Pearl Jam & abortion?
GARY HATFIELD
could someone tell me what pj thinks on abortion, on MTV unplugged ed
writes pro-choice on his arm. why?
SpoonHead
GARY HATFIELD <HATF...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>could someone tell me what pj thinks on abortion, on MTV unplugged ed
>writes pro-choice on his arm. why?
--From Spin 11/92
RECLAMATION
by Eddie Vedder
Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder explains why a woman's right to choose is
more than just a women's issue
Glasgow, Scotland. It's cold outside. I'm thinking about a
problem. One group of people trying to force their beliefs on others,
based on religion. And it seems as though we're regressing.
Above, a helicopter flies by. If it continues on its course, it
will shortly be over Ireland, where as of this writing, the powers
that be are deciding if a 14-year-old girl who was raped by the father
of one of her friends should be allowed to leave for Britain to obtain
an abortion. She's been ordered not to leave the country for nine
months. Fourteen years old. Raped. The issue of an unborn fetus
takes on more importance than the fact that the rapist walks free.
Extreme, but this is a place where the church influences the
government. And when I think of the movements concerning abortion in
the United States, it definitely seems as though we're regressing.
"My body's nobody's body but mine...
You run your own body, let me run mine."
At the University of San Diego a few years ago, pro-lifers gathered,
while pro-choicers chanted the above. Sides clashed and tension ran
high. A banner equating pro-choice ideology with Nazism and Hitler
was displayed. "Baby Killers," a little red stop sign said-- a sign
held by a well-dressed 3-year-old who sat atop the shoulders of his
upper-middle class father. The kid looked confused and frightened.
The ominous presence of armed police on horseback would be enough to
upset anyone.
And I wondered how this child got pulled into this? I wondered how
any of us got pulled into this. The fact is that those people handing
down decisions on the abortion issue are not the ones who will have to
live or die by it.
Ten years old. That's the age my child would have been. And I would
not be here in Glasgow. I wouldn't be in this band or traveling. And
I wouldn't have seen the liberal ways in which other countries we have
visited deal with this issue. I wouldn't have been asked to write
this piece. The fact that I've been through it on all levels is the
only reason I accepted.
Perhaps I'll have a child in the future, when I can provide properly.
Who knows. But as individuals in this "free" country, we must have
the right to choose when that time is right. A couple-- perhaps 15 or
16 years old, maybe 10 years older-- is faced with an unwanted
pregnancy; it makes no difference if there is no means of support.
They're questioning whether they can provide a proper climate in which
to raise a child. A healthy question for both them and society
itself. Yeah, there are programs to assist. Welfare and health
programs that are constant victims of cutbacks. The child can sit in
severely overcrowded classrooms and be taught by underpaid teachers.
A right to a healthy future should be the consideration.
Operation Rescue? The point being the rescue of a nonentity, a
zygote. Perhaps the rescue of a young woman in crisis would be more
in order. Instead, combat lines are drawn at clinics, and women must
be escorted through trenches, which only adds to their trauma. This
is not a game. This is not a religious pep rally. This is a woman's
future. Roe v. Wade was decided 19 years ago and the fact that a
well-organized group has come close to overturning it is raw proof
that we do live in a democracy. But also the reason that any
opposition must be equally as vocal. You go to school in Normal,
Illinois? Collegetown, U.S.A.? Shout it out. There are people wary
of the strength that young voters possess. Prove them right. Decide
on the issues and vote-- male or female-- for this is not just a
women's issue. It's human rights. If it were a man's body and it was
his destiny we were deciding there would be no issue. Not in today's
male dominated society.
i'm
abortion...keep it legal...
sammmmmmmmmmmmm
Dale Hogg
GARY HATFIELD (HATF...@worldnet.att.net) wrote:
> could someone tell me what pj thinks on abortion, on MTV unplugged ed
> writes pro-choice on his arm. why?
-because he is...listen to the end of the self-pollution radio show,
you'll understand perfectly where they stand.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
bdh...@chat.carleton.ca
'And I know she's living there
And she loves me to this day
I still can't remember where
Or how I lost my way.`
(Neil Young,1976)
****************************************************************************
Jiff
GARY HATFIELD <HATF...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>could someone tell me what pj thinks on abortion, on MTV unplugged ed
>writes pro-choice on his arm. why?
hmmm... MAYBE he is pro-choice? gee golly, is it possible?
jiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.buffnet.net/~jiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
LUNAR1610
In article <4tl5dc$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, statm...@aol.com
(StatmanBBB) writes:
>Holy Shnikes! I actually disagree with Vedder on something. I believe
that
>you can't kill people, no matter how old they are, for no reason. And
>convenience isn't a reason.
>
>Brendan
Major clash here Brendan..I'm not going to get into a war with you..but I
am SOOO Pro-choice it's scary....and there's alot more involved than
"convenience" as a matter of fact you're implications make me feel stark
raving mad...but I will try desperately to contain myself...Brendan did
you even read that article? a 14 year old girl is raped by her father...do
you think that such a case is merely "convenience"???????????? We can
disagree with no problem on other situations..cause I feel that people
will always disagree on the other aspects..but even most of the die-hard
pro-lifers agree with abortion in instances of rape, incest, and danger to
the mothers life...and I think to indicate anything less is just cold,
heartless and shows a lack of sympathy and respect to women in general and
survivors of rape in particular...that's just the way I feel..I think that
anyone who says.."yeah, I feel sorry for the rape victim, but she'll just
have to deal with having the rapist's baby" is cruel and
unsympathetic....please tell me that's not what you're saying here...
~MoonBeam
Mike
In <4tk5ao$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> GARY HATFIELD
<HATF...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>could someone tell me what pj thinks on abortion, on MTV unplugged ed
>writes pro-choice on his arm. why?
>
cause he's pro-choice.
mike
StatmanBBB
Holy Shnikes! I actually disagree with Vedder on something. I believe that
you can't kill people, no matter how old they are, for no reason. And
convenience isn't a reason.
Brendan
In article <4tkvbe$o...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
Spoo...@worldnet.att.net (SpoonHead) writes:
>GARY HATFIELD <HATF...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>could someone tell me what pj thinks on abortion, on MTV unplugged ed
>>writes pro-choice on his arm. why?
>
Rick Creech
In <4tlbh5$m...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike )
writes:
>In <4tk5ao$7...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net> GARY HATFIELD
><HATF...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>>writes pro-choice on his arm. why?
>>
>
>
>
> mike
"as a former fetus i oppose abortion. as a fellow former fetus i
wish you had been an abortion."
-john s. hall the body has a head
Markurdt
not only has ed been know to write things like "pro-choice" on his arm, on
both the unplugged and saturday night live '92 (as well as others, i'm
sure) versions of "Porch" he does an improv (i think) about a woman's
right to choose for herself and the fact that there is a choice. Pearl
Jam has also played concerts to benefit Rock For Choice an organization
founded by L7 and associated with/run by the Feminist Majority.
I myself am staunchly pro-choice. I don't think the government has any
right whatsoever to tell a woman what she can do with her body. While i
don't necessarily agree with using abortion as a form of birth control,
the fact is that abortions aren't as easy as some would have you believe.
Making the decision to abort is a hard, mentally anguishing process, and
the anortions themselves aren't exactly a bowl of cherries( i'm NOT
speaking from personal experience here)....and the question remains:
Seeing as no matter if they're legal or illegal, if a woman wants an
abortion enough, she'll get one, would you rather her have it in a safe
clean hospital with doctors who know what they're doing, or in the back of
a fucking truck with a fucking coat hanger, performed by some guy who
probably can't even fucking read??
i agree with ed.
"my body's nobody's body but mine you run your body let me run mine"
id like to see bob dole undergo an abortion.
and for those of you who have home alive:
"as a former fetus, i oppose abortion
'as a fellow former fetus, i wish you had BEEN an abortion'"
love and carrots,
liz
A Student
The article "Reclamation" by Eddie Vedder makes some very good points, but
there are things that need to be said. Firstly, we as humans have no
right to take another human's life. I firmly belive that the foetus is a
being with a soul, just because it can't speak for itself doesn't make it
any less of a human. It's like when people write off and ignore
handicapped eople. Just because they're not normal, they're not
considered "equal" by many people. This is appalling. What makes you so
much better than anyone else? Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
Abortion is not just a casual, quick thing with no after affects. Women
who undergo it suffer incredible emotional trauma, and many regret for
years afterwards the decision. The bond between mother and child is
amazingly strong and important, and not to be broken lightly as it so
often is. All this said, abortion is an area made up of shades of grey.
How do you decide, when a young girl has been raped and become pregnant?
It's not her fault,why should she have to suffer the consequences of
someone else's brutal actions? I guess in a situation like this
forgiveness is important. Although we may be completely in the right, and
can see no reason why we should "forgive and forget", if you don't , the
resentment eats away at your life, becomes emotional baggage, drags you
down, makes life a little bit harder. Anyway, these are just my thoughts,
read them and think them over objectively, eh?
Frances
SpoonHead
Even though I posted the original Vedder article, I gotta say that I
strongly oppose abortion myself. I am glad I'm not alone. I assumed
that in a ng like this there'd be a lot pro-choicers.
I'd defend my choice but student, again, said it all.
John
SterGate
Well said, Eddie. And I'm not just saying this as one of your best
friends.
diverse.
Sterling
BTW You missed a good movie.
jeremy keehn
i was hoping i could stay out of this debate since it's up again for about
the twelfth time in the past year... so much for that...
On 31 Jul 1996, A Student wrote:
> any less of a human. It's like when people write off and ignore
> handicapped eople. Just because they're not normal, they're not
> considered "equal" by many people.
that is not at all a valid comparison, in fact it's almost ridiculous.
there is a pretty big difference between a handicapped person who has been
born and is human being and an egg. and we're not talking about
discrimination when we talk about abortion. even the issues aren't
similar.
> Abortion is not just a casual, quick thing with no after affects. Women
> who undergo it suffer incredible emotional trauma, and many regret for
> years afterwards the decision.
and on the flip side, children who are born into poverty, to mothers who
aren't fit to care for them, who do not receive proper care suffer even
more incredible trauma, particularly since these are their formative
years, while a mother at least is an adult. though women may well regret
their decision, that is only a reflection of the choice they made. they
had the option to have the child and they did not take it. that is their
own responsibility- an individual one. it is not the government's
resposibility to make decisions for people, nor should it be (check your
bill of rights, i'm sure individual liberties are in there somewhere). and
lest we get into the fetus is a person and who sticks up for their rights
argument yet again, i will point out that whether or not a fetus is a
person is an *individual opinion* and far from a scientific fact. i
haven't seen the u.s. including unborn children in its census yet.
