Question for Pro-Life Wingnuts

[Clave]

Pregnancy from rape.

Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 29, 4:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> Pregnancy from rape.
>
> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?

No abortion.

[fffurken]

On Jan 29, 10:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> Pregnancy from rape.
>
> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?

You're a second rate troll Clave.

Stick to what you know best, being a douchebag.

PS. Don't think I didn't let Paul away with the baby murdering thing
in the other thread. I didn't. He's on strike one.

[O-PGManager]

If it was your 14 year old daughter you'd be singing a different tune.

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

------- 

[Mossingen]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8db968b0-3225-47d0...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

___________________________________


No abortion as in that is the choice you would make if you were a woman in
that situation, or no abortion as in you think it is morally wrong to abort
any fetus in that situation?

If I were a woman, or had a young daughter in that situation, I have no idea
what the correct decision would be (I doubt there is a correct decision),
although I would tend to think aborting the pregnancy would be the best
thing to do.

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 29, 10:55 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:8db968b0-3225-47d0...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 29, 4:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>
> > Pregnancy from rape.
>
> > Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>
> No abortion.
>
> ___________________________________
>
> No abortion as in that is the choice you would make if you were a woman in
> that situation, or no abortion as in you think it is morally wrong to abort
> any fetus in that situation?

The latter.

[FL Turbo]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:55:18 -0600, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

I have come to believe that the answer to whether or not abortion is
the correct decision is: It Depends.

I don't have any problem with contraception, whether it be condoms,
the Pill, IUD devices, yadda yadda.

I don't even have a blanket objection to the "morning after" pill.
That is subject to any problems which may come about from long-term,
routine self-administered applications of a drug.
But then, that is a medical question of which I have not a clue.

The rabid pro-abortion crowd routinely refers to a fetus as a mere
"clump of cells" that should be considered the same as a tumor to be
removed.

On the other end, we have the procedure wherein the "fetus" that is
within seconds and inches of being born normally is killed.
To me, that is totally abhorrent and should not be tolerated.
It's akin to the practice of infanticide that was routinely practiced
by some earlier cultures.

AFAIK, abortion has always been legal in the case of life threatening
consequences to the prospective mother.
Actual, physical consequences and not some arm waving considerations
of the mental health of the mother.

Can you give me an answer if, and where that is true?
(I am not a real Lawyer, I only play one on RGP)

Now we get to the large, multi-month "gray" area.
When do we go from the "clump of cells" to the "fetus" condition.

I think that advances in medical technology have pushed that point
back.
Sonograms are routinely done to show the expectant parents a detailed,
up-close look at a picture of the "fetus".
Even in relatively early months, it looks remarkably like a baby.

But then, where in that time after a few weeks, does it indeed turn
from a mere clump of cells, to a fetus, and then to a baby.
Damned if I know.

I believe that in the long run, States will need to end up making some
arbitrary decisions.
(I think that the Federal Government needs to butt out. Not they ever
will, though)

At what age does a young person reach the Age of Consent?
At what age should someone be allowed to buy cigarettes?
At what age should someone be allowed to buy alcohol?
At what age should someone be allowed to drive a car?
At what age should someone be allowed to vote?

All arbitrary decisions by governments, some making moral judgments,
some making practical judgments, but all making some arbitrary
judgment.

[Bea Foroni]

On Jan 29, 10:01 am, FL Turbo <noem...@notime.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 10:55:18 -0600, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

> judgment.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

How about your arbritrary decision not to stick your dick in a woman
if you are unwilling or unable to father a child, including financial
and emotional support. The number one reason women choose abortion is
that they are unable to financially or emotionally care for the child
(think of all the bad words aimed at "welfare queens").

Interestingly, "Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of
all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the
month they became pregnant." So, all you users of prostitutes, know
you may be fathering an abortion.

[fffurken]

On Jan 29, 6:24 pm, Bea Foroni <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote:

> How about your arbritrary decision not to stick your dick in a woman
> if you are unwilling or unable to father a child, including financial
> and emotional support.

Arbritrary decision? That's really not how it works.

You must have spent your whole life not understanding mankind Bea.

> Interestingly, "Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of
> all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the
> month they became pregnant." So, all you users of prostitutes, know
> you may be fathering an abortion.

Why do you keep banging on about prostitutes? Has that serial killer
shit you love to absorb gone to your head?

[Bea Foroni]

Personal resopnsibilty my friend. Those who want to control others
should first look inward.

Besides, there are several people here who have stated they frequent
prostitutes or believ prostitution is a "victimless" crime.

[FL Turbo]

The decision of "stick dick in or not" is water under the bridge.
The topic is abortion, not some wudda, cudda, shudda.

As the old joke goes,
"God played a joke on men. She gave him 2 heads without enough blood
to operate both at the same time."

The topic is abortion itself, not motivations.

>
>Interestingly, "Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of
>all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the
>month they became pregnant." So, all you users of prostitutes, know
>you may be fathering an abortion.

Irrelevant and immaterial to the topic of abortion itself, regardless
of any Red Herrings.

[fffurken]

On Jan 29, 6:55 pm, Bea Foroni <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote:

> Personal resopnsibilty my friend. Those who want to control others
> should first look inward.
>
>  Besides, there are several people here who have stated they frequent
> prostitutes or believ prostitution is a "victimless" crime.

Look, you're going off on a tangent, my friend, about prostitution.

The thread was about abortion. The decision to have a baby is far from
arbritary. If it happens by accident, by lust probably!, there really
wasn't a decision at all.

[Bea Foroni]

No decision? Someone just walking around, tripped and fell and his
cock landed in a pussy and now the bitch wants an abortion? Is that
what you want me to believe?

There are no accidents in pregnancy. The male has most of the
control. Very few rapes commited by women, very few.

If a man doesn't like abortion he can do three things; 1. don't have
an abortion, 2. don't have sex with a women where an abortion is a
possibility, 3. teach his children not to have sex unless he is
willing to accept 100% of the responsibility.

If you men want to talk about reducing or eliminating abortion, then
talk about ways you, as a "man" can reduce or eliminate the incidence
of abortion. Things like medical care for women and children,
maternity leave for the mother, child care at work, financial
incentives to have the child, emotional support from the father and
the community, things like those. Not, lock up the bitch, tie her legs
together until she gives birth, imprison those who help her make the
decisions she makes.

Personal responsibility starts with self, not what we can do to other
people.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jan 29, 10:22 am, "O-PGManager" <ad63...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Jan 29 2012 8:36 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>
> > On Jan 29, 4:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> > > Pregnancy from rape.
>
> > > Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>
> > No abortion.
>
> If it was your 14 year old daughter you'd be singing a different tune.

If one thinks of the fetus as a human being, that might _still_ be a
natural emotional reaction but would not be a reason for society to
allow the abortion. A society that does not kill the criminal probably
should not kill an innocent bystander.

