There ARE other options
tibbi
tibbi
In article <3a6e782e...@east.usenetserver.com>, ange...@no.spam
(angel love) wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:45:25 -0800, tibbi <ti...@roguewave.com> wrote:
>
> >Fuck you. Dead babies are good.
> >
> >PLease kill your children.
> >
> >tibbi
>
> That's a terrible attitude to take. Even if you are pro-choice,
> please rethink your attitude about killing children. Promoting murder
> can't ever be a good thing for society.
>
> I'll pray for you. I wish you peace.
>
> Angel Love
The Ghost In The Machine
Presumably, this is a NG dedicated to helping the kids, not
(a) killing them [*after* they're born, that is -- before, they're
not kids, but foetii], or (b) abortion.
In talk.abortion, tibbi
<ti...@unique.being>
wrote
on Tue, 23 Jan 2001 22:42:52 -0800
<tibbi-85BD17....@west.usenetserver.com>:
I'll admit, Angel Love's sentiment is a good one, but let's also
remember that a woman's body is hers -- not the States, not
her lover's, not her parent's. (If her lover is lucky, though,
she might let him interact with the more interesting bits, and
gain great enjoyment thereby. :-) )
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:12h:38m actually running Linux.
This is not a .sig.
NM
---snipped---
> remember that a woman's body is hers -- not the States, not
> her lover's, not her parent's.
No one denies this. NO ONE. What you obfuscate by this is the fact
that the body INSIDE the woman is NOT hers, not the State's, not the
Father's, not the Mother's parent's. So where does she (the mother)
acquire the right to kill it (the body inside her that is NOT her own)?
Besides an arbitrary court ruling that has/had no basis in the
Constitution.
NM
Dana Phillips
"NM" <a...@usa.net> wrote in message news:3A6F1AB2...@usa.net...
You say body inside her over and over. Why not say life inside her? Is it
because by saying life you fall into a discussion of when does life begin?
If it is simply a body inside her then why is her removing it any more
important than removing any other thing inside her? Is this about a life or
about a body NM?
You last line about the court ruling is yet another opinion and not a fact.
At this point in time the opinion that rules on this is not your own. '
Are you sure you really missed me NM?
>
> NM
Ray Fischer
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> I'll admit, Angel Love's sentiment is a good one, but let's also
>> remember that a woman's body is hers -- not the States, not
>> her lover's, not her parent's.
>
>No one denies this. NO ONE.
Nonsense.
> What you obfuscate by this is the fact
>that the body INSIDE the woman is NOT hers, not the State's, not the
>Father's, not the Mother's parent's.
So what? If she doesn't want it in HER body then she gets to have it
removed.
> So where does she (the mother)
>acquire the right to kill it
Pro-lie propaganda. She has no right to kill and nobody asks for
any right to kill. Only the right to decide how HER body is used.
--
Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks
rfis...@sonic.net into you -- Nietzsche
Pat Winstanley
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> ---snipped---
> > I'll admit, Angel Love's sentiment is a good one, but let's also
> > remember that a woman's body is hers -- not the States, not
> > her lover's, not her parent's.
>
> No one denies this. NO ONE. What you obfuscate by this is the fact
> that the body INSIDE the woman is NOT hers, not the State's, not the
> Father's, not the Mother's parent's. So where does she (the mother)
> acquire the right to kill it (the body inside her that is NOT her own)?
She doesn't. She simply has the right to have it removed from her body.
Just as everyone else has the right to have 'foerign bodies' removed from
their bodies. If it dies as a result then that is unfortunae, but another
issue entirely. Perhaps those people determined to prevent the woman
exercising her right (same right as everyone has) to have a foreign body
removed from her own body should explore methods of looking after the
foreign body following its removal. Perhaps they should do the same about
other foreign bodies which die if removed from the bodies of people.
> Besides an arbitrary court ruling that has/had no basis in the
> Constitution.
So, according to the constitution, nobody may have a 'foreign body' (ie
not a normal part of that person) removed from their body. Would you mind
pointing that section out to me please... I can't find it! It would
certainly put an awful lot, if not all, surgeons out of business!
Or is it simply that the constitution has nothing to say on the matter at
all - either way?
Jim Rogers
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> > I'll admit, Angel Love's sentiment is a good
> > one, but let's also remember that a woman's body
> > is hers -- not the States, not her lover's, not
> > her parent's.
> No one denies this. NO ONE. What you obfuscate
> by this is the fact that the body INSIDE the woman
> is NOT hers, not the State's, not the Father's,
> not the Mother's parent's. So where does she (the
> mother) acquire the right to kill it (the body
> inside her that is NOT her own)?
There is no "right to kill." Because the host is her body,
however, she has a "right to evict," because the fetus has
no right to use her body.
> Besides an arbitrary court ruling that has/had no
> basis in the Constitution.
Try the 13th Amendment, and tell us how you'd intend to
order the servitude of a pregnant woman by requiring her to
remain pregnant against her will.
Jim
Charles Wyndham
<wis...@tough.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3A6F1AB2...@usa.net>, a...@usa.net says...
>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> ---snipped---
>> > I'll admit, Angel Love's sentiment is a good one, but let's also
>> > remember that a woman's body is hers -- not the States, not
>> > her lover's, not her parent's.
>>
>> No one denies this. NO ONE. What you obfuscate by this is the fact
>> that the body INSIDE the woman is NOT hers, not the State's, not the
>> Father's, not the Mother's parent's. So where does she (the mother)
>> acquire the right to kill it (the body inside her that is NOT her own)?
>
>She doesn't. She simply has the right to have it removed from her body.
>Just as everyone else has the right to have 'foerign bodies' removed from
>their bodies. If it dies as a result then that is unfortunae, but another
>issue entirely. Perhaps those people determined to prevent the woman
>exercising her right (same right as everyone has) to have a foreign body
>removed from her own body should explore methods of looking after the
>foreign body following its removal. Perhaps they should do the same about
>other foreign bodies which die if removed from the bodies of people.
There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of responsibilities. If
a woman has taken part in the production of life then she has a
responsibility towards it. This is why the judgement of when life begins is
so critical, and why any judgement should err on the side of the growing
foetus which may have true life. You use the words above "if it dies"
which means that you are accepting that it is alive, and that at best the
mother is refusing her responsibilty, at the worst she is a prime mover in
its murder.
Jeff
"Charles Wyndham" <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:eod07tsbp51bl53ci...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:57 GMT, Pat Winstanley
> <wis...@tough.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >In article <3A6F1AB2...@usa.net>, a...@usa.net says...
> >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> ---snipped---
> >> > I'll admit, Angel Love's sentiment is a good one, but let's also
> >> > remember that a woman's body is hers -- not the States, not
> >> > her lover's, not her parent's.
> >>
> >> No one denies this. NO ONE. What you obfuscate by this is the fact
> >> that the body INSIDE the woman is NOT hers, not the State's, not the
> >> Father's, not the Mother's parent's. So where does she (the mother)
> >> acquire the right to kill it (the body inside her that is NOT her own)?
> >
> >She doesn't. She simply has the right to have it removed from her body.
> >Just as everyone else has the right to have 'foerign bodies' removed from
> >their bodies. If it dies as a result then that is unfortunae, but another
> >issue entirely. Perhaps those people determined to prevent the woman
> >exercising her right (same right as everyone has) to have a foreign body
> >removed from her own body should explore methods of looking after the
> >foreign body following its removal. Perhaps they should do the same about
> >other foreign bodies which die if removed from the bodies of people.
>
> There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of responsibilities.
If
> a woman has taken part in the production of life then she has a
> responsibility towards it.
The reproduction itself was not intentional but rather an unfortunate
accident. As she did not consent to it she has the RIGHT to remove it. No
where does it say in the US constitution that once there is anything alive
inside of a woman she has the responsibility to let it live out its life in
her body until its ready to come out.
> This is why the judgement of when life begins is
> so critical, and why any judgement should err on the side of the growing
> foetus which may have true life. You use the words above "if it dies"
> which means that you are accepting that it is alive, and that at best the
> mother is refusing her responsibilty, at the worst she is a prime mover in
> its murder.
Murder: a misused legal term that means illegal killing.
Jeff
Ray Fischer
>There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of responsibilities.
Then I suggest that YOU take responsibility for what YOU want and pay
women to give birth. Women have no responsibility to give you what
you want just because you whine.
still...@my-deja.com
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> >There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
> >responsibilities.
>
> Then I suggest that YOU take responsibility for what YOU want and pay
> women to give birth. Women have no responsibility to give you what
> you want just because you whine.
If you'll read all Charles said, you'll see he isn't whining, nor is
being particularly dogmatic. Here, I'll paste it for you.
In response to this:
> >She doesn't. She simply has the right to have it removed from her
> >body.
> >Just as everyone else has the right to have 'foerign bodies' removed
> >from their bodies. If it dies as a result then that is unfortunate,
> >but another issue entirely. Perhaps those people determined to
> >prevent the woman exercising her right (same right as everyone has)
> >to have a foreign body removed from her own body should explore
> >methods of looking after the foreign body following its removal.
> >Perhaps they should do the same about other foreign bodies which die
> >if removed from the bodies of people.
Charles wrote this:
> There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
> responsibilities. If a woman has taken part in the production of life
> then she has a responsibility towards it.
Now, this is not unreasonable. He also didn't say that the man who
participated *is not* responsible. Though I know rape happens, and
other bad things happen, the vast majority of people who become pregnant
know exactly how they got that way, and knew it before they chose to
have sex.
> This is why the judgement of when life begins is so critical, and why
> any judgement should err on the side of the growing foetus which may
> have true life.
This also is reasonable.
Knee jerk responses to this ongoing, fruitless debate are a source of
frustration. Charles is right. In every way except legally, an eight
and a half month fetus *is* a human being no less than a six month
premie in an oxygen tent. Though I support women's rights, and do
concede that their bodies are their own, at some point the fetus growing
inside becomes recognizably human, capable of movement, hearing, even
learning.
Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
murder, our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human, for
political reasons. Did it *make* them less human? Nope, but it did
create a reason to treat them as less than human legally. The same way
calling a human being only a human being after it is born delineates a
legal term, but does not come close to encapsulating the totality of
what it means to be human.
I doubt very much whether you'd take a position that it's okay to kill
an infant *after* it's born. Charles is simply pointing out that, at
some point in gestation, abortion accomplishes the exact same thing --
and you're advocating it, hiding behind legal terminology and slogan
spouting to justify it.
Then Charles wrote:
> You use the words above "if it dies" which means that you are
> accepting that it is alive, and that at best the mother is refusing
> her responsibilty, at the worst she is a prime mover in its murder.
That is, in fact, what the post he was responding to said. It
essentially said that a fetus was no different than a kidney, an
unwelcome growth, and well, gee, if it died, that's too bad.
I can't speak for Charles here, so I'll tell you my position. I do
support the right to choose -- within some limits. I think most people
do. To be absolutely against choice at all, in its ridiculous extreme,
would protect every egg and every sperm for their potential to create
life, or would eliminate birth control pills, as they do not stop
fertilization, but inhibit attachment -- as do IUD's (which I don't
think are even in use any more). On the other hand, positing a fetus as
an unwelcome growth, or parasite (I've seen that one before), at its
ridiculous extreme means that it's a-okay to shove scissors through its
crown as its on its way out of the birth canal, because it isn't
*really* human yet; or that a baby fully birthed, but still attached to
placenta isn't *really* human yet, or that a baby breastfeeding is yet a
parasite, as it depends on the mother's body for sustenance, and who the
hell does it think it is, anyway, and why should that mother have to
nurse something so inconvenient?
I support the rights off *all* humans. And legal definition or no, at
some point a gestating fetus *becomes* human, which means I support
their rights, too. Charles merely pointed out that we need to be very,
very careful in how we determine what is and isn't human.
And I can't imagine how that would offend someone who was, himself, a
developing fetus at one point.
Sunny
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>> >There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
>> >responsibilities.
>>
>> Then I suggest that YOU take responsibility for what YOU want and pay
>> women to give birth. Women have no responsibility to give you what
>> you want just because you whine.
>
>If you'll read all Charles said, you'll see he isn't whining, nor is
>being particularly dogmatic.
Yes he is. It is wholly unreasonable to expect anyone to be
responsible for doing what you want.
>> >She doesn't. She simply has the right to have it removed from her
>> >body.
>> >Just as everyone else has the right to have 'foerign bodies' removed
>> >from their bodies. If it dies as a result then that is unfortunate,
>> >but another issue entirely. Perhaps those people determined to
>> >prevent the woman exercising her right (same right as everyone has)
>> >to have a foreign body removed from her own body should explore
>> >methods of looking after the foreign body following its removal.
>> >Perhaps they should do the same about other foreign bodies which die
>> >if removed from the bodies of people.
>
>> There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
>> responsibilities. If a woman has taken part in the production of life
>> then she has a responsibility towards it.
>
>Now, this is not unreasonable.
Yes it is.
> He also didn't say that the man who
>participated *is not* responsible. Though I know rape happens, and
>other bad things happen, the vast majority of people who become pregnant
>know exactly how they got that way, and knew it before they chose to
>have sex.
So what? Is sex a crime? Is getting pregnant a crime?
No.
That means no punishment. That means she has no responsibility to
make you happy.
[...]
>Knee jerk responses to this ongoing, fruitless debate are a source of
>frustration. Charles is right.
He's full of shit.
> In every way except legally, an eight
>and a half month fetus *is* a human being no less than a six month
>premie in an oxygen tent.
Well it's "legally" that counts. Your undereducated opinion doesn't.
[...]
>Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
>murder, our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human,
It does not. Never did. That's just the usual pro-lie propaganda.
[...]
>I doubt very much whether you'd take a position that it's okay to kill
>an infant *after* it's born.
I very much doubt that an infant is going to be causing anyone much
harm. Nor is it going to be forcing any particular person to take
care of it.
> Charles is simply pointing out that, at
>some point in gestation, abortion accomplishes the exact same thing --
Never.
>and you're advocating it,
And you're a liar.
hereti...@my-deja.com
still...@my-deja.com wrote:
snip
> > There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
> > responsibilities. If a woman has taken part in the production of
life
> > then she has a responsibility towards it.
but not the man, I suppose. Isn't that special? And why is it being
responsible to have a child you don't want/can't afford?
We aren't taking care of the children already alive.
Do you want to do like Rumania?
> Now, this is not unreasonable. He also didn't say that the man who
> participated *is not* responsible.
But he didn't even mention the man. Clearly implying ONLY THE WOMAN
is responsible.
If men were responsible, they would just get vasectomies.
> Though I know rape happens,
I hope to you someday. You are one insensitive, self-righteous cunt.
When you do, remember, YOU DESERVE IT.
>and
> other bad things happen, the vast majority of people who become
pregnant
> know exactly how they got that way, and knew it before they chose to
> have sex.
But do women really have any option to refuse?
In most cases, she does NOT have any reasonable way to refuse
sex. Just because no one wants YOU doesn't mean all women
are free to Just Say No.
> > This is why the judgement of when life begins is so critical, and
why
> > any judgement should err on the side of the growing foetus which may
> > have true life.
>
> This also is reasonable.
>
> Knee jerk responses to this ongoing, fruitless debate are a source of
> frustration. Charles is right. In every way except legally, an eight
> and a half month fetus *is* a human being
That is absurd. And what has that got to do with legal abortions,
anyway? Can you show ONE case of an 8 1/2 month viable fetus
that has been aborted? Why on earth would a woman wait that long
to abort, if she didn't want a child? Are you on drugs? Should you be?
> no less than a six month
> premie in an oxygen tent.
You should read up on NICU technology.
> Though I support women's rights, and do
> concede that their bodies are their own, at some point the fetus
growing
> inside becomes recognizably human, capable of movement, hearing, even
> learning.
Some never do, you know.
> Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
> murder,
Well, cuntsypants, how's about I simply define YOU as . . .a . . .
SHEEP . .. so if I kill you it can't be murder. What . . .you mean
I can't simply redefine terms to make my point? Aw shucks!
You mean I have to follow the same laws and define words the same way?
> our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human, for
> political reasons.
Uh .. . they were worth 3/5 of a citizen for reasons about
representatives in Congress. Women did not have the right to
vote then, either.
> Did it *make* them less human? Nope, but it did
> create a reason to treat them as less than human legally. The same
way
> calling a human being only a human being after it is born delineates a
> legal term, but does not come close to encapsulating the totality of
> what it means to be human.
So is being human being a nonsentient parasite? And do tell
why you are so hysterical about unwanted fetuses, when you live in
a country that happily kills off, by omission and comission, millions.
> I doubt very much whether you'd take a position that it's okay to kill
> an infant *after* it's born. Charles is simply pointing out that, at
> some point in gestation, abortion accomplishes the exact same thing --
> and you're advocating it, hiding behind legal terminology and slogan
> spouting to justify it.
No, dearie, a fetus never has been a human being, and a fetus is not
an infant. And abortions do not kill late term viable fetuses
Perhaps if you dealt with reality a bit, you would understand things
a bit better.
But since you are so prolife, how soon can you take in, let's see . ..
how about 10 teenagers in foster care, and at least 3 homeless adults?
And when will you pay for . ...let's see, how about 12 uninsured adults?
You see, THEY ARE DYING. All I'm asking YOU to do is prove how much
you really care about Life by saving their's. It's far less than you
demand of a pregnant woman.
Or is it that the only "life" you care about is unwanted fetuses,
because YOU don't have to do anything, but prefer to make
others suffer for your causes? Well, isn't that SPECIAL!
snip
> I can't speak for Charles here,
That's all you have been doing, cuntetta.
so I'll tell you my position. I do
> support the right to choose -- within some limits.
Fine. Choose for yourself within those limits.
> I think most people
> do. To be absolutely against choice at all, in its ridiculous
extreme,
> would protect every egg and every sperm for their potential to create
> life, or would eliminate birth control pills, as they do not stop
> fertilization, but inhibit attachment -- as do IUD's (which I don't
> think are even in use any more). On the other hand, positing a fetus
as
> an unwelcome growth, or parasite (I've seen that one before)
A fetus is a parasite, and if it is unwanted, it is unwelcome.
snip
> I support the rights off *all* humans.
Fine. Then how soon will you be taking in those people?
>And legal definition or no, at
> some point a gestating fetus *becomes* human, which means I support
> their rights, too.
All it has to do is be born alive.
> Charles merely pointed out that we need to be very,
> very careful in how we determine what is and isn't human.
>
> And I can't imagine how that would offend someone who was, himself, a
> developing fetus at one point.
anyone who hates their mother so badly they would want to force
her to gestate him/herself should be aborted.
Postnatally if possible.
still...@my-deja.com
hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94q3b3$3ta$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> snip
> > > There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
> > > responsibilities. If a woman has taken part in the production of
> > > life then she has a responsibility towards it.
>
> but not the man, I suppose. Isn't that special? And why is it being
> responsible to have a child you don't want/can't afford?
> We aren't taking care of the children already alive.
> Do you want to do like Rumania?
>
> > Now, this is not unreasonable. He also didn't say that the man who
> > participated *is not* responsible.
>
> But he didn't even mention the man. Clearly implying ONLY THE WOMAN
> is responsible.
> If men were responsible, they would just get vasectomies.
>
> > Though I know rape happens,
>
> I hope to you someday. You are one insensitive, self-righteous cunt.
> When you do, remember, YOU DESERVE IT.
That was very sweet, and reinforced your salient points quite well. Is
that what happens when reason goes out the window?
> >and
> > other bad things happen, the vast majority of people who become
> > pregnant know exactly how they got that way, and knew it before they
> > chose to have sex.
>
> But do women really have any option to refuse?
Are you kidding? Yes, unless they live in Saudi Arabia.
> In most cases, she does NOT have any reasonable way to refuse
> sex. Just because no one wants YOU doesn't mean all women
> are free to Just Say No.
Yes, they are.
> > > This is why the judgement of when life begins is so critical, and
> > > why any judgement should err on the side of the growing foetus
> > > which may have true life.
> >
> > This also is reasonable.
> >
> > Knee jerk responses to this ongoing, fruitless debate are a source
> > of frustration. Charles is right. In every way except legally, an
> > eight and a half month fetus *is* a human being
>
> That is absurd. And what has that got to do with legal abortions,
> anyway? Can you show ONE case of an 8 1/2 month viable fetus
> that has been aborted? Why on earth would a woman wait that long
> to abort, if she didn't want a child?
That _is_ my point, and I suspect Charles's. Yes, abortions do happen
that late, though it's rare. Easy point, before you begin slapping
people into your preconceived idea about what their political stance is
-- we must be careful how we determine what is and isn't human, which
means setting some limits on when abortion can legally happen. This
_isn't_ that hard.
> Why on earth would a woman wait that long to abort, if she didn't want
> a child?
Well, gee, I don't know. Since you assume most women don't have the
option of saying no, perhaps they're unable to get permission.
> Are you on drugs? Should you be?
Are you?
> > no less than a six month
> > premie in an oxygen tent.
>
> You should read up on NICU technology.
You should read the post you're responding to before going into a
mindless rage and slinging insults.
> > Though I support women's rights, and do
> > concede that their bodies are their own, at some point the fetus
> > growing inside becomes recognizably human, capable of movement,
> > hearing, even learning.
> Some never do, you know.
What does what "some" do have to do with what most do in terms of this
discussion?
> > Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
> > murder,
>
> Well, cuntsypants,
That's a new one. I don't think it's in my slang dictionary.
> how's about I simply define YOU as . . .a . . .
> SHEEP . .. so if I kill you it can't be murder. What . . .you mean
> I can't simply redefine terms to make my point? Aw shucks!
Which is exactly what you do when you call a human being an unwelcome
intrusion.
> You mean I have to follow the same laws and define words the same way?
You don't have to do anything.
> > our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human, for
> > political reasons.
>
> Uh .. . they were worth 3/5 of a citizen for reasons about
> representatives in Congress.
Who are politicians. That's exactly what I just said, you moron. They
needed to be at least partially human for representational purposes, but
couldn't be fully human because then they'd have rights -- God forbid.
Same in this case.
> Women did not have the right to vote then, either.
And that has to do with what?
> > Did it *make* them less human? Nope, but it did
> > create a reason to treat them as less than human legally. The same
> > way calling a human being only a human being after it is born
> > delineates a legal term, but does not come close to encapsulating
> > the totality of what it means to be human.
>
> So is being human being a nonsentient parasite? And do tell
> why you are so hysterical about unwanted fetuses,
That's an interesting comment, coming from you.
> when you live in a country that happily kills off, by omission and
> comission, millions.
You're going to need to be more specific. War? Death penalty? What?
> > I doubt very much whether you'd take a position that it's okay to
> > kill an infant *after* it's born. Charles is simply pointing out
> > that, at some point in gestation, abortion accomplishes the exact
> > same thing -- and you're advocating it, hiding behind legal
> > terminology and slogan spouting to justify it.
>
> No, dearie, a fetus never has been a human being, and a fetus is not
> an infant. And abortions do not kill late term viable fetuses
Yes, some do. At this point, the earliest fetus able to survive is
about five months old. Now, it's tricky, and it's recent. I think,
despite your determination to throw me into the radical right to lifer
camp, we'd agree on the the fact that there must be a time limit set.
Of course, I might be wrong. When do _you_ think is too late for an
abortion? Three months? Four months? Six months? Nine months?
> Perhaps if you dealt with reality a bit, you would understand things
> a bit better.
I see. Thank you, oh rational one.
> But since you are so prolife
Objection to facts not in evidence. That's not what I said. Oh, I
forgot. It's apparent you haven't actually *read* these posts.
> how soon can you take in, let's see . ..
> how about 10 teenagers in foster care, and at least 3 homeless adults?
> And when will you pay for . ...let's see, how about 12 uninsured
> adults?
Again, you're assuming something not in evidence.
> You see, THEY ARE DYING.
What *are* you talking about? The poor, starving wretches on the north
american continent? Please. People do bad things all the time, and get
in bad situations all the time, though much less so here than elsewhere.
Abortion _is_not_ going to change that circumstance.
> All I'm asking YOU to do is prove how much
> you really care about Life by saving their's. It's far less than you
> demand of a pregnant woman.
I demand nothing of a pregnant woman, save that she make a conscious
decision about whether or not she's willing and capable of taking care
of her child AT SOME POINT WAY BEFORE VIABILITY!
Ahem. Sorry.
> Or is it that the only "life" you care about is unwanted fetuses,
> because YOU don't have to do anything, but prefer to make
> others suffer for your causes? Well, isn't that SPECIAL!
And this is a perfect example of why this debate is so ridiculous. You
have insulted, name called, chastized, mischaracterized, committed lies
regarding when abortions do and do not take place, and used every single
slogan/scare tactic/every other thing, *without paying one bit of
attention to what is being said in front of you*. You've generated your
own strawman, and are screaming at it.
And you asked if I was on drugs.
> snip
> > I can't speak for Charles here,
>
> That's all you have been doing, cuntetta.
*Another* original! Are you bilingual?
> so I'll tell you my position. I do
> > support the right to choose -- within some limits.
> Fine. Choose for yourself within those limits.
> > I think most people
> > do. To be absolutely against choice at all, in its ridiculous
> > extreme,
> > would protect every egg and every sperm for their potential to
> > create life, or would eliminate birth control pills, as they do not
> > stop fertilization, but inhibit attachment -- as do IUD's (which I
> > don't think are even in use any more). On the other hand, positing
> > a fetus as an unwelcome growth, or parasite (I've seen that one
> > before)
> A fetus is a parasite, and if it is unwanted, it is unwelcome.
So at what point do *you* think it stops becoming a parasite, and begins
to be a human?
> snip
> > I support the rights off *all* humans.
>
> Fine. Then how soon will you be taking in those people?
> >And legal definition or no, at
> > some point a gestating fetus *becomes* human, which means I support
> > their rights, too.
>
> All it has to do is be born alive.
"All it has to do is slip past the master's dogs and make it up north."
> > Charles merely pointed out that we need to be very,
> > very careful in how we determine what is and isn't human.
> >
> > And I can't imagine how that would offend someone who was, himself,
> > a developing fetus at one point.
>
> anyone who hates their mother so badly they would want to force
> her to gestate him/herself should be aborted.
How you got hating mothers out of this is beyond me.
> Postnatally if possible.