> someone else's brutal actions? I guess in a situation like this
> forgiveness is important. Although we may be completely in the right, and
> can see no reason why we should "forgive and forget", if you don't , the
> resentment eats away at your life, becomes emotional baggage, drags you
> down, makes life a little bit harder.
forgive and forget being raped? are you for real? you make it sound
so easy. that's an emotional scar that never goes away. many
women who have been raped often spend the rest of their lives looking over
the shoulders, living in fear of other people... if you want to talk
emotional baggage, i would think it would be practically impossible to get
rid of it if you had to bear and carry around a child spawned from rape
because the government decided that you weren't allowed any other choice.
i've never heard anyone forgive a rape, but i suppose it's possible. but
forget it? never. i think you demonstrate a real lack of understanding
of exactly what rape signifies to women.
jeremy
don't like abortions? don't have one.
jeremy keehn
On 31 Jul 1996, it was written:
> anyone else in generation X how to live their fucking lives. If Dole
> becomes president, I'm removing myself as a U.S. citizen. If we got
> everyone who hates censorship and is pro-choice to register to vote we
> could send that commie bastard back to hell where he belongs!
i think you might wanna be a little more discriminating in how you use
archaic (not to mention silly) cold war u.s. propaganda phrases like
'commie bastard'. though i'm sure joe mccarthy and jesse helms would be
proud... i don't think dole fits the definition too well... however, if
you really value freedom, then you might want to stay within the u.s....
much as i think the u.s. governments over the past fifty years have made a
complete mockery of the values your country was founded on... those
principles do still exist, and they are worth fighting for.
there are many unjust laws in the u.s.- the laws regarding marijuana use
and sale, for example, and many civil rights leaders, including martin
luther king jr. have pointed out that american citizens have a moral duty
to disobey and attempt to have changed any fundamentally unjust laws
if abortion were to be made illegal, abortions would continue.
unfortunately, they would not be as accessible, particularly to those who
might need them most, namely impoverished single mothers.
remember, no matter who you vote for, the government will get in.
jeremy
Stephen Buford Rochester
i'm wrote:
>
> abortion...keep it legal...
> sammmmmmmmmmmmm
This is one of the issues that everyone in the newsgroup is already
informed about. No need to say how you feel on the issue because NO ONE
CARES WHAT YOU THINK!!!!! They have educated themselves and will continue
to think the same way no matter what you say. If you want to talk about
abortion please take it to the Abortion Newsgroup. Sorry if this sounds
like a flame, but if this gets started it might become the new "best
alubm of the 90's"; because everyone has an opinion on it, and no two
peoples are the (exact) same.
Next we'll be talking about gun control..sheeeesh!!!!!!
Stephen
--
Stephen Rochester "I am the Lizard King
Buf...@netpathway.com I can do anything" -Jim Morrison
"Don't mean to push but I'm being shoved" -Edward Vedder
Mike
In <Pine.A32.3.93.960731...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca>
jeremy keehn <jke...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
>don't like abortions? don't have one.
>
>
>
there's more to it than that. whether you think its ridiculous or
not, pro-lifers see it there responsibility to defend the life in the
egg, the characterisitics that will never survive again. why should
pro-life people just agree not to have an abortion and thats that?
and do pro-choice people LIKE abortions?
mike
Markurdt
In article
<Pine.A32.3.93.960731...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca>, jeremy
keehn <jke...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
>don't like abortions? don't have one.
>
>
>
>
>
preach it brotha
very true, what i wanted to say and respond but couldn't articulate
especially the very last which is basically the bottom line. about many
things, in fact.
love and carrots,
liz
Mike
In <4tmekb$a...@ionews.ionet.net> eddie <forkie> writes:
>
>We all have choices we must make throughout our lives.WE must make.
Not
>the government.Not our parents not piece of shit Bob Dole.
and there are choices that we can't be trusted to make. like about
murder, rape, theft, etc. of course we make these decisions, but there
must be laws against those who choose to commit these crimes. unless
of course you're suggesting these crimes be legal and we should all be
trusted to make the right decisions. at least then the gov't wouldn't
be telling us what we should do.
now i'm not getting into the abortion argument, i've done it before on
this newsgroup. just pointing out that there are of course choices,
but pro-life people see the fetus as a living human so this argument
doesn't work unless you support legalization of murder.
mike
Dole is the
>biggest fucking moron in the entire country. What kind of low-down
>candy-ass repiublican mother fucker of the fifties is gonna tell me or
>anyone else in generation X how to live their fucking lives. If Dole
>becomes president, I'm removing myself as a U.S. citizen. If we got
>everyone who hates censorship and is pro-choice to register to vote we
>could send that commie bastard back to hell where he belongs!
>
>
>I'll keep taking punches,until their will grows tired.
>
>eddie f.
>
>
LEESH33
"I won't back down/I'll stand my ground" as they once sang on a cover.
Words to live by for not only this issue but all others you espouse
dearly.
Debra
In article <A_student-310...@mg4-45.its.utas.edu.au>
A_st...@postoffice.utas.edu.au (A Student) writes:
> Abortion is not just a casual, quick thing with no after affects. Women
> who undergo it suffer incredible emotional trauma, and many regret for
> years afterwards the decision. The bond between mother and child is
> amazingly strong and important, and not to be broken lightly as it so
> often is.
IÕm not going to get into the whole pro/anti-abortion discussion again,
but this post reminded me of a news story I just read, which reported
that scientists have isolated the Òmother loveÓ gene. Rats who did not
have this gene were normal in every other way, but they had no interest
in the baby rats they gave birth to, and would not allow them to nurse,
and let them die. The gene is dormant until triggered by the sight of
the newborn.
Sometimes one wonders if all we really are is a parcel of genetic
programming and chemicals.
That said, I certainly known women who felt no bond to with the child
they were carrying because they did not want it, and this is
particularly true if the father was a virtual stranger. It felt more to
them as though some alien intruder were trying to take over their body,
and all they wanted was to get rid of it. Not every woman feels a bond
with the fetus they carry, and in fact it seems sexist to assume that a
woman has a stronger and more important bond with an embryo or fetus
that results from her egg than a man does for the embryo or fetus that
results from his sperm.
-Debra
Markurdt
In article <31FFF0...@netpathway.com>, Stephen Buford Rochester
<buf...@netpathway.com> writes:
>No need to say how you feel on the issue because NO ONE
>CARES WHAT YOU THINK!!!!! They have educated themselves and will continue
>to think the same way no matter what you say.
does that go the same for discussions on songs?
oh it's pointless to argue about "yellow ledbetter" because people "have
educated themselves and will continue to think the same way no matter what
you say"??
where would this ng be without argument on issues people are already VERY
knowledgeable/educated about???????????
love and carrots
liz
Mike
In <4tp321$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> mark...@aol.com (Markurdt)
writes:
>very true, what i wanted to say and respond but couldn't articulate
>especially the very last which is basically the bottom line. about
many
>things, in fact.
>love and carrots,
>liz
once again...how could anyone *like* abortions? support them
maybe..but like them?
mike
Alessiana
just so there is no confusion, this student, francis is not the same as
our student the writer.
aless
SpoonHead
Ron, I gotta admit that your long drawn out discussions about pearl
jam music not long ago (remember fugal, polyphonic whatever?) drove me
nuts, but this post is pure genius. I am pro-life (hey there's a
phrase which totally clouds the issue) but I see the point of
pro-choicers (another bad word). I don't think that everyone who
agrees with abortion is a baby killer or should be in prison. This
whole argument makes people lose all sense of logic and your post
shines a light of understanding.
Thanks Ron.
John
rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz) wrote:
> Mike raises an important point, and, while I disagree with his stand on
>the issue, I want to throw some support his way before he's flamed to death.
> Let's paraphrase the "don't like abortion? don't have one" for other
>issues. "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave." "Don't like murder? Don't
>kill anyone" undsoweiter. It's easy to use than language to create
>absurd statement.
> It's very easy to hide behind the rhetoric on this issue, because
>both sides feel like they have the morally superior position. If you
>have no desire to do anything other than score points with people who
>already agree with you, you're going to have to step out from behind
>the rhetoric and imagine that your agreed with the other side's position
>for a minute. Neither side's position is based on a fundamentally
>irrational logic.
> To swing the discussion back in the direction of Pearl Jam (god forbid!)
>I'd just like to say that I hope the members of the band are capable of
>understanding why rational people might disagree with their stand,
>and that all people opposed to abortion aren't trying to oppress women.
>-Ron
LUNAR1610
In article <4tpg5e$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, luna...@aol.com
(LUNAR1610) writes:
>Third point, what if you're birth control fails? No method is fool proof,
>including tubal ligations and vasectomies..so what I'd like to know is if
>pro-lifers are suggesting that people should simply just deal with a
child
>they aren't ready to deal with even when they were as responsible as
>possible? Should people accept the idea that every sexual act is a
>possible pregnancy? What if you just don't want kids and your birth
>control method fails? (and like I said not even vasectomies and tubal
>ligations are fool proof) Maybe others think that's fair, but I
personally
>don't, if I am responsible as is humanly possible, or if I get raped, or
>if I am simply in no position to take care of a child, I don't know who
>the hell has the right to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body..I
>am not here as some damn incubation system for human life..and I think
>that's the attitude that many pro-lifers take when viewing a woman's
>body...
One last thing..don't counter with the abstinence talk...I mean who the
hell are you to begrudge a couple the right to express their love in a
sexually fulfilling way?..I think you shouldn't have sex if emotionally
you aren't ready..but being ready to handle sex does not add up to being
ready to deal with kids..no more than being an adult suddenly makes you
ready for sex...and furthermore..what if you are like one couple I know
who don't want kids? Are you going to tell me that they shouldn't have
sex? As I said before..a woman's body is not an incubation system for
kids...and sexual intercourse is not solely for the purpose of producing
kids..if this was the case it wouldn't be so damn pleasurable..so spare me
that argument...
~MoonBeam
Mike
In <4tpciq$9...@news1.sunbelt.net> Xa...@InfoAve.Net (Xana) writes:
>
>Are you a guy? If so, it shows.
i resent that remark. i didn't make the original comment, but i am a
guy.
mike
lin...@comcat.com
Ron Moskovitz wrote:
>
> Mike raises an important point, and, while I disagree with his stand on
> the issue, I want to throw some support his way before he's flamed to death.
>
> Let's paraphrase the "don't like abortion? don't have one" for other
> issues. "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave." "Don't like murder? Don't
> kill anyone" undsoweiter. It's easy to use than language to create
> absurd statement.
>
> It's very easy to hide behind the rhetoric on this issue, because
> both sides feel like they have the morally superior position. If you
> have no desire to do anything other than score points with people who
> already agree with you, you're going to have to step out from behind
> the rhetoric and imagine that your agreed with the other side's position
> for a minute. Neither side's position is based on a fundamentally
> irrational logic.
