UNTENABLE UNBORN CHILD DICHOTOMY
Dr. Jai Maharaj
COLUMN
Untenable Unborn Child Dichotomy
By Adam C. Kolasinski
The MIT Tech
Volume 124, Number 16
Friday, April 2, 2004
Yesterday, President Bush signed into the law the Unborn
Victims of Violence Act, which treats as a separate crime
the harming of a fetus by anyone committing a federal
crime. The national law would mirror the laws of 29
states, which treat the killing of an unborn baby, except
during an abortion, as any other homicide. In perhaps one
of the most highly publicized cases of this sort, Scott
Peterson is being prosecuted for both the murder of his
wife and unborn child under California’s law.
Predictably, the anti-abortion lobby has come out
strongly in favor of the act. The case against abortion
rests exclusively on the notion that the unborn child is
a human being who deserves the full protection of the
law. Therefore, even though the bill explicitly excludes
abortion from its definition of violence against the
unborn, the anti-abortion side wants to set the precedent
that an unborn child is entitled to some legal
protection. Abortion rights activists have come out just
as strongly against the act, but their opposition forces
them to use rhetoric that will undermine their position.
Abortion rights groups typically use language that hides
the reality of what they are supporting. Their main
slogan, “pro-choice,” fails to indicate what choice they
wish to protect. The Web site of NARAL Pro-Choice
America, the nation’s premier abortion rights lobbying
group, contains countless essays about reproductive
freedom and privacy, but one is hard-pressed to find
anything that mentions the unborn child or what happens
to her during an abortion. Basing the case for abortion
on such things as privacy and reproductive rights is
illogical because no one on either side of the debate is
against women having control over their bodies. If
abortion did not involve the dismembering and killing of
an unborn child, no one would be calling for its
prohibition. It is the notion that abortion does violence
to someone other than the woman that motivates abortion
opponents. Yet instead of explaining why they believe
unborn babies do not deserve protection against such
violence, the abortion rights lobby mostly ignores them.
In arguing against the unborn victims act, however, the
abortion rights lobby cannot avoid exposing the premise
underlying their position, which they normally take pains
to hide. The act has no direct bearing whatsoever on
reproductive freedom, privacy rights, women’s rights, or
anything else that abortion rights supporters use to
argue their case. It merely grants legal protection to
unborn babies in instances where they are attacked
against their mother’s will. In cases where the mother
chooses an abortion or any other activity that would harm
the child, it continues to treat the child as her
property. By fighting this bill so vociferously, abortion
rights advocates reveal that the basis of their position
is nothing more than the notion that an unborn baby has
no rights. To quote Kate Michelman, president of NARAL,
“The dangerous reality of the bill ... is that it would
elevate the legal status of the fetus to that of an adult
human being” (“Prenatal Politics,” www.TomPaine. com).
She’s actually wrong. The bill would elevate the legal
status of an unborn child to that of a baby, but only in
certain circumstances. It does not give unborn babies the
right to vote or drink.
Whether unborn children deserve the protection of the law
is outside the scope of this article, which merely seeks
to highlight the importance of this question. To be sure,
when pressed, as they are now, abortion rights activists
will admit that it is the central question. However,
their reluctance to make the notion that an unborn child
has no rights the centerpiece of their case for abortion
indicates that they are afraid to directly confront the
public with it.
Their fears seem well-founded. As the science of fetology
progresses, the humanity of an unborn child becomes more
apparent. In an age where a first trimester sonogram is a
child’s first picture in the family album, I suspect that
when forced to confront the question of whether unborn
children deserve legal protection, most Americans will
answer “yes.” New ultrasound technology now allows
expectant mothers to view real-time three dimensional
images of their unborn baby, even in the first trimester,
kicking, moving around, and sucking his thumb. Crisis
pregnancy centers with access to this technology report
that after viewing such images, women who were previously
considering having an abortion almost invariably choose
not to. Even more telling is that the abortion rights
lobby fought an appropriations bill that would allow the
government to help non-profit crisis pregnancy centers
purchase such technology. If abortion rights advocates
are so secure in their conviction that an unborn child
deserves no legal protection, why are they so opposed to
helping low-income women to view their unborn children
before they decide whether to kill them? Directly arguing
that an unborn baby deserves no legal protection looks
like a losing proposition for NARAL and its allies in the
long run.
But the abortion rights lobby has, ironically, little
choice. They cannot fight the unborn victims act without
arguing that unborn babies deserve no protection, yet
they cannot afford to allow it to become law. Now,
federal law has become self-contradictory: it will
simultaneously recognize the unborn child as a person and
as property. Such a contradiction will not last long. As
more and more criminals are prosecuted for violence
against the unborn, Americans constituting the majority
who have no clear opinion on abortion will be forced to
confront the question of whether the unborn deserve legal
protection. Maintaining that they do in one circumstance
but not in another is logically untenable, so no longer
will rhetoric about choice and reproductive freedom be
able to distract the argument from this central question.
Is not, however, the mother’s welfare as important as
that of her child? Definitely, and the abortion rights
lobby will argue that care for a woman’s welfare demands
treating her unborn child as her property, whether or not
such a treatment is justified in and of itself. Most
people, however, will not buy the false dichotomy between
the welfare of the mother and child. If treating newborn
babies as persons does not compromise the welfare of
women, why should the same not apply to unborn babies?
Yes, there are the rare cases where a pregnancy threatens
a woman’s life, and saving the mother necessarily leads
to the death of the child, but even anti-abortionists
agree that the mother should be saved in such instances.
In every other instance where abortion is contemplated,
there exist non-violent solutions that serve the welfare
of both mother and child. It is only a matter of time
before Americans embrace them, if present trends
continue.
Adam C. Kolasinski is a graduate student in financial
economics.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V124/N16/kolasinski.16c.html
End of forwarded message
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Panchaang for 13 Chaitr 5105, Friday, April 2, 2004:
Shubhanu Nama Samvatsare Uttarayane Moksh Ritau
Meen Mase Shukl Pakshe Shukr Vasara Yuktayam
Poorvaphalguni Nakshatr Ganda Yog
Kaulav-Taitil Karan Trayodashi Yam Tithau
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the
educational purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of
this post may not have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent
the opinion of the poster. The contents are protected by copyright law
and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others
are not necessarily those of the poster.
Ron Olin
mass murder....
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:life-32r2...@news.mantra.com...
Marty Helgesen
> Four more years? - future headline... Man caught masturbating - Charged with
> mass murder....
Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of the pro-abortion position
and resulting tendency to argue against straw men instead of the real
arguments against abortion. A new human life begins when a sperm cell
fertilizes an ovum. A sperm cell, by itself, will never grow into
anything else. A newly conceived child will grow up to be an adult
unless her life is cut short by illness, an accident, or a deliberate
fatal attack.
> "Dr. Jai Maharaj" <use...@mantra.com> wrote in message
> news:life-32r2...@news.mantra.com...
> > Forwarded message posted for discussion
> >
> > COLUMN
> >
> > Untenable Unborn Child Dichotomy
> >
> > By Adam C. Kolasinski
> > The MIT Tech
> > Volume 124, Number 16
> > Friday, April 2, 2004
> >
> > Yesterday, President Bush signed into the law the Unborn
> > Victims of Violence Act, which treats as a separate crime
> > the harming of a fetus by anyone committing a federal
> > crime. The national law would mirror the laws of 29
> > states, which treat the killing of an unborn baby, except
> > during an abortion, as any other homicide. In perhaps one
> > of the most highly publicized cases of this sort, Scott
> > Peterson is being prosecuted for both the murder of his
> > wife and unborn child under California's law.
<SNIP>
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"The exact knowledge of facts is of the greatest assistance
to true piety" -- Fernand Cabrol, O.S.B.
Help outlaw spam. For further information see http://www.cauce.org/
Joel Rosenberg
> "Ron Olin" <ron...@telus.net> wrote in message news:<D2ybc.2244$J56.97@edtnps89>...
> > Four more years? - future headline... Man caught masturbating - Charged with
> > mass murder....
>
> Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of the pro-abortion position
> and resulting tendency to argue against straw men instead of the real
> arguments against abortion. A new human life begins when a sperm cell
> fertilizes an ovum. A sperm cell, by itself, will never grow into
> anything else. A newly conceived child will grow up to be an adult
> unless her life is cut short by illness, an accident, or a deliberate
> fatal attack.
Yet "accidents", in which a fertilized egg -- or "newly conceived
child", if you prefer -- which has often acheived multicellar status,
is flushed out of a woman's system are rather commonplace, and
considered unremarkable, by and large. Even the anti-abortion folks
seem to be undisturbed by the notion of such a "newly conceived child"
being flushed down a toilet, say, rather than given whatever religious
rites would be proper for the disposal of what I guess would, by your
theory, be the "corpse."
The concern among the anti-abortion crowd for the "newly conceived
child" seems to arise only around the "deliberate fatal attack," when,
say, a woman chooses to have a D&C, or take a "Morning After" pill.
(Although, to be fair, some even start well before there, and inveigh
against barrier conception methods that don't result in a "newly
conceived child" in the first place.)
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
http://www.ellegon.com/homepage.phtml
Joel Rosenberg
> "Ron Olin" <ron...@telus.net> wrote in message news:<D2ybc.2244$J56.97@edtnps89>...
> > Four more years? - future headline... Man caught masturbating - Charged with
> > mass murder....
>
> Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of the pro-abortion position
> and resulting tendency to argue against straw men instead of the real
> arguments against abortion. A new human life begins when a sperm cell
> fertilizes an ovum. A sperm cell, by itself, will never grow into
> anything else. A newly conceived child will grow up to be an adult
> unless her life is cut short by illness, an accident, or a deliberate
> fatal attack.
Yet "accidents", in which a fertilized egg -- or "newly conceived
child", if you prefer -- which has often acheived multicellar status,
is flushed out of a woman's system are rather commonplace, and
considered unremarkable, by and large. Even the anti-abortion folks
seem to be undisturbed by the notion of such a "newly conceived child"
being flushed down a toilet, say, rather than given whatever religious
rites would be proper for the disposal of what I guess would, by your
theory, be the "corpse."
The concern among the anti-abortion crowd for the "newly conceived
child" seems to arise only around the "deliberate fatal attack," when,
say, a woman chooses to have a D&C, or take a "Morning After" pill.
(Although, to be fair, some even start well before there, and inveigh
against barrier contraception methods that don't result in a "newly
Ray Fischer
>"Ron Olin" <ron...@telus.net> wrote in message news:<D2ybc.2244$J56.97@edtnps89>...
>> Four more years? - future headline... Man caught masturbating - Charged with
>> mass murder....
>
>Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of the pro-abortion position
>and resulting tendency to argue against straw men instead of the real
>arguments against abortion. A new human life begins when a sperm cell
>fertilizes an ovum. A sperm cell, by itself, will never grow into
>anything else.
Neither will an embryo. You need a woman, too. A woman who is not
the property of your, your church, the state, or the fetus. She
isn't your slave and you don't get to use her body as you wish.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Marty Helgesen
> mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marty Helgesen) writes:
>
> > "Ron Olin" <ron...@telus.net> wrote in message news:<D2ybc.2244$J56.97@edtnps89>...
> > > Four more years? - future headline... Man caught masturbating - Charged with
> > > mass murder....
> >
> > Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of the pro-abortion position
> > and resulting tendency to argue against straw men instead of the real
> > arguments against abortion. A new human life begins when a sperm cell
> > fertilizes an ovum. A sperm cell, by itself, will never grow into
> > anything else. A newly conceived child will grow up to be an adult
> > unless her life is cut short by illness, an accident, or a deliberate
> > fatal attack.
>
> Yet "accidents", in which a fertilized egg -- or "newly conceived
> child", if you prefer -- which has often acheived multicellar status,
> is flushed out of a woman's system are rather commonplace, and
> considered unremarkable, by and large. Even the anti-abortion folks
> seem to be undisturbed by the notion of such a "newly conceived child"
> being flushed down a toilet, say, rather than given whatever religious
> rites would be proper for the disposal of what I guess would, by your
> theory, be the "corpse."
Right to life people are concerned with protecting human life from
conception through natural death. The fact that many natural deaths
occur shortly after conception is irrelevant. Atheists and agnostics
who are pro-life would not be concerned about religious rites and
those who are religious see no point in worrying about things that
cannot be known in the specific case but only in the abstract.
> The concern among the anti-abortion crowd for the "newly conceived
> child" seems to arise only around the "deliberate fatal attack," when,
> say, a woman chooses to have a D&C, or take a "Morning After" pill.
> (Although, to be fair, some even start well before there, and inveigh
> against barrier conception methods that don't result in a "newly
> conceived child" in the first place.)
Yes, the right to life movement is concerned about deliberate attacks
on human life, more precisely, deliberate attacks that are legal or
that some people would like to make legal. When a particular kind of
killing is illegal and the laws are being properly enforced it does
not come within the concern of pro-lifers as such. That is why, for
example, pro-lifers, along with disability rights groups, are trying
to defend Terri Schiavo, whose husband is trying to starve her to
death with the connivance of the Florida judicial system. Those
unfamiliar with the case can find the details at the web site
http://www.terrisfight.org/ or, for a summary by Nat Hentoff,
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10715. Mr.
Hentoff is a pro-life atheist.