Hm. Does this count as a death threat? It would be my second, and I'm
collecting them. Nah, I guess not.
Ciao, genius.
Sunny
still...@my-deja.com
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> >> >There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
> >> >responsibilities.
> >>
> >> Then I suggest that YOU take responsibility for what YOU want and
pay
> >> women to give birth. Women have no responsibility to give you what
> >> you want just because you whine.
> >
> >If you'll read all Charles said, you'll see he isn't whining, nor is
> >being particularly dogmatic.
>
> Yes he is. It is wholly unreasonable to expect anyone to be
> responsible for doing what you want.
It is not unreasonable to want to make sure we don't kill what is, in
every respect except by arbitrary legal delineation, a person.
Let me be very clear here.
I am pro-choice.
But I would want the law to be very specific and clear regarding *when*
that is possible, because as the fetus matures, it is in the *process*
of becoming a human.
> >> >She doesn't. She simply has the right to have it removed from her
> >> >body.
> >> >Just as everyone else has the right to have 'foerign bodies'
> >> >removed from their bodies. If it dies as a result then that is
> >> >unfortunate,
> >> >but another issue entirely. Perhaps those people determined to
> >> >prevent the woman exercising her right (same right as everyone
> >> >has)
> >> >to have a foreign body removed from her own body should explore
> >> >methods of looking after the foreign body following its removal.
> >> >Perhaps they should do the same about other foreign bodies which
> >> >die if removed from the bodies of people.
> >
> >> There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
> >> responsibilities. If a woman has taken part in the production of
> >> life then she has a responsibility towards it.
> >
> >Now, this is not unreasonable.
>
> Yes it is.
Why? Who would be responsible for a child, once born?
> > He also didn't say that the man who
> >participated *is not* responsible. Though I know rape happens, and
> >other bad things happen, the vast majority of people who become
> >pregnant know exactly how they got that way, and knew it before they
> >chose to have sex.
>
> So what? Is sex a crime? Is getting pregnant a crime?
Neither are a crime. Neither is abortion.
Killing another human is a crime.
You'd want to avoid that, I'm sure.
At some point, a developing baby becomes a human, call it what you will.
> No.
>
> That means no punishment. That means she has no responsibility to
> make you happy.
We *all* have a responsibility to jealously guard the rights of *all*
humans. All.
> [...]
> >Knee jerk responses to this ongoing, fruitless debate are a source of
> >frustration. Charles is right.
>
> He's full of shit.
You're a knee jerk apologist for the right to life movement.
> > In every way except legally, an eight
> >and a half month fetus *is* a human being no less than a six month
> >premie in an oxygen tent.
>
> Well it's "legally" that counts. Your undereducated opinion doesn't.
There are lots of things which are legal, and are wrong.
Undereducated, huh?
> [...]
> >Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
> >murder, our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human,
>
> It does not. Never did. That's just the usual pro-lie propaganda.
I know, I know. I'm undereducated. I did, however, read this.
"Article I,Section 2, Paragraph 3: "Representatives and direct taxes
shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included
within this Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including
those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."
The three-fifths there are slaves.
But I must be reading the wrong Constitution.
> [...]
> >I doubt very much whether you'd take a position that it's okay to
> >kill an infant *after* it's born.
>
> I very much doubt that an infant is going to be causing anyone much
> harm. Nor is it going to be forcing any particular person to take
> care of it.
Then it's okay if it just lies there and starves to death?
> > Charles is simply pointing out that, at
> >some point in gestation, abortion accomplishes the exact same thing
> Never.
You're being willfully obstinate. What do you think the uproar over
China's enforced abortions was all about? Not only did it deny _those_
women rights over their bodies, but the abortions were done up to nine
months.
Here, it's called partial birth abortion.
> >and you're advocating it,
>
> And you're a liar.
I know, and I'm undereducated. I would, however, fight to save your
life, and your rights, too.
Sunny
> --
> Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also
looks
> rfis...@sonic.net into you -- Nietzsche
>
Ray Fischer
>> >If you'll read all Charles said, you'll see he isn't whining, nor is
>> >being particularly dogmatic.
>>
>> Yes he is. It is wholly unreasonable to expect anyone to be
>> responsible for doing what you want.
>
>It is not unreasonable to want to make sure we don't kill what is, in
>every respect except by arbitrary legal delineation, a person.
First, lying about what is a person isn't a good way to debate.
Second, the woman has every right to defend herself from harm.
Third, NOBODY, not even a fetus, has any right to use another
person's body without consent.
>> >> There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
>> >> responsibilities. If a woman has taken part in the production of
>> >> life then she has a responsibility towards it.
>> >
>> >Now, this is not unreasonable.
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
>Why?
Shall I dictate YOUR responsibilities?
> Who would be responsible for a child, once born?
Anyone who wishes to be responsible.
Slavery is illegal.
>> > He also didn't say that the man who
>> >participated *is not* responsible. Though I know rape happens, and
>> >other bad things happen, the vast majority of people who become
>> >pregnant know exactly how they got that way, and knew it before they
>> >chose to have sex.
>>
>> So what? Is sex a crime? Is getting pregnant a crime?
>
>Neither are a crime. Neither is abortion.
Then neither may incur any punishment.
>Killing another human is a crime.
First, not all death is the result of killing.
Second, not all killing is a crime.
>> That means no punishment. That means she has no responsibility to
>> make you happy.
>
>We *all* have a responsibility to jealously guard the rights of *all*
>humans. All.
The YOU worry about YOUR responsibilities and keep your nose out of
other people's bodies.
>> > In every way except legally, an eight
>> >and a half month fetus *is* a human being no less than a six month
>> >premie in an oxygen tent.
>>
>> Well it's "legally" that counts. Your undereducated opinion doesn't.
>
>There are lots of things which are legal, and are wrong.
And there are a lot of people who think that their very farts have
been blessed with Holy Infallibility.
Your opinion about what might be wrong really counts for very little.
>> >Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
>> >murder, our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human,
>>
>> It does not. Never did. That's just the usual pro-lie propaganda.
>
>I know, I know. I'm undereducated. I did, however, read this.
>
>"Article I,Section 2, Paragraph 3: "Representatives and direct taxes
>shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included
>within this Union according to their respective numbers, which shall be
>determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including
>those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
>taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."
Notice that there is not one word there that says that blacks (or
anyone else) are only 3/5s persons.
>The three-fifths there are slaves.
No, 3/5s OF the slaves.
>But I must be reading the wrong Constitution.
Or only semi-literate.
Half of the people in the country are women. Does that make women
only half persons?
>> >I doubt very much whether you'd take a position that it's okay to
>> >kill an infant *after* it's born.
>>
>> I very much doubt that an infant is going to be causing anyone much
>> harm. Nor is it going to be forcing any particular person to take
>> care of it.
>
>Then it's okay if it just lies there and starves to death?
If that happens it will be because YOU let it happen.
People are not slaves. You do not get to order them around as if they
were.
>> > Charles is simply pointing out that, at
>> >some point in gestation, abortion accomplishes the exact same thing
>
>> Never.
>
>You're being willfully obstinate. What do you think the uproar over
>China's enforced abortions was all about? Not only did it deny _those_
>women rights over their bodies, but the abortions were done up to nine
>months.
Pro-lie propaganda.
>Here, it's called partial birth abortion.
No, "partial birth abortion" is a lie invented by pro-liars. There is
no procedure used to perfom 9th month abortions. Abortions are not
done that late in the pregnancy.
>> >and you're advocating it,
>>
>> And you're a liar.
>
>I know, and I'm undereducated. I would, however, fight to save your
>life, and your rights, too.
Unless I was pregnant.
still...@my-deja.com
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >It is not unreasonable to want to make sure we don't kill what is, in
> >every respect except by arbitrary legal delineation, a person.
>
> First, lying about what is a person isn't a good way to debate.
Thoughtful discussion about what constitutes human life is not lying.
> Second, the woman has every right to defend herself from harm.
The woman has every right, and indeed, responsibility, to determine
early on whether or not she's willing and able to care for an infant,
either *before* she engages in activity which might cause pregnancy, or
*very* shortly thereafter.
> Third, NOBODY, not even a fetus, has any right to use another
> person's body without consent.
And nobody -- NOBODY -- has the right to use legal jargon and sophistry
to justify taking the life of what *is* a sentient, viable being, human,
yet unborn.
> >> >> There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
> >> >> responsibilities. If a woman has taken part in the production of
> >> >> life then she has a responsibility towards it.
> >> >
> >> >Now, this is not unreasonable.
> >>
> >> Yes it is.
> >
> >Why?
>
> Shall I dictate YOUR responsibilities?
Society dictates our responsibilities, whether we like it or not. I am
responsible to pay taxes. I am responsible to drive safely. I am
responsible not to recklessly endanger the lives and wellbeing of
others. Society *does* dictate our responsibilities, hopefully informed
by our best moral sense. Like it or not.
> > Who would be responsible for a child, once born?
>
> Anyone who wishes to be responsible.
>
> Slavery is illegal.
That is a brilliant non-sequitour, totally devoid of substance or
meaning within the context of this discussion.
> >> So what? Is sex a crime? Is getting pregnant a crime?
> >
> >Neither are a crime. Neither is abortion.
>
> Then neither may incur any punishment.
I'm not talking about punishment.
This entire frustrating conversation exists because you perceive me as
somehow desiring to eliminate the possibility that a woman may choose
not to have a baby. That is not the case.
> >Killing another human is a crime.
> First, not all death is the result of killing.
> Second, not all killing is a crime.
Which is yet another brilliant non-sequitour. Not all death is the
reult of killing, and not all killing is a crime.
Killing what is, to any thinking person, a viable human being is
criminal, whether the law chooses at this moment to see it as such or
not.
> >> That means no punishment. That means she has no responsibility to
> >> make you happy.
> >
> >We *all* have a responsibility to jealously guard the rights of *all*
> >humans. All.
>
> The YOU worry about YOUR responsibilities and keep your nose out of
> other people's bodies.
Nonsense. I am part of society. Society dictates what is and is not
acceptable behavior by other members of society.
> >> > In every way except legally, an eight
> >> >and a half month fetus *is* a human being no less than a six month
> >> >premie in an oxygen tent.
> >>
> >> Well it's "legally" that counts. Your undereducated opinion
> >> doesn't.
> >
> >There are lots of things which are legal, and are wrong.
>
> And there are a lot of people who think that their very farts have
> been blessed with Holy Infallibility.
Three! Three non-sequitours! You're on a roll.
> Your opinion about what might be wrong really counts for very little.
It counts as much as every other citizen's.
> >> >Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
> >> >murder, our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human,
> >>
> >> It does not. Never did. That's just the usual pro-lie propaganda.
> >
> >I know, I know. I'm undereducated. I did, however, read this.
> >
> >"Article I,Section 2, Paragraph 3: "Representatives and direct taxes
> >shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included
> >within this Union according to their respective numbers, which shall
> >be
> >determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including
> >those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
> >taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."
>
> Notice that there is not one word there that says that blacks (or
> anyone else) are only 3/5s persons.
>
> >The three-fifths there are slaves.
>
> No, 3/5s OF the slaves.
I have no desire to educate you here. A bit of friendly advice. Next
time you accuse someone of being ignorant, and then make some rash
propagandist statement regarding the Constitution, check into it first.
If you'd like, I'll find you a great web site on the Federalists. I've
read them. Have you?
And so, I'll say again, it was at that time, *politically
expedient*, a way of allowing southern slaveholders to increase their
representation in the House, while not exactly calling blacks fully
human -- because that would have denied that they could be property, and
would have granted them full rights of citizenship.
Just as using terminology such as "parasite," "growth," "fetus," are all
used to rename what we all understand is in the process of becoming a
human being -- for political expediency.
You may stick your fingers in your ears and say NANANANANANANA all you
like.
> >But I must be reading the wrong Constitution.
>
> Or only semi-literate.
Heh. My kin thank ah'm real quik fer only gittin' thru first grade.
> Half of the people in the country are women. Does that make women
> only half persons?
Read more. It's all there. Read your history. Geez...
> >> >I doubt very much whether you'd take a position that it's okay to
> >> >kill an infant *after* it's born.
> >>
> >> I very much doubt that an infant is going to be causing anyone much
> >> harm. Nor is it going to be forcing any particular person to take
> >> care of it.
> >
> >Then it's okay if it just lies there and starves to death?
>
> If that happens it will be because YOU let it happen.
Or you. Cuz, gee, I wouldn't be "forcing" any particular person to take
care of it. Heaven forbid we feel *any* responsibility to any other
living creature besides ourselves!
> People are not slaves. You do not get to order them around as if they
> were.
Four! Four non-sequitours! He's going for the gold...
> >> > Charles is simply pointing out that, at
> >> >some point in gestation, abortion accomplishes the exact same
> >> >thing
> >
> >> Never.
> >
> >You're being willfully obstinate. What do you think the uproar over
> >China's enforced abortions was all about? Not only did it deny
> >_those_ women rights over their bodies, but the abortions were done
> >up to nine months.
>
> Pro-lie propaganda.
>
> >Here, it's called partial birth abortion.
>
> No, "partial birth abortion" is a lie invented by pro-liars. There is
> no procedure used to perfom 9th month abortions. Abortions are not
> done that late in the pregnancy.
Bullshit. It's rare, but it does happen, more so in other countries,
but still...
But I think behind that statement is a recognition that nine months *is*
too late to abort. How late is too late? Eight months? Seven? Six?
Last on the news, five month babies delivered premature were surviving.
Not well, but surviving. So how late is too late?
And if I tell you that I'm concerned about that same question, "how late
is too late," why in the world do you want to leap on that soapbox and
start pretending like I'm some snarling maniac who wants to deny birth
control pills to starving Ethiopians?
> >> >and you're advocating it,
> >>
> >> And you're a liar.
> >
> >I know, and I'm undereducated. I would, however, fight to save your
> >life, and your rights, too.
>
> Unless I was pregnant.
If you were pregnant, I'd be delighted for any choice you cared to make
-- until such time as the life growing within you began to approach what
normal human beings understand *is* a baby.
Plus, it would be a flat out miracle.
Sunny
> --
> Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also
looks
> rfis...@sonic.net into you -- Nietzsche
>
NM
---snippety do da----
> Knee jerk responses to this ongoing, fruitless debate are a source of
> frustration. Charles is right. In every way except legally, an eight
> and a half month fetus *is* a human being no less than a six month
> premie in an oxygen tent. Though I support women's rights, and do
> concede that their bodies are their own, at some point the fetus growing
> inside becomes recognizably human, capable of movement, hearing, even
> learning.
Your response is why I pointed out the fallacy of the "its a womans
body" argument. The unborn is a genetically unique individual. To say
that it is the woman's body is a lie.
> Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
> murder, our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human, for
> political reasons.
This is inaccurate. The worth of chattel slaves electorally was
arbitrarily put a 3/5 of a white for census and apportionment purposes.
Read period literature and commentary. Even the most ardent slave
holders didn't deny that slaves were "human". They insisted that
black's were and inferior breed/type of human.
> Did it *make* them less human? Nope, but it did
> create a reason to treat them as less than human legally. The same way
> calling a human being only a human being after it is born delineates a
> legal term, but does not come close to encapsulating the totality of
> what it means to be human.
The law is all we have to work with unless you're a whacko murderer or
arsonist hiding behind pro-life rhetoric. Abortion isn't "murder", as
abortion is legal in the United States.
> I doubt very much whether you'd take a position that it's okay to kill
> an infant *after* it's born. Charles is simply pointing out that, at
> some point in gestation, abortion accomplishes the exact same thing --
> and you're advocating it, hiding behind legal terminology and slogan
> spouting to justify it.
Very good point. You must realize though, that from a conscience
standpoint its much easier to countenance the killing if you can
rationalize away the humanity of the victim.
> Then Charles wrote:
>
> > You use the words above "if it dies" which means that you are
> > accepting that it is alive, and that at best the mother is refusing
> > her responsibilty, at the worst she is a prime mover in its murder.
>
> That is, in fact, what the post he was responding to said. It
> essentially said that a fetus was no different than a kidney, an
> unwelcome growth, and well, gee, if it died, that's too bad.
I think a tumor is more the analogy. The difference is, your kidney or
a tumor shares the genetic makeup (mutated in the case of tumors) as the
host person. The unborn are genetically unique individuals.
> I can't speak for Charles here, so I'll tell you my position. I do
> support the right to choose -- within some limits. I think most people
> do.
Don't you think the "right to choose" is more responsibly done with less
impact on innocent life by choosing to not become pregnant (don't engage
in behavior resulting in pregnancy). This seems to be glossed over
regularly. The choices begin with choosing to engage in intercourse.
> To be absolutely against choice at all, in its ridiculous extreme,
> would protect every egg and every sperm for their potential to create
> life, or would eliminate birth control pills, as they do not stop
> fertilization, but inhibit attachment -- as do IUD's (which I don't
> think are even in use any more). On the other hand, positing a fetus as
> an unwelcome growth, or parasite (I've seen that one before), at its
> ridiculous extreme means that it's a-okay to shove scissors through its
> crown as its on its way out of the birth canal, because it isn't
> *really* human yet; or that a baby fully birthed, but still attached to
> placenta isn't *really* human yet, or that a baby breastfeeding is yet a
> parasite, as it depends on the mother's body for sustenance, and who the
> hell does it think it is, anyway, and why should that mother have to
> nurse something so inconvenient?
>
> I support the rights off *all* humans. And legal definition or no, at
> some point a gestating fetus *becomes* human, which means I support
> their rights, too. Charles merely pointed out that we need to be very,
> very careful in how we determine what is and isn't human.
>
> And I can't imagine how that would offend someone who was, himself, a
> developing fetus at one point.
Nice post
NM
The right to life is the principle right without which all other rights
are moot.
hrgr...@my-deja.com
still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94qdpi$9...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > >Killing another human is a crime.
Not if it happens as a necessary result of the defense of a fundamental
right. If your only way to escape rape is the death of the would-be
rapist, then *this* killing is legal.
> > First, not all death is the result of killing.
> > Second, not all killing is a crime.
>
> Which is yet another brilliant non-sequitour. Not all death is the
> reult of killing, and not all killing is a crime.
>
> Killing what is, to any thinking person, a viable human being is
> criminal, whether the law chooses at this moment to see it as such or
> not.
Point of order:
You can claim that a specific act is *immoral* IYO, and we can debate
if there is a unique objective morality covering all situatiuons etc.
But which acts are *criminal* is defined by the penal laws of the
country or state you happen to live in. Nullum crimen sine lege (no
crime without a law).
Regards,
HRG.
<snip>
NM
discussion under way.
NM
Charles Wyndham
wrote:
A harsh judgement Jeff, although infinitely more reasonable than most of the
responses. Sure the mother has rights, but so does the foetus once it has
life. What would you reckon those rights to be?
Surely it cannot be a "right" for a women to destroy a life, however
inconvenient that life may be to her. Removing a foetus that cannot live
outside the womb is just the same as killing it. Attempts (not yours) to shift
the blame to the doctor who carries out the abortion, or to anyone else who
"allows" the inevitable death of the foetus are pure smokescreens.
When I speak of responsibility I think in terms of moral and not legal
responsibility. The life exists because of her actions (and the father), it is
part of her, and she cannot avoid having some continuing responsibility
for it.
Charles Wyndham
I feel that I should apologise for being a cause of your involvent in
such a nasty debate.
The passions of people who feel that they are being compelled to
carry a foetus against their will and perhaps against their welfare are
fully understandable, the inability of some to support their views
without rancour and deliberate offence is not.
Chas.
The Ghost In The Machine
<a...@usa.net>
wrote
on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:11:13 GMT
<3A6F1AB2...@usa.net>:
Now I'm getting confused. How is 410 U.S. 113 arbitrary and having
no basis in the Constitution, when it specifically references
several of the Amendments?
Section II, for instance, refers to the First, Fourth, Fifth,
Ninth, and Fourtheenth Amendments, attempting to derive therefrom
the right to privacy (the derivation is ultimately from the
Ninth and Fourteenth in section VIII, as I read it -- of course,
I'm not a lawyer :-) ).
The decision is at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
It is long, but fairly readable, although they do throw words
such as "supra" in there on occasion.
>
>NM
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 0d:08h:40m actually running Linux.
>>> Make Signatures Fast! <<<
still...@my-deja.com
Charles Wyndham <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> I feel that I should apologise for being a cause of your involvent in
> such a nasty debate.
Charles, you don't have to apologize for one thing. I chose to answer,
and knew when I did so what the response might be.
> The passions of people who feel that they are being compelled to
> carry a foetus against their will and perhaps against their welfare
> are
> fully understandable, the inability of some to support their views
> without rancour and deliberate offence is not.
I know. It's okay. It's what happens when people allow other people to
think for them. Having bought some political spin on a very complicated
subject, there can be no real basis for reasoned argument, because
there's never been one thought out. The only other defense is vitriol.
It's pretty transparent, though sad.
still...@my-deja.com
> Very good point. You must realize though, that from a conscience
> standpoint its much easier to countenance the killing if you can
> rationalize away the humanity of the victim.
Exactly, and it has been done throughout history to justify killing
people who were inconvenient.
> > I can't speak for Charles here, so I'll tell you my position. I do
> > support the right to choose -- within some limits. I think most
> > people do.
>
> Don't you think the "right to choose" is more responsibly done with
> less impact on innocent life by choosing to not become pregnant (don't
> engage in behavior resulting in pregnancy). This seems to be glossed
> over regularly. The choices begin with choosing to engage in
> intercourse.
That's very true. My position is more a compromise, based on
human reality. I've had three children -- all on the pill. With the
last one, I told the doctor, who had been reluctant to tie my tubes
before, that unless he wanted to put my kids through college, he'd
better make sure I didn't have any more.
Rape happens. Incest happens. Sometimes there are hereditary things
at work which destine whatever child is to be born to a short,
painful existence. And sometimes, kids' hormones catch up with them.
The human sexual urge is a very strong one, and reasonable thinking
tends to go right out the window when we're in the grips of it.
Bearing all that in mind, I'd hate to make an early choice, based on
reason and some understanding of what it means to give birth, be thrown
into some other arena for a decision. Judges, doctors -- none of them
are as qualified to actually know all the circumstances of a person's
life better than the person themself. Any qualification to abortion in
the first trimester is necessarily going to involve some other person.
So, bearing in mind that many forms of birth control do, in fact, not
prohibit the fertilization, but only the implanting of the egg in the
uterus, I come out on the side of absolutely free choice -- within the
first trimester. Three months is plenty of time to discover you're
pregnant and make a decision. And at three months, I'm less afraid
there's a sentient human in there.
There are no perfect solutions, unfortunately. I wish there were.
Sunny
> NM
> The right to life is the principle right without which all other
> rights are moot.
That is excellent. Thank you.
Jeff
Well, that's an interesting question. First of all, I'd like to submit
something of interest: throughout most of the world born children aren't
really considered fully human. In the US it would be a crime to beat an
adult, but its perfectly legal to beat a child. The money a child earns
belongs to the parent. The amount of work it takes to get children out of
abusive situations is amazing. These are BORN children, who are living
independently of their parents bodies, some of them even independently of
their parents financial contributions. So, what gives there? If these
people are less than human, on what basis are fetus' human at all?
Actually, while that's an interesting perspective that wasn't my main point.
First of all, even if I, a fully sentiant adult human being was inside your
body (we were kidnapped by aliens or something), I would NOT have the right
to remain there against your will, even if my removal would mean my death.
No one, and that's NO ONE has the right to use another's body against their
will even if their removal means their deaths. Thus, I can't force someone
to give me a blood transusion if I need one.
But then, does a fetus have any rights at all? It doesn't have the right to
live inside the mother's body, but for example can a mother drink regardless
of the damage caused to it? And if a murderer kills the mother does it kill
one or two beings? And undeniably when conception first occurs that being
has no thoughts, no real traits that would give it extraordinary value.
When it is 1 day away from birth it clearly is worth far more. Seems to me
that abortions performed after the fetus is viable should be performed in a
manner that maximizes the chances of the fetus surviving. I would strongly
suggest if the "pro-life" want to minimize "fetal death" that they
investigate in ways to decrease the age that a fetus can survive without the
mother, research an artificial womb. Unfortunately, many of the same people
who are "pro-life" aren't too keen on it, since someone has to then support
and raise the child for the next 18 years and they don't want it to be their
tax dollars, a foolish stance to take. In terms of the original questions I
made, a fetus' rights are debatable, but the woman's are not. Her body is
her body, no compromises. She doesn't have the right to intentionally kill
a fetus if it survives an abortion. But she can continue to drink, etc.
even if its a danger to the fetus (though, I'm more flexible on this issue
than abortion. What do you think?). The question of the murderer is a
rather philosophical one. That's an issue of when life really starts and
what value that life has. Clearly, if its life it has to be taken on a
seperate case than the mother's. If the mother was pregnant, and hte
murderer kills her and didn't realize she was pregnant you can't charge the
murderer with 1st degree murder on the fetus as well, manslaughter at best.
Even then, I don't know...
>
> Surely it cannot be a "right" for a women to destroy a life, however
> inconvenient that life may be to her.
No, and as such once a baby is born even if it incoveniences her she can't
pull her pistol out, lodge a bullet in its head and throw it in the garbage.
THAT SAID, she can remove it from inside her body EVEN if that means its
death. Now, if it can survive outside her body and she intentionally kills
it, that's wrong. But it doesn't have a right to use her body against her
will, any more than I have a right to use your blood for a blood transfusion
against your will.
> Removing a foetus that cannot live
> outside the womb is just the same as killing it.
Incorrect. The result is the same but the situation isn't. Why? Consider
this scenario: its -30 degrees outside, there's a blizzard and there's a
homeless person. You live on a farm, the person WILL NOT survive to get to
the next house or any other shelter. You DO NOT have the obligation to take
that person is even if that means the person's death. Thus, in effect your
decision to say no is perfectly legal, but the person will die as a result
of it. At the same time, you do not have the right to take a gun out and
shoot the person even though the result would be the same. See what I mean?
> Attempts (not yours) to shift
> the blame to the doctor who carries out the abortion, or to anyone else
who
> "allows" the inevitable death of the foetus are pure smokescreens.
I would never blame anyone for abortion except, as sad as this may sound the
fetus. Its no one's fault that it can't survive outside the mother's body
on its own up until a certain age.
