Why still so many people lobbying for anti-abortion laws?
Dave H
Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that abortion was
perfectly legal in the first tri-mester. No matter many annoying religous
people bitch about how its morally wrong and whatnot, that isn't going to
change the Supreme Court decision; as far as past 1st trimester, its not
that much of an issue, since most women who are pregnent will know if they
want an abortion by the end of the first trimester. There's nothing that
could be done to change that decision. Abortion is Constitutional. The
only way to change that is to have another Supreme Court Case where the
court over-rules its previous decision, deciding that abortion is
unconstitutional, OR to make Abortion Constitutional -- in other words, to
pass an Amendment making abortion constitutional. Amendments are serious
shit -- and there ain' no way in hell any democrats are going to vote to
make abortion unconstitutional -- they don't even have the balls to impeach
Clinton.
Aside from that, there is the fact that there should be some areas where
government should just not be involved in. Such areas, I believe, should
include, among other things: Abortion, gay/lesbian marriages, affirmative
action, assisted suicide, BS lawsuits(u know, the coffee one), and cloning.
Politicians, democrats and republicans, are really good at flapping their
gums about their moral beliefs, and passing a lotta bills, and deciding how
to deal with issues, but they seem to be quite unable to step back and shut
their yaps once in a while. Silence is golden. Despite my love of George
Bush, I am serious here, I liked him a lot, I don't think that he was in a
position to tell me that abortion was wrong -- even though he was a very
dignified man; similarly, who the hell is Bill Clinton to say that cloning
is "morally wrong". Politicians are some of the most immoral people in this
country, they should thus stay away from morality as much as possible --
hipocrasy doesn't become them very well. Basically, I think that the
government should ONLY regulate people's actions in so far as those actions
unfairly hinder other people's rights who are a part of the society that the
government governs. Thus, abortion is out of governments realm -- it
doens't affect the next door neighbors, and the child usually isn't even
truly human yet(fetus' resemble fishes and other creatures in their early
stages, proof of evolution kinda); thus, patient assisted suicide is out of
government's realm -- how is a doctor helping someone kill himself
detrimental to the rights of the other citizens of society?; thus,
affirmative action is out of government's realm, as it is bullshit to tell a
company that it should make race a priority over who could perform the best
in the job; besides, any smart employer wouldn't care about color, because
if he hired people on a racist basis, he would be losing money sometimes,
ie. where he hired an inferior white person simply because the other
candidate was black. Some things are just none of government's business,
nor none of our own. Who are all those Christian Coalition extremist people
to rally around abortion clinic and give the patients hell?
We speak of tolerance, and acceptance, but yet when someone's morality
does not match our own, we condemn him/her, and try to outlaw what they
believe in; we speak of freedom, but yet the very enforcer of that freedom,
government, seeks to take freedom away. In "The Republic", Plato eventually
concluded, "Justice is every one minding what is their own business." I
very much agree with him: Sometimes, we need to accept what other people
are doing even though we may not agree with it, simply because it does not
do us any injustice, nor other members of society. A American politician
once said, "I may not agree with what your saying, but I shall defend to
death your right to say it." That man was a hero, in my view.
el_c...@juno.com
"Dave H" <sch...@frontiernet.net> wrote:
> Ok, way back when, I forget the date, I'm not good at history, in a
> Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that abortion was
> perfectly legal in the first tri-mester.
You really should educate yourself before spouting off inane garbage. You
are probably thinking of Roe v. Wade; however that was a 7-2 decision. It
also did not state that abortion was perfectly legal in the first trimester.
What it did say was "For the stage prior to approximately the end of the
first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to
the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician." Thus, it
is perfectly acceptable for a State to pass a law prohibiting barbers from
performing abortions, even in the first trimester.
If you are thinking of another case, please cite it.
> ... Abortion is Constitutional.
No. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution at all. The Court did not
write abortion rights into the Constitution. All that the Court did was tell
the states that they could not violate the woman's human and civil rights.
> The
> only way to change that is to have another Supreme Court Case where the
> court over-rules its previous decision....
The Pro-Lifers like to compare abortion with slavery and the Roe decision
with the Dred Scott desision. Dred Scott was quickly overturned by the
adoption of a couple of Constitutional Amendments. All that would be
required to make repressive anti-abortion laws legal would be an amendment to
the Constitution that would eliminate the privacy and protection enjoyed by
U.S. Citizens.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Dave H
Yes I was thinking of the Roe v. Wade decision, and it was 7-2; the actual
number of justices voting for legalized abortion to the end of the 1st
trimester was irrelevent to my point, however; the point was, that because
there was not a 9-0 vote, that means that the Supreme Court's decision
lacked the authority that it might have had. Unaminous decisions are the
goal of the court so that its decisions have authority. When I said
abortions was legal, I did not mean that it was legal for quacks to perform
it; I was referring to the legality of a doctor/physician/whatever to do it.
Basically, it said abortion was legal in the first trimester, assuming the
appropriate authority rules it safe.
>No. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution at all....
Your understanding of the word, Constitutional, is skewed; for something to
be constitutional, unconstitutional, it does not have to be mentioned in the
constitution; if it goes against the ideas of the constitution, it is
unconstitutional. For example, in 1803, in Marbury v. Madison, John
Marshall ruled that Marbury had a right to the recpetion of his office, but
the Supreme Court did not Constitutionally have the authority to demand he
be given it, thus ruling the law which allowed the Supreme Court that
authority null and void. The constitution did not mention anyting about the
Supreme Court not being able to demand that someone receive his office,
after all, that is in the area of justice; but the Constitution did talk
about separation of powers, and the area of that power was not one vested in
the Court. The Constitution said, the Judicial branch "shall extend to all
Cases , in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...--to all Cases
afecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls..." A judge, like
Marbury was, was not included in that are of "public" which was not talking
about judges. He uses the implications of the Constitution. Similarly,
though Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution at all, a person's
right of the "pursuit of happiness" is mentioned, and that is one of the
basis' of the decision. Something does not have to be mentioned in the
Constitution the be Constitutional; ie. if the government said tommorow that
no individual could look at or read pornographic material, that would
quickly be taken the Supreme Court and ruled unconstitutional.
>...eliminate the privacy and protection enjoyed by citizens...
There is no way in hell that the Senate and the Congress would ever pass a
bill like that; they'd all be impeached, thrown out of office, and mobbed
within a few days even if they did. If Governer Bush of Texas announced
that he wanted to support an Amendment that would revoke the right of
privacy, he would be assasinated within days; I was speaking REALISTICALLY.
So long as we call our form of government a Republic, some of the Amendments
will never be ruled null and void by other amendments. In other words, it
isn't going to happen as long as the Supreme Court that we have now is
sitting, b/c they won't want to make the Court's authority diminished by
over-ruling that case.
Speaking of repealing those Amendments, the ones which are most
important the Americans -- I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VI, VIII, IX, XIII, XIV,
XV, XIX -- we really need to create another Amendment, as a buffer for those
Amendments so that they could not be repealed without that Amendment being
repealed, which would say somethig like, "The following Amendments to the
Constitution -- ...(list of Amendments) ... -- shall not be, under any
circumstance, negated, ruled null, or void, though they may be modified to
be more inclusive." That way, if some crazy McCarthy-like or George
Wallace-like Senator/Governer wanted to eliminate those Amendments, he would
have to first eliminate the buffer Amendment; that would provide some
valuable time for filibustering movements, rights groups, and potential
assasins to step up and make sure that he'd never get it done, even if he
was very popular(like George Wallace and McCarthy were).
Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love
> Ok, way back when, I forget the date, I'm not good at history, in a
>Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that abortion was
>perfectly legal in the first tri-mester. No matter many annoying religous
>people bitch about how its morally wrong and whatnot, that isn't going to
>change the Supreme Court decision; as far as past 1st trimester, its not
>that much of an issue, since most women who are pregnent will know if they
>want an abortion by the end of the first trimester. There's nothing that
>could be done to change that decision. Abortion is Constitutional. The
>only way to change that is to have another Supreme Court Case where the
>court over-rules its previous decision, deciding that abortion is
>unconstitutional, OR to make Abortion Constitutional -- in other words, to
>pass an Amendment making abortion constitutional. Amendments are serious
>shit -- and there ain' no way in hell any democrats are going to vote to
>make abortion unconstitutional -- they don't even have the balls to impeach
>Clinton.
It doesn't require a supreme court decision to forbid abortion. A
properly written state or federal law would get the job done.
> Aside from that, there is the fact that there should be some areas where
>government should just not be involved in. Such areas, I believe, should
>include, among other things: Abortion, gay/lesbian marriages, affirmative
>action, assisted suicide, BS lawsuits(u know, the coffee one), and cloning.
Should the government not be involved in prosecuting murderers?
Since you seem to like throwing around quotes, how about this one
"You just don't get it do you?"
Any idea? Kyle Reese from the Terminator.
LK
"If a president ever lied to the American people, he should resign."
-William Jefferson Clinton
Give us cable modems NOW!
ro...@adelphia.net
uad...@adelphia.net
webm...@adelphia.net
dom...@adelphia.net
postm...@adelphia.net
wec...@adelphia.net
req...@adelphia.net
ab...@adelphia.net
sa...@adelphia.net
aeb...@adelphia.net
jon...@adelphia.net
==And a big fat "FUCK YOU" to==
ti...@telerama.com
ti...@nospam.lm.com
sy...@telerama.com
sy...@nospam.lm.com
Eat well spambots.
Dave H
>
>Since you seem to like throwing around quotes, how about this one
>
>"You just don't get it do you?"
It bewilders me why u must be such a jackass. I said, "SOME" areas; not
ones of tremendouse consequence. A murder affects a whole society, and if
the murder is allowed to go free, the society is harmed b/c everyone is at
risk of being killed by that psycho; furthermore, the victims family will
live in fear. Abortion is not such a case. Society faces no threat from a
woman whose chosen abotion. And your quote, "You just don't get it do you?"
is, as I've come to expect from you, arrogant and degrading. Your hostility
of people who don't agree with you is of such magnitude that I dare not
conemplate what would happen were you in a position of power. You take
everything someone says and twist it; that is known as the "spin cycle" and
for someone who seems to hate Clinton, I know this based on ur quote of
Clinton at bottom of ur message, it is amazing to me that you are so
manipulative of words. Were I writing a dissertation for a phD in
philosophy, I would use precise language, and any little minute inprecise
statements would be quibbled over, but this is not that. Did it ever occur
to you that you could make the same point without being so sarcastic and
twisting? I suppose not. I guess to do that, you would have to strain
yourself with writing more than a few sentences, and that seems to be a
strain for you, since all of your responses are mostly short, snub, and
sarcastic, lacking depth; take a typing course so you can type more than 15
words per minute and will not feel strained to write an actual paragraph.
Now that was sarcastic. Was it comforting to be talked to sarcastically and
harshly?
Dave H
>properly written state or federal law would get the job done.
Oh, by the way, no court can bypass the ruling of the Supreme Court, since
the Supreme Court passes jurisdiction on constitutional intent and meaning,
and the Constitution is the Supreme Law;
"Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution,
and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end,
which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the
Constitution, are constitutional." -- John Marshall, in McCulloch v.
Maryland Case.
Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love
<whei...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>Should the government not be involved in prosecuting murderers?
>>
>>Since you seem to like throwing around quotes, how about this one
>>
>>"You just don't get it do you?"
>
This is going to be fun.
>It bewilders me why u must be such a jackass. I said, "SOME" areas; not
>ones of tremendouse consequence. A murder affects a whole society, and if
>the murder is allowed to go free, the society is harmed b/c everyone is at
>risk of being killed by that psycho; furthermore, the victims family will
>live in fear. Abortion is not such a case. Society faces no threat from a
A mafia killing doesn't affect the entire society. The victim's family
doesn't live in fear. Society at large is not in danger, but mafia
killers are routinely sent to jail.
>woman whose chosen abotion. And your quote, "You just don't get it do you?"
>is, as I've come to expect from you, arrogant and degrading. Your hostility
>of people who don't agree with you is of such magnitude that I dare not
>conemplate what would happen were you in a position of power. You take
>everything someone says and twist it; that is known as the "spin cycle" and
>for someone who seems to hate Clinton, I know this based on ur quote of
>Clinton at bottom of ur message, it is amazing to me that you are so
>manipulative of words. Were I writing a dissertation for a phD in
What is manipulative? I take the words of my opponent IN THE CONTEXT IN
WHICH they were used and make his words my weapons.
>philosophy, I would use precise language, and any little minute inprecise
>statements would be quibbled over, but this is not that. Did it ever occur
Language & words have finite meanings. There must be standards or
everything falls apart. What happens if tool makers decide to slack off
on the preciseness of their measurements? All of your 3/4 sockets will
now be .80 inches in diameter. Withough standards the world falls apart.
Without standards the language is meaningless.
>to you that you could make the same point without being so sarcastic and
>twisting? I suppose not. I guess to do that, you would have to strain
>yourself with writing more than a few sentences, and that seems to be a
I see no need in being unnecessarily verbose. I'd prefer to get straight
to the point than to ramble on in one huse unbroken paragraph. I guess
you haven't learned how to do that yet.
