*Court Upholds Parental Notification Law
Papa Jack
Papa Jack cited:
On August 21, 1998, Yahoo! News: Virginia Headlines included
the following brief item:
A unanimous federal appeals court is upholding
Virginia's parental notification abortion law
13-months after it took effect. The law
requires doctors to notify a parent or guardian
before performing an abortion on a pregnant,
unmarried teenager. Young women are allowed to
ask for permission from a local judge if they
fear a violent reaction at home. The appeals
court ruled that parents are entitled to know
about "life-defining decisions" their children
face.
Another win for the will of the people.
Enjoy a great weekend.
--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Sid Witzer
Papa Jack wrote in message <35DD7439...@geocities.com>...
>=====================================================================
>Papa Jack cited:
>On August 21, 1998, Yahoo! News: Virginia Headlines included
>the following brief item:
>
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/local/state/virginia/story.html?s=v/rs
/19980821/va/index_1.html#3
>
> A unanimous federal appeals court is upholding
> Virginia's parental notification abortion law
> 13-months after it took effect. The law
> requires doctors to notify a parent or guardian
> before performing an abortion on a pregnant,
> unmarried teenager. Young women are allowed to
> ask for permission from a local judge if they
> fear a violent reaction at home. The appeals
> court ruled that parents are entitled to know
> about "life-defining decisions" their children
> face.
>
>Another win for the will of the people.
The will of the people?????? No way.
You mean a victory for the will of the pro-lifers, moralists,
fundamentalists. Not the will of the people! This is another case of some
loud mouths assuming control over an individual's personal life.
Papa Jack
>
> Papa Jack wrote:
> ...
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote: http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/local/state/virginia/story.html?s=v/rs/19980821/va/index_1.html#3
[snip]
>> .... Young women are allowed to
>> ask for permission from a local judge if they
>> fear a violent reaction at home. ...
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> Oh yeah, THAT'LL help. "If you want an abortion and are afraid
> to involve your parents, go to the a judge, who is very likely
> to send you straight to them."
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why do you write such misleading stuff, Jim? Don't you know the
law prescribes that judges will make such determinations based
on factors specified in the individual laws? For example, several
I know of ask the judge to determine whether or not the child is
mature enough to make such life and death decisions.
There is no reason to believe judges as a group will fail to
properly perform their duties.
You seem to say that if a girl is afraid to tell her family she
is pregnant, then she should be helped to hide the pregnancy and
to get an abortion. What about the decent families who would
fully support their daughters if they knew of their pregnancies?
I personally believe that group would include a large percentage
of the whole. Think how much healthier for the girl if she goes
thru the ordeal of either abortion or birth with the love and
support of her parents.
The only need for an exception that I visualize is when there is
a history of physical/sexual abuse by one of the parents. That's
when the pregnant girl should go to a judge for help.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
...The appeals
>> court ruled that parents are entitled to know
>> about "life-defining decisions" their children
>> face.
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> What the appeals court seems to have failed to consider is why
> the legal system should be invoked to facilitate "parental
> entitlements."
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
These are underage children we are discussing, Jim. The decision
to be made is whether or not to kill a living human being.
If I am the parent of a minor child, society must either give
me the parental authority to help that underage child make
important health and moral decisions -- or society must take
the child away from my official custody. We cannot have it
halfway as you suggest. Authority must be proportional to
responsibility.
Do you know of any other significant area except abortions
where parental authority is being challenged in the laws and
courts? Parents of minors have approval/disapproval authority
when minors consider all other forms of significant medical
treatment (except in cases of urgent emergencies). Parents
have a right to see the report cards prepared by the child's
teachers. Parents have the authority to decide whether or
not to give permission for a child to play a sport, be in
the band, drive a car, etc.. Parents have a right to be notified
immediately if a child is arrested for law violations. I could
go on with other examples of parental authority. It is an old
and entrenched tradition among most societies of the world.
Jim, you cannot avoid the issue by calling parental AUTHORITY
by the phrase "parental ENTITLEMENTS."
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> ...Another win for the will of the people.
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> Just what we need. The "will of the people" to override
> personal judgement about one's own health care.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, that's exactly right, Jim.
We are NOT talking about "health care" -- we are talking
about abortion (i.e., the killing of innocent unborn
children to hide a pregnancy).
We are not talking about adults deciding whether or not
to have abortions -- we are talking about little girls
who are pregnant and scared.
Many are younger than the legal age of consent, but no
one seems interested in the fact a felony (statutory
rape) has been committed. Why do you want to make it
easier for the seducers of little girls to evade detec-
tion and punishment?
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> Want to prevent suicides?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
How many suicides are you talking about, Jim? Do you have any
facts and figures -- or, are you just using the liberal's usual
fear mongering tactics?
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> Want to prevent infanticides?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, I sure do -- just as I want to greatly reduce the number of
non-emergency abortions performed in America each year.
When we slaughter 1,200,000+ unborn children each year, it is
difficult to impress our teens with the sanctity of life. Many
such teens will have difficulty in understanding why it is okay
to kill a fetus but it is a horrible crime to kill a newborn.
Do YOU have a problem understanding that?
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> Want to prevent do-it-yourself manglings?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Oh, Bull Shit, Jim. Do you have to stoop this low in your
fear mongering? You should hang your head -- or at least put
your tail between your legs.
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> Want to prevent deaths from back-alley septic abortions?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
One more false dilemma.
"You must allow 12-year old girls to decide to get
abortions on demand"
OR
"You will be responsible when the little girls run
to back alley butchers and are killed by the dozens."
Are you trying to say these are the only choices we have, Jim?
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> Then allow underage girls to make a decision on their own to
> get an abortion. It's good to make that need as rare as
> possible, but forcing a terrified young girl's hand is not
> necessarily going to produce the happy result that you want.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
At what age would you allow underage girls to make decisions
to have an abortion? Would you start at 9-years old? 10? 11?
12? 13?
How do you explain that girls below the age of consent (usually
15 or 16) have no authority to consent to sexual intercourse.
They are jail bait. Since that is true in most states, how do
you explain that it's illegal for underage girls to engage in
sex -- but, it's okay for pregnant girls BELOW THE AGE OF
CONSENT to decide to get abortions?
BOTTOM LINE;
There is no justification to treat abortion any different than
any other significant health decision relative to minors. If
the state law requires parental approval BEFORE surgery, then
that law should specify that the same holds true for abortions.
If a family has a history of violent abuse of a daughter, then
the girl should be authorized to turn to a judge for approval
or disapproval.
Enjoy a great week.
Papa Jack
>
> LippysBak wrote:
>>
[snip]
=====================================================================
>> LippysBak wrote:
>> Jim, you can add that ones medical records and care should
>> not become public property under ANY circumstances. Being a
>> minor does not abrogate ones right to medical privacy. Forcing
>> physicians to disclose patient Doctor confidentiality in order
>> to get parental notification out of the way sets a dangerous
>> precedent. Slippery slope argument that works against the
>> pro-lie philosophy<G>
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Huh? What is PUBLIC property? Yes, being a minor does in fact
abrogate one's rights to medical privacy FROM ONE'S PARENTS.
Do you believe that a 14 year old little girls could arrange
for an appendectomy or a "nose job" without the written per-
mission of her parent/guardian? Of course not.
There is a major difference between notifying parents of any
significant life decision by an underage minor and revealing
sensitive details of a person's medical history to the public.
Parents are not "the Public."
I have sympathy for a teenager meeting with the family physician.
I would hope the parents would allow the doctor to keep their
discussions confidential as long as the subject was the routine
steps of growing up. But, that is not true in abortions where
all too often the girl goes to a chop shop where she doesn't
even meet the abortionist until he/she walks in to kill the
unborn child.
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> All true; I was approaching it from goals PJ would tend to be
> sympathetic to. He doesn't especially care about privacy.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Jim, why do you say that?
I am very sympathetic to the confidentiality of medical records.
I was the Human Resources Director for a major health care
organization for 9 years. I often gave classes to new hires
(including doctors and nurses) on the Texas laws on medical
confidentiality. I also became very involved in individual
investigations when it was alleged that an employee divulged
confidential information to the wrong people. We considered
violations to be grounds for immediate dismissal.
However, many of our patients were children and we always
recognized the need for parental permission IN WRITING before
any significant change in the treatment of patients.
Parents always had full access to their children's medical
records. Yet you are trying to make a phony case that if a
13-year old scared girl wants an abortion, that it would be
a violation of her medical confidentiality to inform her
parents. That is simply wrong.
I have a great respect for privacy for all adults except Bill
Clinton. He blew it. #8^)
Papa Jack
>
> Jim Rogers <jfr@fc.h~p~.com> wrote:
>>
=====================================================================
>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>> All true; I was approaching it from goals PJ would tend to be
>> sympathetic to. He doesn't especially care about privacy.
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> Nor is he pro-life. He is anti-choice as demonstrated by his
> "acceptance" of abortion in cases of rape, incest, or life of
> the mother....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Since when do you make up the standards for Pro-Lifers? Does
that mean I get to make up the standards for Pro-Abortion
Righters (PARs)? The fact is that only 12% of PLs believe
abortions should be totally banned in all cases. Most Americans
want to limit abortions.
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> Note that he wishes to take abortion law back pre-Roe v Wade,
> not eliminate it. . To Pajamas, it's "okay" to kill "innocent
> wee babies" as long as he's the one calling for the execution;)
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
No, I've repeatedly stated that what I want is for the Supreme
Court to recognize the clear meaning of the 10th Amendment.
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
I believe the abortion laws should be written by the state
legislatures of each state. That is the way our Founding
Fathers intended it to be. If New York decided to allow
unlimited abortion on demand, so be it. If Maine banned
ALL abortions for any reason, so be it. If the people are
dissatisfied with the laws the legislatures wrote, they
should "vote the rascals out." This idea that we must have
uniformity of state laws across the land is against the
Constitution -- as well as Supreme Court decisions prior to t
he 1930s.
M is for Malapert
>Jim Rogers wrote:
>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>> Oh yeah, THAT'LL help. "If you want an abortion and are afraid
>> to involve your parents, go to the a judge, who is very likely
>> to send you straight to them."
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Why do you write such misleading stuff, Jim? Don't you know the
>law prescribes that judges will make such determinations based
>on factors specified in the individual laws? For example, several
>I know of ask the judge to determine whether or not the child is
>mature enough to make such life and death decisions.
Could you please post the text of one such law, given that you know of
several of them?
>There is no reason to believe judges as a group will fail to
>properly perform their duties.
Bullshit. It's totally up for grabs. In Minnesota, 99.99% of
requests are granted. Same in Massachusetts. On the other hand, in
Ohio it totally depends on where a teenager lives, with some judges
granting all requests and others none at all. I posted a long list of
the kinds of abuses that have already occurred in states having
parental notification laws. Here are some of them again:
In denying the petition of one young woman, a Missouri judge stated:
"Depending upon what ruling I make I hold in my hands the power to
kill an unborn child. In our society it's a lot easier to kill an
unborn child than the most vicious murderer. . . . I don't believe
that this particular juvenile has sufficient intellectual capacity to
make a determination that she is willing to kill her own child."
(Excerpt, St. Charles County Juvenile Court, reprinted in T.L.J. v.
Webster, 792 F.2d 734, 738-739 n.4 (1986).)
A Toledo, Ohio judge denied permission to a 17 1/2-year-old woman, an
"A" student who planned to attend college and who testified she was
not financially or emotionally prepared for college and motherhood at
the same time, stating that the girl had "not had enough hard knocks
in her life."
(Tamar Lewin, "Parental Consent to Abortion: How Enforcement Can
Vary," New York Times, May 28, 1992, A1.)
The Ohio Supreme Court upheld the denial of a petition of a
17-year-old girl who testified that her father beat her. At the time,
she was a senior in high school with a 3.0 average, active in team
sports, worked 20-25 hours a week, and paid for her automobile
expenses and medical care.
(In re Jane Doe 1, 57 Ohio St.3d 135 (1991).)
In Indiana, minors travel to Kentucky or Illinois rather than attempt
a bypass proceeding before judges who are known to be anti-choice.
But young women in Indiana may be losing even this option. A judge in
Kentucky recently denied the petition of an Indiana 14-year-old,
ruling that out-of-state minors are not eligible for a bypass. The
judge then breached the confidentiality of the proceedings by sending
copies of his decision to state and county officials.
(Tamar Lewin, "Parental Consent." Michael Jennings, "Judge Rules
Court Can't OK Abortion for Hoosier Minor," Louisville
Courier-Journal, Aug. 4, 1995.)
>The only need for an exception that I visualize is when there is
>a history of physical/sexual abuse by one of the parents. That's
>when the pregnant girl should go to a judge for help.
A state cannot enact a parental-notification law without putting in
place judicial bypass for *all* teenagers, which means that your
visualization is totally wrong. The Supreme Court has held that a
minor *must* be granted an abortion if she is mature *or* if an
abortion is in her best interests. The problem is that the
interpretation of "mature" is left to judicial whim, as seen above.
>Parents of minors have approval/disapproval authority
>when minors consider all other forms of significant medical
>treatment (except in cases of urgent emergencies).
Wrong. Competent minors can already consent to their own medical
treatment, including refusing lifesaving treatment if they wish. This
right continues to be broadened, with the exception of abortion.
(Examples: in all states minors can get confidential treatment for
sexually transmitted diseases; in 46 and DC they can get confidential
treatment for substance abuse; in over half a pregnant minor can
consent to her own prenatal and delivery care, including surgery).
Furthermore, once her child is born, an underage girl becomes an
emancipated minor and her parents no longer have authority over her.
>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>> Just what we need. The "will of the people" to override
>> personal judgement about one's own health care.
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Yep, that's exactly right, Jim.
>
> We are NOT talking about "health care" --
Yes, we are talking about health care. That's why the AMA opposes
parental-notification laws. That's why the American Academy of
Pediatrics opposes them. That's why an article in the Journal of
Adolescent Health concluded, "Parental involvement/judicial bypass
laws, when implemented, have failed to promote family consultation and
have had adverse consequences for the pregnant adolescents they
affect." That's why the AMA had its Council on Ethical and Judicial
Affairs study parental-consent laws, and published in JAMA the
conclusion that they risk the health of young women: "Privacy in
matters of health care is a profound need of minors as well as adults.
...Because the need for privacy may be compelling, minors may be
driven to desperate measures to maintain the confidentiality of their
pregnancies. They may run away from home, obtain a 'back alley'
abortion, or resort to self-induced abortion. The desire to maintain
secrecy has been one of the leading reasons for illegal abortion
deaths since...1973." In addition, such laws "increase the
gestational age at which the induced pregnancy termination occurs,
thereby also increasing the risk associated with the procedure."
> We are not talking about adults deciding whether or not
> to have abortions -- we are talking about little girls
> who are pregnant and scared.
Fewer than 1% of abortions are performed on "little girls" under 15,
all of whom involve their parents or another trusted adult. The
majority of judicial bypass hearings involve 16 and 17 year olds who
would be considered competent to consent to other forms of medical
care. Since abortion is even safer for teenagers than for adults, and
since having an abortion is not a life-changing decision, it should be
left to these young women to make up their own minds.
> Why do you want to make it
> easier for the seducers of little girls to evade detec-
> tion and punishment?
Why are you still fucking your dog?
(Snipped proof that Papa Jack doesn't give a rap about teenaged girls
killing themselves or being killed through illegal, unsafe abortion.)
>There is no justification to treat abortion any different than
>any other significant health decision relative to minors.