>
> When I speak of responsibility I think in terms of moral and not legal
> responsibility.
Important destinction there. I'm curious, what are your views on abortion
legally and morally?
I am totally against legislating morality. Morally, there are very many
things to consider.
> The life exists because of her actions (and the father), it is
> part of her, and she cannot avoid having some continuing responsibility
> for it.
Well, it occured as an uninvited accident. I know its harsh, but its true.
Here's a question: do you make any destinctions between those who were
raped, incest cases, underage cases, etc.? If so, why?
Jeff
Jeff
>
> I feel that I should apologise for being a cause of your involvent in
> such a nasty debate.
>
> The passions of people who feel that they are being compelled to
> carry a foetus against their will and perhaps against their welfare are
> fully understandable, the inability of some to support their views
> without rancour and deliberate offence is not.
I'll tell you, its really as amazing as it is a question over what's
"sacred." If the government can control the body to the extent of forcing
it to carry a fetus and give birth it can really do anything. Nothing
becomes "personal" or "private," the government can in reality control
anything. That's scary, more scary than many can imagine.
And also, abortion is a woman's issue, which means that we take it less
seriously. Can you imagine for example what it would mean if the government
mandated vasectomy after 2 kids? There would be civil war! I kid you not.
No one would stand for it.
Jeff
hereti...@my-deja.com
still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94q6eg$711$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <94q3b3$3ta$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> > still...@my-deja.com wrote:
Much snippage ahead
> That was very sweet, and reinforced your salient points quite well.
Is
> that what happens when reason goes out the window?
I notice that you didn't bother to address any of the points I made, so
they stand. And YES, I do wish that anyone who thinks that women have
the option to Just Say No to sex get raped. It is absolutely abhorrent
to say that women are not forced and coerced into unwanted sexual
contact, and that many women have no access to contraception and are
forced to bear children against their will. As we have seen
demonstrated over and over, when women are forced to bear children,
women and children die. Your assholistic frenzy against abortion shows
that you WANT women and children to suffer and die, since it is the
result of forced gestation. May you live what you would force on
others. I have noticed that rapists and RTLers have the same sort of
heuristics, schema, and blame-avoiding rationalizations about women and
the harm done to them. (D.Sculley, L.Malamuth etal) and I am FUCKING
SICK of self-righteous cunts who seem to think that women somehow
DESERVE what happens to them.
snip
> > But do women really have any option to refuse?
>
> Are you kidding? Yes, unless they live in Saudi Arabia.
Women are raped right here in the USA. Did you know that homeless women
are raped at about 30-40 times the rate women with housing are? Right
here in the USA. Many women have no place to go, and how are they
supposed to Just Say No to a man who provides them with economic
support? Did you know that there have been recent busts of nation-wide
rings of JUVENILE PROSTITUTES? All American girls, BTW. How are THEY
supposed to Just Say No? What the fuck is WRONG with you?
> > In most cases, she does NOT have any reasonable way to refuse
> > sex. Just because no one wants YOU doesn't mean all women
> > are free to Just Say No.
>
> Yes, they are.
May you live what the above women have lived.
By the Great Mother may it be so.
snip
> > That is absurd. And what has that got to do with legal abortions,
> > anyway? Can you show ONE case of an 8 1/2 month viable fetus
> > that has been aborted? Why on earth would a woman wait that long
> > to abort, if she didn't want a child?
>
> That _is_ my point, and I suspect Charles's. Yes, abortions do happen
> that late, though it's rare.
prove it, cunt. Just one actual verifiable case. With cites. From a
reputable medical source.
snip
> > how's about I simply define YOU as . . .a . . .
> > SHEEP . .. so if I kill you it can't be murder. What . . .you mean
> > I can't simply redefine terms to make my point? Aw shucks!
>
> Which is exactly what you do when you call a human being an unwelcome
> intrusion.
Lying cunt, a fetus is not a human being. And for many women a
pregnancy is a very unwanted "intrusion". May you be so "intruded"
snip
> > when you live in a country that happily kills off, by omission and
> > comission, millions.
>
> You're going to need to be more specific. War? Death penalty? What?
Lack of housing and health care. Americans with no access to health
care are 25% more likely to die. Those on the street die all the time.
Right in the USA. We are contributing to the deaths of many in Iraq,
because of the sanctions. They are not Saddam Hussein, yet they die for
what he did. We could tax Americans more so that we could send our
surplus food overseas, too. That would save millions alone.
snip
> > No, dearie, a fetus never has been a human being, and a fetus is not
> > an infant. And abortions do not kill late term viable fetuses
>
> Yes, some do. At this point, the earliest fetus able to survive is
> about five months old.
Cite, please? And do read the Dec 10 NEJoM, about the outcomes of very
early births. The mortality rate is shocking. and the cost is
astronomical. How much will YOU pay?
> Now, it's tricky, and it's recent. I think,
> despite your determination to throw me into the radical right to lifer
> camp, we'd agree on the the fact that there must be a time limit set.
> Of course, I might be wrong. When do _you_ think is too late for an
> abortion? Three months? Four months? Six months? Nine months?
>
> > Perhaps if you dealt with reality a bit, you would understand things
> > a bit better.
>
> I see. Thank you, oh rational one.
snip
> I demand nothing of a pregnant woman, save that she make a conscious
> decision about whether or not she's willing and capable of taking care
> of her child AT SOME POINT WAY BEFORE VIABILITY!
stupid cunt, women DO just that. Many women DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO SAFE,
EARLY ABORTIONS OR ADEQUATE CONTRACEPTION. And Bushie just made sure
more women don't.
snip
> > A fetus is a parasite, and if it is unwanted, it is unwelcome.
>
> So at what point do *you* think it stops becoming a parasite, and
begins
> to be a human?
The fetus is a parasite until it is born. As soon as the cord is cut,
it ain't parasitizing, dearie. You really do need to read a dictionary
or two. Try Stedmen's Medical. Oh, I have a copy right here . ..
parasite: 1. an organism that lives on or in another and draws its
nourishment therefrom 2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or conjoined
twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives it support frome the
more nearly normal autosome
But "human being" is not a medical term, rather it is a sociolegal term.
So the answer is, you dumb cunt, AT BIRTH.
Sheesh. Ya know, maybe if you stopped such fuckwitted "arguments" I'd
have a bit of respect for you.
snip
> > anyone who hates their mother so badly they would want to force
> > her to gestate him/herself should be aborted.
>
> How you got hating mothers out of this is beyond me.
Oh, it's been discussed in psych lit for some time, the correlation
between anti-abortion zealotry and suppressed hostility for an uncaring
or abusive mother. Displaced Aggression, you know. The RTLer
identifies with the unwanted fetus, and attacks the woman, upon whom
s/he has projected the animosity towards Mother. Also found in rapists.
> > Postnatally if possible.
>
> Hm. Does this count as a death threat? It would be my second, and
I'm
> collecting them. Nah, I guess not.
Only if your mother did it could it be a post-natal abortion.
And I'll bet she wishes she could. many women do regret having
children.
still...@my-deja.com
hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Much snippage ahead
>
> > That was very sweet, and reinforced your salient points quite well.
> > Is that what happens when reason goes out the window?
>
> I notice that you didn't bother to address any of the points I made,
> so they stand.
Begging your pardon, but it's rather difficult to find an actual point
between the assaultive language. I'll give it a shot. And I'm going to
be clipping anything that is less than rational or cogent, so hang onto
your hat.
And I should say, you didn't bother to note -- again -- that I *am*
prochoice. I am also concerned about human life, and when that life
actually *becomes* human.
> And YES, I do wish that anyone who thinks that women have
> the option to Just Say No to sex get raped. It is absolutely
> abhorrent to say that women are not forced and coerced into unwanted
> sexual contact, and that many women have no access to contraception
> and are forced to bear children against their will.
First point addressed. I already pointed out that I am prochoice
because I recognize that rape happens. I think your reply to that was
that I should be raped. I'm not sure if you'd like me to reply to your
wish, or to your point -- so I'll pick the point.
Yes, many women are raped. I hate it. I'd choose to eliminate all rape
if I could. I'd choose to make everybody behave kindly and with care to
one another. I can't. So I am prochoice for that reason, among others.
Your shouting doesn't change the fact that I'm already in agreement with
you on that score.
However, that many women are raped *does not*, in this society,
extrapolate into *all* women are raped, all the time. People have sex.
Mostly, they choose it.
Next.
> As we have seen
> demonstrated over and over, when women are forced to bear children,
> women and children die. Your assholistic frenzy against abortion
> shows that you WANT women and children to suffer and die, since it is
> the result of forced gestation.
That is not my position. You are again spewing garbage at your own
strawman.
> May you live what you would force on
> others. I have noticed that rapists and RTLers have the same sort of
> heuristics, schema, and blame-avoiding rationalizations about women
> and the harm done to them.
Interesting, that term, blame-avoiding rationalizations. Because we are
prochoice, then we may not blame women for getting pregnant -- so we
decide that all women are pregnant because they were raped or otherwise
forced into sexual contact. That means that the fetus is a product only
of violence, and not at all a person, and never will be a person --
tada! We have justified killing it.
> (D.Sculley, L.Malamuth etal) and I am FUCKING
> SICK of self-righteous cunts who seem to think that women somehow
> DESERVE what happens to them.
There's a difference between deserving something, and something
happening as a natural consequence of our actions. If I choose to get
drunk and wander into the street and get killed by a car, did I deserve
it? No. Was it a natural consequence of my actions? Yes.
> > > But do women really have any option to refuse?
> >
> > Are you kidding? Yes, unless they live in Saudi Arabia.
>
> Women are raped right here in the USA. Did you know that homeless
> women are raped at about 30-40 times the rate women with housing are?
Did you know one in three (I think) women report having been raped at
least once in their lives?
Did you know that most people who are homeless are so because of their
own decisions?
Did you know that you're pulling questions about welfare and housing and
every other thing into an argument about when abortion crosses the line
between right to choose and right to live?
> Right
> here in the USA. Many women have no place to go, and how are they
> supposed to Just Say No to a man who provides them with economic
> support? Did you know that there have been recent busts of
> nation-wide
> rings of JUVENILE PROSTITUTES? All American girls, BTW. How are THEY
> supposed to Just Say No? What the fuck is WRONG with you?
Did you know that I hate all that stuff, too -- and am prochoice for
those reasons?
> prove it, cunt. Just one actual verifiable case. With cites. From a
> reputable medical source.
Without too much trouble (like one click on a search engine) I
discovered an advertisement for just such a clinic. Here.
There are a lot more. Do the search yourself.
But I notice you clipped my question.
How late is too late?
How late before a "fetus" becomes a "baby"?
Not legally, but what *you* think.
> Lying cunt, a fetus is not a human being. And for many women a
> pregnancy is a very unwanted "intrusion". May you be so "intruded"
A fetus is in the process of becoming a human being.
At some point, it is only an egg and a sperm.
Then it is a fertilized egg.
Then it grows, culminating in what we all can see *is* a human.
At which point, its life is as worthy of protection as anyone
else's.
This isn't that hard.
You were once a fetus.
Then you became a human.
> > > when you live in a country that happily kills off, by omission and
> > > comission, millions.
> >
> > You're going to need to be more specific. War? Death penalty?
> > What?
>
> Lack of housing and health care. Americans with no access to health
> care are 25% more likely to die.
LOL! Sorry -- everyone is 100% guaranteed gonna die.
> Those on the street die all the time. Right in the USA. We are
> contributing to the deaths of many in Iraq,
> because of the sanctions. They are not Saddam Hussein, yet they die
> for what he did. We could tax Americans more so that we could send
> our surplus food overseas, too. That would save millions alone.
This is not the point we're addressing right now. The subject of this
discussion is abortion, not Saddam Hussein.
You want to talk foreign policy, start a different thread.
> > > No, dearie, a fetus never has been a human being, and a fetus is
> > > not an infant. And abortions do not kill late term viable fetuses
> >
> > Yes, some do. At this point, the earliest fetus able to survive is
> > about five months old.
>
> Cite, please?
It was just on the news last week. I'll find it if you insist.
> And do read the Dec 10 NEJoM, about the outcomes of
> very
> early births. The mortality rate is shocking.
Does that bother you?
What's the difference if they're born early and die?
How is that different?
Because I noticed you also didn't answer this question.
When do *you* think it's too late for an ethical decision to abort?
Five months? Six months? Seven months? Eight months? Nine months?
I dare you to answer.
> and the cost is astronomical. How much will YOU pay?
For my own child? Everything.
Here you go. Here's the question you dodged.
> > Now, it's tricky, and it's recent. I think,
> > despite your determination to throw me into the radical right to
> > lifer camp, we'd agree on the the fact that there must be a time
> > limit set.
> > Of course, I might be wrong. When do _you_ think is too late for an
> > abortion? Three months? Four months? Six months? Nine months?
Care to answer?
> > I demand nothing of a pregnant woman, save that she make a conscious
> > decision about whether or not she's willing and capable of taking
> > care of her child AT SOME POINT WAY BEFORE VIABILITY!
>
> stupid cunt, women DO just that. Many women DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
> SAFE, EARLY ABORTIONS OR ADEQUATE CONTRACEPTION.
Bullshit. Many isn't all, or even most.
> > > A fetus is a parasite, and if it is unwanted, it is unwelcome.
> >
> > So at what point do *you* think it stops becoming a parasite, and
> > begins to be a human?
>
> The fetus is a parasite until it is born. As soon as the cord is cut,
> it ain't parasitizing, dearie. You really do need to read a
> dictionary
> or two. Try Stedmen's Medical. Oh, I have a copy right here . ..
> parasite: 1. an organism that lives on or in another and draws its
> nourishment therefrom 2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or conjoined
> twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives it support frome the
> more nearly normal autosome
Let's use the first definition, since it seems appropriate, and your
comment as well.
A baby fully born, but not clipped from the placenta, is a parasite.
Can we kill it?
A baby fully born, but dependent on breast milk for survival, is a
parasite.
Can we kill it?
A baby fully born, but dependent on the money earned by the parents for
the purchase of its food and shelter, is a parasite.
Can we kill it?
> But "human being" is not a medical term, rather it is a sociolegal
> term.
What is a human, then?
> So the answer is, you dumb cunt, AT BIRTH.
> Sheesh. Ya know, maybe if you stopped such fuckwitted "arguments" I'd
> have a bit of respect for you.
Your lack of respect is completely undaunting.
> snip
> > > anyone who hates their mother so badly they would want to force
> > > her to gestate him/herself should be aborted.
> >
> > How you got hating mothers out of this is beyond me.
>
> Oh, it's been discussed in psych lit for some time, the correlation
> between anti-abortion zealotry and suppressed hostility for an
> uncaring or abusive mother. Displaced Aggression, you know. The
> RTLer identifies with the unwanted fetus, and attacks the woman, upon
> whom s/he has projected the animosity towards Mother. Also found in
> rapists.
You know what? The vast majority of hostility in this thread has come
from you, in addition to the skipping of points raised.
And since I'm not an anti-abortion zealot, your perceptions
notwithstanding, I'd be interested in knowing the source of *your*
hostility.
Sunny
NM
It is USENET. ;)
NM
Newsgroups don't teach the participants nearly so much as it does the
lurkers.
NM
---snipped---
> "sacred." If the government can control the body to the extent of forcing
> it to carry a fetus and give birth it can really do anything.
No government entity or person (in nearly ALL cases) force the woman to
become pregnant. That is where the "choice" resides for anyone who
understands what personal responsibility is. I do agree however that it
isn't government's purview beyond a local/community level.
> Nothing
> becomes "personal" or "private," the government can in reality control
> anything. That's scary, more scary than many can imagine.
The government, through legislation/regulation "controls" many things
that impact your/our lives directly. The government sets standards for
all kinds of things, usually rationalized as for the benefit of society
or individuals unable to stand up for themselves.
> And also, abortion is a woman's issue, which means that we take it less
> seriously.
This is totally incorrect. Women don't become pregnant spontaneously.
Nor do they spontaneously eject an unwanted child. Many others are
involved and impacted.
> Can you imagine for example what it would mean if the government
> mandated vasectomy after 2 kids?
It would be as bad as the Government sanctioning the killing of helpless
and innocent individuals. China's reproductive policies come to mind
from your example.
> There would be civil war! I kid you not.
> No one would stand for it.
No. It would probably elicit as vehement a debate as abortion does.
Pro-life people must recognize that abortion currently is legal. There
are effective processes by which such legality can be changed. I
personally think the issue is no government's business beyond the
local/community level.
NM
Ray Fischer
>> >It is not unreasonable to want to make sure we don't kill what is, in
>> >every respect except by arbitrary legal delineation, a person.
>>
>> First, lying about what is a person isn't a good way to debate.
>
>Thoughtful discussion about what constitutes human life is not lying.
Arrogant claims that ignore reality are not "thoughtful discussion".
>> Second, the woman has every right to defend herself from harm.
>
>The woman has every right, and indeed, responsibility, to determine
Cut the crap.
The woman has every right to defend herself from harm. You don't get
to force her to suffer.
>> Third, NOBODY, not even a fetus, has any right to use another
>> person's body without consent.
>
>And nobody -- NOBODY -- has the right to use legal jargon and sophistry
That would be you.
>> >> >> There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
>> >> >> responsibilities. If a woman has taken part in the production of
>> >> >> life then she has a responsibility towards it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Now, this is not unreasonable.
>> >>
>> >> Yes it is.
>> >
>> >Why?
>>
>> Shall I dictate YOUR responsibilities?
>
>Society dictates our responsibilities, whether we like it or not.
You didn't answer the question. SOCIETY says that abortion is legal.
SOCIETY says that women are not the property of fetuses. SOCIETY says
that a fetus is not a person.
If you're going to refer to what society says then the discussion is
over and you lose.
>> > Who would be responsible for a child, once born?
>>
>> Anyone who wishes to be responsible.
>>
>> Slavery is illegal.
>
>That is a brilliant non-sequitour, totally devoid of substance or
>meaning within the context of this discussion.
You're limited intellect is not a problem with my statement.
>> >> So what? Is sex a crime? Is getting pregnant a crime?
>> >
>> >Neither are a crime. Neither is abortion.
>>
>> Then neither may incur any punishment.
>
>I'm not talking about punishment.
Yes, you are. Denying people their freedom is punishment.
>This entire frustrating conversation exists because you perceive me as
>somehow desiring to eliminate the possibility that a woman may choose
>not to have a baby. That is not the case.
Sophistry
>> >Killing another human is a crime.
>
>> First, not all death is the result of killing.
>> Second, not all killing is a crime.
>
>Which is yet another brilliant non-sequitour.
First, it's "non sequitur".
Second, your claim is not true.
Third, it appears that you have no interest whatever in the facts and
are only interested in farting your undereducated opinion.
>> >We *all* have a responsibility to jealously guard the rights of *all*
>> >humans. All.
>>
>> Then YOU worry about YOUR responsibilities and keep your nose out of
>> other people's bodies.
>
>Nonsense.
So your say that _other_ people have responsibilities and you get to
do as you please.
Hypocrite.
Ninure Saunders
-In article <3A70FE49...@usa.net>,
- af...@spamusa.net wrote:
-> still...@my-deja.com wrote:
-> ---snippety do da----
-
-> Very good point. You must realize though, that from a conscience
-> standpoint its much easier to countenance the killing if you can
-> rationalize away the humanity of the victim.
-
-Exactly, and it has been done throughout history to justify killing
-people who were inconvenient.
-
-> > I can't speak for Charles here, so I'll tell you my position. I do
-> > support the right to choose -- within some limits. I think most
-> > people do.
->
-> Don't you think the "right to choose" is more responsibly done with
-> less impact on innocent life by choosing to not become pregnant (don't
-> engage in behavior resulting in pregnancy). This seems to be glossed
-> over regularly. The choices begin with choosing to engage in
-> intercourse.
-
-That's very true. My position is more a compromise, based on
-human reality. I've had three children -- all on the pill. With the
-last one, I told the doctor, who had been reluctant to tie my tubes
-before, that unless he wanted to put my kids through college, he'd
-better make sure I didn't have any more.
-
-Rape happens. Incest happens. Sometimes there are hereditary things
-at work which destine whatever child is to be born to a short,
-painful existence. And sometimes, kids' hormones catch up with them.
-The human sexual urge is a very strong one, and reasonable thinking
-tends to go right out the window when we're in the grips of it.
-
-Bearing all that in mind, I'd hate to make an early choice, based on
-reason and some understanding of what it means to give birth, be thrown
-into some other arena for a decision. Judges, doctors -- none of them
-are as qualified to actually know all the circumstances of a person's
-life better than the person themself. Any qualification to abortion in
-the first trimester is necessarily going to involve some other person.
-
-So, bearing in mind that many forms of birth control do, in fact, not
-prohibit the fertilization, but only the implanting of the egg in the
-uterus, I come out on the side of absolutely free choice -- within the
-first trimester. Three months is plenty of time to discover you're
-pregnant and make a decision. And at three months, I'm less afraid
-there's a sentient human in there.
-
-There are no perfect solutions, unfortunately. I wish there were.
-
-Sunny
-
WOW!!
Sunny, you truly are a joy to read.....
It is so good to know that there are people out there who think woth
compassion and empathy.......
It's too bad that most of the people who "scream" the loudest on this
issue cannot fo the same.
I am still torn on this abortion issue.....but I think reading posts like
yours helps a whole lot in helping me reach the truth.
Hugs, dear sister!!
Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
-
Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
http://www.ufmcc.com
Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
http://www.hungersite.com
Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
Ray Fischer
>Jeff wrote:
>> I'll tell you, its really as amazing as it is a question over what's
>> "sacred." If the government can control the body to the extent of forcing
>> it to carry a fetus and give birth it can really do anything.
>
>No government entity or person (in nearly ALL cases) force the woman to
>become pregnant.
It is classic pro-lie dishonesty to try and change the subject so
transparently. Your statement is as immoral as saying that no
government forced slaves to be black.
Ray Fischer
>Your response is why I pointed out the fallacy of the "its a womans
>body" argument. The unborn is a genetically unique individual. To say
>that it is the woman's body is a lie.
Interesting. The anti-choicer refuses to acknowledge the existance of
a women. Uterus, heart, lungs, arms, legs, mind - all exist only to
serve the fetus. They are not the woman's body.
NM
---snipped as necessary---
> prochoice. I am also concerned about human life, and when that life
> actually *becomes* human.
Illustrating the complexity of the issue. I am pro-life, yet I share
much of the same opinions that Sunny has.
> > And YES, I do wish that anyone who thinks that women have
> > the option to Just Say No to sex get raped. It is absolutely
> > abhorrent to say that women are not forced and coerced into unwanted
> > sexual contact,
Sure this happens. However as a percentage of the number of abortions
annually (in excess of 1 million) if is TINY.
> and that many women have no access to contraception
Only by choice. Family planning agencies, public health clinics,
educational institutions etc etc will ALL provide contraception to women
who can't afford it. If they don't they will refer the woman to an
agency that will.
> > and are forced to bear children against their will.
Not in the U.S. Abortion is legal. Contraception is widely available
for free and/or at reduced cost.
> First point addressed. I already pointed out that I am prochoice
> because I recognize that rape happens. I think your reply to that was
> that I should be raped. I'm not sure if you'd like me to reply to your
> wish, or to your point -- so I'll pick the point.
I have trouble understanding how any person could wish rape upon
another. It isn't surprising though. If one can countenance killing
innocents, why not rape too?
> Yes, many women are raped. I hate it. I'd choose to eliminate all rape
> if I could. I'd choose to make everybody behave kindly and with care to
> one another. I can't. So I am prochoice for that reason, among others.
> Your shouting doesn't change the fact that I'm already in agreement with
> you on that score.
>
> However, that many women are raped *does not*, in this society,
> extrapolate into *all* women are raped, all the time. People have sex.
> Mostly, they choose it.
Predominantly they choose it.
> Next.
>
> > As we have seen
> > demonstrated over and over, when women are forced to bear children,
> > women and children die.
Cite these "over and over" instances. Quantify "over and over" as well.
> Your assholistic frenzy against abortion
> > shows that you WANT women and children to suffer and die, since it is
> > the result of forced gestation.
>
> That is not my position. You are again spewing garbage at your own
> strawman.
A vivid imagination is required to justify killing often times.
> > May you live what you would force on
> > others. I have noticed that rapists and RTLers have the same sort of
> > heuristics, schema, and blame-avoiding rationalizations about women
> > and the harm done to them.
>
> Interesting, that term, blame-avoiding rationalizations. Because we are
> prochoice, then we may not blame women for getting pregnant -- so we
> decide that all women are pregnant because they were raped or otherwise
> forced into sexual contact.
That appears to be his/her contention.
> That means that the fetus is a product only
> of violence, and not at all a person, and never will be a person --
> tada! We have justified killing it.
Even in cases of rape (which are a miniscule percentage of abortions),
the unborn individual didn't commit any act of violence.
> > (D.Sculley, L.Malamuth etal) and I am FUCKING
> > SICK of self-righteous cunts who seem to think that women somehow
> > DESERVE what happens to them.
You are saying that women are not responsible for their actions?
Hahahahaa. Boy is that sexist.
> There's a difference between deserving something, and something
> happening as a natural consequence of our actions. If I choose to get
> drunk and wander into the street and get killed by a car, did I deserve
> it? No. Was it a natural consequence of my actions? Yes.
Yes. Consequences are objective realities. Deserving is a subjective
assignment.
> > > > But do women really have any option to refuse?
> > >
> > > Are you kidding? Yes, unless they live in Saudi Arabia.
> >
> > Women are raped right here in the USA. Did you know that homeless
> > women are raped at about 30-40 times the rate women with housing are?
Did you know that rape victims are a miniscule percentage of pregancies
receiving abortions?
> Did you know one in three (I think) women report having been raped at
> least once in their lives?
Yes.
> Did you know that most people who are homeless are so because of their
> own decisions?
Did you know that the significant majority of homeless people suffer
from mental health difficulties/disorders?
> Did you know that you're pulling questions about welfare and housing and
> every other thing into an argument about when abortion crosses the line
> between right to choose and right to live?
Its difficult to rationalize killing innocent individuals so the killed
must be ignored or rationalized into something less than a genetically
unique individual life.
