Abortion is Murder
Rev. Donald Spitz
If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
--
Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more." John 8:11
http://www.ArmyOfGod.com
Uri Veltwin
opinions. They're like assholes, everybody's got one and in your case you
are one.
Rev. Donald Spitz wrote in message <3760818F...@ArmyofGod.com>...
The Ghost In The Machine
Rev. Donald Spitz <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
And if one were to shoot an abortion doctor?
[.sigsnip]
----
ew...@aimnet.com
Mike Williams
accuse conservatives of spewing.
Uri Veltwin <passe...@thebrain.com> wrote in message
news:8a683.5185$_m4....@news2.giganews.com...
| That is nothing more than your opinion and you know what they say about
| opinions. They're like assholes, everybody's got one and in your case you
| are one.
|
|
| Rev. Donald Spitz wrote in message <3760818F...@ArmyofGod.com>...
| >If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
| >If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
| >
dennis...@access1.net
<Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
Well Rev., obviously you know very little about law or medicine. I
think it's time for you to do some research.
Before you respond to this post, check your state's Penal Code and
medical texts for definations of murder and life.
You post opinions. They don't mean anything. An opinion i like an
asshole, everybody has one, and nobody wants to hear it.
Dennis Martin
Uri Veltwin
terms. Guess what genius, I'm not supportive of any party, politically
speaking. And poor poor Mike, if thats a hate speech, I feel sorry for you
when the fire gets turned up. Maybe you should get an asbestos lines
monitor for if that was hot for you then you have seen nothing yet.
Mike Williams wrote in message <7jr7c1$2b...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
>That sounds like some of that nasty hate speech that you liberals always
>accuse conservatives of spewing.
>
>
>Uri Veltwin <passe...@thebrain.com> wrote in message
>news:8a683.5185$_m4....@news2.giganews.com...
>| That is nothing more than your opinion and you know what they say about
>| opinions. They're like assholes, everybody's got one and in your case
you
>| are one.
>|
>|
>| Rev. Donald Spitz wrote in message <3760818F...@ArmyofGod.com>...
>| >If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
>| >If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
>| >
Al Borges
child.
If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder. <<
Your an asshole. If anyone supports you, they are accessory assholes.
Al.
Ramon Ki Ré
<Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
To reasonable people, such a statement is patently obvious. To unreasonable
people who will say anything, no matter how illogical, to try to disguise
their guilt, no amount of reason will work.
Ramon Ki Ré
"This generation will have to repent, not so much for the wicked deeds of
the evil people, but for the appalling silence of the good people!" - Martin
Luther King
gate...@albany.net
<3760818F...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
[pathetic demented woman hating spew deleted]
Hey Spitz! I saw you on Michael Moore's show. What
a moron you are. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Brian Charles Kohn
Donald Spitz" <Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> escribió en el
mensaje de noticias <3760818F...@ArmyofGod.com>:
>If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
Actually, if YOU "commit" abortion, YOU commit murder,
because YOU believe that the fetus is a child, and because
YOU believe that it has the right to life.
I have some friends who believe that if they eat bacon, they
commit SIN, and if they eat bacon unrepentingly, they are
DAMNED. That's based on their beliefs. I suspect those
beliefs don't apply to you; you don't believe that eating
bacon is sinful so for you it isn't.
Judge people only by their adherence to their stated code of
morality; to do otherwise is grievous hubris.
just bicker®
Brian Charles Kohn
Ki Ré" <kee...@zipworld.com.au> escribió en el mensaje de
noticias <7js7fq$md5$1...@the-fly.zip.com.au>:
>In article <3760818F...@ArmyofGod.com> , "Rev. Donald Spitz"
><Jesus...@ArmyofGod.com> wrote:
>>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
This is pure hubris, as if your opinion is the only possible
truth. I know that you believe that it is true, and I
respect your devotion. However, from my point-of-view,
you're (putting it politely) mistaken; I believe that
because I am of a different faith than you. I have realized
the Truth based on my faith, and your morality doesn't
"jive" with what I believe. I don't and won't seek to get
you to live up to my beliefs, and I expect that you won't
seek to have me live up to yours.
Here's to hoping to live in peace in a world filled with
differences...
just bicker®
CyberAl
dennis...@access1.net wrote in message
>>If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
>>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
>medical texts for definations of murder and life.
Murder is murder no matter whether it is commited inside the mothers
womb, or on the streets in our land or any land. It makes no sense trying
to justify murder with the states penal codes and medical text, or any
seculiar law that is predominantly made for criminals, by criminals.
Thank you for your time.
Child Warrior
their mental state....
hereti...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7juvuv$l34$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <#vGnb7St#GA.281@cpmsnbbsa03>,
> "CyberAl" <Cybe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
>>
>> dennis...@access1.net wrote in message
>> >>If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
>> >>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
>> >Before you respond to this post, check your state's Penal Code and
>> >medical texts for definations of murder and life.
>>
>> Murder is murder no matter whether it is commited inside the
>mothers
>> womb,
>
>Abortion has never been considered to be murder under common
>law or any statutory criminal code.
>
>> or on the streets in our land or any land. It makes no sense
>trying
>> to justify murder with the states penal codes and medical text, or any
>> seculiar law that is predominantly made for criminals, by criminals.
>
>You are insane.
>Get help.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
hereti...@my-deja.com
Ron Nicholson
> dennis...@access1.net wrote in message
> >>If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
> >>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
> >Before you respond to this post, check your state's Penal Code and
> >medical texts for definations of murder and life.
>
> Murder is murder no matter whether it is commited inside the mothers
> womb, or on the streets in our land or any land. It makes no sense trying
> to justify murder with the states penal codes and medical text, or any
> seculiar law that is predominantly made for criminals, by criminals.
>
> Thank you for your time.
Oy vey! Murder is murder. Murder is a legal distinction. In fact, not all
killings whether inside a woman's body, or on the street are murder for that
matter.
John Sweet
In response to:
> Murder is murder no matter whether it is committed inside
> the mother's womb,
You replied,
> Abortion has never been considered to be murder under
> common law or any statutory criminal code.
Being pro life and having done some reading on this
you are right... [chalk on up for your side].
The truth is, however, abortion has *always* been
considered a crime. Take the Code of Hammurabi
for instance [circa 13th century BC]. Abortion was
recognized as a crime over 23 centuries ago. It
was considered a crime in that part of the world
then, and it is considered a crime in that part of the
world now.
It was also a crime among the Hebrews.
It was considered a crime before the Roman Empire
converted to Christianity. Refer to the Didache,
Epistle of St. Barnabus, the work Ad Dignetum,
and the writings of Tertullian [Apol chapter 9].
After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity
it was a considered a crime in the Greek-speaking
East and the Latin-speaking West.
It was a crime in Europe, and it was a crime in
Brittain. Why do you think Thomas Aquinas was
even discussing this issue? Idle speculation?
And, finally it was a crime in America until 1971,
when a woman lied about the circumstances
of her pregnancy and convinced the court to
legalize abortion. She claimed to have been raped
because she thought the law would then permit
her to have an abortion. However, the law in
Texas only permitted abortion when there was a
direct threat to the life of the mother.
[Score 23 centuries of jurisprudence for our side.]
Nice try, but again the facts support the truth.
Funny how it always seems to work out that way.
Yours truly,
John
LadyNature
Facts.. where?? Sighting century old opinions doesn't equal FACT..
Lets see..up until, oh, a mere 150-30 years ago, blacks and women were
considered inferior.. Hell, some peopl *still* think this is true..
Historical Opinion equals Fact, eh???
~Naturelle
Ray Fischer
>> Abortion has never been considered to be murder under
>> common law or any statutory criminal code.
>
>Being pro life and having done some reading on this
>you are right... [chalk on up for your side].
>
>The truth is, however, abortion has *always* been
>considered a crime.
Nope. In fact, until the latter half of the 19th century it was legal
in the US. It's legal in many other countries. There is nothing in
the Bible that makes it illegal, and even some passages which mandate
it.
[...]
>And, finally it was a crime in America until 1971,
>when a woman lied about the circumstances
>of her pregnancy and convinced the court to
>legalize abortion.
That is an outright lie.
Aside from the assinine stupidy of claiming that McCorvey showed up in
from of the US Supreme court (she didn't), the circumstances of her
pregnancy had NO relevance to the case.
>[Score 23 centuries of jurisprudence for our side.]
Another pro-liar who cannot argue honestly. Dime a dozen.
--
Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world,
r...@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
hrgr...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> My dear "heretic",
>
> In response to:
> > Murder is murder no matter whether it is committed inside
> > the mother's womb,
>
> You replied,
> > common law or any statutory criminal code.
>
> Being pro life and having done some reading on this
> you are right... [chalk on up for your side].
>
> The truth is, however, abortion has *always* been
> considered a crime.
Being pro-choice and having done some reading on this, I say
you are (mostly) right... [chalk on up for your side] :-)
But so have been - for almost all of human history which knew the
concept of "crime" - blasphemy, crimen laesae rei maiestatis (telling
the king/boss/Supreme Poobah what you really think about him etc.
:-) ), escape from slavery etc.
This is not intended as a justification of abortion, but should put
your impressive list - and I really mean impressive, no irony at all -
into proper perspective.
Take the Code of Hammurabi
> for instance [circa 13th century BC]. Abortion was
> recognized as a crime over 23 centuries ago. It
> was considered a crime in that part of the world
> then, and it is considered a crime in that part of the
> world now.
Yes, and a lot of other things are crimes in that part of the world,
too ...
> It was also a crime among the Hebrews.
> It was considered a crime before the Roman Empire
> converted to Christianity. Refer to the Didache,
> Epistle of St. Barnabus, the work Ad Dignetum,
> and the writings of Tertullian [Apol chapter 9].
Refer to Roman law during the Republic when it was even legal to expose
children ....
> After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity
> it was a considered a crime in the Greek-speaking
> East and the Latin-speaking West.
>
> It was a crime in Europe, and it was a crime in
> Brittain. Why do you think Thomas Aquinas was
> even discussing this issue? Idle speculation?
>
> And, finally it was a crime in America until 1971,
> when a woman lied about the circumstances
> of her pregnancy and convinced the court to
> legalize abortion.
That Roe vs. Wade is based on the *facts* of the particular case can
only be believed if you haven't read the opinion.
> She claimed to have been raped
> because she thought the law would then permit
> her to have an abortion. However, the law in
> Texas only permitted abortion when there was a
> direct threat to the life of the mother.
>
> [Score 23 centuries of jurisprudence for our side.]
Well, perhaps you forgot to mention the concept of "quickening"
(abortion only a crime after a certain stage of pregnancy) or that you
certainly can't look back at *uninterrupted* 23 centuries.
> Nice try, but again the facts support the truth.
... that abortion never was considered as murder ? Correct.
... that abortions (actually, *some* abortions) were crimes during
large parts of human history ? Correct.
... that the concept of human rights (from which reproductive and
privacy rights are derived) is a relatively recent invention ? Correct.
> Funny how it always seems to work out that way.
Looks pretty clear to me: *facts* are a subset of *truth* (or at least
of our approximation to truth ....) ;-)
Regards,
HRG.
> Yours truly,
> John
hereti...@my-deja.com
"Child Warrior" <nor...@email.com> wrote:
> How about if we pick on the person's standpoint on abortion as opposed
to
> their mental state....
Since the person made an assertion that is completely
false, persistance in this fallacy is a sign of a
psychotic break with reality.
Abortion is not murder,
nor has it ever been considered murder under any legal
code or system.
Case closed.
> hereti...@my-deja.com wrote in message
<7juvuv$l34$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <#vGnb7St#GA.281@cpmsnbbsa03>,
> > "CyberAl" <Cybe...@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> dennis...@access1.net wrote in message
> >> >>If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own
child.
> >> >>If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to
murder.
> >> >Before you respond to this post, check your state's Penal Code
and
> >> >medical texts for definations of murder and life.
> >>
> >> Murder is murder no matter whether it is commited inside the
> >mothers
> >> womb,
> >
> >Abortion has never been considered to be murder under common
> >law or any statutory criminal code.
> >
> >> or on the streets in our land or any land. It makes no sense
> >trying
> >> to justify murder with the states penal codes and medical text, or
any
> >> seculiar law that is predominantly made for criminals, by
criminals.
> >
> >You are insane.
> >Get help.
> >
> >
El Coyote
...
>And, finally it was a crime in America until 1971,
Liar. It was NOT a crime in America until after the mid 1800's.
http://www.ohiolife.org/qa/qa04.htm
Abortions did increase in the 19th century then?
Yes, many fold. In fact, they became very common.
J. Mohr, Abortion in America, Oxford University Press, 1978
According to a Pro-Life source, abortion was not only legal but was
"very common" in the 1800's.
...
>[Score 23 centuries of jurisprudence for our side.]
Only if you lie to yourself. Why must Pro-Lifers lie?
...
John Sweet
two paragraphs...
I reminded people that abortion WAS a crime here
in America until Roe-v-Wade...
>> And, finally it was a crime in America until 1971,
And El Coyote responded:
> Liar. It was NOT a crime in America until after the mid 1800's.
I stand corrected. Apparently abortion was illegal in this in
this country from 1821 until 1971. So what? If EC had
taken the time to read this [excellent] article, he/she would
know that the states, after achieving independence from
Britain, followed British law in these matters.
Apparently, the states had other legislation to pass. Of
course abortion WAS also illegal under British law, so
you can safely say that IN EFFECT abortion was
*always* illegal in this country.
Furthermore, anybody who is familiar with Roe-v-Wade
knows that the woman who initiated the case became
pregnant from her boyfriend. She, however, now admits
to lying at the time and creating a totally false story about
how she was "raped". She did so because she knew the
law in Texas was strict, and she had already decided to
kill her child. Again, the LAW in Texas (circa 1970) only
allowed abortions when the mother's life was threatened.
It did not (and rightfully so) have an "exception" that
allowed the mother to kill her child after she'd been
raped.
Obviously, abortion WAS *always* illegal in this country.
It was, in fact, not initially treated as murder. From this
article it is clear that the AMA realized that abortion
was murder circa 1860.
Again, it was only in 1971 that courts - ignoring the medical
facts of the day and a long history of jurisprudence -
arbitrarily gave women the right to kill their unborn children
at will.
Today, it is a well known fact in the scientific community
that the fertilized embryo is UNDENIABLY both human
and a unique individual. There is no debate on this
among the scientists - only the ideologues.
>> According to a Pro-Life source, abortion was not only legal but was
>> "very common" in the 1800's.
WRONG. The article says that abortions were
PERFORMED in this country (despite the fact that they were
illegal) in the 1800's. The author only claims that abortion
"increased" in the 1800's. I would be curious to know
what EC scored on the verbal section of the SAT.
I checked out EC's sources and will post the article that
was cited [out of fairness to the article's author].
I think you will agree that EC distorted and misrepresented
the information that was presented.
Citation: http://www.ohiolife.org/qa/qa04.htm
Author: <not listed> but it is a pro-life web-site
*begin quote*
But abortions were common in the 19th century!
"Sometime after 1750, a new technique for inducing abortion
was introduced. [It was a] major technological innovation,"
which involved inserting objects through the cervix into the
uterus to initiate the abortion. It, too, had major risks to the
mother, but was so much safer than the older, more lethal
methods that it replaced them, and infanticide became rare.
ibid.
Abortions did increase in the 19th century then?
Yes, many fold. In fact, they became very common. J. Mohr,
[ Again, "common" is NOT legal. an obvious distinction. ]
Abortion in America, Oxford University Press, 1978
Then in 1827, Karl Ernst von Boar, in a scientific journal,
postulated that both man and woman contribute to a process
called conception. His was the first accurate description of the
process of conception. This was observed in a rabbit in
1843 by Martin Berry, but not actually seen in a human until
many years later.
By the 1850s the scientific and medical world came to fully
accept the fact that the man and woman each contributed
half to the creation of the new human being. This event was
called conception or fertilization, and this stimulated the anti-
abortion action of the doctors.
There was an anti-abortion movement then?
While abortions induced through the vagina became common,
medical communities throughout the world, were, at the
same time, becoming aware of the newly discovered scientific
fact that human life began at fertilization. In response to
this the British Parliament passed the "Offenses Against the
Person Act" in 1869, dropping the felony punishment back
to conception. It was during the same years that members of
the American Medical Association went to the state
legislatures to testify and inform them of this scientific fact.
"In 1859 the AMA protested that the quickening distinction
allowed the fetus rights 'for civil purposes [but as] to its life
as yet denies all protection.' They protested against this
'unwarrantable destruction of human life,' calling upon state
legislatures to revise their abortion laws and requesting the
state medical societies 'in pressing the subject.'" Roe vs.
Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, VI, 6, p. 26, 1973
By 1871 the AMA report had summed up abortion: "we
had to deal with human life." As different state and national
lawmakers were taught the newly discovered scientific fact
that human life didn't begin at quickening but rather at
conception, the laws were changed. One by one, each ruled
that human life should be equally and fully protected by law,
not from the time of quickening, but from its actual beginning
at conception.
When were the new laws passed in the U.S.?
Originally, the U.S. colonies, and then the states operated under
English Common Law. Connecticut passed the first separate state law
in 1821. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in states which had
clearly prohibited abortion with new laws. [J. Dellapenna, The
History of Abortion, Technology, Morality, and Law, "University
of Pittsburgh Law Review," 1979]
[Quay, "Justifiable Abortion-Medical and Legal Foundations,
49 Georgetown Univ. Law Review, 1960-1961]
Besides clearly forbidding abortion, these laws and those passed
after the Civil War moved the felony punishment from quickening
back to conception. This was done primarily to protect new human
life.
*end quote*
El Coyote
>To: Anybody who can follow an argument for more than
>two paragraphs...