>strain for you, since all of your responses are mostly short, snub, and
>sarcastic, lacking depth; take a typing course so you can type more than 15
>words per minute and will not feel strained to write an actual paragraph.
I'll take another typing class when you take another grammar class. "ur"
is not a part of this language.
>Now that was sarcastic. Was it comforting to be talked to sarcastically and
>harshly?
I guess it was the best you could do, so I suppose that it was OK.
Dave H
>WHICH they were used and make his words my weapons.
First of all, your twisting the words. Don't give me that bullshit about
finding a more precise meaning; your using technicalities to try to
disqualify an argument when they aren't relevant. But that's fine, if you
want to bable on about what the meaning of the word is is, then go ahead,
but remember who your emulating. Finding a few minute imprecisions in a
person's argument and hyperbolizing them does not rip the argument apart,
but only proves how pett you are. I could easily find some irrelevent
technical flaw in every sentence you write and rip it apart, or go off on
how one thing you said is wrong, making it into a long tangent, but I don't.
>Language & words have finite meanings. There must be standards or
>everything falls apart. What happens if tool makers decide to slack off
>on the preciseness of their measurements? All of your 3/4 sockets will
>now be .80 inches in diameter. Withough standards the world falls apart.
>Without standards the language is meaningless.
Yes, there should be certain standards, as in everyone speaks the same
English with the same gramatical rules, but the language does not become
meaningless if a few words are used a little out of place, or if a phrase is
vague; the Constitution's strength comes from its vagueness. You may be
able to find a hundred gramatical errors in someone's essay, but that
doesn't mean you'll be able to find one logical error.
>I see no need in being unnecessarily verbose. I'd prefer to get straight
>to the point than to ramble on in one huse unbroken paragraph. I guess
>you haven't learned how to do that yet.
I suppose if I was still 10 years old, I would write in all short colloquial
sentences. Your "straight to the point" style lacks depth. Though short
sentences and short responses may be to the point, they are often simple,
being unqualified and without any factual or logical backing, which makes
them meaningless. Oh, speaking of imprecisions, I've never heard of the
word "huse". Now, because it was totally irrelevent to the point, because I
knew what you ment, that was a waste of my time to write, a waste of your
time to read, and a waste of the extra memory it took up to write.
>I'll take another typing class when you take another grammar class. "ur"
>is not a part of this language.
"ur" is short for your; perhaps you haven't ever been on a chat line, but
shortened words can come in very useful; some of my words will be shortened
like that, other's will not, but, quite frankly, I don't give a damn if that
isn't proper english because it is understandible. (w/ has become short for
with and it saves everyone plenty of time on essays; rnc is short for
reaction, and it saves time taking notes). RBC also isn't a word, but it is
almost univesally used for "red blood cells".
Oh, in response to your assertion that we don't let mafia men get away with
"whacking" their "family" members(other mafia men) is because that does
affect other people besides the murder and the victim -- the victim's family
is obviously hurt by it, and also the reason why the murder occurs is to
cover up loan-sharking, racketeering, and whatever other illegal things the
mafia is into. A woman having an abortion is different. Things we do
outside of our body -- fighting, running, anything that effects the space
outside of our body -- these are things upon which some limits must be
placed; obviosly, running is through a hospital is prohibited; however, we
should be lord and ruler over what we do that effects the inside of our
body(aside form drugs, drinking and driving, which can both cause people to
be violent); no one should tell us what to do with our own bodies, despite
the harm that my come of it -- no one can make a law that says I can't drink
poison, for example, even though it is obviously dangerous. The same thing
applies for a woman with a baby. The baby is dependent on her; she, like
everyone else, has no obligation to insure that it lives. A mother is
responsible for the fetus' existence in the first place, but that doesn't
mean she must make sure that it lives. For example, if you and me get in a
car accident, and your seriously injured and need a blood transfusion to
survive, assuming we both have type AB blood, I have no legal obligation to
donate that blood, nor can a law be made saying that must be the case.
I noticed you, uncharacteristically, refused to respond to the section in
which I talked about how you were trying to unfairly exert your beliefs on
everyone else -- more than likely because what I said was unarguably true.
UR welcome to ur views, & I "ain't" gonna try to change them, or try to
outlaw them, but please extend that same courtousy to everyone else. You
are in no position to tell every woman in America that it is morally wrong
for her to get an abortion. I think that, being close to the issue, they're
in a better position to judge than you are. Your welcome to you views, but
I don't want them enforced on me -- I don't believe in them -- nor do I want
anyone to be pressured into acknowledging your views --
Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love
<whei...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
<BIG SNIP>
>>I'll take another typing class when you take another grammar class. "ur"
>>is not a part of this language.
>"ur" is short for your; perhaps you haven't ever been on a chat line, but
>shortened words can come in very useful; some of my words will be shortened
>like that, other's will not, but, quite frankly, I don't give a damn if that
>isn't proper english because it is understandible. (w/ has become short for
>with and it saves everyone plenty of time on essays; rnc is short for
>reaction, and it saves time taking notes). RBC also isn't a word, but it is
>almost univesally used for "red blood cells".
>
>Oh, in response to your assertion that we don't let mafia men get away with
>"whacking" their "family" members(other mafia men) is because that does
>affect other people besides the murder and the victim -- the victim's family
>is obviously hurt by it, and also the reason why the murder occurs is to
I millions of us are hurt everyday when a woman kills her baby.
>cover up loan-sharking, racketeering, and whatever other illegal things the
>mafia is into. A woman having an abortion is different. Things we do
>outside of our body -- fighting, running, anything that effects the space
>outside of our body -- these are things upon which some limits must be
>placed; obviosly, running is through a hospital is prohibited; however, we
>should be lord and ruler over what we do that effects the inside of our
>body(aside form drugs, drinking and driving, which can both cause people to
>be violent); no one should tell us what to do with our own bodies, despite
>the harm that my come of it -- no one can make a law that says I can't drink
>poison, for example, even though it is obviously dangerous. The same thing
>applies for a woman with a baby. The baby is dependent on her; she, like
>everyone else, has no obligation to insure that it lives. A mother is
But she has no right to murder it.
>responsible for the fetus' existence in the first place, but that doesn't
>mean she must make sure that it lives. For example, if you and me get in a
>car accident, and your seriously injured and need a blood transfusion to
>survive, assuming we both have type AB blood, I have no legal obligation to
>donate that blood, nor can a law be made saying that must be the case.
>
>
>I noticed you, uncharacteristically, refused to respond to the section in
>which I talked about how you were trying to unfairly exert your beliefs on
>everyone else -- more than likely because what I said was unarguably true.
I have never disputed that I'd like to impose my views on others.
Fairness is another issue. Is it unfair that we're not allowed to kill
people over traffic disputes? No. Neither is this.
Ray Fischer
> "Dave H"
>> The baby is dependent on her; she, like
>>everyone else, has no obligation to insure that it lives.
>
>But she has no right to murder it.
That's why abortion isn't murder, fool.
[...]
>I have never disputed that I'd like to impose my views on others.
Another pro-lie dictator wannabe. Do you also want to do like most
other dictators and kill as many thousands or millions of people as it
will take to make sure human life is respected?
> Is it unfair that we're not allowed to kill
>people over traffic disputes? No. Neither is this.
Next time another driver climbs into your body, causes you pain and
injury and threatenes your life, feel free to use whatever force is
necessary to remove him or her.
--
Ray Fischer For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world,
r...@netcom.com and lose his own soul?
sae
abortion-by-demand. First, there is a callousness to life itself; second,
women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications in
later years; third, women who undergo abortions are more prone to medical
complications in later years (thus burdening our national health care system
with otherwise avoidable procedures); fourth, we are losing a significant
percentage of our viable population:
For instance, since 1974 more Jews have died in aborturaries than in all of
Hitler's death camps;
Also, ever notice the smaller percentage of teenagers currently
available in the workforce? Also, less wagemakers= less contributors to
social security= more liklihood that ss will fail eventually. Think about
that when someone's grandmother serves your next Big Mac; additionally, the
percentage of Caucasian-Americans (the ethnic group most prone to have/able
to afford an abortion) is declining in percentage to traditional minorities
to the state that Caucasians will be a minority in a generation or two.
The myth of 'unwanted' babies in this country is a myth constructed by the
pro-abortion people, for its next-to-impossible to adopt a healthy baby in
this country without waiting a significant period of time or paying a
significant amount of money. There are simply more loving homes for all
babies than there are babies to fill those homes. Many couples turn to the
3d world to adopt they are so desperate to have a baby.
In short, we, as a society, will continue to pay the costs for what amounts
to people's sexual irresponsibility.
Dave H <sch...@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:78ojtp$1stu$1...@node17.cwnet.frontiernet.net...
> Ok, way back when, I forget the date, I'm not good at history, in a
>Supreme Court case, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that abortion was
>perfectly legal in the first tri-mester. No matter many annoying religous
>people bitch about how its morally wrong and whatnot, that isn't going to
>change the Supreme Court decision; as far as past 1st trimester, its not
>that much of an issue, since most women who are pregnent will know if they
>want an abortion by the end of the first trimester. There's nothing that
>could be done to change that decision. Abortion is Constitutional. The
>only way to change that is to have another Supreme Court Case where the
>court over-rules its previous decision, deciding that abortion is
>unconstitutional, OR to make Abortion Constitutional -- in other words, to
>pass an Amendment making abortion constitutional. Amendments are serious
>shit -- and there ain' no way in hell any democrats are going to vote to
>make abortion unconstitutional -- they don't even have the balls to impeach
>Clinton.
>
> Aside from that, there is the fact that there should be some areas
where
>government should just not be involved in. Such areas, I believe, should
>include, among other things: Abortion, gay/lesbian marriages, affirmative
>action, assisted suicide, BS lawsuits(u know, the coffee one), and cloning.
Maritza Combes
sae <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message ...
>Mr. genius here is missing the point: society, a a whole is hurt by
>abortion-by-demand. First, there is a callousness to life itself;
Could you please verify with scientfic srudies that abortion leads to
a callousness about life?
Otherwise, it is your opinion.
>second,
>women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications
in
>later years;
Funny, all of the studies I've looked at say otherwise. Could you
please verify though empirical studies that that is the case? Of
course, I will naturally break them down to see if these studies are
methodologically sound.
And I will also provide all of the studies, with peer reviews, that
show that for the overwhelming number of women, negative postabortion
psychological sequelae has about the same rate as that of negative
post-partum psychological sequelae.
>third, women who undergo abortions are more prone to medical
>complications in later years (thus burdening our national health care
system
>with otherwise avoidable procedures);
Could you please verify that through medical studies?
>fourth, we are losing a significant
>percentage of our viable population:
Not with 1,000,000 immigrants entering this country annually, not
including the illegal ones. These immigrants tend to have higher
birthrates than most of us. If we ever still have a problem. I think
that opening our borders for about just one day will bring in about
20,000,000 people. It's hardly a problem.
> Also, ever notice the smaller percentage of teenagers currently
>available in the workforce? Also, less wagemakers= less contributors
to
>social security= more liklihood that ss will fail eventually.
These teenagers are not here to bail out any SS downfall that they
have not created. In other words, they are not slaves of the state,
or designed to benefit any governmental system.
I'll be waiting for the studies that make you so confident that all of
the statements you have made have been empirically verified.
Otherwise, they are just your opinion, and the facts themselves will
prove you wrong.
Ray Fischer
>Mr. genius here is missing the point: society, a a whole is hurt by
>abortion-by-demand.
Society benefits from legal abortion.
> First, there is a callousness to life itself;
Caused by the complete disregard for people exhibited by those who
consider the enslavement of pregnant women to be justifiable.
> second,
>women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications in
>later years;
Pro-lie disinformation. In reality, women who get abortion tend to
continue their lives without any problems whatever. Those who have
been forced to give birth suffer emotionally and even risk their lives
and even die rather than face unwanted motherhood.
> third, women who undergo abortions are more prone to medical
>complications in later years
Pro-lie disinformation. In fact abortion is the safest surgical
procedure performed, and childbirth is far more dangerous and
injurious than abortion, killing women at ten times the rate of
abortion.
> fourth, we are losing a significant
>percentage of our viable population:
Pro-lie disinformation. We are not losing ANY of our population, and
women are not breeding machines for the state anyway. Women who get
abortions tend to replace aborted fetuses with children later in their
lives when they're ready.
>For instance, since 1974 more Jews have died in aborturaries than in all of
>Hitler's death camps;
And in the last six months more children have died of hunder worldwide
that died in Hitler's death camps. Children YOU let die because you
couldn't be bothered.
> Also, ever notice the smaller percentage of teenagers currently
>available in the workforce?
So what? Do you think teens exist only to work for your benefit?
> Also, less wagemakers= less contributors to
>social security= more liklihood that ss will fail eventually.
Why don't you just work to have women and teens made into slaves for
your benefit?