> > Right
> > here in the USA. Many women have no place to go, and how are they
> > supposed to Just Say No to a man who provides them with economic
> > support? Did you know that there have been recent busts of
> > nation-wide
> > rings of JUVENILE PROSTITUTES? All American girls, BTW. How are THEY
> > supposed to Just Say No? What the fuck is WRONG with you?
>
> Did you know that I hate all that stuff, too -- and am prochoice for
> those reasons?
Did you know I hate all that stuff, but recognize that the resulting
unborn commited no crime or violence against anyone? I am pro-life for
those reasons.
> > prove it, cunt. Just one actual verifiable case. With cites. From a
> > reputable medical source.
>
> Without too much trouble (like one click on a search engine) I
> discovered an advertisement for just such a clinic. Here.
>
> http://www.drtiller.com/
Chilling.
> There are a lot more. Do the search yourself.
>
> But I notice you clipped my question.
>
> How late is too late?
>
> How late before a "fetus" becomes a "baby"?
>
> Not legally, but what *you* think.
Don't you think there is a reason that biologists and doctors have
quantified the stages of "HUMAN" development, which includes all the
stages of development during pregnancy.
> > Lying cunt, a fetus is not a human being. And for many women a
> > pregnancy is a very unwanted "intrusion". May you be so "intruded"
Why isn't an unborn a "human being"? Be specific.
> A fetus is in the process of becoming a human being.
>
> At some point, it is only an egg and a sperm.
>
> Then it is a fertilized egg.
>
> Then it grows, culminating in what we all can see *is* a human.
Human development is an uninterrupted linear measurable series of events
beginning at conception and ending at the death of the individual.
Whether inutero or in and old folks home.
> At which point, its life is as worthy of protection as anyone
> else's.
>
> This isn't that hard.
>
> You were once a fetus.
>
> Then you became a human.
This is incorrect. The unborn and the born do not suddently change
their genetic make up. The only difference is stage of development.
You make very good points sunny. Please explain why a fetus isn't
human.
> > > > when you live in a country that happily kills off, by omission and
> > > > comission, millions.
> > >
> > > You're going to need to be more specific. War? Death penalty?
> > > What?
> >
> > Lack of housing and health care. Americans with no access to health
> > care are 25% more likely to die.
>
> LOL! Sorry -- everyone is 100% guaranteed gonna die.
Budda Boom!!!
> > Those on the street die all the time. Right in the USA. We are
> > contributing to the deaths of many in Iraq,
> > because of the sanctions. They are not Saddam Hussein, yet they die
> > for what he did. We could tax Americans more so that we could send
> > our surplus food overseas, too. That would save millions alone.
This is a rather bizarre digression.
> This is not the point we're addressing right now. The subject of this
> discussion is abortion, not Saddam Hussein.
>
> You want to talk foreign policy, start a different thread.
>
> > > > No, dearie, a fetus never has been a human being, and a fetus is
> > > > not an infant. And abortions do not kill late term viable fetuses
> > >
> > > Yes, some do. At this point, the earliest fetus able to survive is
> > > about five months old.
> >
> > Cite, please?
>
> It was just on the news last week. I'll find it if you insist.
Do a web search on neo-natal intensive care and premature births.
> > And do read the Dec 10 NEJoM, about the outcomes of
> > very
> > early births. The mortality rate is shocking.
>
> Does that bother you?
Yes.
> What's the difference if they're born early and die?
>
> How is that different?
It isn't.
> Because I noticed you also didn't answer this question.
>
> When do *you* think it's too late for an ethical decision to abort?
After conception, but that is my opinion only.
> Five months? Six months? Seven months? Eight months? Nine months?
>
> I dare you to answer.
>
> > and the cost is astronomical. How much will YOU pay?
>
> For my own child? Everything.
Me too.
> Here you go. Here's the question you dodged.
>
> > > Now, it's tricky, and it's recent. I think,
> > > despite your determination to throw me into the radical right to
> > > lifer camp, we'd agree on the the fact that there must be a time
> > > limit set.
> > > Of course, I might be wrong. When do _you_ think is too late for an
> > > abortion? Three months? Four months? Six months? Nine months?
>
> Care to answer?
After conception. I do, however, think that this is an issue unsolvable
by and outside the responsibility of any government beyond the
local/community level. Does that make me a "radical right to lifer" to
you Sunny? Just curious.
> > > I demand nothing of a pregnant woman, save that she make a conscious
> > > decision about whether or not she's willing and capable of taking
> > > care of her child AT SOME POINT WAY BEFORE VIABILITY!
> >
> > stupid cunt, women DO just that. Many women DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
> > SAFE, EARLY ABORTIONS OR ADEQUATE CONTRACEPTION.
>
> Bullshit. Many isn't all, or even most.
Many isn't even necessarily true. At least not in the United States.
How many is "many"? How many is "many" as a percentage of all
pregnancies that seek abortion?
> > > > A fetus is a parasite, and if it is unwanted, it is unwelcome.
> > >
> > > So at what point do *you* think it stops becoming a parasite, and
> > > begins to be a human?
> >
> > The fetus is a parasite until it is born. As soon as the cord is cut,
> > it ain't parasitizing, dearie. You really do need to read a
> > dictionary
> > or two. Try Stedmen's Medical. Oh, I have a copy right here . ..
> > parasite: 1. an organism that lives on or in another and draws its
> > nourishment therefrom 2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or conjoined
> > twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives it support frome the
> > more nearly normal autosome
>
> Let's use the first definition, since it seems appropriate, and your
> comment as well.
>
> A baby fully born, but not clipped from the placenta, is a parasite.
>
> Can we kill it?
Yes we *CAN*. Should we?
> A baby fully born, but dependent on breast milk for survival, is a
> parasite.
>
> Can we kill it?
Yes we *CAN*. Should we?
> A baby fully born, but dependent on the money earned by the parents for
> the purchase of its food and shelter, is a parasite.
>
> Can we kill it?
We *CAN* kill anyone we choose. Should we?
> > But "human being" is not a medical term, rather it is a sociolegal
> > term.
>
> What is a human, then?
A distinct primate species for you darwinists. An inspired creation in
the image of *God* for those that believe such.
> > So the answer is, you dumb cunt, AT BIRTH.
> > Sheesh. Ya know, maybe if you stopped such fuckwitted "arguments" I'd
> > have a bit of respect for you.
>
> Your lack of respect is completely undaunting.
People who yell and call names, do so to deflect the feelings of
inadequacy engendered by their inability to rationally refute a
position/argument. On usenet though we (some of us) sometimes just do
it for fun or laughs.
> > snip
> > > > anyone who hates their mother so badly they would want to force
> > > > her to gestate him/herself should be aborted.
> > >
> > > How you got hating mothers out of this is beyond me.
> >
> > Oh, it's been discussed in psych lit for some time, the correlation
> > between anti-abortion zealotry and suppressed hostility for an
> > uncaring or abusive mother. Displaced Aggression, you know. The
> > RTLer identifies with the unwanted fetus, and attacks the woman, upon
> > whom s/he has projected the animosity towards Mother. Also found in
> > rapists.
What an enormous crock. Cite? This should be a hoot.
> You know what? The vast majority of hostility in this thread has come
> from you, in addition to the skipping of points raised.
Plus really comprehensive vulgarity ;)
> And since I'm not an anti-abortion zealot, your perceptions
> notwithstanding, I'd be interested in knowing the source of *your*
> hostility.
I don't see myself as a "zealot". In my experience though, many
pro-lifers wish to attach this label to anyone who won't accept their
rationalizations for killing innocent unborn individuals.
NM
still...@my-deja.com
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> >> >It is not unreasonable to want to make sure we don't kill what is,
> >> >in every respect except by arbitrary legal delineation, a person.
> >>
> >> First, lying about what is a person isn't a good way to debate.
> >
> >Thoughtful discussion about what constitutes human life is not lying.
>
> Arrogant claims that ignore reality are not "thoughtful discussion".
> >> Second, the woman has every right to defend herself from harm.
> >
> >The woman has every right, and indeed, responsibility, to determine
>
> Cut the crap.
>
> The woman has every right to defend herself from harm. You don't get
> to force her to suffer.
> >> Third, NOBODY, not even a fetus, has any right to use another
> >> person's body without consent.
> >
> >And nobody -- NOBODY -- has the right to use legal jargon and
> >sophistry
>
> That would be you.
All right. Well, you clipped a part, and I was very interested in your
answer to these two questions.
No legal gamesmanship. No hiding behind the letter of the law. No
sophistry. No slogan slinging. No name calling. No redirecting.
Just you, and what you think. What you could live with. What you'd
like the rest of the world to do.
I'm prochoice. I'm also concerned about all human life. And I'd like
you to answer these questions, which I've made a little more specific.
If you have the guts.
Question one:
> But I think behind that statement is a recognition that nine months
> *is* too late to ethically abort. How late is too late? One second
> prior to delivery? Nine months? Eight months? Seven? Six? Last on
> the news, five month babies delivered premature were surviving. Not
> well, but surviving. So how late is too late?
Question two:
> And if I tell you that I'm concerned about that same question, "how
> late is too late," why in the world do you want to leap on that
> soapbox and start pretending like I'm some snarling maniac who wants
> to deny birth control pills to starving Ethiopians?
Sunny
still...@my-deja.com
af...@spamusa.net wrote:
> still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > (D.Sculley, L.Malamuth etal) and I am FUCKING
> > > SICK of self-righteous cunts who seem to think that women somehow
> > > DESERVE what happens to them.
>
> You are saying that women are not responsible for their actions?
> Hahahahaa. Boy is that sexist.
Yep. Ironic, huh?
> > Did you know that I hate all that stuff, too -- and am prochoice for
> > those reasons?
>
> Did you know I hate all that stuff, but recognize that the resulting
> unborn commited no crime or violence against anyone? I am pro-life
> for those reasons.
NM, I understand. And I have to say this. Oddly enough, much of the
rationale for abortion hinges on the societal problems which illustrate
our society's abysmal valuation of human life. People rape, kill, rob,
cheat each other, because they do not value the life of the other guy.
So the paradoxical question is, in a society which sanctions abortion,
does that further the very societal dehumanization of *all* humanity? I
think in some cases it does. However, I still fall on the middle ground
here. I'll get to that in a second.
> > Care to answer?
>
> After conception. I do, however, think that this is an issue
> unsolvable by and outside the responsibility of any government beyond
> the local/community level. Does that make me a "radical right to
> lifer" to you Sunny? Just curious.
No, not really. Radical right to lifers are as obstinate and
sloganistic as radical right to choice people. I have no problem with
reasonable discussion of this terribly contentious issue, nor with your
position.
Your position on local/community government pretty much reflects how I
feel about federal vs. states rights.
However, I am still prochoice, first trimester. And here's why.
Pregnancy is a progression. And there are sometimes very good reasons
why a child would not be just an inconvenience, but a wrong choice. Age
of the mother, for one thing. Rape. Incest. Hereditary diseases
(there's one particular to people of Jewish heritage, which I can't
recall, but which condemns the child born to a *very* brief and painful
life).
Though these are not always an issue, or even usually, they are frequent
enough for me to be very wary of throwing the question of whether the
mother should carry the baby to term into a third party's hands.
Plus, there's this: many forms of birth control do not inhibit
conception, only the implanting of the egg in the uterus. Additionally,
childless couples are helped by in vitro fertilization -- with many
fertilized eggs left over after the procedure. It has to be that way
for now. There's no other way to do it, because it's so difficult to
make sure one takes.
Having a baby is a big responsibility. Adoption is one option, but
adoption is not a great option for children of minorities. There's just
not that much market for them. So they're either raised by people who
don't want them and can ill afford them, or at the mercy of the welfare
system/foster care system, whatever it may be.
So, because I know I cannot *know* the circumstances for every
pregnancy, and because I do not wish for that very personal matter to be
thrown into a public arena for decision, I still come down on the side
of prochoice.
But I do understand your position, and respect it.
Ray Fischer
>I'm prochoice. I'm also concerned about all human life. And I'd like
>you to answer these questions, which I've made a little more specific.
>
>If you have the guts.
[rolls eyes]
>Question one:
>
>> But I think behind that statement is a recognition that nine months
>> *is* too late to ethically abort. How late is too late? One second
>> prior to delivery? Nine months? Eight months? Seven? Six? Last on
>> the news, five month babies delivered premature were surviving. Not
>> well, but surviving. So how late is too late?
Easy. Women have the right to do as they decide with their bodies but
no right to kill. If a fetus can be delivered alive without
additional harm to the mother then she should not be allowed to kill
it.
Pat Winstanley
Wynd...@bigpond.com says...
> Surely it cannot be a "right" for a women to destroy a life, however
> inconvenient that life may be to her. Removing a foetus that cannot live
> outside the womb is just the same as killing it. Attempts (not yours) to shift
> the blame to the doctor who carries out the abortion, or to anyone else who
> "allows" the inevitable death of the foetus are pure smokescreens.
>
> When I speak of responsibility I think in terms of moral and not legal
> responsibility. The life exists because of her actions (and the father), it is
> part of her, and she cannot avoid having some continuing responsibility
> for it.
>
>
What responsibility does a man have towards a foetus (which came from his
sperm and her ovum) in his mate's body *at the time it is in her body*?
Pat Winstanley
> > > and are forced to bear children against their will.
>
> Not in the U.S. Abortion is legal.
Which does not say that abortion is *available* to a particular woman at
a particular place/time where she needs it. It just means that if she
does have an abortion (within the stated limits as to time of gestation
etc) no criminal offence has been committed.
> Contraception is widely available
> for free and/or at reduced cost.
And no contraceptive method is 100% reliable even with the most careful
use.
Hence it is perfectly possible for a woman to use contraception (which
fails) and then be unable to obtain an abortion simply because she is
unable to reach a facility she can afford to use.
*Some* women are forced to give birth against their will.
Pat Winstanley
> Subject: Re: There ARE other options
> From: NM <a...@usa.net>
> Reply-To: af...@spamusa.net
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion, alt.religion.christianity, alt.activism.children
>
> Jeff wrote:
> ---snipped---
> > I'll tell you, its really as amazing as it is a question over what's
> > "sacred." If the government can control the body to the extent of forcing
> > it to carry a fetus and give birth it can really do anything.
>
> No government entity or person (in nearly ALL cases) force the woman to
> become pregnant. That is where the "choice" resides for anyone who
> understands what personal responsibility is. I do agree however that it
> isn't government's purview beyond a local/community level.
>
>
against pregnancy (the woman chose not to become pregnant) but failed?
Ray Fischer
>*Some* women are forced to give birth against their will.
Therefore ALL men may be forced to become parents against their wills.
still...@my-deja.com
rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >I'm prochoice. I'm also concerned about all human life. And I'd
like
> >you to answer these questions, which I've made a little more
specific.
> >
> >If you have the guts.
>
> [rolls
My teenagers do that *all* the time.
> >Question one:
> >
> >> But I think behind that statement is a recognition that nine months
> >> *is* too late to ethically abort. How late is too late? One
> >> second prior to delivery? Nine months? Eight months? Seven?
> >> Six? Last on the news, five month babies delivered premature were
> >> surviving. Not well, but surviving. So how late is too late?
>
> Easy. Women have the right to do as they decide with their bodies but
> no right to kill. If a fetus can be delivered alive without
> additional harm to the mother then she should not be allowed to kill
> it.
Sounds easy, doesn't it?
It isn't.
It means at some point, there's going to be a dilemma about what the
purpose of the procedure is -- killing the baby, or delivering it.
Which means that only one day before it's able to be delivered, it's
okay to kill it.
I'm sorry, but that's wrong.
Thanks for answering this one question, though you skipped the second
one.
Sunny
> --
> Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also
looks
> rfis...@sonic.net into you -- Nietzsche
>
Jeff
"NM" <a...@usa.net> wrote in message news:3A71D5AF...@usa.net...
> Jeff wrote:
> ---snipped---
> > I'll tell you, its really as amazing as it is a question over what's
> > "sacred." If the government can control the body to the extent of
forcing
> > it to carry a fetus and give birth it can really do anything.
>
> No government entity or person (in nearly ALL cases) force the woman to
> become pregnant.
Oh, that's a wonderful approach that can justify ANYTHING. It HAS already
been used to justify the death penalty (no one forced the evil criminal to
commit the crime), can be applied to corperal punishment in the schools, can
be applied to cutting off people's arms for stealing, torturing people, etc.
Sorry, if we wish to be a modern civilized nation then we can't afford to
think in those terms, otherwise there are NO rights and no one is safe.
> That is where the "choice" resides for anyone who
> understands what personal responsibility is.
Do you? Lets talk about personal responsibility. One of the highest
responsibility a person has (which I expect you should agree with) is to
their country. And the United States (@usa.net implies that you live here)
is founded upon principles of freedom, principles that involve living with
people acting in manners that are offensive to you. That's life, that's a
fact and anyone who can dare to declare themselves a patriot had better damn
well be fighting not only for their rights, but also for the rights of that
which they may personally find most despicable. For me that means fighting
for the rights of despicable scum like the KKK to be able to express
themselves (peacefully, of course), and for you that would mean not banning
abortion. Chew on that. If freedom isn't your thing, you can move to many
tyranical nations, perhaps one that bans abortion (I believe Nigeria is a
prime candidate).
> I do agree however that it
> isn't government's purview beyond a local/community level.
Look, frankly this is rediculous. Anyone in that case who has a car or
basic money for a plane will just go somewhere else and get an abortion.
Even if on the federal level abortion is banned, my wife and I (we live in
Minnesota) can easily drive to Canada and get an abortion. Same thing for
any one of Bush's daughters, because they're filthy rich. So, who is gonna
get screwed? You guessed it: the poor, the underaged, most of the people
who honestly shouldn't be having the kid anyone since they can't afford to
care for it (I mean if you can't afford an abortion, even with
transportation to Canada you can't afford a kid. Period). What's more is
again, this will be a step declaring that the government can make any
mandates it chooses on our bodies. That's truly frightening.
>
> > Nothing
> > becomes "personal" or "private," the government can in reality control
> > anything. That's scary, more scary than many can imagine.
>
> The government, through legislation/regulation "controls" many things
> that impact your/our lives directly. The government sets standards for
> all kinds of things, usually rationalized as for the benefit of society
> or individuals unable to stand up for themselves.
But never can the government confiscate our bodies. Never can the
government force blood transfusions, organ donations, vasectomies or in any
way of such directly reposses our bodies. This is simply outside the
government's jurisdiction, just like your religion is.
>
> > And also, abortion is a woman's issue, which means that we take it less
> > seriously.
>
> This is totally incorrect. Women don't become pregnant spontaneously.
> Nor do they spontaneously eject an unwanted child. Many others are
> involved and impacted.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Sometimes the woman/young girl comes to her
conclusion on her own. Often she has help in reaching that conclusion, but
in the end the decision is hers to make and the consequences are largely
hers as well, regardless of her choice.
>
> > Can you imagine for example what it would mean if the government
> > mandated vasectomy after 2 kids?
>
> It would be as bad as the Government sanctioning the killing of helpless
> and innocent individuals. China's reproductive policies come to mind
> from your example.
Indeed they should. But is that what we want here? If we can ban abortion
then we can just as easily mandate vasectomy after 2 kids. And that scares
the hell out of me and it should scare the hell out of you too.
>
> > There would be civil war! I kid you not.
> > No one would stand for it.
>
> No. It would probably elicit as vehement a debate as abortion does.
Not bloody likely. Maybe I just take this more personally, but that isn't
going to happen with me.
> Pro-life people must recognize that abortion currently is legal. There
> are effective processes by which such legality can be changed. I
> personally think the issue is no government's business beyond the
> local/community level.
On what grounds is it the local government's business? On what grounds is
it ANY government's business? Frankly, the government has no more right to
ban abortion than it has to impose mandatory abortions or vasectomies. Same
invasion. Same lack of jurisdiction of an individual's body.
Jeff
>
> NM
Jeff
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:94sr9v$2...@bolt.sonic.net...
> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >I'm prochoice. I'm also concerned about all human life. And I'd like
> >you to answer these questions, which I've made a little more specific.
> >
> >If you have the guts.
>
> [rolls eyes]
>
> >Question one:
> >
> >> But I think behind that statement is a recognition that nine months
> >> *is* too late to ethically abort. How late is too late? One second
> >> prior to delivery? Nine months? Eight months? Seven? Six? Last on
> >> the news, five month babies delivered premature were surviving. Not
> >> well, but surviving. So how late is too late?
>
> Easy. Women have the right to do as they decide with their bodies but
> no right to kill. If a fetus can be delivered alive without
> additional harm to the mother then she should not be allowed to kill
> it.
>
Well said. Totally agreed.
Jeff
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> But I think behind that statement is a recognition that nine months
>> >> *is* too late to ethically abort. How late is too late? One
>> >> second prior to delivery? Nine months? Eight months? Seven?
>> >> Six? Last on the news, five month babies delivered premature were
>> >> surviving. Not well, but surviving. So how late is too late?
>>
>> Easy. Women have the right to do as they decide with their bodies but
>> no right to kill. If a fetus can be delivered alive without
>> additional harm to the mother then she should not be allowed to kill
>> it.
>
>Sounds easy, doesn't it?
>
>It isn't.
>
>It means at some point, there's going to be a dilemma about what the
>purpose of the procedure is -- killing the baby, or delivering it.
The purpose of the procedure is to end the pregnancy. It's
not about the fetus.
Jeff
<still...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:94t6p6$qlb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <94sr9v$2...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> > <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > >I'm prochoice. I'm also concerned about all human life. And I'd
> like
> > >you to answer these questions, which I've made a little more
> specific.
> > >
> > >If you have the guts.
> >
> > [rolls
>
> My teenagers do that *all* the time.
>
> > >Question one:
> > >
> > >> But I think behind that statement is a recognition that nine months
> > >> *is* too late to ethically abort. How late is too late? One
> > >> second prior to delivery? Nine months? Eight months? Seven?
> > >> Six? Last on the news, five month babies delivered premature were
> > >> surviving. Not well, but surviving. So how late is too late?
> >
> > Easy. Women have the right to do as they decide with their bodies but
> > no right to kill. If a fetus can be delivered alive without
> > additional harm to the mother then she should not be allowed to kill
> > it.
>
> Sounds easy, doesn't it?
>
> It isn't.
>
> It means at some point, there's going to be a dilemma about what the
> purpose of the procedure is -- killing the baby, or delivering it.
The purpose of an abortion must be ONE thing: that the fetus is OUT of the
woman's body. Period. Attempts to save the fetus' life should be made
under most circumstances (except when there is a debilitating
disease/deformity, etc.).
>
> Which means that only one day before it's able to be delivered, it's
> okay to kill it.
I don't think that's what he meant. But up to one day before the woman has
the right to have it out of her body. Not the same thing.
Jeff
still...@my-deja.com
<goodshepherdparishno...@1cust218.tnt38.chi5.da.uu.net
>,
Thanks, Ninure. I *really* needed that.
Love, Sunny
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
>
> The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
> -
>
> Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
> http://www.ufmcc.com
>
> Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the
world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
> http://www.hungersite.com
>
> Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
> Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
>
> To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
>
toto
>Jeff wrote:
>---snipped---
>> I'll tell you, its really as amazing as it is a question over what's
>> "sacred." If the government can control the body to the extent of forcing
>> it to carry a fetus and give birth it can really do anything.
>
>No government entity or person (in nearly ALL cases) force the woman to
>become pregnant. That is where the "choice" resides for anyone who
>understands what personal responsibility is. I do agree however that it
>isn't government's purview beyond a local/community level.
>
So, a woman who is raped or sexually abused somehow *chooses* to
become pregnant from such an action? I don't think so.
Why should the LOCAL government have any more control than any
other government in this case?
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
source unknown
toto
>> and that many women have no access to contraception
>
>Only by choice. Family planning agencies, public health clinics,
>educational institutions etc etc will ALL provide contraception to women
>who can't afford it. If they don't they will refer the woman to an
>agency that will.
Not in rural areas, not in many small towns, especially if the woman
has no money to go to another area.
And especially not if this is a teenager who does not want her
parents to know she is sexually active.
still...@my-deja.com
"Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:94t6p6$qlb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <94sr9v$2...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> > Sounds easy, doesn't it?
> >
> > It isn't.
> >
> > It means at some point, there's going to be a dilemma about what the
> > purpose of the procedure is -- killing the baby, or delivering it.
>
> The purpose of an abortion must be ONE thing: that the fetus is OUT of
> the woman's body. Period. Attempts to save the fetus' life should be
> made under most circumstances (except when there is a debilitating
> disease/deformity, etc.).
Jeff, you're my friend, and we've had this conversation before.
Our differences are only matters of degrees.
But I want you to look up and down this thread.
It's a reasonably fair illustration of the two sides.
Some people -- including you -- seek the best way to balance the rights
and welfare of the mother with a real consideration that the life of the
fetus/baby/parasite/whatever you care to call a growing human, *is*
valuable, too.
And some are so blinded by what they are determined to see as somehow
infringing on *their* rights, that they will turn cartwheels and twist
wildly to avoid admitting that a) at some point, abortion becomes about
killing another human, and b) that people can disagree with them without
being froth-at-the-mouth scum who want to oppress women everywhere by
forcing them to be raped and bear monster children.
And I'll tell you this.
I respect your brain, your advocacy of the rights of all, and your
willingness to stand with the least, last, and lost.
But until you've had a child -- until you've waited eagerly for the
first kick, the first movement; until you've giggled when they had the
hiccups inside you; until you've talked to it when it was only a swell
beneath your belly-button; until you've had a friend mourn a miscarriage
like the death of an infant; until you *know* -- then it's an esoteric
intellectual exercise.
You know I'm prochoice, and you know why.
Yet on this thread, the merest suggestion that there needs to be some
care given to when we determine a growing embryo is a baby sponsors
hatred and rancor I've not seen anywhere else. Ever. Including on
alt.flame.niggers.
And that, in itself, is a reflection of that side of the debate.
If anything at all could convince me to abandon my prochoice stance, it
would be the insane vitriol, the ill-informed half-opinions, and the
actions of those who claim to represent the rights of women, and who
turn around and deny that women are intelligent enough to make a
responsible choice about their bodies either before pregnancy or very
early in the pregnancy.
It's not much of a ringing endorsement for feminism, is it?