>
>I reminded people that abortion WAS a crime here
>in America until Roe-v-Wade...
>>> And, finally it was a crime in America until 1971,
>And El Coyote responded:
>> Liar. It was NOT a crime in America until after the mid 1800's.
>
>I stand corrected. Apparently abortion was illegal in this in
>this country from 1821 until 1971. So what? If EC had
>taken the time to read this [excellent] article, he/she would
>know that the states, after achieving independence from
>Britain, followed British law in these matters.
There was no British law against abortion until 1803, when Parliament
passed Lord Ellenborough's Act, making it a crime punishable by death
to cause an abortion by the use of poisons--but only if the abortion
occurred after the woman first felt the fetus moving ("quickening").
>Apparently, the states had other legislation to pass. Of
>course abortion WAS also illegal under British law, so
>you can safely say that IN EFFECT abortion was
>*always* illegal in this country.
You could say that, but you would be lying.
Gone With the Wind was written by Margaret Mitchell and published in
1936. It is set in the time of the Civil War, the late 1860's. The
first paragraph of chapter 8 says "...the first two pages of the paper
were always devoted to advertisements of slaves, mules, plows,
coffins, houses for sale or rent, cures for private diseases,
abortifacients and restoratives for lost manhood."
Just more evidence that abortion was legal and common....
>Furthermore, anybody who is familiar with Roe-v-Wade
>knows that the woman who initiated the case became
>pregnant from her boyfriend. She, however, now admits
>to lying at the time and creating a totally false story about
>how she was "raped". She did so because she knew the
>law in Texas was strict, and she had already decided to
>kill her child. Again, the LAW in Texas (circa 1970) only
>allowed abortions when the mother's life was threatened.
>It did not (and rightfully so) have an "exception" that
>allowed the mother to kill her child after she'd been
>raped.
From `A Question of Choice', by Sarah Weddington, chapter 3:
`As the conversation continued, Jane Roe asked if it would help if she
had been raped. We said no; the Texas law had no exception for
rape... I did ask, `Were there any witnesses? Was there a police
report? Is there any way that we could prove a rape occurred?' Her
answer in each instance was no.
Neither Linda nor I questioned her further about how she had gotten
pregnant. I was not going to allege something in the complaint that I
could not back up with proof. Also, we did not want the Texas law
changed only to allow abortion in cases of rape. We wanted a decision
that abortion was covered by the right of privacy. After all, the
women coming to the referral project were there as a result of a wide
variety of circumstances. Our principles were not based on how
conception occurred.'
>Obviously, abortion WAS *always* illegal in this country.
>It was, in fact, not initially treated as murder. From this
>article it is clear that the AMA realized that abortion
>was murder circa 1860.
In the 1920's there were 400,000 legal abortions a year, performed by
AMA certified Doctors.
>Again, it was only in 1971 that courts - ignoring the medical
>facts of the day and a long history of jurisprudence -
>arbitrarily gave women the right to kill their unborn children
>at will.
A lie. AFAIK, there no law anywhere that gives anyone a "right to
kill."
>Today, it is a well known fact in the scientific community
>that the fertilized embryo is UNDENIABLY both human
>and a unique individual. There is no debate on this
>among the scientists - only the ideologues.
This is bullshit.
Furrther bullshit about the laws deleted since abortion was always
allowed for exceptions that would not be allowed if we were dealing
with the murder of human beings.
Ray Fischer
>Furthermore, anybody who is familiar with Roe-v-Wade
>knows that the woman who initiated the case became
>pregnant from her boyfriend. She, however, now admits
>to lying at the time and creating a totally false story about
>how she was "raped".
A detail which had no bearing whatever of the Supreme Court's
decision.
None.
> She did so because she knew the
>law in Texas was strict, and she had already decided to
>kill her child. Again, the LAW in Texas (circa 1970) only
>allowed abortions when the mother's life was threatened.
>It did not (and rightfully so) have an "exception" that
>allowed the mother to kill her child after she'd been
>raped.
>
>Obviously, abortion WAS *always* illegal in this country.
Obviously you're a liar.
>It was, in fact, not initially treated as murder.
Abortion has NEVER been treated as murder.
> From this
>article it is clear that the AMA realized that abortion
>was murder circa 1860.
LOL! What an ass you are! Abortion has never been murder. The AMA
doesn't even have anything to do with laws. They were opposed to
abortion because it was then more dangerous.
>Again, it was only in 1971 that courts - ignoring the medical
>facts of the day
What medical facts were ignored, lair? Let's see some actual
specifics from you.
>and a long history of jurisprudence -
That says that women are not slaves to the state or the fetus.
>arbitrarily gave women the right to kill their unborn children
>at will.
LOL! And you think you have the right to kill pregnant women at will.
>Today, it is a well known fact in the scientific community
>that the fertilized embryo is UNDENIABLY both human
>and a unique individual.
Just as a sperm cell is both human and a unique individual.
So?
John Sweet
RE: The AMA's original position on abortion
Citation: http://www.ohiolife.org/qa/qa04.htm
Author: <not cited>
*begin quote*
There was an anti-abortion movement then?
While abortions induced through the vagina became common,
medical communities throughout the world, were, at the
same time, becoming aware of the newly discovered scientific
fact that human life began at fertilization. In response to this the
British Parliament passed the "Offences Against the Person Act"
Law Review," 1979], Quay, "Justifiable Abortion-Medical
and Legal Foundations, 49 Georgetown Univ. Law Review,
1960-1961]
Besides clearly forbidding abortion, these laws and those
passed after the Civil War moved the felony punishment from
quickening back to conception. This was done primarily to
protect new human life.
*end quote*
Then EC goes on to admit that abortion was illegal under
Brittish law, In "1803, when Parliament passed Lord
Ellenborough's Act, making it a crime punishable by death
to cause an abortion by the use of poisons--but only if the
abortion occurred after the woman first felt the fetus
moving ("quickening")."
EC goes on to claim,
"In the 1920's there were 400,000 legal abortions a year,
performed by AMA certified Doctors."
First, I'd be suprised if you had a reliable source for that
statistic. But if you do please cite it for me. I would like
to check it out for myself (if you don't mind).
An interesting question is: "Since the Brittish law of 1969
was based on the scientific discoveries of the day, and it,
thus, protected the fetus from CONCEPTION onwards...
How do you explain the AMA's shift. What happened
within the AMA to change it from a pro-life organization
circa 1870 to, if I accept your proposition, a pro-abortion
organization?
To conclude my argument I said,
>Today, it is a well known fact in the scientific community
>that the fertilized embryo is UNDENIABLY both human
>and a unique individual. There is no debate on this
>among the scientists - only the ideologues.
To which you replied:
> This is bullshit.
OK, I'm willing to keep an open mind.
Name one scientific experiment showing that the
fetus is not (a) human from the moment of
conception, or (b) a unique individual - again,
from the first moment of conception.
I am not addressing the issue of personhood
here because scientific experiments can not
address a philosophical question. They can
only tell us if the embryo is both unique and
human at the same time.
Thank you for listening to what I have to
say so carefully. I appreciate many of the
points and clarifications that you made.
Your point about the novel Gone With the
Wind was particularly interesting.
Warmest Regards,
John
hrgr...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
<snip>
> To conclude my argument I said,
> >that the fertilized embryo is UNDENIABLY both human
> >and a unique individual. There is no debate on this
> >among the scientists - only the ideologues.
>
> > This is bullshit.
>
> OK, I'm willing to keep an open mind.
> Name one scientific experiment showing that the
> fetus is not (a) human from the moment of
> conception, or (b) a unique individual - again,
> from the first moment of conception.
Human[adjective]? Almost, if not fully tautological. However don't
confuse it with "a human"[noun] - a rich source of equivocation and
actually a quirk of the English language.
Unique ? Mostly, although there is a problem with monozygous twins.
But so is a growing cancer or a HeLa cell culture - human and unique.
Individual ? Some would require metabolic independence. Isn't it really
a matter of definition ?
> I am not addressing the issue of personhood
> here because scientific experiments can not
> address a philosophical question. They can
> only tell us if the embryo is both unique and
> human at the same time.
I couldn't agree more with your distinction between scientific facts
and philosophical/moral/legal questions. But this means that the PL
battle cry "Science tells us it is unique and human" says very little
about the issues to be resolved.
> Thank you for listening to what I have to
> say so carefully. I appreciate many of the
> points and clarifications that you made.
May I say that I far prefer your civil tone to the verbal missiles
which are often hurled from both sides ....
Regards,
HRG.
> Your point about the novel Gone With the
> Wind was particularly interesting.
>
> Warmest Regards,
> John
>
>
Carol Lee Smith
murder your own child.
If you support what is in the Bible and live by its tenets, you would be
an accessory to murder.
Jesus said:
"Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
"But Jesus himself called others fools in Matt. 23:17 and 23:19 and Luke
11:40. From Jesus' own words we must conclude that Jesus, too, along with
the rest of mankind, is in danger of going to hell." --C. Dennis McKinsey
On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Rev. Donald Spitz wrote:
> If you commit abortion you commit murder, you murder your own child.
> If you support abortion, you support and are an accessory to murder.
>
> --
> Jesus said: "Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more." John 8:11
> http://www.ArmyOfGod.com
>
>
>
>
If the right of privacy means anything, it is the right of the individual,
married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion
into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether
to bear or beget a child." --Justice Brennan, Baird v. Eisenstadt, 1972
John Sweet
We agree on one thing, namely, that abortion was never
considered "murder" by our legal community. It was
however a FELONY in Britain. The author does not
say how serious a crime it was in America prior to
1971.
This is a point you well understand if you read the
entire article that you cited previously. Again,
according to civil law it was a felony and not "murder".
Yours truly,
John
PS: It is true that the detail of the "rape" had
nothing to do with the Supreme Court's
Decision. I believe, however, the facts of
the case were very important when the
Texas courts made their initial decision.
As you know, many legal appeals are not, in
general, based on the "details" of the case...
As much as they are on the details of the
law.
js
Ray Fischer wrote:
> John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >Furthermore, anybody who is familiar with Roe-v-Wade
> >knows that the woman who initiated the case became
> >pregnant from her boyfriend. She, however, now admits
> >to lying at the time and creating a totally false story about
> >how she was "raped".
>
> A detail which had no bearing whatever of the Supreme Court's
> decision.
>
> None.
>
> > She did so because she knew the
> >law in Texas was strict, and she had already decided to
> >kill her child. Again, the LAW in Texas (circa 1970) only
> >allowed abortions when the mother's life was threatened.
> >It did not (and rightfully so) have an "exception" that
> >allowed the mother to kill her child after she'd been
> >raped.
> >
> >Obviously, abortion WAS *always* illegal in this country.
>
> Obviously you're a liar.
>
> >It was, in fact, not initially treated as murder.
>
> Abortion has NEVER been treated as murder.
>
> > From this
> >article it is clear that the AMA realized that abortion
> >was murder circa 1860.
>
> LOL! What an ass you are! Abortion has never been murder. The AMA
> doesn't even have anything to do with laws. They were opposed to
> abortion because it was then more dangerous.
>
> >Again, it was only in 1971 that courts - ignoring the medical
> >facts of the day
>
> What medical facts were ignored, lair? Let's see some actual
> specifics from you.
>
> >and a long history of jurisprudence -
>
> That says that women are not slaves to the state or the fetus.
>
> >arbitrarily gave women the right to kill their unborn children
> >at will.
>
> LOL! And you think you have the right to kill pregnant women at will.
>
> >Today, it is a well known fact in the scientific community
> >that the fertilized embryo is UNDENIABLY both human
> >and a unique individual.
>
Ray Fischer
>We agree on one thing, namely, that abortion was never
>considered "murder" by our legal community.
Then maybe you should not have claimed otherwise.
John Sweet
Dear hrguemm,
In response to my cogent statement that the embryo
is both human and unique (a.k.a. DNA), and that this
is a scientific fact...
hrguemm responded (amazingly)...
> But so is a growing cancer or a HeLa cell culture - human and unique.
To which I can only say,
"mitosis" and "meiosis" look them up.
If your high-schoolers are taking biology, it will be in
there.
Conclusion: embryo "not equal" tumor
embryo = unique human individual
(a.k.a. human person)
Corollary: every human person has certain
unalienable rights namely the pursuit of LIFE,
liberty, and happiness.
Rhetorical question: Why was LIFE listed first?
Rhetorical answer: Perhaps the founders were trying to
connote a hierarchy of values?
Best wishes,
John
John Sweet
Again the phrase "reading comprehension" comes to mind...
I repeatedly said "was considered a crime..."
Because of advances in scientific understanding, specifically
DNA testing and the like, we now know something our
parents didn't... Abortion is murder. They only knew that
is was *very, very* wrong... This is reflected by the fact
that is WAS a FELONY. Will you even go so far as to
deny this fact?
Yours truly,
John
John Sweet
I will attempt to rebut your excellent reply to my hastily
penned response. I would like to agree with you on the
following points... abortion was not considered "murder"
and there is a long history of jurisprudence on this subject.
Briefly, in my only defense...
I agree that legally abortion was not equivalent to murder.
According to the article that you cited,
"the British Parliament passed the 'Offenses Against the
Person Act' in 1869, dropping the FELONY punishment back
to conception."
And, the laws in the US "passed after the Civil War moved the
FELONY punishment from quickening back to conception."
For what it's worth...
I believe that abortion is murder as defined by the Ten
Commandments... One of which translated literally means,
"You shall not kill the innocent."
I believe it should be illegal without exception. This
includes rape and incest [because the intent to kill
the innocent is present and acted upon].
In my personal opinion, it would be nice to have the
government completely OUT of this business - on one
condition... (namely)... the medical profession polices
itself and revokes the license of any person performing
an abortion or assisting in one. I do not want to impose
a "christian" state with "christian" laws. I merely want
to protect the unborn person's right to life.
[Religious states are, in my opinion, utopian failures,
and I (personally) am content to hope for the one in
heaven.]
Unfortunately, the medical profession in this country
is paralyzed by ideologues who need to protect their
own self interests at this point in time. This leaves us
with only ONE other profession that is capable of
dealing with this. As Danny Devito quipped in one
of his funniest movies, "and if that don't work bring in
the nukes - I mean lawyers."
Incidentally, I feel that cultural and legal essays like
ours will go a long way in helping people understand
the issues at stake here.
Purely hypothetical... (feel free to skip)...
If I were passing the laws around here...
Only the abortion doctors and nurses would be punished.
In my mind the tragedy of an abortion is enough for the
woman. In Jesus' own words, "it is mercy that I want
and not sacrifice."
Punishments for medical professionals:
1st offense: automatic loss of license, possibility of
retraining, testing and licensing in (say) 20 years.
Fines must equal the income earned while practicing
medicine or the amount charged for abortion services
- whichever is greater. Minimum jail time = 3 years.
No possibility of parole.
2nd offense: 10-20 years in prison with possible parole
in 8 years....
Again this is just my lousy opinion for what its worth
which as you know is very little...
Regards,
John
PS: I never, ever sign my postings with the following...
> "This generation will have to repent, not so much for the
> evil deeds of the wicked people, but for the appalling
> silence of the good people"
> - Martin Luther King
However, I understand how easy it is to make such
a mistake. No offense taken.
Repentance based on fear is salutory but not
true repentance. Repentance based on love is
a great gift...
Mary
>To: Anybody who can follow an argument for more than
>two paragraphs...
>I stand corrected.
Nuff said.
webg...@rocketmail.com
anti-abortion protestors that they will insist that they
don't have to follow: producing real quotes, actual
citations, and real EVIDENCE, within the body of the post!
(pro-choicers may want to save this post, I managed to
find, display, and answer nearly ALL of his citations!)
In article <3763F4CA...@neo.rr.com>,
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> My dear "heretic",
>
> In response to:
> > Murder is murder no matter whether it
> > is committed inside the mother's womb,
>
> You replied,
> > Abortion has never been considered to be
> > murder under common law or any statutory
> > criminal code.
>
> Being pro life and having done some reading on this
> you are right... [chalk on up for your side].
>
> The truth is, however, abortion has *always* been
> considered a crime.
However, it has never been considered the crime of
*murder*, which was heretic's ORIGINAL POINT, a point
which you must IGNORE in order to make your case and
claim it has anything to do with attempting to prove
that abortion is "murder".
Abortion has also never been universally banned in
all its forms. There has never been a time when all
women were banned from obtaining abortions for
all reasons.
A starting quote, prior to Roe vs. Wade, when
Massachusetts was first starting to legalize
contraception in 1965:
Q: What are his opinions on the legalization of
birth control?
"Catholics do not need the support of civil law to be
faithful to their religious convictions and they do
not seek to impose by law their moral views on other
members of society."
-- Cardinal Cushing, 1965, Massachusetts
> Take the Code of Hammurabi for instance [circa 13th
> century BC]. Abortion was recognized as a crime over
> 23 centuries ago. It was considered a crime in that
> part of the world then, and it is considered a crime
> in that part of the world now.
The Code of Hammurabi bears a striking resemblance to
the more recent Exodus 21:22-25:
Code of Hammurabi (209, 210) which reads: "If a
seignior struck a[notherl seignior's daughter
and has caused her to have a miscarriage [literally,
caused her to drop that of her womb], he shall pay
ten shekels of silver for her fetus. If that woman
had died, they shall put his daughter to death."
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm)
As with Exodus 21:22-25, this passage does not
charge the offender with the crime of murder, merely
the crime of destruction of property. Murder, in the
ancient world, is punished with death, not with the
paltry sum of ten shekels of silver.
