Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
Sound of Trumpet
Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
"Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
By Kathleen Gilbert
LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Actor Gary Graham
knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
Hollywood elite.
Yet a blog column posted last Tuesday by the seasoned actor, known
most recently for his roles as Ambassador Soval in the TV series "Star
Trek: Enterprise" and Capt. Ingles on "J.A.G.", took an unflinching
look at truths almost entirely ignored by those in the Hollywood
establishment.
"I’m going to say what millions know in the front of their brains, and
many, many more millions know in the depths of their hearts … but
won’t allow themselves to think it, much less feel it," wrote Graham.
"And believe me, I know I’ll be hated for saying it, I’ll be hated by
people who don’t know me, have never worked with me, have never golfed
with me, had a drink with me.
"I’m going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder."
Graham described the irresponsibility of his youth that made abortion
the convenient option for a drug-fueled, “free-love” lifestyle. He
confessed to having paid for multiple abortions for girlfriends,
observing that abortion “sure took the pressure off of me, a guy,
interested in sex who had been raised in the era of, ‘Hey, you get a
girl pregnant, you marry her!’” But then, he says, a "spiritual
awakening" brought him to a "tearful epiphany of what it meant for a
man to be with a woman, what sex was really designed for by our
Creator and … what abortion is.
"I truly wish that I had had this conviction way back when…when I was
only concerned about my selfish convenience of the day," wrote
Graham. "But I didn’t want to know, I didn’t want to think about it.
It was inconvenient to think about it."
He noted that the widespread acceptance of abortion "says volumes of
how our entire culture has been coarsened," and "How life itself has
been cheapened.”
"We are told to have sex any time we feel the urge. Condoms are
handed out in grade schools. Promiscuity is not only condoned, it’s
tacitly encouraged ... But if you should get pregnant and it’s just
not a ‘convenient’ time for you, don’t worry, there are Family
Planning Services. ... That inconvenient fetus can be surgically
ripped from its uterine moorings, ground up and tossed into the trash
like so much garbage.
"Problem solved, and the mother can resume her egocentric lifestyle.
But the scars on that woman’s soul will never quite heal. I’m a man,
but I’ve got them on mine."
Responding to those who call for abortion to be "legal but rare,"
Graham asked, "Why rare?
"What’s wrong with abortion, that you think it should be a rare
occurrence? I’ve had moles removed from my skin. Doctors don’t tell us
that a mole removal should be rare. So what’s with this ‘rare’
business? Or is it a tacit agreement that abortion … is plain wrong?
"Try this exercise: Every time you hear someone use the phrase '…a
woman’s right to choose…' mentally complete the phrase with the
following words – '…to kill her baby.' That’s what the argument’s
about. A woman’s right to kill her baby."
To see Gary Graham's full article, go to (Warning: Graham uses vulgar
language that is not appropriate for children):
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2009/01/27/flashpoint-a-womans-right-t...
raven1
<soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>Actor Gary Graham
>knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
>abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
>Hollywood elite.
And we should give a flying fuck about some C-list actor's opinion
why?
Nomen Publicus
And why is he qualified to express an opinion over something he will never
have to face himself?
--
Atheists are not anti-god, they are not at war with theists. They
just don't believe that gods, devils etc exist at all.
LC
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote in message
news:14ce287d-31b9-4678...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Actor Gary Graham
Who?
Well, I knew it wouldn't be Sulu.
BDK
Why do so many washed up actors end up writing opinion pieces? Is there
some sort of agreement somewhere that when a career sputters out that
you start writing stuff and it's published somewhere? Graham just seems
to be another of the former liberals who turned hard right somewhere
along the line, and became a Fox News devotee.
Well, Ron Silver checked out, so there was an opening, I guess.
--
BDK..
Leader of the nonexistent paid shills.
Non Jew Jew Club founding member.
Former number one Kook Magnet, title passed to Iarnrod.
Me
Where the From line contains 'soundof...@dcemail.com'
Delete it
"Sound of Trumpet" <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote in message
news:14ce287d-31b9-4678...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020204.html
Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
"Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
By Kathleen Gilbert
LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Actor Gary Graham
knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
Hollywood elite.
Yet a blog column posted last Tuesday by the seasoned actor, known
most recently for his roles as Ambassador Soval in the TV series "Star
Trek: Enterprise" and Capt. Ingles on "J.A.G.", took an unflinching
look at truths almost entirely ignored by those in the Hollywood
establishment.
"I�m going to say what millions know in the front of their brains, and
many, many more millions know in the depths of their hearts � but
won�t allow themselves to think it, much less feel it," wrote Graham.
"And believe me, I know I�ll be hated for saying it, I�ll be hated by
people who don�t know me, have never worked with me, have never golfed
with me, had a drink with me.
"I�m going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder."
Graham described the irresponsibility of his youth that made abortion
the convenient option for a drug-fueled, �free-love� lifestyle. He
confessed to having paid for multiple abortions for girlfriends,
observing that abortion �sure took the pressure off of me, a guy,
interested in sex who had been raised in the era of, �Hey, you get a
girl pregnant, you marry her!�� But then, he says, a "spiritual
awakening" brought him to a "tearful epiphany of what it meant for a
man to be with a woman, what sex was really designed for by our
Creator and � what abortion is.
"I truly wish that I had had this conviction way back when�when I was
only concerned about my selfish convenience of the day," wrote
Graham. "But I didn�t want to know, I didn�t want to think about it.
It was inconvenient to think about it."
He noted that the widespread acceptance of abortion "says volumes of
how our entire culture has been coarsened," and "How life itself has
been cheapened.�
"We are told to have sex any time we feel the urge. Condoms are
handed out in grade schools. Promiscuity is not only condoned, it�s
tacitly encouraged ... But if you should get pregnant and it�s just
not a �convenient� time for you, don�t worry, there are Family
Planning Services. ... That inconvenient fetus can be surgically
ripped from its uterine moorings, ground up and tossed into the trash
like so much garbage.
"Problem solved, and the mother can resume her egocentric lifestyle.
