ABORTION IS MURDER!!!
David
In article <31F3A9...@mbox.digsys.bg>, max...@mbox.digsys.bg says...
>Abortion is murder!!! It's not a medical, not a religious issue. It's
>pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this issue
>are:
[ snip ]
>This is my opinion. Period,
Such hubris.
You really should get a brain and stop acting so self-righteously.
g...@3-cities.com
bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>In article <31F3A9...@mbox.digsys.bg>, Ivan Marinov
><max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>> To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>Don't know any of those. Is that a Bulgarian organization?
Nah. Its a grunge band sponsored by Rush Limbaugh.
Geo
What is the truth about William Discipio?
"It's really Di Scipio. The variants are just a by-product of the
computer age."
Perhaps this is just a ruse!
William R. Discipio Jr (that's not his real name)
geo-3-ci...@charitiesusa.com
g...@3-cities.com
Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
To All Dip-Shit Mealy Mouthed Stinkwads and Wankers
>Abortion is murder!!!
Abortion is a legal procedure!!!
>It's not a medical,
It is a medical,
>not a religious issue.
AGREED!!
>It's pure humanism, nothing more.
Everything is humanism, nothing more.
>People who don't agree with me on this issue are:
People who agree with Ivan Marinov are:
>a, stupid people;
>or
>b, idiots;
>or
>c, evil persons,
>or
>d, deceived;
>or
>e, murderers;
>or
>f, criminals.
or
wankers like Ivan Marinov.
>This is my opinion. Period,
But who gives a fuck anyway!
Geo
______________
/ DARWIN \/|
\______________/\|
__| __|
Bruce Forest
In article <31F3A9...@mbox.digsys.bg>, Ivan Marinov
<max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
> To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
Don't know any of those. Is that a Bulgarian organization?
>
> Abortion is murder!!! It's not a medical, not a religious issue. It's
> pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this issue
> are:
> a, stupid people;
> or
> b, idiots;
> or
> c, evil persons,
> or
> d, deceived;
> or
> e, murderers;
> or
> f, criminals.
So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived, criminal,
murdering idiots?
Stay the fuck in Bulgaria, then.
>
> This is my opinion. Period,
Probably your only opinion, too.
--
Bruce Forest...
bfo...@interramp.com
bfo...@futuris.net
bfo...@bliss.demon.co.uk
10416...@compuserve.com
dro...@aol.com...
PGP key on http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
.......
"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
bob puharic
Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>Abortion is murder!!! It's not a medical, not a religious issue. It's
>pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this issue
>are:
>a, stupid people;
>or
>b, idiots;
>or
>c, evil persons,
>or
>d, deceived;
>or
>e, murderers;
>or
>f, criminals.
>This is my opinion. Period,
>--
sounds like a typical mysogynist to me.
Vasile Aciobanitei
So you wanted some answer for your stupid letter? You got it! You have
been read, now go and flush yourself where are your frineds named
shit-for-brain.
> Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote in article
<31F3A9...@mbox.digsys.bg>...
> To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>
> Abortion is murder!!! It's not a medical, not a religious issue. It's
> pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this
issue
> are:
> a, stupid people;
> or
> b, idiots;
> or
> c, evil persons,
> or
> d, deceived;
> or
> e, murderers;
> or
> f, criminals.
>
> This is my opinion. Period,
>
> --
>
> ---
> Ivan Marinov - Maximilian Valenski
> ---
> max...@mbox.digsys.bg
> mval...@sf.cit.bg
> i...@ibm.net
> ---
> "The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole,
> and separately, in each country, each government, each
> political party, and of course in the UN. I have spent all my
> life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society
> without any objective scale is a terrible one indeed. But a
> society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy
> of man either." (A. I. Solzhenitsyn)
> ---
>
Runu Knips
In article <bforest-2207...@usenet.interramp.com>, bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) writes:
|> In article <31F3A9...@mbox.digsys.bg>, Ivan Marinov
|> <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
|>
|>
|>
|> >
|> > pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this issue
|> > are:
|> > a, stupid people;
|> > or
|> > b, idiots;
|> > or
|> > c, evil persons,
|> > or
|> > d, deceived;
|> > or
|> > e, murderers;
|> > or
|> > f, criminals.
|>
|> murdering idiots?
|>
|> Stay the fuck in Bulgaria, then.
|>
|> >
|>
Well, if you had read the articles I've posted before, you know that
this is my opinion, too, even if I didn't said anything about what I
think about the people which had done abortion; in fact, I think
nothing special about them, I'm not interested in judging them.
But I stated that, for me, the fetus is a human being. Other posters
here had stated that for them, it is not, but their arguments wasn't
very reasonable for me. And if it IS a human being, then you can't
go on just killing it. You have to let it live, because then it has
the right to live, as we ourselves have the right to live.
So you can't just say 'nobody else does have this opinion'. I share
the same basical idea that abortion is, therefore, murder, or like
murder. I hate the argument 'I'm not the only one', but if you like
that argument, that's true even in this case. However, truth never
cares about our opinions, even if nobody will believe it, truth is
still true, so why discussing about how MANY people believe this or
that ? Physicists of the last century will have called you a fool
when you would have said to them that space and time are relative
to ones position and speed, but Einstein's laws of relativity had
worked for billions of years before.
Andrew Bracht
Why must anti-abortion people always present themselves as raving
lunatics? Why must pro-abortion people always respond in like manner?
No matter what your opinion, you should agrue the *issues* and not
attack your opponents personal lives.
I do not believe that four letter words have any place in a rational
discussion about a topic as serious as abortion.
Christine A. Owens
In <01bb788b.5b185850$1b643a9d@berrym133> "Berry Miley"
<ber...@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>
>--
>The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not
reflect
>the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>
>> cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote in article
><4t1doa$a...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>> argue that it SHOULD BE murder, please state some arguements.
>
>Only one argument is needed: Abortion is the deliberate termination of
the
>life of an innocent human being who has committed no crime and cannot
>speak for itself or defend itself.
Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
a false premise. Try again.
Chris Owens
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote in article
<4t2nke$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
> a false premise. Try again.
I don't depend on man-made imperfect laws to define for me what a human
being is. Human life begins at conception no matter what society says.
I answer to God, no society
Ivan Marinov
Bruce Forest wrote:
> > To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>
> Don't know any of those. Is that a Bulgarian organization?
No, it isn't. It is the real name of the so called "pro-choicers".
> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
> criminal,
> murdering idiots?
Yes.
> Stay the fuck in Bulgaria, then.
Abortion is an international issue.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> Colleen Fogarty <fog...@fogarty.com> wrote in article
<4t34hf$r...@darla.visi.com>...
> It is interesting how many people who are fervently against abortion,
> support and continue to vote for politicians who condone the capital
> punishment
Good point However speaking for myself and most pro-life people i know
don't support the death penalty.
>and laws that deny people life.
For example...
Runu Knips
In article <4t2nke$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) writes:
|> In <01bb788b.5b185850$1b643a9d@berrym133> "Berry Miley"
|> <ber...@microsoft.com> writes:
|> >
|> >
|> >The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not
|> reflect
|> >the official views of Microsoft Corporation
|> >
|> >> argue that it SHOULD BE murder, please state some arguements.
|> >
|> >Only one argument is needed: Abortion is the deliberate termination of
|> the
|> >life of an innocent human being who has committed no crime and cannot
|> >speak for itself or defend itself.
|>
|> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
|> a false premise. Try again.
The term 'human being' is not a socially / legally defined concept, you
USE this kind of definition. There may be others as well. And your
endless 'Try again.' is really boring for regular readers of your
postings :(.
*jawn* I really will not wonder if I'll come back to this newsgroup
in 20 years and there will be still the same arguments as today ... :(.
What's the use behind this all ?!?
Okay try a definition.
First of all, human beings are livings, biological livings. I guess that
is clear from the start. Too, human beings have, looking at their bio-
logical existence, a certain set of chromosones, 46 pieces. Not always
exactly 46, okay, in cases of generic illnesses. But from this database,
they get a certain set of abilities. Lets say they are able to speak,
able to walk, able to think about the world in an abstract way. You may
state that fetus can't do any of these things, and so you're pretty
happy with this definition, for then you may abort. But that would be
absurd, for newborn babies are unable to do all this, too! Children
of 1 year may start walking. Speaking is learned in a long process
during childhood. The final stage of abstractive thinking is reached
by childs arround the age of 15.
However, the above definition is exactly the biological. For biologists,
the fetus is a human being, more exactly, it is the fetus of the human
race. Using the strictly biological definition, you'll come to the
conclusion that fetus are human beings.
Did that help us anything ?
You can now go on - politicans already had done this - and state: well,
I accept the fetus from the 4th month on as a person, because then
... blablubbbudl ... in fact: nobody knows. What should be the point
at this stage ?