> additionally, the
>percentage of Caucasian-Americans (the ethnic group most prone to have/able
>to afford an abortion) is declining in percentage to traditional minorities
>to the state that Caucasians will be a minority in a generation or two.
Scratch a pro-liar and find a racist.
Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love
>Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love <lordka...@sgi.net> wrote:
>> "Dave H"
>
>>> The baby is dependent on her; she, like
>>>everyone else, has no obligation to insure that it lives.
>>
>>But she has no right to murder it.
>
>That's why abortion isn't murder, fool.
Sure it is, it's just legal murder.
>>I have never disputed that I'd like to impose my views on others.
>
>Another pro-lie dictator wannabe. Do you also want to do like most
>other dictators and kill as many thousands or millions of people as it
>will take to make sure human life is respected?
I'm sure that a few dozen would get ths job done. j/k
>> Is it unfair that we're not allowed to kill
>>people over traffic disputes? No. Neither is this.
>
>Next time another driver climbs into your body, causes you pain and
>injury and threatenes your life, feel free to use whatever force is
>necessary to remove him or her.
So, are you one of those peoplw who views pregnancy as a disease that
should be "cured"?
sae
substance of a person's argument, start the ad hominum attacks. Moreover,
you make great quantum leaps of stupidity in order to justify your desire to
kill other human beings:
Specifically,
>Society benefits from legal abortion.
How? I'd love to hear your view of this. Perhaps its by killing off all
those "undesireables", "useless eaters", and other "unwanted" segments of
our society? (familiar words-- they should be, they worked in 1939 too)
>Caused by the complete disregard for people exhibited by those who
>consider the enslavement of pregnant women to be justifiable.
Ask any mother of a child if she thought herself enslaved. Every pregnant
woman made a conscious choice to have sex and incur the risk of getting
pregnant. (and don't start whining about the .00000000000001% of abortions
which are performed due to rape or incest) Moreover, no woman who gives
birth today has to keep the child post-partum, as there are literally
hundreds of couples who would do anything for a child to love for every
available child to adopt. Currently, its virtually impossible to adopt a
child of any race in this country. GET A LIFE!
> Those who have
>been forced to give birth suffer emotionally and even risk their lives
>and even die rather than face unwanted motherhood.
Such utter B.S. I can't believe you actually typed it without breaking out
into giggles. Show me a paper on the subject. Show me the testimony of even
ONE woman who saw death preferrable to motherhood. Bringing a child into
birth is biologically-driven-- making a conscious decision to kill that
child in the womb is not.
> In fact abortion is the safest surgical
>procedure performed, and childbirth is far more dangerous and
>injurious than abortion, killing women at ten times the rate of
>abortion.
B.S. Plus, one person in every abortion DIES. The only one who sees the
procedure as safe is the abortionist and his money-fund manager. Otherwise,
show me the scientific data.
>Pro-lie disinformation. We are not losing ANY of our population, and
>women are not breeding machines for the state anyway.
1 abortion= 1 less live birth. They did teach you math at whatever women's
college you went to, I hope. Once again GET REAL!
>> Children YOU let die because you
>couldn't be bothered.
And how many $ did YOU give last year to feed the hungry? How many hours did
YOU donate to the poor? (and I don't mean by buying the latest album which
donates .00001% of profits to the poor) Plus, its not the homeless and
dirt-poor who are having abortions; its the middle to upper class.
>> Also, ever notice the smaller percentage of teenagers currently
>>available in the workforce?
This is a BIG societal problem, whether you want to open your eyes or not.
>Why don't you just work to have women and teens made into slaves for
>your benefit?
For a Liberal, you're not up on liberal causes= social security is SOCIAL
security. That means we all pay in to fund a system for the benefit of all.
Once again, no slaves, just math. Less wage earners= less people to fund the
system. That means either eventually the system fails or taxes go WAY up
(the ultimate liberal's wet dream) By your rationale, all wage earners are
slaves.
>Scratch a pro-liar and find a racist.
I find that personally offensive. If I met you on the street you would need
the services of a good denitst and/or neurosurgeon the next morning. Once
again, get your head out of your ass and look around, but then again, sounds
like you never worked a honest day in your life anyway, what do you know...
P.S. if you're into Biblical quotations, try this one on for size: "Thou
shall not kill." (God's view on abortion)
sae
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1362/social.html
Maritza Combes <maritz...@sprynet.com> wrote in message
news:79439d$onl$1...@juliana.sprynet.com...
>
>sae <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message ...
>
>>Mr. genius here is missing the point: society, a a whole is hurt by
>>abortion-by-demand. First, there is a callousness to life itself;
>
>Could you please verify with scientfic srudies that abortion leads to
>a callousness about life?
>Otherwise, it is your opinion.
>
>>second,
>>women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications
>in
>>later years;
>
>Funny, all of the studies I've looked at say otherwise. Could you
>please verify though empirical studies that that is the case? Of
>course, I will naturally break them down to see if these studies are
>methodologically sound.
>And I will also provide all of the studies, with peer reviews, that
>show that for the overwhelming number of women, negative postabortion
>psychological sequelae has about the same rate as that of negative
>post-partum psychological sequelae.
>
>>third, women who undergo abortions are more prone to medical
>>complications in later years (thus burdening our national health care
>system
>>with otherwise avoidable procedures);
>
>Could you please verify that through medical studies?
>
>>fourth, we are losing a significant
>>percentage of our viable population:
>
>
>Not with 1,000,000 immigrants entering this country annually, not
>including the illegal ones. These immigrants tend to have higher
>birthrates than most of us. If we ever still have a problem. I think
>that opening our borders for about just one day will bring in about
>20,000,000 people. It's hardly a problem.
>
>> Also, ever notice the smaller percentage of teenagers currently
>>available in the workforce? Also, less wagemakers= less contributors
>to
>>social security= more liklihood that ss will fail eventually.
>
Maritza Combes
>To make a long story short, look at this website and respond if you
dare:
>
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1362/social.html
I WILL respond to every bit of it, with peer-reviewed journals, but
I'm tired of making the first move. I'm also in massive pain now due
to an infected tooth. I asked you for proof, but you gave me none.
All you did was refer me to a web site containing secondhand
information, and no references from primary sources. Make your first
move--let's start with PAS or PASS-then I'll blow you away with
primary research showing that PAS or PASS is speculation only not
backed by any solid research. Even if you have no primary references
to back up the notion of PAS, I'll still blow it all away to pieces.
However, I'm going to take care of this horrible pain first. I
promise I'll be back when this tooth is taken care of.
Pat Winstanley
writes
>Ask any mother of a child if she thought herself enslaved.
Yes... I do. However I also CHOOSE to raise the children I CHOSE to help
cause to exist (IE... gave birth to).
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<maritz...@sprynet.com> writes
See new thread: "Measuring Stress Of Pregnancy"
(As for the tooth.... OUCH!!!!)
--
Pat Winstanley
el_c...@juno.com
"sae" <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> To make a long story short, look at this website and respond if you dare:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1362/social.html
Starts with a misstatement of history, goes on with the usual Pro-Life lies
and deceptions, a self-selected poll, antedotal stories that cannot be
verified....
The usual emotional rant of little fact. Are you the author? Do you want it
torn to pieces line by line?
el_c...@juno.com
"sae" <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Mr. genius here is missing the point: society, a a whole is hurt by
> abortion-by-demand.
Since there is no "abortion-by-demand" it is difficult to see how society
could be harmed by it. Abortion has always been available. What the
Pro-Lifers are actually crying about is legal abortion. Abortion is legal
because it was found that illegal abortion caused more harm than it
prevented.
> First, there is a callousness to life itself;
Since the decriminalization of abortion we have seen great strides in gender
and racial equality, a growing intolerance towards abuse of women and
children, a growing tolerance of alternate life styles, a growing concern for
how the abuse of the enviroment harms people....
I am not saying that these strides in concern for human life occured because
of abortion -- but abortion has most definately _NOT_ created a callousness
to life itself.
> second,
> women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications in
> later years;
This is a standard Pro-Life lie that has been disproven by studies that have
been previously posted in talk.abortion.
> third, women who undergo abortions are more prone to medical
> complications in later years (thus burdening our national health care system
> with otherwise avoidable procedures);
Women who bear children have even more medical complications, during pregnancy
and childbirth as well as in later years. Thus abortion actually reduces the
burden on our national health care system.
> fourth, we are losing a significant
> percentage of our viable population:
Another lie that has been disproven by studies posted here in talk.abortion.
By use of abortion, contraception, or by just plain not having sex women will
have the number of children they want. The Pro-Lifers' push of abstinence is
proof that the above "reason" is bogus.
> For instance, since 1974 more Jews have died in aborturaries than in all of
> Hitler's death camps;
"The Slippery (Nazi) slope. This is a favorite mean for scumbling the
debate. Anti-abortionist ... cannot restrain themselves from dragging
Adolf Hitler out of the grave... It is a pejorative tactic that is
expressly unfair to pro-abortion citizens... They are not Nazis."
-- Dr. Nathanson, Aborting America, 1979.
> Also, ever notice the smaller percentage of teenagers currently
> available in the workforce?
Ever notice that more teenagers are staying in school and going on to college
-- becoming more and better educated and thus strengthening society?
> Also, less wagemakers= less contributors to
> social security= more liklihood that ss will fail eventually.
Ah, the cry of the ME ME ME generation. Everyone gotta produce more workers
to save MY retirement!
> Think about
> that when someone's grandmother serves your next Big Mac;
Ever think that she took that job because she wanted something to do? Most
grandmothers are no longer living in one of their children's homes helping
raise the next generation. My M-i-L is worth $millions and took a menial
level job just so she could go out and talk to people.
> additionally, the
> percentage of Caucasian-Americans (the ethnic group most prone to have/able
> to afford an abortion) is declining in percentage to traditional minorities
> to the state that Caucasians will be a minority in a generation or two.
I have a book that was printed in 1917 that has the exact same wail -- with
the minor difference that the declining percentage was the Anglo-Americans
and the increase was those scummy low-life Southern and Eastern Europeans.
That you are a racist bigot is no reason for me to oppose abortion.
> The myth of 'unwanted' babies in this country is a myth constructed by the
> pro-abortion people, for its next-to-impossible to adopt a healthy baby in
> this country without waiting a significant period of time or paying a
> significant amount of money. There are simply more loving homes for all
> babies than there are babies to fill those homes. Many couples turn to the
> 3d world to adopt they are so desperate to have a baby.
There are, however, many CHILDREN who need loving homes. That many couples
want to buy babies does not mean I should support forcing women to produce
them (with no mention of what happens to any surplus babies!) Babies are not
cabbages to be raised for market.
> In short, we, as a society, will continue to pay the costs for what amounts
> to people's sexual irresponsibility.
And there, finally, is the bottom line. Them shamless sluts are enjoying SEX!
Sorry, but you will hopefully need more than a pack of lies before you get to
punish women for the "crime" of enjoying sex that you do not approve of.
sae
constitutional right to privacy and saw abortion falling within that right.
its all judicially created by 70's-era activist judges. Had bush been
reelected, Roe would have been overturned by now-- as it was, it almost was
overturned with the Casey decision. Clinton's election peretuated the
holocaust.
<el_c...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:7971ok$3n6$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
Maritza Combes
>el_c...@juno.com wrote in message
<7970kt$2la$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>> To make a long story short, look at this website and respond if you
dare:
>> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/1362/social.html
>The usual emotional rant of little fact. Are you the author? Do you
want it
>torn to pieces line by line?
Like it or not, I'm ready to take it apart, line by line. However,
this is extremely long, so I'll skip the personal testimonies, since
they are merely secondhand information and anecdotal at best:
>Why Abortion in America
>has become a Social Problem
No proof of that, but let's go on:
>This is my view on why abortion in America has become a "Social
Problem" [sic].
Yes, YOUR view. There's already a problem here in this person saying
that.
>The definition of a Social Problem is a problem that affects groups
of people, and not just an individual. I am >using the "Conflict
Perspective" to help define this problem. What is the "Conflict
Perspective"?
>"Conflict theorists emphasize the inevitability of coercion,
domination, conflict, and change in society. The >conflict perspective
is based on the idea that society consists of different groups who
struggle with one >another to attain the scare societal resources that
are considered valuable, be they money, power, prestige, >or the
authority to impose one's values on society. For the conflict
theorist, a social problem exists when a >group of people, believing
that it's interests are not being met, or that it is not receiving a
sufficient share of >resources, works to overcome what it perceives as
a disadvantage.
Sounds good. Still theory though...
<snipped Roe v. Wade history due to brevity's sake>
>As legalized abortion has become an everyday part of American life, a
different side to it has emerged. >Where women once were aborting
because they 'did not want a child', the reasons being given now are
>becoming very different. Abortion has turned into something that
women are being coerced into from >boyfriends/husbands unwilling to be
fathers, out of fear of the financial pressure, out of panic from
losing their >jobs, out of panic from having to quit school, or become
homeless, or out of fear of their parents kicking them >out into the
street.
>Abortion for these reasons can lead to Post Abortion Stress Syndrome.
