Rutherford Institute Urges Stringent Health and Safety Regulations for Abortion Clinics
John Whitehead
Implement Stringent Health and Safety Regulations for Abortion Clinics
9/2/10 for immediate release
RICHMOND, Va. - Pointing out that many centers in which first trimester
abortions are performed are treated as regular doctors' offices and are not
subject to even basic licensing requirements, The Rutherford Institute is
urging Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) to implement more stringent health and
safety regulations for abortion clinics. In a letter to the governor,
Institute president John W. Whitehead calls on McDonnell to use South
Carolina's Code of Regulations § 61-12, which was upheld by the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals in 2002, as a model for the Commonwealth to follow
in drafting its own regulations. The Institute's letter, which was copied to
members of the General Assembly, comes on the heels of an official opinion
issued by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in which he concludes that the
Commonwealth can regulate abortion facilities without offending
constitutional principles.
A copy of the Institute's letter to Governor McDonnell is available at
www.rutherford.org.
"As the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized, abortion is inherently different
from any other type of medical procedure, and the Commonwealth of Virginia
has significant interest in ensuring that the termination of pregnancies is
not treated with as little oversight as the routine removal of warts," said
John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute. "Requiring
abortion centers to comply with the same kinds of regulations as other
outpatient medical centers is really a matter of common sense."
Under Virginia law, outpatient abortion clinics are defined as outpatient
hospitals. However, as Attorney General Cuccinelli recently noted, abortion
facilities that limit their practice to reproductive services often
characterize themselves as "physicians' offices," whereby they are legally
exempt from licensure requirements that apply to other outpatient hospitals.
Taking issue with this exemption, Whitehead insists that the "nature of the
abortion procedure and its inherent risks are reason enough to advocate for
increased regulation of abortion clinics in the Commonwealth." Moreover,
courts have identified a more fundamental reason for regulating these
facilities even more stringently than other outpatient surgical centers. As
the Supreme Court has acknowledged, abortion is different "because no other
procedure involves the purposeful termination of a potential life." The
Institute's letter concludes by urging Governor McDonnell to advocate the
adoption of common-sense clinic safety regulations for the protection of
women undergoing abortions and the promotion of public health. As Whitehead
points out, "in light of the serious, invasive nature of abortion and the
well-recognized state interest in promoting public health and welfare, the
Commonwealth has both the authority and an obligation to its citizens to
adopt reasonable, common-sense regulations."
Founded in 1982, The Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit civil liberties
organization dedicated to the defense of constitutional and human rights.
The Institute provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose
constitutional rights have been threatened or violated.
Bruce Morgen
_____
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_Institute>
"...the Rutherford Institute rose to national prominence helping Paula Jones to sue U.S. President
Bill Clinton in 1997."
_____
Make no mistake about it, folks -- this is yet another attempt by the disappointed (because Jesus
didn't reappear on the occasion of Y2K) millenarian Christian right to elevate foetal rights above
those of extant and viable American citizens by making access to a perfectly legal medical
procedure more difficult, and "risks to women" (other than as foetal incubators) have nothing
whatsoever to do with it. The reactionary governor and AG of Virginia will love it of course.
Oh, and John -- when posting something blatantly off-topic on Usenet, common courtesy dictates that
the Subject headers begin with the initials "OT" so that those strictly interested in on-topic
posts can conveniently skip it. Thanks in advance!
Spartakus
> Citing Risks to Women, Rutherford Institute Urges Gov. McDonnell to
> Implement Stringent Health and Safety Regulations for Abortion Clinics
>
> 9/2/10 for immediate release
>
> RICHMOND, Va. - Pointing out that many centers in which first trimester
> abortions are performed are treated as regular doctors' offices and are not
> subject to even basic licensing requirements, The Rutherford Institute is
> urging Governor Bob McDonnell (R-VA) to implement more stringent health
> and safety regulations for abortion clinics.
What risks? A 1st-trimester abortion is just about the safest
outpatient surgery around, including many cosmetic surgeries. And
abortion at all stages of pregnancy is far safer than giving birth.
[followups directed to abortion newsgroups]
Steve
> "John Whitehead" <jo...@rutherford.org> wrote in message
>
> news:i5p0vg$4b6$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> > Citing Risks to Women, Rutherford Institute Urges Gov. McDonnell to
> > Implement Stringent Health and Safety Regulations for Abortion Clinics
>
> A Christian right organization is trying to impede a woman's right to make
> her own choices!
> And the rightie-nutbag AG of Virginia is going along with it!
> Will wonders never cease!
Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.
Mark Sebree
Prove it using the actual definition of murder. Keep in mind that in
state laws, abortion is explicitly excluded from being classed as
murder.
To prove your claim, you need to show that a person as defined by the
law (i.e. an individual who is born, alive, and human) is illegally
killed with malice and forethought.
Since voluntary medical or medicinal abortion is legal, it cannot be
its opposite and be illegal. Since the women, who is the only person
there besides the medical staff, walks out alive, no person is even
harmed, much less killed. And medical procedures rarely, if ever,
have any malice attached to them by any party. Therefore, abortion is
not murder since it does not fulfill any of the requirements for
murder, and to be murder it must fulfill all three.
Mark Sebree
Bremick
on in the alt.abortion group and of course the alt.guitar.amps group as
well. What a coincidence!
Jerry Dennis
Actually, I was wondering if it's still possible to get a Vox Super-
Beatle. I can find the schematics on ebay, but the amp itself seems
to be a lost cause.
