In article <Fa2x9.15163$qD2.1625...@news20.bellglobal.com>, return email belongs to a spammer\ <poscommand2...@libero.it> wrote:
> > Not true. It is like advocating school children should be given the > > "information" on creationism. Why do that? It is a lie! Telling > > people lies does not educate them. Don't you see that?
> It always amazes me how someone can discuss life and the formation of it's > vessels, yet believe it wasn't designed. A house is designed, and humans, > their minds, senses, intellectuality, respiratory systems, circulatory and > nervous systems... well dang nab it, they just happened to grow that way, > and our sentient selves just happen to occupy these vessels as soon as part > of our skin hits the air. > But anyway, this isn't a creation debate, it's a morals debate. Killing > human life is wrong... regardless of it's state of growth.
> Steve
Steve, I don't know if you are the kind who really wants the truth or not. There are a lot of people out there who only want to believe what they want to believe. And as angry as I get at the ignorance of it all, I really do feel sorry for people who, because of their religious backgrounds, can't at least consider what I and so many others know is the truth, based on evidence.
I understand the argument you just made. I understand why it is attractive to you. On the surface it does seem implausible that we evolved.
The idea is an old one. It was first introduced as the idea that if you were walking along the street and found a watch, you would naturally know ³this device has a creator. A designer.² However, as complex and miraculous as the human body is, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that it was not designed, It did not have a creator. It evolved. And if you truly want to understand how this can be, and believe me, I understand why it seems so implausible to you, read a book called ³The Blind Watchmaker² by Richard Dawkins. It is very cheap, you can get it at Amazon.com, and when you finish it, you will see why evolution is a fact, the desires of the religious notwithstanding.
As for "Killing human life is wrong... regardless of it's state of growth," do you suggest a human egg is not alive or that it is acceptable to kill it?
What's in a word? How about it's fucking definition:
Choice: 1.the act of choosing -in use: synonyms CHOICE, OPTION, ALTERNATIVE, PREFERENCE, SELECTION, ELECTION mean the act or opportunity of choosing or the thing chosen. CHOICE suggests the opportunity or privilege of choosing freely <freedom of choice>.
Death: 1.a permanent cessation of all vital functions : the end of life ...8. (oddly) Christian Science : the lie of life in matter : that which is unreal and untrue :
My name is Donald. I do not respond to Jeff, Brian, Carl, Steve, nor any other non-Donald derivative, save pet-names such as Dad, Daddy, or whatever profanity my wife uses when she finds I've used the dishwasher for cleaning car parts. (I'm joking)
Twisting and redefining words to suit you, or selectively responding to questions does not bode well for your position. You called names while bitching about others calling names. That's hypocrisy:
Hypocrisy: 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion.
You do the math....
You want to distort definitions, then how about this one: Pro-mind-your-own-Gawd-damn-business. Or maybe: Pro-keep-your-nose-out-of-strange-women's-twats. Any more questions about names? <raises eyebrows>
But if you choose to continue down the "redefine-words-and-claim-euphemism" path, we can begin calling the "pro-lifers" the "pro-white-baby-for-adoption-because-we're-self-righteous-and-full-of-ourse lves-lying-distorting-the-truth-Jesus-freak-coercive-life-starts-only-when- I-say-so-people."
Did I mention liars....?
I know it'll take a while to type all of that, but I'm sure "we" can reduce it to an abbreviated euphemism: "Anti-choice."
-Donald in Austin (not known as Kevin...)
"Children's Legal" <childrensle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:Vu0x9.65340$dn3.2202391@twister.southeast.rr.com... You call it choice, I call it baby killing and child death. If we want to use COMMON language, rather than the euphamisms, I would be happy to settle on abortion.
>>"do you really think the name calling is going to work?"
I don't know, let's see what you have to say about it:
>>C.L: "That's the standard tactic of the *radical baby killers*. Only the most radical *pro-child-death advocates* resort to that."
Only the most delusional person can extrapolate from "choice" to the vomit you are spewing. Hello, Mr Pot? This is Mr Kettle. You are black.....You are showing yourself to be hypocritical.
