BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
shmily
BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
by Ron Paul, M.D. (Paul, an obstetrician, was the Libertarian Party
candidate for President in 1988 and served as a member of Congress, R-TX)
Pro-life libertarians have a vital task to perform: to persuade the many
abortion-supporting libertarians of the contradiction between abortion and
individual liberty; and, to sever the mistaken connection in many minds
between individual freedom and the "right" to extinguish individual life.
Libertarians have a moral vision of a society that is just, because
individuals are free. This vision is the only reason for libertarianism to
exist. It offers an alternative to the forms of political thought that
uphold the power of the State, or of persons within a society, to violate
the freedom of others. If it loses that vision, then libertarianism becomes
merely another ideology who policies are oppressive, rather than liberating.
We expect most people to be inconsistent, because the beliefs are founded on
false principles or on principles that are not clearly stated or understood.
They cannot apply their beliefs consistently without contradictions becoming
glaringly apparent. Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives who
support conscription of young people, the redistribution of wealth, and the
power of the majority to impose its will on the individual.
Libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of
principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of
the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an
incorrect view of the issue strikes the very foundations of all beliefs.
Libertarians believe, along with the Founding fathers, that every individual
has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. neither the State, nor any other person, can violate
those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as
power claimed by the State to decide WHAT rights we have, is the power to
decide WHICH of us has rights.
Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in
abortion, the statistics have found a most effective method of obliterating
freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate
State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human
beings are not persons and therefore not entitled to the protection of the
law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as
courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves.
Moreover, by this method the State achieves a goal common to all
totalitarian regimes: it sets us against each other, so that our energies
are spent in the struggle between State-created classes, rather than in
freeing all individuals from the State.
The more one strives for the consistent application of an incorrect
principle, the more horrendous the results. Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian
is potentially very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong premise seem
to be too often willing to accept the inhuman conclusions of the argument,
rather than question their premises.
[Some] support the "right" of a woman to remove an unwanted child from her
body (i.e. her property) by killing and then expelling him or her.
Therefore, they have consistently concluded that any property owner has the
right to kill anyone on their property, for any reason. Such conclusions
should make libertarians question the premises from which they are drawn.
We must promote a consistent vision of liberty because freedom is whole and
cannot be alienated, although it can be abridged by the unjust action of the
State or those who are powerful enough to obtain their own demands. Our
lives, also, are a whole from the beginning at fertilization until death. To
deny any part of liberty, or to deny liberty to any particular class of
individuals, diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians to support such
an abridgment of the right to live free is unconscionable.
Ray Fischer
LOL!
Enslavement is liberty!
Truth is lies!
Work is freedom!
>by Ron Paul, M.D. (Paul, an obstetrician, was the Libertarian Party
>candidate for President in 1988 and served as a member of Congress, R-TX)
And neo-nazi wannabe.
--
Ray Fischer It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty.
r...@netcom.com Francis Bacon
Patrick L. Humphrey
>shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
>>BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
>LOL!
>Enslavement is liberty!
>Truth is lies!
>Work is freedom!
Norma *knows* duckspeak.
>>by Ron Paul, M.D. (Paul, an obstetrician, was the Libertarian Party
>>candidate for President in 1988 and served as a member of Congress, R-TX)
>And neo-nazi wannabe.
A*hem*. I voted for him in 1988 -- because while he openly admitted to
being pro-life, he also made no bones about it being his personal
opinion, NOT part of the LP's platform.
--PLH, it beat the hell out of the two other losers we had to pick from
that year, even if Ron was from Brazoria County :)
hereti...@my-deja.com
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> >>BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
> >LOL!
> >Enslavement is liberty!
> >Truth is lies!
> >Work is freedom!
4 LEGS GOOD/2 LEGS BETTER!
> Norma *knows* duckspeak.
>
SNIP
Say, Patrick, isn't schmily abusing the ng by posting so many
cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating netiquette,
but I could be wrong, of course.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>> Norma *knows* duckspeak.
What, Norma abuse Usenet? Say it ain't so! :-)
To be truthful, she's pushing the envelope in terms of volume, and she's
definitely not winning any friends by doing nothing but reposting
garbage from pro-life websites -- and "editing" it to suit whatever
purpose she has in mind...so she's cutting it close with MindSpring's
TOS, I'd imagine.
--PLH, she'll slip up, sooner or later
webg...@rocketmail.com
> the Libertarian Party candidate for President
> in 1988 and served as a member of Congress, R-TX)
>
> to persuade the many abortion-supporting libertarians
> of the contradiction between abortion and individual
> liberty;
<SARCASM>
Ahh yes, the contradiction between a right to privacy
and individual liberty.
</SARCASM>
> and, to sever the mistaken connection in many
> minds between individual freedom and the "right"
> to extinguish individual life.
<SARCASM>
The mistaken connection between the right to
control of one's own body and the right to
individual freedom.
</SARCASM>
> Libertarians have a moral vision of a society
> that is just, because individuals are free.
> This vision is the only reason for
> libertarianism to exist. It offers an
> alternative to the forms of political thought
> that uphold the power of the State,
...such as the power of the State to take
reproductive decisionmaking power away from
women and give it to a powerful central
government?
> or of persons within a society, to violate
> the freedom of others.
...such as the violation of the freedom to
dictate what happens to one's own body and
to dictate what portions of said body shall
be used for.
Your libertarian friend has an uphill battle
to convince libertarians that attitudes
anathema to their political movement, such
as those held by the anti-abortion movement,
should be held instead of personal freedom
and the right to own one's own body!
> If it loses that vision, then libertarianism
> becomes merely another ideology who policies
> are oppressive, rather than liberating.
So when libertarianism embraces the oppressive
ideals of forcing women to continue to term
and forcing women to give up control over their
own bodies, it will become more liberating?
Give it up! Your ideals are anathema to the
libertarians! Anti-abortion desires MORE
GOVERNMENT CONTROL, ESPECIALLY of the INDIVIDUAL,
and this is AGAINST everything a libertarian
stands for!
> We expect most people to be inconsistent,
Ron Paul is being inconsistent, holding that
increased government control over the individual
is something which all anti-government control
libertarians should embrace!
> because the beliefs are founded on false
> principles
...such as the libertarian principle: "Less
government control over the individual."
<SARCASM>
Yup, that principle must be false!
</SARCASM>
> or on principles that are not clearly
> stated or understood.
...such as the libertarian principle: "Less
government control over the individual."
<SARCASM>
That principle has only six words! Gosh,
how much more unclear or difficult to
understand can you get?
</SARCASM>
> They cannot apply their beliefs consistently
> without contradictions becoming glaringly
> apparent.
Yes, Ron Paul, your contradictions are
glaringly apparent.
> Thus, there are both liberals and conservatives
> who support conscription of young people, the
> redistribution of wealth, and the power of the
> majority to impose its will on the individual.
Especially the anti-abortion folks, liberals
and conservatives alike, who desire the power
of government to impose its will on the people
through denying individuals their individual
freedoms.
Whoops, that would make Ron Paul in opposition
to libertarianism.
> Libertarian's support for abortion is not
> merely a minor misapplication of principle,
> as if one held an incorrect belief about
> the Austrian theory of the business cycle.
No, it is not a "misapplication" of any theory,
it is a major application of the theory,
"Less government control over the individual."
> The issue of abortion is fundamental, and
> therefore an incorrect view of the issue
> strikes the very foundations of all beliefs.
And libertarians have to believe in less
government control, otherwise they aren't
libertarians.
Ron Paul believes in MORE government control
of the individual, hence he must not really
be a libertarian!
> Libertarians believe, along with the
> Founding fathers, that every individual
> has inalienable rights, among which are
> the rights to life, liberty, and the
> pursuit of happiness. neither the State,
> nor any other person, can violate those
> rights without committing an injustice.
Of course, it is important to note that no
Constitutional article or amendment codifies
those rights into law. Those words are
taken from a document superseded by the
U.S. Constitution.
> But, just as important as power claimed
> by the State to decide WHAT rights we have,
> is the power to decide WHICH of us has
> rights.
And when the State decides that women don't
have the rights to control their own bodies,
it is a time for all libertarians to stand up
and fight for a woman's right to control her
own body.
> Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction
> of individual freedom.
Yes, by the folks who are consistently anti-abortion,
the GOP. Increased police powers, decreased civil
rights, all coming from the same folks who want
to make abortion illegal.
Its being consistent, of course, since a mind which
wants to deny individual freedom to the extent that
an anti-abortion mind wants to deny individual
freedom, is a mind which wants more government
control over the individual, not less.
> And in abortion, the statistics have found
> a most effective method of obliterating freedom:
> obliterating the individual.
Forgetting of course that the WOMAN is an *individual*.
> Abortion on demand is the ultimate State
> tyranny; the State simply declares that
> certain classes of human beings are not
> persons and therefore not entitled to
> the protection of the law.
Banned abortion is the ultimate State tyranny:
the state simply declares that women in general
are not entitled to control over their own
bodies.
> The State protects the "right" of some
> people to kill others, just as courts
> protected the "property rights" of
> slave masters in their slaves.
The State protects the right of women to control
their own bodies. The State, in the past, made
an error in protecting the "property rights"
of slaves who were not directly endangering the
lives of their masters, thus the analogy doesn't
work.
> Moreover, by this method the State achieves
> a goal common to all totalitarian regimes:
> it sets us against each other, so that our
> energies are spent in the struggle between
> State-created classes, rather than in freeing
> all individuals from the State.
The actual goal of all totalitarian regimes has
been the acquisition of control over reproduction,
allowing it to force women to continue to pregnancy
or deny others the right to be pregnant.
Check out all totalitarian regimes in the past
600 years for proof that what happens in a
totalitarian regime is what the anti-abortion
folks are PUSHING FOR, not the opposite!
Ron Paul is attempting to argue against history
and against the totalitarian regimes of today by
trying to suggest that a totalitarian regime does
not attempt to gain the kind of control the
anti-abortion movement is DEMANDING.
> The more one strives for the consistent
> application of an incorrect principle,
> the more horrendous the results.
Hence, the horrendous conditions and civil
rights of women caught in a society which
BANS ABORTION.
> Thus, a wrong-headed libertarian is potentially
> very dangerous. Libertarians who act on a wrong
> premise seem to be too often willing to accept
> the inhuman conclusions of the argument,
> rather than question their premises.
And so libertarians must oppose Ron Paul, since
the inhuman conclusion of his argument is
spelled out daily in Taliban Afghanistan, and
Ron Paul seems unwilling to question his premises.
> [Some] support the "right" of a woman to
> remove an unwanted child from her body
> (i.e. her property) by killing and then
> expelling him or her. Therefore, they
> have consistently concluded that any
> property owner has the right to kill
> anyone on their property, for any reason.
> Such conclusions should make libertarians
> question the premises from which they are
> drawn.
Such conclusions are the strawmen of the
anti-abortion movement!
A "guest" on your property who proceeds
to endanger your life and health can be
shot by any libertarian out there today.