>
> To swing the discussion back in the direction of Pearl Jam (god forbid!)
> I'd just like to say that I hope the members of the band are capable of
> understanding why rational people might disagree with their stand,
> and that all people opposed to abortion aren't trying to oppress women.
>
> -Ron
From what I understand the members of Pearl Jam do understand the other
side. They talk all the time about the "decision makers".. The male
politicians who create their opinions on abortion based on campaign's as
well as public view (they both co-exist in the political spectrum).. Its
a long hard opinionated issue that will rage for a long time.. I think
this NG should settle back to Pearl Jam-- There is another forum for
abortion.
Xana
rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz) wrote:
> That being said, I think there are reasons to be pro-choice. If people want,
>when I have more time, I'll outline them. (Although I've done it before on
>this ng, and don't want to get over-repeptitive.)
Go ahead - I'm sure you can put it in better words than I can, anyway.
Ron Moskovitz
Moonbeam, I think you cloud the issue. May I play devil's advocate?
I'm pro-choice myself, but find your argument's unconvincing.
Accoding to the "well, it might happen anyway, so keep it legal" argument,
we could justify keeping almost all crimes legal. Theft? People steal
anyway. I guarantee you I can find a country with weaker anti-theft laws
where it's less of a problem, as well as a country with stronger anti-theft
laws where crimes is more rampant? So what?
Then you talk about education, and you make the mistake of tarring all
pro-lifers with the same brush. There is a loud coalition of political
conservatives who are anti-choice and anti-education, but those are
separate issues, and to combine them is a mistake. I suspect that
most pro-lifers are in favor of increased education, because they
know that would result in fewer abortions. Sex education is a different
issue, however, and it's a mistake to combine it with abortion, which
is something completely different.
Then, on the "you say you care about the kids, but then you don't treat
the kids who are born well" argument. Again, you are comparing apples
and oranges. Many pro-lifers are active in charities--it's a mistake
to assume they're not--but that misses the point. We don't kill poor people
because they're poor: without life, everything else is meaningless.
Who are we to tell an unborn child that they are better off not living,
because their life will be hard? That strikes me as arrogance in the
extreme. But again, you make many assumptions about pro-lifers, and I
don't think they're fair.
Lastly, the abstinence discussion. Nobody is telling anybody that they
can't 'express their love' sexually, rather, they are saying that if you
are going to choose to be sexually active (and that is a choice), then you
have to accept the risks and responsibilities that come with that, which
includes the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. You can minimize that risk,
but you can't make it go away. So what, then? Many of lifes joys
have a potential risk involved: you get in a car, you might crash. You have
a beer, you might get hung over. If you really don't want a hangover, well,
you can be very careful about how much you drink, drinks lots of water,
take asprin, etc., or you can not have that beer. So it is with sex:
you can reduce the risk of pregnancy to almost nothing, but you can not
eliminate it. If you're not willing to accept that risk, then maybe
you shouldn't be having sex. People can 'express their love' in ways that
don't involve sexual intercourse, so I don't know why people feel entitled
to risk-free sex.
SpoonHead
Ron:
1) I'd like to hear your pro-choice arguments
2) What do you do for a living?
curious,
John
LUNAR1610
In article <4tp31g$h...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mark...@aol.com (Markurdt)
writes:
Can I get an Amen for Liz? (Amen!!!) how's about an Hallelujiah?
(Hallelujiah!!!)..I completely agree...better to engage in a disputation
with informed educated people than with uneducated morons just screaming
for the fun of it...this is first and foremost a Newsgroup in my opinion,
a place for people who have things in common to have discussions (*not*
necessarily pertaining to what it is they have in common). Do you really
expect us to talk about Pearl Jam on an endless constant basis? There's
more to life than that, and if the issue is there and people want to talk
about it, let them..delete the thread if you don't want to read, that's
what I do with the best album of the 90's thread...you got your
next/delete key..use it..but don't be asking people to leave or shut
up...It's not about changing minds, that's secondary, it's primarily about
expressing different views..if everyone took the attitude of "why discuss
cause we're not changing minds" then no one would ever speak, and if they
did speak, the conversations would be incredibly boring and pointless..
~MoonBeam
slim
In article <4tmekb$a...@ionews.ionet.net>, forkie says...
>
>We all have choices we must make throughout our lives.WE must make. Not
>candy-ass repiublican mother fucker of the fifties is gonna tell me or
>anyone else in generation X how to live their fucking lives. If Dole
>becomes president, I'm removing myself as a U.S. citizen. If we got
>everyone who hates censorship and is pro-choice to register to vote we
>could send that commie bastard back to hell where he belongs!
>
>
>I'll keep taking punches,until their will grows tired.
>
>eddie f.
>
>
Choruses of "allelujah!!!!" and "praise Jesus!!!!"
slim
(p.s. normally I would be quick to condemn for setting the land speed record
for profanities, but you WERE talking about bob...I mean the antichrist...)
Jiff
luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610) wrote:
>One last thing..don't counter with the abstinence talk...I mean who the
>hell are you to begrudge a couple the right to express their love in a
>sexually fulfilling way?..I think you shouldn't have sex if emotionally
>you aren't ready..but being ready to handle sex does not add up to being
>ready to deal with kids..no more than being an adult suddenly makes you
>ready for sex...and furthermore..what if you are like one couple I know
>who don't want kids? Are you going to tell me that they shouldn't have
>sex? As I said before..a woman's body is not an incubation system for
>kids...and sexual intercourse is not solely for the purpose of producing
>kids..if this was the case it wouldn't be so damn pleasurable..so spare me
>that argument...
it is a complete load of shit. sex was created to make children, that
is it. it is pleasurable, but people need to live with the
consequences. "in the land of the free, we need to protect the rights
of everyone, espescially those that can not speak for themselves."
that quote comes from a women's rights activist that is pro-choice,
but was talking about born children. too bad she's a damn hypocrite.
jiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.buffnet.net/~jiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Debra
In article <4toqfd$n...@sjx-ixn4.ix.netcom.com>
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) writes:
> there's more to it than that. whether you think its ridiculous or
> not, pro-lifers see it there responsibility to defend the life in the
> egg, the characterisitics that will never survive again. why should
> pro-life people just agree not to have an abortion and thats that?
I think you mean defend the life of the embryo or fetus, not egg.
Because if you mean to defend the life of an egg, you must be against
anything which allows an egg to die. If an egg does not fertilize, it
dies and is washed out of the body when the woman menstruates. So are
you saying that all eggs should be allowed to fertilize, so that they
can live? I am sure you are not.
You are right that the exact characteristics harbored in every egg and
every sperm are slightly different and will never survive again, but
are you also defending the life of sperm and eggs?
-Debra
Debra
In article <4tqrc3$k...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
pent...@ix.netcom.com(E. K./J. S.) writes:
> The media kills, anyone knows that. People kill to get on TV. That's
> how the media kills.
If I am wandering in the desert, and you come along on a camel, and I
kill you to get your camel, would you say that camels kill?
-Debra
Mike
In <4tpg5e$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610)
writes:
>Why should people impose their beliefs on others and try to control
>women's bodies?
but you've got to understand that pro-lifers ARE NOT in any way
tying to control women's bodies. they are trying to save what they say
as a human life who is involuntarily inside the woman. whether you
agree or disagree with that, realize that pro-lifers are not pro-life
because they are out to control women's bodies. so therefore,
pro-lifers are not imposing there beliefs any more than someone who
disagrees with rape, murder, or
theft.
>.the key here is not outlawing abortion the key is EDUCATION.
i agree 100%. education is always the key.
>Next point, in Brazil where abortion is *illegal* they have close to
twice
>the number of abortions than here in America...so as Jeremy pointed
>out..simply making it illegal is not going to stop anything, it's all
>about education, IMHO.
just as making anything illegal will never stop it fully. of course
not.
but those brazil numbers are irrelevent to here in america. unless
you're suggesting that if abortion were once again made illegal that
the number of abortions would rise?!?
>and I think that's the attitude that many pro-lifers take when
>viewing a woman's body...
please realize that pro-lifers are looking at something they consider
to be a human life..whether you agree with it or not doesn't make a
difference, but it is totally unfair for you to say pro-lifers are
trying to control women.
mike
jeremy keehn
On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Ron Moskovitz wrote:
> Let's paraphrase the "don't like abortion? don't have one" for other
> issues. "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave." "Don't like murder? Don't
> kill anyone" undsoweiter. It's easy to use than language to create
> absurd statement.
your comparison misses the point of the 'absurd' statement.
don't own a slave' and 'don't kill anyone' are issues which affect a
*person* other than the murderer or slave-owner. a statement like 'don't
like abortions, don't have one' points out that abortion is an individual
decision, because it does not affect another *person* (except for those
who *believe* otherwise). the arguments to substantiate that i made
throughout the rest of my post.
> It's very easy to hide behind the rhetoric on this issue, because
> both sides feel like they have the morally superior position. If you
> have no desire to do anything other than score points with people who
> already agree with you, you're going to have to step out from behind
> the rhetoric and imagine that your agreed with the other side's position
> for a minute. Neither side's position is based on a fundamentally
> irrational logic.
you're right. it's essentially based on whether or not the fetus is a
person. since there's no way to proove it, this rests upon belief.
since it rests upon belief, it is *particularly* not for a government in a
supposedly free country to decide. i have absolultely no problem with
people who are pro-life. what i have a problem with is people who are
anti-choice.
jeremy
jeremy keehn
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Stephen Buford Rochester wrote:
> This is one of the issues that everyone in the newsgroup is already
> abortion please take it to the Abortion Newsgroup. Sorry if this sounds
> like a flame, but if this gets started it might become the new "best
> alubm of the 90's"; because everyone has an opinion on it, and no two
> peoples are the (exact) same.
>
> Next we'll be talking about gun control..sheeeesh!!!!!!
yes, how dare people try to debate issues and inform themselves. here's
predicting abortion and gun control will take a backseat to 'the best
album of the 90s' as an issue in the upcoming u.s. elections.
jeremy
Jiff
luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610) wrote:
>In article <4tl5dc$q...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, statm...@aol.com
>(StatmanBBB) writes:
>>Holy Shnikes! I actually disagree with Vedder on something. I believe
>that
>>you can't kill people, no matter how old they are, for no reason. And
>>convenience isn't a reason.