Jerry
Almost had the opportunity to buy one in the late 1960s, but I bought
a coin instead. Couldn't afford the SB.
Ray Fischer
And once again we see that a pro-liar really can do nothing but lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
W.T.S.
@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, coing...@yahoo.com says...
Liar.
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
W.T.S.
says...
>
> Citing Risks to religious dominance, Rutherford Institute Urges the
> Governor to
> Implement unneeded but Stringent Health and Safety Regulations for
> Abortion Clinics.
> Founded in 1982, The Rutherford Institute is a for profit religious
> nut
> organization dedicated to the destruction of constitutional and human
> rights, especially women's rights.
> The Institute provides legal assistance at a high charge to
> individuals whose wish to violate or threaten the basic human and
> constitutional rights of others.
Religious filth is at it again. Know who's pro-lie and vote against
them.
Baby, bad. Abortion, good.
The art of critical thinking
Potential life? What do you mean potential life?
If there is no married couple with a proper plan to raise a child/family
there is no potential life.
Maybe a potential hell for the poor child. Abortion at an early stage might
be a far more humane option than a lifetime of unloved hell.
Regarding Health and Safety, have there been any specific complaints lodged
against any abortion clinics?
I think its unlikely.
This is clearly yet another asinine concocted charge brought by the
religious right to put down abortion clinics because of their usual
superstitious beliefs from the middle ages.
By the way, I hope the people in rec.collecting.coins and alt.guitar.amps
also enjoy posts about abortion clinics because they are getting this thread
also (probably because the O.P. has a coin collection and a guitar and goes
to that group).
Lol. Unbelievable.
The art of critical thinking
news:2c53b021-af81-496e...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
You must be a religious folk or something.
Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
That's the accepted definition.
If you want a real crime: - forcing an unmarried school girl to leave school
and have a baby and raise it on her own with no husband/father.
Of course this has probably never actually been executed, which goes to show
that the religious right are just full of a bunch of religious hot air.
They haven't thought things through at all, and they most likely haven't
spoken to even one girl actually having a pregnancy crisis.
The art of critical thinking
news:k1f186p50297ftgnk...@news.easynews.com
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
> <deep...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "Steve" <coing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:2c53b021-af81-496e...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You must be a religious folk or something.
>> Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
>> That's the accepted definition.
>
> necessarily born.
>
Ah, no. That would mean that killing a dog or a tortoise or a banana tree
is also murder.
Have you ever murdered a fly and mosquito?
>
I know you like your definition better because it
> allows you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially
> delivering a perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you
> to get to its head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
>
Appeal to emotions noted. (head crushing and brain scrambling).
The religious right must learn that one cannot win arguments by using shock.
Also very few abortions are late term F.Y.I.
And the proper (non emotional) term is fetus. 'Baby' is used by mothers to
be, and its in the future tense, i.e. it will be a baby when its born.
And not all fetuses are 'perfectly healthy'.
The art of critical thinking
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 19:56:20 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
> <deep...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>
>> "Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>> news:k1f186p50297ftgnk...@news.easynews.com
>>>
>>> not necessarily born.
>>
>> Ah, no. That would mean that killing a dog or a tortoise or a
>> banana tree is also murder.
>> Have you ever murdered a fly and mosquito?
>
>
You did say it was anything that is alive.
>
>> I know you like your definition better because it
>>> allows you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially
>>> delivering a perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you
>>> to get to its head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
>>>
>>
>> Appeal to emotions noted. (head crushing and brain scrambling).
>> The religious right must learn that one cannot win arguments by
>> using shock.
>
> It is telling that you aren't shocked by the truth of the matter.
>
What you have is just a viewpoint based on emotion religious beliefs.
Regular people don't say such things.
>
>> Also very few abortions are late term F.Y.I.
>
> I gave no indication of the number.
>
Then there's no problem.
>
>> And the proper (non emotional) term is fetus. 'Baby' is used by
>> mothers to be, and its in the future tense, i.e. it will be a baby
>> when its born.
>
> If it helps you sleep at night.
>
Everyone can understand that, except the religious right wingers.
Try telling an average person and see for yourself.
>
>> And not all fetuses are 'perfectly healthy'.
>
> I didn't say they were. Diversion noted.
>
W.T.S.
Spe...@Mars.org says...
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 22:13:59 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >Religious filth is at it again. Know who's pro-lie and vote against
> >them.
> >Baby, bad. Abortion, good.
>
I don't care what segment of the population is slowed by abortion, just
as long as abortion is safe, legal, and frequent.
Baby, filth. Abortion, purity!
W.T.S.
Spe...@Mars.org says...
>
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
> <deep...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>
> >"Steve" <coing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:2c53b021-af81-496e...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
> >>
> >>
> >You must be a religious folk or something.
> >Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
> >That's the accepted definition.
>
> you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
> perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
> head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
There isn't. Crushing the skull of a fetus is a normal, decent thing to
do. Letting it be born is very, very sick and very abnormal.
Baby, bad. Abortion, good.
Bill Allen
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
> <deep...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"Steve" <coing...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:2c53b021-af81-496e...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>>>
>>> Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.
>>>
>>
>>You must be a religious folk or something.
>>Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
>>That's the accepted definition.
>
> The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive,
Then I murdered several salmon and a few veggies last night.
Come arrest me.
not
> necessarily born. I know you like your definition better because it allows
> you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
> perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
> head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
Uh oh, a 'partial birth abortion' kook.
Lord Valve
> In article <ug118659pra5r82j8...@news.easynews.com>,
> Spe...@Mars.org says...