-Donald in Austin
"Children's Legal" <childrensle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:KIXw9.64492$dn3.2171780@twister.southeast.rr.com... Ray, do you really think the name calling is going to work? That's the standard tactic of the radical baby killers. Only the most radical pro-child-death advocates resort to that. So where's the substance that abortion is GOOD for anyone? Where's the substance about WHY abortion is necessary? Or do those questions make the pro-child-death crowd unconfortable. After all, abortion is nothing but a gateway to the real goal of infanticide... See it below, right from the mouths of those who are the strongest pro-"choice" (child-death) supporters.
How about some substance? Or is all you know about name calling? Is that the extent of the pro-abortion lobby? Name calling? Is there no SUBSTANCE to the reason for abortion? How about some reasons why over 40 MILLION abortions (in America alone) are necessary?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message news:aq17ub$as5$1@newbolt.sonic.net... > Children's Legal <childrensle...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >Wow there Ray, you're REALLY opposed to women being able to make INFORMED > >CHOICES! > > Wow, you're REALLY a lying fanatic! > > -- > Ray Fischer > rfisc...@sonic.net > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Looks like a BUTCHERED BABY to me?? Why don't you take a good look and call this a "fetus"... After all, that fits the child death propaganda!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any
...
In article <r2Vw9.14171$qD2.1519...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\)" <poscommand2...@libero.it> says...
> Great, and if I go to a Ford dealership, I am sure they will tell me all the > information I need to reasonabley decide between a Ford and a Toyota. If > that is true, why is the information presented quite differently when I go > to a Toyota dealership? Are women REALLY given all the information in a > balanced way? Are they given all the information? Are they shown videos > like "the silent scream"? I bet they are not!
Why would anyone want to show a woman such a bunch of lying propaganda (Silent Scream) if they wanted the woman to be able to make an *informed* choice?
In article <fYUw9.64277$dn3.2153...@twister.southeast.rr.com>, childrensle...@hotmail.com says...
> "DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote > > > What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
> The more appropriate question is, why do you want to KILL these human beings > BEFORE they're born?
Nobody is even attempting that impossible feat... there *are* no human beings before birth, so it is not possible to kill these non-existent human beings even if people wanted to (which they don't anyway).
In talk.abortion, stevex (return email belongs to a spammer) <poscommand2...@libero.it> wrote on Sat, 2 Nov 2002 19:34:46 -0500 <Ja_w9.14742$qD2.1576...@news20.bellglobal.com>:
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message > news:aq17s3$akk$1@newbolt.sonic.net... >> U WERE A FETUS <mycho...@mychoice.com> wrote: >> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message >> >> Joseph P. Belk <jpb...@fuse.net> wrote:
>> >> >My own opinion on abortion is that there should be no "legal" >> >> >abortion.
>> >> That's because you're an immoral control freak who needs to control >> >> women's sexuality.
>> >When are you going to stop accusing people of being control freaks
>> When you stop being control freaks.
> Where was the control attempt?
No attempt as such, actually. At best, it was a posted wish that women should not be able to obtain abortions, which, were it fully implemented, would in fact be an attempt to ban abortions and thereby force women to remain pregnant (or die trying).
And even the term "force" is a bit strong here -- but if a woman cannot obtain a legal abortion, what can she do? I can see the following options:
[1] Obtain an *illegal* abortion. Such is fraught with risks, among them the risk of being caught and charged with murder, or some variant of a crime. Is abortion an infraction (a la a traffic ticket), first-degree murder with special circumstances meriting the death penalty, or something in between? Most pro-lifers, I suspect, would probably agree with Articles 1191 through 1194 and Article 1196 of the Penal Code of Texas, circa 1970 -- unfortunately that was before they were struck down by a court decision: Roe vs. Wade (410 U.S. 113). The aforementioned Articles mandated a 5-year prison sentence for any person causing an abortion to a pregnant woman (the crime is doubled if it's done without her consent).