If you invite someone in and he proceeds
to pump nerve gas into your home and
threatens you with a gun, any libertarian
would agree that you have the RIGHT to
kill him if it is the ONLY WAY to avoid
his threats to your health and/or life!
Similarly, all fetuses are dangerous and
threatening to pregnant women, for the simple
reason that they have to suppress the immune
systems of the pregnant women they exist
within, in order to keep the pregnant woman's
own body from REJECTING the fetus! This
suppression extends to making her body ripe
for opportunistic infections.
Clearly, for the same reasons that a guest
who turns on you and threatens your health
and life can be repelled using lethal force,
a fetus which is threatening a pregnant woman's
health and life can be expelled using lethal
force.
It is interesting that in order for the anti-abortion
movement to make their "shooting a guest" strawman
to work, they must first deny the FACT that the fetus
is not an "invited guest", but a "guest which had to
drill through a steel door to get in, then promptly
threatened the life and health of the host upon
entry". They must DENY FACTS to make their little
strawman work!
Any movement which must use LIES AND DECEPTION to
make its arguments is not a good cause!
> We must promote a consistent vision of liberty
> because freedom is whole and cannot be alienated,
> although it can be abridged by the unjust action
> of the State
...such as when the State denies women the right
to protect their own bodies against an intruder
which threatens her life and health.
> or those who are powerful enough to obtain
> their own demands.
...such as the violent anti-abortion wackos who
have thrown down legal means and picked up rifles
to assassinate abortion doctors.
> Our lives, also, are a whole from the
> beginning at fertilization until death.
And somewhere in the middle a woman has the
unalienable right to control over her own body,
and NO PERSON should have the right to FORCE
her to give up control over her own body.
> To deny any part of liberty, or to deny
> liberty to any particular class of individuals,
...such as to WOMEN.
> diminishes the freedom of all. For libertarians
> to support such an abridgment of the right to
> live free is unconscionable.
For libertarians to oppose a woman's right to
control over her own body, and to enforce said
opposition by INCREASED GOVERNMENT CONTROL OVER
THE INDIVIDUAL, is unconscionable.
Christopher Kerrissey
have the ability to murder babies with the full legal
protection of government? Them that hate God love death.
<hereti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8idodt$uk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <szkd7lk...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> > r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> > >Enslavement is liberty!
> > >Truth is lies!
> > >Work is freedom!
>
> 4 LEGS GOOD/2 LEGS BETTER!
>
> > Norma *knows* duckspeak.
> >
> SNIP
> Say, Patrick, isn't schmily abusing the ng by posting so many
> cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating netiquette,
> but I could be wrong, of course.
>
>
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously
clamor to
> have the ability to murder babies
You are in the wrong newsgroup. This is talk.abortion (which is about
zygotes, embryos and fetuses) and not talk.infanticide.
BTW, babies are those who are *not* connected via an umbilical cord to
a woman. Easy to distinguish, aren't they ?
HRG.
with the full legal
> protection of government? Them that hate God love death.
Which particular god are you talking about ?
<snip>
hereti...@my-deja.com
snip
> >Say, Patrick, isn't schmily abusing the ng by posting so many
> >cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating netiquette,
> >but I could be wrong, of course.
>
Yeah, and didn't Norma(n) post that pic of the
teensyweensyfootsywooties?
Now even a Bomas knows better than to do *that*!
> To be truthful, she's pushing the envelope in terms of volume, and
she's
> definitely not winning any friends by doing nothing but reposting
> garbage from pro-life websites -- and "editing" it to suit whatever
> purpose she has in mind...so she's cutting it close with MindSpring's
> TOS, I'd imagine.
>
> --PLH, she'll slip up, sooner or later
Not that I'm suggesting anyone complain to Mindspring, mindyou!
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szku2et...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> hereti...@my-deja.com writes:
>snip
>> >Say, Patrick, isn't schmily abusing the ng by posting so many
>> >cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating netiquette,
>> >but I could be wrong, of course.
>> What, Norma abuse Usenet? Say it ain't so! :-)
>Yeah, and didn't Norma(n) post that pic of the
>teensyweensyfootsywooties? Now even a Bomas knows better than to do
>*that*!
No one ever said Norma was a Nobel Prize winner.
>> To be truthful, she's pushing the envelope in terms of volume, and she's
>> definitely not winning any friends by doing nothing but reposting
>> garbage from pro-life websites -- and "editing" it to suit whatever
>> purpose she has in mind...so she's cutting it close with MindSpring's
>> TOS, I'd imagine.
>>
>> --PLH, she'll slip up, sooner or later
>Not that I'm suggesting anyone complain to Mindspring, mindyou!
I have a feeling one or a hundred have, by now...notice she's been quiet
since then?
--PLH, coincidence?
Christopher Kerrissey
has ordained and seek to redefine the order of the
universe to fit their reprobate and perverse minds their laws
ought to be shunned as maddness .if i call the brilliance on
noonday night it doesnt make it so. merely calling an act by
another name can not alter the nature of the act . the willfull
cessation of an innocent human life by the deliberate action of
another (human) is murder.
<mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:onfqks86c976ri34b...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:02:38 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <skqak24...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> > you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously clamor to
> >protection of government?
>
> No legal act can be murder, so your outline is, on it's fact,
> ridiculous.
>
> > Them that hate God love death.
>
>
> And learn some grammar.> >> In article <szkd7lk...@fnord.io.com>,
> >> > >shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> > >>BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
> >> > >LOL!
> >> > >Enslavement is liberty!
> >> > >Truth is lies!
> >> > >Work is freedom!
> >>
> >> 4 LEGS GOOD/2 LEGS BETTER!
> >>
> >> > Norma *knows* duckspeak.
> >> >
> >> SNIP
> >> cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating netiquette,
> >> but I could be wrong, of course.
> >>
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
and likenes of God, loving , compassionate beings who
choose to identify with our fellow humans in distress . We
understand that these fetus will become babies and so having the
intelligence to see conceptual relationships , know of what we
speak when using the word baby to indicate the developing life
form inutero.
<hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ik815$tn8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <skqak24...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously
> clamor to
> > have the ability to murder babies
>
> zygotes, embryos and fetuses) and not talk.infanticide.
>
> BTW, babies are those who are *not* connected via an umbilical cord to
> a woman. Easy to distinguish, aren't they ?
>
> HRG.
>
> > protection of government? Them that hate God love death.
>
> Which particular god are you talking about ?
>
> <snip>
>
>
Christopher Kerrissey
"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:8ip3tf$jbv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >when them making the laws among man depart from what
God
> >has ordained
>
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>> >when them making the laws among man depart from what God
>> >has ordained
>>
>> You don't speak for God, nitwit.
>
>Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
Did God appoint you as His spokesman? Did He abdicate and
appoint you as His successor?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8ip3tf$jbv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>> >when them making the laws among man depart from what God
>> >has ordained
>> You don't speak for God, nitwit.
>Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
Who are you to demand that anyone take your babbling as truth, without
question?
When you get around to providing substantive proof of this alleged
permission you have to speak for your god, you may be deserving of a
little civility. Until then, you get the respect you earn...and so far,
you've earned none from me.
--PLH, who'd want to follow any god that would appoint the likes of
Kerrissey to speak for him?
xpecting
Ray Fischer wrote:
> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>
> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from what God
> >> >has ordained
> >>
> >> You don't speak for God, nitwit.
> >
> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
>
> Did God appoint you as His spokesman? Did He abdicate and
> appoint you as His successor?
>
Clue #1 - He appointed lots of us as His spokesman.
Clue #2 - He needs no successor because He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
omnipresent.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
>>
>> Did God appoint you as His spokesman? Did He abdicate and
>> appoint you as His successor?
>
>Clue #1 - He appointed lots of us as His spokesman.
Not you. Me.
>Clue #2 - He needs no successor because He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
>omnipresent.
And mightily pissed off at the likes of you.
hereti...@my-deja.com
"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> you talk of ettiquette
No, pootsypants, I was writing of NETIQUETTE.
If you don't know what that means, why, I'm not the least
bit surprised.
> while you voraciously clamor
to
> have the ability to murder babies
Abortion is not, nor has it ever been, murder.
A fetus is not a baby.
And I have no interest in being an MDiety anyway.
> with the full legal
> protection of government? Them that hate God love death.
Them that claim to know what God is thinking are dumbass fucks
whose brains are proof that God has a serious drinking problem.
hereti...@my-deja.com
"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> we are human ,
Really? You sure about that?
> we are, as having been created in the
image
> and likenes of God,
Prove it.
> loving , compassionate beings
Oh, the same God who told Moses it was OK to kill Midianite
male children and pregnant women? The same God who gave
the instructions for a forced abortion against the will of
the woman in Numbers 5? If that is your def of love, compasssion,
and concern, I do hope that you don't have access to weapons.
who
> choose to identify with our fellow humans in distress
. We
> understand that these fetus will become babies
Shove it up your ass with a cattle prod.
WE KILL MEN, WOMEN AND CHILDREN EVERY DAY.
By commission or omission. WE DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE PEOPLE
HERE ALREADY. Only an insane sadist would force gestation
and then walk away. You are sick, and if you really do think
you are xian, you aren't. Case closed.
Now get some mental health care before you are forced to.
Christopher Kerrissey
"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:slrn8l16d3....@fnord.io.com...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:17:58 -0400, Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net>> >news:8ip3tf$jbv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from what
God
> >> >has ordained
>
> >> You don't speak for God, nitwit.
>
>
Christopher Kerrissey
human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert from
conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint. i say you fall short if
you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from conception
of what is concieved in the human uterus. so for this purpose
i will state what is concieved in the human womb at the
successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that instant
and forever human and sacred. the willfull destruction by any
artificial means must therefor be described as murder .news:mhb1ls8mcmkujds2v...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:41:27 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl006m...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >when them making the laws among man depart from what
God
> >universe to fit their reprobate and perverse minds their laws
> >ought to be shunned as maddness .
>
> supported evidence that you know what it has 'ordained'.
>
>
> >if i call the brilliance on
> >noonday night it doesnt make it so. merely calling an act
by
> >another name can not alter the nature of the act . the
willfull
> >cessation of an innocent human life by the deliberate action of
> >another (human) is murder.
>
> reality of that act. Saying something is murder does not make it
> murder just by saying so.
>
>
> ><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:onfqks86c976ri34b...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:02:38 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >>
> >> > you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously clamor
to
> >> >have the ability to murder babies with the full legal
> >> >protection of government?
> >>
> >> No legal act can be murder, so your outline is, on it's fact,
> >> ridiculous.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> And learn some grammar.
> >>
> >>
> >> ><hereti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:8idodt$uk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> >> In article <szkd7lk...@fnord.io.com>,
> >> >> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >> >> > r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> >> > >shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> >> > >>BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
> >> >> > >LOL!
> >> >> > >Enslavement is liberty!
> >> >> > >Truth is lies!
> >> >> > >Work is freedom!