My concept is that, if I'm guarded now from murder, I should have been
guarded THEN from murder, too, because I wasn't what I was now, then,
but I had already existed! I was not a 'wakened', but a 'sleeping'
person, in this concept.
DJ Burrup
Runu Knips wrote:
>
> You can now go on - politicans already had done this - and state: well,
> I accept the fetus from the 4th month on as a person, because then
> ... blablubbbudl ... in fact: nobody knows. What should be the point
> at this stage ?
>
> My concept is that, if I'm guarded now from murder, I should have been
> guarded THEN from murder, too, because I wasn't what I was now, then,
> but I had already existed! I was not a 'wakened', but a 'sleeping'
> person, in this concept.
Runu,
Nice response. It pretty much sums up my feelings, also. I can't see
allowing an abortion at 8-1/2 months (except to save the life of the
mother) and when trying to back my way down to a point in time where
it is acceptable (IMO) couldn't really justify stopping any spot after
conception.
DJ
Colleen Fogarty
It is interesting how many people who are fervently against abortion,
support and continue to vote for politicians who condone the capital
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> AJB...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew Bracht) wrote in article
<4t2oij$n...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
> Why must anti-abortion people always present themselves as raving
> lunatics?
We don't
> Why must pro-abortion people always respond >in like manner?
Good question
> No matter what your opinion, you should agrue the *issues* and not
> attack your opponents personal lives.
Good advice. I hope Ray and Patrick are listening.
Ray Fischer
Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>Christine A. Owens wrote:
>> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
>> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
>> a false premise. Try again.
>
>"Human being" is not a socially or legally defined concept. Human being
>is the only creature on Earth with a soul.
Really? Can you name one person, one law, or one society that assigns
personhood status based upon whether something has a soul? Do you use
those nifty x-ray glasses advertised in comic books to scan for souls?
Or do you look to see if something is human, born, and alive?
Or are you another one of those fascists who doesn't give a rat's ass
for anyone and anything and just thinks he should be able to run the
world?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Bruce Forest
In article <01bb78be.c89f8f00$1b643a9d@berrym133>, "Berry Miley"
<ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> --
> The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
> the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>
> > cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote in article
> <4t2nke$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
> > Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
> > in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
> > a false premise. Try again.
>
> I don't depend on man-made imperfect laws to define for me what a human
> being is. Human life begins at conception no matter what society says.
>
> I answer to God, no society
So, you condone the breaking of laws of which you disapprove. So why do
you fight so hard for a law against abortion? Certainly you wouldn't force
people to obey the same laws that you feel don't have to be respected?
Bruce Forest
In article <4t24f4$7...@si-nic.hrz.uni-siegen.de>,
plr...@informatik.uni-siegen.de (Runu Knips) wrote:
[....]
>
> So you can't just say 'nobody else does have this opinion'. I share
> the same basical idea that abortion is, therefore, murder, or like
> murder. I hate the argument 'I'm not the only one', but if you like
> that argument, that's true even in this case. However, truth never
> cares about our opinions, even if nobody will believe it, truth is
> still true, so why discussing about how MANY people believe this or
> that ? Physicists of the last century will have called you a fool
> when you would have said to them that space and time are relative
> to ones position and speed, but Einstein's laws of relativity had
> worked for billions of years before.
I never said 'nobody else has this opinion.' I said 'probably your only
opinion,' insinuating that the poster isn't intelligent enough to have
more than a few thoughts at once.
Ok?
Bruce Forest
In article <31F520...@mbox.digsys.bg>, Ivan Marinov
<max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
> Bruce Forest wrote:
>
> > > To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
> >
> > Don't know any of those. Is that a Bulgarian organization?
>
> No, it isn't. It is the real name of the so called "pro-choicers".
I'm prochoice, and I never heard of such a name.
>
> > So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
> > criminal,
> > murdering idiots?
>
> Yes.
Come over here to New York and say that, and see what happens.
>
> > Stay the fuck in Bulgaria, then.
>
> Abortion is an international issue.
No it isn't. The only civilized country that actually entertains a
controversy about abortion is the US. Besides, with the advent of medical
abortions, the whole debate will die out very soon.
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <31F520...@mbox.digsys.bg> Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> writes:
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>> > To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>>
>> Don't know any of those. Is that a Bulgarian organization?
>No, it isn't. It is the real name of the so called "pro-choicers".
According to one half-wit in Bulgaria, anyway.
>> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
>> criminal,
>> murdering idiots?
>Yes.
It's been depressing ever since the Communists got handed their walking
papers, hasn't it?
>> Stay the fuck in Bulgaria, then.
>Abortion is an international issue.
Then do your agitating in your own damned country.
--Patrick L. "fortunately, Ivan isn''t representative of any nationality"
Humphrey
g...@3-cities.com
"Berry Miley" <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>--
>The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
>the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>> cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote in article
><4t1doa$a...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
>> argue that it SHOULD BE murder, please state some arguements.
>Only one argument is needed:
Yep. Abortion is a safe, legal medical procedure.
g...@3-cities.com
"Berry Miley" <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>--
>The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
>the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>> AJB...@ix.netcom.com (Andrew Bracht) wrote in article
><4t2oij$n...@sjx-ixn5.ix.netcom.com>...
>> Why must anti-abortion people always present themselves as raving
>> lunatics?
>We don't
Oh, that's right.
The people who murder doctors who perform abortions are just
law-abiding citizens who just had a bad day.
You know, kind of like Charles Manson.
g...@3-cities.com
"Berry Miley" <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>--
>The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
>the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>> cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote in article
><4t2nke$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
>> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
>> a false premise. Try again.
>I don't depend on man-made imperfect laws to define for me what a human
>being is.
Man-made laws are the only ones that exist, and are therefore the only
ones that matter.
>Human life begins at conception no matter what society says.
And apparently science doesn't count either.
Unless your lucky enough to work for Microsoft and then science is
great.
>I answer to God, no society
Freeman Creed.
g...@3-cities.com
"Berry Miley" <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>--
>The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
>the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>> bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote in article
><bforest-2207...@usenet.interramp.com>...
>> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived, criminal,
>> murdering idiots?
>I think he was just refering to those who support abortion, and they are
>nowhere near 75%
FactCheck!!!
Tell us what the number is and what your source is.
Geo
Winter Sea
Runu Knips writes:
> But I stated that, for me, the fetus is a human being.
That's fine. I don't care if you believe a fetus is human. I start fighting when
you try to force me to conform to your opinions *through law.* You are a person,
entitled to your beliefs. So am I, and until you can *prove* beyond a shadow of a
doubt that a first-trimester fetus is human, you have no right to make abortions
illegal.
> However, truth never
> cares about our opinions, even if nobody will believe it, truth is
> still true, so why discussing about how MANY people believe this or
> that ?
And what if the truth is that you don't have a scientific leg to stand on?
~Winter Sea~
-----{---{@
***
"Other strong possible candidates for National Insect include: the gnat, the
imported Japanese beetle, the chigger, the praying mantis, Jiminy Cricket, the
laughing mantis, the lobster, the dead bugs in your light fixture, the
skeet-shooting mantis, and Senator Jesse Helms. I could go on, but my purpose
here is not to name all the possibilities; my purpose is to create strife and
controversy for no good reason."
--Dave Barry, "Dave Barry Talks Back"
***
Erik Martin
I find it more interesting - actually bewildering - how people who
oppose capital punishment can defend abortion. Murderers, and rapists
in my opinion, deserve death. Babies deserve life.
Erik
"It's not the baby that needs killing." - Rob Roy
Chris Lyman
"Berry Miley" <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
# I don't depend on man-made imperfect laws to define for me what
# a human being is. Human life begins at conception no matter what
# society says.
# I answer to God, no society
The seeds of fanaticism have been sown in you and they are growing.
You scare me. Talk to your pastor. Soonest.
--
Chris Lyman | chr...@minn.net | #include <blue-ribbon.h>
"The great snare of thought is uncritical acceptance
of irrational assumptions." -- Will Durant
g...@3-cities.com
Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>> > To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>>
>> Don't know any of those. Is that a Bulgarian organization?
>No, it isn't. It is the real name of the so called "pro-choicers".
No, it isn't. Your a nit-wit.
>> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
>> criminal,
>> murdering idiots?
>Yes.
Yes, yes. Da!
>> Stay the fuck in Bulgaria, then.
>Abortion is an international issue.
As is mental health.
Christine A. Owens
In <31F3A9...@mbox.digsys.bg> Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg>
writes:
>To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>
>pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this
issue
>are:
>a, stupid people;
>or
>b, idiots;
>or
>c, evil persons,
>or
>d, deceived;
>or
>e, murderers;
>or
>f, criminals.
>
Since abortion is not legal, it cannot be murder. If you would like to
argue that it SHOULD BE murder, please state some arguements.
Chris Owens
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote in article
<bforest-2207...@usenet.interramp.com>...
> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived, criminal,
> murdering idiots?