You don't seem to realize that parental-notification laws do treat
abortion *differently* than other health decisions. Minors *can*
consent to their medical care now, and if refusing lifesaving
treatment isn't "signficant," what is? Abortion is safe and leaves no
permanent impact on a young woman's life, so given the risks of
driving teenagers underground there is no excuse for these ineffective
laws.
Papa Jack
I have a problem with your style, LippysBak. Your constant
arrogant flames get in the way of what you are arguing. I
was tempted to just ignore you because of the little boy
wisecracks, but then I noticed you brought up some pretty
good points.
I'm going to just delete the inane flames and pretend you
are actually worth the time and effort to answer. Then
the ball is back in your court. You may, of course, elect
to continue the school yard attitude, but I sincerely hope
not. Or, you may choose to treat me with the same degree
of respect and courtesy that you would prefer me to use
toward you. Then, I will reciprocate.
Please understand I have neither the time nor the interest
to get involved in childish flame wars with you or anyone
else. I've tried that before and it is a waste of time.
*********************************************************************
LippysBak wrote:
>
> Papa Jack wrote:
>>
>> LippysBak wrote:
>>>
=====================================================================
>>> LippysBak wrote:
>>> Jim, you can add that ones medical records and care should
>>> not become public property under ANY circumstances. Being a
>>> minor does not abrogate ones right to medical privacy. Forcing
>>> physicians to disclose patient Doctor confidentiality in order
>>> to get parental notification out of the way sets a dangerous
>>> precedent. Slippery slope argument that works against the
>>> pro-lie philosophy<G>
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Huh? What is PUBLIC property? Yes, being a minor does in
>> fact abrogate one's rights to medical privacy FROM ONE'S
>> PARENTS....
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> No, it does not. Parental consent forms are not required to
> perform necessary medical procedures. Liability waivers are
> sought to prevent lawsuits. There is a BIG difference PJ,...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
No you are wrong. Under the Texas law, teens under the age of
16 MUST have parental approval. There are also other legal
requirements for parental consent. I've listed a couple more
below.
Texas Health and Safety Code
Consent to chemical dependency treatment must be given by:
-- the parent, if the minor is younger than 16; and
-- the minor, without parental consent, if the minor is
16 years of age or older.
The person who gives consent also has the authority to
demand discharge.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Texas Family Code
A close relative or person responsible for the child may
give consent to medical, dental, psychological, and surgical
treatment of a child under certain conditions when the legal
consenter cannot be contacted.
A licensed or certified physician, psychologist, counselor,
or social worker can provide counseling to any child without
parental consent if the person has reasonable grounds to
believe that the child is suffering from chemical addiction
or dependency. The parent, however, is not required to pay
for it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Texas Education Code Chapter 33.
Sec. 33.003. PARENTAL CONSENT.
The board of trustees of each school district shall adopt
guidelines to ensure that written consent is obtained from
the parent, legal guardian, or person entitled to enroll
the student under Section 25.001(j) for the student to
participate in those activities for which the district
requires parental consent.
Sec. 33.004. PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.
(a) Each school shall obtain, and keep as part of the stu-
dent's permanent record, written consent of the parent
or legal guardian as required under Section 33.003.
The consent form shall include specific information on
the content of the program and the types of activities
in which the student will be involved.
(b) Each school, before implementing a comprehensive and
developmental guidance and counseling program, shall
annually conduct a preview of the program for parents
and guardians. All materials, including curriculum to
be used during the year, must be available for a parent
or guardian to preview during school hours. Materials
or curriculum not included in the materials available
on the campus for preview may not be used.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
§89.43. Eligibility for a Texas Certificate of High School Equivalency.
(a) An applicant for a certificate of high school equivalency
shall meet the following requirements.
[snip]
(2) Age. The applicant must be 18 years old. An applicant
who is 17 years of age is eligible with parental or
guardian consent. An applicant who is 17 years of age
must present written permission signed by the
applicant's parent or guardian....
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Do you believe that a 14 year old little girls could arrange
>> for an appendectomy or a "nose job" without the written per-
>> mission of her parent/guardian?
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> Actually, yes, she could. The apendectomy woul be performed
> whether anyone signed for it or not....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I picked a poor example because appendectomies are normally
emergencies -- and physicians are authorized to take necessary
actions when the patient's life is threatened.
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> ...Nose jobs, nice straw man PJ.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
No, it NOT a straw man. In fact, a nose job and an abortion
are similar in that few are really necessary. They are optional
surgery for the convenience of the patient. Now you know that
young underage girls are not going to be allowed to arrange a
cosmetic "nose job" without parental consent. The same should
be true for abortions in cases where there is no grave threat
to the life of the girl.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> There is a major difference between notifying parents of any
>> significant life decision by an underage minor and revealing
>> sensitive details of a person's medical history to the public.
>> Parents are not "the Public."
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> The parents are not the patient. Nuff said.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
No, it is not "nuff said." This "emancipation-of-minors" concept
is a direct challenge to family values and authority. I see no
gain to society to "freeing" children from the protection and
the authority of their parents. Children are immature and even
the really smart one often exercise very poor judgment at times.
I know you disagree. At what age would you emancipate children
from the authority of their parents? Would you start at 6 years
of age? How about at 8 years? 10 years? 12 years?
Why do you want to tear apart the family structure in America?
What would you replace the parents with? Would you fill the
vacuum you create with bureaucrats to rule over the kids? Would
you keep the parents from visiting with the emancipated children
to ensure they didn't influence them with their ideas? What
would the punishment be for a parent caught communicating with
a child?
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> I have sympathy for a teenager meeting with the family physician.
>> I would hope the parents would allow the doctor to keep their
>> discussions confidential as long as the subject was the routine
>> steps of growing up
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> The phsycian would be legally required to keep confidential
> material to himself unless the child were a dnager to himself
> or others.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
That is simply not true for children under the age of 16 in Texas.
I don't know the age specified by law in other states.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> But, that is not true in abortions where all too often the
>> girl goes to a chop shop where she doesn't even meet the
>> abortionist until he/she walks in to kill the unborn child.
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> blah blah blah, self righteous bullshit in replacement of
> supporting evidence noted.....again
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Carol Everett was a former owner and manager of several abortion
clinics in Texas. In "Behind the Scenes of an Abortion Clinic:
Ex-Director Speaks" she wrote:
She's on the table scared to death, so tense she
can't stand it. The doctor comes in, sometimes
says hello, sometimes says nothing. The people in
the room laugh and joke because you've got to
remember these people are having trouble with what
they're doing too. If you kill babies for a living,
you have to deal with it some way....
http://www.wavefront.com/~Contra_M/antithesis/v1n1/ant_v1n1_clinic.html
Mow, why don't YOU give our readers some facts and statistics
on how abortionists meet with their patients BEFORE the day
of the abortion. Prove to our readers how I am wrong when I
claim abortions in chop shops are done on an assembly line
basis without any "doctor<-->patient" relationship. But,
please don't tell me about the "counseling" done by other
clinic employees unless you are prepared to talk about their
certifications, educations, and qualifications. I understand
many hire "counselors" with simply a high school degree and a
gift for salesmanship.
Many abortion clinics sell abortions just like "Honest John's"
lot sells used cars.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> I was the Human Resources Director for a major health care
>> organization for 9 years.
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> here he goes again. Policeman, military, now this, also an
> author I guess. I wonder how many personalities this man has?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I was also a paper boy, a lumber yard worker, a theater usher,
and a salesman during my teens.
I'm sorry if my accomplishments intimidate you, but my deeds
were quite ordinary for military officers who spent more than
26 years in service during the same time frame as me. I was
alternated between a number of command and staff jobs as the
years went by to prepare me for jobs of greater responsibility.
Doesn't that make sense to you? Civilian corporations do the
same thing with executive trainees. I was still in my 40s when
I retired from the Air Force, so getting a job like the HR
Director one was quite logical.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> However, many of our patients were children and we always
>> recognized the need for parental permission IN WRITING before
>> any significant change in the treatment of patients.
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> Release of liability forms PJ....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
No, read the excerpts of Texas laws I provided above. There are
others, but we don't need a whole course in parental consent here.
Let's assume for discussion purposes that you were correct, Lippy.
What difference would it make? Given the huge amounts that most
physicians must pay for medical malpractice insurance, a "release
of liability" may be almost as essential as a form required by
state law. The point is that physicians have a need to get
parental consent BEFORE performing surgery or other significant
medical treatments -- except in urgent emergencies.
You also need to acknowledge that 20 states have passed parental
notification laws -- often by overwhelming majorities. Several
others are currently pending.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Parents always had full access to their children's medical
>> records.
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> Then you were breaking the law.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
No, there is no law prohibiting parents from being shown medical
facts or professional opinions for minors under the age of 16 years.
Tell our readers WHAT LAW you believe is being violated. Give
a specific title, code, and paragraph. Cite appropriate excerpts
to prove your point.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Yet you are trying to make a phony case that if a
>> 13-year old scared girl wants an abortion, that it would be
>> a violation of her medical confidentiality to inform her
>> parents.
=====================================================================
> LippysBak wrote:
> This is correct.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
What is correct -- that you are trying to make a phony case?
If you are correct, why did the House recently approve the
Child Custody Protection Act by a wide margin of 276-150.
This bill prohibits the transportation of a minor across
state lines for an abortion to evade the home state's
parental-involvement laws.
AGI tells us that most teen pregnancies are fathered by men
7 years older than the mother. 58% of girls who hide abortions
from parents are accompanied by their boyfriends. Some of
these men want to evade criminal responsibility for statutory
rape, while others would try to avoid financial responsibility.
I'm sure there are also a few who are wondering whether the
girl's father owns a shotgun.
Enjoy a grand week.
---
M is for Malapert
>Since when do you make up the standards for Pro-Lifers? Does
>that mean I get to make up the standards for Pro-Abortion
>Righters (PARs)?
Like you don't?
Sid Witzer
>all of whom involve their parents or another trusted adult. The
>majority of judicial bypass hearings involve 16 and 17 year olds who
>would be considered competent to consent to other forms of medical
>care. Since abortion is even safer for teenagers than for adults, and
>since having an abortion is not a life-changing decision, it should be
>left to these young women to make up their own minds.
>
One other point...had these girls committed a crime (shop-lifting, burglary,
etc.) they would most probably face trial as an adult, and receive adult
sentences. If they can be held responsible for the actions, they should be
able to make life impacting decisions without having to get parental or
judicial approval.
Papa Jack
>
> Papa Jack wrote:
>>
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Since when do you make up the standards for Pro-Lifers?
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Standard? you mean there is a standard? I was giving a
> definition [...]. Pro-life. ALL life. If not all life,
> Anti-choice. [...]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
The Merriam Webster on-line dictionary gives us:
Main Entry: PRO-LIFE
Function: adjective
: ANTIABORTION
- pro-lif·er /-'lI-f&r/ noun
I have no problem with being considered "antiabortion -- that
is an accurate description of my beliefs. However, I do not
believe the word "anti-choice" is accurate. I believe all
people should have a wide range of choices -- i.e., where to
work, where to live, what to eat, who to have sex with,
what brand of auto to buy, etc.. However, I do not agree
all women should have a choice of killing their unborn
children just for convenience.
Just to clarify, when I speak of "LIFE" in this respect, I mean
"HUMAN LIFE." I am carnivorous, and I have no problem with
killing animals for food. I suspect the great majority of PLs
share that sentiment.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Does that mean I get to make up the standards for Pro-Abortion
>> Righters (PARs)
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Pro-abortion rights. Pro the right to chose an abortion.
> Simple isn't it?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
The Wirthlin poll (Jan 97) indicates that only 7% support
abortion on demand for any reason.
http://www.wirthlin.com/publicns/report/wr9701.htm
This same poll indicated 39% held "Pro-Choice" views. However
only 18% of the Pro-Choice respondents would support abortion
in all circumstances.
69.2% of the Pro-Choice group supported abortions
performed only during the first three (3) months.
The remaining 13% would not support abortions after
the first six (6) months.
So, you see the definition of "Pro-Choice" is not so simple,
even when it is defined by PARs.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Better yet is pro-choice. Pro the right of women to chose
> to terminate or maintain a pregnancy. Nice, simple concept. [...]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, as long as we keep in mind that your euphemistic use of the
word "choice" describes the killing of unborn innocent children.
All too often PARs try to divert attention away from the ugly
facts of the abortion industry by pretending it is a legitimate
woman's rights issue.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> ...The fact is that only 12% of PLs believe abortions should
>> be totally banned in all cases.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Which is why they are NOT pro-life. Were they pro life they
> would recognize no exemptions. What they are is anti-choice.
> meaning abortion is "okay" to them as long as someone other
> than the woman makes the choice.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why do you use such twisted convolutions to try to defend
your position?
The majority of Pro-Lifers are reluctantly willing to allow
limited exceptions to the proposed ban on the abortion. The
fact that you want to play silly word games to force PLs
into radical positions is meaningless. We will define our
positions -- whether you like it or not.
I agree with the Wirthlin poll which found that among the
Pro-Lifers:
20.3% would prohibit abortion except to save the
life of the
mother
59.3% would prohibit abortion except to save the
life of the mother or in cases or rape and
incest.
Thus, we see that 80% of Pro-Lifers are willing to make
"humanitarian" exceptions to an abortion ban. But, you
would tell those people that there can be NO EXCEPTIONS?
Why? Are you so desperate to try to force your opponents
into a radical position?
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Most Americans want to limit abortions.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Duh. Most americans are opposed to abortion except to preserve
> the life an health of the mother in the last 12 weeks.
> This is pro-choice. Not pro-life.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Huh? I'm having trouble figuring out what you meant to say
here. Could you elucidate, please?
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> No, I've repeatedly stated that what I want is for the Supreme
>> Court to recognize the clear meaning of the 10th Amendment.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Except when it comes to rape or incest. Those "wee babes"
> don't deserve the protection of the 10th. Again,anti-choice
> but pro-abortion.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
No, you clearly haven't read my previous explanations on
this point. I prefer exceptions in cases involving rape,
incest, and grave threat to the life of the woman. How-
ever, I don't think that should be my call to make. I
believe the legislatures of the respective states should
decide whether or not abortions should be allowed in their
states. The same state legislators should decide what
exceptions, if any, should be allowed. If the citizens
are unhappy with the laws the legislators enact, they
should vote the rascals out of office.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> The powers not delegated to the United States
>> by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
>> States, are reserved to the States respectively,
>> or to the people.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Riiiight. [...] Look up "unenumerated rights" when you take
> it please. Privacy is among them. The Supreme court decisions
> used the granted powers of the federal judicial branch to
> ensure that states were complying with the right to privacy.
> Simple concept. [...]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
You seem to be actually talking about "unenumerated rights"
as found in the Ninth Amendment. The Oxford Companion to
the Supreme Court tells us on page 590:
As for the Federalist warnings that later inter-
preters might assert that the people had surren-
dered any rights omitted from the enumeration.
Madison proposed to guard against this possibility
by adding the following amendment: "The excep-
tions here or elsewhere in the constitution made
in favor of particular rights, shall not be
construed as to diminish the just importance of
other rights retained by the people, or as to
enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution,
but either as actual limitations of such powers,
or as inserted merely for greater caution."
Eventually, this language was transformed into
the words of the Ninth Amendment.
You might want to check out a Supreme Court decision, WASHINGTON,
et al., PETITIONERS v. HAROLD GLUCKSBERG et al. No. 96-110
Decided June 26, 1997.
http://www.wa.gov/ago/pubs/washington_v_glucksberg.html
The case involved a challenge to the Washington law prohibiting
assisted suicide. It gives us insight into how the court deter-
mines what are "unenumerated rights."