Incidentally, various newspapers have reported that there have been
demonstrations in support of Terri Schiavo by disability rights
groups and "anti-abortion groups" even though this case has nothing
to do with abortion. Some papers can't bring themselves to say "pro-
life" or "right to life". A more bizarre and amusing example of the
same phenomenon occurred when a music critic for the Los Angeles
Times wrote about the opera "Die Frau Ohne Schatten" by Richard
Strauss and described it as "an incomparably glorious and goofy pro-
life paen..." An editor changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion" even
though the opera has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion. See
http://www.laobserved.com/archive/001504.html for a full account.
Note that in neither of the two corrections that the Times printed
did it quote what the critic actually wrote. In the second one it
said the opera "extols procreation".
Although prior to 1930 all major Christian churches condemned contra-
ception as against the will of God, today the Catholic Church is the
only major church that does. However, that has nothing to do with
abortion or the right to life movement. The Catholic Church also
condemns other actions such as theft and calumny that are against the
will of God. The right to life movement as such has no concern with
contraception because, as you correctly observe, when contraception
works there is no newly conceived child whose life needs protection.
Marty Helgesen
A more accurate parallel to a sperm cell by itself is an unfertilized
egg by itself. Unless it is fertilized it will never grow into
anything else. An embryo is a new human being, genetically distinct
from her mother. She will grow to become an adult and die of old age
unless her life is cut short by illness, accident, or deliberate
attack.
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c4s6sk$epg$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> >"Ron Olin" <ron...@telus.net> wrote in message news:<D2ybc.2244$J56.97@edtnps89>...
>> >> Four more years? - future headline... Man caught masturbating - Charged with
>> >> mass murder....
>> >
>> >Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of the pro-abortion position
>> >and resulting tendency to argue against straw men instead of the real
>> >arguments against abortion. A new human life begins when a sperm cell
>> >fertilizes an ovum. A sperm cell, by itself, will never grow into
>> >anything else.
>>
>> Neither will an embryo. You need a woman, too. A woman who is not
>> isn't your slave and you don't get to use her body as you wish.
>
>A more accurate parallel to a sperm cell by itself is an unfertilized
>egg by itself. Unless it is fertilized it will never grow into
>anything else.
There is a long chain of events that need to hapen before an infant
is born. Fertilization is just one of many. It's not the first and
not the last.
> An embryo is a new human being,
Pro-lie propaganda. According to millenia of legal and social
tradition a human being's life starts at birth.
> genetically distinct
>from her mother.
"Genetically distinct" is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
> She will grow to become an adult and die of old age
>unless her life is cut short by illness, accident, or deliberate
>attack.
Or unless the embryo cannot survive, as is the case with approximately
60% of all fertilized eggs.
And _still_ you have no right to use a woman's body to turn an embryo
into a newborn.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Joel Rosenberg <jo...@ellegon.com> wrote in message news:<uy8pai...@ellegon.com>...
>> mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu (Marty Helgesen) writes:
>>
>> > "Ron Olin" <ron...@telus.net> wrote in message news:<D2ybc.2244$J56.97@edtnps89>...
>> > > Four more years? - future headline... Man caught masturbating - Charged with
>> > > mass murder....
>> >
>> > Thank you for demonstrating the weakness of the pro-abortion position
>> > and resulting tendency to argue against straw men instead of the real
>> > arguments against abortion. A new human life begins when a sperm cell
>> > fertilizes an ovum. A sperm cell, by itself, will never grow into
>> > anything else. A newly conceived child will grow up to be an adult
>> > unless her life is cut short by illness, an accident, or a deliberate
>> > fatal attack.
>>
>> Yet "accidents", in which a fertilized egg -- or "newly conceived
>> child", if you prefer -- which has often acheived multicellar status,
>> is flushed out of a woman's system are rather commonplace, and
>> considered unremarkable, by and large. Even the anti-abortion folks
>> seem to be undisturbed by the notion of such a "newly conceived child"
>> being flushed down a toilet, say, rather than given whatever religious
>> rites would be proper for the disposal of what I guess would, by your
>> theory, be the "corpse."
>
>Right to life people are concerned with protecting human life from
>conception through natural death.
That is, of course, a complete and total lie. Abortion opponents are
interested only in preventing abortion and show little interest in
"protecting human life". The arguments are always about controlling
women and forcing them to do as commanded.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Marty Helgesen
> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> Pro-lie propaganda. According to millenia of legal and social
> tradition a human being's life starts at birth.
In August 1963 Planned Parenthood issued a pamphlet promoting birth
control, which was still controversial then. Its title was "Plan
Your Children for Health and Happiness". It contained this question
and answer: "Is birth control an abortion? Definitely not. An
abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is danger-
ous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when
you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones
the beginning of life."
Today, Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the
United States.
The September 1970 issue of _California Medicine_, the journal of the
California Medical Association, had an editorial entitled "A New
Ethic for Medicine and Society". It began: "The traditional western
ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and
equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition.
This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and
has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social poli-
cy. The reverence for each and every life has also been a keystone
of Western medicine and is the ethic which has caused physicians to
try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human
life which comes under their surveillance. This traditional ethic is
still clearly dominant, but there is much to suggest that it is being
eroded at its core and may eventually even be abandoned. This of
course will produce profound changes in Western medicine and in
Western society."
Several paragraphs later it said: "The process of eroding the old
ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen
most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defi-
ance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for
every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status,
abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even
necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has
affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the
reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has
been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of
killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The result has
been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone
really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous
whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable
semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as
anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not
often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested
that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while
a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected."
For the complete text see:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL3.98/roe.html. Note that this
editorial is promoting and defending the new medical ethic, not
attacking it.
Historically, some people did not recognize unborn children as human
beings but others did. Hippocrates (480?-377? B.C.) is generally
regarded as the father of medicine. The Hippocratic Oath includes
this passage: "I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked
for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will
not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness, I
will guard my life and my art."
The pagan Roman writer Juvenal wrote: "Poor women endure the perils
of childbirth, and all the troubles of nursing to which their lot
condemns them; but how often does a gilded bed contain a woman that
is lying in it? So great is the skill, so powerful the drugs, of the
abortionist, paid to murder mankind within the womb."
(Satire 6.592-601)
Of course, the ancient Greeks and Romans also practiced infanticide,
exposing unwanted babies to die unless someone picked them up, but at
least some people denounced the practice and similarly denounced
abortion.
The Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, which was written
late in the First Century and is one of the earliest non-Biblical
Christian writings, includes in a list of commandments, "do not
murder a child by abortion or kill a newborn infant"
The early Christian writer Athenagoras wrote to the Emperors Marcus
Aurelius Anoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus around A.D. 176 or 177
answering various false charges that had been made against the early
Catholics. One of them was that the Christians practiced murder and
cannibalism. (That may have been based on a distorted account of the
Catholic teaching on the Eucharist.) In answering that charge he
wrote, "What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is
our character, that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh
till we have killed some one. The former charge, therefore, being
false, if any one should ask them in regard to the second, whether
they have seen what they assert, not one of them would be so bare-
faced as to say that he had. And yet we have slaves, some more and
some fewer, by whom we could not help being seen; but even of these,
not one has been found to invent even such things against us. For
when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death,
though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism?
Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the con-
tests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given
by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the
same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. How, then, when we
do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can
we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use
drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an
account to God s for the abortion, on what principle should we commit
murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very
foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of
God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to
expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with
child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to
destroy it. But we are in all things always alike and the same,
submitting ourselves to reason, and not ruling over it."
Note that is doesn't matter for this discussion that you do not think
that Christianity is true (assuming you do not). The point is that
while different people held different views the idea that a human
being's life starts well before birth has been around for millennia.
Moses Maimonides (1135-1204) was a noted Jewish physician, scientist
and philosopher in the Middle Ages. He believed that an unborn child
was a human being and that abortion could only be justified if it was
necessary to prevent the death of the mother as an act of self-
defense, in effect considering the child in that case a "pursuer" or
attacker. Other Jews took other, more permissive views, but, again,
to refute your claim it is not necessary to show a unanimous belief
that an unborn child is a living human being but only that prominent
men, including scientists, held it.
As for legal tradition, abortion was illegal in common law centuries
before it was banned in statute law.
> > genetically distinct
> >from her mother.
>
> "Genetically distinct" is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
From time to time one reads of someone who had been accused of a
crime, frequently but not always a sex crime such as rape, being
released when DNA tests showed that he was genetically distinct
from the criminal. In some cases people who had been convicted and
sent to prison have been released because of DNA evidence.
> > She will grow to become an adult and die of old age
> >unless her life is cut short by illness, accident, or deliberate
> >attack.
>
> Or unless the embryo cannot survive, as is the case with approximately
> 60% of all fertilized eggs.
That would seem to be a form of death by illness, which is part of
what I said.
> And _still_ you have no right to use a woman's body to turn an embryo
> into a newborn.
That is a bizarre way of thinking of the normal biological process of
human reproduction which women have been engaged in for many thou-
sands of years since the first human beings evolved.
Marty Helgesen
> >conception through natural death.
>
> That is, of course, a complete and total lie. Abortion opponents are
> interested only in preventing abortion and show little interest in
> "protecting human life". The arguments are always about controlling
> women and forcing them to do as commanded.
That statement suggests that you have never read pro-life arguments.
As anyone who has ever attended a large pro-life demonstration, such
as the annual March for Life, knows, the right to life movement is
predominantly female at every level from the ordinary marchers to the
top leaders. The March for Life was started and is run by Nellie
Gray. I think she's a retired government lawyer. When the Supreme
Court legalized abortion on demand for the full nine months of preg-
nancy the president of the National Right to Life Committee was
Mildred Jefferson, M.D. (Or maybe she was elected shortly
afterward.) Dr. Jefferson, a surgeon and the first black woman to
graduate from Harvard Medical School served several terms and then
was replaced by Carolyn Gerster, M.D. (Dr. Jefferson then founded
the Right to Life Crusade, which she still heads.) After Dr. Gerster
served several terms she was replaced by Jack Willke, M.D. (eek! a
man!). After he left, the current president, Wanda Jackson, Ph.D.,
was elected. Judie Brown founded and is president of the American
Life League. Americans United for Life, which concentrates on legal,
rather than political action against abortion was for many years
headed by Paige Cunningham, another woman. There is at least one
pro-life organization (Women Exploited By Abortion) consisting en-
tirely of women who have had abortions and now regret it. Women also
are active in leadership roles at the state and local level.
The right to life movement is not interested only in preventing
abortion. We also oppose infanticide, eldercide, euthanasia, assist-
ed suicide, human experimentation without informed consent, and
similar attacks on innocent human life. As I said earlier in this
thread, pro-lifers, along with disability rights groups, are trying
to defend Terri Schiavo, whose husband is trying to starve her to
death with the connivance of the Florida judicial system. Those
unfamiliar with the case can find the details at the web site
http://www.terrisfight.org/ or, for a summary by Nat Hentoff,
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10715. Mr.
Hentoff is a pro-life atheist.
Incidentally, I note that you accuse pro-lifers of lying, rather than
saying we are mistaken. I do not accuse you of lying, although, as I
have documented, you are mistaken in your statements.
Marty Helgesen
> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
<SNIP>
> >conception through natural death.
>
> That is, of course, a complete and total lie. Abortion opponents are
> interested only in preventing abortion and show little interest in
> "protecting human life". The arguments are always about controlling
> women and forcing them to do as commanded.
That statement suggests that you have never read pro-life arguments.
thread, pro-lifers, along with disability rights groups, are trying
to defend Terri Schiavo, whose husband is trying to starve her to
death with the connivance of the Florida judicial system. Those
unfamiliar with the case can find the details at the web site
http://www.terrisfight.org/ or, for a summary by Nat Hentoff,
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10715. Mr.
Hentoff is a pro-life atheist.
Incidentally, I note that you accuse pro-lifers of lying, rather than
saying we are mistaken. I do not accuse you of lying, although, as I
have documented, you are mistaken in your statements.
--
bob k
"Marty Helgesen" <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote in message
news:8aade2c6.04041...@posting.google.com...
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c52j3t$11f$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
><SNIP>
>> > An embryo is a new human being,
>>
>> Pro-lie propaganda. According to millenia of legal and social
>> tradition a human being's life starts at birth.
>
> In August 1963 Planned Parenthood issued a pamphlet promoting birth
>control, which was still controversial then. Its title was "Plan
>Your Children for Health and Happiness". It contained this question
>and answer: "Is birth control an abortion? Definitely not. An
>abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is danger-
>ous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when
>you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones
>the beginning of life."
>
>Today, Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the
>United States.
And? Are you too stupid to realize that the state of medical care and
knowledge has changed rather dramatically in the last 40 years? For
example, abortion is now much safer than is childbirth.
>The September 1970 issue of _California Medicine_, the journal of the
>California Medical Association, had an editorial entitled "A New
>Ethic for Medicine and Society". It began: "The traditional western
>ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and
>equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition.
"Unless she's pregnant."
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c52j7q$172$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> >Right to life people are concerned with protecting human life from
>> >conception through natural death.
>>
>> That is, of course, a complete and total lie. Abortion opponents are
>> interested only in preventing abortion and show little interest in
>> "protecting human life". The arguments are always about controlling
>> women and forcing them to do as commanded.
>
>That statement suggests that you have never read pro-life arguments.
I have read them all.
>As anyone who has ever attended a large pro-life demonstration, such
>as the annual March for Life, knows, the right to life movement is
>predominantly female at every level from the ordinary marchers to the
>top leaders.