Hittite Laws, (1.17): "If anyone causes a free woman
to miscarry [literally, drives out the embryo]-if
(it is) the 10th month, he shall give 10 shekels of
silver, if (it is) the 5th month, he shall give 5
shekels of silver..." The phrase "drives out the
embryo" is similar to the Hebrew word in Exodus
21:22 and appears to relate to a miscarriage rather
than to a premature birth."
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm)
"Brian McKinley, a born-again Christian, sums the
passage up with: "Thus we can see that if the baby
is lost, it does not require a death sentence -- it
is not considered murder. But if the woman is lost,
it is considered murder and is punished by death."
(http://www.elroy.com/ehr/abortion.html)
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm)
As for pre-C.E. Biblical beliefs about abortion, we
can look to the book of Genesis for what appears to
be an excellent primer on what value the Hebrews
placed on fetuses:
Genesis 38:24,27 "And it came to pass about three months
after [her act of non-marital sex], that it was told
Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played
the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by
whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her
be burnt....[later, having been saved by an unrighteous
man]...And it came to pass in the time of her travail,
that, behold, twins were in her womb."
"Tamar's pregnancy was discovered three months after
conception, presumably because it was visible at that
time. Because she was a widow, without a husband, she
was assumed to be a prostitute. Her father-in-law Judah
ordered that she be burned alive for her crime. If
Tamar's twin fetuses had been considered to have any
value whatsoever, her execution would have been delayed
until after their birth. There was no condemnation on
Judah for deciding to take this action."
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_bibl.htm)
And apparently those making the decisions about abortions
had mellowed by the time everyone started to get worried
about having to change their calendars and start counting
up instead of down. :)
"In ancient times, the "delayed ensoulment" belief of
Aristotle (384-322 BCE) was widely accepted in Pagan
Greece and Rome. He taught that a fetus originally has
a vegetable soul. This evolves into an animal soul
later in gestation. Finally the fetus is "animated" with
a human soul. This "ensoulment" was believed to occur at
40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days
after conception for female fetuses. 1 The difference was
of little consequence, because in those days, the gender
of a fetus could not be determined visually until about
90 days from conception, and no genetic tests existed to
determine gender. Thus contraception and abortion were
not condemned if performed early in gestation. It is only
if the abortion is done later in pregnancy that a human
soul is destroyed."
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
> It was also a crime among the Hebrews.
Abortion was not considered a crime among the Hebrews,
for the simple reason that there was never any law
banning abortion. There is not a single verse in the
Old Testament or even in the New Testament--Jesus and
his disciples having been, for all practical purposes,
Jews--which states that abortion is a crime.
Exodus 21:22-25 does not proscribe abortion. In fact,
all it does is say that killing a fetus is not considered
to be the same thing as murder. In fact, the Hebrews
considered killing a fetus to be no more than, say,
killing a neighbor's cow. Pay a fine, thats all they
required for it.
Also, killing a fetus which had been conceived in
sin was also not a crime at all, and those killing the
fetus were not held accountable for killing it.
Anti-abortion folks like to tell us that every act of
sex can cause a pregnancy. Yet, when we note that
all women found guilty of sinful sex were stoned
to death without first permitting any pregnant ones
to give birth, one must wonder why anyone would seriously
think that killing a fetus was considered to be a henious
crime.
Add in the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Book of Job, and
you have a case that the wise men of the Bible actually
felt abortion was, sometimes, a GOOD IDEA:
Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 "Then I looked again at all the acts
of oppression which were being done under the sun. And
behold I saw the tears of the oppressed and that they
had no one to comfort them; and on the side of their
oppressors was power, but they had no one to comfort
them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead
more than the living who are still living. But better
off than both of them is the one who has never existed,
who has never seen the evil activity that is done under
the sun."
Solomon clearly agrees with the "quality of life" argument
put forth by the pro-choice side. Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 is
merely a reiteration of this argument.
Again, Job tells us how he would have preferred never
to have been born:
Job 3:2-4,11-19 "And Job said, 'Let the day perish on
which I was to be born, and the night which said, "a
boy is conceived." May that day be darkness; let not
God above care for it, nor light shine on it.'"
"Why did I not die at birth, come forth from my womb
and expire? Why did the knees receive me, and why
the breasts, that I should suck? For now I would have
lain down and been quiet; I would have slept then, I
would have been at rest, with kings and with counselors
of the earth, who rebuilt ruins for themselves; or with
princes who had gold, who were filling their houses with
silver,. Or like the miscarriage which is discarded, I
would not be, as infants that never saw light. There the
wicked cease from raging, and there the weary are at
rest. The prisoners are at ease together; they do not
hear the voice of the taskmaster. The small and the
great are there, and the slave is free from his master."
Job 10:18-19 "Why then hast Thou brought me out of the womb?
Would that I had died and no eye had seen me! I should
have been as though I had not been, carried from womb
to tomb."
Clearly, the Bible supports the concept of abortion, and
in the case of Solomon's words, euthanasia as well. The
"quality of life" argument has clear Biblical backing.
> It was considered a crime before the Roman Empire
> converted to Christianity.
Prior to the Roman Empire's conversion:
"...abortion was practiced in Greek times as well as in
the Roman Era,9 and that "it was resorted to without
scruple."10 The Ephesian, Soranos, often described as
the greatest of the ancient gynecologists, appears to
have been generally opposed to Rome's prevailing
free-abortion practices. He found it necessary to think
first of the life of the mother, and he resorted to
abortion when, upon this standard, he felt the procedure
advisable.11 Greek and Roman law afforded little protection
to the unborn. If abortion was prosecuted in some places,
it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of
the father's right to his offspring. Ancient religion did
not bar abortion.12"
"The Hippocratic Oath...The Oath varies somewhat according
to the particular translation, but in any translation the
content is clear: "I will give no deadly medicine to
anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like
manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce
abortion"14
"...its influence endures to this day. Why did not the
authority of Hippocrates dissuade abortion practice in
his time and that of Rome? The late Dr. Edelstein provides
us with a theory:16 The Oath was not uncontested even in
Hippocrates' day; only the Pythagorean school of
philosophers frowned upon the related act of suicide. Most
Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at
least prior to viability. See Plato, Republic, V, 461;
Aristotle, Politics, VII, 1335b 25. For the Pythagoreans,
however, it was a matter of dogma. For them the embryo was
animate from the moment of conception, and abortion meant
destruction of a living being. The abortion clause of the
Oath, therefore, "echoes Pythagorean doctrines," [410 U.S.
113, 132] and "[i]n no other stratum of Greek opinion were
such views held or proposed in the same spirit of
uncompromising austerity."17
"Dr. Edelstein then concludes that the Oath originated in
a group representing only a small segment of Greek opinion
and that it certainly was not accepted by all ancient
physicians. He points out that medical writings down to
Galen (A. D. 130-200) "give evidence of the violation of
almost every one of its injunctions."18...Thus, suggests
Dr. Edelstein, it is "a Pythagorean manifesto and not the
expression of an absolute standard of medical conduct."19
(http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/113.html, Section VI)
> Refer to the Didache,
The Didache, often quoted as the reason why abortion
is a sin and dating from the second century C.E.,
does not mention abortion as an excommunicable sin.
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
For the record, the Christianization of the Roman
Empire is not thought to have taken place before
300 C.E., after which it swiftly fell. :)
> Epistle of St. Barnabus,
Barnabas: "You shall not kill either the fetus by
abortion or the new born"
(Letter of Barnabas, 1st century CE)
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
In the Epistle of St. Jerome, we find the following
writings:
St. Jerome wrote in a letter to Aglasia: "The seed
gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion]
does not count as killing until the individual elements
have acquired their external appearance and their limbs"
St Jerome, "Epistle" (121, 4)
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
> the work Ad Dignetum, and the writings of Tertullian
> [Apol chapter 9].
Various non-Papal councils in the 4th Century C.E.
held that abortion was a sin, but none could agree on
the punishment: one held that excommunication was the
punishment; another held that 10 years penance was
enough; the Apostolic Constitutions held that a fetus
which did not have human shape could be aborted
without penalty.
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
> After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity
> it was a considered a crime in the Greek-speaking
> East and the Latin-speaking West.
There is evidence that the early church did not desire to
punish a sin of abortion, rather to punish those who
engaged in sinful sexuality. St. Augustine (4th Century
C.E.), recorded that he felt that economic reasons were
justification for abortion, but that an abortion to
hide a sin, such as fornication or adultery, was wrong.
In this we see the early church did not desire to
punish abortions, only the sex which led up to the
choice.
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)
> It was a crime in Europe, and it was a crime in
> Brittain.
Citations? None? How about these?
In the 8th Century, Theodore, the founder of the
English Church (not to be confused with the Anglican
Church), devised a series of penitentials. While
*oral sex* required a period of *7 years* of penance,
*abortion* required a scant *120 days* of penance.
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
This is not the act of a man who seriously thinks
abortion is MURDER.
In the 13th Century C.E., Pope Innocent III issued
the proclamation that abortion was fine up until
the "quickening" of the pregnancy.
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
Pope Sixtus V issued a papal bull in the 16th Century
condemning abortion as an excommunicable offense
and threatening the death penalty. Upon Pope
Sixtus V's death, Pope Gregory XIV reinstated the
"quickening" argument, and stated that quickening
occurred at 116 days, or 16 and 1/2 weeks. Abortions
performed prior to quickening were not considered
to be sins.
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
Abortion was not considered an *excommunicable offense*
again until 1869, the *19th Century C.E.* Excommunication
is a serious, due process procedure. You can *currently*
be excommunicated for assassinating the Pope, and for
having an abortion, with exceptions listed below.
Six other reasons for excommunication can *only* be
committed by *priests*.
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)
It is not until Pope Pius IX's Canon 1398 (1869 C.E.),
that abortion becomes an excommunicable offense. Of
course, in Canons 1322 and 1324, exceptions are
provided: you can obtain an abortion without
excommunication if you are under the age of 17;
and if you obtain an abortion based on "sincere
good faith conviction ... that abortion is
permissible in certain circumstances."
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)
For complete text of exceptions to who is covered
by Canon law, see this link:
(http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/can1321.htm)
Remember after you have read all of the above, that
all citations are of history occurring either in
Europe or in Britain.
> Why do you think Thomas Aquinas was
> even discussing this issue? Idle speculation?
St. Thomas Aquinas (13th Century C.E.) allowed
abortions to be performed up to the time of ensoulment.
St. Thomas Aquinas set some very clear guidelines for
us on when ensoulment occurs: at 40 days for a male
fetus (1 month, 2 weeks into pregnancy), and 80 days
for a female fetus (2 months, three weeks, three days;
within the First Trimester). Abortions were *allowed*
up to this point.
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)
Do you even READ this stuff before you PARROT it from
an anti-abortion website?
Our current Pope, John Paul II, refers in his writing
and speaking to the unborn. He refers to them as "that
which is in the process of becoming." Even the Pope
recognizes that there is a continuum of life and the
unborn are in the *process* of becoming a being.
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)
> And, finally it was a crime in America until 1971,
Crimes, yes, but not murder and certainly not
garnering the death penalty. Early abortions were
certainly not considered capital crimes, merely
misdemeanors at worst. To quote the legal research
done in 1973 on abortion law:
"It perhaps is not generally appreciated that the
restrictive criminal abortion laws in effect in a
majority of States today are of relatively recent
vintage. Those laws, generally proscribing abortion
or its attempt at any time during pregnancy except
when necessary to preserve the pregnant woman's life,
are not of ancient or even of common-law origin.
Instead, they derive from statutory changes effected,
for the most part, in the latter half of the 19th century."
"Although [410 U.S. 113, 134] Christian theology and the
canon law came to fix the point of animation at 40 days
for a male and 80 days for a female, a view that
persisted until the 19th century, there was otherwise
little agreement about the precise time of formation or
animation. There was agreement, however, that prior to
this point the fetus was to be regarded as part of the
mother, and its destruction, therefore, was not homicide."
"Whether abortion of a quick fetus was a felony at common
law, or even a lesser crime, is still disputed. Bracton,
writing early in the 13th century, thought it homicide.23
But the later and predominant view, following the great
common-law scholars, has been that it was, at most, a
lesser offense. In a frequently cited [410 U.S. 113, 135]
passage, Coke took the position that abortion of a woman
"quick with childe" is "a great misprision, and no murder."24
Blackstone followed, saying that while abortion after
quickening had once been considered manslaughter (though
not murder), "modern law" took a less severe view.25 A
recent review of the common-law precedents argues, however,
that those precedents contradict Coke and that even
post-quickening abortion was never established as a
common-law crime.26 This is of some importance because
while most American courts ruled, in holding or dictum,
that abortion of an unquickened fetus was not criminal under
their received common law,27 others followed Coke in stating
that abortion [410 U.S. 113, 136] of a quick fetus was a
"misprision," a term they translated to mean "misdemeanor."28
That their reliance on Coke on this aspect of the law was
uncritical and, apparently in all the reported cases, dictum
(due probably to the paucity of common-law prosecutions for
post-quickening abortion), makes it now appear doubtful that
abortion was ever firmly established as a common-law crime
even with respect to the destruction of a quick fetus."
"England's first criminal abortion statute, Lord
Ellenborough's Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, came in 1803. It
made abortion of a quick fetus, 1, a capital crime, but
in 2 it provided lesser penalties for the felony of
abortion before quickening, and thus preserved the
"quickening" distinction. This contrast was continued
in the general revision of 1828, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, 13.
It disappeared, however, together with the death penalty,
in 1837, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85. 6, and did not
reappear in the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861,
24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, 59, that formed the core of English
anti-abortion law until the liberalizing reforms of 1967."
"In [America], the law in effect in all but a few States
until mid-19th century was the pre-existing English common
law. Connecticut, the first State to enact abortion
legislation, adopted in 1821 that part of Lord Ellenborough's
Act that related to a woman "quick with child."29 The death
penalty was not imposed."
"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of
the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major
portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less
disfavor than under most American statutes currently in
effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a
substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than
she does in most States today. At least with respect to
the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without
such a limitation, the opportunity [410 U.S. 113, 141] to
make this choice was present in this country well into the
19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time
to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early
pregnancy."
(http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/113.html, Section VI)
> when a woman lied about the circumstances
> of her pregnancy and convinced the court to
> legalize abortion. She claimed to have been raped
> because she thought the law would then permit
> her to have an abortion.
Considering that the Supreme Court case makes no mention
of your alleged claim that she "claimed to have been
raped", your claim is unsupported and false.
(http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/113.html)
> However, the law in Texas only permitted abortion when
> there was a direct threat to the life of the mother.
Well, if you seriously believe that a right to privacy
is such an awful thing, you are entitled to your opinion.
It is interesting to note that the Justices of SCOTUS
decided in favor of a right to an abortion based partly
on the right of a woman to be free from government
intrusion into her decision whether to bear or beget a
child. Therefore, arguing against Roe vs. Wade as a
flawed document puts into doubt the right of an individual
to be free of government intrusion in her decision whether
to bear or beget a child.
"As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird,
405 U.S. 438, 453, we recognized "the right of the
individual, married or single, to be free from
unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so
fundamentally affecting a person [410 U.S. 113, 170]
as the decision whether to bear or beget a child."
That right necessarily includes the right of a woman
to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."
"Certainly the interests of a woman in giving of her
physical and emotional self during pregnancy and the
interests that will be affected throughout her life
by the birth and raising of a child are of a far
greater degree of significance and personal intimacy
than the right to send a child to private school
protected in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S.
510 (1925), or the right to teach a foreign language
protected in Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923)."
Abele v. Markle, 351 F. Supp. 224, 227 (Conn. 1972).
(http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/113.html)
Thus the Roe vs. Wade decision not only allows women the
right to an abortion, it also affirms her right to be
free of government intrusion in her decision whether to
bear a child. Think of *China* the next time you say
Roe vs. Wade is a flawed document, and wonder what life
would be like if the government could tell some women
who WANTED to bear a child that THEY COULD NOT.
> [Score 23 centuries of jurisprudence for our side.]
Only if you do weird tricks with the math and have
fun redefining the laws, changing history, and rewriting
or re-interpreting quotes.
> Nice try, but again the facts support the truth.
> Funny how it always seems to work out that way.
The irony of your posting is that all you have
succeeded in proving is that the situation we have
**TODAY**--early abortions permitted, late abortions
restricted--has remained relatively **unchanged**
throughout history.
...from the earliest times when abortion was a practice
no one knew enough about to ban...
...to the early Church which allowed some abortions
and not others...
...to the Middle Ages when the Church allowed some
abortions and not others...
...to modern times when the law--finally the LAW is
involved!--allows some abortions and not others.
Abortion history has remained relatively unchanged
since the dawn of humankind. This means any claims
that abortion has always been considered murder are
inherently false: since the dawn of time, not all
abortions have been considered to be murder.
==================================================
Another point to be made is that the only Papal
announcements which have ever been made ex cathedra,
"from the chair", the official designation of an
Infallible Pronouncement, have been to proclaim
feasts days to honor Mary, the Mother of Christ. All
other pronouncements from the Pope have not been
made ex cathedra, making them subject to disagreement
as well. Even his pronouncements on the death penalty
and on abortion have been made without the support
of ex cathedra. Teachings on birth control were also
not made ex cathedra, and thus are subject to debate.
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)
As such, when a teaching is not infallible, Catholic
tradition holds that in the absence of strict,
infallible doctrine, Catholics are required to follow
their consciences on moral decisions.
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)
As such, if one is a Catholic and truly feels within
their conscience that abortion and/or birth control
are okay, then there is no sin committed when such
a Catholic engages in abortion and/or birth control.
It is interesting to note that in violation of
historical record and without the support of an
ex cathedra pronouncement, the Catholic Church
holds that its position on abortion has remained
*unchanged* since the founding of the Catholic
Church.
