'Unborn Child'
Gatsby
>
>
> I'm sorry you are sick of hearing it, but oxymoron it isn't.
Ok, asshole. Just like it isn't an oxymoron to say undead corpse, right?
The fetus is
> an "unborn child" and precious and of value. When a pregnant woman feels
> the first stirrings of the child within, no-one could ever convince her
that
> this is not a child waiting to develop enough to live outside the womb.
> This child is alive, and a miracl of life.
She may feel that way. That has to do with her perceptions. As for how her
perceptions are concerned, it could be any other developing life form within
her for the first 3 months -- presuming the ability to kick -- and she
wouldn't perceive any difference. Women who have abortions usually don't
perceive the embryo as being a child.
dogman
Debbie Porter
dogman wrote in message <386573D5...@your-e-mail.invalid>...
>I'm sick of hearing this oxymoron.
I'm sorry you are sick of hearing it, but oxymoron it isn't. The fetus is
an "unborn child" and precious and of value. When a pregnant woman feels
the first stirrings of the child within, no-one could ever convince her that
this is not a child waiting to develop enough to live outside the womb.
This child is alive, and a miracl of life.
Deb
El Coyote
>I'm sick of hearing this oxymoron.
It is a euphanism, not an oxymoron, moron.
It is a perfectly valid expression for that which is not yet a child
but which is expected to become one in the near future. I am,
however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to cover
those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become children.
TerryG
elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> I am,
> however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to cover
> those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become children.
>
Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever expected
to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
--
What we're all involved in here is an exercise in
communications.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
asa...@my-deja.com
TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
> elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> > I am,
> > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to cover
> > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
children.
> >
>
> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
expected
> to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass if
it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
pampered, perfect, wanted people.
--A
Adam Levenstein
wrote:
>
>Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever expected
>to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
The ones that are washed out in those lovely few days women have every
month, the ones that have no hope for survival, etc.
------------------------------------------------------
"You must be in love with the devil. You probably
sold your soul to him to learn how to play the banjo.
May God help you!"
- "Bishop" Norman Boyd
Gatsby
> > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> expected
> > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>
> child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass if
> it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
view it as a child, but that doesn't change what it is.
> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
No, but the ultimate CHIOCE lies with the person who's body is being used by
another life form.
TerryG
asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
> > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> > > I am,
> > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
cover
> children.
> > >
> >
> > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> expected
> > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>
> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
> child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass if
> it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
>
> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>
The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted logic.
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
dogman
>
> dogman <I-don't-w...@your-e-mail.invalid> wrote:
>
> >I'm sick of hearing this oxymoron.
>
> It is a euphanism, not an oxymoron, moron.
Whoah, what crawled up your arse and died? I don't think it's as black
and white as you put it. I don't think you can flat out deny the
possibility of it being an oxymoron, just because your mind doesn't
quite see it as being one.
> It is a perfectly valid expression for that which is not yet a child
You admit the unborn is "not yet a child". It kinda looks like you're
proving my point. If an oxymoron is "a combination of contradictory or
incongruous words", it is perfectly valid to apply it in this case, it
all depends on what you consider a "child", which isn't really such a
black and white term in most peoples minds, some will see a late term
fetus as a child, some won't.
> but which is expected to become one in the near future. I am,
dogman
>
> El Coyote wrote:
> >
> > dogman <I-don't-w...@your-e-mail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > >I'm sick of hearing this oxymoron.
> >
> > It is a euphanism, not an oxymoron, moron.
> >
> > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to cover
> > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become children.
It's only the use of the words in abortion arguments that I have a
problem with, it's not like I ask all expectant mothers to refrain from
the term.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
> > > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> > > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
> cover
> > > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
> > children.
> > > >
> > >
> > expected
> > > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
> >
> > Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
> > child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass
if
> > it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
> >
> > In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> > pampered, perfect, wanted people.
> >
> > --A
>
> The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
logic.
.... said the patient about the doctors that had tried to convince him
by logic that he was not Napoleon ...
HRG.
el_c...@juno.com
> elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> > I am,
> > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to cover
> > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
> > children.
> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> expected
> to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
Yeah. From www.m-w.com:
Main Entry: unborn
1 : not born : not brought into life
2 : still to appear : FUTURE
Those embryos/fetuses that are aborted will never become children. They
fail to meet the definition which implies that they will become children
in the future and thus the use of the term 'unborn child' is a deception
on the part of the Pro-Lifers.
The anti-abortion position is one based on lies and deceptions.
asa...@my-deja.com
> > > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> > expected
> > > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
> >
> > Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
> > child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass
if
> > it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
> >
> > In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> > pampered, perfect, wanted people.
> >
> > --A
>
> The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
logic.
It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
Thank God I made it out, you know?
Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough to
sustain our current level?
It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
--A
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:20:54 GMT <84agiq$v04$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
[snip for brevity]
>It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
>abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
>could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
>could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
>idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>
>Thank God I made it out, you know?
>
>Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough to
>sustain our current level?
>
>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
What I want to know is -- how are you going to enforce your viewpoint?
>
>--A
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
>> > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>> > > I am,
>> > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to cover
>> > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become children.
>> > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever expected
>> > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
>> child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass if
>> it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
>> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted logic.
A better rendition of that would be:
"They just won't lie down and accept my beliefs without questioning them!"
--PLH, might as well get it as right as you can the first time, wot?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <848m15$nrt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
>> > expected
>> > > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>> > Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
>> > child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass if
>> > it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
>> >
>> > In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>> > pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>> The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted logic.
>It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
>abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
>could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
>could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
>idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
Gee, maybe your mother did the speaking for you...it WAS her choice, wasn't
it? Maybe you should be glad she exercised her choice and made the right one
for you.
>Thank God I made it out, you know?
If he existed, I'd be more prone to asking him why he was asleep at the switch
when you came along, considering how you've turned out.
>Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough to
>sustain our current level?
Did you know that anyone can make such content-free claims -- but few can
actually document them?
>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
Well, I guess I'll call Mom tonight and tell her that Benham, Kentucky is the
most dangerous place in America, because _you_ said so. (Of course, since
she's pushing 70, I seriously doubt she'll have any more kids past the two she
had back in the 1950s...you know, me and my little sister.)
Aren't you getting started with the millennium party a bit early, though?
Most folks I know aren't going to start drinking until Friday night...
--PLH, who won't be drinking at all, not if I have to drive 250-odd miles that
day and evening
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In talk.abortion, asa...@my-deja.com <asa...@my-deja.com>
> wrote on Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:20:54 GMT <84agiq$v04$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>[snip for brevity]
>>It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
>>abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
>>could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
>>could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
>>idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>>Thank God I made it out, you know?
>>Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough to
>>sustain our current level?
>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>What I want to know is -- how are you going to enforce your viewpoint?
Just ask her: "Our chief weapon is fear! Fear and surprise is our -- _are_
our TWO chief weapons! Oh, damn." :-)
--PLH, I didn't expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition...
Galen Hekhuis
No one ever does.
Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
The only thing we have to fear is blood, sweat, and tears.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>>>[snip for brevity]
>No one ever does.
Very few do, in my experience -- and they're usually the ones who'd want to be
in charge of it. Of course, "asaurus" is about as likely to achieve that as
the actual Spanish Inquisition are to crashing into the Old Bailey...
--PLH, not that that'll slow her down a whit
asa...@my-deja.com
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >> The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
logic.
>
> >It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
> >abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
> >could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe
I
> >could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
> >idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>
> Gee, maybe your mother did the speaking for you...
No one has the right to speak for me except me.
it WAS her choice, wasn't
> it?
No, it wasn't.
> Maybe you should be glad she exercised her choice and made the right
one
> for you.
Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could have
had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died. Too
bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished for a
sister.
> >Thank God I made it out, you know?
>
> If he existed, I'd be more prone to asking him why he was asleep at
the switch
> when you came along, considering how you've turned out.
I see Santa skipped your house this year--that is, if he were in the
business of dispensing clues.
> >Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough to
> >sustain our current level?
>
> Did you know that anyone can make such content-free claims -- but few
can
> actually document them?
In 1957 the average American woman in her reproductive years bore 3.7
children. Taking into account all causes of death and increases in
average life span, zero population growth requires that the average
woman bears 2.1 children. Since 1972 the average in America has been
1.8 children.*
*John Willke, _Abortion Questions and Answers_ (Cincinnati: Hayes
Publishing Co., 1988), 158
For two decades we have seen below zero population growth. Every day
more people die in America than are born. Any increases in population
growth since 1972 have been due to immigration. The sociological perils
we face are not those of population explosion, but of population
reduction.
Source: Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Randy C. Alcorn,
1992, 1994 p 117.
So in the words of the revered (by me) BMCandlss, "put that on your
bike and peddle it."
> >It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in
America
> >right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>
> Well, I guess I'll call Mom tonight and tell her that Benham,
Kentucky is the
> most dangerous place in America, because _you_ said so.
No, Benham, Kentucky is a dangerous place because that's where inbred
backcountry morons like you come from. I DO believe in birth control,
do you rubes have any there?
> (Of course, since
> she's pushing 70, I seriously doubt she'll have any more kids past
the two she
> had back in the 1950s...you know, me and my little sister.)
There is a God. See?
> Aren't you getting started with the millennium party a bit early,
though?
> Most folks I know aren't going to start drinking until Friday night...
Oh, I'm sure you and your Cracky-sack playing friends will have a GREAT
time.
> --PLH, who won't be drinking at all, not if I have to drive 250-odd
miles that
> day and evening
No, but I bet you will be out back trying to get the mule drunk.
TerryG
In article <szkemc7...@fnord.io.com>,
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
> >> > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> >> > > I am,
> >> > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
cover
> >> > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
children.
>
> >> > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
expected
> >> > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>
> >> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
> >> child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass
if
> >> it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
>
> >> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> >> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>
> >The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
logic.
>
> A better rendition of that would be:
>
> "They just won't lie down and accept my beliefs without questioning
them!"
>
> --PLH, might as well get it as right as you can the first time, wot?
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
TerryG
el_c...@juno.com wrote:
> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>
> > > I am,
> > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
cover
> > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
> > > children.
>
> > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> > expected
> > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>
>
> Main Entry: unborn
> 1 : not born : not brought into life
> 2 : still to appear : FUTURE
>
> Those embryos/fetuses that are aborted will never become children.
They sure won't, you idiot. They were aborted. Are you really as
dim-witted as you appear to be?
They
> fail to meet the definition which implies that they will become
children
> in the future and thus the use of the term 'unborn child' is a
deception
> on the part of the Pro-Lifers.
>
> The anti-abortion position is one based on lies and deceptions.
>
What were you when you were in your mother's womb? Did you fail to meet
your contrived definition?
TerryG
your definition too?
Galen Hekhuis
>So in the words of the revered (by me) BMCandlss, "put that on your
>bike and peddle it."
Really? What do you do if you are successful in selling it?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szk902f...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>>>> The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted logic.
>>>It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
>>>abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
>>>could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
>>>could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
>>>idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>>Gee, maybe your mother did the speaking for you...
>No one has the right to speak for me except me.
So, it's okay for _you_ to have that right, but not your mother?
>>it WAS her choice, wasn't it?
>No, it wasn't.
How so?
>>Maybe you should be glad she exercised her choice and made the right one
>>for you.
>Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could have
>had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
>"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died. Too
>bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished for a
>sister.
Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after the fact, YOU
wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...because she might have had those
two other kids, but the sperm that fertilized the egg that eventually became
you would almost certainly have been a different one -- thus, the person you
are now would never have existed.
>> >Thank God I made it out, you know?
>>If he existed, I'd be more prone to asking him why he was asleep at the
>>switch when you came along, considering how you've turned out.
>I see Santa skipped your house this year--that is, if he were in the
>business of dispensing clues.
Your projecting is doing you no good, as usual.
>>>Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough to
>>>sustain our current level?
>>Did you know that anyone can make such content-free claims -- but few can
>>actually document them?
>In 1957 the average American woman in her reproductive years bore 3.7
>children. Taking into account all causes of death and increases in
>average life span, zero population growth requires that the average
>woman bears 2.1 children. Since 1972 the average in America has been
>1.8 children.*
>*John Willke, _Abortion Questions and Answers_ (Cincinnati: Hayes
>Publishing Co., 1988), 158
>For two decades we have seen below zero population growth. Every day
>more people die in America than are born. Any increases in population
>growth since 1972 have been due to immigration. The sociological perils
>we face are not those of population explosion, but of population
>reduction.
>Source: Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Randy C. Alcorn,
>1992, 1994 p 117.
>So in the words of the revered (by me) BMCandlss, "put that on your
>bike and peddle it."
Nah. I'd rather laugh at your attempt to pass off "documentation" written by
people with a pretty obvious interest in pushing their agenda, above any
intent to actually educate.
>>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
>>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>>Well, I guess I'll call Mom tonight and tell her that Benham, Kentucky is the
>>most dangerous place in America, because _you_ said so.
>No, Benham, Kentucky is a dangerous place because that's where inbred
>backcountry morons like you come from. I DO believe in birth control,
>do you rubes have any there?
Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even though a
lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there _was_
history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do with my case,
since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making her own
choice!)
>>(Of course, since she's pushing 70, I seriously doubt she'll have any more
>>kids past the two she had back in the 1950s...you know, me and my little
>>sister.)
>There is a God. See?
No. Is there anything you _won't_ use as "proof" of that assertion?
>>Aren't you getting started with the millennium party a bit early, though?
>>Most folks I know aren't going to start drinking until Friday night...
>Oh, I'm sure you and your Cracky-sack playing friends will have a GREAT
>time.
You really need to stop projecting so much -- Dale and I are going to be 200
miles away at a hockey game, and then on up into central Texas to the home of
some long-time friends.
>>--PLH, who won't be drinking at all, not if I have to drive 250-odd miles
>>that day and evening
>No, but I bet you will be out back trying to get the mule drunk.
Riiiiight. Everyone in a city of 4.5 million has one of them. </sarcasm>
--PLH, oh, well, it'll be fun to watch "asaurus" whine as our trip through
Iowa draws nigh (of course, that's still six months away, but might as well
have some fun with it _this_ millennium :-)
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szkemc7...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> >In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> > asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
>> >> > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>> >> > > I am,
>> >> > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to cover
>> >> > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become children.
>> >> >Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever expected
>> >> >to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>> >> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
>> >> child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass if
>> >> it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
>> >> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>> >> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>> >The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted logic.
>> A better rendition of that would be:
>> "They just won't lie down and accept my beliefs without questioning them!"
>> --PLH, might as well get it as right as you can the first time, wot?
>Oh, I'm more than comfortable with my rendition, thanks.
Of course. Heaven forfend you actually even consider the possibility that
your rendition might be anything _but_ the indisputable truth!
--PLH, subtlety obviously is lost on Terry
TerryG
like yourself trying to defend unlimited abortions.
In article <szkso0m...@fnord.io.com>,
--
TerryG
> >had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
> >"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died. Too
> >bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished for a
> >sister.
>
> Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after the
fact, YOU
> wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...because she might have
had those
> two other kids, but the sperm that fertilized the egg that eventually
became
> you would almost certainly have been a different one -- thus, the
person you
> are now would never have existed.
Uh, would you mind providing a source for this theory? You think that
whether or not an egg or sperm gets used (produces a baby) affects the
eggs and sperm that follow. Now aren't you a laughing stock!!!! I think
you need some lessons in human anatomy, Sir. And oh by the way, when
you are looking in those books on HUMAN!!!! anatomy, make sure you
notice how unborn children are also covered, dimwit.
>
>
> Nah. I'd rather laugh at your attempt to pass off "documentation"
written by
> people with a pretty obvious interest in pushing their agenda, above
any
> intent to actually educate.
>
And of course, you and your kind never resort to such tactics. You
can't prove your info is any more factual, now, can you.
>
> Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even
though a
> lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there
_was_
> history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do with
my case,
> since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making
her own
> choice!)
No, the nerve of your mom if she thought she had the right to pull the
plug on you.
>
> >There is a God. See?
>
> No. Is there anything you _won't_ use as "proof" of that assertion?
>
>
--
asa...@my-deja.com
> >In article <szk902f...@fnord.io.com>,
> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>
> >>>> The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
logic.
>
> >>>It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
> >>>abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people
who
> >>>could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb.
Maybe I
> >>>could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
> >>>idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>
> >>Gee, maybe your mother did the speaking for you...
>
> >No one has the right to speak for me except me.
>
> So, it's okay for _you_ to have that right, but not your mother?
The right to what? Who, exactly, am I speaking for? Am I not allowed
to defend the rights of people who CANNOT speak for themselves who I
see are being exploited by rubes like you? I don't speak FOR anyone.
I defend their right to speak for themselves.
> >>it WAS her choice, wasn't it?
>
> >No, it wasn't.
>
> How so?
Because I didn't want to be vacuumed out of the womb like you assume
it's okay to do. She did not, and does not, have a right to kill me.
I am me now and I was me then, too. And I can speak now.
> >>Maybe you should be glad she exercised her choice and made the
right one
> >>for you.
>
> >Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could have
> >had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
> >"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died. Too
> >bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished for a
> >sister.
>
> Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after the
fact, YOU
> wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...
Not true, I would have had some more siblings to play with.
because she might have had those
> two other kids, but the sperm that fertilized the egg that eventually
became
> you would almost certainly have been a different one --
Um, no. An egg is produced every month by the overies, (they take
turns), and if that particular egg is fertilized, ovulation is paused
until pregnancy is completed. As I understand it, she had an abortion
both before me and after me. Doesn't effect at all the order in which
the eggs are produced. Had she let my siblings live, my egg still
would have been produced in the same order--I still would have been
next in line after my older sibling, and my younger sibling still would
have come after me.
Although how this is an argument for abortion I don't know. Even if I
would have been produced from a different egg, and thus be a different
person, so what? At least I would be suffered to live! Heck, my mom
could have married a different man, thus I would have a different
father and maybe I would be a different person. But if you want to
tangle up your simple little mind with philosophical nonsense, be my
guest.
> >> >Thank God I made it out, you know?
>
> >>If he existed, I'd be more prone to asking him why he was asleep at
the
> >>switch when you came along, considering how you've turned out.
>
> >I see Santa skipped your house this year--that is, if he were in the
> >business of dispensing clues.
>
> Your projecting is doing you no good, as usual.
Awwww....
> >>>Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough
to
> >>>sustain our current level?
>
> >>Did you know that anyone can make such content-free claims -- but
few can
> >>actually document them?
>
> >In 1957 the average American woman in her reproductive years bore 3.7
> >children. Taking into account all causes of death and increases in
> >average life span, zero population growth requires that the average
> >woman bears 2.1 children. Since 1972 the average in America has been
> >1.8 children.*
>
> >*John Willke, _Abortion Questions and Answers_ (Cincinnati: Hayes
> >Publishing Co., 1988), 158
>
> >For two decades we have seen below zero population growth. Every day
> >more people die in America than are born. Any increases in population
> >growth since 1972 have been due to immigration. The sociological
perils
> >we face are not those of population explosion, but of population
> >reduction.
>
> >Source: Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Randy C. Alcorn,
> >1992, 1994 p 117.
>
> >So in the words of the revered (by me) BMCandlss, "put that on your
> >bike and peddle it."
>
> Nah. I'd rather laugh at your attempt to pass off "documentation"
written by
> people with a pretty obvious interest in pushing their agenda, above
any
> intent to actually educate.
Do you have any statistics, patty? I didn't think so.
Do you know John Willke or his politics? I didn't think so, and I
doubt you have read this book, either. If I was you, I wouldn't
either. You have too much to lose. And yes, that is a challenge.
> >>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in
America
> >>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>
> >>Well, I guess I'll call Mom tonight and tell her that Benham,
Kentucky is the
> >>most dangerous place in America, because _you_ said so.
>
> >No, Benham, Kentucky is a dangerous place because that's where inbred
> >backcountry morons like you come from. I DO believe in birth
control,
> >do you rubes have any there?
>
> Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even
though a
> lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there
_was_
> history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do with
my case,
> since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making
her own
> choice!)
Geez, the joke is never funny if you have to explain it.
> >>(Of course, since she's pushing 70, I seriously doubt she'll have
any more
> >>kids past the two she had back in the 1950s...you know, me and my
little
> >>sister.)
>
> >There is a God. See?
>
> No. Is there anything you _won't_ use as "proof" of that assertion?
WHOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH
Do you have male pattern baldness or a bald spot by any chance?
> >>Aren't you getting started with the millennium party a bit early,
though?
> >>Most folks I know aren't going to start drinking until Friday
night...
>
> >Oh, I'm sure you and your Cracky-sack playing friends will have a
GREAT
> >time.
>
> You really need to stop projecting so much -- Dale and I are going to
be 200
> miles away at a hockey game, and then on up into central Texas to the
home of
> some long-time friends.
>
> >>--PLH, who won't be drinking at all, not if I have to drive 250-odd
miles
> >>that day and evening
>
> >No, but I bet you will be out back trying to get the mule drunk.
>
> Riiiiight. Everyone in a city of 4.5 million has one of them.
</sarcasm>
>
> --PLH, oh, well, it'll be fun to watch "asaurus" whine as our trip
through
> Iowa draws nigh (of course, that's still six months away, but might
as well
> have some fun with it _this_ millennium :-)
PLH, stupid as he wants to be
--A
Galen Hekhuis
>The right to what? Who, exactly, am I speaking for? Am I not allowed
>to defend the rights of people who CANNOT speak for themselves who I
>see are being exploited by rubes like you? I don't speak FOR anyone.
>I defend their right to speak for themselves.
Unlike you, I do claim to speak for others. The Unborn among them. To tell
the truth, they're kinda embarrassed by you.
Galen Hekhuis, NpD, JFR, GWA ghek...@earthlink.net
When the going gets tough...goodbye
asa...@my-deja.com
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in
America
> >>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>
viewpoint?
>
> Just ask her: "Our chief weapon is fear! Fear and surprise is our --
_are_
> our TWO chief weapons! Oh, damn." :-)
Why pattsie, are you afraid? Of me, no less?
I guess I shouldn't be so surprised considering that your brand
of "balls" is posting under your own name. Whooeeee! Sat nite fever
at your house is just JUMPIN, I bet.
Maybe your heifer, oops I meant wife, sat on 'em. Either that or Santa
doesn't give out testicles for Christmas...
--A
>
> --PLH, I didn't expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition...
Forrest Hump, stupid is as stupid does...
asa...@my-deja.com
ghek...@earthlink.net wrote:
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >The right to what? Who, exactly, am I speaking for? Am I not
allowed
> >to defend the rights of people who CANNOT speak for themselves who I
> >see are being exploited by rubes like you? I don't speak FOR anyone.
> >I defend their right to speak for themselves.
>
Uh huh. Under what authority??
> To tell
> the truth, they're kinda embarrassed by you.
You obviously wouldn't know the truth if you were sodomized with it.
TerryG
are you trying to impress?
In article <849vce$kaf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <848m15$nrt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
> > > > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> > > > > I am,
> > > > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
> > cover
> > > > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
> > > children.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> > > expected
> > > > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
> > >
> > > Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered
a
> > > child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue
mass
> if
> > > it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
> > >
> > > In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> > > pampered, perfect, wanted people.
> > >
> > > --A
> >
> > The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
> logic.
>
> .... said the patient about the doctors that had tried to convince him
> by logic that he was not Napoleon ...
>
> HRG.
>
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> >
> > --
> > There are none so blind as those who will not see.
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:05:27 GMT <84bbok$j32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>Oh, I've considered it and ruled it out, mainly after listening to folks
>like yourself trying to defend unlimited abortions.
How are you going to enforce your viewpoint?
>
>In article <szkso0m...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>
>> >In article <szkemc7...@fnord.io.com>,
>> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> >> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> writes:
>>
>> >> >In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> > asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> >> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> >> >> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
>> >> >> > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>> >> >> > > I am,
>> >> >> > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression
>to cover
>> >> >> > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
>children.
>>
>> >> >> >Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
>expected
>> >> >> >to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>>
>> >> >> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only
>considered a
>> >> >> child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue
>mass if
>> >> >> it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
>>
>> >> >> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>> >> >> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>>
>> >> >The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
>logic.
>>
>> >> A better rendition of that would be:
>>
>> >> "They just won't lie down and accept my beliefs without questioning
>them!"
>>
>> >> --PLH, might as well get it as right as you can the first time,
>wot?
>>
>> >Oh, I'm more than comfortable with my rendition, thanks.
>>
>> Of course. Heaven forfend you actually even consider the possibility
>that
>> your rendition might be anything _but_ the indisputable truth!
>>
>> --PLH, subtlety obviously is lost on Terry
>>
>
>--
>There are none so blind as those who will not see.
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
Galen Hekhuis
>Uh huh. Under what authority??
I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. But you knew that, so this
was a trick question, right?
>You obviously wouldn't know the truth if you were sodomized with it.
Ooohhh. What a snappy comeback. I can see why the Unborn would be
hrgr...@my-deja.com
Thanks for your compliment. It indicates that you understood the joke.
You are making progress!
Did you read that somewhere? Whom
> are you trying to impress?
You shouldn't try to extrapolate from your own behavior to others,
Terrykins. I *do* come up with such gems on my own, from time to
time ... :-)
Regards, and best wishes for a new millenium,
HRG.
> In article <849vce$kaf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <848m15$nrt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > --A
> > >
> > > The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
> > logic.
> >
> > .... said the patient about the doctors that had tried to convince
him
> > by logic that he was not Napoleon ...
> >
> > HRG.
<sigsnip>
el_c...@juno.com
TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> el_c...@juno.com wrote:
> > TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> > > > I am,
> > > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
> > > > cover
> > > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
> > > > children.
> >
> > > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> > > expected
> > > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
> >
> > Yeah. From www.m-w.com:
> >
> > Main Entry: unborn
> > 1 : not born : not brought into life
> > 2 : still to appear : FUTURE
> >
> > Those embryos/fetuses that are aborted will never become children.
>
> They sure won't, you idiot. They were aborted. Are you really as
> dim-witted as you appear to be?
As usual, when a Pro-Lifer cannot deny the facts they resort to insults.
> > They
> > fail to meet the definition which implies that they will become
> > children
> > in the future and thus the use of the term 'unborn child' is a
> > deception
> > on the part of the Pro-Lifers.
> >
> > The anti-abortion position is one based on lies and deceptions.
> >
> What were you when you were in your mother's womb? Did you fail to
> meet your contrived definition?
My mother carried me quite willingly and looked forward to my birth.
Thus, that which became me could have rightly been termed an unborn
child. It is not a contrived definition, it is the accepted definition
for unborn as recorded by Merriam-Webster.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>The right to what? Who, exactly, am I speaking for? Am I not allowed
>>to defend the rights of people who CANNOT speak for themselves who I
>>see are being exploited by rubes like you? I don't speak FOR anyone.
>>I defend their right to speak for themselves.
>Unlike you, I do claim to speak for others. The Unborn among them. To tell
>the truth, they're kinda embarrassed by you.
Hell, a lot of us who ARE born are embarrassed by her, too...
--PLH, I know I wouldn't want her speaking for me or mine
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szku2l2...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> >Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could have
>> >had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
>> >"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died. Too
>> >bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished for a
>> >sister.
>>Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after the fact,
>>YOU wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...because she might have had
>>those two other kids, but the sperm that fertilized the egg that eventually
>>became you would almost certainly have been a different one -- thus, the
>>person you are now would never have existed.
>Uh, would you mind providing a source for this theory? You think that
>whether or not an egg or sperm gets used (produces a baby) affects the
>eggs and sperm that follow.