>>
>>Brendan
>Major clash here Brendan..I'm not going to get into a war with you..but I
>am SOOO Pro-choice it's scary....and there's alot more involved than
>"convenience" as a matter of fact you're implications make me feel stark
>raving mad...but I will try desperately to contain myself...Brendan did
>you even read that article? a 14 year old girl is raped by her father...do
>you think that such a case is merely "convenience"???????????? We can
>disagree with no problem on other situations..cause I feel that people
>will always disagree on the other aspects..but even most of the die-hard
>pro-lifers agree with abortion in instances of rape, incest, and danger to
>the mothers life...and I think to indicate anything less is just cold,
>heartless and shows a lack of sympathy and respect to women in general and
>survivors of rape in particular...that's just the way I feel..I think that
>anyone who says.."yeah, I feel sorry for the rape victim, but she'll just
>have to deal with having the rapist's baby" is cruel and
>unsympathetic....please tell me that's not what you're saying here...
here's an idea: outlaw abortion, but have a policy where if a woman
immediatly (within a week) reports it, she would be allowed to.
otherwise tough shit, you shouldn't have covered it up, or you
shouldn't be ruining someone's life so you can kill something.
the vegetarian pro life jiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.buffnet.net/~jiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jiff
In <4tpciq$9...@news1.sunbelt.net> Xa...@InfoAve.Net (Xana) writes:
>
>Are you a guy? If so, it shows.
someone needs to spread their legs for a baby to happen.
jeremy keehn
On 31 Jul 1996, Mike wrote:
> >don't like abortions? don't have one.
> there's more to it than that. whether you think its ridiculous or
> not, pro-lifers see it there responsibility to defend the life in the
> egg, the characterisitics that will never survive again. why should
> pro-life people just agree not to have an abortion and thats that?
because 'life' in the egg is far from fact. and that is why individuals
have a choice.
> and do pro-choice people LIKE abortions?
i believe they like having the option of abortions, yes.
jeremy
LUNAR1610
In article <4tr00o$k...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) writes:
> just as making anything illegal will never stop it fully. of course
>not.
> but those brazil numbers are irrelevent to here in america. unless
>you're suggesting that if abortion were once again made illegal that
>the number of abortions would rise?!?
Ofcourse not (last question)..that was reinforcing my education point,
because in Brazil the education about birth control etc.. is basically
less than here in the us..and that's the key reason why the numbers are so
difference..so it is relevant to my argument..
>please realize that pro-lifers are looking at something they consider
>to be a human life..whether you agree with it or not doesn't make a
>difference, but it is totally unfair for you to say pro-lifers are
>trying to control women.
>
> mike
note the word many..I'm not suggesting all or even majority..my feeling is
quite simply this..I don't believe that a z/e/f has an absolute right to
life..as far as I'm concerned it can't have that right cause it's not an
actual person..it's a potential person..I think that the woman's choice
must take first priority cause she's already here and will be the one to
suffer most as far as the consequences and repercussions of having a
child...It all goes back to when you believe life begins..I think life
truly begins at the first breath...not in utero..while a child is still in
utero, it has some vague rights..but not absolute rights...If a z/e/f (jn
utero) endangers a mothers life..the z/e/f must go...and since that's the
case (my opinion ofcourse) the z/e/f has no absolute rights, much less
rights that take precedence above mine
But yes mike..I feel that if you are going to tell me what I can and
cannot do with my body..then you are controlling me...I can't tell you
when to shit, you can't tell me when to reproduce...
Yes I know..saving human life and what not..but go back to my first
paragraph..it's a moot point..I think we ought to discuss the real issues
as I relate in another post..
~MoonBeam
PS..z/e/f means zygote/embryo/faetus...
Nick Fynn
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.960731...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca>
jeremy keehn <jke...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
>On 31 Jul 1996, it was written:
>> anyone else in generation X how to live their fucking lives. If Dole
>> becomes president, I'm removing myself as a U.S. citizen. If we got
>> everyone who hates censorship and is pro-choice to register to vote we
>> could send that commie bastard back to hell where he belongs!
>
ooooh - excitement! Just as work was getting boring, here comes
another political thread on alt.pj - so....
1.Bob Dole = commie bastard. ha ha ha ha ha h ah ah ah ah a
2.Registration is not so much the question as participation. If
you register but fail to participate, it's still worthless. Although
registration *is* a start.
3.I wish everyone would have been as vehement two years ago when
Gingrich was leading the charge to win control of the house. That's when
we lost the battle.
4.As someone who actively had to pursue citizenship, I encourage
you to remain involved, not leave. We need you.
nick
E. K./J. S.
In <rmoskDv...@netcom.com> rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz)
writes:
>can't 'express their love' sexually, rather, they are saying that if
you
Nonsense, no sense. Nonsense, nonsense. Stuff and nonsense. Not for
you. Never was for us. F*ck them. This is not for us. Oh this is not
for us, never was for us.
An argument on two people that have the same pro-choice belief. Give
me a break Ron! Puh lease!
NO sense in arguing anymore Ron. We need to unite at some point, and
if you keep on throwing these curve balls, then I guess this newsgroup
will never be sane.
The media kills, anyone knows that. People kill to get on TV. That's
how the media kills.
Pro life, pro choice.. I don't care. It's YOUR choice. No one elses.
I'm 15, and I know I'm not going to have sex 'til wed, but damn, you
people just don't make any sense anymore. I mean pro-choice against
pro-choice. Um, how unintelligible has our society gotten? Wonder if
it's from all of those people watching BEAVIS AND BUTTHEAD?
I know I'm not making sense right now. I'm just acting how Ron usually
acts with stuff like this. It's time to move on. I think people are
over the whole #$$%#$5@ thing. It does not matter.
Pro-choice end of story. That's the way it is. That's the way it'll
be. But it's always YOUR decision.
Praise the Lord,
Jared
jeremy keehn
On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Ron Moskovitz wrote:
> we could justify keeping almost all crimes legal. Theft? People steal
> anyway. I guarantee you I can find a country with weaker anti-theft laws
> where it's less of a problem, as well as a country with stronger anti-theft
> laws where crimes is more rampant? So what?
again i think you fail to keep separate crimes with a definite human
victim.
jeremy
Ron Moskovitz
Mike raises an important point, and, while I disagree with his stand on
the issue, I want to throw some support his way before he's flamed to death.
Let's paraphrase the "don't like abortion? don't have one" for other
issues. "Don't like slavery? Don't own a slave." "Don't like murder? Don't
kill anyone" undsoweiter. It's easy to use than language to create
absurd statement.
It's very easy to hide behind the rhetoric on this issue, because
both sides feel like they have the morally superior position. If you
have no desire to do anything other than score points with people who
already agree with you, you're going to have to step out from behind
the rhetoric and imagine that your agreed with the other side's position
for a minute. Neither side's position is based on a fundamentally
irrational logic.
To swing the discussion back in the direction of Pearl Jam (god forbid!)
Darcy
Debra wrote:
>
> In article <4tqrc3$k...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
> pent...@ix.netcom.com(E. K./J. S.) writes:
>
> > how the media kills.
>
> kill you to get your camel, would you say that camels kill?
> -Debra
come on Debra, everyone but Bob Dole,Phillip Morris and R.J. Reynolds
knows that camels kill.....
Darcy
Dale Hogg
Please...please...please don't let this ng degenerate into a pro/choice
pro/life debate, there's other ng's for that.
That said, time for my opinion. The state has no right to tell a person
what to do to their bodies...I think we would be a lot better off if
people stopped worrying about everyone else's lives and concentrated on
their own
Xana
Are you a guy? If so, it shows. I don't know if I myself could ever
get an abortion, but I believe in the right to *choose.* Having a
child inside you for nine months is a very intense, emotional ordeal -
and 15 year old girls are *not* ready for that. I do agree that it
is a horrible thing to do, and the only way I might do it is if I was
raped, but I *do* believe that a woman has a right to decide what
happens inside her own body. Sorry for the speel...
Brenna
A_st...@postoffice.utas.edu.au (A Student) wrote:
>The article "Reclamation" by Eddie Vedder makes some very good points, but
>there are things that need to be said. Firstly, we as humans have no
>right to take another human's life. I firmly belive that the foetus is a
>being with a soul, just because it can't speak for itself doesn't make it
>any less of a human. It's like when people write off and ignore
>handicapped eople. Just because they're not normal, they're not
>considered "equal" by many people. This is appalling. What makes you so
>much better than anyone else? Anyway, back to the topic at hand.
>Abortion is not just a casual, quick thing with no after affects. Women
>who undergo it suffer incredible emotional trauma, and many regret for
>years afterwards the decision. The bond between mother and child is
>amazingly strong and important, and not to be broken lightly as it so
>often is. All this said, abortion is an area made up of shades of grey.
>How do you decide, when a young girl has been raped and become pregnant?
>It's not her fault,why should she have to suffer the consequences of
>someone else's brutal actions? I guess in a situation like this
>forgiveness is important. Although we may be completely in the right, and
>can see no reason why we should "forgive and forget", if you don't , the
>resentment eats away at your life, becomes emotional baggage, drags you
>down, makes life a little bit harder. Anyway, these are just my thoughts,
>read them and think them over objectively, eh?
>Frances
E. K./J. S.
In <DvHC3...@midway.uchicago.edu> debra...@gsb.uchicago.edu (Debra)
writes:
>In article <4tqrc3$k...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
>pent...@ix.netcom.com(E. K./J. S.) writes:
>
>> The media kills, anyone knows that. People kill to get on TV.
That's
>> how the media kills.
>
>If I am wandering in the desert, and you come along on a camel, and I
>kill you to get your camel, would you say that camels kill?
>-Debra
Ron Moskovitz
Jared-
No, you're not acting like I usually act. You're typing incoherent and
cussing people out, which are two activities I try to avoid as much as
possible, if not completely.
Why did I bother to argue with someone who I agree with? Easy. Abortion
is an issue that is tearing the fabric of our country apart. Part of
the reason that this is happening is because both sides seem to have
chosen to hide behind rehotical arguments that don't hold water, and
shout until the other side gives up. In this atmosphere, it's not
that surprising that clinics are being bombed, or that doctors have to
wear bullet proof vests to go to work: people aren't communicating
through the conventional channels, so they're going to try something they
think might work.
I see no reason to expect this to stop happening until a real conversation
on this issue--one which consists of more than people shouting rhetorical
statements at each other--starts. For that conversation to happen people
on both sides of the issue have to test their own believes, and make sure
that they make sense. It doesn't work to be on the right side if you're
there for the wrong reasons, as far as creating a environment where
real communication can happen is concerned.
I understand that you don't want to read this. Well, you don't have to.
Kill the thread. Or just skip it. Nevertheless, this newsgroup has become
an area where fans of Pearl Jam may gather to talk about their common
interests, even if those interests are not always directly about
Pearl Jam, so deal with it, because this abortion thread isn't the
first time it's happened, and it won't be the last. You are not a captive
audience, so if you don't want to read this, don't.
Some of us are trying to elevate the level of discourse in this thread.
If you can't handle it, fine, but don't act like it's our fault. Type 'n'
or 'k' and move along. It's that simple.
