If Abortion Is A Constitutional Right, Then Prostitution, Drug Use, And Possession Of Child Pornography Must Also Be Constitutional Rights. The Same Broad Constitutional Rights To Liberty And Privacy Would Cover Them All Equally.
explorerthedog
Possession Of Child Pornography Must Also Be Constitutional Rights.
The Same Broad Constitutional Rights To Liberty And Privacy Would Cover
Them All Equally.
Commentary and Opinion by Rev. Bill McGinnis
HTML page at
http://www.essaysandcommentaries.com/abortion-prostitution-drugs.html
If abortion is a Constitutional right, then prostitution, drug use, and
possession of child pornography must also be Constitutional rights. The
same broad Constitutional rights to liberty and privacy would cover
them
all equally.
But if prostitution, drug use, and possession of child pornography are
not
Constitutional rights, then abortion cannot be a Constitutional right
either. If our rights to liberty and privacy are not broad enough to
cover
prostitution, drug use and possessional child pornography, then they
are
not broad enough to cover abortion.
The basic legal case against laws prohibiting abortion is that such
laws
violate our broad Constitutional rights to liberty and privacy. In his
majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote,
"The principal thrust of appellant's attack on the Texas statutes is
that
they improperly invade a right, said to be possessed by the pregnant
woman, to choose to terminate her pregnancy. Appellant would discover
this right in the concept of personal "liberty" embodied in the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause; or in personal, marital,
familial, and sexual privacy said to be protected by the Bill of Rights
or
its penumbras, see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965);
Eisenstadt
v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972); id., at 460 (WHITE, J., concurring in
result); or among those rights reserved to the people by the Ninth
Amendment,
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S., at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring)."
Source: http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/
And as we know, the Supreme Court went on to find that these rights
were
broad enough to protect abortion in this landmark case, Roe v. Wade.
So which way is it? Are abortion, prostitution, drug use, and
possession
of child pornography all Constitutionally-protected rights? Or can the
state and Federal governments make whichever of them legal or illegal
as
they decide, through their normal legislative processes?
If abortion is legal under Roe v. Wade, then how can we have laws
against
prostitution, drug use, and possession of child pornography? And if
prostitution, drug use, and possession of child pornography can be made
illegal, then why not abortion also?
Blessings to you. May you thrive and prosper in all things.
Rev. Bill McGinnis, Editor
THE CIVIC AMERICAN - http://CivicAmerican.com
This page is brought to you by http://LoveAllPeople.org
Witziges Rätsel
> Possession Of Child Pornography Must Also Be Constitutional Rights.
> The Same Broad Constitutional Rights To Liberty And Privacy Would Cover
> Them All Equally.
Good point! Those are all victimless activities. The government
should make no law restricting such freedom. By the same token,
marriage is a cultural or religious act and legislators should not
be concerned with it. Government spending, too, should be taken out
of the hands of the legislation; the taxpayers should hold the purse
strings. I sure hope Bush's appointment to the SCOTUS will agree
with us.
Bob
news:5fedd$42cc1300$41e50f16$91...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Abortion is not a victimless activity.
Mark Sebree
Yes, it is. And denying the woman an abortion and forcing her to
continue and suffer through an unwanted pregnancy definitely makes her
a victim of your busibodiness and uncaring attitude. She can lose her
life, her dreams, her money, her health, and many opportunities because
you think of her as an object that can be forced to incubate an
unwanted parasitic organism against her will.
Mark Sebree
h...@nospam.com
prove it
Hal
>
h...@nospam.com
wrote:
>If Abortion Is A Constitutional Right, Then Prostitution, Drug Use, And
>
>Possession Of Child Pornography Must Also Be Constitutional Rights.
If freedom of religion is a Constitutional right then religious
membership for political office will be a requirement, you will ban
science being taught in schools, have force religious indoctrination
for everyone, and you still again start burning heretics alive at the
stake.
Hal
<rest of the blatant lies snipped>
Bob
news:1120673249....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That parasite you refer to is a human life.
Mark Sebree
And the host that it inhabits and feeds off of is a human being. And a
human being should have control of who and what can use his or her
body, and be able to stop anyone or anything that uses it without his
or her continuous and ongoing permission.
Mark Sebree
Bob
At what point do you believe human
life should be protected in law?
Witziges Rätsel
It's really interesting that you totally aren't railing against
people looking at pictures of bare-naked children, Bob.
Maaxx
> Government spending, too, should be taken out
> of the hands of the legislation; the taxpayers should hold the purse
> strings.
Yeah right. Then everyone will be asking for a handout.
Docky Wocky
"If freedom of religion is a Constitutional right then religious
membership for political office will be a requirement, you will ban
science being taught in schools, have force religious indoctrination
for everyone, and you still again start burning heretics alive at the
stake..."
________________________________
Well, maybe not just heretics. They ain't really as pesky as liberals.
What a great rationalization.
Then it turns into the typical defective logic demonstrated time, and time
again by the half-assed left-wing brain, ending at the completely
ridiculous.
chrisT
>And the host that it inhabits and feeds off of is a human being. And a
>human being should have control of who and what can use his or her
>body, and be able to stop anyone or anything that uses it without his
>or her continuous and ongoing permission.
>
>At what point do you believe human
>life should be protected in law?
>
it's own.
What is war but a post partum abortion of fully grown human beings
but that doesn't seem to bother people unless the victim is their son
or daughter.
Funny how little the right wing cares about health care once the
child is born or its education as it grows up.
Why don't the right wingnuts and religious zealots ever jump in
and volunteer to help children when they need major medical.
How many of the protesting religious whackos ever volunteer to
help the pregnant woman with medical care, food and lodging if needed.
Strange how these monsters prefer to make people suffer and live
in misery then start some bogus war to kill the young people after
they reach maturity.
Witziges Rätsel
>> of the hands of the legislation; the taxpayers should hold the purse
>> strings.
>
> Yeah right. Then everyone will be asking for a handout.
Pay attention: everyone's asking for handouts now. If taxpayers
submitted legally binding forms itemizing where their tax should
be used, undesirable bureaus and commissions would whither and
money would be channeled into what people wanted; lobbying and
bribing would be useless.
Johnny
"explorerthedog" <exp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120665813.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You really want an answer or are you just daydreaming like someone who does
not know what to do?
I know the answer.
> And if
> prostitution, drug use, and possession of child pornography can be made
> illegal, then why not abortion also?
Why not?
There really isn't a reason we can't outlaw abortion on demand.
The reason it is not illegal now is because the people were not represented
in this matter.
The gender-biased cornerstone that Roe V Wade stands upon violates the
intent of anti-discrimination statutes inherent in the Civil Rights Act of
1964 which precedes all gender-biased, abortion on demand provisions in law,
such as the 1967 California decision, the 1970 New York decision, and the
1973 U.S.A. Supreme Court decision.
alen
Mark Sebree wrote:
> Bob wrote:
> > That parasite you refer to is a human life.
>
> And the host that it inhabits and feeds off of is a human being. And a
> human being should have control of who and what can use his or her
> body, and be able to stop anyone or anything that uses it without his
> or her continuous and ongoing permission.
>
> Mark Sebree
At first sight that would seem to be a simple argument
allowing the removal of the fetus to be the woman's
sole responsibility. However, she does not remove it
herself, but an abortionist does, and the abortionist
cannot use such an argument, because the abortionist's
own body is not involved.
Alen
ZenIsWhen
news:32ae6$42cd2380$41e50a7c$16...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Get a brain!
If we did that, we would be back in the 15th century - oh yea ..... that's
what conservatives want!
Mark Sebree
Birth, when it become a separate being, and is no longer attached to
and adversely affecting another being. Siamese twins are the obvious
exception, and even then birth is the determining factor. There should
be protections, however, to "protect" an embryo/fetus when a woman
wants to continue her pregnancy. The reason is that she has given her
ongoing consent for it to use and affect her body.
During pregnancy, it is the woman's body that is be used, and thus it
is the woman who's decision is the determining factor.
Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
It works at second sight as well.
The doctor is removing the embryo/fetus with the woman's consent and at
the woman's request. And using a doctor is the safest way to remove
such a parasitic organism with the lowest risk of harm to the
host/woman.
If the woman were to try to remove it herself, there is a far, far
greater risk of infection, sterility, and death. Just look at the
history of the matter, circa the 1960's.
Mark Sebree
rbw...@juno.com
laws that regulate marriages within their jurisdictions.
Robert B. Winn
rbw...@juno.com
not by any court. As you will notice, the Constitution is the Supreme
Law of the land, not the decision of any court, including the Supreme
Court.
Robert B. Winn
fred
doesn't say anything about abortion. However, note that the
Declaration of Independence actually takes a pro-life stance. This is
because although Thomas Jefferson could have written that all men are
born equal, he instead chose to declare that all men are created equal,
and by a Creator nonetheless. This can easily be understood as meaning
that a person's legal protections start when they are conceived, not
when they are born.
osprey
"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1120765074.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Here is something interesting I found..
http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/whatGodswordsaysaboutabortion.shtml
What God's Word Says About Abortion
By Lynn Copeland
God speaks very clearly in the Bible on the value of unborn children. God's
Word says that He personally made each one of us, and has a plan for each
life:
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set
you apart" (Jeremiah 1:5).
"Even before I was born, God had chosen me to be His" (Galatians 1:15).
"For You created my inmost being; You knit me together in my mother's womb
. . . Your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were
written in Your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13, 16).
"Your hands shaped me and made me . . . Did You not clothe me with skin and
flesh and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life" (Job
10:8-12).
"This is what the Lord says-He who made you, who formed you in the womb"
(Isaiah 44:2).
"Did not He who made me in the womb make them? Did not the same One form
us both within our mothers?" (Job 31:15).
Because man is made in God's own image (Genesis 1:27), each life is of great
value to God: "Children are a gift from God" (Psalm 127:3). He even calls
our children His own: "You took your sons and daughters whom you bore to Me
and sacrificed them...You slaughtered My children" (Ezekiel 16:20,21). The
Bible says of our Creator, "In His hand is the life of every living thing
and the breath of every human being" (Job 12:10). God, the giver of life,
commands us not to take the life of an innocent person: "Do not shed
innocent blood" (Jeremiah 7:6); "Cursed is the man who accepts a bribe to
kill an innocent person" (Deuteronomy 27:25). "You shall not murder" (Exodus
20:13). Taking the life of the unborn is clearly murder-"He didn't kill me
in the womb, with my mother as my grave" (Jeremiah 20:17)- and God vowed to
punish those who "ripped open the women with child" (Amos 1:13).
The unborn child was granted equal protection in the law; if he lost his
life, the one who caused his death must lose his own life: "If men who are
fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is
no serious injury, the offender must be fined . . .But if there is serious
injury, you are to take life for life" (Exodus 21:22,23). Life is a gift
created by God, and is not to be taken away by abortion. God is "prochoice,"
but He tells us clearly the only acceptable choice to make: "I have set
before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that
you and your children may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19).