But the scars on that woman�s soul will never quite heal. I�m a man,
but I�ve got them on mine."
Responding to those who call for abortion to be "legal but rare,"
Graham asked, "Why rare?
"What�s wrong with abortion, that you think it should be a rare
occurrence? I�ve had moles removed from my skin. Doctors don�t tell us
that a mole removal should be rare. So what�s with this �rare�
business? Or is it a tacit agreement that abortion � is plain wrong?
"Try this exercise: Every time you hear someone use the phrase '�a
woman�s right to choose�' mentally complete the phrase with the
following words � '�to kill her baby.' That�s what the argument�s
about. A woman�s right to kill her baby."
Jimbo
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:58:29 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
>
> >Actor Gary Graham
> >knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
> >abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
> >Hollywood elite.
>
> And we should give a flying fuck about some C-list actor's opinion
> why?
And what has it to do with alt.atheism?
Anim8rFSK
<14ce287d-31b9-4678...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> "I�m going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder."
Are we sure this moron was on Star Trek and not Defiling Gravity?
--
Tiger Woods has just been named "Athlete of the Decade"
His chosen event? The Broad Jump.
Michael Black
> In article
> <14ce287d-31b9-4678...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Iąm going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder."
>
> Are we sure this moron was on Star Trek and not Defiling Gravity?
>
The whole story, or rather that it travelled any distance, seems based
on him being on Star Trek (with the specific details to reveal him to be a
minor character on the lesser variants deep into the article).
How far would it have travelled if the headline was "Defying Gravity
Star against abortion"?
The next thing you know, you'll have people with political aspirations
getting bit parts on tv shows or movies, so they can use that to further
their ambitions. "Rhoda star says trash is bad" when in reality it's some
guy who was in a crowd scene on "Rhoda".
Michael
Keith
Whether you like it or not; we ALL have a right to an opinion. IMO, he
makes a lot of sense.
Keith
Father Haskell
wrote:
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020204.html
>
> Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
> "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
>
> By Kathleen Gilbert
>
> LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Actor Gary Graham
If it's not the original series or TNG, who gives a fuck?
Anim8rFSK
Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009, Anim8rFSK wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <14ce287d-31b9-4678...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
> > Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "I?m going to say it anyway: Abortion is murder."
> >
> > Are we sure this moron was on Star Trek and not Defiling Gravity?
> >
> The whole story, or rather that it travelled any distance, seems based
> on him being on Star Trek (with the specific details to reveal him to be a
> minor character on the lesser variants deep into the article).
Yep. I knew who he was from his body of work, and even I didn't
associate him first and foremost with Trek.
>
> How far would it have travelled if the headline was "Defying Gravity
> Star against abortion"?
Yeah, but Abortion is Wrong was the whole THEME of DF!
>
> The next thing you know, you'll have people with political aspirations
> getting bit parts on tv shows or movies, so they can use that to further
> their ambitions. "Rhoda star says trash is bad" when in reality it's some
> guy who was in a crowd scene on "Rhoda".
I think the crowd scene people are about all that's left of the Rhoda
cast. :(
GG is an idiot. It never occured to him to use protection? He was busy
fooling around and paying for abortions, and he doesn't realize that
that was a GOOD thing, because anything that kept him from reproducing
has to be a positive.
Check this out from his (no doubt) self written IMDb bio:
"Was one of the final choices for the role of "Captain Sisko" on "Star
Trek: Deep Space Nine" (1993) and the role of "Captain Janeway" on "Star
Trek: Voyager" (1995)."
I call him a liar, flat out. A finalist for Sisko? Too bad he's not
black. We always knew Sisko was going to be black, as they cast Jake
well ahead of Brooks.
And Janeway? Have you *ever* seen a man (granted GG isn't much of a
man) on the short list of actors to play Janeway?? Janeway was always
written to be a woman.
I do like where it says he became an actor because he didn't have the
grades to get a real job.
Quadibloc
> Apply this rule after the message arrives
>
>
> Delete it
In that case, why did you quote the message, worthy of deletion, *in
its entirety* in your own post?
John Savard
W.T.S.
news:14ce287d-31b9-4678...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020204.html
> Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
> "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
Abortion, it should be legal, safe, and frequent!
--
http://folding.stanford.edu
Save lives, visit today!
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
news:9poej5ppc51mh5paa...@4ax.com:
"Star Trek Actor"...heh. A total of 15 episodes, 3 different characters
on 3 different series. Yeah, he's influential.
Still...funny how when a right-leaning actor yaps about stuff, it's
important and insightful, but if a leftie does it, the rightards scream.
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Pray for Goppers the way they pray for Obama! Psalm 109!
SkyEyes
wrote:
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020204.html
>
> Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
> "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
Nothin' I love more than a man expressing an opinion on what a woman
should or shouldn't do about her pregnancy.
<Spit>
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Anim8rFSK
"Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com>
wrote:
> raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote in
> news:9poej5ppc51mh5paa...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:58:29 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
> > <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Actor Gary Graham
> >>knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
> >>abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
> >>Hollywood elite.
> >
> > And we should give a flying fuck about some C-list actor's opinion
> > why?
>
> "Star Trek Actor"...heh. A total of 15 episodes, 3 different characters
> on 3 different series. Yeah, he's influential.
>
> Still...funny how when a right-leaning actor yaps about stuff, it's
> important and insightful, but if a leftie does it, the rightards scream.
Who said it was important and insightful? I called the guy a liar and
an idiot.
D.F. Manno
Anim8rFSK <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote:
> "Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> > raven1 <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>Actor Gary Graham
> > >>knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
> > >>abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
> > >>Hollywood elite.
> > >
> > > And we should give a flying fuck about some C-list actor's opinion
> > > why?
> >
> > "Star Trek Actor"...heh. A total of 15 episodes, 3 different characters
> > on 3 different series. Yeah, he's influential.
> >
> > Still...funny how when a right-leaning actor yaps about stuff, it's
> > important and insightful, but if a leftie does it, the rightards scream.
>
> Who said it was important and insightful?
Strumpet, obviously.