Mike
In <4trjoj$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610)
writes:
>But yes mike..I feel that if you are going to tell me what I can and
>cannot do with my body..then you are controlling me...I can't tell you
>when to shit, you can't tell me when to reproduce...
while i am totally disgusted at your comparison between shit and a
living, eating, thumb-sucking fetus, i must quickly point out that
reproduction does not occur when the baby is born, but when the egg is
fertilized. the abortion issue is about what happens after
reproduction. and again, its not your body that pro-lifers are
talking about. i understand your disagreement with that, but think
you should still be able to respect pro-lifers position, instead of
saying that even though they aren't talking about the woman's body,
theya re trying to control you.
mike
Mike
In <4trjpf$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610)
writes:
>I'm glad you brought that up..let me point out why I don't find this
>argument valid..Rape murder theft..someone who we know for *sure* is a
>person is violated..I am yet to find any proof/indication that a z/e/f
is
>for sure an actual person..that is purely a matter of opinion and
>beliefs..and in my opinion belief..since a z/e/f is merely a potential
>person and not an actual person.
fetus' are alive and well. they breath kick, and suck there
thumbs...while this may not fit your definition of an "actual person",
it is still the description of a living being, a human being
nonetheless.
but even if there isn't proof for eithr side, the difference between
pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-choiceers are willing to take the
risk that these aren't living beings. pro-lifers see that to be
unfair.
>..but more and more I simply
>see people being anti-choice rather than addressing the real
issues...to
>be anti-choice is to miss the point...
>
nice to see you are so open minded about others strong feelings.
mike
(and i can say anti-life just like you could say anti-choice, but since
your group refers to yourself as pro-choice, thats what you are.
"anti-choice" isn't fooling anyone.)
mike
i'm
debra...@gsb.uchicago.edu (Debra) wrote:
>In article <4tqrc3$k...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com>
>pent...@ix.netcom.com(E. K./J. S.) writes:
>
>> how the media kills.
>
>kill you to get your camel, would you say that camels kill?
>-Debra
wait...you mean like the cigarettes?...well they do cause lung cancer...
:)
sammmmmmmmmmm
SpoonHead
Ron, my man, you should be a lawyer.
John
LUNAR1610
In article <4trqi6$3...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>,
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) writes:
>while i am totally disgusted at your comparison between shit and a
>living, eating, thumb-sucking fetus, i must quickly point out that
>reproduction does not occur when the baby is born, but when the egg is
>fertilized. the abortion issue is about what happens after
>reproduction. and again, its not your body that pro-lifers are
>talking about. i understand your disagreement with that, but think
>you should still be able to respect pro-lifers position, instead of
>saying that even though they aren't talking about the woman's body,
>theya re trying to control you.
>
> mike
Let's not go overboard here..I'm not comparing shit to z/e/f's..I'm saying
quite simply..you run your body..let me run mine...now believe it or not I
understand your feeling that a z/e/f is a person..I do..how come?..cause I
was also pro-life when I was younger..I mean shit..5 years of catholic
school..believe me when I say I understand your argument..but I still
don't think that gives you the right to impose *your* beliefs on
ME..let's look at christianity vs islam as an example...the islam religion
teaches that in order to convert people, it is sometimes necessary to
fight a lesser jihad (holy war) now while I do have friends who are
muslims (and pro-life), just as I don't think muslims have the right to
try to impose thier beliefs on people from other faiths..I don't think you
are in any position to impose your beliefs on me...and since my belief is
not yours..while I understand you are trying to save lives..I just see you
as controlling my body..why? I don't have your belief....
Now as for thumb sucking zygotes and so on and so forth..I'm not even
going to get tangled in this technical argument here..I could go and haul
out all the biology and so on and so forth..but I don't think that's going
to go anywhere..what I'd like to see is for you to suggest some
*practical* solutions here..I'd really like to think that we can establish
some middle ground to lessen the number of abortions..but quarreling about
moot issues like the beginnings of life will not get us to that point...
~MoonBeam
E. K./J. S.
In <4tsli1$o...@mtinsc01-mgt.ops.worldnet.att.net>
off because of liars. bad people who kill survive in jail because of
liars. It doesn't matter Ron. No one cares how one can still quarrel
with a person with whom HE STILL AGREES. That's what brings war into
this world. Minor differences. Petty differences.
What's your part?
Jared
Mike
In <4tsj3q$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610)
writes:
>Ofcourse they're alive..the question is are they people?....First of
all,
>you indicate a living being?..yes, human tissues? yes..human being as
in
>person?...Hmm..matter of opinion..but taken on it's own that argument
>doesn't really hold water as far as asserting the "person" like
quality of
>this z/e/f entity. Indeed it has human tissue and grows..but that
hardly
>defines "person". Human organs are living entities, but not quite
people
>last time I checked..my liver is alive..it's human, it's not a
person..
great point! if ever therre is a just liver floating inside the
womb, i will support its abortion. but with all the organs together
its nothing but a human being. of course it can't live without the
mother. but pro-lifeers don't want to hold that against them.
would you support abortions after the development of brain tissues? or
would you still question whether it is a person?
>that's exactly the point..how you define fair..Your definition is
>different from mine..Now before you bring up fairness and murdering
>existent people..let's go back to what you said..we don't know that
this
>is an actual person...and if that's the case..I don't think you are in
>a position to impose your beliefs on me...
i don't know how you could argue that it is anything other than an
"actual person." what else would be growing in the womb? the point is
when you think its' life starts. you can't argue that it doesn't grow,
breath, etc..., but obviously thats not good enough for you. what
about a common ground like when brain tissues forming? of course that
probably happens very early.
and just like you think pro-lifers are imposing your beliefs on you,
pro-lifers see it as you imposing your beliefs that the fetus is not a
person on it.
>You are restricting *my* choice..I'm not restricting *your* life..I'm
not
>anti-life because I don't condone the murder of existent people...but
as
>far as I see..aren't you blatantly opposing my right to choose?...but
>anyways..yes I understand your feelings..no I don't agree...I still
would
>like to see more discussion on lessening the number of abortions....
how am i restricting your choice by expressing my opinion on this
newsgroup? as far as i can guess, abortion will never be made illegal
again, so calm down.
i'm not opposing your right to choose, i'm questioning whether that
right even exists.
>
>And furthermore..lets clear up some lingering as yet unaddressed
>issues...would you *ever* permit abortion? Rape? Incest? Danger to
mom's
>life?
absolutely. of course its not easy to answer that, because i truly
believe itn the fetus' right in those cases too, but in all issues a
line must be drawn and this is where i draw it. i think i those cases
i would alow abortions.
>.and also..why no mention of the man's
>role?..What do you think there?..Are you still in the stone age that
it is
>only the woman's responsibility so it's her fault if she gets pregnant
and
>so must "pay"?....I'd like to know your thoughts on those things,
cause
>then I feel we can make some real headway...
its unfortunate that the man can just walk away, and the woman
can't. but both of them equally created the pregnancy. with that
said, it sucks that the woman is always the one having to make the
decision that will affect the rest of her life. but if the woman has
the child the father is required to pay money, as darcy pointed out,
sometimes the father has no choice. but thats not a big deal. i
really don't know how far my opinion can go, or maybe i'm not quite
sure what your asking.
mike
Mike
the words pro-life, anti-choice, and anti-woman do not go together.
mike
Mike
In <4tsitc$s...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610)
writes:
>some middle ground to lessen the number of abortions..but quarreling
about
>moot issues like the beginnings of life will not get us to that
point...
>
>~MoonBeam
>
well, this we should agree on for the most part.
i would suggest, like you said, tons more education about sex and
contraceptives and also abstinence. not requiring abstinence, but
suggesting it.
i would also start by limiting the length of time a woman can wait
after pregnancy to have an abortion. i'd have to look into it for
exact numbers. i'm not sure how you feel about this, but i'm guessing
maybe after a certain amount of time, you feel that the fetus does
become a real person inside the womb. the hazy area, i admit, is in
the begining weeks.
mike
Steph Segal
On 31 Jul 1996, Mike wrote:
> In <Pine.A32.3.93.960731...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca>
> jeremy keehn <jke...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
> >
> >don't like abortions? don't have one.
> >
> >
> >
>
> there's more to it than that. whether you think its ridiculous or
> not, pro-lifers see it there responsibility to defend the life in the
> egg, the characterisitics that will never survive again. why should
> pro-life people just agree not to have an abortion and thats that?
>
> and do pro-choice people LIKE abortions?
>
> mike
>
>
>
against abortion? don't have one.
you are only in control of yourself. if you step out of that line, you
are stepping WAY out of line.
steph
Xana
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) wrote:
> mike
I thought a woman couldn't get a legal abortion after 3 months unless
it was endangering the mother? That's what my mom told me, but
mommies can be wrong...
Brenna
Debra
In article <4trq68$2...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) writes:
> fetus' are alive and well. they breath kick, and suck there
> thumbs...while this may not fit your definition of an "actual person",
> it is still the description of a living being, a human being
> nonetheless.
A fetus might do these things but an embryo doesnÕt. Believe me, a few
months ago I had an ultrasound at 6 weeks pg and there was nothing
there yet that could breathe or kick or suck its thumb. Therefore, it
would not fit your description of a living human being. Perhaps one of
the biggest differences of opinion in this issue is whether or not you
can consider an embryo a human being or merely a bunch of cells with
the potential to MAYBE become a human being.
And before anyone flames me, I did NOT have an abortion, I miscarried.
-Debra
Debra
In article <4trhb8$m...@dfw-ixnews8.ix.netcom.com>
pent...@ix.netcom.com(E. K./J. S.) writes:
> >> The media kills, anyone knows that. People kill to get on TV.
> That's
> >> how the media kills.
> >
> >If I am wandering in the desert, and you come along on a camel, and I
> >kill you to get your camel, would you say that camels kill?
> >-Debra
> Hell yeah. Objects and possessions always kill!
Well, for that matter, our own bodies kill us, donÕt they? Our cells
are genetically programmed to die. So I guess from your point of view,
there is virtually nothing that doesnÕt kill.
-Debra
E. K./J. S.
In <DvIJs...@midway.uchicago.edu> debra...@gsb.uchicago.edu (Debra)
writes:
There's a reason for that and everything. I just think it's for the
better. I think everything's good except crime and murder.
SpoonHead
pent...@ix.netcom.com(E. K./J. S.) wrote:
>Yeah, he should be one of those lying defense lawyers. liars. oj got
>off because of liars. bad people who kill survive in jail because of
>liars. It doesn't matter Ron. No one cares how one can still quarrel
>with a person with whom HE STILL AGREES. That's what brings war into
>this world. Minor differences. Petty differences.
>What's your part?
>Jared
Let's, see here, some liars are lawyers, therefore all lawyers are
liars. Well, that's logical. But I don't want this to turn into a
thread defending lawyers...