(b) The Court's established method of substantive-due
-process analysis has two primary features: First,
the Court has regularly observed that the Clause
specially protects those fundamental rights and
liberties which are, objectively, deeply rooted
in this Nation's history and tradition. E.g.,
Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, 503 (plur-
ality opinion). Second, the Court has required a
"careful description" of the asserted fundamental
liberty interest. E.g., Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S.
292, 302.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> I believe the abortion laws should be written by the state
>> legislatures of each state. That is the way our Founding
>> Fathers intended it to be
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Bullshit:) If you'll look up the writings of Madison and
> Jefferson, they ascribed great power to the Federal govern-
> ment. United States. [...] US constitution. [...]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
You misquote the Founding Fathers you name. Both Jefferson
and Madison were strongly for states' rights. Both favored
a limited federal government. I will hazard a guess that
you are thinking of Alexander Hamilton -- Jefferson's chief
foe as they both worked for President Washington. Hamilton
was the one arguing for a strong central government (perhaps
even a king). He began the Federalist Party to carry out his
beliefs. The most famous instance was when he argued for
a national bank (against Jefferson). During the presentation,
Hamilton described his theory of central government as the
"doctrine of implied power." Sounds like Blackmun, huh?
Jefferson's most noted comment on the subject is described in
the Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court on page 862:
...President George Washington asked Secretary
of State Jefferson for his opinion on the con-
stitutionality of a bill to incorporate the Bank
of the United States. Jefferson described the
Tenth Amendment as "the foundation of the
Constitution and added, "to take a single step
beyond the boundaries thus especially drawn...is
to take possession of a boundless field of power,
no longer susceptible of any definition." ...
Jefferson also wrote:
"...Every State retained its self-government in
domestic matters, as better qualified to direct
them to the good and satisfaction of their
citizens, than a general government so distant
from its remoter citizens and so little familiar
with the local peculiarities of the different parts."
--Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:483
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> If New York decided to allow unlimited abortion on demand,
>> so be it. If Maine banned ALL abortions for any reason,
>> so be it.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Nope, Because one state would be abrogating its constituents
> right to privacy.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
There is NO constitutional "right to privacy."
That is simply another penumbra "formed by emanations from
those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
IOW, it was made up by Justice Douglas to allow the Supreme
Court to do whatever they felt like doing without being
limited by the Constitution.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> This idea that we must have uniformity of state laws across
>> the land is against the Constitution
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Incorrect. It is consistent with the enumerated and unenum-
> erated rights provided for within the constitution....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Give us sources, facts, quotes. These sweeping statements
have little or no value to anyone.
Where does the Constitution indicate that state laws must
be uniform?
One more time:
AMENDMENT X
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
This doesn't refer to "unenumerated rights" at all. It very
specifically refers to only rights enumerated in the
Constitution.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> ...It is the SOLE power of the Supreme court to rule what
> are or are not unenumerate rights.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Again, simple assertions of this type are useless to anyone.
Let's review what Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution
actually says:
Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to
all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this
Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and
Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambas-
sadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to
all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;
--to Controversies to which the United States
shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two
or more States;--between a State and Citizens of
another State [Modified by Amendment XI];--between
Citizens of different States;--between Citizens
of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of
different States, and between a State, or the
Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or
Subjects.
I do not see a thing here about "...SOLE power of the
Supreme court to rule what are or are not unenumerated rights.
IMO, that is simply a theory of those activist justices who
wanted to grab more and more power to themselves to build
their puny egos.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> This balance of powers is necessary to a free republic.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Your verison would give all power to the legislature. Which
> is most decidedly against the wishes of the founding Fathers.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Give us sources, facts, quotes. These sweeping statements are
simply not convincing.
First, I would NOT give all power to the federal legislature.
I would give strong powers (as the Constitution envisioned) to
the state legislatures and the state governors.
Second, I agree with Jefferson:
"I believe the States can best govern our home
concerns, and the General Government our foreign
ones."
--Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men
>> are created equal...
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> Except "wee preborns babies" conceived in rape or incest.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
I have a problem with the word "preborn." I prefer "unborn
child."
Well, we can also say all people are endowed by their
Creator with the unalienable right to life, -- except
for those who commit capital crimes in death penalty
states -- or, except for those who aim a deadly weapon
at a police officer.
Enjoy a great week.
--
Amy Satterlund
Amy Satterlund wrote in message <6s1ofu$g44$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>
>Papa Jack wrote in message <35E08F5E...@geocities.com>...
< snip >
>>Papa Jack commented:
>
>
><snip>
>
>>You seem to say that if a girl is afraid to tell her family she
>>is pregnant, then she should be helped to hide the pregnancy and
>>to get an abortion. What about the decent families who would
>>fully support their daughters if they knew of their pregnancies?
>And what about those indecent families who wouldn't?
I should have also added here:
And what about those teens whose parents are too high/drunk/absent/etc... to
care??
Amy
>I had a friend in high
>school who unfortunately got pregnant at 15. She came from a *very*
"loving"
>Christian family (or, at least, they seemed very loving, and never abused
>their children). She wanted an abortion because she knew she couldn't
handle
>a child at 15. She told her parents about it. Her parents called her a
>sinful whore and kicked her out of the house at 15. To this day, she has
not
>had a meaningful relationship with her parents. Everytime she calls they
>hang up on her. They do not respond to her letters. Her daughter has never
>met her grandparents.
>
>For this reason alone, I support girls who do not wish to tell their
>parents. I wish that EVERY pregnant teen had "families who would fully
>support their daughters." Unfortunately, this is not reality. I only wish
>that it were.
>
>Amy
Amy Satterlund
>>
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> ...
>
> =====================================================================
>>> Papa Jack wrote:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/local/state/virginia/story.html?s=v/rs/
19980821/va/index_1.html#3
> [snip]
>>> .... Young women are allowed to
>>> ask for permission from a local judge if they
>>> fear a violent reaction at home. ...
>
> =====================================================================
>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>> Oh yeah, THAT'LL help. "If you want an abortion and are afraid
>> to involve your parents, go to the a judge, who is very likely
>> to send you straight to them."
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
<snip>
>You seem to say that if a girl is afraid to tell her family she
>is pregnant, then she should be helped to hide the pregnancy and
>to get an abortion. What about the decent families who would
>fully support their daughters if they knew of their pregnancies?
And what about those indecent families who wouldn't? I had a friend in high
school who unfortunately got pregnant at 15. She came from a *very* "loving"
Christian family (or, at least, they seemed very loving, and never abused
their children). She wanted an abortion because she knew she couldn't handle
a child at 15. She told her parents about it. Her parents called her a
sinful whore and kicked her out of the house at 15. To this day, she has not
had a meaningful relationship with her parents. Everytime she calls they
hang up on her. They do not respond to her letters. Her daughter has never
met her grandparents.
For this reason alone, I support girls who do not wish to tell their
parents. I wish that EVERY pregnant teen had "families who would fully
support their daughters." Unfortunately, this is not reality. I only wish
that it were.
Amy
Papa Jack
>
> LippysBak wrote:
>>
>> PapaJack writes:
>>>
> <snip>
=====================================================================
>>> Papa Jack writes:
>>> I know you disagree. At what age would you emancipate children
>>> from the authority of their parents?
=====================================================================
>> LippysBak wrote:
>> From birth.
=====================================================================
> Oze McCallum wrote:
> Do you have kids?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Where do the PARs find these folks? They all seem cut out by
a cookie cutter. BIG smart-assed mouths and little to back
them up. They demand all sorts of supportive facts from PLs,
but they seldom provide any themselves. They just make bald
assertions which have little relationship to the facts.
I replied to this clown with two nice long messages -- sug-
gesting we cut out the flames and discuss the issues. Of
course, as expected I got back a childish diatribe bragging
about how terribly cleaver Lippys Bak considered herself. It
is a pity because this Lippy person could probably make a
worthy opponent if she would quit trying so hard to be "cute."
Oh, well, it's an old sad story on talk.abortion. I'll just
ignore most of her messages -- but, read and reply once in
awhile when she gets too far out yonder.
Hope you're having a great week, Oze.
Papa Jack
>
> PapaJack writes:
>
[snip]
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack writes:
>> but I sincerely hope not.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> I will continue to post as I see ift. feel free to killfile me.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack writes:
>> Or, you may choose to treat me with the same degree
>> of respect and courtesy that you would prefer me to use
>> toward you.
=====================================================================
> Lippys Bak wrote:
> I don't give a shit how you respond to me anymore than
> I care what you think or feel. You are immaterial, I
> just like pokin ya.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
That's a shame. You clearly demonstrate you don't really give
a damn about abortion issues, but you just enjoy slinging
around silly schoolground insults. You apparently believe
you are very cleaver and cute. (sigh)
I do not killfile people, I just quit reading their messages
MOST OF THE TIME. Like I do to Ray. 9 out of 10 of Ray's
messages aren't worth the time to read. Perhaps 1 in 25 are
worth responding to -- despite his silliness.
If you change your mind and decide to actually debate
abortion rather than playing "flame master" let me know
by e-mail.
There is no need for you to respond -- I probably won't take
the time to read most of your stuff in the future.
Bill Loges
[major snip]
> I agree with the Wirthlin poll which found that among the
> Pro-Lifers:
>
> 20.3% would prohibit abortion except to save the
> life of the
> mother
>
> 59.3% would prohibit abortion except to save the
> life of the mother or in cases or rape and
> incest.
>
> Thus, we see that 80% of Pro-Lifers are willing to make
> "humanitarian" exceptions to an abortion ban. But, you
> would tell those people that there can be NO EXCEPTIONS?
> Why? Are you so desperate to try to force your opponents
> into a radical position?
Wow! A majority of pro-lifers believe that killing babies can be
"humanitarian" depending on the father of those babies? Are we visiting
the sins of the father on the children? Or maybe the fetuses of rapists
aren't really children. I know that some of the regular pro-life
contributors to this group do not consider the rape/incest exception
"humanitarian." For my part, the exception is so inconsistent with the
premise of pro-life that I can't take it seriously as a position
opposite pro-choice. It's simply arbitrarily allowing choice in some
circumstances. It's unprincipled.
Bill Loges
Ray Fischer
>LippysBak wrote:
>> PapaJackass writes:
>>> Or, you may choose to treat me with the same degree
>>> of respect and courtesy that you would prefer me to use
>>> toward you.
>
>> I don't give a shit how you respond to me anymore than
>> I care what you think or feel. You are immaterial, I
>> just like pokin ya.
>
>That's a shame.
Sauce for the goose ...
> You clearly demonstrate you don't really give
>a damn about abortion issues, but you just enjoy slinging
>around silly schoolground insults.
You've already done that whine, Jackass.
You have no interest in abortion issues. You are a little boy
running around agitating both sides. Why don't you go away little
boy.
Papa Jackass in <330A41...@express-news.net>
Trouble is that nobody believe that you're doing more than agitating.
Especially since you do little more than post propaganda, insults, and
run away from all debate.
You throw hardballs, but squeal like a little sissy when anyone gives
it back to you. You want nothing but softballs pitched up at a very
slow speed so you can hit homeruns.
Papa Jackass in <33923B...@express-news.net>
You _pretend_ civility ...
I don't try to cause animosity.
Papa Jackass in <33A1D2...@express-news.net>
You _pretend_ reasonableness ...
I start from the position that it is best to avoid government inter-
ference unless it prevents a clear and present community danger.
Papa Jackass in <33BA6B...@express-news.net>
But invariably ...
Sling that pig dirt, Tami -- you belong right down there in the mud
and the slime along side of your buddy Sunshine. What age were you
when you last told the truth? Three? Five?
Papa Jackass in <34B30E39...@geocities.com>
Pathetic. Go take a bath -- you stink.
Papa Jackass in <34B30E39...@geocities.com>
Gosh, Paul, I never pictured you as being into totally illogical and
overripe emotionalism -- or, are you just pandering?
Papa Jackass in <34B8534B...@geocities.com>
Ah, I finally found how to get your attention. Guess I'll
have to call you Fuckface, asshole, and limpdick more often,
Papa Jackass in <335483...@express-news.net>
Second, why should I apologize for calling a cocksucker what
he really is. You and I both know Mark is one of the most
cold-blooded and vicious human beings on the newsgroups.
Papa Jackass in <336E66...@express-news.net>
I am demonstrating for all to read that you are a toothless
pussy. I am insulting you several times a day and there's not
a damn thing you can do about it but run around trying to
bluff me.
Papa Jackass in <33935A...@express-news.net>
Society has no responsibility to make sure you can safely
screw around on your husband, MINXS. If you want to be a slut
and jump from bed to bed, why bother to get married?
Papa Jackass in <3495FB4F...@express-news.net>
Once again, we see Mark proving that he is the stinkinest
ASSHOLE on talk.abortion. Ray gives him a close run, but I'm
going to award the AH Award to Mark. He is a totally pathetic
excuse for a human being.
Papa Jackass in <3359AD...@express-news.net>
--
Ray Fischer The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious
r...@netcom.com encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without
understanding. -- Louis Brandeis
Papa Jack
>
> [a.s.a trimmed from newgroups line]
>
> Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> arrogant flames get in the way of what you are arguing.
=====================================================================
> Gregory Bernath wrote:
> Ah, the irony.
> Congratulations, LippysBak. Papa Jack whines like this
> about everyone who manages to make him look foolish.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Greg, if you remember I made similar proposals to you months
ago. I suggested we knock off most of the flame war crap and
actually discuss abortion issues like civilized people. You
flatly refused and continue your little boy school ground
taunting act.
I really do believe it is sad that so many of the PAR are
simply wise-assed flamers. The world is chock full of
folks who can insult others. That is a no-talent activity.
What is difficult is to actually discuss and research
serious philosophical and moral issues.
The only way PARs like you and Lippys Bak can handle a
serious discussion is to make a lot of unsubstantiated
sweeping statements and sprinkle it heavily with personal
insults to pretend a sense of superiority. The PAR
pattern is clear -- and it is most unimpressive.
Enjoy an excellent weekend.
Ray Fischer
>ago. I suggested we knock off most of the flame war crap and
>actually discuss abortion issues like civilized people.
You make such suggestions regularly and then proceed to indulge in the
usual sleazy propaganda and insults you've always posted. Apparently
your only purpose in making such suggestions is to disarm other people
while you remain free to flame.
> You
>flatly refused and continue your little boy school ground
>taunting act.
And you continue to be an insulting asshole.
>I really do believe it is sad that so many of the PAR are
>simply wise-assed flamers.
Is it only Jackass who fales to see the hypocrisy in insulting other
people for being insulting?
> The world is chock full of
>folks who can insult others. That is a no-talent activity.
Which is doubtless why you like to do it so often.
>What is difficult is to actually discuss and research
>serious philosophical and moral issues.
You wouldn't know a moral if if gave you a big wet kiss right on the
lips.
>The only way PARs like you and Lippys Bak can handle a
>serious discussion is to make a lot of unsubstantiated
>sweeping statements and sprinkle it heavily with personal
>insults to pretend a sense of superiority.
Writes Jackass, making unsubstatiated sweeping statements spinkled
liberally with insults.
Heidi Graw
>papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
(snip)
>PJ wrote:
>I really do believe it is sad that so many of the PAR are
>simply wise-assed flamers. The world is chock full of
>folks who can insult others. That is a no-talent activity.
>What is difficult is to actually discuss and research
>serious philosophical and moral issues.
>
>The only way PARs like you and Lippys Bak can handle a
>serious discussion is to make a lot of unsubstantiated
>sweeping statements and sprinkle it heavily with personal
>insults to pretend a sense of superiority. The PAR
>pattern is clear -- and it is most unimpressive.
