Pro-Death Movement
VanOrmer
The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
their own the opposing thought processes.
Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
etc.
The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
"life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
"pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
literally worlds apart.
Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
They did not choose to do so for obvious reasons. First, it's too gruesome a label. Who
would want to join a pro-death movement? Second, and more important, the subject matter
of the heading is all wrong. It doesn't involve the woman. It MUST involve the woman.
Pro-lifers are also pro-choice, but they believe the choice must be made before the
woman is pregnant. After all, of all the individuals involved, it seems logical that the
"choice", if there is going to be one at all, should be made by the infant. (Yes, I said
infant - not embrio, or cell, or growth, but infant. Baby will work as well.) The
problem of course is that the weak, young, and helpless can't always speak for
themselves. Again, emphasis on the baby.
The thinking, or lack thereof, behind the pro-choice movement encounters other
problems as well.
When a baby is born, and that baby's parents divorce, it is understood (and rightfully
so) that the father has certain responsibilities that he must adhere to. The
responsibilities are freely given to him, but the rights are hard won, if existant at
all. Now, if a man and wife divorce while the woman is pregnant, the man is legally
bound to pay a portion, if not all, of the medical bills incurred during the pregnancy
and delivery. Again, he is given the responsibilities and if he refuses will no doubt
hear the line - "Hey, it's your baby too." Why then is it not his baby when the mother
decides to slaughter the same child?
When the medical bills come, we all agree that the father and mother are both
responsible for the child. However, just to drive this digusting point home, if the
mother decides to kill the same child, the father is not given any consideration, much
less any rights.
A drunk driver crashed his car into a vehicle driven by a woman who was five months
pregnant. The woman with child was killed. The drunk driver was charged with two counts
of murder. The problem here is not that the man was charged with killing two people.
That is exactly what he did, he killed two human beings. The difficulty is understanding
how our legal system in this case correctly recognized an unborn child as a human being,
but allows women (and men who support the 'decision') to murder unborn children of the
same age and older everyday under the banner - Abortion.
Abortion? What kind of term is that? You abort a mission, you abort a program, you do
not abort a human being. You kill a human being. Next they'll be murdering the elderly
and calling it "completion".
We have a responsibility as adults, and some of us as Christians, to be the voice for
those who cannot speak, and to do our utmost to protect the defenseless. Young children
fall under both categories.
It's time we stop playing the 'apologetic-Christian' role, and start being the bold
voice that these children require. The spineless, the fence-riders, and all thosewho are
willing to compromise such a fundamental moral should find another battle.
Melanie
Lara wrote:
>
> VanOrmer wrote:
> >
> > The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
> > their own the opposing thought processes.
> > Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
> > opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
> > etc.
> > The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
> > another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
> > pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
> > "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
> > "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
> > literally worlds apart.
> > Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
> > entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
>
>
> You are very wrong in the meaning of Pro-Choice. Many people who are
> pro-choice are against abortion. They wouldn't have one and wouldn't
> encourage others to have one.
>
> However, by your own argument, Pro-Life should change their name to
> Anti-Choice.
>
> Lara
Lara, I am not anti-choice. I do not think abortion should be a legal
or readily available choice, but I am very much in favor of all sorts of
choices. To say one is anti-choice means against choice. How I feel
about choice is irrelevant. The fact is that all women have a choice.
I want to stack the deck in favor of a particular choice, not take the
choice away (which I cannot feasibly do.) You could legitimately call
an abortion opponent anti-abortion if you must focus on the negative for
whatever purpose, although prolifers generally oppose abortion,
euthanasia and assisted suicide (at least most of them.)
--Melanie
Lara
Melanie
VanOrmer wrote:
>
> The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
> their own the opposing thought processes.
> Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
> opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
> etc.
> The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
> another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
> pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby.
Well, I was trying to follow you until you made that last comment. I
put the emphasis on both mother and baby. The prolife movement does not
see the mother and baby as enemies with contrary rights and goals. The
woman has a right to protect her life, but not the right to take her
child's without just cause. In fact, one prolife slogan is "Love them
Both."
> That is the
> "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
> "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
> literally worlds apart.
The prolife term also refers to individuals opposed to euthanasia and
assisted suicide, and usually we aren't referring to babies here. The
objects for concern are world's apart only in that those who support
abortion rights see only the mother as a concerned party where prolifers
see mother and child as the two individuals that they are.
> Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
> entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
> They did not choose to do so for obvious reasons. First, it's too gruesome a label. Who
> would want to join a pro-death movement? Second, and more important, the subject matter
> of the heading is all wrong. It doesn't involve the woman. It MUST involve the woman.
> Pro-lifers are also pro-choice, but they believe the choice must be made before the
> woman is pregnant. After all, of all the individuals involved, it seems logical that the
> "choice", if there is going to be one at all, should be made by the infant. (Yes, I said
> infant - not embrio, or cell, or growth, but infant. Baby will work as well.) The
> problem of course is that the weak, young, and helpless can't always speak for
> themselves. Again, emphasis on the baby.
Only because in that instance the baby is the one who is being
threatened with death. If the mother's life is at stake, then her
interests most definitely come into strong play. The emphasis is on
seeing two patients instead of one. The baby is not worth more, the
woman is not worth more -- there are two human beings involved.
Well, I suppose it isn't for the timid.
--Melanie
Dwight R. Welch
VanOrmer (vano...@epix.net) wrote:
: The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
: another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
: pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
: "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
: "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
: literally worlds apart.
indeed, it seems that the "pro-life" movement would return us to a time,
where in one year alone, 30,000 women died from illegal back alley abortions
: Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
: entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
: They did not choose to do so for obvious reasons. First, it's too gruesome a label. Who
: would want to join a pro-death movement? Second, and more important, the subject matter
: of the heading is all wrong. It doesn't involve the woman. It MUST involve the woman.
And especially when I'm opposed to militarism, the death penalty,
environmental despoilation, and women dying from illegal back alley abortions
pro-death would hardly be an appropriate term. Now i know many
"pro-lifers" who cheered as Bush killed over 100,000 Iraqis, including women
and children
: Pro-lifers are also pro-choice, but they believe the choice must be made before the
: woman is pregnant. After all, of all the individuals involved, it seems logical that the
: "choice", if there is going to be one at all, should be made by the infant. (Yes, I said
: infant - not embrio, or cell, or growth, but infant. Baby will work as well.) The
: problem of course is that the weak, young, and helpless can't always speak for
: themselves. Again, emphasis on the baby.
and the choice of the fertilized egg to reach potentiality, regardless of
what the costs are to the woman (including her life)
Dwight
Ray Fischer
Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>Lara, I am not anti-choice. I do not think abortion should be a legal
>or readily available choice, but I am very much in favor of all sorts of
>choices. To say one is anti-choice means against choice. How I feel
>about choice is irrelevant. The fact is that all women have a choice.
>I want to stack the deck in favor of a particular choice, not take the
>choice away (which I cannot feasibly do.) You could legitimately call
>an abortion opponent anti-abortion if you must focus on the negative for
>whatever purpose, although prolifers generally oppose abortion,
>euthanasia and assisted suicide (at least most of them.)
I get a mental image of Melanie contorting to kiss her own ass.
Anyone else buy that self-serving bullshit?
--
Ray Fischer The tree of liberty only grows when watered by the
r...@netcom.com blood of tyrants. -- Bertrand Barere.
Dwight R. Welch
Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
: Lara wrote:
: >
: > >
: > > The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
: > > their own the opposing thought processes.
: > > Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
: > > opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
: > > etc.
: > > another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
: > > pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
: > > "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
: > > "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
: > > literally worlds apart.
: > > entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
: >
: >
: > You are very wrong in the meaning of Pro-Choice. Many people who are
: > pro-choice are against abortion. They wouldn't have one and wouldn't
: > encourage others to have one.
: >
: > However, by your own argument, Pro-Life should change their name to
: > Anti-Choice.
: >
: > Lara
: Lara, I am not anti-choice. I do not think abortion should be a legal
: or readily available choice, but I am very much in favor of all sorts of
: choices. To say one is anti-choice means against choice. How I feel
: about choice is irrelevant. The fact is that all women have a choice.
: I want to stack the deck in favor of a particular choice, not take the
: choice away (which I cannot feasibly do.) You could legitimately call
: an abortion opponent anti-abortion if you must focus on the negative for
: whatever purpose, although prolifers generally oppose abortion,
: euthanasia and assisted suicide (at least most of them.)
: --Melanie
and the death penalty?
militarism?
poverty?
gun violence?
environmental destruction?
Dwight
Melanie
Dwight, we were discussing the title of "anti-choice", or at least I
was. What do any of those things have to do with choice. Poverty is
inevitable, and I feel we should do what we can to help others in that
situation. My feelings on military actions are long and not on topic.
I am opposed to gun violence, and I don't think anti-gun laws will solve
the problem. I'm not sure what environmentalism has to do with any of
it, but I am probably rather moderate on the issue by some standards
largely because I have seen actual harm done to individuals in the name
of environmentalism with little or no result and even harm done to the
environment supposedly being protected. I personally think the death
penalty is valid in some extremely limited circumstances, but many
prolifers believe in the "seamless garment" theory or are likewise
anti-death penalty (Feminists for Life for one.) I actually have no
problem with anyone saying I am anti-abortion because I am. On the
other hand, it is an incomplete definition of many prolife organizations
such as the National Right to Life who also deal with issues other than
abortion such as euthanasia and assisted suicide.
--Melanie
Trisha Fusco
In article <32E99D...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>Lara wrote:
>>
>>
>> <Anti-abortion ranting snipped>
>>
>> You are very wrong in the meaning of Pro-Choice. Many people who are
>> pro-choice are against abortion. They wouldn't have one and wouldn't
>> encourage others to have one.
>>
>> However, by your own argument, Pro-Life should change their name to
>> Anti-Choice.
>>
>> Lara
>
>Lara, I am not anti-choice. I do not think abortion should be a legal
>or readily available choice, but I am very much in favor of all sorts of
>choices. To say one is anti-choice means against choice. How I feel
>about choice is irrelevant. The fact is that all women have a choice.
>I want to stack the deck in favor of a particular choice, not take the
>choice away (which I cannot feasibly do.) You could legitimately call
>an abortion opponent anti-abortion if you must focus on the negative for
>whatever purpose, although prolifers generally oppose abortion,
>euthanasia and assisted suicide (at least most of them.)
your personal belief structure. How is that NOT anti-chouce? Please don't
attempt to hide your agenda under confusing terms. I want every woman to have
complete access to ALL information regarding ALL legal options during
pregnancy. You do not. You are anti-choice. I don't see how you can argue with
the facts.
->Trisha Fusco
Robert
dwe...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Dwight R. Welch) wrote:
>VanOrmer (vano...@epix.net) wrote:
>: The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
>: another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
>: pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
>: "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
>: "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
>: literally worlds apart.
>indeed, it seems that the "pro-life" movement would return us to a time,
>where in one year alone, 30,000 women died from illegal back alley abortions
You really need your head examined if you buy that stupid figure !
Where do you have that number from?;)!!!
>: Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
>: entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
>: They did not choose to do so for obvious reasons. First, it's too gruesome a label. Who
>: would want to join a pro-death movement? Second, and more important, the subject matter
>: of the heading is all wrong. It doesn't involve the woman. It MUST involve the woman.
>And especially when I'm opposed to militarism, the death penalty,
>environmental despoilation, and women dying from illegal back alley abortions
>pro-death would hardly be an appropriate term. Now i know many
>"pro-lifers" who cheered as Bush killed over 100,000 Iraqis, including women
>and children
Well (no that is nice rhetoric...)..name any pro-lifer who aproved of
innocent women and children being killed?
You are hypcrite!!!
>: Pro-lifers are also pro-choice, but they believe the choice must be made before the
>: woman is pregnant. After all, of all the individuals involved, it seems logical that the
>: "choice", if there is going to be one at all, should be made by the infant. (Yes, I said
>: infant - not embrio, or cell, or growth, but infant. Baby will work as well.) The
>: problem of course is that the weak, young, and helpless can't always speak for
>: themselves. Again, emphasis on the baby.
>and the choice of the fertilized egg to reach potentiality, regardless of
>what the costs are to the woman (including her life)
you forget tha abortion is risky and the medical and psychological
sideffects (including very serious long term one) or more commen
than..women dying giving birth (of course..an abortion could be
jusfified if the inderect result of putting everything means forward
to safe the life of the mother (pro-lifers dont object that)..
>Dwight
Robert
Gary Duve
Dwight R. Welch <dwe...@badlands.NoDak.edu> wrote in article =
<5cblve$j...@daily-planet.nodak.edu>...
> indeed, it seems that the "pro-life" movement would return us to a =
time,=20
> where in one year alone, 30,000 women died from illegal back alley =
abortions
Hi, in the year prior to Roe passing, far fewer than 100 women died as =
the result
of abortions. In virtually every year (and certainly every decade) this =
century women
have had a decreasing mortality rate for virtually every surgical =
procedure (including
abortion). There never were 30,000 killed in any single year, or any =
single decade,
I doubt if we tabulated all estimates for all abortions performed =
illegally in the US,
that we'd even have 30,000 women killed. So please, don't introduce =
silly made up
numbers.
=20
> And especially when I'm opposed to militarism, the death penalty,=20
> environmental despoilation, and women dying from illegal back alley =
abortions
> pro-death would hardly be an appropriate term. Now i know many=20
> "pro-lifers" who cheered as Bush killed over 100,000 Iraqis, including =
women
> and children
I'm not sure if bush was cheering as 100,000 Iraqis died, especially =
including
women and children. Nor am I sure 100,000 Iraqis died. However, if you =
are
opposed to killing humans, and opposed to a death penalty, why do you =
support
killing humans in the womb? Is location in Iraq significant, but =
location in the womb
irrelevant? Its odd you are concerned for those located in one place but =
not another.
I personally am opposed to killing. Thus I am anti death penalty, anti =
abortion and
anti killing non combatants (those who bear arms against another, and =
demonstrate
intent to use deadly force, should however expect that they will =
encounter resistance).
=20
> and the choice of the fertilized egg to reach potentiality, regardless =
of=20
> what the costs are to the woman (including her life)
Dwight, it is a human life after fertilization. Killing humans is what =
most people
who are opposed to killing try to stop. Your exception allowing some =
human
life to be killed is a bit of a puzzlement to me, you seem quite =
dedicated to
protecting human life in other locations/situations.
Regards
Gary Duve
Gary Duve
Dwight R. Welch <dwe...@badlands.NoDak.edu> wrote in article =
<5cdlal$c...@daily-planet.nodak.edu>...
> and the death penalty?
> militarism?
> poverty?
> gun violence?
> environmental destruction?
Dwight, last time I looked, the general discussion here was abortion.=20
I do note you are opposed to killing women and children (and others)
in Iraq (which is great, aside from those who bear arms with intent
to do harm, I'm pretty opposed to killing non combatants myself). =20
You do oddly believe that the lives of those located in Iraq should
have been protected, but those located in a womb shouldn't be.
When for a large percentage of the time the only distinction between
the unborn and the born is location, I find your willingness to support
killing of those in the womb illogical. What makes an Iraqi woman or
child valuable and an unborn child non valuable? Note also the
definition of child does cover those unborn (at least according to my
handy dandy MS Bookshelf 97 dictionary:-).
Regards
Gary Duve
Robert
dwe...@badlands.NoDak.edu (Dwight R. Welch) wrote:
>VanOrmer (vano...@epix.net) wrote:
>: The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
>: another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
>: pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
>: "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
>: "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
>: literally worlds apart.
>indeed, it seems that the "pro-life" movement would return us to a time,
>where in one year alone, 30,000 women died from illegal back alley abortions
It seems you rely on "strange" statistics..where do you have that
number from ?????(I bet it is.."pro-"choice" hear-say..)
Even organizations at the time who aimed at making abortion on demad
legal in the United States..did not go that far as for what i know
(well than again they lied too..and certainly did nothing..to
prevent..false information and
unrealistic numbers to be spread:
Bernard N. Nathanson a leading member of NARAL at the time
(National Association for Repeal of Abortion Laws) later admitted:
"There were perhaps three hundred or so deaths from criminal
abortions annually in the United States in the sixties, but NARAL
in its press releases claimed to have data that supported a figure of
FIVE THOUSAND. Fortunately, the respected biostatistician Dr.
Christopher Tietze was our ally. Though he never actually staked
himself to a specific number, he never denied the authenticity of
these claims."
Dirty tricks where with the "noble cause" of "pro-choice" from the
beginning
with "Roe vs Wade" (where she claimed to have been raped later
admitted that this was all made up!
Producing false numbers to make a case for "pro-choice laws being
needed" was used all around the western world..Me being from
Germany i can comment on the situation here!
In the early 70s pro-"choice" advocates who wanted to "liberalize"
the German Abortion law as well (which they suceeded doing;(!
cliamed (and the media bombared the public with these fals numbers
too) that 15 000 woman would die from illigal abortion every year.
(other pro"-choice" numbers produced talked about 40 000)
This of course was a nonsense..if one really did choose to look up
valid statistical material..(which said that 13 000!! women (being in
the age of being able to give birth ) died altogether..(the cause
being all kinds of diseases injuries and medical problems ect..)
SOME of which where illigal abortions..!
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Ray Fischer
Gary Duve <gd...@ct1.nai.net> wrote:
>You do oddly believe that the lives of those located in Iraq should
>have been protected, but those located in a womb shouldn't be.
You do oddly believe that the lives of uncaring, unfeeling embryos
should be protected while born women and children and men should not
be.
Tom Simacek
"Gary Duve" <gd...@ct1.nai.net> wrote:
>
>> indeed, it seems that the "pro-life" movement would return us to a =
>time,=20
>> where in one year alone, 30,000 women died from illegal back alley =
>abortions
>Hi, in the year prior to Roe passing, far fewer than 100 women died as =
>the result
>of abortions. In virtually every year (and certainly every decade) this =
>century women
>have had a decreasing mortality rate for virtually every surgical =
>procedure (including
>abortion). There never were 30,000 killed in any single year, or any =
>single decade,
>I doubt if we tabulated all estimates for all abortions performed =
>illegally in the US,
>that we'd even have 30,000 women killed. So please, don't introduce =
>silly made up
>numbers.
>=20
I am just wondering - there are women dying from legal abortions too.
So, since there are so many more abortions since Roe - maybe the
legalization of abortion actually killed more women than "saved".
Does anybody has any idea?
Tom
Robert
Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>VanOrmer wrote:
>>
>> The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
>> their own the opposing thought processes.
>> Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
>> opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
>> etc.
>> The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
>> another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
>> pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby.
>Well, I was trying to follow you until you made that last comment. I
>put the emphasis on both mother and baby. The prolife movement does not
>see the mother and baby as enemies with contrary rights and goals. The
>woman has a right to protect her life, but not the right to take her
>child's without just cause. In fact, one prolife slogan is "Love them
>Both."
Yes Melanie:) Very Much so..
Abortion is harmfull for BOTH mother and child..
Considering that fact..one should point to the hypocracy of
pro"choicers"..who contrary to PRO-Life Organizations dont
seem to care about Mothers with medical and psychological
problems due do having had an abortion..(I guess they prefer
to be blind "play the game of them being positive modern
and tolerant" while we are restricting choices;(..
To have to admit to the result of there "politics" would take
away their favorite illusion (that..Exercising ANY choice you
want..is GOOD for its YOUR choice..(and it just CANT be
any other way..)..this goes to the point that THEY NEGLECT
to help VICTIMS OF CHOICE (and leave..the Pro-Lifers the
honor to do so)..WHILE at the SAME time..Pro-Lifers support
mothers who want to keep their child (PRO-Choice Organizations
how ever have "supported women" to have an abortion..
(the result of which how troubling to the mother..is not of their
concernt..(just YOU MAKE YOUR choice..(now be happy
with it)
also..along with those
who where pressured or "decided" to "abort" it..
>> That is the
>> "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
>> "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
>> literally worlds apart.
>The prolife term also refers to individuals opposed to euthanasia and
>assisted suicide, and usually we aren't referring to babies here. The
>objects for concern are world's apart only in that those who support
>abortion rights see only the mother as a concerned party where prolifers
>see mother and child as the two individuals that they are.
YES..very much so (looking at the realities and on what i have just
written however Melanie..(it seems that aside from the "just
indifferent "pro-choicers"..their unwillingness to get educated and be
open and honest about the effects abortions have on the mother..points
to a mentalitiy that isnt really giving the fate of the mother much
thought as well;(!
>> Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
>> entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
>> They did not choose to do so for obvious reasons. First, it's too gruesome a label. Who
>> would want to join a pro-death movement? Second, and more important, the subject matter
>> of the heading is all wrong. It doesn't involve the woman. It MUST involve the woman.
>> Pro-lifers are also pro-choice, but they believe the choice must be made before the
>> woman is pregnant. After all, of all the individuals involved, it seems logical that the
>> "choice", if there is going to be one at all, should be made by the infant. (Yes, I said
>> infant - not embrio, or cell, or growth, but infant. Baby will work as well.) The
>> problem of course is that the weak, young, and helpless can't always speak for
>> themselves. Again, emphasis on the baby.
>Only because in that instance the baby is the one who is being
>threatened with death.
Absolutly
If the mother's life is at stake, then her
>interests most definitely come into strong play. The emphasis is on
>seeing two patients instead of one. The baby is not worth more, the
>woman is not worth more -- there are two human beings involved.
Excactly..(and of course the medical side has to put forward
to..(as for in what circumstances would an abortion really be needed
to help the mother..
>--Melanie
who sometimes call themselves "tolerant"..while
being indifferent..!
Robert
Robert
Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>Dwight R. Welch wrote:
>>
>> Melanie (wmn...@ns.net) wrote:
>> : Lara wrote:
>> : >
>> : > VanOrmer wrote:
>> : > >
>> : > > The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
>> : > > their own the opposing thought processes.
>> : > > Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
>> : > > opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
>> : > > etc.
>> : > > The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
>> : > > another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
>> : > > pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
>> : > > "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
>> : > > "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
>> : > > literally worlds apart.
>> : > > Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
>> : > > entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
>> : >
>> : > <Anti-abortion ranting snipped>
>> : >
>> : > You are very wrong in the meaning of Pro-Choice. Many people who are
>> : > pro-choice are against abortion. They wouldn't have one and wouldn't
>> : > encourage others to have one.
>> : >
>> : > However, by your own argument, Pro-Life should change their name to
>> : > Anti-Choice.
>> : >
>> : > Lara
>>
>> : Lara, I am not anti-choice. I do not think abortion should be a legal
>> : or readily available choice, but I am very much in favor of all sorts of
>> : choices. To say one is anti-choice means against choice. How I feel
>> : about choice is irrelevant. The fact is that all women have a choice.
>> : I want to stack the deck in favor of a particular choice, not take the
>> : choice away (which I cannot feasibly do.) You could legitimately call
>> : an abortion opponent anti-abortion if you must focus on the negative for
>> : whatever purpose, although prolifers generally oppose abortion,
>> : euthanasia and assisted suicide (at least most of them.)
>>
>> : --Melanie
>> and the death penalty?
>> militarism?
>> poverty?
>> gun violence?
>> environmental destruction?
>>
>> Dwight
>Dwight, we were discussing the title of "anti-choice", or at least I
>was. What do any of those things have to do with choice. Poverty is
>inevitable, and I feel we should do what we can to help others in that
>situation. My feelings on military actions are long and not on topic.
>I am opposed to gun violence, and I don't think anti-gun laws will solve
>the problem. I'm not sure what environmentalism has to do with any of
>it, but I am probably rather moderate on the issue by some standards
>largely because I have seen actual harm done to individuals in the name
>of environmentalism with little or no result and even harm done to the
>environment supposedly being protected. I personally think the death
>penalty is valid in some extremely limited circumstances, but many
>prolifers believe in the "seamless garment" theory or are likewise
>anti-death penalty (Feminists for Life for one.) I actually have no
>problem with anyone saying I am anti-abortion because I am. On the
>other hand, it is an incomplete definition of many prolife organizations
>such as the National Right to Life who also deal with issues other than
>abortion such as euthanasia and assisted suicide.
>--Melanie
Hey Melanie:)
Lets face it..
Pro-"choice" is a euphemistic expression
for somebody advocating the killing of an unborn
human being..(they dont call themselves..the opposite
of what a pro-lifer is (although they are..) for "good"
reasons..and we all know it..(pro-killing pro-termination
ect..) just doesnt sound nice;)sigh..
Yet Life is still (wonder how long) a term that very much
has a positive meaning in our society..(guess also from
the heritage of all "these mean bad ignorant people";)
who tried to force their "value structure" down the throats
of others..(like telling slave owners or Hitler what to do
and want not to do..(or to "choose";) for that matter.
Abortion is a euphemistic term as well if we think about..
it..(Everybody who tries to debate or select certain issues
of "Human Rights Right to Life ect" out of context should
be reminded that he is intellectually not quite honest)
(Human Rights Right to Life..the rights of the Human
Being Unborn or Born..are all related and depending on
each other..(the way our society slides into a "Brave
New World"..(first by making abortion legal..creating
the climate..for..Euthanasia..Eugenics..Selection of
the fittest (this are logical and valid concerns..and I
as a German know..what I am talking about..!!
(I can very well picture..some pro-"choicer" of today
(in the year 2050) getting and injection from a smiling
nurse at local Euthanasia Abortion center..(for he or
she reached the economical useless age (weighing
pros and cons of 70)..(her or his last thoughts MIGHT
be.."well i didnt want THAT to happen..(when i was
just aiming at a little more individual freedom based
on compromising somebody others right to life..way
back then.
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Robert
bf1...@binghamton.edu (Trisha Fusco) wrote:
>In article <32E99D...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>>Lara wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> <Anti-abortion ranting snipped>
>>>
>>> You are very wrong in the meaning of Pro-Choice. Many people who are
>>> pro-choice are against abortion. They wouldn't have one and wouldn't
>>> encourage others to have one.
>>>
>>> However, by your own argument, Pro-Life should change their name to
>>> Anti-Choice.
>>>
>>> Lara
>>
>>Lara, I am not anti-choice. I do not think abortion should be a legal
>>or readily available choice, but I am very much in favor of all sorts of
>>choices. To say one is anti-choice means against choice. How I feel
>>about choice is irrelevant. The fact is that all women have a choice.
>>I want to stack the deck in favor of a particular choice, not take the
>>choice away (which I cannot feasibly do.) You could legitimately call
>>an abortion opponent anti-abortion if you must focus on the negative for
>>whatever purpose, although prolifers generally oppose abortion,
>>euthanasia and assisted suicide (at least most of them.)