[2] Try to abort the baby herself. I would hope this wasn't attempted often, but knitting needles and vacuum cleaners are occasionally mentioned here. Such septic methods are fraught with risk. Other methods might involve ingestion of certain herbs, or perhaps a sample, surreptitiously obtained, of RU-486, the Pill, or even drugs such as cocaine, PCP, LSD, or methamphetamine.
[3] Suicide. Yes, that's a choice -- although I for one would *not* recommend it.
[4] Continue the pregnancy until birth, with special care for her health as the gestation proceeds. This is arguably the best option, and AFAICT certainly the most desirable one as far as pro-lifers are concerned. Unfortunately it's far from the only choice.
[5] Continue the pregnancy until birth, with no special considerations. There are admittedly a number of issues here. To be sure, a naive teenager probably might fare OK, if only because she suddenly will get the strange cravings and thereby eat the foods her body tells her to. Then again, that's not nearly as good a guarantee as regular ob/gyn visits during the gestation.
[6] Continue the pregnancy until birth with reckless disregard for her health. This is slightly different from [5] in that she might, for example, go on a strict vegan diet, eat far too much (gaining more than the estimated 15 pounds women seem to get on average during a pregnancy -- not including Junior), or otherwise do stupid things that she otherwise wouldn't do were she not pregnant.
[7] Give the baby up for adoption *prior* to birth, by engaging in a contract with a loving family who will take care of the woman until the moment of birth (and possibly some time after).
Note that giving the baby up for adoption *after* a birth isn't really a choice in this system, as the woman has to give birth first, which falls under one of [4], [5], or [6]. Nor is it clear to me how often this option is in fact used.
Of course, another choice:
[8] Procure, from a licensed medical practitioner, at an appropriate time, an early, safe, and legal first-trimester abortion.
is the one that's apparently in very hot dispute, although some pro-lifers might confuse this with
[9] Procure, from a licensed medical practitioner, a dangerous (but still legal) third-trimester procedure which is designed to kill a viable foetus in utero prior to removal of its head, which would apparently make it a person in the eyes of those that seriously advocate such a procedure.
(This is assuming such a procedure exists at all.)
-- #191, ewi...@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
Same old tactics and games. Is that why you don't like me Ray? Is it because I know all of the Abortion / Baby Killer tactics as well as you? Is it because every time you try to obfuscate, twist and distort the issues I keep bringing the facts right back? Like here for example, let me reiterate;
"CHOICE" is a euphamism for ABORTION, which is another word for CHILD DEATH!
"TERMINATION" is the codeword for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it would seem to me that "choice" at least according the leaders of the "choice" movement is about Infanticide. Planned Parenthood seems to support infanticide, NOW certainly seems to support infanticide...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing, after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?" Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids. Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001. NewsMax.com. Excerpts below.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and comfort to rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message news:021120022257407214%daveb@barnesco.com... > In article <ju1x9.15147$qD2.1613...@news20.bellglobal.com>, return > email belongs to a spammer\ <poscommand2...@libero.it> wrote:
> > I would like to know what "choice" the father has in the matter?
> > -steve
> After the woman is pregnant? By law, not any, with regard to the > abortion issue. It is the WOMANS choice. Get it?
Are you really a David? Or is it Diana? You seem to have some SERIOUS misandrist hate...
Yep, infanticide... Packaged under a different name... Different window dressing, same sick, twisted, demonic evil.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile,
"CHOICE" is a euphamism for ABORTION, which is another word for CHILD DEATH and BABY KILLING!
"TERMINATION" is the codeword for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it would seem to me that "choice" at least according the leaders of the "choice" movement is about Infanticide. Planned Parenthood seems to support infanticide, NOW certainly seems to support infanticide...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing, after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?" Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids. Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001. NewsMax.com. Excerpts below.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and comfort to rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
"David Barnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote in message news:021120022018479508%daveb@barnesco.com... > In article <gYQw9.63075$dn3.2115...@twister.southeast.rr.com>, > Children's Legal <childrensle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Seems as though your bloodlust for dead baby bodies is beginning to show > > through here...