I do _not_ accept that the fetus is a human being but I think this
question is a very good test of why people oppose abortion. If a
person is willing to make these exceptions, his or her belief that the
fetus is a human being must be fairly weak.

--
Will in New Haven

[bub]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:56:57 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>I do _not_ accept that the fetus is a human being

so when exactly does the 'fetus' become a human being?

[fffurken]

On Jan 29, 7:20 pm, Bea Foroni <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote:

> > The thread was about abortion. The decision to have a baby is far from
> > arbritary. If it happens by accident, by lust probably!, there really
> > wasn't a decision at all.
>
>  No decision? Someone just walking around, tripped and fell and his
> cock landed in a pussy and now the bitch wants an abortion? Is that
> what you want me to believe?

Good to see you're living in the real world about this.

>  There are no accidents in pregnancy. The male has most of the
> control. Very few rapes commited by women, very few.
>
>   If a man doesn't like abortion he can do three things; 1. don't have
> an abortion, 2. don't have sex with a women where an abortion is a
> possibility, 3. teach his children not to have sex unless he is
> willing to accept 100% of the responsibility.
>
>  If you men want to talk about reducing or eliminating abortion, then
> talk about ways you, as a "man" can reduce or eliminate the incidence
> of abortion. Things like medical care for women and children,
> maternity leave for the mother, child care at work, financial
> incentives to have the child, emotional support from the father and
> the community, things like those. Not, lock up the bitch, tie her legs
> together until she gives birth, imprison those who help her make the
> decisions she makes.
>
>  Personal responsibility starts with self, not what we can do to other
> people.

I am "pro" abortion, I was anti abortion when I was a young pup,
before I realised that the rights of the woman of her own body
outweighs anything else.

[Bea Foroni]

> outweighs anything else.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, I am anti-abortion. I hate abortion. Abortion is a failing of
society to respect every human and their potential. I would want to
see no abortions, ever. But it is not the governments choice. It is
not the community's choice.

Don't want abortions? Make a society where every human is valued,
then you'll see a quick reduction in abortion.

[fffurken]

On Jan 29, 8:11 pm, Bea Foroni <BeaFor...@msn.com> wrote:

>  Don't want abortions? Make a society where every human is valued,
> then you'll see a quick reduction in abortion.

Women will always have abortions Bea, women will always sell their
body for sex. It's life.

A change? At least be fucking realistic on the topic.

Or just shut the fuck up, as far as I'm concerned quite frankly.

[bub]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:11:45 -0800 (PST), Bea Foroni
<BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:

> But it is not the governments choice. It is
>not the community's choice.

should the govenrment finance abortion?

[Will in New Haven]

On Jan 29, 3:05 pm, bub <b...@plottus.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:56:57 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
>

> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >I do _not_ accept that the fetus is a human being
>
> so when exactly does the 'fetus' become a human being?

Fetus is a real word. No need for oddball punctuation. I think "able
to survive outside the womb" is a reasonable definition. So there are
late-term abortions that ought to be illegal.

[Clave]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8db968b0-3225-47d0...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

So why not just say it -- that once conception occurs, women should be
slaves of the State?

Jim

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3256a0f2-914e-460f...@j15g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 29, 10:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>> Pregnancy from rape.
>>
>> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>

> You're a second rate troll Clave...

You think I just made that up?

http://blog.sfgate.com/sfmoms/2012/01/24/rick-santorum-rape-babies-are-gifts-from-god/

Morgan pressed Santorum on the issue and asked how the right-
wing candidate would feel if his daughter came to him begging
for an abortion after being raped. Santorum said, "I think
the right approach is to accept this horribly created - in
the sense of rape - but nevertheless a gift in a very broken
way, the gift of human life, and accept what God has given
to you." He added that rape victims ought to "make the best
of a bad situation."

[da pickle]

There's the rub. But Will is not alone with that line of thinking.

I am no expert and my opinion is only one, but I cannot see how anyone
can do anything but make an artificial "line" when it comes to the WHEN
human life begins.

It its own way, it is a question almost like WHEN human life ends.

I prefer to take the most liberal stance with regard to when life begins
and that is at conception. To me, there is no other reasonable time to
make such a distinction between "human life" and "non-human life". It
seems silly to say that a fetus is not "life" ... and if it is life, it
must be human life, IMO. (If one wishes to say that the alive "thing"
is not human at the "beginning", one could argue that GOD breathes a
soul into a non-human living thing and then it becomes a human being.
That seems a little spiritual to me.)

I also take the most liberal stance with regard to the justification
needed to allow certain choices when discussing the termination
(killing?) of a human being. This allows the sorts of exceptions to the
general rule that humans should not terminate (kill) other humans
without justification. It is pretty easy for me to "justify" in my mind
the termination of a day old human life form by certain people ... the
number one person being the host of that human life form. It gets more
and more difficult for me to justify the justification permitted to the
host of the life form the longer more time passes.

I can justify even the state taking the life of a quite mature human
life form under special circumstances. All of us can discuss with
varying levels of emotion exactly what circumstances justify all of this
taking (killing) of human life.

I doubt that my comments will add much to anyone's opinion of this
matter or of my opinion of this matter.

[Will in New Haven]

On Jan 29, 5:32 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/29/2012 2:05 PM, bub wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:56:57 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven

> > <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>  wrote:

It's an impossible question and a horribly divisive issue. I do like
your use of the word liberal in the above.

[Von Fourche]

"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote in message
news:u_8Vq.5675$Au5...@newsfe23.iad...

> Pregnancy from rape.
>
> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>
>
>
>

I dream of the day when there is an abortion clinic on every block, in
every Wal-Mart, and in every high school and middle
school. Also the Red Box DVD vending machines will be able to dispense day
after pills. When all these things happen, America
will be a better country, stronger country, and safer country.

[Mossingen]

"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message
news:hrabi75rdgknp1pn4...@4ax.com...

Why not? Because some people disagree with it?

[BillB]

On 1/29/2012 12:05 PM, bub wrote:

> so when exactly does the 'fetus' become a human being?

If both his parents are teabaggers, probably never.

[fffurken]

On Jan 29, 10:33 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:

> > You're a second rate troll Clave...
>
> You think I just made that up?

Ah, OK.

It was a reference to one of the whackjob (I'm starting to get to know
them!) Republican candidates. My apologies.

[O-PGManager]

None are analogous to the state (perhaps literally) putting a gun to a
woman's head and forcing her to carry a child to term.

>
> All arbitrary decisions by governments, some making moral judgments,
> some making practical judgments, but all making some arbitrary
> judgment.