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 22:13:59 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Religious filth is at it again. Know who's pro-lie and vote against
> > >them.
> > >Baby, bad. Abortion, good.
> >
> > It does slow the population growth of white liberals. Not a bad result.
>
> I don't care what segment of the population is slowed by abortion, just
> as long as abortion is safe, legal, and frequent.
> Baby, filth. Abortion, purity!
Hey, I like that. ;-)
You're a lot more interesting than that "Art
of Critical Stinking" character. So - in
keeping with your take on it - when a partial
birth abortion is performed, the, ah..."thing,"
um, "undifferentiated tissue mass," um...
"inconvenient medical anomaly," ah...
ok, the "filth," while it's hanging out of
the pussy (a little non-medical lingo for
the hoi polloi), remains "filth" until the
heroic Champion of a Woman;'s Right
to Choose jams something-or-other up
the old funhole and scrambles the filthy
thing's brains - while it thrashes ecstatically,
obviously enjoying the holy sacrament
of which it is the object - at which point
it is then purified, and is enshrined in
a small wheeled mausoleum behind
the Temple of No Consequences.
That about cover it?
Sounds pretty damn pure to me.
LV
Tony Elka
"The art of critical thinking" <deep...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
> Everyone can understand that, except the religious right wingers.
> Try telling an average person and see for yourself.
I generally don't jump in on abortion threads for the simple reason that
neither side ever persuades the other of anything.
Tony
Spartakus
> "The art of critical thinking" <deepm...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
> >"Steve" <coinguy1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.
> >You must be a religious folk or something.
> >Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
> >That's the accepted definition.
> The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive, not
> necessarily born.
It will be fun watching you backpedal from that definition.
> I know you like your definition better because it allows you
> to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering
> a perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you
> to get to its head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
You are being driven insane by anti-abortion propaganda. Get help
before you hurt someone.
Frank Provasek
Is Heaven Populated Chiefly by the Souls of Embryos?
Harvesting stem cells without tears
Ronald Bailey | December 22, 2004
What are we to think about the fact that Nature (and for believers,
Nature's God) profligately creates and destroys human embryos? John
Opitz, a professor of pediatrics, human genetics, and obstetrics and
gynecology at the University of Utah, testified before the President's
Council on Bioethics that between 60 and 80 percent of all naturally
conceived embryos are simply flushed out in women's normal menstrual
flows unnoticed. This is not miscarriage we're talking about. The
women and their husbands or partners never even know that conception
has taken place; the embryos disappear from their wombs in their
menstrual flows. In fact, according to Opitz, embryologists estimate
that the rate of natural loss for embryos that have developed for
seven days or more is 60 percent. The total rate of natural loss of
human embryos increases to at least 80 percent if one counts from the
moment of conception. About half of the embryos lost are abnormal, but
half are not, and had they implanted they would probably have
developed into healthy babies.
So millions of viable human embryos each year produced via normal
conception fail to implant and never develop further. Does this mean
America is suffering a veritable holocaust of innocent human life
annihilated? Consider the claim made by right-to-life apologists like
Robert George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a
member of the President's Council on Bioethics, that every embryo is
"already a human being." Does that mean that if we could detect such
unimplanted embryos as they leave the womb, we would have a duty to
rescue them and try to implant them anyway?
"If the embryo loss that accompanies natural procreation were the
moral equivalent of infant death, then pregnancy would have to be
regarded as a public health crisis of epidemic proportions:
Alleviating natural embryo loss would be a more urgent moral cause
than abortion, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research
combined," declared Michael Sandel, a Harvard University government
professor, also a member of the President's Council on Bioethics.
As far as I know, bioconservatives like Robert George do not advocate
the rescue of naturally conceived unimplanted embryos. But why not? In
right-to-life terms, normal unimplanted embryos are the moral
equivalents of a 30-year-old mother of three children.
Of course, culturally we do not mourn the deaths of these millions of
embryos as we would the death of a child—and reasonably so, because we
do in fact know that these embryos are not people. Try this thought
experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a
choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing
10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?
Stepping onto dangerous theological ground, it seems that if human
embryos consisting of one hundred cells or less are the moral
equivalents of a normal adult, then religious believers must accept
that such embryos share all of the attributes of a human being,
including the possession of an immortal soul. So even if we generously
exclude all of the naturally conceived abnormal embryos—presuming, for
the sake of theological argument, that imperfections in their gene
expression have somehow blocked the installation of a soul—that would
still mean that perhaps 40 percent of all the residents of Heaven were
never born, never developed brains, and never had thoughts, emotions,
experiences, hopes, dreams, or desires.
Yet millions of intelligent people of good will maintain that seven-
day-old embryos have the exact same moral standing as do readers of
this column. Acting on this sincere belief, they are trying to block
biomedical research on human embryonic stem cells that is desired by
millions of their fellow citizens.
But there may be a way out of this politico-theological impasse. The
President's Council on Bioethics held an extraordinarily interesting
session earlier this month in which two different avenues for
obtaining human embryonic stem cells were proposed, in ways that would
skirt right-to-life moral objections.
First, Howard Zucker and Donald Landry, two medical professors at
Columbia University, proposed "a new definition of death for the human
organism, an organism in development, and that is the irreversible
arrest of cell division." They pointed out that a good percentage of
in-vitro fertilized (IVF) embryos consist of a mixture of cells, some
containing the wrong number of chromosomes (aneuploidy), some with the
normal number. Embryos with such cell mixtures often cease development
by cell division and thus cannot develop into fetuses, much less
babies. Zucker and Landry argue that such embryos can be considered
dead, and the normal embryonic cells they contain can be harvested
just as organs can be ethically harvested from brain-dead adults.