> >> >>
> >> >> 4 LEGS GOOD/2 LEGS BETTER!
> >> >>
> >> >> > Norma *knows* duckspeak.
> >> >> >
> >> >> SNIP
> >> >> Say, Patrick, isn't schmily abusing the ng by posting so many
> >> >> cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating netiquette,
> >> >> but I could be wrong, of course.
> >> >>
> >> >>
xpecting
proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:18:58 GMT, xpecting <xpectin...@home.com>
> in <3950A49E...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >
> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> >"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> >> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from what God
> >> >> >has ordained
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't speak for God, nitwit.
> >> >
> >> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
> >>
> >> Did God appoint you as His spokesman? Did He abdicate and
> >> appoint you as His successor?
> >>
> >
> >Clue #1 - He appointed lots of us as His spokesman.
> >
> >Clue #2 - He needs no successor because He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
> >omnipresent.
>
> And it is true because you said so. Right?
No, it is true because of the source. The Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of
God.
xpecting
Ray Fischer wrote:
> xpecting <xpectin...@home.com> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>
> >> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
> >>
> >> Did God appoint you as His spokesman? Did He abdicate and
> >> appoint you as His successor?
> >
> >Clue #1 - He appointed lots of us as His spokesman.
>
> Not you. Me.
>
That's funny, I thought that God had the jackass speak to Balaam. I don't remember
Him calling anyone the jackass.
>
> >Clue #2 - He needs no successor because He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
> >omnipresent.
>
> And mightily pissed off at the likes of you.
>
Because I'm obedient to the teachings of the Bible?
Ray Fischer
>No, it is true because of the source. The Bible is the inerrant, inspired word of
>God.
>
LOL! Funny!
Oh, wait. You're being serious, aren't you?
Tsk, tsk.
And it's the word of God because ... you say so?
Ray Fischer
>> >Clue #2 - He needs no successor because He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
>> >omnipresent.
>>
>> And mightily pissed off at the likes of you.
>
>Because I'm obedient to the teachings of the Bible?
Because you are NOT obedient to the teachings of the Bible.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life
in a
> human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert from
> conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
i say you fall short if
> you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
conception
> of what is concieved in the human uterus. so for this
purpose
> i will state what is concieved in the human womb at the
> successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that
instant
> and forever human and sacred.
You commit the familiar equivocation between "human"[adjective] and "a
human"[noun] (which, BTW, is only possible in English; other languages
make clearer distinctions between nouns and adjective).
It is trivially true that a human embryo is human; but so is a human
toe, a human blood cell, a human tumour and a HeLa cell culture. Do you
maintain that all of them are "forever sacred" ?
Obviously humanity in the sense of "being human[adjective]" doesn't
imply anything about a right to life.
the willfull destruction by any
> artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
The willful destruction of a human tumor obviously isn't murder.
Try again, this time with "a human" .....
HRG.
Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
<snip>
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> There is only one god and he chosses whom he chooses
"True. And I hereby state that *I* have been chosen by Odin - the one
true God - to speak on His behalf about abortions."
Of course, my evidence for the above statement is nil - just as Mr.
Kerrissey's evidence for his claims .....
HRG.
Difficile est satiram non scribere .....
> "Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
> news:slrn8l16d3....@fnord.io.com...
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:17:58 -0400, Christopher Kerrissey
<no...@gis.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > >"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> > >news:8ip3tf$jbv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > >> >when them making the laws among man depart
from what
> God
> > >> >has ordained
> >
> > >> You don't speak for God, nitwit.
> >
> > >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
> >
> > Who are you to demand that anyone take your babbling as truth,
without
> > question?
> >
> > When you get around to providing substantive proof of this alleged
> > permission you have to speak for your god, you may be deserving of a
> > little civility. Until then, you get the respect you earn...and so
far,
> > you've earned none from me.
> >
> > --PLH, who'd want to follow any god that would appoint the likes of
> > Kerrissey to speak for him?
>
>
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> we are human , we are, as having been created in the
image
> and likenes of God,
Please indicate where you base your arguments on your personal belief -
and not on generally recognized facts.
loving , compassionate beings who
> choose to identify with our fellow humans in
distress . We
> understand that these fetus will become babies and so
having the
> intelligence to see conceptual relationships ,
... but apparently not for distingushing the potential from the
actual ....
know of what we
> speak when using the word baby to indicate the
developing life
> form inutero.
Do yo also use the words "acorn" for an oak, "tadpole" for a frog
and "graduate" for a freshman ?
Don't confuse the potential for the actual. Rights are usually not
determined by what something may possibly *become* in the future, but
by what it is in the present.
HRG.
Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo ....
> <hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ik815$tn8
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <skqak24...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > > you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously
> > clamor to
> > > have the ability to murder babies
> >
> > You are in the wrong newsgroup. This is talk.abortion (which is
about
> > zygotes, embryos and fetuses) and not talk.infanticide.
> >
> > BTW, babies are those who are *not* connected via an umbilical cord
to
> > a woman. Easy to distinguish, aren't they ?
> >
> > HRG.
> >
> > with the full legal
> > > protection of government? Them that hate God love death.
> >
> > Which particular god are you talking about ?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
Patrick L. Humphrey
>"Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
>news:slrn8l16d3....@fnord.io.com...
>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 21:17:58 -0400, Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net>
>wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >news:8ip3tf$jbv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
>> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from what God
>> >> >has ordained
>> >> You don't speak for God, nitwit.
>> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
>> Who are you to demand that anyone take your babbling as truth, without
>> question?
>> When you get around to providing substantive proof of this alleged
>> permission you have to speak for your god, you may be deserving of a
>> little civility. Until then, you get the respect you earn...and so far,
>> you've earned none from me.
>>
>> --PLH, who'd want to follow any god that would appoint the likes of
>> Kerrissey to speak for him?
> There is only one god and he chosses whom he chooses
...and you still have done nothing to prove that he (if he exists in the
first place, of course) chose *you* to do his talking for him --
particularly since it's hard to find any semblance of reason in an
alleged deity choosing a complete idiot to speak for him.
You're not getting anywhere, Chris.
--PLH, except maybe lost
Ron Nicholson
Christopher Kerrissey wrote:
> Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
You can find a description of yourself in the latest edition of the DSM.
>
> "Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:8ip3tf$jbv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > >when them making the laws among man depart from what
> God
> > >has ordained
> >
> > You don't speak for God, nitwit.
> >
hereti...@my-deja.com
ba...@home.com wrote:
> Christopher Kerrissey wrote:
> > Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
>
> You can find a description of yourself in the latest edition of the
DSM.
No shit, Sigmund!
Christopher Kerrissey
themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
living being. i doubt you were really confused about what i
meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of the
fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
<hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8isdco$h23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <sl2t4q...@corp.supernews.com>,
> Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
>
Christopher Kerrissey
Declaration of Independence. It is understood to apply to and refer
to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That a
developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
it is, though as yet unborn , residing within the borders of this
nation. That anything is sacred is a matter of faith and the
concept of sacredness is contained within the document of the
Declaration of Independence where the founders are recorded to pledge
mutually their lives, fortunes and sacred honour to each other.news:uru3lsg8dtjab59jt...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:07:39 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl2t4q...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> > as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life in a
> >human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert from
> >conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
>
> human. DNA analysis will prove that.
>
> > i say you fall short if
> >you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
conception
> >of what is concieved in the human uterus.
>
> to get an answer to this simple question.
>
> > so for this purpose
> >i will state what is concieved in the human womb at the
> >successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that instant
> >and forever human and sacred.
>
>
> Please prove anything is sacred.
>
> I agree, BTW, that it is human. DNA analysis will prove that.
>
> > the willfull destruction by any
> >artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
>
> cases.
>
>
> How would you define 'artificial means'?
>
>
>
> ><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:mhb1ls8mcmkujds2v...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:41:27 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >>
> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from what
> >God
> >> >universe to fit their reprobate and perverse minds their
laws
> >> >ought to be shunned as maddness .
> >>
> >> Exactly which god do you mean? Include proof, please. Then provide
> >> supported evidence that you know what it has 'ordained'.
> >>
> >>
> >> >if i call the brilliance on
> >> >noonday night it doesnt make it so. merely calling an
act
> >by
> >> >another name can not alter the nature of the act . the
> >willfull
> >> >cessation of an innocent human life by the deliberate action of
> >> >another (human) is murder.
> >>
> >> As you said just using a certain label for an act does not negate the
> >> reality of that act. Saying something is murder does not make it
> >> murder just by saying so.
> >>
> >>
> >> ><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:onfqks86c976ri34b...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:02:38 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> >>
> >> >> > you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously clamor
> >to
> >> >> >protection of government?
> >> >>
> >> >> No legal act can be murder, so your outline is, on it's fact,
> >> >> ridiculous.
> >> >>
> >> >>
exists.
> >> >>
> >> >> And learn some grammar.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ><hereti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:8idodt$uk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> >> >> In article <szkd7lk...@fnord.io.com>,
> >> >> >> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >> >> >> > r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> >> >> > >shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > >>BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
> >> >> >> > >LOL!
> >> >> >> > >Enslavement is liberty!
> >> >> >> > >Truth is lies!
> >> >> >> > >Work is freedom!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> 4 LEGS GOOD/2 LEGS BETTER!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Norma *knows* duckspeak.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> SNIP
> >> >> >> Say, Patrick, isn't schmily abusing the ng by posting so many
> >> >> >> cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating netiquette,
> >> >> >> but I could be wrong, of course.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
against abortion does not alter the effectual nature of the act.
It artificially( by the deliberate , action of another )
terminates the growth process which is the natural functioning of
the creature. The developing life is guilty of no capital
crime punishable by death under United States law which is the only
case where a person may be deprived of thier God given right to
Life.
Christopher Kerrissey
to the attainment of humanity and therin gaining legal stature
with the concommitent rights ,I would assert is a false
characterization . Because if allowed to proceed without
interruption( by abortion) it would continue to display the
unmistakeable qualities of a human being and no other life form
which may or may not be accorded same or similar rights.
<hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8isqpp$qe9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <sl00g0...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > we are human , we are, as having been created in the
> image
> > and likenes of God,
>
> Please indicate where you base your arguments on your personal belief -
> and not on generally recognized facts.
>
> loving , compassionate beings who
> > choose to identify with our fellow humans in
> distress . We
> > understand that these fetus will become babies and so
> having the
> > intelligence to see conceptual relationships ,
>
> ... but apparently not for distingushing the potential from the
> actual ....
>
> know of what we
> > speak when using the word baby to indicate the
> developing life
> > form inutero.
>
> Do yo also use the words "acorn" for an oak, "tadpole" for a frog
> and "graduate" for a freshman ?
>
> Don't confuse the potential for the actual. Rights are usually not
> determined by what something may possibly *become* in the future, but
> by what it is in the present.
>
> Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo ....
>
> > <hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8ik815$tn8
> $1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <skqak24...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > > you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously
> > > clamor to
> > > > have the ability to murder babies
> > >
> about
> > > zygotes, embryos and fetuses) and not talk.infanticide.