Which is a complete non sequitur. I didn't say that they were all
men. I say that they are all about controlling women and their
sexuality.
[...]
>The right to life movement is not interested only in preventing
>abortion.
Yes it is.
> We also oppose infanticide, eldercide, euthanasia, assist-
>ed suicide, human experimentation without informed consent, and
>similar attacks on innocent human life.
In short, you want to force people to obey you.
It's all about control.
> As I said earlier in this
>thread, pro-lifers, along with disability rights groups, are trying
>to defend Terri Schiavo, whose husband is trying to starve her to
>death with the connivance of the Florida judicial system.
You pro-liars are so twisted with hate cannot tell the truth about
anything. He is not trying to starve her to death. She is already
dead.
[...]
>Incidentally, I note that you accuse pro-lifers of lying, rather than
>saying we are mistaken.
That's right.
> I do not accuse you of lying, although, as I
>have documented, you are mistaken in your statements.
I am not mistaken. Nor am I lying.
You want to force people to obey. That is your sole objective.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Marty Helgesen
> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> >rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c52j3t$11f$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
> >> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >> > An embryo is a new human being,
> >>
> >> Pro-lie propaganda. According to millenia of legal and social
> >> tradition a human being's life starts at birth.
> >
> > In August 1963 Planned Parenthood issued a pamphlet promoting birth
> >control, which was still controversial then. Its title was "Plan
> >Your Children for Health and Happiness". It contained this question
> >and answer: "Is birth control an abortion? Definitely not. An
> >abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is danger-
> >ous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when
> >you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones
> >the beginning of life."
> >
> >Today, Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the
> >United States.
>
> And? Are you too stupid to realize that the state of medical care and
> knowledge has changed rather dramatically in the last 40 years? For
> example, abortion is now much safer than is childbirth.
That last sentence is highly doubtful, but definitely irrelevant. You
had said, as is automatically quoted above, "According to millenia of
legal and social tradition a human being's life starts at birth." I
quoted Planned Parenthood as saying in 1963, "An abortion kills the
life of a baby after it has begun," which is a direct refutation of
your claim.
> >The September 1970 issue of _California Medicine_, the journal of the
> >California Medical Association, had an editorial entitled "A New
> >Ethic for Medicine and Society". It began: "The traditional western
> >ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and
> >equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition.
>
> "Unless she's pregnant."
Again your reply is untrue and irrelevant. In a later part of the
editorial the writer said, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The
result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is
continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very
considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize
abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if
they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices."
That is a direct refutation of your claim which was written by someone
who is openly pro-abortion.
Marty Helgesen
> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> >rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c52j7q$172$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
> >> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> >The right to life movement is not interested only in preventing
> >abortion.
>
> Yes it is.
>
> > We also oppose infanticide, eldercide, euthanasia, assist-
> >ed suicide, human experimentation without informed consent, and
> >similar attacks on innocent human life.
>
> In short, you want to force people to obey you.
>
> It's all about control.
Fascinating. I wrote, "The right to life movement is not interested
only in preventing abortion." You replied "Yes it is." But when you
came to my next statement, in which I listed five other actions
besides abortion that we want to prevent you did not recognize that it
refuted your claim that preventing abortion is the only thing we're
interested in. You acknowledged that we do want to prevent those
five other things, thereby acknowleding that your "Yes it is" was
incorrect.
As for your statement "In short, you want to force people to obey
you," no more so than legislators who pass laws forbidding murder,
assault, robbery, and similar actions want to force people to obey
them. Laws against murder, assault, robbery, abortion, infanticide,
eldercide, euthanasia, euthanasia, assisted suicide, human
experimentation without informed consent, driving under the influence
of alcohol or drugs, and similar actions that are harmful or
potentially harmful to people all have the same purpose.
> > As I said earlier in this
> >thread, pro-lifers, along with disability rights groups, are trying
> >to defend Terri Schiavo, whose husband is trying to starve her to
> >death with the connivance of the Florida judicial system.
>
> You pro-liars are so twisted with hate cannot tell the truth about
> anything. He is not trying to starve her to death. She is already
> dead.
Then why hasn't she been buried? Why hasn't her body decayed like the
body of any othe dead person?
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c5uhvn$quf$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> >rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c52j3t$11f$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> >> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>> >> > An embryo is a new human being,
>> >>
>> >> Pro-lie propaganda. According to millenia of legal and social
>> >> tradition a human being's life starts at birth.
>> >
>> > In August 1963 Planned Parenthood issued a pamphlet promoting birth
>> >control, which was still controversial then. Its title was "Plan
>> >Your Children for Health and Happiness". It contained this question
>> >and answer: "Is birth control an abortion? Definitely not. An
>> >abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is danger-
>> >ous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when
>> >you want a child you cannot have it. Birth control merely postpones
>> >the beginning of life."
>> >
>> >Today, Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of abortions in the
>> >United States.
>>
>> And? Are you too stupid to realize that the state of medical care and
>> knowledge has changed rather dramatically in the last 40 years? For
>> example, abortion is now much safer than is childbirth.
>
>That last sentence is highly doubtful, but definitely irrelevant.
There is nothing doubtful about it. According to the United States
Centers for Disease Control, childbirth is about ten times as likely
to kill a woman as is an abortion. Abortion is one of the safest
forms of surgery done.
And it is relevant because the quoted text above is clearly wrong.
> You
>had said, as is automatically quoted above, "According to millenia of
>legal and social tradition a human being's life starts at birth."
Correct.
> I
>quoted Planned Parenthood as saying in 1963, "An abortion kills the
>life of a baby after it has begun," which is a direct refutation of
>your claim.
No it isn't. First, you're citing a pamphlet which is not an
authority on anything. Second, in the 1960s the start of a person's
life was marked by birth. That's when the child was named, was
legally recognized, and was welcomed into society.
>> >The September 1970 issue of _California Medicine_, the journal of the
>> >California Medical Association, had an editorial entitled "A New
>> >Ethic for Medicine and Society". It began: "The traditional western
>> >ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and
>> >equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition.
>>
>> "Unless she's pregnant."
>
>Again your reply is untrue and irrelevant.
Then why do abortion opponents insist upon treating pregnant owmen
like slaves?
> In a later part of the
>editorial the writer said, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
>displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
>the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The
>result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
>everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception
It's not a scientific fact at all. It's an outright lie.
In fact nearly every supposed justification for banning abortion
is either a lie or rank hypocrisy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c5ui7b$r7u$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> >The right to life movement is not interested only in preventing
>> >abortion.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>>
>> > We also oppose infanticide, eldercide, euthanasia, assist-
>> >ed suicide, human experimentation without informed consent, and
>> >similar attacks on innocent human life.
>>
>> In short, you want to force people to obey you.
>>
>> It's all about control.
>
>Fascinating. I wrote, "The right to life movement is not interested
>only in preventing abortion." You replied "Yes it is."
Only interested in preventing abortion.
> But when you
>came to my next statement, in which I listed five other actions
>besides abortion that we want to prevent you did not recognize that it
>refuted your claim that preventing abortion is the only thing we're
>interested in.
Your claim that those other agendas are the same as the anti-abortion
movement is quesiotnable.
> You acknowledged that we do want to prevent those
>five other things,
Nah.
>As for your statement "In short, you want to force people to obey
>you," no more so than legislators who pass laws forbidding murder,
>assault, robbery, and similar actions want to force people to obey
>them.
And so you resort to outright lies. Forcing somebody do do what you
demand is a vastly different thing than banning certain actions.
One requires servitude.
>> > As I said earlier in this
>> >thread, pro-lifers, along with disability rights groups, are trying
>> >to defend Terri Schiavo, whose husband is trying to starve her to
>> >death with the connivance of the Florida judicial system.
>>
>> You pro-liars are so twisted with hate cannot tell the truth about
>> anything. He is not trying to starve her to death. She is already
>> dead.
>
>Then why hasn't she been buried?
Because what is left of her body is being kept alive.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Marty Helgesen
> >quoted Planned Parenthood as saying in 1963, "An abortion kills the
> >life of a baby after it has begun," which is a direct refutation of
> >your claim.
>
> No it isn't. First, you're citing a pamphlet which is not an
> authority on anything. Second, in the 1960s the start of a person's
> life was marked by birth. That's when the child was named, was
> legally recognized, and was welcomed into society.
The pamphlet shows what Planned Parenthood, which is not a pro-life
organization, was saying in 1963. And long before the 1960s the law
said that if man dies while his wife is pregnant and his will says
that some part of his estate is to be divided among his living chil-
dren the child in the womb is entitled to her share.
<SNIP>
> > In a later part of the
> >editorial the writer said, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
> >displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
> >the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The
> >result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
> >everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception
>
> It's not a scientific fact at all. It's an outright lie.
> In fact nearly every supposed justification for banning abortion
> is either a lie or rank hypocrisy.
The editorial appeared in _California Medicine_ the journal of the
California Medical Association. Even with only that information one
might think that the people responsible for it know something about
science and medicine. However, this particular editorial was written
by Dr. Malcolm Potts. In addition to being a physician he has a
Ph.D. in embryology from Cambridge University. He is pro-abortion
and so far as I know has performed abortions himself. He was the
Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
He later became the Bixby Professor at the School of Public Health of
the University of California at Berkeley. What are your scientific
credentials that would give us a reason to take your word, rather
than his, on what is a scientific fact about embryology?
Actually, your denial that an unborn child is human, in the face of
all the evidence to the contrary, is to your credit. You support
abortion but you don't want to kill babies, so you deny that unborn
children are human. Dr. Potts supports abortion and has performed
abortions, but he has no problem with killing human beings so he
admits unborn children are human.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery.
Marty Helgesen
> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> >rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c5ui7b$r7u$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
> >> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> >Fascinating. I wrote, "The right to life movement is not interested
> >only in preventing abortion." You replied "Yes it is."
>
> Only interested in preventing abortion.
>
> > But when you
> >came to my next statement, in which I listed five other actions
> >besides abortion that we want to prevent you did not recognize that it
> >refuted your claim that preventing abortion is the only thing we're
> >interested in.
>
> Your claim that those other agendas are the same as the anti-abortion
> movement is quesiotnable.
Not according to people who are actually in the anti-abortion/right
to life movement. We say we are concerned with all those things and
we actually try to do something about all of them.
<SNIP>
> >As for your statement "In short, you want to force people to obey
> >you," no more so than legislators who pass laws forbidding murder,
> >assault, robbery, and similar actions want to force people to obey
> >them.
>
> And so you resort to outright lies. Forcing somebody do do what you
> demand is a vastly different thing than banning certain actions.
We want to restore the laws banning the killing of unborn children.
> >> > As I said earlier in this
> >> >thread, pro-lifers, along with disability rights groups, are trying
> >> >to defend Terri Schiavo, whose husband is trying to starve her to
> >> >death with the connivance of the Florida judicial system.
> >>
> >> You pro-liars are so twisted with hate cannot tell the truth about
> >> anything. He is not trying to starve her to death. She is already
> >> dead.
> >
> >Then why hasn't she been buried?
>
> Because what is left of her body is being kept alive.
She has not had amputations. Her body is intact but it is damaged.
That's why disability rights groups are trying to defend her. The
disabled people in those groups know that if she is killed they will
be in greater danger.
David W. Barnes
Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
> news:<c6282r$ako$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
> > Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> >I
> > >quoted Planned Parenthood as saying in 1963, "An abortion kills the
> > >life of a baby after it has begun," which is a direct refutation of
> > >your claim.
> >
> > No it isn't. First, you're citing a pamphlet which is not an
> > authority on anything. Second, in the 1960s the start of a person's
> > life was marked by birth. That's when the child was named, was
> > legally recognized, and was welcomed into society.
>
> The pamphlet shows what Planned Parenthood, which is not a pro-life
> organization, was saying in 1963. And long before the 1960s the law
> said that if man dies while his wife is pregnant and his will says
> that some part of his estate is to be divided among his living chil-
> dren the child in the womb is entitled to her share.
"The law" says that, does it? Estate laws are state laws. Every state
has it's own version. Which law were you referring to? Furthermore,
the laws that do provide for the unborn do so as a practical matter,
not as one that recognizes life. Laws that govern trusts and estates,
for example, presume that if a man dies without knowledge that his wife
is pregnant, he would have provided for the child. Again, this is for
practical reasons. The state prefers not to have to care for children
when they could inherit.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > > In a later part of the
> > >editorial the writer said, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
> > >displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
> > >the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The
> > >result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
> > >everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception
> >
> > It's not a scientific fact at all. It's an outright lie.
> > In fact nearly every supposed justification for banning abortion
> > is either a lie or rank hypocrisy.
>
> The editorial appeared in _California Medicine_ the journal of the
> California Medical Association. Even with only that information one
> might think that the people responsible for it know something about
> science and medicine. However, this particular editorial was written
> by Dr. Malcolm Potts. In addition to being a physician he has a
> Ph.D. in embryology from Cambridge University. He is pro-abortion
> and so far as I know has performed abortions himself.
"Pro-abortion" is a term of propaganda, not accuracy, so it is
difficult to tell what it is you refer. However, if he performs
abortions it only demonstrates he is an ethical doctor more concerned
about the health of his patients than your desire to control women.
> He was the
> Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
> He later became the Bixby Professor at the School of Public Health of
> the University of California at Berkeley. What are your scientific
> credentials that would give us a reason to take your word, rather
> than his, on what is a scientific fact about embryology?