(Animal experiments have already shown that cells harvested from
defective embryos will produce normal tissues.) Thus, we get stem
cells from an entity that could not, under any circumstances, have
become a human being.
William Hurlbut, a consulting professor in the Program of Human
Biology at Stanford University and another member of the President's
Council on Bioethics, proposed another way to produce cloned human
embryonic stem cells that right-to-lifers should not find morally
objectionable. Hurlbut cited work by researcher Janet Rossant at Mount
Sinai Hospital in Toronto in which she inactivated the cdx2 gene in
mice. Once the cdx2 gene is inactivated, the mouse embryo cannot form
a trophoblast—the tissues that grow into the placenta. However,
embryonic stem cells do develop, although they cannot form an embryo.
Hurlbut proposed an attempt to find similar genes that could be
inactivated in the nuclei of adult human cells before they are
installed in enucleated human eggs to produce cloned embryonic stem
cells that are a genetic match for the person who donates the adult
nucleus. (Transplanted cells and tissues produced by such therapeutic
cloning would not be rejected by the donor's immune system.) Once the
stem cells have been derived, the inactivated genes could be
reactivated so that the stem cells could be used to produce normal
transplantable cells and tissues.
"This process does not involve the creation of an embryo that is then
altered to transform it into a non-embryonic entity," explained
Hurlbut. "Rather the proposed genetic alteration is accomplished ab
initio, the entity is brought into existence with a genetic structure
insufficient to generate a human embryo."
Will this research reduce the number of embryos populating heaven? Who
knows? But these options offer a possible way around the moral
blockades that impede promising biomedical research on human embryonic
stem cells. Should we halt current human embryonic stem-cell research
while these possible new avenues of research are being explored?
Absolutely not. That would be surrendering to the moral bullying of a
minority that wants to halt promising medical research that could cure
millions on theological grounds that many of their fellow citizens do
not share.
Bremick
"Frank Provasek" <fr...@frankcoins.com> wrote in message
news:dfc20606-b6a4-4346...@m17g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
embryos as we would the death of a child預nd reasonably so, because we
do in fact know that these embryos are not people. Try this thought
experiment. A fire breaks out in a fertility clinic and you have a
choice: You can save a three-year-old child or a Petri dish containing
10 seven-day old embryos. Which do you choose to rescue?
Stepping onto dangerous theological ground, it seems that if human
embryos consisting of one hundred cells or less are the moral
equivalents of a normal adult, then religious believers must accept
that such embryos share all of the attributes of a human being,
including the possession of an immortal soul. So even if we generously
exclude all of the naturally conceived abnormal embryos用resuming, for
the sake of theological argument, that imperfections in their gene
expression have somehow blocked the installation of a soul葉hat would
a trophoblast葉he tissues that grow into the placenta. However,
embryonic stem cells do develop, although they cannot form an embryo.
Hurlbut proposed an attempt to find similar genes that could be
inactivated in the nuclei of adult human cells before they are
installed in enucleated human eggs to produce cloned embryonic stem
cells that are a genetic match for the person who donates the adult
nucleus. (Transplanted cells and tissues produced by such therapeutic
cloning would not be rejected by the donor's immune system.) Once the
stem cells have been derived, the inactivated genes could be
reactivated so that the stem cells could be used to produce normal
transplantable cells and tissues.
"This process does not involve the creation of an embryo that is then
altered to transform it into a non-embryonic entity," explained
Hurlbut. "Rather the proposed genetic alteration is accomplished ab
initio, the entity is brought into existence with a genetic structure
insufficient to generate a human embryo."
Will this research reduce the number of embryos populating heaven? Who
knows? But these options offer a possible way around the moral
blockades that impede promising biomedical research on human embryonic
stem cells. Should we halt current human embryonic stem-cell research
while these possible new avenues of research are being explored?
Absolutely not. That would be surrendering to the moral bullying of a
minority that wants to halt promising medical research that could cure
millions on theological grounds that many of their fellow citizens do
not share.
************************
If you would indent the first word in each paragraph, this would be much
easier to read. For anyone who cares to.
The art of critical thinking
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:37:05 -0500, Bill Allen <wp...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 04:18:50 -0500, Spender wrote:
>>
>>> The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive,
>>
>>Then I murdered several salmon and a few veggies last night.
>>Come arrest me.
>
>
Then please define what 'life' is (in a human context).
Bill Allen
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:37:05 -0500, Bill Allen <wp...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 04:18:50 -0500, Spender wrote:
>>
>>> The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive,
>>
>>Then I murdered several salmon and a few veggies last night.
>>Come arrest me.
>
> Another nut who thinks the abortion issue is about animals.
It is.
You are, after all, an animal.
>
>> not
>>> necessarily born. I know you like your definition better because it allows
>>> you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
>>> perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
>>> head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
>>
>>Uh oh, a 'partial birth abortion' kook.
>
> Yes, you got me.
You don't get a discount for agreeing with me4.
> I just can't stand outright genocide.
You clearly don't know the definition of genocide.
> I'm weird that way.
Don't sell yourself short. You're weird in numerous ways.
W.T.S.
rob...@mypbmail.com says...
> looking for an answer.
The difference is pro-choice tells the truth. The pro-lie side, well
lies constantly.