I think he was just refering to those who support abortion, and they are
nowhere near 75%
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote in article
<4t1doa$a...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com>...
> argue that it SHOULD BE murder, please state some arguements.
Only one argument is needed: Abortion is the deliberate termination of the
Ray Fischer
Runu Knips <plr...@informatik.uni-siegen.de> wrote:
>But I stated that, for me, the fetus is a human being.
Sure. And the moon is made of green cheese.
> Other posters
>here had stated that for them, it is not, but their arguments wasn't
>very reasonable for me. And if it IS a human being, then you can't
>go on just killing it. You have to let it live, because then it has
>the right to live, as we ourselves have the right to live.
Meanwhile you willingly let people die of hunger by the tens of
thousands daily.
If you can let people die, why can't pregnant women?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Ray Fischer
Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>I don't depend on man-made imperfect laws to define for me what a human
>being is.
Translation: Miley doesn't let reality get in his way.
> Human life begins at conception no matter what society says.
Translation: Miley thinks he's number three in the hierarchy
after God and Jesus.
>I answer to God, no society
Make that number two.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Ray Fischer
Andrew Bracht <AJB...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I do not believe that four letter words have any place in a rational
>discussion about a topic as serious as abortion.
Agreed. When are we going to start this "rational discussion"?
:-)
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Ray Fischer
>> Why must anti-abortion people always present themselves as raving
>> lunatics?
>
>We don't
You do.
>> No matter what your opinion, you should agrue the *issues* and not
>> attack your opponents personal lives.
>
>Good advice. I hope Ray and Patrick are listening.
Writes Miley in yet another hypocritical personal attack.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
DJ Burrup
Ivan Marinov wrote:
>
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> > > To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>
> No, it isn't. It is the real name of the so called "pro-choicers".
>
> > criminal,
> > murdering idiots?
>
>
> > Stay the fuck in Bulgaria, then.
>
> Abortion is an international issue.
>
> ---
Then treat it like an issue, quit name-calling and make
your point.
DJ
Ivan Marinov
Christine A. Owens wrote:
> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
> a false premise. Try again.
"Human being" is not a socially or legally defined concept. Human being
is the only creature on Earth with a soul.
--
---
Ivan Marinov - Maximilian Valenski
---
max...@mbox.digsys.bg
mval...@sf.cit.bg
i...@ibm.net
---
"The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole,
and separately, in each country, each government, each
political party, and of course in the UN. I have spent all my
life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society
without any objective scale is a terrible one indeed. But a
society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy
of man either." (A. I. Solzhenitsyn)
---
Kevin Kelly
Ivan Marinov (max...@mbox.digsys.bg) wrote:
: Christine A. Owens wrote:
: > Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
: > in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
: > a false premise. Try again.
: "Human being" is not a socially or legally defined concept.
Sure it is.
Indiana Code 35-41-1-14
Enacted 1983
Amended 1983
IC 35-41-1-14 Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been
born and is alive.
s.223 of the Canadian Criminal Code:
"a child becomes a human being... when it has completely proceeded, in a
living state, from the body of its mother whether or not (a) it has
breathed, (b) it has an independent circulation, or (c) the navel string
is severed."
But don't let the facts get in the way of your ranting.
: Human being
: is the only creature on Earth with a soul.
You can show this without resorting to a bible can't you?
g...@3-cities.com
Erik Martin <Erik...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Colleen Fogarty wrote:
>>
>> It is interesting how many people who are fervently against abortion,
>> support and continue to vote for politicians who condone the capital
>> punishment and laws that deny people life.
>I find it more interesting - actually bewildering - how people who
>oppose capital punishment can defend abortion. Murderers, and rapists
>in my opinion, deserve death. Babies deserve life.
Until they grow up to become murderers, and rapists.
Then they deserve to die.
It's better to killl when you can see the fear in their eyes, isn't it
Erik?
Geo
Hey, Erik!
If they come up with a DNA test that will irrefutably show who will
become a murderer or a rapist, would you support aborting the fetus?
Mark Liddington
It shouldn't be up to anyone but the father and more specifically the mother
of the child whether to have an abortion. Abortion SHOULD be totally legal
and it should be up to the parents to decide what to do. Besides the baby
remains part of the mother until it is seperated at birth, it's the
same as having your spleen removed.
Would you rather have a child born into a family that doesn't want it?
One where everybodys lives are miserable, murder, I don't think so!
Please don't respond with loads of God nonsense, it just makes me laugh,
Mark.
------------------------
Mark Liddington, England (ski...@sv.span.com)
DJ Burrup
g...@3-cities.com wrote:
> ---> somebody wrote;
> >> Why must anti-abortion people always present themselves as raving
> >> lunatics?
> >We don't
> ---> geo steps in
> Oh, that's right.
>
> The people who murder doctors who perform abortions are just
> law-abiding citizens who just had a bad day.
>
> You know, kind of like Charles Manson.
>
> Geo
white. You saying these two are a reflection of all white guys?
The anti-abortion side has extremists just like any other group.
You don't judge the whole group by 'em though.
DJ
Ivan Marinov
Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
> >> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
> >> criminal,
> >> murdering idiots?
>
> >Yes.
>
> papers, hasn't it?
I'm not a Communist.
> >Abortion is an international issue.
>
> Then do your agitating in your own damned country.
1. Usenet is international, not American.
2. I'm a Christian, and I'm expressing my solidarity with US Christians
who have a heavy fight against US pro-death activists. Is this wrong?
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote in article
<4t5095$i...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
> 1. Try telling that to the judge. S/he will laugh the entire time you
> are being sentenced.
Sentenced for what?
>
> 2. What if the rest of the world chooses not to answer to your God?
>
We will all answer to God eventually, either in this life or the next
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote in article
<bforest-2307...@usenet.interramp.com>...
> So, you condone the breaking of laws of which you disapprove.
No, I never said that.
So why do
> you fight so hard for a law against abortion?
because there should be one.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> chr...@minn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote in article
<chrisl-2307...@news.minn.net>...
> The seeds of fanaticism have been sown in you and they are growing.
> You scare me. Talk to your pastor. Soonest.
You obviously know nothing about me otherwise you wouldn't make an
offensive statement like that.
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <01bb797c.2569d8e0$1b643a9d@berrym133> "Berry Miley" <ber...@microsoft.com> writes:
> chr...@minn.net (Chris Lyman) wrote in article <chrisl-2307...@news.minn.net>...
>> The seeds of fanaticism have been sown in you and they are growing.
>> You scare me. Talk to your pastor. Soonest.
>You obviously know nothing about me otherwise you wouldn't make an
>offensive statement like that.
Awww, poor little Berry had his feelings hurt?
Then maybe YOU should quit doing the same thing you bitch at others for doing,
eh?
--Patrick L. "he's too bloody stupid to figure it out -- I'm convinced"
Humphrey
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <31F5F4...@mbox.digsys.bg> Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> writes:
>Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
>> >> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
>> >> criminal,
>> >> murdering idiots?
>>
>> >Yes.
>>
>> It's been depressing ever since the Communists got handed their walking
>> papers, hasn't it?
>I'm not a Communist.
Yeah, you just act like their leaders did, back when they were in power.
Funny coincidence, that.
>> >Abortion is an international issue.
>>
>> Then do your agitating in your own damned country.
>1. Usenet is international, not American.
Very good. I presume, then, that you won't mind if I promote the advantages
of being pro-choice to your neighbors in Bulgaria, never mind that I've never
been within 10,000 kilometers of there. (Much like your situation with
regards to the U.S., eh?)
>2. I'm a Christian, and I'm expressing my solidarity with US Christians
>who have a heavy fight against US pro-death activists. Is this wrong?
Trying to impose your religion's code as _this_ country's law is, in my book.
Bother someone else with your impotent little crusade to bring the Dark Ages
back. (And remember what happened to Ceausescu, whose abortion policies
_you're_ promoting, seven years after he got his just reward.)
--Patrick L. "Ivan ne znaet" Humphrey
Bruce Forest
In article <31F5F4...@mbox.digsys.bg>, Ivan Marinov
<max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
> Bruce Forest wrote:
>
> > > > So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
> > > > criminal,
> > > > murdering idiots?
> > >
> > > Yes.
> >
> > Come over here to New York and say that, and see what happens.
>
> I'm sure that the great majority in New York is pro-life.
ROTFL! Spoken by someone who obviously hasn't a clue. NYC is the most
prochoice city in the world. New York was about to make abortion again
legal in 1973 when RvW made that unneccesary.
You don't realize that the great majority of the US is prochoice, and
against any Constitutional amendment against abortion, aren't you?
--
Bruce Forest...
bfo...@interramp.com
bfo...@futuris.net
bfo...@bliss.demon.co.uk
10416...@compuserve.com
dro...@aol.com...
PGP key on http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
.......
"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
Cheryl Morris
Cheryl Morris responds:
Bruce Forest wrote:
>
> Here is the latest Harris data on abortion and abortion rights....