> I called the guy a liar and an idiot.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
existence. (Bertrand Russell)
Taylor
wrote:
You want to know hypocrisy straight from the horse's mouth, you look
at 'The View' co-host Sherri Shepherd. She's confessed, and I quote:
"I've had more abortions than I can count on one hand."
She considers a diehard C-word (religion) after being raised a J.W.
and is against anything that goes against God's teachings from the
Bible.
Anim8rFSK
<7228e320-0ad2-43c0...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
Taylor <lukeb...@gmail.com> wrote:
i doubt Sherri Shepard could count past 1 using all her fingers and toes.
>
> She considers a diehard C-word (religion) after being raised a J.W.
> and is against anything that goes against God's teachings from the
> Bible.
--
tirebiter
wrote:
> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:58:29 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
> > <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Actor Gary Graham
> >>knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
> >>abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
> >>Hollywood elite.
>
> > And we should give a flying fuck about some C-list actor's opinion
> > why?
>
> And why is he qualified to express an opinion over something he will never
> have to face himself?
>
I think this is a much more appropriate response to whether his is a C-
list actor or an A-list actor. The way he qualifies his remarks with
how he expects "millions" to "hate" him for saying it, means he wants
to make it be about him, and not the cause. Maybe the glory of being
an occasional walk on actor in "Enterprise" is starting to fade.
After all, he was a minor performer in only 12% of the episodes of a
show that ended almost 5 years ago. I see this as an attempt to
regain some notoriety with the public. He clearly thinks that
painting himself as a victim of his convictions will win him over in
the teabagger league of conservatives.
---
a.a. #2273
Anlatt the Builder
more, abortion is not important to my life choices. So now I have no
hesitation about telling women that they must carry an unwanted
pregnancy to term, and that I'll use the law to force them to do it.
Isn't it fun controlling women when I no longer have any skin in the
game?"
Graeme
this is the only post in the thread that shows up in alt.tv.star-
trek.tos.
raven1
Most of whom are unlikely to have ever watched an episode of "Star
Trek" past TOS in any case.
Anim8rFSK
<f518a08f-67c8-4df0...@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com>,
Graeme <graem...@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0334048/
JohnN
wrote:
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020204.html
>
> Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
> "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
This guy isn't smart enough to use a rubber, or three, and now he's
the poster boy for oppressing women?
JohnN
Rob Cypher aka "The Anti-Bob"
>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020204.html
>
>
>Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
>"Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
>
>
>
>By Kathleen Gilbert
>
>LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Actor Gary Graham
>knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
>abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
>Hollywood elite.
>
>http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2009/01/27/flashpoint-a-womans-right-t...
who cares??????????????????????
--
Rob Cypher
Livejournal: http://robcypher.livejournal.com
Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/robcyphercollective
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/robcypher
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/robcypher
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/robcypher
Music Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
Book Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
Movie Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
TV Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
Video Game Reviews: http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
RATINGS GUIDE: ***** - essential **** - must have *** - worth a look
** - for fans only * and under - Crap
WARNING - THE SHROOMERY IS FULL OF RACISTS. Proof is presented here: http://robcypher.livejournal.com/68904.html
Firelock
> In article <hh800u01...@enews5.newsguy.com>, LC__...@hotmail.com says...
>
>
>
> > "Sound of Trumpet" <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote in message
> >news:14ce287d-31b9-4678...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Actor Gary Graham
>
> > Who?
>
> > Well, I knew it wouldn't be Sulu.
>
> Why do so many washed up actors end up writing opinion pieces? Is there
> some sort of agreement somewhere that when a career sputters out that
> you start writing stuff and it's published somewhere?
Note that we are living in the era of the 24/7 news show and the
blogosphere - the bar for getting "published somewhere" has
never been set so low. Hell, *I'm* getting published worldwide
on Uselessnet just by writing this!
--
Walt
Governor Rocknar
<bals...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ElectDrHal2010
>
> --
> Rob Cypher
> Livejournal:http://robcypher.livejournal.com
> Myspace:http://www.myspace.com/robcyphercollective
> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/robcypher
> YouTube:http://www.youtube.com/robcypher
> Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/robcypher
> Music Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/visualcdrack/people/1713595594
> Book Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/facebookshelf/people/1713595594
> Movie Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/dvdshelf/people/1713595594
> TV Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/livingsocial-tv/people/1713595594
> Video Game Reviews:http://apps.facebook.com/videogamerack/people/1713595594
> RATINGS GUIDE: ***** - essential **** - must have *** - worth a look
> ** - for fans only * and under - Crap
> WARNING - THE SHROOMERY IS FULL OF RACISTS. Proof is presented here:http://robcypher.livejournal.com/68904.html
Thank you Rob for your endorsement of Dr. Hal for Congress!
Rob Cypher aka "The Anti-Bob"
Who?
x
> On Dec 27, 2:58 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> wrote:
>> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020204.html
>>
>> Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
>> "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
>
> Nothin' I love more than a man expressing an opinion on what a woman
> should or shouldn't do about her pregnancy.
>
Nothin' I love more than a woman expressing an opinion on what a man
should or shouldn't do.
x
need to lie about abortion any more"
Mitchell Holman
Shades of the Vietnam era, when conservative women said
men (but not women) had an "obligation" to enlist and fight,
because "freedom isn't free" (except for them).
Quadibloc
> Nothin' I love more than a man expressing an opinion on what a woman
> should or shouldn't do about her pregnancy.
I don't own a cotton plantation, but I never let that stop me from
opposing Negro slavery.
It's every person's business when the law treats people as though
they're horses and can be bought and sold just because of the color of
their skin. And it's every persons business when the law treats people
as though they're kittens and can be euthanized at will just because
they haven't been born yet.
John Savard
Ray Fischer
>Nothin' I love more than a woman expressing an opinion on what a man
>should or shouldn't do.
Are you still anti-abortion, pro-liar hypocrite?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
thomas p.
It's the law that decides what a person is.
thomas p.
"x" <x...@y.com> skrev i meddelelsen
news:T7U9n.5205$pv....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Where did she do that?
thomas p.