Some issues only have one side, this is one of them. The only real side
is pro-choice. If we don't have choice, someday abortion will be
mandatory like in China. Population isn't going to stop growing, sooner
or later, there will be a tipping point, such as with the fresh water
supply if nothing else.
RichL
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 19:56:20 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
> <deep...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"Spender" <Spe...@Mars.org> wrote in message
>>news:k1f186p50297ftgnk...@news.easynews.com
>>>
>>> necessarily born.
>>
>>Ah, no. That would mean that killing a dog or a tortoise or a banana tree
>>is also murder.
>>Have you ever murdered a fly and mosquito?
>
You described an "accepted definition of murder". You didn't confine that
definition to the subject of abortion, in fact if you had (and you imply
above that you did), you'd have caught yourself in a circular reasoning
pattern, since there is no "accepted definition of murder" in the context of
abortion, only anti-abortion extrapolations.
Abortion is legal, murder is not. By "accepted definition", abortion
therefore cannot be murder.
Spartakus
> "The art of critical thinking" <deepm...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
> >"Spender" <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
> >> The abortion issue is referring to animals? Didn't know that.
> >You did say it was anything that is alive.
> So you completely ignore the context of the thread.
Ha ha! I predicted wrong - you aren't backpedaling away from your
definition of "murder". You are running away, as fast as you can.
Btw, here it is again:
"The accepted definition of murder is killing
that which is alive."
You didn't say anything about the species of the victim(s). Since
plants are alive, a tossed salad would be a mass grave, according to
your definition.
> Have fun talking to yourself.
I guess you have a lot of experience with that.
RichL
news:4c80939f$0$25325$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> By the way, I hope the people in rec.collecting.coins and
> alt.guitar.amps also enjoy posts about abortion clinics because they are
> getting this thread also (probably because the O.P. has a coin collection
> and a guitar and goes to that group).
Posts in alt.guitar.amps that are actually about guitar amps are pretty rare
these days. However, posts about abortion clinics, Muslim community
centers, and chocolate easter bunny presidents do seem to give the aging,
intermittently amp techs who post here a nice rush and opportunity to vent
their bile.
JimT
"Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7edfb20d-c9fc-4e8c...@s17g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>> "The art of critical thinking" <deepm...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>> >"Spender" <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
>
>> >> The abortion issue is referring to animals? Didn't know that.
>
>> >You did say it was anything that is alive.
>
>> So you completely ignore the context of the thread.
>
> Ha ha! I predicted wrong - you aren't backpedaling away from your
> definition of "murder". You are running away, as fast as you can.
> Btw, here it is again:
>
> "The accepted definition of murder is killing
> that which is alive."
>
> You didn't say anything about the species of the victim(s). Since
> plants are alive, a tossed salad would be a mass grave, according to
> your definition.
>
"The horror... the horror..."
RichL
news:Q-idnfiqEpwGVBzR...@supernews.com...
> Posts in alt.guitar.amps that are actually about guitar amps are pretty
> rare these days. However, posts about abortion clinics, Muslim community
> centers, and chocolate easter bunny presidents do seem to give the aging,
> intermittently amp techs who post here a nice rush and opportunity to vent
> their bile.
"intermittently EMPLOYED".
pnyikos
article of this thread. It's past my usual bedtime, so I'll just
mention a long article I published on the saga of South Carolina's own
abortion clinic regulation act. I posted it in installments on the
following thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/bcebc36647fa7438/68fbac2ff587e2f6
I don't post on weekends except in extraordinary circumstances, and I
may make this a 3-day weekend, but I shall return to this thread!
Now, a few more comments, and then it's really time to hit the sack.
On Sep 3, 5:18 am, Spender <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
>
> <deepm...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
> >"Steve" <coinguy1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:2c53b021-af81-496e...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> >> Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.
>
> >You must be a religious folk or something.
> >Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
> >That's the accepted definition.
>
> The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive, not
> necessarily born.
I don't like to get hung up on semantics, but I am curious to know
what your authority for this is.
> I know you like your definition better because it allows
> you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
> perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
> head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
Semantics aside, it is a fact that the federal Born Alive Infants
Protection Act (BAIPA) is meant to make the killing of a baby that has
survived an abortion attempt murder.
The trouble is that the Act only applies to killing on Federal
jurisdictions. [These include Indian resevations, and the only
example of it ever being used to prosecute that I heard of involved an
American Indian.]
Some states have passed such laws, including Illinois, but that only
happened after Obama was kicked upstairs :-)
to the US Senate. While he was an Illinois legislator, he killed a
bill that was congruent to the BAIPA, and later lied that it did not
have the same language as BAIPA, and after his lie was exposed, his
campaign put out another lie as to his reasons.
Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>It's interesting how no one has spoken to the actual theme of the lead
>article of this thread.
There is yet another example of you NOT reading all of the posts and
then LYING about what has been posted.
...
>I don't like to get hung up on semantics,
That's another lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
W.T.S.
@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>, nyi...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> It's interesting how no one has spoken to the actual theme of the lead
> article of this thread. It's past my usual bedtime, so I'll just
> mention a long article I published on the saga of South Carolina's own
> abortion clinic regulation act. I posted it in installments on the
> following thread:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/bcebc36647fa7438/68fbac2ff587e2f6
>
> I don't post on weekends except in extraordinary circumstances, and I
> may make this a 3-day weekend, but I shall return to this thread!
>
> Now, a few more comments, and then it's really time to hit the sack.