So, PJ, how do you enjoy being idolized by Robyn? I believe every
PL'r should have such an avid fan - she really does a good job of
bringing credibility to your movement. Hahahahahahaha!!!!!
>
>Enjoy an excellent weekend.
After this, you bet I will. :-) ROTFLMAO!!!
Heidi
Papa Jack
>
> LippysBak <lipp...@aol.com> wrote in article
>>
>:> Papa Jack wrote:
>:>>
=====================================================================
>:>> Papa Jack wrote:
=====================================================================
> Samantha wrote:
> oh, [...]. here we go again with the "family values"
> balderdash. i haven't heard so much about family values
> since the last time i went to wal-mart for allergy medication.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
And, what exactly do you have against family values, Samantha?
Do you really believe the State would make better parents than
the family of the children? Stop and think. Why do you want
to tear down the normal structure and authority of the family?
Just for stupid politics? Does that make sense to you?
=====================================================================
>:>> Papa Jack wrote:
>:>> I see no gain to society to "freeing" children from the
>:>> protection and the authority of their parents...
=====================================================================
> Samantha wrote:
> perhaps you *can't* see it because your head is still up
> your ass.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Oh, what a convincing argument. Since you told me my head is
up my ass that is supposed to convince our readers that the
very fabric of society of American culture should be ripped
apart. The only countries in modern times that tried to have
the State take over the raising of the children were the USSR
and Hitler's Germany. Neither succeeded very well.
Children need families, not State appointed bureaucrats.
=====================================================================
> Samantha wrote:
> what about the children who are beaten unconscious by their
> parents? hmmm?? oh, yeah, i can see how *that* would be a
> safe and loving environment for which they shall prosper well.
> <**thwapp**>
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Straight from Bill Clinton's legacy -- "We have nothing to offer
but FEAR itself."
Yes, there are children who are abused. That does not mean we
should do away with parenthood.
There are also elderly people who are abused by their family
members. Does that mean we should lock up every one over 60
in a nursing home and keep them away from all contact with
their families? What is the difference?
Do you have any concept how many millions of fine sincere
families there are in the U.S.? We hear a lot about the bad
ones -- and we definitely should take strong action against
child abuse -- but, there are literally millions and millions
who do a pretty good job of raising their children. They
give them love and try to teach them "right" from "wrong."
You apparently are willing to rupture this traditional
relationship to reduce the possibility of abuse. I think that
is clearly too high a price to pay.
Papa Jack
>>>
=====================================================================
>>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> You seem to say that if a girl is afraid to tell her family she
>>> is pregnant, then she should be helped to hide the pregnancy and
>>> to get an abortion. What about the decent families who would
>>> fully support their daughters if they knew of their pregnancies?
=====================================================================
>> Amy Satterlund wrote:
>> And what about those indecent families who wouldn't?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
What is your point, Amy?
Do you want to take all children away from their parents and
have them raised by the State in barracks just to make sure
that parents can't possibly abuse their children?
What about children who make poor grades in school? If we
send a copy of poor grade cards to the parents, don't you
think that at least some of the parents will act abusive
toward the child? How about drug use? If the police find
a small amount of MJ on a kid, should they keep it secret
just to make sure the parents don't have a chance to abuse
the child? If a 12-year old girl is having a sexual affair
with a 35-year old married man, should people help her keep
it a secret so that her parents won't abuse her?
This fear mongering is not really logical. You would have
us tear apart the very fabric of traditional family life
just to make sure that immature little girls could get
abortions whenever someone convinced them to do so. Guess
who is going to be the one doing the convincing most of the
time? Yep, it's going to be her older boyfriend who doesn't
want to be charged with statutory rape, or who doesn't want
his wife to know he's seduced a teeny bopper.
I firmly believe that a woman has every right to keep her
sex life private once she becomes an adult.
We need to examine the very concept of the words "adult"
and "minor." There is a distinction to be made.
=====================================================================
> Amy Satterlund wrote:
> I should have also added here:
> And what about those teens whose parents are too
> high/drunk/absent/etc... to care??
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
What about them? Are you saying we should take all kids away
from all parents because less than 1% will abuse them?
There are laws against child abuse, and the Child Protective
Services (CPS) in each state works closely with the police
departments and the courts to identify abused children and
to protect them.
It is an imperfect world. I'm sure you can find an example
where the CPS failed to help an abused child. But, I believe
your proposed action to tear apart family structure will do
far more long-term damage to millions of children who need
the love and attention that only a family can provide.
=====================================================================
>> Amy Satterlund wrote:
>> I had a friend in high school who unfortunately got pregnant
>> at 15. She came from a *very* "loving" Christian family (or,
>> at least, they seemed very loving, and never abused their
>> children). She wanted an abortion because she knew she
>> couldn't handle a child at 15. She told her parents about it.
>> Her parents called her a sinful whore and kicked her out of
>> the house at 15. To this day, she has not had a meaningful
>> relationship with her parents. Everytime she calls they
>> hang up on her. They do not respond to her letters. Her
>> daughter has never met her grandparents.
>> For this reason alone, I support girls who do not wish to
>> tell their parents. I wish that EVERY pregnant teen had
>> "families who would fully support their daughters."
>> Unfortunately, this is not reality. I only wish that it
>> were.
[snip]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I'm sorry, but your fear mongering anecdote simply does not
provide sufficient reason to take away parental authority.
You tell this story as though you were there, but you do
not know what comments or attitudes your friend displayed
toward their family when she told them the sad news. However,
by the time she told you, I'm sure she was 100% innocent and
they were 100% wrong.
For example, if the parents were strongly Pro-Life and believed
that abortion was murder, I can certainly see them trying to
use their authority to stop her from killing her unborn child.
For every family that beats or tosses out a young girl for
getting pregnant, I estimate that 10 families would stand by
their pregnant daughters. Many would have harsh words -- and
I do not consider harsh words to be abuse. However, if the
pregnant girl will give the parents a few hours to accept their
disappointment, I believe the great majority will hold out
their arms and embrace her -- and offer to help her cope.
Your philosophy of hiding such information from parents (just
in case they might be abusive) denies the good parents any
chance to do what is right.
Bill Loges
>
> Amy Satterlund wrote:
> >
> > Amy Satterlund wrote in message <6s1ofu$g44$1...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
> >>> Papa Jack wrote:
> >> <snip>
> >>> You seem to say that if a girl is afraid to tell her family she
> >>> is pregnant, then she should be helped to hide the pregnancy and
> >>> to get an abortion. What about the decent families who would
> >>> fully support their daughters if they knew of their pregnancies?
>
> =====================================================================
> >> Amy Satterlund wrote:
> >> And what about those indecent families who wouldn't?
>
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack commented:
> What is your point, Amy?
>
> Do you want to take all children away from their parents and
> have them raised by the State in barracks just to make sure
> that parents can't possibly abuse their children?
I'm pretty sure that Amy didn't suggest that. Perhaps PJ can point out
where in her post this was suggested.
Papa Jack continued:
> What about children who make poor grades in school? If we
> send a copy of poor grade cards to the parents, don't you
> think that at least some of the parents will act abusive
> toward the child?
Yup. But there is a law that (reasonably, IMO) says such reports must
be made to the parent. If we, as a society, ever decide that there is a
potential danger great enough to warrant keeping such reports between
the teacher and the pupil, I guess that's what we'll do.
Papa Jack continued:
> How about drug use? If the police find
> a small amount of MJ on a kid, should they keep it secret
> just to make sure the parents don't have a chance to abuse
> the child? If a 12-year old girl is having a sexual affair
> with a 35-year old married man, should people help her keep
> it a secret so that her parents won't abuse her?
Well NOW you're in another area entirely. Now it's crimes committed, in
one case by the child (at least), in the other against the child.
Report cards and drug abuse and statutory rape? Are they really all on
the same continuum? I can see people deciding that they'd prefer that
report cards be kept private long before they decide that parents
shouldn't be informed if (a) their child has committed a crime or (b)
their child has been the victim of a crime. Frankly, I don't expect any
of these developments to come to pass, but it's not my hypothetical.
States differ on where abortion fits into this. Since it would be a
crime for an adult to possess marijuana (in most states in most
circumstances), or for an adult to engage in statutory rape, those two
examples differ from abortion. It's not illegal for adults to have
abortions. The question is whether, and at what age, a child can choose
abortion with the same liberty as adults. Personally, I consider it
reasonable for the states to ponder this. Papa Jack is right when he
points out that surgery of any other kind is considered the sort of
matter that parents must consent to, and as a father I agree that this
is a good thing. But there is a point to the pro-choice argument that a
girl who has engaged in consensual sex and thus conceived a child has
behaved sufficiently like an adult that she may be entitled to the
privileges of adults; not just abortion, but offering the child for
adoption, marriage, and other choices usually reserved for literal
adults.
If crime is at all a reasonable basis for analogy, the comparison may be
between the young murderers that have made headlines in the last twelve
months. The argument has been that no matter how young they are,
they've behaved sufficiently like adults to warrant adult punishments.
If this is true of crime, why not of sex? (Really, why not?)
Papa Jack continued:
> This fear mongering is not really logical.
To which fear mongering does this refer?
Papa Jack continued:
> You would have
> us tear apart the very fabric of traditional family life
> just to make sure that immature little girls could get
> abortions whenever someone convinced them to do so.
Once again, I don't recall Amy calling for this. Perhaps she can
clarify her wishes regarding the very fabric of traditional family life.
Papa Jack continued:
> Guess
> who is going to be the one doing the convincing most of the
> time? Yep, it's going to be her older boyfriend who doesn't
> want to be charged with statutory rape, or who doesn't want
> his wife to know he's seduced a teeny bopper.
So the father of the fetus is not entitled to take part in this
decision? Any words from the C4M crowd?
Papa Jack continued:
> I firmly believe that a woman has every right to keep her
> sex life private once she becomes an adult.
>
> We need to examine the very concept of the words "adult"
> and "minor." There is a distinction to be made.
Very true. That distinction is a fluid matter of law. WE decide,
collectively, what the difference is. It's good and proper that we
discuss it among ourselves, on usenet and elsewhere, but it is not a
good idea to get too committed to the present definitions of such
things, or apply those definitions consistently in all cases. I think
it's reasonable to propose that the effect of a decision on families is
an important criterion for defining adult and minor, but it's certainly
not the only criterion, nor is privacy. Ask the parents of the killer
children from Oregon, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
> =====================================================================
> > Amy Satterlund wrote:
> > I should have also added here:
>
> > And what about those teens whose parents are too
> > high/drunk/absent/etc... to care??
>
> =====================================================================
> Papa Jack commented:
> What about them? Are you saying we should take all kids away
> from all parents because less than 1% will abuse them?
Wow, PJ is determined to push Amy's arguments to their ultimate logical
excesses. Is he content to have his own points treated so shabbily?
Others will have to try this, since I have neither the time nor
inclination to behave so crudely.
Bill Loges
"There are in fact no masses; only ways of seeing people as masses."
Raymond Williams
Ray Fischer
>Shiseido Red wrote:
>> oh, [...]. here we go again with the "family values"
>> balderdash. i haven't heard so much about family values
>> since the last time i went to wal-mart for allergy medication.
>
>And, what exactly do you have against family values, Samantha?
Where did she say she has anything against family values, Jackass?
Have you _still_ not learned to read for comprehension?
>Do you really believe the State would make better parents than
>the family of the children?
And now Jackass proceeds to free-associate, lost in senile rambling.
The Ghost In The Machine
>=====================================================================
>Papa Jack cited:
>On August 21, 1998, Yahoo! News: Virginia Headlines included
>the following brief item:
>
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/local/state/virginia/story.html?s=v/rs/19980821/va/index_1.html#3
>
> A unanimous federal appeals court is upholding
> Virginia's parental notification abortion law
> 13-months after it took effect. The law
> unmarried teenager.
Really?
And this will help precisely how? Obviously, since she conceived
life, any abortion -- including one to save her life -- would be
the termination of life. This strikes me as illogical; either one
has to state that they are for all life, or to allow for individual
choice. (Personally, I prefer individual choice; otherwise one has to
ensure that all toothbrushes are sterilized, all cars are banned and/or
limited to at most 10 MPH, and all pollution eliminated, among other things.)
Most pro-lifers allow for limited individual choice (i.e., rape, incest,
or pending death of the mother); therefore, they are pro-choice as well. :-)
> Young women are allowed to
> ask for permission from a local judge if they
> fear a violent reaction at home.
But apparently they are not allowed to ask for permission from
a local doctor, or to do themselves in with a coat hanger or
something.
Sometimes, I wonder at this sort of statement.
> The appeals
> court ruled that parents are entitled to know
> about "life-defining decisions" their children
> face.
And here's another one...why precisely are parents "entitled"
to know?
Ideally, parents would already know, and would not have to find
out from a court or a doctor. But this is far from an ideal
world, and my understanding is that some fathers would
disown their own daughters if they got pregnant, calling them
"sluts" and such. They may even kill them, in a fit of passion
or pique.
Requiring said father to know about any abortions done -- AFTER
THE FACT -- would screw up things even more. Requiring it before
the fact -- as the above law requires (say, what happens if the
parents are out of the country or otherwise unreachable for the
day? Does the doctor get to hold the daughter in a special
jail cell?) is a bit better, but not much.
Now, granted, I'm not an expert in father/daughter relations (
having neither been a father with a daughter, or a daughter
with a father). But this sort of silliness worries me.
>
>Another win for the will of the people.
A Pyrrhic victory, in my opinion.
[rest snipped]
The Ghost In The Machine
>Shiseido Red wrote:
>>
>> LippysBak <lipp...@aol.com> wrote in article
>>>
>>:>>
> =====================================================================
>>:>> Papa Jack wrote:
>>:>> concept is a direct challenge to family values and authority.
>
> =====================================================================
>> oh, [...]. here we go again with the "family values"
>> balderdash. i haven't heard so much about family values
>> since the last time i went to wal-mart for allergy medication.
>
>Papa Jack commented:
>And, what exactly do you have against family values, Samantha?
>to tear down the normal structure and authority of the family?
>Just for stupid politics? Does that make sense to you?
Erm....not to be a snitpicker or anything, but, in a previous
post, I was lamenting the loss of literalness for the terms
"pro-life" and "preborn". Now I see that "family values" needs
to be put in there as well?
Yuckola.
But I do have a question...would the State [*] really make a better
decision maker for women seeking to terminate their pregnancies
via induced abortion, than the women themselves? [+]
Can't have it both ways, Jack.
>
> =====================================================================
>>:>> Papa Jack wrote:
>>:>> I see no gain to society to "freeing" children from the
>>:>> protection and the authority of their parents...
>
> =====================================================================
>> Samantha wrote:
>> perhaps you *can't* see it because your head is still up
>> your ass.
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Oh, what a convincing argument. Since you told me my head is
>up my ass that is supposed to convince our readers that the
>very fabric of society of American culture should be ripped
>apart. The only countries in modern times that tried to have
>the State take over the raising of the children were the USSR
>and Hitler's Germany. Neither succeeded very well.
>
>Children need families, not State appointed bureaucrats.
Reluctantly, I have to agree, at least in part, with Papa Jack here.
More substantiation of the argument is needed.
But my understanding is that there are dysfunctional families out
there; presumably, such a family will most likely be incapable of rationally
making a decision regarding their daughter's future (and their
grandfoetus, if I may coin a term). However, attempting to evaluate
families in this manner makes things even worse, as far as civil rights
are concerned ("OK, you must now fill out this form so that the State
may evaluate you for fitness in deciding whether your daughter may
have an abortion or not, and we'll let you know our decision in
about 7 days." :-) )
In any event, this "freeing" is in fact (or should be!) a gradual
process, letting the child develop as an individual able to make
(and allowed to make) his or her own choices, as opposed to a cookie-
cutter cardboard cutout of some sort. These choices, unfortunately,
include the choice to fail, or to be something other than what the
parent desires, choicewise. At puberty, the child is presumably
mature enough to make some decisions on her own, at least in what
may be termed a nominal family environment.