P.A.S.S is a type of Post Traumatic >Stress Disorder which develops
when a woman is unable to work through her emotional responses
resulting >from the trauma of an abortion. P.A.S.S. can have many
serious side effects, ranging from depression to >eating disorders, to
as severe as suicide. There are women who abort and do so completely
of their own free >will. These women have no regrets, no remorse, and
are happy they had this choice available. But a growing >number of
women are speaking up about how abortion affected them adversely.
Nope. This is where the facts have ended. No such animal as PAS or
PASS. Why? Let's look at how the concept was developed:
PAS (or PASS, but let's stick with PAS for now, since they're both the
same) was developed by Anne Speckhard. She published her findings in
1987, in a book titled *Psycho-social stress following abortion.*
Speckhard's research was poorly designed. Why? Let's look at her
research methods for a minute: Speckhard's sample consisted of only
THIRTY women who had reported that they had problems stemming from an
abortion that they had had in the past. This sample, in other words,
was not a probabilistic sample, randomly chosen from a huge
database--it was pre-selected, and way too small to make any
generalizations from, and that is bad news if Speckhard wanted to
make any conversation about nationwide prevalence rates.
The location from which she got her sample was never published by her,
and neither were the years that the women had their abortions. She
did not report her refusal or attrition rates either. FIFTY PERCENT
of the women had their abortions beyond the first trimester (odd
sample, uh?). In addition, the period following their abortion, when
they met with Speckhard, was 5-25 years. Therefore, Speckhard claimed
that these women were feeling bad about their having had an abortion
that occurred up to 25 years prior. How does she know that it was the
abortion itself that caused their symptoms? Well, she doesn't. And
how do we know she doesn't? Because she never took any PRE-TEST
(before abortion) measure of their symptoms. She only took a
post-test measure 5-25 years after their abortion. The idea that they
felt the way they did because they had an abortion in the past is
therefore pure speculation.
What about her assessment instrument? It was never normed, nor ever
tested for any reliability (through test-retest, parallel forms,
Crombach's alpha, or any other method) or any internal validity. The
instrument was created for the study only. In it she supposedly
measured the following symptoms: relief, grief, regret, anxiety,
depression, and guilt. Unfortunately, because the construct validity
of these terms was never determined, her test may have never measured
these symptoms at all. This is why it's so important to use an
assessment instrument that has passed the test of time, with high
measures of reliability and validity.
In addition, Speckhard did not use any control (comparison) groups in
her study of these 30 women. How do we know that their symptoms were
not within the normal ranges of symptoms experienced by all other
women? We don't, since her assessment instrument was never "normed,"
or statistically compared with the rest of the population of aborting
women.
Speckhard's study was totally worthless, and yet she used this study
to confirm the existence of PAS. You go figure...
Reference
Speckhard, A. (1987). *Psycho-social stress following abortion.*
Kansas City, MO: Sheed and Reed.
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). Prevalence of psychological
risks following legal abortion in the U.S.: Limits of the evidence.
*Journal of Social Issues, 48*(3), 37-66.
>Women who need help when they are pregnant and poor are labeled
"Welfare Mothers" and have a stigma >attached to them. The fathers who
helped in the conception of these pregnancies don't have the same
>discrimination. They may be referred to as 'deadbeat dads', but they
still are gone, leaving the woman to care >for the child alone. Women
are left with the ultimate responsibility, both physical and
economical. Child >support can be pursued and received, but this
oftentimes antagonizes the male even more towards the >unwanted
pregnancy and can create an atmosphere where he chooses to avoid the
child completely, out of >anger and frustration from the whole
situation.
This writer is overgeneralizing. Does he/she have statistical studies
to verify that this is the norm? Nope.
>Many women report that they were directly threatened by the father of
the baby, insisting that they abort. >Underage women report that their
parents 'made' them have an abortion, telling them "Abort or leave the
>house". To a young woman still in high school, staying pregnant and
becoming homeless is very scary and >overwhelming. These young women
abort, because they feel they have no other choice.
"Many women." I now see that statistical research, with good sampling
and sound methodology, is highly avoided here. I'll soon post the
results of a study here to show that this is not the typical case.
>Do men really do this? Do they push or threaten a woman into an
abortion? The following article discusses >how a pro-choice male could
view abortion.
>"By vesting all reproductive responsibility in the woman, a
pro-choice male creates a situation in which men >can easily
rationalize their irresponsibility toward women who choose not to
abort. As Daniel Callahan puts it, >``If legal abortion has given
women more choice, it has also given men more choice as well. They now
have a >potent new weapon in the old business of manipulating and
abandoning women.`` Given that 80 percent of all >abortions are sought
by single women (according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute) the
advent of reproductive >rights has created a situation in which a man
can coerce a woman to have an abortion by denying his >responsibility
towards her, or even abandoning her when she gets pregnant and
``chooses`` to carry the >pregnancy to term.
No research to back that up...I wonder why...
>According to feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon, ``Sexual
liberation in this sense does not free >women, it frees male sexual
aggression. The availability of abortion thus removes the one
remaining >legitimized reason that women had for refusing sex besides
the headache.``
>The anecdotal evidence for this interpretation is compelling.
ALL of the author's info has been anecdotal all right...This is why
it's worthless...
<skipped some more anecdotal stuff>
>Empirical studies have also demonstrated that male coercion and
pressure play a sizable role in many >women's abortion decisions. A
survey from the Medical College of Ohio, for example, examined 150
women >who ``identified themselves as having poorly assimilated the
abortion experience.`` Of the 81 women who >responded, more than
one-third felt they had been coerced into having an abortion. Fewer
than one-third >initially considered the abortion themselves.
No reference cited. That's because they're afraid people will tear up
the research like I did with Speckhard.
However, a SURVEY was mentioned, and that's bad news. Was the survey
tested for reliability and validity? Probably not. WAIT A MINUTE!!!!
AHHH!!! I see something here. The women in the sample--the
nonprobabilistic sample--WERE PRE-SELECTED!!! In other words, this
survey tested women who already expressed their dissatisfaction with
their abortion decision. No crap. So what? Women who have been
dissatisfied with their abortion decision have multitudes of reason
why they are dissatisfied. Life doesn't grant one to be free from the
influences of others. However, this survey says nothing about the
prevalence of women in America who have regretted their abortion
decisions.
>In cases where women initially chose to bear the child, their male
partners were opposed to the decision by a >margin of eight to one. In
all of these cases, the man withdrew his support for his partner
``thereby eliminating >that alternative.``
Since the sample for this survey was purposively selected, all of the
findings are worthless for making any generalizations from.
>Even in Carol Gilligan`s famous study _In a Different Voice_, not all
of the women's abortion decisions she >recounts were independent. Male
coercion played an important role in about one-third of the cases
cited.
And all of the cases were pre-selected, and her sample was small. You
can't say much with case studies.
Wilmoth and deAlteriis: "Although they may provide clinical insights,
case studies of 'severe mental illness' following abortion do not tell
us anything about the incidence of the problem."
Reference
Wilmoth G.H. and deAlteriis, D. (1992). Prevalence of psychological
risks following legal abortion in the U.S.: Limits of the evidence.
*Journal of Social Issues, 48*(3), 37-66:
>From my posted survey results, here are some excerpts of what some
women said. These are women who >had abortions, and now are suffering
from P.A.S.S.
Yeah, right....
<rest of anecdotal stories deleted>
Let's sum up:
1. The survey cited consisted of a pre-selected sample. That's a no-no
if you want to generalize to the population of aborting women as a
whole. If you want to generalize, you need a probabilistic (random)
sample. A researcher can get away with a non-random sample, but
she'll have to use what is known as a "haphazard" sample, or a sample
in which the outcomes of a women's abortion experiences are unknown.
A random sample, however, is the best, since one can determine the
confidence intervals for the statistic being measured.
2. Speckhard used small, pre-selected, and purposive samples in her
study. She can therefore not generalize her findings to the population
of aborting women as a whole. She also used an untested, post-only
instrument, meaning that she cannot tell if she was measuring her
constructs accurately, or if the women's symptoms were present before
they had their abortions. Her instrument was also never normed, which
means she cannot tell if the women's symptoms were fairly typical of
the population as a whole. She did not use control groups to compare
findings. Half of her small sample also consisted of women who had had
their abortions in the second trimester or beyond.
3. The rest of the stuff here consists of anecdotal stories or results
of case studies only. Totally worthless for making any
generalizations.
Not bad for twenty minutes and a horrible toothache to add to that!!
Ray Fischer
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love <lordka...@sgi.net> wrote:
>>> "Dave H"
>>>> The baby is dependent on her; she, like
>>>>everyone else, has no obligation to insure that it lives.
>>>
>>>But she has no right to murder it.
>>
>>That's why abortion isn't murder, fool.
>
>Sure it is, it's just legal murder.
What an idiotic claim. Muder is, by definition, illegal. If it's
legal it cannot be murder.
>>>I have never disputed that I'd like to impose my views on others.
>>
>>Another pro-lie dictator wannabe. Do you also want to do like most
>>other dictators and kill as many thousands or millions of people as it
>>will take to make sure human life is respected?
>
>I'm sure that a few dozen would get ths job done. j/k
The half dozen people murdered so far hasn't ended abortion.
>>> Is it unfair that we're not allowed to kill
>>>people over traffic disputes? No. Neither is this.
>>
>>Next time another driver climbs into your body, causes you pain and
>>injury and threatenes your life, feel free to use whatever force is
>>necessary to remove him or her.
>
>So, are you one of those peoplw who views pregnancy as a disease that
>should be "cured"?
I'm pro-choice, remember? I feel no need to control other people, and
pregnancy should be up to the woman involved.
--
Ray Fischer
>I find your comments the typical pro-death crap: when you can't attack the
>substance of a person's argument, start the ad hominum attacks.
Typical response of the pro-lie hypocrite: Whine about ad hominem
attacks while engaging in ad hominem attacks.
> Moreover,
>you make great quantum leaps of stupidity in order to justify your desire to
>kill other human beings:
"Dire to kill other human beings"? Oh wait, that's right. You're a
dumbshit hypocrite who doesn't have anything better than lies and and
hominem attacks.
>>Society benefits from legal abortion.
>
>How? I'd love to hear your view of this.
Libetry is a fundamental right which many people have died defending.
You want to take it away from people, forcing them to accept your
ideology or die trying.
> Perhaps its by killing off all
>those "undesireables", "useless eaters", and other "unwanted" segments of
>our society?
No, YOU are the one who wants to control people, killing them as
needed. I'm pro-choice.
>>Caused by the complete disregard for people exhibited by those who
>>consider the enslavement of pregnant women to be justifiable.
>
>Ask any mother of a child if she thought herself enslaved.
What a stupid response. As a person paid $15/hour to pick cotton if
he feels enslaved. _What_ one is doing matters not in the slightest.
What counts is who decides.
> Every pregnant
>woman made a conscious choice to have sex and incur the risk of getting
>pregnant.
Just as you've made a conscious choice to live and run the risk of
dying. I suppose then if that's justification for forcing women to
give birth then it's justification for forcing you to die.
> (and don't start whining about the .00000000000001% of abortions
>which are performed due to rape or incest)
You _are_ a dumbshit. Aside from the fact that it's closer to 5%,
your obviously bullshit percentage would mean that just woman had an
abortion because of rape. Ever. Anywhere.
> Moreover, no woman who gives
>birth today has to keep the child post-partum,
Oooo! Force her to suffer though pregnancy and childbirth and then
compound the torture by ripping her child away.
>> Those who have
>>been forced to give birth suffer emotionally and even risk their lives
>>and even die rather than face unwanted motherhood.
>
>Such utter B.S.
Don't assume your ignorant prejudices have anything to do with the
real world.
> I can't believe you actually typed it without breaking out
>into giggles. Show me a paper on the subject.
You mean you've never heard of even one woman dying because she tried
to give herself an abortion? You've never heard of a coathanger
abortion?
> Show me the testimony of even
>ONE woman who saw death preferrable to motherhood.
If she's dead she isn't going to be testifying, idiot.
> Bringing a child into
>birth is biologically-driven-
So is dying. Is that justification to kill you?
>> In fact abortion is the safest surgical
>>procedure performed, and childbirth is far more dangerous and
>>injurious than abortion, killing women at ten times the rate of
>>abortion.
>
>B.S.
According the the United States Centers for Disease Control, I'm right
and you're a stupid bigot.
> Plus, one person in every abortion DIES.
Just like a dozen people (sperm) die every time you ejaculate?
> The only one who sees the
>procedure as safe is the abortionist and his money-fund manager.
The only ones who see abortion as unsafe are the pro-lie propagandists
looking to get some money from the gullible.
>>Pro-lie disinformation. We are not losing ANY of our population, and
>>women are not breeding machines for the state anyway.
>
>1 abortion= 1 less live birth.
Wrong, idiot. A woman who gets an abortion can still get pregnant and
have a child. A woman wh does not get an abortion is less likely to
have another child.
> They did teach you math at whatever women's
>college you went to, I hope. Once again GET REAL!
Pull your head out of your butt.