Opie G. Manager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)

-------- 

[bub]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:54:35 -0600, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

>> should the govenrment finance abortion?
>
>
>Why not? Because some people disagree with it?
>

just wondering because beastie says the government and community
should not get involved.

if they are expected to pay for it, then i guess it's ok for them to
be involved

[bub]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>. I think "able
>to survive outside the womb" is a reasonable definition.

i think pickle answered it

if your definition of "able to survive outside the womb" is to be
used, then each baby being carried would have to be evaluated
individually as some babies are able to 'survive outside the womb'
earlier than others.

[Mossingen]

"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message

news:lm1ci7tvhsbo41f23...@4ax.com...

They're involved in paying for it, but not involved in the decision making
process of whether the abortion happens or not. Same as other medical
procedures the government pays for. What's your point exactly?

[Mossingen]

"bub" <b...@plottus.com> wrote in message

news:0u1ci7p1ihs8vholk...@4ax.com...

Which illustrates one of the problems with arbitrary answers to unanswerable
questions. My solution would simply be to let a woman choose whether to end
her pregnancy at any point prior to birth. Period. Sure, we can all
imagine hypotheticals and horrible situations where an abortion would occur
near-term, but for a woman to terminate so close to birth would be an
incredibly difficult decision, and one that I refuse to second-guess.

We should really just cut the bullshit of trying to define when a fetus
becomes a person, recognize that no one but the Almighty knows, and allow
women to choose what to do in their individual circumstance.

[Dutch]

"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote

> Pregnancy from rape.
>
> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?

Depends entirely on the point of view of the pregnant woman.

[Clave]

"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:hRsVq.3664$Ep3....@newsfe08.iad...

Some, amazingly enough, do not agree.

Mostly men, surprise surprise.

Funny too how PDS hasn't offered an opinion one way or t'other.

Jim

[bratt]

On Jan 30 2012 3:06 AM, Clave wrote:

>
> Funny too how PDS hasn't offered an opinion one way or t'other.
>
> Jim

You are kidding, right? This issue has been hashed and rehashed here. I
have often voiced my opinion. I thought you were starting this thread as
a joke.

I have also said that an opinion is just that, and were I to offer one
most of you would have at me for my opinion, one way or the other.
Opinions are neither right nor wrong, except in individuals eyes.


------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 29, 4:23 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
That's my opinion.

[da pickle]

James, I really do not think that you have thought your thinking
through. Your final solution is, of course, just an opinion just like
the opinions of others ... but I wonder, in your own moral framework,
why do you give "a woman" (you do not yet consider her a mother) that
power?

If a pregnant woman decides to abort her late term baby and the doctor
accidentally delivers it instead, what sort of punishment do you suggest
for the doctor? Is the doctor (or the woman) allowed to just chop off
the head of the thing delivered? Does killing the thing right outside
the woman's body save the doctor from abortion-malpractice damages? How
long does the doctor have to kill the thing after it slides out ...
maybe "before" it takes a breath? How about until the placenta is
expelled ... one could easily say that the thing is STILL INSIDE the
woman ... that other end of the thing is critically connected to the
other end of the thing, really no difference at all (morally speaking,
of course).

I agree that the subject is demanding and dividing ... however, we HAVE
answered the questions ... there are laws .... the discussion here
concerns whether we have done a good job and whether we should continue
the discussion or not.

And if she decides to abort her full term baby herself but it comes out
viable, can she finish the job by just abandoning the thing because it
cannot live outside her womb without help? What punishment for that
woman? If the law changes to James' Law, what then?

[Dave the Clueless]

On Jan 29 2012 11:22 AM, O-PGManager wrote:

> On Jan 29 2012 8:36 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>

> > On Jan 29, 4:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> > > Pregnancy from rape.
> > >
> > > Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
> >
> > No abortion.
>

> If it was your 14 year old daughter you'd be singing a different tune.
>

> Opie G. Manager
> Rec.Gambling.Poker
> Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
>
> ------- 

One would hope so... But the same stupid blind faith that makes
left-wingers believe that burps melt glaciers makes right-wingers believe
that God hates abortion.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

----- 

[Dave the Clueless]

On Jan 29 2012 6:17 AM, Clave wrote:

> Pregnancy from rape.
>
> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?

The pro-life morons don't care how the sperm got in there, as far as they
are concerned The Invisible All-Powerful Man in the Sky who has Lots of
Rules and Shit but Doesn't Actually Talk to Anybody About Them made it and
you gotta carry it to term.

-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!

____________________________________________________________________ 

[mo_ntresor]

On Jan 29 2012 9:55 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> > Pregnancy from rape.
> >
> > Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>

> No abortion.
>
> ----

>
> No abortion as in that is the choice you would make if you were a woman in
> that situation, or no abortion as in you think it is morally wrong to abort
> any fetus in that situation?
>
> If I were a woman, or had a young daughter in that situation, I have no idea
> what the correct decision would be (I doubt there is a correct decision),
> although I would tend to think aborting the pregnancy would be the best
> thing to do.

i'd drive my daughter to the clinic.

mo_ntresor

------ 

[fffurken]

On Jan 30, 12:56 pm, da pickle <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/29/2012 10:21 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "bub"<b...@plottus.com>  wrote in message
> >news:0u1ci7p1ihs8vholk...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven

> >> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>  wrote:

> woman?  If the law changes to James' Law, what then?- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You are conflating abortion and childbirth. I presume it's deliberate.

[Mossingen]

"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LtmdnWReha4...@giganews.com...

Because unless all abortions are totally banned under all circumstances,
*someone* has to have the power to decide when to have it. I suggest that
the woman (or, if that offends your sensibilites, the mother-to-be since
she's not a mother yet) is the rightful authority because the thing is
growing inside her body. This is not to say that others do not have some
interest in the thing growing inside of her (the man who impregnated her,
her doctor, her parents, etc.), but if we are to decide who has the
authority to terminate a pregnancy, I cannot view that anyone would have
interests superior to the woman. Do you have a better suggestion?

If religion were not injected into it, let's face it, a fertilized egg a few
days old would be the equivalent of a benign tumor that could be excised or
not, medically speaking (I'm not suggesting that a pregnant woman does or
should feel that way about it).

> If a pregnant woman decides to abort her late term baby and the doctor
> accidentally delivers it instead, what sort of punishment do you suggest
> for the doctor?

That is an awfully contrived hypo. I don't see that the doctor should be
punished at all. Certainly not criminally. If you are raising the
controversial tort action of "wrongful birth" then that's certainly an
interesting topic, but way off topic here.

>Is the doctor (or the woman) allowed to just chop off the head of the thing
>delivered?

No. If it's delivered then it's a person with rights.

>Does killing the thing right outside the woman's body save the doctor from
>abortion-malpractice damages? How long does the doctor have to kill the
>thing after it slides out ... maybe "before" it takes a breath? How about
>until the placenta is expelled ... one could easily say that the thing is
>STILL INSIDE the woman ... that other end of the thing is critically
>connected to the other end of the thing, really no difference at all
>(morally speaking, of course).