> I thought we were talking about choice. It is you who is obsessed with > blood and death.
Choice? Death? Choice? Death? Same difference the way the word "choice" is used as a substitute for abortion today...
The dirty little "Choice" secret is that there have been over 40 MILLION DEAD CHOICES made since Roe...
Only a very real DEVIL, in the form of SATAN could BUTCHER OVER 40 MILLION AND CALL IT A "CHOICE"...
40 MILLION DEAD HUMANS AND THAT'S A "CHOICE"... Certainly there's a real devil. Only evil could call the butcher of 40 MILLION babies a CHOICE!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile,
"CHOICE" is a euphamism for ABORTION, which is another word for CHILD DEATH and BABY KILLING!
"TERMINATION" is the codeword for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it would seem to me that "choice" at least according the leaders of the "choice" movement is about Infanticide. Planned Parenthood seems to support infanticide, NOW certainly seems to support infanticide...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing, after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?" Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids. Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001. NewsMax.com. Excerpts below.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and comfort to rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
Smiling :) Must be hitting that sore spot there ol' Ray...
Meanwhile, I think it would be interesting if you'd actually READ and COMMENT on some of the quotes, and some of the substantive information below. It is from so MANY of the pro-"CHOICE" (Child Death) crowd. Or are the cited quotes and the articles too disturbing even for a staunch "CHOICE" (baby death) advocate like you?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"CHOICE" is a euphamism for ABORTION, which is another word for CHILD DEATH and BABY KILLING!
"TERMINATION" is the codeword for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it would seem to me that "choice" at least according the leaders of the "choice" movement is about Infanticide. Planned Parenthood seems to support infanticide, NOW certainly seems to support infanticide...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing, after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?" Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids. Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001. NewsMax.com. Excerpts below.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and comfort to rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
> That isn't what we claim. I fetus is not a human being. "Terminating" > it is not "killing it."
I say that fetus IS HUMAN, and termination is simply a euphamism for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"CHOICE" is a euphamism for ABORTION, which is another word for CHILD DEATH and BABY KILLING!
"TERMINATION" is the codeword for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it would seem to me that "choice" at least according the leaders of the "choice" movement is about Infanticide. Planned Parenthood seems to support infanticide, NOW certainly seems to support infanticide...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing, after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?" Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids. Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001. NewsMax.com. Excerpts below.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and comfort to rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message news:aq2brn$g6o$1@newbolt.sonic.net... > Children's Legal <childrensle...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >I Love it Ray!! The fact that the "CHOICE" (child-death) crowd has been = > >reduced to name calling,
> Like "pro-death"?
> The usual hatred and venom from the anti-abortion terrorist.
You mean like &**^hole, *&^&er, etc., etc., etc... ad nausuem which comes from the "choice" camp.
And frankly, I DO believe it is CHILD DEATH!! I DO believe that "pro-choice" is pro-death... As strongly, or likely moreso than you believe that a fetus is not a human [being], or that termination is not killing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'll offer you a simple challenge, so that we're on the same page. You refer to "choice" as abortion, and we'll be speaking a common language, at least with THAT word anyway. I'll stop my posts to you referring to "child death" and "Baby killing". Otherwise, that's exactly what I believe it is, and I don't believe it's name calling to call something EXACTLY what it is.
40 MILLION choices later, there are 40 MILLION less HUMAN BEINGS in this country from a CHOICE TO KILL THEM!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile,
"CHOICE" is a euphamism for ABORTION, which is another word for CHILD DEATH and BABY KILLING!
"TERMINATION" is the codeword for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it would seem to me that "choice" at least according the leaders of the "choice" movement is about Infanticide. Planned Parenthood seems to support infanticide, NOW certainly seems to support infanticide...
Actually take the TIME TO READ what the "leaders" of the "CHOICE" movement have to say about children and abortion...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing, after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?" Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids. Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001. NewsMax.com. Excerpts below.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and comfort to rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote > Exactly. Why else rephrase it unless the original was too difficult to
> refute?