> > >
> > > BTW, babies are those who are *not* connected via an umbilical cord
> to
> > > a woman. Easy to distinguish, aren't they ?
> > >
> > > HRG.
> > >
> > > > protection of government? Them that hate God love death.
> > >
> > > Which particular god are you talking about ?
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >
Christopher Kerrissey
with God's Will.news:3ma4lsoe24241i4rn...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:17:58 GMT, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <SL05RLL...@CORP.SUPERNEWS.COM> wrote:
>
> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
>
>
>
> >"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:8ip3tf$jbv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from what
> >God
> >> >has ordained
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
your folly some more?news:8iudmk$rq$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > i use of the word human to indicate the individual
> >themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
> >living being.
>
Christopher Kerrissey
lends the weight to the position that they posess the rights
recognized in the documents citednews:8iuev3$hs$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution
>
>
> > It is understood to apply to and refer
> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That a
> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
> >it is, though as yet unborn , residing within the borders of
this
> >nation.
>
> explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
> It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
>
> Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
pro-...@p-p.ihug.co.nz
>
> i use of the word human to indicate the individual
> themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
> meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of the
> fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
Precisely it. Good call.
Ray Fischer
> i use of the word human to indicate the individual
>themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
>living being.
You use it to mean whatever you want it to mean.
--
Ray Fischer
> the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution
Where?
> It is understood to apply to and refer
>to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That a
>developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
>it is, though as yet unborn , residing within the borders of this
>nation.
Whew! Are you this stupid in real life? The US Constitution
explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
--
The Ghost In The Machine
in included text edited for clarity.
In talk.abortion, Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net>
wrote on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:07:53 -0400 <sl5e1e...@corp.supernews.com>:
> i use of the word human to indicate the individual
>themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
>living being.
Well, that's clear as mud. You do realize that a foetus
is attached to a woman; it's far from clear that it's
"complete". It is human, though -- but then, so is one's
toes, hair, eyeballs, skin, blood, or phlegm. None of these
can be equated to a being, human or otherwise, unless one's mind
has been totally bent by watching too many late night movies. :-) [*]
> i doubt you were really confused about what i
>meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of the
>fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
The law currently doesn't see it that way. Are you really
willing to have young women put to death?
Or just doctors?
What's the difference in penalties between hiring a hit man,
and being one? As far as I can tell, little, if any;
California law allows the death penalty as an option if the
murder is carried out for financial gain -- and an abortion
provider does get paid $200-$400 or so, by somebody.
[hrgruemm's stuff snipped for brevity]
[*] "Attack of the the Eye Creatures" comes to mind. (No, that's
not a typo; some copies screwed up the title. It's that bad.)
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- occasional MST3Kie
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> i use of the word human to indicate the
individual
> themself not as pertaining to a human but the
complete
> living being.
That would be a human organism.
> i doubt you were really confused about what i
> meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of
the
> fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
I'm not confused at all; I know exactly what you want to show. I just
state that you are misusing terms, confusing "human organism", "human
fetus", "human being" etc.
BTW, how can a moral or legal evaluation ever be a "fact" ?
HRG.
> <hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8isdco$h23
$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <sl2t4q...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > > as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life
> > in a
> > > human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert
from
> > > conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
> >
> > i say you fall short if
> > > you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
> > conception
> > > of what is concieved in the human uterus. so for
this
> > purpose
> > > i will state what is concieved in the human womb at
the
> > > successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that
> > instant
> > > and forever human and sacred.
> >
> > You commit the familiar equivocation between "human"[adjective]
and "a
> > human"[noun] (which, BTW, is only possible in English; other
languages
> > make clearer distinctions between nouns and adjective).
> >
> > It is trivially true that a human embryo is human; but so is a human
> > toe, a human blood cell, a human tumour and a HeLa cell culture. Do
you
> > maintain that all of them are "forever sacred" ?
> >
> > Obviously humanity in the sense of "being human[adjective]" doesn't
> > imply anything about a right to life.
> >
> > the willfull destruction by any
> > > artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
> >
> > The willful destruction of a human tumor obviously isn't murder.
> > Try again, this time with "a human" .....
> >
> > HRG.
> > Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
> >
Craig Chilton
pro-...@p-p.ihug.co.nz wrote:
> Christopher Kerrissey wrote:
>> i use of the word human to indicate the individual
>> themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
>> living being. i doubt you were really confused about what i
>> meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of the
>> fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
> Precisely it. Good call.
EXCEPT for the fact theat abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do
with murder. Abortion is merely a highly-beneficial REMEDY for an
unwanted medical condition. And that's ALL it is. It isn't even a
"moral" issue, except in the minds of malcontented and malicious
control freaks.
-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net
"Cure an Anti-Choicer or an RRR Cultist of BUSYBODYISM,
and the resulting person will be an asset to society."
Matt Pillsbury
> Multiple Spaces Between Words
> in included text edited for clarity.
Do you have some neat text-editor trick that does that, or are you
just a More Patient Man Than I?
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury -- pillsy [at] brown [dot] edu
"don't open your eyes, you won't like what you see,
the devils of truth steal the souls of the free."--nin
Tim Goyer
kill the complete organism. The life is snuffed out. By removing a toe,
skin cell, etc, you are not killing the complete organism and in some cases,
the lost part is regenerated (i.e. skin cells, etc.)
Tim
proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message
<4uj5lsk17e27u0hhd...@4ax.com>...
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:07:53 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
><no...@gis.net> in <sl5e1e...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
>> i use of the word human to indicate the individual
>>themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
>>living being. i doubt you were really confused about what
i
>>meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of the
>>fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
>
>It is a lot less than murder. Just as washing your hands is less.
Tim Goyer
proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:07:39 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
><no...@gis.net> in <sl2t4q...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
>> as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life in a
>>human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert from
>>conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
>
>human. DNA analysis will prove that.
Hey! We actually agree on something! Now then, since you agree it's a
human being, what right is there to kill it out of convienience?
>> i say you fall short if
>>you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
conception
>>of what is concieved in the human uterus.
>
>Again I ask exactly where is this right to life found? I can't seem
>to get an answer to this simple question.
The right to life is a concept by moral people who believe in the sanctity
of the life of fellow human beings.
>> so for this purpose
>>i will state what is concieved in the human womb at the
>>successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that instant
>>and forever human and sacred.
>
>Your simply stating something make it unalterably true, of course.
>
>Please prove anything is sacred.
I believe that your life is sacred, would you agree?
>I agree, BTW, that it is human. DNA analysis will prove that.
>
>> the willfull destruction by any
>>artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
>
>Nope. Murder requires an illegal act and abortion is legal in many
>cases.
Many doctors find that act as something that "should" be illegal.
Especially after performing it. The fact that it is not yet is beside the
point. Law makers are too fickle to use them as a guide for morality.
I personally believe that spam email should be made illegal, too. The fact
that it isn't yet, again, is beside the point. However, even the spammer
has a right to life (I guess... =))
> How would you define 'artificial means'?
Some babies die because of birth defects, SIDS, etc. This is in the natural
order of life. However, invading someone's uterus with a scapel with the
express intent of killing the youngun is very unnatural and barbaric.
>><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:mhb1ls8mcmkujds2v...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:41:27 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
>>> <no...@gis.net> in <sl006m...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >when them making the laws among man depart from what
>>God
>>> >has ordained and seek to redefine the order of the
>>> >universe to fit their reprobate and perverse minds their
laws
>>> >ought to be shunned as maddness .
>>>
>>> Exactly which god do you mean? Include proof, please. Then provide
>>> supported evidence that you know what it has 'ordained'.
>>>
>>>
>>> >if i call the brilliance on
>>> >noonday night it doesnt make it so. merely calling an
act
>>by
>>> >another name can not alter the nature of the act . the
>>willfull
>>> >cessation of an innocent human life by the deliberate action of
>>> >another (human) is murder.
>>>
>>> As you said just using a certain label for an act does not negate the
>>> reality of that act. Saying something is murder does not make it
>>> murder just by saying so.
>>>
>>>
>>> ><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>> >news:onfqks86c976ri34b...@4ax.com...
>>> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:02:38 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
>>> >> <no...@gis.net> in <skqak24...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously clamor
>>to
>>> >> >have the ability to murder babies with the full legal
>>> >> >protection of government?
>>> >>
>>> >> No legal act can be murder, so your outline is, on it's fact,
>>> >> ridiculous.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Them that hate God love death.
>>> >>
>>> >> Which god would that be? Please include this god (or any god)
exists.
>>> >>
>>> >> And learn some grammar.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> ><hereti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>> >> >news:8idodt$uk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>> >> >> In article <szkd7lk...@fnord.io.com>,
>>> >> >> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>>> >> >> > r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>>> >> >> > >shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > >>BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
>>> >> >> > >LOL!
>>> >> >> > >Enslavement is liberty!
>>> >> >> > >Truth is lies!
>>> >> >> > >Work is freedom!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> 4 LEGS GOOD/2 LEGS BETTER!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> > Norma *knows* duckspeak.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> SNIP
>>> >> >> Say, Patrick, isn't schmily abusing the ng by posting so many
>>> >> >> cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating netiquette,
>>> >> >> but I could be wrong, of course.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
Tim Goyer
is still very useful in that it tells us of the intentions and motivations
of the Founding Fathers.
In this we see that their intent was to form a nation where:
1) Everyone had the right to freedom of expression.
2) Everyone had the right to freedom of religion.
3) Everyone had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Being the stanch humanitarians that they were, I would say that they would
feel the same way about the unborn.
proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:21:09 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
><no...@gis.net> in <sl5eqb...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
>> the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution and the
>>Declaration of Independence.
>
>The D of I is not an official governmental document - it is a
>historical document.
>
>>It is understood to apply to and refer
>>to human persons who are citizens of this nation.
>
>A fetus is not a citizen.
>
>>That a
>>developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
>>it is, though as yet unborn , residing within the borders of
this
>>nation.
>
>No law or court ruling has ever said this.
>
>>That anything is sacred is a matter of faith and the
>>concept of sacredness is contained within the document of the
>>Declaration of Independence where the founders are recorded to pledge
>>mutually their lives, fortunes and sacred honour to each other.
>
>Again, the D of I is a historical document just as the Magna Carta is.
>The D of I is not a basis for any law.
>
>
>><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>>news:uru3lsg8dtjab59jt...@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:07:39 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
>>> <no...@gis.net> in <sl2t4q...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life in
a
>>> >human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert from
>>> >conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
>>>
>>> I see your viewpoint. I just disagree with it. BTW, a fetus is
>>> human. DNA analysis will prove that.
>>>
>>> > i say you fall short if
>>> >you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
>>conception
>>> >of what is concieved in the human uterus.
>>>
>>> Again I ask exactly where is this right to life found? I can't seem
>>> to get an answer to this simple question.
>>>
>>> > so for this purpose
>>> >i will state what is concieved in the human womb at the
>>> >successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that
instant
>>> >and forever human and sacred.