>>> Children YOU let die because you
>>couldn't be bothered.
>
>And how many $ did YOU give last year to feed the hungry?
More than I demand that others give, hypocrite. And I don't pretend
to care - you do. I don't brag about how much I care while turning a
blind eye to the dying millions. You do.
>>> Also, ever notice the smaller percentage of teenagers currently
>>>available in the workforce?
>
>>Why don't you just work to have women and teens made into slaves for
>>your benefit?
>
>For a Liberal, you're not up on liberal causes= social security is SOCIAL
>security.
And yet here you are. A stupid fascist demanding the enslavement of
people for your benefit.
> That means we all pay in to fund a system for the benefit of all.
What's this "we" bullshit? You're not going to get pregnant. You're
not going to be forced to work.
>>Scratch a pro-liar and find a racist.
>
>I find that personally offensive.
Good.
> If I met you on the street you would need
>the services of a good denitst and/or neurosurgeon the next morning.
And you'd spend the next few years in prison and I'd sue you for what
little money you had. Assuming you survived the attempt.
> Once
>again, get your head out of your ass and look around,
WHy should I beleive some racist asshole?
>P.S. if you're into Biblical quotations, try this one on for size: "Thou
>shall not kill." (God's view on abortion)
Then you are a sinner every time you kill an animal or plant or
insect. That's what it says, isn't it? And by that reasoning, you
should be punished as a murderer, right?
Dave H
>legal it cannot be murder.
another, or who's about to kill you, or about to rape/abuse someone elses
fundamental rights; you have the right, as an outsider looking in, to shoot,
lethally since most people can't aim worth shit, a man beating the shit out
of his wife. If a baby is taking rights away from a mother that she does
not want to give away, she has the right to stop that. You can call it
murder; you can call it abortion -- it doesn't matter, its just a name; use
a euphemistic term or a pessimistic one, but it doesn't matter to someone
who can see the truth. Just for those of you who don't know, since I am,
after all replying to a pro-choicer, this is a PRO-CHOICE point. Sometimes
it is hard to tell, and I have seen one case where the same person makes
just as many pro-life points as he does pro-choice ones.
Dave H
>I find your comments the typical pro-death crap: when you can't >attack the
substance of a person's argument, start the ad >hominum attacks. Moreover,
you make great quantum leaps of >stupidity in order to justify your desire
to kill other human beings:
the only undesireable element of society if people like you whom feel
they must force their views on others, not being tolerant of other's
different opinions. You say typical of the "pro-death" camp, trying to use
a pessimistic term, as if that changes what pro-choice stands for. You
throw around words pertaining to logic(ad hominum), which few people here
even understand, acting as if you actually use valid logic yourself. Your
logic couldn't even compare to a Sophists logic. You say typical, as if you
know all of us pro-choice supporters, but yet you have made very little
attempt to know any of us. What I find "typical" of you pro-lifers is
preaching love and tolerance and then going out and rallying around abortion
clinics, blowing them up, harassing the clients, in some cases doing bodily
harm to them. Despite you calling us pro-choicers murderers, it is not we
who blew up a building symbolizing the opositions movement(we never blew up
a pro-life building)
>How? I'd love to hear your view of this. Perhaps its by killing off all
>those "undesireables", "useless eaters", and other "unwanted" >segments of
our society? (familiar words-- they should be, they >worked in 1939 too)
The only "undesireable" people in society are people who are intolerant,
like yourself. These so called elements of our society are within a woman's
body. I don't know if you've ever heard of the phrase -- hell, I'm just
some stupid teen who's never been on his first date, you say -- "Every man's
king in his own home". Well, it also applies to women. And our bodies
could be considered to be our own homes, the homes of our thoughts, I
suppose.
>I'm sure that a few dozen would get ths job done. j/k
(he's referring to killing people who don't believe as he does) Some things
are just off-limits to joke about. No one laughed. I didn't ask, but I'm
sure no one did; it doesn't even have that dry humor of English writing.
You wouldn't joke about African American people in the middle of a few of
them, would you?
>So, are you one of those peoplw who views pregnancy as a >disease that
should be "cured"?
Smartass. The inherent twistedness of that dignifies no response beyond
this sentence.
Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love
>Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love <lordka...@sgi.net> wrote:
>> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love <lordka...@sgi.net> wrote:
>>>> "Dave H"
>
>>>>> The baby is dependent on her; she, like
>>>>>everyone else, has no obligation to insure that it lives.
>>>>
>>>>But she has no right to murder it.
>>>
>>>That's why abortion isn't murder, fool.
>>
>>Sure it is, it's just legal murder.
>
>What an idiotic claim. Muder is, by definition, illegal. If it's
>legal it cannot be murder.
The word murder exists independantly of the law. Legal definitiona and
actual definitions aren't always the same. For example cocaine is legally
a narcotic, but in reality it is not, it's not an opiate so it can't be a
narcotic.
>>>>I have never disputed that I'd like to impose my views on others.
>>>
>>>Another pro-lie dictator wannabe. Do you also want to do like most
>>>other dictators and kill as many thousands or millions of people as it
>>>will take to make sure human life is respected?
>>
>>I'm sure that a few dozen would get ths job done. j/k
>
>The half dozen people murdered so far hasn't ended abortion.
I guess that some people can't understand tongue in cheek humor.
Dave H
it
>torn to pieces line by line?
and is not connected with a University or other Institution.
But I'll reply anyway, taking on the major points, as I saw.
"As legalized abortion has become an everyday part of American life, a
different side to it has emerged. Where women once were aborting because
they 'did not want a child', the reasons being given now are becoming very
different. Abortion has turned into something that women are being coerced
into from boyfriends/husbands unwilling to be fathers, out of fear of the
financial pressure, out of panic from losing their jobs, out of panic from
having to quit school, or become homeless, or out of fear of their parents
kicking them out into the street." -- Quoted from site
Having an abortion in any case means you do not want a child. I agree
that women should be more considerate than just considerin losing their
jobs, financial pressure, etc, but I nor no one else has any right to force
them to do so.
"Abortion for these reasons can lead to Post Abortion Stress Syndrome.
P.A.S.S is a type of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which develops when a
woman is unable to work through her emotional responses resulting from the
trauma of an abortion. P.A.S.S. can have many serious side effects, ranging
from depression to eating disorders, to as severe as suicide." -- quote
Has the author of this site ever heard of personal decision? These
women knew there could be consequences, but they did it anyway. Their later
problems do not justify illegalizing abortion. My father smokes cigarattes.
He will probably get cancer. That was his decision. The law, therefore,
has no right to illegalize smoking. There should be laws made requiring
clinics to fully brief clients on potential side effects, and counseling
under the clinics should be offered.
The website then goes on to talk about how men sometimes try to force women
to get abortions. Such behaviour and threats, as parents threatening to
kick their children out of their houses, or boyfriends threatening that
their lovers "better have an abortion", should be reported to the police.
In any case, this is no justification for illegalizing abortion; it is the
controlling actions of that individual, the parents or boyfriend, that
should be cracked down on.
``Sexual liberation in this sense does not free women, it frees male sexual
aggression. The availability of abortion thus removes the one remaining
legitimized reason that women had for refusing sex besides the
headache.`` -- according to Ms. MacKinnon
a true statement. Ever heard of responsibility? Of a guy thinking,
"jeah(I'm not sure how to spell that slang), I think I'll wear a condom so
this person I care about doesn't have to go through the ordeal of being
pregnant." Also, the additional "bargoning point" for guys when trying to
have sex may be true, but if a girl doesn't want to have sex, she should say
so, and he should respect her. If he cares for her at all, she won't need
to cough up a reason. If he doesn't, then he better be able to understand
the meaning of "NO".
"By vesting all reproductive responsibility in the woman, a pro-choice male
creates a situation in which men can easily rationalize their
irresponsibility toward women who choose not to abort." Mr. Callahan
I've heard that. I posted a few messages rebuking the idea. If a guy
gets woman pregnant, he risks the fact that she may NOT want an abortion,
and that he'll be responsible for the child. Another good reason to wear a
condom, and ask your girlfriend to use the pill. A true pro-choice male is
supposed to stand for a woman's right to decide, and to decide without
strings attached, without having to consider, "if I don't have an abortion,
he won't help me raise the child". Any person who calls himself a
pro-choicers and pressures a woman is a hypocrite.
"Of the 81 women who responded, more than one-third felt they had been
coerced into having an abortion. " -- at web site
Pro-choice stands for a woman being strong and doing what she thinks is
right for her, irrelevent of the outside pressures. That means ignoring her
boyfriend and possibly parents who want her to have an abortion; it also
means ignoring the pro-life people who'd call her immoral and a murderer.
Again, this is no reason to outlaw abortion. The author is essentially
saying that women can't stand up for themselve, in his coercion theory,
which is bullshit. (did u know that women have more total muscle than men?)
>Permissive abortion policy has created a climate where men can >enjoy
sexual relations with little or no concern for their >consequences.
the courts don't support this, that men can ignore their responsibilities
because they wanted her to get an abortion.
"This has been a very big deal for me. It has been a little over a year, and
I still think about it everyday, a couple of times a day. You don't really
ever hear much about the after affects in all the counseling that they tell
you about." -- written by Sierra
Your boyfriend, though supportive, was obviously a little bit
predjudiced. The man is supposed to stand by the one he cares about no
matter what she does. A guy, however is entitled to his opinion. He must
have felt fairly secure to be able to tell you what he thought. But you
should stick to what you think is good for you.
ANY abortion done when the women doesn't really want it will ALWAYS have
negative consequences later. That's why the woman should be sure that she
*really* wants it, and is not pressured one way or another, and is deciding
based on what the "little girls in the basement say"(her inner self). An
abortion done to a woman who *doesn't* really want it has consequences as
severe as rape, and that's what it is, rape. Just as sex can be good for a
woman if she wants it and is ready, but devastating and horrid for her if
she doesn't want it(rape), so can abortion be good for her if she wants it,
and devastating for her if she doens't really want it. In any case, I'd
suggest that if any women are unsure, they follow through and give birth,
because they can always give the baby away for an adoption, if they decide
in the 9th month that they wanted an abortion.
Dave H
> women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications in
> later years;
pyshcological problems, and women who were pressured into abortions, or who
didn't really want it. In any case, even if that's true of *all* abortions,
which it is utterly not, it doesn't justify illegalizing it. There's
something called personal choice. Sex without condoms makes one at high
risk to protracting HIV; the government doesn't outlaw it. We do many
things which harm us later, but which cannot and should not be outlawed.
Dave H
thought he did do little to enforce that view. Oh, in response to someone
asking me why republican's have the house and senate, I'll say that they are
for, in general, a reduction of government, which people agree with, and tax
breaks, which everyone likes. I am a Republican. The problem with
Republican's, though, is that they don't accept defeat; they don't think
that their views on abortion have been defeated; they think that their views
on abortion have been betrayed. Oh, btw, Bush was not exactly a favorite
among republicans -- he was supportive, for a while, of environmental
measures.
marcopol...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave H" <whei...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> >The usual emotional rant of little fact. Are you the author? Do you want
> it
> >torn to pieces line by line?
> You point to this as if it were authoritative. It is a private web site,
> and is not connected with a University or other Institution.
> But I'll reply anyway, taking on the major points, as I saw.
In other words, this web site is filled with opinions, not facts.
sae
1. murder was not prohibited by the state (yes, the state can proscribe
certain conduct) So, its not thought control or totalitarianism, but the
rule of law;
and 2. work is enslavement
The bottom line is that we cannot do as we please all the time (unless our
name is O.J., but that's another story) Abortion has little to do with all
the trauma of childbirth, etc. and everthing about sex. People want sex
without any risk. When an unwanted pregnacy occurs, they want to sacrifice
an innocent child so that they don't have to face the consequences of their
actions or otherwise be accountable. Once again, no pregnant woman is forced
to raise a child that she doesn't want-- there are plently of loving homes
out there (something you apparently lacked growing up). If the risk of going
thru the "horror" of labor is as severe as you think, then she should
practice 100% sure bith control or abstain altogether. Asking for an
innocent child to pay the ultimate price because its mother refuses to grow
up is unconscionable. You apparently have a monetary interest in this debate
so you are impermissibly biased.
Once again, get a life. Please come out and admit you are an abortionist.
Admit that the day will soon come when your conduct will be proscribed as
well.
P.S. The number of abortionists killed by the radical fringe of the pro-life
movement in recent years is what, less than 10... yet the number of children
killed in aborturaries is in the millions, as well as the number of women
killed, sterilized, and otherwise traumatized thru the malpractice of the
substandard near-medical school dropouts who elect to become abortionists.
Dave H <whei...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kHNt2.4334$EE2....@newsr1.twcny.rr.com...
>>I'm sure that a few dozen would get ths job done. j/k
sae
Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:rayF6J...@netcom.com...
r B.S.
>
>>
>Then you are a sinner every time you kill an animal or plant or
>insect. That's what it says, isn't it? And by that reasoning, you
>should be punished as a murderer, right?