Thought-provoking questions, yes, but way off topic and so esoteric that
such situations might rise in every 100,000 births if that. That's why I
mentioned in my answer that there might be extreme cases where a child is
near term but the mother wants to abort it. I can't assume that she made
such a decision lightly, and she doesn't have to explain it to me. I might
even find it repugnant and wish that she would change her mind. But in the
end I can't assert that kind of authority over a woman in that position, and
I don't think the government can, either.

> I agree that the subject is demanding and dividing ... however, we HAVE
> answered the questions ... there are laws .... the discussion here
> concerns whether we have done a good job and whether we should continue
> the discussion or not.

Of course. Because the laws are bad, and based mainly on religious beliefs.

> And if she decides to abort her full term baby herself but it comes out
> viable, can she finish the job by just abandoning the thing because it
> cannot live outside her womb without help? What punishment for that
> woman? If the law changes to James' Law, what then?

I don't see how she can abort it, but it comes out viable??? But to play
along, if a baby comes out into open air alive then it's a person and the
woman can't abort it at that point. I don't see viability as the touchstone
of anything. That was something that SCOTUS created in Roe to decide the
case, but I like my view better.

[Mossingen]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:47743654-19e6-41ba...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

>I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
>That's my opinion.

But you keep ducking the issue under discussion, which is to what extent the
government can get involved and squelch abortions. Just stating your
opinion doesn't give us any insight into how far you believe that the
government can go to protect the "right" to life in which you have expressed
a belief.

I suspect that you are hesitant, and perhaps a little bit embarrassed to
express your true beliefs here because they would entail heavy government
involvement and criminal sanctions to protect fertilized eggs, which is
difficult to square with your strong anti-police, anti-government views on
nearly every other topic. You conservatives are always a puzzle: get
government out of our lives! (except, of course, to regulate the most
intimate and personal things that citizens can do such as sexual acts
between consenting adults, prayer in school, abortions, gay marriage, etc.)

[Mossingen]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:6f7caa84-59c7-42c2...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>You are conflating abortion and childbirth. I presume it's deliberate.

Of course it is. Pickle does that every year during the annual RGP abortion
debate. I should probably just cut-and-paste my old responses, but abortion
is a golden oldie around here. Wait until paul perks up and wades in here.

[mo_ntresor]

abortion's always a political red herring; these ideas affect almost
nobody.

if you want a fascinating exploration of these issues under hard written
rules, see "a separation"
(http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/a_separation_2011/). the movie brief
isn't fair. an iranian couple is separating over the wife's desire to
move the family out of country. the husband hires a maid help with
household duties in wife's absence (his dad has alzheimer's). maid fucks
up, he fires her, forcefully pushing her out the apartment door ... lo and
behold she's pregnant and loses her baby. dad and husband gets charged
with murder. iranian court insanity ensues. it's the most amazing movie
i've seen in several years.

mo_ntresor

----- 

[mo_ntresor]

there's nuance and debate on our side, not like your's. we have social
conservatives (authoritarian morons) and fiscal conservatives (tea party
heroes). your side is all big government shitheads.

mo_ntresor

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:47743654-19e6-41ba...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...

> On Jan 29, 4:23 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8db968b0-3225-47d0...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > On Jan 29, 4:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>> >> Pregnancy from rape.
>>
>> >> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>>
>> > No abortion.
>>
>> So why not just say it -- that once conception occurs, women should be
>> slaves of the State?
>

> I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.

I'm asking for the logical conclusion of that opinion.

Can't you say it?

Jim

[BillB]

On 1/30/2012 4:56 AM, da pickle wrote:

> If a pregnant woman decides to abort her late term baby and the doctor
> accidentally delivers it instead, what sort of punishment do you suggest
> for the doctor?

He gets to raise the little bastard.

Is the doctor (or the woman) allowed to just chop off
> the head of the thing delivered?

I guess that would work too.

[da pickle]

"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jg6fds$mq1$1...@dont-email.me...

Trying to be reasonable seems to get one nowhere. James, you seem to favor
killing the thing right up until ... when? First breath? I can justify a
lot of killing of unborn and born human beings at different times and under
different circumstances, but I do not conflate abortion with childbirth ...
that is stupid. No matter how one defines "childbirth" and "abortion" ...
they can never be synonymous. [I do not know how either of you smart guys
could misunderstand that.. :-) ]

[popinjay999]

On Jan 30, 8:11 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

> Wait until paul perks up and wades in here.

Please surrender your Catholic Membership Card.

[number6]

On Jan 30, 11:08 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:47743654-19e6-41ba...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> >I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
> >That's my opinion.
>
> But you keep ducking the issue under discussion, which is to what extent the
> government can get involved and squelch abortions.

Instead of abortion - substitute

Gambling
Drugs
Labelling requirements on a can of soda
Twitter Posts
transfat/salt content of restaurant meals
Killing certain rat breeds in DC ...

I can go on ...

According to liberals ... the government can regulate anything to
whatever extent they wish ... except when the life and potential birth
of a helpless child is involved ...

The impetus is on your side ...

[da pickle]

"Clave"

>> I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
>
> I'm asking for the logical conclusion of that opinion.
>
> Can't you say it?

The logical conclusion of such an opinion is that the right to life cannot
be terminated unless justified. You seem to think there is no "there"
there, but Alim does believe there is a there there.

Same is true as to the end of the right to life ... even criminals and
murderers and all sorts of human beings have a right to life ... at least
some folks think so ... it is one of those primary things.

People should not kill living human beings (no matter who gets to say "kill
that thing") without justification. James (and perhaps, you) seems to think
that some human beings are not human beings at all until a certain event and
those things-there can be killed without any more justification than the
thing is alive only because it is attached to a heart machine sort of thing
called a placenta and until that thing is cut off and a breath taken, the
thing has no right to life because it is not a human being. I am a bit
confused about how you classify "things" that are "born" and separated from
the placenta thing and cannot breathe air at all on their own ... they must
get their air from a machine replacement for the old system of staying
alive. But they are now hooked up to a heart-lung machine that keeps them
alive ... how long to we wait before they develop a right to life of any
sort? Just making a pronouncement that you know when someone is something
with rights when you see them is not much of a legal or moral argument in my
opinion.

I prefer to take the liberal approach and say that a human being is a human
being when the thing under consideration is a live thing and a human thing
and calling it something other than a human being seems specious ... to me.
I also believe that the more the human being develops, it takes more and
more justification for anyone (mom or not) to just kill it as if it were a
rat-being instead of a human being. I just think human beings need more
justification before someone offs them.