The scientific community is hardly at odds on this issue. Finding a
practitioner who agrees with you instead of medicine is hardly a novel
argument, but carries little weight.
>
> Actually, your denial that an unborn child is human, in the face of
> all the evidence to the contrary, is to your credit.
What "evidence" is that?
> You support
> abortion but you don't want to kill babies, so you deny that unborn
> children are human. Dr. Potts supports abortion and has performed
> abortions, but he has no problem with killing human beings so he
> admits unborn children are human.
Not much of an argument. We kill humans every day. George Bush and
his fellow Republicans have actually gotten quite good at it, and his
actions are well supported by conservatives and the Republican voters
alike.
David W. Barnes
> > >As for your statement "In short, you want to force people to obey
> > >you," no more so than legislators who pass laws forbidding murder,
> > >assault, robbery, and similar actions want to force people to obey
> > >them.
> >
> > And so you resort to outright lies. Forcing somebody do do what you
> > demand is a vastly different thing than banning certain actions.
>
> We want to restore the laws banning the killing of unborn children.
And what do you suggest we do with these children? Do you endorse
raising taxes, for instance, to provide for them or to pay for the
welfare of the mothers while pregnant? How many children have you
adopted?
james
Attila <Attila> wrote:
>A fetus is human as a simple DNA will prove, but so is my toe.
I don't think it should be legal for you to cut off your own toe
just because you don't want it anymore, but, I'd leave the question
to your state.
Marty Helgesen
> >
> > The pamphlet shows what Planned Parenthood, which is not a pro-life
> > organization, was saying in 1963. And long before the 1960s the law
> > said that if man dies while his wife is pregnant and his will says
> > that some part of his estate is to be divided among his living chil-
> > dren the child in the womb is entitled to her share.
>
> "The law" says that, does it? Estate laws are state laws. Every state
> has it's own version. Which law were you referring to? Furthermore,
> the laws that do provide for the unborn do so as a practical matter,
> not as one that recognizes life. Laws that govern trusts and estates,
> for example, presume that if a man dies without knowledge that his wife
> is pregnant, he would have provided for the child. Again, this is for
> practical reasons. The state prefers not to have to care for children
> when they could inherit.
Do you have evidence to support your last two sentences? I wasn't
referring to any one state's laws, but a few seconds with Google
provides this link to a discussion of the legal status of unborn
children
http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/fetallaw.htm
Among other things, it contradicts your last two sentences quoted
above that I just asked about.
> > > > In a later part of the
> > > >editorial the writer said, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
> > > >displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
> > > >the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The
> > > >result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
> > > >everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception
> > >
> > > It's not a scientific fact at all. It's an outright lie.
> > > In fact nearly every supposed justification for banning abortion
> > > is either a lie or rank hypocrisy.
> >
> > The editorial appeared in _California Medicine_ the journal of the
> > California Medical Association. Even with only that information one
> > might think that the people responsible for it know something about
> > science and medicine. However, this particular editorial was written
> > by Dr. Malcolm Potts. In addition to being a physician he has a
> > Ph.D. in embryology from Cambridge University. He is pro-abortion
> > and so far as I know has performed abortions himself.
>
> "Proabortion" is a term of propaganda, not accuracy, so it is
> difficult to tell what it is you refer. However, if he performs
> abortions it only demonstrates he is an ethical doctor more concerned
> about the health of his patients than your desire to control women.
Before the Civil War supporters of slavery openly called themselves
pro-slavery. It they had modern Public Relations consultants and spin
doctors they might have called themselves "pro-choice on slavery", a
term which, surprisingly enough, appears in my signature tag.
> > He was the
> > Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
> > He later became the Bixby Professor at the School of Public Health of
> > the University of California at Berkeley. What are your scientific
> > credentials that would give us a reason to take your word, rather
> > than his, on what is a scientific fact about embryology?
>
> The scientific community is hardly at odds on this issue. Finding a
> practitioner who agrees with you instead of medicine is hardly a novel
> argument, but carries little weight.
Since the practicioner is pro-abortion, what do you mean by saying
that he agrees with me? If you mean that he agrees with me that
abortion is wrong and should not be permitted, that is the complete
opposite of the facts. He is the same doctor about whom you wrote in
the passage automatically quoted a few line above in this posting, "if
he performs abortions it only demonstrates he is an ethical doctor
more concerned about the health of his patients than your desire to
control women." If you mean that drawing on his M.D. degree, his
Ph.D. in embryology, and his years of experience in practicing
medicine and in serving as the Medical Director of the International
Planned Parenthood he wrote, "Since the old ethic has not yet been
fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion
from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent
The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is
continuous
whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable
semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as
anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not
often put forth under socially impeccable auspices," then, yeah, he
agrees with me, or rather we both recognize the same facts. But in
that case we would have to wonder what you meant by saying he agrees
with me instead of medicine.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery
Help outlaw spam. For further information see http://www.cauce.org/
Marty Helgesen
> >
> > We want to restore the laws banning the killing of unborn children.
>
> And what do you suggest we do with these children? Do you endorse
> raising taxes, for instance, to provide for them or to pay for the
> welfare of the mothers while pregnant? How many children have you
> adopted?
People can have legitimate differences on the best way to deal with
various social conditions and problems. Similar questions could have
been asked of anti-slavery people (commonly referred to as
abolitionists) in the years before the Civil War. Indeed, it would
not surprise me to learn that questions like those were asked by
people who were pro-slavery, or, if you prefer, pro-choice on slavery.
However, disagreements among people who wanted to abolish slavery
about what should be done with the slaves after they were freed could
not justify slavery and disagreements among people who want to abolish
abortion about how society should help parents and children cannot
justify abortion.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery
Help outlaw spam. For further information see http://www.cauce.org/
David W. Barnes
> "David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
> news:<210420042341108283%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
> > In article <8aade2c6.04042...@posting.google.com>, Marty
> > Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > >
> > > The pamphlet shows what Planned Parenthood, which is not a pro-life
> > > organization, was saying in 1963. And long before the 1960s the law
> > > said that if man dies while his wife is pregnant and his will says
> > > that some part of his estate is to be divided among his living chil-
> > > dren the child in the womb is entitled to her share.
> >
> > "The law" says that, does it? Estate laws are state laws. Every state
> > has it's own version. Which law were you referring to? Furthermore,
> > the laws that do provide for the unborn do so as a practical matter,
> > not as one that recognizes life. Laws that govern trusts and estates,
> > for example, presume that if a man dies without knowledge that his wife
> > is pregnant, he would have provided for the child. Again, this is for
> > practical reasons. The state prefers not to have to care for children
> > when they could inherit.
>
> Do you have evidence to support your last two sentences? I wasn't
> referring to any one state's laws, but a few seconds with Google
> provides this link to a discussion of the legal status of unborn
> children
Well, those kind of discussions tend to lean toward wishful thinking
and puffery. The fact is, nearly all state laws presume the husband
would have provided for the unborn child out of practicality. Laws
don't generally anoint the status of personhood until one is "born
alive." With regard to the last two sentence, one merely needs to
review the legislative record to see this.
>
> http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/fetallaw.htm
>
> Among other things, it contradicts your last two sentences quoted
> above that I just asked about.
No it doesn't. This is an example of how someone can take something
that is somewhat complicated, here, the law, and try to infer rights
that do not exist. Your cite, basically, says that in Ohio, an unborn
child has the same legal rights of inheritance as a born child. Note
this is "inheritance." That means that once they become a "person"
they can inherit. If the fetus dies, for example, the fetus and its
heirs do not take anything. If the fetus were a person, the heirs of
the fetus would inherit if the fetus died before birth. Also, if a
person were a fetus a pregnant woman could drive in the car pool lane,
alone, which many decisions state is not acceptable.
With regard to the Missouri law, the law simply states, unborn children
in Missouri should have "all the rights, privileges, and immunities
available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state,
subject to the Federal Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations
thereof. The USSC has interpreted persons to begin at birth, so that
means nothing.
>
>
> > > > > In a later part of the
> > > > >editorial the writer said, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
> > > > >displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
> > > > >the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The
> > > > >result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
> > > > >everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception
> > > >
> > > > It's not a scientific fact at all. It's an outright lie.
> > > > In fact nearly every supposed justification for banning abortion
> > > > is either a lie or rank hypocrisy.
> > >
> > > The editorial appeared in _California Medicine_ the journal of the
> > > California Medical Association. Even with only that information one
> > > might think that the people responsible for it know something about
> > > science and medicine. However, this particular editorial was written
> > > by Dr. Malcolm Potts. In addition to being a physician he has a
> > > Ph.D. in embryology from Cambridge University. He is pro-abortion
> > > and so far as I know has performed abortions himself.
> >
> > "Proabortion" is a term of propaganda, not accuracy, so it is
> > difficult to tell what it is you refer. However, if he performs
> > abortions it only demonstrates he is an ethical doctor more concerned
> > about the health of his patients than your desire to control women.
>
> Before the Civil War supporters of slavery openly called themselves
> pro-slavery. It they had modern Public Relations consultants and spin
> doctors they might have called themselves "pro-choice on slavery", a
> term which, surprisingly enough, appears in my signature tag.
Those who favored slavery were, indeed, "pro-slavery." "Pro" means "in
favor of." Do you dent a person could favor allowing a woman to choose
but personally oppose abortion? That person is clearly not
"pro-abortion."
>
> > > He was the
> > > Medical Director of the International Planned Parenthood Federation.
> > > He later became the Bixby Professor at the School of Public Health of
> > > the University of California at Berkeley. What are your scientific
> > > credentials that would give us a reason to take your word, rather
> > > than his, on what is a scientific fact about embryology?
> >
> > The scientific community is hardly at odds on this issue. Finding a
> > practitioner who agrees with you instead of medicine is hardly a novel
> > argument, but carries little weight.
>
> Since the practicioner is pro-abortion, what do you mean by saying
> that he agrees with me?
How could you possibly know whether he is "pro-abortion?"
> If you mean that he agrees with me that
> abortion is wrong and should not be permitted, that is the complete
> opposite of the facts. He is the same doctor about whom you wrote in
> the passage automatically quoted a few line above in this posting, "if
> he performs abortions it only demonstrates he is an ethical doctor
> more concerned about the health of his patients than your desire to
> control women." If you mean that drawing on his M.D. degree, his
> Ph.D. in embryology, and his years of experience in practicing
> medicine and in serving as the Medical Director of the International
> Planned Parenthood he wrote, "Since the old ethic has not yet been
> fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion
> from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent
> The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
> everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is
> continuous
> whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.
But that is mere denial. Everyone doesn't know that, and our laws are
based on the idea that it isn't true/
> The very considerable
> semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as
> anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not
> often put forth under socially impeccable auspices," then, yeah, he
> agrees with me, or rather we both recognize the same facts.
But that is mere opinion.
> But in
> that case we would have to wonder what you meant by saying he agrees
> with me instead of medicine.
Do you deny that it is possible to oppose abortion and still perform
them? Kerry, for example, opposed war and still fought. Bush claimed
to favor the war in Vietnam and avoided fighting. One doesn't
necessarily mean the other.
David W. Barnes
> "David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
> news:<210420042344229810%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
> > In article <8aade2c6.04042...@posting.google.com>, Marty
> > Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > >
> > > We want to restore the laws banning the killing of unborn children.
> >
> > And what do you suggest we do with these children? Do you endorse
> > raising taxes, for instance, to provide for them or to pay for the
> > welfare of the mothers while pregnant? How many children have you
> > adopted?
>
> People can have legitimate differences on the best way to deal with
> various social conditions and problems.
Yes, but, don't you think a solution should be resolved before creating
the problem?
> Similar questions could have
> been asked of anti-slavery people (commonly referred to as
> abolitionists) in the years before the Civil War.
The same people who opposed slavery are now pro-choice. Those who are
currently "pro-life" are of the same mind-set as those who were
pro-slavery.
> Indeed, it would
> not surprise me to learn that questions like those were asked by
> people who were pro-slavery, or, if you prefer, pro-choice on slavery.
Comments like "pro-choice on slavery" only prove that you are in such a
attenuated position you need to resort to distortions to try to make
your point. If you can't argue your point without the rhetorical
bullshit, what does that say about the merits of your position?
> However, disagreements among people who wanted to abolish slavery
> about what should be done with the slaves after they were freed could
> not justify slavery and disagreements among people who want to abolish
> abortion about how society should help parents and children cannot
> justify abortion.
Which is a totally unrelated point. Your attempt to compare slavery
with abortion is foolish for a number of reasons. First, it was the
conservatives who endorsed slavery, and liberals who opposed it.
Abortion is the opposite. But most importantly, slavery denied rights
to persons, as does forcing women to give birth.
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c6282r$ako$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
><SNIP>
>>I
>> >quoted Planned Parenthood as saying in 1963, "An abortion kills the
>> >life of a baby after it has begun," which is a direct refutation of
>> >your claim.
>>
>> No it isn't. First, you're citing a pamphlet which is not an
>> authority on anything. Second, in the 1960s the start of a person's
>> life was marked by birth. That's when the child was named, was
>> legally recognized, and was welcomed into society.
>
>The pamphlet shows what Planned Parenthood, which is not a pro-life
>organization, was saying in 1963. And long before the 1960s the law
>said that if man dies while his wife is pregnant and his will says
>that some part of his estate is to be divided among his living chil-
>dren the child in the womb is entitled to her share.
Nope. A fetus cannot inherit.