"Mitchell Holman" <noemai...@comcast.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:Xns9D13497718CBE...@216.196.97.130...
So criticizing an opinion equals in your mind telling people what to do?
SkyEyes
I don't express opinions about what men, as a class, should or
shouldn't do with their bodies.
Men get to have a say about abortion the day that they can get
pregnant. Men get to have a say about abortion the day that they can
pass an object the size of a watermelon through an opening the size of
a lemon.
SkyEyes
And it's every person's business when the law treats half the human
race like slaves with no say over their own bodies - which is
*exactly* what you pro-liars would like to do to women.
I will *not* be a slave. I will *not* stand by and let other women be
made into slaves. What every woman does with her body - including her
pregnancy -is *her business*. No one else's.
hypa...@comcast.net
This from a coward who won't even show h is name.
Michelle Malkin (hypatiab7) (known as Mickey to my friends in
alt.atheism)
Lefty
If a fetus was actually a person, you'd have a point. Since it is not,
you're just making the standard appeal to cheap sentiment.
Lefty
I heard from an abortion clinic staffer that they often do the
procedure for Catholic and fundie Christian girls. Anti-aborts are
almost always dreadful hypocrites.
Frito Pendejo
Hypocrisy becomes more common with age. Not just conservatives but
liberals also wind up denouncing things they engaged in when they were
younger.
Just like the older conservative who comes to believe that abortion is
morally wrong after he/she has passed his reproductive prime, the older
liberal comes to believe that drug use is wrong after a lifetime of
partying.
Many expected the former Hippy generation to legalize marijuana once
they were in power, but just the opposite has happened, and former
potheads like Al Gore and Barack Obama ran on platforms of continuing
the criminalization of marijuana use.
Dano
Not a very high percentage of whatever generation you think you're talking
about...I'm really not sure YOU know...were EVER what you refer to as
"hippies". Whatever the hell THAT means either. If you ARE going to call
fellows like Gore and Obama potheads, then you ought to be prepared to call
Bush II a coke addict and a drunk. He was both. From what we hear...far
worse than what the other two did. What do you think he was doing while
AWOL from the Guard his daddy finagled him into in order to hise him from
serving in Viet-Nam?
That pot is not legal yet is more the result of the power of the alcohol and
tobacco lobbies that so fear losing their market for addictive substances.
Marijuana is far less addictive or dangerous than either of those.
Richo
wrote:
> http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/feb/09020204.html
>
> Star Trek Actor Who Paid for Three Abortions Now Condemns Woman's
> "Right to Choose...to Kill Her Baby"
>
> By Kathleen Gilbert
>
> LOS ANGELES, February 2, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Actor Gary Graham
> knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
> abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
> Hollywood elite.
>
"his"?
"His personal experience"?
Dude, you need to learn the basics of human reproduction - men dont
get pregnant.
Mark.
Ray Fischer
>On Dec 27 2009, 7:47�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Nothin' I love more than a man expressing an opinion on what a woman
>> should or shouldn't do about her pregnancy.
>
>I don't own a cotton plantation, but I never let that stop me from
>opposing Negro slavery.
>
>It's every person's business when the law treats people as though
>they're horses and can be bought and sold just because of the color of
>their skin.
Or whether they're pregnant.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Frito Pendejo
> Frito Pendejo wrote:
>> Many expected the former Hippy generation to legalize marijuana once
>> they were in power, but just the opposite has happened, and former
>> potheads like Al Gore and Barack Obama ran on platforms of continuing
>> the criminalization of marijuana use.
>
> Not a very high percentage of whatever generation you think you're talking
> about...I'm really not sure YOU know...were EVER what you refer to as
> "hippies". Whatever the hell THAT means either. If you ARE going to call
> fellows like Gore and Obama potheads, then you ought to be prepared to call
> Bush II a coke addict and a drunk. He was both. From what we hear...far
> worse than what the other two did. What do you think he was doing while
> AWOL from the Guard his daddy finagled him into in order to hise him from
> serving in Viet-Nam?
>
> That pot is not legal yet is more the result of the power of the alcohol and
> tobacco lobbies that so fear losing their market for addictive substances.
> Marijuana is far less addictive or dangerous than either of those.
You're preaching to the choir, since I am a pothead myself. And I was
not trying to defend Bush in any way, just pointing out the hypocrisy of
ADMITTED potheads running on a platform of criminalizing marijuana.
Al Gore has admitted to being a regular marijuana user, smoking it on a
daily basis when he was younger. During the 2000 campaign he was asked
if he would support marijuana legalization, and replied that he would
continue the current policy of imprisoning marijuana users. He did not
seem to care that he would not be running for president had he been
unlucky enough to get caught smoking pot, and he did not seem to care
about ruining the lives of the current generation of pot smokers.
Michael Price
> On Dec 27, 8:38 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 01:58:29 -0800 (PST), Sound of Trumpet
>
> > <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> > >Actor Gary Graham
> > >knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
> > >abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
> > >Hollywood elite.
>
> > why?
>
Well alt.atheism is one of the groups regularly annooyed by the troll
SoT and SoT is obsessed with abortion, religion etc.
Dano
I can't argue with you on that. I'm just questioning your characterization
of "running on a platform of continuing the criminalization of marijuana
use."
Do you honestly think either would have EVER gotten elected by proposing
legalization?
You don't need to convince me...or even any pol. Their primary job is to
get elected. If they don't, they can't accomplish anything...including more
important things than legalizing drugs. We need to inform and change the
opinions of the electorate themselves. There's still a huge chunk of this
country that oppose it.
LawnGuyland
> In article <ANIM8Rfsk-E4281D.20563027122...@news.dc1.easynews.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > "Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote:
> > > raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > > Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>Actor Gary Graham
> > > >>knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
> > > >>abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
> > > >>Hollywood elite.
>
> > > > And we should give a flying fuck about some C-list actor's opinion
> > > > why?
>
> > > on 3 different series. Yeah, he's influential.
>
> > > Still...funny how when a right-leaning actor yaps about stuff, it's
> > > important and insightful, but if a leftie does it, the rightards scream.