Timothy
> > If Abortion Is A Constitutional Right, Then Prostitution, Drug Use, And
> > Possession Of Child Pornography Must Also Be Constitutional Rights.
> > The Same Broad Constitutional Rights To Liberty And Privacy Would Cover
> > Them All Equally.
>
Thanks for clearing that up, Rev. McGinnis! But tell me. What other
activities must be allowed if we allow Abortion? For example, could
the NBA continue to ban zone defenses?
Adam H.
>
>"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1120765074.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> If you would actually read the Constitution then you would know that it
>> doesn't say anything about abortion. However, note that the
>> Declaration of Independence actually takes a pro-life stance. This is
>> because although Thomas Jefferson could have written that all men are
>> born equal, he instead chose to declare that all men are created equal,
>> and by a Creator nonetheless. This can easily be understood as meaning
>> that a person's legal protections start when they are conceived, not
>> when they are born.
>
>
>Here is something interesting I found..
>
>http://www.livingwaters.com/witnessingtool/whatGodswordsaysaboutabortion.shtml
>
>What God's Word Says About Abortion
>By Lynn Copeland
>
>God speaks very clearly in the Bible on the value of unborn children. God's
>Word says that He personally made each one of us, and has a plan for each
>life:
Prove the existence of a god, then your words might be worth
something.
BOB
news:2k6rc1h5n0pq1ogj9...@4ax.com:
And if this mythical "god" had a plan for *each* life, it must be a
lunitic to plan for Jeffrey Dahlmer, Ted Bundy, Pot Pol, etc., etc, etc.
osprey
"BOB" <s...@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns968C95...@68.6.19.6...
People make choices, sometimes good, sometimes bad.
The Chief Instigator
:Constitutional rights are secured and guaranteed by the Constitution,
More white noise from the WinnNut - who has been declared insane by the VA.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
Diane Brezniak
>
> Possession Of Child Pornography Must Also Be Constitutional Rights.
Yeah, pretty much.
alen
Mark Sebree wrote:
> alen wrote:
> > Mark Sebree wrote:
> > > Bob wrote:
> >
> > > > That parasite you refer to is a human life.
> > >
> > > And the host that it inhabits and feeds off of is a human being. And a
> > > human being should have control of who and what can use his or her
> > > body, and be able to stop anyone or anything that uses it without his
> > > or her continuous and ongoing permission.
> > >
> > > Mark Sebree
> >
> > At first sight that would seem to be a simple argument
> > allowing the removal of the fetus to be the woman's
> > sole responsibility. However, she does not remove it
> > herself, but an abortionist does, and the abortionist
> > cannot use such an argument, because the abortionist's
> > own body is not involved.
> >
> > Alen
>
> It works at second sight as well.
>
> The doctor is removing the embryo/fetus with the woman's consent and at
> the woman's request. And using a doctor is the safest way to remove
> such a parasitic organism with the lowest risk of harm to the
> host/woman.
You were arguing the fundamental right of the woman
re her own body, but your argument never mentioned
the right as extending to include any other person.
But now you are including another person, so the
argument is not really so simple and obvious after
all, is it, since no such other person can use the
woman's own argument, as I said? You also introduce
questions of safety, etc., which are not part of the
argument. No such considerations could allow the
killing of a child in a cradle, for example, so they
are not the essence of the argument, but only the
woman's fundamental right over her body is the essence
of the argument.
Regarding other people, for example, a woman's right
to remove her fetus herself cannot be converted into
an obligation of mine to help her to remove it. This
also applies to other people collectively, which means
to society, and society cannot therefore be obliged
to provide her with such a service. Her fundamental
right applies only to her removing her unborn child
herself, at her own responsibility. And society, on
behalf of the child, could demand that she remove it
whole and intact, and not damage it in the process,
but hand it over uninjured in order to provide the
society with the opportunity to save its life if
possible.
Alen
alen
Attila wrote:
> >At first sight that would seem to be a simple argument
> >allowing the removal of the fetus to be the woman's
> >sole responsibility. However, she does not remove it
> >herself, but an abortionist does, and the abortionist
> >cannot use such an argument, because the abortionist's
> >own body is not involved.
> >
> >Alen
>
> Nonsense. Your 'abortionist" is simply a medical specialist
> performing a common and safe medical procedure which is perfectly
> legal.
The legality assumes the rightness of the law
that makes it legal. The discussion, however,
is about the fundamental rightness or otherwise
of the law itself, and not about a consequent
legality or illegality that arises afterwards.
Alen
osprey
Attila wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 15:45:04 -0400, "osprey" <c...@mail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id <QvmdnTGOrrx...@comcast.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"fred" <cla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1120765074.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >> If you would actually read the Constitution then you would know that it
> >> doesn't say anything about abortion. However, note that the
> >> Declaration of Independence actually takes a pro-life stance. This is
> >> because although Thomas Jefferson could have written that all men are
> >> born equal, he instead chose to declare that all men are created equal,
> >> and by a Creator nonetheless. This can easily be understood as meaning
> >> that a person's legal protections start when they are conceived, not
> >> when they are born.
> >
> >
> >Here is something interesting I found..
> >
>
> >
> >What God's Word Says About Abortion
> >By Lynn Copeland
>
> Please post your proof any god exists.
>
If I show you an artist painting are you going to deny that the artist
exist, even though you never seen him or seen proof that he or she
exist?
Look at the world, the heavens, the stars...and you don't think that
there was a creator?
You are lost.
Somewriter
>On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 7:00:16 -0400, osprey wrote
>(in message <1120820416.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> If I show you an artist painting are you going to deny that the artist
>> exist, even though you never seen him or seen proof that he or she
>> exist?
>
>Ahhhh, the simple childlike mind. :o)
And I'll bet he'll back that up with a racial slur or two. ;-)
alen
Attila wrote:
> >The legality assumes the rightness of the law
> >that makes it legal. The discussion, however,
> >is about the fundamental rightness or otherwise
> >of the law itself, and not about a consequent
> >legality or illegality that arises afterwards.
>
> Right and wrong have no intrinsic values and will change from person
> to person and over time.
>
> There is no 'fundamental rightness.'
What, then, is your explanation for laws against
assault and murder, for example? Do you base
them on something other than a fundamental right
to life? The abortion argument itself is based
on a concept of a fundamental right of a woman
over her own body, or do you say this does not exist?
Alen
Mark Sebree
There is no other person present in the case. Besides, a person is
free to defend his or herself from unwanted and unwelcome use and abuse
of his or her body. That includes things like rape, assault, use of
medicines and medical treatment, and many other things.
> But now you are including another person,
No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
a person.
> so the
> argument is not really so simple and obvious after
> all, is it,
The argument remains very simple, to those that do not desire to cloud
the waters with changing defintions and spurious arguments.
> since no such other person can use the
> woman's own argument, as I said? You also introduce
> questions of safety, etc., which are not part of the
> argument.
In a sense, it is. It shows that pregnancy does abuse the woman.
> No such considerations could allow the
> killing of a child in a cradle,
Because the infant is a person, and an independent entity which is not
attached to and feeding off of a single person 24/7. It does not use
and abuse a person in the same manner that an embryo or fetus does.
What's more, the care of an infant can be transferred to any competant
adult, or even older teen, without problem.
> for example, so they
> are not the essence of the argument, but only the
> woman's fundamental right over her body is the essence
> of the argument.
As it should be.
>
> Regarding other people, for example, a woman's right
> to remove her fetus herself cannot be converted into
> an obligation of mine to help her to remove it.
That is why she does not ask you, and instead she goes to a competant
professional trained in the proper procedures.
> This
> also applies to other people collectively, which means
> to society,
which is made up of people that have different opinions from you.
> and society cannot therefore be obliged
> to provide her with such a service.
However, individuals that actually care about others can provide her
with that medical service, and those with the training may feel the
obligation to provide it to her. Doctors tend to be very caring people
to start with.
And without competent medical doctors trained to do the procedure
properly, there is a significant chance that she will suffer an
infection, sterility, or die from the abortion. Doctors exist to
prevent that from happening, and that is why they provide such a
service. However, you do not care that much about women, or you would
not want to see them suffer so.
> Her fundamental
> right applies only to her removing her unborn child
More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
> herself, at her own responsibility.
And she has the right to get competant medical help in doing so. And
since it is her responsibility, she pays for it herself.
> And society, on
> behalf of the child,
What child? There is no child until birth.
> could demand that she remove it
> whole and intact, and not damage it in the process,
Assuming that it is possible at 8-12 weeks of pregnancy.
> but hand it over uninjured in order to provide the
> society with the opportunity to save its life if
> possible.
It is not possible in virtually every case. You are adding a spurious
requirement that will have no effect. By the way, the doctors should
not be required to make any attempt to continue the life functions of a
purposely aborted embryo or fetus in your scenario, especially when the
medical technology is no where near being able to support it.
Besides, I do not want my tax dollars to go to paying the trillions of
dollars necessary to try to keep alive the million embryo/fetuses a
year, as you are proposing, when the effort will be wasted anyway.
There is already enough of a drain on the national pocketbook from
spurious and unneeded programs without introducing new overpriced and
useless ones.
Mark Sebree
>
> Alen
Mark Sebree
No. Because there is no known or conceivable way that such a painting
could have come into existance spontaneously.
> Look at the world, the heavens, the stars...and you don't think that
> there was a creator?
No. Why should I. Everything that you mentioned has simple,
fundamental reasons and ways that it came together. There is nothing
there to suggest that there is a creator, just as you provide no reason
to explain where your so-called creator came from. (A logical
extension of your own apparent argument, which is infinitely
recursive.)
>
> You are lost.
No, I am honest. And I do not need an unknown supernatural entity to
explain the universe, or to help me deal with its immensity.
Mark Sebree
popku...@home.com
> doesn't say anything about abortion.
I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anything about judicial review of
legislation, desegregated schools, or how to install George W. Bush in
office without an accurate and complete vote count. It's a
constitution, not a body of legislation, and is meant to provide the
framework to decide legal issues that arise hundreds of years after its
drafting.
> However, note that the
> Declaration of Independence actually takes a pro-life stance. This is
> because although Thomas Jefferson could have written that all men are
> born equal, he instead chose to declare that all men are created equal,
> and by a Creator nonetheless. This can easily be understood as meaning
> that a person's legal protections start when they are conceived, not
> when they are born.
He also could have written that all men and women are created equal,
but chose not to, which could easily be understood as meaning that only
men have rights under US law (as was indeed the case for much of our
history). Fortunately, the Declaration doesn't dictate the scope of
our constitutional rights and freedoms.
In any event, accepting that all men (and women) are created equal --
then that equality goes out the door if women are denied the same right
to control what happens inside their own bodies that men have. Of
course, women's rights don't mean squat to fundamentalists, but if
you're going to base your view of equality on the Declaration, than the
legal protections of women can't be completely subjugated to whatever
rights you can conjure up for an unborn fetus.
I take it you don't have a womb, though, in which case your opinion on
this issue counts for pretty much zip.
alen
Mark Sebree wrote:
> alen wrote:
> > You were arguing the fundamental right of the woman
> > re her own body, but your argument never mentioned
> > the right as extending to include any other person.