Same is true for even more mature human beings. Same human being, just
further along in development, and with human right to life. Except often
the same folks that have no compulsion is killing a viable human being still
attached to a different sort of life support system often feel that there is
no justification strong enough to terminate a human being that others feel
has given up any right to life that he or she might have had.

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 30, 10:01 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "da pickle" <jcpick...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message

>
> news:LtmdnWReha4...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1/29/2012 10:21 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> >> "bub"<b...@plottus.com>  wrote in message
> >>news:0u1ci7p1ihs8vholk...@4ax.com...
> >>> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven

> >>> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>  wrote:

So when the fetus is just a few inches of tissue, it means nothing,
but once the fetus passes through a few inches of tissue, that means
everything?

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 30, 10:08 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I'm not embarrassed at all. I think all abortion is wrong. I think
all abortion should be a crime. No puzzle there at all. A government
has every right to insure it's citizens are not killed. And you've
got my positions are most of the rest of your list wrong too. I
don't care if gays get married. I agree prayer should not be
mandatory in school, I think sex between adults is their business.

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 30, 10:53 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47743654-19e6-41ba...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 4:23 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> >> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:8db968b0-3225-47d0...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Jan 29, 4:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> >> >> Pregnancy from rape.
>
> >> >> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>
> >> > No abortion.
>
> >> So why not just say it -- that once conception occurs, women should be
> >> slaves of the State?
>
> > I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
>
> I'm asking for the logical conclusion of that opinion.
>
> Can't you say it?
>
> Jim

Sure. Abortion is murder and should be a crime. Happy now?

[fffurken]

On Jan 30, 6:21 pm, "da pickle" <jcpickels@(no apam)hotmail.com>
wrote:

> Trying to be reasonable seems to get one nowhere.  James, you seem to favor
> killing the thing right up until ... when?  First breath?  I can justify a
> lot of killing of unborn and born human beings at different times and under
> different circumstances, but I do not conflate abortion with childbirth ...
> that is stupid.

Of course they are not literally the same thing but you only have to
look at some of the language you used to see why someone would say you
are conflating the two. For example -

"If a pregnant woman decides to abort her late term baby and the
doctor accidentally delivers it instead"

Or

"And if she decides to abort her full term baby herself but it comes
out viable, can she finish the job by just abandoning the thing
because it cannot live outside her womb without help?"

Your post had very much the theme of abortion being baby killing.
Abortion does not involve killing a baby. Do you understand that?

[Mossingen]

"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:etsiv8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> there's nuance and debate on our side, not like your's. we have social
> conservatives (authoritarian morons) and fiscal conservatives (tea party
> heroes). your side is all big government shitheads.

Bigger government than you like, but still gradients of just how much
government is acceptable. I suspect that you and I have a very similar view
of government. Same is probably true with Wuzzy/Parker, as much as I argued
with that guy.

I'm disillusioned with Obama, but the GOP is going to give me either Romney,
Gingrich or (outside shot) Santorum. GMAFB.

[Mossingen]

"number6" <snum...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:00b740a8-8ae4-44fd...@m2g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

___________________________



You don't see any irony at all with guys like Alim Nassor who distrust the
government so much that he has contingency plans for counter-insurgency when
the government comes to round him up for placement in a concentration camp,
yet he has no problem with government criminalizing sodomy between
consenting adults, abortion, etc.?

There is no "impetus" on the side of liberals. Abortion is a personal issue
like choosing sex partners or sex acts. On your list, who do you think is
more likely to support legalizatoin of gambling or drugs, a liberal or a
conservative?

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 30, 12:49 pm, number6 <snumb...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 11:08 am, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:47743654-19e6-41ba...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
> > >That's my opinion.
>
> > But you keep ducking the issue under discussion, which is to what extent the
> > government can get involved and squelch abortions.
>
> Instead of abortion - substitute
>
> Gambling
> Drugs
> Labelling requirements on a can of soda
> Twitter Posts
> transfat/salt content of restaurant meals
> Killing certain rat breeds in DC ...
>
> I can go on ...

No, you can't. Tiny difference. Abortion involves deliberate killing
of a human being. All your other nonsense does not.

[Mossingen]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:95d95fa4-3605-44f1...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

________________________________________________________


ALL abortins? So, just so I understand, your view is that a fertilized egg
forward is a "citizen" with full rights to live and be protected? OK. I
will resurrect my hypothetical from last year and ask you to please answer
it in an honest way:

You are walking by a building and notice that it is on fire. You rush in to
see if anyone is inside because you only have a few seconds in which to save
anyone inside. You see a five-year-old child sitting in a corner crying.
Way down on the other side of the room you see a test tube that contains a
fertilized human egg. You can save either the crying child or the egg
without harm to yourself, but not both. What do you do and why?

[Mossingen]

"da pickle" <jcpickels@(no apam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:laadnfmBm-ylQrvS...@giganews.com...

That's not the point and you know it. Your hypos are designed to test the
criteria by which my arbitrary rule (that the woman can abort at any time
prior to delivery) would work at the extreme.

But *all* time frames for abortion are arbitrary. What is viability? Your
hypotheticals work equally well there. What if two doctors disagree on
whether a fetus is viable? What if one doctor says that viability occurs on
January 10, but another disagrees and says the fetus was viable on January
1? Is the woman punished if she aborts on January 5? Is the doctor? What
if the rule is that third tri-mester abortions are crimes. What to do with
an abortion procedure that starts at 11:50 p.m. on the last day of the
second tri-mester, but is completed at 12:30 a.m. on the first day of the
third-trimester?

There are problems with any arbitrary time frames. You pointing out those
problems don't diminish my rule at all because they are present in all
circumstances, unless someone takes a position like paul or Nassor.

[mo_ntresor]

On Jan 30 2012 12:24 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> I'm not embarrassed at all. I think all abortion is wrong. I think
> all abortion should be a crime. No puzzle there at all. A government
> has every right to insure it's citizens are not killed. And you've
> got my positions are most of the rest of your list wrong too. I
> don't care if gays get married. I agree prayer should not be
> mandatory in school, I think sex between adults is their business.
> ________________________________________________________
>
> ALL abortins? So, just so I understand, your view is that a fertilized egg
> forward is a "citizen" with full rights to live and be protected? OK. I
> will resurrect my hypothetical from last year and ask you to please answer
> it in an honest way:
>
> You are walking by a building and notice that it is on fire. You rush in to
> see if anyone is inside because you only have a few seconds in which to save
> anyone inside. You see a five-year-old child sitting in a corner crying.
> Way down on the other side of the room you see a test tube that contains a
> fertilized human egg. You can save either the crying child or the egg
> without harm to yourself, but not both. What do you do and why?

you push a woman who's four months pregnant. she loses the baby. murder?
welcome to iran.

mo_ntresor

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:45309500-59d1-4edd...@l1g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

>So when the fetus is just a few inches of tissue, it means nothing,
>but once the fetus passes through a few inches of tissue, that means
>everything?