>> > In a later part of the
>> >editorial the writer said, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
>> >displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
>> >the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The
>> >result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
>> >everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception
>>
>> It's not a scientific fact at all. It's an outright lie.
>> In fact nearly every supposed justification for banning abortion
>> is either a lie or rank hypocrisy.
>
>The editorial appeared in _California Medicine_ the journal of the
>California Medical Association.
OPINIONS (aka editorials) are not FACT.
> Even with only that information one
>might think that the people responsible for it know something about
>science and medicine.
Why would you assume that?
I know for a fact that human life does NOT begins at conception.
And I can prove it.
>Actually, your denial that an unborn child is human,
I never denied any such thing. Are you now going to start lying about
what I write?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c62880$ape$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>> >rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c5ui7b$r7u$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> >> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
><SNIP>
>> >Fascinating. I wrote, "The right to life movement is not interested
>> >only in preventing abortion." You replied "Yes it is."
>>
>> Only interested in preventing abortion.
>>
>> > But when you
>> >came to my next statement, in which I listed five other actions
>> >besides abortion that we want to prevent you did not recognize that it
>> >refuted your claim that preventing abortion is the only thing we're
>> >interested in.
>>
>> Your claim that those other agendas are the same as the anti-abortion
>> movement is quesiotnable.
>
>Not according to people who are actually in the anti-abortion/right
>to life movement.
While there are certainly some people that are involved in both, that
does not make them the same thing. Further, almost all the other
issues involve telling other people what to do.
>> >As for your statement "In short, you want to force people to obey
>> >you," no more so than legislators who pass laws forbidding murder,
>> >assault, robbery, and similar actions want to force people to obey
>> >them.
>>
>> And so you resort to outright lies. Forcing somebody do do what you
>> demand is a vastly different thing than banning certain actions.
>
>We want to restore the laws banning the killing of unborn children.
That is a lie.
The truth is that you want to FORCE women to keep fetuses alive.
You don't want to allow women the same right to refuse that you enjoy.
>> >> > As I said earlier in this
>> >> >thread, pro-lifers, along with disability rights groups, are trying
>> >> >to defend Terri Schiavo, whose husband is trying to starve her to
>> >> >death with the connivance of the Florida judicial system.
>> >>
>> >> You pro-liars are so twisted with hate cannot tell the truth about
>> >> anything. He is not trying to starve her to death. She is already
>> >> dead.
>> >
>> >Then why hasn't she been buried?
>>
>> Because what is left of her body is being kept alive.
>
>She has not had amputations. Her body is intact but it is damaged.
Her brain is dead. Her mind, her feelings, her thoughts, her
memories, her wishes, are all gone. She is not "disabled".
She is gone. Irrevokably.
>That's why disability rights groups are trying to defend her.
No, it's because you're control freaks.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Marty Helgesen
<SNIP>
> Well, those kind of discussions tend to lean toward wishful thinking
> and puffery. The fact is, nearly all state laws presume the husband
> would have provided for the unborn child out of practicality.
Can you document that statement?
> Laws
> don't generally anoint the status of personhood until one is "born
> alive."
The web page http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/fetallaw.htm, which I
cited in the posting to which you are replying and which is automati-
cally quoted below says, referring to the Ohio Revised Code, "In a
similar way, '2307.131 deals with the situation where a lawsuit is
brought in which an unborn child has an interest. The law says that a
judge may appoint a 'competent and disinterested person as trustee of
the interest of such persons not yet born'." Note the words "such
persons not yet born". They directly contradict your statement. Did
you not bother looking at the page before you wrote your reply?
>With regard to the last two sentence, one merely needs to
> review the legislative record to see this.
Can you give a citation to that legislative record so we can review
it?
> >
> > http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/fetallaw.htm
> >
> > Among other things, it contradicts your last two sentences quoted
> > above that I just asked about.
<SNIP>
> Also, if a
> person were a fetus a pregnant woman could drive in the car pool lane,
> alone, which many decisions state is not acceptable.
So far as I know, the courts have not said that an unborn child is
not a person in general terms, but that she cannot be counted as a
person in the context of laws governing carpool lanes. Since carpool
lanes are set up to put people who would otherwise be driving in two
or more cars into one car, which does not occur when a mother and her
unborn child are in the same car, that is a reasonable decision which
has nothing to do with what we are discussing. The fact that you
have to resort to obviously irrelevant arguments like that is worth
noting.
>
> With regard to the Missouri law, the law simply states, unborn children
> in Missouri should have "all the rights, privileges, and immunities
> available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state,
> subject to the Federal Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations
> thereof. The USSC has interpreted persons to begin at birth, so that
> means nothing.
Where, specifically has the United States Supreme Court "interpreted
persons to begin at birth"? I would appreciate a direct quotation
with citation.
To keep these postings to a reasonable length I am going to stop here
and put my reply to the rest of your posting in a separate posting.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery.
Marty Helgesen
This is the second part of my reply to this posting. I am splitting
my reply into two parts to keep the postings to a reasonable size
> >
> > Before the Civil War supporters of slavery openly called themselves
> > pro-slavery. It they had modern Public Relations consultants and spin
> > doctors they might have called themselves "pro-choice on slavery", a
> > term which, surprisingly enough, appears in my signature tag.
>
> Those who favored slavery were, indeed, "pro-slavery." "Pro" means "in
> favor of." Do you dent a person could favor allowing a woman to choose
> but personally oppose abortion? That person is clearly not
> "pro-abortion."
What do you think the term "pro-abortion" means?
The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion." It
also defines "pro-life" as "advocating legal protection of human
embryos or fetuses, esp. by opposing legal abortion," and it defines
"pro-slavery" as "Advocating the practice of slavery". I don't know
how you understand "pro-abortion" but it seems not to be the way that
dictionary defines it.
More important than what a dictionary says is the fact that people
who support legal abortion -- that should be a reasonably neutral
term -- used to call themselves "pro-abortion" before they invented
the public relations spin term "pro-choice". For example, the July
2, 1977 issue of _The New Republic_ had an editorial deploring a
House vote to ban the use of federal money to pay for abortions along
with a Supreme Court decision issued three days later that neither
the Constitution nor federal Medicaid legislation prevented states
from barring the use of Medicaid money for abortion, apart from
special cases as when the life of the mother was threatened. In case
I have not made it clear, the position of the editorial is strongly
in favor of legal abortion and of public funding of abortion. One
paragraph begins:
The pro-abortion forces have brought this disaster upon them-
selves. Or rather they themselves have brought it upon hundreds
of thousands of poor women who will be forced to bear and raise
children they don't want; and upon the taxpayers who will be
forced to support many of these unwanted children. By relying on
the courts to do their job for them, they have abandoned the
processes of democracy to the ardent pro-lifers....
Note that the except, which clearly shows it supports both legal
abortion and public funding for abortion, and today would be called
"pro-choice" refers to "The pro-abortion forces." It also is worth
noting that the organization founded in 1969 by Lawrence Lader,
Bernard Nathanson, M.D., and a few others was called the National
Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws, not the National Association
for Choice. A similar organization in Britain was called the Abor-
tion Law Reform Association, not the Choice Association, and the laws
that were introduced, and occasionally passed in state legislatures
were called abortion reform laws by their supporters. The use of
"choice" as a euphemism for abortion came a few years later as a
public relations device. It gave the supporters of legal abortion a
positive term ("pro-choice") to counter the term "pro-life". Sup-
porters of legal abortion frequently say they're not pro-abortion,
they're pro-choice. On the other hand, people in the pro-life move-
ment freely acknowledge we are anti-abortion. We also oppose infan-
ticide, eldercide, and various other kinds of killing euphemized as
"euthanasia". The term "pro-life" expresses the reason we oppose all
of those practices.
Several years ago Norma McCorvey, the Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade, made
headlines when she became an Evangelical Christian. (A few years
later she became a Catholic Christian, but that got less attention.)
At the time of her conversion she had been working at an abortion
clinic. In an interview after she became a Christian she said, "-I'm
pro-life on choice,-" obviously using "choice" as a euphemistic
synonym for "abortion."
Many people do that. A politician will say his opponent "opposes
choice" or "opposes a woman's right to choose" without ever saying
what the choice is. The choice is between killing her unborn baby or
permitting the baby to live. They usually won't even say "right to
choose abortion". However, it's meaningless to talk about "choice"
without specifying what is being chosen. That's why I sometimes use
the signature tag "Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery." Also,
some years ago I read of a bumper sticker that said, "If you don't
approve of abortion, don't have one." My immediate reaction was, "If
you don't approve of slavery, don't own slaves." I've put those two
statements in a signature tag as well.
Several years ago I quoted that passage from the _New Republic_
editorial in another discussion and someone objected that that was
only one editorial. (Some people just don't want face the facts.) It
would be incredibly tedious and certainly not worth doing for an
Internet discussion to read lots of old newspapers and magazines to
see what terms were used, but fortunately I had another option. The
library where I work subscribes to Lexis Nexis Academic Universe so I
used it.
I searched the Major Newspapers index from January 1, 1968 (before
the indexing started) to December 31, 1981 for "pro-abortion" and
"pro-choice" There were 156 hits for "pro-abortion" and 70 for "pro-
choice". The earliest for "pro-abortion" was in the New York Times
for July 7, 1970. The earliest for "pro-choice" was in the Washing-
ton Post for June 28, 1977, seven years later. (Both papers edito-
rially support abortion.) I then did the same search in the Maga-
zines and Journals index. There were 40 hits for "pro-abortion" and
nine for "pro-choice". The earliest for "pro-abortion" was in The
Economist for February 22, 1975. The earliest for "pro-choice" was
in Newsweek for June 5, 1978, three years later. (Indexing of both
magazines started in the beginning of January, 1975. The Washington
Post had full text starting January 1, 1977. The New York Times had
abstracts from January 1, 1969 through May 31, 1980, with full text
after that.)
<SNIP>
> > Since the practicioner is pro-abortion, what do you mean by saying
> > that he agrees with me?
>
> How could you possibly know whether he is "pro-abortion?"
He said so.
>
> > If you mean that he agrees with me that
> > abortion is wrong and should not be permitted, that is the complete
> > opposite of the facts. He is the same doctor about whom you wrote in
> > the passage automatically quoted a few line above in this posting, "if
> > he performs abortions it only demonstrates he is an ethical doctor
> > more concerned about the health of his patients than your desire to
> > control women." If you mean that drawing on his M.D. degree, his
> > Ph.D. in embryology, and his years of experience in practicing
> > medicine and in serving as the Medical Director of the International
> > Planned Parenthood he wrote, "Since the old ethic has not yet been
> > fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion
> > from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent
> > The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
> > everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is
> > continuous
> > whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.
>
> But that is mere denial. Everyone doesn't know that, and our laws are
> based on the idea that it isn't true/
He obviously was using standard English usage in which "everyone
knows" means something is common knowledge, not that every human
being in the world knows it. What is your basis for saying our laws
are based on the idea that it isn't true?
> > The very considerable
> > semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as
> > anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not
> > often put forth under socially impeccable auspices," then, yeah, he
> > agrees with me, or rather we both recognize the same facts.
>
> But that is mere opinion.
Yes, but it is the opinion of a prominent physician who has performed
abortions and who also has a Ph.D. in embryology and who was selected
to write that editorial for the official journal of the California
Medical Association. It's not just the uninformed opinion of some
guy posting to Usenet.
> > But in
> > that case we would have to wonder what you meant by saying he agrees
> > with me instead of medicine.
>
> Do you deny that it is possible to oppose abortion and still perform
> them?
Of course it is possible for someone to oppose abortion and still
perform them. People do things they know are wrong all the time.
However, the point of the editorial was not to discuss abortion. It
was to describe and endorse a "new medical ethic". As I said in a
previous posting:
The September 1970 issue of _California Medicine_, the journal of the
California Medical Association, had an editorial entitled "A New
Ethic for Medicine and Society". It began: "The traditional western
ethic has always placed great emphasis on the intrinsic worth and
equal value of every human life regardless of its stage or condition.
This ethic has had the blessing of the Judeo-Christian heritage and
has been the basis for most of our laws and much of our social poli-
cy. The reverence for each and every life has also been a keystone
of Western medicine and is the ethic which has caused physicians to
try to preserve, protect, repair, prolong, and enhance every human
life which comes under their surveillance. This traditional ethic is
still clearly dominant, but there is much to suggest that it is being
eroded at its core and may eventually even be abandoned. This of
course will produce profound changes in Western medicine and in
Western society."
Several paragraphs later it said: "The process of eroding the old
ethic and substituting the new has already begun. It may be seen
most clearly in changing attitudes toward human abortion. In defi-
ance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for
every human life regardless of its stage, condition, or status,
abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right, and even
necessary. It is worth noting that this shift in public attitude has
affected the churches, the laws, and public policy rather than the
reverse. Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has
been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of
killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The result has
been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone
really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous
whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable
semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as
anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not
often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested
that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while
a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected."
For the complete text see:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL3.98/roe.html. Note that this
editorial is promoting and defending the new medical ethic, not
attacking it.
--
Marty Helgesen
> In article <8aade2c6.04042...@posting.google.com>, Marty
> Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
> > "David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
> > news:<210420042344229810%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
> > > In article <8aade2c6.04042...@posting.google.com>, Marty
> > > Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > > >
> > > > We want to restore the laws banning the killing of unborn children.