>
> Peter Nyikos
> Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
> University of South Carolina
> http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
>
> The standard disclaimer is that I am writing purely on my own and not
> representing the organization whose name appears in my work address.
> Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 10:37:05 -0500, Bill Allen <wp...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive,
>>
>>Then I murdered several salmon and a few veggies last night.
>>Come arrest me.
>
Another pro-liar who thinks he can get away with lying to people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The art of critical thinking
news:21f2b6fc-77cf-400a...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com
Consider this also (this is mainly for those specifically demanding that
abortion is murder).
If a girl decides to abort her fetus, who's going to press the charges of
murder against the doctor?
Technically only the girl or her partner can (if he's still around) because
they conceived it.
This makes the claim of murder absurd on its face.
The thing is, only a planned and wanted fetus can be murdered, not an
unplanned and unwanted one.
Every fetus must have a married couple (or de facto) planning for its life,
otherwise it has no life plan. No life plan means no Life (capital l).
What we should just do is deliver all unwanted born babies to the religious
right's homes and get them to raise them all and see how they like it.
They seem to be obsessed with babies so much.
The art of critical thinking
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 21:15:36 -0500, "W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>The difference is pro-choice tells the truth. The pro-lie side, well
>>lies constantly.
>>Some issues only have one side, this is one of them. The only real side
>>is pro-choice. If we don't have choice, someday abortion will be
>>mandatory like in China. Population isn't going to stop growing, sooner
>>or later, there will be a tipping point, such as with the fresh water
>>supply if nothing else.
>
>
Essentially true, though population is one of the things that needs to be
considered.
We can't keep growing the population forever.
The problem is the religious right refuses to consider anything beyond 'life
is precious' or life is sacred', i.e. they live with blinders on and their
heads in the sand.
>
> It is about convenience.
>
Convenience is a word associated with TV remote controls and corner shops.
It is not appropriate to use it for important life decisions such as raising
a child.
Raising a child is very serious. It requires 1/ a married couple, 2/ a lot
of money and 3/ a huge commitment. And that's just for starters.
The art of critical thinking
> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:56:39 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
> <deep...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Consider this also (this is mainly for those specifically demanding that
>>abortion is murder).
>>
>>If a girl decides to abort her fetus, who's going to press the charges of
>>murder against the doctor?
>>Technically only the girl or her partner can (if he's still around)
>>because
>>they conceived it.
>
>
Has that ever happened where a girl chose to abort?
I seriously doubt it, and there's almost no chance it ever can.
W.T.S.
Spe...@Mars.org says...
> >lies constantly.
> >Some issues only have one side, this is one of them. The only real side
> >is pro-choice. If we don't have choice, someday abortion will be
> >mandatory like in China. Population isn't going to stop growing, sooner
> >or later, there will be a tipping point, such as with the fresh water
> >supply if nothing else.
>
> convenience.
So what is the problem? Convenience, population control, the day of the
week. Any reason for an abortion is a good reason. Pro-liars should be
retroactively aborted for the sake of having a decent, normal society.
Baby, bad. Abortion, good.
W.T.S.
deep...@neuron.com.au says...
True. And pro-liars will fight tooth and nail to prevent one cent being
spent on a child after birth, not even for one square inch of additional
school space or one cent for health care, not a penny for unemployment
or welfare. But, they'll spend a fortune on new prisons. Strange,
isn't it?
Baby, bad. Abortions, wonderful!
mazorj
Peter Nyikos was a trenchant egomaniac PITA denier of evolution. Judging
from this post, he hasn't changed a bit. Damn, I had hoped that by now he
would have passed into the afterlife so God could explain to him that
Intelligent Design is junk science. Of all the newsgroups in all the world,
he had to be cross-posted to one of mine.
(Mea culpa for the personal whine.)
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:21f2b6fc-77cf-400a...@u13g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
RichL
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:32:20 -0500, Rob Par <rob...@mypbmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The accepted definition of murder is the unlawful taking of a human
>>life. Therefore executions by the state is not murder.
>
> So the holocaust was not murder?
Maybe not according to German law at the time, but it was according to both
international law and the laws of the vast majority of civilized states.
RichL
> The states files murder charges, you idiot.
Precisely!!
Given that obvious fact, abortion CANNOT be murder since abortion is legal
and no state could possibly file murder charges for an abortion in view of
the law.
Tony Elka
"W.T.S." <m1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> True. And pro-liars will fight tooth and nail to prevent one cent being
> spent on a child after birth, not even for one square inch of additional
> school space or one cent for health care, not a penny for unemployment
> or welfare. But, they'll spend a fortune on new prisons. Strange,
> isn't it?
Nicely said.
Tony
The art of critical thinking
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 16:32:20 -0500, Rob Par <rob...@mypbmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The accepted definition of murder is the unlawful taking of a human
>>life. Therefore executions by the state is not murder.
>
> So the holocaust was not murder?
>
The holocaust was not executions by the state, it was a mass slaughter by an
extremist regime headed by a mad individual.
Apples and oranges.
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Another pro-liar who thinks he can get away with lying to people.
>
You lied. I call you a liar.
It's very simple.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Sat, 4 Sep 2010 17:56:39 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
><deep...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Consider this also (this is mainly for those specifically demanding that
>>abortion is murder).
>>
>>If a girl decides to abort her fetus, who's going to press the charges of
>>murder against the doctor?
>>Technically only the girl or her partner can (if he's still around) because
>>they conceived it.