My starting point is that I know that a fertilized egg isn't a child. I can
believe that a fertilized egg is a valuable thing worthy of protection and
to not be lightly destroyed. But equating a fertilized egg to a
five-year-old (or in your words, a "citizen") is irrational. I think deep
down you know this.

From this, I know that at some point that fertilized egg becomes a child.
The point when that happens is not knowable by humans. What to do then, if
a woman wants to have an abortion? Any law governing such a thing will have
an arbitrary time limit, be it "viability" or by tri-mesters. Rather than
quibble over those arbitrary time limits, I would impose my own because I
know that once a child is born and breathing air, it is in fact a child.
Before that, I don't know. Therefore, I don't have any problem with letting
women decide these things at any time prior to the child being born.

[Alim Nassor]

Of course I grab the 5 year old. That does not change the fact that I
believe the fertilized egg has a right to live.

[Alim Nassor]

Yes, it does.

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 30, 8:47 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I didnt see this before my last post, sorry. My position has always
been, and I've stated it here many times. If I can't know when it
becomes human, then I must not take the chance. I must take the most
cautious approach possible.

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 30, 8:32 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:
> "da pickle" <jcpickels@(no apam)hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:laadnfmBm-ylQrvS...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> >news:jg6fds$mq1$1...@dont-email.me...
> >> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

Now, could you answer my question?

[fffurken]

Why?

According to you, they're both humans.

[fffurken]

On Jan 30, 7:10 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Abortion does not involve killing a baby. Do you understand that?
>
> Yes, it does.

No it doesn't.

A fetus or something even less formed, is not a baby. Please consult a
dictionary if it helps.

[Bea Foroni]

On Jan 30, 3:14 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
> That's my opinion.

So you base your opinion on superstition. No medical person is going
to call a fertilized egg a "child". A zygote is not a child. A
blastocyst is not a child. An embryo is not a child. A ten week old
embryo is called a fetus, not a child. Hell, I wouldn't call anyone a
child until they are at least a year old.

Here, you could donate your time and money to develop an artificial
womb. Then you could devote your life to care for a clump of dividing
cells.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abowomb.htm

[mo_ntresor]

On Jan 30 2012 1:07 PM, fffurken wrote:

> > Of course I grab the 5 year old.
>
> Why?
> According to you, they're both humans.

i'd grab the fetus. the five year old should have survived her way out of
there.

mo_ntresor

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"da pickle" <jcpickels@(no apam)hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:fdidnZD1gOcse7vS...@giganews.com...

>
> "Clave"
>
>>> I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
>>
>> I'm asking for the logical conclusion of that opinion.
>>
>> Can't you say it?
>
> The logical conclusion of such an opinion is that the right to life cannot
> be terminated unless justified. You seem to think there is no "there"
> there, but Alim does believe there is a there there.

I know that. I'm asking him to own it.

Jim

[Clave]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:336c87ca-8ef8-4cd6...@o14g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...

Not until you answer the question I asked.

Jim

[Bea Foroni]

On Jan 30, 3:14 am, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>

> I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.

> That's my opinion.

Further, would you allow a child to drown and be flushed down the
toilet? Of course not. But it happens with fertilized eggs, gamets and
zygots all the time. The only correct thing to do (if these products
of conception were children) would be to have a screen under the woman
every time she used the toilet. Then if something is dischrged, call
an ambulance and rush mother and "child" to the hospital to have it
replanted.

Millions of American "children" "die" each year, flushed down the
toilet, the mother unknowingly killing her offspring. We should
dedicate large amounts of money to save these unfortunate children. I
would even recommend that each time you have sex you name the possible
"child" so that it is not seen as a bloody clump, but as a child with
a name.

[phlash74]

On Jan 30 2012 11:01 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:

> On Jan 30, 10:53 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> > "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:47743654-19e6-41ba...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 29, 4:23 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> > >> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> >

>>news:8db968b0-3225-47d0...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com....

> >
> > >> > On Jan 29, 4:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> > >> >> Pregnancy from rape.
> >
> > >> >> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
> >
> > >> > No abortion.
> >
> > >> So why not just say it -- that once conception occurs, women should be
> > >> slaves of the State?
> >
> > > I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
> >
> > I'm asking for the logical conclusion of that opinion.
> >
> > Can't you say it?
> >
> > Jim
>
> Sure. Abortion is murder and should be a crime. Happy now?

The logical conclusion is that your age (and corresponding legal rights
and responsibilities) should trace back to your date of conception, not
your date of birth - which would create a need to answer all the questions
such a determination would make. What if the mother-to-be enters a
marathon while three months pregnant and subsequently miscarries? Is she
guilty of murder? Would a woman who misses a prenatal appointment be
subject to child neglect charges? What about a woman who drinks and smokes
up until the point she finds out she's pregnant?

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

On Jan 30 2012 7:30 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:

> On Jan 29 2012 6:17 AM, Clave wrote:
>
> > Pregnancy from rape.
> >
> > Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>

> The pro-life morons don't care how the sperm got in there, as far as they
> are concerned The Invisible All-Powerful Man in the Sky who has Lots of
> Rules and Shit but Doesn't Actually Talk to Anybody About Them made it and
> you gotta carry it to term.
>
> -------
> Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
>
> ____________________________________________________________________ 


I swear one day I'm gonna make this bumper sticker:
If God is pro-life, why are there miscarriages?

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

---- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Jan 30 2012 1:54 PM, phlash74 wrote:

> > there's nuance and debate on our side, not like your's. we have social
> > conservatives (authoritarian morons) and fiscal conservatives (tea party
> > heroes). your side is all big government shitheads.
>

> "our side" and "we have" both used in reference to the GOP.
>
> Ladies and gentlemen, mo_ron the 'nonpartisan'! LMFAO!

you're an idiot. it's used in reference to the american political
spectrum not parties.

mo_ntresor

________________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

On Jan 30 2012 8:25 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> On Jan 30 2012 9:08 AM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> > >I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.

> > >That's my opinion.
> >
> > But you keep ducking the issue under discussion, which is to what extent
the
> > government can get involved and squelch abortions. Just stating your
> > opinion doesn't give us any insight into how far you believe that the
> > government can go to protect the "right" to life in which you have
expressed
> > a belief.
> >
> > I suspect that you are hesitant, and perhaps a little bit embarrassed to
> > express your true beliefs here because they would entail heavy government
> > involvement and criminal sanctions to protect fertilized eggs, which is
> > difficult to square with your strong anti-police, anti-government views on
> > nearly every other topic. You conservatives are always a puzzle: get
> > government out of our lives! (except, of course, to regulate the most
> > intimate and personal things that citizens can do such as sexual acts
> > between consenting adults, prayer in school, abortions, gay marriage, etc.)
>

> there's nuance and debate on our side, not like your's. we have social
> conservatives (authoritarian morons) and fiscal conservatives (tea party
> heroes). your side is all big government shitheads.
>

> mo_ntresor
>
> ________________________________________________________________________ 

"our side" and "we have" both used in reference to the GOP.