Interesting Davey, then that applies to all of the pro "CHOICE" (abortion) crowd as well? Or is this more of the famous propaganda double-speak that leftists are famous for?
I'm really beginning to wonder if you're not one of those NOW plants. Seems as though there aren't any women defending these issues. Only a few e-mail addresses under what appear to be men's names. Are you really male?
Seriously... Your responses are giving me my doubts. The complete irrationality, total lack of ANY logic or reasoning. The totally emotional responses. The ease with which you become so volatile over the issue...
Are you okay???
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
> stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\) <poscommand2...@libero.it> wrote: > > What an anti > >abortionist is anti about isn't the loss of control over women, it's the > >loss of life.
> BULLSHIT! You don't give a SHIT about loss of life, so don't start > lying with your fake concern for life. Children die by the thousands > DAILY of hunger because people like you cannot be bothered to part > with your money and time to save their lives.
> You want to control and punish women. The proof is in your actions > and in your words.
How about if we agree to disagree. You'll keep calling it "choice" instead of abortion, and I'll keep calling it baby killing and child death instead of abortion...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile,
"CHOICE" is a euphamism for ABORTION, which is another word for CHILD DEATH and BABY KILLING!
"TERMINATION" is the codeword for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it would seem to me that "choice" at least according the leaders of the "choice" movement is about Infanticide. Planned Parenthood seems to support infanticide, NOW certainly seems to support infanticide...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing, after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?" Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids. Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001. NewsMax.com. Excerpts below.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and comfort to rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
> So? It was debunked long ago, and it's still patent bullshit...continuing to > claim it's factual doesn't change the reality that it's still patent > bullshit.
> No wonder I've been pro-choice for a third of a century -- I was raised not to > lie...
> --PL"guess I was lucky enough to have parents who raised me right, eh"H
> > I have a question. What about a conjoined twin? Can he kill his brother if > > it means freedom for him/her? After all, pro choice means terminating a > > life that is part of your body. It is saying, I don't want you to be a part > > of me anymore, so I have the right to kill you.
> I say this so often it gives me a headache. The fact that you must > distort our position means our real position has merit. Why else > distort it? We don't do that to you. You do it to us because you want > us to sound extreme. We don't do it to you because we don't need to > make you sound extreme as your real position IS EXTREME.
Typical ABORTION propaganda from the "CHOICE" crowd. Fact is, the "CHOICE" crowd doesn't want to answer these questions because they point out the basic, twisted, and deranged fallacies in their arguments. They simply resort to trying to distract and cloud the issues. Why not address the conjoined twins question? or the others? The "CHOICE" crowd has no answers...
Seems as though the extremists are the "CHOICE" crowd. 40 MILLION dead choices later, that's pretty extreme... 40 MILLION dead babies. That's REALLY extreme. And that's JUST America!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile,
"CHOICE" is a euphamism for ABORTION, which is another word for CHILD DEATH and BABY KILLING!
"TERMINATION" is the codeword for KILLING...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And it would seem to me that "choice" at least according the leaders of the "choice" movement is about Infanticide. Planned Parenthood seems to support infanticide, NOW certainly seems to support infanticide...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
April 1990 - Atlantic Monthly
Feminism and Abortion Pro-choice arguments, the author says, reflect the ambitions, hypocrisies, and contradictions of contemporary feminism.
by Martha Bayles
SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR has observed that "Roe v. Wade is on a collision course with itself." Justice O'Connor was referring to medical advances since 1973 that make it easier both to destroy potential life and to preserve it. Her meaning is vividly illustrated by those rare but disturbing cases in which a second- or third-trimester abortion yields a living infant, which must then be either killed or rushed to another part of the hospital for the latest in neonatal care.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
MORE INFO ON "POST BIRTH ABORTION," ESPECIALLY AS SUPPORTED BY N.O.W. AND ALA ANDREA YATES!!
"The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant members is to kill it" Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.
In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October 10, 1989.