Well, Terry, I'd appreciate it if you'd quit telling me what I think, when you
can't very well understand what you read in the first place. What I was
trying to say up there is that if Lizard's two siblings _had_ been born, they
might have had that third sibling (i.e., the one we know as "asaurus") around,
but even if so, it wouldn't be the same blindly ignorant basket case that
Lizard is -- because the birth of the first two would have changed the whole
sequence of events that followed. That has nothing to do with your imaginary
strawman.
>Now aren't you a laughing stock!!!!
To a professional malingerer like you, maybe, but so what? Your opinion isn't
exactly credible, remember?
>I think you need some lessons in human anatomy, Sir.
I think you need to go back to the home, son.
>And oh by the way, when you are looking in those books on HUMAN!!!! anatomy,
>make sure you notice how unborn children are also covered, dimwit.
It'd be better if you could actually read the text in them, Terry, instead of
just assuming you know what the pictures are all about.
>>Nah. I'd rather laugh at your attempt to pass off "documentation" written by
>>people with a pretty obvious interest in pushing their agenda, above any
>>intent to actually educate.
>And of course, you and your kind never resort to such tactics.
Of course, you aren't dealing with "my kind" -- you're dealing with an
individual who is pro-choice, nothing more, nothing less. Secondly, you're
the one that's in effect claiming that "my kind" resort to YOUR tactics...your
assertion, your proof.
>You can't prove your info is any more factual, now, can you.
You'd do better at proving your information to be factual in the first place.
>>Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even though a
>>lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there _was_
>>history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do with my case,
>>since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making her own
>>choice!)
>No, the nerve of your mom if she thought she had the right to pull the
>plug on you.
Go ahead and be the arrogant little bastard you are, Terry. You have no idea
of what my mother thought that long ago, but you'll attack me as if you did,
anyway.
I'm sorry your father had such a certifiable asshole for a son.
--PLH, honest in my opinions, even to Terry's ugly little face, if need be
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szk7lhz...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
Get the damn attribs right, will you? The only words of mine in this article
are prefaced either by double chevrons or nothing at all. Ghost in the
Machine has the three-chevron quote, and the four-chevron rant is yours.
>>>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
>>>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>>>What I want to know is -- how are you going to enforce your viewpoint?
>>Just ask her: "Our chief weapon is fear! Fear and surprise is our -- _are_
>>our TWO chief weapons! Oh, damn." :-)
>Why pattsie, are you afraid? Of me, no less?
Why should I be afraid of someone who'd rather deal with her own convenient
strawmen than with what I actually wrote?
>I guess I shouldn't be so surprised considering that your brand
>of "balls" is posting under your own name. Whooeeee! Sat nite fever
>at your house is just JUMPIN, I bet.
So? Are you upset by me having a life and _not_ spending all my time poking
fun at idiots like you?
>Maybe your heifer, oops I meant wife, sat on 'em. Either that or Santa
>doesn't give out testicles for Christmas...
Pity that Santa didn't give you any brains this time, either.
>> --PLH, I didn't expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition...
>Forrest Hump, stupid is as stupid does...
Ah. You never took the time to understand what Monty Python were doing, eh?
Your ignorance _can_ be cured -- and then you might actually understand a bit
of why some people are laughing at you.
--PLH, I demand...a shrubbery.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szku2l2...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> asa...@my-deja.com writes:
>> >In article <szk902f...@fnord.io.com>,
>> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>>>>>> The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted logic.
>>>>>It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
>>>>>abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
>>>>>could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
>>>>>could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
>>>>>idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>>>>Gee, maybe your mother did the speaking for you...
>>>No one has the right to speak for me except me.
>>So, it's okay for _you_ to have that right, but not your mother?
>The right to what?
What's the matter -- having trouble understanding what YOU wrote? (How about
the right to speak for yourself?)
>Who, exactly, am I speaking for?
It's sad to see you getting senile _that_ soon. What did you write up there?
>Am I not allowed to defend the rights of people who CANNOT speak for
>themselves who I see are being exploited by rubes like you?
You don't know me, so you don't know what people are like me. Maybe you
should check your vision.
>I don't speak FOR anyone. I defend their right to speak for themselves.
Even if there's no "themselves" there?
>> >>it WAS her choice, wasn't it?
>> >No, it wasn't.
>> How so?
>Because I didn't want to be vacuumed out of the womb like you assume
>it's okay to do.
You don't know what I assume. Are you seriously asserting that you knew you
didn't want to be "vacuumed out of the womb" _before_ you were born? *laugh*
>She did not, and does not, have a right to kill me.
She obviously doesn't, now -- you've been born, remember? She may or may not
have had that prerogative before you were born -- but since she exercised her
choice and you were born, what she could have done isn't as relevant as what
she _did_ do.
>I am me now and I was me then, too. And I can speak now.
I'm sorry you do such a poor job of it, then.
>>>>Maybe you should be glad she exercised her choice and made the right one
>>>>for you.
>>>Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could have
>>>had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
>>>"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died. Too
>>>bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished for a
>>>sister.
>>Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after the fact,
>>YOU wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...
>Not true, I would have had some more siblings to play with.
If you're the oldest, maybe. Otherwise, the whole sequence of events would be changed.
>>because she might have had those two other kids, but the sperm that
>>fertilized the egg that eventually became you would almost certainly have
>>been a different one --
>Um, no. An egg is produced every month by the overies, (they take
>turns), and if that particular egg is fertilized, ovulation is paused
>until pregnancy is completed. As I understand it, she had an abortion
>both before me and after me. Doesn't effect at all the order in which
>the eggs are produced. Had she let my siblings live, my egg still
>would have been produced in the same order--I still would have been
>next in line after my older sibling, and my younger sibling still would
>have come after me.
Had your older one been born, the sequence of events would have changed, so
that the exact chain of consequences that led to the meeting of the sperm and
egg that produced what became _you_ would no longer exist. Someone might have
been born after your older sibling, but it would very likely be someone
different than the blithering idiot you turned out to be. That's all I'm
pointing out.
>Although how this is an argument for abortion I don't know.
Maybe that's because I wasn't making it as an argument for or against abortion
in the first place.
>Even if I would have been produced from a different egg, and thus be a
>different person, so what? At least I would be suffered to live!
You assume that you'd still be the same person as you are, then.
Unfortunately, you proceed as if it were accepted fact.
>Heck, my mom could have married a different man, thus I would have a different
>father and maybe I would be a different person. But if you want to
>tangle up your simple little mind with philosophical nonsense, be my
>guest.
You obviously don't want to let any non-simple thought get in the way of your
agenda.
>>>>>Thank God I made it out, you know?
>>>>If he existed, I'd be more prone to asking him why he was asleep at the
>>>>switch when you came along, considering how you've turned out.
>>>I see Santa skipped your house this year--that is, if he were in the
>>>business of dispensing clues.
>>Your projecting is doing you no good, as usual.
>Awwww....
Run away if you can't handle my observation.
>>>>>Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough to
>>>>>sustain our current level?
>>>>Did you know that anyone can make such content-free claims -- but few can
>>>>actually document them?
>> >In 1957 the average American woman in her reproductive years bore 3.7
>> >children. Taking into account all causes of death and increases in
>> >average life span, zero population growth requires that the average
>> >woman bears 2.1 children. Since 1972 the average in America has been
>> >1.8 children.*
>> >*John Willke, _Abortion Questions and Answers_ (Cincinnati: Hayes
>> >Publishing Co., 1988), 158
>> >For two decades we have seen below zero population growth. Every day
>> >more people die in America than are born. Any increases in population
>> >growth since 1972 have been due to immigration. The sociological perils
>> >we face are not those of population explosion, but of population
>> >reduction.
>> >Source: Pro Life Answers to Pro Choice Arguments by Randy C. Alcorn,
>> >1992, 1994 p 117.
>> >So in the words of the revered (by me) BMCandlss, "put that on your
>> >bike and peddle it."
>>Nah. I'd rather laugh at your attempt to pass off "documentation" written by
>>people with a pretty obvious interest in pushing their agenda, above any
>>intent to actually educate.
>Do you have any statistics, patty? I didn't think so.
You don't have any, but that's already obvious.
>Do you know John Willke or his politics? I didn't think so, and I
>doubt you have read this book, either. If I was you, I wouldn't
>either. You have too much to lose. And yes, that is a challenge.
I haven't read much about Willke, but his politics appear to be not much
different from the usual pro-life tactics...we _have_ to have a bunch of women
breeding as fast as they can, or else we'll be overtaken by those NON-American
peoples. Sounds like a nice way of covering over a thinly-disguised racism
with a respectable veneer, to me.
>>>>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
>>>>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>>>>Well, I guess I'll call Mom tonight and tell her that Benham, Kentucky is
>>>>the most dangerous place in America, because _you_ said so.
>>>No, Benham, Kentucky is a dangerous place because that's where inbred
>>>backcountry morons like you come from. I DO believe in birth control,
>>>do you rubes have any there?
>>Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even though a
>>lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there _was_
>>history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do with my case,
>>since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making her own
>>choice!)
>Geez, the joke is never funny if you have to explain it.
No, but it's always amusing to watch the antis like you backpedal.
>>>>(Of course, since she's pushing 70, I seriously doubt she'll have any more
>>>>kids past the two she had back in the 1950s...you know, me and my little
>>>>sister.)
>>>There is a God. See?
>>No. Is there anything you _won't_ use as "proof" of that assertion?
>WHOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH
Could you point that in some other direction? You need to lay off Taco Bell.
>Do you have male pattern baldness or a bald spot by any chance?
Check my gallery pages and see if you can tell.
>>>>Aren't you getting started with the millennium party a bit early, though?
>>>>Most folks I know aren't going to start drinking until Friday night...
>>>Oh, I'm sure you and your Cracky-sack playing friends will have a GREAT
>>>time.
>>You really need to stop projecting so much -- Dale and I are going to be 200
>>miles away at a hockey game, and then on up into central Texas to the home of
>>some long-time friends.
>>>>--PLH, who won't be drinking at all, not if I have to drive 250-odd miles
>>>>that day and evening
>>>No, but I bet you will be out back trying to get the mule drunk.
>> Riiiiight. Everyone in a city of 4.5 million has one of them. </sarcasm>
>>--PLH, oh, well, it'll be fun to watch "asaurus" whine as our trip through
>>Iowa draws nigh (of course, that's still six months away, but might as well
>>have some fun with it _this_ millennium :-)
>PLH, stupid as he wants to be
...and it apparently irks you that I'm not as stupid as YOU want me to be.
Oh, well. Life sucks and then you die. Might as well get used to it.
(One change in plans, though: we drive about 170 miles tomorrow, up to
Austin, _then_ around 60 more up to Belton on Friday. Two games in two
nights, then starting a new millennium with old friends in Goldthwaite.
See ya next millennium, if you haven't imploded by then because Jeeeeeezus
didn't show up on schedule.)
--PLH, so, I don't feel like bullets falling on my head this New Year's
TerryG
many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
expect it to change my life much at all. The progression of events I
see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
- The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion clinic
representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an appeal
to the supreme court
or
- Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
appealed to the supreme court.
- The supreme court rules against abortion.
- Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
- The defendent in the appealed case gets some kind of sanction -
probably no jail time for the first few cases after the supreme court
reversal.
- Of course there will be some doctors who either won't believe the law
has changed or choose to challenge the reversal and go ahead and perform
banned abortions.
- Some prosecuters with guts file criminal charges
- The doctors go to jail, get fined, lose their licenses, etc.
- Doctors stop performing banned abortions.
- At some point (not sure when), states establish commissions to review,
on a random sampling basis, abortions that have been performed using
prescribed approval criteria. Doctors that have violated such criteria
are sanctioned in some way: fine, suspended sentence, revocation of
license, jail term. Such criteria will be well defined and unambiguous.
Some of the loopholes that have existed in past attempts to limit
abortion will be plugged.
Over time, people will realize that abortion as a means of birth control
or avoiding one's responsibilities is not acceptable. Society will
focus its talents and resources on figuring out what to do with
the relatively small number of children (especially, compared to the
number currently being aborted) that do not have adequate parenting. No
doubt, there will be some financial impact to many of us as we share our
great wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.
When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've described
- but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
In article <slrn86itu0...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net>,
ew...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> In talk.abortion, TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com>
> wrote on Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:05:27 GMT <84bbok$j32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> >Oh, I've considered it and ruled it out, mainly after listening to
folks
> >like yourself trying to defend unlimited abortions.
>
> How are you going to enforce your viewpoint?
>
> >
> >In article <szkso0m...@fnord.io.com>,
> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >In article <szkemc7...@fnord.io.com>,
> >> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >> >> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> writes:
> >>
> >> >> >In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> >> > asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >> >> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> >> >> >> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
> >> >> >> > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> >> >> >> > > I am,
> >> >> >> > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this
expression
> >to cover
> >> >> >> > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to
become
> >children.
> >>
> >> >> >> >Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not
ever
> >expected
> >> >> >> >to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
> >>
> >> >> >> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only
> >considered a
> >> >> >> child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of
conception/tussue
> >mass if
> >> >> >> it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called
that.
> >>
> >> >> >> In their little world, life is only for the adults,
priveleged,
> >> >> >> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
> >>
> >> >> >The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their
twisted
> >logic.
> >>
> >> >> A better rendition of that would be:
> >>
> >> >> "They just won't lie down and accept my beliefs without
questioning
> >them!"
> >>
> >> >> --PLH, might as well get it as right as you can the first time,
> >wot?
> >>
> >> >Oh, I'm more than comfortable with my rendition, thanks.
> >>
> >> Of course. Heaven forfend you actually even consider the
possibility
> >that
> >> your rendition might be anything _but_ the indisputable truth!
> >>
> >> --PLH, subtlety obviously is lost on Terry
> >>
> >
> >--
> >There are none so blind as those who will not see.
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> >Before you buy.
>
> --
> ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
asa...@my-deja.com
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> writes:
>
> >In article <szku2l2...@fnord.io.com>,
> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>
> >> >Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could
have
> >> >had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided
to
> >> >"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died.
Too
> >> >bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished
for a
> >> >sister.
>
> >>Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after
the fact,
> >>YOU wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...because she might
have had
> >>those two other kids, but the sperm that fertilized the egg that
eventually
> >>became you would almost certainly have been a different one --
thus, the
> >>person you are now would never have existed.
>
> >Uh, would you mind providing a source for this theory? You think
that
> >whether or not an egg or sperm gets used (produces a baby) affects
the
> >eggs and sperm that follow.
>
> Well, Terry, I'd appreciate it if you'd quit telling me what I think,
No one needs to tell you what you think. They do, however, have the
right to request that you actually do it in the first place. Darn,
don't you hate it when the stakes get raised?
> when you
> can't very well understand what you read in the first place.
Both he and I understood what you said. Admit you are an idiot.
What I was
> trying to say up there is that if Lizard's two siblings _had_ been
born, they
> might have had that third sibling (i.e., the one we know as
"asaurus") around,
> but even if so, it wouldn't be the same blindly ignorant basket case
that
> Lizard is -- because the birth of the first two would have changed
the whole
> sequence of events that followed.
What leads you to this conclusion, void?
> >Now aren't you a laughing stock!!!!
>
> To a professional malingerer like you, maybe, but so what? Your
opinion isn't
> exactly credible, remember?
Funny you should bring up credibility, hickly.
<clipo>
> >And of course, you and your kind never resort to such tactics.
>
> Of course, you aren't dealing with "my kind" --
You on an individual basis is enough--you are indeed one of a kind.
you're dealing with an
> individual who is pro-choice, nothing more, nothing less.
If you are so pro-choice, how come the only choice you ever support is
abortion? You and your ilk never discuss or even want to debate the
merits of adoption, or the joys of motherhood. In fact, you speak of
it with a certain disdain. Have you ever donated any time or money to
a crisis pregnancy center, for expectant mothers who chose to keep
their kids alive? How about to an adoption center?
Call a spade a spade, call a pro-abort a pro-abort. And you, Patrick,
are a pro-abort. And are you ashamed of this title?
> >>Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even
though a
> >>lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there
_was_
> >>history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do
with my case,
> >>since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making
her own
> >>choice!)
>
> >No, the nerve of your mom if she thought she had the right to pull
the
> >plug on you.
>
> Go ahead and be the arrogant little bastard you are, Terry.
Do you even know what arrogant means, imp? Funny you go around and
slap the label on whoever you dislike (or whoever dares disagree with
you) arbitrarily, all the while ignoring (of course) the fact that
arrogance defines you perfectly.
> I'm sorry your father had such a certifiable asshole for a son.
At least he has a father.
>
> --PLH, honest in my opinions, even to Terry's ugly little face, if
need be
PLH, who would send a card to his father for father's day, but he
doesn't know who to sent it to
--A
asa...@my-deja.com
>
> >In article <szk7lhz...@fnord.io.com>,
article
> are prefaced either by double chevrons or nothing at all. Ghost in
the
> Machine has the three-chevron quote, and the four-chevron rant is
yours.
Nope, crackhead, you are the one that brought up fear. You said, in
reference to me, "Our chief weapon is fear! Fear and surprise is our
-- _are_our TWO chief weapons!
So unless you are afraid of something, pat, who bring it up?
> >>>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in
America
> >>>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>
> >>>What I want to know is -- how are you going to enforce your
viewpoint?
>
> >>Just ask her: "Our chief weapon is fear! Fear and surprise is our
-- _are_
> >>our TWO chief weapons! Oh, damn." :-)
>
> >Why pattsie, are you afraid? Of me, no less?
>
> Why should I be afraid of someone who'd rather deal with her own
convenient
> strawmen than with what I actually wrote?
You said it. If you aren't afraid, why bring up fear?
> >I guess I shouldn't be so surprised considering that your brand
> >of "balls" is posting under your own name. Whooeeee! Sat nite fever
> >at your house is just JUMPIN, I bet.
>
> So? Are you upset by me having a life and _not_ spending all my time
poking
> fun at idiots like you?
How could I be upset when your brand of a life is sitting at a hockey
game with a foam rubber finger and home team pennant, getting corn dog
breading and beer on your favorite player jersey while screaming GO
TEAM at the top of your lungs with your mouth full surrounded by all
the other brain-dead sports rubes? How can I be upset at someone with
a life as pathetic and homogenized as yours?
> >Maybe your heifer, oops I meant wife, sat on 'em. Either that or
Santa
> >doesn't give out testicles for Christmas...
>
> Pity that Santa didn't give you any brains this time, either.
There weren't any at your house he could take with him.
> >> --PLH, I didn't expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition...
>
> >Forrest Hump, stupid is as stupid does...
>
> Ah. You never took the time to understand what Monty Python were
doing, eh?
Nope. Flying circuses are your domain. Or maybe just the elephants.
asa...@my-deja.com
> >>>>Gee, maybe your mother did the speaking for you...
>
> >>>No one has the right to speak for me except me.
>
> >>So, it's okay for _you_ to have that right, but not your mother?
>
> >The right to what?
>
> What's the matter -- having trouble understanding what YOU wrote?
No, having trouble with your assertion. Did you have a point besides
the one capping your skull?
> (How about
> the right to speak for yourself?)
Believe me, I exercise that right freely. You can whine about it till
your wife and her friends come home.
> >Who, exactly, am I speaking for?
>
> It's sad to see you getting senile _that_ soon.
If anyone around here is senile, grandpa, it's you.
> >Am I not allowed to defend the rights of people who CANNOT speak for
> >themselves who I see are being exploited by rubes like you?
>
> You don't know me,
Like I said, there is a God.
> so you don't know what people are like me.
If even ONE is like you, scrote, that's one too many.
> >I don't speak FOR anyone. I defend their right to speak for
themselves.
>
> Even if there's no "themselves" there?
If?
A compelling argument, certainly.
Who are you to say who is and who is not a self?
> >> >>it WAS her choice, wasn't it?
>
> >> >No, it wasn't.
>
> >> How so?
>
> >Because I didn't want to be vacuumed out of the womb like you assume
> >it's okay to do.
>
> You don't know what I assume.
Are you retracting/revising your position?
A> re you seriously asserting that you knew you
> didn't want to be "vacuumed out of the womb" _before_ you were born?
*laugh*
Yes I am. Ever seen the unborn who are being aborted trying to escape
their fate? They feel pain.
> >She did not, and does not, have a right to kill me.
>
> She obviously doesn't, now -- you've been born, remember?
What part of being born changed my status? What, I'm not allowed
rights at certain times during my development, but I am allowed rights
at other times of my development?
Can you say "inconsistent?" I thought you could!
> >I am me now and I was me then, too. And I can speak now.
>
> I'm sorry you do such a poor job of it, then.
You're sorry, but I doubt it has anything to do with me.
> >>>>Maybe you should be glad she exercised her choice and made the
right one
> >>>>for you.
>
> >>>Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could
have
> >>>had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
> >>>"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died.
Too
> >>>bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished
for a
> >>>sister.
>
> >>Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after
the fact,
> >>YOU wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...
>
> >Not true, I would have had some more siblings to play with.
>
> If you're the oldest, maybe.
Nope, I have an older brother.
> Otherwise, the whole sequence of events would be changed.
Fiction.
> >>because she might have had those two other kids, but the sperm that
> >>fertilized the egg that eventually became you would almost
certainly have
> >>been a different one --
>
> >Um, no. An egg is produced every month by the overies, (they take
> >turns), and if that particular egg is fertilized, ovulation is paused
> >until pregnancy is completed. As I understand it, she had an
abortion
> >both before me and after me. Doesn't effect at all the order in
which
> >the eggs are produced. Had she let my siblings live, my egg still
> >would have been produced in the same order--I still would have been
> >next in line after my older sibling, and my younger sibling still
would
> >have come after me.
>
> Had your older one been born, the sequence of events would have
changed,
There is no basis or evidence of such a claim, although it's painfully
obvious that anatomy, biology, common sense, logic, and thought are not
your strong points.
> >Although how this is an argument for abortion I don't know.
>
> Maybe that's because I wasn't making it as an argument for or against
abortion
> in the first place.
Then why are you here, trolling?
> >Even if I would have been produced from a different egg, and thus be
a
> >different person, so what? At least I would be suffered to live!
>
> You assume that you'd still be the same person as you are, then.
No reason to believe I wouldn't be, and no reason to care whether or
not I would have been. Alive is alive.
> Unfortunately, you proceed as if it were accepted fact.
You unfortunately proceed.
> >Heck, my mom could have married a different man, thus I would have a
different
> >father and maybe I would be a different person. But if you want to
> >tangle up your simple little mind with philosophical nonsense, be my
> >guest.
>
> You obviously don't want to let any non-simple thought get in the way
of your
> agenda.
If you had a thought, patrick, let me know. Roadblock you aren't, just
a roadside eyesore.
> >>>>>Thank God I made it out, you know?
>
> >>>>If he existed, I'd be more prone to asking him why he was asleep
at the
> >>>>switch when you came along, considering how you've turned out.
>
> >>>I see Santa skipped your house this year--that is, if he were in
the
> >>>business of dispensing clues.
>
> >>Your projecting is doing you no good, as usual.
>
> >Awwww....
>
> Run away if you can't handle my observation.
Heh heh. Run away indeed. I believe that YOU are the one that
killfiled me in two other NGs. And in case your cone didn't absorb the
joke, it wasn't a projection. Here's a clue:
mockery \Mock"er*y\, n.; pl. Mockeries. [F. moquerie.] 1. The act of
mocking, deriding, and exposing to contempt, by mimicry, by insincere
imitation, or by a false show of earnestness; a counterfeit appearance.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
That one's free. There will be a bill sent to your house for any
further clues dispensed to you.
The truth hurts, doesn't it? Although I must say, your justification
is SOOOOO impressive....
You: "That's not a fact."
I doubt you would know a fact if you tripped and landed on one face
first.
Maybe that explains why you look so blank in your photos?
> >Do you know John Willke or his politics? I didn't think so, and I
> >doubt you have read this book, either. If I was you, I wouldn't
> >either. You have too much to lose. And yes, that is a challenge.
>
> I haven't read much about Willke,
Then the statistics are prima facie correct.
but his politics appear to be not much
> different from the usual pro-life tactics...
Really? You can tell that just from these numbers? WOW! :
In 1957 the average American woman in her reproductive years bore 3.7
children. Taking into account all causes of death and increases in
average life span, zero population growth requires that the average
woman bears 2.1 children. Since 1972 the average in America has been
1.8 children.*
Maybe I DO need my eyes checked, since I am not seeing any politics in
here like you seem to be.
<clip>
> >>>>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in
America
> >>>>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>
> >>>>Well, I guess I'll call Mom tonight and tell her that Benham,
Kentucky is
> >>>>the most dangerous place in America, because _you_ said so.
>
> >>>No, Benham, Kentucky is a dangerous place because that's where
inbred
> >>>backcountry morons like you come from. I DO believe in birth
control,
> >>>do you rubes have any there?
>
> >>Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even
though a
> >>lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there
_was_
> >>history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do
with my case,
> >>since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making
her own
> >>choice!)
>
> >Geez, the joke is never funny if you have to explain it.
>
> No, but it's always amusing to watch the antis like you backpedal.
You know what's even more sad than abortion? Morons like you who don't
even know when they've been made the butt of a very good joke.
No, you just ARE the joke.
> >>>>(Of course, since she's pushing 70, I seriously doubt she'll have
any more
> >>>>kids past the two she had back in the 1950s...you know, me and my
little
> >>>>sister.)
>
> >>>There is a God. See?
>
> >>No. Is there anything you _won't_ use as "proof" of that assertion?
>
> >WHOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH
>
> Could you point that in some other direction?
I would if your shelved forehead wasn't in the way.
> You need to lay off Taco Bell.
You need to lay off the Orange Sunshine. Either that or try sex with
human people.
> >Do you have male pattern baldness or a bald spot by any chance?
>
> Check my gallery pages and see if you can tell.
Maybe when the joke/point flew over your head, it took your beard with
it instead. I guess your face could pass for a bald spot.
Irk, not at all. But it is frustrating that you are so stupid you
don't get when you are being made fun of.
> Oh, well. Life sucks and then you die.
You'll die before me, grandpa.
> (One change in plans, though: we drive about 170 miles tomorrow, up
to
> Austin, _then_ around 60 more up to Belton on Friday. Two games in
two
> nights, then starting a new millennium with old friends in
Goldthwaite.
So? What makes you think I care? I don't care if you hitch a ride to
Hicktown on a poultry wagon to take your vacation through a chicken
farm.
> See ya next millennium, if you haven't imploded by then because
Jeeeeeezus
> didn't show up on schedule.)
I doubt you'll see me, I have the feeling you'll be too busy trying to
walk and chew gum simultaneously.
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szkbt79...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> asa...@my-deja.com writes:
>> >In article <szk7lhz...@fnord.io.com>,
>> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>>Get the damn attribs right, will you? The only words of mine in this article
>>are prefaced either by double chevrons or nothing at all. Ghost in the
>>Machine has the three-chevron quote, and the four-chevron rant is yours.
>Nope, crackhead, you are the one that brought up fear. You said, in
>reference to me, "Our chief weapon is fear! Fear and surprise is our
>-- _are_our TWO chief weapons!
>So unless you are afraid of something, pat, who bring it up?
Yeah, that was me giving an opinion of how YOU would respond -- lifted
straight from the Monty Python sketch that everyone else seems to have no
trouble in recognizing. So, the point flew right over your pointy little
head, as usual. I tried.
>>>>>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
>>>>>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>>>>>What I want to know is -- how are you going to enforce your viewpoint?
>>>>Just ask her: "Our chief weapon is fear! Fear and surprise is our - _are_
>>>>our TWO chief weapons! Oh, damn." :-)
>>>Why pattsie, are you afraid? Of me, no less?