> > >
> > > And what do you suggest we do with these children? Do you endorse
> > > raising taxes, for instance, to provide for them or to pay for the
> > > welfare of the mothers while pregnant? How many children have you
> > > adopted?
> >
> > People can have legitimate differences on the best way to deal with
> > various social conditions and problems.
>
> Yes, but, don't you think a solution should be resolved before creating
> the problem?
Does that mean we should not have abolished slavery before we re-
solved the problem of how to provide for the freed slaves and fit
them into society?
> > Similar questions could have
> > been asked of anti-slavery people (commonly referred to as
> > abolitionists) in the years before the Civil War.
>
> The same people who opposed slavery are now pro-choice. Those who are
> currently "pro-life" are of the same mind-set as those who were
> pro-slavery.
The people who opposed slavery are now dead. Your second sentence is
based on false stereotypes. Many of the leading abolitionists were
religious believers, including religious leaders who said that black
slaves were human beings, despite the denials of some slaveowners,
and that treating them the way slaves were treated was contrary to
the will of God. Many who want to abolish legal abortion are reli-
gious believers, including religious leaders who say that unborn
children are human beings, despite the denials of some supporters of
abortion, and that killing them is against the will of God.
>
> > Indeed, it would
> > not surprise me to learn that questions like those were asked by
> > people who were pro-slavery, or, if you prefer, pro-choice on slavery.
>
> Comments like "pro-choice on slavery" only prove that you are in such a
> attenuated position you need to resort to distortions to try to make
> your point. If you can't argue your point without the rhetorical
> bullshit, what does that say about the merits of your position?
Can you explain what is wrong with the phrase "pro-choice on slavery"
instead of just resorting to name-calling? Pro-slavery people did
not say every white man should be required to own slaves, just that
the law should permit those people who wanted to own slaves to own
them. That was freedom of choice. No one who was personally opposed
to slavery was required own them.
>
> > However, disagreements among people who wanted to abolish slavery
> > about what should be done with the slaves after they were freed could
> > not justify slavery and disagreements among people who want to abolish
> > abortion about how society should help parents and children cannot
> > justify abortion.
>
> Which is a totally unrelated point. Your attempt to compare slavery
> with abortion is foolish for a number of reasons. First, it was the
> conservatives who endorsed slavery, and liberals who opposed it.
> Abortion is the opposite. But most importantly, slavery denied rights
> to persons, as does forcing women to give birth.
Your first point is totally irrelevant. The comparison is that in
both situations some members of the human race are declared to be
less than fully human or at least to lack some basic human rights
that are possessed by a majority of people (people with white skin in
the case of slavery and people who have been born in the case of
abortion). The other political views of people who were pro-slavery
or anti-slavery in the 1850s, even assuming they could be mapped to
contemporary political divisions are totally unrelated to the ques-
tion of whether blacks or unborn children are human beings with the
same rights as those people who are both white and born.
As for your second point, slavery denied rights to slaves. Abortion
denies rights to unborn children. Also, laws against abortion do not
force women to give birth. It forbids them to kill their children
before as well as after birth.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery.
Marty Helgesen
<SNIP>
> Nope. A fetus cannot inherit.
The web site http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/fetallaw.htm says,
"According to Ohio Revised Code '2105.14, an unborn child has the
same legal rights of inheritance as a born child. In the case of Ebbs
v Smith in 1979, a women had said in her will that her estate was to
be divided among various classes of relatives 'living at the time of
my death'. The court ruled that this included a baby who was still in
the womb at that time."
That same page also says,
"Thus, '2109.34 specifies that if an unborn child is part of a group
of people who may inherit money or benefit from a trust, then those
involved who are already born are expected to represent the unborn
child's interests, and can be charged with fraud if they don't. The
law goes on to say that if there is no one involved who can represent
the unborn child, then the state attorney general shall take on this
task.
"In a similar way, '2307.131 deals with the situation where a lawsuit
is brought in which an unborn child has an interest. The law says
that a judge may appoint a 'competent and disinterested person as
trustee of the interest of such persons not yet born'.
"In both the above laws, the legislature thoughtfully provided that
unborn children involved in lawsuits do not have to be sent copies of
legal papers, as is normally required for born persons."
>
> >> > In a later part of the
> >> >editorial the writer said, "Since the old ethic has not yet been fully
> >> >displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from
> >> >the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent The
> >> >result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
> >> >everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception
> >>
> >> It's not a scientific fact at all. It's an outright lie.
> >> In fact nearly every supposed justification for banning abortion
> >> is either a lie or rank hypocrisy.
> >
> >The editorial appeared in _California Medicine_ the journal of the
> >California Medical Association.
>
> OPINIONS (aka editorials) are not FACT.
Editorials contain both facts and opinions, with the facts cited to
support the opinions. And in this case the opinion is the opinion of
a prominent physician who has performed abortions and who also has a
Ph.D. in embryology and who was selected to write that editorial for
the official journal of the California Medical Association. It's not
just the uninformed opinion of some guy posting to Usenet.
> > Even with only that information one
> >might think that the people responsible for it know something about
> >science and medicine.
>
> Why would you assume that?
>
> I know for a fact that human life does NOT begins at conception.
> And I can prove it.
Please do prove it.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Robert E. Lee was pro-choice on slavery
Ray Fischer
>> Laws
>> don't generally anoint the status of personhood until one is "born
>> alive."
>
>The web page http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/fetallaw.htm, which I
>cited in the posting to which you are replying and which is automati-
>cally quoted below says, referring to the Ohio Revised Code, "In a
>similar way, '2307.131 deals with the situation where a lawsuit is
>brought in which an unborn child has an interest. The law says that a
>judge may appoint a 'competent and disinterested person as trustee of
>the interest of such persons not yet born'." Note the words "such
>persons not yet born". They directly contradict your statement.
They do not. They refer to the period of time before a person was
born. No birth means no person, but it is expedient to treat the
feyal non-person as if it will become a person for certain legal
undertakings.
> Did
>you not bother looking at the page before you wrote your reply?
You are pedantic and stupid for grasping at ambiguities of English
language to try to make some point everybody can see is simply not
true.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>"David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message news:<220420041444535520%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
>
>This is the second part of my reply to this posting. I am splitting
>my reply into two parts to keep the postings to a reasonable size
>
>> >
>> > Before the Civil War supporters of slavery openly called themselves
>> > pro-slavery. It they had modern Public Relations consultants and spin
>> > doctors they might have called themselves "pro-choice on slavery", a
>> > term which, surprisingly enough, appears in my signature tag.
>>
>> Those who favored slavery were, indeed, "pro-slavery." "Pro" means "in
>> favor of." Do you dent a person could favor allowing a woman to choose
>> but personally oppose abortion? That person is clearly not
>> "pro-abortion."
>
>What do you think the term "pro-abortion" means?
>
>The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
>"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion."
pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
Nobody favors abortion.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c6a3hn$dve$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>
><SNIP>
>
>> Nope. A fetus cannot inherit.
>
>The web site http://www.pregnantpause.org/lex/fetallaw.htm says,
>"According to Ohio Revised Code '2105.14, an unborn child has the
>same legal rights of inheritance as a born child.
In fact they are lying.
Let's look at the actual law:
2105.14. Posthumous child to inherit.
Descendants of an intestate begotten before his death, but born
thereafter, in all cases will inherit as if born in the lifetime
of the intestate and surviving him; but in no other case can a
person inherit unless living at the time of the death of the
intestate.Ê
That says that if someone dies, a child concieved but not yet born
can inherit provided that the child is eventually born.
> In the case of Ebbs
>v Smith in 1979, a women had said in her will that her estate was to
>be divided among various classes of relatives 'living at the time of
>my death'. The court ruled that this included a baby who was still in
>the womb at that time."
And that does not make a fetus into a person.
>That same page also says,
I don't consider pro-liars to be credible.
>> >The editorial appeared in _California Medicine_ the journal of the
>> >California Medical Association.
>>
>> OPINIONS (aka editorials) are not FACT.
>
>Editorials contain both facts and opinions, with the facts cited to
>support the opinions.
Editorials are opinions. They are not scientific fact.
> And in this case the opinion is the opinion of
>a prominent physician who has performed abortions and who also has a
>Ph.D. in embryology and who was selected to write that editorial for
Appeal to authority fallacy.
>> > Even with only that information one
>> >might think that the people responsible for it know something about
>> >science and medicine.
>>
>> Why would you assume that?
>>
>> I know for a fact that human life does NOT begins at conception.
>> And I can prove it.
>
>Please do prove it.
Dead sperm and dead eggs cannot fertilize, therefore they must be
alive before conception, therefore life exists BEFORE conception and
cannot begin at conception.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
It's based upon the onservation that those who claim to be "pro-life"
advocate and demand the abject forced servitude of pregnant women.
They treat pregnant women much the same way slaveowners treated
slaves.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David W. Barnes
<rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
And the fact that they keep arguing otherwise proves they are
dishonest. If they really believed "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" were
the same, why would they care about claiming we are "pro-abortion?" It
is obviously because they see some advantage in doing so. And by
seeing an advantage in one term over another, they prove they see the
two terms are different.
It is just the same old disingenuous crap from the pro-life.
David W. Barnes
> "David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
> news:<220420041444535520%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
>
> This is the second part of my reply to this posting. I am splitting
> my reply into two parts to keep the postings to a reasonable size
>
> > >
> > > Before the Civil War supporters of slavery openly called themselves
> > > pro-slavery. It they had modern Public Relations consultants and spin
> > > doctors they might have called themselves "pro-choice on slavery", a
> > > term which, surprisingly enough, appears in my signature tag.
> >
> > Those who favored slavery were, indeed, "pro-slavery." "Pro" means "in
> > favor of." Do you dent a person could favor allowing a woman to choose
> > but personally oppose abortion? That person is clearly not
> > "pro-abortion."
>
> What do you think the term "pro-abortion" means?
>
> The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
> "pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion." It
> also defines "pro-life" as "advocating legal protection of human
> embryos or fetuses, esp. by opposing legal abortion," and it defines
> "pro-slavery" as "Advocating the practice of slavery". I don't know
> how you understand "pro-abortion" but it seems not to be the way that
> dictionary defines it.
They also define "pro" as "in favor of." How do you resolve that?
And Webster零 defines it as favoring abortion.
Of course, you are being disingenuous, aren't you? We all know what
"pro-choice" means. And the fact that you hope to call those who are
pro-choice "pro-abortion" means even you recognize it doesn't really
mean "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion." If it did what would
be the point in arguing the point? I had hoped you were a pro-lifer
who wanted to discuss real issues. Instead you seem hell bent on
playing the same stupid word games people like Heishman play. Is that
really what you want?
> <SNIP>
>
> > > Since the practicioner is pro-abortion, what do you mean by saying
> > > that he agrees with me?
> >
> > How could you possibly know whether he is "pro-abortion?"
>
> He said so.
Where?
>
> >
> > > If you mean that he agrees with me that
> > > abortion is wrong and should not be permitted, that is the complete
> > > opposite of the facts. He is the same doctor about whom you wrote in
> > > the passage automatically quoted a few line above in this posting, "if
> > > he performs abortions it only demonstrates he is an ethical doctor
> > > more concerned about the health of his patients than your desire to
> > > control women." If you mean that drawing on his M.D. degree, his
> > > Ph.D. in embryology, and his years of experience in practicing
> > > medicine and in serving as the Medical Director of the International
> > > Planned Parenthood he wrote, "Since the old ethic has not yet been
> > > fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion
> > > from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent
> > > The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which
> > > everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is
> > > continuous
> > > whether intra- or extra-uterine until death.
> >
> > But that is mere denial. Everyone doesn't know that, and our laws are
> > based on the idea that it isn't true/
>
> He obviously was using standard English usage in which "everyone
> knows" means something is common knowledge, not that every human
> being in the world knows it. What is your basis for saying our laws
> are based on the idea that it isn't true?
We talked about that. You must be "born alive."
>
> > > The very considerable
> > > semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as
> > > anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not
> > > often put forth under socially impeccable auspices," then, yeah, he
> > > agrees with me, or rather we both recognize the same facts.
> >
> > But that is mere opinion.
>
> Yes, but it is the opinion of a prominent physician who has performed
> abortions and who also has a Ph.D. in embryology and who was selected
> to write that editorial for the official journal of the California
> Medical Association. It's not just the uninformed opinion of some
> guy posting to Usenet.
So, if, for example, I were a lawyer, you'd place more stock in my
legal opinion?
>
> > > But in
> > > that case we would have to wonder what you meant by saying he agrees
> > > with me instead of medicine.
> >
> > Do you deny that it is possible to oppose abortion and still perform
> > them?
> Of course it is possible for someone to oppose abortion and still
> perform them. People do things they know are wrong all the time.
More disingenuous spin? I never said wrong.
The current medical ethic is just fine...
David W. Barnes
> "David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
> news:<220420041452091679%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
> > In article <8aade2c6.04042...@posting.google.com>, Marty
> > Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > "David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
> > > news:<210420042344229810%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
> > > > In article <8aade2c6.04042...@posting.google.com>, Marty
> > > > Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> > > > >
> > > > > We want to restore the laws banning the killing of unborn children.
> > > >
> > > > And what do you suggest we do with these children? Do you endorse
> > > > raising taxes, for instance, to provide for them or to pay for the
> > > > welfare of the mothers while pregnant? How many children have you
> > > > adopted?
> > >
> > > People can have legitimate differences on the best way to deal with
> > > various social conditions and problems.