>
> There is no other person present in the case. Besides, a person is
> free to defend his or herself from unwanted and unwelcome use and abuse
> of his or her body. That includes things like rape, assault, use of
> medicines and medical treatment, and many other things.
>
> > But now you are including another person,
>
> No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
> a person.
I meant the abortionist, not the embryo.
> > so the
> > argument is not really so simple and obvious after
> > all, is it,
>
> The argument remains very simple, to those that do not desire to cloud
> the waters with changing defintions and spurious arguments.
Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!
> > Regarding other people, for example, a woman's right
> > to remove her fetus herself cannot be converted into
> > an obligation of mine to help her to remove it.
>
> That is why she does not ask you, and instead she goes to a competant
> professional trained in the proper procedures.
>
> > This
> > also applies to other people collectively, which means
> > to society,
>
> which is made up of people that have different opinions from you.
And of people who have the same opinion.
> > and society cannot therefore be obliged
> > to provide her with such a service.
>
> However, individuals that actually care about others can provide her
> with that medical service, and those with the training may feel the
> obligation to provide it to her. Doctors tend to be very caring people
> to start with.
>
> And without competent medical doctors trained to do the procedure
> properly, there is a significant chance that she will suffer an
> infection, sterility, or die from the abortion. Doctors exist to
> prevent that from happening, and that is why they provide such a
> service. However, you do not care that much about women, or you would
> not want to see them suffer so.
Do you think you have a right to define what 'caring'
means for everybody? Do you say that,if you can't throw
an embryo in the garbage, you are not a 'caring' person?
> > Her fundamental
> > right applies only to her removing her unborn child
>
> More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
> with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.
Who are you to define the status of an embryo for all
people, and to declare what is and is not the
significance of a child before and after birth, as if
there should be no view but yours?
> > herself, at her own responsibility.
>
> And she has the right to get competant medical help in doing so. And
> since it is her responsibility, she pays for it herself.
>
> > And society, on
> > behalf of the child,
>
> What child? There is no child until birth.
Who says? You?
> > could demand that she remove it
> > whole and intact, and not damage it in the process,
>
> Assuming that it is possible at 8-12 weeks of pregnancy.
>
> > but hand it over uninjured in order to provide the
> > society with the opportunity to save its life if
> > possible.
>
> It is not possible in virtually every case. You are adding a spurious
> requirement that will have no effect.
It expresses the principle behind the argument, independently
of practicalities, and is relevant in that way.
> Besides, I do not want my tax dollars to go to paying the trillions of
> dollars necessary to try to keep alive the million embryo/fetuses a
> year, as you are proposing, when the effort will be wasted anyway.
> There is already enough of a drain on the national pocketbook from
> spurious and unneeded programs without introducing new overpriced and
> useless ones.
>
> Mark Sebree
People also have a right to demand that their tax
dollars not be used to fund abortion if they believe
that abortion is really a crime.
Alen
osprey
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1120834153....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What other explanation do you have that caused the solar system, the earth,
and for everything to be just right for life to exist.
Everything that you mentioned has simple,
> fundamental reasons and ways that it came together.
No, that's not true. I have asked atheist one simple question and all
failed.
Explain how the very first sperm and egg (human) came into existence that
started the human race.
Mark Sebree
Gravitation collapse of the stellar remenants of a first generation
star formed our star and planets, and provided the elements that
allowed life to form. Current experiments, theories, and evidence,
including the existance of extremophiles, indicate that life will form
practically anywhere that liquid water can exist. Therefore, there is
a wide range where life is possible, and "just right" is a misnomer,
usually cause by ignorance.
>
> Everything that you mentioned has simple,
> > fundamental reasons and ways that it came together.
>
> No, that's not true. I have asked atheist one simple question and all
> failed.
Perhaps you are not willing to accept the answers you were given. I
seriously doubt that any of them made any statement that indicated that
all knowledge in the univer had been gathered.
You certainly have not been able to answer their questions, to provide
objective evidence and proof that any deity exists. Your question is
purely subjective, and will only get the same answer as you if the
person believes as you do.
>
> Explain how the very first sperm and egg (human) came into existence that
> started the human race.
Evolution and adaptation from simpler mechanisms. Plants and animals
that reproduce by combining genetic material tend to be stronger,
healthier, and more resistance as a species to changes in the
environment and to diseases than those plants and animals that
reproduce by division and budding. And this is becuase there is a
greater variation or traits within the species.
Mark Sebree
osprey
Mark,
No one has given answers, only opinions and theories. And of all the
opinions and theories, not one of them rules out the possibility of a
creator.
Everything must have a beginning, and the real question is, who or what
started it all.
And no one has the answers.
So atheist and/or theist do not know and do not have the answers. And
one does not cancel out the other.
>
> >
> > Explain how the very first sperm and egg (human) came into existence that
> > started the human race.
>
> Evolution and adaptation from simpler mechanisms. Plants and animals
> that reproduce by combining genetic material tend to be stronger,
> healthier, and more resistance as a species to changes in the
> environment and to diseases than those plants and animals that
> reproduce by division and budding. And this is becuase there is a
> greater variation or traits within the species.
Can this be proven to be the start of the human race?
Once again, you only provide theory.
Both your stand and my stand are belief, theory, and opinion.
I happen to take in both theories of evolution and creationism and I
think that the two can be linked together. I don't automatically rule
out the possibility of the painter of a painting simply because I have
never seen him or her. I know there had to be a painter, I just don't
know who. Same with the beginning, I know there had to be some type of
a force that started it all. It wasn't an accident either, too many
things are too perfect. One little thing goes off and entire species
or an entire planet can be wiped out. That's how delicate our system
is and that just doesn't happen by accident.
>
> Mark Sebree
Mark Sebree
> Mark Sebree wrote:
> > alen wrote:
>
> > > You were arguing the fundamental right of the woman
> > > re her own body, but your argument never mentioned
> > > the right as extending to include any other person.
> >
> > There is no other person present in the case. Besides, a person is
> > free to defend his or herself from unwanted and unwelcome use and abuse
> > of his or her body. That includes things like rape, assault, use of
> > medicines and medical treatment, and many other things.
> >
> > > But now you are including another person,
> >
> > No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
> > a person.
>
> I meant the abortionist, not the embryo.
Precise language is always preferable, since it conveys your meaning
more precisely. When most anti-choice people talk about "another
person" that is involved in an abortion, they are talking about the
embryo/fetus.
And the doctor is doing the job that he was trained to do, and
preforming a procedure that the woman has request. He can do it much
more safely than the woman can do to herself, and he is also trained on
how to handle any emergencies and he has the equipment on hand to do
so.
>
> > > so the
> > > argument is not really so simple and obvious after
> > > all, is it,
> >
> > The argument remains very simple, to those that do not desire to cloud
> > the waters with changing defintions and spurious arguments.
>
> Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!
You are the one that is using terms that are meant to cloud the issue,
terms that are inexact and emotionally charged. Not me.
>
> > > Regarding other people, for example, a woman's right
> > > to remove her fetus herself cannot be converted into
> > > an obligation of mine to help her to remove it.
> >
> > That is why she does not ask you, and instead she goes to a competant
> > professional trained in the proper procedures.
> >
> > > This
> > > also applies to other people collectively, which means
> > > to society,
> >
> > which is made up of people that have different opinions from you.
>
> And of people who have the same opinion.
Which means that you do not speak for anyone but yourself. There is no
reason why the people like you that seek only to harm women should
force those of us that seek to help women to not do so.
>
> > > and society cannot therefore be obliged
> > > to provide her with such a service.
> >
> > However, individuals that actually care about others can provide her
> > with that medical service, and those with the training may feel the
> > obligation to provide it to her. Doctors tend to be very caring people
> > to start with.
> >
> > And without competent medical doctors trained to do the procedure
> > properly, there is a significant chance that she will suffer an
> > infection, sterility, or die from the abortion. Doctors exist to
> > prevent that from happening, and that is why they provide such a
> > service. However, you do not care that much about women, or you would
> > not want to see them suffer so.
>
> Do you think you have a right to define what 'caring'
> means for everybody?
No. And neither do you. However, your agenda will bring harm and
suffering to millions of women. Hardly a caring position.
> Do you say that,if you can't throw
> an embryo in the garbage, you are not a 'caring' person?
Actually, if you want to force the woman to suffer, or else force her
to needlessly risk infection, sterility, and death from self-abortions
or abortion performed by untrained people, then you are not a very
caring person.
And medical technology cannot help an embryo at all. Who is going to
pay for your fruitless attempts to save it? Not me if I can help it.
Not the woman. Not the doctor.
>
> > > Her fundamental
> > > right applies only to her removing her unborn child
> >
> > More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
> > with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
>
> Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.
Not at all. Just telling you the proper terminology.
> Who are you to define the status of an embryo for all
> people,
I do not. The medical profession does. And "embryo" in humans is
defined as being from implantation to approximately 8 or 9 weeks of
gestation.
> and to declare what is and is not the
> significance of a child before and after birth, as if
> there should be no view but yours?
There is no child before birth. And a person is defined by law as
existing starting at birth. Check your own state laws if you don't
believe me. And a person has specific rights, and all laws of a region
apply to all people that are currently within that region. A region in
this sense can be a city, county, state, or nation, since all can have
their own laws that apply only within the stated borders.
>
> > > herself, at her own responsibility.
> >
> > And she has the right to get competant medical help in doing so. And
> > since it is her responsibility, she pays for it herself.
> >
> > > And society, on behalf of the child,
> >
> > What child? There is no child until birth.
>
> Who says? You?
No. The law. Check your own state laws for the definitions of a
person and a child.
>
> > > could demand that she remove it
> > > whole and intact, and not damage it in the process,
> >
> > Assuming that it is possible at 8-12 weeks of pregnancy.
> >
> > > but hand it over uninjured in order to provide the
> > > society with the opportunity to save its life if
> > > possible.
> >
> > It is not possible in virtually every case. You are adding a spurious
> > requirement that will have no effect.
>
> It expresses the principle behind the argument, independently
> of practicalities, and is relevant in that way.
However, you provide no way for your principles to be enacted,
especially since they are espousing actions that are currently beyond
medical science.
>
> > Besides, I do not want my tax dollars to go to paying the trillions of
> > dollars necessary to try to keep alive the million embryo/fetuses a
> > year, as you are proposing, when the effort will be wasted anyway.
> > There is already enough of a drain on the national pocketbook from
> > spurious and unneeded programs without introducing new overpriced and
> > useless ones.
> >
> > Mark Sebree
>
> People also have a right to demand that their tax
> dollars not be used to fund abortion if they believe
> that abortion is really a crime.
Not a problem. Tax dollars do not fund abortions now, with the
exception of those on low income women that are experiencing a
pregnancy that has a high probability of death or serious injury, such
as etopic (tubal) pregnancies. I.e. Medically necessary abortions.
And that is a very low number of pregnancies to start with.
The women that want abortions pay for them themselves now. Therefore,
you should have no problem with that. And since abortion is legal, it
is not a crime by definition, your delusions notwithstanding.