>>Why should I be afraid of someone who'd rather deal with her own convenient
>>strawmen than with what I actually wrote?
>You said it. If you aren't afraid, why bring up fear?
Rent a sense of humor and get back to me, will you?
>> >I guess I shouldn't be so surprised considering that your brand
>> >of "balls" is posting under your own name. Whooeeee! Sat nite fever
>> >at your house is just JUMPIN, I bet.
>> So? Are you upset by me having a life and _not_ spending all my time poking
>> fun at idiots like you?
>How could I be upset when your brand of a life is sitting at a hockey
>game with a foam rubber finger and home team pennant, getting corn dog
>breading and beer on your favorite player jersey while screaming GO
>TEAM at the top of your lungs with your mouth full surrounded by all
>the other brain-dead sports rubes? How can I be upset at someone with
>a life as pathetic and homogenized as yours?
I wouldn't either, but since that's not MY life, perhaps you should direct
this at someone more deserving of it. (Gee, how come you know I drink at
hockey games? The funny thing is, no one else knows that -- including me.
See if you can find the subtle clue in that.)
>>>Maybe your heifer, oops I meant wife, sat on 'em. Either that or Santa
>>>doesn't give out testicles for Christmas...
>>Pity that Santa didn't give you any brains this time, either.
>There weren't any at your house he could take with him.
So, you don't believe in him either. I can't say I'm surprised.
>> >> --PLH, I didn't expect the bloody Spanish Inquisition...
>> >Forrest Hump, stupid is as stupid does...
>>Ah. You never took the time to understand what Monty Python were
>>doing, eh?
>Nope. Flying circuses are your domain. Or maybe just the elephants.
Well, heaven forfend anyone have any interests that _you_ wouldn't approve
of.
Keep on whining. You'll be amazed at how many people you convert to your
side.
--PLH, as in, people will wonder how a negative number could be accomplished
in that fashion
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szkemc5...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> writes:
>> >In article <szku2l2...@fnord.io.com>,
>> > pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>>>>>Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could have
>>>>>had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
>>>>>"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died. Too
>>>>>bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished for a
>>>>>sister.
>>>>Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after the fact,
>>>>YOU wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...because she might have had
>>>>those two other kids, but the sperm that fertilized the egg that eventually
>>>>became you would almost certainly have been a different one -- thus, the
>>>>person you are now would never have existed.
>>>Uh, would you mind providing a source for this theory? You think that
>>>whether or not an egg or sperm gets used (produces a baby) affects the
>>>eggs and sperm that follow.
>>Well, Terry, I'd appreciate it if you'd quit telling me what I think,
>No one needs to tell you what you think. They do, however, have the
>right to request that you actually do it in the first place.
If you can't discern it, that's no one's problem but your own.
>Darn, don't you hate it when the stakes get raised?
The only stake with any chance of being raised is the wodden one through your
heart, I'd say.
>> when you
>> can't very well understand what you read in the first place.
>Both he and I understood what you said. Admit you are an idiot.
Yeah, and you've had all sorts of people chiming in to support you. Why
should I admit anything to people who have demonstrated that they'd rather
attack what they want me to say, rather than what I said, because it's much
easier for them?
>>What I was trying to say up there is that if Lizard's two siblings _had_ been
>>born, they might have had that third sibling (i.e., the one we know as
>>"asaurus") around, but even if so, it wouldn't be the same blindly ignorant
>>basket case that Lizard is -- because the birth of the first two would have
>>changed the whole sequence of events that followed.
>What leads you to this conclusion, void?
Any change in the sequence of events that _did_ happen will likely produce a
whole subsequent different sequence. Are you claiming that _everything_ would
have happened exactly the same if your preceding and following possible
siblings hadn't been aborted?
>> >Now aren't you a laughing stock!!!!
>>To a professional malingerer like you, maybe, but so what? Your opinion isn't
>>exactly credible, remember?
>Funny you should bring up credibility, hickly.
Well, someone had to introduce you to the concept.
><clipo>
>> >And of course, you and your kind never resort to such tactics.
>> Of course, you aren't dealing with "my kind" --
>You on an individual basis is enough--you are indeed one of a kind.
If you really believed what you said, you wouldn't deal with me in the way you
are. (Ain't it a pisser when your actions belie your words?)
>>you're dealing with an individual who is pro-choice, nothing more, nothing
>>less.
>If you are so pro-choice, how come the only choice you ever support is
>abortion?
You're either truly stupid, or you just don't give a damn about actually
supporting anything you claim. I support the woman's right to make her own
choices -- of which abortion is one -- and that includes choosing to give
birth, too. That's been my opinion as long as I've been pro-choice.
>You and your ilk never discuss or even want to debate the
>merits of adoption, or the joys of motherhood.
You're dealing with ME, shrew, not "my ilk". You and your motley crew are the
ones screeching about how many people want to adopt -- but you never seem to
get around to mentioning all those kids who no one *will* adopt, because
they're not a cute white infant. I know well about the joys of motherhood --
I _am_ married to a mother, remember?
>In fact, you speak of it with a certain disdain.
*laugh* Yeah, like you can read minds.
>Have you ever donated any time or money to
>a crisis pregnancy center, for expectant mothers who chose to keep
>their kids alive? How about to an adoption center?
The CPCs have managed to earn themselves a reputation as nothing more than
fronts for anti-abortion crusaders like you, at least here in Texas. That's a
shame, because women deserve better than to be lied to like that, but I guess
a lot of you who bellow that you're "pro-life" don't really give a good
goddamn about any life but that which is still fetal -- otherwise, _you'd_ be
doing something to help.
>Call a spade a spade, call a pro-abort a pro-abort. And you, Patrick,
>are a pro-abort. And are you ashamed of this title?
Why should I be ashamed of a title that has nothing to do with what my views
really are? If I believed as you think I should, I wouldn't be a parent or a
grandparent. Too bad the people who _do_ know me (you know, from actually
being around me in person on a frequent basis?) know better than you ever
will.
>>>>Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even though a
>>>>lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there _was_
>>>>history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do with my
>>>>case, since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making
>>>>her own choice!)
>>>No, the nerve of your mom if she thought she had the right to pull the
>>>plug on you.
>>Go ahead and be the arrogant little bastard you are, Terry.
>Do you even know what arrogant means, imp? Funny you go around and
>slap the label on whoever you dislike (or whoever dares disagree with
>you) arbitrarily, all the while ignoring (of course) the fact that
>arrogance defines you perfectly.
Now that's pretty funny, coming from someone who wouldn't know me if I were
standing in front of her preparing to laugh at her to her slack-jawed face.
>> I'm sorry your father had such a certifiable asshole for a son.
>At least he has a father.
Small world, innit? So do I. 'smatter -- you got left out?
>>--PLH, honest in my opinions, even to Terry's ugly little face, if
>>need be
>PLH, who would send a card to his father for father's day, but he
>doesn't know who to sent it to
Yeah, I guess that's why I didn't have to last year -- I was home to see him
and Mom on that day. (He's turning 74 in about seven weeks, and if you
believe what you blather, I suggest you complain to the IRS for him claiming
me as a dependent for eighteen years. Then you can go after Exxon for
believing his story for thirty years, too, and Ohio State for giving him the
PhD he got when I was six months old. That will give him _and_ me a good
laugh at your expense, but then, neither one of us have ever abided no-mind
fools like you very lightly at all.)
--PLH, some of us were just born lucky
Ray Fischer
>No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change for
>many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
>expect it to change my life much at all.
So what if a few women die. So what if there are more children raised
in foster care. So what if more people live unloved and persecuted.
After all, it won't affect you. What do you care?
> The progression of events I
>see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
You're not an expert on much of anything.
>- The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
>someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion clinic
>representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an appeal
>to the supreme court
LOL! Not possible, since a fetus is not a person.
>or
>
>- Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
>appealed to the supreme court.
The only individuals involved are pregnant women. The court doesn't
generally consider people who complain that they have too much
freedom.
>- The supreme court rules against abortion.
Why?
>- Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
Why would it be?
--
Ray Fischer Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs
r...@netcom.com should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
The Ghost In The Machine
In talk.abortion, TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com>
wrote on Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:59:49 GMT <84ds66$ah2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change for
>many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
>expect it to change my life much at all. The progression of events I
>see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
>
>- The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
>someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion clinic
>representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an appeal
>to the supreme court
That class action suit will probably go nowhere; I believe that
a recent ruling of the Supreme Court stipulates that someone must
be directly affected by a law in order to sue.
This locks out suits on behalf of "unborn children".
Whether they'll reverse themselves in light of the special case
of foetii is not clear to me.
>
>or
>
>- Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
>appealed to the supreme court.
Details?
>- The supreme court rules against abortion.
Again, details? Ruling against abortion isn't going to do much
if the abortion has already been procured, for example.
>- Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
>- The defendent in the appealed case gets some kind of sanction -
>probably no jail time for the first few cases after the supreme court
>reversal.
Um...the defendant is going to have an abortion more than once??
Please clarify your English. I assume you mean "women meeting the
criteria stipulated in the case appealed to the Supreme Court"
or somesuch.
>- Of course there will be some doctors who either won't believe the law
>has changed or choose to challenge the reversal and go ahead and perform
>banned abortions.
>- Some prosecuters with guts file criminal charges
>- The doctors go to jail, get fined, lose their licenses, etc.
>- Doctors stop performing banned abortions.
Which abortions will be banned?
[1] All of them, except rape, incest, and health of the mother
in danger?
[2] Only "partial-birth abortions" (which are rare)?
[3] Other?
>- At some point (not sure when), states establish commissions to review,
>on a random sampling basis, abortions that have been performed using
>prescribed approval criteria. Doctors that have violated such criteria
>are sanctioned in some way: fine, suspended sentence, revocation of
>license, jail term. Such criteria will be well defined and unambiguous.
>Some of the loopholes that have existed in past attempts to limit
>abortion will be plugged.
Including that troublesome loophole that lets a woman get an
abortion during the first trimester, just for asking for it.
Yeah, what a loophole! :-P
>
>Over time, people will realize that abortion as a means of birth control
>or avoiding one's responsibilities is not acceptable. Society will
>focus its talents and resources on figuring out what to do with
>the relatively small number of children (especially, compared to the
>number currently being aborted) that do not have adequate parenting. No
>doubt, there will be some financial impact to many of us as we share our
>great wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.
>
>When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
>prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've described
>- but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
No doubt it will...and a sad change it will be. But oh well;
one would at least hope that the women fight against this
proposed law and/or the scenario above.
>
>
>In article <slrn86itu0...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net>,
> ew...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>> In talk.abortion, TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com>
>> wrote on Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:05:27 GMT <84bbok$j32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
>> >Oh, I've considered it and ruled it out, mainly after listening to
>> >folks like yourself trying to defend unlimited abortions.
>>
>> How are you going to enforce your viewpoint?
>>
[rest snipped for brevity]
Ron Nicholson
> No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change for
> many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
> expect it to change my life much at all. The progression of events I
> see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
>
> - The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
> someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion clinic
> representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an appeal
> to the supreme court
Irrelevant. This will not affect the legal right of abortion.
>
>
> or
>
> - Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
> appealed to the supreme court.
This requires the SC is willing to rehear the issue.
Describe an example of a hand-picked case.
> - The supreme court rules against abortion.
Or reinstates, or reinstates but removes viability restrictions, or removes
limitations of parental consent, or on procedures.
Many outcomes are possible and reasonable.
> - Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
Or not. And please be clear about what you mean by "reversed."
Roe is overturned, and returned to a matter for the states which refuse to
reinstate anti-abortion laws.
> - The defendent in the appealed case gets some kind of sanction -
> probably no jail time for the first few cases after the supreme court
> reversal.
What are you talking about here?
That would generate a trial on a person breaking the law and convicted, it
will not generate a challenge to Roe. The issue would become an overturned
conviction, or not.
> - Of course there will be some doctors who either won't believe the law
> has changed or choose to challenge the reversal and go ahead and perform
> banned abortions.
> - Some prosecuters with guts file criminal charges
Prosecutors are bound to the criminal statutes. Such "guts" requires a
change in legislation.
> - The doctors go to jail, get fined, lose their licenses, etc.
And, if it's me selling methetrexate from the comfort of my home across the
border using e-mail?
> - Doctors stop performing banned abortions.
Most doctor's adhere to the law. Problem is a lot of assumptions and wishful
thinking taking place.
> - At some point (not sure when), states establish commissions to review,
> on a random sampling basis, abortions that have been performed using
> prescribed approval criteria. Doctors that have violated such criteria
> are sanctioned in some way: fine, suspended sentence, revocation of
> license, jail term. Such criteria will be well defined and unambiguous.
> Some of the loopholes that have existed in past attempts to limit
> abortion will be plugged.
Clinic abortions would be affected. Illegal abortions will not. Coat hangers
will be replaced by a large number of chemical abortifacients which can be
stolen, sought through doctors, purchased out of country.
> Over time, people will realize that abortion as a means of birth control
> or avoiding one's responsibilities is not acceptable. Society will
> focus its talents and resources on figuring out what to do with
> the relatively small number of children (especially, compared to the
> number currently being aborted) that do not have adequate parenting. No
> doubt, there will be some financial impact to many of us as we share our
> great wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.
Right. Wishful. No evidence to support this.
> When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
> prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've described
> - but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
Wishful. No evidence to support this.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change
for
> many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
> expect it to change my life much at all. The progression of events I
> see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
>
> - The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
> someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion
clinic
> representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an appeal
> to the supreme court
>
>
> - Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
> appealed to the supreme court.
Please don't hold your breadth (in the case of Spitz, I'd write "Please
do ....").
> - The defendent in the appealed case gets some kind of sanction -
> probably no jail time for the first few cases after the supreme court
> reversal.
> - Of course there will be some doctors who either won't believe the
law
> has changed or choose to challenge the reversal and go ahead and
perform
> banned abortions.
> - Some prosecuters with guts file criminal charges
> - The doctors go to jail, get fined, lose their licenses, etc.
> - Doctors stop performing banned abortions.
> - At some point (not sure when), states establish commissions to
review,
> on a random sampling basis, abortions that have been performed using
> prescribed approval criteria. Doctors that have violated such
criteria
> are sanctioned in some way: fine, suspended sentence, revocation of
> license, jail term. Such criteria will be well defined and
unambiguous.
> Some of the loopholes that have existed in past attempts to limit
> abortion will be plugged.
>
> Over time, people will realize that abortion as a means of birth
control
> or avoiding one's responsibilities is not acceptable. Society will
> focus its talents and resources on figuring out what to do with
> the relatively small number of children (especially, compared to the
> number currently being aborted) that do not have adequate parenting.
No
> doubt, there will be some financial impact to many of us as we share
our
> great wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.
>
> When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
> prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've
described
> - but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
And in case your political fiction (move over, Tom Clancy, TerryG is
coming!) should ever approach reality, let me add one final consequence:
Airlines will be making big money from charter flights across the
Atlantic. There is no chance whatsoever that abortion will become
criminal again in Europe.
HRG.
<snip>
Craig Chilton
> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
>> elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
RE: The oxymoron, "unborn child" ,,,
>>> I am, however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
>>> cover those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to
>>> become children.
>> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
>> expected to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
First off, a woman becomes a mother when she gives BIRTH
to a baby. Prior to that time, while pregnant, she is simply a
woman who is willingly (or unwillingly; usually temporarily in that
case) serving as host to a developing entity.
And yes, z/e/fs which are not expected to become children are
ones that unwilling hosts choose to terminate. Which has precisely
the same significance as when men masturbate, thus causing the
termination, millions-at-a-time of live, of human entities which
merely are an early stage in the continuum of human life.
> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts,
BUZZ!!! Clue: There's probably no such thing as a "pro-abort."
The opposite of ANTI-Choicers are the PRO-Choicers. And PRO-Choicers
fully support whatever choice women make, no matter what the decision
may be. As long as the choice is THEIRS alone, and they are not
pressured by others to AVOID one of the choices.
> it's only considered a child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of
> conception/tissue mass...
BUZZ!!! Again! Clue for the Clueless: "Product of conception"
and "tissue mass" is what Anti-Choicers would LIKE to think
Pro-Choicers regard z/e/fs to be. Pro-Choicers are FULLY aware that
women who obtain abortions are eliminating UNWANTED zygotes,
embryoes, and/or fetuses. And they ALSO are astute enough to realize
that thereis NO reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to
be any more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
> ... if it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
No. It's not a child because to BE a child, one FIRST must have
been BORN.
> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded and
selfish Anti-Choicers), life is for people of ALL ages from BIRTH on,
and for all developing entities which are WANTED by hosts who desire
to carry them to term.
(Not that I would expect you, or any other Anti-Choicer, to be able
to comprehend any of the above. But pointing this out shows the
fence-sitters just how absurd your stance is.)
> --A
-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net
"Let's Work Together to bring America into the
New Millennium as a Bigotry-Free Zone!"
Craig Chilton
<terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>> In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
>>> elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
>>>> I am, however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
>>>> cover those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
>>>> children.
>>> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
>>> expected to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
>> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered a
>> child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue mass if
>> it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
>>
>> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
(The above tripe is answered in a different post in this thread.)
> The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted logic.
When dealing with the totally ILlogical and irrational mindset,
and the selfish, intolerant agenda, of Anti-Choice, there would be no
point in any Pro-Choicer wasting his/her time "twisting" logic. The
most basic and uncomplicated logic is enough to unravel the arguments
of Anti-Choice.
>--
>There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Anti-Choicers being a PERFECT example of that.
-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net
"Cure an Anti-Choicer or an RRR Cultist of BUSYBODYISM,
and the resulting person will be an asset to society."
Craig Chilton
> It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
> abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
> could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
> could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
> idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>
> Thank God I made it out, you know?
Hey! Idiot! (Since you so blithely toss the term around at those
who least deserve it...) Guess what? You were "you" when in the form
of sperm and egg that hadn't yet met, too. Were you aware of THAT?
Thus, since you never defend sperm and ova (even though they, too, are
both alive and human), may we all assume that if the technology ever
is developed in the future which would make it possible, that you
wouldn't mind in the LEAST if some future scientist were to step into
a time machine, go back in time to just before you were conceived,
determine exactly which sperm (or egg) would ultimately comprise half
of YOU... and dispose of it. Right? No harm done, right? Since
sperm and ova are indefensible, and don't count?
Looks like YOU are one very fey and pasty activist... for crusading
so zealously (and zanily) for mere developing entities -- NONE of
which have any more value than sperm and ova EXCEPT in instances
where a woman knows she is pregnant, and DESIRES to carry to term.
(Even THEN, the entity has intrinsic value only to HER, until birth
takes place. Only at THAT point is there any reason to accord
defensibility to the resulting baby. Except in cases where a pregnant
woman is wantonly attacked by someone intending to harm her, and/or
a fetus that she WANTS.)
> Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not enough to
> sustain our current level?
Wrong. It IS. According to this morning's paper, my own state of
Iowa grew by only 3.3% in the decade of the '90s... and it was one of
the LOWEST. Just north of here, Minnesota's population grew by 9.1%.
ZPG (Zero Population Growth) is desireable, thus enabling an
already-abundant population not to be overburdened by too much
growth... but we have NOT yet achieved that.
<remaining Anti-Choice TRIPE snipped>
asa...@my-deja.com
api...@ibm.net wrote:
> >> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> >> expected to become children? The ones their mothers decide to
abort?
>
> to a baby.
What about women that give birth to infants? It's not a baby, it's an
infant. ;)
> > Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts,
>
> BUZZ!!! Clue: There's probably no such thing as a "pro-abort."
> The opposite of ANTI-Choicers are the PRO-Choicers. And PRO-Choicers
> fully support whatever choice women make, no matter what the decision
> may be.
Really? Do you really? How much support have you given to women in
crisis pregnancies who decided to let their offspring live? Ever
donated any time/money/resources to a crisis pregnancy center or to an
adoption center? No?
We realize that you are ashamed of your views, but that's not at all
surprising. I'd be ashamed too.
> > it's only considered a child if it's wanted, and a
fetus/product of
> > conception/tissue mass...
>
> BUZZ!!! Again! Clue for the Clueless: "Product of conception"
> and "tissue mass" is what Anti-Choicers would LIKE to think
> Pro-Choicers regard z/e/fs to be. Pro-Choicers are FULLY aware that
> women who obtain abortions are eliminating UNWANTED zygotes,
> embryoes, and/or fetuses.
What's the difference? Again, "it's not a child or a baby because it's
not called that." Why, is an adult a human being? But it's called an
adult! What about a teenager or a toddler? Not humans because we
don't call them that?
And they ALSO are astute enough to realize
> that thereis NO reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to
> be any more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
Except that pesky thing called DNA. But we know by now that genetics,
biology, and thinking are not your strong points.
> > ... if it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called
that.
>
> No. It's not a child because to BE a child, one FIRST must have
> been BORN.
Well, to be an adult, one must have reached the age of 21. To be a
teenager, one must have reached the age of 13. What's your point?
It's still a human being by the virtue of it's genetics and DNA
structure.
> > In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> > pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>
> No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded and
> selfish Anti-Choicers), life is for people of ALL ages from BIRTH on,
> and for all developing entities which are WANTED by hosts who desire
> to carry them to term.
You just said it. Wanted. Life is only for the wanted. Life is only
for adults, wanted, those priveleged enough to have made it out of the
war zone of the womb.
Thanks for backing me up.
Do yourself a favor and don't ever use the word FAIR again.
> (Not that I would expect you, or any other Anti-Choicer, to be able
> to comprehend any of the above.
If it was coherent or valid, maybe we would.
--A
asa...@my-deja.com
> > It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
> > abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
> > could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb.
Maybe I
> > could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
> > idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
> >
> > Thank God I made it out, you know?
>
> Hey! Idiot! (Since you so blithely toss the term around at those
> who least deserve it...)
Those who least deserve it....uh oh. Did I damage craigy's ittle
wittle ego?
> Guess what? You were "you" when in the form
> of sperm and egg that hadn't yet met, too.
According to the Bible I was.
Ps 139:16 16 your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for
me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
Jer 1:5 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were
born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations."
And my favorite:
Heb 7:9-10 9 Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through
Abraham, so to speak, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father
when Melchizedek met him.
> Were you aware of THAT?
Yep yep.
> Thus, since you never defend sperm and ova (even though they, too, are
> both alive and human), may we all assume that if the technology ever
> is developed in the future which would make it possible, that you
> wouldn't mind in the LEAST if some future scientist were to step into
> a time machine,
Step into a time machine? If? In the future?
Not that I am interested in engaging you in debate to begin with (you
have already proved less than capable), I tend to stick with the
realistic, feasable, and present. But if you want to argue your
nonexistent point out in Fantasyland, be my guest. I'll have to
decline your invitation.
> Looks like YOU are one very fey and pasty activist... for crusading
> so zealously (and zanily) for mere developing entities --
Probably because I AM A DEVELOPING ENTITY. I have always been
developing, and human beings, althroughout their lives, are developing.
NONE of
> which have any more value than sperm and ova EXCEPT in instances
> where a woman knows she is pregnant, and DESIRES to carry to term.
Again, life is only for the perfect, priveleged, wanted people, right?
> (Even THEN, the entity has intrinsic value only to HER, until birth
> takes place.
Actually no. Every person has value to everyone else. It's called
being a working member of society. It's called being a contributing
factor in the economy.
> > Did you know, by the way, that our population growth is not
enough to
> > sustain our current level?
>
> Wrong. It IS. According to this morning's paper, my own state of
> Iowa grew by only 3.3% in the decade of the '90s...
3% in ten years? That ain't much. Although if what your mysterious
article says is true, GOOD. I'm glad I'm wrong.
and it was one of
> the LOWEST. Just north of here, Minnesota's population grew by 9.1%.
> ZPG (Zero Population Growth) is desireable, thus enabling an
> already-abundant population not to be overburdened by too much
> growth... but we have NOT yet achieved that.
How can there be too much growth? Only about 5% of the land in the US
has been developed. Go here and click on the picture of the map in the
upper left for an accurate picture.
http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/meta/m4252.html
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szkaemt...@fnord.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> asa...@my-deja.com writes:
>> >>>>Gee, maybe your mother did the speaking for you...
>> >>>No one has the right to speak for me except me.
>> >>So, it's okay for _you_ to have that right, but not your mother?
>> >The right to what?
>> What's the matter -- having trouble understanding what YOU wrote?
>No, having trouble with your assertion. Did you have a point besides
>the one capping your skull?
What assertion did I make? I speculated on one statement, and asked a
question in another. Maybe that equates to "assertion" to you, but I'm not
particularly interested in tending to your problems in comprehending the
meanings associated with the written words.
>> (How about
>> the right to speak for yourself?)
>Believe me, I exercise that right freely. You can whine about it till
>your wife and her friends come home.
Gee, I guess that means I don't whine about it, then.
>> >Who, exactly, am I speaking for?
>> It's sad to see you getting senile _that_ soon.
>If anyone around here is senile, grandpa, it's you.
How about doing something unprecedented for you, and offering a statement that
ISN'T content-free?
>> >Am I not allowed to defend the rights of people who CANNOT speak for
>> >themselves who I see are being exploited by rubes like you?
>> You don't know me,
>Like I said, there is a God.
Which one? There are an awful lot of 'em out there.
>> so you don't know what people are like me.
>If even ONE is like you, scrote, that's one too many.
If you don't know me, you don't know what other people are like me. You don't
get to decide how many, or who, either. Too bad common sense is so far out of
your grasp, in this instance.
>> >I don't speak FOR anyone. I defend their right to speak for themselves.
>> Even if there's no "themselves" there?
>If?
>A compelling argument, certainly.
>Who are you to say who is and who is not a self?
Arrogance and stupidity isn't a pretty combination, even in you -- and you
berate me for supposedly attempting to define "self" for everyone while you're
doing the same thing? There's a name for people like you, where I come from.
>> >> >>it WAS her choice, wasn't it?
>> >> >No, it wasn't.
>> >> How so?
>> >Because I didn't want to be vacuumed out of the womb like you assume
>> >it's okay to do.
>> You don't know what I assume.
>Are you retracting/revising your position?
Are you ever going to actually attempt to figure out my position BEFORE you
start complaining?
>> Are you seriously asserting that you knew you
>> didn't want to be "vacuumed out of the womb" _before_ you were born?
>*laugh*
>Yes I am. Ever seen the unborn who are being aborted trying to escape
>their fate? They feel pain.
And your proof of that is...?
Thank you for demonstrating that you'll believe any bit of bullshit that is
pushed by anti-abortion circus freaks, just so they're anti-abortion like you
are. Maybe you can explain to everyone how something that has no nervous
system capable of transmitting pain signals yet, let alone a brain developed
enough to interpret those signals, can feel _anything_.
>> >She did not, and does not, have a right to kill me.
>> She obviously doesn't, now -- you've been born, remember?
>What part of being born changed my status? What, I'm not allowed
>rights at certain times during my development, but I am allowed rights
>at other times of my development?
>Can you say "inconsistent?" I thought you could!
Can you say "irrelevant"? Social custom and law have treated it as such for a
few millennia, by now, so what's YOUR problem?
>> >I am me now and I was me then, too. And I can speak now.
>> I'm sorry you do such a poor job of it, then.
>You're sorry, but I doubt it has anything to do with me.
You're blind, but I doubt it has to do with anyone but yourself.
>>>>>>Maybe you should be glad she exercised her choice and made the right one
>>>>>>for you.
>> >>>Feh. She killed two of my siblings. What about them? I could have
>> >>>had two brothers or sisters (or one of each) had she not decided to
>> >>>"speak for them" and "choose" whether or not they lived or died. Too
>> >>>bad she didn't let them decide for themselves. I always wished for a
>> >>>sister.