>
> > Who said it was important and insightful?
>
> Strumpet, obviously.
>
> > I called the guy a liar and an idiot.
>
> --
> D.F. Manno | dfma...@mail.com
> And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would
> have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His
> existence. (Bertrand Russell)
10 posts in and every poster has attacked the messenger and not once
addressed the message. How about debating what he actually said rather
than how important an actor he is?
Quadibloc
> 10 posts in and every poster has attacked the messenger and not once
> addressed the message. How about debating what he actually said rather
> than how important an actor he is?
Because "everybody knows" that:
1) abortion _can't possibly_ be anything other than a morally neutral
medical procedure,
2) people who claims abortion kills babies are lying through their
teeth, because that's obviously false, and
3) the only real reason anyone opposes abortion is to impose their
religiously-inspired anti-sex views on everyone else.
Given those three basic assumptions, clearly attempting to debate what
he actually said would just give undeserved credibility to *the forces
of evil* that want to enslave women and lock them barefoot in the
kitchen and so on and so forth.
Where have you been, that you go and ask a question the answer to
which is so obvious?
John Savard
Quadibloc
> Quadibloc wrote:
> > It's every person's business when the law treats people
> > as though they're horses and can be bought and sold just
> > because of the color of their skin. And it's every
> > persons business when the law treats people as though
> > they're kittens and can be euthanized at will just
> > because they haven't been born yet.
> It's the law that decides what a person is.
Laws are just things written by people. They can be just or unjust.
If the law could change what a person really is, then we would have no
business saying that there was anything wrong with either Negro
slavery or the Holocaust, because we wouldn't even be *making sense*
in doing so.
John Savard
Quadibloc
> On Feb 2, 7:55 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > It's every person's business when the law treats people as though
> > they're horses and can be bought and sold just because of the color of
> > their skin. And it's every persons business when the law treats people
> > as though they're kittens and can be euthanized at will just because
> > they haven't been born yet.
>
> And it's every person's business when the law treats half the human
> race like slaves with no say over their own bodies - which is
> *exactly* what you pro-liars would like to do to women.
>
> I will *not* be a slave. I will *not* stand by and let other women be
> made into slaves. What every woman does with her body - including her
> pregnancy -is *her business*. No one else's.
Laws which restrict access to abortion don't force women to *become*
pregnant.
It isn't slavery to hold women _responsible_ for their sexual choices
- to say that if they bring a child into the world, they must behave
responsibly towards that child's care and well being, and not hire
someone to have that child disposed of.
So the abortion question boils down to a question of fact: is a child
brought into this world at birth, or at conception?
John Savard
Quadibloc
> If a fetus was actually a person, you'd have a point. Since it is not,
> you're just making the standard appeal to cheap sentiment.
Why, exactly, is a fetus any less actually a person than a little baby
is a person?
John Savard
James Burns
Do you agree, at least, that a boundary is crossed, from
"not a person" to "a person", /somewhere/ between fertilization
and birth? I don't mean a boundary in law, or morals, or any
particular contex -- just a boundary, unmodified. Of course,
the boundary could be at a different place in different
circumstances, but if you claim that a fertilized egg
is a one-celled person, then there is just no talking to you.
If you agreed, then you would /have to/ agree that the fetus
/before it crosses that boundary/ is not a person.
Jim Burns
Bill Snyder
Because we have all agreed by law to consider a baby a person,
even though by most measures it falls much farther short of
personhood than a cat or dog.
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]
trag
To add to this well reasoned question, I submit that the question
isn't about "life", which is how the anti-abortion people phrase it
all the time. We kill life all the time in acceptable ways. We
kill human cells all the time in acceptable ways.
The question is, "When does humanity begin?"
Personally, and I say this as a doting father, I suspect that humanity
begins some time after birth and that birth is a nice convenient
bright line we can use for legal purposes.
YMMV, especially as your definition of "humanity" varies.
SkyEyes
> On Feb 2, 12:24 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 7:55 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > It's every person's business when the law treats people as though
> > > they're horses and can be bought and sold just because of the color of
> > > their skin. And it's every persons business when the law treats people
> > > as though they're kittens and can be euthanized at will just because
> > > they haven't been born yet.
>
> > And it's every person's business when the law treats half the human
> > race like slaves with no say over their own bodies - which is
> > *exactly* what you pro-liars would like to do to women.
>
> > I will *not* be a slave. I will *not* stand by and let other women be
> > made into slaves. What every woman does with her body - including her
> > pregnancy -is *her business*. No one else's.
>
> Laws which restrict access to abortion don't force women to *become*
> pregnant.
And right here we have your *real* motivation, don't we, Cupcake? You
want to decide who gets to have sex and who doesn't. You want to say
that only women who are willing to get pregnant should have sex.
>
> It isn't slavery to hold women _responsible_ for their sexual choices
> - to say that if they bring a child into the world, they must behave
> responsibly towards that child's care and well being, and not hire
> someone to have that child disposed of.
Got news for you: sex serves more purposes than just reproduction.
*You* and your fellow-travelers don't get to limit "sex is only for
reproduction" on the rest of us.
> So the abortion question boils down to a question of fact: is a child
> brought into this world at birth, or at conception?
At *birth*, dipshit. The "at conception" mantra is nothing but an
attempt to control women's behavior.
Mark
There has to be a fully developed, aware, self-motivating, breathing,
INTERACTING being before it can be considered human. Something on its
way doesn't count. But that argument holds no sway with those who
won't think past the end of their dogma, so for you, this:
Not murder. Justifiable homicide.
Return now to your regularly schedule screed.
Mike Schilling
> if you claim that a fertilized egg
> is a one-celled person, then there is just no talking to you.
The same is true if he doesn't claim that.
Quadibloc
> At *birth*, dipshit. The "at conception" mantra is nothing but an
> attempt to control women's behavior.
What is your evidence for that? Why is it any more reasonable to think
that a child becomes a person at birth than it would be to think a
child becomes a person when he or she is weaned?