"No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one." -- Interview with Simone de Beauvoir, "Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma" Saturday Review, June 14, 1975, p.18
[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children.... The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed. - Alison Jagger - Political Philosophies of Women's Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forty-two amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," briefs were filed on behalf of "Roe." A "woman's brief" argued, as author Marian Faux summarizes it, "that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will." Prominent women such as theologian Mary Daly, Barnard College president Millicent McIntosh, anthropologist Margaret Mead, and former U.S. senator Maurine B. Neuberger (D-Oregon), all signed it.
"that even if a fetus were found to be a legal person, a woman still could not be compelled to nurture it in her body against her will."
Consider this statement a moment, put another way, even if a fetus were a legal person, a woman could not be compelled TO LET IT LIVE (i.e. COMMIT MURDER). And we wonder why Child Abuse is so high among those same women that buy into the Feminist party line and do not value marriage, OR LIFE!!! Was infanticide (child murder) the feminist goal all along??
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"[The unborn victims of violence act] would establish penalties for those who harm a fetus, either knowingly or unknowingly, while committing a federal crime-such as bank robbery, kidnapping or terrorism. This bill is yet another attempt to limit and restrict a woman's right to choose." N.O.W. September 15, 1999 Legislative update. (Apparently, NOW's version of "choice" also includes FORCED ABORTIONS during the commission of a crime. The "choice" is no longer a woman's. According to NOW, If she WANTS the child, TOO BAD IF IT IS MURDERED DURING A CRIME!)
"[M]any blacks wonder whether black civil rights and abortion fit so neatly together. Black pregnancies have historically been the target of social engineers such as Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Sanger was convinced that blacks, Jews, Eastern Europeans, and other non-Aryan groups were detracting from the creative intellect and social potential of America, and she wanted those groups' numbers reduced..." -- Greg Keath, in the "Wall Street Journal", 27/9/89
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NOW Rallies to Mother's Defense. Group Says Woman Needs Help, Not Prison, in Drowning of 5 Children. By Paul Duggan, Washington Post Staff Writer, Monday, September 3, 2001; Page A03. excerpts below.
"From what we know right now, [Yates's] psychosis is so obvious and her mental illness is so heart-wrenching that clearly she's entitled to treatment and not punishment," declared Terry O'Neill, a NOW vice president in Washington. She said the group's national leadership 'completely supports' [NOW's Texas state president, Deborah Bell's] efforts, which have been denounced by victims' rights advocates, media pundits and others."
Dianne Clements, a Rosenthal supporter and head of Justice for All, Texas's biggest victims' rights organization, reacted angrily to NOW's criticism. "I don't believe they should be using their political power and prestige to help a woman who has acknowledged killing five children," Clements said. She accused NOW of "prejudging" Yates based on liberal ideals before a word of testimony has been heard.
"They've decided to seek absolution for Andrea Yates," Clements said. "They've absolutely accepted that she's not responsible for what she did before they've heard any facts in court. . . . None of us can say why she killed those children, whether it was because she was psychotic or she was just plain evil."
"Such a [post-partum depression] defense, however, is not novel," wrote Dallas lawyer Brenda Barton Neuwirt in the Southern Methodist University Law Review. In a 1998 article, she recounted successful postpartum psychosis defenses by a California mother who intentionally ran over her infant with a car and a New York woman who smothered two of her babies and tried to smother a third.
She also cited the highly publicized D.C. Superior Court case of LaTrena Pixley, who pleaded guilty to second-degree murder in 1993 in the suffocation of her infant daughter. At her sentencing, after a defense lawyer submitted a psychiatrist's report attributing the crime partly to postpartum depression, the judge stunned the court by ordering Pixley, then 20, to spend weekends in jail for three years.
Yates's sympathizers tend to lose sight of an important element of the tragedy.
"You know what I think [Rosenthal, the D.A.] saw when he looked at this case?" Clements said. "I think he saw the same thing I saw: five beautiful children, dead." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NOW Throwing Lifebelt to Mom who Drowned Five Kids. Phil Brennan. Thursday August 30, 2001. NewsMax.com. Excerpts below.
The National Organization for Women (NOW), which couldn't bring itself to lend aid and comfort to rape victim Juanita Broaddrick, is going all out to help a woman who drowned her five children.