>
> So, you want to take away a possible choice because it conflicts with
>your personal belief structure. How is that NOT anti-chouce? Please don't
>attempt to hide your agenda under confusing terms. I want every woman to have
>complete access to ALL information regarding ALL legal options during
>pregnancy. You do not. You are anti-choice. I don't see how you can argue with
>the facts.
>->Trisha Fusco
If you would open up your eyes to all the information concerning the
effects of abortions on the mothers (also concerning the scientific
fact that you kill an unborn human being through this "procedure"
you would probably be against abortion to (just maybe)
You appose slavery i suppose..you appose...experimenting aborted
human beings..(just maybe;)..I dont know what else you appose or not..
yet you have to realize that acting morally is only logical if you are
a theist.. there is in my mind no logical objection (if one thinks it
through) to Dostojeswskiy saying "If there is no God EVERYTHING
is allowe" this the logic along the lines of "dont put your personal
believe structure on me"..for "every opinion is as good as any other"
So you are against abortion fine..you are for it fine..(while not
realizing that through an indifferent mentality like this..one
indirectly is responseable for creating a society where forces (we
certain..believe sturctures...(who are determend however)..will
reach the top.."you are..against..abortion..well..public enemy number
one..go to jail".."you are..for people..being able to be either for or
against it"..well.."you are acting against the "peoples interest" go
to jail as well (or even worse)..See what im trying to say?
Being indifferent..will not help you..(As..it never where the
indifferennt who apposed dictatorship genozide slavery mass murder
even to the point where they risked their lifes (THE MADE A
DIFFERENCE) the.."pro-"choicers" where just silent..kissing up to the
"menace of the herd"..(under Hilter under Stalin ) under any unjust
law..like being allowed to kill an unborn child..
AND you know its the SICKEST rhetoric trick..to..tell us "that there
is something like a right to choose..(but not a right to life) for
what would any right..to do or dont do anything be based on (ya
guess;)?..
A pro-lifer is NOT AGAINST "some choice" per se..(You wouldnt
call..an organization that promotes pedophilia..(pro-choice) for they
would argue (we dont tell any adult what to do or not..yet we are
for a "choice"? "a choice" isnt a right..(its what you choose..that
makes the difference.) If somebody argues "i thought it through
i desired it and i choose to rape that woman" would you as a judge
follow that.."rationalization"? Would you agree that he "just has
a right to choose and he did so"...I guess not....and you know
why..because there is NO RIGHT to choose to harm kill or take
any right (like the right to life) away from anybody..(even somebody
defenseless and innocent as the Unborn Child..!
Greetings from Germany
Robert
VanOrmer
world who still have at least the basic morals down.
Stop give the whole operation "politically correct" names people!
ABORTED FETUS means (in normal English) MURDERED CHILD. You just have
to wade through the annoying, misrepresenting terminology to get to the
truth.
Thanks Robert, and thanks for the e-mail.
Adam
Robert
Lara <La...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>VanOrmer wrote:
>>
>> The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
>> their own the opposing thought processes.
>> Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
>> opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
>> etc.
>> The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
>> another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion". The
>> pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
>> "life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
>> "pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother. The objects of concern for each party are
>> literally worlds apart.
>> Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
>> entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
><Anti-abortion ranting snipped>
>You are very wrong in the meaning of Pro-Choice. Many people who are
>pro-choice are against abortion. They wouldn't have one and wouldn't
>encourage others to have one.
>However, by your own argument, Pro-Life should change their name to
>Anti-Choice.
>Lara
Oh gosh:) either you have a problem with being intellectually honest
or you are just hypocritical..well maybe your "standpoint" is not
thought
through well enough and you are just indifferent!! (which should not
be mixed
up with being TOLERANT (for that is something completely different)
Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being..(it is furthermore
causing serious psychological and medical problems for the women
who did abort their child (you seem to ignore the fact that a society
in which abortion is legal..has resulted into peerpressure..(Often
Men..pushing rushing a women to abortion..(this it seems is something
many pro-choicers dont care..about..(calling this "being for womens
rights and a choice.." How tragic that is.!!.(one doesnt need to hear
some conversation among.."mucho-type"..MEN..(being oh so happy
about being able to..pressure the women to abortion (due to the legal
situation.( your indifference..(is..not tolarance..if you really would
care..(you would not only decide that..Abortion is wrong for you for
good reasons..but also for other woman and her child(and be
carring enough to point out help to anybody facing
difficulities..pointing out that abortios is the wrong choice (you
know it and you dont speak up that is really indifferent or
heartless..!
You are being hypocritical..(in that sense a pro-choicer who is not
personally against abortion is at least in that area intellectually
honest!)
You equal a person rationalizing..(well my dear
friend from Alabama..you know.. i side with Abe Lincoln ect..for i
think having
slaves is wrong..and its a shame i couldnt do it..(yet..well i am
"oh so tolerant however" for letting you choose what ever you want
to (that Abe guy he is right yet..he wants compromise on peoples
choice..and i think thats where he goes wrong"..)
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Ray Fischer
Incorrect. It is the removal (and death) of a human embryo/fetus.
>(it is furthermore
>causing serious psychological and medical problems for the women
>who did abort their child
Incorrect. There is no evidence supporting the claim that abortion
causes any psychological problems, and as for medical problems,
abortion is much safer than is childbirth.
As for the rest ...
Ever seen someone wandering down a city street talking to himself?
>(you seem to ignore the fact that a society
>in which abortion is legal..has resulted into peerpressure..(Often
>Men..pushing rushing a women to abortion..(this it seems is something
>many pro-choicers dont care..about..(calling this "being for womens
>rights and a choice.." How tragic that is.!!.(one doesnt need to hear
>some conversation among.."mucho-type"..MEN..(being oh so happy
>about being able to..pressure the women to abortion (due to the legal
>situation.( your indifference..(is..not tolarance..if you really would
>care..(you would not only decide that..Abortion is wrong for you for
>good reasons..but also for other woman and her child(and be
>carring enough to point out help to anybody facing
>difficulities..pointing out that abortios is the wrong choice (you
>know it and you dont speak up that is really indifferent or
>heartless..!
>You are being hypocritical..(in that sense a pro-choicer who is not
>personally against abortion is at least in that area intellectually
>honest!)
>
>You equal a person rationalizing..(well my dear
>friend from Alabama..you know.. i side with Abe Lincoln ect..for i
>think having
>slaves is wrong..and its a shame i couldnt do it..(yet..well i am
>"oh so tolerant however" for letting you choose what ever you want
>to (that Abe guy he is right yet..he wants compromise on peoples
>choice..and i think thats where he goes wrong"..)
--
Honey Bunny
Robert <Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> wrote in article
<E4qKB...@muenster.westfalen.de>...
> Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being..(it is furthermore
> causing serious psychological and medical problems for the women
> who did abort their child (you seem to ignore the fact that a society
> in which abortion is legal..has resulted into peerpressure..(Often
> Men..pushing rushing a women to abortion..(this it seems is something
> many pro-choicers dont care..about..(calling this "being for womens
> rights and a choice.." How tragic that is.!!.(one doesnt need to hear
> some conversation among.."mucho-type"..MEN..(being oh so happy
> about being able to..pressure the women to abortion (due to the legal
> situation.( your indifference..(is..not tolarance..if you really would
> care..(you would not only decide that..Abortion is wrong for you for
> good reasons..but also for other woman and her child(and be
> carring enough to point out help to anybody facing
> difficulities..pointing out that abortios is the wrong choice (you
> know it and you dont speak up that is really indifferent or
> heartless..!
> You are being hypocritical..(in that sense a pro-choicer who is not
> personally against abortion is at least in that area intellectually
> honest!)
>
> You equal a person rationalizing..(well my dear
> friend from Alabama..you know.. i side with Abe Lincoln ect..for i
> think having
> slaves is wrong..and its a shame i couldnt do it..(yet..well i am
> "oh so tolerant however" for letting you choose what ever you want
> to (that Abe guy he is right yet..he wants compromise on peoples
> choice..and i think thats where he goes wrong"..)
>
> Greetings from Germany
>
> Robert
>
>
I'm just wondering which planet you come from. I live in a country where
abortion is legal and there are other issues around it that is being
focused on.
"Men force women to have abortions because it's legal"
Is it fair that a child is born that is not wanted by it's father? Should a
women that isn't cabable to protect her child, if she wants to have it,
have one?
"Peerpressure"
Should children have children? The slogan "you play, you pay" isn't what a
child's existence is to be based on. Kids will have sex, that's
unstoppable, it's just them it's about. But should kids have kids, no I
don't think so. There's this thing called responsability that comes with
bringing up a child in this world that 15-16 year-olds mostly don't have.
The hole argument that abortion is wrong seems to me being focusing on the
wrong issue.
To drive a car you have to take tests, there are police checking you out
sometimes, vision should be perfect and you have to have the knowledge to
drive a car. That *right* can be taken away from you.
To fish you sometimes need a license.
To ride a roll-a-coster you need to be over a certain height.
To have children there are no restrictions, which is the most serious thing
a person could get him- or herself into. The right to do that can be taken
away from you, but the option (fosterhomes and simular loging) are no good
sorroundings for children.
Having sex comes with our instinkts and when a girl gets to be a woman
which occurs between the ages of 10 to 16 her body is mature to have sex
and have children. In our society she is still considered a child, she has
no or very few rights, she is not able to provide for her child, she lack
the experience of giving advice to her child. In short she is not fit to
raise a child.
But being pregnant isn't fun and abortion is not a birthcontrolmethod. It's
a way out. These things shouldn't be regulated with laws, it's difficult
enough.
I think that you are very ignorant about what's going on in a woman's body
during a pregnancy. She contains water like the Hooverdamm, hormones are
raving, the moodswings are enormous, she starts to cry for no reason, she
get's morning sickness which is no picknick.
Do you think we like this state of mind and body? I myself have never been
pregnant but I have friends that have been, both having the baby and having
abortions. The answer is education and that the kind of men *that are
pressuring women to have abortions* should wear condoms and not argue about
it.
I recall a case in Ireland a young girl that were raiped and got pregnant.
She was provented by law to have an abortion. She wanted to go to England
were it was legal, but some f***ing activists like you prevented her. She
had to carry a mans child in the womb that had insulted her, taken her
pride, hurt her, abused her and she was to be happy about it too.
Eventually the court had mercy on her and she was allowed to leave the
country and have the devils child removed.
Think about it.
H.B
Gary Duve
Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in article =
<rayE4q...@netcom.com>...
> Robert <Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> wrote:
> >Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being.
>=20
> Incorrect. It is the removal (and death) of a human embryo/fetus.
The Embryo/fetus IS an unborn human being. That much has already
been well established by the scientific community. You are both well
aware of this, and have offered no scientific evidence to support any
other view. You often claim others are offering strawmen, but it appears
you are quite willing to do this. Please, offer your scientific basis =
for
concluding a fetus or embryo are not unborn human beings.
> >(it is furthermore
> >causing serious psychological and medical problems for the women
> >who did abort their child=20
>=20
> Incorrect. There is no evidence supporting the claim that abortion
> causes any psychological problems, and as for medical problems,
> abortion is much safer than is childbirth.
You should know the source of your citation, it is Abortionist David =
Zbaraz who=20
actually claimed that all first- trimester and most second-trimester =
abortions are=20
medically necessary since, as he alleges, they are safer than childbirth
(cited from; Zbaraz v. Quern , No. 77-C4522 (N.D. Ill, Memo Opinion, =
June 13,
1978)).=20
This was expanded to the 100 factor, by a Colorado abortion clinic =
director claimed=20
that his "extensive research showed that carrying a pregnancy to term is =
about 100=20
times more life threatening than having an abortion. He, therefore, =
considered any=20
pregnancy life-threatening and used that as justification, certifying =
that the mother's=20
life was endangered." Do note, the claim is by someone with a vested =
interest in
seeing that abortions occur.
Just what sort of threats to a womans life can we find from such =
"extensive research",
well Dr. Jasper Williams, former president of the National Medical =
Association, noted=20
that, in 23 years of practice, he knew of only two women who had =
actually died in childbirth=20
from previously undiagnosed causes; one of a pulmonary embolism and the =
other from=20
an amniotic fluid embolism.=20
It is his opinion that pro-abortionists will expand even minor =
conditions (such as mild varicose=20
veins) into "threats to the woman's life."
YES Ray, you read it right, varicose veins are a threat to the womans =
life for which we
absolutely must have abortions. How many deaths from Varicose veins =
(caused by
unwanted pregnancy) do you think we suffered Ray, would you believe =
zero?
Ray, I guess health is in the eye of the beholder. A great example
showing how ridiculous "health" issues can be with respect to abortion
rights, can be found in the opinion of Judge Dooling when he overturned=20
the Hyde Amendment. Dooling asserted on page 309 of his opinion that=20
"Poverty is a medical condition."=20
We can look back before Roe, and check to see if the interests of=20
mothers with real health issues were addressed (of course before we
even begin you know the answer is yes, but lets take a quick look):
We must look at the "health" Strategy. Traditionally, pro-abortionists =
have=20
used a time- honored and successful two-step strategy for enacting =
abortion=20
on demand. The first step is to get abortion legalized for the true =
"hard cases"=20
of rape and incest. The second step is to either legalize abortion for =
any reason=20
or to legalize it "for the mother's health" -- which, in practice, is =
exactly the same=20
as abortion on demand.
Abortion "for the mother's health" equals abortion on demand because, =
when defined=20
by pro-abortionists, "health" means literally anything . Many =
abortionists in this and=20
other countries use the definition of "maternal health" set by the World =
Health Organization=20
(WHO): "A state of complete physical, mental, and social well being and =
not merely the=20
absence of disease or infirmity."
Thus Ray, we can see how Dooling derives his "poverty" as a health =
issue. The
problem with health is it means anything. When health means anything, it =
means abortion
on demand. Any acceptance of your health argument is an acceptance of =
abortion on
demand, this of course would require those who are pro life be =
hypocrites and ignore
the lives we desire to protect. As most pro lifers are quite moral, you =
will find we are
unable to succumb to abortion on demand, which means we cannot succumb =
to a=20
generic health exception such as you would like or such as that outlined =
in Bolton.
Here is how "health" has evolved in the US with respect to abortion, =
please note that
even without "Roe" or "Bolton" mothers who were facing serious health =
concerns were
permitted to abort.
The statutes of 46 States regulating abortion before 1965 explicitly =
allowed abortion to=20
save the life of the mother. Of the four States that did not explicitly =
allow an exception for=20
the life of the mother, State courts found that such laws did indeed =
implicitly allow such=20
an exception. These exceptions were used if there was any doubt at all =
that a mother's life=20
would be imperiled by a continuing pregnancy; abortionists obviously did =
not wait for women=20
to reach death's door.=20
It was generally expected that a woman seeking an abortion to preserve =
her health was in=20
dire mental or physical condition indeed. However, lawmakers reasoned =
that it was hardly=20
moral or fair to kill an unborn child for a chronic health problem that =
was induced by pregnancy=20
and would clear up after delivery. Therefore, before 1965, "mother's =
health" was generally=20
interpreted to mean a truly life-threatening situation. In other words, =
a "mother's life" exception=20
was approximately equivalent to a "mother's health" exception.=20
The Strategy of pro abortion is a process of incrementalism (abortion =
first for rape and incest,=20
then the mother's 'health') was the original plan of the abortion =
strategists; however, this overall=20
plan was cut short by the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.
This progression of abortion exceptions that are more and more liberal =
is not unique to the United=20
States; it has been successfully employed all over the world. Many =
nations that have abortion=20
exceptions "for the mother's health" essentially have abortion on =
demand. West Germany=20
was a prime example.
Thus Ray, as you can see, "women's health" as you would define it, means =
anything, it
means abortion on demand without limit. It does mean pro lifers must =
oppose a generic
"health" exception which is not founded on some reality which truly =
threatens a womans
life, as anything less becomes abortion on demand.
I hope this clears up your concerns about women's health and abortion.
Regards
Gary Duve
Laura Akers
Gary Duve (gd...@ct1.nai.net) wrote:
:
:
: Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in article =
: <rayE4q...@netcom.com>...
: > Robert <Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> wrote:
: > >Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being.
: >=20
: > Incorrect. It is the removal (and death) of a human embryo/fetus.
:
: The Embryo/fetus IS an unborn human being. That much has already
: been well established by the scientific community.
Since that is a question of philosophy (What is a human being?), how can
the scientific community have anything to say about it?
You are both well
: aware of this, and have offered no scientific evidence to support any
: other view.
I'm not. As far as I know, science can only answer the question "What is
a human body?" They make very few claims about souls and such.
You often claim others are offering strawmen, but it appears
: you are quite willing to do this. Please, offer your scientific basis =
: for
: concluding a fetus or embryo are not unborn human beings.
Please provide some philosophical proofs for your claim about "human
beings."
Laura Akers
Gary Duve
Laura Akers <ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article =
<5cnvll$7jg$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
> Since that is a question of philosophy (What is a human being?), how =
can
> the scientific community have anything to say about it?
Laura, the question of humanity, is one for science, as is the question =
of life.
Personhood, sentience, cognitive awareness, and their relation to =
humanity
and life, I guess those are for legal eagles. Science can say if a thing =
is alive
or not, and can also say if it is human or not. This has been easy to do =
for
quite some time:-)
=20
> I'm not. As far as I know, science can only answer the question "What =
is
> a human body?" They make very few claims about souls and such.
I never suggested science had made many claims regarding souls and such.
It's odd you'd argue against a claim unmade.... bored?
=20
> Please provide some philosophical proofs for your claim about "human
> beings."
I wasn't arguing about philosophical proofs, but scientific proofs =
regarding
human beings. Why would I argue a scientific fact with philosophical =
conjecture?
Regards
Gary Duve
Laura Akers
Gary Duve (gd...@ct1.nai.net) wrote:
: Laura Akers <ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article =
: <5cnvll$7jg$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
: > Since that is a question of philosophy (What is a human being?), how =
: can
: > the scientific community have anything to say about it?
:
: Laura, the question of humanity, is one for science, as is the question =
: of life.
: Personhood, sentience, cognitive awareness, and their relation to =
: humanity
: and life, I guess those are for legal eagles.
Personhood and sentience are what we are talking about. No one denies
that a fetus is human or alive. Only that it is *A* human being and
a *life*. See the difference? Welll, actually I guess not from your
response below.
Science can say if a thing =
: is alive
: or not, and can also say if it is human or not. This has been easy to do =
: for
: quite some time:-)
My gall bladder is human and alive. Are you going to argue for its "right
to life"?
: =20
: > I'm not. As far as I know, science can only answer the question "What =
: is
: > a human body?" They make very few claims about souls and such.
:
: I never suggested science had made many claims regarding souls and such.
: It's odd you'd argue against a claim unmade.... bored?
: =20
: > Please provide some philosophical proofs for your claim about "human
: > beings."
:
: I wasn't arguing about philosophical proofs, but scientific proofs =
: regarding
: human beings.
Science doesn't make claims about human *beings*. "Being-ness" is a
philosophical matter.
Why would I argue a scientific fact with philosophical =
: conjecture?
:
I don't know. Why *are* you?
Laura Akers
VanOrmer
mothers.
VanOrmer
Robert wrote:
>
> bf1...@binghamton.edu (Trisha Fusco) wrote:
>
> >In article <32E99D...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
> >>Lara wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You are very wrong in the meaning of Pro-Choice. Many people who are
> >>> pro-choice are against abortion. They wouldn't have one and wouldn't
> >>> encourage others to have one.
> >>>
> >>> However, by your own argument, Pro-Life should change their name to
> >>> Anti-Choice.
> >>>
> >>> Lara
> >>
> >>or readily available choice, but I am very much in favor of all sorts of
> >>choices. To say one is anti-choice means against choice. How I feel
> >>about choice is irrelevant. The fact is that all women have a choice.
> >>I want to stack the deck in favor of a particular choice, not take the
> >>choice away (which I cannot feasibly do.) You could legitimately call
> >>an abortion opponent anti-abortion if you must focus on the negative for
> >>whatever purpose, although prolifers generally oppose abortion,
> >>euthanasia and assisted suicide (at least most of them.)
> >
This is VanOrmer, the original poster of the article "Pro-Death
Movement." I've have enjoyed reading your replies very much and am
encouraged by your logic. I was beginning to think I wouldn't find any
common sense here. Thanks.
VanOrmer
Laura Akers wrote:
>
> Gary Duve (gd...@ct1.nai.net) wrote:
> : Laura Akers <ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article =
> : <5cnvll$7jg$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
> : > Since that is a question of philosophy (What is a human being?), how =
> : can
> : > the scientific community have anything to say about it?
> :
> : Laura, the question of humanity, is one for science, as is the question =
> : of life.
> : Personhood, sentience, cognitive awareness, and their relation to =
> : humanity
> : and life, I guess those are for legal eagles.
>
> Personhood and sentience are what we are talking about. No one denies
> that a fetus is human or alive. Only that it is *A* human being and
> a *life*. See the difference? Welll, actually I guess not from your
> response below.
>
> Science can say if a thing =
> : is alive
> : or not, and can also say if it is human or not. This has been easy to do =
> : for
> : quite some time:-)
>
> My gall bladder is human and alive. Are you going to argue for its "right
> to life"?
Jenny-Faith Lee
The world is over populated.....death....why not???
Is prevention of death an act of love towards Humankind or is it a
deeply imbedded notion of Christian ideology that teaches "life is
precious, because god gave humankind life??"
Jen
Robert
VanOrmer <vano...@epix.net> wrote:
Hi Adam i send you another email.i seem to have a little problem..
getting my replies on the ng..at the mo (on the other hand..all
these pro-"choicers" seem to have a little problem. to reply to
my thread;) (or is it really only the delay;)
Robert
Robert
David Bryson <dbr...@envirolink.org> wrote:
>give up that crap...
>I believe people should be able to do:
> suicide
> euthanasia
> & abortion
> "Why" you ask
> Because: It's none of your damn business!!
since when is it not of my business or "only
a private thing" when others take away the right
to life of other people (since thats what abortion
is)..
Gary Duve
VanOrmer <vano...@epix.net> wrote in article =
<32F140...@epix.net>...
> > Personhood and sentience are what we are talking about. No one =
denies
> > that a fetus is human or alive. Only that it is *A* human being and
your
> > response below.
Hi Van, well no, you see a fetus is human and alive. It is both within =
the
dictionary definition of child, and within common use, as well as =
scientific
use a human life, a human being. I have in the past few days cited so
many authorities for this on these boards that to repeat again would =
border
on a perpetual post of a FAQ. Check with dejanews.com for what I have
put up recently, which supports the arguments made, and which =
demonstrates
the error of your argument (on a purely scientific basis).
> > My gall bladder is human and alive. Are you going to argue for its =
"right
> > to life"?
> > YOU'RE GALL BLADDER IS HUMAN? THAT'S GOT TO HURT.
> > : =3D20
> > : > I'm not. As far as I know, science can only answer the question =
"What =3D
> > : is
> > : > a human body?" They make very few claims about souls and such.
Your gall bladder is not a human being, in and of itself. I'm also glad =
you're
knowledge of science doesn't define what science actually knows. If you =
will
check elsewhere on the talk.abortion board (my haunt of the moment), =
you'll
see numerous support (from scientific sources, virtually all cited from =
source)
that the unborn is a human life, and or a human being (depending on the=20
source, some have indicated it is a life, others a human being).
As a clincher and as a repeat of part of an earlier post, note that the =
Nobel Prize=20
Committee for Physiology and Medicine stated decisively in 1991 that =
"The Nobel=20
Committee noted that life begins with the activation of ion channels as =
the sperm=20
merges with the egg in fertilization. All cells have electrical charges =
within and=20
outside the cell and the difference is known as the membrane potential. =
Fertilization
changes the potential to prevent other sperm from joining the fertilized =
egg."
The above is a good definition for the onset of a new human life (when =
of course
the sperm and egg are human:-). I doubt your gall bladder is doing this =
much.
> > Science doesn't make claims about human *beings*. "Being-ness" is a
> > philosophical matter.
> >=20
A being is well within the jurisdiction of science, as is definition of =
humanity.
You are I think possibly confusing the legal concept of personhood =
within the
interpreted scope of the 14th amendment for being. Don't sweat it =
though, this
is a common error on these boards, and I'll do what I can to help you =
work up
to the real debate (which is personhood of the unborn, and the killing =
of them
which occurs when they are aborted).
My MS BookShelf 97 dictionary, has for the first definition of human =
being, the
following:
A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
As we have no argument that the zygote is a human or that it is living, =
it qualifies
for membership into the group of human beings, as do it's morphs into =
embryo
and fetus.
Regards
Gary Duve
Honey Bunny
Robert <Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> wrote in article
<E4u6H...@muenster.westfalen.de>...
If every pregnant women would keep their children there would only be more
shit in the world, more childabuse, more poverty, more shitheads like you
no doubt, less food and space for everyone, more wars, and less love in the
world.
Having children isn't fuck and have one. It's about money, clean house and
education, time for your children. I rather see more abortion then one more
hatful father and indifferent mother, but then you love the sight of that.
Abortion isn't the question, education, protection and communication is.
But then you'd be too hypocrit for any of that.
--
H.B
She came, saw, executed and sighed:
"Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Cowboy!"
Christopher Beattie
Honey Bunny wrote:
>
> If every pregnant women would keep their children there would only be more
> shit in the world, more childabuse, more poverty, more shitheads like you
> no doubt, less food and space for everyone, more wars, and less love in the
> world.
population. You and Scroodge have a lot in common. But why stop
there, let's kill everyone who isn't us, that way we can have all the
food ans space and love for ourselves.
If every pregnant women would keep their children there would be more
people in the world, (or perhaps not ... that's another argument) more
would find happiness, more would find sadness, more would find greatness,
more would find humility, but they would all experience the human condition,
be it good or ill, a luxoury which you somehow feel that these children
do not deserve the right to have.
No just let them all die, and that way we can decrease the
surpluss population. Then one day, those who survive will
say, "oh those elderly guys ... let them all die, and that
way we can decrease the surplus population ... and save on
medical bills."
> Having children isn't fuck and have one. It's about money, clean house and
> education, time for your children. I rather see more abortion then one more
> hatful father and indifferent mother, but then you love the sight of that.
No, it's about love, creation, new life. It's about the many who can't
have children, and who constantly seek for a child they can care for.
It's about the responsibility that we have as a people and a community
to help each other out so that families can afford the time for their
children. It's about telling a woman that having a child is wonderful,
(well morning sickness, etc ain't wonderful but the child is) not something
that implies a flaw in her womanhood which only abortion can solve.