John Savard
Quadibloc
> To add to this well reasoned question, I submit that the question
> isn't about "life", which is how the anti-abortion people phrase it
> all the time. We kill life all the time in acceptable ways. We
> kill human cells all the time in acceptable ways.
>
> The question is, "When does humanity begin?"
>
> Personally, and I say this as a doting father, I suspect that humanity
> begins some time after birth and that birth is a nice convenient
> bright line we can use for legal purposes.
>
> YMMV, especially as your definition of "humanity" varies.
When people opposing abortion speak of when life begins, they don't
mean when life on Earth began (either four billion years ago, or at 9
A.M. on the morning of October 23rd, 4,004 B.C. or thereabouts), they
mean when does a particular person's life begin.
This is what leads many of them to opt unhesitatingly for the moment
of conception - meaning fertilzation rather than implantation. (The
technical term for the moment they're probably looking for is
_syngamy_.)
Humanity, in at least one sense, is simply an automatic attribute of
any human organism - and a fertilized egg cell is a human organism at
the beginning of his or her life. Legal competence may happen much
later, but you don't have to be over 18 to be the victim of a
homicide.
This may be all very well from the viewpoint of many of those who
oppose abortion. Since they oppose all forms of... unconventional...
sexual behavior, they see no reason to allow the sale and use of
"morning after pills"... even though what they would kill does not yet
have within it a single differentiated precursor of a neuron. (The
first cells that will later mature into neurons will differentiate at
27 days after fertilization.)
At seven weeks of pregnancy, in addition to the embryo or fetus
looking superficially human instead of grotesque, at least some of the
subsystems of the human brain are in operation. There is a famous
photograph of a seven-week fetus sucking its thumb.
While it would be preposterous to say that personhood is present
before 27 days, it's hard to avoid seeing it as present at seven
weeks, even though the main development of the higher brain centers
starts at 19 weeks, somewhat before the start of the third trimester.
But if seven weeks is used as the dividing line... that allows
mifepristone but not RU-486, and thus, while too late to satisfy many
on the pro-life side, it will also be too early for pro-choice
advocates to feel that such a limit still allows women reasonable
options.
It may well be that one has to wait till a baby is two years old -
well, maybe one and a half years or a bit less - before it displays
uniquely human behavior and intelligence. But the fact that in our
earliest youth we were beasts does not change the fact that that youth
is still part of the life of a human being. So the presence of
experience, thought, and perception, even at a subhuman level, would
seem a reasonable threshhold.
John Savard
D.F. Manno
<8f1d8b0e-6a9f-4379...@q30g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
LawnGuyland <loisf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27 2009, 10:33�pm, D.F. Manno <dfma...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Anim8rFSK <ANIM8R...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > "Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian" wrote:
> > > > raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > > > > Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > >>Actor Gary Graham
> > > > >>knew that by writing about his personal experience and rejection of
> > > > >>abortion, he would be incurring the ire of not a few among the
> > > > >>Hollywood elite.
> >
> > > > > And we should give a flying fuck about some C-list actor's opinion
> > > > > why?
> >
> > > > "Star Trek Actor"...heh. A total of 15 episodes, 3 different characters
> > > > on 3 different series. Yeah, he's influential.
> >
> > > > Still...funny how when a right-leaning actor yaps about stuff, it's
> > > > important and insightful, but if a leftie does it, the rightards
> > > > scream.
> >
> > > Who said it was important and insightful?
> >
> > Strumpet, obviously.
> >
> > > I called the guy a liar and an idiot.
>
> 10 posts in and every poster has attacked the messenger and not once
> addressed the message. How about debating what he actually said rather
> than how important an actor he is?
It took you 37 days to write that?
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the
intelligent are full of doubt. (Bertrand Russell)
Wayne Throop
: Why is it any more reasonable to think
: that a child becomes a person at birth than it would be to think a
: child becomes a person when he or she is weaned?
Insert paragraph about sensory deprivation and memory engrams
and personality formation here.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Ray Fischer
>On Feb 2, 11:57�am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Quadibloc wrote:
>
>> > It's every person's business when the law treats people
>> > as though they're horses and can be bought and sold just
>> > because of the color of their skin. And it's every
>> > persons business when the law treats people as though
>> > they're kittens and can be euthanized at will just
>> > because they haven't been born yet.
>
>> It's the law that decides what a person is.
>
>Laws are just things written by people. They can be just or unjust.
>
>If the law could change what a person really is,
Logical Fallacy: Assuming the conclusion.
You assume there there is such a thing as "what a person really is"
and that it can be something other than what the law says it is.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Feb 2, 12:24�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 2, 7:55�am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> > It's every person's business when the law treats people as though
>> > they're horses and can be bought and sold just because of the color of
>> > their skin. And it's every persons business when the law treats people
>> > as though they're kittens and can be euthanized at will just because
>> > they haven't been born yet.
>>
>> And it's every person's business when the law treats half the human
>> race like slaves with no say over their own bodies - which is
>> *exactly* what you pro-liars would like to do to women.
>>
>> I will *not* be a slave. �I will *not* stand by and let other women be
>> made into slaves. �What every woman does with her body - including her
>> pregnancy -is *her business*. �No one else's.
>
>Laws which restrict access to abortion don't force women to *become*
>pregnant.
Laws which restrcit slaves from escaping don't force people to be
black.
>It isn't slavery to hold women _responsible_ for their sexual choices
Another pro-liar asshole argues that getting pregnant is a serious
crime to be punished wth forced childbirth.
It is ALWAYS about punishing sexuality.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Lots of reasons, not the least of which is the inconvenient fact that
you don't know when the life of a fetus begins.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
clouddreamer
Funny how religion loves to interfere with what has to be the most
natural act a human being can engage in.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us.
Peter Bruells
> Funny how religion loves to interfere with what has to be the most
> natural act a human being can engage in.
Well, since they can't really interfere with the supernatural, they
have little choice.