According to the ultra-liberal feminist organization, NOW is helping to raise money for Andrea Yates on the grounds that their involvement might help raise people's consciousness about post-partum depression.
Now opposes the death penalty except for the victims of the abortion industry which they vigorously support.
Yates admitted to police that she drowned her children one-by-one in a bathtub. She revealed that when it came the turn of her oldest child he fled and she had to chase him down and drag him back to the tub.
Not surprisingly, NOW has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), several other women's and health groups and anti-death penalty organizations in the Andrea Pia Yates Support Coalition.
One reason for their support, observers say, could be that the pro-abortion NOW may view such child killing as merely retroactive abortion, and therefore worthy of their support of the killer.
In article <ZG%w9.15060$qD2.1593...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\)" <poscommand2...@libero.it> says...
> > "Children's Legal" <childrensle...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:MsXw9.64485$dn3.2170246@twister.southeast.rr.com... > >I Love it Ray!! The fact that the "CHOICE" (child-death) crowd has been > reduced to name calling, means there is NO SUBSTANCE >to the stand for baby > killing that we call "abortion" which has been propagandized as "choice"...
> Substance.... Hmmm.. Um, woman's rights to kill a child
No woman (or man) has any legal right to "kill a child".
In article <3FXw9.64490$dn3.2171...@twister.southeast.rr.com>, childrensle...@hotmail.com says...
> If it's just about me, why are you so upset? Why do you even bother? I still wonder, what is the reason that many of those who post support abortion?
Nobody here is supporting abortion.
People here are supporting the right of a person, whether pregnant or not, to choose for themselves which medical procedures (if any) they will accept for the treatment of their medical contition (whether that medical condition happens to be pregnancy or any other medical condition).
Why do *you* always lie about what others actually say/support?
In article <WK3x9.268622$121.7602...@twister.austin.rr.com>, donaldmccu...@austin.rr.com says...
> Subject: Re: What's in a name (or a word?) > From: "Unit335" <donaldmccu...@austin.rr.com> > Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion, alt.feminism, alt.feminazis
> What's in a word? How about it's fucking definition:
> Choice: 1.the act of choosing -in use: synonyms CHOICE, OPTION, ALTERNATIVE, PREFERENCE, SELECTION, ELECTION mean the act or opportunity of choosing or the thing chosen. CHOICE suggests the opportunity or privilege of choosing freely <freedom of choice>.
Exactly.. the opportunity for the person who has a medical condition (including but not limited to pregnancy) to decide (*choose*) for themselves which of the available medical treatments they will or will not accept for the treatment of that condition.
What, exactly, is it that you don't understand about that?
You have that right. Why do you want others people NOT to have that right?
In article <KN1x9.15153$qD2.1618...@news20.bellglobal.com>, "stevex \(return email belongs to a spammer\)" <poscommand2...@libero.it> says...
> Why would I have to adopt a child before I could > understand why it is an option?
Given that there are loads of children in orphanges, foster care etc right now looking for adoptive parents, you would have a slightly more feasible case for forcing MORE births if you bothered to make the effort to adopt some of those currently looking for adoptive parents.
Clue: There is NO SHORTAGE NOW of children looking for adoption.
In article <021120021534467262%da...@barnesco.com>, da...@barnesco.com says...
> In article <_wUw9.263384$Fw2.7572...@twister.austin.rr.com>, Unit335 > <donaldmccu...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> > To DavidBarnes
> > Answering a question with another question is improper dialogue. Pat posed a > > question that called you on the floor, and you neglected to answer it, but > > instead attempted to distort her words to corner her into the answer you > > wanted. Nothing but a strawman.
> where is the question in "Seems as though you want all women > ignorant... Hmmmm...."?
I don't actually recall asking you (David) something you have not answered... nor can I see anything tracing back through the thread.