I see you like the idea of requiring evaluation of families, then.
How would you propose going about it? :-)
(Side commentary: good, happy, healthy parents do not make good press.
IMO, this is an indictment of our media.)
>
>
>--
>{ Papa Jack
>{
>{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/
>
> "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
> men are created equal; that they are endowed by
> their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
> among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
[*] Please note that I am using the term "State" in its generic sense;
the actual regulations of abortion may be done at any level, though
it looks like the most probable levels will in fact be a state
or the federal level -- another illustration of a possible inconsistency,
as the transit capability of a human transcends the individual states,
in many cases (and it does not transcend, in many others); therefore,
if a single state decides to ban abortion, the woman can simply move
to another state to have the operation performed.
[+] The term "girls" may not be quite appropriate here, for, a female
post-pubescent human, at least according to a roomate in college,
should be called a "woman" (I tend to agree with that, to a part).
However, these women are not fully mature (well, no one is, really;
the development process of the human intellect continues until death),
nor are they legal adults.
----
ew...@aimnet.com
Bill Loges
[snip earlier, less relevant stuff from Amy and Papa Jack]
>
> Bill Loges wrote:
> >
> > States differ on where abortion fits into this. Since it would be a
> > crime for an adult to possess marijuana (in most states in most
> > circumstances), or for an adult to engage in statutory rape, those two
> > examples differ from abortion. It's not illegal for adults to have
> > abortions. The question is whether, and at what age, a child can choose
> > abortion with the same liberty as adults. Personally, I consider it
> > reasonable for the states to ponder this. Papa Jack is right when he
> > points out that surgery of any other kind is considered the sort of
> > matter that parents must consent to, and as a father I agree that this
> > is a good thing. But there is a point to the pro-choice argument that a
> > girl who has engaged in consensual sex and thus conceived a child has
> > behaved sufficiently like an adult that she may be entitled to the
> > privileges of adults; not just abortion, but offering the child for
> > adoption, marriage, and other choices usually reserved for literal
> > adults.
>
> Well this may be true in the case of sexual emancipation however; it is self
> proclaimed, and that doesn't make it legal. Teenagers can get an attorney
> to declare them legally emancipated from their parents and legal aid counsels
> many to do just that if they are in situations where it may be justified.
> I personally don't want that law changed. I think that children who have sex
> still should be accountable to their parents. If they want emancipation,
> they can get it legally without the law being challenged.
Good point Kindra. Seems reasonable to me. I think that there is a
fairly adequate infrastructure of social services committed to
protecting children, and that as long as these remain available kids in
intolerable situations will be able to find solutions within the law.
Papa Jack
>
[snip]
>>> Papa Jack wrote:
>>>>
=====================================================================
>>>> Papa Jack wrote:
>>>> The Merriam Webster on-line dictionary gives us:
>>>> Main Entry: PRO-LIFE
>>>> Function: adjective
>>>> : ANTIABORTION
>>>> - pro-lif·er /-'lI-f&r/ noun
=====================================================================
> The Ghost wrote:
> Yipes. What a distortion!
> Forgive me if I am being a bit of a literalist, but I was
> under the impression that pro-<something> means "in favor
> of <something>". Ergo, pro-welfare means for welfare (a
> rather rare position, nowadays), pro-Earth means for Earth
> (some might interpret that as "anti-industry"), proponent
> means advocate (as opposed to opponent), pro-business
> means "in favor of business interests", pro-choice means
> "in favor of choice" [*], and pro-life should mean "in
> favor of life". [+]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Pro-Life means "for human life." The human part is understood
in the context of talk.abortion debate. Since all successful
abortions kill a living unborn child, ABORTIONS ARE "ANTI-LIFE."
Since abortions kill, it's a very small logical step to go from
PRO-LIFE to "ANTIABORTION" (or ANTI KILLING).
=====================================================================
> The Ghost wrote:
> Now, granted, anti-abortion does (at least on the surface)
> save a human foetus from certain death from an induced
> abortion, but it is far from clear that that would, in fact,
> advance the cause of human life (or even all life, if one
> wants to get *that* literal; after all, the more humans, the
> more we eat other, non-human life forms such as wheat, corn,
> pigs, sheep, cows, chickens, turkeys, and even whales, and
> the less plentiful they will most likely get).
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Are you going hungry, Ghost? Yes, I know people elsewhere are
going hungry at times, but that is usually a distribution prob-
lem. The world is NOT overpopulated -- even though certain
specific locations may be (i.e., India or China). The U.S. is
certainly not overpopulated -- and we export food from our large
surpluses. Killing unborn children in America is not a good
solution to worldwide hunger.
Your premise (it is "GOOD" to kill people because then we
wouldn't eat so much food) can also be applied to others.
Why don't we kill all over 60, because most are simply
not very productive anymore. Or, perhaps we could kill all
the redheads, because that is evidence of racial impurity.
Why are you biased toward killing unborn children rather
than other groups? And, I'm certain you would want to kill
off all those who are crippled or otherwise disabled in some
way. They eat so very much.
=====================================================================
> The Ghost wrote:
> I will give you the fact that the dictionary entry is
> most likely accurate (though my understanding also is
> that Merriam-Webster is not all that great of a dictionary).
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
That is total BS.
Did you know Merriam Webster Inc. is a part of the Encyclopedia
Britannica corporate family? Do you consider them a 2nd-rate
cooperation?
Barnes and Noble has this to say about the Merriam Webster
Collegiate Dictionary:
Reviews and Commentary
From W. Miller - Choice:
In general, the dictionary is nonprescriptive in
spelling and usage, although it points out what
is accepted and usual practice in every case.
One could wish for more editorial background and
rationale on changes from previous editions, but
this dictionary compares favorably with other
abridged and unabridged dictionaries published
in the last several years, at a price that is
reasonable. A worthy scion of the Merriam family,
it will be wanted by all libraries and many
individuals.
=====================================================================
> The Ghost wrote:
> ...But I do have a bit of sadness when people can't seem to
> get the notion that a screwdriver should not be used as a
> hammer (speaking metaphorically). But oh well.... :-)
[snip]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I don't have a clue about what you're trying to say here. Do
you want to clarify. I failed to note any screwdrivers or
hammers in this discussion.
Have a great weekend.
Lane Browning
> >>>>
>
> Pro-Life means "for human life." The human part is understood
> in the context of talk.abortion debate. Since all successful
> abortions kill a living unborn child,
Why is it an unborn "child" and not an unborn 80 year-old? It has not
yet become a child OR a senior citizen. Why not call it an unborn
adolescent? Duh.
Is a tadpole a frog? It's a POTENTIAL frog, yes, but...every person
alive is a potential corpse too. :-)
ABORTIONS ARE "ANTI-LIFE."
> Since abortions kill, it's a very small logical step to go from
> PRO-LIFE
Nah. Cougars are pro-life; they are pro their OWN lives, so they kill
prey to thrive. They aren't pro the lives of those rabbits and
deer.
"ANTIABORTION" (or ANTI KILLING).
Abortion is not killing. It's interrupting. :-)
>
> Are you going hungry, Ghost? Yes, I know people elsewhere are
> going hungry at times, but that is usually a distribution prob-
> lem. The world is NOT overpopulated
The world is overpopulated.
You asked Ghost if he/she is going hungr-- even though certain
> specific locations may be (i.e., India or China).
The world is.
The U.S. is
> certainly not overpopulated
School classes are too large; roads are too crowded; air is too dirty.
Overpopulated.
-- and we export food from our large
> surpluses.
Food is not the only problem. Water is a big one.
Killing unborn children in America is not a good
> solution to worldwide hunger.
It's a solution to lots of other things, at least part of the solution.
Preventing pregnancies is better, obviously; but that's not happening.
Forbidding pregnancies would be cool too...but...
>
> Your premise (it is "GOOD" to kill people because then we
> wouldn't eat so much food) can also be applied to others.
> Why don't we kill all over 60, because most are simply
> not very productive anymore.
You're just hypothesizing, right, you don't really believe that. Most
of the world's power rests with people over 60 (Bill Gates excepted).
You may not think they're "productive," but they have clout. Do a quick
tally of major world leaders and CEOs.
Or, perhaps we could kill all
> the redheads, because that is evidence of racial impurity.
Oooo, I like it! Not kill, though, just exile them to a hospitable
planet!
> Why are you biased toward killing unborn children rather
> than other groups?
You know the answer to this, but you want to deviate from the crux of
this entire debate. People who support abortion rights do not believe
that abortion is killing. Those same people, most of them, are more
comfortable swatting a fly than they are spearing a giraffe. Has to do
with the degree of sentience and the ability to suffer.
Also maybe to do with the size!
And, I'm certain you would want to kill
> off all those who are crippled or otherwise disabled in some
> way.
Depends how you define disabled. That's a very loaded word. As for
"crippled," I have no idea what that might mean these days, oh wait,
there's a Crippled Children's Hospital somewhere so I guess the word
still has a specific definition. I'll have to think about that for a
minute.
They eat so very much.
In a crisis sacrifices do have to be made. If there's inadequate food
and water in the lifeboat, sure, the less fit and "valuable to the
common good" ones should jump over. But that has nothing to do with
abortion, which is just a surgical procedure for a physical problem.
Yes, it's emotional, but so is any surgery that removes something.
Bruce Forest
<papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
Um, then why do many 'prolifers' support the killing of human life with
the death penalty? Why do you not oppose war as strongly as you oppose
abortion?
Why do you support the killing of human life simply because the sex was
not consensual?
'Pro life' is far too broad. You're simply an antiabortionist. There are
very few actual 'prolifers.'
[...]
--
Remove 'funky' to mail me.
'Caution: cape does not enable wearer to fly.'
-actual Batman costume tag
Papa Jack
>
> LippysBak wrote:
>>
>> PapaJack writes:
>>>
>> <snip>
>>> PapaJack writes:
>>> I know you disagree. At what age would you emancipate children
>>> from the authority of their parents?
=====================================================================
>> LippysBak wrote:
>> From birth.
=====================================================================
> Havfdead wrote:
> So, you feed them whenever they want, let them go wherever
> they want, if they don't want to go to school, they don't,
> when they were babies, if they wished to crawl into the
> street, you let them???
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yes, Havfdead, it IS silly. Decent parents provide the
security of love and protection. The idea that little
children should make up their own minds about such serious
matters would be, in fact, a terrible form of child abuse.
Watch the packs of street kids in most big cities. They are
emancipated from parental control.
My son is a specialist in the worst gang kids here. He told
me he didn't start to understand the sort of kids who kill
others until he met a few of their parents. Then, he began
to understand their thinking. Their parents don't care
enough to discipline them -- or, if they do, they overreact
and give the kids terrible beatings.
Remember, when kids don't get the discipline and love they
need at home, they will get it elsewhere -- like in violent
gangs, or drug users, or other negative elements. You are
not doing a teenager a favor by failing to exercise
reasonable parental authority.
The PARs would have us believe that we should refrain from
giving our children guidance. As you said, just feed them
and turn them loose. I am so glad my parents understood
what a totally stupid idea that is.
Enjoy the weekend.
Papa Jack
=====================================================================
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> Um, then why do many 'prolifers' support the killing of human
> life with the death penalty?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
And, how many is that, Bruce? Could you give us your source
for this new information on how man Pro-Lifers support the
death penalty?
=====================================================================
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> Why do you not oppose war as strongly as you oppose abortion?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Bruce, you know I spent 26 years in the Air Force. I do not
oppose ALL wars blindly -- just as I do not oppose ALL abor-
tions
However, I do hate war as only a professional military person
can do. War cost me friends. War tore apart my country when
politicians and fuzzy headed liberals decided to throw their
integrity in the trash. War did great and lasting damage to
the defense forces of American. And we (all of us) are still
paying the prices for the excesses of those insane days, both
politically in the world and financially in burdensome national
debt.
I may not oppose ALL wars, but I sure as hell don't support
ALL wars either.
=====================================================================
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> Why do you support the killing of human life simply because
> the sex was not consensual?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
It is called RAPE, Bruce. Why don't you use the word? Are you
telling our readers that YOU believe women who are the victims
of RAPE should NOT have the option of abortion? Of course not.
You've been asked that question before, but you simply tap dance
around.
Since YOU support any and all abortions for any and all reasons,
why do you question my logic for taking a moderate position?
=====================================================================
> Bruce Forest wrote:
> 'Pro life' is far too broad. You're simply an antiabortionist.
> There are very few actual 'prolifers.'
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I have no problem with calling myself an Anti-Abortionist.
I would also have no problem calling you Pro-Death. Since
we are discussing the slaughter of over 35,000,000 unborn
children since RvW -- and since YOU fully support the
continuation of that slaughter -- I believe the title
Pro-Death is very fitting. There are very few Pro-Choicers
around. Do you agree, Bruce?
Papa Jack
>
>> Papa Jack commented:
>> Pro-Life means "for human life." The human part is understood
>> in the context of talk.abortion debate. Since all successful
>> abortions kill a living unborn child, ABORTIONS ARE "ANTI-LIFE."
>> Since abortions kill, it's a very small logical step to go from
>> PRO-LIFE to "ANTIABORTION" (or ANTI KILLING).
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> Looks like PJ's anti-life, then, by his own definition. After
> all, he accepts abortion in some circumstances.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Nope, I'm "Pro-Choice" -- but, only in those rare circumstance
in which society judges to be a justified homicide.
As I have written on talk.abortion dozens of times, I would
reluctantly grant a woman the choice of abortion in cases
involving rape, incest, or a grave threat to the life of the
mother.
Do YOU believe I am wrong, Sarah? What part of my belief
do YOU object to. Do YOU believe we should ban abortions in
cases involving rape, incest, or grave threat to the life of
the pregnant woman?
Sarah, I am a moderate. I believe very strongly that unneces-
sary abortions are morally repulsive. Now, the key is to
determine which abortions are necessary and which are unneces-
sary.
In the U.S., that is supposed to be the job of our state
legislators according to Amendment 10 of our Constitution.
However, the Supreme Court has usurped the powers of the
state legislators and illegally tried to give detailed "laws"
on how people should live.
So, I am a reasonable man. If the state legislation of New
York decided in their wisdom to allow unlimited abortions,
I would be saddened -- but, I would accept their right to
exercise such power. It should not be up to you or me,
Sarah. It should be up to the legislators (with advice
from medical associations) to establish the laws listing the
circumstances which justify the taking of innocent human life.
Heidi Graw
<papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Nope, I'm "Pro-Choice" -- but, only in those rare circumstance
>in which society judges to be a justified homicide.
>
(snip)
>
>So, I am a reasonable man. If the state legislation of New
>York decided in their wisdom to allow unlimited abortions,
>I would be saddened -- but, I would accept their right to
>exercise such power. It should not be up to you or me,
>Sarah. It should be up to the legislators (with advice
>from medical associations) to establish the laws listing the
>circumstances which justify the taking of innocent human life.
O.k. Jack, now please try to consider just how this law should be
worded? Does it matter to you whether or not certain people are
targetted for abortion ie. people born of rape or incest, people who
are disabled? Tell me honestly, would you really like to see a very
public law proclaiming these particular groups of people are
justifiably abortable?