>
> Design and Analysis by
> Louis Harris
> Conducted by
> Peter Harris Research Group, Inc.
> New York, N.Y.
>
> The Results... (methodology below)
>
> The issue of a woman having the right to choose whether or not to have
> an abortion with the advice of her doctor is as clear-cut and decisive
> an issue as any in America in the mid-1990s. Up until 1985, the division
> on this issue was close nationwide. But, after the Webster decision, the
> balance shifted from a close 48% to 46% in favor to a pro-choice
> majority that climbed to the mid-50 percent range and then into the 60
> percent range in the 1990s.
>
> In this survey, on the basic right of a woman to choose to have an
> abortion, with the advice of her physician, the division nationwide is
> 76% to 21% in favor of choice. By the same token, an even more decisive
From what is said above, the phrase "a woman having the right to choose
whether or not to have an abortion with the advice of her doctor" is key.
There are many people who are opposed to abortion except in the case
where a mother's life is in danger, thus the need of the advice of her
physician. I would be interested to see the exact words of the questions
asked and the statistics for each.
Cheryl
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> pat...@pentagon.io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote in article
**********************************************************
Nothing of substance to reply to
********************************************************
Ivan Marinov
Bruce Forest wrote:
> > 2. I'm a Christian, and I'm expressing my solidarity with US
>>Christians
> > who have a heavy fight against US pro-death activists. Is this wrong?
> Sure is. How would you like me to incite violence against Bulgarians by
> siding with Bulgarian Communists?
What's in common between American Christians and Bulgarian Communists? I
see no link between them.
Ivan Marinov
Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
> >1. Usenet is international, not American.
>
> Very good. I presume, then, that you won't mind if I promote the
>advantages
> of being pro-choice to your neighbors in Bulgaria, never mind that I've
>never
> been within 10,000 kilometers of there. (Much like your situation with
> regards to the U.S., eh?)
Do you think that I'm not promoting pro-life ideology in Bulgaria? If you
want to promote pro-death ideology, come to soc.culture.bulgaria (it's
not 10000 kms away), you will find there your Bulgarian pro-death
colleauges...
>And remember what happened to Ceausescu, whose abortion policies
> _you're_ promoting, seven years after he got his just reward.
Ceausescu wasn't neither pro-life or pro-death. He wasn't concered with
pro-life ideology, he wanted more soldiers for his army, nothing more.
> --Patrick L. "Ivan ne znaet" Humphrey
This is in Russian, not Bulgarian.
Louis Cypher
In article <31F656...@cannet.com>,
Whew. Talk about grasping at straws. There is no way a sane person could
infer that the woman's life was in danger from that text.
It is also funny how you delete half of the text which answers some of
the questions you have.
Bruce Forest
In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960724...@seagull.rtd.com>,
Aaron Benedek <mas...@rtd.com> wrote:
> Since we agree, that the fetus, however young, will someday if allowed to
> live ... become a child,
The embryo, the stage at which 95% of abortions are performed, has on ly a
50/50 chance of making it to fetushood. If it hasn't implanted, the chance
goes down to 25%.
I offer a solution to all you SLOW WITTED FUCKED
> UP STUPID FEMINISTS who have no MERCY TO UNBORN CHILDREN...
Guess it doesn't apply to me, or my wife then.
>
> here is the concept of a delayed abortion....
>
> 1) have child
Only if we can implant a zygote on your intestinal mucosa, grow it to
term, and shake our heads as you die an agonizing septic death, saying
'but we can't abort until the 'child' is an adult!'
> 2) give child to someone who cares
What if no one wants the child, and it ends up unadoptable, shuttled
between foster homes all its life?
> 3) wait till child becomes adult...
With you paying all the child support, of course.
>
> Now ask child who just became an adult if he/she doesn't mind if you chop
> him into a hundred pieces...
And see if you don't get punched in the mouth by this child that you
subjected to a miserable life.
Kevin Shubert
Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>Abortion is murder!!! It's not a medical, not a religious issue. It's
>pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this issue
>are:
>a, stupid people;
>or
>b, idiots;
>or
>c, evil persons,
>or
>d, deceived;
>or
>e, murderers;
>or
>f, criminals.
>This is my opinion. Period,
>--
>---
>Ivan Marinov - Maximilian Valenski
>---
If you are so intolerant of others beliefs and opinions...why bother
wasting space on the newsgroups?
Susan
Winter Sea
Erik Martin writes:
> I find it more interesting - actually bewildering - how people who
> oppose capital punishment can defend abortion. Murderers, and rapists
> in my opinion, deserve death. Babies deserve life.
You're absolutely right -- babies deserve to live. However, z/e/fs have as much
right to life as your average barnyard animal.
~Winter~
------{---{@
Aaron Benedek
Since we agree, that the fetus, however young, will someday if allowed to
live ... become a child, I offer a solution to all you SLOW WITTED FUCKED
UP STUPID FEMINISTS who have no MERCY TO UNBORN CHILDREN...
here is the concept of a delayed abortion....
1) have child
2) give child to someone who cares
3) wait till child becomes adult...
Now ask child who just became an adult if he/she doesn't mind if you chop
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <01bb7998.abfff990$1b643a9d@berrym133> "Berry Miley" <ber...@microsoft.com> writes:
> pat...@pentagon.io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) wrote in article
>**********************************************************
>Nothing of substance to reply to
>********************************************************
Gee, Berry, there's no shame in admitting you just don't have the neurons to
understand...
--Patrick L. "then again, Berry's apparently too stupid to be ashamed"
Humphrey
Winter Sea
Ivan Marinov writes:
> Zygotes and sperms are not human beings. The human life begins at the
> moment of the conception
Um, I think you may be a bit confused. Zygotes are nothing more than the
recently *JOINED* egg and sperm with the human DNA.
> Before the conception there's no human life.
Just like there's no human life until after the first trimester. Think about it -- if
a brain-dead person cannot live without a machine, the family can kill him. At
the same time, brain waves alone cannot prove human self-awareness (otherwise
we'd all be considering animals to have human thought processes). Why should
we have a fetal double-standard?
~Winter~
------{---{@
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <31F658...@cannet.com> Cheryl Morris <jrj...@cannet.com> writes:
>Cheryl Morris responds:
>Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
>> >> Then do your agitating in your own damned country.
>>
>> >1. Usenet is international, not American.
>>
>>Very good. I presume, then, that you won't mind if I promote the advantages
>>of being pro-choice to your neighbors in Bulgaria, never mind that I've never
>>been within 10,000 kilometers of there. (Much like your situation with
>>regards to the U.S., eh?)
>I presume since Ivan is posting and responding to you that your posts
>are being posted there, so you are promoting pro-choice in Bulgaria.
...to those who can read English, anyway. (I don't speak Bulgarian, though I
_do_ still speak Russian, slightly -- college was going on 20 years ago -- but
if I did, then you'd see me putting my two cents' worth in in Bulgarian, rest
assured.)
>Come on, guys, you are being too possessive of the newsgroup. After all
>it is not just an American thing. You remind me of those "ugly Americans"
>who go to Europe and get mad because not everyone speaks English. Let us
>be a little more cosmopolitan about this.
I have no problem accepting the participation of anyone else, regardless of
nationality, because I agree with Ivan -- this is a worldwide forum. What I
have a problem with is his blatant ignorance of the situation in _this_
country, and his attacks based on that same ignorance. I don't think 75% of
the population of this country are murderers, and being the fractious native
of Kentucky that I am, when I see something that egregious being passed off as
truth -- I'm going to point it out.
--Patrick L. "that's how I see it" Humphrey
g...@3-cities.com
Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>gr...@hiwaay.net wrote:
>> 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...bullshit...bullshit...INFINITY!!
>>
>> Have you ever wacked-off, Ivan? Sure you have. Murderer! Murderer!
>Zygotes and sperms are not human beings. The human life begins at the
>moment of the conception. Before the conception there's no human life.
Your claim is just as valid as hers Ivan.
Get a clue.
Geo
______________
/ DARWIN \/|
\______________/\|
__| __|
Ray Fischer
>> So, you condone the breaking of laws of which you disapprove.
>
>No, I never said that.
Yes you did.
>>So why do
>> you fight so hard for a law against abortion?
>
>because there should be one.
Why?
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <31F674...@mbox.digsys.bg> Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> writes:
>Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
>> >1. Usenet is international, not American.
>>
>> Very good. I presume, then, that you won't mind if I promote the
>>advantages
>> of being pro-choice to your neighbors in Bulgaria, never mind that I've
>>never
>> been within 10,000 kilometers of there. (Much like your situation with
>> regards to the U.S., eh?)
>Do you think that I'm not promoting pro-life ideology in Bulgaria? If you
>want to promote pro-death ideology, come to soc.culture.bulgaria (it's
>not 10000 kms away), you will find there your Bulgarian pro-death
>colleauges...