>
You really display your stupidity here, abortionist. The Biblical passage
refers to PEOPLE. it doesn't take a med school dropout to figure that one
out.
sae
does.
Picture if you will, if tommorrow there was a cure for AIDS developed. The
only catch is that the serum has to be harvested by killing off someone
else. You might say, great! we have all these homeless people, lets use them
so that others may live fruitful, productive lives.
Would it be right in that case to kill off innocent third parties so that
others could get on with their lives?
Dave H <whei...@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ffOt2.4353$EE2....@newsr1.twcny.rr.com...
>> second,
>> women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications in
>> later years;
hrgr...@my-dejanews.com
"sae" <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:rayF6J...@netcom.com...
> r B.S.
> >
> >>
> >insect. That's what it says, isn't it? And by that reasoning, you
> >should be punished as a murderer, right?
> >
>
> refers to PEOPLE. it doesn't take a med school dropout to figure that one
> out.
>
"people" excludes zygotes and embryos.
HRG.
Pat Winstanley
writes
>>insect. That's what it says, isn't it? And by that reasoning, you
>>should be punished as a murderer, right?
>>
>
>refers to PEOPLE.
Where does it say that?
--
Pat Winstanley
Ray Fischer
> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love <lordka...@sgi.net> wrote:
>>> r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love <lordka...@sgi.net> wrote:
>>>>> "Dave H"
>>>>>> The baby is dependent on her; she, like
>>>>>>everyone else, has no obligation to insure that it lives.
>>>>>
>>>>>But she has no right to murder it.
>>>>
>>>>That's why abortion isn't murder, fool.
>>>
>>>Sure it is, it's just legal murder.
>>
>>What an idiotic claim. Muder is, by definition, illegal. If it's
>>legal it cannot be murder.
>
>The word murder exists independantly of the law.
The crime of murder does not.
> Legal definitiona and
>actual definitions aren't always the same.
I suggest you look at some actual dictionary definitions.
>>>>>I have never disputed that I'd like to impose my views on others.
>>>>
>>>>Another pro-lie dictator wannabe. Do you also want to do like most
>>>>other dictators and kill as many thousands or millions of people as it
>>>>will take to make sure human life is respected?
>>>
>>>I'm sure that a few dozen would get ths job done. j/k
>>
>>The half dozen people murdered so far hasn't ended abortion.
>
>I guess that some people can't understand tongue in cheek humor.
There is nothing you could say that would be more outrageous than what
has already been said in deadly earnestness by some extremist abortion
opponent. That's why sarcasm almost never words when coming from
someone anti-abortion.
Ray Fischer
>>Then you are a sinner every time you kill an animal or plant or
>>insect. That's what it says, isn't it? And by that reasoning, you
>>should be punished as a murderer, right?
>
>You really display your stupidity here, abortionist. The Biblical passage
>refers to PEOPLE.
Listen up, dumbshit. Fetuses are not considered to be people, and so
that commandment doesn't apply. Further, an ACCURATE translation
would read "Don't commit murder", and since abortion isn't murder it
doesn't apply there either.
So next time you citre Bibel passages try not to look like you're a
clueless dumbshit in the process.
Ray Fischer
>I would agree with you if the following were true:
>
>1. murder was not prohibited by the state (
Of course it was.
>(yes, the state can proscribe
>certain conduct) So, its not thought control or totalitarianism, but the
>rule of law;
Totalitarian states enforce their rule through opressive laws.
>and 2. work is enslavement
_Forced_ work is enslavement.
>The bottom line is that we cannot do as we please all the time
As long as you don't violate another person's rights, yes you can.
> Abortion has little to do with all
>the trauma of childbirth, etc. and everthing about sex. People want sex
>without any risk.
So what? Why do you think that sex should involve risk? Why do you
want to punish people for sex? Why do you want to punish _women_ for
sex? Because they won't have sex with you?
> When an unwanted pregnacy occurs, they want to sacrifice
>an innocent child so that they don't have to face the consequences of their
>actions or otherwise be accountable.
And you want to sacrifice women for your ideology. You sacrifice
children for your convenience.
[..]
>Once again, get a life.
YOU are the one trying to stick your nose into other people's lives.
> Please come out and admit you are an abortionist.
Please come out and admit that you're a pro-liar.
Ray Fischer
>But Dave, unprotected sex doesn't kill an innocent third person. Abortion
>does.
Abortion doesn't kill a person any more than a condom kills people.
>Would it be right in that case to kill off innocent third parties so that
>others could get on with their lives?
Tens of thousands of children die each day so that you can get on with
your life. What makes you so special?
marcopol...@my-dejanews.com
"Dave H" <whei...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
> > second,
> > women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications in
> > later years;
> pyshcological problems, and women who were pressured into abortions, or who
> didn't really want it. In any case, even if that's true of *all* abortions,
> which it is utterly not, it doesn't justify illegalizing it. There's
> something called personal choice. Sex without condoms makes one at high
> risk to protracting HIV; the government doesn't outlaw it. We do many
> things which harm us later, but which cannot and should not be outlawed.
Excellent response. All things present dangers to us. What should we do,
avoid life??
hereti...@my-dejanews.com
marcopol...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
snip
> Excellent response. All things present dangers to us. What should we do,
> avoid life??
Of course!
the fetus freaks have, so who the hell do you think YOU
are going out and enjoying it? You should be like them.
Mean, fat, dumb, ugly, and miserable.
It's like how George Carlin observed how the women picketing
abortion clinics are simply unfuckable (or words to that effect).
You know they get bitter and aggro knowing they flushed their
lives down the toilet, and don't think it fair some don't.
I remember years ago, some fat hausfrau told me that she had
to get married, to a man she didn't like, had kids she hated,
so why should us young girls have an easier time of it?
sae
too....meet you down at the unemployment office tommorrow morning... GET A
LIFE! MOVE OUT OF YOUR MOTHER'S BASEMENT... MEET REAL GIRLS (THAT YOU DON'T
HAVE TO PAY 1.99 A MINUTE TO TALK TO!)
<hereti...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:79b9kk$o1b$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com...
>In article <79an06$8ej$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> marcopol...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>snip
>> Excellent response. All things present dangers to us. What should we do,
>> avoid life??
>
>Of course!
>the fetus freaks have, so who the hell do you think YOU
>are going out and enjoying it? You should be like them.
>Mean, fat, dumb, ugly, and miserable.
>It's like how George Carlin observed how the women picketing
>abortion clinics are simply unfuckable (or words to that effect).
>You know they get bitter and aggro knowing they flushed their
>lives down the toilet, and don't think it fair some don't.
>I remember years ago, some fat hausfrau told me that she had
>to get married, to a man she didn't like, had kids she hated,
>so why should us young girls have an easier time of it?
>
ThomasPaine_II
>In article <eGNs2.2442$EE2....@newsr1.twcny.rr.com>, "Dave H"
><whei...@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>Should the government not be involved in prosecuting murderers?
>>>
>>>Since you seem to like throwing around quotes, how about this one
>>>
>>>"You just don't get it do you?"
>>
>This is going to be fun.
>
>>It bewilders me why u must be such a jackass. I said, "SOME" areas; not
>>ones of tremendouse consequence. A murder affects a whole society, and if
>>the murder is allowed to go free, the society is harmed b/c everyone is at
>>risk of being killed by that psycho; furthermore, the victims family will
>>live in fear. Abortion is not such a case. Society faces no threat from a
>
>A mafia killing doesn't affect the entire society. The victim's family
>doesn't live in fear. Society at large is not in danger, but mafia
>killers are routinely sent to jail.
>
>>woman whose chosen abotion. And your quote, "You just don't get it do you?"
>>is, as I've come to expect from you, arrogant and degrading. Your hostility
>>of people who don't agree with you is of such magnitude that I dare not
>>conemplate what would happen were you in a position of power. You take
>>everything someone says and twist it; that is known as the "spin cycle" and
>>for someone who seems to hate Clinton, I know this based on ur quote of
>>Clinton at bottom of ur message, it is amazing to me that you are so
>>manipulative of words. Were I writing a dissertation for a phD in
>
>What is manipulative? I take the words of my opponent IN THE CONTEXT IN
>WHICH they were used and make his words my weapons.
I think you said that before. It was just as untrue then.
>
>>philosophy, I would use precise language, and any little minute inprecise
>>statements would be quibbled over, but this is not that. Did it ever occur
>
>Language & words have finite meanings. There must be standards or
>everything falls apart. What happens if tool makers decide to slack off
>on the preciseness of their measurements? All of your 3/4 sockets will
>now be .80 inches in diameter. Withough standards the world falls apart.
>Without standards the language is meaningless.
Interesting ... and true.
Why, then, are most of your replies, at best, an extreme tangent of what the
original post was about?
>
>>to you that you could make the same point without being so sarcastic and
>>twisting? I suppose not. I guess to do that, you would have to strain
>>yourself with writing more than a few sentences, and that seems to be a
>
>I see no need in being unnecessarily verbose. I'd prefer to get straight
>to the point than to ramble on in one huse unbroken paragraph. I guess
>you haven't learned how to do that yet.
Sometimes it takes a sentence to say things clearly, sometimes it takes a
paragraph. Your ability to deflect and confuse the issue, in just a few
sentences, would be commendable if this were a comedy routine.
>
>>strain for you, since all of your responses are mostly short, snub, and
>>sarcastic, lacking depth; take a typing course so you can type more than 15
>>words per minute and will not feel strained to write an actual paragraph.
>
>I'll take another typing class when you take another grammar class. "ur"
>is not a part of this language.
>
>>Now that was sarcastic. Was it comforting to be talked to sarcastically and
>>harshly?
>
>I guess it was the best you could do, so I suppose that it was OK.
Gee. Maybe he just isn't as adept at being bull headed as you are.
ThomasPaine_II
>In article <rayF6G...@netcom.com>, r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Lord Kano-The Gangster of Love <lordka...@sgi.net> wrote:
>>> "Dave H"
>>
>>>> The baby is dependent on her; she, like
>>>>everyone else, has no obligation to insure that it lives.
>>>
>>>But she has no right to murder it.
>>
>>That's why abortion isn't murder, fool.
>
>Sure it is, it's just legal murder.
Odd that your personal opinion is quite different than the learned men and
women of our judicial system.
>
>>>I have never disputed that I'd like to impose my views on others.
>>
>>Another pro-lie dictator wannabe. Do you also want to do like most
>>other dictators and kill as many thousands or millions of people as it
>>will take to make sure human life is respected?
>
>I'm sure that a few dozen would get ths job done. j/k
Even one would make you the same as the very evil you speak out against.
But, I guess it's ok .... because you're killing for the right reasons ..
yours.
>
>>> Is it unfair that we're not allowed to kill
>>>people over traffic disputes? No. Neither is this.
>>
>>Next time another driver climbs into your body, causes you pain and
>>injury and threatenes your life, feel free to use whatever force is
>>necessary to remove him or her.
>
>So, are you one of those peoplw who views pregnancy as a disease that
>should be "cured"?
Weren't you the one who claimed that you use other peoples words as weapons
against them (and do not twist what is being discussed)?
Now ... when, exactly, did the other poster mention anything about pregnancy
being a disease?
ThomasPaine_II
>Mr. genius here is missing the point: society, a a whole is hurt by
>abortion-by-demand.
Without proof or evidence, that is nothing more than a personal
(philosophical) opinion. I can just as easily state that society, as a whole,
is hurt one hell of a lot by unwanted babies who were brought to full term and
ended up out in the streets.
First, there is a callousness to life itself;
Callousness to life does not begin or end with abortions.
The most obvious, and common, disrespect for life is when one person's ego
supersedes another person's rights.
second,
>women who undergo abortions tend to have psychological complications in
>later years;
Claimed before, but never proven.
It seems more likely that women forced to have a baby they don't want would
not only have more and more severe psychological problems - but she would
also have a traumatized child.
third, women who undergo abortions are more prone to medical
>complications in later years (thus burdening our national health care system
>with otherwise avoidable procedures);
Again ... claimed but never proven.
Wasn't it Margaret Sanger, early in this century, who fought for woman's rights
partially because so many women died at an early age due to being baby
factories?
fourth, we are losing a significant
>percentage of our viable population:
Duh ... what?
We're losing a significant portion of our "pre 21" age group because the post
war baby boomers have grown.
No matter what the number, if there are still people living in poverty;
uneducated, barely clothed .... then we aren't dealing effectively with the
populace we have.
And you're saying "don't abort ... we need more numbers"?
That's crazy.
>
>For instance, since 1974 more Jews have died in aborturaries than in all of
>Hitler's death camps;
> Also, ever notice the smaller percentage of teenagers currently
>available in the workforce? Also, less wagemakers= less contributors to
>social security= more liklihood that ss will fail eventually. Think about
>that when someone's grandmother serves your next Big Mac; additionally, the
>percentage of Caucasian-Americans (the ethnic group most prone to have/able
>to afford an abortion) is declining in percentage to traditional minorities
>to the state that Caucasians will be a minority in a generation or two.
aka ... quit having abortions or else the blacks and hispanics will take over!