Ladies and gentlemen, mo_ron the 'nonpartisan'! LMFAO!

[Clave]

"phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:tbcjv8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Jan 30 2012 11:01 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:
>
>> On Jan 30, 10:53 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>> > "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >

>> > > On Jan 29, 4:23 pm, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>> > >> "Alim Nassor" <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >
>>>news:8db968b0-3225-47d0...@e27g2000vbu.googlegroups.com....
>> >
>> > >> > On Jan 29, 4:17 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
>> > >> >> Pregnancy from rape.
>> >
>> > >> >> Abortable, or somewhoat broken Gift From God?
>> >
>> > >> > No abortion.
>> >
>> > >> So why not just say it -- that once conception occurs, women should
>> > >> be
>> > >> slaves of the State?
>> >
>> > > I'm saying that after conception, the child has a right to life.
>> >
>> > I'm asking for the logical conclusion of that opinion.
>> >
>> > Can't you say it?
>> >
>> > Jim
>>
>> Sure. Abortion is murder and should be a crime. Happy now?
>
>
> The logical conclusion is that your age (and corresponding legal rights
> and responsibilities) should trace back to your date of conception, not
> your date of birth - which would create a need to answer all the questions
> such a determination would make. What if the mother-to-be enters a
> marathon while three months pregnant and subsequently miscarries? Is she
> guilty of murder? Would a woman who misses a prenatal appointment be
> subject to child neglect charges? What about a woman who drinks and smokes
> up until the point she finds out she's pregnant?

What if a woman concieves, but takes an anti-implantation drug?

And how could anything other than state supervision for the duration of the
pregnancy, including mandated diet and activities, not be considered and
prosecuted as child abuse?

Jim

[BillB]

On 1/30/2012 11:51 AM, Alim Nassor wrote:

> Of course I grab the 5 year old.

Of course? We are talking about two human beings. Are you some kind of
bigot or something?

>That does not change the fact that I
> believe the fertilized egg has a right to live.

What if it was 10 fertilized eggs vs. one five year old. Which do you
save? If they are all human beings, you obvious grab the eggs, right? No
brainer, right?

The fact is, even the most delusional, phony wingnut grabs the
five-year-old, because he knows deep down, no matter what he blabs in
public to try to feel superior, that fertilized eggs are not people.

[BillB]

On 1/30/2012 11:24 AM, Mossingen wrote:


I
> will resurrect my hypothetical from last year and ask you to please answer
> it in an honest way:

No offense, but I think it was my hypothetical first. I asked it at
least five years ago, and all the "pro-life" nuts suddenly became deer
in the headlights. iirc, pickle wrote a novel trying to avoid answering.

[Mossingen]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:686985b6-44a7-4a44...@w4g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...

>Of course I grab the 5 year old.

Thank you. I think that most rational people would.

>That does not change the fact that I
>believe the fertilized egg has a right to live.

But the fact that you would grab the 5-year-old indicates that you really
don't believe that a fertilized egg is a "citizen" entitled to the same
protections as an actual child.

Actually, I think your position is probably the most consistent and rational
in this are until you start in with the "fertilized egg is a citizen"
kookiness.

[Mossingen]

"Alim Nassor" <alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:8895c143-a4ae-462d...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

_________________


I thought I responded to that in the prior post you made. You've been a
sport in answering my questions, I'll answer yours if I didn't already.

[Mossingen]

"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:5pFVq.4127$1B1...@newsfe14.iad...

I must challenge the record on this, counselor. I remember distinctly
driving to court in rural Oklahoma and listening to rabid conservative talk
radio where the host or the guest equated fertilized eggs with children and
I remember constructing that hypothetical during the drive to challenge him
on it. If my recollection is faulty then I will concede, but I think this
one is mine.

[da pickle]

On 1/30/2012 1:32 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> "da pickle"<jcpickels@(no apam)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:laadnfmBm-ylQrvS...@giganews.com...
>>
>> "Mossingen"<jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:jg6fds$mq1$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> "fffurken"<fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:6f7caa84-59c7-42c2...@p13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> You are conflating abortion and childbirth. I presume it's deliberate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Of course it is. Pickle does that every year during the annual RGP
>>> abortion debate. I should probably just cut-and-paste my old responses,
>>> but abortion is a golden oldie around here. Wait until paul perks up and
>>> wades in here.
>>
>> Trying to be reasonable seems to get one nowhere. James, you seem to
>> favor killing the thing right up until ... when? First breath? I can
>> justify a lot of killing of unborn and born human beings at different
>> times and under different circumstances, but I do not conflate abortion
>> with childbirth ... that is stupid. No matter how one defines
>> "childbirth" and "abortion" ... they can never be synonymous. [I do not
>> know how either of you smart guys could misunderstand that.. :-) ]
>
>
> That's not the point and you know it. Your hypos are designed to test the
> criteria by which my arbitrary rule (that the woman can abort at any time
> prior to delivery) would work at the extreme.

You agreed that I was conflating abortion and childbirth ... I did not
make that up. I do not and did not. I do try to find your "edge" ...
it is the way of "the law" to find what is and what is not "covered" by
the words used to define those edges. I am interested at what you
consider the "extreme" ... apparently you can distinguish between a
non-human being with its "feet" out of the birth canal and a real human
being with its whole body out of the birth canal. Maybe ... you have
not been at all clear.

I ask again ... if the thing has not yet taken a "breath" on its own ...
is it a human being yet in your view?

> But *all* time frames for abortion are arbitrary.

Of course they are.

> What is viability? Your
> hypotheticals work equally well there. What if two doctors disagree on
> whether a fetus is viable? What if one doctor says that viability occurs on
> January 10, but another disagrees and says the fetus was viable on January
> 1? Is the woman punished if she aborts on January 5? Is the doctor? What
> if the rule is that third tri-mester abortions are crimes. What to do with
> an abortion procedure that starts at 11:50 p.m. on the last day of the
> second tri-mester, but is completed at 12:30 a.m. on the first day of the
> third-trimester?

You discuss "viability," not I. The Supreme Court has set arbitrary
rules in place, not I. You have suggested new rules and yet will not
define the limits of your own rules.

> There are problems with any arbitrary time frames. You pointing out those
> problems don't diminish my rule at all because they are present in all
> circumstances, unless someone takes a position like paul or Nassor.

I ask for clarification of your rules and you continue to dodge those
questions. Your rule is not so much arbitrary as undefined.