> >
> > Yes, but, don't you think a solution should be resolved before creating
> > the problem?
>
> Does that mean we should not have abolished slavery before we re-
> solved the problem of how to provide for the freed slaves and fit
> them into society?
It wasn't the same. Slavery, like forcing women to give birth against
her will, infringed on rights.
>
> > > Similar questions could have
> > > been asked of anti-slavery people (commonly referred to as
> > > abolitionists) in the years before the Civil War.
> >
> > The same people who opposed slavery are now pro-choice. Those who are
> > currently "pro-life" are of the same mind-set as those who were
> > pro-slavery.
>
> The people who opposed slavery are now dead.
Not true. Some are alive and many others still advocate it.
> Your second sentence is
> based on false stereotypes. Many of the leading abolitionists were
> religious believers, including religious leaders who said that black
> slaves were human beings, despite the denials of some slaveowners,
> and that treating them the way slaves were treated was contrary to
> the will of God.
Right. Liberal religious leaders.
> Many who want to abolish legal abortion are reli-
> gious believers, including religious leaders who say that unborn
> children are human beings, despite the denials of some supporters of
> abortion, and that killing them is against the will of God.
Slavery infringed on the rights of blacks. The pro-life position
infringes on the rights of women. Try to spin all you like, but it is
obvious.
>
> >
> > > Indeed, it would
> > > not surprise me to learn that questions like those were asked by
> > > people who were pro-slavery, or, if you prefer, pro-choice on slavery.
> >
> > Comments like "pro-choice on slavery" only prove that you are in such a
> > attenuated position you need to resort to distortions to try to make
> > your point. If you can't argue your point without the rhetorical
> > bullshit, what does that say about the merits of your position?
>
> Can you explain what is wrong with the phrase "pro-choice on slavery"
> instead of just resorting to name-calling?
It is you who insults. Pro-choice means favoring the right of a woman
to choose. You are really stretching in your attempt to link it to
slavery.
> Pro-slavery people did
> not say every white man should be required to own slaves, just that
> the law should permit those people who wanted to own slaves to own
> them. That was freedom of choice. No one who was personally opposed
> to slavery was required own them.
Pro-choice doesn't mean "freedom of choice." If it did, we would
simply say "freedom of choice."
>
> >
> > > However, disagreements among people who wanted to abolish slavery
> > > about what should be done with the slaves after they were freed could
> > > not justify slavery and disagreements among people who want to abolish
> > > abortion about how society should help parents and children cannot
> > > justify abortion.
> >
> > Which is a totally unrelated point. Your attempt to compare slavery
> > with abortion is foolish for a number of reasons. First, it was the
> > conservatives who endorsed slavery, and liberals who opposed it.
> > Abortion is the opposite. But most importantly, slavery denied rights
> > to persons, as does forcing women to give birth.
>
> Your first point is totally irrelevant.
Not a all.
> The comparison is that in
> both situations some members of the human race are declared to be
> less than fully human or at least to lack some basic human rights
> that are possessed by a majority of people (people with white skin in
> the case of slavery and people who have been born in the case of
> abortion).
Which you hope to do to women.
> The other political views of people who were pro-slavery
> or anti-slavery in the 1850s, even assuming they could be mapped to
> contemporary political divisions are totally unrelated to the ques-
> tion of whether blacks or unborn children are human beings with the
> same rights as those people who are both white and born.
You understand that slaves were born and human, correct? You
understand that distinction.
>
> As for your second point, slavery denied rights to slaves. Abortion
> denies rights to unborn children.
Wrong. Abortion denies rights to women. A fetus generally has no
rights under US Law.
> Also, laws against abortion do not
> force women to give birth. It forbids them to kill their children
> before as well as after birth.
They don't kill their children before birth.
David W. Barnes
You totally miss the point concerning inheritance. Let me give you a
couple of examples that may clear things up for you. First lets create
three characters. FATHER, an adult man. MOTHER, and adult woman.
CHILD, a born alive child, and FETUS, and unborn fetus.
(And YES, this would be the same under the above law.)
Scenario #1: FATHER and MOTHER have a 3 month old son, CHILD. FATHER
and MOTHER also have a 3 year old daughter, SISTER. MOTHER is not
pregnant. MOTHER states in her will, "my home in Malibu to my
children." Then, one day, MOTHER is carrying CHILD in her arms. She
trips at the top of the stairs and falls down the stairs. MOTHER and
CHILD are killed. The Malibu home goes to CHILD's heirs. (Maybe to
SISTER...) Why? Because CHILD was alive. Like everyone, the heirs of
CHILD are determined at the moment of death.
Scenario #2: FATHER and MOTHER have a 3 year old daughter, SISTER.
MOTHER IS pregnant with FETUS. (Note there is no CHILD, but there is a
"child" named SISTER.) MOTHER states in her will, "my home in Malibu
to my children." Then, one day, MOTHER is walking at the top of the
stairs. She trips at the top of the stairs and falls down the stairs.
MOTHER and FETUS killed. The Malibu home goes, not to FETUS's heirs,
but to FATHER. Why? Because even under Ohio law, a fetus is not a
person and has no heirs.
David W. Barnes
<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:27:38 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
> <Vote...@dbarnes.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> If it is determined the child died first it is the heirs of the mother
> because the child never inherited.
It would be the heirs of the mother either way. The issue is whether
the unborn fetus is an heir and can the unborn fetus pass on it's
property. The answer in both cases is "no."
David W. Barnes
<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:27:37 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
> <Vote...@dbarnes.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <250420041627376609%Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> Does that mean we should not have abolished slavery before we re-
> >> solved the problem of how to provide for the freed slaves and fit
> >> them into society?
> >
> >It wasn't the same. Slavery, like forcing women to give birth against
> >her will, infringed on rights.
>
> No, slaves had no rights under the law. It was only after these laws
> were changed that former slaves has any rights.
Slavery denied blacks rights. Abortion denies women rights. To make
abortion illegal would be to deny women rights and would be similar to
saying we can again enslave blacks.
David W. Barnes
Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> "David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
> news:<220420041444535520%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > Well, those kind of discussions tend to lean toward wishful thinking
> > and puffery. The fact is, nearly all state laws presume the husband
> > would have provided for the unborn child out of practicality.
>
> Can you document that statement?
It is accepted in law. Most state legislatures hopes to ensure justice
by making the "presumption" that the father would have provided for the
fetus if he had known of the pregnancy and had thought to change the
will. You'd have to look to each state. That is the problem with
Estate Law. Each state does it's own thing.
Presumptions are quite popular in trusts and wills. For example:
HUSBAND, provides for his two living children in his will. WIFE is
pregnant. HUSBAND dies. The fetus is born. The law presumes the
husband would have provided for the child.
Here is an other presumption that may help clarify:
Husband, ADAM, is married to wife, WANDA. WANDA, puts in her will "all
my worldly possessions to my husband, ADAM." Then a few years go by,
and ADAM and WANDA divorce. WANDA never changes her will. Later, she
marries BOB. Still she never changes her will. Then, WANDA dies. The
will says ADAM takes. The laws PRESUMES she no longer wanted ADAM to
take. BOB takes, lacking evidence to the contrary as WANDA's desires.
The Ohio law is the same. It PRESUMES the fetus would be provided for.
Not true, see below.
> but that she cannot be counted as a
> person in the context of laws governing carpool lanes. Since carpool
> lanes are set up to put people who would otherwise be driving in two
> or more cars into one car, which does not occur when a mother and her
> unborn child are in the same car, that is a reasonable decision which
> has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
That was quite a stretch. Car pool lanes cover a mother and her 6
month old child. Do you suppose the law figure the baby would drive
otherwise? No - the carpool example is valid. Women have tried to
claim otherwise but to no avail. Many other examples exist, too.
Insurance, criminal, estate law, all make it clear the unborn is not a
person.
> The fact that you
> have to resort to obviously irrelevant arguments like that is worth
> noting.
The fact that you have suddenly gotten defensive is worth noting. That
carpool argument was far from "irrelevant and in fact has been argued
ad nauseam with regard to the abortion issue.
> >
> > With regard to the Missouri law, the law simply states, unborn children
> > in Missouri should have "all the rights, privileges, and immunities
> > available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state,
> > subject to the Federal Constitution and Supreme Court interpretations
> > thereof. The USSC has interpreted persons to begin at birth, so that
> > means nothing.
>
> Where, specifically has the United States Supreme Court "interpreted
> persons to begin at birth"? I would appreciate a direct quotation
> with citation.
>
> To keep these postings to a reasonable length I am going to stop here
> and put my reply to the rest of your posting in a separate posting.
No problem. Here is a summary of the issue.
The Born Alive Doctrine is a doctrine of law that is stated, by
statute, in 41 states, and followed, with many exceptions, in all
fifty. Under the Born Alive Rule, a fetus was not considered a living
human being until after birth. Because English common law defined
homicide as the killing of one human being by another, no criminal
liability was imposed for the killing of a fetus. Under the Born Alive
Rule, homicide laws protected a child only after he or she was born
alive and had attained an existence independent and separate from the
mother.
American courts employed the "born alive" doctrine as early as 1797 in
infanticide cases. By 1850, this rule of English common law had become
accepted and "well settled" in American case law. (Keeler v. Superior
Court, 470 p.2d at 621.)
American jurisdictions have several variations of the "born alive"
theory. Most states use the "independent circulation of blood" test,
which requires the baby to be completely out of the mother's womb and,
in some cases, to have the umbilical cord severed. However, other
states have concluded that respiration is determinative of independent
existence. Kentucky courts require both respiration and the completed
birth process to sustain a conviction for murder.
Perhaps the most influential statement of the "born alive" rule is that
of Coke, in mid-17th century: "If a woman be quick with childe, and . .
. if a man beat her, whereby the childe dyeth in her body, and she is
delivered of a dead childe, this is a great misprision (misdemeanor),
and no murder; but if the childe be born alive and dyeth of . . .
battery, or other cause, this is murder; for in the law it is accounted
a reasonable creature, in rerum natura, when it is born alive."
The Model Penal Code, used by a large number of states, says as follows:
łThe effect of this language is to continue the common-law rule
limiting criminal homicide to the killing of one who has been born
alive.ł
Courts advanced two reasons for denying tort recovery to a child born
alive for injuries sustained in utero. First, courts were concerned
about the danger of fraudulent claims due to the difficulties
associated with establishing that a particular defendant's misconduct
actually caused the fetus' injury. Second, because an unborn child was
not recognized as a human being under the single entity theory, it had
no legal existence at the time of the injury. Thus, a defendant owed a
fetus no duty of care.
Justice Holmes relied on this single entity view in Dietrich v.
Inhabitants of Northampton to deny recovery for injuries suffered by a
fetus in utero when the mother fell on a defective sidewalk. The court
explained that a child had no separate standing to sue for prenatal
injuries, since he or she was a part of the mother at the time of the
injury. However, any damage to the fetus was recoverable by the mother
as part of her suit.
Finally, in Roe vs. Wade, which established the right to an abortion,
Supreme Court justice Harry Blackmun also pointed out that once born,
an infant is indeed a person under the Constitution.
David W. Barnes
<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:33:04 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
> <Vote...@dbarnes.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> <250420041733042231%Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <5ajo80tp2irmksv7v...@4ax.com>, Attila
> ><proc...@here.now> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 16:27:37 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
> >> <Vote...@dbarnes.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> >> <250420041627376609%Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Does that mean we should not have abolished slavery before we re-
> >> >> solved the problem of how to provide for the freed slaves and fit
> >> >> them into society?
> >> >
> >> >It wasn't the same. Slavery, like forcing women to give birth against
> >> >her will, infringed on rights.
> >>
> >> No, slaves had no rights under the law. It was only after these laws
> >> were changed that former slaves has any rights.
> >
> >Slavery denied blacks rights.
>
> Slavery created a class of people that could be owned by other people
> and who had few if any rights. In the South they were black, but
> American Indians enslaved other Indians and slavery was common in
> Europe and Africa throughout history. Egypt, Rome, and Greece for
> example.
>
> >Abortion denies women rights.
>
> Abortion denies nothing. The freedom to select abortion as an
> alternate to birth is key to both the mental and physical welfare of
> women.
I worded my statement poorly. What I meant was making abortion illegal
denies women rights. I am in agreement with you, and am hard core
pro-choice.
>
> >To make
> >abortion illegal would be to deny women rights and would be similar to
> >saying we can again enslave blacks.
>
> Forcing a woman to give birth against her will is the same as making
> her a slave for nine months.
I agree.
David W. Barnes
<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:33:04 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
> <Vote...@dbarnes.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> A fetus cannot be an heir, but provision for the child that would
> result from it's birth can be in a will and such a child can be an
> heir. Such bequests are provisional upon live birth.
I agree that once it is born it can be an heir. That was what I was
trying to explain to him
>
> If a mother dies her estate goes to the child. At the death of the
> child it goes to the heirs of the child. However, if a child dies and
> then the mother dies the child does not inherit and it's heirs get
> nothing.
True, usually, but there are also what are know as "lapse" and
"anti-lapse" statutes that kick in. They can "save" the heirs of those
who die before taking.
>
> This is such a key point that in some states an heir must survive the
> death of the estate holder by at least 24 hours to inherit. This is
> to eliminate any legal confusion in multiple deaths from an accident.
You got it. In California, for instance, the heir must survive by 120
hours for the purposes of intestate succession.