>> >>Never mind that had she done as you wish she'd done, years after the fact,
>> >>YOU wouldn't be here to piss and moan about it...
>> >Not true, I would have had some more siblings to play with.
>> If you're the oldest, maybe.
>Nope, I have an older brother.
So I noticed when you finally got round to explaining the order in which
things happened -- my apologies for that error.
>> Otherwise, the whole sequence of events would be changed.
>Fiction.
Really? Example in point: I was coming home on a night twelve years ago, and
I stopped at a convenience store on Hillcroft to call the woman who would, 32
months later, become my wife. If I had headed on home and not called, I
wouldn't have eben over to see her the next night, and the sequence of events
that led to where I am at this moment would never have existed.
>>>>because she might have had those two other kids, but the sperm that
>>>>fertilized the egg that eventually became you would almost certainly have
>>>>been a different one --
>> >Um, no. An egg is produced every month by the overies, (they take
>> >turns), and if that particular egg is fertilized, ovulation is paused
>> >until pregnancy is completed. As I understand it, she had an abortion
>> >both before me and after me. Doesn't effect at all the order in which
>> >the eggs are produced. Had she let my siblings live, my egg still
>> >would have been produced in the same order--I still would have been
>> >next in line after my older sibling, and my younger sibling still would
>> >have come after me.
>> Had your older one been born, the sequence of events would have changed,
>There is no basis or evidence of such a claim, although it's painfully
>obvious that anatomy, biology, common sense, logic, and thought are not
>your strong points.
It's not a hypothesis that's easily testable, seeing as we don't have the
technology for time travel just yet.
>> >Although how this is an argument for abortion I don't know.
>> Maybe that's because I wasn't making it as an argument for or against
>> abortion in the first place.
>Then why are you here, trolling?
You get to display _your_ incoherence, and of course it's _my_ fault, because
you claim it was my trolling. Trolls don't post under their real names, or
confine their attempts to one or two newsgroups. Maybe you should do some
more research into the definition of the term as it applies to Usenet
newsgroups.
>> >Even if I would have been produced from a different egg, and thus be a
>> >different person, so what? At least I would be suffered to live!
>> You assume that you'd still be the same person as you are, then.
>No reason to believe I wouldn't be, and no reason to care whether or
>not I would have been. Alive is alive.
You could have been a different sex, with any number of different
characteristics. How great are the odds of the precise same sperm and egg
that combined to eventually produce you meeting under a different sequence of
events? (Keep in mind -- there may only be one egg produced in a month, but
there are a LOT of sperm, as in thousands of millions. Great odds, no?)
>> Unfortunately, you proceed as if it were accepted fact.
>You unfortunately proceed.
...and there's nothing you can do about it but whine. Sounds okay to me.
>> >Heck, my mom could have married a different man, thus I would have a
>> >different father and maybe I would be a different person. But if you want
>> >to tangle up your simple little mind with philosophical nonsense, be my
>> >guest.
>>You obviously don't want to let any non-simple thought get in the way of your
>>agenda.
>If you had a thought, patrick, let me know. Roadblock you aren't, just
>a roadside eyesore.
You haven't dealt with the ones I've thrown into this newsgroup -- and if I'm
so offensive, why are you so faithfully following me around?
>> >>>>>Thank God I made it out, you know?
>> >>>>If he existed, I'd be more prone to asking him why he was asleep at the
>> >>>>switch when you came along, considering how you've turned out.
>> >>>I see Santa skipped your house this year--that is, if he were in the
>> >>>business of dispensing clues.
>> >>Your projecting is doing you no good, as usual.
>> >Awwww....
>> Run away if you can't handle my observation.
>Heh heh. Run away indeed. I believe that YOU are the one that
>killfiled me in two other NGs. And in case your cone didn't absorb the
>joke, it wasn't a projection. Here's a clue:
A clue to what? Your inability to keep track of whatever point you're trying
to make?
>mockery \Mock"er*y\, n.; pl. Mockeries. [F. moquerie.] 1. The act of
>mocking, deriding, and exposing to contempt, by mimicry, by insincere
>imitation, or by a false show of earnestness; a counterfeit appearance.
>Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
>Inc.
>That one's free. There will be a bill sent to your house for any
>further clues dispensed to you.
*laugh* You know, if anyone were dumb enough to actually try that approach,
it'd be you.
That's not what I said, but I know you can't address what I actually write in
the first place. I'm saying I have more than a few doubts about the veracity
or accuracy of any supposed source you'd be touting.
>I doubt you would know a fact if you tripped and landed on one face
>first.
Doubt it all you want -- it won't change the reality in the least, and that
reality isn't what you think it is.
>Maybe that explains why you look so blank in your photos?
Maybe you should get a working pair of eyes.
>> >Do you know John Willke or his politics? I didn't think so, and I
>> >doubt you have read this book, either. If I was you, I wouldn't
>> >either. You have too much to lose. And yes, that is a challenge.
>> I haven't read much about Willke,
>Then the statistics are prima facie correct.
BULLSHIT! There are more alternatives than just the two -- either Willke's
correct, or I'm correct -- but I'm not surprised you'd be trying that tactic.
That's the same sorry game the creationists play in trying to get their
religion forced into the public schools: "Because evolution is just a theory,
OUR version is proven correct by default!".
>>but his politics appear to be not much different from the usual pro-life
>>tactics...
>Really? You can tell that just from these numbers? WOW! :
You obviously only read what you want to see -- where did I say I hadn't read
ANY Willke? I said I hadn't read much...and there's a difference in those two
statements, your efforts to ignore them notwithstanding.
>In 1957 the average American woman in her reproductive years bore 3.7
>children. Taking into account all causes of death and increases in
>average life span, zero population growth requires that the average
>woman bears 2.1 children. Since 1972 the average in America has been
>1.8 children.*
>Maybe I DO need my eyes checked, since I am not seeing any politics in
>here like you seem to be.
Indeed -- since YOU are the one cooking up this fiction that I claimed to have
gotten my opinion from that one passage.
><clip>
>> >>>>>It's pretty sad to know, too, that the most dangerous place in America
>> >>>>>right now is inside of your own mother's womb.
>>>>>>Well, I guess I'll call Mom tonight and tell her that Benham, Kentucky is
>>>>>>the most dangerous place in America, because _you_ said so.
>> >>>No, Benham, Kentucky is a dangerous place because that's where inbred
>> >>>backcountry morons like you come from. I DO believe in birth control,
>> >>>do you rubes have any there?
>>>>Yes -- of course, that's slightly irrelevant to the fact that even though a
>>>>lot of the technology didn't yet exist when I was born (yes, there _was_
>>>>history before 1973, believe it or don't), it has nothing to do with my
>>>>case, since I and my sister _were_ wanted. (The nerve of Mom, eh, making
>>>>her own choice!)
>> >Geez, the joke is never funny if you have to explain it.
>> No, but it's always amusing to watch the antis like you backpedal.
>You know what's even more sad than abortion? Morons like you who don't
>even know when they've been made the butt of a very good joke.
...so good that apparently no one but you understood it.
>No, you just ARE the joke.
Yeah, I guess that's why you keep following me like the unhousebroken puppy
you're impersonating.
>>>>>>(Of course, since she's pushing 70, I seriously doubt she'll have any
>>>>>>more kids past the two she had back in the 1950s...you know, me and my
>>>>>>little sister.)
>> >>>There is a God. See?
>> >>No. Is there anything you _won't_ use as "proof" of that assertion?
>> >WHOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHH
>> Could you point that in some other direction?
>I would if your shelved forehead wasn't in the way.
So, you _didn't_ see those pictures. What a surprise.
>> You need to lay off Taco Bell.
>You need to lay off the Orange Sunshine. Either that or try sex with
>human people.
Yeah, there's that "pro-life" tolerance for others with different
opinions...and you just can't resist the implied cheap shot at my wife, can
you? (She'll get a good laugh out of your antics.)
>> >Do you have male pattern baldness or a bald spot by any chance?
>> Check my gallery pages and see if you can tell.
>Maybe when the joke/point flew over your head, it took your beard with
>it instead. I guess your face could pass for a bald spot.
Keep on flailing -- maybe you'll suss it one day.
>>>>>>Aren't you getting started with the millennium party a bit early, though?
>>>>>>Most folks I know aren't going to start drinking until Friday night...
>>>>>Oh, I'm sure you and your Cracky-sack playing friends will have a GREAT
>>>>>time.
>>>>You really need to stop projecting so much -- Dale and I are going to be
>>>>200 miles away at a hockey game, and then on up into central Texas to
>>>>the home of some long-time friends.
>>>>>>--PLH, who won't be drinking at all, not if I have to drive 250-odd miles
>>>>>>that day and evening
>> >>>No, but I bet you will be out back trying to get the mule drunk.
>>>> Riiiiight. Everyone in a city of 4.5 million has one of them. </sarcasm>
>>>>--PLH, oh, well, it'll be fun to watch "asaurus" whine as our trip through
>>>>Iowa draws nigh (of course, that's still six months away, but might as well
>>>>have some fun with it _this_ millennium :-)
>>>PLH, stupid as he wants to be
>>...and it apparently irks you that I'm not as stupid as YOU want me to be.
>Irk, not at all. But it is frustrating that you are so stupid you
>don't get when you are being made fun of.
Actually, it looks like you're more frustrated that no one else gets your
point, either.
>> Oh, well. Life sucks and then you die.
>You'll die before me, grandpa.
Maybe, maybe not. Darwin _likes_ the excessively stupid.
>>(One change in plans, though: we drive about 170 miles tomorrow, up to
>>Austin, _then_ around 60 more up to Belton on Friday. Two games in two
>> nights, then starting a new millennium with old friends in Goldthwaite.
>So? What makes you think I care? I don't care if you hitch a ride to
>Hicktown on a poultry wagon to take your vacation through a chicken
>farm.
So why are you reading it, then? No one's forcing you to, are they?
>>See ya next millennium, if you haven't imploded by then because Jeeeeeezus
>>didn't show up on schedule.)
>I doubt you'll see me, I have the feeling you'll be too busy trying to
>walk and chew gum simultaneously.
*yawn* Yeah, you'll be about as original as the average Xerox copy, as
usual...and I'm sure you get paid well by the Fisher-Rosemount family of
companies for spewing your idiocy on _their_ time.
--PLH, living well _is_ the best revenge
asa...@my-deja.com
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >>Well, Terry, I'd appreciate it if you'd quit telling me what I
think,
>
> >No one needs to tell you what you think. They do, however, have the
> >right to request that you actually do it in the first place.
>
> If you can't discern it, that's no one's problem but your own.
Discern what, that you are an idiot that can't think? Nail, head,
tap...
> >Darn, don't you hate it when the stakes get raised?
>
> The only stake with any chance of being raised is the wodden one
through your
> heart, I'd say.
Remember that when YOU are facing down a glowing cross. HHSSSSSS!!!!!
> >> when you
> >> can't very well understand what you read in the first place.
>
> >Both he and I understood what you said. Admit you are an idiot.
>
> Yeah, and you've had all sorts of people chiming in to support you.
I don't need to call in my posse when I can't defend myself. You think
I need someone else to support me? I'm not the only anti-abortion
person on here, in case you missed it.
Why
> should I admit anything to people who have demonstrated that they'd
rather
> attack what they want me to say, rather than what I said, because
it's much
> easier for them?
You said what you said. I have pointed this out at least three times
to you, once on alt.religion.christian and you proceeded to tuck your
tail between your legs and leave.
If people are having a hard time understanding you, void, try speaking
english and saying what you want to say. So far, I think what you
wanted to say wasn't exactly what came out, was it? But if you are
ashamed of your viewpoint, maybe it's time to get a new one.
> >>What I was trying to say up there is that if Lizard's two siblings
_had_ been
> >>born, they might have had that third sibling (i.e., the one we know
as
> >>"asaurus") around, but even if so, it wouldn't be the same blindly
ignorant
> >>basket case that Lizard is -- because the birth of the first two
would have
> >>changed the whole sequence of events that followed.
>
> >What leads you to this conclusion, void?
>
> Any change in the sequence of events that _did_ happen will likely
produce a
> whole subsequent different sequence.
And like I said, this is not true due to the order in which the overies
produce eggs. Pregnancy and childbirth do not effect the ovulation or
the order in which eggs are produced.
Are you claiming that _everything_ would
> have happened exactly the same if your preceding and following
possible
> siblings hadn't been aborted?
Yep. No reason to believe that it would not have, since they had
already occupied the womb and the eggs and sperm which produced them
were already used. Their murder would not preclude me being born or me
being me. Not that it matters, like I said before. Life is life, no
matter who it is.
"A person is a person, no matter how small." --Dr. Seuss
> >> >Now aren't you a laughing stock!!!!
>
> >>To a professional malingerer like you, maybe, but so what? Your
opinion isn't
> >>exactly credible, remember?
>
> >Funny you should bring up credibility, hickly.
>
> Well, someone had to introduce you to the concept.
I'll be waiting.
> >> >And of course, you and your kind never resort to such tactics.
>
> >> Of course, you aren't dealing with "my kind" --
>
> >You on an individual basis is enough--you are indeed one of a kind.
>
> If you really believed what you said, you wouldn't deal with me in
the way you
> are. (Ain't it a pisser when your actions belie your words?)
Why not? A fungus is a fungus. Like to get dealt with.
> >>you're dealing with an individual who is pro-choice, nothing more,
nothing
> >>less.
>
> >If you are so pro-choice, how come the only choice you ever support
is
> >abortion?
>
> You're either truly stupid, or you just don't give a damn about
actually
> supporting anything you claim.
I haven't seen you prove me wrong yet.
I support the woman's right to make her own
> choices -- of which abortion is one -- and that includes choosing to
give
> birth, too. That's been my opinion as long as I've been pro-choice.
See below.
> >You and your ilk never discuss or even want to debate the
> >merits of adoption, or the joys of motherhood.
>
> You're dealing with ME, shrew, not "my ilk".
Don't worry, there are lots of other imps out there just like you. You
ain't original.
You and your motley crew are the
> ones screeching about how many people want to adopt -- but you never
seem to
> get around to mentioning all those kids who no one *will* adopt,
because
> they're not a cute white infant.
I'd mention them if you would show them to me.
One and a half million American families want to adopt, some so badly
that the scarcity of adoptable babies is a source of major depression.
There is such a demand for babies that a black market has developed
where babies have been sold for as mich as $35,000. --D. James Kennedy.
_Abortion: Cry of Reality_ (Ft. Lauderdale, Fla.: Coral Ridge
Ministries, 1989), 21.
Not just "normal" babies are wanted--many people request babies with
Down's Syndrome, there have been lists of over a hundred couples
waiting to adopt babies with spina bifida. --The Michael Fund, 400
Penn Center, Pittsburgh, PA 15146.
Although I argue that adoption has very little if anything to do with
the pro-life stance. Whether or not there are couples waiting to adopt
the children, life is not only for the wanted. They have a right to
life, regardless of who wants them, and abortion will always be morally
bankrupt.
> >In fact, you speak of it with a certain disdain.
>
> *laugh* Yeah, like you can read minds.
No, I can read posts.
> >Have you ever donated any time or money to
> >a crisis pregnancy center, for expectant mothers who chose to keep
> >their kids alive? How about to an adoption center?
>
> The CPCs have managed to earn themselves a reputation as nothing more
than
> fronts for anti-abortion crusaders like you, at least here in Texas.
So in other words you have not. You only support abortion, admit it.
You have done nothing to help a woman in a crisis pregnancy who HAS
decided to have her child, and the only thing you do is deign to give
her your approval of her choice. If I was her, I would get up in your
sanctimonious arrogant face with a nice big SCREW YOU.
> That's a
> shame, because women deserve better than to be lied to like that,
How much time have you spent in a CPC, or an adoption center?
but I guess
> a lot of you who bellow that you're "pro-life" don't really give a
good
> goddamn
> about any life but that which is still fetal -- otherwise, _you'd_ be
> doing something to help.
How do you know I'm not? Are YOU now reading minds???
> >Call a spade a spade, call a pro-abort a pro-abort. And you,
Patrick,
> >are a pro-abort. And are you ashamed of this title?
>
> Why should I be ashamed of a title that has nothing to do with what
my views
> really are?
Unfortunately it does, and you admit it.
If you are so pro-choice, why don't you do something to promote
adoption? It is one of the choices, you know. And it is definately a
healthy one since the child gets to live.
If you're for abortion don't be ashamed of it. Just say "I'm in favor
of abortion." But don't come across with some sanctimonious language
about choice when you're offended when somebody emphasizes alternative
choices.
> If I believed as you think I should, I wouldn't be a parent or a
> grandparent.
How so? Your "I got mine" attitude doesn't advance your position, it
makes you a hypocrite. YOU raised your children, but you argue that
raising children is inconvenient and a burden, so if it's convenient,
kill it? Never mind that some women would like to hear about the joys
of parenting that CPC's show them. You don't bother to tell anyone how
great it is to be a parent. You tell them how great it is to NOT be a
parent.
Too bad the people who _do_ know me (you know, from actually
> being around me in person on a frequent basis?) know better than you
ever
> will.
Who cares?
> >>>No, the nerve of your mom if she thought she had the right to pull
the
> >>>plug on you.
>
> >>Go ahead and be the arrogant little bastard you are, Terry.
>
> >Do you even know what arrogant means, imp? Funny you go around and
> >slap the label on whoever you dislike (or whoever dares disagree with
> >you) arbitrarily, all the while ignoring (of course) the fact that
> >arrogance defines you perfectly.
>
> Now that's pretty funny, coming from someone who wouldn't know me if
I were
> standing in front of her preparing to laugh at her to her slack-jawed
face.
Irrelevant. The truth hurts. But that's your little tactic, isn't
it? You come on here to debate (or whatever) and then when you lose,
you pull the "you don't know me" bit. I don't NEED or even WANT to
know you, your position and how you cripplingly defend it are all I
need to know.
> >> I'm sorry your father had such a certifiable asshole for a son.
>
> >At least he has a father.
>
> Small world, innit?
Speak for yourself.
> So do I.
What was he?
> >>--PLH, honest in my opinions, even to Terry's ugly little face, if
> >>need be
>
> >PLH, who would send a card to his father for father's day, but he
> >doesn't know who to sent it to
>
> Yeah, I guess that's why I didn't have to last year
You just don't get it, do you? Here's free clue:
butt (bt)
n.
One that serves as an object of ridicule or contempt
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Third Edition
mockery \Mock"er*y\, n.; pl. Mockeries. [F. moquerie.] 1. The act of
mocking, deriding, and exposing to contempt, by mimicry, by insincere
imitation, or by a false show of earnestness; a counterfeit appearance.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
Inc.
You are so pathetic, someone calls you a name and you say "No I'm
not!" And here's another clue, Buttrick. NO ONE CARES ABOUT WHAT YOU
DO. No one wants your personal information.
What a loser.
<clip>
asa...@my-deja.com
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> Yeah, that was me giving an opinion of how YOU would respond -- lifted
> straight from the Monty Python sketch that everyone else seems to
have no
> trouble in recognizing.
You mean everyone else that doesn't have anything better to do than sit
around and watch retarded British humor.
> So, the point flew right over your pointy little
> head, as usual.
The only point you have, Buttrick, is the one on top of your skull.
> >>Why should I be afraid of someone who'd rather deal with her own
convenient
> >>strawmen than with what I actually wrote?
>
> >You said it. If you aren't afraid, why bring up fear?
>
> Rent a sense of humor and get back to me, will you?
Does anyone know where I can get a new irony meter? Mine just broke.
> >> >I guess I shouldn't be so surprised considering that your brand
> >> >of "balls" is posting under your own name. Whooeeee! Sat nite
fever
> >> >at your house is just JUMPIN, I bet.
>
> >> So? Are you upset by me having a life and _not_ spending all my
time poking
> >> fun at idiots like you?
>
> >How could I be upset when your brand of a life is sitting at a hockey
> >game with a foam rubber finger and home team pennant, getting corn
dog
> >breading and beer on your favorite player jersey while screaming GO
> >TEAM at the top of your lungs with your mouth full surrounded by all
> >the other brain-dead sports rubes? How can I be upset at someone
with
> >a life as pathetic and homogenized as yours?
>
> I wouldn't either, but since that's not MY life,
It's not? You mean that wasn't you and your zombie all dressed up in
your cute wittle home team jerseys and carrying home team pennants on
your website?
> perhaps you should direct
> this at someone more deserving of it.
You do deserve it, Buttrick.
> (Gee, how come you know I drink at
> hockey games?
I don't. IT'S CALLED MOCKERY, moron.
> The funny thing is, no one else knows that -- including me.
> See if you can find the subtle clue in that.)
Finding a clue in anything you say, Buttrick, is like finding meaning
in a Pauly Shore movie.
<clip>
PLH will finally learn how to walk upright next week
asa...@my-deja.com
pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
> >> What's the matter -- having trouble understanding what YOU wrote?
>
> >No, having trouble with your assertion. Did you have a point besides
> >the one capping your skull?
>
> What assertion did I make?
Indirectly, the assertion that my mother had the right to speak for
me/abort me. Do you not believe this? Are you not in favor of
abortion?
<el snipo>
> >> >Who, exactly, am I speaking for?
>
> >> It's sad to see you getting senile _that_ soon.
>
> >If anyone around here is senile, grandpa, it's you.
>
> How about doing something unprecedented for you, and offering a
statement that
> ISN'T content-free?
How about actually answering the question?
> >> >Am I not allowed to defend the rights of people who CANNOT speak
for
> >> >themselves who I see are being exploited by rubes like you?
>
> >> You don't know me,
>
> >Like I said, there is a God.
>
> Which one? There are an awful lot of 'em out there.
Take your pick.
> >> so you don't know what people are like me.
>
> >If even ONE is like you, scrote, that's one too many.
>
> If you don't know me, you don't know what other people are like me.
"I AM an original, I AM!!"
*yawn*
> >> >I don't speak FOR anyone. I defend their right to speak for
themselves.
>
> >> Even if there's no "themselves" there?
>
> >If?
>
> >A compelling argument, certainly.
>
> >Who are you to say who is and who is not a self?
>
> Arrogance and stupidity isn't a pretty combination, even in you --
I guess that's why you probably don't keep mirrors in your house. Or
shouldn't.
and you
> berate me for supposedly attempting to define "self" for everyone
while you're
> doing the same thing?
You bet I am. The difference between you and me is that MY definition
of self is beneficial to whoever gets the distinction. If anyone
around here is arrogant, it's you, for clamoring to DENY that
distinction to whomever is convenient for your viewpoint. People DIE
for your definitions. I don't try to arbitrarily take people's rights
from them.
> There's a name for people like you, where I come from.
Yeah--educated. But you've only ever heard.
> >> >> >>it WAS her choice, wasn't it?
>
> >> >> >No, it wasn't.
>
> >> >> How so?
>
> >> >Because I didn't want to be vacuumed out of the womb like you
assume
> >> >it's okay to do.
>
> >> You don't know what I assume.
>
> >Are you retracting/revising your position?
>
> Are you ever going to actually attempt to figure out my position
BEFORE you
> start complaining?
Attempt to figure out? Why don't you do everyone a favor and tell us
what it is instead of dancing around it like a five year old with a
full bladder.
> >> Are you seriously asserting that you knew you
> >> didn't want to be "vacuumed out of the womb" _before_ you were
born?
> >*laugh*
>
> >Yes I am. Ever seen the unborn who are being aborted trying to
escape
> >their fate? They feel pain.
>
> And your proof of that is...?
http://www.prolifeinfo.org/fact3.html
Why don't you pop 'ol Monty out of your VCR and put something
educational in there, like an untrasound of an abortion. Ever seen
_Silent Scream_?
> Thank you for demonstrating that you'll believe any bit of bullshit
that is
> pushed by anti-abortion circus freaks, just so they're anti-abortion
like you
> are.
Thanks for demonstrating that you aren't interested in any scientific
fact that rebuts your claims, and for demonstrating also that you don't
care one way or another about someone else's suffering.
Thanks, also, for the proof of the lack of credibility on the part of
pro-life. But you can assert all day long if it makes you feel better.
> Maybe you can explain to everyone how something that has no nervous
> system capable of transmitting pain signals yet, let alone a brain
developed
> enough to interpret those signals, can feel _anything_.
========================================================================
It is possible to detect organic pain in a non-communicative subject.
Dr. Thomas Sullivan, a pediatric neurologist, says that there are two
criteria. First, the subject must have the proper equipment to sense
noxious stimuli. For example, a chicken with its head cut off may run
around for awhile, but it's missing some of the necessary structures to
feel pain.
Dr. Sullivan says that the equipment that humans use to sense pain
includes special pain receptors in nerve endings that connect nerve
fibers to transmit signals from the receptor to the spinal cord;
neurons within the spinal cord that carry the signal to the brain; the
thalamus, which senses the pain; and the cortex, which supplies
psychological responses to the pain and also directs a response. All of
this complex equipment is in place, states Dr. Sullivan, "perhaps as
early as eight weeks, but certainly by thirteen and a half weeks."
If the equipment is there, a neurologist can look for the second
element: Does the subject "respond aversely"? There are different kinds
of responses to stimuli, reflexive and aversive. When the doctor hits
your knee with a hammer, you kick, but this is not evidence of pain or
anger. This is a reflexive response. If you stick your fingers down
your throat, a gagging reflex occurs without any consultation with your
brain. An aversive response is far more complex; it engages the whole
central nervous system and "[involves] the whole body's attempt to
escape or avert noxious stimuli."
Dr. William Matviuw, an obstetrician/gynecologist, says that the nerves
that sense pain reach the skin of the fetus by the ninth week of
gestation. Electrical impulses pass through the neural fibers and
through the spinal column between the eighth and ninth week of
gestation. Detectable brain activity in response to noxious stimuli
occurs between the eighth and tenth week.1
Using all this equipment and then responding may take a little longer,
says Dr. Matviuw. At seven weeks, a child will pull his lips back if
you tap on his mouth. By 10 weeks, the palms of the hands are sensitive
to touch. By 11 weeks, the face will respond to touch. "By thirteen and
a half weeks, organic response to noxious stimuli occurs at all levels
of the nervous system, from the pain receptors to the thalamus."2
The information about the pain a child feels when an abortion does not
kill instantly has been available for years. But the whole point of an
abortion is to deny the humanity of preborn children. Abortionists
won't let a little pain--or a lot of pain in a little person--get in
the way of that fierce denial.
1 Stanislaw Reinis and Jerome M. Goldman, The Development of the Brain,
1980, pp. 223-235. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas Publishers.
2 V. J. Collins, Principles of Anesthesiology 1976, pp. 922-923.
Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Fabiger.
========================================================================
> >> >She did not, and does not, have a right to kill me.
>
> >> She obviously doesn't, now -- you've been born, remember?
>
> >What part of being born changed my status? What, I'm not allowed
> >rights at certain times during my development, but I am allowed
rights
> >at other times of my development?
>
> >Can you say "inconsistent?" I thought you could!
>
> Can you say "irrelevant"?
Can you show how it is? It's not relevant that you are inconsistent in
your thinking and that the criteria for rights is arbitrary?
> Social custom and law have treated it as such for a
> few millennia, by now, so what's YOUR problem?
I see, it's okay to you that human life is at the whim of "social
customs" and law.
For someone who has an affiliation with a college, supposedly, why is
it you have a dismaying inability to learn from the history you should
have been taught? Remember Nazi Germany, when life was subject to
law? Remember ancient South American history--ever seen the mummy of a
person sacrificed for "social customs?"
I suppose now you think law legislates morality and that human
sacrifice is a-okay.