It's about that old line, "We hold these truths to be self evident. That
all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator, with
certain unalienable rights, among them are life liberty and the presuit
of happiness." These rights which are unalienable are given to them when
they were created equal, not when their heads magically pop out of the
Mother's vagina and the constitutional fairy taps the child on the head
with live liberty and the persuit of happiness.
Moreover, there is no reason why or how your agument stops at birth.
A family with a two year old child can suffer all sort of loss. The
husband can get crippled, or the wife. Since the child cannot then
have the clean house, and time, he or she would have gotten had the
accident not occured, why not kill the healthy child on the spot?
--
| _______ |Christopher Beattie | 801 Eisenhower Dr|
| /__ __\ Peace |Tantalus Inc. | Key West, FL 33040|
| / \ and |Development Div. |Phone: (305) 293-8100|
| /___\ Good |chr...@Tansoft.com | Fax: (305) 292-7835|
| |#include <disclamer.standard.hpp> |
MRX
On 31 Jan 1997 12:42:22 GMT, "Honey Bunny" <p...@for-president.com>
wrote:
>
>
>Robert <Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> wrote in article
><E4u6H...@muenster.westfalen.de>...
>> David Bryson <dbr...@envirolink.org> wrote:
>>
>> >give up that crap...
>> >I believe people should be able to do:
>> > suicide
>> > euthanasia
>> > & abortion
>>
>> > "Why" you ask
>> > Because: It's none of your damn business!!
>>
>> since when is it not of my business or "only
>> a private thing" when others take away the right
>> to life of other people (since thats what abortion
>> is)..
>>
>If every pregnant women would keep their children there would only be more
>shit in the world, more childabuse, more poverty, more shitheads like you
>no doubt, less food and space for everyone, more wars, and less love in the
>world.
less of your kind of love? you are making a good case for abortion.
>--
>H.B
VanOrmer
REIN888
Hello! I wanted to share something very important.
You know each of us only has one life to live.
We need to make decisions now that will determine our future.
The God of heaven sent his only Son to this earth
to let us have a way to be right with God,
have God's help in this life and one day be in heaven
with God. There in heaven is peace, rest, love and joy.
We definitely don't want to go to the other place called hell.
In hell, there is darkness, thirst, torment and weeping and
gnashing of teeth. So how can we enjoy God's blessing now
and be in heaven? Simple, receive Jesus Christ as Savior.
It says that if we will confess with our mouth the Lord Jesus
and believe in our heart that God raised him from the dead
we will be saved. We can simply pray: Heavenly Father,
forgive me of my sins and I now confess Jesus Christ
as the Lord of my life and I believe in my heart
(with everything in me) that you raised Jesus Christ
from the dead. The Word of God (the Bible) says that you
are now saved! You are now a child of God, transferred
from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light!
Jesus is now your Good Shepherd, taking care of you and
helping you!
Thanks for reading and choosing life. Hope to hear from you soon!
Ray Fischer
Wandy Larkson <wa...@hartingdale.com.au> wrote:
>> Laura Akers wrote:
>> > Science doesn't make claims about human *beings*. "Being-ness" is a
>> > philosophical matter.
>
>If you mean by 'claims' - how one is ethically to behave in relation to
>a particular being - no, science does not tell us that; however, science
>can provide the starting point for the ethical discussion - if the
>fetus is established, as it has been, as a human life - what is our duty
>to that life?
"Our" duty? Why don't you start first by telling us what YOUR duty
might be. After all, it would be a little hypocritical to expect only
pregannt women to be responsible for saving lives.
Adam Levenstein
Save me? He can't even cure acne!
----------------------------------------
Adam Levenstein Young Socialists
aml...@psu.edu Juventud Socialista
http://www.personal.psu.edu/aml161/
http://pages.prodigy.com/PA/cleon/ys.html
"Let me say, at the risk of seeming
ridiculous, that the true revolutionary
is guided by great feelings of love."
-- Cmdte. Che Guevara
----------------------------------------
Robert
Jenny-Faith Lee <jf...@wwdc.com> wrote:
>The world is over populated.....death....why not???
>Is prevention of death an act of love towards Humankind or is it a
>deeply imbedded notion of Christian ideology that teaches "life is
>precious, because god gave humankind life??"
>Jen
Overpopulation is a myth..(there are certainly not
effectly target by killing the unborn or forcing
our "western selfcentered" contraceptive mentality
down the throat of the third world..!
(We should attack the root of the problem)
not claiming to do something moral..when..treating
victims as syntomps..
(that wouldnt be true Christianity)
(for one is never justified..when one claims
(the goal justifies the means")
That isnt Christian nor moral nor loving.
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Robert
ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu (Laura Akers) wrote:
>Gary Duve (gd...@ct1.nai.net) wrote:
>:
>:
>: Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in article =
>: <rayE4q...@netcom.com>...
>: > Robert <Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> wrote:
>: > >Abortion is the killing of an unborn human being.
>: >=20
>: > Incorrect. It is the removal (and death) of a human embryo/fetus.
>:
>: The Embryo/fetus IS an unborn human being. That much has already
>: been well established by the scientific community.
>Since that is a question of philosophy (What is a human being?), how can
>the scientific community have anything to say about it?
A Human Being is certainly MORE then can be meassured..with..technical
or scientific means..to say..wether "the Unborn" is a Human Being or
Not..has nothing to do with science is a little strange though..
(since BOTH aspects came and come together)
It is just that todays Science..doesnt..refuse the biological..based
fact that..the Unborn is..a Human Being (materialist 19th century
reasoning..did in many ways (but was proved as being..false)
>You are both well
>: aware of this, and have offered no scientific evidence to support any
>: other view.
>I'm not. As far as I know, science can only answer the question "What is
>a human body?" They make very few claims about souls and such.
Well inderectly..poiting to qualities of the Human Being..that cant
be detect that easy or "proved!" in a quantitative manner..has been
giving (by Noble Prize winning Scientists btw)..
certainly the.:"their is no soul..talk" is largely seen as outdated
and oversimplistic TODAY.. (but even if the unborn and the born human
being didnt have a soul (which she and heihas)
(that wouldnt take away from it beinga HUMAN BEING..(and not being
allowed to be killed by those who argue.:(Its wrong to kill somebody
(but
make not so logical exceptions..when it comes to the living (oh well
some dont..(the sick the dying the elderly..(Euthanasia is a problem
here too) (its all related)
>You often claim others are offering strawmen, but it appears
>: you are quite willing to do this. Please, offer your scientific basis =
>: for
>: concluding a fetus or embryo are not unborn human beings.
>Please provide some philosophical proofs for your claim about "human
>beings."
THAT is an interesting discussion (which touches a subject broughter
than the abortion debate)..
are you saying..(the scientitic fact that the unborn child is a human
being isnt enough ot be against killing it ? (In a way you are
right..but that of course would..also be true for the born..Human
Being...( I am however willing to discuss philosophical proof about
Human Beings..(any time;) (its complex though;)
>Laura Akers
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Robert
ez07...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Laura Akers) wrote:
>Gary Duve (gd...@ct1.nai.net) wrote:
>: Laura Akers <ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article =
>: <5cnvll$7jg$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>: > Since that is a question of philosophy (What is a human being?), how =
>: can
>: > the scientific community have anything to say about it?
>:
>: Laura, the question of humanity, is one for science, as is the question =
>: of life.
>: Personhood, sentience, cognitive awareness, and their relation to =
>: humanity
>: and life, I guess those are for legal eagles.
>Personhood and sentience are what we are talking about. No one denies
>that a fetus is human or alive. Only that it is *A* human being and
>a *life*. See the difference? Welll, actually I guess not from your
>response below.
THAT is the only "last resort" an "honest" pro"choicer" can have
"yes the unborn IS IN FACT (cause there is no way in denying that..
an unborn Human being (but..well it a person..)
(and how do we prove that?)
Of course..that brings up the questions..how once defines personhood
(it can be defined wrong..) (and if it leaves any philosophical
grounds.to be..for killing somebody (for declaring him or her a
None-Person (which of course was done this century..already;(!!!
>Science can say if a thing =
>: is alive
>: or not, and can also say if it is human or not. This has been easy to do =
>: for
>: quite some time:-)
>My gall bladder is human and alive. Are you going to argue for its "right
>to life"?
Oh You are missing a vital point..
(dont play some simple strange sematic tricks..) (which are not even
based on anything..
we are not talking about the right to life for some vague definition
of "life or human life " BUT about the right to life of a "single
unique
Human BEING"..(there is not only a philosophical but a scientific
difference here !!!
>: =20
>: > I'm not. As far as I know, science can only answer the question "What =
>: is
>: > a human body?" They make very few claims about souls and such.
>:
>: I never suggested science had made many claims regarding souls and such.
>: It's odd you'd argue against a claim unmade.... bored?
>: =20
>: > Please provide some philosophical proofs for your claim about "human
>: > beings."
>:
>: I wasn't arguing about philosophical proofs, but scientific proofs =
>: regarding
>: human beings.
>Science doesn't make claims about human *beings*. "Being-ness" is a
>philosophical matter.
NOT quite right..(a being is something that is the operative bases in
biology as well (since..when btw..have we declared PHILOSOPY (a
NONE-science ?:)It is a science as well.
>Why would I argue a scientific fact with philosophical =
>: conjecture?
>:
>I don't know. Why *are* you?
>Laura Akers
as i said..philosophy is a science too!
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Robert
"Gary Duve" <gd...@ct1.nai.net> wrote:
>Laura Akers <ez07...@boris.ucdavis.edu> wrote in article =
><5cnvll$7jg$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>> Since that is a question of philosophy (What is a human being?), how =
>can
>> the scientific community have anything to say about it?
>Laura, the question of humanity, is one for science, as is the question =
>of life.
>Personhood, sentience, cognitive awareness, and their relation to =
>humanity
>and life, I guess those are for legal eagles. Science can say if a thing =
>is alive
>or not, and can also say if it is human or not. This has been easy to do =
>for
>quite some time:-)
>=20
>> I'm not. As far as I know, science can only answer the question "What =
>is
>> a human body?" They make very few claims about souls and such.
>I never suggested science had made many claims regarding souls and such.
>It's odd you'd argue against a claim unmade.... bored?
>=20
>> Please provide some philosophical proofs for your claim about "human
>> beings."
>I wasn't arguing about philosophical proofs, but scientific proofs =
>regarding
>human beings. Why would I argue a scientific fact with philosophical =
>conjecture?
>Regards
>Gary Duve
You have a point there (unless..of course somebody claims
(why shoulndt i be able to abort a Human Being (since it might be
nothing else than a distant cousin of "the gorilla"..(but that would
be a rationalization (although wrong)..that would also
justify..("philosophically" the killing of the Born Human Beings
(and social Darwinism.ect..also came into play with the Nazi-ideolgy)
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Robert
VanOrmer <vano...@epix.net> wrote:
>Robert wrote:
>>
>> bf1...@binghamton.edu (Trisha Fusco) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <32E99D...@ns.net>, Melanie <wmn...@ns.net> wrote:
>> >>Lara wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> <Anti-abortion ranting snipped>
>> >>>
>> >>> You are very wrong in the meaning of Pro-Choice. Many people who are
>> >>> pro-choice are against abortion. They wouldn't have one and wouldn't
>> >>> encourage others to have one.
>> >>>
>> >>> However, by your own argument, Pro-Life should change their name to
>> >>> Anti-Choice.
>> >>>
>> >>> Lara
>> >>
>> >>Lara, I am not anti-choice. I do not think abortion should be a legal
>> >>or readily available choice, but I am very much in favor of all sorts of
>> >>choices. To say one is anti-choice means against choice. How I feel
>> >>about choice is irrelevant. The fact is that all women have a choice.
>> >>I want to stack the deck in favor of a particular choice, not take the
>> >>choice away (which I cannot feasibly do.) You could legitimately call
>> >>an abortion opponent anti-abortion if you must focus on the negative for
>> >>whatever purpose, although prolifers generally oppose abortion,
>> >>euthanasia and assisted suicide (at least most of them.)
>> >
THANK YOU:) for your kind words and starting this thread:)
You are doing great in not being silent about an outrage like the
killing of unborn human beings !
Robert
Robert
"Honey Bunny" <p...@for-president.com> wrote:
>Robert <Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> wrote in article
><E4u6H...@muenster.westfalen.de>...
>> David Bryson <dbr...@envirolink.org> wrote:
>>
>> >give up that crap...
>> >I believe people should be able to do:
>> > suicide
>> > euthanasia
>> > & abortion
>>
>> > "Why" you ask
>> > Because: It's none of your damn business!!
>>
>> since when is it not of my business or "only
>> a private thing" when others take away the right
>> to life of other people (since thats what abortion
>> is)..
>>
Hi H.B.
while your first responds to the post seemed to at least to
pretend to be considerate..your..true nature comes
out with this one..(somehow enraged by a simply question
you dont even hesitate to use the term :"fuck"..(which you somehow
managed to blank;).in your first response
(why so cautios;)?
anyway:
>If every pregnant women would keep their children there would only be more
>shit in the world,
you are not meaning less dipers to be filled if there are more
abortions..are ya?:)
more childabuse, more poverty, more shitheads like you
>no doubt, less food and space for everyone, more wars, and less love in the
>world.
You are truely mixing things up here.
as for "more childabuse":
If abortion would be "the tool" to "prevent" "unwanted undesired
children" from being alive..and children being abused
then childabuse would have been
sharply reduced everywhere abortion numbers went up.
The opposite is the case.
So it is very likely to say that ABORTION and CHILDABUSE
are symptoms of the same cause: A tendentious egoistic.
life- and child hostile mentality.
This is excactly a mentality..where..love care..being concerned about
long time effects..helping others the weak the unwanted the helpless
is not excactly blooming..When society aims at "quick solutions"..
they..go a way that was went this century before..(seing the victims
of a situation..as the "problem" (out of selfish selfcentered
reasoning) and aiming at a "final solution"..
This will not prevent things from having an effect on the "problem"
of the ALREADY BORN..(the sick the elderly..(who it would be argued
are worthless creating economical unrest uprising and social problems
beyond toleration if "kept alive"
A reasoning like this a mentality like this is more effective in
creating NEW problems than making this world a more life friendly
place.
War Hunger Hate selfcentered reasoning ect..are not caused by
a new born baby nor by a million new born babies..nor any number of
handicapped elderly or infants..nor is the root of sexual unloving
behaviour targeted by killing a single unborn human being.
To come from a Western World Nation (where..abortion numbers in
many countries have reached a percentage which increasingly endangers
the economic and social future of our society´s (due to HIGH numbers
of abortions) and to argue about "Overpolulation"..(as if the
dangerousdecline of births doesnt rob us of posibilities
oportunities..sociological and technical strengh the "human recourses"
to target 3 world problems to help other countries...in a constructive
ideas and love based way..is really being blind to the fact..(or
hypcritical to a point..(where a "faked love and concern" about..
"the problems of the world" is the phoney arguementation to kill
unborn children at home..(to be able to tap yourself on the shoulder
because of this without needing to really care and help) as if
abortion even feeds one single hungry child in the world or prevent
one shot from being fired in a war..(while it only produces killed
Human Beings)
Needless to say that "Overpolulation" is largely a myth..and that
the world according to real scientific not sociological bais studies
could..handle much more people than it can today..(not even counting
the countless technical possibilities..high-tech will provide for
making this world a better place..(the world is not "Ovepolulated" the
problems are somewhere else..(To go a destruvctive path and..kill
future..:Bachs Einsteins Martin Luther King´s Mother Theresa´s isnt
helpful either..(and course cause a selfcentered egoistic approach
of society like this..is far more likely to bring about totalitarian
not excactly love-based Governments..in other words a "Brave New
World".
>Having children isn't fuck and have one.
I know my english is a little rusty;)sigh..
so..what did ya excactly mean by that?..;)
It's about money, clean house and
>education, time for your children.
I see..(you said you dont have children yet..and
how it looks (despite of calling yourself Hunny Bunny:).(you are not
quite attractive and warm and loving..(in other words a mature female
yet)..didnt you say in your first response that.."education is a must
needed..and didnt you hint that the lack of it is at the root of
things contributing to a lot of problems in our society?..
(now you seem to rap negatively about it..why is that ;)?
Yes a house that isnt excactly a pigsty time and education..come
in handy if you raise children..(i guess they are not really needed
if you want to "abort" one?)..above all Love and Care are the base
and can not be substituted with any earthy material..really..
(of course having time for others carring..education come "in handy"
to have a productive loving fruitful relationship..with your
surrounding as well..(on the other hand..if you only are about: "the
new fashion channel..and.."oh Susie dont you think..Liz is really
really gross..these days..and..ahhh " you probably dont grasp the
worth of it. (maybe you will grow up someday though)
I rather see more abortion then one more
>hatful father and indifferent mother, but then you love the sight of that.
No i have just explained to you that they come together..(giving the
fact that you are blind to these facts (i assume that you are not
really carring about.."hatful father and indifferent mother"
but are more USING this as a phoney rationalization for abortion.
I sure dont love the sight of it honey bunny and i do know where it
is "comming from".you seem to be determinted to close youre eyes to
the fact
that Abortion CONTRIBUTES to the problem (and doenst solve it)
>Abortion isn't the question, education, protection and communication is.
they seem to be all interrelated no doubt:) (why cant you see
that?)..
Giving the heartless and unripe attitude you show towards the reality
of things ..(i wonder what you mean with "protection";)sigh and
"communication";)sigh ??? (Would ya like to go deeper into that?)
Certainly..practising "safe sex" has a tendency to give one..a false
sense of security which makes you tend to loose a focus on
responsibility..when it comes to sex..(it seems that not ONLY men are
guilty of that:) how this contributes to more love understanding a
stronger bond a happy sexual life less harm and violance..(and less
abortions..) given the fact that NO contraceptive..is 100%
safe..(natural family planning if done right appears to be "the
safest")..(not to talk about aids and such which a condom nor pill
does not prevent from
spreading)..will remain your secrete ... it seems !!!
>But then you'd be too hypocrit for any of that.
No H.B..(thinking things through it seems hat hypocracy is more
to be found in your corner ..wouldnt you say?
(ok maybe not "thinking things through" or giving them much thought
as you have indirectly admitted yourself)
>--
>H.B
> She came, saw, executed and sighed:
(I have a hint that would have be a "hypocritical
sigh";)?
> "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Cowboy!"
(are you posting from :alt.feminazis..or something;)sigh ?
(wherrrreeeeeeeeeee have all the WOMEN gone (i mean the
female mature once;) llllllloooong time paaaaasing;)!!!???
(ok i should stop whining i know a few of em:) (and a real man
is hard to find these days as well:)braggin:)!!
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Robert
"Honey Bunny" <p...@for-president.com> wrote:
Dear Hunny Bunny;)
>I'm just wondering which planet you come from. I live in a country where
>abortion is legal and there are other issues around it that is being
>focused on.
Well just in case you wondered i live in a country where "abortion"
is "legal" too.
Looking at the political scene in Germany..and the United
States..however ..I think it is safe to say that ABORTION is much more
a topic and this horrible fact that millions of Unborn Human Beings
are killed every year..is MUCH more..focused on in the United States
than in Germany.
(Interesting how the political left..and pro"choice" advocates where
"all over the place" making..the "right to choose" to kill an unborn
human being..a "political matter" and now are whining..about
this "not being a political matter at all and there are other
problems"..(hypocracy was with these folks to begin with)
Human Rights the right to life the psychological and medical health
of women might be something YOU..have not given much thought..
(to mistakingly think however..because some topics are not concerning
you (the fact that you post to this ng..kind of is contradictory to
your claim)
that there are issues which are of more importance (I dont deny
other equally troubling issues..)
means being blind tot he fact that MANY issues are
interaleted..and.cover several aspects....(by focusing on key issues
we don necessarily blurr the vision to a variy of problems in our
society but might serve to make things even clearer.
>"Men force women to have abortions because it's legal"
>Is it fair that a child is born that is not wanted by it's father? Should a
>women that isn't cabable to protect her child, if she wants to have it,
>have one?
Now since it is a fact of life that the "liberalization" of the
abortion laws in the United States has not served Womans rights..but
has contributed to woman being the subject of pressure from all sides
(rushed pushed into abortion) often..since society..also many MAN
see an "easy way out"..(it certainly is not an "easy way out for the
woman considering the effects an abortion has on body and soul"
it is interesting to see how you answer this fact of life..!?
You just give me a question..(guess thats all the respond you have
:OK)
let me say this:
Of course every child has a right to be loved and wanted by her or his
father...but how in the world does a loveless father justiy the
killing of the Unborn Human Being..???
In answer to your second remark..
A woman..that is not cabable (if she is or not remains to be seen)
of protecting her child..(what ever you mean by this?).. is not
have one should not have one yet.(Certainly..having a child a
family..requires a few
things.
Certainlny enagaging in a relationship when becoming a mature person.
considering to bond with another-half..in marriage and true love
through thick and thin bad and good times..bonding spirituallly and
physically becoming
ONE..and being intimate responsive and open in honest love..
are things to be desired..(and vital in a marrriage)
as true love is in every relationship..
Not being selfcentered..open towards the other and realizing that
love is not a one way street..nor a "dead end" comes with it..
All kinds of factors are important for a good marriage and children
are wonderful and vital and a great gift a sign of love and a reminder
of the loving bond (that serves to make one free in many ways as well)
Of course life aint a bed of roses..(and true love demands
FRIENDSHIP and we have to WORK for something we care about;)
OK:.;) to your "question";)..
If the mother cant procted their children she needs to be helped!!!!
(As we all need help along the way in our lifes)..
Once you had sex (and you did choose to engage in sexual activity
in an immature selfcentered manner not bathering the effects of it..
or the fact that things are not ready for this..(YOU cant at one
hand argue..(well im a grown up leave me alone...I have sex)
and on the other side (when forced to wake up to reality)..
realize that i am "tooooo youuuuuung"..and..(of course that can
be true in many ways)..yet (it is to late and doesnt serve as an
excuse ONCE facts are established..(like a new UNBORN
innocent Human Being ..with a right to her life).
A woman who is not fit for raising a child..should be helped
and be provited with the means that make her able to..(if
she cant take care of the child) the child should be taken
care off (yet not by killing it)
>"Peerpressure"
>Should children have children?
Of course not.
The slogan "you play, you pay" isn't what a
>child's existence is to be based on.
Well let me tell you something..
At one hand promoting sexuality all the way..creating a society
which is obsessed with selfcentered lust-focused behaviour..
"throwing condoms and pills" at teenagers..being "oh so liberal
about..sexual experience..).has created tragic results..
The "oh so amezing Sexual Revolution"..has created a climate
where..teenagers premature young man and woman have become
victim of their uripe personalities and "sexuality"..(creating many
Unborn Human Beings as victims along the way as well)
Once a teenager a child is pregnant..we face the result of a
misunderstood "liberal" approach.." a careless "do nothing
policy" which children (born and unborn) fall victim too.
NOW..those who are in part responsible for this..come along..
(and like an addict who..aims to treat sideffects of his drugs with
"more of the same".)..
seek the easy heartless "way out"..and ..think.."problems are solved"
(if we only we "solve" the syntomps (by aborting the Unborn Child)
A pregnant..girl..needs help..needs love and understanding.
not to be "operated one" and his child being killed..
Once we face a teenage pregnancy..there are no "nice suger
coated solution"....Carrying the child to term with the loving help
of its inviroment is far less risky (psycholigical and physiological)
than aborting the child (which creates..a psychologically damaged
traumatized young woman which could even have to face
medical problems as the result of the abortion (which are a far
greater than giving nature its course..and giving birth to a child)
Kids will have sex, that's
>unstoppable, it's just them it's about. But should kids have kids, no I
>don't think so.
You should hear yourself.!!!!!("kids will have sex..thats
unstopable") bla bla..( the climate abortion has created along with
all the other wrong
"liberal" approaches haver increased teenage pregnancies..(if adults
lack of responsible behavoiur pattens create abortions..and..if a
society..
promotes the "easy way out"..how does that serve the comming
about..of a culture in which mature sexuality is praticed and which
reduces teenage pregnacies..???)
(the statistics of the last decades show us that children being
pregnat with children..and abortion are in a way fruits from the
very same tree..(to promote abortion. might terminate THE SINGLE
teenage
pregnacies (it certainly doesnt prevent them (the contrary is
true)!!
There's this thing called responsability that comes with
>bringing up a child in this world that 15-16 year-olds mostly don't have.
That might be so..(and what do you conclude?..How..does that justify
making a psychological and medical victim out of a 16 years old girl..
by scratching her baby out of her body leaving scars to her soul?
>The hole argument that abortion is wrong seems to me being focusing on the
>wrong issue.
its not JUST "wrong" its the killing of an human being the damaging
of the mother and a disastrous path for society.
>To drive a car you have to take tests, there are police checking you out
>sometimes, vision should be perfect and you have to have the knowledge to
>drive a car. That *right* can be taken away from you.
Yes ! Thats why society should cultivate sexuality in the bonds of a
mature relationship..where it doesnt run the danger of resulting..in
compromising on the vital rights of others (once the woman is
pregnant..its to late..to whine)..
But i guess you meant something else.;).
You meant some are fit to be mothers some arent..(well some become
mature and fit..rise with..the challange (nature..helps too)..the
pregnacy creates a psychological bond between the child and the
mother (many who felt unfit and without strengh..mature during the
process and feel..they can make it.(and after all..LOVE IS WHAT IT
TAKES)..(you can fight and or whine about the uneasy not so perfect
or difficult to impossilbe circumstances of raising a child while not
being "fit to do the job" (althoug that lies in the eyes of the
beholder sometimes)..but it is ONE thing to be concerned about that..
and another..to..think the some how best solution to all of this is to
kill the child invovled!!!
(You gotta be kidding)
>To fish you sometimes need a license.
(and to sex you dont need one;) is THAT what you are saying;)?
>To ride a roll-a-coster you need to be over a certain height.
and many things more;)
>To have children there are no restrictions, which is the most serious thing
>a person could get him- or herself into.
AND THANK GOD we dont live in China..(although..who is the goverment
to decide..(whethersome parents..or some..mother being pregant having
a child..(having a little more or less money) should "be allowed to
care for her child or not"..(ITS LOVE that playes the main
role (and for LOVE (there will NEVER be a license!)
The right to do that can be taken
>away from you, but the option (fosterhomes and simular loging) are no good
>sorroundings for children.
THAT IS TRUE..and very well known..(what are you saying ?)
>Having sex comes with our instinkts and when a girl gets to be a woman
>which occurs between the ages of 10 to 16 her body is mature to have sex
>and have children.
Now you argue that having sex comes with our instincs..yet being
mother comes not? (If you really try to "make your case" like that you
are reasoning totally unscientific..