I suspect some idiot has messed up their attributions *again*! ;-))
> "Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@newbolt.sonic.net> wrote in message > news:aq17tb$aqd$1@newbolt.sonic.net... > > Children's Legal <childrensle...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > >"DavidBarnes" <da...@barnesco.com> wrote >
> > >> What do you do for these "human beings" after they are born?
> > >The more appropriate question is, why do you want to KILL these human > beings > > >BEFORE they're born?
> > It seems that all the pro-liars can do is screech their hatred and lies.
> Um. Am I blind? I see no sign of hatred OR lies in that comment.
Since nobody here is killing children or advocating the killing opf children, your slander that people are, if it isn't hatred or lies, is what exactly?
Note... human beings don't exist before birth. Birth is the beginning of the human being status.
Last updated Oct 24 2002
Definitions of 'human being' and/or 'person' and related definitions:
(Many thanks to the various people who have helped and are helping to contribute to this list by passing on definitions of "human being" and "person" etc when found in their browsing of the laws of various places in the world.)
======================================================================= USA - Ohio Revised Code §2105.14 (Added Oct 24 2002)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ § 2105.14 Posthumous child to inherit.
Text of Statute
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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Edited comment from contributor] The law does not give any legal rigths to the unborn. What it gives is rights to the born that was conceived prior to the death of the intestate. No birth, no inheritance.
================================================================ US - Federal (Added Oct 15 2002)
The purpose of the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act is to protect infants who are born alive by recognizing them as a person, human being, child or individual for purposes of Federal law.
This recognition would take effect upon the live birth of the infant regardless of whether or not the child’s development is sufficient to permit long-term survival and regardless of whether the baby survived an abortion.
The act also clarifies that nothing in the bill shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal rights applicable to any unborn child.
This is a bill of compassion, a bill that says all of America’s children are precious and should be protected.
It has long been an accepted legal principle that infants who are born alive are persons and are entitled to the protections of the law. A live birth is considered to occur whenever an infant is expelled from his or her mother’s body and displays any of several specific signs of life: breathing, heartbeat, or definite movements of voluntary muscles.
================================================================ Australia
Division 3 - Homicide: Suicide: Concealment of Birth: Abortion
156. When a child becomes a human being A child becomes a person capable of being killed when it has completely proceeded in a living state from the body of its mother, whether it has breathed or not and whether the umbilical cord is severed or not.
Currently a human being is defined in section 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada as follows: A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed, (b) it has independent circulation, or (c) the navel string is severed.
================================================================ America (New York - Title H)
should get you there. The site is a little weirdly implemented.
S 125.05 Homicide, abortion and related offenses; definitions of terms. The following definitions are applicable to this article: 1. "Person," when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.
the definition of murder in §19.02 does not include abortion itself, it merely defines murder as the death of an individual, given certain criteria (e.g., §19.02(b)(1) states that he "intentionally or knowingly causes the death" thereof).
Fortunately §1.07(a)(26) defines an individual:
(26) "Individual" means a human being who has been born and is alive.
======================================================================== = USA (Indiana - IC 35-4-1)
(Note that Indiana is a very conservative state and very Republican.)
IC 35-41-1-14 Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been born and is alive.
IC 35-41-1-22 Sec. 22. "Person" means a human being, corporation, limited liability company, partnership, unincorporated association, or governmental entity.
======================================================================== == USA (Colorado 18-3-101)
In current United States law, at the moment of birth a biological being becomes a human being. By contrast, in declaring in 1973 that abortion is a permissible medical procedure, the U.S. Supreme Court said, "The unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." (Hardin 1982:138) The transition to the status of full humanity is viewed not as a biological fact, but as a legal or cultural fact. There is a practical aspect pointed out by Retired Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark: the moment of birth is known, but the moment of conception is speculative. "...the law deals in reality not obscurity--the known rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation." (Swomley 1983:1)
================================================================ UK
The courts have asked this question in relation to the foetus and a corpse. In this context the courts are very much guided by medical opinion, and less by moral principles. The central question they ask themselves is at what stage in the process of birth does a foetus become a person, and at what stage in the process of death does a person become a corpse. Essentially the courts have decided that foetuses and corpses are not persons.