> >> >I am me now and I was me then, too. And I can speak now.
>
> >> I'm sorry you do such a poor job of it, then.
>
> >You're sorry, but I doubt it has anything to do with me.
>
> You're blind, but I doubt it has to do with anyone but yourself.
If I'm blind, it's because I saw your picture.
> >> Otherwise, the whole sequence of events would be changed.
>
> >Fiction.
>
> Really? Example in point: I was coming home on a night twelve years
ago, and
> I stopped at a convenience store on Hillcroft to call the woman who
would, 32
> months later, become my wife. If I had headed on home and not
called, I
> wouldn't have eben over to see her the next night, and the sequence
of events
> that led to where I am at this moment would never have existed.
That's because YOU made the sequence of events in the first place,
although if you had not called, you would have done the world a facor
by not reproducing.
Looky-->If you have a row of trucks pulling out on the highway, and one
truck coming down the road ends up between two which had been pulling
out onto the highway, will the trucks pulling out on the highway
somehow get rearranged so that the ones waiting to pull out will not
pull out in the same order? Nope. One extra one just gets stuck in
the sequence.
> >> Had your older one been born, the sequence of events would have
changed,
>
> >There is no basis or evidence of such a claim, although it's
painfully
> >obvious that anatomy, biology, common sense, logic, and thought are
not
> >your strong points.
>
> It's not a hypothesis that's easily testable, seeing as we don't have
the
> technology for time travel just yet.
Just yet? Hehhehhehheh
Why do the pro-aborts imagine a fantasy thing? You and Craig Chilton
both are a pair of peas in a pod.
There is no reason to believe that childbirth or pregnancy effects the
sequence of eggs to be ovulated.
If anything, the sperm that fertilized my egg might have been different
because of the time frame, but it's not like it matters.
> >> >Although how this is an argument for abortion I don't know.
>
> >> Maybe that's because I wasn't making it as an argument for or
against
> >> abortion in the first place.
>
> >Then why are you here, trolling?
>
> You get to display _your_ incoherence, and of course it's _my_ fault,
because
> you claim it was my trolling.
I don't care what you call it. Your point is inane, unsupported, and
by all accounts STUPID. What, exactly, are you trying to prove?
> Trolls don't post under their real names, or
> confine their attempts to one or two newsgroups.
No, but they live under bridges like you. You don't have to be a
Usenet troll to be a troll, troll.
> >> >Even if I would have been produced from a different egg, and thus
be a
> >> >different person, so what? At least I would be suffered to live!
>
> >> You assume that you'd still be the same person as you are, then.
>
> >No reason to believe I wouldn't be, and no reason to care whether or
> >not I would have been. Alive is alive.
>
> You could have been a different sex, with any number of different
> characteristics.
So?
How great are the odds of the precise same sperm and egg
> that combined to eventually produce you meeting under a different
sequence of
> events?
Who cares?
Isn't there a probability newsgroup you can go torture?
> >> >Heck, my mom could have married a different man, thus I would
have a
> >> >different father and maybe I would be a different person. But if
you want
> >> >to tangle up your simple little mind with philosophical nonsense,
be my
> >> >guest.
>
> >>You obviously don't want to let any non-simple thought get in the
way of your
> >>agenda.
>
> >If you had a thought, patrick, let me know. Roadblock you aren't,
just
> >a roadside eyesore.
>
> You haven't dealt with the ones I've thrown into this newsgroup --
What would be the point? If I cared, I might've, but as it stands,
your points don't have a thing to do with abortion or the morality
thereof.
It's not my problem if you don't have a life.
and if I'm
> so offensive, why are you so faithfully following me around?
Don't flatter yourself, scruffy. Abortion happens to be an important
issue to me, and I came here to see what my fellow pro-lifers were up
to (just wanna give a shout out to y'all--whaaaassuuuup!). Gotta keep
up with events.
Anyone heard from BMcCandlss lately?
> >> Run away if you can't handle my observation.
>
> >Heh heh. Run away indeed. I believe that YOU are the one that
> >killfiled me in two other NGs. And in case your cone didn't absorb
the
> >joke, it wasn't a projection. Here's a clue:
>
> A clue to what?
Hey, if you can't keep up, gramps, go back to your home.
> >mockery \Mock"er*y\, n.; pl. Mockeries. [F. moquerie.] 1. The act of
> >mocking, deriding, and exposing to contempt, by mimicry, by insincere
> >imitation, or by a false show of earnestness; a counterfeit
appearance.
> >Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA,
> >Inc.
>
> >That one's free. There will be a bill sent to your house for any
> >further clues dispensed to you.
>
> *laugh* You know, if anyone were dumb enough to actually try that
approach,
> it'd be you.
I may have to send you to collection. ;)
> >> >Do you have any statistics, patty? I didn't think so.
>
> >> You don't have any, but that's already obvious.
>
> >The truth hurts, doesn't it? Although I must say, your justification
> >is SOOOOO impressive....
>
> >You: "That's not a fact."
>
> That's not what I said,
It's called in a nutshell. You claimed they weren't facts. You
CLAIMED. That's it for you...
but I know you can't address what I actually write in
> the first place.
What's to address?
I'm saying I have more than a few doubts about the veracity
> or accuracy of any supposed source you'd be touting.
I know for a fact that the statistics from census.gov do not show the
effects of abortion. (Just found this little tidbit during my lunch
hour.) Considering the curve that documents the rate of growth of the
United States between the 1950s and now, I doubt it will be long before
we reach NPG. I think with the numbers we have now, factor in
abortion, we're about at zero.
> >> >Do you know John Willke or his politics? I didn't think so, and I
> >> >doubt you have read this book, either. If I was you, I wouldn't
> >> >either. You have too much to lose. And yes, that is a challenge.
>
> >> I haven't read much about Willke,
>
> >Then the statistics are prima facie correct.
>
> BULLSHIT!
Ooooh, touched a nerve, did I?
Do you know what prima facie means?
There are more alternatives than just the two -- either Willke's
> correct, or I'm correct --
Correct about what? You have not presented any statistics or facts
about the subject of population growth, so? All you've asserted is
that it's wrong. Care to show how?
> >>but his politics appear to be not much different from the usual pro-
life
> >>tactics...
>
> >Really? You can tell that just from these numbers? WOW! :
>
> You obviously only read what you want to see --
All I saw were numbers.
> where did I say I hadn't read
> ANY Willke?
Fine, tell me about his politics. What does he believe?
> >In 1957 the average American woman in her reproductive years bore 3.7
> >children. Taking into account all causes of death and increases in
> >average life span, zero population growth requires that the average
> >woman bears 2.1 children. Since 1972 the average in America has been
> >1.8 children.*
>
> >Maybe I DO need my eyes checked, since I am not seeing any politics
in
> >here like you seem to be.
>
> Indeed -- since YOU are the one cooking up this fiction that I
claimed to have
> gotten my opinion from that one passage.
Please tell me where you did get it. If you were honest, you would
have saved yourself the trouble and just given a source in the first
place instead of, again, dancing around the issue.
> >> >Geez, the joke is never funny if you have to explain it.
>
> >> No, but it's always amusing to watch the antis like you backpedal.
>
> >You know what's even more sad than abortion? Morons like you who
don't
> >even know when they've been made the butt of a very good joke.
>
> ...so good that apparently no one but you understood it.
No one? You sure? Or are you....speaking for other people because you
are reading minds again??
> >> You need to lay off Taco Bell.
>
> >You need to lay off the Orange Sunshine. Either that or try sex with
> >human people.
>
> Yeah, there's that "pro-life" tolerance for others with different
> opinions...
Oh, now it's to the "tolerance" tactic, hey? I hate that bottomless
hat.
> and you just can't resist the implied cheap shot at my wife, can
> you?
Nah, having too much fun.
> (She'll get a good laugh out of your antics.)
I care.
> >> >Do you have male pattern baldness or a bald spot by any chance?
>
> >> Check my gallery pages and see if you can tell.
>
> >Maybe when the joke/point flew over your head, it took your beard
with
> >it instead. I guess your face could pass for a bald spot.
>
> Keep on flailing -- maybe you'll suss it one day.
I wish you would stop flailing. Maybe you'd sink.
> >>...and it apparently irks you that I'm not as stupid as YOU want me
to be.
>
> >Irk, not at all. But it is frustrating that you are so stupid you
> >don't get when you are being made fun of.
>
> Actually, it looks like you're more frustrated that no one else gets
your
> point, either.
It's hard being around the little people. Are you sure NO ONE else
gets it?? Are you playing psychic again, Flatrick?
> >> Oh, well. Life sucks and then you die.
>
> >You'll die before me, grandpa.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. Darwin _likes_ the excessively stupid.
Oh, he's a friend of yours then? ;)
> >>(One change in plans, though: we drive about 170 miles tomorrow,
up to
> >>Austin, _then_ around 60 more up to Belton on Friday. Two games in
two
> >> nights, then starting a new millennium with old friends in
Goldthwaite.
>
> >So? What makes you think I care? I don't care if you hitch a ride
to
> >Hicktown on a poultry wagon to take your vacation through a chicken
> >farm.
>
> So why are you reading it, then?
I skimmed most of it.
> >>See ya next millennium, if you haven't imploded by then because
Jeeeeeezus
> >>didn't show up on schedule.)
>
> >I doubt you'll see me, I have the feeling you'll be too busy trying
to
> >walk and chew gum simultaneously.
>
> *yawn* Yeah, you'll be about as original as the average Xerox copy,
Now you know how I feel. Although you are about as smart, and
exciting, as a bag of hammers.
as
> usual...and I'm sure you get paid well by the Fisher-Rosemount
family of
> companies for spewing your idiocy on _their_ time.
I do, actually, not that I work for them. Thanks for being interested
in my salary as if it's any of your business. Nice to know someone
cares. ;)
Adrienne Regard
asa...@my-deja.com wrote in message <84fukf$n86$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <387077e5.1396551378@news>,
> api...@ibm.net wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:20:54 GMT, asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
>> > abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
>> > could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb.
>Maybe I
>> > could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
>> > idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
Hmm. So you'd rather your own mother were forced to bear you against her
will, eh?
I would much prefer to recognize that my mother had a choice, and made the
choice to have me. If that were not true, while I cannot retroactively
allow her to abort me, I could certainly have enough compassion to insure my
daughters don't have to bear children against their will.
Besides, if it had not been me in that year, it might well have been Cindy
in the next year. The fact that I exists may well mean that Cindy does not.
Cindy, had she lived, might have something similar to say about it, but,
really, these decisions get made every day.
Adrienne Regard
TerryG
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change
for
> >many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
> >expect it to change my life much at all.
>
> in foster care. So what if more people live unloved and persecuted.
>
> After all, it won't affect you. What do you care?
We don't have any reliable statistics on the number of women who are
dying now from sanctioned abortions, now do we? Banning most abortions
will actually save women's lives because fewer will be going thru the
procedure, sanctioned or not. If you don't believe this, prove me wrong
with some verifiable statistics.
I have yet to meet a single foster child or adopted child who wished he
or she had never been born, have you?
So you decide who has a life worth living. While I believe in God, you
pretend you are Him.
I fully expect the banning of abortions to affect me in a number of ways
but none I'm not prepared and anxious to deal with.
>
> > The progression of events I
> >see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
>
> You're not an expert on much of anything.
And you are....
>
> >- The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
> >someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion
clinic
> >representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an
appeal
> >to the supreme court
>
> LOL! Not possible, since a fetus is not a person.
At one time the supreme court acted as if it is. We just need to go
back to that time of sensibility.
>
> >or
> >
> >- Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
> >appealed to the supreme court.
>
> The only individuals involved are pregnant women. The court doesn't
> generally consider people who complain that they have too much
> freedom.
Oh I'd love to see a father file a suit or criminal charges against
someone aborting his child without his consent. There are several other
possibilities. All it takes is someone with guts and persistence.
>
> >- The supreme court rules against abortion.
>
> Why?
Because they choose to reverse the mistake that Justice Brennan went to
his grave regretting.
>
> >- Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
>
> Why would it be?
Ditto.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer Women and cats will do as they please and men and
dogs
> r...@netcom.com should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert
Heinlein
>
--
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
TerryG
for
> >many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
> >see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
> >
> >someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion
clinic
> >representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an
appeal
> >to the supreme court
>
> a recent ruling of the Supreme Court stipulates that someone must
> be directly affected by a law in order to sue.
Wrong. Read the papers. Lawyers have initiated class-action suits
against tobacco companies of their own volition. Just think of the
bucks involved that could go to fathers who have been denied their
parental rights. There's a growing trend toward wanting to reestablish
family and root out that which destroys it. Some day fathers just might
reclaim the rights they have lost as a bonus.
>
> This locks out suits on behalf of "unborn children".
We'll have to see about that. New precedent is established all the
time. Times and attitudes change.
> How about
>
> Whether they'll reverse themselves in light of the special case
> of foetii is not clear to me.
I am unfamiliar with what you are talking about.
>
> >
> >or
> >
> >- Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
> >appealed to the supreme court.
>
> Details?
Well, the one I cited above for starters.
>
> >- The supreme court rules against abortion.
>
> Again, details? Ruling against abortion isn't going to do much
> if the abortion has already been procured, for example.
Well, not in the case I cited above.
>
> >- Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
> >- The defendent in the appealed case gets some kind of sanction -
> >probably no jail time for the first few cases after the supreme court
> >reversal.
>
> Um...the defendant is going to have an abortion more than once??
The defendent is the person who performed the abortion - just like it
used to be. If a woman performs her own abortion, she's held
accountable to satisfy the criteria.
>
> Please clarify your English. I assume you mean "women meeting the
> criteria stipulated in the case appealed to the Supreme Court"
> or somesuch.
No, I mean the doctor who is licensed to perform limited abortions
having to satisfy the criteria.
>
> >- Of course there will be some doctors who either won't believe the
law
> >has changed or choose to challenge the reversal and go ahead and
perform
> >banned abortions.
> >- Some prosecuters with guts file criminal charges
> >- The doctors go to jail, get fined, lose their licenses, etc.
> >- Doctors stop performing banned abortions.
>
> Which abortions will be banned?
>
> [1] All of them, except rape, incest, and health of the mother
> in danger?
> [2] Only "partial-birth abortions" (which are rare)?
> [3] Other?
Those having nothing to do with the physical survival of the mother.
Mental health must be preserved in some other way (e.g. medication) in
order to avoid the inevitable loophole. Anyone can claim severe mental
anguish from having to complete a pregnancy.
>
> >- At some point (not sure when), states establish commissions to
review,
> >on a random sampling basis, abortions that have been performed using
> >prescribed approval criteria. Doctors that have violated such
criteria
> >are sanctioned in some way: fine, suspended sentence, revocation of
> >license, jail term. Such criteria will be well defined and
unambiguous.
> >Some of the loopholes that have existed in past attempts to limit
> >abortion will be plugged.
>
> Including that troublesome loophole that lets a woman get an
> abortion during the first trimester, just for asking for it.
>
> Yeah, what a loophole! :-P
Yup, that loophole too.
>
> >
> >Over time, people will realize that abortion as a means of birth
control
> >or avoiding one's responsibilities is not acceptable. Society will
> >focus its talents and resources on figuring out what to do with
> >the relatively small number of children (especially, compared to the
> >number currently being aborted) that do not have adequate parenting.
No
> >doubt, there will be some financial impact to many of us as we share
our
> >great wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.
> >
> >When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
> >prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've
described
> >- but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
>
> No doubt it will...and a sad change it will be. But oh well;
> one would at least hope that the women fight against this
> proposed law and/or the scenario above.
You know, I have this strong feeling that when unlimited abortions are
banned, the vast majority of women will actually be glad. They will
have returned to their natural role of mother and nurturer and they will
actually have the kind of self esteem that is earned as opposed to the
fake kind that is granted.
>
> >
> >
> >In article <slrn86itu0...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net>,
> > ew...@lexi.athghost7038suus.net (The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
> >> In talk.abortion, TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com>
> >> wrote on Tue, 28 Dec 1999 22:05:27 GMT
<84bbok$j32$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> >> >Oh, I've considered it and ruled it out, mainly after listening to
> >> >folks like yourself trying to defend unlimited abortions.
> >>
> >> How are you going to enforce your viewpoint?
> >>
>
> [rest snipped for brevity]
>
> --
> ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
>
--
El Coyote
>No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change for
>many people.
No change at all, since e do not have 'unlimited' abortions now.
>1973 was a long time ago.
You merely show that you are a child with no grasp of history.
> For me personally, I don't
>expect it to change my life much at all.
It is a small, self-centered person who only cares about themselves.
>The progression of events I
>see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
Obviously. I hope you don;t pretend to have thought about the issue
either.
>- The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
>someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion clinic
>representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an appeal
>to the supreme court
Unborn children are not human beings and are not citizens and have no
standing to file suit in any court.
>or
>
>- Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
>appealed to the supreme court.
>- The supreme court rules against abortion.
>- Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
To do so you would first have to repeal a few Constitutional
Amendments protecting the rights of all citizens.
...
>When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
>prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've described
>- but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
The word of some stupid kid who hasn't bothered to educate himself on
the issue? That is worth less than nothing.
M is for Malapert
>In article <84e8c6$mf6$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> So what if a few women die. So what if there are more children raised
>> in foster care. So what if more people live unloved and persecuted.
>>
>> After all, it won't affect you. What do you care?
>
>We don't have any reliable statistics on the number of women who are
>dying now from sanctioned abortions, now do we?
Yes, of course we do. Moreover, we have them from virtually all
countries where abortion is legal.
>Banning most abortions
>will actually save women's lives because fewer will be going thru the
>procedure, sanctioned or not.
So why were twenty times as many women dying from abortions in the
1950s and 60s as now? Why did the mortality from abortion drop like a
stone when abortion was legalized?
>If you don't believe this, prove me wrong
>with some verifiable statistics.
Go to your nearest medical library and get the Journal of the American
Medical Society, vol. 268, no. 22. Read the December 9, 1992 article
"Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v. Wade: Trends
in the morbidity and mortality of women." This is a MUST-read for
anyone who wants to make a claim about the benefits of legal abortion,
or wants to counter one.
The article was commissioned by the American Medical Society, and
researched and written by its Council on Scientific Affairs, precisely
to evaluate claims such as yours. The findings were that legalizing
abortion indisputably saved women's lives, and that criminalizing it
again would result in needless deaths.
"With a pert and pragmatique Insolence they censure all."
(Glanvill, Sadducismus, 1681.)
M is for Malapert
>The article was commissioned by the American Medical Society,
Sorry: sb American Medical Association (AMA).
TerryG
>
> >In article <84e8c6$mf6$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>,
> > r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> So what if a few women die. So what if there are more children
raised
> >> in foster care. So what if more people live unloved and
persecuted.
> >>
> >> After all, it won't affect you. What do you care?
> >
> >We don't have any reliable statistics on the number of women who are
> >dying now from sanctioned abortions, now do we?
>
> Yes, of course we do. Moreover, we have them from virtually all
> countries where abortion is legal.
>
> >Banning most abortions
> >will actually save women's lives because fewer will be going thru the
> >procedure, sanctioned or not.
>
> So why were twenty times as many women dying from abortions in the
> 1950s and 60s as now? Why did the mortality from abortion drop like a
> stone when abortion was legalized?
You don't get off that easy here, Sir. Now tell us the sources of your
statistics - or be gone. Perhaps you can tell us what percentage of the
alleged 4000 abortions performed every day in the US results in death of
the mother. Now why don't you tell us how many abortions were performed
in the US prior to RvW and what percentage of those resulted in death of
the mother. Of course, to have any credibility, you must cite sources.
>
> >If you don't believe this, prove me wrong
> >with some verifiable statistics.
>
> Go to your nearest medical library and get the Journal of the American
> Medical Society, vol. 268, no. 22. Read the December 9, 1992 article
> "Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v. Wade: Trends
> in the morbidity and mortality of women." This is a MUST-read for
> anyone who wants to make a claim about the benefits of legal abortion,
> or wants to counter one.
>
> The article was commissioned by the American Medical Society, and
> researched and written by its Council on Scientific Affairs, precisely
> to evaluate claims such as yours. The findings were that legalizing
> abortion indisputably saved women's lives, and that criminalizing it
> again would result in needless deaths.
>
> "With a pert and pragmatique Insolence they censure all."
>
> (Glanvill, Sadducismus, 1681.)
>
Sorry, but been there, done that. The study assumes that all abortions
are banned including those needed to save the life of the mother. Go
back to the drawing board, please. And stop with the misleading
statements.
TerryG
hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <84ds66$ah2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change
> for
> > expect it to change my life much at all. The progression of events
I
> > see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
> >
> > someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion
> clinic
> > representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an
appeal
> > to the supreme court
> >
> >
> > - Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
> > appealed to the supreme court.
> > - The supreme court rules against abortion.
> > - Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
>
"Please
> do ....").
Can't hold my breath as long as I used to but it's getting closer.
>
> > - The defendent in the appealed case gets some kind of sanction -
> > probably no jail time for the first few cases after the supreme
court
> > reversal.
> > - Of course there will be some doctors who either won't believe the
> law
> > has changed or choose to challenge the reversal and go ahead and
> perform
> > banned abortions.
> > - Some prosecuters with guts file criminal charges
> > - The doctors go to jail, get fined, lose their licenses, etc.
> > - Doctors stop performing banned abortions.
> > - At some point (not sure when), states establish commissions to
> review,
> > on a random sampling basis, abortions that have been performed using
> > prescribed approval criteria. Doctors that have violated such
> criteria
> > are sanctioned in some way: fine, suspended sentence, revocation of
> > license, jail term. Such criteria will be well defined and
> unambiguous.
> > Some of the loopholes that have existed in past attempts to limit
> > abortion will be plugged.
> >
> > Over time, people will realize that abortion as a means of birth
> control
> > or avoiding one's responsibilities is not acceptable. Society will
> > focus its talents and resources on figuring out what to do with
> > the relatively small number of children (especially, compared to the
> > number currently being aborted) that do not have adequate parenting.
> No
> > doubt, there will be some financial impact to many of us as we share
> our
> > great wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.
> >
> > When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
> > prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've
> described
> > - but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
>
> And in case your political fiction (move over, Tom Clancy, TerryG is
> coming!) should ever approach reality, let me add one final
consequence:
>
> Airlines will be making big money from charter flights across the
> Atlantic. There is no chance whatsoever that abortion will become
> criminal again in Europe.
And don't you think that may be related to why our founding fathers
escaped to America in the first place?
>
> HRG.
>
> <snip>
TerryG
Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> TerryG wrote:
>
> > No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change
for
> > many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
> > expect it to change my life much at all. The progression of events
I
> > see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
> >
> > - The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
> > someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion
clinic
> > representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an
appeal
> > to the supreme court
>
Well, it just might discourage them a bit.
>
> >
> >
> > or
> >
> > - Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
> > appealed to the supreme court.
>
> This requires the SC is willing to rehear the issue.
>
> Describe an example of a hand-picked case.
In another 2, maybe 4, possibly 6 years, I can't wait for that to come
up again. And you better believe that as soon as the contents of the SC
is made just a little more conservative, it will happen.
>
> > - The supreme court rules against abortion.
>
> Or reinstates, or reinstates but removes viability restrictions, or
removes
> limitations of parental consent, or on procedures.
>
> Many outcomes are possible and reasonable.
Sure but with what I see going on in the US today, I know where my $ is.
>
> > - Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
>
> Or not. And please be clear about what you mean by "reversed."
I mean a decision that reverses the RvW decision. Am I going too fast
for you? There have been many decision reversals over the years.
>
> Roe is overturned, and returned to a matter for the states which
refuse to
> reinstate anti-abortion laws.
I have no doubt that some of the historically liberal states will, at
least initially, continue to allow abortions on demand. But, as you
say, there are lots of possibilities including a universal decision that
attempts to right a terrible wrong like some of the decisions regarding
race.
>
> > - The defendent in the appealed case gets some kind of sanction -
> > probably no jail time for the first few cases after the supreme
court
> > reversal.
>
> What are you talking about here?
>
> That would generate a trial on a person breaking the law and
convicted, it
> will not generate a challenge to Roe. The issue would become an
overturned
> conviction, or not.
Gee, I must be going too fast. Assuming that the court case that
resulted in appeals all the way to the supreme court leads to a pro-life
SC decision, the defendent in the case is subject to penalty. If the
case had been civil the penalty would be financial. If criminal, the
penalty would be some combination of a fine, incarceration, loss of
license, etc.
>
> > - Of course there will be some doctors who either won't believe the
law
> > has changed or choose to challenge the reversal and go ahead and
perform
> > banned abortions.
>
> > - Some prosecuters with guts file criminal charges
>
> Prosecutors are bound to the criminal statutes. Such "guts" requires a
> change in legislation.
Come on. Criminal statues are challenged by good lawyers all the time.
That's how new precedent and interpretations are established.
>
> > - The doctors go to jail, get fined, lose their licenses, etc.
>
> And, if it's me selling methetrexate from the comfort of my home
across the
> border using e-mail?
Oh there will be loopholes alright. But loopholes can be plugged to a
sufficient extent.
>
> > - Doctors stop performing banned abortions.
>
> Most doctor's adhere to the law. Problem is a lot of assumptions and
wishful
> thinking taking place.
Huh? Of course there a lot of speculation here. And you're free to bet
it won't happen and even to try to prevent it from happening. But, once
again, I know where my $ is. The times, they are a changing...
>
> > - At some point (not sure when), states establish commissions to
review,
> > on a random sampling basis, abortions that have been performed using
> > prescribed approval criteria. Doctors that have violated such
criteria
> > are sanctioned in some way: fine, suspended sentence, revocation of
> > license, jail term. Such criteria will be well defined and
unambiguous.
> > Some of the loopholes that have existed in past attempts to limit
> > abortion will be plugged.
>
> Clinic abortions would be affected. Illegal abortions will not. Coat
hangers
> will be replaced by a large number of chemical abortifacients which
can be
> stolen, sought through doctors, purchased out of country.
In the final analysis, this is about attitudes, not laws. Women will
no doubt seek illegal abortion means. And they will live with the
resulting societal stigma that goes along with doing so. There are no
perfect laws or perfect law enforcement.
>
> > Over time, people will realize that abortion as a means of birth
control
> > or avoiding one's responsibilities is not acceptable. Society will
> > focus its talents and resources on figuring out what to do with
> > the relatively small number of children (especially, compared to the
> > number currently being aborted) that do not have adequate parenting.
No
> > doubt, there will be some financial impact to many of us as we share
our
> > great wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.
>
> Right. Wishful. No evidence to support this.
>
Of course not. But once again, with the changing attitudes and complete
disgust with the liberal agenda, I know where my $ is.
> > When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
> > prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've
described
> > - but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
>
> Wishful. No evidence to support this.
I've already answered this more times that anyone wants to hear. It's
hard not to repeat oneself when responding to a broken record.
M is for Malapert
>In article <386bfa69....@news.sonic.net>,
> mi...@sonic.net (M is for Malapert) wrote:
>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >Banning most abortions
>> >will actually save women's lives because fewer will be going thru the
>> >procedure, sanctioned or not.
>>
>> So why were twenty times as many women dying from abortions in the
>> 1950s and 60s as now? Why did the mortality from abortion drop like a
>> stone when abortion was legalized?
>
>You don't get off that easy here, Sir. Now tell us the sources of your
>statistics - or be gone.
See below, for one.
>Perhaps you can tell us what percentage of the
>alleged 4000 abortions performed every day in the US results in death of
>the mother.
About 0.8 in 100,000 abortions results in a woman's death (mostly
second-trimester abortions and up). That is 0.0008%. For abortions
before 9 weeks it's 1 death in 250,000 abortions, or 0.0004%.