>>>
>>> Your simply stating something make it unalterably true, of course.
>>>
>>> Please prove anything is sacred.
>>>
>>> I agree, BTW, that it is human. DNA analysis will prove that.
>>>
>>> > the willfull destruction by any
>>> >artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
>>>
>>> Nope. Murder requires an illegal act and abortion is legal in many
>>> cases.
>>>
>>>
>>> How would you define 'artificial means'?
>>>
>>>
>>>
Tim Goyer
pattern, unique from the mother.
proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:27:10 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
><no...@gis.net> in <sl5f5l...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
>> that there currently exist in many cases no legal
prohibitions
>>against abortion does not alter the effectual nature of the act.
>>It artificially( by the deliberate , action of another )
>>terminates the growth process which is the natural functioning of
>>the creature. The developing life is guilty of no capital
>>crime punishable by death under United States law which is the
only
>>case where a person may be deprived of thier God given right
to
>>Life.
>
>A fetus is not an individual as thus has no rights. Please advise
>exactly where a right to life is found in US law and prove anything
>was given by any god.
Ron Nicholson
Tim Goyer wrote:
> Although not an official document of law, the Declairation of Independance
> is still very useful in that it tells us of the intentions and motivations
> of the Founding Fathers.
HUH? I've been reading cases and constitutional annotations for close to a year
and have found no such thing. In fact, it is the Federalist Papers that is
cited as the motive and intent of those individuals. There actual musings, not
some distorted interpretation from this century.
You do know that happiness wasn't even intended -- it was more poetic than
saying property.
> In this we see that their intent was to form a nation where:
> 1) Everyone had the right to freedom of expression.
> 2) Everyone had the right to freedom of religion.
> 3) Everyone had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>
> Being the stanch humanitarians that they were, I would say that they would
> feel the same way about the unborn.
Slaves. Women. Children. Ya, right. Humanitarians.
Matt Pillsbury
> proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message ...
[...]
> >I see your viewpoint. I just disagree with it. BTW, a fetus is
> >human. DNA analysis will prove that.
> Hey! We actually agree on something! Now then, since you agree
> it's a human being, what right is there to kill it out of
> convienience?
Where did he say a fetus is a human being?
elco...@netzero.net
wrote:
>
>proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote i
...
>>I see your viewpoint. I just disagree with it. BTW, a fetus is
>>human. DNA analysis will prove that.
>
>Hey! We actually agree on something! Now then, since you agree it's a
>human being....
Sigh. You know, Tim, this gets rather tiring rather quick. Prochoice
did *not* agree that it was a human being; and trying to get someone
to agree with you when you *LIE* about what they believe and write is
rather futile.
So why do it? Why do you lie? Is it to make some sort of brownie
points with someone? Do you feel smart and tricky by telling lies? I
can understand opposition to abortion and I would support a just
abortion ban -- but I cannot understand why Pro-Lifers constantly lie.
hereti...@my-deja.com
"Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com> wrote:
> A fetus is an individual human life. It has it's own DNA/Chromosome
> pattern, unique from the mother.
So what?
A human fetus is not a human being.
There is no right to life,
and we don't take care of the HUMASN BEINGS already here.
To support forced gestation while people are being killed
by omission or comission is insane, obscene, and misogynisitic.
hereti...@my-deja.com
"Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> that a human embryo can be described as potential with
regard
> to the attainment of humanity
So fucking what? REAL HUMAN BEINGS are killed off and neglected
to die in the streets of the richest country ever.
As long as HUMAN BEINGS are so treated, to insist that
a fetus has the "right" to harm a woman against her will
just shows you are completely, utterly, and undeniably insane.
snip
hrgr...@my-deja.com
"Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com> wrote:
> pattern, unique from the mother.
There are two problems with this argument.
1. If it is an individual (and not just "individual human life"; the
law protects persons, not "lives"), we should be able to separate it
from the mother.
2. Monozygous twins, triplets etc. ? AFAIK, even after 3 cell divisions
(resulting in 8 cells), each daughter cells will produce a whole
organism on its own.
HRG.
Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo.
<snip>
Patrick L. Humphrey
> the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution and the
>Declaration of Independence.
Where, precisely? I can't find any mention of it in the Constitution,
and the Declaration doesn't exactly have any legal force -- since it's
not an outline of the structure of the government, doesn't specify any
laws, or make any other decrees. It's a statement of why the Founders
had decided to make their break with England -- nothing more, nothing less.
>It is understood to apply to and refer
>to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That a
>developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
>it is, though as yet unborn , residing within the borders of this
>nation.
Then, you should have no problem in pointing out *precisely* where that
"developing life" is specifically protected, right? Too bad for you
that you're so abysmally ignorant that you can't even make that claim
right...you might want to check the little detail about being BORN (or
naturalized), as far as citizenship goes.
>That anything is sacred is a matter of faith and the
>concept of sacredness is contained within the document of the
>Declaration of Independence where the founders are recorded to pledge
>mutually their lives, fortunes and sacred honour to each other.
...which document has no legal force, remember?
You're hardly the first foaming idiot to come through here trying that
angle, Chris.
--PLH, and hardly the first to get swatted down, either
Patrick L. Humphrey
><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
>news:3ma4lsoe24241i4rn...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:17:58 GMT, "Christopher Kerrissey"
>> <no...@gis.net> in <SL05RLL...@CORP.SUPERNEWS.COM> wrote:
>> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
>> Are you saying you do? Prove it.
[...]
>i have not said "I speak for God" but i aim for resonance
>with God's Will.
I seem to remember that alleged god of yours having something to say
about not bearing false witness, either...so keep running away from your
claim, Backpedal Boy! (Shouldn't you have declared victory first?)
--PLH, sheesh...Chris is so moronic he can't even get _that_ reflex
right
Patrick L. Humphrey
>"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:8iuev3$hs$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
>> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution
>> Where?
>> >It is understood to apply to and refer
>> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That a
>> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
>> >it is, though as yet unborn, residing within the borders of this
>> >nation.
>> Whew! Are you this stupid in real life? The US Constitution
>> explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
>> It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
>> Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
>it doesn't preclude them and the fact of their existance
>lends the weight to the position that they posess the rights
>recognized in the documents cited
Translation: "I have no earthly idea of what I'm talking about, but
I'll never admit that I could possibly be wrong."
What part of BORN are you too bloody stupid to understand, Chris?
--PLH, I swan, this kid's one for the books
elco...@netzero.net
wrote:
>Although not an official document of law, the Declairation of Independance
>is still very useful in that it tells us of the intentions and motivations
>of the Founding Fathers.
>
>In this we see that their intent was to form a nation where:
>1) Everyone had the right to freedom of expression.
>2) Everyone had the right to freedom of religion.
....
Where do you get that from the DoI?
Craig Chilton
> Although not an official document of law, the Declairation of
> Independance is still very useful in that it tells us of the intentions
> and motivations of the Founding Fathers.
>
> In this we see that their intent was to form a nation where:
>
> 1) Everyone had the right to freedom of expression.
> 2) Everyone had the right to freedom of religion.
> 3) Everyone had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>
> Being the stanch humanitarians that they were, I would say that
> they would feel the same way about [z/e/fs].
Probably not.
Because unlike most Anti-Choicers, the Founding Fathers were
highly INTELLIGENT.
And intelligence, combined with humanitarianism, translates into
NOT mindlessly and maliciously seeking to TRASH the rights of
already-born people by the millions, WRECK their well-being in the
process, and DESTROY countless of their potential future
opportunities.
-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
"Abortion is legal and will NEVER be illegal again. Fade,
fade, fade away. I think it's time that you and your co-horts, the
segregationists, prohibitionists, homophobes and a list of other
various anti's should start considering building Mayflower II.
Leave and start your own paradise. The Republic of Antichoicia!
Think about it."
-- M. Pyle, May 5, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on 23 Jun 2000 02:25:15 -0400 <86bt0ss...@straylight.NONE>:
>ew...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
>
>> Multiple Spaces Between Words
>> in included text edited for clarity.
>
>Do you have some neat text-editor trick that does that, or are you
>just a More Patient Man Than I?
s/ */ /g; :-)
[snip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- VI is your friend :-)
xpecting
Ray Fischer wrote:
> xpecting <xpectin...@home.com> wrote:
> >Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> xpecting <xpectin...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Clue #2 - He needs no successor because He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
> >> >omnipresent.
> >>
> >> And mightily pissed off at the likes of you.
> >
> >Because I'm obedient to the teachings of the Bible?
>
> Because you are NOT obedient to the teachings of the Bible.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer It is a strange desire to seek power and to lose liberty.
> r...@netcom.com Francis Bacon
How so?
xpecting
Christopher Kerrissey
would find God must first believe that He is and is the rewarder of
them that dilligently seek Him. I do not controll God. When He shows
Himself to you ,you will know Him .I pray This may be at any time.news:32i6ls0j658615ia6...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:48:50 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl5nen...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >i have not said "I speak for God" but i aim for resonance
> >with God's Will.
>
> please.
>
>
> ><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ma4lsoe24241i4rn...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:17:58 GMT, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> <no...@gis.net> in <SL05RLL...@CORP.SUPERNEWS.COM> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
> >>
> >> Are you saying you do? Prove it.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from
what
> >> >God
> >> >> >has ordained
> >> >>
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> >> >Clue #2 - He needs no successor because He is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
>> >> >omnipresent.
>> >>
>> >> And mightily pissed off at the likes of you.
>> >
>> >Because I'm obedient to the teachings of the Bible?
>>
>> Because you are NOT obedient to the teachings of the Bible.
>
Matthew 7:1 Start there.
Christopher Kerrissey
or implied I speak for God. That , however, is not to say that such
may never or has never been the case.I leave it to God to judge who has
done what."Patrick L. Humphrey" <pat...@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkg0q4...@fnord.io.com...> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net>
writes:
>
> ><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >news:3ma4lsoe24241i4rn...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:17:58 GMT, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> <no...@gis.net> in <SL05RLL...@CORP.SUPERNEWS.COM> wrote:
>
> >> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
>
> >> Are you saying you do? Prove it.
>
>
> >i have not said "I speak for God" but i aim for resonance
> >with God's Will.
>
Christopher Kerrissey
authority.
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@home.com> wrote in message
news:39b101a1.668302037@news...
>
> >> i use of the word human to indicate the
individual
> >> themself not as pertaining to a human but the
complete
> >> living being. i doubt you were really confused about
what i
> >> meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of
the
> >> fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
>
Christopher Kerrissey
tactic of one aware of his unavoidable imminent defeat.news:m4i6lsk2ehu76ufdr...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:52:01 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl5nkml...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >thats just silly . Do you want to make a point or just parade
> >your folly some more?
>
> He is pointing out your use of a term does not set the standard usage
> for such term. You apparently are sloppy and imprecise in your self
> expression and thus do not clearly and correctly express your point.> >news:8iudmk$rq$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> > i use of the word human to indicate the
individual
> >> >themself not as pertaining to a human but the
complete
> >> >living being.
