is anacephalic.
>
>
> > I know about the Fitzsimmons quote. What I don't know is what became
> > of him afterward. He seems to have dropped from sight. Did he only
> > collect enough money to sell out ONCE?
>
> Get this! First there is the dishonesty of claiming only sick or dead
> babies are aborted--A total lie that was refuted by Ron Fitzsimmons.
As you have been told many times in the pst, NO BABIES ARE ABORTED.
Fetuses are aborted.
> Then
> there is the one shining example of honesty by the pro-abortion crowd.
Papa Budge
Andrew Hall wrote, referring to papa budge:
> You support a woman's right to decide, I think
> for the full term, despite thinking that the
> fetus is a sentient human being for the whole
> term (correct me if I am not remembering your
> views correctly), is not her autonomy over her body
> part of your reason for supporting her right to
> choose?
Andrew, to tell you the truth I find lining up to support or oppose a
woman's right to decide whether to carry her baby to term a concept
arrogant and presumptive. I might as well say I support her right to
breathe.
What I do not support is a society lining up to demonize and criminalize
someone who must make a decision as painful as it is personal. I also
don't support trying to make that pain go away by making the humanity of
the baby go away, by calling it by another name and insisting that that
name conveys a lesser humanity. A fetus is no less human than a baby or a
college student.
I doubt a woman has much more autonomy over her body than I have over
mine. Mine tells me when to eat, when to sleep, when to fuck, when to
shit. I have a terrible time keeping it from aging and dying. Someday I
expect I'll have to give it up despite my own inclinations. Society
compels me to do things with my body, and not to do other things with my
body, that left to my own governing I might let it do or not. For example,
I think I might fart in church more, run nude through the rain more.
For me a woman's right to decide isn't a question of autonomy, even if she
had such a thing (and the growth of a baby inside her body certainly hints
that she does not). It isn't even a question. Upon discovering she is
pregnant, the decision is hers. It isn't mine, it isn't some third
party's, it isn't society's. Society may punish her because it disagrees,
but it can never claim an ethical or moral dominion over a body even she
struggles to nurture and control.
Skyscraper
kenfran wrote:
>
> Norman Duck wrote:
> >
> > In message <339C4D...@concentric.net> - kenfran
> > <ken...@concentric.net>Mon, 09 Jun 1997 14:35:52 -0400 writes:
> > :>
> > :>Skyscraper wrote:>> As for women having control over their bodies, women have that control all
> > :>> throughout the process of sex. If a woman gets pregnant, then 1) the woman
> > :>> has the responsibility to have the baby; 2) the man has the responsibility to
> > :>> provide financial support for the baby. This is because the child in the
> > :>> womb is a human being, entitled to the same rights and protections as any
> > :>> other human being under 18.
> > :>>
> > :>There is no such thing as a child in the womb. And fetuses have no
> > :>rights.
> > :>You still refuse to address the question of why so-called "pro-life"
> > :>people are more interested in those who are not alive than those who are
> > :>alive. Are you against the killing of civilians in war? Even if your own
> > :>country does it? (It's easy to be against some country you don't like
> > :>doing bad things. A bit harder to come out against your own country
> > :>doing the morally indefensible)
> >
> > The answer is simple even though you won't accept it. A smoker makes a choice
> > about their own lives, an abortion is a choice made for someone else who
> > doesn't have a voice, the unborn child.
> >
> > Nedwood Duck
> Are you drunk when you answer posts? Your answer had nothing to do with
> my post.
Yes he did, but you're just blind to it. And there are none so blind as
those who WILL NOT see.
Then again, this is to be expected from hard-hearted, baby-hating, child-
molesting individuals such as you. What a sexual psychotic.
Skyscraper
Typical liberal reaction to the truth. When your cherished beliefs do
not stand up to the light of truth, cry out that that the truth has no
place in this society.
What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always
right.
kenfran
Papa Budge wrote:
>
> Zepp wrote:
>
> > Sentience means "self awareness". Are you proposing that a first
> > trimester fetus is self-aware?
>
> It means nothing of the sort, and by your faux definition a child well
> past the point of birth would not be considered sentient, because it is
> not self-aware.
>
> Sentience refers to the capacity of feeling or sensation, which a fetus
> possesses quite early even from a solely biological perspective.
> Psychologically, I do indeed propose that a first-trimester fetus is
> sentient, though I would hesitate to call it self-aware.
>
> --papa budge
Zepp is, like me, a science fiction fan, I am sure that he defines
sentient in the same way the science-fiction community does. To us, it
mean an intelligent, thinking being, aware of surroundings.
When I looked up the word in an online dictionary, it had three
definitions.
1) responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2) aware
3) finely sensitive in perception or feeling.
So it is unproductive to argue about the definition of the word, since
both positions could be supported. It would be far better to argue over
what was >meant< rather than semantics.
Our position (and I think I can speak for Zepp) is that a fetus is not a
thinking, reasoning being. The fetus does not have the thinking capacity
of the Norway rat, which few people have any reluctance to kill.
kenfran
constant barrage of lies, then you want to label everone and everything
with labels of your own devising, and then change definitions whenever
you want. What makes you think I am a liberal, for example? Why do you
invent terms like "partial-birth abortion?"
kenfran
> Remember: Tyrants and criminals prefer unarmed peasants!
bodies. I ask why they don't defend the rights of children that have
already been born, and he calls me a child molester. I ask if he is
against killing civilians in war, and he calls he hard-hearted. He is
obviously out of touch with reality. I post on the right of women to
choose to have an abortion or not, and he talks about smoking. What a
messed-up mind these two people have. (Both Nedwood Duck and Skyscraper)