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
"It is also interesting to note that at no time in
the history of the Church have an embryo or pre-viable
fetus been considered full persons to the extent of
being worthy of a formal requiem mass or formal
burial service."
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
Since there is a massive outcry from Christians
whenever human beings are buried in mass graves,
this last point illustrates how the sin being
punished is not abortion, but fornication and
adultery.
========
Sources:
========
Source: "A Brief History of Abortion in the
Catholic Church", speech given by Rosemary Stasek,
at Palos Verdes/South Bay NOW;
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)
Source: "Christian beliefs on abortion: Past and present"
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm)
[NOTE: This source quotes as one of its sources,
Source: "A Brief History of Abortion in the
Catholic Church", speech given by Rosemary
Stasek, at Palos Verdes/South Bay NOW;
(http://www.stasek.com/ccffc/pvspeech.html)]
[The home site of this source is:
(http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm)]
Abortion Law Homepage
(http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/index.htm)
Canon Law and Abortion
(http://hometown.aol.com/abtrbng/canonl.htm)
==================================================
Ramon Kire is fond of quoting something from
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., except of course
that Ramon always insults the memory of the man
by refusing to use the honorific "Dr.", and also
refuses to use the other honorific, "Jr."
> "This generation will have to repent, not so much for the
> evil deeds of the wicked people, but for the appalling
> silence of the good people"
> - Martin Luther King
He is misrepresenting the quote, of course,
since he is using the context of this NG to
make the quote SEEM like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
is talking about abortion, when in fact he is
talking about race. This is represented by the
following accurate information about Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr.:
"There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret
Sanger's early efforts. ...Our sure beginning in the struggle
for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so
resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger
and people like her."
-- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., "Family Planning * A Special
and Urgent Concern." Acceptance speech, May 5, 1966, upon
receiving the Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Margaret Sanger Award. The award was presented to the Rev.
Martin Luther King, Jr., for "his courageous resistance to
bigotry and his lifelong dedication to the advancement of
social justice and human dignity."
[and he ACCEPTED the Margaret Sanger Award, and compared HER
movement to HIS in a FAVORABLE WAY.]
webg...@rocketmail.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> To: Anybody who can follow an argument for more than
> two paragraphs...
>
> I reminded people that abortion WAS a crime here
> in America until Roe-v-Wade...
...in response to heretic's original point:
]Heretic originally pointed out to Sweet:[
> > Abortion has never been considered to be
> > murder under common law or any statutory
> > criminal code.
Since all you did was fail to dispute his original
point, I don't see where proving it was a crime
at any point in history is an answer to "abortion
has never been MURDER".
> >> And, finally it was a crime in America until
> >> 1971,
> And El Coyote responded:
> > Liar. It was NOT a crime in America until after
> > the mid 1800's.
>
> I stand corrected. Apparently abortion was illegal
> in this in this country from 1821 until 1971. So
> what? If EC had taken the time to read this
> [excellent] article, he/she would know that the
> states, after achieving independence from
> Britain, followed British law in these matters.
>
> Apparently, the states had other legislation to pass. Of
> course abortion WAS also illegal under British law, so
> you can safely say that IN EFFECT abortion was
> *always* illegal in this country.
Correction: some abortions were illegal, others were not.
British common law, after all, allowed abortions prior
to "quickening", which includes all of the First Trimester
and some of the Second Trimester.
In a way, Roe vs. Wade established a precedent which
*restricted* women's right to an abortion even more than
British Common Law! After all, "quickening" occurs partway
through the Second Trimester, and anyone who has actually
READ Roe Vs. Wade knows that the *start* of the Second
Trimester is when the States can start placing restrictions
on abortion!
> Furthermore, anybody who is familiar with Roe-v-Wade
> knows that the woman who initiated the case became
> pregnant from her boyfriend. She, however, now admits
> to lying at the time and creating a totally false story
> about how she was "raped". She did so because she knew
> the law in Texas was strict, and she had already decided
> to kill her child. Again, the LAW in Texas (circa 1970)
> only allowed abortions when the mother's life was
> threatened. It did not (and rightfully so) have an
> "exception" that allowed the mother to kill her child
> after she'd been raped.
Again, this is interesting that she would suddenly
remember, while not under oath of any kind, that she
claimed to the court that she had been raped. This is
not apparent from court documents. Seems to me Roe
changed her mind and decided to change her testimony
as well. You find this trustworthy?
> Obviously, abortion WAS *always* illegal in this
> country.
Some abortions were illegal, others were not. You
need to make the distinction. Saying they were
simply illegal is not a true statement.
> It was, in fact, not initially treated as murder.
It hasn't ever been treated as murder. Oh, I'm wrong.
Hitler considered it murder. There, a government
considered it murder.
> From this article it is clear that the AMA realized
> that abortion was murder circa 1860.
From recorded history it is clear that their opinions
changed immediately prior to the next major shakeup
of abortion law. How *conveeeenient*.
> Again, it was only in 1971 that courts - ignoring
> the medical facts of the day and a long history of
> jurisprudence - arbitrarily gave women the right to
> kill their unborn children at will.
False on multiple accounts:
[1] Ancient religion did not condemn abortion. Even the
Code of Hammurabi does not condemn abortion, and in
fact does not even consider it to be murder. The
ancient Greeks did not consider abortion to be wrong,
and in fact commended its practice. This is listed
in the SCOTUS Roe vs. Wade public court records.
[2] Medical facts of the day consisted of a viability
existing somewhere around the 26th week. It was
using this medical fact that the Supreme Court
chose to allow states to limit abortions past two
separate points in gestation. This is listed
in the SCOTUS Roe vs. Wade public court records.
[3] A woman does not have arbitrary power to have an
abortion. Rather, she only has this ability
during the First Trimester, and should she stray
over the line into the Second or the Third
Trimester, she will have to justify her abortion
to doctors and lawyers.
[4] The AMA partly REVERSED its decision that abortion
was 'unwarrantable destruction of human life' in
1967, four years PRIOR TO the Roe vs. Wade decision.
(apparently, new facts had come to light that their
earlier decision had not been correct)
It is simply amazing how many anti-abortion folks have
NEVER READ ROE VS. WADE, and simply assume that
Roe vs. Wade consists of a SINGLE SENTENCE:
"Drawing solely on our powers as Supreme Rulers of the
Law, and on no basis in law or fact whatsoever, a woman
has the unlimited, arbitrary right to have an abortion,
at any time and for any reason."
The real Roe vs. Wade is markedly different from the
above, and does a lot more than allow abortion. For
one thing, it reinforces the individual's right to
be free of government intrusion in their decision
whether to bear a child, which also means--in addition
to the right to an abortion--that the woman
in question cannot be ordered by the government to
have an abortion, if pregnant, or to be sterilized,
if not pregnant. This is an important right, and it
is one buttress against America ever turning into China.
> Today, it is a well known fact in the scientific community
> that the fertilized embryo is UNDENIABLY both human
> and a unique individual. There is no debate on this
> among the scientists - only the ideologues.
Being human and an individual is unrelated to the
discussion, since the discussion centers on whether
the fetus is a legal person or not. It is difficult
to create laws protecting a fetus as a person if the
law does not already consider the fetus to be a person.
> >> According to a Pro-Life source, abortion was not
> >> only legal but was "very common" in the 1800's.
>
> WRONG. The article says that abortions were
> PERFORMED in this country (despite the fact that they were
> illegal) in the 1800's. The author only claims that abortion
> "increased" in the 1800's. I would be curious to know
> what EC scored on the verbal section of the SAT.
Insult the poster? How childish of you!
> I checked out EC's sources and will post the article that
> was cited [out of fairness to the article's author].
> I think you will agree that EC distorted and misrepresented
> the information that was presented.
>
> Citation: http://www.ohiolife.org/qa/qa04.htm
> Author: <not listed> but it is a pro-life web-site
Uh-huh.
> *begin quote*
[snip!]
> Abortions did increase in the 19th century then?
> Yes, many fold. In fact, they became very common. J. Mohr,
> [ Again, "common" is NOT legal. an obvious distinction. ]
> Abortion in America, Oxford University Press, 1978
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> Then in 1827, Karl Ernst von Boar, in a scientific
> journal,
...which I note here is not cited in this website. Failure
to provide all information on citations is a common
anti-abortion ploy to try and make points without real
evidence.
> postulated that both man and woman contribute to a process
> called conception. His was the first accurate description of the
> process of conception.
[snip!]
> By the 1850s the scientific and medical world came
> to fully accept the fact that the man and woman
> each contributed half to the creation of the new
> human being. This event was called conception or
> fertilization, and this stimulated the anti-abortion
> action of the doctors.
Considering that the prior opinions were that the sperm
itself grew into human beings, one wonders what was so
new about this theory that anti-abortion sentiment was
generated from it. After all, if a tiny human exists
from the moment of ejaculation, then does it not also
deserve the same respect as one formed from a combination
of male and female gametes?
> There was an anti-abortion movement then?
> While abortions induced through the vagina became common,
> medical communities throughout the world, were, at the
> same time, becoming aware of the newly discovered scientific
> fact that human life began at fertilization. In response to
> this the British Parliament passed the "Offenses Against the
> Person Act" in 1869, dropping the felony punishment back
> to conception.
The website is incorrect. The "Offenses Against Persons Act"
of *1861*, not 1869, did not have a felony punishment for
causing an abortion, and certainly did not punish with the
death penalty. It was not the law which caused abortion
to be a felony, however, this having taken place some 50
years previously:
"England's first criminal abortion statute, Lord
Ellenborough's Act, 43 Geo. 3, c. 58, came in 1803. It
made abortion of a quick fetus, 1, a capital crime, but
in 2 it provided lesser penalties for the felony of
abortion before quickening, and thus preserved the
"quickening" distinction. This contrast was continued
in the general revision of 1828, 9 Geo. 4, c. 31, 13.
It disappeared, however, together with the death penalty,
in 1837, 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict., c. 85. 6, and did not
reappear in the Offenses Against the Person Act of 1861,
24 & 25 Vict., c. 100, 59, that formed the core of English
anti-abortion law until the liberalizing reforms of 1967."
(http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/113.html, Section VI)
In short, the felony punishment of abortion in England,
was relegated to a minor punishment and not made a capital
crime, in spite of the "new findings".
> It was during the same years that members of
> the American Medical Association went to the state
> legislatures to testify and inform them of this
> scientific fact.
It is worth noting that this same AMA supported the
anti-marijuana laws, laws begun with anti-black sentiment,
and quickly reversed their position when they discovered
that they had been duped into believing that marijuana
was something new, and not the hemp that formed the basis
of many medicines and treatments at the time.
In other words, this same AMA is apparently easy to lead
and easy to deceive, and has no problems supporting laws
which are based on racist attitudes.
> "In 1859 the AMA protested that the quickening
> distinction allowed the fetus rights 'for civil
> purposes [but as] to its life as yet denies all
> protection.' They protested against this
> 'unwarrantable destruction of human life,'
> calling upon state legislatures to revise their
> abortion laws and requesting the state medical
> societies 'in pressing the subject.'" Roe vs.
> Wade, U.S. Supreme Court, VI, 6, p. 26, 1973
>
> By 1871 the AMA report had summed up abortion: "we
> had to deal with human life." As different state
> and national lawmakers were taught the newly
> discovered scientific fact that human life didn't
> begin at quickening but rather at conception, the
> laws were changed. One by one, each ruled that
> human life should be equally and fully protected
> by law, not from the time of quickening, but from
> its actual beginning at conception.
A few years before anyone had even HEARD about the woman
pseudonymed "Roe", the AMA partly reversed their stance
on abortion:
"Except for periodic condemnation of the criminal
abortionist, no further formal AMA action took place
until 1967. In that year, the Committee on Human
Reproduction urged the adoption of a stated policy
of opposition to induced abortion, except when there
is "documented medical evidence" of a threat to the
health or life of the mother, or that the child "may
be born with incapacitating physical deformity or
mental deficiency," or that a pregnancy "resulting
from legally established statutory or forcible rape
or incest may constitute a threat to the mental or
physical health of the [410 U.S. 113, 143] patient,"
two other physicians "chosen because of their recognized
professional competence have examined the patient and
have concurred in writing," and the procedure "is
performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint
Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals." The providing
of medical information by physicians to state legislatures
in their consideration of legislation regarding therapeutic
abortion was "to be considered consistent with the
principles of ethics of the American Medical Association."
This recommendation was adopted by the House of Delegates.
Proceedings of the AMA House of Delegates 40-51 (June 1967)."
(http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/113.html, Section VI)
...which only goes to show that the AMA is a body of people,
and changes its collective mind even in the face of such
"evidence" as that of conception and human life.
What happened to the declaration, "'unwarrantable
destruction of human life,'"??? Lets examine what this
PRE-ROE VS. WADE DECLARATION allowed abortions to be
performed for:
[1] Life-Saving. To save the life of the woman.
"...there is "documented medical evidence"
of a threat to the...life of the mother,"
[2] Health-saving. To save the HEALTH of the woman.
"...there is "documented medical evidence" of a
threat to the health...of the mother,
[3] BIRTH DEFECTS.
"[If]the child "may be born with incapacitating
physical deformity or mental deficiency,"
[4] Rape/incest affecting Physical OR Mental Health.
"...a pregnancy "resulting from legally established
statutory or forcible rape or incest may constitute
a threat to the mental or physical health of the...
patient,"
What is "documented medical evidence"?
"...two other physicians "chosen because of their
recognized professional competence have examined
the patient and have concurred in writing,"
So lets get this straight: a body of medical doctors,
having once declared that abortion is 'unwarrantable
destruction of human life,' now are saying that not
only should abortions be allowed, but that children
with birth defects or even those whose fathers were
criminals should be allowed to be killed? That
women who are not in danger of dying, merely of
having their HEALTH affected, should be able to
obtain an abortion?
Seems to me one cannot really trust the AMA to make
a definitive declaration either way on the abortion
issue!
...and an entire YEAR prior to the Roe vs. Wade case:
"In 1970, after the introduction of a variety of proposed
resolutions, and of a report from its Board of Trustees, a
reference committee noted "polarization of the medical
profession on this controversial issue"; division among
those who had testified; a difference of opinion among AMA
councils and committees; "the remarkable shift in testimony"
in six months, felt to be influenced "by the rapid changes
in state laws and by the judicial decisions which tend to
make abortion more freely available;" and a feeling "that
this trend will continue." On June 25, 1970, the House of
Delegates adopted preambles and most of the resolutions
proposed by the reference committee. The preambles
emphasized "the best interests of the patient," "sound
clinical judgment," and "informed patient consent," in
contrast to "mere acquiescence to the patient's demand."
The resolutions asserted that abortion is a medical procedure
that should be performed by a licensed physician in an
accredited hospital only after consultation with two other
physicians and in conformity with state law, and that no
party to the procedure should be required to violate
personally held moral principles.38 Proceedings [410 U.S.
113, 144] of the AMA House of Delegates 220 (June 1970).
The AMA Judicial Council rendered a complementary opinion.39
(http://laws.findlaw.com/US/410/113.html, Section VI)
"we had to deal with human life."
-- the AMA's position on abortion.
Apparently they discovered in 1967 that women
are human life too!
> When were the new laws passed in the U.S.?
> Originally, the U.S. colonies, and then the
> states operated under English Common Law.
Since the colonies operated under British Common Law, and
Britain's *first* criminal abortion law was not passed
until 1803, English colonies did not consider abortions
performed prior to quickening to be murder! Early America
did not consider abortions to be murder!
> Connecticut passed the first separate state law
> in 1821. By 1860, 85% of the population lived in
> states which had clearly prohibited abortion with
> new laws. [J. Dellapenna, The History of Abortion,
> Technology, Morality, and Law, "University of
> Pittsburgh Law Review," 1979] [Quay, "Justifiable
> Abortion-Medical and Legal Foundations, 49 Georgetown
> Univ. Law Review, 1960-1961]
Of course, it is worth pointing out that abortions were
still permitted under these laws. They were not complete
bans.
> Besides clearly forbidding abortion, these laws and
> those passed after the Civil War moved the felony
> punishment from quickening back to conception.
> This was done primarily to protect new human life.
> *end quote*
Of course, the punishment is not stipulated, meaning quite
simply that the "Unknown Author" wanted to imply, without
support or citation, that the punishment was similar to
punishments received for murder. When in fact the
punishment was probably quite different than the
punishment for murder.
How deceptive.
A point made by SCOTUS was that the Texas law which
prevented Roe from obtaining an abortion did not in fact
attempt to prosecute her for self-abortion. I wonder
just how many anti-abortion laws made in America
prosecuted only the doctor (or other person) performing
an abortion, but failed to prosecute self-induced
abortions. Since the Texas law was supposedly one of
the more strict anti-abortion laws in America at the
time, it would be interesting to see just how "concern
for fetal life" brought so many legislators to FORGET
that women have been self-inducing abortions for
MILLENIA. A law which makes no effort to punish the
woman for seeking the abortion does not, as the claim
was made, "clearly [forbid] abortion," since it
permits self-induced abortions without any penalty
whatsoever!
M is for Malapert
> My dear "heretic",
> You replied,
> > Abortion has never been considered to be murder under
> > common law or any statutory criminal code.
>
> Being pro life and having done some reading on this
> you are right... [chalk on up for your side].
>
> The truth is, however, abortion has *always* been
> considered a crime.
That simply isn't true.
> Take the Code of Hammurabi
> for instance [circa 13th century BC]. Abortion was
> recognized as a crime over 23 centuries ago.
So? Also a crime and punishable by death was adultery by women, but
not by men. It'a hardly news that the subjugation of women and
control of their sexuality was codified into law in the Near East 23
centuries ago.
> It was also a crime among the Hebrews.