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
being understood .While a computer's processor may have stumbled at
the dual usage of human . i assumed humans would discern the intent . .
"Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com> wrote in message
news:13J45.3968$Rx5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
> Except for the fact that when you kill a developing child in the womb, you
> kill the complete organism. The life is snuffed out. By removing a toe,
> skin cell, etc, you are not killing the complete organism and in some
cases,
> the lost part is regenerated (i.e. skin cells, etc.)
>
> Tim
>
> proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message
> <4uj5lsk17e27u0hhd...@4ax.com>...
> ><no...@gis.net> in <sl5e1e...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >
> >> i use of the word human to indicate the
individual
> >>themself not as pertaining to a human but the
complete
what
> i
> >>meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of
the
> >>fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
> >
> >
> >
> >><hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:8isdco$h23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >>> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >>> > as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life
> >>> in a
> >>> > human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert
from
> >>> > conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
> >>>
> >>> > you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
> >>> conception
> >>> purpose
> >>> > i will state what is concieved in the human womb at
the
> >>> > successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that
> >>> instant
> >>> > and forever human and sacred.
> >>>
> >>> human"[noun] (which, BTW, is only possible in English; other languages
> >>> make clearer distinctions between nouns and adjective).
> >>>
> >>> It is trivially true that a human embryo is human; but so is a human
> >>> toe, a human blood cell, a human tumour and a HeLa cell culture. Do
you
> >>> maintain that all of them are "forever sacred" ?
> >>>
> >>> Obviously humanity in the sense of "being human[adjective]" doesn't
> >>> imply anything about a right to life.
> >>>
> >>> > artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
> >>>
> >>> Try again, this time with "a human" .....
> >>>
> >>> Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
> >>>
Christopher Kerrissey
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 12:51:09 GMT, "Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com>
> in <13J45.3968$Rx5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Except for the fact that when you kill a developing child in the womb,
you
> >kill the complete organism. The life is snuffed out. By removing a toe,
> >skin cell, etc, you are not killing the complete organism and in some
cases,
> >the lost part is regenerated (i.e. skin cells, etc.)
>
> exist. Should women be prosecuted for not having the children they
> could have?
Christopher Kerrissey
and mailicious intent of its mother?
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ew...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
message news:slrn8l5ptl...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net...
> Multiple Spaces Between Words
> in included text edited for clarity.
>
> wrote on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:07:53 -0400
<sl5e1e...@corp.supernews.com>:
> > i use of the word human to indicate the individual
> >themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
> >living being.
>
> is attached to a woman; it's far from clear that it's
> "complete". It is human, though -- but then, so is one's
> toes, hair, eyeballs, skin, blood, or phlegm. None of these
> can be equated to a being, human or otherwise, unless one's mind
> has been totally bent by watching too many late night movies. :-) [*]
>
> > i doubt you were really confused about what i
> >meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of the
> >fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
>
> willing to have young women put to death?
>
> Or just doctors?
>
> What's the difference in penalties between hiring a hit man,
> and being one? As far as I can tell, little, if any;
> California law allows the death penalty as an option if the
> murder is carried out for financial gain -- and an abortion
> provider does get paid $200-$400 or so, by somebody.
>
> [hrgruemm's stuff snipped for brevity]
>
> [*] "Attack of the the Eye Creatures" comes to mind. (No, that's
> not a typo; some copies screwed up the title. It's that bad.)
>
> --
> ew...@aimnet.com -- occasional MST3Kie
Christopher Kerrissey
to my typing here, i will say i do not find this to be a problem having
any weight in common with the grave matter we argue.message news:slrn8l7phf...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net...
> In talk.abortion, Matt Pillsbury <pil...@seesig.edu>
> wrote on 23 Jun 2000 02:25:15 -0400 <86bt0ss...@straylight.NONE>:
> >ew...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine) writes:
> >
> >> in included text edited for clarity.
> >
Christopher Kerrissey
reality. That is to say if abortion,meaning the deliberate termination of
an otherwise viable,developing human fetus,is murder ,our laws must be
modified to reflect that"fact" and treat the perpetrators in accordance
with the laws pertaining to the criminality of murder. And be assured
this is my aim.When acceptable,
unimpeachable,unassailable,irrefutable,durable language can be adopted ,I
,myself will not cease acting to have it introduced into the Federal
statutes . That means i will continually press the U.S. Congress to
outlaw abortion and prosecute them who perform them.
<hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8iurv8$bcu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <sl5e1e...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > i use of the word human to indicate the
> individual
> > themself not as pertaining to a human but the
> complete
> > living being.
>
>
> > i doubt you were really confused about what i
> > meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of
> the
> > fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
>
> state that you are misusing terms, confusing "human organism", "human
> fetus", "human being" etc.
>
> BTW, how can a moral or legal evaluation ever be a "fact" ?
>
> HRG.
Christopher Kerrissey
alien(when you are in the womb) so what else can you be?
> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution
>
> Where?
>
> > It is understood to apply to and refer
> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That a
> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
this
> >nation.
>
> Whew! Are you this stupid in real life? The US Constitution
> explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
> It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
>
> Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
>
Christopher Kerrissey
clarity . Let me say , I know you know what I mean and the fashion of
your response reveals malice toward me personally and no
substantail rebuttal of my statements. A proverb says, to linger with a
fool is folly . Will you now show me a reason to continue here
with you?news:hai6ls4nkti54u63q...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:54:45 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl5npqo...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >it doesn't preclude them and the fact of their existance
> >lends the weight to the position that they posess the rights
> >recognized in the documents cited
>
> it sue if I want to remove it since it has your right to life under
> your definition?
Christopher Kerrissey
constituiton doesn't include fetuses. I answered that it does not
preclude them either so in as much as when we are discussing a real
living fetus and not merely the concept or potential , we must
include them( the fetus) under the protections guarenteed Citizens.news:szkem5o...@fnord.io.com...
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> writes:
>
> >"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:8iuev3$hs$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution
>
> >> Where?
>
> >> >It is understood to apply to and refer
> >> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That
a
> >> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in
that
> >> >nation.
>
> >> Whew! Are you this stupid in real life? The US Constitution
> >> explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
> >> It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
>
> >> Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
>
> >lends the weight to the position that they posess the rights
> >recognized in the documents cited
>
Christopher Kerrissey
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:54:45 GMT, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <SL5NPQO...@CORP.SUPERNEWS.COM> wrote:
>
> >it doesn't preclude them and the fact of their existance
> >lends the weight to the position that they posess the rights
> >recognized in the documents cited
>
> person. According to society , tradition, and law.
>
>
> >"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:8iuev3$hs$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution
> >>
> >> Where?
> >>
> >> > It is understood to apply to and refer
> >> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That
a
> >> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in
that
> >this
> >> >nation.
> >>
> >> Whew! Are you this stupid in real life? The US Constitution
> >> explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
> >> It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
> >>
> >> Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
implied and or infered untill it is declaritively denied thru due
process .news:rvj5lsc5jmhif033k...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:21:09 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl5eqb...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution and the
> >Declaration of Independence.
>
> historical document.
>
> >It is understood to apply to and refer
> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation.
>
>
> >That a
> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
> >it is, though as yet unborn , residing within the borders of
this
> >nation.
>
>
> >That anything is sacred is a matter of faith and the
> >concept of sacredness is contained within the document of the
> >Declaration of Independence where the founders are recorded to
pledge
> >mutually their lives, fortunes and sacred honour to each other.
>
> The D of I is not a basis for any law.> >news:uru3lsg8dtjab59jt...@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 22:07:39 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> <no...@gis.net> in <sl2t4q...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life in
a
> >> >human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert from
> >> >conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
> >>
> >> human. DNA analysis will prove that.
> >>
> >> >you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
> >conception
> >> >of what is concieved in the human uterus.
> >>
> >> to get an answer to this simple question.
> >>
> >> > so for this purpose
> >> >i will state what is concieved in the human womb at the
> >> >successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that
instant
> >> >and forever human and sacred.
> >>
> >>
> >> Please prove anything is sacred.
> >>
> >> I agree, BTW, that it is human. DNA analysis will prove that.
> >>
> >> > the willfull destruction by any
> >> >artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
> >>
> >> cases.
> >>
> >>
> >> How would you define 'artificial means'?> >> >news:mhb1ls8mcmkujds2v...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000 19:41:27 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> >> <no...@gis.net> in <sl006m...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from
what
> >> >God
the
> >> >> >universe to fit their reprobate and perverse minds their
> >laws
> >> >> >ought to be shunned as maddness .
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly which god do you mean? Include proof, please. Then provide
> >> >> supported evidence that you know what it has 'ordained'.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >if i call the brilliance on
> >> >> >noonday night it doesnt make it so. merely calling an
> >act
> >> >by
> >> >> >another name can not alter the nature of the act . the
> >> >willfull
> >> >> >cessation of an innocent human life by the deliberate action
of
> >> >> >another (human) is murder.
> >> >>
> >> >> As you said just using a certain label for an act does not negate
the
> >> >> reality of that act. Saying something is murder does not make it
> >> >> murder just by saying so.> >> >> >news:onfqks86c976ri34b...@4ax.com...
> >> >> >> On Sun, 18 Jun 2000 16:02:38 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> >> >> <no...@gis.net> in <skqak24...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > you talk of ettiquette while you voraciously
clamor
> >> >to
> >> >> >> >have the ability to murder babies with the full
legal
> >> >> >> >protection of government?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No legal act can be murder, so your outline is, on it's fact,
> >> >> >> ridiculous.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > Them that hate God love death.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Which god would that be? Please include this god (or any god)
> >exists.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> And learn some grammar.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ><hereti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> >> >> >news:8idodt$uk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> >> >> >> In article <szkd7lk...@fnord.io.com>,
> >> >> >> >> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> >> >> >> >> > >shmily <shm...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> > >>BEING PRO-LIFE IS NECESSARY TO DEFEND LIBERTY
> >> >> >> >> > >LOL!
> >> >> >> >> > >Enslavement is liberty!
> >> >> >> >> > >Truth is lies!
> >> >> >> >> > >Work is freedom!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> 4 LEGS GOOD/2 LEGS BETTER!
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> > Norma *knows* duckspeak.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> SNIP
> >> >> >> >> Say, Patrick, isn't schmily abusing the ng by posting so many
> >> >> >> >> cut&paste kibbles&bits? I thought that was violating
netiquette,
> >> >> >> >> but I could be wrong, of course.
Christopher Kerrissey
and therein have called it a precursor to the constitution which was
adopted as the source of all legal power and authority in the
United States of America. The same men who signed the Dof I ratified
the Constitution.it would be irrational to construe any meaning in
the one document would have been contradicted in the latter .