(You have gotten into a long talk...bringing the point home..that..it
is diffucult to be a good parent)..Now you are trying to reduce human
sexuality..to purely an instinct matter (which is a lot of
unscientific nonsense)..which would "as you suggest between the lines"
NOT require..(a mature person..)
AND EVEN your talk about..a womans body (about which you know a lot
i think;) is not intirely correct..since..the development of
it..continues..(also what the hormonal changes comming into play witht
sexual activitiy is concerned) VERY WELL BEYOND age 10 to 16.
In our society she is still considered a child, she has
>no or very few rights, she is not able to provide for her child, she lack
>the experience of giving advice to her child. In short she is not fit to
>raise a child.
Many of this is true and looked at as such (whith a lot of good
points) by our society..
(although i would like to remind you "quite a lot of "women;);););)
lack experience of giving advice raising a child..(which again
has nature intstinkt based implications as well) when getting
pregnant the first time;).
Humans tend to raise with the challange..(its about attitude and
encourgement as well)
Nobody forces any teenager to keep a child she cant take care off..
(yet how in the world does that justify the killing of that innoncent
child?)
>But being pregnant isn't fun and abortion is not a birthcontrolmethod.
Pregancy see is a natural thing that makes many woman mature and
bloom and happy.(even victims of teenage sexuality)
Looking at the statistical numbers of abortions you must be blind not
to realize that Abortion is very well used as a birthcontrolmethod..
(I suspect that since you seem to be against it..you are for a
restricted abortion law ? (Am I right in assuming that and could you
please colaborate on that one (or are you just being hypocritical
here?)
It's
>a way out.
ITS NOT A WAY OUT you are lying to yourself (its a dead end)
its multiplying the problems a pregnant teenager faces..creating more
problems..in the end..leaving two victims of abortion behind (the
mother and the dead child)
These things shouldn't be regulated with laws,
LIKE HOW?
it's difficult>enough.
Abortion is not just "difficult enough" its an outrage and an
antolerable situation to which woman fall victim to EVERY DAY.
(consulte an organization like "Femminists for Life" they tell you all
about it.
>I think that you are very ignorant about what's going on in a woman's body
>during a pregnancy.
How come you think that ?
She contains water like the Hooverdamm, hormones are
>raving, the moodswings are enormous, she starts to cry for no reason, she
>get's morning sickness which is no picknick.
when a woman gets pregnant there are a lot of changes accouring in her
body..(the whole system of biochemistry is involved)..it also sets
the woman into a cruisal psychological status at one time ..in which
she needs support. (first weeks of pregnancy)
Pregnancy can come as a suprise a shock..the biological system
changing leave the women in state of confusion..
Psychologically..she..seems a bit "lost" not knowing "about herself
her womanhood"
she cant yet picture herself being mother on the other hand...she
feels a sense of "loosing something"..like leaving a shore..not
arriving yet.."hanging in there" for a bit..but this phase is a
natural
one..and resulsts in the mothers body adjusting itself..she getting
in tune with her body..building a content and a bonding relationship
to her child..awaiting birth having achieved a new state of ripeness
(do bad men dont have that ..pout:)
There you see woman blooming maturing before your eyes..being
excited..about the bond they feel..
It is a terrible thing..that..this crusial phase is not cared about
and that is excactly the phase..(before the mother begings to feel
what it really means to wear her child inside) most women..ARE RUSHED
to abortion.
WOMEN who have giving things a second thought..who choosed
not to abort are often reported saying "I dont understand how
i could have ever wanted to kill my child..back than..I just
cant relate to myself back then..NOW!!!"
>Do you think we like this state of mind and body?
You certainly have a problem with it (and how could you know if you
have never been pregnant)..you might change your mind!
Being pregant might not be a "pyjama party"..(but then again..the
woman matures during the process (and you have not been there yet)
I myself have never been
>pregnant but I have friends that have been, both having the baby and having
>abortions.
SO?..I have friends who have been pregant too..and i have a dear
friend who had an abortion..(she trusted me with it and the
psychological problems it brought her..)..she really needs help and i
do all i can to be a good friend comfort her and point her to the help
she needs. Loosing a pregnany has bad psychological results to the
mother..killing your own unborn child places even more hardship on
body and soul.
The answer is education and that the kind of men *that are
>pressuring women to have abortions* should wear condoms and not argue about
>it.
the kind of men who pressure women abortion might very well wear
condoms..(yet as you know they are FAR from being "safe")..and "these
kind of men" dont care that much!
>I recall a case in Ireland a young girl that were raiped and got pregnant.
I think recall that too.
>She was provented by law to have an abortion. She wanted to go to England
>were it was legal, but some f***ing activists like you prevented her. She
>had to carry a mans child in the womb that had insulted her, taken her
>pride, hurt her, abused her and she was to be happy about it too.
>Eventually the court had mercy on her and she was allowed to leave the
>country and have the devils child removed.
>Think about it.
OK..lets "think about it together honey bunny";)
There we have a teenage woman..being raped..
Which is a terrible crime!!!!
NOW..she could get a rinsing or something as a matter of
fact she should seek medical help at the spot for variours
reseaons (infections among others)..(not to speak of the criminal
case)..THIS ISNT DONE why?
(now before you cry..out loud!) that is NOT my point..
I can understand the psychological pressure involved the shame
and even feelings of guilt "although there is NOTHING she has to
be feeling guilty about"..
YET : what do we have here.?
`YES: A terrible crime..a woman being taking away here rights
degraded..misused in a terrible way..leaving an
"Arrow of violence" inside here body and soul..
Now she becomes pregnant (although rape cases rarely result
in pregnacies for various reasons) (and a very small number of
the abortion statistics around the world) are abortion due to being
raped)
This creates TWO VICTIMS..the mother and the innocent Human
Being..whose life is at stake and who cant be blamed and not be
hold responsible (and she should not be adresses as some "devils
child".
Is this horrible psychological wound best treated is the situation
handled best..if..we create a NEW WOUND..if we induce more
VIOLENCE (calling it a solution)..in ripping out the child..out of
the mother..and create an even greater blood bath?
The teenager would be left with greater mental and possibly
physiological marks for life..due to the "solution of abortion".
While..with love and care..telling that girl that she is loved
and not looked at as a "problematic field" that needs
"problem solving"..with support and encourgement she would
go a better path..Realizing..that the she and the child inside her are
both
victimized in this situation are BOTH ALLIES that will go
through with it..the teenager with a good sense of mature
love..will put everything to it that..the pregnancy runs well..
she will RESTORE HER DIGNITIY AND PRIDE by overcomming
these opsticals..the process of birth the time of pregnancy..will
turn into..a reconsilation process..which heals the wounds gives
new hope and strengh ..(aside from the birth being FAR less
dangerous for a young girl than abortion)....
After giving birth she can easier find peace of mind and be proud
of the fact ..than..having been pushed..into an "easy way out"
she can give the child away for adoption..(which should be easier
if the child is the result of a violent act like this)..
So being pro-life is also..specially focused on the victim..of a crime
like this..is by no means a heartless position..(its the "easy way
out" phrases..which are not well thought through..promise quick
"solutions" and..result into..longlasting negative effects..which
then nobody seems to care about !
Maybe you can give that a wee bit of a thought?
When it comes to the "Rape Abortion" arguement..I think there
is as analogy that can serve to illustrate the things involved here a
bit.
In a way rape can be compared with a violent arrow..that creates
a psyhcological and physiological wound..there are no "nice and
honey bunny-like" solutions once that has happend.
(In a way..looking at the woman and child involved)..this
wound..can be "compared" (analogy wise) to a
flesh wound done by an arrow with some bared hook attached..the arrow
is deep and less than an inch away from getting out on the "other
side" NOW: trying a "quick handy solution"..(or acting on an impulse)
by taking the arrow and RIPPING it out..(just like that(although a
temping thought for some..) creates..an even larger bad wound (muscles
nerves attached.while.."pushing it through"..with a good sense of
care..seeking to make the "best of a giving situation"..so it comes
out on other side..(much less than an inch away)..is the better
alternative (every doctor would tell you that)
How about thinking that through Hunny Bunny ?
Greetings from Germany
Robert
"A little learning is a dangerous thing
Drink deep or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain.
And drinking largely sobers up again"
Alexander Pope
Manuel Neace
than those that choose to abort. So, don't try to use that one.
roxanne7
On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:56:53 -0500, VanOrmer <vano...@epix.net>
wrote:
>The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
>their own the opposing thought processes.
> Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
>opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
>etc.
> The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
>another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion".
The titles are not opposite because the opinions and the causes are
not opposite.
The
>pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
>"life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
>"pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother.
No, it does not. It puts the emphasis on the *choice*. You are
either in denial, or an idiot for not being able to discern this.
Everyone knows that a "pro-choice" individual is not "pro-abortion".
There are many instances when this person would choose against
abortion, and ask that others choose against it. The "pro-choice"
person very simply realiizes that there are instances when abortion is
warranted, that abortion is not "murder" any more than euthanasia is
murder, or suicide is murder, or contraception is murder, or removal
of a tumor is murder.
> Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
>entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
I congratulate you. This is the most moronic statement I have ever
read.
Just because the Christians call themselves "pro-life" doesn't mean
they are actually entitled to the appelation. The term is, at the
very least, a misnomer.
"Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
than actually saving what they believe to be babies. They say they
want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted, but
they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
life, or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there is
no need for an abortion.
"Pro-lifers" rather want to control how and when and in what way
"babies" are "saved", and if they can't have it just the way they want
it, they won't do anything at all.
For instance, "pro-lifers" will break the law, and abstruct women on
their way into an abortion clinic, a moment in time when it is very
obviously much too late to be trying to change the woman's mind, and
go to jail for doing this. But they will not support sex education in
schools. They will not support the distribution of birth control and
literature amongst demographic groups most at risk for abortion. They
oppose groups like Planned Parenthood which have been invaluable in
supplying education and healthcare to people who otherwise could never
have afforded it. "Pro-lifers" ignore all other circumstances
surrounding the unwanted pregnancy; extreme poverty, adolescence,
ignorance, racial minority, which essentially subject both mother and
child to a fate worse than death if its progress is allowed to
continue until it becomes a child.
"Pro-lifers" are often in favor of the death penalty. Many are
meat-eaters, hunters, ranchers. They support "euthanasia" for stray
animals, which is essentially just a euphemism for "killing for our
own convenience". They enjoy the benefits of clear-cutting and the
destruction of the rainforest. They have no concern for the
extinction of multitudes of species due to loss of habitat. This is
not being "pro-life". If you are "pro-life", then you must be in
favor of and show respect and love for ALL life, not just the
particular type of life that you think is most important.
Your argument is corrupt. You can't continue on this basis. If the
"pro-life" movement is ostensibly to save every embryo that is
conceived and see it come to term, then the exact opposite of such a
group would be to destroy every single embryo that was conceived so
that it would never come to term. Not even a warped mind like yours
can claim that's what the pro-choice movement is about.
There are many "pro-choice" women who have never had an abortion.
There are many who would never have one if they found themselves in an
unwanted pregnancy. There are many who feel that abortion is being
abused in this country, and wish that the number of abortions
performed could be drastically reduced. However, we know that
standing in a woman's way as she's entering an abortion clinic is no
answer to the problem. Bombarding the non-religious with Christian
ideology and bible quotes is no answer to the problem. It's stupid,
useless, and more than that, it's insulting. The idea that a group of
living cells at conception becomes a human being with a soul, that can
have this one life and only this one life, is a Christian concept, and
is unproven. Many other people believe differently, and their actions
are based upon their belief. Saying that your belief is the real
truth is a sign of dementia. For all you know, you are wrong, and the
Hindus have got it all straight. Perhaps the atheists have it right.
Or the Jews. The Buddhists. The Zoroastrians. The Wiccans. You
just don't know. And until any of us knows these things for sure,
religious beliefs are really just totally irrelevent to this issue.
Get your facts straight before you open your mouth. You're only
making yourself and your fellows look like idiots.
Roxanne
E-mail address spaced apart to thwart automatic replies and knee-jerk responses.
J Shearer
roxanne7 @ airmail.net (Roxanne) writes: > On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:56:53 -0500, VanOrmer <vano...@epix.net>
----------------------------
Roxanne, Wow! Well said!! Yes, the "Pro-Control-of-Others" crowd
is just that: a bunch of hypocrites who really don't give a plugged penny
for the childern who are actually born! (Well, probably some of them do.)
But if they really wanted to stop abortions, they'd do what you said--make
sure the "at-risk" kids get what they need: birth control, education, the
money/necessities of life so that they don't fall into the "trap" of early
pregnancy. Obviously it's not "Life" they think is so precious!
Also, might I add that political movements have always had to be
very careful of their names. In the Russian Revolution, Lenin pulled a
great coup by calling his party the "Bolshevics", which simply means "the
Majority". This name/word lent his party the cachet of being "in the
majority". That's why the pro-choicers weren't about to be put in the
position of being labelled "Pro-death"! Personally, I think the term,
"Anti-Choice" is much more descriptive of the Xtian "Pro-Lifers"! Jan
Melanie Saw
roxanne7 @ airmail.net (Roxanne) wrote:
>The "pro-choice"
>person very simply realiizes that there are instances when abortion is
>warranted, that abortion is not "murder" any more than euthanasia is
>murder, or suicide is murder, or contraception is murder, or removal
>of a tumor is murder.
Why are you lumping all of these examples together? There's quite
difference between cutting out a wart and commiting suicide, you know.
Murder = "Unlawful and intentional killing of a human being" (pocket
Oxford). In most countries euthanasia is still illegal, and I _think_
suicide (or rather assisting someone to commit suicide) is too.
>"Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
>than actually saving what they believe to be babies. They say they
>want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted, but
>they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
>babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
>life,
Yup, I'd say that the pro-life movement needs to work on that.
>or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there is
>no need for an abortion.
I'm afraid that there's no such thing as a 100% foolproof
contraceptive method or device. An unplanned pregnancy is a risk that
is attendant every time you have intercourse.
> "Pro-lifers" ignore all other circumstances
>surrounding the unwanted pregnancy; extreme poverty, adolescence,
>ignorance, racial minority, which essentially subject both mother and
>child to a fate worse than death if its progress is allowed to
>continue until it becomes a child.
And your only solution is to offer them an abortion? Shouldn't we
_all_ be trying to improve conditions?
>"Pro-lifers" are often in favor of the death penalty. Many are
>meat-eaters, hunters, ranchers. They support "euthanasia" for stray
>animals, which is essentially just a euphemism for "killing for our
>own convenience". They enjoy the benefits of clear-cutting and the
>destruction of the rainforest. They have no concern for the
>extinction of multitudes of species due to loss of habitat. This is
>not being "pro-life". If you are "pro-life", then you must be in
>favor of and show respect and love for ALL life, not just the
>particular type of life that you think is most important.
Generalizing a wee bit there, don't you think?
> The idea that a group of
>living cells at conception becomes a human being with a soul, that can
>have this one life and only this one life, is a Christian concept, and
>is unproven.
What we do know is that _your_ development began at conception. You,
as an individual came into being when your mother's ovum was
fertilised by your father's sperm. If I terminate your development,
whether at one week gestation, third trimester of pregnancy, at birth,
or at 5 yrs, I've still killed you.
>Many other people believe differently, and their actions
>are based upon their belief. Saying that your belief is the real
>truth is a sign of dementia. For all you know, you are wrong, and the
>Hindus have got it all straight. Perhaps the atheists have it right.
>Or the Jews. The Buddhists. The Zoroastrians. The Wiccans.
I admit that we _could_ be wrong, though I don't believe that we are.
I'm sure that there are a lot of Hindus / atheists / Wiccans /
Buddhists out there who believe that their belief is the One, Absolute
Truth. It's not just a Christian failing, you know.
I don't think that it's a sign of dementia, either. Personally, I
admire people with strong convictions, whatever their beliefs.
Mel "Actually, I quite like Nynaeve" Saw
----- -----
"Myrelle." Lan grimaced. "Yes, she would have to be Green, or
else some slip of a girl just raised to full sisterhood."
Pat Winstanley
In article <E51CK...@muenster.westfalen.de>, Robert
<Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> writes
>At one hand promoting sexuality all the way..creating a society
>which is obsessed with selfcentered lust-focused behaviour..
>"throwing condoms and pills" at teenagers..being "oh so liberal
>about..sexual experience..).has created tragic results..
>The "oh so amezing Sexual Revolution"..has created a climate
>where..teenagers premature young man and woman have become
>victim of their uripe personalities and "sexuality"..(creating many
>Unborn Human Beings as victims along the way as well)
>Once a teenager a child is pregnant..we face the result of a
>misunderstood "liberal" approach.." a careless "do nothing
>policy" which children (born and unborn) fall victim too.
I think one of the greatest problems western society faces with
teenagers is that there is such a large gap now between the time a
teenager becomes sexually capable and fertile, and the time we begin to
treat them as adults in their own right.
Over just the last 30 years I've noticed that age when girls start to
menstruate has gone down by a couple of years on average, though I don't
know I'd guess boys are maturing a bit earlier too on average.
Presumably this is due to a combination of better healthcare and
nutrition? Whatever, it is happening.
At the same time we are expecting youngsters to stay in education much
longer. Again, 30 years ago leaving school and starting work at 15 here
was more or less the norm. Only the brighter kids were expected to go on
to further and higher education. Now, at least here, kids aren't really
encouraged to enter the workforce (assuming there are any jobs for them)
until about 18, and for about half of youngsters they are expected to
carry on in full-time education until their early 20s.
So instead of a gap of 3 or 4 years between sexual maturity and self-
sufficiency (wage-earning), now the gap is more like 10 years where we
have young people who are adult in one way yet treated as children in
other ways.
It's not surprising they find physical self-control so hard!
But the 'permissive society' came into flower at the time when the gap
between physical and practical adulthood was small, and a young couple
who accidentally had a child would often be in a position to keep and
raise that child from (mainly) their own efforts.
As a society *we* have created a problen for the teenagers, yet we then
blame *them* for being reckless! Why?
--
Pat Winstanley
Turnpike evaluation. For information, see http://www.turnpike.com/
Robert
///////roxanne7 @ airmail.net (Roxanne) wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Jan 1997 15:56:53 -0500, VanOrmer <vano...@epix.net>
>wrote:
>>The titles given to the groups who approve and disapprove of abortion illustrate on
>>their own the opposing thought processes.
>> Normally, the labels put on two conflicting parties will be close to, or exact
>>opposites. For example: right wing - left wing, conservative - liberal, right - wrong,
>>etc.
>> The fact that the titles "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not photo negatives of one
>>another is significant when understanding the thought process behind each "opinion".
>The titles are not opposite because the opinions and the causes are
>not opposite.
I dont know about you;)..? But I somehow dedect a great deal of
oposition between..a standpoint..that claims..every mother should have
the right to choose wether she should be able to kill her unborn child
or not..and a stanpoint that..says that nobody has a right to choose
to kill somebody innocent at all ?
>The
>>pro-life movement, by it's very title, puts it's emphasis on the baby. That is the
>>"life" referred to in "pro-life". In contrast, the word "choice" in the title
>>"pro-choice" puts it's emphasis on the mother.
>No, it does not. It puts the emphasis on the *choice*. You are
>either in denial, or an idiot for not being able to discern this.
One would have to be a hypocrite or an idiot not to look through
the euphemistic usage of the term "choice" in that regard..
Its not a vague "right to choose" you are calling for its..a right
to choose to kill an innocent human being..(I guess to talk about
a "choice" serves to hide the fact what.."this choice" is all about.
Its not..the "right to choose" we have ..it is the "right to choose
options which do not harm somebody"..
Of course pro-life puts emphises on the unborn human being AS WELL
as his mother !!! ("love them BOTH")
>Everyone knows that a "pro-choice" individual is not "pro-abortion".
Thats like saying.."not every pro"death-penalty" is "pro-execution".
Itsnt that what it boils down too;)?..(You accuse somebody of
generalizing..yet..in defense of your "pro-"choice" views you
generalize yourself!
>There are many instances when this person would choose against
>abortion, and ask that others choose against it.
I should see the day when a pro-"choicer"..asks somebody not
to abort!! (When would you do that ?)..
I do dedect another mentality amoung you folks though..
"to talk about a womans choice..her option.ect..to not be "forced"
to point out genuine help or stand up for a pro-life position..that
shows the mother that the alternatives to abortion (are there and
are always better)..
I am really curios..now;) Would you describe a scenario..where
you would appose abortion..(since you think it is wrong)..?
or are you saying pro"choicers" just would..be against some
abortions for some particular reason..not because it it wrong nor
false nor harmfull for the mother (not to speak of the child) but
because..it wouldnt meet "their taste"?
The "pro-choice"
>person very simply realiizes that there are instances when abortion is
>warranted,
If you pro-choicers would only be objective and not enage in bias
rationalization focus on the Unborn Human Being AND the mother
and realize that there are NO INSTANCES (aside from the life of
the mother being at stake) where abortion is warrented!!
NAME ONE?
ALSO..if you hold the opinion that the cases you name in that
regard..are not really valid or important for others
(them being
"justified" cases for abortions yet others not..so that laws would
have to restric the access to abortions which are not based
on the cases you hold onto as being valid)
..you are being hypcritical and hold (de facto) a pro-Abortion
position in a way..wouldnt you think ?
that abortion is not "murder" any more than euthanasia is
>murder,
what do you call the killing of an innocent human being then?
btw..The Nazis would be happy hearing you agreeing with them
that "Euthanasie" isnt murder!
or suicide is murder,
Suicide is a completely different debate..(although it is a complex
issue and not everyone comitting suicide can be accused of having
murdered himself..morally speaking it is sometimes the case)..
To try to somehow compare abortion and suicide..however overlooks
the fact..that..the innocent unborn Human Being is a second
party..involved in that kind of killing..(I hope you get the
difference here?)
or contraception is murder,
now now;) while..contraception can be an immoral act..(and I would
agree that it is often the case)..there is a great difference between
the two (not though if we take into consideration that some so called
"contraceptiva" work in an "abortive" manner;(
Aside fromt that fact it displayes a whole lot of scientific ignorance
to not be able to differ between..the killing of an already excisting
Human Being..and the prevention of the comming about of a Human
Being..(since the Human Being comes about when its human life
components..the egg and the sperm melt..together..(than every
biologists who has done his homework speaks of a Human Being
not before that)!
or removal
>of a tumor is murder.
It doesnt suprise me that you dont hesitate to give us yet another
example of your ignorance of biology!
You sure know biological reseach and education only from looking at
the covers of biology books if you..are lead to believe..that..an
Unborn Human Being can correctly be described..as..a tumor or as just
part of the womans body...(I guess missed biology lessons are hard to
make up;)sigh
>> Under normal circumstances, an assembly of individuals who wished to oppose a group
>>entitled "pro-life" would logically call themselves members of the "pro-death" movement.
>I congratulate you. This is the most moronic statement I have ever
>read.
Everybody reading this will know by now..that you are pretty much
leading the field what moronic statements are concerned.
(suger coated with a big chunk of defensiveness i might add)
>Just because the Christians call themselves "pro-life" doesn't mean
>they are actually entitled to the appelation. The term is, at the
>very least, a misnomer.
It serves the term "pro-life" if one differs and looks into it..and
it servers it to the point that everybody in his right mind can see
that it is accurate in great degree (MAYBE..it should be called
"pro-human life" I dont know:)
Yet what doesnt serve his purpose is your helpless attempt to
"brand":) an ethical a position..by falsy "accusing it";) of being
restricted to the world view of ONE particular religion..as it doesnt
serve to hide the fact that..pro"choice" is.. to qoute
you: "at the very least, a misnomer" itself!
>"Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
>than actually saving what they believe to be babies.
I can understand that from the psychological point of view
....YOU realizing through some kind of an ethical gut-feeling..that
your position isnt a contructive but destructive..selfish..violent and
forcefull one..(exerciting the extremist form of "forgein rule" of
forgein-determination by taking the life of another Human Being..(you
dont need to call it baby if you dont want to;)....
that you have to go into great length to try to dehumenize calumiate
and draw righthous and twisted conlusions about the actions and
motives of somebody and something you cant possibly be morally
outraged about.
: People defending the rights of an innocent defenseless Human Being.
They say they
>want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted, but
>they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
>babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
>life, or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there is
>no need for an abortion.
THAT is a dirty lie hundrets of pro-life organizations do just that
!!
Of course they use means that are human and not quite corrosponding
with your "selfcentered righthous throwing pills and condoms at
teenagers position"..
Where are the pro-"choice" organizations that..help women who have
become a victim of wrong-choice..if you dont mind me telling about em?
(There certianly are countless pro-life groups that offer support and
help to woman who did have an abortions)
>"Pro-lifers" rather want to control how and when and in what way
>"babies" are "saved", and if they can't have it just the way they want
>it, they won't do anything at all.
Again that is a dirty ingnorant lie..and an insult to the thousands
of women and men of pro-life organizations involved..that..act in
a constructive manner that helps many..(to a point where they..invest
large amounts of time and money doing so)..(not however giving
"easy way out ... apple foolish advice" that doenst target the root of
the problem but only serves to put oil into the flames!
>For instance, "pro-lifers" will break the law, and abstruct women on
>their way into an abortion clinic, a moment in time when it is very
>obviously much too late to be trying to change the woman's mind, and
>go to jail for doing this.
There is no law in the United States that prohibits street
counseling...and the police (although called and sometimes frustreted
about stupid nuisance calls like that..) doesnt arrest anybody for
exercising his rights in the US (i should hope:)..
You are also wrong and ignorant when you express your believe that
nobody has changed his mind through pro-life street councling.
But they will not support sex education in
>schools.
They will only not support "throwing condoms and pills" at teenagers..
"tell" them about "safer SEX"..and "educating" them in a way that only
servers to increase teenage pregnacies AS WELL as teenage abortions!
They will not support the distribution of birth control and
>literature amongst demographic groups most at risk for abortion.
To first "brainwash" immature males and females with "talk about
sex"in an irresponsible way..(then whine..about teenage pregnancies
sky-rocketing and then like some drug addict who thinks to handle the
sideffects of his drug means to "only take some more of it"..to..give
teenagers a false sense of security..by just choosing the easy way out
"handing the condoms and pills"..(as if that servers in any way to put
an stop to teenage pregnancies not to talk about AIDS ect..(in light
of the fact that..NO contraceptive is safe)
IS THE HEAP OF HYPOCRACY!
Why are we not hearing much more about mature sexual behaviour
and SPECIALLY :Natural Family Planning (to which no pro-lifer
apposes too in fact..we support it)..yet a human contraceptive method
which is more secure than..the artificial once..gets the silent
treatment from the OH SO CONCERNED pro"choicers".