Not at all. In fact, the Old Testament's *only* mention of abortion
is, possibly, its use as a way of detecting adultery.
And this is quite odd, considering that the Old Testament copied
almost exactly the Code of Hammurabi in the Exodus passage which talks
about punishments for causing a woman to miscarry. Why *didn't* the
Hebrews copy the proscription against abortion too? Why did they
denounce other sins of people who lived around them, like idol
worship, but *not* abortion?
> It was considered a crime before the Roman Empire
> converted to Christianity. Refer to the Didache,
> Epistle of St. Barnabus, the work Ad Dignetum,
> and the writings of Tertullian [Apol chapter 9].
Again, the Romans were hardly advocates of women's equality. You will
find that abortion was only a crime insofar as it interfered with
men's rights to control women and their reproduction. Abortions were
procured plentifully in Roman times. You'll have a hard time finding
reference to anyone being punished for it.
> After the Roman Empire converted to Christianity
> it was a considered a crime in the Greek-speaking
> East and the Latin-speaking West.
It has been said that one attractive feature of the early Christian
church, for women, was that it forbade both abortion and infanticide,
which were common, legal, and accepted in early societies around the
Mediterranean. The Church also forgave women's sexual sins and still
gave them a place at the table. This was a huge advance, for some
women, for those times.
However, the early and medieval Church always drew a distinction
between abortion before quickening and abortion of a fully-formed
fetus. Abortion was always wrong, as was any other kind of birth
control, or interference with reproduction, or sex for non-procreative
purposes, but abortion before quickening was not wrong because it
deprived a human being of life. Furthermore, the canon law punishment
for an abortion (120 days of penance) was far less than the punishment
for other sexual transgressions (7 years of penance for oral sex or
coitus interruptus).
Pope Innocent III (early 13th c), for instance, wrote that a
Carthusian monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was
not guilty of murder because it could not be proved that the fetus had
quickened. Pope Gregory XIV revoked an earlier papal bull that had
proposed to make abortion at any stage of gestation murder and
reinstated the quickening distinction in 1591. He specified that
quickening took place at 116 days (almost 17 weeks).
It wasn't until the 17th century that the belief arose that ensoulment
or animation comes at conception, and the distinction between the
"fetus inanimatus" and "fetus animatus" was dropped. Even then it was
the middle of the 19th century before Pope Pius IX ruled that abortion
at any stage of gestation was to be punished by excommunication.
Even today, an embryo cannot be baptized in the Catholic Church,
because you can only baptize that which has a human form and looks
like a human being. (Interestingly, this means that an anencephalic
baby can be baptized, which raises the question of why external form
is more important than having a brain--which is, one presumes,
required to be a human being with free, or any, will.)
> It was a crime in Europe, and it was a crime in
> Brittain. Why do you think Thomas Aquinas was
> even discussing this issue? Idle speculation?
Again, in the English common law, abortion before quickening was not a
crime. Even after quickening it was "a great misprision, and no
murder" according to the commentary of Edward Coke (1641).
Blackstone, in "Commentaries on the Laws of England," found that
abortion was "a heinous misdemeanour."
Aquinas believed that ensoulment didn't come until 40 days after
conception for a male fetus and 80 days for a femal one.
> And, finally it was a crime in America until 1971,
Abortion was a crime in America only from the mid-1800s to the
mid-1960s. Before the mid-19th century, abortion before quickening
was common and legal.
> when a woman lied about the circumstances
> of her pregnancy and convinced the court to
> legalize abortion.
The circumstances of "Roe's" pregnancy were never mentioned in the
documents, the oral arguments, or the opinions in Roe v. Wade. All
the court knew was that she was unmarried, in good health, and wanted
an abortion.
> She claimed to have been raped
> because she thought the law would then permit
> her to have an abortion.
Says who?
> However, the law in
> Texas only permitted abortion when there was a
> direct threat to the life of the mother.
Exactly. And the Georgia law, which was also overturned on the same
day as the Texas law in Doe v. Bolton, said that abortion was allowed
in cases of rape, incest, fetal defect, and threat to a woman's
health. The point of the Supreme Court, in deciding BOTH cases on the
same day, was to overturn BOTH kinds of laws--the "hard" laws like
Texas's, and the "moderate" laws like Georgia's--and establish a
fundamental right to abortion without regard to reasons.
> [Score 23 centuries of jurisprudence for our side.]
You mean, score 23 centuries of oppression and denial of equal
treatment for women, colluded in by the courts.
> Nice try, but again the facts support the truth.
Yes, they do--which is why "pro-lifers" lost and laws prohibiting
abortion went the same way as laws supporting slavery and many other
commonly accepted practices of the oppressive "traditional" world.
Unfortunately, it took an extra century to get women to the same
point.
> Funny how it always seems to work out that way.
I couldn't have said it better myself.
El Coyote
>RE: History of English and American Jurisprudence
>RE: The AMA's original position on abortion
>
>Citation: http://www.ohiolife.org/qa/qa04.htm
>Author: <not cited>
>*begin quote*
As far as I can tell, these "quotes" are fabrications. A couple parts
in particular:
...
> "In 1859 the AMA protested that the quickening distinction
> allowed the fetus rights 'for civil purposes [but as] to its life
> as yet denies all protection.' They protested against this
> 'unwarrantable destruction of human life,' calling upon state
> legislatures to revise their abortion laws and requesting the state
> medical societies 'in pressing the subject.'" Roe vs. Wade, U.S.
> Supreme Court, VI, 6, p. 26, 1973
This appears to be a quote from the Supreme Court, but it is not.
Just more deception from Pro-Lifers.
...
> Besides clearly forbidding abortion, these laws and those
> passed after the Civil War moved the felony punishment from
> quickening back to conception. This was done primarily to
> protect new human life.
The laws passed were alledgedly passed to protect women. The first
laws prohibited the use of poisons to procure abortions If the laws
were to protect the "new human life" why would they prohibit the use
of poison while ignoring slicing, dicing, and other mechnical meyhem?
>Then EC goes on to admit that abortion was illegal under
>Brittish law, In "1803, when Parliament passed Lord
>Ellenborough's Act, making it a crime punishable by death
>to cause an abortion by the use of poisons--but only if the
>abortion occurred after the woman first felt the fetus
>moving ("quickening")."
Abortion was not made illegal under that law -- just the use of poison
after quickening. This would be to protect the women. The whole
early anti-abortion movement was alledgedly concerned about the health
of the women.
>EC goes on to claim,
>"In the 1920's there were 400,000 legal abortions a year,
>performed by AMA certified Doctors."
>
>First, I'd be suprised if you had a reliable source for that
>statistic. But if you do please cite it for me. I would like
>to check it out for myself (if you don't mind).
Safe Counsel. My copy was printed in 1927.
>An interesting question is: "Since the Brittish law of 1969
>was based on the scientific discoveries of the day, and it,
>thus, protected the fetus from CONCEPTION onwards...
>How do you explain the AMA's shift. What happened
>within the AMA to change it from a pro-life organization
>circa 1870 to, if I accept your proposition, a pro-abortion
>organization?
First you would have to show that the AMA ever was a "Pro-Life"
(anti-abortion) and that it is now pro-abortion. As far as I can
tell, the AMA has always been concerned primarily with the health of
the woman. In the 1800's abortion was riskier than childbirth,
especially when performed by non-medical persons using various
poisonous substances.
>To conclude my argument I said,
>>Today, it is a well known fact in the scientific community
>>that the fertilized embryo is UNDENIABLY both human
>>and a unique individual. There is no debate on this
>>among the scientists - only the ideologues.
>
>To which you replied:
>> This is bullshit.
>OK, I'm willing to keep an open mind.
>Name one scientific experiment showing that the
>fetus is not (a) human from the moment of
>conception, or (b) a unique individual - again,
>from the first moment of conception.
Name one scientific experiment that even DEFINES what is meant by the
term "unique individual" let alone equates the unborn with being an
individual human being.
>I am not addressing the issue of personhood
>here because scientific experiments can not
>address a philosophical question. They can
>only tell us if the embryo is both unique and
>human at the same time.
Crap. Examine your crap. It is both unique and human at the same
time. "Unique" and "human" does not equate to being an individual
human being.
>Thank you for listening to what I have to
>say so carefully.
All you are doing is repeating the same old Pro-Life lies that many
others have repeated before you.
> I appreciate many of the
>points and clarifications that you made.
>
>Your point about the novel Gone With the
>Wind was particularly interesting.
Hey, you claim that abortion was illegal. I read and I find
otherwise. Your claim is nothing more than you repeating the same old
Pro-life lies that I have seen before. You lie about facts. You lie
about what I wrote. You are Pro-Life. The lies are expected.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Dear Ray,
>
> Again the phrase "reading comprehension" comes to mind...
> I repeatedly said "was considered a crime..."
>
> Because of advances in scientific understanding, specifically
> DNA testing and the like, we now know something our
> parents didn't... Abortion is murder.
No, we don't. You wrote yourself in another post that scientific
knowledge cannot determine personhood. Murder is the killing of a
person, not just of human cells or organisms. This involves a legal or
moral concept, not a scientific one.
They only knew that
> is was *very, very* wrong... This is reflected by the fact
> that is WAS a FELONY.
A lot of things were severe felonies (blasphemy, crimen maiestatis *),
sodomy, sedition +), in some places even the sale of contraceptives)
and are perfectly legal today. Most people would agree that they are
not morally wrong, either.
I'm afraid the facts that you are quoting have much less relevance to
the issue under debate than you believe.
Regards,
HRG.
*) People were drawn and quartered for denying the divine right of
kings ....
+) e.g. US Alien and Sedition Laws, end of 18th century
> Will you even go so far as to
> deny this fact?
>
> Yours truly,
> John
>
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> > John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> > >We agree on one thing, namely, that abortion was never
> > >considered "murder" by our legal community.
> >
> > Then maybe you should not have claimed otherwise.
> >
> > --
> > Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the
whole world,
> > r...@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
>
>
webg...@rocketmail.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> RE: fetus == tumor?
Incidentally, both tumors and fetuses have to produce
IDO inhibitors or be rejected from the body. Both
fetuses and tumors have to fake out the woman's
immune system with IDO inhibitors in order to be
considered worthy of remaining within the woman's body.
No doubt with your admitted lack of knowledge about
pre-natal and female biology, you will claim this to
be false, so here is the citation which proves it:
Munn DH, et al.
Prevention of allogeneic fetal rejection
by tryptophan catabolism.
Science. 1998 Aug 21;281(5380):1191-3.
PMID: 9712583; UI: 98378582.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
Search keywords: "fetus tryptophan allogeneic Munn"
He's updated his research since then, there are two
articles under the same keyword search.
> Dear hrguemm,
[snip!]
> Corollary: every human person has certain
> unalienable rights namely the pursuit of LIFE,
> liberty, and happiness.
But this is not listed in a legal document anywhere.
In fact, it is not supported by the U.S. Constitution.
> Rhetorical question: Why was LIFE listed first?
> Rhetorical answer: Perhaps the founders were trying to
> connote a hierarchy of values?
According to historical records including your own sources,
the period of time in which the Declaration of Independence
was penned was a period in which there were no laws against
abortion, and even theological opinions were that abortions
prior to the "quickening" or "ensoulment" were O.K.
So it is doubtful that the writer and signers of the
Declaration of Independence had fetuses in mind when they
agreed to those famous words. They certainly didn't feel
those words warranted a place in actual American law,
since they failed to include them anywhere in the American
Legal System.
John Sweet
As you noted, we agree on the following:
Your words,
> ... that abortion never was considered as murder ? Correct.
> ... that abortions (actually, *some* abortions) were crimes during
> large parts of human history ? Correct.
I would merely add, Yes and Yes.
To clarify, abortion was a felony in the US and Britain.
I understand and condemn the horrible fate of women
in ancient times...
In modern times, it is not clear to me who was punished
for the crime....
1) Was it the woman? Or, was it the abortionist?
2) Exactly what penalties were allowed under the law?
3) What sentences were actually handed down?
[Again all of my questions have to do with modern times.
Let's say, the post-1800 time frame.]
There are many people here who are very knowledgeable.
If you could please share what you know, I would enjoy
learning the details of what I (admittedly) do not.
Thanks in advance,
John
Ray Fischer
>For what it's worth...
>I believe that abortion is murder as defined by the Ten
>Commandments... One of which translated literally means,
>"You shall not kill the innocent."
But we don't live by the ten commandments, or by the other laws in the
book of Exodus. And even if we did, that commandment applies to
_people_, and not whatever living thing you think it should apply to.
>I believe it should be illegal without exception.
An immoral and hypocritical position.
> This
>includes rape and incest [because the intent to kill
>the innocent is present and acted upon].
A fetus isn't innocent.
>In my personal opinion, it would be nice to have the
>government completely OUT of this business - on one
>condition... (namely)... the medical profession polices
>itself and revokes the license of any person performing
>an abortion or assisting in one.
You contradict yourself. Or rather, you pretend that _medical_
police are materially different from government police.
> I do not want to impose
>a "christian" state with "christian" laws.
Liar.
> I merely want
>to protect the unborn person's right to life.
Another lie. You want to grant a fetus the right to use a woman's
body without her consent, cause her pain and injury and expense, and
threaten her health and life.
>[Religious states are, in my opinion, utopian failures,
>and I (personally) am content to hope for the one in
>heaven.]
As long as you continnue to flagrantly violate the basic tenets of
your religion, your hope is likely to be in vain.
>Unfortunately, the medical profession in this country
>is paralyzed by ideologues who need to protect their
>own self interests at this point in time.
Oooo! Irony! Here you are, an ideologue criticizing others
for being ideologues!
[...]
>Purely hypothetical... (feel free to skip)...
>If I were passing the laws around here...
>Only the abortion doctors and nurses would be punished.
We could also solve the abortion problem by just throwing all you
anti-abortion ideologues into prison.
Anything wrong with _that_ solution?
Heidi Graw
>
> Dear hrgruemm,
>
> As you noted, we agree on the following:
> Your words,
> > ... that abortion never was considered as murder ? Correct.
> > ... that abortions (actually, *some* abortions) were crimes during
> > large parts of human history ? Correct.
>
> I would merely add, Yes and Yes.
>
> To clarify, abortion was a felony in the US and Britain.
> I understand and condemn the horrible fate of women
> in ancient times...
>
> In modern times, it is not clear to me who was punished
> for the crime....
>
> 1) Was it the woman? Or, was it the abortionist?
> 2) Exactly what penalties were allowed under the law?
> 3) What sentences were actually handed down?
>
> [Again all of my questions have to do with modern times.
> Let's say, the post-1800 time frame.]
John, you may try to find some of those answers in a book called, "The
bedroom and the state: The changing practices and politics of
contraception and abortion in Canada, 1880 - 1980" by McLaren, A. and
McLaren, A.T., published by McClelland and Stewart.
The writers have done exhaustive research using statistics, archived
historical information and information retrieved from personal letters,
journals, etc. It's a well-written book which goes into great detail as
to some of the challenges faced by women, doctors and clergy.
Anyway, in Canada, if a person performed an illegal abortion, the
abortionist could face a life sentence. The woman doing it herself
faced imprisonment up to two years. However, due to the nature of
abortions being illegal, the medical community tended to conceal their
activities and falsely record the reason as to why some women had died.
Very few cases were ever brought before the courts.
I'll just quote a little section from the book:
"In 1947, Mrs. Strum pointed out to the House of Commons that although
every Canadian knew that 41,000 servicemen were killed in World War II,
few were aware that since 1926 21,000 women had died in childbirth. But
Mrs. Strum was herself unaware - as were all those who thought the
answers lay in hospitalization of childbirth - that 4,000 to 6,000 of
these women died as a result of bungled abortions."
So, John, there were never 4,000 or 6,000 abortionists sentenced to life
imprisonment.
The illegal nature of abortion tended to cause the medical community to
rally together to protect the abortionist. However, the illegality of
abortion caused it to be extremely dangerous for a woman. Yet, as we
can see, the risk did not prevent women to go for it anyway.
In this book is also another intriguing chapter to do with Quebec and
the Roman Catholic Church. It basically outlines the role priests had
played in procuring abortions for women. Since Catholic women often
went to confession, their priest was very much informed about a woman's
family life and circumstances. He was often very sympathetic and would
help arrange abortions for those particular women.
Protestant women did not have that same opportunity for a sympathetic
ear from their pastor or minister. However, because Protestants tended
to be wealthier than Catholic women, the Protestant women usually had
their own financial resources to bribe their own doctor or someone else
to perform an abortion. Their physicians tended to be appalled at the
lack of conscience these women possessed and felt intimated if they did
not give in to these women's demands.
Emotionally, there was little difference for Protestant and Catholic
women. The Catholics confessed, did penitence, and received blessings
from their priest. Her conscience was cleared. The Protestant women did
not have such a close relationship with their own clergy, so she just
did what she wanted - without feelings of guilt. As Protestants, these
women had no role or voice within the church at that time, anyway.
Catholic women, though, did and still do have a role, ie. Mother
Superiors or nuns. Protestant women also did not have a female role
model because the role of Mary was downplayed considerably in favor of
that of her son, Jesus - a male. Of course, the nature of Protestant
religions, this has changed somewhat in modern times as more and more
women are becoming ordained ministers and heads of their own church.
Anyway, if possible, try to read the book.
Heidi
John Sweet
I wrote,
>> If I were passing the laws around here...
>> Only the abortion doctors and nurses would be punished.
You retorted,
> We could also solve the abortion problem by just throwing all you
> anti-abortion ideologues into prison.
>
> Anything wrong with _that_ solution?
Other than the fact that it would be killing the innocent?
Which you feel is merely a religious opinion...
Like the other 9 commandments...
No, nothing is wrong with that.