Sunny
toto
We could answer this one as soon as we have artificial wombs that
will allow all fetuses to survive regardless of the time of the
removal from the woman's body, of course. At that point in time,
the question becomes moot because we can keep the fetus alive.
New questions, however, do arise.. Who will care for this unwanted
child after it is decanted from such a womb?
>Thanks for answering this one question, though you skipped the second
>one.
>
>Sunny
>> --
>> Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also
>looks
>> rfis...@sonic.net into you -- Nietzsche
>>
>
Dorothy
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
Jim Rogers
straddling.
still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> af...@spamusa.net wrote:
> > still...@my-deja.com wrote:
...
> So the paradoxical question is, in a society which
> sanctions abortion, does that further the very
> societal dehumanization of *all* humanity? I
> think in some cases it does.
In a society that sanctions compulsory continuation of
pregnancy, does that further the very societal
dehumanization of women? Does that qualify as 'involuntary
servitude' (cf. 13th Amendment)? I think it does.
...
> However, I am still prochoice, first trimester.
Genetic defects are usually not known until _second_
trimester. There is a genetic test available somewhat early
on, but it carries significantly greater risk to the
developing embryo/fetus than amniocentesis does.
>... Age of the mother, for one thing. Rape.
> Incest. Hereditary diseases ...
> Though these are not always an issue, or even
> usually, they are frequent enough for me to be
> very wary of throwing the question of whether the
> mother should carry the baby to term into a third
> party's hands.
And then there's also the direct question of whose right it
is to control for whom and what purposes a person's body is
to be used for.
> Plus, there's this: many forms of birth control do
> not inhibit conception, only the implanting of the
> egg in the uterus. Additionally, childless
> couples are helped by in vitro fertilization --
> with many fertilized eggs left over after the
> procedure. It has to be that way for now.
> There's no other way to do it, because it's so
> difficult to make sure one takes.
Additionally, there's the fact that soem 2/3 of all concepti
either fail to implant or are flushed out early, all on
their own. Nature itself is pretty wasteful with the
earliest parts of human reproduction.
...
> So, because I know I cannot *know* the
> circumstances for every pregnancy, and because I
> do not wish for that very personal matter to be
> thrown into a public arena for decision, I still
> come down on the side of prochoice.
The basic problem with abortion prohibitionists is that they
have no sympathy for 'circumstances.'
> But I do understand your position, and respect it.
I can only understand it from a religious perspective, which
is not a sound basis for secular law. In fact, it downright
stinks as a basis for secular law, and I have no respect for
those who attempt to make it one.
Jim
The Ghost In The Machine
In talk.abortion, Ray Da Capo
<he...@there.com>
wrote
on Fri, 26 Jan 2001 09:55:26 -0700
<8va37t8ogecivh3feaecen0aett0shdc2l@canttouchthis>:
>On Fri, 26 Jan 2001 14:33:39 GMT, ew...@lexideb.athghost7038suus.net
>(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>>In talk.abortion, NM
>><a...@usa.net>
>> wrote
>>on Wed, 24 Jan 2001 18:11:13 GMT
>><3A6F1AB2...@usa.net>:
>>>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>---snipped---
>>>> I'll admit, Angel Love's sentiment is a good one, but let's also
>>>> remember that a woman's body is hers -- not the States, not
>>>> her lover's, not her parent's.
>>>
>>>No one denies this. NO ONE. What you obfuscate by this is the fact
>>>that the body INSIDE the woman is NOT hers, not the State's, not the
>>>Father's, not the Mother's parent's. So where does she (the mother)
>>>acquire the right to kill it (the body inside her that is NOT her own)?
>>>Besides an arbitrary court ruling that has/had no basis in the
>>>Constitution.
>>
>>Now I'm getting confused. How is 410 U.S. 113 arbitrary and having
>>no basis in the Constitution, when it specifically references
>>several of the Amendments?
>>
>>Section II, for instance, refers to the First, Fourth, Fifth,
>>Ninth, and Fourtheenth Amendments, attempting to derive therefrom
>>the right to privacy (the derivation is ultimately from the
>>Ninth and Fourteenth in section VIII, as I read it -- of course,
>>I'm not a lawyer :-) ).
>>
>>The decision is at
>>
>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
>>
>>It is long, but fairly readable, although they do throw words
>>such as "supra" in there on occasion.
>>
>>>
>>>NM
>
>There are those who believe if a word isn't explicitly in the
>Constitution then the idea it expresses isn't constitutional - unless
>of course they want it to be. Sorta like fundy Bible-thumpers.
It does seem that they both suffer the same malady, namely,
selective reading. To be fair, it afflicts us too; there's simply
no way I can read *everything*, after all. :-) Unless he
has a brain the size of a planet, I doubt that someone else
could read everything, either. :-)
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- poor Marvin
EAC code #191 1d:22h:50m actually running Linux.
This is the best part of the message.
The Ghost In The Machine
In talk.abortion, Ray Fischer
<rfis...@sonic.net>
wrote
on Fri, 26 Jan 2001 20:04:24 GMT
<94sl82$t...@bolt.sonic.net>:
>NM <af...@spamusa.net> wrote:
>
>>Your response is why I pointed out the fallacy of the "its a womans
>>body" argument. The unborn is a genetically unique individual. To say
>>that it is the woman's body is a lie.
>
>Interesting. The anti-choicer refuses to acknowledge the existance of
>a women. Uterus, heart, lungs, arms, legs, mind - all exist only to
>serve the fetus. They are not the woman's body.
I suspect they are blinded by the light of the holy foetus. :-)
This light apparently permeates the body of the entire woman
(but is visible only to pro-lifers; the more fervent, the
brighter the light), rendering her effectively invisible in
extreme cases. No known workaround exists for this condition. :-)
[.sigsnip]
--
ew...@aimnet.com -- who has the light of his intellect -- a small peanut
bulb wired to his brain that flashes on occasion :-)
EAC code #191 1d:22h:54m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
still...@my-deja.com
Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.h~p.com> wrote:
> Let's see if I can push you off of that fence you're
> straddling.
All right.
> still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > af...@spamusa.net wrote:
> > > still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> ...
> > So the paradoxical question is, in a society which
> > sanctions abortion, does that further the very
> > societal dehumanization of *all* humanity? I
> > think in some cases it does.
> In a society that sanctions compulsory continuation of
> pregnancy, does that further the very societal
> dehumanization of women? Does that qualify as 'involuntary
> servitude' (cf. 13th Amendment)? I think it does.
And I think that is what the huge issue is, and has been from the
get-go. Not necessarily the constitutional things, but women demanding
control over their own bodies. Combine that will the pill, the sexual
revolution, and this desire to somehow distance sexual activity from the
usual results and their concomitant responsibilities.
> > However, I am still prochoice, first trimester.
>
> Genetic defects are usually not known until _second_
> trimester. There is a genetic test available somewhat early
> on, but it carries significantly greater risk to the
> developing embryo/fetus than amniocentesis does.
Hm. If you'd read the rest of the thread -- and I'm sorry I didn't make
it clear -- you'd have seen that I am prochoice first trimester with
*no* other qualifications. Should a child be doomed to a life of
misery, and that fact only be apparent second trimester, then that
becomes a matter for doctors and patients.
I'll also point out, however, that I have three or four friends who,
upon discovering that they were carrying Down's children (fifth month),
recognized that what was living in them *was* a baby, and opted to have
and keep it.
And have *not* regretted it.
Because a human life is inconvenient does not render it valueless.
> >... Age of the mother, for one thing. Rape.
> > Incest. Hereditary diseases ...
>
> > Though these are not always an issue, or even
> > usually, they are frequent enough for me to be
> > very wary of throwing the question of whether the
> > mother should carry the baby to term into a third
> > party's hands.
>
> And then there's also the direct question of whose right it
> is to control for whom and what purposes a person's body is
> to be used for.
Again, why I'm prochoice first trimester. After that, the focus shifts.
> > Plus, there's this: many forms of birth control do
> > not inhibit conception, only the implanting of the
> > egg in the uterus. Additionally, childless
> > couples are helped by in vitro fertilization --
> > with many fertilized eggs left over after the
> > procedure. It has to be that way for now.
> > There's no other way to do it, because it's so
> > difficult to make sure one takes.
>
> Additionally, there's the fact that soem 2/3 of all concepti
> either fail to implant or are flushed out early, all on
> their own. Nature itself is pretty wasteful with the
> earliest parts of human reproduction.
Not really relevant. People die all the time, too. Nature has a nasty
habit of killing, eventually, all its living species. Doesn't provide
reason for members of the same species to kill each other.
> ...
> > So, because I know I cannot *know* the
> > circumstances for every pregnancy, and because I
> > do not wish for that very personal matter to be
> > thrown into a public arena for decision, I still
> > come down on the side of prochoice.
>
> The basic problem with abortion prohibitionists is that they
> have no sympathy for 'circumstances.'
I do. And I think most do.
Two different circumstances.
Many, many years ago, an acquaintance discovered she was pregnant. Why?
Well, she'd been sexually active with her boyfriend. She was seventeen.
Not rape, no coersion -- more a matter of hormones, combined with
societal sanction. Wanted to keep the baby, wanted rid of the baby,
parents going to adopt, parents not going to adopt. Couldn't decide
what to do. Finally, five plus months into the pregnancy, she decides
to abort. Why? Because she can. It's legal. But it's not the same
procedure as first trimester. They inject something into her womb --
saline? I don't know. The purpose is to kill what's in there (I can't
recall if she said it burned it) and throw her into labor. This is not
a viable fetus. After hours of labor, she gives birth -- and it isn't
dead yet. Suddenly, upon entry into the world, this little creature has
*different* rights than it did inside. Focus shifts to trying to save
it, and in a hurry, from the devastation they had visited upon it. It
lives a few short hours, in pain. I doubt she'll ever get over it.
My brother-in-law is a doctor, a new one. When he visited over
Christmas, he was telling horror stories of working in the ER.
Christmas Eve, one six year old, raped -- and a pregnant ten year old.
Does that ten year old have any business being pregnant, or forced to
carry that baby? Absolutely not.
> > But I do understand your position, and respect it.
>
> I can only understand it from a religious perspective, which
> is not a sound basis for secular law. In fact, it downright
> stinks as a basis for secular law, and I have no respect for
> those who attempt to make it one.
I disagree. Though many on the prolife side are religious, I think it
stems more from conflicting, deeply held convictions about human life
and human rights. The one side understands that, at some point, an egg
and a sperm *become* a baby, and it's well before that arbitrary legal
delineation "at birth". The question is, when? But their concern is
speaking for the rights of those who cannot yet speak for themselves.
And it's instinctive, a desire to *protect* human life. And somebody
has to do it. On the other hand, you have a group who places the
autonomous freedom and inviolate privacy of the woman as having
priority. She *is* an already existing human, and has rights as well.
I'll say again, there are no easy answers.
But I'll also say, any dialogue which *only* looks at the one side of
this question, and disdains the other as lacking substantive value, is
wrong. Our challenge is to try to find a path which takes the rights of
both into account.
Sunny
> Jim
Charles Wyndham
wrote:
>
>"Charles Wyndham" <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>news:m9o17tgk2b1mogh15...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001 12:19:40 -0600, "Jeff"
><pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Charles Wyndham" <Wynd...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> >news:eod07tsbp51bl53ci...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2001 21:30:57 GMT, Pat Winstanley
>> >> <wis...@tough.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >In article <3A6F1AB2...@usa.net>, a...@usa.net says...
>> >> >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >> >> ---snipped---
>> >> >> > I'll admit, Angel Love's sentiment is a good one, but let's also
>> >> >> > remember that a woman's body is hers -- not the States, not
>> >> >> > her lover's, not her parent's.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No one denies this. NO ONE. What you obfuscate by this is the fact
>> >> >> that the body INSIDE the woman is NOT hers, not the State's, not the
>> >> >> Father's, not the Mother's parent's. So where does she (the mother)
>> >> >> acquire the right to kill it (the body inside her that is NOT her
>own)?
>> >> >
>> >> >She doesn't. She simply has the right to have it removed from her
>body.
>> >> >Just as everyone else has the right to have 'foerign bodies' removed
>from
>> >> >their bodies. If it dies as a result then that is unfortunae, but
>another
>> >> >issue entirely. Perhaps those people determined to prevent the woman
>> >> >exercising her right (same right as everyone has) to have a foreign
>body
>> >> >removed from her own body should explore methods of looking after the
>> >> >foreign body following its removal. Perhaps they should do the same
>about
>> >> >other foreign bodies which die if removed from the bodies of people.
>> >>
>> >> There is too much talk here of rights and not enough of
>responsibilities.
>> >If
>> >> a woman has taken part in the production of life then she has a
>> >> responsibility towards it.
>> >
>> >The reproduction itself was not intentional but rather an unfortunate
>> >accident. As she did not consent to it she has the RIGHT to remove it.
>No
>> >where does it say in the US constitution that once there is anything
>alive
>> >inside of a woman she has the responsibility to let it live out its life
>in
>> >her body until its ready to come out.
>>
>> A harsh judgement Jeff, although infinitely more reasonable than most of
>the
>> responses. Sure the mother has rights, but so does the foetus once it has
>> life. What would you reckon those rights to be?
>
>Well, that's an interesting question. First of all, I'd like to submit
>something of interest: throughout most of the world born children aren't
>really considered fully human. In the US it would be a crime to beat an
>adult, but its perfectly legal to beat a child. The money a child earns
>belongs to the parent. The amount of work it takes to get children out of
>abusive situations is amazing. These are BORN children, who are living
>independently of their parents bodies, some of them even independently of
>their parents financial contributions. So, what gives there?
OK, but it is more a matter of regarding children as property than challenging
their humanness.
>If these
>people are less than human, on what basis are fetus' human at all?
>
>Actually, while that's an interesting perspective that wasn't my main point.
>First of all, even if I, a fully sentiant adult human being was inside your
>body (we were kidnapped by aliens or something), I would NOT have the right
>to remain there against your will, even if my removal would mean my death.
Agreed, because I would have had no part in your being there and would have
no responsibility towards you. (But what a horrible thought).
>No one, and that's NO ONE has the right to use another's body against their
>will even if their removal means their deaths. Thus, I can't force someone
>to give me a blood transusion if I need one.
>
>But then, does a fetus have any rights at all? It doesn't have the right to
>live inside the mother's body, but for example can a mother drink regardless
>of the damage caused to it? And if a murderer kills the mother does it kill
>one or two beings? And undeniably when conception first occurs that being
>has no thoughts, no real traits that would give it extraordinary value.
>When it is 1 day away from birth it clearly is worth far more. Seems to me
>that abortions performed after the fetus is viable should be performed in a
>manner that maximizes the chances of the fetus surviving. I would strongly
>suggest if the "pro-life" want to minimize "fetal death" that they
>investigate in ways to decrease the age that a fetus can survive without the
>mother, research an artificial womb. Unfortunately, many of the same people
>who are "pro-life" aren't too keen on it, since someone has to then support
>and raise the child for the next 18 years and they don't want it to be their
>tax dollars, a foolish stance to take. In terms of the original questions I
>made, a fetus' rights are debatable, but the woman's are not. Her body is
>her body, no compromises. She doesn't have the right to intentionally kill
>a fetus if it survives an abortion. But she can continue to drink, etc.
>even if its a danger to the fetus (though, I'm more flexible on this issue
>than abortion. What do you think?).
I think that the foetus should be considered an individual life from the time it
becomes sentient (and that science will eventually be able to determine when
that is). It then acquires rights as an individual. How those rights are to be
judged with respect to those of the mother is a considerable problem.
However at all times from the moment of conception I would say that the
mother has a moral responsibility to ensure that the foetus, is not harmed by
any of her actions during the pregnancy, unless she is determined not to
carry it to full term. And I would also say that once the foetus is sentient
she has a moral responsibility to carry it to full term, unless her own life is
threatened by it.
>The question of the murderer is a
>rather philosophical one. That's an issue of when life really starts and
>what value that life has. Clearly, if its life it has to be taken on a
>seperate case than the mother's. If the mother was pregnant, and hte
>murderer kills her and didn't realize she was pregnant you can't charge the
>murderer with 1st degree murder on the fetus as well, manslaughter at best.
>Even then, I don't know...
>
>>
>> Surely it cannot be a "right" for a women to destroy a life, however
>> inconvenient that life may be to her.
>
>No, and as such once a baby is born even if it incoveniences her she can't
>pull her pistol out, lodge a bullet in its head and throw it in the garbage.
>THAT SAID, she can remove it from inside her body EVEN if that means its
>death.
This is where we disagree. I would see it as a violation of the rights of the
living sentient creature that the foetus has become. The mother created
it (with the father) and cannot abandon it.
>Now, if it can survive outside her body and she intentionally kills
>it, that's wrong. But it doesn't have a right to use her body against her
>will, any more than I have a right to use your blood for a blood transfusion
>against your will.
>
>> Removing a foetus that cannot live
>> outside the womb is just the same as killing it.
>
>Incorrect. The result is the same but the situation isn't. Why? Consider
>this scenario: its -30 degrees outside, there's a blizzard and there's a
>homeless person. You live on a farm, the person WILL NOT survive to get to
>the next house or any other shelter. You DO NOT have the obligation to take
>that person is even if that means the person's death. Thus, in effect your
>decision to say no is perfectly legal, but the person will die as a result
>of it.
Legally I have no obligation, morally I have an absolute obligation to a fellow
human. The moral imperative is much more important than the lack of a legal
requirement.
> At the same time, you do not have the right to take a gun out and
>shoot the person even though the result would be the same. See what I mean?
>
>> Attempts (not yours) to shift
>> the blame to the doctor who carries out the abortion, or to anyone else
>who
>> "allows" the inevitable death of the foetus are pure smokescreens.
>
>I would never blame anyone for abortion except, as sad as this may sound the
>fetus. Its no one's fault that it can't survive outside the mother's body
>on its own up until a certain age.
>
>>
>> When I speak of responsibility I think in terms of moral and not legal
>> responsibility.
>
>Important destinction there. I'm curious, what are your views on abortion
>legally and morally?
Morally that abortion is OK up to the point of sentience, after that it is OK
only under special circumstances - which would include a threat to the life
of the mother. The law should respect both the rights of the mother and of
a sentient foetus, and ideally should provide a means of deciding between
the two if there is conflict.
>I am totally against legislating morality. Morally, there are very many
>things to consider.
I agree generally, but the law must reflect current morality or it will be
ignored. If the law tells me to do something that I reckon is morally wrong
I ignore it.
>> The life exists because of her actions (and the father), it is
>> part of her, and she cannot avoid having some continuing responsibility
>> for it.
>
>Well, it occured as an uninvited accident. I know its harsh, but its true.
>
>Here's a question: do you make any destinctions between those who were
>raped, incest cases, underage cases, etc.? If so, why?
No, because a decision on abortion should be possible long before there is
sentience. This also applies to the case of an uninvited accident.
>
>Jeff
>
>>
>> >> This is why the judgement of when life begins is
>> >> so critical, and why any judgement should err on the side of the
>growing
>> >> foetus which may have true life. You use the words above "if it dies"
>> >> which means that you are accepting that it is alive, and that at best
>the
>> >> mother is refusing her responsibilty, at the worst she is a prime mover
>in
>> >> its murder.
>> >
>> >Murder: a misused legal term that means illegal killing.
>> >
>> >Jeff
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> Besides an arbitrary court ruling that has/had no basis in the
>> >> >> Constitution.
>> >> >
>> >> >So, according to the constitution, nobody may have a 'foreign body'
>(ie
>> >> >not a normal part of that person) removed from their body. Would you
>mind
>> >> >pointing that section out to me please... I can't find it! It would
>> >> >certainly put an awful lot, if not all, surgeons out of business!
>> >> >
>> >> >Or is it simply that the constitution has nothing to say on the matter
>at
>> >> >all - either way?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
NM
---snipped---
> >Jeff wrote:
>
> >> I'll tell you, its really as amazing as it is a question over what's
> >> "sacred." If the government can control the body to the extent of forcing
> >> it to carry a fetus and give birth it can really do anything.
> >
> >No government entity or person (in nearly ALL cases) force the woman to
> >become pregnant.
>
> It is classic pro-lie dishonesty to try and change the subject so
> transparently. Your statement is as immoral as saying that no
> government forced slaves to be black.
The actual "dishonesty" is some pro-abortion pro-abortion people's
attempts to limit the scope of discussion to only that which they think
is correct. Any comparison of women choosing to have intercourse, to
slavery is patently ridiculous and/or dishonest. Nice try though Ray.
NM
NM
Nice to take a *reasonable person* break.
toto wrote:
---snipped---
> >No government entity or person (in nearly ALL cases) force the woman to
> >become pregnant. That is where the "choice" resides for anyone who
> >understands what personal responsibility is. I do agree however that it
> >isn't government's purview beyond a local/community level.
> >
> So, a woman who is raped or sexually abused somehow *chooses* to
> become pregnant from such an action? I don't think so.
I don't think so either. Hence the parenthetical qualifier "in nearly
all cases". Those instances are very legitimate, but very limited as a
percentage of reason's abortions are done.
---snip---
> Why should the LOCAL government have any more control than any
> other government in this case?
This idea extends only from my personal political beliefs Dorothy. I
see a valid reason for communities (in a free and representative
society) to be able to regulate, control or totally allow such as
abortion. At the local/community level, the people impacted by such
regulation/allowance can have a direct and powerful impact on the
process of deciding the issue. Additionally such regulation/allowance
at that level leaves the citizen with a realistic option of relocation
to a locale more in line with their personal needs/wants/wishes
(politically).
NM
Ninure Saunders
-In article <04qc6.1716$TB.5...@news.uswest.net>,
- "Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
->
-> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
-> news:94t6p6$qlb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
-> > In article <94sr9v$2...@bolt.sonic.net>,
-
-> > Sounds easy, doesn't it?
-> >
-> > It isn't.
-> >
-> > It means at some point, there's going to be a dilemma about what the
-> > purpose of the procedure is -- killing the baby, or delivering it.
->
-> The purpose of an abortion must be ONE thing: that the fetus is OUT of
-> the woman's body. Period. Attempts to save the fetus' life should be
-> made under most circumstances (except when there is a debilitating
-> disease/deformity, etc.).
-
-Jeff, you're my friend, and we've had this conversation before.
-
-Our differences are only matters of degrees.
-
-But I want you to look up and down this thread.
-
-It's a reasonably fair illustration of the two sides.
-
-Some people -- including you -- seek the best way to balance the rights
-and welfare of the mother with a real consideration that the life of the
-fetus/baby/parasite/whatever you care to call a growing human, *is*
-valuable, too.
-
-And some are so blinded by what they are determined to see as somehow
-infringing on *their* rights, that they will turn cartwheels and twist
-wildly to avoid admitting that a) at some point, abortion becomes about
-killing another human, and b) that people can disagree with them without
-being froth-at-the-mouth scum who want to oppress women everywhere by
-forcing them to be raped and bear monster children.
-
-And I'll tell you this.
-
-I respect your brain, your advocacy of the rights of all, and your
-willingness to stand with the least, last, and lost.
-
-But until you've had a child -- until you've waited eagerly for the
-first kick, the first movement; until you've giggled when they had the
-hiccups inside you; until you've talked to it when it was only a swell
-beneath your belly-button; until you've had a friend mourn a miscarriage
-like the death of an infant; until you *know* -- then it's an esoteric
-intellectual exercise.
-
-You know I'm prochoice, and you know why.
-
-Yet on this thread, the merest suggestion that there needs to be some
-care given to when we determine a growing embryo is a baby sponsors
-hatred and rancor I've not seen anywhere else. Ever. Including on
-alt.flame.niggers.
-
-And that, in itself, is a reflection of that side of the debate.
-
-If anything at all could convince me to abandon my prochoice stance, it
-would be the insane vitriol, the ill-informed half-opinions, and the
-actions of those who claim to represent the rights of women, and who
-turn around and deny that women are intelligent enough to make a
-responsible choice about their bodies either before pregnancy or very
-early in the pregnancy.
-
-It's not much of a ringing endorsement for feminism, is it?
-
-Sunny
-
WHOAAA there, my dear sister.
Please, please, don't slip into judging all pro-choice folks by the
loudmouths......
I think most pro-choice folks are closer to your position, than not, but
there are too many posting/particpating in this debate , just as those who
are truly pro-life aren't posting/participating in this debate.
What, IMHO, I think we are actually seing are people who are anti-abortion
and people who are pro-abortion, which is not the same, IMHO, as being
pro-life and pro-choice.
I say this, because I notice that msny of the so-called "pro-lifers" who
are so vehement are also pro-Death penalty, and many of the so-called
"pro-choicers" do not support those women who may choose other options,
or who support programs to provide for the real needs of poor, or
unwanted children.
I HAVE made pro-lifers who were truly pro-life in that they also opposed
the death penalty, and true pro-chocers who did everything to make sure
that a woman knew all her options, and was willing to offer whatever
support was needed whatever the choice....even if the choice was NOT to
abort.
I wish more of these people were talking to eavh other!!!
Jeff
<still...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:94te31$au$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <04qc6.1716$TB.5...@news.uswest.net>,
> "Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > <still...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:94t6p6$qlb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > > In article <94sr9v$2...@bolt.sonic.net>,
>
> > > Sounds easy, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > It isn't.
> > >
> > > It means at some point, there's going to be a dilemma about what the
> > > purpose of the procedure is -- killing the baby, or delivering it.
> >
> > The purpose of an abortion must be ONE thing: that the fetus is OUT of
> > the woman's body. Period. Attempts to save the fetus' life should be
> > made under most circumstances (except when there is a debilitating
> > disease/deformity, etc.).
>
> Jeff, you're my friend, and we've had this conversation before.
>
I know, but I just couldn't help not jumping into it.
> Our differences are only matters of degrees.
True, but remember that most differences are.
>
> But I want you to look up and down this thread.
>
> It's a reasonably fair illustration of the two sides.
>
> Some people -- including you -- seek the best way to balance the rights
> and welfare of the mother with a real consideration that the life of the
> fetus/baby/parasite/whatever you care to call a growing human, *is*
> valuable, too.