Ron did not lie, so let's end that. What he did was merely try to
raise the intelligence level of the posts here. Crucify him.
Well, Whose Line Is It Anyway is on so I have to go.
John
Darcy
E. K./J. S. wrote:
Jared's reply after reading Ron's explanation....
> Yeah, he should be one of those lying defense lawyers. liars. oj got
> off because of liars. bad people who kill survive in jail because of
> liars. It doesn't matter Ron. No one cares how one can still quarrel
> with a person with whom HE STILL AGREES. That's what brings war into
> this world. Minor differences. Petty differences.
>
> What's your part?
> Jared
You're being unfair Jared. Ron's explanation of why he was pointing
out holes in Davina's argument was very thoughtful and insightful.
People *do* hide behind rheteric. People *do* need to be able to
logically discuss important and volitile issues such as abortion.
Logical discussion doesn't start wars--if anything, it can prevent
wars from ever happening. Do you think any of the great religious
wars would have happened if people were able to sit down and try
to understand why people believed the way they do, instead of
trying to strong arm them into changing those beliefs?
And be careful of your criticism of lawyers. Of course there are
corrupt lawyers out there, but one day you could find yourself wrongly
accused and in need of a good defense lawyer. That kind of thing
happens all the time. There's been a number of people (men specifically)
who have been pulled off of death row because later evidence showed that
they couldn't have committed the murder. They would have been wrongly
put to death if it weren't for those "lawyer bastards".
So Ron may drive you crazy--that's fine, just don't read what he writes
and you'll be a happy camper. There's no need to fuel the fire of
hostility when someone does something as mild as irritate you....
Darcy
Mike
In <4tteb6$h...@dfw-ixnews10.ix.netcom.com> pent...@ix.netcom.com(E.
K./J. S.) writes:
>I think everything's good except crime and murder.
explain the difference?
mike
Stephen Buford Rochester
LUNAR1610 wrote:
> Can I get an Amen for Liz? (Amen!!!) how's about an Hallelujiah?
> (Hallelujiah!!!)..I completely agree...better to engage in a disputation
> with informed educated people than with uneducated morons just screaming
> for the fun of it...this is first and foremost a Newsgroup in my opinion,
> a place for people who have things in common to have discussions (*not*
> necessarily pertaining to what it is they have in common). Do you really
> expect us to talk about Pearl Jam on an endless constant basis? There's
> more to life than that, and if the issue is there and people want to talk
> about it, let them..delete the thread if you don't want to read, that's
> what I do with the best album of the 90's thread...you got your
> next/delete key..use it..but don't be asking people to leave or shut
> up...It's not about changing minds, that's secondary, it's primarily about
> expressing different views..if everyone took the attitude of "why discuss
> cause we're not changing minds" then no one would ever speak, and if they
> did speak, the conversations would be incredibly boring and pointless..
>
> ~MoonBeam
NOT AGAIN!!!!!
LISTEN THIS NEWSGROUP HAS ALL THE SUDDEN TURNED INTO THE PEARL JAM
BELIEF <sp> NEWSGROUP. I COULD CARE LESS WHAT PEARL JAM BELIEVES IN!!!!!
I LISTEN TO THEIR MUSIC I DON'T AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THEY SAY.
IT IS ENOUGH TO TELL PEOPLE HOW THEY BELIEVE!!!!! IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS
WEATHER THEY ARE RIGHT ARE WRONG GO TO THE FREKIN' ALT.ABORTION
NEWSGROUP!!!!!
BTW I CAN'T JUST DELETE WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DOWNLOAD...I GET WHATEVER IS
IN THE NEWSGROUP, WANT IT OR NOT. THERE WERE 351 MESSAGES AND ABOUT 60 OF
THEM WERE ON ABORTION..AND ABOUT 50 OF THOSE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH PEARL
JAM. JUST SOMEONE SAYING...."I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP ABORTION
LEGEAL"...WELL WHOOP DE FREKIN DOO.... I THINK THE BEST ALBUM OF THE 90'S
IS PEARL JAM VS..... SORRY, BAD EXAPMLE, THAT AT LEAST MENTIONS PEARL JAM
IN IT. I'LL BET YOU MOENY THAT PEARL JAM AND ABORTION SHOWS UP FOR THE
NEXT TWO WEEKS IN THIS NEWSGROUP!!! AND I'LL BET THAT FOR THE MOST PART
THE CONVERSATION IS NOT RELEVENT, JUST SOMEONE SAYING "I THINK WE SHOULD
OUTLAW ABORTION" OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT....DOES THAT GET ANYONE ANYWHERE,
NO!!!! SO WHY BOTHER..
I TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN LAST TIME WE TALKED MOONBEAM, DON'T
YOU REMEMBER?
I KNOW THE NEXT TOPIC ALREADY...."GUNS AND PEARL JAM"
sorry for yelling but everyone is really starting to piss me off!!!
Stephen
--
Stephen Rochester "I am the Lizard King
buf...@netpathway.com I can do anything" -Jim Morrison
"Don't mean to push but I'm being shoved" -Edward Vedder
Debra
In article <4trqp5$j...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) writes:
> In <Pine.A32.3.93.960801...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca>
> jeremy keehn <jke...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
> >because 'life' in the egg is far from fact. and that is why
> individuals
> >have a choice.
>
>
> debra, please point out what you said about the egg again.
>
He meant embryo or zygote, not egg. But I think everyone agrees that
they are all alive.
-Debra
SpoonHead
Steph Segal <sl_...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>but i have to eat the plants to survive. furthermore, i think plants
>understand that.
[snip]
hahahahahahaha! I'm sorry. That is just TOO weird.
John
LUNAR1610
In article <4tt719$f...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) writes:
>i don't know how you could argue that it is anything other than an
>"actual person." what else would be growing in the womb? the point is
>when you think its' life starts. you can't argue that it doesn't grow,
>breath, etc..., but obviously thats not good enough for you. what
>about a common ground like when brain tissues forming? of course that
>probably happens very early.
I can argue non-person status frighteningly easy...For one, I can argue
that it grows..it does not however breathe..it takes in the mothers
amniotic fluid..but it's not breathing air..as a matter of fact..the
changes that occur when a baby takes it's first breath are quite
substantial...which is why I think "life" (or better yet equal rights
under the law) truly begins at the first breath (many religions assert
this too)..It is not until the child takes it's first breath that it truly
has the*total* rights of a *separate* individual (IMO) ..till that point,
it's still attached to the mother and is dependent on her..which is why
it's life can't take precedence...As for brain tissue?..That's not really
substantial either..all miscarriages occur after brain tissue has been
formed (is being formed)...as a matter of fact..brain tissue starts
developing in the very first week of an embryo's existence..so if a woman
miscarries... there is brain tissue as a part of this unborn e/f...so
brain tissue having developed does not assert that this is now a person
with rights as equal as the mother...or do you think that every
miscarriage should be recorded as a death, and we have a funeral??? If
this is your line of thinking...you are going to have *serious* problems
when you realize that 3 out of 4 zygotes (fertilized eggs) never
implant..and assert even more potential to become people..And
furthermore...how do you suggest we go about recording each "death" when
in some cases the miscarriage occurs within the first month of pregnancy
and the woman may not even know she was pregnant and may have thought it
to be quite simply a very heavy period?..This does happen you know...Brain
tissue does not equal person..it equals potential person..with all the
organs you stated?..Go back to my argument about the first breath...
>i'm not opposing your right to choose, i'm questioning whether that
>right even exists.
So long as you are a fully developed human being that is able to breathe
you have a choice about everything...I can choose whether or not to commit
murder..I choose whether or not to go to sleep..I have a choice about
*everything*...it's a matter of the consequences of that choice...and if
burning in hell is a consequence in your opinion..so be it..but leave me
to make my choices...
~MoonBeam
LUNAR1610
In article <4tt7eu$f...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) writes:
> i would also start by limiting the length of time a woman can wait
>after pregnancy to have an abortion. i'd have to look into it for
>exact numbers. i'm not sure how you feel about this, but i'm guessing
>maybe after a certain amount of time, you feel that the fetus does
>become a real person inside the womb. the hazy area, i admit, is in
>the begining weeks.
>
> mike
I agree ...I think that first trimester abortions are primarily the
best..indeed there is a hazy line somewhere..but what's really
interesting..is that in Islam, they deal with this problem by saying that
after the mother "feels life" (ya know, movements and stuff)..then at that
point it's "alive"..I think that's an interesting theory to work
with...ofcourse however since some women don't ever experience this
feeling (strange but true)..that's not really a definite line either...but
yes, I do feel at some point..within the mid second and ofcourse third
trimesters..the faetus becomes even more of a potential person..but I just
can't argue the same for blobs of tissue in the early weeks...
Basically my thoughts are this..as it gets closer to taking it's first
breath..it's rights becom more and more equal to that of separate
individuals...understand my line of thought?...But at no point till it's
first breath does it assert the total unqestionable rights of a separate
breathing individual...
~MoonBeam
Jason Nafziger
In article <4tth2v$1...@ionews.ionet.net>, eddie <forkie> says...
> Oh, to be like the rest, to conform to conformity.
>
> The abortion talks stop here.
>
> If you are pro-life and have never been raped shut the fuck up.
>
> If you are pro-life and have never thought about what if it happened to
> you, shut the fuck up.
>
> If you are pro-life shut the fuck up.
>
> You can't begin to fathom the thoughts that go through the mothers head
> before and after the abortion. She lives with that decision her whole
> life, but that's her choice. CHOICE. As americans we are given the
right
> to choose.
Unless we're an unborn child? That's the problem with most arguments for
being pro-choice, they look at the issue as if there's only one person,
the mother, who will be denied a choice, but there are two, and they
can't BOTH have the choice... If the mother is given the choice, and
decides on an abortion, then the child is denied any choice... if the
mother is prohibited from having an abortion, then she is denied the
choice... which is why I can't commit to either side... I just don't
fucking know...
Jason...
--
Crappy The Homepage >> http://www.netcom.com/~jnafz
ObRossGarmil >> "Hey, I'm gone from the sig."
"[If the Pentagon were] a hexagon with six (6) sides, one of those
monster alien ships... might think it a bolt, produce a large wrench, and
screw it into the ground." - Tom Clancy (maybe)
LUNAR1610
In article <4tpciq$9...@news1.sunbelt.net>, Xa...@InfoAve.Net (Xana) writes:
>Are you a guy? If so, it shows. I don't know if I myself could ever
>get an abortion, but I believe in the right to *choose.* Having a
>child inside you for nine months is a very intense, emotional ordeal -
>and 15 year old girls are *not* ready for that. I do agree that it
>is a horrible thing to do, and the only way I might do it is if I was
>raped, but I *do* believe that a woman has a right to decide what
>happens inside her own body. Sorry for the speel...