I for one AM willing to lay down my life - if necessary -
for the freedoms we enjoy, the people of this country,
and for my faith.
If it comes to that, I firmly believe that God will grant me
the courage to persevere... to trust in His Divine Providence...
and to bear witness to the Splendor of the Truth....
with all that I have... and all that I am.
So please help me God for without you I can do
nothing.
Extreme? Yes - extremely convinced and committed.
As always... May Christ give you his peace.
Best wishes,
John
"Make room for us; we have not wronged anyone,
or ruined anyone, or taken advantage of anyone.
I do not say this in condemnation, for I have already
said that you are in our hearts, that we may die together
and live together. I have great confidence in you, I have
great pride in you; I am filled with encouragement, I am
overflowing with joy all the more because of all our affliction.
For even when we came into Macedonia, our flesh had no
rest, but we were afflicted in every way--external conflicts,
internal fears.
But God, who encourages the downcast, encouraged
us by the arrival of Titus, and not only by his arrival but
also by the encouragement with which he was encouraged
in regard to you, as he told us of your yearning, your lament,
your zeal for me, so that I rejoiced even more."
St Paul to the Corinthians in Corinth circa 60 AD
The Ghost In The Machine
>however a FELONY in Britain. The author does not
>say how serious a crime it was in America prior to
>1971.
Depended on the locale. Some states were pro-choice,
some weren't.
[rest snipped]
----
ew...@aimnet.com
Ray Fischer
>Again the phrase "reading comprehension" comes to mind...
>I repeatedly said "was considered a crime..."
And yet a couple lines further ...
>Because of advances in scientific understanding, specifically
>DNA testing and the like, we now know something our
>parents didn't... Abortion is murder.
"Abortion is murder"
Did you mean to write something else? Or did you really just claim
(incorrectly) that abortion is murder just after you said you tried to
deny claiming that abortion is murder?
> They only knew that
>is was *very, very* wrong... This is reflected by the fact
>that is WAS a FELONY.
Getting a blowjob from your wife is a felony in some states.
So is smoking a joint. So?
webg...@rocketmail.com
> I repeatedly said "was considered a crime..."
Of course, you were replying to heretic's point, which
was "Abortion has never been considered murder".
Of course, you would prefer that we all forget about that...
> Because of advances in scientific understanding,
> specifically DNA testing and the like, we now know
> something our parents didn't... Abortion is murder.
DNA testing doesn't tell us that abortion is murder.
All it can do is identify that a fetus is human. This
does not automatically qualify the fetus as A human,
merely as possessing human DNA.
From a pure science standpoint, a human corpse [a] has
human DNA, [b] is human, [c] is unique, and [d] is
an individual.
If DNA is the factor determining humanity and being an
individual, then cloning an aborted fetus is resurrecting
the fetus.
> They only knew that is was *very, very* wrong... This
> is reflected by the fact that is WAS a FELONY.
Homosexuality does not harm or kill ANYONE, and it was/is
considered a FELONY. Oral sex received a harsher penance
by the English Church than abortion (7 YEARS of penance
for oral sex, 120 DAYS for abortion), even though both
acts do not harm or kill a human being.
> Will you even go so far as to deny this fact?
The irritating thing about felony crimes is that
sometimes they are imposed for acts which do not
harm and/or kill a human being. Possessing a
pound of marijuana is a felony, even if you have
harmed no one but yourself.
The fact that an act is a felony crime does not
necessarily mean that the act is inherently wrong.
It just means that the governing body has decided
to make it a felony act.
> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> > John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> > >We agree on one thing, namely, that abortion was never
> > >considered "murder" by our legal community.
> >
> > Then maybe you should not have claimed otherwise.
Ray Fischer
>>> If I were passing the laws around here...
>>> Only the abortion doctors and nurses would be punished.
>
>> We could also solve the abortion problem by just throwing all you
>> anti-abortion ideologues into prison.
>>
>> Anything wrong with _that_ solution?
>
>Other than the fact that it would be killing the innocent?
You didn't answer the question. And how does throwing you in
prison kill _anyone_? It doesn't, of course. You're just
another pro-liar.
>I for one AM willing to lay down my life - if necessary -
>for the freedoms we enjoy, the people of this country,
>and for my faith.
Another lie, since you argue that pregnant women and doctors and
nurses should be denied their freedoms.
>If it comes to that, I firmly believe that God will grant me
>the courage to persevere...
Which "God" would that be? The one who said that people should be
killed for working on Sunday? Or the one that wrote this?
Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out
the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the
beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the
beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull
out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
Luke 6:41
>Extreme? Yes - extremely convinced and committed.
Just like Goebbels was a convinced and committed Nazi?
M is for Malapert
> Again the phrase "reading comprehension" comes to mind...
> I repeatedly said "was considered a crime..."
Which is meaningless, since many things were considered crimes in
ancient and medieval times which aren't today.
> Because of advances in scientific understanding, specifically
> DNA testing and the like, we now know something our
> parents didn't... Abortion is murder.
So why is it that the more a person knows about science, specifically
DNA and embryology and the like, the more likely that person is NOT to
believe that a zygote or embryo is a human being? Why is it that
doctors, for example, are overwhelmingly pro-choice?
> They only knew that
> is was *very, very* wrong...
And you also "only know" that it is very, very wrong, and you use
popularizations of science, without understanding the underlying
precepts, to support your ancient belief.
> This is reflected by the fact
> that is WAS a FELONY.
Abortion after quickening was only a serious crime (felony in some
cases) for about 150 years. That's nothing--heresy was a serious
crime for a lot longer than that.
Kari Wegner
is alive at conception, or pre-conception. It is a BELIEF issue and
therefore, because "murder" is a legal term....abortion can not be murder.
It can be murder in your mind and in your heart, but it can not be legal
murder because the state has no right to legislate law based on one
religious definition of life. If you want a government that can do
that....get out of America. We are not a theocratic government and we do
not legislate religious law...or shouldn't anyway.
If you don't like abortion....don't have one!!!!
Al Borges
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:376710DC...@neo.rr.com...
> RE: fetus == tumor?
> In response to my cogent statement that the embryo
> is both human and unique (a.k.a. DNA), and that this
> is a scientific fact...
>
> "mitosis" and "meiosis" look them up.
> If your high-schoolers are taking biology, it will be in
> there.<<
What's your point? If you are trying to say that the fetus divides by
meiosis, then we'll flunk you to the 8th grade, John! <g> Both the fetus and
the tumor divide by mitosis... so try again.
> Conclusion: embryo "not equal" tumor
> embryo = unique human individual
> (a.k.a. human person)<<
Wrong again. We each form a cancer cell almost daily, but our immune
system kills it successfully, since it's slightly different from its host
cell. When the immune system fails (esp. seen in patients with AIDS), we
begin to form cancers which have a different genetic makeup than its host
due to the fact that it's developed a chromosomal abnormality.
> Corollary: every human person has certain
> unalienable rights namely the pursuit of LIFE,
> liberty, and happiness.<<
Then so do cancer cells. Giving chemo is thus tantamount to *murder*!
Wow- new PL thought process...interesting but false.
> Rhetorical question: Why was LIFE listed first?
> Rhetorical answer: Perhaps the founders were trying to
> connote a hierarchy of values?<<
So? You bring up a new focus- unfortunately, it's a bad argument.
Sorry...
Regards, Al.
Ray Fischer
>>> If I were passing the laws around here...
>>> Only the abortion doctors and nurses would be punished.
>
>> We could also solve the abortion problem by just throwing all you
>> anti-abortion ideologues into prison.
>>
>> Anything wrong with _that_ solution?
>
>Other than the fact that it would be killing the innocent?
You didn't answer the question. And how does throwing you in
prison kill _anyone_? It doesn't, of course. You're just
another pro-liar.
>I for one AM willing to lay down my life - if necessary -
>for the freedoms we enjoy, the people of this country,
>and for my faith.
Another lie, since you argue that pregnant women and doctors and
nurses should be denied their freedoms.
>If it comes to that, I firmly believe that God will grant me
>the courage to persevere...
Which "God" would that be? The one who said that people should be
killed for working on Sunday? Or the one that said this?
hrgr...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> RE: fetus == tumor?
Which was not claimed. Just that tumors and HeLa cultures were "human"
and "unique" as well, thus your definition has problems.
> Dear hrguemm,
>
> In response to my cogent statement that the embryo
Everyone in this NG writes nothing but cogent statements - in his/her
own opinion, that is ... :-)
> is both human and unique (a.k.a. DNA), and that this
> is a scientific fact...
>
> hrguemm responded (amazingly)...
> > But so is a growing cancer or a HeLa cell culture - human and
unique.
>
> To which I can only say,
> "mitosis" and "meiosis" look them up.
> If your high-schoolers are taking biology, it will be in
> there.
>
> Conclusion: embryo "not equal" tumor
> embryo = unique human individual
> (a.k.a. human person)
This argument was already answered (convincingly, IMHO) by Al Borges
who knows more about medicine, embryology etc. than both of us.
> Corollary: every human person has certain
> unalienable rights namely the pursuit of LIFE,
> liberty, and happiness.
Nitpick: wasn't it ... "and the pursuit of happiness" ?
Since you haven't shown that the embryo must be regarded as a person,
the quote does not apply. In any case, a moral/legal judgment cannot be
a corollary to a scíentific statement.
Actually, PL people quoting this routinely forget about the woman's
right to pursue her happiness, which means her life *as she planned it*.
> Rhetorical question: Why was LIFE listed first?
> Rhetorical answer: Perhaps the founders were trying to
> connote a hierarchy of values?
Rhetorical response: Whatever happened to "Give me liberty or give me
death", "Lever dood as slaav" (Frisian saying: better be dead than a
slave), "Das Leben ist der Güter höchstes nicht" (F.Schiller: "Life is
not the greatest value") etc. etc. ?
(Quotes in other languages available as well .... ;-))
Regards,
HRG.
> Best wishes,
> John
Lesley Dove
What makes you think only religious people oppose abortion? I am
atheist and pro-life. We only get this life, so it's all the more
important to respect other sentient beings going through their one and
only existence.
Lesley Dove
Bitsy Dobby
Lesley Dove <100706.n...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:#izdGJMu#GA....@ntawwabp.compuserve.com...
Unless, of course, one is Buddhist, in which case you are going through
one of many phases of reincarnation. What is your definition of a sentient
being?
==================================================================
>
Lesley Dove
Sentience has nothing to do with intelligence or reasoning, it is to
do with feeling and ability to suffer.
I count animals as well as unborn babies within my moral circle of
compassion.
I believe many Buddhists are vegetarian too and treat animals with
respect.
Are you a Buddhist?
Lesley Dove
Ray Fischer
>What makes you think only religious people oppose abortion? I am
>atheist and pro-life. We only get this life, so it's all the more
>important to respect other sentient beings going through their one and
>only existence.
Unless that "sentient being" happens to be a pregnant being.
And unless a non-sentient being happens to be a human embryo.
Lesley's standards are a little flexible.
Bitsy Dobby
Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:rayFDH...@netcom.com...
> Lesley Dove <100706.n...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >What makes you think only religious people oppose abortion? I am
> >atheist and pro-life. We only get this life, so it's all the more
> >important to respect other sentient beings going through their one and
> >only existence.
>
> Unless that "sentient being" happens to be a pregnant being.
> And unless a non-sentient being happens to be a human embryo.
>
> Lesley's standards are a little flexible.
Ray, you say more with less words than anyone I've read. You seem to
hit the heart of the matter every time. "A little flexible" may be the only
understatement you've ever posted.
lepnitho
I don't see where you get this "Bitsy"-- Ray is one of the most
intolerant and infantile posters to this group. He never discusses
things-- just turns a poster's words back on them in gibberish. For
instance, he routinely calls prolifers "murders" whereas the abortion
mills murder over 4,000 people daily. Where's Ray's compassion there?
He's so worried about some homeless waifs in India, he turns a blind
eye to the carnage in his back yard.
If I wanted to read the work of first graders, I'd go get a teaching
degree.
Brian Charles Kohn
<lepn...@my-deja.com> escribió en el mensaje de noticias
<7kce4t$65i$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>I don't see where you get this "Bitsy"-- Ray is one of the most
>intolerant and infantile posters to this group. He never discusses
>things-- just turns a poster's words back on them in gibberish. For
>instance, he routinely calls prolifers "murders" whereas the abortion
>mills murder over 4,000 people daily.
The problem is that you're probably incapable of realizing
that you just did the same thing you accuse Ray of doing.
just bickerŽ
Ray Fischer
>> >What makes you think only religious people oppose abortion? I am
>> >atheist and pro-life. We only get this life, so it's all the more
>> >important to respect other sentient beings going through their one and
>> >only existence.
>>
>> Unless that "sentient being" happens to be a pregnant being.
>> And unless a non-sentient being happens to be a human embryo.
>>
>> Lesley's standards are a little flexible.
>
> Ray, you say more with less words than anyone I've read.
Thanks. :-)
> You seem to
>hit the heart of the matter every time.
Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
perfect. Give a few more years though...
> "A little flexible" may be the only
>understatement you've ever posted.
She'll deny it, of course. She's far more interested in her ideology
than in the truth. To be fair, though, that much can be said of a
great many people.
--
Ray Fischer
>I don't see where you get this "Bitsy"-- Ray is one of the most
>intolerant and infantile posters to this group. He never discusses
>things-- just turns a poster's words back on them in gibberish.
Smirk. Is there something wrong with showing how self-serving,
hypocritical, and nonsensical your own words are?
> For
>instance, he routinely calls prolifers "murders"
That's a lie.
> whereas the abortion
>mills murder over 4,000 people daily.
That's another lie.
> Where's Ray's compassion there?
Where it belongs. You wail about unfeeling uncaring embryos while
turning a blind eye to the suffering of thinking feeling women. And
that you have the rank stupidity to bullshit about "sentience" when
it's obvious that you really don't give a shit about sentience.
>He's so worried about some homeless waifs in India, he turns a blind
>eye to the carnage in his back yard.
LOL! And you care so much about embryos that you turn a blind eye to
the tens of thousands of children dead of hunger each day.
Apparenlty an embryo is more important than a starving child. Maybe
you should kill yourself so that you don't have to kill and eat any
plants.
Ray Fischer
>I don't see where you get this "Bitsy"-- Ray is one of the most
>intolerant and infantile posters to this group. He never discusses
>things-- just turns a poster's words back on them in gibberish.
Smirk. Is there something wrong with showing how self-serving,
hypocritical, and nonsensical your own words are?
> For
>instance, he routinely calls prolifers "murders"
That's a lie.
> whereas the abortion
>mills murder over 4,000 people daily.
That's another lie.
> Where's Ray's compassion there?
Where it belongs. You wail about unfeeling uncaring embryos while
turning a blind eye to the suffering of thinking feeling women. And
then you have the stupidity to bullshit about "sentience" when
it's obvious that you really don't give a shit about sentience.
>He's so worried about some homeless waifs in India, he turns a blind
>eye to the carnage in his back yard.
LOL! And you care so much about embryos that you turn a blind eye to
the tens of thousands of children dead of hunger each day.
Apparently an embryo is more important than a starving child.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>> Lesley Dove <100706.n...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> >What makes you think only religious people oppose abortion? I am
>> >atheist and pro-life. We only get this life, so it's all the more
>> >important to respect other sentient beings going through their one and
>> >only existence.
>>
>> Unless that "sentient being" happens to be a pregnant being.
>> And unless a non-sentient being happens to be a human embryo.
>>
>> Lesley's standards are a little flexible.
>
> Ray, you say more with less words than anyone I've read.
Thanks. :-)
> You seem to
>hit the heart of the matter every time.
Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
perfect. Give it few more years though...
> "A little flexible" may be the only
>understatement you've ever posted.
She'll deny it, of course. She's far more interested in her ideology
than in the truth. To be fair, though, that much can be said of a
great many people.
--
Ramon Ki Re
> Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
> perfect. Give it few more years though...
How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
Ramon
LadyNature
>
>Ramon
Hmm... well, perhaps she didn't need to "escape" since he's NOT pro-abortion!!
duh!! If he was pro-abortion *she wouldn't be here*.
I know this is hard for you.. but give it some time.. eventually, it may sink
in.
~Naturelle
Mish
abort every pregnancy!!!
Good grief!
Mishrak the Wanderer
"Kill a man one is a murderer; kill a million, a conqueror; kill them all, a
God."
-Jean Rostand
Chris Lyman
# r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
# > Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
# > perfect. Give it few more years though...
# How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
--
Chris Lyman
Send email to chris-dot-lyman-atsign-pclink-dot-com
"Give a man a fish and he'll ask for a lemon. Teach a man
to fish and he'll leave work early on Fridays."
webg...@rocketmail.com
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
> "Kari Wegner" <ka...@directinter.net> wrote:
>
> >Abotion is only taking a life if your religious
> >beliefs state that a fetus is alive at conception,
> >or pre-conception. It is a BELIEF issue and
> >therefore, because "murder" is a legal term....
> >abortion can not be murder. It can be murder in
> >your mind and in your heart, but it can not be legal
> >murder because the state has no right to legislate
> >law based on one religious definition of life. If
> >you want a government that can do that....get out of
> >America. We are not a theocratic government and we
> >do not legislate religious law...or shouldn't anyway.
> >If you don't like abortion....don't have one!!!!
>
> I am atheist and pro-life. We only get this life, so it's
> all the more important to respect other sentient beings
> going through their one and only existence.
Considering that true sentience--consciousness and complete
awareness of one's surroundings--doesn't occur until several
months after being BORN (if it does at all), your argument
holds no water, and in fact is no less a belief than the
arguments posed by a religious anti-abortion person.