>
> And some are so blinded by what they are determined to see as somehow
> infringing on *their* rights, that they will turn cartwheels and twist
> wildly to avoid admitting that a) at some point, abortion becomes about
> killing another human, and b) that people can disagree with them without
> being froth-at-the-mouth scum who want to oppress women everywhere by
> forcing them to be raped and bear monster children.
Yep, true. But the question is whether we can force someone to carry the
fetus and provide it with the necessities or not. I don't see any more
basis for it than for something that no one seems to argue: that someone who
has snuck into your house during a blizzard has any right to stay there
against your consent, even if the person's expulsion means their deaths.
>
> And I'll tell you this.
>
> I respect your brain, your advocacy of the rights of all, and your
> willingness to stand with the least, last, and lost.
>
> But until you've had a child -- until you've waited eagerly for the
> first kick, the first movement; until you've giggled when they had the
> hiccups inside you; until you've talked to it when it was only a swell
> beneath your belly-button; until you've had a friend mourn a miscarriage
> like the death of an infant; until you *know* -- then it's an esoteric
> intellectual exercise.
Well, you mean that I charge into the debate without "emotional baggage" for
lack of better words? In any debate that's a question of the rights of all
citizens we cannot afford to include the emotional baggage of some into it.
>
> You know I'm prochoice, and you know why.
>
> Yet on this thread, the merest suggestion that there needs to be some
> care given to when we determine a growing embryo is a baby sponsors
> hatred and rancor I've not seen anywhere else. Ever. Including on
> alt.flame.niggers.
I know, and that's not right either. Partially, I will wager that part of
the reason is in the newspapers, almost every day since Bush got elected.
Its frightening. In Minnesota our governor just vetoed a bill that would
have limited access to abortion clinics (go Jesse! If he ever runs for
president I'll definitely vote for him...). Abortion rights are under
attack now like never before. Its no excuse for the sort of rabid hatred
that will convince NO ONE but will only turn people on the fence against
choice (particularly because many of these people play into the image that
the anti-America, ooops, er pro-life people want us to believe).
>
> And that, in itself, is a reflection of that side of the debate.
>
> If anything at all could convince me to abandon my prochoice stance, it
> would be the insane vitriol, the ill-informed half-opinions, and the
> actions of those who claim to represent the rights of women, and who
> turn around and deny that women are intelligent enough to make a
> responsible choice about their bodies either before pregnancy or very
> early in the pregnancy.
I don't think its that. No one is claiming that somehow women deserve
something that others don't. But nor should they deserve less either. Its
their bodies, and their choice. They don't have an obligation to allow its
use against their consent to ANYONE. Nor should they. Right now we're in
the midst of a LEGAL debate, not a moral one. Should you help an old granny
cross a busy road? Yes. Should you LEGALLY be required to? Definitely
not.
God knows (well...) that I am the LAST person who would declare women less
competent/responsible for their actions, etc. than men. That is why I would
never advocate banning porn/strip joints or anything else that "victimizes
poor women who just can't say no." But I don't think that by allowing women
control over what's in her body and who is using her body at all times that
we are giving women any right that isn't already in existance. Honestly, if
one could build a case that special priveleges were being advocated then I'd
be very interested, since I am totally against such situations.
>
> It's not much of a ringing endorsement for feminism, is it?
Well, today's feminism is far different than the feminism of the past.
There's a difference between demanding equal rights and demanding that women
be called "womyn" so that there's no "men" in there, or screaming that all
of a woman's problem stems from her victimization by males... I am all for
equal rights and responsibilities for women, INCLUDING such things as the
draft and am all for persuing descrimination vigorisly. Sadly, today it
seems that people are abandoning equal rights and responsibilities for more
rediculous stances (one way or the other)... Its easier I guess.
Jeff
NM
---snipped in places---
> > Hahahahaa. Boy is that sexist.
>
> Yep. Ironic, huh?
Ironic in cases where such just hasn't occured to the correspondent. A
common and intentional discussion tactic for some people who are
pro-abortion. In either case I find it exceedingly strange that women
are only held up as needy helpless creatures in one circumstance,
whether or not they become pregnant.
> > > Did you know that I hate all that stuff, too -- and am prochoice for
> > > those reasons?
> >
> > Did you know I hate all that stuff, but recognize that the resulting
> > unborn commited no crime or violence against anyone? I am pro-life
> > for those reasons.
>
> NM, I understand. And I have to say this. Oddly enough, much of the
> rationale for abortion hinges on the societal problems which illustrate
> our society's abysmal valuation of human life. People rape, kill, rob,
> cheat each other, because they do not value the life of the other guy.
> So the paradoxical question is, in a society which sanctions abortion,
> does that further the very societal dehumanization of *all* humanity?
I believe that it does. A lot of pro-abortion people object or ignore
the fact that what drives many pro-life people isn't a control issue.
Its valuing innocent and/or unprotected life.
---snip---
> > After conception. I do, however, think that this is an issue
> > unsolvable by and outside the responsibility of any government beyond
> > the local/community level. Does that make me a "radical right to
> > lifer" to you Sunny? Just curious.
>
> No, not really. Radical right to lifers are as obstinate and
> sloganistic as radical right to choice people.
I agree. They also VEHEMENTLY disagree with my libertarian/limited
government views on the issue.
> I have no problem with
> reasonable discussion of this terribly contentious issue, nor with your
> position.
In my estimation, the emotional aspect of the issue and many people on
both sides unwillingness to actuall DISCUSS it, contributes in large
part to the issue's intractability.
> Your position on local/community government pretty much reflects how I
> feel about federal vs. states rights.
I'm a government minimalist who adheres to many libertarian principles.
> However, I am still prochoice, first trimester. And here's why.
> Pregnancy is a progression. And there are sometimes very good reasons
> why a child would not be just an inconvenience, but a wrong choice. Age
> of the mother, for one thing. Rape. Incest. Hereditary diseases
> (there's one particular to people of Jewish heritage, which I can't
> recall, but which condemns the child born to a *very* brief and painful
> life).
I understand your reasoning completely and appreciate your stance. Our
disagreement here will always stem from my recognition/belief/insistence
that the human right to life is paramount. Without this right, ALL
other rights application is impossible. It may seem trite to you, but
aborted females are as empatically denied their rights of *Choice* as
any woman denied an abortion. For a different reason, they were denied
their right to LIFE. No life, no rights.
> Though these are not always an issue, or even usually, they are frequent
> enough for me to be very wary of throwing the question of whether the
> mother should carry the baby to term into a third party's hands.
This will never be acceptable to many pro-abortion people as they see a
woman's right to abortion as superceding the unborn's right to life.
> Plus, there's this: many forms of birth control do not inhibit
> conception, only the implanting of the egg in the uterus. Additionally,
> childless couples are helped by in vitro fertilization -- with many
> fertilized eggs left over after the procedure. It has to be that way
> for now. There's no other way to do it, because it's so difficult to
> make sure one takes.
I understand that. However, again we must look at this statistically.
The failure rates of oral contraceptives and condom usage are low. Its
a justification, but I don't think a good one. I have seat belts and an
airbag in my car. This doesn't guarantee that I won't be injured or
killed in an auto accident, just reduces the likelihood. I still choose
to drive KNOWING the risks in spite of the additional safety factors
employed. I think responsible women (and/or men who get forgotten so
frequently in this discussion) use contraception if they wish to avoid
pregnancy. This doesn't eliminate the risk, it simply reduces it
significantly. Therefore the choice is made KNOWING the risk of
pregnancy still exists should they choose to have intercourse.
> Having a baby is a big responsibility. Adoption is one option, but
> adoption is not a great option for children of minorities. There's just
> not that much market for them.
There is a much larger "market" (sorry hate that term for children) than
you might realize. Our paternalistic government places incredible
barriers to cross-race adoptions. I know of many instances in which
couples who wish to adopt are refused opportunities to adopt a child of
another race. I believe huge reforms are needed in U.S. adoption
policies. There should be ZERO need for Americans to seek to adopt
overseas. Problem is, its much easier to do than the U.S. makes it.
> So they're either raised by people who
> don't want them and can ill afford them, or at the mercy of the welfare
> system/foster care system, whatever it may be.
Very true. I've never denied the inefficiency and callousness or U.S.
social welfare institutions.
> So, because I know I cannot *know* the circumstances for every
> pregnancy, and because I do not wish for that very personal matter to be
> thrown into a public arena for decision, I still come down on the side
> of prochoice.
More power to you. I hope you will always advocate that which you
believe in. I also hope that, one day, you will be swayed by what I see
as compelling arguments against the practice of abortion.
> But I do understand your position, and respect it.
Ditto. Particularly due to your method of presentation and willingness
to exchange views.
NM
NM
---snip---
> straddling.
You'll have to push more logically.
---snip---
> > So the paradoxical question is, in a society which
> > sanctions abortion, does that further the very
> > societal dehumanization of *all* humanity? I
> > think in some cases it does.
>
> In a society that sanctions compulsory continuation of
> pregnancy, does that further the very societal
> dehumanization of women? Does that qualify as 'involuntary
> servitude' (cf. 13th Amendment)? I think it does.
It does not. I would concede your point in Sunny's cases of exception,
forcible intercourse. In the predominant majority of cases, the woman
CHOSE to have intercourse. Such volitional behavior makes the resultant
child a voluntary consequence. She chose to have intercourse knowing
the inherent possibility of having a 9 month (minimum) consequence.
> > Though these are not always an issue, or even
> > usually, they are frequent enough for me to be
> > very wary of throwing the question of whether the
> > mother should carry the baby to term into a third
> > party's hands.
>
> And then there's also the direct question of whose right it
> is to control for whom and what purposes a person's body is
> to be used for.
The person's use of thier body has been voluntarily decided in the
predominant majority of cases. If the woman decided to have
intercourse, she decided to accept the attached risks and
responsibilities.
---snipped---
> Additionally, there's the fact that soem 2/3 of all concepti
> either fail to implant or are flushed out early, all on
> their own. Nature itself is pretty wasteful with the
> earliest parts of human reproduction.
Another accepted risk/consequence of choosing to have intercourse.
> The basic problem with abortion prohibitionists is that they
> have no sympathy for 'circumstances.'
This is an unsupported generalization. Your subjective judgment of the
global level of sympathy for circumstances held by "abortion
prohibitionists" in meaningless as you can't quantify or prove the
contention. If you had said "some" I'd readily agree. Also, what about
pro-life people who aren't "abortion prohibitionists"?
> > But I do understand your position, and respect it.
>
> I can only understand it from a religious perspective, which
> is not a sound basis for secular law.
How is this so? I've made absolutely no "religious perspective"
argument.
> In fact, it downright
> stinks as a basis for secular law, and I have no respect for
> those who attempt to make it one.
I agree. That is why "Congress shall make now law respecting
establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
If you can't understand my position from a secular and human rights
perspective, then you appear to be close minded. Respect of a view is
not indicative of agreement or support.
NM
> Jim
NM
>
> In article <3A71DD31...@usa.net>, a...@usa.net says...
> > > > and are forced to bear children against their will.
> >
> > Not in the U.S. Abortion is legal.
>
> Which does not say that abortion is *available* to a particular woman at
> a particular place/time where she needs it.
Please delineate exactly where it is unavailable. It is legal
throughout the U.S. Sure people may need to travel, but its readily and
easily available.
> It just means that if she
> does have an abortion (within the stated limits as to time of gestation
> etc) no criminal offence has been committed.
A long way to say, its legal. In the United States.
> > Contraception is widely available
> > for free and/or at reduced cost.
>
> And no contraceptive method is 100% reliable even with the most careful
> use.
As no automobile safety feature is 100% reliable, even with the most
careful use. So if you choose to drive, you accept the inherent risk of
death or injury. Women who have intercourse voluntarily choose to
accept the inherent risk to health/convenience of a possible pregnancy.
> Hence it is perfectly possible for a woman to use contraception (which
> fails) and then be unable to obtain an abortion simply because she is
> unable to reach a facility she can afford to use.
Please delineate these locales where women are so unable.
> *Some* women are forced to give birth against their will.
This is incorrect. Starkly so. At least in the U.S.
NM
NM
---snipped---
>
> Sunny, you truly are a joy to read.....
I agree Ninure. Its refreshing to discuss a difficult issue with the
focus being on the specifics of the issue and not the alleged/imagined
personalities involved in the discussion. Its nice to see you post
again as well.
> It is so good to know that there are people out there who think woth
> compassion and empathy.......
>
> It's too bad that most of the people who "scream" the loudest on this
> issue cannot fo the same.
>
> I am still torn on this abortion issue.....but I think reading posts like
> yours helps a whole lot in helping me reach the truth.
I agree with you again.
> Hugs, dear sister!!
>
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
I hope God continues to Bless you and your endeavors in life.
> The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
The Lord is our Shepard and our relationship is personal and uplifting.
NM
toto
>Hi Toto,
>Nice to take a *reasonable person* break.
>
Missed me, didn't ya? LOL
>toto wrote:
>---snipped---
>> >No government entity or person (in nearly ALL cases) force the woman to
>> >become pregnant. That is where the "choice" resides for anyone who
>> >understands what personal responsibility is. I do agree however that it
>> >isn't government's purview beyond a local/community level.
>> >
>> So, a woman who is raped or sexually abused somehow *chooses* to
>> become pregnant from such an action? I don't think so.
>
>I don't think so either. Hence the parenthetical qualifier "in nearly
>all cases". Those instances are very legitimate, but very limited as a
>percentage of reason's abortions are done.
>
Some of the reasons that are sound ones include rape, incest, and
the health of the mother. The problem of course is how to
determine the reasons.
I actually think that in many cases where teenagers choose to abort,
the reasons are sound for them. If the teen will be physically and
mentally abused by parents and did not have access to
contraceptives, it may be endangering her life to continue such a
pregnancy. Without getting into the teen's mind, we can not
determine whether an abortion is a necessity for this individual
case.
I do think there is a middle ground between allowing all abortions
and regulating the practice, but I am not sure what kinds of
regulations would be helpful either.
> ---snip---
>> Why should the LOCAL government have any more control than any
>> other government in this case?
>
>This idea extends only from my personal political beliefs Dorothy. I
>see a valid reason for communities (in a free and representative
>society) to be able to regulate, control or totally allow such as
>abortion. At the local/community level, the people impacted by such
>regulation/allowance can have a direct and powerful impact on the
>process of deciding the issue. Additionally such regulation/allowance
>at that level leaves the citizen with a realistic option of relocation
>to a locale more in line with their personal needs/wants/wishes
>(politically).
>
>NM
Unfortunately, I don't think this option *is* open to many of those
with the needs we are discussing. And the protection of minorities
should be something that needs to be kept in mind here. Local and
community control, imho, occurs within the larger framework of
individual rights and freedom. The problem I see with this is that
we do not allow our teenagers the right to control their own lives,
but give that right to their parents in all cases even when the
parent is abusive and the teen has the ability and intelligence to
make his own way.
still...@my-deja.com
<goodshepherdparishno...@1cust40.tnt13.chi5.da.uu.net>
> -If anything at all could convince me to abandon my prochoice stance,
it
> -would be the insane vitriol, the ill-informed half-opinions, and the
> -actions of those who claim to represent the rights of women, and who
> -turn around and deny that women are intelligent enough to make a
> -responsible choice about their bodies either before pregnancy or very
> -early in the pregnancy.
> -
> -It's not much of a ringing endorsement for feminism, is it?
> -
> -Sunny
> -
> WHOAAA there, my dear sister.
>
> Please, please, don't slip into judging all pro-choice folks by the
> loudmouths......
I apologize, Ninure. I'm really not.
And I'm really not slamming feminism, except the ways it seems to
manifest itself as all women are victims, and therefore not responsible
-- and therefore, we need to treat them as equal to placate them.
I think women are manifestly responsible, as are all humans, and
capable, by and large, of making responsible choices.
> I think most pro-choice folks are closer to your position, than not,
> but there are too many posting/particpating in this debate , just as
> those who are truly pro-life aren't posting/participating in this
> debate.
>
> What, IMHO, I think we are actually seing are people who are
> anti-abortion
> and people who are pro-abortion, which is not the same, IMHO, as being
> pro-life and pro-choice.
Makes sense, kind of.
> I say this, because I notice that msny of the so-called "pro-lifers"
> who are so vehement are also pro-Death penalty, and many of the
> so-called "pro-choicers" do not support those women who may choose
> other options, or who support programs to provide for the real needs
> of poor, or unwanted children.
I've noted that myself, that duality on both sides. Women who choose to
have children and stay home and raise them somehow are not
representative or something.
> I HAVE made pro-lifers who were truly pro-life in that they also
> opposed
> the death penalty, and true pro-chocers who did everything to make
> sure that a woman knew all her options, and was willing to offer
> whatever support was needed whatever the choice....even if the choice
> was NOT to abort.
I agree. I'm against the death penalty, too.
> I wish more of these people were talking to eavh other!!!
It's hard to have a conversation when the decibal level reaches this
pitch. I've been called worse names on this thread than on the
crosspost to the revisionist groups. Makes one a little defensive.
How do you do it?
Sunny
> Ninure Saunders aka Rainbow Christian
>
> The Lord is my Shepherd and He knows I'm Gay
> http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/1734
> -
>
> Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches
> http://www.ufmcc.com
>
> Every 3.6 seconds a real person dies from hunger somewhere in the
world!!! Feed a hungry person today:
> http://www.hungersite.com
>
> Every day 1800 children woldwide are infected with HIV.
> Please help provide care: http://www.thekidsaidssite.com
>
> To send e-mail, remove nohate from address
>
still...@my-deja.com
"Jeff" <pitsaregrea...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Yep, true. But the question is whether we can force someone to carry
> the fetus and provide it with the necessities or not.
Obviously, we can't -- and couldn't even when abortion was illegal. As
I noted in our last conversation, a big part of the debate hinges on
when human life becomes a person.
It's pure emotion. I'm *afraid* of legislation which will allow us to
kill a person, just because they're inconvenient.
> I don't see any more basis for it than for something that no one seems
> to argue: that someone who has snuck into your house during a blizzard
> has any right to stay there against your consent, even if the person's
> expulsion means their deaths.
I've seen all these parallels, and understand what you're saying. I
will say that, in general, a better parallel would be that you *invited*
the person into your home for a half hour or so, and then, upon
realizing that a blizzard would keep them there four or five days,
decided to kick them out so you wouldn't have the expense/trouble of
feeding them.
Babies don't accidentally happen. Most people know how they are made,
and most pregnancies involve willing behavior on the part of both
parties.
> > And I'll tell you this.
> >
> > I respect your brain, your advocacy of the rights of all, and your
> > willingness to stand with the least, last, and lost.
> >
> > But until you've had a child -- until you've waited eagerly for the
> > first kick, the first movement; until you've giggled when they had
> > the
> > hiccups inside you; until you've talked to it when it was only a
> > swell beneath your belly-button; until you've had a friend mourn a
> > miscarriage like the death of an infant; until you *know* -- then
> > it's an esoteric intellectual exercise.
>
> Well, you mean that I charge into the debate without "emotional
> baggage" for lack of better words? In any debate that's a question of
> the rights of all citizens we cannot afford to include the emotional
> baggage of some into it.
I disagree. Legislation should not be *based* on emotion, but must be
informed by it. Otherwise, using strictly utilitarian ideas, we kill
everyone who is not demonstrably beneficial to society -- to be
ridiculously extreme. Kill the homeless, kill the mentally retarded,
kill the old and feeble. Greatest good for the greatest number of
people.
I'm not, by the way, denying the validity of your position or stance at
all. But it is an emotional issue.
> > You know I'm prochoice, and you know why.
> >
> > Yet on this thread, the merest suggestion that there needs to be
> > some
> > care given to when we determine a growing embryo is a baby sponsors
> > hatred and rancor I've not seen anywhere else. Ever. Including on
> > alt.flame.niggers.
>
> I know, and that's not right either.
Oddly, the ones who keep clipping the parts where I say I'm prochoice,
and who are screaming the loudest, also say that, if a baby is viable,
it should be delivered alive, if possible. There is an understanding
even there that at some point, woman's body or not, there's a person in
there who deserves at least some consideration.
> Partially, I will wager that
> part of the reason is in the newspapers, almost every day since Bush
> got elected.
> Its frightening. In Minnesota our governor just vetoed a bill that
> would have limited access to abortion clinics (go Jesse! If he ever
> runs for president I'll definitely vote for him...). Abortion rights
> are under attack now like never before. Its no excuse for the sort of
> rabid hatred that will convince NO ONE but will only turn people on
> the fence against choice (particularly because many of these people
> play into the image that the anti-America, ooops, er pro-life people
> want us to believe).
Just by way of esoteric intellectual question -- because I've been
wondering this myself -- do you think government has any business
funding abortions? It is elective surgery, and your fiscal stances tend
to be pretty conservative. I've been pondering this one since day one
of Bush, and can't quite figure out how to look at it.
That would be both men and women.
And that's another paradox of the whole abortion debate.
Because it's really not just about women's rights. It's also about men
who don't want to be responsible, either, for participating in an action
which results in a child.
hereti...@my-deja.com
still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94sfkq$5ab$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
Even more snippage ahead
> And I should say, you didn't bother to note -- again -- that I *am*
> prochoice. I am also concerned about human life, and when that life
> actually *becomes* human.
It becomes a human being at birth. If you don't know that by now,
you are hopelessly stupid or just being a contrarian. Either way,
you are full of shit.
> > And YES, I do wish that anyone who thinks that women have
> > the option to Just Say No to sex get raped. It is absolutely
> > abhorrent to say that women are not forced and coerced into unwanted
> > sexual contact, and that many women have no access to contraception
> > and are forced to bear children against their will.
>
> First point addressed. I already pointed out that I am prochoice
> because I recognize that rape happens. I think your reply to that was
> that I should be raped. I'm not sure if you'd like me to reply to
your
> wish, or to your point -- so I'll pick the point.
You said that women should refuse sex if they didn't want to be
pregnant. Or words to that effect. And anyone who thinks that
women have any real way of Just Saying No really should be so
"enlightened" by living the same reality those women do.
snip[
> However, that many women are raped *does not*, in this society,
> extrapolate into *all* women are raped, all the time. People have
sex.
> Mostly, they choose it.
Get raped, cunt. Does a woman "choose" to have sex with a man rather
than be thrown out of her home? Does she "choose" to have sex when
it's have sex or get beaten and have sex?
You make me wanna puke.
snip
> >I have noticed that rapists and RTLers have the same sort of
> > heuristics, schema, and blame-avoiding rationalizations about women
> > and the harm done to them.
>
> Interesting, that term, blame-avoiding rationalizations. Because we
are
> prochoice, then we may not blame women for getting pregnant -- so we
> decide that all women are pregnant because they were raped or
otherwise
> forced into sexual contact.
Or because they can't afford good contraception, or can't use
good contraception.
Widespread vasectomies would solve that. But profits are better
selling women pills that don't work as well as vasectomy. So that
may be why men are not encouraged to use the best method of preventing
unwanted pregnancy.
> That means that the fetus is a product only
> of violence, and not at all a person, and never will be a person --
> tada! We have justified killing it.
that is codswollop. A fetus is still not a person, and women need
no "justification" in getting abortions, especially when it is the
product of rape.
> > (D.Sculley, L.Malamuth etal) and I am FUCKING
> > SICK of self-righteous cunts who seem to think that women somehow
> > DESERVE what happens to them.
>
> There's a difference between deserving something, and something
> happening as a natural consequence of our actions. If I choose to get
> drunk and wander into the street and get killed by a car, did I
deserve
> it? No. Was it a natural consequence of my actions? Yes.
So that means we should leave you to die.
Excellent. But this has nothing to do with the fact that women are
forced into sex simply by existing. Getting drunk has nothing to do
with it. And why would you want some drunken fool to be forced to
gestate, anyway?
> > Women are raped right here in the USA. Did you know that homeless
> > women are raped at about 30-40 times the rate women with housing
are?
>
> Did you know one in three (I think) women report having been raped at
> least once in their lives?
So you agree that even here, women can't Just Say No. So your point
fails, and mine stands. Since women are not safe, we must keep abortion
legal, safe, and accessable.
> Did you know that most people who are homeless are so because of their
> own decisions?
Prove it. I suppose people decide to have their landlords sell the
building, and get evicted. That's happening a lot in the Bay Area.
I suppose people decide to be mentally ill.
You really suck. You are a self-righteous, self-satisfied, self-
centered
cunt, and you deserve to find out for yourself about such decisions.
Deal with reality, cunt, the costs of living have been increasing
far faster than income. Subsidized houseing was eliminated under
Reagan and never reestablished.
> Did you know that you're pulling questions about welfare and housing
and
> every other thing into an argument about when abortion crosses the
line
> between right to choose and right to live?
there is no right to live.
case closed.
Fuck off.snip
> Without too much trouble (like one click on a search engine) I
> discovered an advertisement for just such a clinic. Here.
>
> http://www.drtiller.com/
They do not terminate late term pregnancies of viable fetuses.
Only nonviable.
> There are a lot more. Do the search yourself.
>
> But I notice you clipped my question.
so did you.
> How late is too late?
>
> How late before a "fetus" becomes a "baby"?
>
> Not legally, but what *you* think.
I'll go with the definition that has always been used.
At birth.
Case closed.
snip
> > Lack of housing and health care. Americans with no access to health
> > care are 25% more likely to die.
>
> LOL! Sorry -- everyone is 100% guaranteed gonna die.
So why care about 8 1/2 month fetuses?snip
> > > Yes, some do. At this point, the earliest fetus able to survive
is
> > > about five months old.
> >
> > Cite, please?
>
> It was just on the news last week. I'll find it if you insist.
No, it wasn't. I asked for a cite. I gave you one.
> > And do read the Dec 10 NEJoM, about the outcomes of
> > very
> > early births. The mortality rate is shocking.
>
> Does that bother you?
Indicates your claim of survivors of very early birth are full of shit.
> What's the difference if they're born early and die?
>
> How is that different?
Because it's up to the woman. Not you. Got it?
> Because I noticed you also didn't answer this question.
>
> When do *you* think it's too late for an ethical decision to abort?
>
> Five months? Six months? Seven months? Eight months? Nine months?
>
> I dare you to answer.
It is entirely up to the woman.
No sane woman would wait until nine months to abort an unwanted fetus.
Why do you think any woman would do that?
> > and the cost is astronomical. How much will YOU pay?
>
> For my own child? Everything.