They
>oppose groups like Planned Parenthood which have been invaluable in
>supplying education and healthcare to people who otherwise could never
>have afforded it.
Nobody opposes Planned Parenthood (a bias pro-abortion..organization)
on the bases of "offering help and information to the once who need it
most" but on the bases..that they eat up taxpayers many SUPPORT
and FAVOUR...immoral and destructive "final solutions"..to "problems"
like pregnany..(and why not since they make a buck out of it)..
Is it really so strange to be concerned about..pratices and
laws..that..make an teenager able to ruin her life through an abortion
without the parents even having to know about it ? Planned
Parenthood an organization founded by a eugenic and racist dame
is "offering" wrong destructive "ways out"..and gets critized on that
bases!!
Your point of "Planned Parenthood being invalueble ..for people who
otherwise couldnt afford " should be seen in the light that PP gets
critized not on the bases of "helping" but targeting social problems
in a "easy way out an careless manner"
PPæ„€ actions are still very much influenced (and how could they not)
by the approach and philosophy its founder Margaret Sanger had
who was promoting abortion not that much for the middle class woman
but aiming (I guess you would call it "help";( with abortion at
"inferior racess" (Black people Slavs Latins Hebrews) who "where"
in her eyes "human weeds"
Planned Parenthood makes a buck with abortion and does
seem to have lost focus or not being focused very much on constructive
targeting of problematic situations of the women..
cant you relate to women like Karen Sulliva-Ables, Taylor AZ.
"Planned Parenthood suggested only an abortion. No other options were
ever discussed. They said abortion was painless and virtually
risk-free. THe word "baby was never mentioned- only "fetus" Having it
done hurt like crazy. You canæ„’ imagine my schock and horror when I
saw my dismembered baby after my "nice and easy" abortion. Planned
Parenthood is not telling the truth to girls in crisis pregnancy
situations. I have suffered severe emotional problembs."
what light on the pratice of Planned Parenthood brings the fact that
in 1982 Planned Parenthood vs. Kempiners: Planned Parenthood
challenged an Illinois law which would have given money to mothers and
babies.
Planned Parenthood could not have gotten any money themselves under
this law so they sought to prevent it from going to pregnant women.
all in light of the fact that Planned Parenthood is in the buisness of
selling abortions averaging over 1.700 per clinic per year.
"When I returned home I had very heavy, bleeding and severe cramps for
two days. I was so afraid that something was wrong I called Planned
Parenthood who referred me for my abortion. THE SAID I WAS OKEY
WITHOUT SUGGESTGING AN EXAM. At my after-school job at a dime
store, I went into the restroom. It was then I found my baby on my
sanitary pad. He had arms and legs with tiny hands and feet. I could
make out his little nose and a dark spot that I now know was his eyes.
Even after 10 years, itæ„€ still hard for me to think about it"
Kathy Bartlett Waco, TX
"Pro-lifers" ignore all other circumstances
>surrounding the unwanted pregnancy; extreme poverty, adolescence,
>ignorance, racial minority, which essentially subject both mother and
>child to a fate worse than death if its progress is allowed to
>continue until it becomes a child.
Another helpless attempt to destort the truth..
Just take the "Femminsts for Life" and tell me what they ignore when
being pro life?
In what way do Pro-Lifers ignore..adolscence or ignorance..or
minorities what ever ?..
All ills of society..need to be adressed and worked on..and we should
work on the root of problems..
The pro"choice" mentality..seeing..symtomps of these situations as
"the problem"..looking at the child.. the pregnant mother ect..as
"the problem" doesnt excactly create a climate of constractive help
love and problem solving..it merely is a selfcentered approach to
declare
innocent victims( as.."the problem" execute it...and pretend that
this kind of action serves in some way the prevention of or stopping
of the problems of society..(while it does excactly the opposite)!!
An organization like "Black Americans for Life"
will tell you more about it (thats if you choose to take your own
advice and stop being ignorant).
>"Pro-lifers" are often in favor of the death penalty.
You have a very selfcentered view on the world if you draw
general conclusion from the United States scene to the
"THE pro-lifers";)
and EVEN at your end..it isnt true..(since many pro-lifers
are against the death penality!
If you are pro or contra the death penaltiy is YET AGAIN
a completly new debate (and you can be either way..and
have a moral position) Since there is a difference in being
for..a convicted murderer being punished with death and being
for the opportunity to "choice" to kill and INNOCENT Human
Being..which cant be blamed for the actions of her parents.
Many are
>meat-eaters, hunters, ranchers. They support "euthanasia" for stray
>animals, which is essentially just a euphemism for "killing for our
>own convenience".
Oh am i talking to an against-deaht penality..pro-"animal-rights"
vegatarian here;)?
Isnt it a little bit hypocritical to be againts the death pentality.of
a convicted killer..yet FOR being able to kill an innocent
unborn Human Being (as if that sovles ANY KIND of problem or
dillema?)..
Are you so morally bankrupt stuffed up with nihilism and scientific
and philosophical ignorance that you cant see the difference between
an Animal and an Human Being..? (This reminds me of some
of Josef Goebbels his rationalizations ... I have read recently;(!!
Animal"righters" who get into a big ideological arguement about if it
is human:) or not to declaw a cat or not..yet..are pro-"choice" give
me the creeps !!!
Pictures of Concentration Camp guards..degrading and spitting
killing and torturering..humans..(while in the middle of the winter
after returning to refresh themselves in the barracks..accedently
step..on their doggy or kitty and get "morally excited".."oh oh dear
deear pussy cat..i didnt meant to hurt ya..come to papa..here have
your nice food..you must feel awfully cold;(sigh.." "which idiot left
the damn window open ..damni"?
....come to mind.
The effects of being ethically indifferent..(only..regarding something
as to be valid insofar it serves to be to once own advantage)..are
horrible.
BTW: talking about pro-animal righters "breaking the law" ;)remember?
They enjoy the benefits of clear-cutting and the
>destruction of the rainforest.
Aside from obviously having watched to much "Captain Planet"
on the Cartoon Network..your baseless claims (as to what
somebody apposing the killing of innocent human beings enjoyes
or not) begin to bore me.
Are it not the phoney twisted (I dont target the once with a
good sense) anti-"industry" pro-"nature" folks who enjoy
the benefits..of civilization..(oh well i better get not into that;)
(which would mean to open yet another can of worms and completly
leave the focus of this debate THE KILLING of UNBORN HUMAN BEINGS !
1.5 million every year in the United States alone;(!!
They have no concern for the
>extinction of multitudes of species due to loss of habitat.
Again you only serve to point to yourself as being hypocritcal
here..(aside from the fact that species did and will get extict..
and your desplay of probably being brainwashed into
believe that our natural recourses..plants and animals..are near
of becomming lost for ever..(go and re-read the baseless claims
made about "our planets future" by the "Club of Rome" over
20 years ago..(if that doesnt put a grin on your face i cant
help ya;)
Again i have no problem with legitimate concern ..while
being concerned about the nature we live in and the very
base of our life..yet..killing humans on the other hand..doenst
strike me as being a logical nor very ethical position.
This is
>not being "pro-life". If you are "pro-life", then you must be in
>favor of and show respect and love for ALL life, not just the
>particular type of life that you think is most important.
We all agree that it is ignorant and and not quite wise to
not be concerned about a clean inviroment the biosphere
what ever..(of course enagaging in propaganda..and the false
and emotional claimthat the rain forest is about to vanish ect..
doesnt excactly help that cause..(We have to realize that..
"the inviroment " gets MISUSED by interests groups..to spread
their political agenda..(..THIS is all debateable..although many
of the Greepeace weirdos dont seem to have a sense of reality
left inside them!)
How pointing to..the "splinter"in the eyes some of those who
are AT LEAST not favouring a "choice" to "abort" an innocent
Human Being and in the process psychological and physically
damaging the mother..servers to..white-wash the pro-"choice"
position will remain your secrete ..it seems. ??
(How about somebody for example a "liberal" democrat..(that
just MIGHT come closer to the political believes you would
hold) being orginized in the "Democrats for Life" for that matter?
The "Homosexuals for Life" are against abortion too btw!!
>Your argument is corrupt. You can't continue on this basis. If the
>"pro-life" movement is ostensibly to save every embryo that is
>conceived and see it come to term, then the exact opposite of such a
>group would be to destroy every single embryo that was conceived so
>that it would never come to term.
OK..you are right here...oh well..on the other hand pro-"choicers"
come de facto close to doing this..since they create indirectly
support are indifferent to the comming about of an sociological
inviroment where that is being done.
A study like the one done by the "Department of Public Health" in 1984
at the Bosten Preterm Clinic which concluded that 43% of all
woman who abort have already had an abortion indicating that
abortion has become a tool of "birthcontrol" should open your eyes
to the fact that those who argue the pro"choice" case have no
logical food to stand on
Not even a warped mind like yours
>can claim that's what the pro-choice movement is about.
Your insults indicate that you somehow feel "dedected" anyway;)?
>There are many "pro-choice" women who have never had an abortion.
and SOME of them never will..
because they are uninformed ignorant
about the effects and results of abortions (for mother and child) some
hold this postion (because they just dont care..) (and call it
"tolerance"..a mentality like this is very much based on..proclaiming
"an easy way convinient way out" by society (for not having to show
love and care
towards women in need) by just pointing them to the surgeons "knife"
if a problem comes up ..WHILE saying "I couldnt do it..it wouldnt be a
way for Me.. NO WAY"..
That is really misunderstood tolerance or being heartless.
>There are many who would never have one if they found themselves in an
>unwanted pregnancy.
Because they know it isnt right it isnt moral it isnt good for
neither the mother and the baby..(yet anybody else should not be
helped to avoid it be informed about the only positive option)
Again :that is heartless!
There are many who feel that abortion is being
>abused in this country, and wish that the number of abortions
>performed could be drastically reduced.
Yet are not openly apposed to abortion nor for a restriction of
"abortion rights"
again: hypocritical.
However, we know that
>standing in a woman's way as she's entering an abortion clinic is no
>answer to the problem.
It sometimes is the last help sign of help and oppurtinity a women
rushed pushed hurried into..an abortion..has..(and the first
time..she might take time to give things a "contructive thought"
and really CONSIDER A TRUE CHOICE (by taking into consideration
the whole depth of the TWO options)
Btw..pro-life street counselors dont "stand in your way"..
Bombarding the non-religious with Christian
>ideology and bible quotes is no answer to the problem.
I would agree..and yet if "fundamentalist"
Christians express themselves in a way that appeals
to the other (however helpless or effective)
who are you to get mad about it ?
Of course..you misrepresent the Christians who go out
on the street infront of abortion mills on a weekly bases..
hand you leaflets about legal and medical information..
(that neither Planned Parenthood..nor anybody cares to
give you)..
You wouldnt know the releaved faces of women who are
pressured and going half-hearted into the abortion mills
guarded by there grim "partners" who push and rush them
into an "operation" the feel they have second thoughts about..
when they approach pro-lifers who engage in some talk
weighing the sides bringing new light to a discission making
process..really helping to start a real one for the very first time
for that matter.
It's stupid,
>useless, and more than that, it's insulting.
Of course..you are not in tune with reality here.
The idea that a group of
>living cells at conception becomes a human being with a soul, that can
>have this one life and only this one life, is a Christian concept, and
>is unproven.
the fact that a human being comes about with conception..(or
any other animal being for that matter) is a scientific fact.
Theology of course concerns itself with the respect for humanlife.
It must turn to science however to tell it when life begins..
Chrsitians Jews whoever didnt "invent" the medical biological
scientific fact that the Human Being begins with conception.
The human soul is a philosophical concept and of course a reality
(to which many noble prize winning scientists and neurologists)
agree too There is of course not direct..quantitative proof to the
existense of a something Qualitativly as the Human Soul)..yet
there is (aside from sound philosophical) reasoning..a great
many of INDIRECT scientitific prove..fromt the scientific world..
needless to say that the 19th century based materialsis view..of
science
has lost credibility in light of the new scientific findings of
specially the last 30 years..(Your ignorance towards philosophy
science and religion doesnt serve to prove the..BELIEVES
YOU hold.
Many other people believe differently, and their actions
>are based upon their belief. Saying that your belief is the real
>truth is a sign of dementia.
no it depends on how you argue your case..
saying..(no believe..is the real one)..nobody will ever know..so
what the heck is..the resorst..of misguided philosophers of
the 19th century)
Dostojewskie sumed it up in saying (and he was an agnostic
as well)
"If there is no God EVERYTHING is allowed"
Of course..if you are saying that..I cant possible appose that
view without being intellectual illogical...
But the results of thinking that through and acting accordingly..are
horrible..and you know it! (Well then again maybe you dont!!)
Which makes me ask you..are you a theist?
For all you know, you are wrong, and the
>Hindus have got it all straight.
And you will applaude if they burn you because your hubby just
died..or..if they dont give a damn about the poor and dying because
its "Carma"..or if there is hunger poverity all over the place..while
your vegetarian heart gets all warm
while rats spread sickness and cattle gets worshiped and not eaten!!
Perhaps the atheists have it right.
>Or the Jews. The Buddhists. The Zoroastrians. The Wiccans. You
>just don't know.
YOU CAN COME CLOSE TO KNOWING..but you avoid to get
and educated opinion..because you fear the consequences..because
you want to avoid..to..see whats "more likely " or at least likely to
be a bunch or crap..(you rather stay ignorant because it serves you
to..do anything you want..! (and not what you THINK is right..)
Well i guess the secrete is.."stop thinking..or stop taking seriously
what you think" isnt it?
And until any of us knows these things for sure,
>religious beliefs are really just totally irrelevent to this issue.
I guess we all know what you mean;)
So what is relevant then..?
How about civil rights ??
And how about all the other issues which..are based on
religious conviction as well..
Next thing..you.will be indifferent about..womens sexual
organs being cut and manipulated.for religous reasons..or..
you would have been indifferent of vikings..raping and killing
the widdow of a just killed warrior..and then..putting her on
a ship and burning it.."sending them to where ever"..for
you think "they could be right ..who knows" "what right
do i have to object"..(but i bet you would get second thoughts
if it involved YOU !
Next think you will not object to any of the ten christian
commandments being broken (not to kill (a born for a change)
lie steal..ect.) ??
Some native tribes did have a "religious pratice" where..the
first born..just new born baby would get his head smashed
with a stone by his mother..dropped on the floor and the brain liqued
would be feed to the pig..while..the mother would in return "serve"
the pig in taking one of her new born young pigs and feed
and nurture it (as her child) by "giving it the breast" INSTEAD ect.
>Get your facts straight before you open your mouth. You're only
>making yourself and your fellows look like idiots.
Who made himself into what..needs to be seen;)
as to "getting facts straight" I think you should take your own
advice ...but for getting them start I would suggest you gather
some of em before you continue to display your ignorance all
over the place!!
>Roxanne
>E-mail address spaced apart to thwart automatic replies and knee-jerk responses.
Being defensive to the end;)sigh
A psychological phenomenon often to be found with pro-"choicers" so
it seems ... that only a psychologist can explain in depth.
Greetings from Germany:)
Robert
Robert
Jenny-Faith Lee <jf...@wwdc.com> wrote:
>The world is over populated.....death....why not???
>Is prevention of death an act of love towards Humankind or is it a
>deeply imbedded notion of Christian ideology that teaches "life is
>precious, because god gave humankind life??"
>Jen
I bet you meant Christian Faith when you said ideolgy;) ?
Anyway..you are right with both subjects..touched in
your rhetorical question:)..although not "only" Christianity..holds
high the sanctity of human life.
Are you a Christian if i might ask;)? (I like your name "Jenny-Faith;)
it has a nice ring to it:)..
You are not saying..that killing an unborn Human Being can somehow
be logically described as..the "prevention of death" are you ?
You would know the biological difference between how contraceptives
work (in terms of preventing (although some are aborting too;(..and
an act like abortion....wouldnt you?
Greetings from Germany
Robert
Mama Toto
> > "Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
> > than actually saving what they believe to be babies.
Lies. The same could be said of pro-choicers. Pro-choicers seem to
care more about "controlling [ie: their 'choice'] and getting their way"
[ie: avoiding responsibility for their own actions].
> >They say they
> > want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted, but
> > they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
> > babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
> > life, or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there is
> > no need for an abortion.
More lies. Many, many, many organizations that are pro-life are
willing to find adoptive parents, educate mothers, find other
organizations that will provide food and shelter and cover medical
costs for mother and child if necessary, etc.
And as far as "preventing the conception in the first place," that is
not *anyone's* responsibility but the parents involved...however,
many churches and communities preach abstinence until marriage,
etc. I'm not sure how an organization is going to prevent conception,
pro-life or otherwise. If you're talking about sex education and birth
control, I went to Catholic school for 12 years and received all of the
above.
> > "Pro-lifers" rather want to control how and when and in what way
> > "babies" are "saved", and if they can't have it just the way they want
> > it, they won't do anything at all.
More lies and overgeneralizations. How would you feel if I said
pro-choice people had absolutely no concern for mothers who have
had abortions -- that their only concern is that the woman has the
choice? That's not a fair assertion, and neither is yours.
> > For instance, "pro-lifers" will break the law,
And pro-choicers have never broken the law?
> >and abstruct women on
> > their way into an abortion clinic, a moment in time when it is very
> > obviously much too late to be trying to change the woman's mind, and
> > go to jail for doing this.
Yeah -- and so do war protesters. What's your point? People have
long fought and boycotted and picketed in this country -- it's called
freedom of speech. They usually do it when they oppose something
and believe it to be morally wrong. So I suppose you want to
*control* other people and prevent them from believing or thinking or
acting in a way contrary to your beliefs? How anti-bill-of-rights of
you.
> >But they will not support sex education in
> > schools. They will not support the distribution of birth control and
> > literature amongst demographic groups most at risk for abortion.
Who is this "They?" Do "They" hang around with the "Men in Black" and
the UFOs? I'm sorry, but your overgeneralizations smack of bigotry.
> > They
> > oppose groups like Planned Parenthood which have been invaluable in
> > supplying education and healthcare to people who otherwise could never
> > have afforded it. "Pro-lifers" ignore all other circumstances
> > surrounding the unwanted pregnancy; extreme poverty, adolescence,
> > ignorance, racial minority, which essentially subject both mother and
> > child to a fate worse than death if its progress is allowed to
> > continue until it becomes a child.
That's the spirit. Please pass the cyanide when you're done with it.
Pro-choicers are *so* uplifting.
> > "Pro-lifers" are often in favor of the death penalty. Many are
> > meat-eaters, hunters, ranchers. They support "euthanasia" for stray
> > animals, which is essentially just a euphemism for "killing for our
> > own convenience". They enjoy the benefits of clear-cutting and the
> > destruction of the rainforest. They have no concern for the
> > extinction of multitudes of species due to loss of habitat. This is
> > not being "pro-life". If you are "pro-life", then you must be in
Pleased to meetcha. I'm a pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-handgun
control, anti-testing of animals, anti-violence, World Wildlife Fund
supporting, environmentalist and humanitarian.
Plbbbt.
-Kari
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"Man, if you gotta ask, you'll never know."
-Louis Armstrong, when asked what jazz is
k a r i j a n e a b a t e ~~ k...@fgi.net
qangashiraz
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Melanie Saw wrote:
> roxanne7 @ airmail.net (Roxanne) wrote:
[massive snippolas of unrelated material]
> > The idea that a group of
> >living cells at conception becomes a human being with a soul, that can
> >have this one life and only this one life, is a Christian concept, and
> >is unproven.
> >Many other people believe differently, and their actions
> >are based upon their belief. Saying that your belief is the real
> >truth is a sign of dementia. For all you know, you are wrong, and the
> >Hindus have got it all straight. Perhaps the atheists have it right.
> >Or the Jews. The Buddhists. The Zoroastrians. The Wiccans.
> I'm sure that there are a lot of Hindus / atheists / Wiccans /
> Buddhists out there who believe that their belief is the One, Absolute
> Truth. It's not just a Christian failing, you know.
i just *have* to address this one. i was raised hindu, have practised
buddhism and wicca, and am now an atheist.
none of the above believe in "one true way."
christianity and islam are the only proselytizing religions in the world.
hinduism says all paths lead to god, and there is only one god.
buddhism says there is no god, and anyone can become a buddha (or
enlightened one).
wicca says "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law," stressing
that inner guidance that those who believe in the mystical acknowledge.
you cannot *become* a hindu. you are either born a hindu or you are not.
there is no "conversion," per se, although very late in its development
when hinduism faced reform movements in both buddhism and jainism, a
makeshift modern ritual was put together so that those who had strayed and
left the fold (to use xtian terms, since hinduism does not have such
terminology) and wanted to affirm their return thereto could do so.
to become a buddhist, all you have to do is follow the eightfold path.
you needn't ever go to a priest, worship in a temple, wear any
distinguishing clothing or marks - all you have to do is meditate and work
at becoming enlightened.
to the best of my knowledge, none of these religions condemns abortion.
and melanie saw's remark that these religions see themselves as "the one
true way" is absolutely untrue and without foundation. the first prayer a
hindu child learns is, "as all rivers find their way to the sea, so all
men (sic) find their way to god."
my brief flirtation with christianity and islam showed me that these two
religions, of the ones i've investigated, stress that each of them is the
only "true"(tm) way
sq
Aardvark
Would that all pro-lifers shared all your convictions. Your various
points of view on issues make sense when taken as a whole. That is not
normally the case. That is why your antagonist was railing against "the
unfairness of it all", and they have a point, too.
Aardvark
roxanne7
>roxanne7 @ airmail.net (Roxanne) wrote:
>
>>The "pro-choice"
>>person very simply realiizes that there are instances when abortion is
>>warranted, that abortion is not "murder" any more than euthanasia is
>>murder, or suicide is murder, or contraception is murder, or removal
>>of a tumor is murder.
>
>Why are you lumping all of these examples together? There's quite
>difference between cutting out a wart and commiting suicide, you know.
>Murder = "Unlawful and intentional killing of a human being" (pocket
>Oxford). In most countries euthanasia is still illegal, and I _think_
>suicide (or rather assisting someone to commit suicide) is too.
>
I don't care about the legality or illegality of the things I
mentioned. I disapprove of and do not recognize the illegality of
suicide and euthanasia. Therefore they are irrelevant to me.
I'm trying to provide some examples which could be comparable to
abortion, depending on your viewpoint. Some people view an embryonic
life form as a non-sentient group of living cells which doesn't
qualify as a human being as yet. Others view it as a baby.
My point is merely that there are many forms of causing death or
preventing life from growing that currently in our society are not
considered to be murder. You could add a couple, like a policeman
killing in the line of duty or a soldier killing in a war. The
examples themselves are not as important as the fact that many
examples do in fact exist.
>>"Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
>>than actually saving what they believe to be babies. They say they
>>want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted, but
>>they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
>>babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
>>life,
>
>Yup, I'd say that the pro-life movement needs to work on that.
>
>>or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there is
>>no need for an abortion.
>
>I'm afraid that there's no such thing as a 100% foolproof
>contraceptive method or device. An unplanned pregnancy is a risk that
>is attendant every time you have intercourse.
The reason there is so much unplanned pregnancy is not due to people
using contraception with a 97-99% success rate. Now, you're an
intelligent person. Don't try to dupe me into thinking you didn't
know that.
The real cause of the tremendous overload of unwanted and unplanned
pregnancies is not using birth control at all, and not using it
correctly. There is a tremedous amount of ignorance out there. Just
look at the social groups who have the most unwanted pregnancies.
Minorites. The poor. Adolescents. There are obstacles to these
people getting education, and there are obstacles to them getting
adequate contraception and learning to use it properly. And the
Christian "Abstinence Only" line is one of the greatest obstacles. If
you feel that abstinence is your only option, and there is a lot of
pressure from family, church, friends, etc., to uphold that, then you
of course are not going to carry condoms with you whereever you go,
and you're not going to take the pill. You'll try to abstain as long
as you can until you can't take it any more and then... whoops, you've
just had intercourse without protection. You have just a hundred
thousand women who do this, and half of them get pregnant, you've got
fifty thousand unwanted pregnancies.
That's because abstinence is not a realistic policy. Perfect
abstinence is all but impossible.
>
>> "Pro-lifers" ignore all other circumstances
>>surrounding the unwanted pregnancy; extreme poverty, adolescence,
>>ignorance, racial minority, which essentially subject both mother and
>>child to a fate worse than death if its progress is allowed to
>>continue until it becomes a child.
>
>And your only solution is to offer them an abortion? Shouldn't we
>_all_ be trying to improve conditions?
My solution is not to offer anyone anything. But my opinion is that
abortion needs to be available as an option in this and all cases. I
do not approve of ruling it out. That's just plain stupid. You don't
condemn both a mother and a child to a horrible existence just because
you have an aversion to or a religous argument with something. And
preventing a woman in this type of situation from having a safe
clinical abortion does not necessarily prevent abortion. It isn't
that simple an issue. Many women go up their shaft with a coat hanger
or down a back alley to someone who doesn't know what they're doing
and doesn't have clean instruments, if they're desperate enough, and
then many times you lose both the mother *and* the baby.
And yes, I do believe in improving all conditions. Littering the
world with impoverished, illiterate, drug-addicted, physically,
mentally, and sexually abused children who will end up retarded from
lead poisoning is not improving conditions. In a perfect world every
baby could be put in a decent home with love and plenty. But
unfortunately the reality is that many of them end up sitting in
orphanages their entire lives due to minority race, drug and/or abuse
history, etc., and they're the lucky ones. The unlucky ones end up
with the birth parents, and you don't want to know what their lives
are like.
>
>>"Pro-lifers" are often in favor of the death penalty. Many are
>>meat-eaters, hunters, ranchers. They support "euthanasia" for stray
>>animals, which is essentially just a euphemism for "killing for our
>>own convenience". They enjoy the benefits of clear-cutting and the
>>destruction of the rainforest. They have no concern for the
>>extinction of multitudes of species due to loss of habitat. This is
>>not being "pro-life". If you are "pro-life", then you must be in
>>favor of and show respect and love for ALL life, not just the
>>particular type of life that you think is most important.
>
>Generalizing a wee bit there, don't you think?
The original poster was generalizing. I don't see that you're taking
issue with him. "Pro-life" and "pro-death" are generalized terms and
are as such automatically hypocritical, because nobody is totally
"pro-life" or "pro-death". There is a time to live, and a time to
die. Sometimes respecting a life means to allow it to continue.
Sometimes it means ending it. You just have to do each at its proper
time, and not at the wrong one.
>
>> The idea that a group of
>>living cells at conception becomes a human being with a soul, that can
>>have this one life and only this one life, is a Christian concept, and
>>is unproven.