Durak. I'm pro-choice, whether you have the ability to understand it or not
-- and I'm a parent and a grandparent, so don't start in with your "pro-death"
babble.
>>And remember what happened to Ceausescu, whose abortion policies
>> _you're_ promoting, seven years after he got his just reward.
>Ceausescu wasn't neither pro-life or pro-death. He wasn't concered with
>pro-life ideology, he wanted more soldiers for his army, nothing more.
Why do I get the feeling you'd have been a fervent supporter of his in the
pre-1989 days?
>> --Patrick L. "Ivan ne znaet" Humphrey
>This is in Russian, not Bulgarian.
That's to be expected, since the language I learned in high school and college
was Russian. At least it's not too far removed from Bulgarian (though Russian
and the rest of the Slavic tongues -- save Bulgarian -- never developed the
use of the article).
--Patrick L. "nostra lingua articulam non desiderat (yeah, right!)" Humphrey
gr...@hiwaay.net
Christine A. Owens wrote:
>
> In <31F3A9...@mbox.digsys.bg> Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg>
> writes:
> >
> >To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
> >
> >Abortion is murder!!! It's not a medical, not a religious issue. It's
> >pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this
> issue
> >are:
> >a, stupid people;
> >or
> >b, idiots;
> >or
> >c, evil persons,
> >or
> >d, deceived;
> >or
> >e, murderers;
> >or
> >f, criminals.
> >
> >This is my opinion. Period,
>
ovum, I oppose abstinence. As a former sperm cell, I oppose
masturbation...etc...etc...bullshit...bullshit...INFINITY!!
Have you ever wacked-off, Ivan? Sure you have. Murderer! Murderer!
Love,
Lindsey
CHOICE!!
Bruce Forest
What the hell is it with Australians?
In article <4t6lm6$e...@posgate.acis.com.au>, r.f...@student.anu.edu.au
(Richard Ford) wrote:
> bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>
> >In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960724...@seagull.rtd.com>,
> >Aaron Benedek <mas...@rtd.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> >> 1) have child
>
> >Only if we can implant a zygote on your intestinal mucosa, grow it to
> >term, and shake our heads as you die an agonizing septic death, saying
> >'but we can't abort until the 'child' is an adult!'
>
> The church accepts that this is the =only= excuse. When the life of
> the mother is in danger.
How about her health? In a serious health complication, like eclampsia, or
spinal pressure, do you want her to be forced to carry to term, even
though she'll be crippled or permanently disabled? Most antis would gladly
forbid abortion for eclampsia to prevent the possibility of a woman
aborting for clinical depression. Sounds like you fit that bill perfectly.
>However in the past some mothers have died
> for their childeren. Anything less isn't evil, but is just because of
> human weakness.
What if she already has a family?
> However o a different matter, could a fertilized egg
> in this situation be "relocated"?
Theoretically it could, but in practice it would be very difficult. I
mention it only in a theoretical context.
>
> >> 2) give child to someone who cares
>
> >What if no one wants the child, and it ends up unadoptable, shuttled
> >between foster homes all its life?
>
> At least the child is ALIVE. Not DEAD! Get a clue, moron. Whp are
> you to judge the quality of life of someone else.
Who are you to tell women what the quality of their life is to be?
>
> >> 3) wait till child becomes adult...
>
> >With you paying all the child support, of course.
>
> Here we go. Typical american, lets bring everything down to dollars
> and cents.
Nope, just being reasonable. Are you going to fund the enormous adoption
expenses and massive orphanages that would result from government
controlling fetility? Happened in Rumania, and it would happen anywhere
abortion was banned.
>
> So how mucha re you worth? $5 $10?
$3.75 an hour. At least. ;-)
>
> >>
> >> Now ask child who just became an adult if he/she doesn't mind if you chop
> >> him into a hundred pieces...
>
> >And see if you don't get punched in the mouth by this child that you
> >subjected to a miserable life.
>
> Again, who are you to decide "miserable" I'm sure it'd be glad he/she
> is alive. Get it. Understand. Alive, living, not DEAD.
I think I can evaluate miserable, thanks very much. The whole analogy is
idiotic, since it is up to the woman to decide what to do with HER body,
and what it contains, not you.
>You truly
> are an evil, evil person.
Thanks for sharing that. And you are a ignorant controlling misogynist fundie.
Bruce Forest
In article <01bb797b.fd5adf70$1b643a9d@berrym133>, "Berry Miley"
<ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> --
> The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
> the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>
> > bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote in article
> <bforest-2307...@usenet.interramp.com>...
> > So, you condone the breaking of laws of which you disapprove.
>
> No, I never said that.
Yes you did. You said you follow God's law, not society's.
>
> So why do
> > you fight so hard for a law against abortion?
>
> because there should be one.
But that's society's law, which you say you don't have to follow.
Ray Fischer
Berry Miley <ber...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>We will all answer to God eventually, either in this life or the next
God, no you, not the Pope, not to any "pro-life" fanatic.
Remember that.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Mark
In article <31F3A9...@mbox.digsys.bg>, max...@mbox.digsys.bg says...
>
>To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>
>Abortion is murder!!! It's not a medical, not a religious issue. It's
>pure humanism, nothing more. People who don't agree with me on this issue
>are:
>a, stupid people;
>or
>b, idiots;
>or
>c, evil persons,
>or
>d, deceived;
>or
>e, murderers;
>or
>f, criminals.
>
>This is my opinion. Period,
>
Christine A. Owens
In <01bb78be.c89f8f00$1b643a9d@berrym133> "Berry Miley"
<ber...@microsoft.com> writes:
>
>
>--
>The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not
reflect
>the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>
><4t2nke$6...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>...
>> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept --
which
>> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic
in
>> a false premise. Try again.
>
>I don't depend on man-made imperfect laws to define for me what a
human
>being is. Human life begins at conception no matter what society says.
>
>I answer to God, no society
1. Try telling that to the judge. S/he will laugh the entire time you
are being sentenced.
2. What if the rest of the world chooses not to answer to your God?
Chris Owens
Christine A. Owens
In <31F525...@mbox.digsys.bg> Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg>
writes:
>Christine A. Owens wrote:
>
>> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept --
which
>> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic
in
>> a false premise. Try again.
>
being
>is the only creature on Earth with a soul.
You just got lost in the religion arguement again. What about all the
people who do not believe that human beings have souls?
Chris Owens
Bruce Forest
> Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
>
> > >> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
> > >> criminal,
> > >> murdering idiots?
> >
> > >Yes.
> >
> > It's been depressing ever since the Communists got handed their walking
> > papers, hasn't it?
>
> I'm not a Communist.
>
> > >Abortion is an international issue.
> >
> > Then do your agitating in your own damned country.
>
> 1. Usenet is international, not American.
>
> 2. I'm a Christian, and I'm expressing my solidarity with US Christians
> who have a heavy fight against US pro-death activists. Is this wrong?
Sure is. How would you like me to incite violence against Bulgarians by
siding with Bulgarian Communists?
--
Ivan Marinov
Bruce Forest wrote:
> > > So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
> > > criminal,
> > > murdering idiots?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Come over here to New York and say that, and see what happens.
I'm sure that the great majority in New York is pro-life.
--
---
Ivan Marinov - Maximilian Valenski
---
doug h.
In article <4t3ai0$5...@nntp1.best.com>,
Kevin Kelly <kke...@nntp.best.com> wrote:
>>> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
>>> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
>>> a false premise. Try again.
>> "Human being" is not a socially or legally defined concept.
> Sure it is.
And in some jurisdictions, the unborn child is legally defined as
a human being:
Status of Abortion and Reproductive Rights In Louisiana
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
[...]
"[T]he unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is,
therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to
life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws
and Constitution of this State .... " [...] Section 40:1299.35.0 (West
1992) (enacted 1981)"
http://www.naral.org/statelocal/larights.html
Cheryl Morris
Cheryl Morris responds:
Patrick L. Humphrey wrote:
> >>
> >> Then do your agitating in your own damned country.
>
> >1. Usenet is international, not American.
>
> Very good. I presume, then, that you won't mind if I promote the advantages
> of being pro-choice to your neighbors in Bulgaria, never mind that I've never
> been within 10,000 kilometers of there. (Much like your situation with
> regards to the U.S., eh?)
>
I presume since Ivan is posting and responding to you that your posts
are being posted there, so you are promoting pro-choice in Bulgaria.
Come on, guys, you are being too possessive of the newsgroup. After all
it is not just an American thing. You remind me of those "ugly Americans"
who go to Europe and get mad because not everyone speaks English. Let us
be a little more cosmopolitan about this.
Cheryl
Ivan Marinov
gr...@hiwaay.net wrote:
> 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...bullshit...bullshit...INFINITY!!
>
> Have you ever wacked-off, Ivan? Sure you have. Murderer! Murderer!
Zygotes and sperms are not human beings. The human life begins at the
moment of the conception. Before the conception there's no human life.