>
>Brenna
I agree..I think the argument has gone from pro-choice to
anti-choice...there was a middle ground..but I'm not sure it exists any
more..
"There ain't gonna be any middle anymore"~Porch
~MoonBeam
jeremy keehn
On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, jeremy keehn wrote:
> that's an interesting point mike, but you are assuming that everyone would
> see it as a 'risk', when those behaviors you listed (which i'm not sure
> are occurring at the time most abortions happen- does anyone know the
> specifics?) are not necessarily everyone's definition of life, cognition,
> or whatever standard the individual (or medical science) believes
> constitutes life.
i should be more specific- believe constitute a human being.
jeremy (wondering if others heard about that embryo destruction thing in
england and what they think about that?)
Jason Nafziger
In article <Pine.A32.3.93.960802153411.25220D-
100...@gpu3.srv.ualberta.ca>, jke...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca says...
> On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Jiff wrote:
> > consequences. "in the land of the free, we need to protect the
rights
> > of everyone, espescially those that can not speak for themselves."
> > that quote comes from a women's rights activist that is pro-choice,
> > but was talking about born children. too bad she's a damn hypocrite.
>
> how do you figure? keep in mind you'll have to use fact, not your
*opinion*
> that fetuses are children, to support that statement, though.
Are you saying a fetus is not a child? I would imagine that you are then
very confused by the fact that every woman you've ever known to get
pregnant has given birth to a child (with obvious exception to cases of
miscarriage and abortion)... I have never known a human female to ever
give birth to anything other than a human being, despite what the
tabloids would have us believe... Please explain to me why you don't
think a fetus is a child...
Thanks,
Jason
jeremy keehn
On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, it was written:
> In article <Pine.A32.3.93.960731...@gpu5.srv.ualberta.ca>
> jeremy keehn <jke...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca> writes:
> >On 31 Jul 1996, it was written:
>
> >> anyone else in generation X how to live their fucking lives. If Dole
> >> becomes president, I'm removing myself as a U.S. citizen. If we got
> >> everyone who hates censorship and is pro-choice to register to vote we
> >> could send that commie bastard back to hell where he belongs!
>
> ooooh - excitement! Just as work was getting boring, here comes
> another political thread on alt.pj - so....
nick, nick, nick... i'm glad you think you need me in the u.s., but this
was not my post... careless mah friend.
just for that, deportation! i have kommandant dole's ear in these matters.
jeremy
jeremy keehn
On Thu, 1 Aug 1996, Jiff wrote:
> consequences. "in the land of the free, we need to protect the rights
> of everyone, espescially those that can not speak for themselves."
> that quote comes from a women's rights activist that is pro-choice,
> but was talking about born children. too bad she's a damn hypocrite.
how do you figure? keep in mind you'll have to use fact, not your *opinion*
that fetuses are children, to support that statement, though.
jeremy
jeremy keehn
On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Ron Moskovitz wrote:
> that they make sense. It doesn't work to be on the right side if you're
> there for the wrong reasons, as far as creating a environment where
> real communication can happen is concerned.
i agree. if you are really so sure that you are right about something,
then your argument should stand up to every test if you can ever really
be sure of yourself. there's nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate.
> No, you're not acting like I usually act. You're typing incoherent and
> cussing people out, which are two activities I try to avoid as much as
> possible, if not completely.
in that case, you should have typed 'incoherently'.
always trying to help his fellow man,
jeremy
(sorry i couldn't resist ;))
jeremy keehn
On 2 Aug 1996, Mike wrote:
> but even if there isn't proof for eithr side, the difference between
> pro-life and pro-choice is that pro-choiceers are willing to take the
> risk that these aren't living beings. pro-lifers see that to be
> unfair.
that's an interesting point mike, but you are assuming that everyone would
see it as a 'risk', when those behaviors you listed (which i'm not sure
are occurring at the time most abortions happen- does anyone know the
specifics?) are not necessarily everyone's definition of life, cognition,
or whatever standard the individual (or medical science) believes
constitutes life.
jeremy
jeremy keehn
On 2 Aug 1996, Mike wrote:
> abortions should be kept legal is because they will happen anyway but
> will be less accessable. right?
no, my point was that once abortions become less accessible, it forces
them to become a dangerous black-market procedure for poor people.
> a kind of stupid argument, but the point is that this argument is
> invalid because its not about accessability or anything, its about
> right and wrong.
i agree. and i think that making abortion medically unsafe for people who
are going to have them anyway is morally wrong.
jeremy
jeremy keehn
On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, Debra wrote:
> I hope everyone in this ng jumps all over you for this pig-like
> thinking.
hey, now why's everyone so down on pigs? didn't you see babe?
okay, i didn't either.
but i am the vegetarian pro-choice jeremy, for what it's worth.
twocentsdoiheartwocentscomeongimmetwocentsokayonepennydoihearapenny?
jeremy keehn
> In article <4trevf$k...@buffnet2.buffnet.net>, ji...@buffnet.net (Jiff)
> writes:
> > it is a complete load of shit. sex was created to make children,
> that
> >is it.
nother point here... sex also fosters intimacy between two people, it
relieves tension, it strengthens love... and tantric yoga (though i'm just
starting to get into this subject) holds that because sex is one
of the most powerful human experiences, it can be used to get in touch
with ourselves spiritually, to deal with supressed pain and heal and
strengthen us inside... sex, at the base, is 'to make children'... but
it's much more than that.
using your argument, i would say that food is only for eating- but if you
look at the world, wouldn't you wonder why people devote so much time to
cooking, trying new foods, and get so much joy out of what we eat?
jeremy
Mike
In <DvIrA...@midway.uchicago.edu> debra...@gsb.uchicago.edu (Debra)
writes:
>And before anyone flames me, I did NOT have an abortion, I miscarried.
>-Debra
all arguing aside, you have my deepest sympathy about the
miscarriage. and for the record, i never would flamed you about
something like that, but you're right, some people on this newsgroup
might.
wish i could continue the abortion discussion, but i'm going away for
a week on a mission trip. maybe its best!
mike
LUNAR1610
In article <4trei4$k...@buffnet2.buffnet.net>, ji...@buffnet.net (Jiff)
writes:
>here's an idea: outlaw abortion, but have a policy where if a woman
>immediatly (within a week) reports it, she would be allowed to.
>otherwise tough shit, you shouldn't have covered it up, or you
>shouldn't be ruining someone's life so you can kill something.
>
> the vegetarian pro life jiff
Note to those about to read:This is the kind of mysogynistic extremist I
can't calmly deal with..so if I flame (and I do)...I apologize
beforehand..but I must vent my anger....Also note that this is not aimed
at the pro-life...this is aimed at the anti-women like the dumbass who
wrote the above...
Listen you mindless little PRICK!! Let me ask you this...
1)EVER BEEN RAPED???????????? HUH????????????
2)EVER EXPERIENCED THE SHAME THAT COMES WITH BEING RAPED????????
HUH????????????
3)EVER HAD A MAN STRIP YOU NAKED AND FORCE HIS PENIS INSIDE YOU?????
HUH????????
4)EVER BEEN FORCED TO SUCK SOME GUYS DICK???? HUH????
5)EVER HAD SOME BASTARD HOLD A GUN TO YOUR HEAD AND FORCE YOU TO FUCK
HIM????HUH?????
6)EVER HAD YOUR VERY SENSE OF DIGNITY AND SELF WORTH RIPPED FROM YOU????
HUH??????
7)EVER HAD YOUR VERY SELF ESTEEM BE STOLEN FROM YOU???? HUH???
8)EVER FELT THAT MIND NUMBING EMPTINESS THAT COMES WITH BEING VIOLATED IN
THE MOST PERSONAL OF WAYS HUMANLY POSSIBLE???????? HUH????
9)EVER FELT THAT INCREDIBLE SENSE OF FEAR THAT COMES WITH BEING RAPED THAT
WOULD MAKE YOU FEAR BEING IN THE COMPANY OF YOUR OWN FATHER AND
BROTHER???? HUH??????
HAVE YOU?????HAVE YOU EVER FELT THOSE THINGS??? HAVE YOU EVER YOU PATHETIC
MISOGYNISTIC PIECE OF HUMAN SLIME!!!!?!!!!!????
JUSTIFY YOUR WORDS MOTHERFUCKER!!!! I DARE YOU...I FUCKING *DARE*
YOU!!!!!!!!
And then what's this crap "you shouldn't be ruining someone's life so you
can kill something." ?? HUH??...that doesn't even make sense you stupid
uneducated illiterate bastard!!! Are you telling me that a woman who gets
raped doesn't have her life ruined???? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE
SAYING?????????????????
Jesus christ! Jeezus frickin CHRIST!!..please go back to the stone
age..PLEASE!!!!! GO BACK!!! We don't need your kind here!!..GO!! LEAVE
DAMNIT!!!...and get some fucking SENSITIVITY while you're at it...fucking
insensitive mother fucking heartless pathetic *mysogynistic* bastard
TWIT!!!! Where is your HEART???? WHERE??? WHERE??? WHERE??????
If and when your mother sister wife daughter cousin aunt gets raped...is
that what you will tell her????? HUH???????????? will you tell your
beloved daughter "LOOK HON..I DON'T GIVE A SHIT IF SOME EVIL BASTARD RAPED
YOU, HAVE HIS KID AND THAT'S FINAL!!!!" Is that what you will say???? I'm
talking to YOU dumbass!!!!!
Fuck man..and this person is a PJ fan??? ever hear of COMPASSION??????????
HUH Dumbass??? Is that in your fucking vocabulary???? Fuck OFF!!!!! Pearl
Jam Doesn't want you listening to their music..it is NOT FOR YOU!!! and I
don't say that because you are "pro-life"..I say that because you are a
misogynistic brainless twit!!!
Shit..shit man..I can't even be coherent right now..I'm too fucking
pissed..Jiff..you wanna know my sincerest feelings at this point in
time??? I hope you BURN IN THE FIREY DEPTHS OF HELL WITH ALL THE RAPIST
BASTARDS FOR ALL FUCKING ETERNITY!!!!!
I take this shit VERY personally man!!! VERY *fucking* personally!!!!
What?..I mean what?!!??!!?..I pity the poor woman who ever marries
you....I pity her from the depths of my soul..God forbid she be raped and
feels scared or ashamed and doesn't say and then you..YOU!!!!, you
spineless compassionless heartless mysogynistic IDIOT!!! Try to forbid her
from having abortion..I fucking PITY the poor miserable soul who marries
your sorry excuse of an ass who calls himself a man and a HUMAN BIENG!!!
Pro-life...PRO LIFE MY ASS!!!!! You are a woman hating little FUCK!!!!
That's what you are!!! Mysogynistic Fundamentalist BASTARD!!!!! Pro-lifers
should be *ashamed* that you classify yourself as one of them!!!!