>
>What we do know is that _your_ development began at conception.
No, you don't. I have a physical body whose development into a
multi-celled organism began at conception. There is no way to know
when "my" development began. It may have begun before the conception
of this body, for all we know long before, or it might have begun
after. You are basing your statement upon a Christian concept of
spontaneous generation of the soul upon conception of the human body.
I do not share your belief in this concept.
You,
>as an individual came into being when your mother's ovum was
>fertilised by your father's sperm. If I terminate your development,
>whether at one week gestation, third trimester of pregnancy, at birth,
>or at 5 yrs, I've still killed you.
I don't agree. My religious beliefs, if you care to know, would state
that you have destroyed or prevented the progress of the vessel which
would have held my spirit ("me"), but that I can take another body at
any time. Those views shape my views on abortion and euthanasia and
suicide and other forms of death. For you to assume that I see things
the way you do is not good thinking.
According to my beliefs, if you had killed the body which was being
prepared for me while it was being gestated, I simply would have been
required to look for a new one. If I had found a very good
opportunity in this body, this family, etc., I might have been
disappointed and angry, but chances are I would have tried again with
the same family. If I had gotten into a very bad situation with a bad
group of people, I might very well feel that I had been saved in the
nick of time.
>
>>Many other people believe differently, and their actions
>>are based upon their belief. Saying that your belief is the real
>>truth is a sign of dementia. For all you know, you are wrong, and the
>>Hindus have got it all straight. Perhaps the atheists have it right.
>>Or the Jews. The Buddhists. The Zoroastrians. The Wiccans.
>
>I admit that we _could_ be wrong, though I don't believe that we are.
Funny. I'm *certain* that you are wrong. I am more certain that you
are wrong than that I am right. When you come up with a mythology of
any kind, it has to be suspect, because a mythology cannot be proven.
But when that mythology is specific down to a pinpoint on extremely
arbitrary issues, and you are certain of its truth beyond a shadow of
a doubt, that's when you start to suspect dementia. I seems
impossible to know which way the wind is going to blow at any given
moment, even with all the complicated weather equipment and technology
and knowledge we have today, and yet Christians think they know down
to a T how the world was created and how it will end, even with
special effects and stereophonic sound. Sorry, but this is where I
walk out of the theater.
>
>I'm sure that there are a lot of Hindus / atheists / Wiccans /
>Buddhists out there who believe that their belief is the One, Absolute
>Truth. It's not just a Christian failing, you know.
No, they don't. Only Christians and Moslems believe that their truth
and their way are the only ones. Excuse me. And a few hard-bitten
atheists. Other religions and non-religions acknowledge and respect
other beliefs and other ways in a way that Christians probably
couldn't even comprehend.
I cannot be certain that my views are true or correct or on target, so
I must allow a margin for error, but I do hold my views and beliefs
firmly. I'm just not such an idiot that I pound a gavel screaming to
the world that I am absolutely right and that anybody who denies what
I believe or doesn't agree with me is wrong/bad/evil. I don't know
for sure what the truth is. All I can truly say is that I have a few
inklings, and that I feel I have a start on it.
On this issue, I believe there must be openness. But I am in favor of
seeing abortions restricted, cut back, drastically reduced, and firmly
regulated. I don't think they could ever be completely eliminated. I
do believe they are way out of control, especially in this country,
and something needs to be done about it. But something that will
work, not the kind of stupidity that has been enacted by members of
the Christian religion over the last twenty-something years. Most
sane intelligent people ignore the rantings of the typical Christian
pro-lifer. But I can tell you, they won't ignore counsellors and
educators who present the issue in a sane and rational manner. If you
want to prevent abortions, you need education, and you need
contraception. You need funding and manpower (or womanpower, as it
were) to support them. That's the only thing that's going to do it.
If you're not willing to do these things, then don't expect to see
your movement ever doing a damn bit of good.
And to say that someone who is "pro-choice" is "pro-death" is just
stupid. It isn't true, and it isn't accurate, and it's just an
emotional way of twisting people's arms, and as such is a low and base
tactic meant to manipulate intelligent people into believing what
Christians believe and doing what Christians want them to do. But the
thing about intelligent people is that they don't fall for guerilla
tactics. They make decisions based on the factors which have been
presented to them, not on pressure from peers or lectures full of
phony inspiration or badly disguised threats.
roxanne7
On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:40:03 GMT, Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de (Robert)
wrote:
>///////roxanne7 @ airmail.net (Roxanne) wrote:
>
>
>>The titles are not opposite because the opinions and the causes are
>>not opposite.
> I dont know about you;)..? But I somehow dedect a great deal of
>oposition between..a standpoint..that claims..every mother should have
>the right to choose wether she should be able to kill her unborn child
>or not..and a stanpoint that..says that nobody has a right to choose
>to kill somebody innocent at all ?
Your statement is based upon your belief that a zygote, an embryo, and
a fetus are "a child" and "somebody". Any or all of them might, or
might not be. We don't know. If you want to get extreme about it,
why don't you go back to the sperm and the egg? Is removal of a
woman's ovary infantacide? If you fail to conceive an egg, has that
"person" "died"? If a man masturbates, is he spilling millions of
little children on the ground?
Christians are very obsessed with cells dividing and fingers and toes,
but cells dividing and fingers and toes do not a human being make.
It's impossible to know when the distinction really does take place.
However, I think it's safe to say that in the very earliest stages of
development you can't call what's growing there a human being.
Most conceived eggs never even attach to the endometrium. Did you
know that? An embryonic human bears a very close resemblance to most
other mammals, and also to other forms of life, like chickens. They
don't have a brain. They have in a later stage a "brain bud", but
this is primitive and undeveloped. It is essentially a "potential
life form" rather than a life form in its own right.
>
>>No, it does not. It puts the emphasis on the *choice*. You are
>>either in denial, or an idiot for not being able to discern this.
> One would have to be a hypocrite or an idiot not to look through
>the euphemistic usage of the term "choice" in that regard..
There is nothing euphamistic about the term. It describes the
phenomenon very well. In most cases, the overwhelming majority, the
mother chooses to allow the pregancy to continue.
>>There are many instances when this person would choose against
>>abortion, and ask that others choose against it.
> I should see the day when a pro-"choicer"..asks somebody not
>to abort!! (When would you do that ?)..
You are classically ignorant. You are the one making generalizations,
because your views are so cemented and calcified that you
automatically see someone who is "pro-choice" as "pro-murder". You
are incapable of understanding that abortion is not murder. So of
course you won't be able to see a pro-choice person's views and
behavior clearly.
Pro-choicers can and do often disapprove of career abortions, late
term abortions, etc. I feel that abortions should be performed as
soon as possible if they are to be performed at all, before six weeks
is up. I feel that even "first trimester" is far too liberal. I
personally would like to see about 98% of abortions eliminated,
because about 98% of them are unnecessary, "belated contraception
abortions". However, the real way to eliminate them is through
adequate contraception before the fact, not through bringing to term a
child that never should have been conceived to begin with. I don't
know if these abortions are "right" or "wrong". But I can see plenty
of reasons not to go through with them. I can see that they could be
seen as "wrong" but strictly from the standpoint of uncertainty; we
don't know when an "ovum" becomes a "human". There is no way to draw
the line for sure, no matter how sure you are that you have all the
answers.
>
> The "pro-choice"
>>person very simply realiizes that there are instances when abortion is
>>warranted,
> If you pro-choicers would only be objective and not enage in bias
>rationalization focus on the Unborn Human Being.....
An egg is an "unborn human being". You're very confused about how the
development of the embryo progresses. Just because a group of cells
could potentially become a human being if allowed to continue its
development doesn't make it a human being in its own right.
The fact is there is another human being to be considered when dealing
with an unplanned, unwanted, and unbearable pregnancy. Your saying
that you care about her is complete bullshit. Your saying that you
care about the "unborn human being" is complete bullshit, too. Caring
is making the best choice available in the particular circumstance you
happen to be dealing with at them moment. Sometimes that means death,
and sometimes that means prevention of life. (They are not the same
thing). Abortion is prevention of life, but in the very earliest
stages of development it isn't any more the "death" of an "innocent
human being" than an amputation, or the removal of an organ.
What you are about is not to help people or to save anyone from harm,
but rather to force your rigid, strict idea of things onto other
people who believe differently. And if you disagree with me, then
just go look at your "pro-life" figures and see how many "babies"
you've "saved". Your track record, at this point, is absolutely
pathetic. You have failed miserably. You haven't solved a damn
thing.
If you want to end abortion, then do something that prevents
abortions, and stop worrying so much about other people's ideology.
roxanne7
In the past, people have been able to force their children to be
abstinent by keeping them in darkness and creating a threatening
situation so great that children were literally too afraid to rebel.
It's clear now that these societal forces have disappeared. The
ignorance has been obliterated by the media and our changed societal
methods of discussing sex, but people are still trying to use terror
to get their kids not to do it. The problem is, now it isn't working.
That part of our society is changed as well. There isn't any scandal
any more like there used to be when somebody gets pregnant as a
teenager or out of wedlock. In fact, it's gotten to the point where
it's seen as the norm.
The Christian right hopes to be able to reestablish the vacuum of
ignorance that they have enjoyed subjecting their children to for so
many centuries. But it would seem that their denial is just making
matters worse, because instead of the ignorance they wish to be in
place, the child instead finds misinformation. Gleaned from peers at
school and television programs and the like, this misinformation
causes them to act inappropriately, and the religous right believes
that giving these children the *correct* information (and a safety
net) is tantamount to encouragement. It doesn't, of course, encourage
them to have sex any more than defensive driving encourages people to
drive more than they otherwise would have. What it *does* do is
discourage them from doing it recklessly, carelessly, and
irresponsibly. When kids talk to each other about sex, when
television and movies present sex, they say that it's great, you ought
to try it. When sex education presents sex, it says that there are
dangers, you need to watch out for them.
But you are right. There is a tremendous gap between the time when a
person becomes sexually able to mate and bear children, and the time
at which they become an "adult". Somebody has to deal with this
problem, because unlike the religionists believe, it isn't just going
to go away if you ignore it. Ignorance is never the answer.
There are things which have worked very well at making kids think
before sex, and preventing teen pregnancies. Education is, of course,
number one. You've got to dispell that disinformation. But there was
also a program where students had to care for a "baby" (a doll which
was programmed to cry at random times, but at least every two hours,
for a feeding). The program was a huge success. The kids who
participated said they felt strongly discouraged from having sex and
having babies.
Kids are having sex younger and younger, too. The rigid approach to
the problem only alienates parents from their children, and assures
that the child will not talk to the parent about what he or she is
considering doing or in the process of doing, and that he or she is
going to go and do it in an unsafe place, behind their backs. Parents
who think that their children aren't doing this or wouldn't do it
should think again. Most parents are so completely disconnected from
their kids, and most kids view their parents so much as the enemy,
that the parents haven't the slightest idea what is really going on,
and would be shocked if they knew.
I think that it's only through talking openly and honestly with our
children about these issues that you will be able to discourage them
from getting started too soon. I certainly don't want to see my son
getting started at ten or eleven the way some of my childhood friends
did, but I also don't want him to hide what's going on in his life
because he knows I'm rigid and unreasonable. I feel these lines of
communication *have* to stay open if we are to effectively solve the
problem, but what I've found is that saying something like,
"Abstinence is the only option, I absolutely will not tolerate
anything less" is like cutting the phone line with a pair of garden
shears. See how many kids come to you with their concerns and
feelings after you say that. "Come and talk to me before you do
anything," and "Introduce me to her; invite her to dinner at our
house," are much more effective strategies, and are actually much more
likely to foster abstinence in a child too young than the first
approach.
That's what I feel is the first step to solving the problem. You are
right; everyone puts all the blame and all the responsibilties on the
teenager's not yet fully developed shoulders. I really think that is
because the religious history of our society has been to deny kids the
right to a sex drive, and even to go so far as to deny its existence.
But of course that's ludicrous; any child who is sexually mature is
going to have a sex drive. It must be acknowledged and dealt with,
just like any other need like eating or sleeping. Total deprivation
leads to desperate, unthinking behavior at the very last moment and
also, of course, disastrous consequences.
Dan Nelson
Roxanne wrote:
>
> On Tue, 04 Feb 1997 15:27:50 GMT, mel...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Melanie
> Saw) wrote:
>
<snip>
> The reason there is so much unplanned pregnancy is not due to people
> using contraception with a 97-99% success rate. Now, you're an
> intelligent person. Don't try to dupe me into thinking you didn't
> know that.
>
> The real cause of the tremendous overload of unwanted and unplanned
> pregnancies is not using birth control at all, and not using it
I really don't understand how there can be this "tremendous overload"
and yet they make it so *damn* difficult to adopt a child. It's
insane. Thousands of dollars for a "background check". I could do a
similarly thorough job in 1/2 hour on the internet. Who the hell do
they think they're kidding?
<snip>
> >I'm sure that there are a lot of Hindus / atheists / Wiccans /
> >Buddhists out there who believe that their belief is the One, Absolute
> >Truth. It's not just a Christian failing, you know.
>
> No, they don't. Only Christians and Moslems believe that their truth
> and their way are the only ones. Excuse me. And a few hard-bitten
> atheists. Other religions and non-religions acknowledge and respect
> other beliefs and other ways in a way that Christians probably
> couldn't even comprehend.
This is true. I studied Wicca and other variants of paganism, and they
are *extremely adamant* about making sure you understand that each
person must find their own spiritual path. If that path leads away from
Wicca, great. If not, bonus for the faith. I wish Christianity could
be more like that. It would make it a lot more attractive to a lot more
people.
<snip>
Aardvark
--
In Rave-On's honor:
+--------------------------------------------------+
|######## %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ########|
|######### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% #########|
|########### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ###########|
|############ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ############|
|###### ###### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ###### ######|
| ##### ####### %%%%%%%%%%%%%% ####### ##### |
| ############## %%%%%%%%%%%% ############## |
|%% ############## %%%%%%%% ############## %%|
|%%% ###### ###### %%%%%% ###### ###### %%%|
|%%%%% ##### ####### %% ####### ##### %%%%%|
|%%%%%% ############## ############## %%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%% ############## ############## %%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%% ###### ########## ###### %%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%%%% ##### ########## ##### %%%%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%%%%% #################### %%%%%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ################## %%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ###### ###### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ###### ###### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ################## %%%%%%%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%%%%% #################### %%%%%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%%%% ##### ########## ##### %%%%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%%% ###### ########## ###### %%%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%%%% ############## ############## %%%%%%%%|
|%%%%%% ############## ############## %%%%%%|
|%%%%% ##### ####### %% ####### ##### %%%%%|
|%%% ###### ###### %%%%%% ###### ###### %%%|
|%% ############## %%%%%%%% ############## %%|
| ############## %%%%%%%%%%%% ############## |
| ##### ####### %%%%%%%%%%%%%% ####### ##### |
|###### ###### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ###### ######|
|############ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ############|
|########### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ###########|
|######### %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% #########|
|######## %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% ########|
+--------------------------------------------------+
qangashiraz
On Tue, 4 Feb 1997, Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <E51CK...@muenster.westfalen.de>, Robert
> <Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de> writes
[bobbectomy]
> As a society *we* have created a problen for the teenagers, yet we then
> blame *them* for being reckless! Why?
because - in case you hadn't noticed, dear lady - we really don't *like*
our children very much. alice miller discusses this at length in her book,
"poisonous pedagogy." we repress our rage at our parents because they are
bigger and stronger; then we become parents, and take out all that
repressed rage on our children.
sq
zeus
Roxanne wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:40:03 GMT, Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de (Robert)
> wrote:
>
> >///////roxanne7 @ airmail.net (Roxanne) wrote:
> >
> >>There are many instances when this person would choose against
> >>abortion, and ask that others choose against it.
>
> > I should see the day when a pro-"choicer"..asks somebody not
> >to abort!! (When would you do that ?)..
>
I would encourage anyone to have their child, but it would be her
choice. And though I do agree with reducing the number of abortions as
much as possible, I do not wish to take the choice away.
> > The "pro-choice"
> >>person very simply realiizes that there are instances when abortion is
> >>warranted,
>
> > If you pro-choicers would only be objective and not enage in bias
> >rationalization focus on the Unborn Human Being.....
>
> An egg is an "unborn human being". You're very confused about how the
> development of the embryo progresses. Just because a group of cells
> could potentially become a human being if allowed to continue its
> development doesn't make it a human being in its own right.
is a tadpole a frog since it will turn into one?
Mama Toto
Aardvark wrote:
> Would that all pro-lifers shared all your convictions. Your various
> points of view on issues make sense when taken as a whole. That is not
> normally the case. That is why your antagonist was railing against "the
> unfairness of it all", and they have a point, too.
Well, we *all* have points....and we are all completely convinced that
ours is the most accurate, right, ethical, etc. However, what is
"unfair" in this particular case is making broad generalizations and
accusations about a group of people -- who happen to made up of a lot
of INDIVIDUALS.
I just can't stand to see ambiguous, dishonest attacks against *any*
large group of people: black, white, male, female, asian, homosexual,
disabled, anglo-saxon, middle eastern, jewish, buddhist, christian,
taoist, martian, animal, mineral, or vegetable. I fail to see what is
productive about that.
Raven
Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
>Aardvark wrote:
>> Would that all pro-lifers shared all your convictions. Your various
>> points of view on issues make sense when taken as a whole. That is not
>> normally the case. That is why your antagonist was railing against "the
>> unfairness of it all", and they have a point, too.
>Well, we *all* have points....and we are all completely convinced that
>ours is the most accurate, right, ethical, etc. However, what is
>"unfair" in this particular case is making broad generalizations and
>accusations about a group of people -- who happen to made up of a lot
>of INDIVIDUALS.
>I just can't stand to see ambiguous, dishonest attacks against *any*
>large group of people: black, white, male, female, asian, homosexual,
>disabled, anglo-saxon, middle eastern, jewish, buddhist, christian,
>taoist, martian, animal, mineral, or vegetable. I fail to see what is
>productive about that.
That's _his_specialty!
Cindy L. Jones
J Shearer <jshe...@accessone.com> wrote:
> Roxanne, Wow! Well said!! Yes, the "Pro-Control-of-Others" crowd
>is just that: a bunch of hypocrites who really don't give a plugged penny
>for the childern who are actually born! (Well, probably some of them do.)
>But if they really wanted to stop abortions, they'd do what you said--make
>sure the "at-risk" kids get what they need: birth control, education, the
>money/necessities of life so that they don't fall into the "trap" of early
>pregnancy. Obviously it's not "Life" they think is so precious!
*Applause* *Applause*
I have asked several self-acclaimed 'pro-lifers' to address this exact
issue, and I've aways been accused of manipulating the conversation
and ignoring the issue. But to me, this *is* the issue! Personally,
I'd be thrilled if there were never another abortion performed any
where in the United States -- but only if it was because we, as a
society, took responsibility for our at-risk populations and provided
the tools they need to lead different lives.
After a 'pro-life' friend heard me say that I'd be happy if there were
never another abortion performed in the US, she asked me why I wasn't
working to stop abortion. I told her that every time I worked with a
teen girl on self-esteem issues adn feminist thought, I was doing just
that!
Cindy
Beth Darlington
Aardvark <dne...@black-hole.com> wrote in article
<32FAEB...@black-hole.com>...
> Mama Toto wrote:
> >
> > > > "Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their
way
> > > > than actually saving what they believe to be babies.
> >
> > Lies. The same could be said of pro-choicers. Pro-choicers seem to
> > care more about "controlling [ie: their 'choice'] and getting their
way"
> > [ie: avoiding responsibility for their own actions].
> >
> > > >They say they
> > > > want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted,
but
> > > > they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
> > > > babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
> > > > life, or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there
is
> > > > no need for an abortion.
> >
> > > > have afforded it. "Pro-lifers" ignore all other circumstances
> > > > surrounding the unwanted pregnancy; extreme poverty, adolescence,
> > > > ignorance, racial minority, which essentially subject both mother
and
> > > > child to a fate worse than death if its progress is allowed to
> > > > continue until it becomes a child.
> >
> > That's the spirit. Please pass the cyanide when you're done with it.
> > Pro-choicers are *so* uplifting.
> >
> > > > "Pro-lifers" are often in favor of the death penalty. Many are
> > > > meat-eaters, hunters, ranchers. They support "euthanasia" for
stray
> > > > animals, which is essentially just a euphemism for "killing for our
> > > > own convenience". They enjoy the benefits of clear-cutting and the
> > > > destruction of the rainforest. They have no concern for the
> > > > extinction of multitudes of species due to loss of habitat. This
is
> > > > not being "pro-life". If you are "pro-life", then you must be in
> >
> > Pleased to meetcha. I'm a pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-handgun
> > control, anti-testing of animals, anti-violence, World Wildlife Fund
> > supporting, environmentalist and humanitarian.
> >
Yeah, support handguns? Very "Pro-life".
Plbbbt.
> >
> > -Kari
>
> Would that all pro-lifers shared all your convictions. Your various
> points of view on issues make sense when taken as a whole. That is not
> normally the case. That is why your antagonist was railing against "the
> unfairness of it all", and they have a point, too.
>
> Aardvark
>
Pat Winstanley
In article <Pine.BSF.3.95.970207...@idiom.com>,
qangashiraz <sqa...@idiom.com> writes
Must admit I feel it's less rage than a chance to control. Is there
anyone who *doesn't* like to control?
PP and NARL
- The pro-death movement shall go on! We are Planned Parenthood and we have the right to terminate you as we see fit! Come see our terminator of the year! Â
Mama Toto
Beth Darlington wrote:
> > > Pleased to meetcha. I'm a pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-handgun
> > > control, anti-testing of animals, anti-violence, World Wildlife Fund
> > > supporting, environmentalist and humanitarian.
> > >
> Yeah, support handguns? Very "Pro-life".
Read much? Try again. pro-handgun CONTROL. Key word: control. It
means anti-handgun. It means my brother was murdered by someone
who was declared legally insane, yet had his own handgun.
Aardvark
Mama Toto wrote:
>
> Aardvark wrote:
> > Would that all pro-lifers shared all your convictions. Your various
> > points of view on issues make sense when taken as a whole. That is not
> > normally the case. That is why your antagonist was railing against "the
> > unfairness of it all", and they have a point, too.
>
> ours is the most accurate, right, ethical, etc. However, what is
<snip rest, agree with it all>
I make no such claims about my *own* point of view on these issues, as
it changes regularly. For that reason, I'd never try to convert anyone
to my point of view on issues like abortion, euthenasia, etc. I'd
rather draw out other's views so I can examine them and try to see the
justifications. Live and learn.
Aardvark
Raven wrote:
>
> Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
>
> >Aardvark wrote:
> >> Would that all pro-lifers shared all your convictions. Your various
> >> points of view on issues make sense when taken as a whole. That is not
> >> normally the case. That is why your antagonist was railing against "the
> >> unfairness of it all", and they have a point, too.
>
> >Well, we *all* have points....and we are all completely convinced that
> >ours is the most accurate, right, ethical, etc. However, what is
> >accusations about a group of people -- who happen to made up of a lot
> >of INDIVIDUALS.
>
> >I just can't stand to see ambiguous, dishonest attacks against *any*
> >large group of people: black, white, male, female, asian, homosexual,
> >disabled, anglo-saxon, middle eastern, jewish, buddhist, christian,
> >taoist, martian, animal, mineral, or vegetable. I fail to see what is
> >productive about that.
>
> That's _his_specialty!
My specialty is software development. Yours is confined to making
useless posts that offend non-flame readers with no enlightenment
factor. Your point is?
Mama Toto
Aardvark wrote:
> I make no such claims about my *own* point of view on these issues, as
> it changes regularly. For that reason, I'd never try to convert anyone
> to my point of view on issues like abortion, euthenasia, etc. I'd
> rather draw out other's views so I can examine them and try to see the
> justifications. Live and learn.
That's *honest*. It's also rare. For the most part, that's why I enjoy
the art of debate -- examining others' justifications and offering my
own. But the minute someone starts generalizing and assuming
they've got it all figured out -- it makes the hair on the back of my
neck stand up. There are many compelling arguments for both sides,
but I hate when it becomes petty and trivial -- as though we weren't
really discussing life and death. I am guilty of getting caught up in
this, as well, and it's not something that makes me particularly
proud. Taurus temper. ;-)
PP and NARL
- I don't see anything wrong with the pro-death movement. We are growing in numbers, and now that Clinton is our head master, there shall be no stopping us. Come see the celebration party we threw this year in honor of our QUEEN! Â
Ray Fischer
Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
>> > "Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
>> > than actually saving what they believe to be babies.
>
>Lies. The same could be said of pro-choicers.
Bullshit. Stop lying.
> Pro-choicers seem to
>care more about "controlling [ie: their 'choice'] and getting their way"
Oh sure. We think that people should have the liberty to decide their
own fate. We object to controlling fascists trying to dictate other
people's lives.
>> >They say they
>> > want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted, but
>> > they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
>> > babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
>> > life, or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there is
>> > no need for an abortion.
>
>More lies. Many, many, many organizations that are pro-life are
>willing to find adoptive parents, educate mothers, find other
>organizations that will provide food and shelter and cover medical
>costs for mother and child if necessary, etc.
Name some.
Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization that helps women
control their own lives, by offering contraception and health services
and adoption referrals and even abortions.
>> > "Pro-lifers" rather want to control how and when and in what way
>> > "babies" are "saved", and if they can't have it just the way they want
>> > it, they won't do anything at all.
>
>More lies and overgeneralizations. How would you feel if I said
>pro-choice people had absolutely no concern for mothers who have
>had abortions -- that their only concern is that the woman has the
>choice? That's not a fair assertion, and neither is yours.
Is it? What have you done to save the lives of children? Is it even
close to what you demand of pregnant women?
>> > For instance, "pro-lifers" will break the law,
>
>And pro-choicers have never broken the law?
The ratio is at least 100 to one. A recent report indicated that the
FACE law (which protects access to clinics) reduced crimes at clinics
from over 3000 per year to around 500. There have been many
"pro-life" murderers, bombings, arsons, and terrorism.
[...]
>> > "Pro-lifers" are often in favor of the death penalty. Many are
>> > meat-eaters, hunters, ranchers. They support "euthanasia" for stray
>> > animals, which is essentially just a euphemism for "killing for our
>> > own convenience". They enjoy the benefits of clear-cutting and the
>> > destruction of the rainforest. They have no concern for the
>> > extinction of multitudes of species due to loss of habitat. This is
>> > not being "pro-life". If you are "pro-life", then you must be in
>
>Pleased to meetcha. I'm a pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-handgun
>control, anti-testing of animals, anti-violence, World Wildlife Fund
>supporting, environmentalist and humanitarian.