>
The states say that a fetus is not a person.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Tony Elka
Rob Par <rob...@mypbmail.com> wrote:
> All laws are local to a jurisdiction, and can only be prosecuted in
> the jurisdiction, where the offence occurred. Every thing illegal is
> not necessarily bad, every thing legal is not necessarily good. There
> are bad laws, and good laws.
There is such a thing as international law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_humanity
Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the
International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly
odious offences in that they constitute a serious attack on human
dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human
beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of
a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify
themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities
tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder;
extermination; torture; rape, political, racial, or religious
persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes
against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic
practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave
infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war
crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under
discussion."
On May 24, 1915, the Allies of World War I- Britain, France, and Russia
- jointly issued a statement explicitly charging, for the first time
ever, another government of committing "a crime against humanity". The
following joint statement was made to protest the Armenian Genocide:
In view of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization,
the Allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they
will hold personally responsible for these crimes all members of the
Ottoman Government, as well as those of their agents who are implicated
in such massacres.
The London Charter of the International Military Tribunal was the decree
that set down the laws and procedures by which the post-World War II
Nuremberg trials were to be conducted. The charter defined that only
crimes of the European Axis Powers could be tried. Article 6 stated that
the Tribunal was established for the trial and punishment of the major
war criminals of the European Axis countries; paragraph 6.a defined
crimes against peace, 6.b war crimes and paragraph 6.c, Crimes Against
Humanity defined as "Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation,
and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population,
before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or
religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the
domestic law of the country where perpetrated".
Spartakus
\
> Abortion in America is not about population control. It is about
> convenience.
Define "convenience".
Spartakus
> >>The accepted definition of murder is the unlawful taking of a human
> >>life. Therefore executions by the state is not murder.
> >So the holocaust was not murder?
> That is correct. War crimes yes Murder no.
Actually, the Holocaust *was* murder. What the Nazis did to the Jews
(and the gays, gypsies, communists, etc) was illegal. That's why
their documents are full of vague phrases like "special handling" and
"final solution". When the Nazis were tried for their crimes, they
were convicted under existing German law.
Spartakus
> "Spender" <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote...
> > Rob Par <rob...@mypbmail.com> wrote:
> >>The accepted definition of murder is the unlawful taking of a human
> >>life. Therefore executions by the state is not murder.
> > So the holocaust was not murder?
> Maybe not according to German law at the time, but it was according to both
> international law and the laws of the vast majority of civilized states.
Sorry for repeating myself, but I have to correct this error again.
The Nazis *never* changed criminal law to remove protection from the
Jews against murder. What they did to the Jews was illegal under
German law, which is why they took such pains to hide what they were
doing from German citizens, and why the prosecutors at the Nuremberg
Trials were able to get convictions of Nazi murderers under existing
German law.
Spartakus
> I don't like to get hung up on semantics,
The lack of self-awareness is strong with this one.
Charles Finly
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
>
> <deepm...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
> >"Steve" <coinguy1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:2c53b021-af81-496e...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> >> Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.
>
> >You must be a religious folk or something.
> >Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
> >That's the accepted definition.
>
> The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive, not
> you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially delivering a
> perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you to get to its
> head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
If men could get pregnant, there would be abortion clinics in every
StarBucks
RichL
news:79d66d75-55e3-45af...@k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
I did say "maybe". Thanks for the details though.
W.T.S.
greas...@hotmail.com says...
> raising a child since your lazy drugged up ass was too cheap and lazy
> to do birth control...just close the legs next time...
Sterilization would be much easier, and safer.
Spartakus
> >Define "convenience".
> Going and getting an abortion instead of spending $200k and 18 years
> raising a child since your lazy drugged up ass was too cheap and lazy
> to do birth control...just close the legs next time...
I'll bet your Mother's Day cards come back in the mail marked "Not at
this address - do not forward".
The Chief Instigator
> On Mon, 6 Sep 2010 07:57:51 -0700 (PDT), Spartakus
><spar...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> raising a child since your lazy drugged up ass was too cheap and lazy
> to do birth control...just close the legs next time...
His mentality is a few parsecs above your third-grade development, just to
keep it short to your attention span, if you've any.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, TX
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2009-10 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 3, Houston 2 (April 11)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, October 9 at Oklahoma City, 7:05
pnyikos
> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 19:56:20 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
>
>
>
> <deepm...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
> >"Spender" <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote in message
> >news:k1f186p50297ftgnk...@news.easynews.com
> >> On Fri, 3 Sep 2010 16:34:25 +1000, "The art of critical thinking"
> >> <deepm...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
>
> >>> "Steve" <coinguy1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:2c53b021-af81-496e...@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com
>
> >>>> Abortion under any any circumstances is murder.
>
> >>> You must be a religious folk or something.
> >>> Murder is a word that is only associated with those already born.
> >>> That's the accepted definition.
>
> >> The accepted definition of murder is killing that which is alive, not
> >> necessarily born.
>
> >is also murder.
> >Have you ever murdered a fly and mosquito?
>
> >I know you like your definition better because it
> >> allows you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially
> >> delivering a perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow you
> >> to get to its head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
>
> >The religious right must learn that one cannot win arguments by using shock.
>
> >Also very few abortions are late term F.Y.I.
If there were even one-tenth of the deaths due to gay bashing as the
number of abortions past 24 weeks cited by the late George Tiller,
the hue and cry would be tremendous:
"We have some experience with, uh, late terminations --
aah, about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks,
and, uh, something like 800, uh, fetal anomalies
between 26 and 36 weeks, aah, in the past five years."
http://www.cashill.com/images/audio/Tiller%20Audio%20-%201995-1.mp3
> >And the proper (non emotional) term is fetus. 'Baby' is used by mothers to
> >be, and its in the future tense, i.e. it will be a baby when its born.