But parents DON'T pay for the hospital costs for premies.
The taxpayers and insurance companies do.
> Here you go. Here's the question you dodged.
>
> > > Now, it's tricky, and it's recent. I think,
> > > despite your determination to throw me into the radical right to
> > > lifer camp, we'd agree on the the fact that there must be a time
> > > limit set.
> > > Of course, I might be wrong. When do _you_ think is too late for
an
> > > abortion? Three months? Four months? Six months? Nine months?
>
> Care to answer?
already did. Up to the woman. Women don't abort very late
for "convenience"
Late term abortions are done because SOMETHING WENT WRONG.
> > > I demand nothing of a pregnant woman, save that she make a
conscious
> > > decision about whether or not she's willing and capable of taking
> > > care of her child AT SOME POINT WAY BEFORE VIABILITY!
> >
> > stupid cunt, women DO just that. Many women DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO
> > SAFE, EARLY ABORTIONS OR ADEQUATE CONTRACEPTION.
>
> Bullshit. Many isn't all, or even most.
Sucks to be one of them, though. Funny how cavalier you are about all
those women. So why should anyone think you care about unwanted
fetuses, when you care nothing about women of low income?
snipStedmen's Medical. Oh, I have a copy right here . ..
> > parasite: 1. an organism that lives on or in another and draws its
> > nourishment therefrom 2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or
conjoined
> > twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives it support frome the
> > more nearly normal autosome
>
> Let's use the first definition, since it seems appropriate, and your
> comment as well.
>
> A baby fully born, but not clipped from the placenta, is a parasite.
>
> Can we kill it?
Why would anyone want to? That is a ridiculous scenario. And it is
already illegal, BTW.
> A baby fully born, but dependent on breast milk for survival, is a
> parasite.
Nope. It can take its nourishment elsewhere, and the "host" is
permitting this to happen.
> Can we kill it?
You can volunteer to give up bodily resources, but you cannot be
COMPELLED.
> A baby fully born, but dependent on the money earned by the parents
for
> the purchase of its food and shelter, is a parasite.
Nope. Not living in or on, but by choice. And it is not taking the
support directly from the parents.
Why are you bothering to even raise such ridiculous questions?
Infanticide has nothing to do with abortion. And people don't
generally have any interest in killing babies.
So what IS your point?
toto
>Pat Winstanley wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A71DD31...@usa.net>, a...@usa.net says...
>> > > > and are forced to bear children against their will.
>> >
>> > Not in the U.S. Abortion is legal.
>>
>> Which does not say that abortion is *available* to a particular woman at
>> a particular place/time where she needs it.
>
>Please delineate exactly where it is unavailable. It is legal
>throughout the U.S. Sure people may need to travel, but its readily and
>easily available.
>
Try Wisconsin for starters, NM
:>Even women seeking first trimester abortions are being turned away. The
:>Wisconsin law, signed by Governor Tommy Thompson on April 29, is so
:>broadly worded that doctors would be at risk of life in prison for performing
:>even the most common procedures at any stage in pregnancy.
I wonder how available this is to the women in small towns in Alaska
or even small towns in Illinois given the fact that the clinics seem
to be in the Chicago area or near Champaign. How available do you
really think abortions are to girls in places outside the bigger
cities?
>> It just means that if she
>> does have an abortion (within the stated limits as to time of gestation
>> etc) no criminal offence has been committed.
>
>A long way to say, its legal. In the United States.
>
>> > Contraception is widely available
>> > for free and/or at reduced cost.
>>
>> And no contraceptive method is 100% reliable even with the most careful
>> use.
>
>As no automobile safety feature is 100% reliable, even with the most
>careful use. So if you choose to drive, you accept the inherent risk of
>death or injury. Women who have intercourse voluntarily choose to
>accept the inherent risk to health/convenience of a possible pregnancy.
>
>> Hence it is perfectly possible for a woman to use contraception (which
>> fails) and then be unable to obtain an abortion simply because she is
>> unable to reach a facility she can afford to use.
>
>Please delineate these locales where women are so unable.
>
>> *Some* women are forced to give birth against their will.
>
>This is incorrect. Starkly so. At least in the U.S.
>
>NM
No, it is quite correct. It is correct in the case of teens who
cannot tell parents especially.
NM
---snipped---
> no basis in the Constitution, when it specifically references
> several of the Amendments?
What do the references have to do with the arbitrary nature of the
ruling? Of course SCOTUS is going to reference the Constitution. The
Court did so in the Dred Scott case as well. The validity of the
references can still be called into question, and are. That's how court
rulings often times get over turned. Its the venue of determination
itself that makes it arbitrary, in that the right to kill the unborn is
only, stablished by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or
statute. That is a quite valid definition of "arbitrary". See also
Justice Rehnquist's dissent.
NM
still...@my-deja.com
hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > And I should say, you didn't bother to note -- again -- that I *am*
> > prochoice. I am also concerned about human life, and when that life
> > actually *becomes* human.
>
> It becomes a human being at birth. If you don't know that by now,
> you are hopelessly stupid or just being a contrarian. Either way,
> you are full of shit.
You misunderstood. I know that legally it becomes a "human being" at
birth. At what point does it become human? There are distinct legal
differences.
When does it become human, heretic?
<snip>
> You said that women should refuse sex if they didn't want to be
> pregnant. Or words to that effect.
No. I said, I know that women often are raped. I also said, the vast
majority of women in the US have sex because they are making a conscious
decision to have sex. It is not only either one. It is both, and more
often than not, the woman does have a choice in this society.
And your reasoned and rational response to that was, you hoped I'd be
raped.
And I will point out -- AGAIN -- that I am prochoice in part
specifically *because* of the instances you depict, that sometimes there
*is not* a choice about sex.
> And anyone who thinks that
> women have any real way of Just Saying No really should be so
> "enlightened" by living the same reality those women do.
Any woman who thinks that women can't say no most of the time has her
head in the sand, and a mighty low opinion of women in general.
<snip>
> Get raped, cunt. Does a woman "choose" to have sex with a man rather
> than be thrown out of her home? Does she "choose" to have sex when
> it's have sex or get beaten and have sex?
Do most women live this way?
Do you live this way?
> You make me wanna puke.
Be my guest.
> snip
> > >I have noticed that rapists and RTLers have the same sort of
> > > heuristics, schema, and blame-avoiding rationalizations about
> > > women and the harm done to them.
> >
> > Interesting, that term, blame-avoiding rationalizations. Because we
> > are
> > prochoice, then we may not blame women for getting pregnant -- so we
> > decide that all women are pregnant because they were raped or
> > otherwise forced into sexual contact.
>
> Or because they can't afford good contraception, or can't use
> good contraception.
Or because they're young and careless, and don't bother. I didn't.
I had plenty of access, and didn't bother to go get it. The same was
true of most of my friends.
> Widespread vasectomies would solve that. But profits are better
> selling women pills that don't work as well as vasectomy. So that
> may be why men are not encouraged to use the best method of preventing
> unwanted pregnancy.
It's also likely because, though men are responsible, too, women bear
the brunt of the raising of those children.
> > That means that the fetus is a product only
> > of violence, and not at all a person, and never will be a person --
> > tada! We have justified killing it.
>
> that is codswollop. A fetus is still not a person, and women need
> no "justification" in getting abortions, especially when it is the
> product of rape.
I've never said a woman needed a justification for an abortion, and
especially not in the case of rape. I've said that, at some point
during gestation, what is an evolving mass of cells becomes recognizably
human.
<tiny clip>
> > There's a difference between deserving something, and something
> > happening as a natural consequence of our actions. If I choose to
> > get drunk and wander into the street and get killed by a car, did I
> > deserve it? No. Was it a natural consequence of my actions? Yes.
>
> So that means we should leave you to die.
No. Nor should you kill me. You've gloriously missed the point,
though. The point is, it's not a matter of whether I deserved it or
not. It's a matter of whether it's a natural consequence of the
conditions I chose.
The sex drive is has a biological function, perpetuation of the species.
That we enjoy it is nice. But it's enjoyable because,
evolutionary-wise, that's a way to get us to make kiddies. Sex *is*
about making children. No way around that one.
> Excellent. But this has nothing to do with the fact that women are
> forced into sex simply by existing. Getting drunk has nothing to do
> with it. And why would you want some drunken fool to be forced to
> gestate, anyway?
Drunken fool gestating? What *are* you going on about? Do you
routinely have a hard time with reading comprehension?
It was an example of natural consequences.
<clip>
> > Did you know one in three (I think) women report having been raped
> > at least once in their lives?
>
> So you agree that even here, women can't Just Say No. So your point
> fails, and mine stands. Since women are not safe, we must keep
> abortion legal, safe, and accessable.
See, I agree with you on that. I've never denied it. It was in my
first post. The one where you responded that I should be raped.
I'm sure you'll clip that.
> > Did you know that most people who are homeless are so because of
> > their own decisions?
>
> Prove it. I suppose people decide to have their landlords sell the
> building, and get evicted. That's happening a lot in the Bay Area.
> I suppose people decide to be mentally ill.
I work with the homeless. Many are mentally ill. Most have made
destructive decisions regarding their own lives. Most will even admit
that. And many, many of them do not want to live in regular society,
and choose a life on the street.
> You really suck. You are a self-righteous, self-satisfied, self-
> centered
> cunt, and you deserve to find out for yourself about such decisions.
> Deal with reality, cunt, the costs of living have been increasing
> far faster than income. Subsidized houseing was eliminated under
> Reagan and never reestablished.
Are you tangenting again? We're talking about abortion. Or did you want
to discuss Roosevelt, Stalin, Mao, the New Deal, the Knights Templar,
the welfare state, communism, tattoos, and nose rings?
> > Did you know that you're pulling questions about welfare and housing
> > and every other thing into an argument about when abortion crosses
> > the line between right to choose and right to live?
>
> there is no right to live.
> case closed.
Then from what do all other rights spring?
> Fuck off.snip
No way.
> > Without too much trouble (like one click on a search engine) I
> > discovered an advertisement for just such a clinic. Here.
> >
> > http://www.drtiller.com/
> They do not terminate late term pregnancies of viable fetuses.
> Only nonviable.
> > There are a lot more. Do the search yourself.
> >
> > But I notice you clipped my question.
>
> so did you.
I'm sorry. I have tried not to clip any real substantive questions.
I've looked up and down the thread, and can't see what one you're
talking about. However, if you'd like to repaste it, I'll be glad to
address it.
> > How late is too late?
> >
> > How late before a "fetus" becomes a "baby"?
> >
> > Not legally, but what *you* think.
>
> I'll go with the definition that has always been used.
> At birth.
> Case closed.
Nope. Case isn't closed. That is not the definition that has always
been used. At one point, it was at "quickening," or when the baby was
felt to move. You're hiding behind an arbitrary legal definition. I
asked what you thought. When is a baby a baby? And why?
> snip
> > > Lack of housing and health care. Americans with no access to
> > > health care are 25% more likely to die.
> >
> > LOL! Sorry -- everyone is 100% guaranteed gonna die.
>
> So why care about 8 1/2 month fetuses?snip
Because it is incumbent upon human beings, as coexisting on the earth,
to care about fellow humans, lest they become the ones on the fringes,
and disposable. It is a measure of our empathy, which is what makes us
human.
> > > > Yes, some do. At this point, the earliest fetus able to survive
> > > > is about five months old.
> > >
> > > Cite, please?
> >
> > It was just on the news last week. I'll find it if you insist.
>
> No, it wasn't. I asked for a cite. I gave you one.
Can't find the exact story. Did find this one.
http://www.thesunnews.com/news/stories/H01-4404118100177.htm
You'll note it references premies born *more* than fourteen weeks
premature -- that's *more* than three and a half months early, give or
take.
> > > And do read the Dec 10 NEJoM, about the outcomes of
> > > very early births. The mortality rate is shocking.
> >
> > Does that bother you?
>
> Indicates your claim of survivors of very early birth are full of
> shit.
I didn't say the survival rate wasn't shocking, only that it had been
getting better, and was possible. And you didn't answer the question.
Does the early birth mortality rate bother you? And if so, why?
> > What's the difference if they're born early and die?
> >
> > How is that different?
>
> Because it's up to the woman. Not you. Got it?
Not an answer, except that it bothers you that they die early, but
doesn't bother you if a woman kills them that early.
> > Because I noticed you also didn't answer this question.
> >
> > When do *you* think it's too late for an ethical decision to abort?
> >
> > Five months? Six months? Seven months? Eight months? Nine
> > months?
> >
> > I dare you to answer.
>
> It is entirely up to the woman.
> No sane woman would wait until nine months to abort an unwanted fetus.
> Why do you think any woman would do that?
Entirely up to the woman? So it's okay at nine months, but no sane
woman would do that?
Why wouldn't a sane woman do that? It's her body, right?
Why wouldn't a sane woman do that?
Would a sane woman choose to abort at eight months, and if not, why not?
Would a sane woman choose to abort at seven months, and if not, why not?
Would a sane woman choose to abort at six months, and if not, why not?
> > > and the cost is astronomical. How much will YOU pay?
> >
> > For my own child? Everything.
>
> But parents DON'T pay for the hospital costs for premies.
> The taxpayers and insurance companies do.
Your point?
Taxpayers and insurance companies pay for abortions, too, as well as all
other sorts of care for people who aren't pregnant.
So, if I'm reading this right, women should get abortions, because some
women have premature babies, and those are expensive to the taxpayer. I
had no idea you were a Republican.
> > Here you go. Here's the question you dodged.
> >
> > > > Now, it's tricky, and it's recent. I think,
> > > > despite your determination to throw me into the radical right to
> > > > lifer camp, we'd agree on the the fact that there must be a time
> > > > limit set.
> > > > Of course, I might be wrong. When do _you_ think is too late
> > > > for an abortion? Three months? Four months? Six months? Nine
> > > > months?
> >
> > Care to answer?
>
> already did. Up to the woman. Women don't abort very late
> for "convenience"
> Late term abortions are done because SOMETHING WENT WRONG.
I knew a girl years ago who aborted at five plus months. Nothing went
wrong. She was just young, and couldn't decide -- and there was no legal
time limit on her decision in the first two trimesters.
The injected a solution into her womb, ostensibly to kill the "fetus",
and put her into labor. She gave birth to a very damaged, pain wracked,
tiny infant -- who was alive. It didn't last long.
So, heretic, as I keep saying that I'm prochoice, no questions asked,
first trimester, and beyond that, if there's a medical risk to
mother/child -- what's your beef?
> > Bullshit. Many isn't all, or even most.
>
> Sucks to be one of them, though. Funny how cavalier you are about all
> those women. So why should anyone think you care about unwanted
> fetuses, when you care nothing about women of low income?
And how do you infer that I care nothing about women of low income?
Or that I'm cavalier?
Or even that I'm against choice?
You're battling that old strawman again.
Probably looks like Saddam Hussein.
> snipStedmen's Medical. Oh, I have a copy right here . ..
> > > parasite: 1. an organism that lives on or in another and draws its
> > > nourishment therefrom 2. In the case of a fetal inclusion or
> > > conjoined
> > > twins, the usually incomplete twin that derives it support frome
> > > the more nearly normal autosome
> >
> > Let's use the first definition, since it seems appropriate, and your
> > comment as well.
> >
> > A baby fully born, but not clipped from the placenta, is a parasite.
> >
> > Can we kill it?
>
> Why would anyone want to? That is a ridiculous scenario. And it is
> already illegal, BTW.
Of course it is. But it fits your description of parasite. And it's a
no more ridiculous scenario than late term abortions at will, which are
legal.
> > A baby fully born, but dependent on breast milk for survival, is a
> > parasite.
>
> Nope. It can take its nourishment elsewhere, and the "host" is
> permitting this to happen.
Still fits your description. I quote: 1. an organism that lives on or
in another and draws its nourishment therefrom
> > Can we kill it?
>
> You can volunteer to give up bodily resources, but you cannot be
> COMPELLED.
You cannot be compelled to what? Give up bodily resources, or to not
give up bodily resources?
> > A baby fully born, but dependent on the money earned by the parents
> > for the purchase of its food and shelter, is a parasite.
>
> Nope. Not living in or on, but by choice. And it is not taking the
> support directly from the parents.
Granted. I was extrapolating out.
> Why are you bothering to even raise such ridiculous questions?
To point out the ridiculousness of the hardline *it's her body* stance,
particularly when the only issue raised is, some care must be taken to
insure that what we're killing isn't a viable, sentient human.
It is ridiculous. It is also ridiculous to say that one minute before
birth, the mother has the right to kill it, because it's not a human
being per legal definition, but that one minute after birth, it's
infanticide, and there's no more right.
Of course, you said no sane woman would do that. Why not? It's legal.
> Infanticide has nothing to do with abortion. And people don't
> generally have any interest in killing babies.
At least, not after they've emerged.
> So what IS your point?
Hm. That either hardline stance is ridiculous, and detrimental to the
rights of someone somewhere. That it is paramount that human beings
recognize and protect human beings, imperfectly though it might be,
because that is what is in our nature to do, and how we survive. That
women have rights, and those should not be infringed; but that at some
point, those rights are superceded by the rights of the human individual
who exists within her; that if women can't make informed and reasonable
decisions before or early in the pregnancy, their inaction in a
progressive condition such as pregnancy is tatamount to accepting the
responsibility to carry to term; that women *are* sometimes victims, and
should not be victimized further, but that most women are capable,
responsible, strong human beings, which you seem to deny. That you're a
grouch, and a bigot, and an unthinking propaganda spouter who has no
interest in doing anything more than adhering to some tired, rehashed,
unsupported rhetoric.
You're a fine argument, in yourself, for the prolife position.
Sunny
Ninure Saunders
-> I wish more of these people were talking to eavh other!!!
-
-It's hard to have a conversation when the decibal level reaches this
-pitch. I've been called worse names on this thread than on the
-crosspost to the revisionist groups. Makes one a little defensive.
-
-How do you do it?
-
-Sunny
-
I know this sounds silly, but I really find myself pausing and saying to
myself.."Is this realy the way Jesus would handle/react to this
situation/arguement/person?"
So while a lot of things that my "opponents" say and do really hurt, and
I get really angykeeps me from saying a LOT of things that are just on
the" tip of my tounge"...and try to say what might actually do some real
good.
Hugs, sister.
Ninure Saunders
-In article <94si7o$7o2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
- still...@my-deja.com wrote:
-> In article <94sfkq$5ab$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
-> hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
-Even more snippage ahead
-> And I should say, you didn't bother to note -- again -- that I *am*
-> prochoice. I am also concerned about human life, and when that life
-> actually *becomes* human.
-
-It becomes a human being at birth. If you don't know that by now,
-you are hopelessly stupid or just being a contrarian. Either way,
-you are full of shit.
And you are a boor, who obviously can't or won't pay attention to being
what is asked, in all seriousness, by all kinfs of people on difffent
points of the spectrum on this issue.
Is a fetus human after three months? six months? 24 hours before
delivery? 5 minutes before delivery?
What makes a guman a human?
Can you answer that?
If you can, you're doing a hell of a lot better than a lot of
theologians, philosphers, scientists, etc.!!!
-
-> > And YES, I do wish that anyone who thinks that women have
-> > the option to Just Say No to sex get raped. It is absolutely
-> > abhorrent to say that women are not forced and coerced into unwanted
-> > sexual contact, and that many women have no access to contraception
-> > and are forced to bear children against their will.
->
-> First point addressed. I already pointed out that I am prochoice
-> because I recognize that rape happens. I think your reply to that was
-> that I should be raped. I'm not sure if you'd like me to reply to
-your
-> wish, or to your point -- so I'll pick the point.
-
-You said that women should refuse sex if they didn't want to be
-pregnant. Or words to that effect. And anyone who thinks that
-women have any real way of Just Saying No really should be so
-"enlightened" by living the same reality those women do.
How sexist!!!
All women are sooooo helpless!!! They are absolutely powerless.
The reality is that it is a teeny tiny percentage of abortions that occur
because of rape, or incest so can we PLEASE moce on, and deal with the
fact that overwhelming majority of abortions happen for other reasons?
-
-snip[
-> However, that many women are raped *does not*, in this society,
-> extrapolate into *all* women are raped, all the time. People have
-sex.
-> Mostly, they choose it.
-
-Get raped, cunt.
That you get make a statement like that to any woman shows us just how
much you truly "care" about women!!
- Does a woman "choose" to have sex with a man rather
-than be thrown out of her home? Does she "choose" to have sex when
-it's have sex or get beaten and have sex?
Yes she does choose......it may not be a very fun choice, but its a
choice. I've been there, I know.
No one is saying that her choice is bad or good, but it is still a choice.
-
-You make me wanna puke.
You're crudeness, and sexism makes me cringe.
The person you are attacking is PRO-CHOICE!!
The fact that she doesn't follow your party-line is no excuse for the kinf
of abuse you meted out.....which makes me wonder if you aren't an agent
for the pro-lifers, trying to "turn her"?
-
Susan C. Mitchell
: In article <94qdpi$9...@bolt.sonic.net>,: > > rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
: > >> >Now, as to the "legal" terms of what is a human being and what is
: > >> >murder, our constitution began by calling blacks 3/5 human,
: > >>
: > >> It does not. Never did. That's just the usual pro-lie propaganda.
: > >
: > >I know, I know. I'm undereducated. I did, however, read this.
: > >
: > >"Article I,Section 2, Paragraph 3: "Representatives and direct taxes
: > >shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included
: > >within this Union according to their respective numbers, which shall
: > >be
: > >determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including
: > >those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not
: > >taxed, three-fifths of all other persons."
: >
: > Notice that there is not one word there that says that blacks (or
: > anyone else) are only 3/5s persons.
: >
: > >The three-fifths there are slaves.
: >
: > No, 3/5s OF the slaves.
: I have no desire to educate you here. A bit of friendly advice. Next
: time you accuse someone of being ignorant, and then make some rash
: propagandist statement regarding the Constitution, check into it first.
: If you'd like, I'll find you a great web site on the Federalists. I've
: read them. Have you?
: And so, I'll say again, it was at that time, *politically
: expedient*, a way of allowing southern slaveholders to increase their
: representation in the House, while not exactly calling blacks fully
: human -- because that would have denied that they could be property, and
: would have granted them full rights of citizenship.
Where in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3, is the word "black" mentioned?
Where is the word "human" mentioned?
Jesus Goatfelching Christ, am I tired of refuting this piece of idiocy.
This paragraph was indeed a compromise, a way of -- as you say --
"allowing southern slaveholders to increase their representation in the
House." But you misinterpret their intentions. Said "southern
slaveholders" would have been perfectly happy to have had the WHOLE number
of their slaves counted towards the number of state Representatives! More
people in the state == more representatives! It was the NORTHERN,
NON-SLAVE states that pushed this compromise through, essentially telling
the Southerners, "No, you cannot enjoy this additional benefit without
some drawbacks." This paragraph had the effect of DECREASING the benefit
of owning slaves.
And, let me say again, NOWHERE does it mention whether any single
individual is "human," or less "human" than any other.
(Or do you think Thomas Jefferson believed he was engaging in some form of
bestiality, or sex with a non-human creature, when he raped his wife's
half-sister, Sally Hemings?)
AND NOWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE WORD "BLACK," OR ANY SYNONYM,
MENTIONED. NOT ONCE.
It says that the number of Representatives in the Congress, and the amount
of tax monies apportioned, are to be determined by adding to the whole
number of FREE PERSONS (white, black, Indian citizens, mixed race, you
name it) sixty percent of the whole number of NON-FREE PERSONS (black,
mixed-race, Indian, Rroma, whatever).
I hope (probably in vain) that I've managed to finally clear this up.
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
=============== Remove SPAMWALL from my address to reply ===============
"Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious libel
dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
still...@my-deja.com
"Susan C. Mitchell" <sus...@primenet.SPAMWALL.com> wrote:
> still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : And so, I'll say again, it was at that time, *politically
> : expedient*, a way of allowing southern slaveholders to increase
> : their
> : representation in the House, while not exactly calling blacks fully
> : human -- because that would have denied that they could be property,
> : and
> : would have granted them full rights of citizenship.
>
> Where in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3, is the word "black"
> mentioned?
>
> Where is the word "human" mentioned?
You're right. I looked it up.
> This paragraph was indeed a compromise, a way of -- as you say --
> "allowing southern slaveholders to increase their representation in
> the
> House." But you misinterpret their intentions. Said "southern
> slaveholders" would have been perfectly happy to have had the WHOLE
> number
> of their slaves counted towards the number of state Representatives!
> More
> people in the state == more representatives! It was the NORTHERN,
> NON-SLAVE states that pushed this compromise through, essentially
> telling
> the Southerners, "No, you cannot enjoy this additional benefit without
> some drawbacks." This paragraph had the effect of DECREASING the
> benefit of owning slaves.
>
> And, let me say again, NOWHERE does it mention whether any single
> individual is "human," or less "human" than any other.
They also avoided the term "legally held in bondage., as they didn't
want to give the impression the Constitution was legitimizing slavery,
that slavery was "legal in a moral view."
That slaves were considered subhuman, though, is also true. That it was
feared that granting them full rights of citizenship would allow angry
backlash against their former owners was true.
> AND NOWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE WORD "BLACK," OR ANY SYNONYM,
> MENTIONED. NOT ONCE.
> It says that the number of Representatives in the Congress, and the
> amount
> of tax monies apportioned, are to be determined by adding to the whole
> number of FREE PERSONS (white, black, Indian citizens, mixed race, you
> name it) sixty percent of the whole number of NON-FREE PERSONS (black,
> mixed-race, Indian, Rroma, whatever).
Also true. How many non-free persons of other races were there?
> I hope (probably in vain) that I've managed to finally clear this up.
>
> Think globally, act locally.
> Susan
>
> --
> =============== Remove SPAMWALL from my address to reply
===============
> "Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious
libel
> dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
> desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
>
Timothy Murphy
<proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
news:vru67t0c9eb5u1s4t...@4ax.com...
>
> A simple DNA analysis will determine whether any tissue or blood
> sample is human. DNA does not change.
>
A simple DNA analysis will determine that my fingernail clippings are
"human", does that make it murder for me to clip my nails?