Christopher Kerrissey
of fetuses we may assume there was no question at the time of its
writing as to their legal standing. I would assert life in the womb
at all stages was accepted as fully endowed with the same liberties
and rights they declared have all citizens of the United States . the
distiction between born and preborn , I further assert, is a
feature of modern worldly society comprised of cruel shallow selfish
impatient people who wil sooner kill a defenseless innocent life
than be the least bit inconvienienced by the nurturing of their own
offspring!news:t5p6ls4msallpghgj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:06:22 GMT, "Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com>
> in <ihJ45.3982$Rx5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >Although not an official document of law, the Declairation of
Independance
> >is still very useful in that it tells us of the intentions and
motivations
> >of the Founding Fathers.
> >
> >In this we see that their intent was to form a nation where:
> >1) Everyone had the right to freedom of expression.
> >2) Everyone had the right to freedom of religion.
> >3) Everyone had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
>
>
> >
> >Being the stanch humanitarians that they were, I would say that they
would
>
> Then why was this not expressly included in the Constitution? The
> separation of church and state was clearly outlined along with such
> things as not quartering troops in private homes.
>
> >
> >proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message ...
Christopher Kerrissey
of its life from legal recognition and protection.news:89p6ls0hgfi6r14ep...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:08:14 GMT, "Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com>
> in <2jJ45.3985$Rx5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >A fetus is an individual human life. It has it's own DNA/Chromosome
> >pattern, unique from the mother.
>
> individual.> >>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 21:27:10 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >><no...@gis.net> in <sl5f5l...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> that there currently exist in many cases no legal
> >prohibitions
> >>>against abortion does not alter the effectual nature of the
act.
> >>>It artificially( by the deliberate , action of another )
> >>>terminates the growth process which is the natural functioning
of
> >>>the creature. The developing life is guilty of no
capital
> >>>crime punishable by death under United States law which is the
> >only
> >>>case where a person may be deprived of thier God given
right
> >to
> >>>Life.
> >>
> >>A fetus is not an individual as thus has no rights. Please advise
> >>exactly where a right to life is found in US law and prove anything
> >>was given by any god.
Christopher Kerrissey
person' to the life in the womb? therefor you allow that life to be
terminated? what are you saying? we 're not talking about dogs and
cats when we refer to developing lives .Do you honestly expect
anyone to accept that you reject the right of the human mothers
gestating offspring( i bet you'll balk at my usage of that word too,
since it can be construed to imply a born child) to the protection of
its life while in the womb because it is not legally recognized as
a person?? Why don't you say what term you accept to indicate
the developing fetus inutero and give a reason why it should not be
protected under the same laws which protect born human beings.
<hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8j0b13$dng$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <2jJ45.3985$Rx5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net>,
> "Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com> wrote:
> > A fetus is an individual human life. It has it's own DNA/Chromosome
> > pattern, unique from the mother.
>
>
> 1. If it is an individual (and not just "individual human life"; the
> law protects persons, not "lives"), we should be able to separate it
> from the mother.
>
> 2. Monozygous twins, triplets etc. ? AFAIK, even after 3 cell divisions
> (resulting in 8 cells), each daughter cells will produce a whole
> organism on its own.
>
> HRG.
>
> Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo.
>
> <snip>
Christopher Kerrissey
uterusand claiming therein that they both belong to the
individal. it may be demaonstrated false in that the DNA of baby
, oh excuse me,fetus and mother are not identical and so the mother
cannot claim ownership over the babyand so has not the right to act
toward it in any way which would violate its freedom to live on.news:eap6lsou1os9gg9n6...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:01:23 GMT, "Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com>
> in <DcJ45.3977$Rx5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message ...
> >><no...@gis.net> in <sl2t4q...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life in
a
> >>>human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert from
> >>>conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
> >>
> >>I see your viewpoint. I just disagree with it. BTW, a fetus is
> >>human. DNA analysis will prove that.
> >
> >human being, what right is there to kill it out of convienience?
>
> I didn't say it was a human being. I said it was human. THere is a
> difference.
>
> >
> >>> i say you fall short if
> >>>you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
> >conception
> >>>of what is concieved in the human uterus.
> >>
> >>Again I ask exactly where is this right to life found? I can't seem
> >>to get an answer to this simple question.
> >
sanctity
> >of the life of fellow human beings.
>
> Moral as defined by you. Does this right to life require me to donate
> blood to save a life? If not, why?
>
> >
> >>> so for this purpose
> >>>i will state what is concieved in the human womb at the
> >>>successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that
instant
> >>>and forever human and sacred.
> >>
> >>Your simply stating something make it unalterably true, of course.
> >>
> >>Please prove anything is sacred.
> >
>
> Naturally, having the normal amount of self-preservation instinct.
> Many here would probably disagree.
>
> >
> >>I agree, BTW, that it is human. DNA analysis will prove that.
> >>
> >>> the willfull destruction by any
> >>>artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
> >>
> >>Nope. Murder requires an illegal act and abortion is legal in many
> >>cases.
> >
> >Especially after performing it. The fact that it is not yet is beside
the
> >point. Law makers are too fickle to use them as a guide for morality.
>
> The law is not beside the point. The term murder is a legal term and
> requires an illegal act, and just believing an act should be illegal
> is not sufficient grounds for incorrectly using a term.
>
> What doctors believe is irrelevant. They are experts in medical
> skills and this does not make them experts in other areas.
>
> >
> >I personally believe that spam email should be made illegal, too. The
fact
> >that it isn't yet, again, is beside the point. However, even the spammer
> >has a right to life (I guess... =))
>
> Your belief does not give you the right to indicate in your comments
> that it is already illegal, however.
>
> >
> >> How would you define 'artificial means'?
> >
natural
> >order of life. However, invading someone's uterus with a scapel with the
> >express intent of killing the youngun is very unnatural and barbaric.
>
> There is no 'youngun' to kill. There is a fetus that may at some
> point be an individual but has not reached that point.
>
> Any medical procedure could be classified as artificial.
Christopher Kerrissey
<hereti...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8j0ass$dl8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <sl5fi6...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > that a human embryo can be described as potential with
> regard
> > to the attainment of humanity
>
> So fucking what? REAL HUMAN BEINGS are killed off and neglected
> to die in the streets of the richest country ever.
> As long as HUMAN BEINGS are so treated, to insist that
> a fetus has the "right" to harm a woman against her will
> just shows you are completely, utterly, and undeniably insane.
>
> snip
Christopher Kerrissey
know what the Constitution does say ill leave it for you to show me
where it doesnt recognize the right to life or declare the taking
of innocent life unlawfull wich is effectually the same . Also if
you wish to adress me by my name desist in deriding my character
with derrogetory terms .I feel no affinity or affecton toward you . I
consider your virulent hatred of the defense of innocent unborn life
as detestable and contemptable and if this were medievil Britain I
would seek you out and split your rotten skull with my broadsword and
feed your stinking entrails to my hounds !!!news:szkhfak...@fnord.io.com...
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> writes:
>
> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution and the
> >Declaration of Independence.
>
> and the Declaration doesn't exactly have any legal force -- since it's
> not an outline of the structure of the government, doesn't specify any
> laws, or make any other decrees. It's a statement of why the Founders
> had decided to make their break with England -- nothing more, nothing
less.
>
> >It is understood to apply to and refer
> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in that
> >it is, though as yet unborn , residing within the borders of
this
> >nation.
>
> "developing life" is specifically protected, right? Too bad for you
> that you're so abysmally ignorant that you can't even make that claim
> right...you might want to check the little detail about being BORN (or
> naturalized), as far as citizenship goes.
>
> >That anything is sacred is a matter of faith and the
> >concept of sacredness is contained within the document of the
> >Declaration of Independence where the founders are recorded to
pledge
> >mutually their lives, fortunes and sacred honour to each other.
>
>
> You're hardly the first foaming idiot to come through here trying that
> angle, Chris.
>
> --PLH, and hardly the first to get swatted down, either
Christopher Kerrissey
As for being unresponsive the mere fact that you see anything to
read is a response . why not say not the response i want ?news:hk48lsoeps4ktn47l...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:47:57 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl7tn3...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> > The scripture contained in Bible declares as Gods word ,he
who
> >would find God must first believe that He is and is the rewarder of
> >them that dilligently seek Him. I do not controll God. When He shows
> >Himself to you ,you will know Him .I pray This may be at any time.
>
> Can't you provide this proof? If not why do you persist in talking
> about something you cannot prove exists as if it is real?> >news:32i6ls0j658615ia6...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:48:50 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> <no...@gis.net> in <sl5nen...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >i have not said "I speak for God" but i aim for
resonance
> >> >with God's Will.
> >>
> >> please.
> >>
> >>
> >> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:17:58 GMT, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> >> <no...@gis.net> in <SL05RLL...@CORP.SUPERNEWS.COM> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you saying you do? Prove it.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> >when them making the laws among man depart from
> >what
> >> >> >God
> >> >> >> >has ordained
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:52:56 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl7u0e...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> > i am cognizent of all my past posts and in none have i
claimed
> >or implied I speak for God. That , however, is not to say that
such
> >may never or has never been the case.I leave it to God to judge who has
> >done what
>
> god then your god must exist. Prove it.
>
>
> >>
> >> ><mailto:proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:3ma4lsoe24241i4rn...@4ax.com...
> >> >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 01:17:58 GMT, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> >> <no...@gis.net> in <SL05RLL...@CORP.SUPERNEWS.COM> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >Who are you to declare that i do not speak for God?
> >>
> >> >> Are you saying you do? Prove it.
> >>
> >>
> >> >i have not said "I speak for God" but i aim for
resonance
> >> >with God's Will.
> >>
> >> about not bearing false witness, either...so keep running away from
your
> >> claim, Backpedal Boy! (Shouldn't you have declared victory first?)
> >>
> >> right
> >
>
Christopher Kerrissey
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 19:55:48 -0400,
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >> EXCEPT for the fact that abortion has absolutely NOTHING to do
> >> with murder. Abortion is merely a highly-beneficial REMEDY for an
> >> unwanted medical condition. And that's ALL it is. It isn't even a
> >> "moral" issue, except in the minds of malcontented and malicious
> >> control freaks.
>
> > authority.
>
> ROTFL!!! Ever heard of the process of elimination? See my
> post, "The FACTS About ABORTION." Those ARE all facts. NO
> one has YET disproved any of them. (At least, not in any post that
> I've seen.) And when all that information is integrated, nothing
> remains with which abortion can be reasonably challenged or
> criticized.
>
> It's as with the chemistry teacher who assigned one of his
> students to test the contents of a beaker, to see what the clear
> liquid was. It took a couple of hours after exhaustive tests, and at
> the end of that time, the student startled his teacher by picking up
> the beaker and DRINKING the remainder of its harmless contents.
> The student had exhausted all other possibilities; the beaker
> contained pure, plain WATER.
>
> The many facts put abortion to the test. And when the testing is
> completed, only ONE sensible conclusion remains: It is no more than
> a harmless, albeit highly-valuable, REMEDY for an unwanted medical
> condition.
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@home.com
Christopher Kerrissey
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:02:58 -0400,
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>
> > should we respond to every absurd rediculous statement ?