If you truly are a reasonable and just person, you would oppose such a
law. However, that does not mean you cannot continue to educate and
try to influence women to carry their pregnancies to term. You have
every right to voice your "moderate" position. I'm just concerned
that it becomes entrenched as law and will cause a major set-back to
all that has been achieved to enhance the lives of the disabled or
those whose lives evolved through violent means and whose mothers
loved them enough to not abort them. Those terrible stigmas have long
ceased to exist. Why would you want to re-introduce them?
Heidi
khaas
<papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
> =====================================================================
>> Bruce Forest wrote:
>> Why do you support the killing of human life simply because
>> the sex was not consensual?
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>It is called RAPE, Bruce. Why don't you use the word? Are you
>telling our readers that YOU believe women who are the victims
>of RAPE should NOT have the option of abortion? Of course not.
>You've been asked that question before, but you simply tap dance
>around.
>
>Since YOU support any and all abortions for any and all reasons,
>why do you question my logic for taking a moderate position?
I have also wondered about the apparent contradiction in your
position, PJ. You support abortion rights for women who have been
raped, putting their emotional well-being over the "right to life" of
the fetus. Why isn't the emotional well-being of a woman who _hasn't_
been raped, but for whom a pregnancy is still unwanted, just as
important?
Your position seems to contradict itself. Either the woman's
emotional health takes precedence or it doesn't. Either the fetus has
the "right to life" or it doesn't.
And no one but the woman herself can determine the extent of the
emotional trauma she faces because of an unwanted pregnancy, whether
raped or not. Some women choose to continue a pregnancy brought about
by rape; you would not _force_ them to terminate it, would you? Then
why would you force a woman who has _not_ been raped to gestate?
Your postition seems to based on a moral judgement of the women
involved; raped women who get pregnant are "innocent" and women who
were not raped and get pregnant are somehow "guilty" and must be
punished. Your argument seems based more on "good" vs. "bad" women,
rather than on the "right to life" of the fetus.
This seems rather dictatorial, in light of the fact that no one
elected you to be the moral arbiter for women's reproductive choices.
---
"God is Poohbear"
Remove SPAM_NO_THANKS to reply.
Papa Jack
>
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Pro-Life means "for human life." The human part is understood
>> in the context of talk.abortion debate. Since all successful
>> abortions kill a living unborn child,
=====================================================================
> Lane Browning wrote:
> Why is it an unborn "child" and not an unborn 80 year-old? It
> has not yet become a child OR a senior citizen. Why not call
> it an unborn adolescent? Duh.
> Is a tadpole a frog? It's a POTENTIAL frog, yes, but...every
> person alive is a potential corpse too. :-)
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed., 1990) tells us:
Child; Children. Progeny; offspring of parentage.
Unborn or recently born human being. Wilson v. Weaver,...
The Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary gives us:
Main Entry: CHILD
Function: noun
[...]
1 a : an UNBORN or recently born PERSON
http://www.m-w.com/netdict.htm
IOW, despite your assertions, the dictionaries tell us that the
word "child" includes those yet unborn. There are unborn
children AND born children. Mostly on talk.abortion we discuss
the Pro-Abortion Righters' (PARs') conviction that if a living
human is smaller or less developed than _____ then it is all right
to kill that innocent living human being.
How do YOU feel about that Lane? Do you believe you should be
able to legally kill any person who is smaller or less developed
than you?
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack commented:
>> ...ABORTIONS ARE "ANTI-LIFE." Since abortions kill, it's
>> a very small logical step to go from PRO-LIFE
=====================================================================
> Lane Browning wrote:
> Nah. Cougars are pro-life; they are pro their OWN lives,
> so they kill prey to thrive. They aren't pro the lives of
> those rabbits and deer.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Even the worst
PARs don't eat babies -- or do they? Are you advocating the
eating of babies?
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack commented:
>> ...Since all successful abortions kill a living unborn child,
>> ABORTIONS ARE "ANTI-LIFE." Since abortions kill, it's a very
>> small logical step to go from PRO-LIFE to "ANTIABORTION" (or
>> ANTI KILLING).
=====================================================================
> Lane Browning wrote:
> Abortion is not killing. It's interrupting. :-)
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Hey, a new euphemism for abortion.
Lane, were you perhaps raised in a Mafia family? You sound
just like a Mafia hit man.
"I didn't kill that man when I shot his brains all
over the wall, Judge. I just interrupted his
living. It's okay though because he didn't see
it coming -- so he felt no pain or fear."
[SNIP]
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Killing unborn children in America is not a good solution
>> to worldwide hunger.
=====================================================================
> Lane Browning wrote:
> It's a solution to lots of other things, at least part of
> the solution. Preventing pregnancies is better, obviously;
> but that's not happening. Forbidding pregnancies would be
> cool too...but...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
It IS being done -- in China. There they have a one child
limit on married couples. In small villages they are some-
times allowed to have two to help with the farm work. If
the woman gets pregnant after having her first (or second)
child, the state will force her to kill it. I understand
they even have a mobil abortion van that now goes from
village to village taking care of "population problems."
Maybe, if we could convince you, Lane, to move to China,
then you would be more satisfied.
=====================================================================
> Lane Browning wrote:
> You know the answer to this, but you want to deviate from
> the crux of this entire debate. People who support abortion
> rights do not believe that abortion is killing....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Fetuses are alive at the time of abortions. The abortionist
uses a technique designed to do one thing -- i.e., kill the
living fetus.
You can assert all day long that abortion is not killing, but
you and everyone else would know that is a lie.
Fetuses are:
LIVING - since fetuses move in the uterus and grow
at a rapid rate, they are alive.
HUMAN - a fetus is the product of the mating of a
human male with a human female.
BEINGS - a fetus is a separate individual (with its
own heart, lungs, stomach, and brain).
Now please show our readers how killing a LIVING HUMAN BEING is
not "killing."
=====================================================================
> Lane Browning wrote:
> ...Those same people, most of them, are more comfortable
> swatting a fly than they are spearing a giraffe. Has to
> do with the degree of sentience and the ability to suffer.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Recent experiments clearly indicate fetuses do, in fact, feel
pain after a certain point in their development.
Let's go back to the Mafia example. If you sneak up on the
victim and shoot him in the back of the brain before he realizes
you are there, is it okay because the victim felt no fear or
pain? Should you get a medal for being so humane?
Again, newborns have very limited sentience or fear. Does that
mean it is also okay to kill unwanted born children?
=====================================================================
> Lane Browning wrote:
> Also maybe to do with the size!
[SNIP]
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, that's the strongest argument the PARs have -- i.e.,
"fetuses are small, so we should have the constitutional right
to slaughter as many millions of these unborn children as
we want to.
In my belief, our country's greatest shame and tragedy has
been the slaughter of over 35,000,000 innocent human beings
since Roe v. Wade. These acts which you support are morally
reprehensible to thinking people.
Enjoy a great week.
Heretic
cases is simply the expulsion of a defective and usually dead organism that
would simply never be born. Nature is responsible for most abortions.
To you pro-life nuts: Just another failed attempt by an imperfect god.
An imperfect creation implies an imperfect creator! Papa Jack Get a life.
Papa Jack
>
> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>
=====================================================================
>>> Bill Loges wrote:
>>> I know that some of the regular pro-life contributors to
>>> this group do not consider the rape/incest exception
>>> "humanitarian." For my part, the exception is so incon-
>>> sistent with the premise of pro-life that I can't take it
>>> seriously as a position opposite pro-choice. It's simply
>>> arbitrarily allowing choice in some circumstances. It's
>>> unprincipled.
=====================================================================
>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>> Oh you just hush, now! You're not supposed to notice that;
>> stop staring at PJ's contradiction hanging out there, it's
>> impolite.
=====================================================================
> Bill Loges wrote:
> Thanks Jim, my bad. Sorry PJ. Everyone look the other
> way now. There's nothing to see here. Just move along.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Very funny -- not!
In every controversy involving millions of people, there are
those who will take one extremist position -- and then there
are others who will take the opposite extremist position.
However, the great majority of people will adopt a moderate
position between the two extremes. That is certainly true
of the abortion controversy.
The purpose of PARs, like Jim, is to try to force moderate
PLs into an extremist position. They know that if they can
get us to adopt a hard-nosed, no exceptions position, that
we will lose the support of the voting public.
Polls have consistently showed the great majority of Americans
support LIMITING abortions. We may quibble over what exceptions
should be made, but 60% to 70% of the public would put LIMITS on
abortion. They do not favor abortion on demand under any and
all circumstances.
I am a moderate. If we could ban all UNNECESSARY abortions, we
could reduce the annual numbers of abortions to less than
200,000 -- a saving of over 1,000,000 lives per year. That
may not meet your purist logic, but I sure would be happy
to see such tremendous progress. What do they say -- "politics
is the art of the possible?"
Heidi Graw
<papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
(snip)
>PJ wrote:
>Polls have consistently showed the great majority of Americans
>support LIMITING abortions. We may quibble over what exceptions
>should be made, but 60% to 70% of the public would put LIMITS on
>abortion. They do not favor abortion on demand under any and
>all circumstances.
Merely "quibble over what exceptions should be made?" PJ, if you're
going to target a specific population group, don't you think it's a
little more than "quibbling?" It's all out DISCRIMINATION! And you
want that to become part of the LAW?
>--
>{ Papa Jack
>{
>{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/
>
> "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
> men are created equal;
..except people with disabilities and people born of rape/incest.
> that they are endowed by
> their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
...except people with disabilities and people born of rape/incest.
> that
> among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
> happiness."
...though these be withheld for people with disabilities and people
born of rape/incest.
...and thus a country proud of its heritage will entrench into law the
specific types of members of our population to which these rights are
to be denied.
...and thus spoke an ardent fan and loyal supporter of
--Thomas Jefferson
named Papa Jack!
signed:
Heidi
Gabriel
<papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>>
>> In article <35F0BB59...@geocities.com>,
>> Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
[big snip]
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>I have no problem with calling myself an Anti-Abortionist.
>I would also have no problem calling you Pro-Death. Since
>we are discussing the slaughter of over 35,000,000 unborn
>children since RvW
No such thing as an "unborn child" can possibly exist in the real
world, PJ. Your alleged "slaughter" exists only in your own
imagination.
>-- and since YOU fully support the
>continuation of that slaughter -- I believe the title
>Pro-Death is very fitting. There are very few Pro-Choicers
>around. Do you agree, Bruce?
I cannot speak for Bruce, of course, but yes, there are indeed many
Pro-Choicers around. And, since free exercise of such choice usually
leads to birth, it would be more appropriate the label "Pro-Choice"
people as "Pro-Birth." Then, perhaps an appropriate label for
"Pro-Life" people would be "Pro-Abuse," since their primary goal is
the abuse of vulnerable young women.
>Enjoy the weekend.
Enjoy your life promoting abuse, PJ ... based *only* on your own
phantasies.
----
Peace, Light & Love
Gabriel, Archangel,
(once incarnate as Jesus ... but what's in a name?)
Ray Fischer
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>>> The Merriam Webster on-line dictionary gives us:
>
>>>>> Main Entry: PRO-LIFE
>>>>> Function: adjective
>>>>> : ANTIABORTION
>>>>> - pro-lif·er /-'lI-f&r/ noun
>
>> Yipes. What a distortion!
>
>> Forgive me if I am being a bit of a literalist, but I was
>> under the impression that pro-<something> means "in favor
>> of <something>".
Don't assume that language follows strict logic rules. Dictionaries
include colloquial expressions with commonly understood meanings.
[...]
>Pro-Life means "for human life."
Oooo! The irony! Jackass contradicting one of his own dictionary
definitions!
I guess dictionaries only count when they say what Jackass wants them
to say.
Gabriel
And, yet, God says that it does not. You choose to find your spiritual
guidance in dictionaries ... so that you can continue to believe that
your phantasies are real. Personally, I prefer to get such guidance
from God instead.
>There are unborn
>children AND born children.
No, there are *not*, PJ. The term "unborn children" is an oxymoron.
Since no child can exist until a human soul merges with a human foetus
at birth, it is impossible for a human child to exist before birth.
>Mostly on talk.abortion we discuss
>the Pro-Abortion Righters' (PARs') conviction that if a living
>human is smaller or less developed than _____ then it is all right
>to kill that innocent living human being.
No, we do not. No human being exists in the real world until after
birth.
>How do YOU feel about that Lane? Do you believe you should be
>able to legally kill any person who is smaller or less developed
>than you?
That question is completely irrelevant wrt abortion.
> =====================================================================
>>> Papa Jack commented:
>>> ...ABORTIONS ARE "ANTI-LIFE." Since abortions kill, it's
>>> a very small logical step to go from PRO-LIFE
>
> =====================================================================
>> Lane Browning wrote:
>> Nah. Cougars are pro-life; they are pro their OWN lives,
>> so they kill prey to thrive. They aren't pro the lives of
>> those rabbits and deer.
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Even the worst
>PARs don't eat babies -- or do they? Are you advocating the
>eating of babies?
That would be just as reasonable as *you* advocating that foeti are
really babies, in direct contradiction of God.
That is a lie. The state may force her to have an abortion, but it
does not require her to kill the child.
>I understand
>they even have a mobil abortion van that now goes from
>village to village taking care of "population problems."
>
>Maybe, if we could convince you, Lane, to move to China,
>then you would be more satisfied.
Where would *you* like to move, PJ ... since you are obviously so
discontent with the US? And why don't you just go ahead and move
there?
> =====================================================================
>> Lane Browning wrote:
>> You know the answer to this, but you want to deviate from
>> the crux of this entire debate. People who support abortion
>> rights do not believe that abortion is killing....
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Fetuses are alive at the time of abortions. The abortionist
>uses a technique designed to do one thing -- i.e., kill the
>living fetus.
>
>You can assert all day long that abortion is not killing, but
>you and everyone else would know that is a lie.
The lie comes in your assertion that a foetus is anything more than
what it is: a foetus.
>Fetuses are:
>
> LIVING - since fetuses move in the uterus and grow
> at a rapid rate, they are alive.
Unless they die.
> HUMAN - a fetus is the product of the mating of a
> human male with a human female.
Unless you are discussing a non-human species.
> BEINGS - a fetus is a separate individual (with its
> own heart, lungs, stomach, and brain).
No, it is not. It lacks one *essential* element of an individual. It
lacks a human soul. Now, since you obviously find that irrelevant,
would you please explain to all of us why you find your own soul to be
so irrelevant? Would you also tell us why you choose to consider the
soul of every other individual to be irrelevant to them?
>Now please show our readers how killing a LIVING HUMAN BEING is
>not "killing."
A foetus simply is NOT a "living human being" ... as has been
explained to you many, many times ... a point to which you have never,
to my knowledge, chosen to respond.
> =====================================================================
>> Lane Browning wrote:
>> ...Those same people, most of them, are more comfortable
>> swatting a fly than they are spearing a giraffe. Has to
>> do with the degree of sentience and the ability to suffer.
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Recent experiments clearly indicate fetuses do, in fact, feel
>pain after a certain point in their development.
No, they do not. Those conclusions are based on *guesses* that foeti,
even lacking souls, act exactly like babies ... which is patently
ridiculous.
>Let's go back to the Mafia example. If you sneak up on the
>victim and shoot him in the back of the brain before he realizes
>you are there, is it okay because the victim felt no fear or
>pain? Should you get a medal for being so humane?
>
>Again, newborns have very limited sentience or fear. Does that
>mean it is also okay to kill unwanted born children?
Apparently, only in *your* mind, PJ.
> =====================================================================
>> Lane Browning wrote:
>> Also maybe to do with the size!
>
> [SNIP]
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Yep, that's the strongest argument the PARs have -- i.e.,
>"fetuses are small, so we should have the constitutional right
>to slaughter as many millions of these unborn children as
>we want to.