Mark Sebree
>
> Alen
Ray Fischer
It doesn't. The doctor already has the right to earn a living and
to do anything he likes that isn't illegal.
[...]
>Regarding other people, for example, a woman's right
>to remove her fetus herself cannot be converted into
>an obligation of mine to help her to remove it.
Of course.
> This
>also applies to other people collectively, which means
>to society, and society cannot therefore be obliged
>to provide her with such a service.
I odn't see anybody asking for society's support.
> Her fundamental
>right applies only to her removing her unborn child
>herself, at her own responsibility. And society, on
>behalf of the child, could demand that she remove it
>whole and intact, and not damage it in the process,
>but hand it over uninjured in order to provide the
>society with the opportunity to save its life if
>possible.
Could indeed. And, in fact, that is pretty much the status quo.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Attila wrote:
>> >What God's Word Says About Abortion
>> >By Lynn Copeland
>>
>> Please post your proof any god exists.
>>
>If I show you an artist painting are you going to deny that the artist
>exist, even though you never seen him or seen proof that he or she
>exist?
Of course it isn't proof. The presence of numerous forgeries should
be ample indication that the existance of a painting doesn't prove the
existance of painter.
>Look at the world, the heavens, the stars...and you don't think that
>there was a creator?
That's an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. Just because
_you_ cannot imagine how the universe came to be is no evidence at all
for the existance of God.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>If you would actually read the Constitution then you would know that it
>doesn't say anything about abortion.
Nor does it say anything about an air force or television or radio or
the internet.
> However, note that the
>Declaration of Independence actually takes a pro-life stance.
It's actually pro-liberty
> This is
>because although Thomas Jefferson could have written that all men are
>born equal, he instead chose to declare that all men are created equal,
>and by a Creator nonetheless.
A generic creator.
> This can easily be understood as meaning
Whatever you want it to mean.
>that a person's legal protections start when they are conceived,
Only to someone who is nuts. For thousands of years across the world,
the start of a human being's life has been marked by birth, not conception.
And that was certainly true when the DoI was written.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
The Chief Instigator
:"Mark Sebree" <seb...@infionline.net> wrote in message
:> No. Why should I.
The reason everything's right for life on this planet is that the planet's
conditions haven't gotten out of the nominal range for DNA-based life forms.
Change the circumstances of that first meeting of amino acids assembling a DNA
helix 3.5 billion years ago, and some other self-reproducing molecule would
have been the first to bring life to a barren rock...and we'd be something
other than what we are now.
: Everything that you mentioned has simple,
:> fundamental reasons and ways that it came together.
:No, that's not true. I have asked atheist one simple question and all
:failed.
:Explain how the very first sperm and egg (human) came into existence that
:started the human race.
You've been told multiple times that your question is meaningless, because
there's no way of proving that there was only *one* such instance from which
all humans are descended.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
alen
Mark Sebree wrote:
> > > > But now you are including another person,
> > >
> > > No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
> > > a person.
> >
> > I meant the abortionist, not the embryo.
> And the doctor is doing the job that he was trained to do, and
> preforming a procedure that the woman has request.
The doctor cannot use the argument that he has a
right to remove the embryo on the ground that he
has a sovereign right over his own body, because
his own body is not involved.
> > Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!
>
> You are the one that is using terms that are meant to cloud the issue,
> terms that are inexact and emotionally charged. Not me.
That's just your description. 'Emotionally charged' has
become merely an automatic, often used, cliched slogan.
> > > That is why she does not ask you, and instead she goes to a competant
> > > professional trained in the proper procedures.
> > >
> > > > This
> > > > also applies to other people collectively, which means
> > > > to society,
> > >
> > > which is made up of people that have different opinions from you.
> >
> > And of people who have the same opinion.
>
> Which means that you do not speak for anyone but yourself.
So now there is no abortion debate at all?
> > Do you think you have a right to define what 'caring'
> > means for everybody?
>
> No. And neither do you. However, your agenda will bring harm and
> suffering to millions of women. Hardly a caring position.
>
> > Do you say that,if you can't throw
> > an embryo in the garbage, you are not a 'caring' person?
>
> Actually, if you want to force the woman to suffer, or else force her
> to needlessly risk infection, sterility, and death from self-abortions
> or abortion performed by untrained people, then you are not a very
> caring person.
She could simply continue the pregnancy until birth
and then hand the baby over for adoption. It is
noticeable that you talk about 'caring' but never
say a single positive word about an embryo, as if
an embryo was not something that could ever develop
into a particular, individual human being, as it
certainly would.
> > > More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
> > > with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
> >
> > Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.
>
> Not at all. Just telling you the proper terminology.
The terminology that suits you you call 'proper'. So
much for that!
> > Who are you to define the status of an embryo for all
> > people,
>
> I do not. The medical profession does. And "embryo" in humans is
> defined as being from implantation to approximately 8 or 9 weeks of
> gestation.
>
> > and to declare what is and is not the
> > significance of a child before and after birth, as if
> > there should be no view but yours?
>
> There is no child before birth. And a person is defined by law as
> existing starting at birth.
Tell me another - as if a real child can be simply
'defined away' by particular human beings in order
to not be a child any more at their convenience.
Law is an expression only of the human will and
not an infallible manifestation of reality.
> > > What child? There is no child until birth.
> >
> > Who says? You?
>
> No. The law. Check your own state laws for the definitions of a
> person and a child.
Another laughable remark - as if the state originally designed
and created the person and the child from the beginning
and is thus revealing to us the true secrets of its creation!
Definitions by humans don't create reality.
> The women that want abortions pay for them themselves now. Therefore,
> you should have no problem with that. And since abortion is legal, it
> is not a crime by definition, your delusions notwithstanding.
It is a crime in its essence, and humans defining
it out of existence is really merely an impotent
fallacy on their part.
Alen
alen
Attila wrote:
> >> There is no 'fundamental rightness.'
> >
> >What, then, is your explanation for laws against
> >assault and murder, for example?
>
> Society has decided such actions are against the good order and
> discipline needed for a successfully functioning and health society.
> They are therefore prohibited.
>
> > Do you base
> >them on something other than a fundamental right
> >to life?
>
> Since no one has ever been able to refer me to any 'right to life' so
> I can see the provisions, what it includes, how it is enforced, and so
> forth I consider referring to any such 'right' as completely useless.
Since you hold everything to be based only on the
decision of the society, you would evidently have
no basis for an objection if a sovereign majority
decided to dispose of disliked minorities in
death camps, for example.
> > The abortion argument itself is based
> >on a concept of a fundamental right of a woman
> >over her own body, or do you say this does not exist?
>
> Nope. That right is in the Constitution according to the only people
> who are qualified to make such determinations.
If that right is nowhere but merely in the
Constitution, it would apparently cease to exist
if it were removed from the Constitution.
Alen
Mark Sebree
> Mark Sebree wrote:
>
> > > > > But now you are including another person,
> > > >
> > > > No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
> > > > a person.
> > >
> > > I meant the abortionist, not the embryo.
>
> > And the doctor is doing the job that he was trained to do, and
> > preforming a procedure that the woman has request.
>
> The doctor cannot use the argument that he has a
> right to remove the embryo on the ground that he
> has a sovereign right over his own body, because
> his own body is not involved.
>
However, her body is. And she is requesting and paying him to use his
skills to perform a service for her, a service that he has been trained
to perform. And if he had any qualms about performing that service, he
would not be offering it to women that wanted it. You seem to think
that you can command not only what women can do, but doctors as well.
>
> > > Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!
> >
> > You are the one that is using terms that are meant to cloud the issue,
> > terms that are inexact and emotionally charged. Not me.
>
> That's just your description. 'Emotionally charged' has
> become merely an automatic, often used, cliched slogan.
It is also an accurate description of your choice of words to cloud the
issue and prevent people from thinking clearly by invoking their
emotions, especially strong emotions. But then, since you have no
facts to support your arguments, emotionally charged language is all
you have left.
>
>
> > > > That is why she does not ask you, and instead she goes to a competant
> > > > professional trained in the proper procedures.
> > > >
> > > > > This
> > > > > also applies to other people collectively, which means
> > > > > to society,
> > > >
> > > > which is made up of people that have different opinions from you.
> > >
> > > And of people who have the same opinion.
> >
> > Which means that you do not speak for anyone but yourself.
>
> So now there is no abortion debate at all?
There should not be one to start with. It should be the woman's
decision, and all possible choices for her should be available, legal,
and as safe as medically possible. You want to take away her options,
and force her to suffer through an unwanted pregnancy, ending in the
torture of giving birth against her will. Or else you want to force
her to seek out an unsafe and unregulated abortion, which is likely to
cause infection, sterility, and even death.
It is people like you that think that you can decide the woman's life
and fate for her, with no regard for her own desires, plans, dreams, or
situation that are causing this debate.
>
> > > Do you think you have a right to define what 'caring'
> > > means for everybody?
> >
> > No. And neither do you. However, your agenda will bring harm and
> > suffering to millions of women. Hardly a caring position.
> >
> > > Do you say that,if you can't throw
> > > an embryo in the garbage, you are not a 'caring' person?
> >
> > Actually, if you want to force the woman to suffer, or else force her
> > to needlessly risk infection, sterility, and death from self-abortions
> > or abortion performed by untrained people, then you are not a very
> > caring person.
>
> She could simply continue the pregnancy until birth
> and then hand the baby over for adoption.
Why should she be forced to do that? Why should she suffer the months
of physical, emotional, and financial hardships that ends in hours of
torture just to satisfy your disrespect for her? Your solution does
not help her at all. It simply makes her a slave and a victim of your
disrespect for women.
> It is
> noticeable that you talk about 'caring' but never
> say a single positive word about an embryo, as if
> an embryo was not something that could ever develop
> into a particular, individual human being, as it
> certainly would.
That is because in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the woman is
essentially a victim who's hardships are caused by the embryo/fetus.
If you consider, however erroneously, the embryo/fetus to be a person,
then it is using the woman's body against her will over an extended
period of time in a manner more intimate than a sexual assault and more
damaging than a physical one. It is also pumping her body full of
drugs and stealing nutrition from her body 24/7. The woman under the
self defense laws has the right to use any means to save herself from
this unwanted intrusion and use of her body without regard for the
attacker's safety, and she is allowed to enlist anyone's help that she
can get in order to stop the attack.
On the other hand, if you do not consider the embryo/fetus a person,
then it is nothing more than an unwanted malignant and rapidly growing
parasitic organism which causes progressive and increasing damage to
its host. The woman is allowed to enlist the aid of a physician in
order to remove it at the earliest possible time, before it causes
significant damage to the woman.
Either way, they woman is allowed to get rid of the embryo/fetus as
soon as possible.
>
> > > > More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
> > > > with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
> > >
> > > Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.
> >
> > Not at all. Just telling you the proper terminology.
>
> The terminology that suits you you call 'proper'. So
> much for that!
Actually, I am using the proper, medical terminology. It is not what
"suits me as proper", it is the same, exacting terminology that doctors
use. And their terminology needs to be exact in order for them to do
their job properly.