--
Lawrence E. McKnight
bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote:
>In article <31F5F4...@mbox.digsys.bg>, Ivan Marinov
><max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>
>> Bruce Forest wrote:
>>
>> > > > So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
>> > > > criminal,
>> > > > murdering idiots?
>> > >
>> > > Yes.
>> >
>> > Come over here to New York and say that, and see what happens.
>>
>> I'm sure that the great majority in New York is pro-life.
>
>ROTFL! Spoken by someone who obviously hasn't a clue. NYC is the most
>prochoice city in the world. New York was about to make abortion again
>legal in 1973 when RvW made that unneccesary.
Actually, it already had made it legal, in 1970 or so. I knew that a
lot of college girls from New England made the pilgramage to New York to
get safe, legal abortions. Before NY legalized it, they had unsafe,
illegal abortions.
>
>You don't realize that the great majority of the US is prochoice, and
>against any Constitutional amendment against abortion, aren't you?
>
>--
>Bruce Forest...
>bfo...@interramp.com
>bfo...@futuris.net
>bfo...@bliss.demon.co.uk
>10416...@compuserve.com
>dro...@aol.com...
>
>PGP key on http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bal/pks-toplev.html
>.......
>"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
---------------
Larry McKnight
(this space unintentionally left blank.....
Kevin Kelly
doug h. (do...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <4t3ai0$5...@nntp1.best.com>,
: Kevin Kelly <kke...@nntp.best.com> wrote:
: >Ivan Marinov (max...@mbox.digsys.bg) wrote:
: >>Christine A. Owens wrote:
: >>> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
: >>> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
: >>> a false premise. Try again.
: >> "Human being" is not a socially or legally defined concept.
: > Sure it is.
: And in some jurisdictions, the unborn child is legally defined as
: a human being:
Note what Dodie the dishonest presents from the site and then look at the
actual text as it's presented below it. He tries to pass the following off
as legislation or a statute but look at what it really was. Note what he
chose to delete. Tsk Tsk Dodie.
: Status of Abortion and Reproductive Rights In Louisiana
: STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
: [...]
: "[T]he unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is,
: therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to
: life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws
: and Constitution of this State .... " [...] Section 40:1299.35.0 (West
: 1992) (enacted 1981)"
: http://www.naral.org/statelocal/larights.html
Legislative Declaration (Anti-Choice)
'[[T]he unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and
is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to
life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws
and Constitution of this State .... [I]f those [abortion-related]
decisions of the United States Supreme Court are ever reversed or modified
or the United States Constitution is amended to allow protection of the
unborn then the former policy of this State to prohibit abortions shall be
enforced." § 40:1299.35.0 (West 1992) (enacted 1981). "It is declared to be
the public policy of the state of Louisiana that it has a legitimate
compelling interest in protecting, to the greatest extent possible, the
life of the unborn from the time of conception until birth .... In
furtherance of this compelling interest we declare it to be a reasonable
and proper exercise of the police power of the state to prohibit ... the
performance of abortions.” 1991 La.Acts 26 § 1, reprinted following § 14.87
(Supp. 1994). "Whereas, the [Freedom of Choice Act] is an attack on
the right to life of our citizens and proposes an unconstitutional
violation of the power of the state of Louisiana to protect our citizens
.... Therefore, be it resolved that the Legislature of Louisiana does
hereby memorialize the Congress of the United States to oppose and defeat
the bill entitled the 'Freedom of Choice Act' .... Be it further resolved
that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby further memorialize the Congress
of the United States to defeat all proposals, and to remove existing
authority, for the funding of abortions, fetal experimentation, or
abortion counseling through the use of taxpayer funds." H. Con. Res. 302
(1993).
Does Dodie think a declaration is a law. Dodie if you wish to claim that
in fact this is a law please present which law it is and the specific cite
of the law. Thanks.
ANd here let me show you how it's done.
Indiana Code 35-41-1-14
Enacted 1983
Amended 1983
IC 35-41-1-14 Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been
born and is alive.
s.223 of the Canadian Criminal Code:
"a child becomes a human being... when it has completely proceeded, in a
living state, from the body of its mother whether or not (a) it has
breathed, (b) it has an independent circulation, or (c) the navel string
is severed."
Indiana Code 35-41-1-14
Enacted 1983
Amended 1983
It's ok Dodie, people can read. You can stop lying now.
David
In article <Pine.BSI.3.91.960724...@seagull.rtd.com>, mas...@rtd.com says...
>Since we agree, that the fetus, however young, will someday if allowed to
>live ... become a child, I offer a solution to all you SLOW WITTED FUCKED
>UP STUPID FEMINISTS who have no MERCY TO UNBORN CHILDREN...
>
>here is the concept of a delayed abortion....
>
>1) have child
>2) give child to someone who cares
>3) wait till child becomes adult...
>
>Now ask child who just became an adult if he/she doesn't mind if you chop
>him into a hundred pieces...
The point is rather useless, since if, say, someone like myself had been
aborted, I never would have come into existence since my consciousness
was not formed in the womb. Therefore I would not know that I had existed
at all and therefore wouldn't be here to talk to you.
So while I'm in existence I suppose I'm happy that I wasn't aborted, but
if I had been, what difference does it make?
Insofar as I can see, not much.
Bruce Forest
In article <31F6AB...@mbox.digsys.bg>, Ivan Marinov
<max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
> gr...@hiwaay.net wrote:
>
> > 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...bullshit...bullshit...INFINITY!!
> >
> > Have you ever wacked-off, Ivan? Sure you have. Murderer! Murderer!
>
> Zygotes and sperms are not human beings.
I do agree. How refreshing!
>The human life begins at the
> moment of the conception. Before the conception there's no human life.
Then why did you just say 'zygotes are not human beings?'
Bruce Forest
In article <N.072496.223501.20@pm15_5.digital.net>, mil...@digital.net wrote:
> > Runu Knips writes:
> >
> > > But I stated that, for me, the fetus is a human being.
> >
> > That's fine. I don't care if you believe a fetus is human. I start
fighting
> > when
> > you try to force me to conform to your opinions *through law.* You are a
> > person,
> > entitled to your beliefs. So am I, and until you can *prove* beyond a
shadow
> > of a
> > doubt that a first-trimester fetus is human, you have no right to make
> > abortions
> > illegal.
>
> ******** Have you ever seen a book called "A CHILD IS BORN"? It has
pictures of
> the human child in utero from conception (8 celled zygote) to birth. A child
> has DISCERNABLE fingers and toes after two weeks.
LOL. I think not.
"Second Week.亀he ovum rapidly increases in size and becomes embedded in
the decidua, so that it is completely enclosed in the decidua reflexa bv
the end of this period. An ovum believed to be of the thirteenth day after
conception is described by Reichert. There was no appearance whatsoever of
any embryonic structure. The equatorial margins of the ovum were beset
with villi, but the surface in contact with the uterine wall and the one
opposite to it were bare. " Gray's 15th edition
It's not even an embryo, much less having 'fingers and toes."
> Before most females have the
> slightest idea that they are pregnant. After six weeks, a spine, eyes and a
> heart are clearly visible.
Eyes?? Snicker. Where do you get this rubbish?
"Sixth Week.亀he activity of the umbilical vesicle ceases. The pharyngeal
clefts disappear. The vertebral column, primitive cranium, and ribs assume
the cartilaginous condition. The posterior roots of the nerves, the
membranes of the nervous centres, the rudiments of the bladder, kidney,
tongue, larynx, thyroid body, the germs of teeth, and the genital tubercle
and folds are apparent." op cit.
>After eight weeks, you can see the child's liver,
> lungs, etc.;
LUNGS???
> the face is forming beautifully and you can see their mouth where
> a beautiful smile will soon grace the world if not aborted.
Oh man, this is just raw mistruth! Why are you propagating such inaccurate
stuff?
"Eighth week: The distinction of arm and forearm is apparent, as well as
interdigital
clefts. The capsule of the lens and pupillary membrane, the
intraventricular and commencement of the interauricular septum, the
salivary glands, the spleen and suprarenal capsule are distinguishable.
The larynx begins to become cartilaginous. All the vertebral bodies are
cartilaginous. The points of ossification for the radius, ulna, fibula and
ilium appear. The two halves of the hard palate unite. The sympathetic
nerves are now for the first time to be discerned." op cit ..page [148]
Here is a list of anatomical features completely absent in the eight week
fetus..
Corpus striatum
Pericardium
Fully chambered heart
Distinguishable ovary and testicle
Genitals
Metacarpals and phalanges
Gall bladder
ALL facial bones
Bony, complete vertebrae
Eyelids
Hair
Nails
Mammary glands
Prostate
Epiglottis
Ear bones and internal structures
ALL body fat
Scrotum
Entire lymphatic system
Tonsils
Teeth
I've left out most of the minor glands, most neural development, any
organs which have started development, however infinitesimal, by 8 weeks
and ossification of the vertebrae, but you get the idea.