Sounds a little neo nazi to me.
>
>The myth of 'unwanted' babies in this country is a myth constructed by the
>pro-abortion people,
It's a reality. That you decide to be blind, doesn't make it a myth.
for its next-to-impossible to adopt a healthy baby in
>this country without waiting a significant period of time or paying a
>significant amount of money.
As long as your criteria is white - 1 year old or less - healthy and with a
good family medical history.
But what about the hundreds of thousand that don't fit into those categories?
Oh .... that's right ... they don't exist ... they're a myth.
There are simply more loving homes for all
>babies than there are babies to fill those homes. Many couples turn to the
>3d world to adopt they are so desperate to have a baby.
That would sound right, if it weren't for the fact of all those mythical kids
out there in the streets.
BTW..... although I'm not in the field .... I could probably call around and
find a black child who was born addicted to crack cocaine. Mother's an addict
and daddy's no where to be found (if momma knew which one was the daddy).
Are you interested in adopting him or her?
If so, I imagine - since I live near a fairly large city, I could find a dozen
for you to adopt.
Or how about a 14 year old? Black; dad's dead or in jail, mom's dead or just
left him somewhere. Been waiting for adoption ever since he was 8 (seems like
everyone wants cute little white babies).
You have a home for him?
>
>In short, we, as a society, will continue to pay the costs for what amounts
>to people's sexual irresponsibility.
That's true.
All those mythical kids out there, partially because people like you treat
them as mythical, will end up either being a burden on society through health
costs, or judicial costs .. or both.
???? Why aren't the anti-abortionists fighting like all hell for sex education
so these unwanted pregnancies wouldn't happen????
sae
verb 'to murder" preceeded bu the negative)
Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is the unborn given a status different than
living, breathing humans. In fact, in the oft-quoted passage re the
accidential killing of the unborn, the same word used for child is the same
word used for living, breathing children such as Samuel, David, and in the
messianic passages refering to Christ in Isiah 9. The PSalmist also refers
to the unborn as sentinent beings.
Also, the New Testamen clearly shows the unborn John the Baptizer being
cognizant of the unborn Jesus WHILE IN THE WOMB.
If you want to justify your murders, you must do so without the use of the
Bible, for God has clearly spoken on this issue.
As such, the whole zygote/fetus thing is simply a smokescreen to deny the
obvious... a seed, left to germinate becomes a tree, a puppy, left to
gestate becomes a dog, a fetus left to gestate becomes a baby. To deny the
fetus the right to gestate is to deny it life. The intentional denial of
life is MURDER!
Unless you're an Abortionist like Ray, or O.J. Simpson, this argument makes
sense.
Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:rayF6L...@netcom.com...
>sae <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>
>>>Then you are a sinner every time you kill an animal or plant or
>>>insect. That's what it says, isn't it? And by that reasoning, you
>>>should be punished as a murderer, right?
>>
>>You really display your stupidity here, abortionist. The Biblical passage
>>refers to PEOPLE.
>
>Listen up, dumbshit. Fetuses are not considered to be people, and so
>that commandment doesn't apply. Further, an ACCURATE translation
>would read "Don't commit murder", and since abortion isn't murder it
>doesn't apply there either.
>
>So next time you citre Bibel passages try not to look like you're a
>clueless dumbshit in the process.
>
Dave H
Your god, of your belief, has spoken on that issue; and you have no proof
that you correctly understand him. In the times of slavery, the Bible was
used to juistify slavery, and they all "thought" they were a pious and
loving people. A document can be twisted a hundred ways, and, most often,
the reader hears in it what he wants to hear. But isn't that what we all
hear best, what we want to hear?
ie., I somone, amidst a crowd, said to you, "hey, can you please loan me 30
dollar," the probability of you hearing them is not so high; however, if Pam
Anderson said to you, "hey!, I want to take you into my bed and have some
fun," you'd probably hear her. People are always listening for certain
ideas, pleasing ideas, and you see only what you look for, hear only what
you want to.
Matt Pillsbury
r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
> sae <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[...]
> >Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is the unborn given a status different than
> >living, breathing humans.
> True, but that's because there isn't a Hebrew Bible at all. There's a
> Christian Bible and a Hebrew Torah. And I also note that nowhere in
> either are computers given a different status than born people.
Well, there is the Hebrew Tanakh, which is a superset of the books of
the Torah, but also contains the rest of the books of the "Old
Testament" that are contained in the Christian Bible. This might count
as a "Hebrew Bible".
Of course, all of it is still mute on the topic of abortion.
--< Matt Pillsbury >--< p i l l s y [at] b r o w n [dot] e d u >--
"Happiness is a loaded weapon."
Sisters of Mercy, "Under The Gun"
Ray Fischer
>Actually abortionist,
We already know you're an asshole.
> the passage in Hebrew reads: NO MURDER! (simply the
>verb 'to murder" preceeded bu the negative)
Good! And abortion isn't murder. Never has been.
>Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is the unborn given a status different than
>living, breathing humans.
True, but that's because there isn't a Hebrew Bible at all. There's a
Christian Bible and a Hebrew Torah. And I also note that nowhere in
either are computers given a different status than born people.
> In fact, in the oft-quoted passage re the
>accidential killing of the unborn, the same word used for child is the same
Why don't you actually quote some of these passages?
[...]
>If you want to justify your murders,
You're an obvious liar. Provide proof for your claims or crawl back
under your rock.
sae
life. Pure nonsense.
One person died so that I can get on with eternity, and that was nearly
2,000 years ago.
Ray Fischer <r...@netcom.com> wrote in message
news:rayF6L...@netcom.com...
>sae <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>But Dave, unprotected sex doesn't kill an innocent third person. Abortion
>>does.
>
>Abortion doesn't kill a person any more than a condom kills people.
>
>>Would it be right in that case to kill off innocent third parties so that
>>others could get on with their lives?
>
>Tens of thousands of children die each day so that you can get on with
>your life. What makes you so special?
>
sae
not begin or end with abortions.
>The most obvious, and common, disrespect for life is when one person's ego
>supersedes another person's rights.
>"
THAT's the point. Abortion is not about someone fostering their views on the
mother, but the MOTHER denying her child life because she: 1) refuses to
grow up; 2) won't take responsibility; 3) is afraid to accept the
consequences of her actions; or 4) is hooked up with some scumbag who either
left her at the first mention of pregnacy or won't take responsibility as in
#1-3.
You can couch this as you want, by justifying it with the zygote argument,
or argue pragmatics, or say "hey! what about the starving kids in Uganda,
let's take care of them first, etc." but the bottom line is that an innocent
child, at whatever stage of its development you want to believe it is at, is
being denied the right to EXIST. If this child is left to gestate,
undeniably, it becomes a full member of our human race; how are WE to tell
it that it cannot be born? Even stripping the religion out of the argument,
it is too presumptious for me or you to deny that potential-person (as you
might say) the right to BE. Who are we to judgmentally say: "this kid is
doomed from the start-- abort him now so he won't end up on the streets."
I'm sorry, no one should play God. Period.
PLUS, it is a MYTH that babies are unwanted. If that is not so, why are
infertile couples in this country so desperate to have a child that they can
love that they are going to the third world and spending 25-50 grand for a
child to adopt? The bottom line is that No baby born in this country needs
to go homeless. The ones you claim are homeless are born of homeless women
or ones cast out, etc. There are few, if any homeless women walking into
Planned Parenthood, you know that as well as I do-- (also, abortion isn't
funded by Medicaid, right?) Abortions are maily performed on middle-to-upper
class white and Jewish women who could easily support a child if they chose
to do so.
ThomasPaine_II <ThomasP...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:79eli0$1kf$5...@208.231.48.41...
ThomasPaine_II
>Thomas, we finally agree on something: you said" >Callousness to life does
>not begin or end with abortions.
>>The most obvious, and common, disrespect for life is when one person's ego
>>supersedes another person's rights.
>>"
>
>THAT's the point. Abortion is not about someone fostering their views on the
>mother, but the MOTHER denying her child life
Or you stating that the mother should live by your personal rules and beliefs.
You put your emphasis on the "potential" childs life. The expectant mother
puts the emphasis on other things - from one - or some - of dozens of
reasons.
because she: 1) refuses to
>grow up; 2) won't take responsibility; 3) is afraid to accept the
>consequences of her actions; or 4) is hooked up with some scumbag who either
>left her at the first mention of pregnacy or won't take responsibility as in
>#1-3.
I hope you aren't really stating that these are the only reasons for an
abortion. They're all emotional propaganda, and mostly your opinion.
for all the real reasons, one would have to talk with the women who had
abortions - not those wishing to ban them.
>
>You can couch this as you want, by justifying it with the zygote argument,
>or argue pragmatics, or say "hey! what about the starving kids in Uganda,
>let's take care of them first, etc." but the bottom line is that an innocent
>child, at whatever stage of its development you want to believe it is at, is
>being denied the right to EXIST.
Good point. Now; explain to me where anyone or anything guarantees the "right
to exist from the moment of conception".
Our government protects your right to exist after you are born, or when your
birth is inevitable (third trimester?).
I don't see any guarantees or protections al the way back to fertilization.
If this child is left to gestate,
>undeniably, it becomes a full member of our human race; how are WE to tell
>it that it cannot be born? Even stripping the religion out of the argument,
>it is too presumptious for me or you to deny that potential-person (as you
>might say) the right to BE. Who are we to judgmentally say: "this kid is
>doomed from the start-- abort him now so he won't end up on the streets."
>I'm sorry, no one should play God. Period.
The "on the street" argument was not meant to justify abortion but to put a
little reality into the anti-abortion concept that every child born has a life
equivalent to average, middle income, white suburban america.
>
>
>PLUS, it is a MYTH that babies are unwanted. If that is not so, why are
>infertile couples in this country so desperate to have a child that they can
>love that they are going to the third world and spending 25-50 grand for a
>child to adopt? The bottom line is that No baby born in this country needs
>to go homeless.
The bottom line is the reality that many do.
Your arguments cannot be right, because the fact that they are out there -
unadopted - is real.
I don't understand why others spend money to adopt from Europe rather than
those in need here; but the truth is, they do. ... and those in need here are
still there.
The ones you claim are homeless are born of homeless women
>or ones cast out, etc. There are few, if any homeless women walking into
>Planned Parenthood, you know that as well as I do-- (also, abortion isn't
>funded by Medicaid, right?) Abortions are maily performed on middle-to-upper
>class white and Jewish women who could easily support a child if they chose
>to do so.
Those that end up in child care centers (orphanages and the like) are there
for a variety of reasons. It's naive to think that you know why unless you've
been there and studied the issue. Something makes me think you haven't
The same thing applies to who gets abortions and why.
Seems you like to make a lot of blanket, emotional and non factual assertions
without knowing the real truth.
sae
Hebrew Scriptures as a whole (Tanak--which includes the prophets, psalms,
and historical books), which are commonly referred to as the "Hebrew Bible"
by both scholars, Jews, and Christians alike, who do not want to use the
sometimes misued-used term "Old Testament". If you don't like my POV, at
least try to discuss the content and not pull idiocies out of your ass-- its
kinda like me walking into an operating room and telling the surgeon that
the gall bladder is really the patient's heart...
Otherwise, since you know so much, you need to write Harvard, among other
places, and tell them they have been wrong all these years...
Matt Pillsbury <pil...@seesig.edu> wrote in message
news:m0n22sn...@brsp.ml.org...
>[--a.s.a snipped--]
>
>r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>
>> sae <[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>[...]
>> >Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is the unborn given a status different than
>> >living, breathing humans.
>
>> True, but that's because there isn't a Hebrew Bible at all. There's a
>> Christian Bible and a Hebrew Torah. And I also note that nowhere in
>> either are computers given a different status than born people.
>
sae
streets. Once again, the issue is not homeless people having abortions (for
they do not for the most part), but those who are comfortably esconded in
their homes. Moreover, applying your reasoning-- shouldn't the solution be
to get rid of these homeless people who have already wrecked their lives
rather than deny someone else a fresh start in the world? Kinda like an ex
post facto abortion. I'm sorry, even if our streets were overrun with the
homeless, it still doesn't justify murdering anyone-- be it a street person
or an unborn child/embryo/fetus/zygote. Both the street person and the fetus
have a right to EXIST. (And no, governmental definitions change with the
times; had Bush been reelected president we would all be arguing the
aftermath of Roe's abandonment, and forty years from now, we will probably
be doing that)
You are always neglecting the innocence of the child in the abortion-- why
should the child be denied life to foster the will/goals, etc. of the
mother? Isn't that selfish? (and why not?-- and don't fall back on "its not
really a child"-- for it WILL be a child if left alone)
Once again, its a selfish mother sacrificing the life of another because she
refuses to grow up.
ThomasPaine_II <ThomasP...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:79hpfv$svr$0...@208.231.48.46...
>In article <ixTu2.3835$Xl5.5...@news1.mia>, "sae"
<[nospam]sae...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Thomas, we finally agree on something: you said" >Callousness to life does
>>not begin or end with abortions.