>
> The wording in a will of leaving anything 'to my children' is
> extremely poor. The children should be named and if they are to share
> equally that should be stated.
"To my children" are viewed as an open end class.
David W. Barnes
<proc...@here.now> wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 17:33:03 -0700, "David W. Barnes"
> <Vote...@dbarnes.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
> There are two kinds of heirs - heirs under the law and heirs under the
> will.
>
> Heirs under the law are a spouse and any living children.
In some states.
> In the
> absence of specific provision to exclude them or set up specific
> inheritances it is presumed they share equally in the estate.
In some states. Each state sets up their own rules.
>
> Heirs under the will are all other parties to the estate which must be
> specifically mentioned. There is no assumption of the status of heir
> here as there is in heir under the law.
Heirs are heirs. If you write a will, YOU decide who will be your
heirs. If you don't, the states rule of intestacy determine.
Marty Helgesen
> >"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion."
>
> pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
>
> Nobody favors abortion.
I quoted a standard dictionary defining the term "pro-abortion". I
quoted an editorial in _The New Republic_ that was obviously in favor
of legal abortion and of public funding of abortion and that referred
to "the pro-abortion forces". You replied, "Nobody favors
abortion." There seems little need for me to continue this discus-
sion.
I do not usually post to this newsgroup. I replied to earlier posts
in this thread to point out holes in the arguments of those support-
ing legal abortion and to quote documents, such as the Planned Par-
enthood pamphlet and the editorial in _California Medicine_, that
provided information that refuted claims made by many supporters of
legal abortion. I did not expect to convince you or anyone else
strongly committed to abortion. I was writing for the other readers.
I think I've accomplished what I set out to do, so I will drop the
discussion.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"The exact knowledge of facts is of the greatest assistance
to true piety" -- Fernand Cabrol, O.S.B.
Marty Helgesen
> > >The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
> > >"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion."
> >
> > pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
> >
> > Nobody favors abortion.
>
> And the fact that they keep arguing otherwise proves they are
> dishonest. If they really believed "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" were
> the same, why would they care about claiming we are "pro-abortion?" It
> is obviously because they see some advantage in doing so. And by
> seeing an advantage in one term over another, they prove they see the
> two terms are different.
That looks like a typographical error for "If they really believed
'pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice' were the same, why would they care
about claiming we are 'pro-abortion?'" The answer is that "pro-
choice" is a meaningless euphemism. Saying someone is "pro-choice"
is meaningless unless you specify what the choice is. That's one
reason I refer to people before the Civil War who were "pro-choice on
slavery". Most people today recognize that slavery is evil and
should not be permitted. They would not support a law that guaran-
teed a white man's "right to choose" whether to own black men as
slaves. Those of us who are abortion abolitionists recognize that a
law giving a mother the "right to choose" whether to kill her chil-
dren or to permit them to live is wrong whether the killing is done
before the children are born, as in abortion, or afterwards, as in
the case of the woman who, several years ago, strapped her children
into their car seats and drove her car into a lake, drowning them.
We say "pro-abortion", not "pro-choice" because we want people to see
through the euphemisms and recognize what's really at stake.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"If you don't approve of abortion don't have one."
If you don't approve of slavery, don't own slaves.
Marty Helgesen
> > but that she cannot be counted as a
> > person in the context of laws governing carpool lanes. Since carpool
> > lanes are set up to put people who would otherwise be driving in two
> > or more cars into one car, which does not occur when a mother and her
> > unborn child are in the same car, that is a reasonable decision which
> > has nothing to do with what we are discussing.
>
> That was quite a stretch. Car pool lanes cover a mother and her 6
> month old child. Do you suppose the law figure the baby would drive
> otherwise? No - the carpool example is valid. Women have tried to
> claim otherwise but to no avail. Many other examples exist, too.
> Insurance, criminal, estate law, all make it clear the unborn is not a
> person.
A baby would not drive, but neither would a 12-year-old child, at
least not legally, nor a blind 30-year-old. However, it would be
impracticable to require that a car driven in a carpool lane contain
at least two licensed drivers. Saying that a car must contain two
people occupying separate seats is a reasonable, practical way of
promoting carpooling without an unenforceable requirement that every
car contain at least two licensed drivers. Details about carpool
lanes are irrelevant to the issue of abortion and there is no point
in getting bogged down is diversions like that.
As I said to Ray Fisher, I do not usually post to this newsgroup. I
replied to earlier posts in this thread to point out holes in the
arguments of those supporting legal abortion and to quote documents,
such as the Planned Parenthood pamphlet and the editorial in _Cali-
fornia Medicine_ that provided information that refuted claims made
by many supporters of legal abortion. I did not expect to convince
you or anyone else strongly committed to abortion. I was writing for
the other readers. I think I've accomplished what I set out to do,
so I will drop the discussion.
--
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one."
If you don't approve of slavery, don't own slaves.
Help outlaw spam. For further information see http://www.cauce.org/
Attila
in alt.abortion with message-id
<8aade2c6.04042...@posting.google.com> wrote:
>"David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message news:<250420041627376585%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
>> In article <c6guhc$dqf$1...@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
>> <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
><SNIP>
>> > >The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
>> > >"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion."
>> >
>> > pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
>> >
>> > Nobody favors abortion.
>>
>> And the fact that they keep arguing otherwise proves they are
>> dishonest. If they really believed "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" were
>> the same, why would they care about claiming we are "pro-abortion?" It
>> is obviously because they see some advantage in doing so. And by
>> seeing an advantage in one term over another, they prove they see the
>> two terms are different.
>
>That looks like a typographical error for "If they really believed
>'pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice' were the same, why would they care
>about claiming we are 'pro-abortion?'"
They are not the same. I know of no one who advocates the abortion
option over birth (and thus are 'pro-abortion') but millions advocate
the right of a pregnant woman to decide for herself whether to
complete her pregnancy or terminate it.
>The answer is that "pro-
>choice" is a meaningless euphemism. Saying someone is "pro-choice"
>is meaningless unless you specify what the choice is.
It is generally understood that the definition of the word
'choice' when used in this context is shorthand for the
freedom of a pregnant woman to decide whether to complete
her pregnancy or to terminate it. Any attempt to expand the
usage of the word beyond this narrow definition is nothing
more than an attempt create a situation which can be argued
because no argument can be sustained within the original and
correct usage.
If you are speaking to a group of programmers and mention
the word 'bug' no one will assume you are peaking of
termites, and if you are playing golf you are not likely to
insist an eagle is a birdie even if they both have feathers.
Attempts to expand the word 'choice' as used here is a
transparent and pathetic ploy.
>That's one
>reason I refer to people before the Civil War who were "pro-choice on
>slavery". Most people today recognize that slavery is evil and
>should not be permitted. They would not support a law that guaran-
>teed a white man's "right to choose" whether to own black men as
>slaves. Those of us who are abortion abolitionists recognize that a
>law giving a mother the "right to choose" whether to kill her chil-
>dren or to permit them to live is wrong
Right and wrong have no intrinsic values and will change from person
to person and over time.
>whether the killing is done
>before the children are born,
There are no children before birth.
>as in abortion, or afterwards, as in
>the case of the woman who, several years ago, strapped her children
>into their car seats and drove her car into a lake, drowning them.
>We say "pro-abortion", not "pro-choice" because we want people to see
>through the euphemisms and recognize what's really at stake.
>
>--
>
>Marty Helgesen
>Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
>
>"If you don't approve of abortion don't have one."
>If you don't approve of slavery, don't own slaves.
Pathetic attempt to create guilt by association. The only
relationship between the two subjects is the enslavement of pregnant
women who wish to terminate their pregnancy but are not allowed to do
so.
Attila
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c6guhc$dqf$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
><SNIP>
>> >The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
>> >"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion."
>>
>> pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
>>
>> Nobody favors abortion.
>
>I quoted a standard dictionary defining the term "pro-abortion". I
>quoted an editorial in _The New Republic_ that was obviously in favor
>of legal abortion and of public funding of abortion and that referred
>to "the pro-abortion forces". You replied, "Nobody favors
>abortion." There seems little need for me to continue this discus-
>sion.
Main Entry: pro-choice
Pronunciation: (")prO-'chois
Function: adjective
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-choic·er /-'choi-s&r/ noun
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=pro-choice&x=11&y=14
Ray Fischer
>rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<c6guhc$dqf$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
>> Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
><SNIP>
>> >The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
>> >"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion."
>>
>> pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
>>
>> Nobody favors abortion.
>
>I quoted a standard dictionary defining the term "pro-abortion".
So did I.
> I
>quoted an editorial in _The New Republic_ that was obviously in favor
>of legal abortion and of public funding of abortion and that referred
>to "the pro-abortion forces". You replied, "Nobody favors
>abortion." There seems little need for me to continue this discus-
>sion.
After all, if you're anti-choice then you probabaly dont' like people
making their own choices.
>I do not usually post to this newsgroup. I replied to earlier posts
>in this thread to point out holes in the arguments of those support-
>ing legal abortion
And you couldn't.
>and to quote documents, such as the Planned Par-
>enthood pamphlet
What idiocy.
>and the editorial in _California Medicine_, that
>provided information that refuted claims made by many supporters of
>legal abortion.
A woman does not belong to you, your church, the state, or the fetus,
and you have no right to command her servitude. She is not your
slave.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David W. Barnes
Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> rfis...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
> news:<c6guhc$dqf$1...@bolt.sonic.net>...
> > Marty Helgesen <mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > >The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
> > >"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion."
> >
> > pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
> >
> > Nobody favors abortion.
>
> I quoted a standard dictionary defining the term "pro-abortion".
Webster's says other wise. It, too, is "standard."
> I
> quoted an editorial in _The New Republic_ that was obviously in favor
> of legal abortion and of public funding of abortion and that referred
> to "the pro-abortion forces". You replied, "Nobody favors
> abortion." There seems little need for me to continue this discus-
> sion.
This is called "turning tail and running" when your argument falls
apart. Heishman does the same. His arguments are just more poorly
written than yours.
>
> I do not usually post to this newsgroup. I replied to earlier posts
> in this thread to point out holes in the arguments of those support-
> ing legal abortion and to quote documents, such as the Planned Par-
> enthood pamphlet and the editorial in _California Medicine_, that
> provided information that refuted claims made by many supporters of
> legal abortion. I did not expect to convince you or anyone else
> strongly committed to abortion. I was writing for the other readers.
> I think I've accomplished what I set out to do, so I will drop the
> discussion.
Back to the people who agree with you, eh? That is called "living a
sheltered life."
David W. Barnes
> "David W. Barnes" <Vote...@dbarnes.com> wrote in message
> news:<250420041627376585%Vote...@dbarnes.com>...
> > In article <c6guhc$dqf$1...@bolt.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
> > <rfis...@bolt.sonic.net> wrote:
> <SNIP>
> > > >The _American Heritage College Dictionary_, 3d ed., 1993 defines,
> > > >"pro-abortion" as "Favoring or supporting legalized abortion."
> > >
> > > pro-: favoring : supporting : championing
> > >
> > > Nobody favors abortion.
> >
> > And the fact that they keep arguing otherwise proves they are
> > dishonest. If they really believed "pro-abortion" and "pro-life" were
> > the same, why would they care about claiming we are "pro-abortion?" It
> > is obviously because they see some advantage in doing so. And by
> > seeing an advantage in one term over another, they prove they see the
> > two terms are different.
>
> That looks like a typographical error for "If they really believed
> 'pro-abortion' and 'pro-choice' were the same, why would they care
> about claiming we are 'pro-abortion?'" The answer is that "pro-
> choice" is a meaningless euphemism.
Not much of an argument. A "euphemism" is a term that is DIFFERENT
from the original. You are now arguing that 'pro-abortion' and
'pro-choice' are different, which is my point.
And "pro-choice" is not a euphemism, "pro-abortion" is a dysphemism.
> Saying someone is "pro-choice"
> is meaningless unless you specify what the choice is.
WRONG (and really WEAK). Pro-choice is a label. Everyone understands
what it means. Further, it is accurate. (Unlike pro-life.)
> That's one
> reason I refer to people before the Civil War who were "pro-choice on
> slavery".
The reason you refer to people as being "pro-choice on slavery" is for
propaganda purposes. It only demonstrates that your position is weak.
> Most people today recognize that slavery is evil and
> should not be permitted.
Just as the liberals did long ago, and the same way conservatives will
eventually feel about abortion.
> They would not support a law that guaran-
> teed a white man's "right to choose" whether to own black men as
> slaves.
LOL!! Really bad argument. I guess you oppose right of the fetus to
choose to be born?
> Those of us who are abortion abolitionists recognize that a
> law giving a mother the "right to choose" whether to kill her chil-
> dren or to permit them to live is wrong whether the killing is done
> before the children are born, as in abortion, or afterwards, as in
> the case of the woman who, several years ago, strapped her children
> into their car seats and drove her car into a lake, drowning them.
> We say "pro-abortion", not "pro-choice" because we want people to see
> through the euphemisms and recognize what's really at stake.
You say it for propaganda sake, and you end up revealing that your
argument has no teeth.
You never answered me.
1) Do you support raising taxes to support those children forced into
the world against the will of the parents?
2) Do you support raising taxes to care for the mother before and after
birth?
3) Do you support increased taxes to create programs to educate and
provide health care for these unwanted children?
4) Do you support raising taxes to pay for other social programs needed
to care for and deal with the problems that occur due to an increase in
unwanted children (law enforcement, for example)?
5) How many children have you adopted?