Am eight week fetus is not the tiny perfectly formed baby of the anti
literature. It still has a tail until 12 weeks, and in profile looks more
akin to a lizard than a human. I refer you to Gray's page [102] figure
[123] for a picture of an 8 week human embryo (notice Gray's still uses
embryo at 8 weeks.) Somehow this picture destroys the 'cute little baby'
myth that antis are so fond of pushing. (For those without Gray's, it is a
head shot of a 8 week that looks very much like the abdomen-bursting
monster in Aliens, sans teeth and nasty expression.)
There are structures in the 8 week fetus that are NOT present in the term
fetus, such as Meckel's cartilage and the pupillary membrane. The
statement "....the baby __is__ fully developed at 8 weeks.." is beyond
incorrect, beyond ignorant, it is pure disinformation. I'm not accusing
you of trying to spread disinformation. You're quoting what
you've been taught by people you trust. It is RTLC and associated
agencies, teaching in churches to devout people that spread outright
anatomical poppycock, even attributing this sillyness to authoratative
texts like Gray's.
>That's proof enough
> to me.
You accept obviously fabricated anatomy as truth?
[...]
mil...@digital.net
> Runu Knips writes:
>
> > But I stated that, for me, the fetus is a human being.
>
> That's fine. I don't care if you believe a fetus is human. I start fighting
> when
> you try to force me to conform to your opinions *through law.* You are a
> person,
> entitled to your beliefs. So am I, and until you can *prove* beyond a shadow
> of a
> doubt that a first-trimester fetus is human, you have no right to make
> abortions
> illegal.
******** Have you ever seen a book called "A CHILD IS BORN"? It has pictures of
the human child in utero from conception (8 celled zygote) to birth. A child
has DISCERNABLE fingers and toes after two weeks. Before most females have the
slightest idea that they are pregnant. After six weeks, a spine, eyes and a
heart are clearly visible. After eight weeks, you can see the child's liver,
lungs, etc.; the face is forming beautifully and you can see their mouth where
a beautiful smile will soon grace the world if not aborted. That's proof enough
to me. **** milori*************************
>
> > However, truth never
> > cares about our opinions, even if nobody will believe it, truth is
> > still true, so why discussing about how MANY people believe this or
> > that ?
>
> And what if the truth is that you don't have a scientific leg to stand on?
>
> ~Winter Sea~
> -----{---{@
>
> ***
> "Other strong possible candidates for National Insect include: the gnat, the
> imported Japanese beetle, the chigger, the praying mantis, Jiminy Cricket,
> the
> laughing mantis, the lobster, the dead bugs in your light fixture, the
> skeet-shooting mantis, and Senator Jesse Helms. I could go on, but my
> purpose
> here is not to name all the possibilities; my purpose is to create strife and
> controversy for no good reason."
>
> --Dave Barry, "Dave Barry Talks Back"
> ***
>
>
----
Christine A. Owens
>******** Have you ever seen a book called "A CHILD IS BORN"? It has
pictures of
>the human child in utero from conception (8 celled zygote) to birth. A
child
>has DISCERNABLE fingers and toes after two weeks. Before most females
have the
>slightest idea that they are pregnant. After six weeks, a spine, eyes
and a
>heart are clearly visible. After eight weeks, you can see the child's
liver,
>lungs, etc.; the face is forming beautifully and you can see their
mouth where
>a beautiful smile will soon grace the world if not aborted. That's
proof enough
>to me. **** milori*************************
This paragraph has more errors of fact than I care to enumerate.
Please acquire a REAL book on developmental embryology, and learn the
facts.
Chris Owens
Ray Fischer
>> 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...bullshit...bullshit...INFINITY!!
>>
>> Have you ever wacked-off, Ivan? Sure you have. Murderer! Murderer!
>
>Zygotes and sperms are not human beings.
Why not? Aren't you just trying to justify your murders?
> The human life begins at the
>moment of the conception.
Says who? Are you saying that sperm aren't alive?
> Before the conception there's no human life.
Sperm are alive and human, murderer.
--
Ray Fischer
r...@netcom.com
Jo Helsen
the great and intrepid DJ Burrup <dr...@busprod.com> wrote:
....
....
> Runu,
> Nice response. It pretty much sums up my feelings, also. I can't see
> allowing an abortion at 8-1/2 months (except to save the life of the
> mother) and when trying to back my way down to a point in time where
> it is acceptable (IMO) couldn't really justify stopping any spot after
> conception.
> DJ
Exactly!
"Gravity doesn't exist; the Earth sucks!"
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> bfo...@interramp.com (Bruce Forest) wrote in article <bforest-
> Yes you did. You said you follow God's law, not society's.
Read what I say for a change. And I thought you were becoming more
reasonable, I was dead wrong about that.
I said that I answer to God. Society says abortion is legal. God says
"thou shalt not kill"
Therefore, since I answer to God's law, I cannot just sit by and say
nothing while millions of humans are being slaughtered.
>
Christine A. Owens
>Zygotes and sperms are not human beings. The human life begins at the
>moment of the conception. Before the conception there's no human life.
Thankyou for acknowledging that the zygote (a post-conception form) is
not an human being. But then, neither are embryos or fetuses. BTW,
both human sperm and human ova are both human and alive.
Chris Owens
doug h.
In article <4t6eb8$n...@nntp1.best.com>,
Kevin Kelly <kke...@nntp.best.com> wrote:
>doug h. (do...@netcom.com) wrote:
>: In article <4t3ai0$5...@nntp1.best.com>,
>: Kevin Kelly <kke...@nntp.best.com> wrote:
>: >Ivan Marinov (max...@mbox.digsys.bg) wrote:
>: >>Christine A. Owens wrote:
>
>: >>> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
>: >>> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
>: >>> a false premise. Try again.
>
>: >> "Human being" is not a socially or legally defined concept.
>
>: > Sure it is.
>
>: And in some jurisdictions, the unborn child is legally defined as
>: a human being:
> Note what [..] presents from the site and then look at the
> actual text as it's presented below it. He tries to pass the following off
> as legislation or a statute but look at what it really was. Note what he
> chose to delete.
It is a statute -- see where it says ``Section 40:1299.35.0 (West
1992) (enacted 1981)'' below? They're quoting a Louisiana statute.
>: Status of Abortion and Reproductive Rights In Louisiana
>
>: STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
>
>: [...]
>
>: "[T]he unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and is,
>: therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to
>: life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws
>: and Constitution of this State .... " [...] Section 40:1299.35.0 (West
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: 1992) (enacted 1981)"
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
See here, Liar Kelly, where I've put the little ^^^ marks? Take your
time and read it slowly... that's a good boy. Have an adult read it to
you if you're unable to understand what it means.
>: http://www.naral.org/statelocal/larights.html
> Does [..] think a declaration is a law.
The part about the law being merely a "declaration" was added by
your source, it wasn't part of the text in that particular statute
which your source saw fit to quote. Again, you demonstrate that
you have extremely inferior reading skills.
> [..] if you wish to claim that
> in fact this is a law please present which law it is and the specific cite
> of the law. Thanks.
See above, you illiterate. Section 40:1299.35.0 (West 1992) (enacted 1981).
> ANd here let me show you how it's done.
Very good, dumb ass. Now re-read what I wrote above, and then go
hide in shame after you've discovered that you've made an ass of
yourself in front of everyone reading this thread.
> It's ok Dodie, people can read. You can stop lying now.
Point to a single "lie" in my statements above, or be forced to
admit that you can't provide any evidence for your assinine claim.
Eric Ackerman
Winter Sea <wint...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>Um, I think you may be a bit confused. Zygotes are nothing more than the
>>>recently *JOINED* egg and sperm with the human DNA.
Aren't you a *JOINED* egg and sperm with the human DNA?
>>>Just like there's no human life until after the first trimester. Think about it -- if
>>>a brain-dead person cannot live without a machine, the family can kill him. At
>>>the same time, brain waves alone cannot prove human self-awareness (otherwise
>>>we'd all be considering animals to have human thought processes). Why should
>>>we have a fetal double-standard?
And in Nazi German, if a person was retarded, gay or Jewish, anyone
could kill them. Just because a government states something isn't
deserving of human rights doesn't mean that government is right, does
it?
Love in Christ
eric
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish,
but have everlasting life.
Ivan Marinov
Winter Sea wrote:
> Ivan Marinov writes:
>
> > Zygotes and sperms are not human beings. The human life begins at the
> > moment of the conception
>
>the
> recently *JOINED* egg and sperm with the human DNA.
OK. It was my mistake. I wanted to tell 'egg'. In this case zygotes are
human beings. I'm sorry.
> > Before the conception there's no human life.
>
> Just like there's no human life until after the first trimester. Think
>about it -- if
> a brain-dead person cannot live without a machine, the family can kill
>him. At
> the same time, brain waves alone cannot prove human self-awareness
>(otherwise
> we'd all be considering animals to have human thought processes). Why
>should
> we have a fetal double-standard?