(Source: Williams Obstetrics, 1997 edition, page 1340.)
>Now why don't you tell us how many abortions were performed
>in the US prior to RvW
Prior, when? In 1960, for instance, there were anywhere from 500,000
to 1,000,000 illegal abortions per year, and maybe 10,000 legal
abortions.
>and what percentage of those resulted in death of
>the mother.
Depends on how dangerous illegal abortion was compared to legal
abortion. Most experts believe the mortality was similar, and the
mortality from legal abortion in those years was 10 to 25 deaths per
100,000 procedures.
But if the mortality from illegal abortion was *much* higher, because
illegal abortion was quite unsafe, let's say as high as 50 deaths per
100,000 abortions, then there were at least 500,000 illegal abortions
in 1960, when 251 women were reported to have died from abortion (of
course, the actual death toll was higher, but that's the best number
we have).
More likely is that the mortality from illegal abnortion was around 25
deaths per 100,000 procedures, which is how risky illegal abortion was
in the early 1970s, right after legalization. (It's unlikely that
illegal abortion got safer right after legalization; in fact the
reverse is probably true.) That would mean 1,000,000 abortions in
1960, most of them illegal.
>Of course, to have any credibility, you must cite sources.
See below.
>> Go to your nearest medical library and get the Journal of the American
>> Medical Society, vol. 268, no. 22. Read the December 9, 1992 article
>> "Induced termination of pregnancy before and after Roe v. Wade: Trends
>> in the morbidity and mortality of women." This is a MUST-read for
>> anyone who wants to make a claim about the benefits of legal abortion,
>> or wants to counter one.
>>
>> The article was commissioned by the American Medical Society, and
>> researched and written by its Council on Scientific Affairs, precisely
>> to evaluate claims such as yours. The findings were that legalizing
>> abortion indisputably saved women's lives, and that criminalizing it
>> again would result in needless deaths.
>Sorry, but been there, done that.
Liar.
>The study assumes that all abortions
>are banned including those needed to save the life of the mother.
It's not a study, and the article makes no such assumption.
You obviously haven't read it. Why pretend you have?
yoyo...@yup.home
Craig Chilton wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:20:54 GMT, asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
> > abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
> > could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
> > could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
> > idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
> >
> > Thank God I made it out, you know?
>
> Hey! Idiot! (Since you so blithely toss the term around at those
> who least deserve it...) Guess what? You were "you" when in the form
> of sperm and egg that hadn't yet met, too. Were you aware of THAT?
> Thus, since you never defend sperm and ova (even though they, too, are
> both alive and human), may we all assume that if the technology ever
> is developed in the future which would make it possible, that you
> wouldn't mind in the LEAST if some future scientist were to step into
> a time machine, go back in time to just before you were conceived,
> determine exactly which sperm (or egg) would ultimately comprise half
> of YOU... and dispose of it. Right? No harm done, right? Since
> sperm and ova are indefensible, and don't count?
>
> Looks like YOU ...
Looks like you're a loony?
yoyo...@yup.home
Adrienne Regard wrote:
>
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote in message <84fukf$n86$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
> >In article <387077e5.1396551378@news>,
> > api...@ibm.net wrote:
> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:20:54 GMT, asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> > It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
> >> > abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
> >> > could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb.
> >Maybe I
> >> > could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
> >> > idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>
> Hmm. So you'd rather your own mother were forced to bear you against her
> will, eh?
>
> I would much prefer to recognize that my mother had a choice, and made the
> choice to have me.
Sad in that case, then, that your parent would only valued you
for being convenient.
> If that were not true, while I cannot retroactively
> allow her to abort me, I could certainly have enough compassion to insure my
> daughters don't have to bear children against their will.
>
You misstate the choice for Life by claiming it's against a
woman's will. Many women choose life - it happens to be one of
the two choices - especially when presented with the facts about
their unborn offspring. In your zeal to promote the convenient
choice for abortion you only see fit to degrade and mock the
other. That's what makes you a pro-abort.
Ron Nicholson
> In article <386AC306...@home.com>,
> Ron Nicholson <ba...@home.com> wrote:
> > TerryG wrote:
> >
> > > No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change
> for
> > > many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
> > > expect it to change my life much at all. The progression of events
> I
> > > see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
> > >
> > > - The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
> > > someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion
> clinic
> > > representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an
> appeal
> > > to the supreme court
> >
> > Irrelevant. This will not affect the legal right of abortion.
>
> Well, it just might discourage them a bit.
How?
A person requires standing to sue. A consent form is signed to perform an
abortion, unless malpractice, negligence, etc. are present there is no
threat. All doctors operating within the law will not be discouraged.
> > > - Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
> > > appealed to the supreme court.
> >
> > This requires the SC is willing to rehear the issue.
> >
> > Describe an example of a hand-picked case.
>
> In another 2, maybe 4, possibly 6 years, I can't wait for that to come
> up again. And you better believe that as soon as the contents of the SC
> is made just a little more conservative, it will happen.
I asked for a description of the hand picked case. IOW, what law would be
challenged, what right is being violated for the SC to even consider hearing
a case.
> > > - The supreme court rules against abortion.
> >
> > Or reinstates, or reinstates but removes viability restrictions, or
> removes
> > limitations of parental consent, or on procedures.
> >
> > Many outcomes are possible and reasonable.
>
> Sure but with what I see going on in the US today, I know where my $ is.
What are you talking about?
What evidence or bearing does your impression of the general population have
to do with deciding or hearing cases in the SC.
> > > - Roe v Wade is effectively reversed.
> >
> > Or not. And please be clear about what you mean by "reversed."
>
> I mean a decision that reverses the RvW decision. Am I going too fast
> for you? There have been many decision reversals over the years.
You are babbling.
Reversal of Roe does not mean abortion is illegal.
> > Roe is overturned, and returned to a matter for the states which
> refuse to
> > reinstate anti-abortion laws.
>
> I have no doubt that some of the historically liberal states will, at
> least initially, continue to allow abortions on demand. But, as you
> say, there are lots of possibilities including a universal decision that
> attempts to right a terrible wrong like some of the decisions regarding
> race.
Which decision are you talking about. Slavery, if that is your point, was
ended by war and constitutional amendments -- not SC decisions.
> > > - The defendent in the appealed case gets some kind of sanction -
> > > probably no jail time for the first few cases after the supreme
> court
> > > reversal.
> >
> > What are you talking about here?
> >
> > That would generate a trial on a person breaking the law and
> convicted, it
> > will not generate a challenge to Roe. The issue would become an
> overturned
> > conviction, or not.
>
> Gee, I must be going too fast. Assuming that the court case that
> resulted in appeals all the way to the supreme court leads to a pro-life
> SC decision, the defendent in the case is subject to penalty. If the
> case had been civil the penalty would be financial. If criminal, the
> penalty would be some combination of a fine, incarceration, loss of
> license, etc.
Nonsense. You have no clue as to the functioning of the courts -- at any
speed.
1. One must have standing.
2. Or, a law must violate one's right in order to file a lawsuit.
Who has standing? What is the law being tested before the court?
3. The SC, if it did rule in your favour, does not automatically create a
criminal offense.
4. It upholds the law of the state, or it strikes it down.
Even if the case is won, the state is then required to pass a law making the
action a crime.
5. Even if the state does this, we don't prosecute people for their actions
BEFORE they were declared as criminal under the law.
Your wishful thinking stems from your ignorance.
> > > - Of course there will be some doctors who either won't believe the
> law
> > > has changed or choose to challenge the reversal and go ahead and
> perform
> > > banned abortions.
> >
> > > - Some prosecuters with guts file criminal charges
> >
> > Prosecutors are bound to the criminal statutes. Such "guts" requires a
> > change in legislation.
>
> Come on. Criminal statues are challenged by good lawyers all the time.
> That's how new precedent and interpretations are established.
Yes, and that wasn't what I wrote.
Prosecutorial judgement exists in the courts, but a "gutsy" prosecutor can't
charge a person for something that isn't criminal. Reversing Roe doesn't
make abortion a crime.
> > > - The doctors go to jail, get fined, lose their licenses, etc.
> >
> > And, if it's me selling methetrexate from the comfort of my home
> across the
> > border using e-mail?
>
> Oh there will be loopholes alright. But loopholes can be plugged to a
> sufficient extent.
How? How will you stop me from starting an e-mail business in Canada and
supplying methetrexate to women in the US without violating the rights of
individuals, or effectively shutting down the post office, fedex, ups, etc.
> > > - Doctors stop performing banned abortions.
> >
> > Most doctor's adhere to the law. Problem is a lot of assumptions and
> wishful
> > thinking taking place.
>
> Huh? Of course there a lot of speculation here. And you're free to bet
> it won't happen and even to try to prevent it from happening. But, once
> again, I know where my $ is. The times, they are a changing...
My niece has a had wish list for Santa too.
> > > - At some point (not sure when), states establish commissions to
> review,
> > > on a random sampling basis, abortions that have been performed using
> > > prescribed approval criteria. Doctors that have violated such
> criteria
> > > are sanctioned in some way: fine, suspended sentence, revocation of
> > > license, jail term. Such criteria will be well defined and
> unambiguous.
> > > Some of the loopholes that have existed in past attempts to limit
> > > abortion will be plugged.
> >
> > Clinic abortions would be affected. Illegal abortions will not. Coat
> hangers
> > will be replaced by a large number of chemical abortifacients which
> can be
> > stolen, sought through doctors, purchased out of country.
>
> In the final analysis, this is about attitudes, not laws. Women will
> no doubt seek illegal abortion means. And they will live with the
> resulting societal stigma that goes along with doing so. There are no
> perfect laws or perfect law enforcement.
What makes you think pro-choice will sit idly by?
Do you think there aren't legal options available if such an event were to
take place.
> > > Over time, people will realize that abortion as a means of birth
> control
> > > or avoiding one's responsibilities is not acceptable. Society will
> > > focus its talents and resources on figuring out what to do with
> > > the relatively small number of children (especially, compared to the
> > > number currently being aborted) that do not have adequate parenting.
> No
> > > doubt, there will be some financial impact to many of us as we share
> our
> > > great wealth with those less fortunate than ourselves.
> >
> > Right. Wishful. No evidence to support this.
> >
>
> Of course not. But once again, with the changing attitudes and complete
> disgust with the liberal agenda, I know where my $ is.
Rights is a liberal agenda?
The right to bodily integrity is a liberal agenda?
Don't disappointment me now, would you use force, even lethal force, to stop
the unwanted use of your body?
Liberal agenda, right!
> > > When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
> > > prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've
> described
> > > - but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
> >
> > Wishful. No evidence to support this.
>
> I've already answered this more times that anyone wants to hear. It's
> hard not to repeat oneself when responding to a broken record.
What is your evidence?
1. That this in anyway impacts how the SC hears, or deliberates on a given
case?
2. That conservative justices will be nominated and appointed.
3. That conservatives justices vote against abortion, and abortion related
issues?
4. That pro-choice will sit back allow this to happen, or not respond?
hrgr...@my-deja.com
TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <84f5pf$7jj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <84ds66$ah2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > When you've all stopped laughing. Take a deep breath and begin to
> > > prepare yourself for change. It probably won't happen as I've
> > described
> > > - but it will eventually happen. You have my word.
> >
> > coming!) should ever approach reality, let me add one final
> consequence:
> >
> > Airlines will be making big money from charter flights across the
> > Atlantic. There is no chance whatsoever that abortion will become
> > criminal again in Europe.
>
> And don't you think that may be related to why our founding fathers
> escaped to America in the first place?
Poor fellows. My heart goes out to them. They were looking for liberty
and met the RRR. Now they are thinking about escape to Canada (Ron, are
you listening ? Heidi, will you give them asylum ?) ... ;-)
HRG.
> >
> > HRG.
> >
> > <snip>
Craig Chilton
> Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> On Tue, 28 Dec 1999 14:20:54 GMT, asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> It is very sad. These same pasty, fey activists who shout for
>>> abortions on demand because it's not a child are the same people who
>>> could have been speaking for ME while I was in my mom's womb. Maybe I
>>> could not have spoken for myself then, but I sure can now! Hey
>>> idiots! I WAS ME THEN AND I AM ME NOW!
>>>
>>> Thank God I made it out, you know?
>> Hey! Idiot! (Since you so blithely toss the term around at those
>> who least deserve it...) Guess what? You were "you" when in the form
>> of sperm and egg that hadn't yet met, too. Were you aware of THAT?
>> Thus, since you never defend sperm and ova (even though they, too, are
>> both alive and human), may we all assume that if the technology ever
>> is developed in the future which would make it possible, that you
>> wouldn't mind in the LEAST if some future scientist were to step into
>> a time machine, go back in time to just before you were conceived,
>> determine exactly which sperm (or egg) would ultimately comprise half
>> of YOU... and dispose of it. Right? No harm done, right? Since
>> sperm and ova are indefensible, and don't count?
>>
>> Looks like YOU ...
> Looks like you're a loony?
Typical response of a loser having no sensible comeback to offer.
Craig Chilton
asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>In article <386e707b.1394653831@news>,
> Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>>> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
>>>> expected to become children? The ones their mothers decide to
>>>>abort?
>> First off, a woman becomes a mother when she gives BIRTH
>> to a baby.
> What about women that give birth to infants? It's not a baby, it's an
> infant. ;)
Baby = Infant. Humans who have shortly before been BORN.
>>> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts,
>> BUZZ!!! Clue: There's probably no such thing as a "pro-abort."
>> The opposite of ANTI-Choicers are the PRO-Choicers. And PRO-Choicers
>> fully support whatever choice women make, no matter what the decision
>> may be.
> Really? Do you really? How much support have you given to women in
> crisis pregnancies who decided to let their offspring live? Ever
> donated any time/money/resources to a crisis pregnancy center or to an
> adoption center? No?
Do either of those need to be defended against mindless loons who
seek to put an end to them? No? When that happens, let me know, and
I'll herlp them out.
> We realize that you are ashamed of your views, but that's not at all
> surprising. I'd be ashamed too.
ROTFLMAO. You really ARE ignorant! I am 100% proud of being a
defender of human rights, and am VERY thankful that I wasn't brought
up to be a bigoted busybody.
>>> it's only considered a child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of
>>> conception/tissue mass...
>> BUZZ!!! Again! Clue for the Clueless: "Product of conception"
>> and "tissue mass" is what Anti-Choicers would LIKE to think
>> Pro-Choicers regard z/e/fs to be. Pro-Choicers are FULLY aware that
>> women who obtain abortions are eliminating UNWANTED zygotes,
>> embryoes, and/or fetuses.
> What's the difference? Again, "it's not a child or a baby because it's
> not called that." Why, is an adult a human being? But it's called an
> adult! What about a teenager or a toddler? Not humans because we
> don't call them that?
EVERY stage in the human life continuum: sperm, ovum, zygote,
embryo, fetus, baby/infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager,
adult... is human. But there is NO authoritative evidence that
supports ascribing ANY value to the entities that precede birth, when
they are unwanted, and a host has no desire to retain it.
>> And they ALSO are astute enough to realize that thereis NO
>> reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to be any
>> more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
> Except that pesky thing called DNA. But we know by now that
> genetics, biology, and thinking are not your strong points.
Oviously, they're not YOURS. What do you suppose human sperm and
ova contain? Dinosaur DNA? Feline DNA? Canine DNA? NO DNA?
>>> ... if it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called
>>> that.
>> No. It's not a child because to BE a child, one FIRST must have
>> been BORN.
> Well, to be an adult, one must have reached the age of 21. To be a
> teenager, one must have reached the age of 13. What's your point?
> It's still a human being by the virtue of it's genetics and DNA
> structure.
See my comment above.
>>> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>>> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>> No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
>> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded and
>> selfish Anti-Choicers), life is for people of ALL ages from BIRTH on,
>> and for all developing entities which are WANTED by hosts who desire
>> to carry them to term.
> You just said it. Wanted. Life is only for the wanted. Life is only
> for adults, wanted, those priveleged enough to have made it out of the
> war zone of the womb.
Oh? You know soma adults that just emerged from the womb, do you?
No. Life is for all who have been BORN, regardless of the amount of
time that has passed since birth took place.
> Thanks for backing me up.
You certainly have a WEIRD sense of perception.
> Do yourself a favor and don't ever use the word FAIR again.
We are. You aren't. It's as clear-cut as that.
>> (Not that I would expect you, or any other Anti-Choicer, to be able
>> to comprehend any of the above.
> If it was coherent or valid, maybe we would.
It's tiotally clear to all who have minds with which to think.
Unfortunately, Anti-Choice is plagued with people who either don't
have that prerequisite, or who are too brainwashed with the phony
dogma spewed by the RRR Cult to recognize truth and facts if they
were bitten in the butt by them.
Captain Harlock
Wrong. Take a gander at this geriatric fruitcake:
http://www.forerunner.com/fyi/news/ft082999.htm
Beauty AND compassion!
You're always hearing these nuts talking about abortion as "the most
spiritual of all gifts". If abortion is so special and spiritual, why not
have more of them?
Captain Harlock
defender of human rights, and am VERY thankful that I wasn't brought
up to be a bigoted busybody.>>>
You're pro-life then, Creggers?
EVERY stage in the human life continuum: sperm, ovum, zygote,
embryo, fetus, baby/infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager,
adult... is human. But there is NO authoritative evidence that
supports ascribing ANY value to the entities that precede birth, when
they are unwanted, and a host has no desire to retain it.>>>
Sperm isn't developing into consciousness, asshole. My viewpoint differs
from others' in this forum in that DNA doesn't matter. An embryo will one
day be fully independent, and will be able to think and feel. An ovum will
not, as it is an undeveloping particle. The future life of a human embryo is
what gives it its value, not whether or not it contains human DNA.
Host? Tight-lipped tight-assed pro-abortion spin doctorist euphemism if I've
ever heard it.
Oviously, they're not YOURS. What do you suppose human sperm and
ova contain? Dinosaur DNA? Feline DNA? Canine DNA? NO DNA?>>
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
>> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded and
>> selfish Anti-Choicers)>>>
Who says pro-choicers are prone to irrational villianizing?
Vastly outnumber? Check the statistics before you post, you indellible
orange puke-stain.
http://www.pollit.com/wpoll/webpoll2.php3?ID=13880
http://www.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col19980122.html
It's tiotally clear to all who have minds with which to think.
> Unfortunately, Anti-Choice is plagued with people who either don't
> have that prerequisite, or who are too brainwashed with the phony
> dogma spewed by the RRR Cult to recognize truth and facts if they
> were bitten in the butt by them.>>>
I'm sorry, but oversimplifying, villainizing, self-righteousness and denial
are all characteristics of conformist cultist cause-freaks; unfortunately,
they're all characteristics you display.
Oversimplifying- "There are pro-choicers and anti-choicers. Anti-choicers
are bad, evil people and pro-choicers are good, smart people."
Villainizing- "Anti-choicers are selfish, bigotted, biased cultists who
wouldn't recognize truth if it bit them on the ass."
Self-righteousness- No examples, because I couldn't find a passage that
*didn't* reek of arrogance and self-righteousness. Also ends his signature
with his own fucking quote.
Denial- "Pro-choicers vastly outnumber anti-choicers."
Where are your logical arguments, by the way?
Captain Harlock
around and watch retarded British humor.>>
Monty Python isn't retarded, but it is over-referenced. If I have to hear
another Holy Grail impersonation or Parrot Sketch reference I'm gonna ice
someone.
Captain Harlock
pat pat pat.
asa...@my-deja.com
I hear you, but in Patty's case, he's probably wearing women's
clothing, suspenders and a braaaaaa!!!!
--A
asa...@my-deja.com
api...@ibm.net wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:45:45 GMT,
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >In article <386e707b.1394653831@news>,
> > Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not
ever
> >>>> expected to become children? The ones their mothers decide to
> >>>>abort?
>
> >> First off, a woman becomes a mother when she gives BIRTH
> >> to a baby.
>
> > What about women that give birth to infants? It's not a baby,
it's an
> > infant. ;)
>
> Baby = Infant.
Very good, little Craig. Now, where do babies come from?
> >>> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts,
>
> >> BUZZ!!! Clue: There's probably no such thing as a "pro-
abort."
> >> The opposite of ANTI-Choicers are the PRO-Choicers. And PRO-
Choicers
> >> fully support whatever choice women make, no matter what the
decision
> >> may be.
>
> > Really? Do you really? How much support have you given to women
in
> > crisis pregnancies who decided to let their offspring live? Ever
> > donated any time/money/resources to a crisis pregnancy center or to
an
> > adoption center? No?
>
> Do either of those need to be defended against mindless loons who
> seek to put an end to them? No?
Actually, yes, mindless loons like you and Buttrick L. Humphrey who
spend all your time maligning said centers and slinging mud at them,
spouting out rhetoric that they are "anti-choice" and that they mislead
women and lie to them.
When that happens, let me know, and
> I'll herlp them out.
No you won't. That's because you are a pro-abort. Nothing you say has
anything to do with choice, especially with your sanctimonious language
and indignant attitude whenever someone else advocates other choices
besides abortion. You malign everyone that doesn't think like you as
"anti-choice." It's called ANTI-ABORTION.
> > We realize that you are ashamed of your views, but that's not
at all
> > surprising. I'd be ashamed too.
>
> ROTFLMAO. You really ARE ignorant!
Stop breaking my irony meter!
I am 100% proud of being a
> defender of human rights, and am VERY thankful that I wasn't brought
> up to be a bigoted busybody.
You better watch what you do, Craig.
Psalms 101:5
Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that
hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
Proverbs 21:4
An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the wicked, is sin.
Mark 7
22
Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye,
blasphemy, PRIDE, foolishness:
23
All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
1 John 2:16
For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of
the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the
world.
I'm sure you'll find a way to justify you actions against these,
somehow, what with your talent for wicked imaginations. Remember to
cross these out of your Bible...
> >>> it's only considered a child if it's wanted, and a
fetus/product of
> >>> conception/tissue mass...
>
> >> BUZZ!!! Again! Clue for the Clueless: "Product of conception"
> >> and "tissue mass" is what Anti-Choicers would LIKE to think
> >> Pro-Choicers regard z/e/fs to be. Pro-Choicers are FULLY aware
that
> >> women who obtain abortions are eliminating UNWANTED zygotes,
> >> embryoes, and/or fetuses.
>
> > What's the difference? Again, "it's not a child or a baby
because it's
> > not called that." Why, is an adult a human being? But it's called
an
> > adult! What about a teenager or a toddler? Not humans because we
> > don't call them that?
>
> EVERY stage in the human life continuum: sperm, ovum, zygote,
> embryo, fetus, baby/infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager,
> adult... is human.
Then you concede that some humans are more important than others, and
that some humans are better than others such that they have the moral
authority to decide the fate of other humans.
> But there is NO authoritative evidence that
> supports ascribing ANY value to the entities that precede birth, when
> they are unwanted, and a host has no desire to retain it.
Other than that evidence that fetuses are living humans. Again you
concede that life is only for the wanted.
> >> And they ALSO are astute enough to realize that thereis NO
> >> reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to be any
> >> more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
>
> > Except that pesky thing called DNA. But we know by now that
> > genetics, biology, and thinking are not your strong points.
>
> Oviously, they're not YOURS. What do you suppose human sperm and
> ova contain?
The DNA of their owners. What do you suppose the cells of an unborn
human fetus contain? The DNA of the parents? No.....
This is not about what type of DNA defines the fetus. WHO'S DNA
defines the fetus??
> >>> ... if it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called
> >>> that.
>
> >> No. It's not a child because to BE a child, one FIRST must have
> >> been BORN.
>
> > Well, to be an adult, one must have reached the age of 21. To
be a
> > teenager, one must have reached the age of 13. What's your point?
> > It's still a human being by the virtue of it's genetics and DNA
> > structure.
>
> See my comment above.
I did. It was ignorant and simplistic, as usual.
> >>> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> >>> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>
> >> No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
> >> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded
and
> >> selfish Anti-Choicers), life is for people of ALL ages from BIRTH
on,
> >> and for all developing entities which are WANTED by hosts who
desire
> >> to carry them to term.
>
> > You just said it. Wanted. Life is only for the wanted. Life
is only
> > for adults, wanted, those priveleged enough to have made it out of
the
> > war zone of the womb.
>
> Oh? You know soma adults that just emerged from the womb, do you?
Just, no. But I happen to be an adult that was FORTUNATE enough to
have made it out once upon a time. Your point?
> No. Life is for all who have been BORN, regardless of the amount of
> time that has passed since birth took place.
Still don't know where babies come from, Craig? You think they just
magically appear from nowhere between the mother's legs?
You fail on all accounts to describe what part of the birth process
changes the baby into a baby.
BTW, fetus is latin for offspring.
> > Thanks for backing me up.
>
> You certainly have a WEIRD sense of perception.
Likewise, I'm sure.
> > Do yourself a favor and don't ever use the word FAIR again.
>
> We are. You aren't.
Really? You're so fair that you think some humans are more important
than others. How is this fair?
> >> (Not that I would expect you, or any other Anti-Choicer, to be
able
> >> to comprehend any of the above.
>
> > If it was coherent or valid, maybe we would.
>
> It's tiotally clear to all who have minds with which to think.
Oh, so what's your excuse?
rayhobbs
it appears no is sure, and neither am i when reading what is said here??
TerryG wrote:
> Ha! Ha! That's a good one, Hansy! Did you read that somewhere? Whom
> are you trying to impress?
>
> In article <849vce$kaf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hrgr...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <848m15$nrt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > In article <8484gd$bbf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > In article <8480as$88c$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > > > TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > In article <3866251a...@news.jps.net>,
> > > > > elco...@netzero.net (El Coyote) wrote:
> > > > > > I am,
> > > > > > however, tired of the Pro-Lifers mis-using this expression to
> > > cover
> > > > > > those embryos/fetuses which are not ever expected to become
> > > > children.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> > > > expected
> > > > > to become children? The ones their mothers decide to abort?
> > > >
> > > > Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts, it's only considered
> a
> > > > child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of conception/tussue
> mass
> > if
> > > > it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called that.
> > > >
> > > > In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> > > > pampered, perfect, wanted people.
> > > >
> > > > --A
> > >
> > > The sad part is, they are incapable of recognizing their twisted
> > logic.
> >
> > .... said the patient about the doctors that had tried to convince him
> > by logic that he was not Napoleon ...
> >
> > HRG.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > > Before you buy.
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > There are none so blind as those who will not see.
> > >
> > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > > Before you buy.
> > >
> >
> > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> > Before you buy.
> >
>
> --
> There are none so blind as those who will not see.
>
Heidi Graw
(snip)
>Hans-Richard wrote:
>Poor fellows. My heart goes out to them. They were looking for liberty
>and met the RRR. Now they are thinking about escape to Canada (Ron, are
>you listening ? Heidi, will you give them asylum ?) ... ;-)
Hmm, they just might qualify under the "theocratical refugees"
catagory. :-)
~*~*~*~*~*~
Heidi Graw
http://homestead.deja.com/user.heidi_graw/
"There is one difference between
a tax collector and a taxidermist
- the taxidermist leaves the hide."
---Mortimer Caplin---
~*~*~*~*~*~
Patrick L. Humphrey
(to Lizard, whose reference he scragged)
>>You mean everyone else that doesn't have anything better to do than sit
>>around and watch retarded British humor.
>Monty Python isn't retarded, but it is over-referenced. If I have to hear
>another Holy Grail impersonation or Parrot Sketch reference I'm gonna ice
>someone.
So you want a slice of strawberry tart without so much rat in it, do you?