Baloney! That is nothing more than a straw man, PJ ... a very weak
attempt at one, at that. Again, there is no such thing as an "unborn
child" irw. Such things exist only in your imagination.
>In my belief, our country's greatest shame and tragedy has
>been the slaughter of over 35,000,000 innocent human beings
>since Roe v. Wade.
Since that hasn't happened irw, you can understand why we don't all
join you in your self-created remorse.
>These acts which you support are morally
>reprehensible to thinking people.
Quite wrong, PJ. Thinking people don't choose to consider their
phantasies as real ... unlike you.
>Enjoy a great week.
Ray Fischer
>Bruce Forest wrote:
>> Um, then why do many 'prolifers' support the killing of human
>> life with the death penalty?
>
>And, how many is that, Bruce? Could you give us your source
>for this new information on how man Pro-Lifers support the
>death penalty?
Don't know about how many, but certainly Dan Lungren, who is the
Republican candidate for Governer of California is both pro-death
penalty and anti-abortion.
>> Why do you not oppose war as strongly as you oppose abortion?
>
>Bruce, you know I spent 26 years in the Air Force. I do not
>oppose ALL wars blindly -- just as I do not oppose ALL abor-
>tions
You don't always oppose the murder of innocent children???
I do.
So much for your supposed morals.
>However, I do hate war as only a professional military person
>can do. War cost me friends. War tore apart my country when
>politicians and fuzzy headed liberals decided to throw their
>integrity in the trash.
War fed you and paid your salary for 26 years.
Why do I think that your complaints are nothing more than your
meaningless posturing? Where's your integrity?
> War did great and lasting damage to
>the defense forces of American.
In fact, the US defense would not exist if not for war and the threat
of war.
> And we (all of us) are still
>paying the prices for the excesses of those insane days, both
>politically in the world and financially in burdensome national
>debt.
Literally true. We're still paying off the $5,500,000,000,000
debt used to build up the US "defense" forces.
>I may not oppose ALL wars, but I sure as hell don't support
>ALL wars either.
Of course. You have no principles, and so you support anything that
personally benefits you and oppose anything else.
>> Why do you support the killing of human life simply because
>> the sex was not consensual?
>
>It is called RAPE, Bruce.
Did you find that in your dictionaries?
And why do your "tap dance around" Bruce's question? Why don't you
answer it?
> Why don't you use the word? Are you
>telling our readers that YOU believe women who are the victims
>of RAPE should NOT have the option of abortion? Of course not.
You describe abortion as the killing of innocent unborn children.
Why do you think that being raped is justification for the murder of
an innocent child?
>You've been asked that question before, but you simply tap dance
>around.
Propaganda 101: Accuse your opponent of your own misdeeds.
>Since YOU support any and all abortions for any and all reasons,
Really? I thought Bruce supported some restrictions on late-term
abortions.
You wouldn't be _lying_, would you, Jackass?
>why do you question my logic for taking a moderate position?
What logic is that, Jackass? Political expediency? The ends justify
the means?
Papa Jack
>
> On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 19:40:47 -0500,
> Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>
> (snip)
=====================================================================
>> PJ wrote:
>> Polls have consistently showed the great majority of Americans
>> support LIMITING abortions. We may quibble over what exceptions
>> should be made, but 60% to 70% of the public would put LIMITS on
>> abortion. They do not favor abortion on demand under any and
>> all circumstances.
=====================================================================
> Heidi Graw wrote:
> Merely "quibble over what exceptions should be made?"
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, the moderates on both sides realize the extremists
would happily lead us into a civil war over abortion. The
very basis of our form of government requires some degree
of give and take on nationwide controversies.
Look at the respectable polls, Heidi. Then, think of bell
shaped curves. Where are the extremes, where very few agree:
* Ban ALL abortions. No exceptions for any reason.
* Allow abortions on demand for females of any age for
any circumstances. Allow the use of any abortion
technique -- even those which are clearly barbaric.
I happen to believe both extremes are WRONG. Where are the
moderates, where the clear majority agree:
* Pro-Choice:
Allow abortions on demand for the first trimester. Ban
abortion after that -- except those involving cases of
threats to the health or life of pregnant women.
* Pro-Life:
Ban all abortions except those involving cases of rape,
incest, or grave threat to the life of the pregnant
women. First, provide women with unwanted pregnancies
extensive support to offer them as many practical options
as possible. However, in such cases, reluctantly allow
the victim to choose abortion if she believes that is the
only option she can live with.
=====================================================================
> Heidi Graw wrote:
> ...PJ, if you're going to target a specific population group,
> don't you think it's a little more than "quibbling?" It's
> all out DISCRIMINATION! And you want that to become part of
> the LAW?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
The word "DISCRIMINATION" has come to have an ugly connotation
in our society. However, when we make decisions, we must
constantly "discriminate." I discriminate against wheat bread,
against racial bigots, and KKK members. In short, not all
discrimination is automatically bad.
You want to give ALL females of ANY age the TOTAL right to kill
their unborn children in ALL circumstances. Since you are an
extremist, you would allow no limitations whatsoever -- even
for such barbaric techniques like partial-birth abortions.
You would give little 12 and 13 year old girls the right to get
abortions at sleazy chop shops without notifying their parents.
Now, with such an obviously extremist view, why are you so
anxious to try to force me and other PL moderates into an
extremist position?
Enjoy a great week.
--
{ Papa Jack
{
{ http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7346/
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal; that they are endowed by
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that
among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." --Thomas Jefferson
Heidi Graw
<papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Heidi Graw wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 19:40:47 -0500,
>> Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>> (snip)
> =====================================================================
>>> PJ wrote:
>>> Polls have consistently showed the great majority of Americans
>>> support LIMITING abortions. We may quibble over what exceptions
>>> should be made, but 60% to 70% of the public would put LIMITS on
>>> abortion. They do not favor abortion on demand under any and
>>> all circumstances.
>
> =====================================================================
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>> Merely "quibble over what exceptions should be made?"
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Yep, the moderates on both sides realize the extremists
>would happily lead us into a civil war over abortion.
Well, I dunno, I view extremists much like book-ends who keep the
moderates together. :-) There are too many inbetween for the
extremists at either end to actually create a "war" with each other.
Anyway ....
>PJ continues:
>The very basis of our form of government requires some degree
>of give and take on nationwide controversies.
True. Both the US and Canada enjoy a democratic form of government.
There are some differences, but on the whole we do share similarities.
Both forms recognize the need to protect and give voice to minority
interests. Both recognize that "majority" rule is not always the best
way in all circumstances. Sometimes, majority interests have to give
way to minority concerns. Responsible government will make attempts
to balance out these interests for the good of all, despite the fact
some will clearly not be happy with those decisions. We both know we
cannot please everyone all of the time in every circumstance. :-)
>
>Look at the respectable polls, Heidi. Then, think of bell
>shaped curves. Where are the extremes, where very few agree:
>
> * Ban ALL abortions. No exceptions for any reason.
>
> * Allow abortions on demand for females of any age for
> any circumstances. Allow the use of any abortion
> technique -- even those which are clearly barbaric.
>
>I happen to believe both extremes are WRONG. Where are the
>moderates, where the clear majority agree:
Oh, common, PJ, somehow you don't strike me the type who follows herd
mentality. You were always in leadership positions - "above" the herd
- an extreme. Surely you're not admitting you were wrong? Why "with"
the herd on this particular issue? Oh, I get it - a " leader " of the
herd? :-)
I'm fully aware of that, PJ. I, too, have to discriminate against
various services, practices, products, and behaviors, etc. It's one
thing to discriminate against private affairs within the boundaries of
our private lives, however, it's quite another thing to address
discrimination within the public's realm and the public's eye. Our
human rights statutes are addressed primarily to the public, not the
private.
For instance, it's one thing for a person to discriminate privately
against the disabled or persons born of rape within the context of
their own private relationships. However, once that is taken into the
public domain and such discrimination is entrenched into our human
rights statutes, there are far more serious implications to consider.
So, PJ, as a "leader" of the "moderate" PL herd, perhaps you can lead
them into realizing this. You, as their leader, might try to shake a
few "moderate" heads and devise a plan which doesn't invalidate the
precious human rights document which you hold so dear.
For instance, if the majority of people believe it is o.k. for women
to abort their disabled foetii, do you honestly believe having such a
majority belief entrenched into law will have a neutral effect upon
living and existing members of the disabled community? After all
these many years fighting for acceptance, inclusion and integration
and being contributing members of society, do you honestly believe
these people will just remain quiet and accept their "lesser" status
within our human rights statutes? PJ, 20% of the population has some
sort of disability. I consider that a significant portion of the
population. These 20% also have advocates who support and assist in
numerous ways. Currently, with abortion being a private affair, the
notion of aborting disabled foetii remains just that - private.
However, the moment this becomes part of our public statutes, you can
count on a huge number (perhaps 40% of the population) raising a
ruckus - and I'll be one of them.
>PJ wrote:
>You want to give ALL females of ANY age the TOTAL right to kill
>their unborn children in ALL circumstances. Since you are an
>extremist, you would allow no limitations whatsoever -- even
>for such barbaric techniques like partial-birth abortions.
>You would give little 12 and 13 year old girls the right to get
>abortions at sleazy chop shops without notifying their parents.
Don't forget, PJ, I live in Canada. We do not have "sleazy chop
shops." In BC, abortions are covered under our provincial health-care
plan. Every woman in BC has access to timely and free abortions as
part of her health-care. Some of our rural areas might have a bit of
a problem due to travel - but all in all, within a 4-hour drive at
most - a woman has access. I cannot even remember an incident
reported of poor or dangerous abortion practices. The only thing I
can recall is an incident 12 years ago where a woman went to
Bellingham, Wa, and suffered a botched abortion, and our Vancouver, BC
doctors rescued the resulting born child. It cost BC tax-payers 1 1/2
million dollars to support this child. Our Vancouver PL - president
was so disgusted she stated, "Well, they could have at least finished
the job!" Anyway, I should have kept the article so I could have
printed it for you. I even heard her say it when it was telecast on
the news.
Abortions are kept within our Health Act, they have been taken out of
the criminal/civil laws and relegated to health services - which is
exactly where they belong. This move protected the integrity of our
Canadian Constitution. If our BCMA and Health Ministry decide certain
practises and procedure are inappropriate, it's handled within that
context. Patients can also appeal and sue for any malpractice.
When I peruse my newspapers or listen to news reports, there is rarely
anything mentioned about abortions. The odd letter of protest from a
PL'er might appear in the editor's section. I have yet to read a
letter from a PC perspective. Seems it's a non-issue in BC. I get
the impression the majority of people are satisfied it is being dealt
with under the health-care system.
>
>Now, with such an obviously extremist view, why are you so
>anxious to try to force me and other PL moderates into an
>extremist position?
PJ, privately, you can hold whatever position you want. However, if
you want your position entrenched into public law, then I will point
out the error of your ways. :-) I would hate to see my neighbour rip
up such a wonderful document as the U.S. Bill of Rights - a document,
which btw the Canadian Constituition heavily drew from. Hey, our
Supreme Court of Canada even discussed the Roe vs. Wade case while
they ruled on Morgentaler. If you guys start to back-slide, Canada
might end up slipping, too. I, for one, would not like to see that
happen. :-)
Anyway, PJ, I don't know what I can think of that will help you with
this Constitutional "crisis." If you tamper with it, it will
discriminate against various population groups and that would not set
a good example to the world. If you leave it alone, your "moderate"
position cannot become public law. Perhaps this is one of those
senarios where the interests of the majority will have to give way to
the minority. Perhaps you can rustle up your herd and do a bit of
brain-storming. The question: "How do we entrench a moderate abortion
position without damaging the Bill of Rights?"
>
>Enjoy a great week.
Well, it'll be interesting. Homeschool starts at 9:00 a.m. sharp!
The only drawback is I have no place to expel my kids. :-0
Heidi
Gabriel
<papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>Heidi Graw wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 06 Sep 1998 19:40:47 -0500,
>> Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>> (snip)
> =====================================================================
>>> PJ wrote:
>>> Polls have consistently showed the great majority of Americans
>>> support LIMITING abortions. We may quibble over what exceptions
>>> should be made, but 60% to 70% of the public would put LIMITS on
>>> abortion. They do not favor abortion on demand under any and
>>> all circumstances.
>
> =====================================================================
>> Heidi Graw wrote:
>> Merely "quibble over what exceptions should be made?"
>
> =====================================================================
>Papa Jack commented:
>Yep, the moderates on both sides realize the extremists
>would happily lead us into a civil war over abortion.
That's just nonsense, PJ. While it may be true of the pro-life
extremists ... as witnessed by violent attacks on clinics ... it is
not at all true of what you call pro-choice "extremists." While you
would like to sound as if your are seeking a middle ground here, your
consistent track record here on the ng belies that attempt.
>The
>very basis of our form of government requires some degree
>of give and take on nationwide controversies.
>
>Look at the respectable polls, Heidi. Then, think of bell
>shaped curves. Where are the extremes, where very few agree:
>
> * Ban ALL abortions. No exceptions for any reason.
>
> * Allow abortions on demand for females of any age for
> any circumstances. Allow the use of any abortion
> technique -- even those which are clearly barbaric.
There are none that are "clearly barbaric" ... except in your own
mind.
>I happen to believe both extremes are WRONG. Where are the
>moderates, where the clear majority agree:
>
>You want to give ALL females of ANY age the TOTAL right to kill
>their unborn children in ALL circumstances.
That statement is pure baloney, PJ. In the first place, there is no
such thing as an "unborn child" irw. In the second place, no child has
ever been killed as the result of a successful abortion ... your
phantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.
>Since you are an
>extremist, you would allow no limitations whatsoever -- even
>for such barbaric techniques like partial-birth abortions.
Your characterization of "barbaric" is based on your own personal
opinions ... and on your personal phantasies.
>You would give little 12 and 13 year old girls the right to get
>abortions at sleazy chop shops without notifying their parents.
If that bothers you, then lobby for a solution to the problem ... by
promoting the government spending money to improve the quality of care
at such clinics.
>Now, with such an obviously extremist view, why are you so
>anxious to try to force me and other PL moderates into an
>extremist position?
In the first place, you are far from a moderate, PJ. In the second
place, a position based on reality, rather than on your personal
delusions, is hardly extremist.
>Enjoy a great week.
Have fun abusing young women, PJ.
Papa Jack
>
> Papa Jack wrote:
>>
>> Bill Loges wrote:
>>>
>>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>>>
=====================================================================
>>>>> Bill Loges wrote:
>>>>> I know that some of the regular pro-life contributors to
>>>>> this group do not consider the rape/incest exception
>>>>> "humanitarian." For my part, the exception is so incon-
>>>>> sistent with the premise of pro-life that I can't take it
>>>>> seriously as a position opposite pro-choice. It's simply
>>>>> arbitrarily allowing choice in some circumstances. It's
>>>>> unprincipled.
=====================================================================
>>>> Jim Rogers wrote:
>>>> Oh you just hush, now! You're not supposed to notice that;
>>>> stop staring at PJ's contradiction hanging out there, it's
>>>> impolite.
=====================================================================
>>> Bill Loges wrote:
>>> Thanks Jim, my bad. Sorry PJ. Everyone look the other
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack commented:
>> Very funny -- not!
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> 'Cuz you were caught,...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
"Caught?" Caught at what, Jim -- at writing opinions you don't
agree with? Is that a crime now"?