This is not double standard. A 1 month old unborn child is not an ill
person, if not killed, it will be a normal born child.
Berry Miley
--
The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
the official views of Microsoft Corporation
> cao...@ix.netcom.com(Christine A. Owens ) wrote in article
<4t7lgc$j...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>...
> Please acquire a REAL book on developmental embryology, and learn the
> facts.
The one basic fact is that a human being is a human being from the point
of conception
Either we all have rights, or none of us do.
Kevin Kelly
doug h. (do...@netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <4t6eb8$n...@nntp1.best.com>,
: Kevin Kelly <kke...@nntp.best.com> wrote:
: >doug h. (do...@netcom.com) wrote:
: >: In article <4t3ai0$5...@nntp1.best.com>,
: >: Kevin Kelly <kke...@nntp.best.com> wrote:
: >: >Ivan Marinov (max...@mbox.digsys.bg) wrote:
: >: >>Christine A. Owens wrote:
: >
: >: >>> Since 'an human being' is a socially / legally defined concept -- which
: >: >>> in no extant society includes the z/e/f -- you just lost your logic in
: >: >>> a false premise. Try again.
: >
: >: >> "Human being" is not a socially or legally defined concept.
: >
: >: > Sure it is.
: >
: >: And in some jurisdictions, the unborn child is legally defined as
: >: a human being:
: > Note what [..] presents from the site and then look at the
: > actual text as it's presented below it. He tries to pass the following off
: > as legislation or a statute but look at what it really was. Note what he
: > chose to delete.
: It is a statute -- see where it says ``Section 40:1299.35.0 (West
: 1992) (enacted 1981)'' below? They're quoting a Louisiana statute.
Yes indeed they are if you ignore the fact that they are really a
declaration. I went and looked it up and it's from their abortion statute.
But the difficulty for you Dodie is that the statute is unconstituional.
ANd if it's unconstituional it' can only be a declaration of what they
want to do if their delusions about aboritons rulings being overturned
occurs. WHich if you read the entire thing as opposed to your "edited"
version shows.
From 1 AM Jur 2d:
9. Defining human life; viability
The United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v Wade made certian
determinations regarding the definition of human life for purposes of the
abortion-right framework, concluding that human life begins at the point
of viability of the fetus. 58
....
Thus states' attempts to define "fetus", "human life" or "viability" in
contradiction to the Supreme Court's definition are unconstitutional. 62
From the footnote 62 it references several cases, one being Eubanks v
Brown (WD Ky) 604 F Sup 141 (involving definition of the "fetus" as human
being from the moment of fertalization)
Eubanks v Brown was a case dealing with Kentucky's abortion law. The law
like Louisanna's defined the fetus as a human being from conception.
From the ruling:
Coming now from the general to the specific. Section 2 of H.B. 339 (KRS
311-720) defines various terms used throughout the statute. Subsection 5
of Section 2 defines "fetus" as "a human being from fetilization until
birth" and Section 6 defines "human being" as "any member of the species
homo sapiens from fetialization until death". These two subsections are
unconstitutional because they incorporate a definition of life begining at
fetialization, a theory which the SUpreme Court has not adopted, and which
the Supreme Court has held may not be used to justify its regulation of
abortion. See City of Akron v Akron Center, Supra, 103 S. Ct. at 2500.
Now we know why Dodie keeps editing out parts of the actual declaration
and the heading pointing it out.
Legislative Declaration (Anti-Choice)
'[[T]he unborn child is a human being from the time of conception and
is, therefore, a legal person for purposes of the unborn child's right to
life and is entitled to the right to life from conception under the laws
and Constitution of this State .... [I]f those [abortion-related]
decisions of the United States Supreme Court are ever reversed or modified
or the United States Constitution is amended to allow protection of the
unborn then the former policy of this State to prohibit abortions shall be
enforced." § 40:1299.35.0 (West 1992) (enacted 1981).
It's ok Dodie people can read. You can stop lying now.
[...]
: The part about the law being merely a "declaration" was added by
: your source, it wasn't part of the text in that particular statute
: which your source saw fit to quote. Again, you demonstrate that
: you have extremely inferior reading skills.
No DOdie it appears my source who you use when it supports your point and
shun when it doesn't was correct. It's a decleration. Thanks for playing
Dodie.
[...]
elizabeth frantes
Paul Gortenberg wrote:
> Don't you morons get it ?! Every pro-lifer agrees that an embryo/foetus
> should be terminated in order to save the mother's life. Why do you persist
> in flogging this strawman?
No, you moron newbie, don't you read the posts?
Not very long ago, a fellow called "Chris Murphy"
expressed on numerous posts that the woman SHOULD
die rather than get an abortion.
There have been others as well.
Watch the metaphors, numnuts--one does not "flog" a
strawman. One flogs a dead horse. Or in your case,
it's more flogging the dummy(that's like spanking the
monkey, Oh Metaphorically Challenged One)
eaf
Eric Williams @ PCB x5577
In article <01bb797b.fd5adf70$1b643a9d@berrym133>, "Berry Miley" <ber...@microsoft.com> writes:
>
> --
> The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
> the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>
> > So, you condone the breaking of laws of which you disapprove.
>
> No, I never said that.
>
> So why do
> > you fight so hard for a law against abortion?
>
> because there should be one.
>
Please be more precise in your phraseology. *You* think there should be one.
(I have no quibble with that, admittedly, since I cannot control your thinking.
However, I wouldn't want it to become law, for various reasons.)
And your statement is not sufficient anyway. If I were to say that "there should
be a law against driving on the road with a four-leaf clover in one's pocket",
does that mean that, on my word *alone*, that the Congress will pass a law
forbidding people driving on the road with a four-leaf clover in one's pocket?
Not bloody likely.
There are several justifications you could try to use:
(1) "A foetus is a person".
(2) "A foetus has the right to life".
(3) "The woman consented to pregnancy and birth when she had sex".
(4) "A foetus is the same as a newborn baby, only earlier".
(5) "A human life begins at conception".
All of these can be disproven in one form or another, or shown to be
irrelevant (and have already been, on this newsgroup, by various of
the pro-choicers).
But it would be an improvement over "there should be a law against
abortion because 'I said so'". :-)
--
eric_w...@mentorg.com
The preceding is *not* to be construed in any way as an official (or unofficial)
public policy statement by Mentor Graphics, Incorporated, my employer, or
any of its employees, legal representatives, affiliates, customers, or vendors.
frank dever
Ivan Marinov <max...@mbox.digsys.bg> wrote:
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>
>> > > So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
>> > > criminal,
>> > > murdering idiots?
>> >
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Come over here to New York and say that, and see what happens.
>
>I'm sure that the great majority in New York is pro-life.
And you are wrong. What does that mean? Anything?
>
>
>--
>
>---
>Ivan Marinov - Maximilian Valenski
>---
>max...@mbox.digsys.bg
>mval...@sf.cit.bg
>i...@ibm.net
>---
>"The Western world has lost its civil courage, both as a whole,
>and separately, in each country, each government, each
>political party, and of course in the UN. I have spent all my
>life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society
>without any objective scale is a terrible one indeed. But a
>society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy
>of man either." (A. I. Solzhenitsyn)
>---
-----
I'm always right. How can that be? It's a miracle!
Robert Mobbs
In article <31F520...@mbox.digsys.bg>, max...@mbox.digsys.bg says...
>
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>
>> > To All Pro-Death Activists and Propagandators
>>
>> Don't know any of those. Is that a Bulgarian organization?
>
>No, it isn't. It is the real name of the so called "pro-choicers".
What color is the sky in your world?
>> So, you just called over 75% of the US stupid, evil, deceived,
>> criminal,
>> murdering idiots?
>
>Yes.
*snicker* Perhaps we stupid, evil, deceived, criminal,
murdering idiots should stop subsidizing and protecting your
country.
>> Stay the fuck in Bulgaria, then.
>
>Abortion is an international issue.
So is stupidity, evidently.
Robert L. Mobbs
Microsoft WPG Software Development Engineer
t-rm...@microsoft.com
-
"Got blues drawing crosses on my front door
Blues a' bringing buckets round the back
Blues trying to push me from me white fence
And tar me a darker bluey black"
XTC
-- the opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and
not of Microsoft corporation
Robert Mobbs
In article <01bb797b.c8b230c0$1b643a9d@berrym133>, ber...@microsoft.com says...
>
>
>--
>The views expressed in this article are my own views and do not reflect
>the official views of Microsoft Corporation
>
>> 1. Try telling that to the judge. S/he will laugh the entire time you
>> are being sentenced.
>
>Sentenced for what?
Any criminal act you commit in the name of your god.
>> 2. What if the rest of the world chooses not to answer to your God?
>>
>
>We will all answer to God eventually, either in this life or the next
Prove or retract.