--PLH, looks like the Cap'n did the icing -- faceoff goes back to his end of
the ice, oh well
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <84m7us$frt$1...@nd.eastky.net>,
> "Captain Harlock" <GBroa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> You mean everyone else that doesn't have anything better to do than sit
>> around and watch retarded British humor.>>
>> Monty Python isn't retarded, but it is over-referenced. If I have to hear
>> another Holy Grail impersonation or Parrot Sketch reference I'm gonna ice
>> someone.
>I hear you, but in Patty's case, he's probably wearing women's
>clothing, suspenders and a braaaaaa!!!!
Not quite -- you might want to ask Dale Ann the Devious, though, seeing as
that's more her attire. Are you always so easy to amuse?
--PLH, I guess Lizard didn't roll over to 2K
margare...@plannedmurderhood.org
Craig Chilton wrote:
>
> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:45:45 GMT,
> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >In article <386e707b.1394653831@news>,
> > Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >>>> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
> >>>> expected to become children? The ones their mothers decide to
> >>>>abort?
>
> >> First off, a woman becomes a mother when she gives BIRTH
> >> to a baby.
>
> > What about women that give birth to infants? It's not a baby, it's an
> > infant. ;)
>
> Baby = Infant. Humans who have shortly before been BORN.
>
A premature infant, if still the womb, would be a fetus. Hence,
a fetus is an unborn baby. Tricky, huh?
> >>> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts,
>
> >> BUZZ!!! Clue: There's probably no such thing as a "pro-abort."
> >> The opposite of ANTI-Choicers are the PRO-Choicers. And PRO-Choicers
> >> fully support whatever choice women make, no matter what the decision
> >> may be.
>
> > Really? Do you really? How much support have you given to women in
> > crisis pregnancies who decided to let their offspring live? Ever
> > donated any time/money/resources to a crisis pregnancy center or to an
> > adoption center? No?
>
> Do either of those need to be defended against mindless loons who
> seek to put an end to them? No? When that happens, let me know, and
> I'll herlp them out.
>
LOONS? I taught you that word! You friggin moronic dumbass
craphound! Ok, lesson's over...
> > We realize that you are ashamed of your views, but that's not at all
> > surprising. I'd be ashamed too.
>
> ROTFLMAO. You really ARE ignorant! I am 100% proud of being a
> defender of human rights, and am VERY thankful that I wasn't brought
> up to be a bigoted busybody.
>
Translation into English:
"BLEEEECH! Blah blah BLAH! Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah BLAH blah blah blah."
> >>> it's only considered a child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of
> >>> conception/tissue mass...
>
> >> BUZZ!!! Again! Clue for the Clueless: "Product of conception"
> >> and "tissue mass" is what Anti-Choicers would LIKE to think
> >> Pro-Choicers regard z/e/fs to be. Pro-Choicers are FULLY aware that
> >> women who obtain abortions are eliminating UNWANTED zygotes,
> >> embryoes, and/or fetuses.
>
> > What's the difference? Again, "it's not a child or a baby because it's
> > not called that." Why, is an adult a human being? But it's called an
> > adult! What about a teenager or a toddler? Not humans because we
> > don't call them that?
>
> EVERY stage in the human life continuum: sperm, ovum, zygote,
> embryo, fetus, baby/infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager,
> adult... is human. But there is NO authoritative evidence that
> supports ascribing ANY value to the entities that precede birth, when
> they are unwanted, and a host has no desire to retain it.
>
Observation: Chilton can distinguish HUMAN life from other forms
of life. (Fact: This is based on genetic structure.) Observation
#2: Chilton makes no similar distinction between a human sperm
and a human embryo, when such a distinction is possible (as they
have a totally different genetic structure).
Conclusion: Chilton is a full of shit. He says what suits him in
different instances.
> >> And they ALSO are astute enough to realize that thereis NO
> >> reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to be any
> >> more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
>
> > Except that pesky thing called DNA. But we know by now that
> > genetics, biology, and thinking are not your strong points.
>
> Oviously, they're not YOURS. What do you suppose human sperm and
> ova contain? Dinosaur DNA? Feline DNA? Canine DNA? NO DNA?
>
We're all part of the continuum of life. Indeed, why distinguish
between human life and cat life if we don't distinguish between
a human fetus and a sperm (as based on the criteria above)?
Yeah, you're as valuable as the next lump of blue-green algae,
Chilton. I always thought you were a piece of worthless slime,
Chilton.
> >>> ... if it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called
> >>> that.
>
> >> No. It's not a child because to BE a child, one FIRST must have
> >> been BORN.
>
> > Well, to be an adult, one must have reached the age of 21. To be a
> > teenager, one must have reached the age of 13. What's your point?
> > It's still a human being by the virtue of it's genetics and DNA
> > structure.
>
> See my comment above.
>
> >>> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
> >>> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>
> >> No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
> >> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded and
> >> selfish Anti-Choicers), life is for people of ALL ages from BIRTH on,
> >> and for all developing entities which are WANTED by hosts who desire
> >> to carry them to term.
>
> > You just said it. Wanted. Life is only for the wanted. Life is only
> > for adults, wanted, those priveleged enough to have made it out of the
> > war zone of the womb.
>
> Oh? You know soma adults that just emerged from the womb, do you?
>
> No. Life is for all who have been BORN, regardless of the amount of
> time that has passed since birth took place.
>
Chilton has made this worthless assertion several thousand times
in this NG already, no doubt. It must be almost due to come true
by now. What do you reckon, Chilton?
> > Thanks for backing me up.
>
> You certainly have a WEIRD sense of perception.
>
> > Do yourself a favor and don't ever use the word FAIR again.
>
> We are. You aren't. It's as clear-cut as that.
>
> >> (Not that I would expect you, or any other Anti-Choicer, to be able
> >> to comprehend any of the above.
>
> > If it was coherent or valid, maybe we would.
>
> It's tiotally clear to all who have minds with which to think.
> Unfortunately, Anti-Choice is plagued with people who either don't
> have that prerequisite, or who are too brainwashed with the phony
> dogma spewed by the RRR Cult to recognize truth and facts if they
> were bitten in the butt by them.
>
Translation into English:
"Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."
hrgr...@my-deja.com
rayhobbs <rayh...@iafrica.com> wrote:
> will someone please explain to me when a human being becomes a human
being ?
> it appears no is sure, and neither am i when reading what is said
here??
It is a question that different people answer differently, depending on
their world views, ethical systems, cultural backgrounds etc.
We cannot prove (in the mathematical sense) that any specific answer is
false, only that it leads to absurd consequences, does not conform to
the general opinions of a particular society, is inconsistent with
generally recognized principles etc.
IMHO, of course. Many people claim that there is a single Absolutely
True Answer to your question - which just happens to coincide with
their own answer ...
Regards,
HRG.
<snip>
The Ghost In The Machine
wrote on Mon, 03 Jan 2000 21:44:05 +0200 <3870FC04...@iafrica.com>:
>will someone please explain to me when a human being becomes a human being ?
>it appears no is sure, and neither am i when reading what is said here??
Good question.
One issue with "human-beingness", as opposed to mere "humanness"
(note the difference; a big toe is human -- namely, a human big toe --
but it's not a human being), is the "being" part. Now, one can
quibble with sentience here -- a dangerous road, for several reasons;
the simplest being that a child does not distinguish self from non-self
until about 16 months, give or take a few; this if my memory is correct.
Killing neonates isn't sanctioned by anybody! :-)
But there's one simple method by which one can distinguish a human
being from a non-human being -- and that's the ability to hand off
the entity to Grandma, hubby, or a wet nurse for successful nursing,
using a bottle, or a breast.
Foetii can't do that (at least with current technology); neonates can. [*]
One can argue of course that there's far more to being a human being
at that; I agree, but the issue is not a baby's human-beingness, it's
whether a baby is enough of a human being to be protected by the law,
and whether a foetus is also. The baby makes the cut, but the foetus
does not.
Another quibble is that of viability -- that is, a sufficiently
developed foetus that can be removed without (much!) harm from
the woman's uterus prior to the natural completion of the pregnancy.
Because of various factors, the lungs are the last thing to prevent
a foetus from becoming a baby (they are, for some reason, the
last item to develop); the boundary point appears to be about
24 weeks, give or take a week or so.
One problem is that viability is rather fuzzy; there have been
claims, unsubstantied as yet by me personally, that foetii as
young as 19 weeks have been successfully removed from the womb
and survived. (I'm not sure I believe these claims, but there
are a few problems right now about estimating gestational age;
a woman's body is not as regular as a doctor would like her to be... :-) )
Also, the development of the lungs is rather gradual.
So viability is a problematic line to determine human-beingness.
Birth is, by contrast, extremely clear-cut; the only quibble here
might be whether the baby's head is out prior to it being "aborted",
a procedure that is inherently dangerous (requiring major surgery),
very often misconstrued or misunderstood, and rarely done on anything
but foetii which are already dead or not likely to live long (e.g.,
anencephalics -- essentially, babies with froth for brains).
In short, a third-trimester procedure isn't going to be done for
the fun of it! :-)
To sum up: it's a human being when it's out of the womb. It
merits some protection when it's sufficiently developed that it
can in fact be removed from the womb and be cared for by someone
other than the mother.
Prior to that -- it's her choice.
This is all my opinion, of course.
[rest snipped]
[*] A zygote/blastula/gastrula can be created in a Petri dish
and implanted in a woman; variants of this technique have been
used in fertility clinics for some years, if not decades. However,
a blastula/gastrula is an extremely primitive form of an
embryo, looking rather like a misshapen ball of cells at best.
One would most likely be hard pressed to distinguish this thing
from a form of cancer. Later on, of course, it acquires
some vaguely human characteristics -- a head, a torso, appendages,
a beating tubule for a heart, a notochord which will eventually
become the backbone/spinal cord, etc.
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
asa...@my-deja.com
Heh heh, Patty doesn't recognize his own Monty Python.
Perhaps your wife knows how to cook, too, although Betty Crocker never
gave a recipe for crow.
PLH once again drawing a low pressure area
--A
Patrick L. Humphrey
>In article <szkyaa6...@eris.io.com>,
> pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote:
>> asa...@my-deja.com writes:
>> >In article <84m7us$frt$1...@nd.eastky.net>,
>> > "Captain Harlock" <GBroa...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> You mean everyone else that doesn't have anything better to do than sit
>> >> around and watch retarded British humor.>>
>> >> Monty Python isn't retarded, but it is over-referenced. If I have to hear
>> >> another Holy Grail impersonation or Parrot Sketch reference I'm gonna ice
>> >> someone.
>> >I hear you, but in Patty's case, he's probably wearing women's
>> >clothing, suspenders and a braaaaaa!!!!
>> Not quite -- you might want to ask Dale Ann the Devious, though, seeing as
>> that's more her attire. Are you always so easy to amuse?
>>
>> --PLH, I guess Lizard didn't roll over to 2K
>Heh heh, Patty doesn't recognize his own Monty Python.
I don't? Pardon me for not mentioning anything about never having been
possessed by any particular dream to be...a LUMBERJACK!
(Jesus Edison Christ knee-deep in a copper bathtub with his finger in the
light socket, lady...I've seen the whole original series. Just because I
don't take your troll bait doesn't mean I don't know what you're babbling
about.)
>Perhaps your wife knows how to cook, too, although Betty Crocker never
>gave a recipe for crow.
We both know how to cook a few things -- sorry, you'll never be invited. (At
least not until I slip a few habaneros into the chili.)
>PLH once again drawing a low pressure area
Not much on meteorology, either, are you? Last time I looked, it was a
high-pressure cell that's freezing your butt up there...have fun shoveling
snow.
--PLH, down here where it snows two or three times a century, whether we need
it or not
Craig Chilton
<GBroa...@aol.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton wrote:
>> ROTFLMAO. You really ARE ignorant! I am 100% proud of being a
>> defender of human rights, and am VERY thankful that I wasn't brought
>> up to be a bigoted busybody.
> You're pro-life then, Creggers?
(You remind me of another Anti-Choicer in here. HE can't spell
worth a damn, either.)
Of COURSE I'm pro-life. I have yet to meet a fellow Pro-Choicer
who isn't. That's why we all get such a chuckle out of the absurdity
of Anti-Choicers thinking that THEY have a corner on that. The
difference between Anti-Choicers and Pro-Choicers is that Pro-Choicers
sensibly and reasonably defend human life using BIRTH as the
meaningful starting point, while Anti-Choicers rant and rave in
defense of mere DEVELOPING entities which not even the
Bible defends.
>> EVERY stage in the human life continuum: sperm, ovum, zygote,
>> embryo, fetus, baby/infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager,
>> adult... is human. But there is NO authoritative evidence that
>> supports ascribing ANY value to the entities that precede birth, when
>> they are unwanted, and a host has no desire to retain it.
> Sperm isn't developing into consciousness, asshole.
)Fence-sitters: Observe the mean-spiritedness inherent in so many
Anti-Choicers. Name-calling, for example, without appropriate or
sufficient provocation.)
Just TRY to EVER obtain an entity which has consciousness
which DIDN'T first pass through the stage of being a sperm.
Later on, as cloning is perfected, that will become possible.
But it's not possible now.
> My viewpoint differs from others' in this forum in that DNA doesn't matter.
> An embryo will one day be fully independent, and will be able to think and
> feel. An ovum will not, as it is an undeveloping particle. The future life of
> a human embryo is what gives it its value, not whether or not it contains
> human DNA.
Okay. Let's STERILIZE a human couple, such that HE has no sperm,
and SHE has no ova... but everything ELSE reamins intact. And THEN
see what sort of future their embryoes have.
My point: That human life IS a continuum, and sperm and ova are
FULLY as necessary to it as are zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses.
Just as importantly: There is absolutely NO reason to arbitrarily
ascribe value to ANY of those five stages prior to birth. And not
even the Bible attempts to defend any of those stages, as I pointed
out above.
> Host? Tight-lipped tight-assed pro-abortion spin doctorist euphemism
> if I've ever heard it.
Gosh. I'm really sorry if the English language is that problematic
for you. Perhaps you'd have better luck with Spanish or French?
When a body contains a developing entity, that IS what the host
body IS. A "host." If you really can't understand that, I'm sure
that seeking out a teacher appropriate to your level of comprehension
might help. He or she might be able to get hold of a "Dick and Jane"
book for you.
>>>> And they ALSO are astute enough to realize that thereis NO
>>>> reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to be any
>>>> more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
>>> Except that pesky thing called DNA. But we know by now that
>>> genetics, biology, and thinking are not your strong points.
>> Obviously, they're not YOURS. What do you suppose human sperm
>> and ova contain? Dinosaur DNA? Feline DNA? Canine DNA?
>> NO DNA?
> What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Ask Asaurus. She's the one who brought it up that DNA thing.
>>>> No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
>>>> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded and
>>>> selfish Anti-Choicers)
> Who says pro-choicers are prone to irrational villianizing?
> Vastly outnumber? Check the statistics before you post, you indellible
> orange puke-stain.
(Fence-sitters: Take note of the last three words of the above
paragraph. Why would ANYONE want to be associate with people
who are as bigoted and mindless as THAT?)
The RELIABLE polls, such as Harris, Gallup, and many others do.
And I did check them... and have checked them for decades. We've
always been in the majority by a ratio of at least 2:1. (It only
makes sense, though. A person would have to be pretty stupid to
pursue an agenda that rabidly defends mere, indefensible, no-sentient
developing entities, at the attempted EXPENSE of the rights,
well-being, future opportunities, and opportunities of tens of
millions of women. No one could reasonbly expect such an intolerant
and bigoted faction EVER to be in the majority. And 'WAY too many
people are more intelligent than to ever be sucked into such
nonsensical pursuits.
Instead of those reliable polls, YOU cited:
> http://www.pollit.com/wpoll/webpoll2.php3?ID=13880
Which is merely one of those Internet-user - created polls which
can target specialized (and thus skewed and totally-unrepresentative-
of-the-gerneral-public) audiences via targeted and cooperating
websites... such as Anti-Choice ones. Totally meaningless. I could
create an identical poll, get the cooperation of solely PRO-Choice
websites in carrying it or linking to it... and get the OPPOSITE
outcome. There is nothing credible about such unscientific
poll-taking.
Having significantly MORE credibility, though, was the OTHER
site you cited:
> http://www.mediaresearch.org/columns/news/col19980122.html
...which is an article that begins with THIS paragraph:
"The Media's Pro-Abortion Bias"
By L. Brent Bozell III
January 22, 1998
# A surprising poll on the front page of The New York Times
# on January 16 [1998] showed a notable shift from general
# acceptance" of abortion. I say "surprising" because The New
# York Times/CBS News poll did something that most polls don't do,
# breaking down support for abortion into trimesters. While 61
# percent favor the choice of abortion in the first trimester (28
# percent are opposed), that support collapses to only 15 percent
# during the second trimester; 66 percent oppose it. And in the
# third trimester, support evaporates: only seven percent are in
# favor, while 79 percent are against it.
Before making my main comment, I wish to say that I've found that
most fellow Pro-Choicers that I know feel as I do, in defense of the
procedure properly known as "Intact D&E" (and pejoratively referred-to
by Anti-Choicers as "partial-birth abortion") -- that we do so to keep
the Anti-Choice camel from getting its nose under the abortion rights
tent. Most ID&E abortions occur during the second trimester, though.
NOT the third one, as most people don't seem to realize.
My main comment about the above is THIS:
Note that the author of that article conveniently did NOT happen
to mention HOW MANY abortions are FIRST-trimester ones. It's over
93%. And according to the poll he cites, 66% support them.
Remember what I said, above? That 2/3 of the people SUPPORT
abortion rights, according to reliable polls? Well, according to this
poll that YOU cited, 66%... which is 2/3... the ratio of 2:1... in
favor of abortion rights -- support over 93% of the abortions which
are performed.
America IS vastly Pro-Choice. And as much as you'd like to, you
won't find ANY poll which is RELIABLE to refute that. Why? Because
reliable polls simply reflect accurately that which is TRUE.
> It's totally clear to all who have minds with which to think.
Precisely. That's my point. Most people who use their heads and
are fair-minded are Pro-Choice.
>> Unfortunately, Anti-Choice is plagued with people who either don't
>> have that prerequisite, or who are too brainwashed with the phony
>> dogma spewed by the RRR Cult to recognize truth and facts if they
>> were bitten in the butt by them.
> I'm sorry, but oversimplifying, villainizing, self-righteousness and denial
> are all characteristics of conformist cultist cause-freaks; unfortunately,
> they're all characteristics you display.
>
> Oversimplifying- "There are pro-choicers and anti-choicers. Anti-choicers
> are bad, evil people and pro-choicers are good, smart people."
I never said that Anti-Choicers are "bad" people. That WOULD be
oversimplification. What Anti-Choicers universally ARE, however, is
as described by THESE terms: Busybodies, control-freaks, selfish,
mean-spirited (inwardly, at least, no matter what front they put on
for public consumption. NO one who is NOT mean-spirited could promote
an agenda which would invariably -- if allowed to succeed -- impose
hardship upon women by the multiple millions), and intolerant of the
rights and well-being of their neighbors. Further, those of them who
CLAIM to be Christians are strangely-deluded ones, since their
mean-spiritedness as just described constitutes a total REJECTION of
all of Jesus' and the Bible's commands that we show love and
compassion to our neighbors. One CANNOT practice that while
simultaneously seeking to impose hardship upon them.
> Villainizing- "Anti-choicers are selfish, bigotted, biased cultists who
> wouldn't recognize truth if it bit them on the ass."
Acually, "butt" is the word I used, if you have ANY interest in
accuracy. As for "villainizing" them, no such thing is necessary.
They villainize THEMSELVES simply by BEING selfish, bigoted, and
averse to recognizing such truths as those I just described above.
> Self-righteousness -- No examples, because I couldn't find a passage
> that *didn't* reek of arrogance and self-righteousness.
Then you obviously don't read very well. And since my posts
defend people's rights and well-being against mindless intolerance,
I guess that makes me as "self-righteous" as was Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., doesn't it. Hey! I'd be PROUD to be "guilty" of
possessing THAT sort of "self-righteousness." And very ASHAMED
to be the brand of ACTUAL self-righteous person that so many
Anti-Choicers PROVE themselves to be.
> Also ends his signature with his own fucking quote.
ROTFLMAO!!! There's something WRONG with coining a quotation, and
then citing it, is there?! LOL!! What an incredible LOSER you are!
The sig used in the post to which you are responding was THIS one:
"Let's Work Together to bring America into the
New Millennium as a Bigotry-Free Zone!"
You see something WRONG with that statement, do you?
Hmmm. Of COURSE you would. Tolerance is ANATHEMA to the likes
of you.
> Denial- "Pro-choicers vastly outnumber anti-choicers."
ROTFL!!! See my comments above, about the polls... including even
one that YOU cited!
> Where are your logical arguments, by the way?
All over the place. Unlike yours, which are 100% ABSENT.
-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net
"Cure an Anti-Choicer or an RRR Cultist of BUSYBODYISM,
and the resulting person will be an asset to society."
Ray Fischer
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> TerryG <terry...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >No doubt banning unlimited abortions will amount to a culture change
>for
>> >many people. 1973 was a long time ago. For me personally, I don't
>> >expect it to change my life much at all.
>>
>> So what if a few women die. So what if there are more children raised
>> in foster care. So what if more people live unloved and persecuted.
>>
>> After all, it won't affect you. What do you care?
>
>We don't have any reliable statistics on the number of women who are
>dying now from sanctioned abortions, now do we?
Yes, we do. From 5 to 15 women die in a given year in the US from
abortion.
> Banning most abortions
>will actually save women's lives because fewer will be going thru the
>procedure, sanctioned or not.
Another anti-abortion lie. The death rate from childbirth is ten
times the death rate from legal abortion.
> If you don't believe this, prove me wrong
>with some verifiable statistics.
Sure. http://www.cdc.gov is a good place to start for US government
statistics.
In a given year about 5 women die of abortion and 300 die from
pregnancy/childbirth. Since there are about 3 times as many births as
abortions, that puts the death rate from pregnancy/birth at about
ten times that of abortion.
>I have yet to meet a single foster child or adopted child who wished he
>or she had never been born, have you?
What an idiotic statement. Have you ever met an aborted child who
wished it had been born? No? Then obviously abortion is preferred,
right?
>So you decide who has a life worth living.
Not me.
> While I believe in God,
No you don't. You worship only your own arrogance.
>> > The progression of events I
>> >see could be (and I don't pretend to be an expert on this):
>>
>> You're not an expert on much of anything.
>
>And you are....
Yes.
>> >- The issue could be raised in a couple of different ways. Perhaps
>> >someone could start a class-action suit against a large abortion
>clinic
>> >representing all the babies aborted by the clinic leading to an
>appeal
>> >to the supreme court
>>
>> LOL! Not possible, since a fetus is not a person.
>
>At one time the supreme court acted as if it is.
Wrong again.
>> >or
>> >
>> >- Some individual, hand-picked case involving an abortion could be
>> >appealed to the supreme court.
>>
>> The only individuals involved are pregnant women. The court doesn't
>> generally consider people who complain that they have too much
>> freedom.
>
>Oh I'd love to see a father file a suit or criminal charges against
>someone aborting his child without his consent.
Been there. Done that. A woman is not a man's servant, and he has no
right to demand that she gestate for him. The courts refuse to force
a pregnant woman to gestate for another person.
>> >- The supreme court rules against abortion.
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because they choose to reverse the mistake that Justice Brennan went to
>his grave regretting.
Wasn't a mistake, idiot.
--
Ray Fischer Women and cats will do as they please and men and dogs
r...@netcom.com should relax and get used to the idea. -- Robert Heinlein
Ray Fischer
>Craig Chilton wrote:
>> Baby = Infant. Humans who have shortly before been BORN.
>>
>A premature infant, if still the womb, would be a fetus.
But it would not be a premature infant.
> Hence,
>a fetus is an unborn baby. Tricky, huh?
Not "tricky". Wrong.
Craig Chilton
(aka "NITWIT," for having chosen such an untruthful,
absurd, and mean-spirited nick) wrote:
> Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:45:45 GMT,
>> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> In article <386e707b.1394653831@news>,
>>> Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
TO READERS: This response MAY appear twice. I experienced
a server problem on the first try. --Craig
>>>>>> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not ever
>>>>>> expected to become children? The ones their mothers decide to
>>>>>>abort?
>>>> First off, a woman becomes a mother when she gives BIRTH
>>>> to a baby.
>>> What about women that give birth to infants? It's not a baby, it's an
>>> infant. ;)
>> Baby = Infant. Humans who have shortly before been BORN.
> A premature infant, if still the womb, would be a fetus. Hence,
> a fetus is an unborn baby. Tricky, huh?
Not at all tricky, except for your lame attempt to play word games
with legitimate terms. A "premature infant" has been BORN. (That's
why they're called "preemies," so often, for short... bacause they
have been BORN prematurely. PRIOR to birth, the womb contains a
FETUS.
>>>>> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts,
>>>> BUZZ!!! Clue: There's probably no such thing as a "pro-abort."
>>>> The opposite of ANTI-Choicers are the PRO-Choicers. And PRO-Choicers
>>>> fully support whatever choice women make, no matter what the decision
>>>> may be.
>>> Really? Do you really? How much support have you given to women in
>>> crisis pregnancies who decided to let their offspring live? Ever
>>> donated any time/money/resources to a crisis pregnancy center or to an
>>> adoption center? No?
>> Do either of those need to be defended against mindless loons who
>> seek to put an end to them? No? When that happens, let me know, and
>> I'll herlp them out.
> LOONS? I taught you that word! You friggin moronic dumbass
> craphound! Ok, lesson's over...
Yeah. With the vocabulary YOU have, you COULD give lessons to
bonafide loons. Which is derived from "lunatic," by the way. You
can't take credit for "teaching" that word to anybody.
And as usual, BTW, you have said NOTHING of substance. If you ever
do, in this post, I'll let you know.
>>> We realize that you are ashamed of your views, but that's not at all
>>> surprising. I'd be ashamed too.
>> ROTFLMAO. You really ARE ignorant! I am 100% proud of being a
>> defender of human rights, and am VERY thankful that I wasn't brought
>> up to be a bigoted busybody.
> Translation into English:
>
> "BLEEEECH! Blah blah BLAH! Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah BLAH blah blah blah."
(Fence-sitters, take note: Once AGAIN we see a prime example of
how a mindless Anti-Choicer can't deal with the reality of being
unable to refute a valid argument. Also, the concept of being a
defender of human rights is alien to Anti-Choicers, who would
willingly allow hardship to be imposed upon tens of millions of their
neighbors, while lamely defending non-sentient entities.)
>>>>> it's only considered a child if it's wanted, and a fetus/product of
>>>>> conception/tissue mass...
>>>> BUZZ!!! Again! Clue for the Clueless: "Product of conception"
>>>> and "tissue mass" is what Anti-Choicers would LIKE to think
>>>> Pro-Choicers regard z/e/fs to be. Pro-Choicers are FULLY aware that
>>>> women who obtain abortions are eliminating UNWANTED zygotes,
>>>> embryoes, and/or fetuses.
>>> What's the difference? Again, "it's not a child or a baby because it's
>>> not called that." Why, is an adult a human being? But it's called an
>>> adult! What about a teenager or a toddler? Not humans because we
>>> don't call them that?
>> EVERY stage in the human life continuum: sperm, ovum, zygote,
>> embryo, fetus, baby/infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager,
>> adult... is human. But there is NO authoritative evidence that
>> supports ascribing ANY value to the entities that precede birth, when
>> they are unwanted, and a host has no desire to retain it.