And hypocrite. Remeber those tens of thousands of people you let die
each and every day?
--
Ray Fischer The tree of liberty only grows when watered by the
r...@netcom.com blood of tyrants. -- Bertrand Barere.
Ray Fischer
Another self-righteous "pro-life" hypocrite.
Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
>I just can't stand to see ambiguous, dishonest attacks against *any*
>large group of people: black, white, male, female, asian, homosexual,
>disabled, anglo-saxon, middle eastern, jewish, buddhist, christian,
>taoist, martian, animal, mineral, or vegetable. I fail to see what is
>productive about that.
Pro-choicers seem to care more about "controlling [ie: their
'choice'] and getting their way" [ie: avoiding responsibility
for their own actions].
Please pass the cyanide when you're done with it.
Pro-choicers are *so* uplifting.
Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> in <32FA21...@fgi.net>
Thu, 06 Feb 1997 18:21:54 +0000
Mama Toto
Ray Fischer wrote:
>
> Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
> >> > "Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
> >> > than actually saving what they believe to be babies.
> >
> >Lies. The same could be said of pro-choicers.
>
> Bullshit. Stop lying.
Horsepucky. I was proving a point regarding overgeneralizations, Ray.
Try and keep up.
> > Pro-choicers seem to
> >care more about "controlling [ie: their 'choice'] and getting their way"
>
> Oh sure. We think that people should have the liberty to decide their
> own fate. We object to controlling fascists trying to dictate other
> people's lives.
And there are no fascist pro-choicers? What about people who
support population control -- at any cost? Nothing fascist about
that?
> >> >They say they
> >> > want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted, but
> >> > they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
> >> > babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
> >> > life, or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there is
> >> > no need for an abortion.
> >
> >More lies. Many, many, many organizations that are pro-life are
> >willing to find adoptive parents, educate mothers, find other
> >organizations that will provide food and shelter and cover medical
> >costs for mother and child if necessary, etc.
>
> Name some.
You asked for it!!! :-)
Here goes (my apologies for the bandwidth, folks):
HOMES FOR MOMS
Good Counsel Maternity homes
303 Madison St.
Hoboken, NJ 07030
201-795-0637
His Nesting Place
350 E. Market St.
Long Beach, CA 90805
310-422-2137
310-984-5040 Fax
Mom's House, Inc.
600 Fordham Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15226
412-531-6667
Because of the large number of these organizations (homes for
moms), please write to American Life
League for a complete list or contact International Life Services for
Current Pro-life Resource Directory at
(213) 382-2156.
ADOPTION
Adoptive Families of America
3333 Highway 100 North
Minneapolis, MN 55422
612-535-4829
Information and resource materials provides in a multi-cultural
perspective. Has 24-hr helpline. Magazine:
"Adoptive families"
Adoption Options
1724 N. Burnside, #7
Gonzales, LA 70737
504-644-1033
AIDS Orphan Adoption Project
c/o National Council for Adoption
1930 17th St., NW
Washington, DC 20009
1-800-333-NCFA
Project of the National Council for Adoption. Helps parents with
HIV/AIDS to plan for their children, or those
wanting to adopt or help such children.
Bethany Christian Services
901 Eastern Ave., NE
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
616-459-6273
Catholic Charities, USA
1731 King St.
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 549-1390
1-800-CARE-002
Adoption, counseling, support services. The 1-800 number
automatically refers callers to the local Catholic
Charities office in their area.
Christian Adoption Service
Attn: Ronald L. Stoddart, Esq.
1-800-678-6811
Down Syndrome Adoption Exchange
56 Midchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10606
914-428-1236
Counsels and assists in adoption of children with Down Syndrome.
Works to educate on developmental
capability and value of handicapped children.
Gladney Center
2300 Hemphill
Fort Worth, TX 76110
817-922-6000
1-800-GLADNEY
Nation's largest and most comprehensive licensed maternity and
adoption agency.
National Adoption Center
1500 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19102
215-735-9988
1-800-TO-ADOPT
Telecommunication network offering computer matching of adoption
agencies with prospective families and
special-needs, minority, and older children.
National Council for Adoption
1930 17th St., NW
Washington, DC 20009
202-328-1200
1-800-333-NCFA
Research and education in the field of adoption. Publishes the
"Adoption Factbook" and provides free
resource packet.
National Resource Center for Special-Needs Adoption
16250 Northland Drive, Suite 120
Southfield, NI 48075
810-443-7080
Provides training, consultations, and technical assistance towards
improving adoption and post- adoption
services for special- needs children.
The Nurturing Network
910 Main Street, Suite 360
Boise, ID 83702
1-800-TNN-4MOM (866-4666)
Provides complete support services including college and employment
transfers, as well as medical,
housing, certified counseling and other assistance to unwed mothers.
CRISIS PREGNANCY COUNSELING (National)
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
901 Eastern Ave., NE adoption; etc.
Grand Rapids, MI 49503
616-459-6273
1-800-BETHANY
Crisis pregnancy counseling
BIRTHRIGHT, INC.
P.O. Box 98363
Atlanta, GA 30359
404-451-6336
800-550-4900 Hotline
416-469-4789 Birthright International
Crisis pregnancy counseling
CARENET
101 W. Broad St., Suite 500
Falls Church, VA 22046
703-237-2100
Formerly Christian Action Council; Crisis pregnancy counseling
CATHOLIC CHARITIES, USA
1731 King St., #200
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 549-1390, X38
1-800-CARE-002
1-800# instantly routs callers to their local Catholic Charities
pregnancy help services #.
Heartbeat International
1213 1/2 S. James Road
Columbus, OH 43227
614-239-9433
614-231-2221 Fax
Crisis pregnancy counseling; Works to network pregnancy help
centers nationwide.
Heartlines
Attn: Synda Masse
c/o Focus on the Family
8655 Explorer Drive
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
(719) 531-3460
Monthly newsletter sent to most US Pregnancy Help Centers.
Hunter Systems
100 Century Park South, Suite 206
Birmingham, AL 35226
1-800-326-0527
Fax: (205) 979-3389
Pregnancy Center Management computer software & systems.
International Life Services, Inc.
2606-1/2 West 8th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90057
213-382-2156
Crisis pregnancy center training; publishes "National Pro-Life
Directory"
Living Alternatives
Box 7035
The Woodlands, TX 77387
713-367-1518
Crisis pregnancy counseling
NURTURING NETWORK
910 Main St., Suite 360
P.O. Box 2050
Boise, Idaho 83702
800-866-4666
208-344-4447 Fax
Housing, medical care, certified counseling, employment, college
transfers for women in crisis pregnancies.
Open Arms
P.O. Box 1056
Columbia, MO 65205-1056
314-449-7672
314-442-0058 Fax
Crisis pregnancy counseling; Post abortion family/group counseling.
Pro-Life Action Ministries
Box 75368
St. Paul, MN 55175
612-771-1500
Sidewalk counseling help
Silent Voices
191B Glover Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619-422-0757
Crisis pregancy center; post abortion counseling. Provides
international training for PHC's. Has Russian
translations of some Pregnancy counseling materials.
White Rose Institute, Inc.
2 Ave Maria Drive
Hardy, AR 72542
216-459-4383
Crisis pregnancy counseling
Womb With a View
8705 Elk Grove Boulevard
Elk Grove, CA 95624
(916) 686-8074
Fax: (916) 686-5951
Produces State-of-the-Art computerized pregnancy information
software w/pictures and interactive
commands to help pregnancy help centers provide hands-on education
to their clients.
MINORITY OUTREACH
Afro-Americans for Life
5724 40th Ave. South
Minneapolis, MN 55417-2924
612-727-2568
Association of Black Catholics Against Abortion
1011 First Ave.
New York, NY 10022
212-371-1000
Minority outreach. Connected with Archdiocese of New York.
Black Americans for Life
419 7th St. NW, Suite 402
Washington, DC 20004
202-626-8833 or
209-266-1000
Blacks for Life
1700 W. Congress
Milwaukee, WI 53209
414-442-1265
Hispanics for Life and Human Rights
P.O. Box 9086
Torrence, CA 90501
213-549-4182
International Black Women's Network
P.O. Box 90972
Washington, DC 20090
301-277-1122
301-699-0792 Fax
L.E.A.R.N.-- Life Education And Resource Network
Attn: Akua Furlow
294 Church St.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
(914) 454-2123
Chastity, values, pro-life education for African-Americans. Holds
annual conference + produces
African-American materials, incl. videos, TV shows.
Vida Humana Internacional Sucursal en Miami
(Human Life International-Miami)
7105 SW 8th St., Suite 210
Miami, FL 33144
305-262-6464
305-261-8456 Fax
POST-ABORTION TRAUMA
After Abortion Helpline
21 Violet Street
Providence, RI 02908
401-941-3050
(Helpline hours: 7-10 pm, E.S.T.)
Telephone helpline for women and men who are struggling with the
after-effects of abortion. Offers
non-judgmental, compassionate listening and referrals for physical,
spiritual & other counseling.
American Rights Coalition
P.O. Box 487
Chattanooga, TN 37401
615-698-7960
American Victims of Abortion
419 7th St., NW Suite 402
Washington, DC 20004
202-626-8800
Dad's for Life
908 Thorn St.
Princeton, WV 24740
304-487-1644
Father's rights and post-abortion counseling for men
The Elliot Institute
P.O. Box 9079
Springfield, IL 62704
217-523-2706
Institute for Pregnancy Loss
111 Bow Street
Portsmouth, NH 03801-3819
(603) 431-1904
Fax: (603) 436-6971
Post-abortion trauma International study, headed by Dr. Vincent M.
Rue.
Healing Hearts Ministries
412 S. Highland St.
Lombard, IL 60148
Produces and sell Drs. Vincent and Susan Standford-Rue's
post-abortion counseling manual.
Last Harvest Ministries, Inc.
2720 Stemmons Fwy. #810 South
Dallas, TX 75207
214-630-6565
800-422-4542
Open Arms
P.O. Box 1056
Columbia, MO 65205-1056
314-449-7672
314-442-0058 Fax
National Office of Post-Abortion Reconciliation and Healing
3501 S. Lake Dr.
P.O. Box 07477
Milwaukee, WI 53207
414-483-4141
1-800-593-2273
Post-abortion trauma; counselor training for PAS; helps start local
Project Rachel program
P.A.C.E. (Post Abortion Counseling & Education)
c/o CARENET
101 West Broad St., Suite 500
Falls Church, VA 22046
703-237-2100
Post-Abortion Ministries
P.O. Box 3092
Landover Hills, MD 20784
301-773-4630
Project Rachel
St. John's Center
3680 Kinnickinnic Ave.
Milwaukee, WI 53207
414-483-4141
800-5WE-CARE
Silent Voices
191B Glover Ave.
Chula Vista, CA 91910
619-422-0757
Post-abortion trauma Also provides Russian translation of pro-life
pamphlet on fetal development.
Victims of Choice
P.O. Box 6268
Vacaville, CA 95696-6268
707-448-6015
Women Exploited By Abortion (W.E.B.A.)
Rt. 1, Box 821
Venus, TX 76084
214-366-3600
Several Sources Foundation
P.O. Box 157
Ramsey, NJ 07446
(201) 825-7277
1-800-NO-ABORT
Model shelter for single mothers and their babies. Mothers may
remain for an extra year after the birth of their
child.
I can find more if you like....?
> Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization that helps women
> control their own lives, by offering contraception and health services
> and adoption referrals and even abortions.
>
> >> > "Pro-lifers" rather want to control how and when and in what way
> >> > "babies" are "saved", and if they can't have it just the way they want
> >> > it, they won't do anything at all.
> >
> >More lies and overgeneralizations. How would you feel if I said
> >pro-choice people had absolutely no concern for mothers who have
> >had abortions -- that their only concern is that the woman has the
> >choice? That's not a fair assertion, and neither is yours.
>
> Is it? What have you done to save the lives of children? Is it even
> close to what you demand of pregnant women?
What have I done to save the lives of children? Not nearly enough. I
give to organizations of my choice when I can, I look for
opportunities to volunteer my services as needed. I work in human
services. I am a role model to the children in my life. I would open
my home to children who are lost -- I am an aspiring foster parent,
one of my long-term goals. Most importantly, I have worked with
people with developmental disabilities for the last four years, a
population who is *most* unwanted in this so-called civilized
society of ours. I have a humble salary and work because that is
where I am needed.
What do YOU do, Ray? Can you take it as well as you dish it out?
> >> > For instance, "pro-lifers" will break the law,
> >
> >And pro-choicers have never broken the law?
>
> The ratio is at least 100 to one.
Yeah? A lot of civil rights activists broke the law in the sixties --
I'll bet the ratios for that were pretty damn high, too. Big deal. They
were fighting for something they believe in -- unless you think
blacks should still be sitting in the back of the bus?
> A recent report indicated that the
> FACE law (which protects access to clinics) reduced crimes at clinics
> from over 3000 per year to around 500. There have been many
> "pro-life" murderers, bombings, arsons, and terrorism.
So all pro-lifers must be guilty by association? I know some rapists
who are male -- can I call you a rapist? I abhor violence, Ray -- and
I certainly don't condone bombings, arsons, and terrorism. I wonder
how many of those arsons, bombings and terrorism were staged acts
by pro-choicers to clearly indicate to Americans just how far-out
pro-lifers are. Do you have the statistics on that? Don't try and say
it doesn't happen. How would you *know*? All-seeing, all-knowing,
omnipotent one?
> >Pleased to meetcha. I'm a pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-handgun
> >control, anti-testing of animals, anti-violence, World Wildlife Fund
> >supporting, environmentalist and humanitarian.
>
> And hypocrite. Remeber those tens of thousands of people you let die
> each and every day?
Well, I'm not superwoman, Ray. I'm only human, and in my small
corner of the world, I believe in cleaning up your own damn backyard.
To lay claim to anything else would be arrogant -- so many people
think they can save the world, and then they throw a cigarette butt
out the window. Start small, there can only be so many Gandhis.
So...hypocrite....what do YOU do?
Ray Fischer
followups
Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> > "Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
>> >> > than actually saving what they believe to be babies.
>> >
>> >Lies. The same could be said of pro-choicers.
>>
>> Bullshit. Stop lying.
>
>Horsepucky. I was proving a point regarding overgeneralizations, Ray.
You were farting an opinion.
>> > Pro-choicers seem to
>> >care more about "controlling [ie: their 'choice'] and getting their way"
>>
>> Oh sure. We think that people should have the liberty to decide their
>> own fate. We object to controlling fascists trying to dictate other
>> people's lives.
>
>And there are no fascist pro-choicers?
By definition, no. There are probably a few rabidly pro-abortion
extremists, but by definition such are not pro-choice.
> What about people who
>support population control -- at any cost? Nothing fascist about
>that?
Nothing pro-choice about that.
>> >> > "Pro-lifers" rather want to control how and when and in what way
>> >> > "babies" are "saved", and if they can't have it just the way they want
>> >> > it, they won't do anything at all.
>> >
>> >More lies and overgeneralizations. How would you feel if I said
>> >pro-choice people had absolutely no concern for mothers who have
>> >had abortions -- that their only concern is that the woman has the
>> >choice? That's not a fair assertion, and neither is yours.
>>
>> Is it? What have you done to save the lives of children? Is it even
>> close to what you demand of pregnant women?
>
>What have I done to save the lives of children? Not nearly enough.
And not as much as you demand that other people do.
Hmmm.
> I
>give to organizations of my choice when I can, I look for
>opportunities to volunteer my services as needed. I work in human
>services. I am a role model to the children in my life. I would open
>my home to children who are lost -- I am an aspiring foster parent,
>one of my long-term goals. Most importantly, I have worked with
>people with developmental disabilities for the last four years, a
>population who is *most* unwanted in this so-called civilized
>society of ours. I have a humble salary and work because that is
>where I am needed.
Well, I can tell you the same thing you'd tell a pregnant women who
wanted to end a pregnancy after only three months.
It's not enough.
>What do YOU do, Ray? Can you take it as well as you dish it out?
I do MORE than I demand of other people.
[...]
>> >Pleased to meetcha. I'm a pro-life, anti-death penalty, pro-handgun
>> >control, anti-testing of animals, anti-violence, World Wildlife Fund
>> >supporting, environmentalist and humanitarian.
>>
>> And hypocrite. Remeber those tens of thousands of people you let die
>> each and every day?
>
>Well, I'm not superwoman, Ray.
And please do not demand that other women attempt to be superwomen.
> I'm only human, and in my small
>corner of the world, I believe in cleaning up your own damn backyard.
>To lay claim to anything else would be arrogant -- so many people
>think they can save the world, and then they throw a cigarette butt
>out the window. Start small, there can only be so many Gandhis.
Good idea. Start with yourself. Set an example for others to follow.
Don't try to force people to go where you do not by beating them with
sticks.
qangashiraz
On Sat, 8 Feb 1997, Pat Winstanley wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSF.3.95.970207...@idiom.com>,
> qangashiraz <sqa...@idiom.com> writes
> Must admit I feel it's less rage than a chance to control. Is there
> anyone who *doesn't* like to control?
well, there's me, of course. ;^)
i can't think of anyone else deserving consideration. O %^)
sq
MRX
On Mon, 3 Feb 1997 01:25:36 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Wandy Larkson <wa...@hartingdale.com.au> wrote:
>>> Laura Akers wrote:
>
>>> > Science doesn't make claims about human *beings*. "Being-ness" is a
>>> > philosophical matter.
>>
>>If you mean by 'claims' - how one is ethically to behave in relation to
>>a particular being - no, science does not tell us that; however, science
>>can provide the starting point for the ethical discussion - if the
>>fetus is established, as it has been, as a human life - what is our duty
>>to that life?
>
>"Our" duty? Why don't you start first by telling us what YOUR duty
>might be. After all, it would be a little hypocritical to expect only
>pregannt women to be responsible for saving lives.
what you meant to say was:
" After all, it would be a little hypocritical of feminists, and
yourself, to expect pregannt women to be responsible for maintaining
the lives withi them"
>--
>Ray Fischer The tree of liberty only grows when watered by the
>r...@netcom.com blood of tyrants. -- Bertrand Barere.
you are quite the abortion cultist....wow....you are so extreme.
--------------------------------------------------------------
While you may feel the need to respond to this, to me
personally, through e-mail, kindly refrain from doing so.
Unless e-mail is expressly requested in my posting, then
your e-mail is NOT requested. This is the medium...please
keep it here. Your harrassment of me through e-mail is
unsolicited. Govern yourself accordingly.
--------------------------------------------------------------
roxanne7
On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:37:56 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
>>> > "Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
>>> > than actually saving what they believe to be babies.
>>
>>Lies. The same could be said of pro-choicers.
>
>Bullshit. Stop lying.
>
>> Pro-choicers seem to
>>care more about "controlling [ie: their 'choice'] and getting their way"
>
>Oh sure. We think that people should have the liberty to decide their
>own fate. We object to controlling fascists trying to dictate other
>people's lives.
Thank you, Ray. I was feeling extremely angry about this delusional
bitch's line of bull, and was thinking of just bowing out of the
conversation to avoid the emotional turmoil. I couldn't have said it
better myself.
>
>>> >They say they
>>> > want to save them, or rather to prevent babies from being aborted, but
>>> > they're not willing to do what it takes to make certain that these
>>> > babies they've saved have the resources they need to have a decent
>>> > life, or to prevent the conception in the first place so that there is
>>> > no need for an abortion.
>>
>>More lies. Many, many, many organizations that are pro-life are
>>willing to find adoptive parents, educate mothers, find other
>>organizations that will provide food and shelter and cover medical
>>costs for mother and child if necessary, etc.
>
>Name some.
>
>Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization that helps women
>control their own lives, by offering contraception and health services
>and adoption referrals and even abortions.
Planned Parenthood is wonderful. I went there many times. (I was
never offered an abortion.) I couldn't have afforded Pap smears and
pelvic exams and contraception if it hadn't been for them. I couldn't
have afforded health care at all.
Thanks,
roxanne7
On Sat, 08 Feb 1997 05:49:08 GMT, clj...@pobox.com (Cindy L. Jones)
wrote:
>J Shearer <jshe...@accessone.com> wrote:
>
>> Roxanne, Wow! Well said!! Yes, the "Pro-Control-of-Others" crowd
>>is just that: a bunch of hypocrites who really don't give a plugged penny
>>for the childern who are actually born! (Well, probably some of them do.)
>>But if they really wanted to stop abortions, they'd do what you said--make
>>sure the "at-risk" kids get what they need: birth control, education, the
>>money/necessities of life so that they don't fall into the "trap" of early
>>pregnancy. Obviously it's not "Life" they think is so precious!
>
>*Applause* *Applause*
>
>I have asked several self-acclaimed 'pro-lifers' to address this exact
>issue, and I've aways been accused of manipulating the conversation
>and ignoring the issue. But to me, this *is* the issue!
Exactly!
I don't know. There seems to be something extremely perverse in the
Pro-Liars' campaign. They'll put out any amount of effort to thwart,
control, cajole, persuade, and guilt-trip a woman into carrying to
term a child she can't afford to have, but they won't put out the
*same* amount of effort to make sure she doesn't get pregnant in the
first place! Why is that? It just seems like... ooh, yuck... like
they want us to get pregnant or something, like they like all the
unwanted pregnancies and they're using us for breeding purposes. That
probably isn't it, but gee, it sure seems that way. It's sick,
because that's the way it ends up being anyway, even if that's not the
way they meant it to begin with.
At the very least it makes you feel that they care absolutely nothing
for the welfare of the woman, and in reality what they're really doing
is just offering a few paltry concessions.
Me, I don't want to sit around like a lump waiting for the unwanted
pregnancy to happen and then BOOM get up and go assail her to get her
to keep the baby or have it and give it up for adoption. If I did
that, I would feel culpable. Contemptible. I would be part of the
problem, nay, I would BE the problem itself. I can see that. Why
can't they?
Most women don't give up their babies. Many can't. Many do, and
mourn over it the rest of their lives. Many do, and end up going back
and trying to get the baby back from the adoptive parents even though
they can't care for it. At any rate, it's extremely painful and
traumatic to have to give up a baby, and there's still no guarantee
that that child will get a good home where they will be loved and
cared for properly. I personally would not feel comfortable bringing
any child into this world unless I knew *for* *certain* I could
provide that somehow or other.
I want to prevent this suffering for the woman. I feel sorry for
women who have to go through this. I feel it is our responsibility to
help them. Why the FUCK don't the Pro-"Lifers" feel the same way?
Why are they willing to take SO much responsibility at the last
possible second, but they're not willing to do what it is REALLY going
to take to end this problem? I don't think they really want to solve
any problem; I think they just want others to conform to their way of
doing things and agree with their ideology. And that's sick, because
it basically amounts to using peoples' suffering for your own selfish
gain.
Personally,
>I'd be thrilled if there were never another abortion performed any
>where in the United States -- but only if it was because we, as a
>society, took responsibility for our at-risk populations and provided
>the tools they need to lead different lives.
That's exactly how I feel, too. The pro-lifers can't seem to
understand this, especially the worst ones, because they are so firmly
cemented into their mindset that abortion is baby-killing, therefore
pro-choicers are heartless, cold-blooded murderers, that they can't
see past that mindset. When we say that we really are "pro-choice",
and that there are MANY areas where we appose abortion, just not ALL
of them, they don't believe us. Just look at Robert's knee-jerk
posts.
I don't like the alternatives that would come about if abortion were
made illegal again suddenly out of the blue. I can't see anything
less than catastrophe happening if we were to do something that
ill-considered. Illegality doesn't seem to be the answer to any of
these things, anyway. Something becomes illegal, and people just do
it more badly, and charge a higher price for it.
Then again, if we used an ounce of prevention instead of a pound of
cure, there wouldn't even be anything to argue over here on the
newsgroup, or at the door of the abortion clinic. But then what would
the Pro-Liars do for recreation?
>
>After a 'pro-life' friend heard me say that I'd be happy if there were
>never another abortion performed in the US, she asked me why I wasn't
>working to stop abortion. I told her that every time I worked with a
>teen girl on self-esteem issues adn feminist thought, I was doing just
>that!
>
Every time you use contraception you're doing that. Everyone who
encourages young men and women to be responsible with sex is doing
that.
I am a vegetarian, not for health reasons but for moral reasons. I
switched a few years ago when I heard about all the horrible abuses in
industrial farming.
Now, I wish that everyone were vegetarian, because that would end the
abuses, and because I really feel it is just as wrong to unnecessarily
kill an animal as it is to unnecessarily kill a human. But I don't
sit around arguing with hardened meat-eaters about the subject; why?
Because it won't do any damn good! I know that, they know that. Why
waste my time and energy? The only way that my efforts in that regard
will ever do any good is if the person stops eating meat, or reduces
the amount that they eat. The only way it will help is if they are
genuinely moved by what I say, and take action. And I could just as
easily do that by cooking them a fantastic vegetarian meal and thus
show them that they don't need meat at all, as I could by getting them
to agree with my ideology down to the last detail, but I guarantee you
the first tactic is much easier and much more likely to succeed.
I would never waltz into a restaurant, walk up to a complete stranger
just as he's about to sink his teeth into a nice plate of beef
stroganoff, and start giving him a lecture about the evils of
industrial farming. He's a complete stranger, I don't know him at
all, and I've got no right to invade his privacy like that. But more
than anything, it's totally the wrong time and the wrong place. It's
too little, too late. But if you're aiming to fail, that's just the
thing to do. Sure-fire guarantee. Misses every time.
roxanne7
On Fri, 07 Feb 1997 17:16:17 -0600, zeus <ze...@dev.null> wrote:
>Roxanne wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 5 Feb 1997 15:40:03 GMT, Rob...@cartel.westfalen.de (Robert)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >///////roxanne7 @ airmail.net (Roxanne) wrote:
>> >
>
>> >>There are many instances when this person would choose against
>> >>abortion, and ask that others choose against it.
>>
>> > I should see the day when a pro-"choicer"..asks somebody not
>> >to abort!! (When would you do that ?)..
>>
>
>I would encourage anyone to have their child, but it would be her
>choice. And though I do agree with reducing the number of abortions as
>much as possible, I do not wish to take the choice away.
>
>> > The "pro-choice"
>> >>person very simply realiizes that there are instances when abortion is
>> >>warranted,
>>
>> > If you pro-choicers would only be objective and not enage in bias
>> >rationalization focus on the Unborn Human Being.....
>>
>> An egg is an "unborn human being". You're very confused about how the
>> development of the embryo progresses. Just because a group of cells
>> could potentially become a human being if allowed to continue its
>> development doesn't make it a human being in its own right.
>
>is a tadpole a frog since it will turn into one?
Will any of the pro-lifers in this forum agree that a fertilized egg
is a chicken?