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@home.com
Christopher Kerrissey
for the purposes of righteousness, without which no country can abide
. I'll take grammar classes when the supreme court recognises
human fetuses are persons guarenteed protection by law.news:k158lss6sn2hddqqv...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:02:09 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl7uhn...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >I have gotten too emotionally involed in this and and assumed i
was
> >being understood .While a computer's processor may have stumbled
at
> >the dual usage of human . i assumed humans would discern the intent .
.
>
> are obviously not used to either precise thinking or precise speaking.
> While generalities have their place it is always better to be as
> accurate as possible.
>
> But then you are, aren't you?
>
>
> >"Tim Goyer" <t...@stopspam.goyer.com> wrote in message
> >news:13J45.3968$Rx5.1...@typhoon.mn.mediaone.net...
you
> >> kill the complete organism. The life is snuffed out. By removing a
toe,
> >> skin cell, etc, you are not killing the complete organism and in some
> >cases,
> >> the lost part is regenerated (i.e. skin cells, etc.)
> >>
> >>
> >> proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com. wrote in message
> >> <4uj5lsk17e27u0hhd...@4ax.com>...
> >> ><no...@gis.net> in <sl5e1e...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> i use of the word human to indicate the
> >individual
> >> >>themself not as pertaining to a human but the
> >complete
> >what
> >> i
> >> >>meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of
> >the
> >> >>fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> news:8isdco$h23$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> >>> In article <sl2t4q...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> >>> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> >>> > as long as you continue to deny the develpoing life
> >> >>> in a
> >> >>> > human female womb is none other than human ,I would assert
> >from
> >> >>> > conception, you fail in seeing my viewpoint.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > you deny the humanity and therefore the right to life from
> >> >>> conception
this
> >> >>> purpose
> >> >>> > i will state what is concieved in the human womb at
> >the
> >> >>> > successfull fertilization of egg by sperm is from that
> >> >>> instant
> >> >>> > and forever human and sacred.
> >> >>>
"a
> >> >>> human"[noun] (which, BTW, is only possible in English; other
languages
> >> >>> make clearer distinctions between nouns and adjective).
> >> >>>
> >> >>> It is trivially true that a human embryo is human; but so is a
human
> >> >>> toe, a human blood cell, a human tumour and a HeLa cell culture. Do
> >you
> >> >>> maintain that all of them are "forever sacred" ?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Obviously humanity in the sense of "being human[adjective]" doesn't
> >> >>> imply anything about a right to life.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > artificial means must therefor be described as murder .
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Try again, this time with "a human" .....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Fortiter in re, suaviter in modo
> >> >>>
Christopher Kerrissey
of betterment of myself and all involved . I am not afraid of
being put to shame because i have trusted in the Lord who has said
them that trust Him will never be put to shame. If God hasn't
considered me put to shame , i do not worry if you do."Craignews:39bbfc09.732415642@news...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:07:48 -0400,
> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
>
> >if this twaddle about multiple spaces between words is in
reference
> >to my typing here, i will say i do not find this to be a problem
having
> >any weight in common with the grave matter we argue.
>
> don't mind being the object of derision, and you don't give a rat's
> ass for your credibility, then that's *your* problem.
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@home.com
Christopher Kerrissey
regard to her life ?news:8j140v$thv$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> > why should the innocent developing life suffer for the
selfish
> >and mailicious intent of its mother?
>
> intent of pro-liars like you?
Christopher Kerrissey
and your hair to have equal worth . you will be glad when we do
not act as though that were the case i will think. though i
would not think to act to harm your hair .news:e758lss5pccvfkjfj...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:05:00 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl7un31...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> > why should the innocent developing life suffer for the
selfish
> >and mailicious intent of its mother?
>
> selfish and malicious intent I show by having it cut?> >message news:slrn8l5ptl...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net...
> >> Multiple Spaces Between Words
> >> in included text edited for clarity.
> >>
> ><sl5e1e...@corp.supernews.com>:
> >> > i use of the word human to indicate the individual
> >> >themself not as pertaining to a human but the complete
> >> >living being.
> >>
> >> is attached to a woman; it's far from clear that it's
> >> "complete". It is human, though -- but then, so is one's
> >> toes, hair, eyeballs, skin, blood, or phlegm. None of these
> >> can be equated to a being, human or otherwise, unless one's mind
> >> has been totally bent by watching too many late night movies. :-) [*]
> >>
> >> >meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of the
> >> >fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
i meet my maker who can see i sought to stand with Him .news:n958lss3m3gd0jj86...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:17:42 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl7vet...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >It is a fact insofar as to declare it to be so accords with observable
> >reality. That is to say if abortion,meaning the deliberate termination
of
> >an otherwise viable,developing human fetus,is murder ,our laws must be
> >modified to reflect that"fact" and treat the perpetrators in accordance
> >with the laws pertaining to the criminality of murder.
>
> it cannot be murder. Therefore abortion is not murder.
>
> >And be assured
> >this is my aim.When acceptable,
> >unimpeachable,unassailable,irrefutable,durable language can be adopted
,I
> >,myself will not cease acting to have it introduced into the Federal
> >statutes . That means i will continually press the U.S. Congress to
> >outlaw abortion and prosecute them who perform them.
>
> for all women. You can press the US Congress all you like but anyone
> who manages to be elected is smart enough to know this issue could
> bury them unless they are from a predominately RRR district.
>
>
> ><hrgr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8iurv8$bcu$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >> In article <sl5e1e...@corp.supernews.com>,
> >> "Christopher Kerrissey" <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> > i use of the word human to indicate the
> >> individual
> >> > themself not as pertaining to a human but the
> >> complete
> >> > living being.
> >>
> >>
> >> > meant but sought rather to delay further the accepting of
> >> the
> >> > fact that abortion is nothing less than murder .
> >>
> >> state that you are misusing terms, confusing "human organism", "human
> >> fetus", "human being" etc.
> >>
> >> BTW, how can a moral or legal evaluation ever be a "fact" ?
> >>
> >> HRG.
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
well.news:39c1195a.739921152@news...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:23:50 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> wrote, in a reesponse to "prochoice:"
>
> > You misstate my definition or i have failed in stating it with
> >clarity . Let me say , I know you know what I mean and the fashion
of
> >your response reveals malice toward me personally and no
> >substantail rebuttal of my statements. A proverb says, to linger with
a
> >fool is folly . Will you now show me a reason to continue here
> >with you?
>
> could reasonably choose not to continue with YOU.
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@home.com
Christopher Kerrissey
that continues to deny this time will reveal who was what.news:3k58lskimpnp073sk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:23:50 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl7vqc...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> > You misstate my definition or i have failed in stating it with
> >clarity . Let me say , I know you know what I mean and the fashion
of
> >your response reveals malice toward me personally and no
> >substantail rebuttal of my statements. A proverb says, to linger with
a
> >fool is folly . Will you now show me a reason to continue here
> >with you?
>
> You have yet to prove a single point you have raised or to support a
> single statement you have made.
>
> I am indifferent as to whether you continue or leave.> >news:hai6ls4nkti54u63q...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 23:54:45 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> <no...@gis.net> in <sl5npqo...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >it doesn't preclude them and the fact of their existance
rights
> >> >recognized in the documents cited
> >>
> >> My left big toe exists. Does it have rights? Is it a citizen? Can
> >> it sue if I want to remove it since it has your right to life under
> >> your definition?
> >>
> >>
> >> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> > It is understood to apply to and refer
> >> >> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That
> >a
> >> >> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in
> >that
> >> >> >it is, though as yet unborn , residing within the borders
of
> >> >this
> >> >> >nation.
> >> >>
> >> >> explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
> >> >> It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
> >> >>
> >> >> Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
> >> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
text and is no place stated in the documentnews:8o58ls4mm445lqvb8...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:27:44 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl801m...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >Let me try to clarify. In response to your statement that the
> >constituiton doesn't include fetuses. I answered that it does not
> >preclude them either so in as much as when we are discussing a
real
> >living fetus and not merely the concept or potential , we must
> >include them( the fetus) under the protections guarenteed Citizens.
>
> include. Any exclusion provision is usually for clarification
> purposes only.
>
> A fetus is not a citizen under the definition of citizen as stated in
> the Constitution.
> >> >news:8iuev3$hs$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> >> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution
> >>
> >> >> Where?
> >>
> >> >> >It is understood to apply to and refer
> >> >> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That
> >a
> >> >> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in
> >that
> >> >> >nation.
> >>
> >> >> Whew! Are you this stupid in real life? The US Constitution
> >> >> explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
> >> >> It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
> >>
> >> >> Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
> >>
> >> >lends the weight to the position that they posess the
rights
> >> >recognized in the documents cited
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:19:26 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl7vi4h...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >residing within a citizen makes you a citizen. You are not an
> >alien(when you are in the womb) so what else can you be?
>
> a US citizen? A non-citizen of the US is pregnant in the US. What is
> the citizenship of the fetus? A non-citizen becomes pregnant in, say,
> Canada. She travels through the US and is now in Mexico. She is a
> citizen of France. What citizenship does the fetus have?
>
> Is my spleen a citizen? It resides within me.
>
>
> >"Ray Fischer" <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> >news:8iuev3$hs$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >> > the right to life is recognized in the U.S. Constitution
> >>
> >> Where?
> >>
> >> > It is understood to apply to and refer
> >> >to human persons who are citizens of this nation. That
a
> >> >developing life is included in this protection is plain in
that
> >this
> >> >nation.
> >>
> >> Whew! Are you this stupid in real life? The US Constitution
> >> explicitely says that a citizen is BORN in the US or naturalized.
> >> It does not now nor did it 200 years ago include fetuses.
> >>
> >> Merely residing in the US does not grant one US citizenship.
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
unlawfully that assumes a right to life for innocent citizens
*swish*news:mh58lsglkosq1dc3e...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 20:28:27 -0400, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> <no...@gis.net> in <sl80311...@corp.supernews.com> wrote:
>
> >produce the law. what tradition and society say are irrelevent
>
> for existing individuals.> >news:gs07lso2g16138cta...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 03:54:45 GMT, "Christopher Kerrissey"
> >> <no...@gis.net> in <SL5NPQO...@CORP.SUPERNEWS.COM> wrote:
> >>
> >> >it doesn't preclude them and the fact of their existance
> >> >lends the weight to the position that they posess the
rights
> >> >recognized in the documents cited
> >>
> >> person. According to society , tradition, and law.
> >>
> >>
Christopher Kerrissey
> Christopher Kerrissey <no...@gis.net> wrote:
> >If we find in the Constituiton no specific language regarding the
staus
> >of fetuses we may assume there was no question at the time of its
> >writing as to their legal standing.
>
>
> > I would assert life in the womb
> >at all stages was accepted as fully endowed with the same
liberties
> >and rights they declared have all citizens of the United States .
>
> that never have fetuses been regarded legal persons.
>
> > the
> >distiction between born and preborn , I further assert, is a
> >feature of modern worldly society
>
>
> >comprised of cruel shallow selfish
> >impatient people
>