=====================================================================
> Jim Rogers wrote:
> ...and still unable to explain it.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
That is simply a total lie, and you know it is a lie, Jim. I
have explained my position dozens of times in the past two
years. Several times I explained in great detail. But, assholes
like you think you are quite clever to pretend that I refuse to
defend my position.
Go away, you bore me little boy.
Bill Loges
>
> Bill Loges wrote:
[snip Jim Rogers' comment]
> =====================================================================
> >>> Bill Loges wrote:
> >>> I know that some of the regular pro-life contributors to
> >>> this group do not consider the rape/incest exception
> >>> "humanitarian." For my part, the exception is so incon-
> >>> sistent with the premise of pro-life that I can't take it
> >>> seriously as a position opposite pro-choice. It's simply
> >>> arbitrarily allowing choice in some circumstances. It's
> >>> unprincipled.
> Papa Jack commented:
> Very funny -- not!
>
> In every controversy involving millions of people, there are
> those who will take one extremist position -- and then there
> are others who will take the opposite extremist position.
> However, the great majority of people will adopt a moderate
> position between the two extremes. That is certainly true
> of the abortion controversy.
But sometimes the moderate position will not be consistent with the
principles of either extreme, as is the case with the exception for rape
and incest.
> The purpose of PARs, like Jim, is to try to force moderate
> PLs into an extremist position.
Hmmm. I did snip Jim's comment, but it only praised the post I
recreated above. I am truly sorry; Jim may well have attempter in
earlier posts to force you to adopt his position. From my point of
view, he merely praised my position.
> They know that if they can
> get us to adopt a hard-nosed, no exceptions position, that
> we will lose the support of the voting public.
Well, as a PAR, I can claim exception to this. I refuse to force you to
believe anything. You seem to be willing to use legal means to endorse
your position on abortion, and so I'm happy to do the same. You appear
(from other posts) to be well aware of the potential AND limits of
discussion (including Usenet discussion) as a means of effecting
political change, so I'm perfectly willing to recognize your right to
hold, express, and behave according to your opinion. Respectfully, I
invite all those who have read Papa Jack's previous posts to express
their thoughts as to whether or not they desire to force him (or others)
to "adopt a hard-nosed, no exceptions position." And I DO mean
"respectfully." Don't be casting the first stone unless you're
eligible.
> Polls have consistently showed the great majority of Americans
> support LIMITING abortions. We may quibble over what exceptions
> should be made, but 60% to 70% of the public would put LIMITS on
> abortion. They do not favor abortion on demand under any and
> all circumstances.
Wow, polls should set public policy? That means Clinton gets to stay
president, as long as he resigns.
> I am a moderate. If we could ban all UNNECESSARY abortions, we
> could reduce the annual numbers of abortions to less than
> 200,000 -- a saving of over 1,000,000 lives per year.
If it's lives we're saving, I'm unwilling to compromise. That's like
saying "If we sign a treaty with Hitler now (say, November, 1944) we can
save 50,000 lives." If it's something other than lives we're saving, I
see no need to interfere. If you're willing to compromise life, what
AREN'T you willing to compromise?
> That
> may not meet your purist logic, but I sure would be happy
> to see such tremendous progress. What do they say -- "politics
> is the art of the possible?"
I think that saying is associated with cynics, although I may be wrong.
In "Evita," Tim Rice (the lyricist) associated it with Juan Peron. It's
a pretty nasty saying in this context.
If this is merely a political matter (i.e. associated with who can wield
power), then its complexion changes considerably. If it's a moral
matter (i.e. associated with what is right and wrong), as I took your
posts to suggest, then I don't see how political considerations change
its fundamentals.
Bill Loges
"There are in fact no masses, only ways of seeing people as masses."
Raymond Williams
M is for Malapert
>Polls have consistently showed the great majority of Americans
>support LIMITING abortions. We may quibble over what exceptions
>should be made, but 60% to 70% of the public would put LIMITS on
>abortion. They do not favor abortion on demand under any and
>all circumstances.
And we do have LIMITS on abortion. Ones that the majority of
Americans are perfectly happy with.
>I am a moderate.
Sure you are. You want all abortions banned, unless a woman can get a
doctor, a social worker, and a police officer to agree that she
qualifies for an abortion, and then it's still up to the whim of a
judge.
Is it possible that you don't realize how laughably extreme this
position is?
>If we could ban all UNNECESSARY abortions, we
>could reduce the annual numbers of abortions to less than
>200,000 -- a saving of over 1,000,000 lives per year.
The abortion rate among native-born women in Holland is 3.5/1000.
Holland has one of the most liberal abortion laws in the world, and
abortion takes place at public expense.
The abortion rate in the US is 24.1/1000. The US also has some of the
most liberal abortion laws in the world.
If we could get our abortion rate down to the level of Holland's
nonimmigrant women, that would be ~210,000 abortions a year (and just
about every one of those would take place in the first trimester,
too). You say that would make you happy, Papa Jack. Would you be
happy if that goal was accomplished without restrictive laws? With
early abortion and contraception available at public expense? With
contraception and early abortion confidentially available to everyone,
including teenagers?
What do you really want, to reduce the annual number of abortions or
to promote your conservative social agenda?
The abortion rate in the US will remain high as long as we remain
hypocrites about human sexuality: as long as there is a huge gap
between what we say our moral values are and what our actual behavior
is.
I wonder what pro-lifers would be willing to do to save over a million
babies a year if it didn't mean making most abortions a crime?
We could expect to see abortions reduced to 200,000 a year by
providing noncontroversial, readily accessible, publicly funded
contraceptive and early abortion services together as a medical
package (since if we did that, it would mean the moral revolution
abandoning sexual hypocrisy in this country also would have occurred).
It is an overall approach to responsibility and sexual morality in
these matters that is required, not a piecemeal one (such as funding
contraception but not abortion). If we could get to the point where a
decision whether or not to have a child is made prior to (most) sexual
activity and is supported by families, medical caregivers, and society
as a whole...and if we could get rid of the third-world contrasts of
wealth in poverty in this country, to be sure...then we could have
Papa Jack's goal number of abortions per year without any legal
restrictions at all.
But somehow I don't think that would make pro-lifers happy in the
least...
>That
>may not meet your purist logic, but I sure would be happy
>to see such tremendous progress.
...despite what Papa Jack just said.
I think pro-lifers are purists, and if they can't return to the good
old days, when decent women had sex only with their husbands and were
resigned to their fate when they got pregnant at that, they will not
be happy no matter how low the abortion rate gets.
psych...@xpoint.at
Hear! Hear!
I'll be away for a few days; when I'm back I'll be interested to see how many
PL people have picked up this thread without denouncing Minks' proposals as
"socialist", "immoral" or else ...
Regards,
Hans-Richard Grümm
BTW, could some statistical genius please post abortion rates for a couple of
countries ?
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Pat Winstanley
writes
>BTW, could some statistical genius please post abortion rates for a couple of
>countries ?
Osmo??
--
Pat Winstanley
Papa Jack
>
> In article <35F216E0...@geocities.com>,
> Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> writes:>>> Papa Jack <papa...@geocities.com> writes:
>>>>
=====================================================================
>>>> Papa Jack commented:
>>>> Pro-Life means "for human life." The human part is understood
>>>> in the context of talk.abortion debate. Since all successful
>>>> Since abortions kill, it's a very small logical step to go from
>>>> PRO-LIFE to "ANTIABORTION" (or ANTI KILLING).
=====================================================================
>>> SWhippman wrote:
>>> Looks like PJ's anti-life, then, by his own definition. After
>>> all, he accepts abortion in some circumstances.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack commented:
>> Nope, I'm "Pro-Choice" -- but, only in those rare circumstance
>> in which society judges to be a justified homicide.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> So those aren't `anti-life' to you, then?
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
What is THAT supposed to mean, Sarah? Why do you work so very
hard to make my words seem to mean something other than what
I intended when I wrote them?
When you have to base such a large percentage of your arguments
on distorting your opponents words and intent, what does that
tell us about YOU and YOUR arguments?
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> As I have written on talk.abortion dozens of times, I would
>> reluctantly grant a woman the choice of abortion in cases
>> involving rape, incest, or a grave threat to the life of the
>> mother.
>> Do YOU believe I am wrong, Sarah?
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> I believe you're inconsistent.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
No. Inconsistent would be if I said one thing last month and
something different today. I have basically defended the
moderate position for the entire two years that I've posted
on talk.abortion. I think that proves I am very consistent.
Now, I believe what you may have meant to say is that I am
defending two incompatible logics. If that is what you meant
to say, then I will agree with you. That's why I've repeatedly
talked about such "justified" or "necessary" abortions as
TRAGEDIES -- as the most humane possible answer among BAD
choices. I have tried to be honest, but on talk.abortion that
is like pouring blood into a shark pool.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> ...What part of my belief do YOU object to.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> Your belief that it's acceptable to insist, repeatedly and
> forcefully, that abortion is the SLAUGHTER OF THE DEFENCELESS
> UNBORN, the KILLING OF A LIVE HUMAN BEING,...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, I still insist on that statement. Unborn children are
living human beings. Killing millions of them is morally
repulsive. In fact, killing one of them is also evil.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> ...that pro-choicers are advocating the killing of the
> helpless unborn,...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Aren't you? You've written that you've performed abortions.
Was the unborn child ALIVE before the abortion? Was the
unborn child DEAD after the abortion? Did you kill a living
human being when you performed the abortion? I believe you
did. However, the most essential factor to consider is why
you killed that innocent living human being.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> ...and that any pro-choicer who refuses to have their
> beliefs described in such terms is running away from
> reality -...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, all the dependence on euphemisms, all the phony women's
rights arguments, and all the false rhetoric is clearly
designed to "run away from reality." It simply gives PARs
a place to hide when logic goes against them.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> ...but that none of this applies to abortion in circumstances
> that you accept.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I totally disagree.
I reluctantly accept that there are a LIMITED number or cases
where society may judge that a woman should have a CHOICE of
abortion. I accept that each and ever case is a tragedy. I
accept that each unborn child killed in abortions in cases
involving rape, incest, or grave threat to to mother's life
is being killed unfairly. That's why I call it a TRAGEDY.
That is why I call it BAD.
However, to balance the TRAGEDY, I believe I must try to
empathize with pregnant women who have been raped or assaul-
ted. I am a psychology major and I was a police chief. I
saw rape cases and I read many books and articles over the
last 40 years. I believe some women are devastated by rape.
That greatly offends my sense of justice. It is clearly
much worse if the raped woman discovers she is carrying the
child of the rapist.
I've explained in detail in previous messages the potential
impact that forcing a woman to give birth to a rapist's
child could have. IMO, it can go beyond devastating to a
form of "almost death."
You are a physician. You know life is often unfair. You know
that there is no logical reason why one baby is born totally
robust and healthy -- while the one in the next crib has a
deformed leg or Downs Syndrome. However, we work with what
circumstances gives us -- trying to impose as much fairness
and justice as possible. Unfortunately, we are only human.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> I'm not the one ranting on about how abortion is killing
> living human beings with a right to life, PJ. You are....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, guilty as charged.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> ...Human beings with a right to life don't have this right
> suspended because of the circumstances of their conception.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why not? We have laws against homicides (i.e., murder,
manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.). Those laws have
exceptions, which assuage the guilt or the punishment.
Abortion is homicide. Why treat it any different. What
we need is for state legislators to put into law the
specific reasons which may be considered for exceptions
to a general ban on abortion.
If society can make a decision 25 years ago to legalize the
casual killing of millions of unborn children, why can't
that same society place some limits on abortions. Why must
it be ALL OR NONE?
Sarah, YOU support unlimited abortions -- or do you? You
spend so much time quibbling over what I write that I'm
not sure what you believe on these points. Why do YOU
support unlimited abortions? You previously wrote that
you were Pro-Life before you went to medical school. Did
the medical school politics cause you to change your
philosophy?
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> ...If you believe that it's OK for women to abort in cases
> of rape or incest, then either you don't believe your own
> rhetoric about how fetuses are human beings and defenceless
> children with a right to life (in which case I think you
> should drop that line and try being consistent) or you
> believe it's acceptable to kill human beings and defenceless
> children for the sins of their fathers, and that the`right
> to life' doesn't apply to some people purely because of the
> circumstances of their conception. If you believe the
> latter, then that strikes me as revolting.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, I'm a pretty revolting guy.
In this case you are focusing on the "sins of the father" while
I'm trying to focus on the essential needs of the mother who
is a victim of a felony crime.
In many cases, there is no "all-or-none" conflict. Women who
are physically and emotionally hardy may be able to adjust to
the natural negative emotions which accompany rape/incest. I
would hope that such strong women would CHOOSE to carry the
child, give birth to it, and either raise it or put it up for
adoption. We can certainly help the odds by doing a better
job of providing professional and financial support to those
in need.
However, we know some women are not so fortunate. Some will
have their entire lives and personalities changed by a rape
incident. This is the type of circumstance which calls for
the wisdom of Solomon. There are no "RIGHT" and "WRONG"
answers.
Yes, I recognize the contradictions of pure logic, but I'm
more interested in finding real, workable solutions for
actual human beings than I am in getting an "A" in philosophy.
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Do YOU believe we should ban abortions in cases involving
>> rape, incest, or grave threat to the life of the pregnant
>> woman?
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> Nope. What's more, you know that. The difference is, PJ,
> I'm not the one who puts such stress on how it's slaughter
> of the innocent with a right to life and then goes right
> ahead and justifies it anyway.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why do YOU support abortions in cases involving rape, incest,
or grave threat to the life of the pregnant women?
I am guessing our reasoning for such cases is not that far
apart. Our difference is the morality of killing millions
of unborn children for reasons which are less than true
emergencies. How do you justify such taking of life for
convenience?
=====================================================================
>> Papa Jack wrote:
>> Sarah, I am a moderate. I believe very strongly that unneces-
>> sary abortions are morally repulsive. Now, the key is to
>> determine which abortions are necessary and which are unneces-
>> sary.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> Well, we could stop a lot of unnecessary ones by better sex
> education in schools...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I agree, but in some cases in the U.S. the sex education
programs have become political indoctrination of children
into beliefs different than many parents hold. For example,
how do you teach that portion of the course which deals
with contraception and abortion if half the class comes from
Catholic families who believe against contraception and
abortion? Do you cram your ideas down the kiddies throats
and the hell with their families?
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> ...and more available contraceptives....
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
I would encourage more and improved contraceptions. However, I
see little evidence that there is any scarcity of contraceptives
available to people. There are a variety of contraceptive met-
hods available today from pills to condoms. If people cannot
afford them, there are various agencies which pass them out free.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> I find it repulsive that women end up pregnant unnecessarily...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, repulsive. And, in most cases it is carelessness in the
heat of passion. Those who have completed sex education
classes have no better stats than those who haven't in teen
pregnancies.
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> ...because no-one's educated them properly about the need
> for contraception or the availability of emergency contra-
> ception.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Yep, but now that you've described 2% or 3% of those who have
unwanted pregnancies, what about all those thousands of others
who know the score but still get pregnant?
=====================================================================
> SWhippman wrote:
> I don't feel that forcing such women to stay pregnant when
> they don't want to is justifiable.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack commented:
Why? This is the BIG question in the abortion debates. Why
should women have the right to kill their unborn children
for trivial reasons? "When they don't WANT TO" is apparently
the highest of all moralities to the "ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME"
generation. Nothing, including the sanctity of human life,
is more important that the comfort and convenience of women
in this most selfish of all generations.
Now add the grotesque nature of the chop shops in the U.S,
and you have a truly morally repulsive situation.
I read several months ago that England abortion mills were
advertising "lunch hour" abortions. What happened to that
idea? Are they still doing that, Sarah?
Enjoy a great weekend.