Mama Toto
Roxanne wrote:
>
> On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:37:56 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
> >>> > "Pro-lifers" seem to care more about controlling and getting their way
> >>> > than actually saving what they believe to be babies.
> >>
> >>Lies. The same could be said of pro-choicers.
> >
> >Bullshit. Stop lying.
> >
> >> Pro-choicers seem to
> >>care more about "controlling [ie: their 'choice'] and getting their way"
> >
> >Oh sure. We think that people should have the liberty to decide their
> >own fate. We object to controlling fascists trying to dictate other
> >people's lives.
>
> Thank you, Ray. I was feeling extremely angry about this delusional
> bitch's line of bull, and was thinking of just bowing out of the
> conversation to avoid the emotional turmoil. I couldn't have said it
> better myself.
Delusional bitch? Pardon....have we met? As for "bowing out of the
conversation," I believe it's called "chickening out." And you just
failed in doing that by attacking me in a roundabout fashion. What
are you afraid of? Being wrong? I enjoy a hearty debate, dear -- no
reason to "get angry" and make things personal. Why is it anyone that
disagrees with a pro-choicer is a bitch? I'm always amused by what
people will say on the internet. Quite frankly, I make it a rule to
never say anything I wouldn't say in person. So, let's meet for coffee.
And if you read my post, you'll notice that all I did was react and
object to broad generalizations made about pro-lifers -- as I would
to any generalizations made about any large group of people. Hardly
worth getting your knickers in a bundle.
> >Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization that helps women
> >control their own lives, by offering contraception and health services
> >and adoption referrals and even abortions.
>
> Planned Parenthood is wonderful. I went there many times. (I was
> never offered an abortion.) I couldn't have afforded Pap smears and
> pelvic exams and contraception if it hadn't been for them. I couldn't
> have afforded health care at all.
Did I say I objected to Planned Parenthood or any other organization
that provides contraception and education? I object to abortion, not
birth control or women's health. I am fully aware that abortion is
*legal* -- I simply believe it is *unethical*. I am entitled to that
belief.
For many years, I was pro-choice -- with the gut feeling that
abortion was wrong. So, in order to avoid fence-sitting, I made a
decision I could live with. I hardly think my personal beliefs are open
for your attacks.
Aardvark
Mama Toto wrote:
>
> Aardvark wrote:
> > I make no such claims about my *own* point of view on these issues, as
> > it changes regularly. For that reason, I'd never try to convert anyone
> > to my point of view on issues like abortion, euthenasia, etc. I'd
> > rather draw out other's views so I can examine them and try to see the
> > justifications. Live and learn.
>
> That's *honest*. It's also rare. For the most part, that's why I enjoy
> the art of debate -- examining others' justifications and offering my
> own. But the minute someone starts generalizing and assuming
> they've got it all figured out -- it makes the hair on the back of my
> neck stand up.
Mmmm. Don't ever go into alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, or you'll come out
looking like a porcupine.
Also, I enjoy the art of debate when an opponent has a civil tongue in
their head. If not, well...I've gotten into a few flame wars, and found
that I enjoy those as well!
> There are many compelling arguments for both sides,
> but I hate when it becomes petty and trivial -- as though we weren't
> really discussing life and death. I am guilty of getting caught up in
> this, as well, and it's not something that makes me particularly
> proud. Taurus temper. ;-)
I sometimes get caught up in that, but usually in the spirit of playing
devil's advocate. Whenever someone states something questionable as
fact, I immediately and without hesitation set myself up as their
opponent (if it's an issue I actually give a damn about, that is). From
there I tend to mimic their tone & style. If they make sweeping
generalizations, I make even *more* sweeping generalizations, and so
on. This is the primary reason why I was led to and am now mired
primarily in the pits of the flame groups. I wouldn't have seen your
article at all except that it was posted to alt.evil, home of some
cretins I enjoy toasting. (Cue HFW jumping on this post here).
Gilbert T. Sullivan
> Aardvark wrote:
>
>I sometimes get caught up in that, but usually in the spirit of playing
>devil's advocate. Whenever someone states something questionable as
>fact, I immediately and without hesitation set myself up as their
>opponent (if it's an issue I actually give a damn about, that is). From
>there I tend to mimic their tone & style. If they make sweeping
>generalizations, I make even *more* sweeping generalizations, and so
>on. This is the primary reason why I was led to and am now mired
>primarily in the pits of the flame groups. I wouldn't have seen your
>article at all except that it was posted to alt.evil, home of some
>cretins I enjoy toasting. (Cue HFW jumping on this post here).
>
>Aardvark
Yep! I'm jumping in.
Nelson you don't even know what the word generalizations means.
Your very inept and redundant
I strongly suggest that you find a better way to entertain thyself.
Your being rhetorical as usual.
Ray Fischer
MRX <I-am-...@Lonet.ca> wrote:
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>"Our" duty? Why don't you start first by telling us what YOUR duty
>>might be. After all, it would be a little hypocritical to expect only
>>pregnant women to be responsible for saving lives.
>
>what you meant to say was:
You pro-lie fascists just can't stop trying to control other people,
can you?
Lindsey
Mama Toto wrote:
> Delusional bitch? Pardon....have we met?
More than I would like.....
> As for "bowing out of the
> conversation," I believe it's called "chickening out."
No, it's called avoiding a psycho-hosebeast-control-freak...
> And you just
> failed in doing that by attacking me in a roundabout fashion. What
> are you afraid of? Being wrong?
Afraid of wasting valuable time talking to an airhead.
> I enjoy a hearty debate, dear -- no
> reason to "get angry" and make things personal.
When you tell women what they can and can't do with their uterine
contents, I'm sorry, but they're liable to take it personally....real
"pro-woman" of you...he-man woman-hater....why don't you go hang with
Horvath...you two have lots in common!
> Why is it anyone that
> disagrees with a pro-choicer is a bitch?
Because you're so wantonly anti-woman.
> I'm always amused by what
> people will say on the internet. Quite frankly, I make it a rule to
> never say anything I wouldn't say in person. So, let's meet for coffee.
>
I think not....I'd rather spend time with someone nicer--like Charles
Manson...
> And if you read my post, you'll notice that all I did was react and
> object to broad generalizations made about pro-lifers -- as I would
> to any generalizations made about any large group of people. Hardly
> worth getting your knickers in a bundle.
>
You, Kari, are certainly NOT worth getting anything bundled
about...although you obviously get a morbid thrill out of degrading
women by questioning their ability to make decisions as regards their
own wombs, you are the type that gives ALL pro-lifers a bad name. There
actually are some pro-lifers who are caring, do not judge others, do not
condemn those who have had or will have abortions, but wish to voice
their opinion in a respectful manner, work toward making abortion less
necessary and persuading women in a civilized way to consider the option
of adoption. The only thing a forceful, malicious, judgemental,
condemning dictator like you accomplishes is to give all pro-lifers a
bad name. Kinda like religion....the self-serving, holier-than-thou,
righteous, narrow-minded bigots push truly caring, thoughtful, helpful,
kind people away from religion.
> >
> For many years, I was pro-choice -- with the gut feeling that
> abortion was wrong. So, in order to avoid fence-sitting, I made a
> decision I could live with. I hardly think my personal beliefs are open
> for your attacks.
>
And my personal freedom over my own uterine contents are not open to
yours.
--
Love,
Lindsey
CHOICE!!
As a former fetus, I oppose abortion; as a former embryo, I oppose birth
control; as a former zygote, I oppose menstruation; as a former ovum, I
oppose abstinence; as a former sperm cell, I oppose
masturbation...etc...etc...INFINITY!
Mama Toto
Lindsey wrote:
>
> Mama Toto wrote:
>
> > Delusional bitch? Pardon....have we met?
>
> More than I would like.....
Er, this post was not directed at you, Lindsey -- are you
schizophrenic, as well? I believe I was responding to Roxanne? But
that's cool....feel free to represent other people on a regular basis.
That's what you want to do for me by condoning abortion -- you
expect to be able to speak for me, as well....and by golly, I won't
letcha. Hot diggity damn.
> > As for "bowing out of the
> > conversation," I believe it's called "chickening out."
>
> No, it's called avoiding a psycho-hosebeast-control-freak...
>
> > And you just
> > failed in doing that by attacking me in a roundabout fashion. What
> > are you afraid of? Being wrong?
>
> Afraid of wasting valuable time talking to an airhead.
Ah, but here you are wasting time...sooo.....? Your point?
> > I enjoy a hearty debate, dear -- no
> > reason to "get angry" and make things personal.
>
> When you tell women what they can and can't do with their uterine
> contents,
> I'm sorry, but they're liable to take it personally....real
> "pro-woman" of you...he-man woman-hater....why don't you go hang with
> Horvath...you two have lots in common!
Ah no. Horvath assaults women for *any* reason (abortion is just
one of them) and *you* get off on it. I think the two of you have far
more in common. Wasn't it you that was turned on by violence
towards women? :::::heavy pause for emphasis:::: I haven't responded
to one of his posts except to correct him in his assumption that only
unprotected sex causes pregnancy. You don't see me cheering him on,
do you? Who spends more time talking to Horvath, Lindsey? Hmm?
And such a lovely, intelligent, civil rapport you two have.....
> > Why is it anyone that
> > disagrees with a pro-choicer is a bitch?
>
> Because you're so wantonly anti-woman.
Uh yeah. And you would know, having known me all of my life and all.
I don't have anything to prove, so I won't go in to my deep, deep love
and respect for othe womanly types, because for one thing, you
wouldn't get it, and secondly, you wouldn't believe it and thirdly, it's
none of yer damn business. You're so typically, wantonly hostile
towards anyone who happens to be pro-life (in spite of the fact that I
tend to be more liberal than most). I disagree with you on *one*
subject -- and that makes me open range for your barrage of insults
and attacks. Who owns the problem? Hell, Lindsey, I could be
Ted-fucking-Kennedy for all you know, but if I'm pro-life, I'm instant
evil in your eyes. Just add water.
> > I'm always amused by what
> > people will say on the internet. Quite frankly, I make it a rule to
> > never say anything I wouldn't say in person. So, let's meet for coffee.
> >
> I think not....I'd rather spend time with someone nicer--like Charles
> Manson...
Another pro-choicer. Remember what he did to Sharon Tate? She
was pregnant. Double homocide. Nice choice of friends. It says a lot
about your character, in general.
> > And if you read my post, you'll notice that all I did was react and
> > object to broad generalizations made about pro-lifers -- as I would
> > to any generalizations made about any large group of people. Hardly
> > worth getting your knickers in a bundle.
> >
> You, Kari, are certainly NOT worth getting anything bundled
> about...
So why do you consistently respond to my posts? People who don't
have their knickers in a bundle generally don't freak out and rant and
rave. ;-)
> although you obviously get a morbid thrill out of degrading
> women by questioning their ability to make decisions as regards their
> own wombs, you are the type that gives ALL pro-lifers a bad name.
First of all, I do not question a woman's ability to make decisions
regarding their own wombs. I simply believe the act of abortion is
unethical. So far, it's still legal -- and you won't see me hanging
around abortion clinics or screaming at women who have chosen to
have abortions. I have never prevented someone from having an
abortion. I have never judged the women who choose this act -- I
have *compassion* for them (just as I don't condone the act of
murderers, it does not mean I am incapable of forgiveness, and it
does not mean I condone the taking of their life in return). I know so
many, many, many women who have had abortions, and I don't shun
them or degrade them. I welcome them and love them, as I always
have. If I love someone, I am capable of loving them regardless of
their behavior, as hard as that may be for you to believe -- YOU, who
have judged me because of things you've read in my posts -- YOU, who
have attacked me on more than one occasion (expecting that I would,
what? turn the other cheek? If I were a better person, I would, no
doubt, but unlike you, I recognize that I have weaknesses...) and --
YOU, who degrade *me* by questioning my ability to make decisions
regarding my own belief system. So, what it comes down to is you'd
like to take away my right to have an opinion on the subject AT
ALL....let alone vote on the matter. That would make you happy,
wouldn't it? If you could silence anyone who disagrees with you? So
much for individual rights.
> There
> actually are some pro-lifers who are caring, do not judge others, do not
> condemn those who have had or will have abortions, but wish to voice
> their opinion in a respectful manner, work toward making abortion less
> necessary and persuading women in a civilized way to consider the option
> of adoption.
When have I *ever* (find the posts and I'll concede) judged,
condemned or attacked a woman because she has had an abortion?
When have I ever said a woman who has an abortion is evil? or bad?
And speaking of "voicing opinions in respectful manners" -- why don't
YOU START? When have you *ever* been respectful? When have you
done anything but attack people on ng's who disagree with you --
sometimes for the very reason that they state their opinion
respectfully, but happen to state one that you don't agree with????
Half the time, I'm not even talking to you when you attack me! So
take care of your own behavior -- I'll work on mine, thanks.
> The only thing a forceful, malicious, judgemental,
> condemning dictator like you accomplishes is to give all pro-lifers a
> bad name.
And your antagonistic behavior does what? Paints a charming picture
of pro-choicers? Most of my friends are pro-choice, Lindsey, and you
would embarrass the hell out of them.
> Kinda like religion....the self-serving, holier-than-thou,
> righteous, narrow-minded bigots push truly caring, thoughtful, helpful,
> kind people away from religion.
Oh please. People are responsible for their own behavior. No religion
can *push* someone away -- if someone is inclined to be religious,
they will find one that works for them. In case you haven't noticed,
there are an abundance of faiths to choose from...and not all of 'em
are based in Christianity and $$$$ and bigotry.
> > >
> > For many years, I was pro-choice -- with the gut feeling that
> > abortion was wrong. So, in order to avoid fence-sitting, I made a
> > decision I could live with. I hardly think my personal beliefs are open
> > for your attacks.
> >
> And my personal freedom over my own uterine contents are not open to
> yours.
Ah, but my personal freedom over what my tax dollars are spent on is
not really *mine* to control -- but yours.
Hypocrite.
How strange. You can dish it out....but when someone bigger and
badder stands up to make you take some of it, then you start crying
foul play. Typical bully.
roxanne7
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 07:22:08 +0000, Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
>Roxanne wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:37:56 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>> >Mama Toto <k...@fgi.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Pro-choicers seem to
>> >>care more about "controlling [ie: their 'choice'] and getting their way"
>> >
>> >Oh sure. We think that people should have the liberty to decide their
>> >own fate. We object to controlling fascists trying to dictate other
>> >people's lives.
>>
>> Thank you, Ray. I was feeling extremely angry about this delusional
>> bitch's line of bull, and was thinking of just bowing out of the
>> conversation to avoid the emotional turmoil. I couldn't have said it
>> better myself.
>
>Delusional bitch? Pardon....have we met?
We have. I was your lesbian lover in a former life. ;> Alas, I have
realized the error of my ways. I'm much more selective about my
lesbian lovers now.
As for "bowing out of the
>conversation," I believe it's called "chickening out."
It's called not wasting my time on delusional, judgmental, psychotic
assholes who think that calling me a liar is "just presenting your
point of view". I have better things to do than get myself worked up
over you, not the least of which is taking care of my baby; a *real*,
*living*, *full fledged*, *actual* baby, not the imaginary ones you
are so obsessed with chasing after.
Anyway, it's so much easier to wait and see what people say in my
stead. And more interesting, too.
You are officially killfiled.
Goodbye,
Roxanne
P.S. Just for the amusement of the other people in the thread; why'd
you drop the "Mast" off of the beginning of your last name?
(Get it; Mast-abate? Get it? Aw, never mind.)
Horvath
>Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization that helps women
>control their own lives, by offering contraception and health services
>and adoption referrals and even abortions.
>
You forgot to mention that PP uses a graded scale for assessing the
charges for their services. This means that the higher a person's
income, the more they charge. Very discriminatory.
The fact that they charge at all, and are not a non-profit
orginization, speaks volumes. Most pro-life organizations are also
non-profit. PP is just another money-hungry corporation, out for
their own self-interest.
Horvath
This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe.
Mama Toto
Roxanne wrote:
> >> Thank you, Ray. I was feeling extremely angry about this delusional
> >> bitch's line of bull, and was thinking of just bowing out of the
> >> conversation to avoid the emotional turmoil. I couldn't have said it
> >> better myself.
> >
> >Delusional bitch? Pardon....have we met?
>
> We have. I was your lesbian lover in a former life. ;> Alas, I have
> realized the error of my ways. I'm much more selective about my
> lesbian lovers now.
Uh, this might work better on someone who is actually threatened by
homosexuality, dear. What is it with people that think they can use
"lesbian lovers" as a kind of joke/insult -- as though it's funny? And
of all the lesbians I've loved, I generally loved those who had dignity
and wit -- something you are clearly lacking, so I highly doubt we
were ever lovers in a former life. But you can keep wishing, I
suppose....
> As for "bowing out of the
> >conversation," I believe it's called "chickening out."
>
> It's called not wasting my time on delusional, judgmental, psychotic
> assholes who think that calling me a liar is "just presenting your
> point of view".
I was using Ray's tactics. Ray calls people who are pro-life, "pro-lie"
on a daily basis. Why isn't he/she a delusional, judgmental,
psychotic, asshole? Oh wait! I've got it! It's because he AGREES
WITH YOU...!!! Oh yeah!!! I'm delusional because I disagree!!! :-) I see
the light!
> I have better things to do than get myself worked up
> over you, not the least of which is taking care of my baby; a *real*,
> *living*, *full fledged*, *actual* baby, not the imaginary ones you
> are so obsessed with chasing after.
I am not obsessed with anything. I have a belief system, period. So
far, that belief system includes the belief in free speech --
something pro-choicers only believe in when it comes to spewing
pro-choice crap. So I state my opinion clearly, and enjoy the show
when all of you start jumping up and down. It's kind of cute, actually.
> Anyway, it's so much easier to wait and see what people say in my
> stead. And more interesting, too.
Lindsey has already chosen to answer for you....the two of you are
about on the same level, come to think of it.
> You are officially killfiled.
Ha! I doubt it.
> Goodbye,
>
> Roxanne
parting is such sweet sorrow....
> P.S. Just for the amusement of the other people in the thread; why'd
> you drop the "Mast" off of the beginning of your last name?
>
> (Get it; Mast-abate? Get it? Aw, never mind.)
More schoolyard humor. As though masturbation is something to be
ashamed of -- like lesbian love. How anti-woman of you.
Ray Fischer
>> It's called not wasting my time on delusional, judgmental, psychotic
>> assholes who think that calling me a liar is "just presenting your
>> point of view".
>
>I was using Ray's tactics.
No you weren't. My "tactics" require brains and facts, neither of
which are a strong point of yours.
> Ray calls people who are pro-life, "pro-lie"
>on a daily basis.
That's because on nearly a daily basis some "pro-life" propagandist
will post (repost) some thoroughly debunked lie.
[...]
>I am not obsessed with anything. I have a belief system, period.
And you're not going to let anything like reason or fact dissuade you
from that belief.
Ray Fischer
Horvath <Hor...@norden1.com> wrote:
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
>>Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization that helps women
>>control their own lives, by offering contraception and health services
>>and adoption referrals and even abortions.
>
>You forgot to mention that PP uses a graded scale for assessing the
>charges for their services. This means that the higher a person's
>income, the more they charge. Very discriminatory.
Discriminatory?!? Did I tell you that you're an idiot?
>The fact that they charge at all, and are not a non-profit
>orginization, speaks volumes.
Non-profit means that the organization doesn't make a profit. It
doesn't mean that they don't charge for services.
> Most pro-life organizations are also
>non-profit. PP is just another money-hungry corporation, out for
>their own self-interest.
Like, say, the Catholic Church?
Moake Brian
Horvath (Hor...@norden1.com) wrote:
: On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:37:56 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
: scribbled:
: You forgot to mention that PP uses a graded scale for assessing the
: charges for their services. This means that the higher a person's
: income, the more they charge. Very discriminatory.
Wow! sounds like Clinton's health care plan... This way the richer you are the less
you pay...
Horvath
: This signature is no power in the universe.
roxanne7
On Thu, 13 Feb 1997 04:30:00 GMT, Hor...@norden1.com (Horvath) wrote:
>On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 20:37:56 GMT, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
>scribbled:
>
>>Planned Parenthood is a pro-choice organization that helps women
>>control their own lives, by offering contraception and health services
>>and adoption referrals and even abortions.
>>
>
>You forgot to mention that PP uses a graded scale for assessing the
>charges for their services. This means that the higher a person's
>income, the more they charge. Very discriminatory.
That isn't discriminatory. It's meant to help extremely poor people
to be able to afford health care. It's a very common thing, the
sliding scale, and many organizations use it to allow people to pay on
the basis of how much they are able to pay. The United Way also uses
it, and it's a very good system.
In fact, it's the "one price fits all" method of pricing which is
truly discriminatory. If everyone must pay $100 dollars for a pelvic
exam and pap smear, that means that very low income people are paying
a far higher percentage of their income, as much as ten times higher,
than the other patients who have a greater income.
It sounds to me as if you're the one who is discriminatory. You seem
to have a preconceived bias against Planned Parenthood, and thus
you've set out to find something to substantiate your preconceived
idea. Well, that just isn't fair. If Planned Parenthood didn't
exist, a lot of people would be hurt for the loss of it. They provide
health care and contraception to people who otherwise couldn't
possibly have afforded it. I saw a lot of extremely impoverished
people there, minorities, especially young married hispanics who
already had too many children, in there. I was a college student
working for minimum wage when I went and it helped me over a huge hump
when I desperately needed it. They diagnosed a case of Chlamydia and
treated it, diagnosed severe anemia and treated it, provided me with
extremely low-cost birth control pills (at the time, they were five
dollars a pack; I think the price has gone up to fifteen, which is
still quite low) for which they of course had to do an annual pap
smear. All of which were normal, but who knows? I could have had
cancer, and if I had, they would have saved my life.
>
>The fact that they charge at all, and are not a non-profit
>orginization, speaks volumes. Most pro-life organizations are also
>non-profit. PP is just another money-hungry corporation, out for
>their own self-interest.
You're basing your statements on your own prejudices and not on facts.
Planned Parenthood has tremendous trouble finding funding for its
organization, and uses the very low fees it collects from patients to
fund the clinics. When I was there last (about four years ago) a full
pelvic exam was fifteen dollars. Where else can you get a medical
exam with no insurance for that low a price? It amazes me that
they're able to stay in business. They hire minority (Indian and
Oriental) female doctors primarily to save costs, but this is good in
a way because they counter against the racial and sex discrimination
in the medical workplace.
Your vilification of Planned Parenthood as a money-grubbing monster is
totally unfounded. You have no basis for it.
Roxanne
Osmo Ronkanen
In article <3303ec01...@news.airmail.net>,
Roxanne <roxanne7 @ airmail.net> wrote:
> They diagnosed a case of Chlamydia and
>treated it, diagnosed severe anemia and treated it, provided me with
>extremely low-cost birth control pills (at the time, they were five
>dollars a pack; I think the price has gone up to fifteen, which is
>still quite low) for which they of course had to do an annual pap
>smear.
$15 low? For 3 months? Here BC pills cost about $6-8 month. Considering
that many things cost here over twice what they do in the US I find the
high price of BC pills in the US strange. Maybe lawyers get the difference
:-)
>They hire minority (Indian and
>Oriental) female doctors primarily to save costs, but this is good in
>a way because they counter against the racial and sex discrimination
>in the medical workplace.
>
What you say sounds like discrimination. If they'd pay more for male
doctors that is nothing but discrimination.
Osmo
Bruce Forest
In article <5e5ouv$9...@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>, ronk...@cc.helsinki.fi (Osmo
Ronkanen) wrote:
> In article <3303ec01...@news.airmail.net>,
> Roxanne <roxanne7 @ airmail.net> wrote:
> > They diagnosed a case of Chlamydia and
> >treated it, diagnosed severe anemia and treated it, provided me with
> >extremely low-cost birth control pills (at the time, they were five
> >dollars a pack; I think the price has gone up to fifteen, which is
> >still quite low) for which they of course had to do an annual pap
> >smear.
>
> $15 low? For 3 months? Here BC pills cost about $6-8 month. Considering
> that many things cost here over twice what they do in the US I find the
> high price of BC pills in the US strange. Maybe lawyers get the difference
> :-)
My wife paid over $23 a month here for an OC pill that made her feel awful.
She now gets our relatives in the UK to send her her regular pill, on which
she feels just fine. We have a great doctor in the UK who understands and
prescibes.
>
> >They hire minority (Indian and
> >Oriental) female doctors primarily to save costs, but this is good in
> >a way because they counter against the racial and sex discrimination
> >in the medical workplace.
> >
>
> What you say sounds like discrimination. If they'd pay more for male
> doctors that is nothing but discrimination.
Medicine in the UK is very different. One difference is the large numbers
of female Arab doctors. I had to get a tetanus shot, and I swear the woman
was going to use a 16 gauge needle, and wasn't sure what to do. London has
a large Islamic population, and no Muslim woman would let a male doctor
touch them. So many practices have at least one female Arab doctor. After
seeing the behavior and technique of this female Arab doctor, I'd be very
hesitant to visit one again, though I'm sure there are many fine female
Arab doctors.
--
Bruce Forest...
bfo...@mindspring.com/ bfo...@interramp.com
"It's not a pizza till it comes out of the oven."
"No, no..it's a pizza the minute you stick your hands in the dough!!"..Seinfeld
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6ui
iQCVAgUBMkIIyrTTUY7wnHzhAQH1bwP/QzOGbW1jGiiSaVw1Ci
2MMbW52a36GPzi/9wDPEpBgrYfgtqttgCwFRRiun7VHvJTmsjKzw
6ZH/qpO27dnWvR29fhcQ143WaXQ5esvLc+EvwA/Fz4cSbCH6Jm
gc6lxk2FBL3pvXthLEYzVs8YYXXSC3NDftJvlDovPNAJhuHUK2E==vZri
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Susan
bfo...@mindspring.comXX (Bruce Forest) wrote:
SNIP
>Medicine in the UK is very different. One difference is the large numbers
>of female Arab doctors. I had to get a tetanus shot, and I swear the woman
>was going to use a 16 gauge needle, and wasn't sure what to do. London has
>a large Islamic population, and no Muslim woman would let a male doctor
>touch them. So many practices have at least one female Arab doctor. After
>seeing the behavior and technique of this female Arab doctor, I'd be very
>hesitant to visit one again, though I'm sure there are many fine female
>Arab doctors.
This really made me chuckle...and, BTW, do you think your negative
encounter with this female Arab doctors (AFD for short) will influence your
perception of fAd's in the future?
Optimism is the faith that leads to acheivement. Nothing can be done
without hope.
Helen Keller