Potential to be sentient is not the exact same thing as
being sentient. The fetus carries potential to be sentient,
while the pregnant woman already IS sentient.
If your argument is that we need to protect sentience,
then the actual, definitive sentience needs to be
protected more than the being with questionable
sentience. There are gray areas in other aspects of
sentience vs. non-sentience, of course, but pregnancy
and abortion are definitive: the pregnancy WILL HARM
OR KILL the pregnant woman. As you no doubt agree
with, protecting one's own life is paramount, and the
right not to do so is also a right which needs to be
protected.
Thankfully, Roe vs. Wade, while creating the legal
precedent that there is a right to privacy and that
a right to an abortion cannot be completely removed,
also restated and provided additional support to the
previous precedent establishing a right to a lack of
government interference in the decision to bear a
child. Remember that when you think of Roe vs. Wade
and are tempted to consider it not in favor of pregnant
women in general, but erroneously as only in favor of
pregnant women seeking an abortion. See
SKINNER v. STATE OF OKL. EX REL. WILLIAMSON, 316 U.S. 535
(1942)(http://laws.findlaw.com/US/316/535.html).
The fact remains that after all is said and done, there
are very few arguments for or against abortion which can
be supported on anything more than belief, and most of
the supported ones aren't really good arguments proving
or disproving the personhood/human beingness of the
zygote, embryo, or fetus. These arguments include
DNA proving it is human, but not necessarily a human
being, and the pain argument, which doesn't do anything
to establish personhood either.
And since the First Amendment is quite clear on whether or
not the U.S. Congress can stipulate belief...it would take
a Constitutional Amendment in order for the U.S. Congress
to legislate belief.
The irony of an atheist anti-abortion person is that it
is unlikely that, given the supreme power to legislate
belief--as would be required to legislate away the right
to privacy which guarantees abortion rights--the largely
Christian White Male U.S. Congress would stop at abortion,
and not continue on to legislating away atheism as an
allowed values system.
webg...@rocketmail.com
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove)
wrote:
> "Bitsy Dobby" <bitsn...@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote:
> >Lesley Dove <100706.n...@compuserve.com>
> > wrote in message
> > news:#izdGJMu#GA....@ntawwabp.compuserve.com...
> >>
> >> >Abotion is only taking a life if your religious
> >> >beliefs state that a fetus is alive at conception,
> >> >or pre-conception. It is a BELIEF issue and
> >> >therefore, because "murder" is a legal term....
> >> >abortion can not be murder.
> >> >It can be murder in your mind and in your heart,
> >> >but it can not be legal murder because the state
> >> >has no right to legislate law based on one religious
> >> >definition of life. If you want a government that
> >> >can do that....get out of America. We are not a
> >> >theocratic government and we do not legislate
> >> >religious law...or shouldn't anyway. If you don't
> >> >like abortion....don't have one!!!!
> >>
> >> What makes you think only religious people oppose
> >> abortion? I am atheist and pro-life. We only get
> >> this life, so it's all the more important to respect
> >> other sentient beings going through their one and
> >> only existence.
>
> > you are going through one of many phases of
> > reincarnation. What is your definition of a sentient
> > being?
>
> Sentience has nothing to do with intelligence or reasoning,
> it is to do with feeling and ability to suffer.
First off, this is in disagreement with the dictionary,
which does stipulate consciousness and not merely the
ability to feel pain. Comprehensive awareness is
stipulated by the dictionary, not merely the ability to
feel pain. This belief of yours will be your downfall,
of course...(see below)...
Secondly, while the pregnant woman can feel pain from day
1 of the pregnancy, the zygote/embryo/fetus cannot. It
is a simple matter of the connections not being present
to send pain signals to the brain.
Layman's Neurology Primer: when a nerve ending is
stimulated excessively, causing a pain signal, the pain
signal first travels to the brain, where it is processed
and the brain signals that the pain is occurring and
where the pain is. In the absence of pain receptors in the
brain , there can be no processing of pain in the brain.
Prior to nerve linkages, there can be no pain signals
sent to the brain. Ergo, prior to the completion of the
system of sending and processing pain signals, there can
be no pain felt even if nerve stimulation is occurring.
Current medical research indicates that nerve linkages to
the brain pain centers does not occur until well into the
Second Trimester, or anywhere from 22 to 28 weeks of
pregnancy. Ergo, the zygote, embryo, and some fetuses
cannot feel pain prior to the 22nd-28th week of pregnancy.
Since your definition of sentience REQUIRES that one
be able to feel pain, you in effect feel that any fetus
prior to the 22nd week is NON-SENTIENT.
Any claims you now make that a fetus prior to the 22nd week
is sentient, are based SOLELY on belief and not on empirical
evidence. In other words, no different from a theological
belief.
> I count animals as well as unborn babies within my
> moral circle of compassion.
If "the ability to feel pain" is enough for you to
[a] consider a thing SENTIENT, and [b] make you stop
eating something, then STOP EATING VEGETABLES. Studies
have shown that when you provide the vegetable with a
"voice"--such as a lie detector machine measuring the
electrical discharges within the leaves of the
plant--and then begin removing leaves and/or fruit
from the plant, you will get sudden electrical
discharges generated by the plant coinciding with
each dismemberment. It is screaming as you cut off
its limbs, as you dismember this being which cannot
run away or fight you off.
About all you can get away with eating is "dead"
fruit and vegetables, which have fallen away from the
vines/branches on their own and no longer exhibit
electrical discharges, and seeds, which only possess
the POTENTIAL to grow into plants which can feel pain.
Coincidentally, while this should not spark a dietary
change on your part, fetuses prior to the 22nd week
also cannot feel pain, since they, like seeds, have
not developed into things which can feel pain.
> I believe many Buddhists are vegetarian too and treat
> animals with respect. Are you a Buddhist?
I'm no Buddhist, but I find the concept of reincarnation
more valid than other afterlife concepts, since one can
note the tendency of physical life to recycle EVERYTHING.
:)
Of course, I have no evidence of this and I am personally
withholding judgement until I die, at which point I plan
on being pleasantly surprised.
Lesley Dove
>kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Ki Re) wrote:
># r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
># > Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
># > perfect. Give it few more years though...
># How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
>This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
>a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
>Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
>Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
>lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
>choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
Lesley Dove
El Coyote
>>This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
>>a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
>>Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
>>Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
>>lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
>>choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
>
>I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
There is no "double-think" involved. You are ascribing to Pro-Choice
people the thoughts and viewpoints of the Pro-Life strawmen. Rather
than believe what the Pro-Lifers claim is the Pro-Choice viewpoint
maybe you should actually read what they are posting. By believing
your prejudices rather than discussing the issues you are stuck in
your confusion. Your confusion is simply that Pro-Choice people do
NOT believe as the Pro-Lifers claim.
The fact is: Pro-Lifers lie. Recognize this and the confusion ends.
Chris Lyman
# no....@this.address (Chris Lyman) wrote:
# >kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Ki Re) wrote:
# ># r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
# ># > Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
# ># > perfect. Give it few more years though...
# ># How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
# >This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
# >a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
# >Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
# >Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
# >lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
# >choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
# I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
"Double-think" is a term coined by George Orwell in his book "1984".
It describes the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one's
mind at the same time. Please explain how and why it is double-think
for us pro-choicers to be pro-choice and parents at the same time.
The Ghost In The Machine
>100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
># no....@this.address (Chris Lyman) wrote:
># >kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Ki Re) wrote:
># ># r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
># ># > Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
># ># > perfect. Give it few more years though...
>
># ># How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
>
># >This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
># >a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
># >Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
># >Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
># >lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
># >choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
>
># I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
>
>"Double-think" is a term coined by George Orwell in his book "1984".
>It describes the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one's
>mind at the same time. Please explain how and why it is double-think
>for us pro-choicers to be pro-choice and parents at the same time.
[begin emulation]
Simple. Pro-choicers are pro-abortionists. Pro-abortionists
are for abortion at all times. Therefore, pro-abortionists
won't become parents, as they will abort.
[end emulation]
Then again, maybe the pro-lifers are just full of it. :-)
[.sigsnip]
----
ew...@aimnet.com
webg...@rocketmail.com
And just because someone calls themselves "pro-life"
doesn't necessarily mean they are against the death penalty,
oppose war in general, have & want no guns, feel that people
whose lives aren't *directly* threatened need to be protected,
etc.
Fortunately for *pro-choicers* like Ray and myself, we aren't
"pro-abortion" in the sense that Ramon thinks of himself as
"pro-life". We are, simultaneously, pro-life and pro-abortion,
since we support BOTH CHOICES, as long as there remains a
CHOICE between safe, legal ways to terminate a pregnancy.
webg...@rocketmail.com
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
> no....@this.address (Chris Lyman) wrote:
>
> >kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Ki Re) wrote:
> ># r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> ># > Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty
near
> ># > perfect. Give it few more years though...
>
> ># How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
>
>
What double-think? We support CHOICE. You DON'T.
There is nothing wrong with supporting a woman's choice
REGARDLESS of which way she chooses to terminate her
pregnancy, be it by continuing to term or through abortion.
There is no double-think when what you support is not
SPECIFICALLY abortion, but CHOICE.
I would be just as worried about living in a country where
abortion was legal, but whether or not you could give birth
was regulated and restricted by the government. I want all
women to have the choice between options. I don't support
one option over the other.
I find it interesting that you consider "consistency" to
be "double-think".
Ray Fischer
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>> Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
>
Easy. I'm not pro-abortion.
Ray Fischer
>no....@this.address (Chris Lyman) wrote:
>>kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Ki Re) wrote:
>># r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>># > Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
>># > perfect. Give it few more years though...
>
>># How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
>
>>This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
>>a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
>>Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
>>Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
>>lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
>>choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
>
>I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
Your confused only by your own narrow-minded prejudices. I'm not in
favor of abortion. Never have been. I argue for liberty.
You, on the other hand, argue for choice when it comes to vaccination,
but no choice for pregnancy. You use sentience to argue for being
a vegetarian, but disregard sentience when it comes to pregnancy.
No wonder you're confused. You have confused a moral position with
your self-centered wants.
John Sweet
You argue for liberty?
Or is it the license to kill?
- js
--
"Your name, O God, like your praise, reaches to the ends of the earth."
Psalm 48:10
Ray Fischer
>You argue for liberty?
>Or is it the license to kill?
Do you argue for life? Or the right to control and kill women and
children?
Keith Justified And Ancient Cochran
In article <uXOtM$1u#GA....@ntawwabp.compuserve.com>,
Lesley Dove <100706.n...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>no....@this.address (Chris Lyman) wrote:
>>This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
>>a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
>>Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
>>Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
>>lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
>>choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
>
>I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
What double-think? Ray's wife _chose_ to have a child, and Ray supported
her in her decision, just like Ray thinks every woman should be able
to _choose_ if she wants to carry to term.
It doesn't get much more consistant than that, honey.
-- .sig and PGP Block follow. Visit http://www.dimensional.com/~janda
^L
It's amazing you exist.
finger -l ja...@dimensional.com for my PGP public key block.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQCVAwUBN279AW2jF2vR4ZtNAQGXrwP9GTkldM0McS9zlLupbYrEN5V8558y2Tkf
0bhhKL7C5HswojlgcI0/Nluwe3u5q8T8gBy5F9Lv/E+Lc92x9Ji2P28gpeqpA7Y3
wsq2WtRFPudcrx2PPHAfZ9O79yu2OmXsmQUBFUAntbwXo2jqX9I834UyDLv4LMdd
HdIwHptxM2E=
=ze1V
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
John Sweet
You talkin' to the wrong guy. The guy you want has a
suction aspirator and a shiny looped knife. He charges
$300 per "surgery". His buddy down the hall has a bag
of hypertonic saline, urea, and prostaglandins.
Dems da guys you want man.
Not me. Ya got the wrong guy.
Best wishes,
John
Ray Fischer wrote: pppphhhht.
M is for Malapert
> Dear Ray,
>
> You argue for liberty?
> Or is it the license to kill?
YOU having YOUR liberty means that people will die.
YOU get to spend YOUR money on saving other people to the degree that
YOU want, and no more.
YOU get to use YOUR body to save other people to the degree that YOU
want, and no more.
YOU get to withhold YOUR resources that could save other people's
lives, if YOU feel like it.
Why should it be any different for women?
Lesley Dove
>100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
># no....@this.address (Chris Lyman) wrote:
># >kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Ki Re) wrote:
># ># r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
># ># > Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty near
># ># > perfect. Give it few more years though...
># ># How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
># >This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
># >a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
># >Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
># >Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
># >lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
># >choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
># I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
>"Double-think" is a term coined by George Orwell in his book "1984".
>It describes the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one's
>mind at the same time. Please explain how and why it is double-think
>for us pro-choicers to be pro-choice and parents at the same time.
When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and El Coyote
feel any attachment to their unborn children?
Did they feel the babies kick when they touched their wives tummies?
Were they proud and happy and looking forward to meeting these new
little people?
Did they look at them on ultrasound and proudly show off the "baby
picture" of their unborn children to their friends?
How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
Lesley Dove
Lesley Dove
> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
>>>This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
>>>a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
>>>Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
>>>Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
>>>lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
>>>choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
>>
>>I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
>There is no "double-think" involved. You are ascribing to Pro-Choice
>people the thoughts and viewpoints of the Pro-Life strawmen. Rather
>than believe what the Pro-Lifers claim is the Pro-Choice viewpoint
>maybe you should actually read what they are posting. By believing
>your prejudices rather than discussing the issues you are stuck in
>your confusion. Your confusion is simply that Pro-Choice people do
>NOT believe as the Pro-Lifers claim.
>The fact is: Pro-Lifers lie. Recognize this and the confusion ends.
When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
feel any attachment to your unborn children?
Did you feel the babies kick when you touched your wives tummies?
Were you proud and happy and looking forward to meeting these new
little people?
Did you look at them on ultrasound and proudly show off the "baby
picture" of your unborn children to your friends?
Brian Charles Kohn
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) escribió en
el mensaje de noticias
<e6kS8xJv#GA....@nih2naaf.prod2.compuserve.com>:
>When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
>feel any attachment to your unborn children?
>others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
>Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
And you sure can continue to do that, even though it
requires you glossing over the most important fact you
mentioned: In the cases of Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Coyote, the
pregnancies were wanted. I suspect that in both cases the
attachment you're referring to existed well before
conception. Most couples plan for year to have a child, get
their hopes up, dream of what it would mean, what it would
be like.
If you want to think in terms of souls, then consider that
The Fischers and Coyotes were attached to the idea of their
future children, attached (perhaps for years) to their souls
which existed in the ether until such time as they were
implanted in the newborn babies, when they achieved
self-awareness.
What you're so keen to protect is a vessel, not a person.
just bicker®
El Coyote
>When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and El Coyote
>feel any attachment to their unborn children?
>Did they feel the babies kick when they touched their wives tummies?
>Were they proud and happy and looking forward to meeting these new
>little people?
>Did they look at them on ultrasound and proudly show off the "baby
>picture" of their unborn children to their friends?
>How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
>others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
>Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
It seems that you feel that something that is valuable to one person
at one time MUST be valuable to all people at all times. That is not
true. It is not doublethink to understand that one man's pleasure is
another man's poision.
Chris Lyman
# ># no....@this.address (Chris Lyman) wrote:
# ># >kee...@zip.com.au (Ramon Ki Re) wrote:
# ># ># r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
# ># ># > Well, my daughter just turned five yesterday, so I'm still pretty
# ># ># > near perfect. Give it few more years though...
# ># ># How did she manage to escape from your pro-abortion philosophy?
# ># >This shows how *un*enlightened you truly are. Ray does not have
# ># >a "pro-abortion" philosophy. Anyone who can read would know that.
# ># >Many pro-choicers in this forum are parents, even grandparents.
# ># >Again, anyone who can read would know that. It's funny how pro-
# ># >lifers, especially male ones, seem to feel more threatened by pro-
# ># >choicers who are parents than by those who don't have children.
# ># I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
# >"Double-think" is a term coined by George Orwell in his book "1984".
# >It describes the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in one's
# >mind at the same time. Please explain how and why it is double-think
# >for us pro-choicers to be pro-choice and parents at the same time.
# When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and El Coyote
# feel any attachment to their unborn children?
Possibly. Did you ask them?
# Did they feel the babies kick when they touched their wives tummies?
Possibly. Did you ask them?
# Were they proud and happy and looking forward to meeting these new
# little people?
Possibly. Did you ask them?
# Did they look at them on ultrasound and proudly show off the "baby
# picture" of their unborn children to their friends?
They might not have called it a "baby picture". Did you ask them?
# How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
# others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
# Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
Well, in order for them to feel the fetus kick, or to have an ultrasound
picture that looks like anything, the fetus would have to be further
along than when most abortions occur.
As for later term abortions, you'll notice that the numbers decrease
steeply as gestational age increase. Most of the time, later term
abortions are performed because something is going wrong with the
pregnancy and/or gestation, not because the woman doesn't want
the baby.
A born person cannot use the force of law to access the bodily resources
of an unwilling donor. Same applies for fetuses. Mrs. Fischer and
Mrs. Coyote were ready, *willing* and able to have children. You
seem to have difficulty with that second parameter.
Ray Fischer
>elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
>>>I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
>
>>There is no "double-think" involved. You are ascribing to Pro-Choice
>>people the thoughts and viewpoints of the Pro-Life strawmen. Rather
>>than believe what the Pro-Lifers claim is the Pro-Choice viewpoint
>>maybe you should actually read what they are posting. By believing
>>your prejudices rather than discussing the issues you are stuck in
>>your confusion. Your confusion is simply that Pro-Choice people do
>>NOT believe as the Pro-Lifers claim.
>
>>The fact is: Pro-Lifers lie. Recognize this and the confusion ends.