> >And not all fetuses are 'perfectly healthy'.
>
> And no Doctor would do a late term abortion on a "reasonably healthy"
> much less a"perfectly healthy fetus"
Tiller did, see above: can you tell the difference between 10,000 and
800?
Also, a former clinic employee, Luhra Tivis, said the following in her
testimony before the
Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee on March 10, 1992:
"When I fully realized that Tiller is routinely aborting healthy
babies
at 28 to 30 weeks, I was quite horrified and began to look for another
job. When Tiller learned of my job search, he fired me."
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> In article <n4a386h562f05hps8cu5gog3slv5pvj...@4ax.com>,
> rob...@mypbmail.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:33:33 -0700, Tony Elka
> > <shadowl...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
>
> > >In article <4c80e4d6$0$25360$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>,> > >> Everyone can understand that, except the religious right wingers.
> > >> Try telling an average person and see for yourself.
>
> > >I generally don't jump in on abortion threads for the simple reason that
> > >neither side ever persuades the other of anything.
>
> > >Tony
> > Both sides are really trying to impress the uncommitted that are
> > looking for an answer.
>
> The difference is pro-choice tells the truth.
Said by a pro-infanticide, pro-abortion James Jay Lee talk-alike whom
I caught lying through his teeth about a post of mine from which he
deleted every word in his follow-up.
It was in a thread on embryonic stem cell research, crossposted to
five newsgroups:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/ac58ed96eb79b19c
Newsgroups:
alt.abortion,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.republican,misc.health.alternative
> Some issues only have one side, this is one of them. The only real side
> is pro-choice. If we don't have choice, someday abortion will be
> mandatory like in China. Population isn't going to stop growing, sooner
> or later, there will be a tipping point, such as with the fresh water
> supply if nothing else.
Sounds a lot like James Jay Lee, all right! See:
http://www.savetheplanetprotest.com/
Peter Nyikos
W.T.S.
@f42g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, nyi...@bellsouth.net says...
>
> Also, a former clinic employee, Luhra Tivis, said the following in her
> testimony before the
> Kansas Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee on March 10, 1992:
>
> "When I fully realized that Tiller is routinely aborting healthy
> babies
>
>
> at 28 to 30 weeks, I was quite horrified and began to look for another
> job. When Tiller learned of my job search, he fired me."
>
Besides, Dr. Tiller was tried by the state, a conservative state at
that, more than once, and was able to prove he was well within state
law. Also note, a fetus doesn't have to be deformed in order to
endanger a mother's life.
>
> Peter Nyikos
>
Fetus, bad. Abortion, good.
W.T.S.
greas...@hotmail.com says...
>
So, what is your problem? As long as the fetus gets stomped out, that's
the objective, it doesn't matter who it is. Abortion is the _only_
decent way to deal with a fetus before it gets a chance to invade the
world.
Baby, bad. Abortion, good.
W.T.S.
greas...@hotmail.com says...
Yes, is there a problem with that?
Baby, shit filth. Abortion, delightful!
Spartakus
> > >"Spender" <Spen...@Mars.org> wrote in message
> > >> I know you like your definition better because it
> > >> allows you to feel there is nothing at all wrong with partially
> > >> delivering a perfectly healthy term baby only so far as to allow
> > >> you to get to its head, crush its skull and scramble its brains.
> > >Appeal to emotions noted. (head crushing and brain scrambling).
> > >The religious right must learn that one cannot win arguments by
> > >using shock.
> > >
> > >Also very few abortions are late term F.Y.I.
> If there were even one-tenth of the deaths due to gay bashing as the
> number of abortions past 24 weeks cited by the late George Tiller,
> the hue and cry would be tremendous:
>
> "We have some experience with, uh, late terminations --
> aah, about 10,000 patients between 24 and 36 weeks,
> and, uh, something like 800, uh, fetal anomalies
> between 26 and 36 weeks, aah, in the past five years."http://www.cashill.com/images/audio/Tiller%20Audio%20-%201995-1.mp3
Still waiting for independent confirmation that that is indeed Dr.
Tiller speaking on that audio clip. Whatever its provenance, it does
not answer "the art's" point.
james g. keegan jr.
<c78bb07e-f703-4cad...@f25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 3, 10:15 pm, "W.T.S." <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > In article <n4a386h562f05hps8cu5gog3slv5pvj...@4ax.com>,
> > rob...@mypbmail.com says...
> > > On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 09:33:33 -0700, Tony Elka
> > > <shadowl...@shadowlane.com> wrote:
> >
> > > >In article <4c80e4d6$0$25360$afc38...@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> > > > "The art of critical thinking" <deepm...@neuron.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > > >> Everyone can understand that, except the religious right wingers.
> > > >> Try telling an average person and see for yourself.
> >
> > > >I generally don't jump in on abortion threads for the simple reason that
> > > >neither side ever persuades the other of anything.
> >
> > > >Tony
> > > Both sides are really trying to impress the uncommitted that are
> > > looking for an answer.
> >
> > The difference is pro-choice tells the truth.
>
> Said by a pro-infanticide, pro-abortion James Jay Lee talk-alike whom
> I caught lying through his teeth about a post of mine from which he
> deleted every word in his follow-up.
your post was cut following yur first paragraph full of lies, pagiarist