Ray Fischer
If you're going to convince people to give you money for helping to
"save" them then it helps to make them guilty about a fundamental and
natural biological drive like sex.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
SkyEyes
Because being a "person" necessitates a functioning nervous system and
brain. At conception, there is *no* nervous system of any kind. The
nervous system only becomes functional shortly before birth.
Get over the idea that any piece of human meat is a "person." It
quite clearly isn't.
SkyEyes
> Funny how religion loves to interfere with what has to be the most
> natural act a human being can engage in.
Not really, when you stop and think about it. Religions are all about
controlling people. If you can control a really basic behavior, you
have a death-grip on the person.
So which basic behaviors can be controlled?
Breathing? That's *really*, really hard. A human, like any other
animal, has to breathe, or s/he dies in short order. A few advanced
hindu yogis and buddhist lamas have learned to control their breath in
significant ways, but the average human, who has to work and pay
attention to the little things of life, cannot. So they can't really
use breathing as a means of population control.
Drinking? Well, it's a little bit easier to control fluid intake than
to control breathing - depending on a person's overall health and the
ambient environment, you can go for up to three days without water;
but the concept still has limited applications. If you limit fluid
intake severely enough, the animal (the human believer in this case)
dies. Some RC monks do it; and muslims refrain from eating *and*
drinking during Ramadan (but only from sunrise to sunset). On the
other hand, it is fairly easy to prohibit certain *kinds* of drinks:
alcoholic beverages, coffee, etc. can be proscribed without harming
the congregants.
Eating? Considerably easier than restricting fluids. There are many
different kinds of food, so it's easy to declare some foods to be
inedible/non-kosher/non-halal, thereby controlling one aspect of
behavior. Add to that the fact that a human can go for up to three
weeks without eating - that makes room for *lots* of behavior control.
Having sex? Now you're talkin'. Humans don't actually have to *have*
sex in order to stay alive (although having sex certainly makes the
prospect of living more enjoyable). Therefore, this is usually the
area where the Religious Police attempt to exercise the most
control:
"You can't have sex except to reproduce!"
"You can't have sex if you're not married!"
"You can't have sex if you're not married to the person you want
to have sex
*with*!"
"You can only have sex in the 'missionary position' !"
"You can't have sex, even for reproduction and in the missionary
position,
before you come to religious services, or you'll be unclean!"
"You can't have sex on holy days!"
"You can't have sex with anyone not of our religion!"
Man, that's a veritable mother lode of proscripted behaviors.
clouddreamer
> On Feb 4, 6:41 am, clouddreamer <Reuse.Recy...@nd.Reduce.now> wrote:
>
>> Funny how religion loves to interfere with what has to be the most
>> natural act a human being can engage in.
>
> Not really, when you stop and think about it. Religions are all about
> controlling people. If you can control a really basic behavior, you
> have a death-grip on the person.
Absolutely. But you'd think that in this day and age, people would wake
up to the hypocrisy of the church. Heck, god was supposed to have
created everything...and if he is so against sex, why did he work such a
driving natural instinct into his creation???
And if this god was so powerful, why is it he can't even get 6 billion
people to agree on his wishes (let alone his existence...heck, you'd
think he'd at least take five minutes to pop by once and a while).
haiku jones
And then the Grand Finale: Augustine's "You can have sex,
but only in marriage and only to conceive -- because
sexual pleasure is evil".
Haiku Jones
clouddreamer
>
> And then the Grand Finale: Augustine's "You can have sex,
> but only in marriage and only to conceive -- because
> sexual pleasure is evil".
Which only begs the question...if god created everything, why did he
create sexual drive? Why did he not make it so that you only had sex
once a month and didn't want it any other time.
So god must be evil because he made sex pleasurable.
Of course, the real answer is that nature created human beings and in
order to ensure the survival of the species, sex had to be pleasurable.
If it wasn't, a species died out.
Too bad people are still too stupid to figure out that god has been
taking credit for the work of Mother Nature all this time.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Feb 3, 5:12�pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2:00�pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > At *birth*, dipshit. �The "at conception" mantra is nothing but an
>> > attempt to control women's behavior.
>>
>> What is your evidence for that? Why is it any more reasonable to think
>> that a child becomes a person at birth than it would be to think a
>> child becomes a person when he or she is weaned?
>
>Because being a "person" necessitates a functioning nervous system and
>brain. At conception, there is *no* nervous system of any kind. The
>nervous system only becomes functional shortly before birth.
>
>Get over the idea that any piece of human meat is a "person." It
>quite clearly isn't.
Which is why they say "human life" instead of "human being", hoping
you won't notice.
Walter Bushell
<0024b421-0d2b-47a2...@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
SkyEyes <skye...@cox.net> wrote:
> Some RC monks do it; and muslims refrain from eating *and*
> drinking during Ramadan (but only from sunrise to sunset). On the
> other hand, it is fairly easy to prohibit certain *kinds* of drinks:
> alcoholic beverages, coffee, etc. can be proscribed without harming
> the congregants.
And go hog wild after dark, of course, most of them in Islamic
countries. No work gets done during Ramadan.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Lefty
Depends of the stage of development. Prior to the development of
awareness and cognition (which makes one a unique individual), the
fetus does not have the qualities we consider essential to status as a
person. A baby has cognition of a rudimentary sort. So does a late
term fetus.
I hope that answers your question and thanks for not getting emotional
about it. That's rare in abortion discussions,
Lefty
Right. Personhood is a legal concept and the idea that it even exists
is a social construct. Therefore, we, as a society, get to decide when
it begins.
Lefty
> On Feb 2, 11:57 am, "thomas p." <gudl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Quadibloc wrote:
> > > It's every person's business when the law treats people
> > > as though they're horses and can be bought and sold just
> > > because of the color of their skin. And it's every
> > > persons business when the law treats people as though
> > > they're kittens and can be euthanized at will just
> > > because they haven't been born yet.
> > It's the law that decides what a person is.
>
> Laws are just things written by people. They can be just or unjust.
And....? What law do you say is unjust, and why?
> If the law could change what a person really is, then we would have no
> business saying that there was anything wrong with either Negro
> slavery or the Holocaust, because we wouldn't even be *making sense*
> in doing so.