>>>The most obvious, and common, disrespect for life is when one person's
ego
>>>supersedes another person's rights.
>>>"
>>
>>THAT's the point. Abortion is not about someone fostering their views on
the
>>mother, but the MOTHER denying her child life
>
>Or you stating that the mother should live by your personal rules and
beliefs.
>You put your emphasis on the "potential" childs life. The expectant mother
>puts the emphasis on other things - from one - or some - of dozens of
>reasons.
>
>
> because she: 1) refuses to
>>grow up; 2) won't take responsibility; 3) is afraid to accept the
>>consequences of her actions; or 4) is hooked up with some scumbag who
either
>>left her at the first mention of pregnacy or won't take responsibility as
in
>>#1-3.
>
>I hope you aren't really stating that these are the only reasons for an
>abortion. They're all emotional propaganda, and mostly your opinion.
>for all the real reasons, one would have to talk with the women who had
>abortions - not those wishing to ban them.
>
>
>>
>>You can couch this as you want, by justifying it with the zygote argument,
>>or argue pragmatics, or say "hey! what about the starving kids in Uganda,
>>let's take care of them first, etc." but the bottom line is that an
innocent
>>child, at whatever stage of its development you want to believe it is at,
is
>>being denied the right to EXIST.
>
>Good point. Now; explain to me where anyone or anything guarantees the
"right
>to exist from the moment of conception".
>Our government protects your right to exist after you are born, or when
your
>birth is inevitable (third trimester?).
>I don't see any guarantees or protections al the way back to fertilization.
>
>
>
>If this child is left to gestate,
>>undeniably, it becomes a full member of our human race; how are WE to tell
>>it that it cannot be born? Even stripping the religion out of the
argument,
>>it is too presumptious for me or you to deny that potential-person (as you
>>might say) the right to BE. Who are we to judgmentally say: "this kid is
>>doomed from the start-- abort him now so he won't end up on the streets."
>>I'm sorry, no one should play God. Period.
>
>The "on the street" argument was not meant to justify abortion but to put a
>little reality into the anti-abortion concept that every child born has a
life
>equivalent to average, middle income, white suburban america.
>
>
>>
>>
>>PLUS, it is a MYTH that babies are unwanted. If that is not so, why are
>>infertile couples in this country so desperate to have a child that they
can
>>love that they are going to the third world and spending 25-50 grand for a
>>child to adopt? The bottom line is that No baby born in this country needs
>>to go homeless.
>
>The bottom line is the reality that many do.
>Your arguments cannot be right, because the fact that they are out there -
>unadopted - is real.
>I don't understand why others spend money to adopt from Europe rather than
>those in need here; but the truth is, they do. ... and those in need here
are
>still there.
>
>
>
>
> The ones you claim are homeless are born of homeless women
>>or ones cast out, etc. There are few, if any homeless women walking into
>>Planned Parenthood, you know that as well as I do-- (also, abortion isn't
>>funded by Medicaid, right?) Abortions are maily performed on
middle-to-upper
>>class white and Jewish women who could easily support a child if they
chose
>>to do so.
>
Ray Fischer
>That's B.S. tens of thousands of children do not die so I can get on with my
>life. Pure nonsense.
Of course it's true. 30,000 children die of uhnger each and every day
worldwide, and many would live if people like you would part with
$20/month. But you prefer to spend your money on your toys.
>One person died so that I can get on with eternity, and that was nearly
>2,000 years ago.
And what did he say about the rich getting into heaven?
Dean Bromley
>
> I simply do not see these unwashed hordes of unwanted children wandering the
> streets. Once again, the issue is not homeless people having abortions (for
> they do not for the most part), but those who are comfortably esconded in
> their homes. Moreover, applying your reasoning-- shouldn't the solution be
> to get rid of these homeless people who have already wrecked their lives
> rather than deny someone else a fresh start in the world? Kinda like an ex
> post facto abortion. I'm sorry, even if our streets were overrun with the
> homeless, it still doesn't justify murdering anyone-- be it a street person
> or an unborn child/embryo/fetus/zygote. Both the street person and the fetus
> have a right to EXIST. (And no, governmental definitions change with the
> times; had Bush been reelected president we would all be arguing the
> aftermath of Roe's abandonment, and forty years from now, we will probably
> be doing that)
>
> You are always neglecting the innocence of the child in the abortion-- why
> should the child be denied life to foster the will/goals, etc. of the
> mother? Isn't that selfish? (and why not?-- and don't fall back on "its not
> really a child"-- for it WILL be a child if left alone)
>
> Once again, its a selfish mother sacrificing the life of another because she
> refuses to grow up.
You don't know that it is sacrificing a life though, do you.
My take on it is, that everyone is already alive in the spirit world to
start with, if someone decides that they want to live a life on Earth,
then they would pick out a person who is willing to have them enter the
world through their body, maybe the spiritual being knows beforehand
weather or not it would have the chance to grow inside someone. So I
feel that everyone on earth has the right to decide weather someone can
enter this world through their body or not, regardless of whether a
child has been fertilized in there or not, that part doesn't really mean
anything to me. I also believe that people are living a life in the
spirit world as well as a life on earth if they are here, so that if a
spirit spent any time inside a womb, and then the pregnancy was
terminated, it is no loss, it is not like they have wasted a large
amount of their life or anything.
That's, what I think it might be like, I'm not sure though. But I think
unless you actually know exactly how life works in the grand scheme of
things, unless you have actually had some sort of experience in this
area (near death, or something) then you should not say anything about
another persons decision, and put them down for it, like you just did
with the 'grow up' statement. How can you tell another person how to
live their life based on what you think might be true.
Dave H
>worldwide, and many would live if people like you would part with
>$20/month. But you prefer to spend your money on your toys.
should he part w/ his 20 dollars a month? Perhaps he's saving it up and
investing it, so that that way, when he's seventy, he can save many more
children than he could have had he parted w/ that 20 dollars each month,
instead of all at once? "People like you", I can assume to be people who
don't believe as you do, who believe in not helping someone who they don't
even know. Did it ever occur to you that some people might want to save
that 20 dollars for sending their kids to college? And so what if it is for
themselves, or for the bank account, so they're eyes can grow large and
become pleased at that sight of piles of money. They worked for it. Why
should they give it up for something they don't really want to? The US
makes enough food to feed a large % of the starving world, but we don't use
it for that b/c that would reduce the price of the crop, bankrupting the
farmers. Things are not always as simple as they seem.
>And what did he say about the rich getting into heaven?
that it was as hard for a rich man to get into heaven as for a camel to go
thru the eye of a needle. Bullshit. Rich men get in heaven as often as poor
ones do. A man's money does not have any affect on his morality.
ThomasPaine_II
>I simply do not see these unwashed hordes of unwanted children wandering the
>streets.
Maybe you should get out more.
Once again, the issue is not homeless people having abortions (for
>they do not for the most part), but those who are comfortably esconded in
>their homes.
No. The issue is whether you, or the government has a right to deny abortions
to women who decide to have them.
Moreover, applying your reasoning-- shouldn't the solution be
>to get rid of these homeless people who have already wrecked their lives
>rather than deny someone else a fresh start in the world? Kinda like an ex
>post facto abortion. I'm sorry, even if our streets were overrun with the
>homeless, it still doesn't justify murdering anyone-- be it a street person
>or an unborn child/embryo/fetus/zygote. Both the street person and the fetus
>have a right to EXIST.
The street person is protected by the laws; the unborn fetus isn't.
Your "yelling" they have rights doesn't make it real.
(And no, governmental definitions change with the
>times; had Bush been reelected president we would all be arguing the
>aftermath of Roe's abandonment,
Or not.
and forty years from now, we will probably
>be doing that)
As mentioned, you love to make assertions without any evidence what-so-ever.
Meaningless what would have, could have, maybe will ....
>
>You are always neglecting the innocence of the child in the abortion--
No I'm not.
I know there is a difference between a fetus and a fully developed, born
person.
Apparently you don't.
why
>should the child be denied life to foster the will/goals, etc. of the
>mother?
Why should you be allowed to make that narrow minded judgment call for a
mother you don't even know ... (and outrageously assume you have any idea what
her life is like)?
Isn't that selfish?
Yes. You are. I would, more appropriately, use the term "self righteous".
(and why not?-- and don't fall back on "its not
>really a child"-- for it WILL be a child if left alone)
It isn't a child.
What it will be is not the question.
Don't tell me not to fall back on reality - you may avoid it, but I don't.
>
>Once again, its a selfish mother sacrificing the life of another because she
>refuses to grow up.
Another judgment call without any supportive evidence (or knowledge).
In most circles, that's called an argument from ignorance.
You have no idea why women get abortions. Quit trying to pretend that you do.
That's arrogant and sanctimonious.
ThomasPaine_II
>You don't know that it is sacrificing a life though, do you.
>
>My take on it is, that everyone is already alive in the spirit world to
>start with, if someone decides that they want to live a life on Earth,
>then they would pick out a person who is willing to have them enter the
>world through their body, maybe the spiritual being knows beforehand
>weather or not it would have the chance to grow inside someone. So I
>feel that everyone on earth has the right to decide weather someone can
>enter this world through their body or not, regardless of whether a
>child has been fertilized in there or not, that part doesn't really mean
>anything to me. I also believe that people are living a life in the
>spirit world as well as a life on earth if they are here, so that if a
>spirit spent any time inside a womb, and then the pregnancy was
>terminated, it is no loss, it is not like they have wasted a large
>amount of their life or anything.
>
>That's, what I think it might be like, I'm not sure though. But I think
>unless you actually know exactly how life works in the grand scheme of
>things, unless you have actually had some sort of experience in this
>area (near death, or something) then you should not say anything about
>another persons decision, and put them down for it, like you just did
>with the 'grow up' statement. How can you tell another person how to
>live their life based on what you think might be true.
Although it is a bit off track, it is true that a certain spiritual/life
belief must be assumed to consider whether abortion is a real "spiritual"
loss. That's what we have to deal with, though. No matter which religion, were
we all in their particular "spiritual plane, we might consider it a return to
"our side". but, right now we're "alive humans", and can only deal with things
from that, limited, perspective.
Dave H
>aftermath of Roe's abandonment,
> and forty years from now, we will probably
>be doing that)
There's no way that enough ppl will agree w/ pro-life to make it a law.
Even if it were a law, it wouldn't be inforcible. People would go to quacks
to get it done. Didn't we learn anything from history? B4 abortion was
legalized, many women had illegal ones done by quacks, which was dangerous
to them, or flew to Japan to get it done. Illegalizing abortion, again,
would be like reinacting the Amendment hat illegalized alcohol -- a
disaster. Making laws that can't be inforced deminishes the legal system;
take your pathetic pro-life abortion to a personal level, and leave politics
alone, b/c everyone knows that issues like abortion and gay rights are the
Republican parties fatal flaw.
Ray Fischer
>>Of course it's true. 30,000 children die of uhnger each and every day
>>worldwide, and many would live if people like you would part with
>>$20/month. But you prefer to spend your money on your toys.
>
>This doesn't relate to abortion, so I don't really care about it.
Thus you're more concerned about women do with their own bodies than
you are about people's lives.
> But, why
>should he part w/ his 20 dollars a month?
Why should a woman be forced to give birth?
> Perhaps he's saving it up and
>investing it, so that that way, when he's seventy, he can save many more
>children than he could have had he parted w/ that 20 dollars each month,
>instead of all at once?
Just like a woman gets an abortion so she can have children she can
properly care for when she's older and established.
> "People like you", I can assume to be people who
>don't believe as you do,
Hypocritical abortion opponents.
> who believe in not helping someone who they don't
>even know. Did it ever occur to you that some people might want to save
>that 20 dollars for sending their kids to college?
Fine with me so long as they allow other people the right to make
similar choices.
Dave H
Oh my, it appears you've mistaken me for the enemy(;-). I can assume u
to be a pro-choice advocate; I am one too. I simply spewed out my thoughts
on the topic, not knowing whether they would support Choice or Life; please
explain to my how the dying of children from starvation is related,
physically or metaphorically, to abortion. I really don't see the
connection. Thanx 4 the explanation, so that next time, I won't seem like a
guy who just pulled his head outta his ass(;-).
Dave H
saving a child, but not put forth equal effort to save dying children 'round
the world would be hypocritical -- I got ya.
Pat Winstanley
<whei...@rochester.rr.com> writes
>Ah, I see. Your saying that a person who'd support Pro-Life, in guise of
>saving a child, but not put forth equal effort to save dying children 'round
>the world would be hypocritical -- I got ya.
>
>
That's about the size of it.
--
Pat Winstanley
Pat Winstanley
<whei...@rochester.rr.com> writes
Foetuses and children both need support/help from people if they are to
survive. If a person believes they have the right to direct some other
person to so provide support to prevent a foetus or child dying then
they would do well to demonstrate that they personally do so already. If
a person demands that another place their health, belongings family and
very life on the line to prevent a foetus dying it would behove that
person to demonstrate that they also are placing their own health,
belongings, family and life on the line to prevent a child dying.
Anything else is hypocritical.
--
Pat Winstanley