>
> > > Who are you to define the status of an embryo for all
> > > people,
> >
> > I do not. The medical profession does. And "embryo" in humans is
> > defined as being from implantation to approximately 8 or 9 weeks of
> > gestation.
> >
> > > and to declare what is and is not the
> > > significance of a child before and after birth, as if
> > > there should be no view but yours?
> >
> > There is no child before birth. And a person is defined by law as
> > existing starting at birth.
>
> Tell me another
Another fact? That is all I have been telling you. However, you
refuse to accept any facts that contradict your desire to see women
suffer.
> - as if a real child can be simply
> 'defined away' by particular human beings in order
> to not be a child any more at their convenience.
A real child cannot be so defined away, since a real child has been
born. And our laws state that anyone that has been born in the USA is
a citizen and a person, and anyone that has been born and is not yet
dead is a person.
However, you are again using inexact and emotional language to blur the
discussion and create confusion. When you said "real child" here, you
were not referring to any children at all; you were referring to
embryos and fetuses.
> Law is an expression only of the human will and
> not an infallible manifestation of reality.
It is also an exacting definition of the status of differing elements
of society, and it defines what each element's rights are. You are the
one that keeps invoking society. Well, it is society that effectively
makes the laws.
>
>
> > > > What child? There is no child until birth.
> > >
> > > Who says? You?
> >
> > No. The law. Check your own state laws for the definitions of a
> > person and a child.
>
> Another laughable remark
Your remarks usually are laughable.
> - as if the state originally designed
> and created the person and the child from the beginning
> and is thus revealing to us the true secrets of its creation!
> Definitions by humans don't create reality.
Nor do your opinions define reality. And you do not sound well versed
enough in cosmology and astrophysics to have any idea about the
theories about how the Universe began.
Laws, however, do define who and what has what rights, and defines
those groups as exactly as reasonably possible. And those laws are an
also a reflection of society and the society's principles. And to the
best of my knowledge, no society in history has ever given embryos or
fetuses the rights or recognition of a person.
Laws define what is and is not a person. I was even letting you pick
the state that you could check on the laws for. However, since you
seem to have refused to do so, here are the applicable ones for
Indiana, my home state. To the best of my knowledge, all states and
most countries have similar laws.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch1.html
IC 35-41-1-22
"Person" defined
Sec. 22. (a) "Person" means a human being, corporation, limited
liability company, partnership, unincorporated association, or
governmental entity.
IC 35-41-1-14
"Human being" defined
Sec. 14. "Human being" means an individual who has been born and
is alive.
As you can see, Indiana, a rather conservative state, does not
recognize an embryo or fetus as a person since it has not been born.
>
> > The women that want abortions pay for them themselves now. Therefore,
> > you should have no problem with that. And since abortion is legal, it
> > is not a crime by definition, your delusions notwithstanding.
>
> It is a crime in its essence,
Only in your mind. It is not a crime in reality.
> and humans defining
> it out of existence is really merely an impotent
> fallacy on their part.
>
> Alen
There is no crime to "define out of reality". Therefore, there is no
fallacy in stating that abortion is not a crime, and certainly is not
murder. You just do not have any logical, fact based evidence or
arguments to support your position, so you rely on fallacies and smoke
screens.
It is not about what you want, unless you are a pregnant woman, it is
about what the pregnant woman wants. You cannot run her life for her,
and you do not seem to be offering to pay her for the services that you
want to force her to provide as a brood mare and an incubator. You
have no say in the matter, and you have no right to force her to suffer
just to satisfy your irrational "sensibilities". You also have no
right to force her to live by your beliefs and so-called morals.
It is her body, her life, and her choice. That is all there is to it.
Mark Sebree
alen
Mark Sebree wrote:
> > The doctor cannot use the argument that he has a
> > right to remove the embryo on the ground that he
> > has a sovereign right over his own body, because
> > his own body is not involved.
> >
>
> However, her body is. And she is requesting and paying him to use his
> skills to perform a service for her, a service that he has been trained
> to perform.
OK - I can accept that the woman includes the doctor in her own
right over herself. But, nevertheless, the conclusion that it
leads to doesn't seem to be satisfactory. It doesn't seem right
to regard an embryo as merely a parasite.
On what ground, therefore, does the woman make the request
for the removal of the embryo? Of course, on her autonomous
possession of her own person. This, therefore, must lead to
the question: what is the basis, or origin, of this concept of
the autonomy of any individual person in the first place?
I think that it is manifestly visible and evident that the
human body is autonomous and intrinsically devoted to the
person that owns it, and it is this evidence that is the
source of the concept. But this evidence is not the same in
the peculiar case of pregnancy. The embryo is not an ordinary
kidnapper. It is utterly helpless. On the contrary, the woman's
body, by its intrinsic design and nature, and by its own
intrinsic action, devotes itself to the nurture of the embryo,
and not solely to the autonomy of the woman, and thus displays
a contradiction to the normal evidence on which the original
concept of autonomy is based. Thus, nature itself, from which
we get the concept of the autonomy of the individual, is itself
the witness that our concept is too absolute, and more so than
the evidence supports. The autonomy of the individual is
therefore not something absolute, but only almost so. The
absolute concept is thus a falsehood, and the characterisation
of the embryo as a parasite is thus also false. This is so by
the evidence of the nature itself of a woman's body,
independently of an embryo, and not caused by it.
Alen
Ray Fischer
>On what ground, therefore, does the woman make the request
>for the removal of the embryo? Of course, on her autonomous
>possession of her own person. This, therefore, must lead to
>the question: what is the basis, or origin, of this concept of
>the autonomy of any individual person in the first place?
Enlightened self interest. You don't want to be a slave so you don't
allow others to be slaves.
>I think that it is manifestly visible and evident that the
>human body is autonomous and intrinsically devoted to the
>person that owns it, and it is this evidence that is the
>source of the concept. But this evidence is not the same in
>the peculiar case of pregnancy. The embryo is not an ordinary
>kidnapper. It is utterly helpless. On the contrary, the woman's
>body, by its intrinsic design and nature, and by its own
>intrinsic action, devotes itself to the nurture of the embryo,
>and not solely to the autonomy of the woman, and thus displays
>a contradiction to the normal evidence on which the original
>concept of autonomy is based.
You're anthropomorphizing purely autonomous responses. There is no
devotion. There is no nurturing. The embryo attaches itself to the
woman's body and takes what it needs.
> Thus, nature itself, from which
>we get the concept of the autonomy of the individual, is itself
>the witness that our concept is too absolute, and more so than
>the evidence supports.
Pretending that you speak for nature is presumptuous and really
doesn't make for a valid logical argument. You are only speaking your
own wishes and beliefs.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
fred
on between your ears?
fred
Ricky Ticket wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 7:00:16 -0400, osprey wrote
> (in message <1120820416.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > If I show you an artist painting are you going to deny that the artist
> > exist, even though you never seen him or seen proof that he or she
> > exist?
>
> Ahhhh, the simple childlike mind. :o)
And what a copout reply. :^(
>
> --
> "I guess due to your cowardness it is the only safe option you have, because
> out in the public you would most likely get hurt badly for lying like you
> are." --Osprey
fred
Ray Fischer wrote:
> osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
> >Attila wrote:
>
> >> >What God's Word Says About Abortion
> >> >By Lynn Copeland
> >>
> >> Please post your proof any god exists.
> >>
> >If I show you an artist painting are you going to deny that the artist
> >exist, even though you never seen him or seen proof that he or she
> >exist?
>
> Of course it isn't proof. The presence of numerous forgeries should
> be ample indication that the existance of a painting doesn't prove the
> existance of painter.
C'mon. :^(
It's not worth putting your foot in your mouth with nonsensical
statements like that even to take stabs at Christians. The
intelligence in the forgeries still had to originate from somewhere.
>
> >Look at the world, the heavens, the stars...and you don't think that
> >there was a creator?
>
> That's an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. Just because
> _you_ cannot imagine how the universe came to be is no evidence at all
> for the existance of God.
Look who's pointing the accusing finger of logical fallacy after the
unthinking statement you just made. You're projecting yourself into
the other poster! It's not worth hating people to the extent that you
are no longer thinking clearly.
Get a grip!
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
>> >Attila wrote:
>> >> >What God's Word Says About Abortion
>> >> >By Lynn Copeland
>> >>
>> >> Please post your proof any god exists.
>> >>
>> >If I show you an artist painting are you going to deny that the artist
>> >exist, even though you never seen him or seen proof that he or she
>> >exist?
>>
>> Of course it isn't proof. The presence of numerous forgeries should
>> be ample indication that the existance of a painting doesn't prove the
>> existance of painter.
>
>C'mon. :^(
>
>It's not worth putting your foot in your mouth with nonsensical
>statements like that even to take stabs at Christians. The
>intelligence in the forgeries still had to originate from somewhere.
It no proof there is a painter just as the universe is no proof of any
intelligent designer. There are alternate explanations which don't
require superstition.
>> >Look at the world, the heavens, the stars...and you don't think that
>> >there was a creator?
>>
>> That's an argument from ignorance. A logical fallacy. Just because
>> _you_ cannot imagine how the universe came to be is no evidence at all
>> for the existance of God.
>
>Look who's pointing the accusing finger of logical fallacy after the
>unthinking statement you just made.
Ad hominem.
> You're projecting yourself into
>the other poster!
Wrong again, moron.
> It's not worth hating people to the extent that you
Too stupid to think for yourself you fart your intolerance and
narrowminded idiocy. A true example of the religious bigot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
alen
Ray Fischer wrote:
> >I think that it is manifestly visible and evident that the
> >human body is autonomous and intrinsically devoted to the
> >person that owns it, and it is this evidence that is the
> >source of the concept. But this evidence is not the same in
> >the peculiar case of pregnancy. The embryo is not an ordinary
> >kidnapper. It is utterly helpless. On the contrary, the woman's
> >body, by its intrinsic design and nature, and by its own
> >intrinsic action, devotes itself to the nurture of the embryo,
> >and not solely to the autonomy of the woman, and thus displays
> >a contradiction to the normal evidence on which the original
> >concept of autonomy is based.
>
> You're anthropomorphizing purely autonomous responses. There is no
> devotion. There is no nurturing. The embryo attaches itself to the
> woman's body and takes what it needs.
You are emphasising the woman's part as an autonomous
response, but making the embryo's part look like a
deliberate act, in order to manufacture victimhood
in the woman and parasitic aggression in the embryo,
as if the woman's body was not itself designed to form
and support the embryo.
> > Thus, nature itself, from which
> >we get the concept of the autonomy of the individual, is itself
> >the witness that our concept is too absolute, and more so than
> >the evidence supports.
>
> Pretending that you speak for nature is presumptuous and really
> doesn't make for a valid logical argument. You are only speaking your
> own wishes and beliefs.
It is rather you who are speaking a wish of
your own in trying to convert the evidence
into my pretence in order to discard it.