>
>When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
>feel any attachment to your unborn children?
Relevance?
>Did you feel the babies kick when you touched your wives tummies?
>Were you proud and happy and looking forward to meeting these new
>little people?
I'm not so arrogant as to presume that _my_ feelings must be shared by
the population as a whole, or that my feelings should be the basis for
national policy.
>Did you look at them on ultrasound and proudly show off the "baby
>picture" of your unborn children to your friends?
Nope. Not much to see, really. I've still got it, but it's just
a white smudge with an arrow pointing towards it.
>How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
>others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
What do you see when you see a pregnant women? A person with feeling
and desires that can suffer? Or do you see a mindless machine whose
only purpose is to squirt out the baby?
>Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
And it's yours. You see only fetuses. Women are invisible to you.
What they want, what their rights are, matters not in the slightest to
you. You care only about yourself and what you want.
Ray Fischer
>You talkin' to the wrong guy.
You're the one lyting about how much you care for human life.
> The guy you want has a
>suction aspirator and a shiny looped knife. He charges
>$300 per "surgery".
And you demand a woman's freedom, future, health, and even life.
At least the doctor provides a service for the money he's paid.
What do you offer?
Lesley Dove
> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
>>When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and El Coyote
>>feel any attachment to their unborn children?
>>Did they feel the babies kick when they touched their wives tummies?
>>Were they proud and happy and looking forward to meeting these new
>>little people?
>>Did they look at them on ultrasound and proudly show off the "baby
>>picture" of their unborn children to their friends?
>>How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
>>others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
>>Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
>It seems that you feel that something that is valuable to one person
>at one time MUST be valuable to all people at all times. That is not
>true. It is not doublethink to understand that one man's pleasure is
>another man's poision.
So you reduce your children to objects, poison indeed.
Lesley Dove
Lesley Dove
>A Tue, 22 Jun 1999 10:47:15 GMT, en alt.abortion,
>100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) escribió en
>el mensaje de noticias
><e6kS8xJv#GA....@nih2naaf.prod2.compuserve.com>:
>>When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
>>feel any attachment to your unborn children?
>>How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
>>others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
>>Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
>And you sure can continue to do that, even though it
>requires you glossing over the most important fact you
>mentioned: In the cases of Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Coyote, the
>pregnancies were wanted. I suspect that in both cases the
>attachment you're referring to existed well before
>conception. Most couples plan for year to have a child, get
>their hopes up, dream of what it would mean, what it would
>be like.
>If you want to think in terms of souls, then consider that
>The Fischers and Coyotes were attached to the idea of their
>future children, attached (perhaps for years) to their souls
>which existed in the ether until such time as they were
>implanted in the newborn babies, when they achieved
>self-awareness.
>What you're so keen to protect is a vessel, not a person.
I do not think in terms of souls, the unborn are equally alive and
sentient whether or not they are wanted or planned.
I do not need your religious imaginings, they are totally unproven.
Lesley Dove
Brian Charles Kohn
>I do not think in terms of souls,
Uh, as I indicated, that portion of my reply was intended
only as an option for those who cannot think about this
issue any other way.
>the unborn are equally alive and
>sentient whether or not they are wanted or planned.
I don't really care about whether something is alive or
sentient, cows are both alive and sentient. The critical
difference between people and animals is self-awareness, and
z/e/fs don't demonstrate that characteristic. Viability is
generally accepted as the point-in-time when they become
capable of developing that characteristic.
just bicker®
Lesley Dove
>Lesley Dove <100706.n...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>>> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
>>>>I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
>>
>>>There is no "double-think" involved. You are ascribing to Pro-Choice
>>>people the thoughts and viewpoints of the Pro-Life strawmen. Rather
>>>than believe what the Pro-Lifers claim is the Pro-Choice viewpoint
>>>maybe you should actually read what they are posting. By believing
>>>your prejudices rather than discussing the issues you are stuck in
>>>your confusion. Your confusion is simply that Pro-Choice people do
>>>NOT believe as the Pro-Lifers claim.
>>
>>>The fact is: Pro-Lifers lie. Recognize this and the confusion ends.
>>
>>When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
>>feel any attachment to your unborn children?
>Relevance?
You knew they were children.
>>Did you feel the babies kick when you touched your wives tummies?
>>Were you proud and happy and looking forward to meeting these new
>>little people?
>I'm not so arrogant as to presume that _my_ feelings must be shared by
>the population as a whole, or that my feelings should be the basis for
>national policy.
>>Did you look at them on ultrasound and proudly show off the "baby
>>picture" of your unborn children to your friends?
>Nope. Not much to see, really. I've still got it, but it's just
>a white smudge with an arrow pointing towards it.
>>How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
>>others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
>What do you see when you see a pregnant women? A person with feeling
>and desires that can suffer? Or do you see a mindless machine whose
>only purpose is to squirt out the baby?
>>Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
>And it's yours. You see only fetuses. Women are invisible to you.
>What they want, what their rights are, matters not in the slightest to
>you. You care only about yourself and what you want.
As I am a woman who has had two children, that would be silly.
I didn't see myself as not mattering when I was pregnant, nor would I
feel that way about other pregnant women.
Lesley Dove
webg...@rocketmail.com
100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
> elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>
> > 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
>
> >>
>
> >There is no "double-think" involved. You are ascribing to Pro-Choice
> >people the thoughts and viewpoints of the Pro-Life strawmen. Rather
> >than believe what the Pro-Lifers claim is the Pro-Choice viewpoint
> >maybe you should actually read what they are posting. By believing
> >your prejudices rather than discussing the issues you are stuck in
> >your confusion. Your confusion is simply that Pro-Choice people do
> >NOT believe as the Pro-Lifers claim.
>
> >The fact is: Pro-Lifers lie. Recognize this and the confusion ends.
>
> When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
> feel any attachment to your unborn children?
> Were you proud and happy and looking forward to meeting these new
> little people?
> picture" of your unborn children to your friends?
> others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
What you are doing is assuming that one's opinions about a
particular being cannot change based on the circumstances without
"hypocrisy" being involved. In fact this goes against real life
in a big way.
Situation [1]
"Nice doggie!"
Similar Situation [2]
"Shoot the dog! He's gone mad and might kill me!"
In this we discover that people can have different opinions about
the same type of being, a cute doggie, without any hypocrisy
whatsoever. In the first case, any possible threats from the
dog are seen as irrelevant to the desire to have a dog. In
the second case, killing the dog to remove the threat is seen
as more important than trying to keep the dog.
The process going on here is evaluation of risks against
potential benefits. This is a process which goes on all
the time in the real world. Rep. Bob Barr is openly
anti-abortion, yet he paid for his ex-wife's abortion.
In the real world, this is evaluation of risks against
benefits, and he comes up with the idea that the abortion
was preferable to the pregnancy.
Note that benefits can be intangible, this is not an
attempt to put a monetary value on a fetus. In the
case of pregnancy, the benefits are largely intangible,
since the effort and expense of a pregnancy coupled with
the expense of raising a child, not including effort and
time, can be upwards of $100,000 between birth and the
age of 18. Since the benefits are largely intangible,
the nature and value of those benefits are determined
by the woman involved.
Thus there is no "double-think" when a person feels that a
pregnancy is worth the risk for possible benefits in one
situation, and not worth the risk for the possible benefits
in another situation. Such decisions occur all the time
in real life.
El Coyote
>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Lesley Dove <100706.n...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>>>> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove) wrote:
>
>>>>>I don't feel threatened, just confused by their double-think.
>>>
>>>>There is no "double-think" involved. You are ascribing to Pro-Choice
>>>>people the thoughts and viewpoints of the Pro-Life strawmen. Rather
>>>>than believe what the Pro-Lifers claim is the Pro-Choice viewpoint
>>>>maybe you should actually read what they are posting. By believing
>>>>your prejudices rather than discussing the issues you are stuck in
>>>>your confusion. Your confusion is simply that Pro-Choice people do
>>>>NOT believe as the Pro-Lifers claim.
>>>
>>>>The fact is: Pro-Lifers lie. Recognize this and the confusion ends.
>>>
>>>When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
>>>feel any attachment to your unborn children?
>
>>Relevance?
>
>You knew they were children.
Soory Ray, but she is stuck in the Pro-Life lie that the unborn are
children and Pro-Choicers know that they are children and that they
deny this obvious fact simply so thaey might have the joy and thrill
of being able to murder their children out of pure selfishness.
...
Ray Fischer
> Brian Charles Kohn
>> 100706.n...@compuserve.com (Lesley Dove)
>> >When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
>> >feel any attachment to your unborn children?
>> >How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
>> >others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
>> >Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
>>
>> And you sure can continue to do that, even though it
>> requires you glossing over the most important fact you
>> mentioned: In the cases of Mrs. Fischer and Mrs. Coyote, the
>> pregnancies were wanted. I suspect that in both cases the
>> attachment you're referring to existed well before
>> conception. Most couples plan for year to have a child, get
>> their hopes up, dream of what it would mean, what it would
>> be like.
>
>And I'll bet if I somehow killed their fetus they would sue me for
>unlawful death (or something similar).
When you got out of prison. If you still had any assets left.
> How, pray tell, does wantedness
>make the legal (abortion), illegal (feticide)?
Well, gee. If I crush my car and sell the scrap, then it's quite
legal, but if you crush my car and sell the scrap, you go to prison
for grand theft auto.
See if you can figure out what's different.
> The unborn is what it is
>(early stage of human life) despite what transitory feelings one has
>towards it.
And the woman's body does not belong to you, your church, the state,
or to the fetus, and you can no right to command her servitude.
Ray Fischer
>>>When Mrs Fischer and Mrs "Coyote" were pregnant, did Ray and you
>>>feel any attachment to your unborn children?
>
>
>You knew they were children.
Really? And how do YOU know this?
People keep telling you that your mind-reading skills aren't that
great, and yet you keep telling people what they think and feel.
No, I did not think they were "children". Children are noisy short
people who run around and giggle at silly things. Not squishy blobs
somewhere in my wife's body.
[...]
>>>How can someone be a part of all this and still say it is OK for
>>>others to kill someone else at exactly the same stage of life?
>
>>What do you see when you see a pregnant women? A person with feeling
>>and desires that can suffer? Or do you see a mindless machine whose
>>only purpose is to squirt out the baby?
>
>>>Yes, I maintain it is double-think.
>
>>And it's yours. You see only fetuses. Women are invisible to you.
>>What they want, what their rights are, matters not in the slightest to
>>you. You care only about yourself and what you want.
>
>As I am a woman who has had two children, that would be silly.
As rebuttals go, yours is shit. It's all about _you_. What _you_
want. A pregnant woman is nothing more than a means to what you
want. Her suffering and wishes and thoughts mean nothing to you.
>I didn't see myself as not mattering when I was pregnant, nor would I
>feel that way about other pregnant women.
But you do say that what other women want is not at all important when
it's different from what you want.
Ray Fischer
>> >You talkin' to the wrong guy.
>>
>> You're the one lyting about how much you care for human life.
>>
>> > The guy you want has a
>> >suction aspirator and a shiny looped knife. He charges
>> >$300 per "surgery".
>>
>> And you demand a woman's freedom, future, health, and even life.
>> At least the doctor provides a service for the money he's paid.
>
>And you demand a humans freedom, future, health, and even life.
Prove it. Show even one such demand.
You cannot, of course. You're pro-lie. You lie about all manner of
things.
hereti...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> Dear Giant,
>
> I will attempt to rebut your excellent reply to my hastily
> penned response.
Drop the pretentious style and think before you post then,
wanker. WE don't use pens on the 'net.
> I would like to agree with you on the
> following points... abortion was not considered "murder"
> and there is a long history of jurisprudence on this subject.
No shit. Of course, you simply refused to accept the fact that
MAYBE the propaganda of the rtlers might be WRONG. At least
you checked, now why don't you get back to the rtlers who keep
repeating that lie?
> Briefly, in my only defense...
Just invoke M'Naughton
> I agree that legally abortion was not equivalent to murder.
Awfully white of you, since it happens to be the truth.
> According to the article that you cited,
> "the British Parliament passed the 'Offenses Against the
> Person Act' in 1869, dropping the FELONY punishment back
> to conception."
> And, the laws in the US "passed after the Civil War moved the
> FELONY punishment from quickening back to conception."
Actually, in most areas there simply weren't any laws until
the 1800s. And most women had no access to physicians anyway.
> For what it's worth...
> I believe that abortion is murder as defined by the Ten
> Commandments... One of which translated literally means,
> "You shall not kill the innocent."
Nope. They kill plenty of innocent in the Bible.
You think those Midianite pregnant women and boys that
Moses had slaughtered were guilty? Of what? Being
Moses' inlaws?
a closer translation was not to kill for financial gain,
so contract hits were a real no-no.
> I believe it should be illegal without exception. This
> includes rape and incest [because the intent to kill
> the innocent is present and acted upon].
And besides, women ask for rape, and they deserve it
for being women, right? It's not like women are
people or anything.
> In my personal opinion, it would be nice to have the
> government completely OUT of this business - on one
> condition... (namely)... the medical profession polices
> itself and revokes the license of any person performing
> an abortion or assisting in one.
The medical profession does police itself, and fact is,
docs tend to be prochoice on abortion. Especiall the docs
who remember what it was like before RvW. So you do want
the government involved, after all. But in case you were
jacking off to the history books, we tried that system and it
simply didn't work.
> I do not want to impose
> a "christian" state with "christian" laws. I merely want
> to protect the unborn person's right to life.
There is no right to life for anyone.
Why do you hate women so much? Why do you think a fetus
has more rights than a human being?
> [Religious states are, in my opinion, utopian failures,
> and I (personally) am content to hope for the one in
> heaven.]
Not if what the bible says is true, Mr. Tares.
> Unfortunately, the medical profession in this country
> is paralyzed by ideologues who need to protect their
> own self interests at this point in time.
In fact, that is one reason they lobbied to BAN abortion
in the 1800s. SEe -When Abortion was a Crime- by L. Reagan for
an historical analysis.
> This leaves us
> with only ONE other profession that is capable of
> dealing with this. As Danny Devito quipped in one
> of his funniest movies, "and if that don't work bring in
> the nukes - I mean lawyers."
Actually, it was the lawyers who helped get abortion legalized
sooner. It was happening state by state anyway.
> Incidentally, I feel that cultural and legal essays like
> ours will go a long way in helping people understand
> the issues at stake here.
Your fatuous ramblings and carminative wisdom only proves
that rtlers are at best misogynist loons.
> Purely hypothetical... (feel free to skip)...
> If I were passing the laws around here...
> Only the abortion doctors and nurses would be punished.
How about a woman who self-aborts then? Is that OK?
fine, we can teach women how to do menstrual extractions
on themselves again.
> In my mind the tragedy of an abortion is enough for the
> woman. In Jesus' own words, "it is mercy that I want
> and not sacrifice."
No, what it shows is what a woman-hating rapist freak you are.
You seem to think women are just helpless victims, and can't
be held responsible for their own lives.
Fuck you and the dogma you rode in on.
Really pisses you off that abortion is not a tragedy for
women, don't it?
> Punishments for medical professionals:
> 1st offense: automatic loss of license, possibility of
> retraining, testing and licensing in (say) 20 years.
> Fines must equal the income earned while practicing
> medicine or the amount charged for abortion services
> - whichever is greater. Minimum jail time = 3 years.
> No possibility of parole.
You and Hitler had the same idea.
> 2nd offense: 10-20 years in prison with possible parole
> in 8 years....
>
> Again this is just my lousy opinion for what its worth
> which as you know is very little...
Less than little.
How about mandatory castration for men, if you REALLY
want to eliminate abortion? Or do you just want to force
more women to be ambulatory incubators?
What ever did your mother do to you to make you hate
women so much, anyway? Did she tell you she regretted not
aborting you, so you identify with an unwanted fetus?
I can see where spewing a nasty little rapo freak like you
would make any mother prochoice on abortion. Pity she
can't make it retroactive.
hereti...@my-deja.com
John Sweet <jss...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> >> If I were passing the laws around here...
Thank Goddess that won't ever happen.
> >> Only the abortion doctors and nurses would be punished.
So women can just take RU 486 and other pharmaceuticals,
plus we can allow non medical personnel to do menstrual
extraction to get around that silly rule. But since that
would mean that laws that punish a person for soliciting
a crime would all have to be eliminated as well. So it would
be legal to hire a hitman to kill someone. After all, it's the
hitman who does it, right?
> You retorted,
> > We could also solve the abortion problem by just throwing all you
> > anti-abortion ideologues into prison.
> > Anything wrong with _that_ solution?
>
> Other than the fact that it would be killing the innocent?
How is putting someone in prison killing the innocent?
PLEASE stop smoking so much crack. It's not good for you!
> Which you feel is merely a religious opinion...
> Like the other 9 commandments...
Funny, I don't see any laws about honoring the Sabbath or
taking the name of god in vain .. . and we kill innocent people
all the time. Comission or omission, friendly fire or hostile,
you're just as dead.
> No, nothing is wrong with that.
> I for one AM willing to lay down my life - if necessary -
> for the freedoms we enjoy, the people of this country,
> and for my faith.
But you'd much prefer to lay down the lifes, health and freedom
of all fertile women rather than so much as risk a paper cut.
> If it comes to that, I firmly believe that God will grant me
> the courage to persevere... to trust in His Divine Providence...]
Better watch it, what you put on the net can be used against you
in a court of law, say a sanity hearing. Such ramblings can be
used as proof that you are a danger to self and others.
> and to bear witness to the Splendor of the Truth....
> with all that I have... and all that I am.
> So please help me God for without you I can do
> nothing.
>
> Extreme? Yes - extremely convinced and committed.
Perhaps you will be committed, soon, I hope.