--
Timothy I. Murphy
When we're free to love anyone we choose
When this world's big enough for all different views
When we all can worship from our own kind of pew
Then we shall be free---
Stephanie Davis & Garth Brooks "We Shall Be Free" from "The Chase"
webg...@rocketmail.com
"Timothy Murphy" <timothyNO...@ilnk.com> wrote:
> <proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
> news:vru67t0c9eb5u1s4t...@4ax.com...
> >
> > A simple DNA analysis will determine whether any
> > tissue or blood sample is human. DNA does not
> > change.
>
> A simple DNA analysis will determine that my fingernail
> clippings are "human", does that make it murder for me
> to clip my nails?
Another point to drive anti-abortion people into a
frenzy: if the DNA is human and the DNA "does not
change", then would cloning the aborted fetus
RESURRECT the fetus and thus correct any abortion?
After you make the "resurrection" argument,
anti-abortion folks who have attempted to reason
using science usually drift off into superstition.
Screamer
>or even small towns in Illinois given the fact that the clinics seem
>to be in the Chicago area or near Champaign. How available do you
>really think abortions are to girls in places outside the bigger
>cities?
Peoria.
Rockford.
Just to name a few. There are more.
Jill
Jeff
Contradiction in terms. By declaring a human property you are already
dehumanizing them. Case and point: slavery.
>
> >If these
> >people are less than human, on what basis are fetus' human at all?
> >
> >Actually, while that's an interesting perspective that wasn't my main
point.
> >First of all, even if I, a fully sentiant adult human being was inside
your
> >body (we were kidnapped by aliens or something), I would NOT have the
right
> >to remain there against your will, even if my removal would mean my
death.
>
> Agreed, because I would have had no part in your being there and would
have
> no responsibility towards you. (But what a horrible thought).
Nope, that's not why. Lets say that you're driving, you slip on some ice
and smash into a car with some nice lady going to Church to help some blind
orphan inner city children (couldn't help myself)... Lets say that to live
she needs one of your kidneys. You have ZERO obligation to give one of
yours even though it would mean her death and you'd be fine. A step
further: all she needs is a blood transfusion and your blood types match up.
You are under ABSOLUTELY NO obligation to provide that to her. Another
example, this time with the man at the farm. He was a homeless man that you
INVITED to live with you before. You STILL have the right to kick him out
in the middle of the blizzard, or at any other time.
Getting clearer now? These are horrible thoughts, but they demonstrate
exactly what's needed to see this in LEGAL TERMS.
I doubt science will ever really be able to do that.
> It then acquires rights as an individual.
So what? How would an individual have the right to use the woman's body
against her will?
> How those rights are to be
> judged with respect to those of the mother is a considerable problem.
There isn't a conflict here. The woman has a right to her body, and isn't
obligated to share it with anyone. The fetus has a right to live without
being killed but it DOESN'T have the right to use anyone else's body to
accomplish that goal.
>
> However at all times from the moment of conception I would say that the
> mother has a moral responsibility to ensure that the foetus, is not harmed
by
> any of her actions during the pregnancy, unless she is determined not to
> carry it to full term. And I would also say that once the foetus is
sentient
> she has a moral responsibility to carry it to full term, unless her own
life is
> threatened by it.
Honestly, I don't want to get into a moral debate (what ought one to do...),
I'd rather keep this legalistic debate (what should one not be banned from
doing).
>
> >The question of the murderer is a
> >rather philosophical one. That's an issue of when life really starts and
> >what value that life has. Clearly, if its life it has to be taken on a
> >seperate case than the mother's. If the mother was pregnant, and hte
> >murderer kills her and didn't realize she was pregnant you can't charge
the
> >murderer with 1st degree murder on the fetus as well, manslaughter at
best.
> >Even then, I don't know...
> >
> >>
> >> Surely it cannot be a "right" for a women to destroy a life, however
> >> inconvenient that life may be to her.
> >
> >No, and as such once a baby is born even if it incoveniences her she
can't
> >pull her pistol out, lodge a bullet in its head and throw it in the
garbage.
> >THAT SAID, she can remove it from inside her body EVEN if that means its
> >death.
>
> This is where we disagree. I would see it as a violation of the rights of
the
> living sentient creature that the foetus has become. The mother created
> it (with the father) and cannot abandon it.
On what grounds? After the child is born she is under no obligation to
provide so much as a blood transufusion to save its life. So why is it that
before its born she should be forced to allow it to use her body?
I'm interested from a purely legal point of view. And if you admit that
legally none of those people have an obligation then you should also
conclude that the woman has no obligation to allow her body's use.
>
> > At the same time, you do not have the right to take a gun out and
> >shoot the person even though the result would be the same. See what I
mean?
> >
> >> Attempts (not yours) to shift
> >> the blame to the doctor who carries out the abortion, or to anyone else
> >who
> >> "allows" the inevitable death of the foetus are pure smokescreens.
> >
> >I would never blame anyone for abortion except, as sad as this may sound
the
> >fetus. Its no one's fault that it can't survive outside the mother's
body
> >on its own up until a certain age.
> >
> >>
> >> When I speak of responsibility I think in terms of moral and not legal
> >> responsibility.
> >
> >Important destinction there. I'm curious, what are your views on
abortion
> >legally and morally?
>
> Morally that abortion is OK up to the point of sentience,
Why?
> after that it is OK
> only under special circumstances - which would include a threat to the
life
> of the mother. The law should respect both the rights of the mother and
of
> a sentient foetus, and ideally should provide a means of deciding between
> the two if there is conflict.
It doesn't seem to me that there is a conflict.
>
> >I am totally against legislating morality. Morally, there are very many
> >things to consider.
>
> I agree generally, but the law must reflect current morality or it will be
> ignored.
The law must not mandate immorality, but it cannot be used to force
obedience to someone else's morality.
> If the law tells me to do something that I reckon is morally wrong
> I ignore it.
Sure, but if you feel that other's ought to do something else doesn't mean
that you can just pass a law to force them to do so.
>
> >> The life exists because of her actions (and the father), it is
> >> part of her, and she cannot avoid having some continuing responsibility
> >> for it.
> >
> >Well, it occured as an uninvited accident. I know its harsh, but its
true.
> >
> >Here's a question: do you make any destinctions between those who were
> >raped, incest cases, underage cases, etc.? If so, why?
>
> No, because a decision on abortion should be possible long before there is
> sentience.
How do you define sentience and at what point do you feel that a fetus
achieves that? Next question: so what if it is sentient? Do I have a right
to your body? Does your own child after its born?
> This also applies to the case of an uninvited accident.
At least you're consistent.
Jeff
Susan C. Mitchell
: In article <94voap$g1c$4...@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net>,
: > : And so, I'll say again, it was at that time, *politically
: > : expedient*, a way of allowing southern slaveholders to increase
: > : their
: > : representation in the House, while not exactly calling blacks fully
: > : human -- because that would have denied that they could be property,
: > : and
: > : would have granted them full rights of citizenship.
: >
: > Where in Article 1, Section 2, paragraph 3, is the word "black"
: > mentioned?
: >
: > Where is the word "human" mentioned?
: You're right. I looked it up.
Thank you.
: > This paragraph was indeed a compromise, a way of -- as you say --
: > "allowing southern slaveholders to increase their representation in
: > the
: > House." But you misinterpret their intentions. Said "southern
: > slaveholders" would have been perfectly happy to have had the WHOLE
: > number
: > of their slaves counted towards the number of state Representatives!
: > More
: > people in the state == more representatives! It was the NORTHERN,
: > NON-SLAVE states that pushed this compromise through, essentially
: > telling
: > the Southerners, "No, you cannot enjoy this additional benefit without
: > some drawbacks." This paragraph had the effect of DECREASING the
: > benefit of owning slaves.
: >
: > And, let me say again, NOWHERE does it mention whether any single
: > individual is "human," or less "human" than any other.
: They also avoided the term "legally held in bondage., as they didn't
: want to give the impression the Constitution was legitimizing slavery,
: that slavery was "legal in a moral view."
Matter-of-factly including provisos concerning "persons not free,"
however, is *not* "legitimizing slavery"?
: That slaves were considered subhuman, though, is also true. That it was
: feared that granting them full rights of citizenship would allow angry
: backlash against their former owners was true.
You keep asserting that "slaves were considered subhuman," without EVER
offering ONE SINGLE piece of evidence.
I point you again to the original text. It SPECIFICALLY refers to slaves
as "persons."
"That slaves were considered subhuman ... is also true"? Then you're
saying Thomas Jefferson DID consider himself to be taking part in some
kind of bestiality or sex with a non-human creature when he raped his
wife's half-sister?
Did these "subhuman" (in the eyes, as you argue, of the framers of the
Constitution) suddenly become (again, in the framers' eyes) "fully human"
at the moment of manumission?
: > AND NOWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE WORD "BLACK," OR ANY SYNONYM,
: > MENTIONED. NOT ONCE.
: > It says that the number of Representatives in the Congress, and the
: > amount
: > of tax monies apportioned, are to be determined by adding to the whole
: > number of FREE PERSONS (white, black, Indian citizens, mixed race, you
: > name it) sixty percent of the whole number of NON-FREE PERSONS (black,
: > mixed-race, Indian, Rroma, whatever).
: Also true. How many non-free persons of other races were there?
Indians? Rroma? Mixed-race people? (Native Americans were enslaved in
the American Southwest until the 1860s.) I don't have any specific
numbers.
Does someone with seven white great-grandparents and one black one count
as a "person of other race"?
Does it MATTER? The point is, you tried to argue that Article I, Section
2, paragraph two was intended to classify "blacks" as less than human, AND
YOU WERE WRONG, and YOU'RE STILL WRONG.
Pat Winstanley
> In article <94v822$7t8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> hereti...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > > And I should say, you didn't bother to note -- again -- that I *am*
> > > prochoice. I am also concerned about human life, and when that life
> > > actually *becomes* human.
> >
> > It becomes a human being at birth. If you don't know that by now,
> > you are hopelessly stupid or just being a contrarian. Either way,
> > you are full of shit.
>
> You misunderstood. I know that legally it becomes a "human being" at
> birth. At what point does it become human? There are distinct legal
> differences.
>
It doesn't 'become' human at all. the sperm and egg from which it formed
were both human already.
Human is a species distinction, a scientific one. Human being is a social
distinction, like person, adult, spouse (as opposed to simply mate) etc.
Nobody (as far as I can see) claims that a human z/e/f is not human
throughout its existence. Same goes for your toe! However society
recognises the distinction between a toe and a child, say, in that the
former is not an independent entity, a distinct member of society, whilst
the latter is. The specific term 'human being' relates to that individual
membership of that society.
Pat Winstanley
> > It says that the number of Representatives in the Congress, and the
> > amount
> > of tax monies apportioned, are to be determined by adding to the whole
> > number of FREE PERSONS (white, black, Indian citizens, mixed race, you
> > name it) sixty percent of the whole number of NON-FREE PERSONS (black,
> > mixed-race, Indian, Rroma, whatever).
>
> Also true. How many non-free persons of other races were there?
>
>
There were a fair few white people in that position, particularly in the
early years of the colonisation of America. One way this happened was
that they became immigrants as bonded labourers. Effectively they were
slaves for x number of years or for life. Whilst in that position they
were no more free than the people who were effectively indentured/bonded
for life as servants because they were black.
I have no idea what the numbers in that position were, but it wasn't
particularly uncommon. They might have chosen the position, been
kidnapped into it, or maybe sentenced to that as the penalty for a crime.
See http://www.kentlaw.edu/ilhs/dent75.html for an example. This would
probably have been a white man.
Pat Winstanley
> > amount
> > of tax monies apportioned, are to be determined by adding to the whole
> > number of FREE PERSONS (white, black, Indian citizens, mixed race, you
> > name it) sixty percent of the whole number of NON-FREE PERSONS (black,
> > mixed-race, Indian, Rroma, whatever).
>
> Also true. How many non-free persons of other races were there?
>
>
See this one too:
http://jefferson.village.virginia.edu/vcdh/jamestown/servantcontracts.htm
l
It mentions something in the region of 15,000 bonded labourers from
Bristol/Liverpool.
NM
---snipped---
> > sample is human. DNA does not change.
>
> A simple DNA analysis will determine that my fingernail clippings are
> "human", does that make it murder for me to clip my nails?
Of course not. Your clippings have the same DNA that you do, as would
your leg, should you amputate it, or your hair when you cut it. Neither
is murder. (Aside: neither is abortion, as abortion is legal in the
U.S.). The unborn however are genetically unique and independent of the
mother. Aborting them IS killing them, undeniably. Your statement
seems to imply and/or assume that the unborn is equivelant and
genetically the same as the mother. This is not the case. It is a
different human organism entirely. The fingernail canard is trotted out
frequently so I'm not surprised to see it used, whether due to ignorance
or intellectual dishonesty.
NM
Doesn't mean its the government's business.
NM
---snipped---
> frenzy: if the DNA is human and the DNA "does not
> change", then would cloning the aborted fetus
> RESURRECT the fetus and thus correct any abortion?
Its a good speculation to have. I imagine the contention will have more
impact when any such cloning actually occurs. You need to look up the
word "ressurect" however. I don't believe it most accurately portrays
the contention you are making. Watch Italy, a scientist there intends
to clone a human in the next year according to news reports.
> After you make the "resurrection" argument,
> anti-abortion folks who have attempted to reason
> using science usually drift off into superstition.
This is an unsupported (and unsupportable) generalization. Can you
quanitfy it, or is it simply an anectdotal conclusion of your own? Many
pro-abortion folks that I've seen (see how I support my generalization
as anectdotal?) simply ignore the scientific FACT of the genetic
independence of the unborn from the mother. Your post does nothing to
refute this fact.
NM
still...@my-deja.com
"Susan C. Mitchell" <sus...@primenet.SPAMWALL.com> wrote:
> still...@my-deja.com wrote:
> : In article <94voap$g1c$4...@nnrp1.phx.gblx.net>,
> : "Susan C. Mitchell" <sus...@primenet.SPAMWALL.com> wrote:
> : > still...@my-deja.com wrote:
Leaving the part where I was wrong.
Not in their eyes. In fact, it was hoped that the principles of the
Constitution would eventually pave the way to complete freedom.
> : That slaves were considered subhuman, though, is also true. That it
> : was feared that granting them full rights of citizenship would allow
> : angry backlash against their former owners was true.
>
> You keep asserting that "slaves were considered subhuman," without
> EVER offering ONE SINGLE piece of evidence.
>
> I point you again to the original text. It SPECIFICALLY refers to
> slaves as "persons."
Sorry. I'm not saying that the framing itself suggests that they are
subhuman. I'm talking about the general mindset of the time,
particularly among slaveholders, but also among northern
non-slaveholders. You've made me dig in my attic, and I can't find all
the texts I'm looking for. There was one letter by Jefferson where he
wonders if the evidence slaveholders use for their determination that
blacks are inferior is simply the result of the conditions the
slaveholders themselves placed upon the blacks. I did find this:
(part of a letter from Alexander Hamilton to John Jay, 1779)
"I foresee that this project will have to combat much opposition from
prejudice and self interest. The contempt we have been taught to
entertain for the blacks, makes us fancy many things that are founded
neither in reason nor experience; and an unwillingness to part with
property of so valuable a kind will furnish a thousand arguments to show
the impractibility or pernicious tendency of a scheme which requires
such sacrifice. But it should be considered, that if we do not make use
of them in this way, the eney probably will; and that the best way to
counteract the temptations they will hold out will be to offer them
ourselves."
I was talking about the general mindset of the times, not what was
codified by the Constitution. That the mindset still exists, though
lessened by time and education, is clear evidence of its existence then.
> "That slaves were considered subhuman ... is also true"? Then you're
> saying Thomas Jefferson DID consider himself to be taking part in some
> kind of bestiality or sex with a non-human creature when he raped his
> wife's half-sister?
I have no idea what Thomas Jefferson was thinking. I know he hated the
institution, yet was too weak to challenge it personally.
> Did these "subhuman" (in the eyes, as you argue, of the framers of the
> Constitution) suddenly become (again, in the framers' eyes) "fully
> human" at the moment of manumission?
What? No, I think the ones who considered blacks as inherently inferior
still considered them as inherently inferior, though still human.
> : > AND NOWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH IS THE WORD "BLACK," OR ANY SYNONYM,
> : > MENTIONED. NOT ONCE.
>
> : > It says that the number of Representatives in the Congress, and
> : > the amount of tax monies apportioned, are to be determined by
> : > adding to the whole number of FREE PERSONS (white, black, Indian
> : > citizens, mixed race, you name it) sixty percent of the whole
> : > number of NON-FREE PERSONS (black, mixed-race, Indian, Rroma,
> : > whatever).
>
> : Also true. How many non-free persons of other races were there?
>
> Indians? Rroma? Mixed-race people? (Native Americans were enslaved
> in the American Southwest until the 1860s.) I don't have any specific
> numbers.
But you would concede that 1) the vast majority of those non-free were
black, and that 2) the article was specifically meant to address
representation of southern states?
> Does someone with seven white great-grandparents and one black one
> count as a "person of other race"?
I have no idea. I think at one time, even one drop of blood was
sufficent to render one a "person of another race".
> Does it MATTER? The point is, you tried to argue that Article I,
> Section 2, paragraph two was intended to classify "blacks" as less
> than human, AND YOU WERE WRONG, and YOU'RE STILL WRONG.
Yep. It did, however, have the effect of allowing them to be counted for
representational purposes, while they were not, in fact, represented at
all -- only their owners.
> Think globally, act locally.
> Susan
>
> --
> =============== Remove SPAMWALL from my address to reply
===============
> "Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious
libel
> dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
> desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
>
Susan C. Mitchell
: In article <94vva0$q6j$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, still...@my-deja.com says...
However, the Constitution's Article I, Section 2, paragraph two (let's
just abbreviate it as I.2.2) specifies "the whole number of free persons,
*including those bound to service for a term of years*" (emphasis mine).
I don't know whether someone previously a free man or woman in Europe or
North America, working as a "bonded labourer" for *life*, would have
fallen into this category. Was such status heritable, as slavery was
heritable in the maternal line?
NM
---snipped---
> >frequently so I'm not surprised to see it used, whether due to ignorance
> >or intellectual dishonesty.
> >
> >NM
> >Doesn't mean its the government's business.
>
It is a canard, period. As the unborn regardless of the value you place
on its life, is an invalid comparison when compared to fingernail
clippings.
> The point is if what is
> being killed is a living human being, distinctive DNA notwithstanding.
Barring him stating otherwise, he is equating part of the woman's body
to a genetically unique human organism.
> Not just separate, not just human, not just alive, but a distinct
> person onto itself.
Which it is, biologically speaking. Human development is a linear,
sequential, measurable process that begins at conception and ends at
death. His use of fingernails is either ignorant, or intellectually
dishonest. Purposeful or not.
NM
NM
routinely ignore invalid comparisons used to obfuscate an issue under
discussion. Way to go Ray.
NM
Ray Da Capo wrote:
>
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:05:24 GMT, "Timothy Murphy"
> <timothyNO...@ilnk.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> ><proc...@killspam.bigfoot.com.> wrote in message
> >news:vru67t0c9eb5u1s4t...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> A simple DNA analysis will determine whether any tissue or blood
> >> sample is human. DNA does not change.
> >>
> >
> >A simple DNA analysis will determine that my fingernail clippings are
> >"human", does that make it murder for me to clip my nails?
>
> Hoorah! It seems to me this is a point a lot of pro-life rhetoric
> ignores - there is life, there is human life, and there are unique and
> individual human beings, and they are not at all the same thing. Good
> for you, Tim.
toto
>In article <94sr9v$2...@bolt.sonic.net>,
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> <still...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >I'm prochoice. I'm also concerned about all human life. And I'd
>like
>> >you to answer these questions, which I've made a little more
>specific.
>> >
>> >If you have the guts.
>>
>> [rolls
>
>My teenagers do that *all* the time.
>
>> >Question one:
>> >
>> >> But I think behind that statement is a recognition that nine months
>> >> *is* too late to ethically abort. How late is too late? One
>> >> second prior to delivery? Nine months? Eight months? Seven?
>> >> Six? Last on the news, five month babies delivered premature were
>> >> surviving. Not well, but surviving. So how late is too late?
>>
>> Easy. Women have the right to do as they decide with their bodies but
>> no right to kill. If a fetus can be delivered alive without
>> additional harm to the mother then she should not be allowed to kill
>> it.
>
>Sounds easy, doesn't it?
>
>It isn't.
>
>It means at some point, there's going to be a dilemma about what the
>purpose of the procedure is -- killing the baby, or delivering it.
>
>Which means that only one day before it's able to be delivered, it's
>okay to kill it.
>
>I'm sorry, but that's wrong.
>
We could answer this one as soon as we have artificial wombs that
will allow all fetuses to survive regardless of the time of the
removal from the woman's body, of course. At that point in time,
the question becomes moot because we can keep the fetus alive.
New questions, however, do arise.. Who will care for this unwanted
child after it is decanted from such a womb?
>Thanks for answering this one question, though you skipped the second
>one.
>
>Sunny
>> --
>> Ray Fischer When you look long into an abyss, the abyss also
>looks
>> rfis...@sonic.net into you -- Nietzsche
>>
>
Dorothy
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
still...@my-deja.com
Decanted. Good word.
I don't know. Opens up a whole different can of ethical worms,
doesn't it?
I do wonder, too, what will be lost of the human experience if
artificial wombs become "the thing".
Sunny
toto
>> We could answer this one as soon as we have artificial wombs that
>> will allow all fetuses to survive regardless of the time of the
>> removal from the woman's body, of course. At that point in time,
>> the question becomes moot because we can keep the fetus alive.
>>
>> New questions, however, do arise.. Who will care for this unwanted
>> child after it is decanted from such a womb?
>
>Decanted. Good word.
>
Been used before - it's not original if you read science fiction at
all, but I'm glad you like it.
>I don't know. Opens up a whole different can of ethical worms,
>doesn't it?
>
Yes, it does really. That's part of why the abortion issue itself
is tricky though. No matter when you decide that fetus becomes
a human baby with rights, science will eventually be able to keep
the one we thought could not live alive.
>I do wonder, too, what will be lost of the human experience if
>artificial wombs become "the thing".
>
I certainly think something will be lost, but perhaps something will
also be gained. That seems to be the case with many scientific
advances. Imho, the artificial womb itself will not be the problem,
but whether society has a value system in which such an invention
is used wisely.
>Sunny
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com
>http://www.deja.com/
Dorothy
hrgr...@my-deja.com
You forgot the part where the "new, genetically unique" DNA is made:
meiosis, which happens quite a bit before conception. Conception -
despite some recent biology-challenged posts - only adds together what
has emerged previously.
HRG.
His use of fingernails is either ignorant, or intellectually
> dishonest. Purposeful or not.
>
> NM
>
Timothy Murphy
"Pat Winstanley" <wis...@tough.blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.14de6aa28...@news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> It doesn't 'become' human at all. the sperm and egg from which it formed
> were both human already.
>
> Human is a species distinction, a scientific one. Human being is a social
> distinction, like person, adult, spouse (as opposed to simply mate) etc.
>
> Nobody (as far as I can see) claims that a human z/e/f is not human
> throughout its existence. Same goes for your toe! However society
> recognises the distinction between a toe and a child, say, in that the
> former is not an independent entity, a distinct member of society, whilst
> the latter is. The specific term 'human being' relates to that individual
> membership of that society.
Best explanation I have ever seen of this concept.
Who are you?
--
Timothy I. Murphy (T. I. M. don't ya just love it)
And now for the quote of the day:
TANSTAAFL- Robert A. Heinlein
Timothy Murphy
>
> There were a fair few white people in that position, particularly in the
> early years of the colonisation of America. One way this happened was
> that they became immigrants as bonded labourers. Effectively they were
> slaves for x number of years or for life. Whilst in that position they
> were no more free than the people who were effectively indentured/bonded
> for life as servants because they were black.
>
Actually no one was enslaved just for being black- but when the cotton
farmers went looking for cheap labor (and you can't get much cheaper than
feed them and clothe them) the coastal African tribes were offering a steady
supply of interior African tribesmen- in return for what the slave dealers
found to be a pittance compared to what they could sell them for. That's
what made the slave ships such hellholes- with the coastal tribes providing
a surplus of slaves the dealers packed the holds and didn't care if they
lost half the 'cargo' on the trip- they still turned a huge profit.
> I have no idea what the numbers in that position were, but it wasn't
> particularly uncommon. They might have chosen the position, been
> kidnapped into it, or maybe sentenced to that as the penalty for a crime.
>
One of the crimes you could end up indentured for was owing someone money.
Debtor's Prison- there's a term to shake you up.
Timothy Murphy
"NM" <a...@usa.net> wrote in message news:3A746043...@usa.net...
I was responding to an assertion that a DNA test could prove a fetus was a
human being. The same DNA tests that would classify a fetus as 'human' will
also classify my fingernails as 'human'. DNA tests are irrelevant to this
discussion- which was the point I was trying to make. Apparently that went
right over your head.
And during the first tri-mester, which is when on-demand elective abortions
can be performed under U.S. law, a fetus is not independent of the mother.
Timothy Murphy
"Ray Da Capo" <he...@there.com> wrote in message
news:5ga97t4e9c4m0iu2lkdlfc1u06atg3j7g1@canttouchthis...
> >news:vru67t0c9eb5u1s4t...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >> A simple DNA analysis will determine whether any tissue or blood
> >> sample is human. DNA does not change.
> >>
> >
> >A simple DNA analysis will determine that my fingernail clippings are
> >"human", does that make it murder for me to clip my nails?
>
> ignores - there is life, there is human life, and there are unique and
> individual human beings, and they are not at all the same thing. Good
> for you, Tim.
I'm glad someone has a reading comprehension level to understand what I was
getting at.
Timothy Murphy
"NM" <a...@usa.net> wrote in message news:3A74C099...@usa.net...
> You're cheering an invalid comparison. How nice. Sensible people
> routinely ignore invalid comparisons used to obfuscate an issue under
> discussion. Way to go Ray.
>
> NM
>
What's invalid about pointing out that a DNA test means nothing in regards
to this discussion. The question of whether a given bit of matter is a
"human being" cannot be answered with a DNA test. In fact, there is NO
scientific way that I am aware of to determine what is or is not a "human
being"
That wast he point of my post- sorry you didn't get it.