Alen
Somewriter
>
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> >I think that it is manifestly visible and evident that the
>> >human body is autonomous and intrinsically devoted to the
>> >person that owns it, and it is this evidence that is the
>> >source of the concept. But this evidence is not the same in
>> >the peculiar case of pregnancy. The embryo is not an ordinary
>> >kidnapper. It is utterly helpless. On the contrary, the woman's
>> >body, by its intrinsic design and nature, and by its own
>> >intrinsic action, devotes itself to the nurture of the embryo,
>> >and not solely to the autonomy of the woman, and thus displays
>> >a contradiction to the normal evidence on which the original
>> >concept of autonomy is based.
>>
>> You're anthropomorphizing purely autonomous responses. There is no
>> devotion. There is no nurturing. The embryo attaches itself to the
>> woman's body and takes what it needs.
>
>You are emphasising the woman's part as an autonomous
>response, but making the embryo's part look like a
>deliberate act, in order to manufacture victimhood...
What a crock of patent shit.
goozlefotz
explorerthedog wrote:
> If Abortion Is A Constitutional Right, Then Prostitution, Drug Use, And
>
> Possession Of Child Pornography Must Also Be Constitutional Rights.
>
> The Same Broad Constitutional Rights To Liberty And Privacy Would Cover
>
> Them All Equally.
>
Agreed. Next question.
Ray Fischer
>
>
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>> >I think that it is manifestly visible and evident that the
>> >human body is autonomous and intrinsically devoted to the
>> >person that owns it, and it is this evidence that is the
>> >source of the concept. But this evidence is not the same in
>> >the peculiar case of pregnancy. The embryo is not an ordinary
>> >kidnapper. It is utterly helpless. On the contrary, the woman's
>> >body, by its intrinsic design and nature, and by its own
>> >intrinsic action, devotes itself to the nurture of the embryo,
>> >and not solely to the autonomy of the woman, and thus displays
>> >a contradiction to the normal evidence on which the original
>> >concept of autonomy is based.
>>
>> You're anthropomorphizing purely autonomous responses. There is no
>> devotion. There is no nurturing. The embryo attaches itself to the
>> woman's body and takes what it needs.
>
>You are emphasising the woman's part as an autonomous
>response, but making the embryo's part look like a
It's the very same tactic you used.
How do you like it?
[...]
>as if the woman's body was not itself designed to form
>and support the embryo.
It wasn't.
>> > Thus, nature itself, from which
>> >we get the concept of the autonomy of the individual, is itself
>> >the witness that our concept is too absolute, and more so than
>> >the evidence supports.
>>
>> Pretending that you speak for nature is presumptuous and really
>> doesn't make for a valid logical argument. You are only speaking your
>> own wishes and beliefs.
>
>It is rather you who are speaking a wish of
>your own in trying to convert the evidence
>into my pretence in order to discard it.
You didn't provide any evidence. All you do is state your opinion.
Using your "logic" I could state that because you are designed to die,
murdering you is justified and would cause no harm.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
alen
Ray Fischer wrote:
> alen <al...@westserv.net.au> wrote:
> >You are emphasising the woman's part as an autonomous
> >response, but making the embryo's part look like a
>
> It's the very same tactic you used.
>
> How do you like it?
>
> [...]
> >as if the woman's body was not itself designed to form
> >and support the embryo.
>
> It wasn't.
That answer is sufficient to demonstrate
the lack of credibility of your remark above.
> >> > Thus, nature itself, from which
> >> >we get the concept of the autonomy of the individual, is itself
> >> >the witness that our concept is too absolute, and more so than
> >> >the evidence supports.
> >>
> >> Pretending that you speak for nature is presumptuous and really
> >> doesn't make for a valid logical argument. You are only speaking your
> >> own wishes and beliefs.
> >
> >It is rather you who are speaking a wish of
> >your own in trying to convert the evidence
> >into my pretence in order to discard it.
>
> You didn't provide any evidence. All you do is state your opinion.
What statement by anyone is not also an opinion?
> Using your "logic" I could state that because you are designed to die,
> murdering you is justified and would cause no harm.
I wasn't designed to be murdered.
Alen
Ray Fischer
>> >You are emphasising the woman's part as an autonomous
>> >response, but making the embryo's part look like a
>>
>> It's the very same tactic you used.
>>
>> How do you like it?
>>
>> [...]
>> >as if the woman's body was not itself designed to form
>> >and support the embryo.
>>
>> It wasn't.
>
>That answer is sufficient to demonstrate
>the lack of credibility of your remark above.
If all you can do is act like an ass every time your prejudices are challenged
then it's clear you have no rational argument at all.
A woman's body was not designed to do anything because it was not
designed. There is no intended purpose.
>> >> Pretending that you speak for nature is presumptuous and really
>> >> doesn't make for a valid logical argument. You are only speaking your
>> >> own wishes and beliefs.
>> >
>> >It is rather you who are speaking a wish of
>> >your own in trying to convert the evidence
>> >into my pretence in order to discard it.
>>
>> You didn't provide any evidence. All you do is state your opinion.
>
>What statement by anyone is not also an opinion?
That's a pretty sorry excuse.
>> Using your "logic" I could state that because you are designed to die,
>> murdering you is justified and would cause no harm.
>
>I wasn't designed to be murdered.
And a woman isn't designed to be enslaved.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
osprey
What Ray really meants to say about how he feels about women...
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
From: rfisc...@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Message-ID: <b8283v$jq...@bolt.sonic.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 02:06:56 GMT
DivaSycamore <notha...@none.com> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> DivaSycamore <notha...@none.com> wrote:
>> >Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> > If in
>> >> >the event that the female turns out to be pregnant, then the man is
>> >> >SUPPOSED to stick around.
>> >> Why? Is she a little girl who can't take care of herself?
>> >Your words, not mine.
>> You're not answering the question.
>No, she's NOT a little girl. There, happy now?
Why is he supposed to stick around?
>> > It's his responsibility to BE A MAN and help out
>> Spare us the sexist bullshit.
>So now it's sexist to be RESPONSIBLE?
And you should shut-up and attend to your RESPONSIBILITIES
around the home.
>>You don't want a man.
>I already HAVE one dearie.
Then why the hell aren't you taking care of him instead of wasting
your time blathering about things you don't understand?
Get back to work, woman. Make yourself useful.
--
Ray Fischer
rfisc...@sonic.net
alen
Ray Fischer wrote:
> If all you can do is act like an ass every time your prejudices are challenged
> then it's clear you have no rational argument at all.
My 'prejudices' are a presumptuous, prejudiced assumption
of your own, that has nothing to do with me.
> A woman's body was not designed to do anything because it was not
> designed. There is no intended purpose.
You might find it convenient to say so, since
you would find the alternative difficult to deal with.
> >What statement by anyone is not also an opinion?
>
> That's a pretty sorry excuse.
Where did you drag the word 'excuse' from?
> >I wasn't designed to be murdered.
>
> And a woman isn't designed to be enslaved.
But she is designed to bear children
Alen
Somewriter
[...]
>But she is designed to bear children
...not all women.
osprey
Attila wrote:
> On 8 Jul 2005 23:37:15 -0700, "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <1120891035.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Mark Sebree wrote:
> >
> >> > > > But now you are including another person,
> >> > >
> >> > > No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
> >> > > a person.
> >> >
> >> > I meant the abortionist, not the embryo.
> >
> >> And the doctor is doing the job that he was trained to do, and
> >> preforming a procedure that the woman has request.
> >
> >The doctor cannot use the argument that he has a
> >right to remove the embryo on the ground that he
> >has a sovereign right over his own body, because
> >his own body is not involved.
>
> This is silly. He is a professional. trained and licensed to perform
> certain legal procedures, and is performing such a procedure at the
> request of the person having the procedure.
Abortion = the taking of a life
Doctors are supposed to preserve life, not take it. A professional
would not take a life just so he or she can afford to drive in a new
Jaquar.
>
> There are no 'abortionists'.
You are a liar and wrong.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abortionist
a·bor·tion·ist
n.
One who performs abortions.
> That is not a medical specialty. An
> abortion is simply a medical procedure done mostly by OB/GYN
> specialists - the same people who treat women for other problems as
> well as assist in childbirth.
Abortion is and always has been, the taking of a life.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=life
life
n. pl. lives (lvz)
The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead
organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as
metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation
to the environment originating from within the organism.
The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
Living organisms considered as a group: plant life; marine life.
A living being, especially a person: an earthquake that claimed
hundreds of lives.
The physical, mental, and spiritual experiences that constitute
existence: the artistic life of a writer.
The interval of time between birth and death: She led a good, long
life.
The interval of time between one's birth and the present: has had hay
fever all his life.
A particular segment of one's life: my adolescent life.
The period from an occurrence until death: elected for life; paralyzed
for life.
Slang. A sentence of imprisonment lasting till death.
The time for which something exists or functions: the useful life of a
car.
A spiritual state regarded as a transcending of corporeal death.
An account of a person's life; a biography.
Human existence, relationships, or activity in general: real life;
everyday life.
A manner of living: led a hard life.
A specific, characteristic manner of existence. Used of inanimate
objects: "Great institutions seem to have a life of their own,
independent of those who run them" (New Republic).
The activities and interests of a particular area or realm: musical
life in New York.
A source of vitality; an animating force: She's the life of the show.
Liveliness or vitality; animation: a face that is full of life.
Something that actually exists regarded as a subject for an artist:
painted from life.
Actual environment or reality; nature.
adj.
Of or relating to animate existence; involved in or necessary for
living: life processes.
Continuing for a lifetime; lifelong: life partner; life imprisonment.
Using a living model as a subject for an artist: a life sculpture.
>
> >
> >
> >> > Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!
> >>
> >> You are the one that is using terms that are meant to cloud the issue,
> >> terms that are inexact and emotionally charged. Not me.
> >
> >That's just your description. 'Emotionally charged' has
> >become merely an automatic, often used, cliched slogan.
>
> And a common ploy used by the anti-choice faction to cover up their
> lack of facts.
And the common ploy used by the anti-life faction is to cover up their
agenda by playing on words and distorting facts.
>
> >
> >
> >> > > That is why she does not ask you, and instead she goes to a competant
> >> > > professional trained in the proper procedures.
> >> > >
> >> > > > This
> >> > > > also applies to other people collectively, which means
> >> > > > to society,
> >> > >
> >> > > which is made up of people that have different opinions from you.
> >> >
> >> > And of people who have the same opinion.
> >>
> >> Which means that you do not speak for anyone but yourself.
> >
> >So now there is no abortion debate at all?
> >
> >> > Do you think you have a right to define what 'caring'
> >> > means for everybody?
> >>
> >> No. And neither do you. However, your agenda will bring harm and
> >> suffering to millions of women. Hardly a caring position.
> >>
> >> > Do you say that,if you can't throw
> >> > an embryo in the garbage, you are not a 'caring' person?
> >>
> >> Actually, if you want to force the woman to suffer, or else force her
> >> to needlessly risk infection, sterility, and death from self-abortions
> >> or abortion performed by untrained people, then you are not a very
> >> caring person.