> Observation: Chilton can distinguish HUMAN life from other forms
> of life. (Fact: This is based on genetic structure.) Observation
> #2: Chilton makes no similar distinction between a human sperm
> and a human embryo, when such a distinction is possible (as they
> have a totally different genetic structure).
Genetic STRUCTURE is meaningless, since the same genetic components
which are found in the z/e/f are present (and just as necessary to the
ultimate entity) in the sperm and the egg. The fact that the sperm
and egg had not yet met is immaterial.
> Conclusion: Chilton is a full of shit. He says what suits him in
> different instances.
And I just proved your argument absurd, making the ACTUAL
conclusion that you have again demonstrated your arguments to be
specious.
>>>> And they ALSO are astute enough to realize that there is NO
>>>> reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to be any
>>>> more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
>>> Except that pesky thing called DNA. But we know by now that
>>> genetics, biology, and thinking are not your strong points.
>> Oviously, they're not YOURS. What do you suppose human sperm and
>> ova contain? Dinosaur DNA? Feline DNA? Canine DNA? NO DNA?
> We're all part of the continuum of life. Indeed, why distinguish
> between human life and cat life if we don't distinguish between
> a human fetus and a sperm (as based on the criteria above)?
For the reasons I stated. Any given pair of sperm and ova which
has not yet met can be regarded a potential person. Just as any z/e/f
can be regarded as such. Sperm, ova, zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses
which are unwanted have no value beyond that which a person may
ARBITRARILY (but with no biblical or scientific rationate backing that
decision) choose to ascribe to it or them.
> Yeah, you're as valuable as the next lump of blue-green algae,
> Chilton. I always thought you were a piece of worthless slime,
> Chilton.
Once again. fence-sitters, OBSERVE the mentality and mindset of
Anti-Choice. She's doing you a big favor by revealing these flaws to
you, so blatantly.
>>>>> ... if it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called
>>>>> that.
>>>> No. It's not a child because to BE a child, one FIRST must have
>>>> been BORN.
>>> Well, to be an adult, one must have reached the age of 21. To be a
>>> teenager, one must have reached the age of 13. What's your point?
>>> It's still a human being by the virtue of it's genetics and DNA
>>> structure.
>> See my comment above.
>>>>> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>>>>> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>>>> No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
>>>> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded and
>>>> selfish Anti-Choicers), life is for people of ALL ages from BIRTH on,
>>>> and for all developing entities which are WANTED by hosts who desire
>>>> to carry them to term.
>>> You just said it. Wanted. Life is only for the wanted. Life is only
>>> for adults, wanted, those priveleged enough to have made it out of the
>>> war zone of the womb.
>> Oh? You know some adults that just emerged from the womb, do you?
>>
>> No. Life is for all who have been BORN, regardless of the amount of
>> time that has passed since birth took place.
> Chilton has made this worthless assertion several thousand times
> in this NG already, no doubt. It must be almost due to come true
> by now. What do you reckon, Chilton?
Not so. It was true LONG before I ever pointed it out. It has
always been true. And is not an "assertion." It IS... truth. And
Anti-Choicers have NO regard for truth. And, all too frequently, no
ability to comprehend it.
>>> Thanks for backing me up.
>> You certainly have a WEIRD sense of perception.
>>> Do yourself a favor and don't ever use the word FAIR again.
>> We are. You aren't. It's as clear-cut as that.
>>>> (Not that I would expect you, or any other Anti-Choicer, to be able
>>>> to comprehend any of the above.
>>> If it was coherent or valid, maybe we would.
>> It's tiotally clear to all who have minds with which to think.
>> Unfortunately, Anti-Choice is plagued with people who either don't
>> have that prerequisite, or who are too brainwashed with the phony
>> dogma spewed by the RRR Cult to recognize truth and facts if they
>> were bitten in the butt by them.
> Translation into English:
>
> "Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."
No. That's not English. It's a demonstration of the degree to
which Anti-Choicers can comprehend truth.
And -- what a surprise! [ :) ] You never DID, even ONCE, say
ANYTHING of substance in this post. So you're still batting 1.0000 in
that department. Your rep for mindlessness is untarnished.
Craig Chilton
> In article <3876ef30.71127724@news>,
> api...@ibm.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:45:45 GMT,
>> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> In article <386e707b.1394653831@news>,
>>> Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
TO READERS: This post MAY appear more than once on your
server, due to an apparent glitch in this area
with AT&T's "@home" service.
>>>>>> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not
>>>>>> ever expected to become children? The ones their mothers
>>>>>> decide to abort?
>>>> First off, a woman becomes a mother when she gives BIRTH
>>>> to a baby.
>>> What about women that give birth to infants? It's not a baby,
>>> it's an infant. ;)
>> Baby = Infant.
> Very good, little Craig. Now, where do babies come from?
"Little?" ROTFL!! You obviously have no idea what I look like.
For if you do, then if you're female, as you claim, and say that, you
must be an Amazon! :)
Babies come from DEVELOPING entities, just as ALL lifeforms do.
Sperm and ova are JUST as important a part of that continuum as z/e/fs
are, for without those, there would be NO z/e/fs. But no one's trying
to defend sperm and ova. It makes no more sense to attempt to defend
z/e/fs.
>>>>> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts,
>>>> BUZZ!!! Clue: There's probably no such thing as a "pro-
>>>> abort." The opposite of ANTI-Choicers are the PRO-Choicers.
>>>> And PRO-Choicers fully support whatever choice women make,
>>>> no matter what the decision may be.
>>> Really? Do you really? How much support have you given to
>>> women in crisis pregnancies who decided to let their offspring live?
>>> Ever donated any time/money/resources to a crisis pregnancy center
>>> or to an adoption center? No?
>> Do either of those need to be defended against mindless loons who
>> seek to put an end to them? No?
> Actually, yes, mindless loons like you and Buttrick L. Humphrey who
> spend all your time maligning said centers and slinging mud at them,
> spouting out rhetoric that they are "anti-choice" and that they mislead
> women and lie to them.
Many of those phony "clinics" have been known to impose the
watching of an Anti-Choice film upon those who enter. And I have
never YET heard of one that has NOT attempted to change a woman's
mind, if she tells them she's seeking an abortion. Often with
verbiage that is quite crude and cruel. There is NO reason to be
supportive of such places. But even so, they are NOT under assault by
Pro-Choicers in the way that abortion clinics are under assault by
Anti-Choicers.
>> When that happens, let me know, and I'll help them out.
> No you won't. That's because you are a pro-abort.
You're showing your abject ignorance again. As usual.
> Nothing you say has anything to do with choice, especially with your
> sanctimonious language and indignant attitude whenever someone else
> advocates other choices besides abortion. You malign everyone that
> doesn't think like you as "anti-choice." It's called ANTI-ABORTION.
People who are Anti-Choice almost always ARE "Anti-Abortion," yes.
Those two terms are BOTH accurate ones for Anti-Choicers.
As for my being critical of others when they advocate the other
choices... consider this: The ONLY time I criticize them is when they
advocate the other choices to the EXCLUSION of the abortion option.
>>> We realize that you are ashamed of your views, but that's not
>>> at all surprising. I'd be ashamed too.
>> ROTFLMAO. You really ARE ignorant!
> Stop breaking my irony meter!
Are you kidding? YOU do that every time you say something!
As for being ashamed: I would be MORTIFIED if I were Anti-Choice,
and had enough intelligence to recognize the implications of what that
meant in terms of its potential to impose hardship upon people. Being
Anti-Choice is NOTHING to be proud of. It is an embarrassment to
their intelligence (however much of that they may possess). Just as
being a member of the Ku Klux Klan must be an embarrassment to
anyone who's not similarly bigoted, who works nearby to them.
>> I am 100% proud of being a defender of human rights, and am
>> VERY thankful that I wasn't brought up to be a bigoted busybody.
> You better watch what you do, Craig.
>
> Psalms 101:5 --
>
> Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that
> hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
>
> Proverbs 21:4 --
>
> An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the
> wicked, is sin.
>
> Mark 7:22-23 --
>
> Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an
> evil eye, blasphemy, PRIDE, foolishness: All these evil things
> come from within, and defile the man.
>
> 1 John 2:16 --
>
> For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of
> the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the
> world.
>
> I'm sure you'll find a way to justify you actions against these,
> somehow, what with your talent for wicked imaginations. Remember to
> cross these out of your Bible...
I'm addressing all of this because when I wrote what I did, I was
afraid you might associate my attitude with Psalms 101:5.
So I'll simply state how I actually feel. My statement was not
born of a "self-rightous" pride. It was born of my being proud to be
able to associate my actions with those who similarly have been
defenders of human rights, past and present. It is THEM in
whom I feel pride, and I'm glad to be on their side in this battle.
Similarly, I'm sure that Jesus would probably have no problem with a
disciple being on HIS side, rather than supportive of Satan. Jesus
commanded us (His followers) to show love and compassion to our
neighbors. Thus, I do NOT attempt to trash their rights, their
options, their well-being, and their future opportunities.
And I KNOW I'm not a busybody. There is nothing wrong for being
thankful to God for His allowing my path through life to spare me from
falling into that trap of intolerance.
>>>>> it's only considered a child if it's wanted, and a
>>>>> fetus/product of conception/tissue mass...
>>>> BUZZ!!! Again! Clue for the Clueless: "Product of conception"
>>>> and "tissue mass" is what Anti-Choicers would LIKE to think
>>>> Pro-Choicers regard z/e/fs to be. Pro-Choicers are FULLY aware
>>>> that women who obtain abortions are eliminating UNWANTED
>>>> zygotes, embryoes, and/or fetuses.
>>> What's the difference? Again, "it's not a child or a baby
>>> because it's not called that." Why, is an adult a human being? But
>>> it's called an adult! What about a teenager or a toddler? Not humans
>>> because we don't call them that?
>> EVERY stage in the human life continuum: sperm, ovum, zygote,
>> embryo, fetus, baby/infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager,
>> adult... is human.
> Then you concede that some humans are more important than others, and
> that some humans are better than others such that they have the moral
> authority to decide the fate of other humans.
Wrong. A human HAIR is "human," since the DNA therein is human.
But it has no more value in terms of being a "human being" than does
any entity that is merely a DEVELOPING stage in the human life
continuum. ALL human beings (i.e., BORN) infinitely outrank all of
the other entities just mentioned, and are the ONLY human entities
with rights.
>> But there is NO authoritative evidence that supports ascribing ANY
>> value to the entities that precede birth, when they are unwanted, and
>> a host has no desire to retain it.
> Other than that evidence that fetuses are living humans. Again you
> concede that life is only for the wanted.
See above. Only already-BORN human BEINGS have value that is
intrinsic.
>>>> And they ALSO are astute enough to realize that thereis NO
>>>> reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to be any
>>>> more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
>>> Except that pesky thing called DNA. But we know by now that
>>> genetics, biology, and thinking are not your strong points.
>> Oviously, they're not YOURS. What do you suppose human sperm and
>> ova contain?
> The DNA of their owners. What do you suppose the cells of an unborn
> human fetus contain? The DNA of the parents? No.....
Gee. What a SURPRISE that is to most parents. (LOL!! In
reality, the "family resemblance" that most kids bear to their parents
is adequate refutation of that... even WITHOUT going into the DETAILS
about where the kids' DNA comes from.)
> This is not about what type of DNA defines the fetus. WHO'S DNA
> defines the fetus??
That of both parents. So what? Are you saying that the sperm and
ova of any given person on earth, PRIOR to their meeting up, were of
no importance to that person?
>>>>> ... if it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called
>>>>> that.
>>>> No. It's not a child because to BE a child, one FIRST must have
>>>> been BORN.
>>> Well, to be an adult, one must have reached the age of 21. To
>>> be a teenager, one must have reached the age of 13. What's your point?
>>> It's still a human being by the virtue of it's genetics and DNA structure.
>> See my comment above.
> I did. It was ignorant and simplistic, as usual.
No. It was substantive, as usual, since I make a point of that.
An entity prior to birth in the human life continuum is merely a human
entity, which has so little worth that not even the Bible ever DEFENDS
it. AFTER birth has taken place, though, we have a human being. And
all human life that IS defended in the Bible ARE already-born human
beings.
>>>>> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>>>>> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>>>> No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
>>>> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded
>>>> and selfish Anti-Choicers), life is for people of ALL ages from BIRTH
>>>> on, and for all developing entities which are WANTED by hosts who
>>>> desire to carry them to term.
>>> You just said it. Wanted. Life is only for the wanted. Life
>>> is only for adults, wanted, those priveleged enough to have made it
>>> out of the war zone of the womb.
>> Oh? You know some adults that just emerged from the womb, do you?
> Just, no. But I happen to be an adult that was FORTUNATE enough to
> have made it out once upon a time. Your point?
The point is that life is for EVERYONE who has been BORN. Prior to
that time, human entities neither have rights, nor, according to any
authoritative source, do they deserve any. As I said before:
>> No. Life is for all who have been BORN, regardless of the amount of
>> time that has passed since birth took place.
> Still don't know where babies come from, Craig? You think they just
> magically appear from nowhere between the mother's legs?
I know full well, as do you (I would presume) where the entities
that can BECOME babies DEVELOP. Once born, a "baby" is present.
Prior to that time, as I've pointed out before, there is only a
DEVELOPING entity which not even the Bible defends.
> You fail on all accounts to describe what part of the birth process
> changes the baby into a baby.
The law, and the Bible (upon which so much of the law is based)
both accord certain rights to a baby at birth. And NO rights to the
entity that leads to it at ANY time beforehand. Concomitantly, the
woman has the right to do whatever she wants with respect to the
developing entity, but those rights become far more limited AFTER
birth has taken place.
> BTW, fetus is Latin for offspring.
I find that no more significant than the fact that much of the
trappings and rituals of Christmas have pagan origins. Christmas is
not a pagan holiday TODAY, and TODAY, "fetus" is the medically
accepted term for a developing entity between the embryo stage and
birth. It's what terms mean TODAY, that count. Otherwise, your're
picking some very silly nits, if trying to make this part of an
argument.
>>> Thanks for backing me up.
>> You certainly have a WEIRD sense of perception.
> Likewise, I'm sure.
Not really, since I can back my statements with FACTS...
and Anti-Choicers cannot do likewise for their assertions. All of
the facts support being Pro-Choice. Argumentativeness and
emotionalism are the best that Anti-Choice can muster from their
meager arsenal.
>>> Do yourself a favor and don't ever use the word FAIR again.
>> We are. You aren't.
> Really? You're so fair that you think some humans are more important
> than others. How is this fair?
See above. I've already covered that thoroughly in this post.
>>>> (Not that I would expect you, or any other Anti-Choicer, to be
>>>> able to comprehend any of the above.
>>> If it was coherent or valid, maybe we would.
>> It's totally clear to all who have minds with which to think.
> Oh, so what's your excuse?
Anyone on YOUR side of this issue isn't thinking, or they couldn't
BE Anti-Choice. Anti-Choice is an indefensible agenda, when all the
facts are considered.
-- Craig Chilton api...@ibm.net
IrishboyJC
oversimplification. What Anti-Choicers universally ARE, however, is
as described by THESE terms: Busybodies, control-freaks, selfish,
mean-spirited (inwardly, at least, no matter what front they put on
for public consumption. NO one who is NOT mean-spirited could promote
an agenda which would invariably -- if allowed to succeed -- impose
hardship upon women by the multiple millions), and intolerant of the
rights and well-being of their neighbors. Further, those of them who
CLAIM to be Christians are strangely-deluded ones, since their
mean-spiritedness as just described constitutes a total REJECTION of
all of Jesus' and the Bible's commands that we show love and
compassion to our neighbors. One CANNOT practice that while
simultaneously seeking to impose hardship upon them.>>
Busybodies? Please. if thinking all persons deserve the right to life,
regardless of whether they are born or not, i guess that does make me one. and
anyone who would call the police if there was child abuse going on would be one
too, etc., etc.
Selfish? How? in the words of Mother Teresa in regards to abortion, it is
poverty to decide a child must DIE so you can live as youwish. isn't that
selfish?
Craig Chilton
> In article <3876ef30.71127724@news>,
> api...@ibm.net wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Dec 1999 14:45:45 GMT,
>> asa...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>> In article <386e707b.1394653831@news>,
>>> Craig Chilton <api...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Not sure I understand you. What "embryos/fetuses" are not
>>>>>> ever expected to become children? The ones their mothers
>>>>>> decide to abort?
>>>> First off, a woman becomes a mother when she gives BIRTH
>>>> to a baby.
>>> What about women that give birth to infants? It's not a baby,
>>> it's an infant. ;)
>> Baby = Infant.
> Very good, little Craig. Now, where do babies come from?
"Little?" ROTFL!! You obviously have no idea what I look like.
For if you do, then if you're female, as you claim, and say that, you
must be an Amazon! :)
Babies come from DEVELOPING entities, just as ALL lifeforms do.
Sperm and ova are JUST as important a part of that continuum as z/e/fs
are, for without those, there would be NO z/e/fs. But no one's trying
to defend sperm and ova. It makes no more sense to attempt to defend
z/e/fs.
>>>>> Why Ter, don't you know? To the pro-aborts,
>>>> BUZZ!!! Clue: There's probably no such thing as a "pro-
>>>> abort." The opposite of ANTI-Choicers are the PRO-Choicers.
>>>> And PRO-Choicers fully support whatever choice women make,
>>>> no matter what the decision may be.
>>> Really? Do you really? How much support have you given to
>>> women in crisis pregnancies who decided to let their offspring live?
>>> Ever donated any time/money/resources to a crisis pregnancy center
>>> or to an adoption center? No?
>> Do either of those need to be defended against mindless loons who
>> seek to put an end to them? No?
> Actually, yes, mindless loons like you and Buttrick L. Humphrey who
> spend all your time maligning said centers and slinging mud at them,
> spouting out rhetoric that they are "anti-choice" and that they mislead
> women and lie to them.
Many of those phony "clinics" have been known to impose the
watching of an Anti-Choice film upon those who enter. And I have
never YET heard of one that has NOT attempted to change a woman's
mind, if she tells them she's seeking an abortion. Often with
verbiage that is quite crude and cruel. There is NO reason to be
supportive of such places. But even so, they are NOT under assault by
Pro-Choicers in the way that abortion clinics are under assault by
Anti-Choicers.
>> When that happens, let me know, and I'll help them out.
> No you won't. That's because you are a pro-abort.
You're showing your abject ignorance again. As usual.
> Nothing you say has anything to do with choice, especially with your
> sanctimonious language and indignant attitude whenever someone else
> advocates other choices besides abortion. You malign everyone that
> doesn't think like you as "anti-choice." It's called ANTI-ABORTION.
People who are Anti-Choice almost always ARE "Anti-Abortion," yes.
Those two terms are BOTH accurate ones for Anti-Choicers.
As for my being critical of others when they advocate the other
choices... consider this: The ONLY time I criticize them is when they
advocate the other choices to the EXCLUSION of the abortion option.
>>> We realize that you are ashamed of your views, but that's not
>>> at all surprising. I'd be ashamed too.
>> ROTFLMAO. You really ARE ignorant!
> Stop breaking my irony meter!
Are you kidding? YOU do that every time you say something!
As for being ashamed: I would be MORTIFIED if I were Anti-Choice,
and had enough intelligence to recognize the implications of what that
meant in terms of its potential to impose hardship upon people. Being
Anti-Choice is NOTHING to be proud of. It is an embarrassment to
their intelligence (however much of that they may possess). Just as
being a member of the Ku Klux Klan must be an embarrassment to
anyone who's not similarly bigoted, who works nearby to them.
>> I am 100% proud of being a defender of human rights, and am
>> VERY thankful that I wasn't brought up to be a bigoted busybody.
> You better watch what you do, Craig.
>
> Psalms 101:5 --
>
> Whoso privily slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that
> hath an high look and a proud heart will not I suffer.
>
> Proverbs 21:4 --
>
> An high look, and a proud heart, and the plowing of the
> wicked, is sin.
>
> Mark 7:22-23 --
>
> Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an
> evil eye, blasphemy, PRIDE, foolishness: All these evil things
> come from within, and defile the man.
>
> 1 John 2:16 --
>
> For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of
> the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the
> world.
>
> I'm sure you'll find a way to justify you actions against these,
> somehow, what with your talent for wicked imaginations. Remember to
> cross these out of your Bible...
I'm addressing all of this because when I wrote what I did, I was
afraid you might associate my attitude with Psalms 101:5.
So I'll simply state how I actually feel. My statement was not
born of a "self-rightous" pride. It was born of my being proud to be
able to associate my actions with those who similarly have been
defenders of human rights, past and present. It is THEM in
whom I feel pride, and I'm glad to be on their side in this battle.
Similarly, I'm sure that Jesus would probably have no problem with a
disciple being on HIS side, rather than supportive of Satan. Jesus
commanded us (His followers) to show love and compassion to our
neighbors. Thus, I do NOT attempt to trash their rights, their
options, their well-being, and their future opportunities.
And I KNOW I'm not a busybody. There is nothing wrong for being
thankful to God for His allowing my path through life to spare me from
falling into that trap of intolerance.
>>>>> it's only considered a child if it's wanted, and a
>>>>> fetus/product of conception/tissue mass...
>>>> BUZZ!!! Again! Clue for the Clueless: "Product of conception"
>>>> and "tissue mass" is what Anti-Choicers would LIKE to think
>>>> Pro-Choicers regard z/e/fs to be. Pro-Choicers are FULLY aware
>>>> that women who obtain abortions are eliminating UNWANTED
>>>> zygotes, embryoes, and/or fetuses.
>>> What's the difference? Again, "it's not a child or a baby
>>> because it's not called that." Why, is an adult a human being? But
>>> it's called an adult! What about a teenager or a toddler? Not humans
>>> because we don't call them that?
>> EVERY stage in the human life continuum: sperm, ovum, zygote,
>> embryo, fetus, baby/infant, toddler, child, adolescent, teenager,
>> adult... is human.
> Then you concede that some humans are more important than others, and
> that some humans are better than others such that they have the moral
> authority to decide the fate of other humans.
Wrong. A human HAIR is "human," since the DNA therein is human.
But it has no more value in terms of being a "human being" than does
any entity that is merely a DEVELOPING stage in the human life
continuum. ALL human beings (i.e., BORN) infinitely outrank all of
the other entities just mentioned, and are the ONLY human entities
with rights.
>> But there is NO authoritative evidence that supports ascribing ANY
>> value to the entities that precede birth, when they are unwanted, and
>> a host has no desire to retain it.
> Other than that evidence that fetuses are living humans. Again you
> concede that life is only for the wanted.
See above. Only already-BORN human BEINGS have value that is
intrinsic.
>>>> And they ALSO are astute enough to realize that thereis NO
>>>> reason for anyone to regard those, when unwanted, to be any
>>>> more worthwhile than are sperm and ova.
>>> Except that pesky thing called DNA. But we know by now that
>>> genetics, biology, and thinking are not your strong points.
>> Oviously, they're not YOURS. What do you suppose human sperm and
>> ova contain?
> The DNA of their owners. What do you suppose the cells of an unborn
> human fetus contain? The DNA of the parents? No.....
Gee. What a SURPRISE that is to most parents. (LOL!! In
reality, the "family resemblance" that most kids bear to their parents
is adequate refutation of that... even WITHOUT going into the DETAILS
about where the kids' DNA comes from.)
> This is not about what type of DNA defines the fetus. WHO'S DNA
> defines the fetus??
That of both parents. So what? Are you saying that the sperm and
ova of any given person on earth, PRIOR to their meeting up, were of
no importance to that person?
>>>>> ... if it's not. I.e., it's not a child because it's not called
>>>>> that.
>>>> No. It's not a child because to BE a child, one FIRST must have
>>>> been BORN.
>>> Well, to be an adult, one must have reached the age of 21. To
>>> be a teenager, one must have reached the age of 13. What's your point?
>>> It's still a human being by the virtue of it's genetics and DNA structure.
>> See my comment above.
> I did. It was ignorant and simplistic, as usual.
No. It was substantive, as usual, since I make a point of that.
An entity prior to birth in the human life continuum is merely a human
entity, which has so little worth that not even the Bible ever DEFENDS
it. AFTER birth has taken place, though, we have a human being. And
all human life that IS defended in the Bible ARE already-born human
beings.
>>>>> In their little world, life is only for the adults, priveleged,
>>>>> pampered, perfect, wanted people.
>>>> No. In the common-sense, reasonable, fair-minded world of the
>>>> Pro-Choicers (who fortunately vastly outnumber the narrow-minded
>>>> and selfish Anti-Choicers), life is for people of ALL ages from BIRTH
>>>> on, and for all developing entities which are WANTED by hosts who
>>>> desire to carry them to term.
>>> You just said it. Wanted. Life is only for the wanted. Life
>>> is only for adults, wanted, those priveleged enough to have made it
>>> out of the war zone of the womb.
>> Oh? You know some adults that just emerged from the womb, do you?
> Just, no. But I happen to be an adult that was FORTUNATE enough to
> have made it out once upon a time. Your point?
The point is that life is for EVERYONE who has been BORN. Prior to
that time, human entities neither have rights, nor, according to any
authoritative source, do they deserve any. As I said before:
>> No. Life is for all who have been BORN, regardless of the amount of
>> time that has passed since birth took place.
> Still don't know where babies come from, Craig? You think they just
> magically appear from nowhere between the mother's legs?
I know full well, as do you (I would presume) where the entities
that can BECOME babies DEVELOP. Once born, a "baby" is present.
Prior to that time, as I've pointed out before, there is only a
DEVELOPING entity which not even the Bible defends.
> You fail on all accounts to describe what part of the birth process
> changes the baby into a baby.
The law, and the Bible (upon which so much of the law is based)
both accord certain rights to a baby at birth. And NO rights to the
entity that leads to it at ANY time beforehand. Concomitantly, the
woman has the right to do whatever she wants with respect to the
developing entity, but those rights become far more limited AFTER
birth has taken place.
> BTW, fetus is Latin for offspring.
I find that no more significant than the fact that much of the
trappings and rituals of Christmas have pagan origins. Christmas is
not a pagan holiday TODAY, and TODAY, "fetus" is the medically
accepted term for a developing entity between the embryo stage and
birth. It's what terms mean TODAY, that count. Otherwise, your're
picking some very silly nits, if trying to make this part of an
argument.
>>> Thanks for backing me up.
>> You certainly have a WEIRD sense of perception.
> Likewise, I'm sure.
Not really, since I can back my statements with FACTS...
and Anti-Choicers cannot do likewise for their assertions. All of
the facts support being Pro-Choice. Argumentativeness and
emotionalism are the best that Anti-Choice can muster from their
meager arsenal.
>>> Do yourself a favor and don't ever use the word FAIR again.
>> We are. You aren't.
> Really? You're so fair that you think some humans are more important
> than others. How is this fair?
See above. I've already covered that thoroughly in this post.
>>>> (Not that I would expect you, or any other Anti-Choicer, to be
>>>> able to comprehend any of the above.
>>> If it was coherent or valid, maybe we would.
>> It's totally clear to all who have minds with which to think.
> Oh, so what's your excuse?
Anyone on YOUR side of this issue isn't thinking, or they couldn't
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
wrote:
> (Fence-sitters, take note: Once AGAIN we see a prime example of
>how a mindless Anti-Choicer can't deal with the reality of being
>unable to refute a valid argument. Also, the concept of being a
>defender of human rights is alien to Anti-Choicers, who would
>willingly allow hardship to be imposed upon tens of millions of their
>neighbors, while lamely defending non-sentient entities.)
Actually it was a anti-abortionist realizing it is useless to waste
your time trying to reach mindless baby killers.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)