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 21:02:58 -0600, bub <b...@plottus.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:09:37 -0800 (PST), Will in New Haven
><bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
>
>>. I think "able
>>to survive outside the womb" is a reasonable definition.
>
>i think pickle answered it
>
>if your definition of "able to survive outside the womb" is to be
>used, then each baby being carried would have to be evaluated
>individually as some babies are able to 'survive outside the womb'
>earlier than others.

That's false. All that needs to be done is to create a reasonable
cutoff point. For example, suppose there are no known cases of a
4-month-old fetus survive outside the womb. We could then say that
abortions during the first trimester are legal and forbid abortions
after that point.

I picked 4 months, but the actual date should depend on the earliest
known date where a fetus has survived outside the womb. If it were 6
months, then that would be the latest date at which abortions are
allowed, although it would be prudent to build in a buffer just to
make sure. So, in this case, setting the limit at 5 months would be
reasonable.

[Mossingen]

"da pickle" <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Bp-dnQ5e2aI...@giganews.com...

> I ask for clarification of your rules and you continue to dodge those
> questions. Your rule is not so much arbitrary as undefined.

Inside the womb, abortable. Outside not.

[Pepe Papon]

That's not exactly a cogent argument.

[~M~]

"Mossingen" wrote in message news:jg55jm$io6$1...@dont-email.me...

>They're involved in paying for it, but not involved in the decision making
>process of whether the abortion happens or not. Same as other medical
>procedures the government pays for. What's your point exactly?

The point is, you can't say that someone has no say in the matter, but they
are responsible for it. OK, I guess you can say it, but it would be stupid
to do so.


--
"'Personal responsibility' there addressess [sic] people who feel a personal
responsibility to help others... "
- The Dictionary According to Beldin

[~M~]

"phlash74" wrote in message news:tbcjv8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

>The logical conclusion is that your age (and corresponding legal rights
>and responsibilities) should trace back to your date of conception, not
>your date of birth - which would create a need to answer all the questions
>such a determination would make.

What? I'm sure the baby would agree to whatever you want in order to be
born. That's really its only option.

>What if the mother-to-be enters a
>marathon while three months pregnant and subsequently miscarries? Is she
>guilty of murder?

No, unless she ran a marathon in order to kill the baby to be.

>Would a woman who misses a prenatal appointment be
>subject to child neglect charges?

No, just missed appointment charges.

>What about a woman who drinks and smokes
>up until the point she finds out she's pregnant?

What about her?


--
"We'd all be dead by now if it were not for government regulating private
business."
- Dutch 12/3/2011

[~M~]

>>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message Abortable, or somewhoat broken
>>Gift From God?
>"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote
> Depends entirely on the point of view of the pregnant woman.


You two are retarded. On that, everyone can agree.

[arseniccollection]

>> What if the mother-to-be enters a
>> marathon while three months pregnant and subsequently miscarries? Is she
>> guilty of murder?
>
> No, unless she ran a marathon in order to kill the baby to be.
>
>> Would a woman who misses a prenatal appointment be
>> subject to child neglect charges?
>
> No, just missed appointment charges.
>

You guys do know that about 30% of all pregnancies spontaneously abort,
right?

[Pepe Papon]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:20:52 -0800 (PST), Bea Foroni
<BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:

>
> There are no accidents in pregnancy. The male has most of the
>control. Very few rapes commited by women, very few.

Rape is the exception. In general, men do not have most of the
control. Women do.

> If a man doesn't like abortion he can do three things; 1. don't have
>an abortion, 2. don't have sex with a women where an abortion is a
>possibility, 3. teach his children not to have sex unless he is
>willing to accept 100% of the responsibility.

Why would a male have to accept 100% of the responsibility? That
implies that the woman has zero percent.

[Clave]

"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JeSdnbMsI8Js_rrS...@giganews.com...

>>>"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message Abortable, or somewhoat broken
>>>Gift From God?
>>"Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com> wrote
>> Depends entirely on the point of view of the pregnant woman.
>
>
> You two are retarded. On that, everyone can agree.

Coming from someone who can't handle simple Usenet attributions, that's
pretty rich.

Jim

[Clave]

"arseniccollection" <g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5yJVq.88580$Jl4....@unlimited.newshosting.com...

That would be manslaughter then.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:51:30 -0800 (PST), Alim Nassor
<alimn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> You are walking by a building and notice that it is on fire.  You rush in to
>> see if anyone is inside because you only have a few seconds in which to save
>> anyone inside.  You see a five-year-old child sitting in a corner crying.
>> Way down on the other side of the room you see a test tube that contains a
>> fertilized human egg.  You can save either the crying child or the egg
>> without harm to yourself, but not both.  What do you do and why?
>
>Of course I grab the 5 year old. That does not change the fact that I

>believe the fertilized egg has a right to live.

Why "of course"? What makes it such an easy decision? According to
you, they're both human beings and citizens.

What if, instead of a fertilized egg in a test tube, there were *two*
fertilized eggs? The choice is:

1) Save 1 five-year-old child or
2) Save 2 fertilized eggs.

Do you still save the 5-year old? Why?

[Steam]

On Jan 30 2012 7:51 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:20:52 -0800 (PST), Bea Foroni
> <BeaF...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > There are no accidents in pregnancy. The male has most of the
> >control. Very few rapes commited by women, very few.
>
> Rape is the exception. In general, men do not have most of the
> control. Women do.

Of course they do, so Bea is automatically equating all pregnancy with
rape? That sounds very bizarre

>
> > If a man doesn't like abortion he can do three things; 1. don't have
> >an abortion, 2. don't have sex with a women where an abortion is a
> >possibility, 3. teach his children not to have sex unless he is
> >willing to accept 100% of the responsibility.
>
> Why would a male have to accept 100% of the responsibility? That
> implies that the woman has zero percent.

____________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

"~M~" <~M~@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:wdmdnVlfKtNUwLrS...@giganews.com...

> "Mossingen" wrote in message news:jg55jm$io6$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>They're involved in paying for it, but not involved in the decision making
>>process of whether the abortion happens or not. Same as other medical
>>procedures the government pays for. What's your point exactly?
>
> The point is, you can't say that someone has no say in the matter, but
> they are responsible for it. OK, I guess you can say it, but it would be
> stupid to do so.

Sure you can. It's called being a taxpayer. I pay taxes, but I don't get
to personally decide how the government spends the money.

[Alim Nassor]

On Jan 30, 9:04 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Jan 30, 7:10 pm, Alim Nassor <alimnas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Abortion does not involve killing a baby. Do you understand that?
>
> > Yes, it does.
>

> No it doesn't.
>
> A fetus or something even less formed, is not a baby. Please consult a
> dictionary if it helps.

I don't give a fuck what the dictionary says. This is a matter of my
opinion and my emotion.