> >
> >She could simply continue the pregnancy until birth
> >and then hand the baby over for adoption.
>
> Which would subject her to the risks and problems associated with the
> procedure when it is her intent no to be so subjected.
>
> >It is
> >noticeable that you talk about 'caring' but never
> >say a single positive word about an embryo, as if
> >an embryo was not something that could ever develop
> >into a particular, individual human being, as it
> >certainly would.
>
> Irrelevant.
Another common ploy, when the pro-abort has no answer..throw out
"irrelevant".
> >
> >> > > More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
> >> > > with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
> >> >
> >> > Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.
> >>
> >> Not at all. Just telling you the proper terminology.
> >
> >The terminology that suits you you call 'proper'. So
> >much for that!
>
> The terminology that is the least confusing and the most accurate
> would be the proper terminology to use.
Baby is not confusing. Human being, is not confusing.
Unborn child is not confusing.
>
> >
> >> > Who are you to define the status of an embryo for all
> >> > people,
> >>
> >> I do not. The medical profession does. And "embryo" in humans is
> >> defined as being from implantation to approximately 8 or 9 weeks of
> >> gestation.
> >>
> >> > and to declare what is and is not the
> >> > significance of a child before and after birth, as if
> >> > there should be no view but yours?
> >>
> >> There is no child before birth. And a person is defined by law as
> >> existing starting at birth.
> >
> >Tell me another - as if a real child can be simply
> >'defined away' by particular human beings in order
> >to not be a child any more at their convenience.
> >Law is an expression only of the human will and
> >not an infallible manifestation of reality.
>
> Society can and does set the standards for it's members. The status
> of human being is such a standard, and the term 'child' is so vague as
> to be meaningless in a discussion such as this.
>
> >
> >
> >> > > What child? There is no child until birth.
> >> >
> >> > Who says? You?
> >>
> >> No. The law. Check your own state laws for the definitions of a
> >> person and a child.
> >
> >Another laughable remark - as if the state originally designed
> >and created the person and the child from the beginning
> >and is thus revealing to us the true secrets of its creation!
> >Definitions by humans don't create reality.
>
> Of course they do. Citizenship is a reality. Property ownership is a
> reality. An inheritance is a reality. And they are all controlled
> and defined by society. As is the legal status of both person and
> human being.
>
> >
> >> The women that want abortions pay for them themselves now. Therefore,
> >> you should have no problem with that. And since abortion is legal, it
> >> is not a crime by definition, your delusions notwithstanding.
> >
> >It is a crime in its essence,
>
> There is no such thing.
>
> > and humans defining
> >it out of existence is really merely an impotent
> >fallacy on their part.
>
> Nonsense.
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >I wasn't designed to be murdered.
>>
>> And a woman isn't designed to be enslaved.
>
>But she is designed to bear children
And you are designed to die.
If it's okay to force a woman to do what she's "designed" to
do, then why isn't it okay to force you to die?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Adam H.
>
>
>Attila wrote:
>> On 8 Jul 2005 23:37:15 -0700, "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> in
>> alt.abortion with message-id
>> <1120891035.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Mark Sebree wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > > But now you are including another person,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
>> >> > > a person.
>> >> >
>> >> > I meant the abortionist, not the embryo.
>> >
>> >> And the doctor is doing the job that he was trained to do, and
>> >> preforming a procedure that the woman has request.
>> >
>> >The doctor cannot use the argument that he has a
>> >right to remove the embryo on the ground that he
>> >has a sovereign right over his own body, because
>> >his own body is not involved.
>>
>> This is silly. He is a professional. trained and licensed to perform
>> certain legal procedures, and is performing such a procedure at the
>> request of the person having the procedure.
>
>Abortion = the taking of a life
>
So is eating. Your argument is pretty much sunk by your inability to
express it without resorting to meaningless emotionalism, Mary Anne.
osprey
Attila wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2005 10:00:35 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <1121101234....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Attila wrote:
> >> On 8 Jul 2005 23:37:15 -0700, "alen" <al...@westserv.net.au> in
> >> alt.abortion with message-id
> >> <1120891035.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Mark Sebree wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > > > But now you are including another person,
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > No, I am not. An embryo or fetus is not a human being, and thus is not
> >> >> > > a person.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I meant the abortionist, not the embryo.
> >> >
> >> >> And the doctor is doing the job that he was trained to do, and
> >> >> preforming a procedure that the woman has request.
> >> >
> >> >The doctor cannot use the argument that he has a
> >> >right to remove the embryo on the ground that he
> >> >has a sovereign right over his own body, because
> >> >his own body is not involved.
> >>
> >> This is silly. He is a professional. trained and licensed to perform
> >> certain legal procedures, and is performing such a procedure at the
> >> request of the person having the procedure.
> >
> >Abortion = the taking of a life
>
> Abortion = the termination of a pregnancy.
> Anything else is ia irrelevant side effect.
That's the part that shows yours and the other pro-aborts dishonesty
and you also support my argument that pro-aborts will purposely ignore
elements of the discussion because it hinders their agenda.
>
> >
> >Doctors are supposed to preserve life, not take it. A professional
> >would not take a life just so he or she can afford to drive in a new
> >Jaquar.
>
> Facts not in evidence. Prove the only reason a doctor performs an
> abortion is to get a ne Jaguar.
Show me one who does abortions for free.
>
>
> >>
> >> There are no 'abortionists'.
> >
> >You are a liar and wrong.
> >
> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abortionist
> >
> >a·bor·tion·ist
> >
> >n.
> >One who performs abortions.
>
> The only people who use the term are the anti-choice faction.
You said "There are no 'abortionist' and I have shown you there are.
What else are they?
>
> >
> >> That is not a medical specialty. An
> >> abortion is simply a medical procedure done mostly by OB/GYN
> >> specialists - the same people who treat women for other problems as
> >> well as assist in childbirth.
> >
> >Abortion is and always has been, the taking of a life.
>
> Irrelevant.
You have no answer, so you resort to "Irrelevant".
It's purpose is to terminate a pregnancy and nothing else
> matters.
Your dishonesty is noted.
> Nonsense.
No, you have already shown me to be right in this post alone. With
your ignoring the fact that abortion takes a life.
The 'playing on words' is all done by the anti-choice
> faction, and I know of no anti-life faction.
> No, that is the answer.
No, it's running away.
What an embryo would or would not develop
> into simply does not matter. Whether or not it would develop into "a
> particular, individual human being" is unimportant.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> >
> >> >> > > More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
> >> >> > > with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not at all. Just telling you the proper terminology.
> >> >
> >> >The terminology that suits you you call 'proper'. So
> >> >much for that!
> >>
> >> The terminology that is the least confusing and the most accurate
> >> would be the proper terminology to use.
> >
> >Baby is not confusing. Human being, is not confusing.
> >Unborn child is not confusing.
>
> All of those have imprecise meanings. A 70 year old can be a baby or
> a child to his 90 year old mother. I agree human being is not
> confusing but live birth is required to qualify.
You have already lost that argument and been shown to be wrong.
>
> Unborn child is awkward.
For you it is because it hinders your agenda to support abortion.
Fetus is much more professional and is the
> term used by medical professionals.
Yes, it sounds nicer to you because it helps you promote abortions.
>
> I have discussed the use of such terms elsewhere in this post.
alen
I am designed to live for a limited time,
rather than to die, the time being determined
by my individual nature; also, a woman is
designed to carry an embryo for a limited
time, the time being determined by her nature.
Alen
Ray Fischer
You didn't answer the question, coward.
If you get to decide for a woman then why shouldn't I get to
decide for you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
alen
Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> If it's okay to force a woman to do what she's "designed" to
> >> do, then why isn't it okay to force you to die?
> >
> >I am designed to live for a limited time,
> >rather than to die, the time being determined
> >by my individual nature; also, a woman is
> >designed to carry an embryo for a limited
> >time, the time being determined by her nature.
>
> You didn't answer the question, coward.
I answered the right question. The original
was a wrong question deliberately calculated
to compel the wrong answer. I am not, indeed,
'brave' enough to be tricked by you.
> If you get to decide for a woman then why shouldn't I get to
> decide for you?
Why should anyone get to decide to stop a
person killing a baby in a cradle? Society
does claim a right to prevent people doing
some things, but that doesn't mean a right
to decide for everybody about everything.
In essence, abortionists are murderers of
the unborn in the name of manufacturing a
freedom that doesn't really exist.
Alen
Ray Fischer
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> >> If it's okay to force a woman to do what she's "designed" to
>> >> do, then why isn't it okay to force you to die?
>> >
>> >I am designed to live for a limited time,
>> >rather than to die, the time being determined
>> >by my individual nature; also, a woman is
>> >designed to carry an embryo for a limited
>> >time, the time being determined by her nature.
>>
>> You didn't answer the question, coward.
>
>I answered the right question.
You tried to ignore your hypocrisy by changing the subject.
>> If you get to decide for a woman then why shouldn't I get to
>> decide for you?
>
>Why should anyone get to decide to stop a
>person killing a baby in a cradle?
So we dispense with the whole "designed" crap and move on to the next
argument.
And the answer is: Because the limitations to liberty are far
outweighed by the benefit to society.
But abortion is something completely different. It's not about
killing at all. It's about the basic, fundamental right of ALL
people to decide how their own bodies will be used.
[..]
>In essence, abortionists are murderers of
>the unborn in the name of manufacturing a
You have been corrupted by the evil of anti-abortion terrorists.
You have nothing but hatred and demonization for those who dare to
stand up to your perverse need to make women suffer.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
osprey
Attila wrote:
> On 11 Jul 2005 16:31:44 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> I am not proabortion.
Yea, and you lie too.
> > dishonesty
>
> How?
Is it worth explaining again and again and again?
You will just deny it.
> >and you also support my argument that pro-aborts will purposely ignore
> >elements of the discussion because it hinders their agenda.
>
> Nonsense.
Denial
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Doctors are supposed to preserve life, not take it. A professional
> >> >would not take a life just so he or she can afford to drive in a new
> >> >Jaquar.
> >>
> >> Facts not in evidence. Prove the only reason a doctor performs an
> >> abortion is to get a ne Jaguar.
> >
> >Show me one who does abortions for free.
>
> Irrelevant. Few people work for free.
Your failure to show me if I am wrong is noted
>
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> There are no 'abortionists'.
> >> >
> >> >You are a liar and wrong.
> >> >
> >> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abortionist
> >> >
> >> >a·bor·tion·ist
> >> >
> >> >n.
> >> >One who performs abortions.
> >>
> >> The only people who use the term are the anti-choice faction.
> >
> >You said "There are no 'abortionist' and I have shown you there are.
> >What else are they?
>
> Obstetricians and OB/GYN specialists using their training for their
> patients.
They are abortionist if they are using their skills to kill a life.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> That is not a medical specialty. An
> >> >> abortion is simply a medical procedure done mostly by OB/GYN
> >> >> specialists - the same people who treat women for other problems as
> >> >> well as assist in childbirth.
> >> >
> >> >Abortion is and always has been, the taking of a life.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant.
> >
> >You have no answer, so you resort to "Irrelevant".