You know what you need? You need to be CASTRATED with a hot knife like all
the rapists out there!!! THAT's what you need!!!!!
GO BACK TO HELL SATAN'S BASTARD SON!!!!! GO BACK!!!!!!!!
AND FUCK OFF!!!!!
~MoonBeam
(meat eating pro-choicer for all fucking eternity)
PS..I once again apologize to anyone (except Jiff) who is upset by the
harsh tone of the above post...but I take shit like that WAY too
personally to give any decent excuse for a reply....
Stephen Buford Rochester
lin...@comcat.com wrote:
> a long hard opinionated issue that will rage for a long time.. I think
> this NG should settle back to Pearl Jam-- There is another forum for
> abortion.
I very much agree.
--
Stephen Rochester "I am the Lizard King
Buf...@netpathway.com I can do anything" -Jim Morrison
Stephen Buford Rochester
LUNAR1610 wrote:
>
> One last thing..don't counter with the abstinence talk...I mean who the
> hell are you to begrudge a couple the right to express their love in a
> sexually fulfilling way?..I think you shouldn't have sex if emotionally
> you aren't ready..but being ready to handle sex does not add up to being
> ready to deal with kids..no more than being an adult suddenly makes you
> ready for sex...and furthermore..what if you are like one couple I know
> who don't want kids? Are you going to tell me that they shouldn't have
> sex? As I said before..a woman's body is not an incubation system for
> kids...and sexual intercourse is not solely for the purpose of producing
> kids..if this was the case it wouldn't be so damn pleasurable..so spare me
> that argument...
>
> ~MoonBeam
one question
WHAT DOES THIS POST HAVE TO DO WITH PEARL JAM????
WRONG NEWSGROUP!!!!!
BTW I think you are wrong Davina (hope I spelled it right).
Jett
On Jul 31, 1996 01:58:35 in article <Re: Abortion and Pearl Jam (my pro
choice ramblings and all)>, 'eddie <forkie>' wrote:
>Dole is the
>biggest fucking moron in the entire country.
******
Well, next to Newt or Rush.....
Xana
luna...@aol.com (LUNAR1610) wrote:
>but I still argue that their rights do
>not take precedence over the mothers..which is why in most
>countries/religions, if a child (in utero) endangers the mothers life..no
>matter how old the faetus, it is sacrificed..
Because if you take the chance and try to save the baby, not only
could the mother die, but so could the child - then it would all be
for nothing - whereas if you save the mother, she can perhaps have a
chance at another child.
GB
Stephen Buford Rochester wrote:
NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK!!!!! They have educated themselves and will
continue
> to think the same way no matter what you say. [...] because everyone has an opinion on it, and no two
> peoples are the (exact) same.
>
I am worried that most people think the same way you do with regards to
argumentation. Abortion is not like music. Music has to do with tastes.
Although one can make an argument on why a person should not like a
certain type of music, it probably won't change that person's taste in
music. Music appreciation is for most a visceral experience, and thought
doesn't often come into play, so arguments for or against music will
fall flat most of the time (This could be debated, but at another time).
However, abortion has nothing to do with 'taste', as defined above.
Whether or not abortion is accepted is based on a set (or to be set)
amount of factors whose 'moral weight' has to be justified. THERE ARE NO
OPINIONS HERE. People don't have 'a right to their own opinions', as
some insist on saying. People put forth arguments for or against a
subject, debate the merits of the argument, and if there argument falls,
it is their perrogative to (they should even be glad to!) embrace an
alternative, since they are that much closer to the 'truth'. If they
'continue to think the same way no matter what you say' then they are
idiots, and should be dismissed from any public discussion that aspires
to be productive, as any discussion should be.
GB
Markurdt
you know it is possible to be pro-life for yourself, and pro-choice for
the rest of the world.....all pro-choicers want is for there to BE a
choice, a safe choice. nothing more, nothing less.
From literature i received from Rock for choice:
"On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision made safe,
legal abortion every woman's right. Since then, a series of Supreme Court
decisions and repressive laws have chipped away at that right.
"Federal funding for abortions for poor women was cut off in 1977 by the
passage of the Hyde Amendment. Since then, all but 12 states have
followed suit."
"In June 1990, the Supreme Court clamped down on young womens' right to
legal abortion. More than 30 states have passed parental consent and
notification laws requiring women under 18 to tell their parents before
having an abortion.
"The effect of these restrictive laws and regulations is to make abortion
inaccessible to millions of young and poor women in the US, offering them
only one grim alternative to pregnancy: illegal abortion."
love and carrots
liz
Shameless plug:
for more info about Rock For Choice, write to
Rock For Choice
c/o The Feminist Majority
8105 W. Third Street, Suite 1
Los Angeles, CA
90048
all you hafta do is write them and request more information. you can also
order cool stuff like the rock for choice tshirt modeled by one Edward
Vedder at the end of saturday night live, 1992.
SpoonHead
jet...@usa.pipeline.com(Jett) wrote:
This is a rather intelligent post. Yeah, Dole, Newt and Rush are
morons. It's easy to see. It does not take brains to get where they
are.
Just because you strongly disagree with someone does not mean they are
stupid.
I'm not a huge Clinton fan, but I believe he is quite intelligent.
There, now that I've shown my superiority, I'll shut up. :)
John
E. K./J. S.
In <32020F...@ocean.washington.edu> Darcy
<vpa...@ocean.washington.edu> writes:
>
>E. K./J. S. wrote:
>
>Jared's reply after reading Ron's explanation....
>
>> Yeah, he should be one of those lying defense lawyers. liars. oj
got
>> off because of liars. bad people who kill survive in jail because
of
>> liars. It doesn't matter Ron. No one cares how one can still
quarrel
>> with a person with whom HE STILL AGREES. That's what brings war
into
>> this world. Minor differences. Petty differences.
>>
>> What's your part?
>> Jared
>
>You're being unfair Jared. Ron's explanation of why he was pointing
>out holes in Davina's argument was very thoughtful and insightful.
>People *do* hide behind rheteric. People *do* need to be able to
>logically discuss important and volitile issues such as abortion.
>Logical discussion doesn't start wars--if anything, it can prevent
>wars from ever happening. Do you think any of the great religious
>wars would have happened if people were able to sit down and try
>to understand why people believed the way they do, instead of
>trying to strong arm them into changing those beliefs?
>
>And be careful of your criticism of lawyers. Of course there are
>corrupt lawyers out there, but one day you could find yourself wrongly
>accused and in need of a good defense lawyer. That kind of thing
>happens all the time. There's been a number of people (men
specifically)
>who have been pulled off of death row because later evidence showed
that
>they couldn't have committed the murder. They would have been wrongly
>put to death if it weren't for those "lawyer bastards".
>
>So Ron may drive you crazy--that's fine, just don't read what he
writes
>and you'll be a happy camper. There's no need to fuel the fire of
>hostility when someone does something as mild as irritate you....
>
>Darcy
Oh geez, the day someone takes me to court, is the day I leave this
country. No dirt, nothing. I'm not irritated, just a little upset on
how it's Pro-choice vs. Pro-choice. If they need the education,
they'll ask for it. Wouldn't a person rather be "on the fence," and
taking in all of their information by accepting it their own way? I
think that's what society needs, and not people complaining, "Well, you
may be on my side, but you still don't have enough information." I
can't see that as education. Education is something you earn, not
something you are given.
eddie
Oh, to be like the rest, to conform to conformity.
The abortion talks stop here.
If you are pro-life and have never been raped shut the fuck up.
If you are pro-life and have never thought about what if it happened to
you, shut the fuck up.
If you are pro-life shut the fuck up.
You can't begin to fathom the thoughts that go through the mothers head
before and after the abortion. She lives with that decision her whole
life, but that's her choice. CHOICE. As americans we are given the right
to choose. Whether it be our religion, our political party, our musical
interests, or if we want to keep a child, it's our CHOICE! One thing I
can't stand is you republican fucks who are for censorship and are
pro-life. It's just a sign of ignorance. Maybe when it happens to you
you'll see the fucking light and say "Oh what do you know those guys
(figuratively speaking) were right! I'm a dumb fuck after all!"
WAKE UP.
lost yet found and thrown
around the world but I stay
here.
eddie f.
Mike
In <Pine.OSF.3.91.960802...@alcor.concordia.ca> Steph
Segal <sl_...@alcor.concordia.ca> writes:
>against abortion? don't have one.
>you are only in control of yourself. if you step out of that line,
you
>are stepping WAY out of line.
>steph
that would be a good point steph, but to pro-lifers that is also an
argument we could use. to us, abortion affects two lives.
mike
Stephen Buford Rochester
Markurdt wrote:
>
> In article <31FFF0...@netpathway.com>, Stephen Buford Rochester
> <buf...@netpathway.com> writes:
>
> >No need to say how you feel on the issue because NO ONE
> >CARES WHAT YOU THINK!!!!! They have educated themselves and will continue
>
> >to think the same way no matter what you say.
>
>
> oh it's pointless to argue about "yellow ledbetter" because people "have
> educated themselves and will continue to think the same way no matter what
>
> where would this ng be without argument on issues people are already VERY
> knowledgeable/educated about???????????
>
> love and carrots
> liz
at least it has something to do with the newsgroup :)
BTW I thought I had the yellow ledbetter lyrics right until someone
said something, and then I thought about it and there version of it
sounded more correct.
Stephen
Xana
debra...@gsb.uchicago.edu (Debra) wrote:
>In article <4trq68$2...@sjx-ixn2.ix.netcom.com>
>cord...@ix.netcom.com(Mike ) writes:
>> fetus' are alive and well. they breath kick, and suck there
>> thumbs...while this may not fit your definition of an "actual person",
>> it is still the description of a living being, a human being
>> nonetheless.
>A fetus might do these things but an embryo doesnÕt. Believe me, a few
>months ago I had an ultrasound at 6 weeks pg and there was nothing
>there yet that could breathe or kick or suck its thumb. Therefore, it
>would not fit your description of a living human being. Perhaps one of
>the biggest differences of opinion in this issue is whether or not you
>can consider an embryo a human being or merely a bunch of cells with
>the potential to MAYBE become a human being.
>And before anyone flames me, I did NOT have an abortion, I miscarried.
>-Debra
I'm sorry... :(
eddie
jiff-
I'm gonna put this the best way I can-ditto.
She's totally right. I don't think you can really be against abortion if
you haven't had an experience to justify it's right or wrongness.
MoonBeam-
you go girl!!!!-for lack of a better phrase-how some total fucking beast
with no soul could ever claim to like pearl jam plagues me.
jiff-
I don't mean to do this because you're pro-life (like MoonBeam), but how
can you say that it should be against all laws? This is really stupid on
your part and hopefully this will make you change your views.
lost and found and thrown