>
> No, the death of the fetus *is* irrelevant.
No it isn't, you just refuse to see it.
>
>
> >
> > It's purpose is to terminate a pregnancy and nothing else
> >> matters.
> >
> >Your dishonesty is noted.
>
> Denied, of course.
You are a living example of denial.
> Yes, I am. Humans are not an endangered species and washing your
> hands also takes lives.
Distortion noted
> Nonsense. You simply can't handel the truth.
Irony meter pegged out
>
> >
> > What an embryo would or would not develop
> >> into simply does not matter. Whether or not it would develop into "a
> >> particular, individual human being" is unimportant.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > > More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
> >> >> >> > > with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not at all. Just telling you the proper terminology.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The terminology that suits you you call 'proper'. So
> >> >> >much for that!
> >> >>
> >> >> The terminology that is the least confusing and the most accurate
> >> >> would be the proper terminology to use.
> >> >
> >> >Baby is not confusing. Human being, is not confusing.
> >> >Unborn child is not confusing.
> >>
> >> All of those have imprecise meanings. A 70 year old can be a baby or
> >> a child to his 90 year old mother. I agree human being is not
> >> confusing but live birth is required to qualify.
> >
> >You have already lost that argument and been shown to be wrong.
>
> No I have not, Either one.
Denial
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Unborn child is awkward.
> >
> >For you it is because it hinders your agenda to support abortion.
>
> But I don't. And never have. I support the freedom of choice.
Lie
You don't support freedom of choice.
>
> >
> > Fetus is much more professional and is the
> >> term used by medical professionals.
> >
> >Yes, it sounds nicer to you because it helps you promote abortions.
>
> I have never promoted abortions. You lie.
No, I am telling the truth. You can't handle the truth.
james g. keegan jr.
news:1121195779....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Attila wrote:
>> On 11 Jul 2005 16:31:44 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> in
>> alt.abortion with message-id
>> Denied, of course.
>
> You are a living example of denial.
is that why you lied to multiple newsgroups about your combat experience
and many other things?
Somewriter
You should feel embarassed and express an apology for such blatant
irony.
Docky Wocky
the proper gender, is murder of males who piss off females also a
Constitutional right of the proper gender?
osprey
Attila wrote:
> On 12 Jul 2005 12:16:19 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <1121195779....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> This is silly. He is a professional. trained and licensed to perform
> >> >> >> certain legal procedures, and is performing such a procedure at the
> >> >> >> request of the person having the procedure.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Abortion = the taking of a life
> >> >>
> >> >> Abortion = the termination of a pregnancy.
> >> >> Anything else is ia irrelevant side effect.
> >> >
> >> >That's the part that shows yours and the other pro-aborts
> >>
> >> I am not proabortion.
> >
> >Yea, and you lie too.
>
> You are the expert in that area.
Not hardly but believe as you wish.
You are pro-abortion, no matter how badly you want to cry about it.
> >
> >
> >> > dishonesty
> >>
> >> How?
> >
> >Is it worth explaining again and again and again?
> >You will just deny it.
>
> Can't support your statements again I see.
They have been supported and it's not worth going over again with you
only for you to lie and try to twist the words around.
>
> >
> >> >and you also support my argument that pro-aborts will purposely ignore
> >> >elements of the discussion because it hinders their agenda.
> >>
> >> Nonsense.
> >
> >Denial
>
> Not at all.
Yes, it is denial.
> It is unnecessary to deny anything.
You are in denial though.
> Aside from your lies of course.
What lie?
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Doctors are supposed to preserve life, not take it. A professional
> >> >> >would not take a life just so he or she can afford to drive in a new
> >> >> >Jaquar.
> >> >>
> >> >> Facts not in evidence. Prove the only reason a doctor performs an
> >> >> abortion is to get a ne Jaguar.
> >> >
> >> >Show me one who does abortions for free.
> >>
> >> Irrelevant. Few people work for free.
> >
> >Your failure to show me if I am wrong is noted
>
> Your failure to understand a simple sentence is obvious.
What's not to understand? You failed to show me if I am wrong, simple
as that.
>
>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> There are no 'abortionists'.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You are a liar and wrong.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abortionist
> >> >> >
> >> >> >a·bor·tion·ist
> >> >> >
> >> >> >n.
> >> >> >One who performs abortions.
> >> >>
> >> >> The only people who use the term are the anti-choice faction.
> >> >
> >> >You said "There are no 'abortionist' and I have shown you there are.
> >> >What else are they?
> >>
> >> Obstetricians and OB/GYN specialists using their training for their
> >> patients.
> >
> >They are abortionist if they are using their skills to kill a life.
>
> Since every doctor kills life during any surgery I suppose they all
> fit your definition.
Doctor's are supposed to do everything possible to preserve human life.
Abortionist take a human life.
>
>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> That is not a medical specialty. An
> >> >> >> abortion is simply a medical procedure done mostly by OB/GYN
> >> >> >> specialists - the same people who treat women for other problems as
> >> >> >> well as assist in childbirth.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Abortion is and always has been, the taking of a life.
> >> >>
> >> >> Irrelevant.
> >> >
> >> >You have no answer, so you resort to "Irrelevant".
> >>
> >> No, the death of the fetus *is* irrelevant.
> >
> >No it isn't, you just refuse to see it.
>
> I refuse nothing.
Yes you do, you refuse reality.
Why should the death of a fetus be relevant?
> Humans are not an endangered species and there is no requirement that
> every possible individual must exist.
>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's purpose is to terminate a pregnancy and nothing else
> >> >> matters.
> >> >
> >> >Your dishonesty is noted.
> >>
> >> Denied, of course.
> >
> >You are a living example of denial.
> >
>
> You are a living example of what children should grow up not to be.
You are still a child.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >
> >> >No, you have already shown me to be right in this post alone. With
> >> >your ignoring the fact that abortion takes a life.
> >>
> >> Yes, I am. Humans are not an endangered species and washing your
> >> hands also takes lives.
> >
> >Distortion noted
>
> No distortion is involved. Do you deny the accuracy of my statement?
I deny your inferrence.
>
> Are humans an endangered species?
No
> Does washing your hands kill human life?
No
> You still can't handel the truth. You constantly ignore it.
I tell the truth, you just don't like it.
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > What an embryo would or would not develop
> >> >> into simply does not matter. Whether or not it would develop into "a
> >> >> particular, individual human being" is unimportant.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > > More properly called an embryo or fetus by those that are concerned
> >> >> >> >> > > with the facts, rather than clouding the waters.
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Another example of the kettle calling the pot black.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Not at all. Just telling you the proper terminology.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >The terminology that suits you you call 'proper'. So
> >> >> >> >much for that!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The terminology that is the least confusing and the most accurate
> >> >> >> would be the proper terminology to use.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Baby is not confusing. Human being, is not confusing.
> >> >> >Unborn child is not confusing.
> >> >>
> >> >> All of those have imprecise meanings. A 70 year old can be a baby or
> >> >> a child to his 90 year old mother. I agree human being is not
> >> >> confusing but live birth is required to qualify.
> >> >
> >> >You have already lost that argument and been shown to be wrong.
> >>
> >> No I have not, Either one.
> >
> >Denial
>
> Lamer.
>
>
> >> >>
> >> >> Unborn child is awkward.
> >> >
> >> >For you it is because it hinders your agenda to support abortion.
> >>
> >> But I don't. And never have. I support the freedom of choice.
> >
> >Lie
> >You don't support freedom of choice.
>
> Now you are telling me what I support and do not support. Your
> arrogance is apparent, but you can't back it up.
No, I am telling you that you are lying when you say you support
freedom of choice. You do not.
Do you support people choosing to teach their children religion?
There, it's backed up. You have said many times in the past that it
should be illegal for a parent to teach their children religion because
"you" consider it child abuse.
You do NOT support freedom of choice.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Fetus is much more professional and is the
> >> >> term used by medical professionals.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, it sounds nicer to you because it helps you promote abortions.
> >>
> >> I have never promoted abortions. You lie.
> >
> >No, I am telling the truth. You can't handle the truth.
>
> You would not know the truth if an army held you down while it was
> stuffed down your throat. You are not interested in the truth, only
> your propaganda.
I know the truth.
Abortion kills a human being.
You deny this because you have to deny it.
You rely on terms to support your statement, yet you don't understand
how the terms are used.
A fetus..is a human being, the same as a toddler is a human being.
Fetus and toddler only describe a stage in development.
We are a human being from conception until death.
alen
Ray Fischer wrote:
> >> If you get to decide for a woman then why shouldn't I get to
> >> decide for you?
> >
> >Why should anyone get to decide to stop a
> >person killing a baby in a cradle?
>
> So we dispense with the whole "designed" crap and move on to the next
> argument.
No, we don't
> And the answer is: Because the limitations to liberty are far
> outweighed by the benefit to society.
>
> But abortion is something completely different. It's not about
> killing at all. It's about the basic, fundamental right of ALL
> people to decide how their own bodies will be used.
So we avoid killing a child in a cradle because
of a benefit to society, rather than because of
a fundamental right to life, but we are to
consider abortion in terms of a fundamental
right of the woman? Are you the person that can
use the word 'hypocrisy'?
Nature temporarily hands the woman's body to the
embryo as well as to her, so that she has no right
to claim her body to the extent of killing the embryo.
Such a supposed right is a false fabrication,
generated by a falsely absolute concept of liberty.
Liberty is a person's most valuable possession,
but there is nothing of value that falsehood
does not render null and void.
> [..]
> >In essence, abortionists are murderers of
> >the unborn in the name of manufacturing a
>
> You have been corrupted by the evil of anti-abortion terrorists.
> You have nothing but hatred and demonization for those who dare to
> stand up to your perverse need to make women suffer.
This itself is a gratuitous fabrication of hatred and
demonisation. You don't have the slightest knowledge
of my 'perverse need to make women suffer'.
If I were a woman myself, I would not feel able to
change my argument. I would consider that women have
carried babies to birth since time immemorial, and if
they have all done it, so should I be able to.
Also, I have come across statements by some women
who have had abortions, in which they complained
about the psychological trauma that the memory of
it caused them. Some people with your view might
have the prejudice to presume they were merely
brainwashed into feeling guilty, but they may
equally be simply feeling horrified that they
have destroyed their baby.
Alen
Ray Fischer
>
>
>Attila wrote:
>> On 12 Jul 2005 12:16:19 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> in
>> alt.abortion with message-id
>> <1121195779....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >> >> >>
>rform
>> >> >> >> certain legal procedures, and is performing such a procedure at =
>the
>> >> >> >> request of the person having the procedure.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Abortion =3D the termination of a pregnancy.
>> >> >> Anything else is ia irrelevant side effect.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's the part that shows yours and the other pro-aborts
>> >>
>> >> I am not proabortion.
>> >
>> >Yea, and you lie too.
>>
>> You are the expert in that area.
>
>Not hardly but believe as you wish.
>You are pro-abortion, no matter how badly you want to cry about it.
Asshole Heishman lies about people because he's a pathetic loser.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net