There is no reasonable basis for denying the rights of personhood to
certain ethnic groups. The law has to be reasonable or people won't
support it, at least in the west. In theocratic Islamic hellholes,
unreasonable law regarding human rights is accepted.
Lefty
> On Feb 2, 12:24 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 2, 7:55 am, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> > > It's every person's business when the law treats people as though
> > > they're horses and can be bought and sold just because of the color of
> > > their skin. And it's every persons business when the law treats people
> > > as though they're kittens and can be euthanized at will just because
> > > they haven't been born yet.
>
> > race like slaves with no say over their own bodies - which is
> > *exactly* what you pro-liars would like to do to women.
>
> > I will *not* be a slave. I will *not* stand by and let other women be
> > made into slaves. What every woman does with her body - including her
> > pregnancy -is *her business*. No one else's.
>
> Laws which restrict access to abortion don't force women to *become*
> pregnant.
Yes, but the law justifiably recognizes that you can't penalize people
for having sex by forcing them to gestate.
> It isn't slavery to hold women _responsible_ for their sexual choices
> - to say that if they bring a child into the world, they must behave
> responsibly towards that child's care and well being, and not hire
> someone to have that child disposed of.
Having an abortion ~is~ the responsible thing to do. Bringing an
unwanted child into the world is highly irresponsible. Do you want
irresponsible women raising children?
> So the abortion question boils down to a question of fact: is a child
> brought into this world at birth, or at conception?
No, that's not the right question. The question is; does a fetus have
the qualities that we consider indicative of personhood, meaning some
form of intellectual and emotional awareness, and if so, when does it
develop?
Lefty
Quadibloc
> And go hog wild after dark, of course, most of them in Islamic
> countries. No work gets done during Ramadan.
Which would be a particular problem, given that the Muslim calendar is
strictly lunar, if Ramadan were to fall during harvest time.
Whatever might be said about how "true" Islam is actually tolerant and
nice to women, this one thing _alone_ means that the notion of Islam
being the *one true religion* to which one might consider converting
cannot _begin_ to be taken seriously in the Western world by large
numbers of people. This probably hurts their feelings something
terrible.
John Savard
Walter Bushell
<f36f340c-c17f-49ad...@h2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
Well, I suppose the lack of work applies to office type jobs, and I do
suppose there has to be some lifting of the restriction for the fields,
imagine trying to do heavy manual labor in Iraq, for example, without
water. My information comes from urban or intellectual types.
haiku jones
> <0024b421-0d2b-47a2-909c-ce5af2922...@u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
>
> SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Some RC monks do it; and muslims refrain from eating *and*
> > drinking during Ramadan (but only from sunrise to sunset). On the
> > other hand, it is fairly easy to prohibit certain *kinds* of drinks:
> > alcoholic beverages, coffee, etc. can be proscribed without harming
> > the congregants.
>
> And go hog wild after dark, of course, most of them in Islamic
> countries. No work gets done during Ramadan.
Hog wild? Is that halal?
Haiku Jones
Walter Bushell
<33976148-f9b9-45b6...@t31g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
haiku jones <575j...@gmail.com> wrote:
Good question, although somewhat off the point. Actually wild boars
taken in hunting are specifically allowed.
SkyEyes
> On Feb 3, 2:00 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > At *birth*, dipshit. The "at conception" mantra is nothing but an
> > attempt to control women's behavior.
>
> What is your evidence for that? Why is it any more reasonable to think
> that a child becomes a person at birth than it would be to think a
> child becomes a person when he or she is weaned?
Because the nervous system becomes enabled shortly before birth.
Birth is, therefore, an appropriate (and very common) milestone for
declaring personhood.
Frank Mayhar
> On Feb 3, 5:12 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2:00 pm, SkyEyes <skyey...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> > At *birth*, dipshit. The "at conception" mantra is nothing but an
>> > attempt to control women's behavior.
>>
>> What is your evidence for that? Why is it any more reasonable to think
>> that a child becomes a person at birth than it would be to think a
>> child becomes a person when he or she is weaned?
>
> Because the nervous system becomes enabled shortly before birth. Birth
> is, therefore, an appropriate (and very common) milestone for declaring
> personhood.
Although there is a strong argument to be made that "personhood" doesn't
happen until two or three months _after_ birth. Anyone who has gone
through the process can tell you that for at least the first month or so,
the kid is an adorable little lump. A very cute and lovable bundle of
autonomic reflexes.
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
Quadibloc
> Although there is a strong argument to be made that "personhood" doesn't
> happen until two or three months _after_ birth. Anyone who has gone
> through the process can tell you that for at least the first month or so,
> the kid is an adorable little lump. A very cute and lovable bundle of
> autonomic reflexes.
Assume that there are destructive social consequences for legalizing
infanticide during the first month.
Assume that the public achieves a high level of awareness and
understanding about the processes of prenatal development, and is
capable of fully and objectively recognizing the fetus they do not see
in accurate comparison with the adorable baby they do see without
being swayed by emotion to an inaccurate evaluation.
Conclusion: legalizing abortion will then have the same destructive
social consequences.
John Savard
Wayne Throop
: Assume that there are destructive social consequences for legalizing
: infanticide during the first month.
:
: Assume that the public achieves a high level of awareness and
: understanding about the processes of prenatal development, and is
: capable of fully and objectively recognizing the fetus they do not see
: in accurate comparison with the adorable baby they do see without
: being swayed by emotion to an inaccurate evaluation.
:
: Conclusion: legalizing abortion will then have the same destructive
: social consequences.
Doesn't that extend by induction back to the egg? If not, why not?
My own notion is that you're importing a raft of assumptions in
the "fully and objetively recognizing" bit.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Ray Fischer
>On Feb 5, 3:55�pm, Frank Mayhar <fr...@exit.com> wrote:
>
>> Although there is a strong argument to be made that "personhood" doesn't
>> happen until two or three months _after_ birth. �Anyone who has gone
>> through the process can tell you that for at least the first month or so,
>> the kid is an adorable little lump. �A very cute and lovable bundle of
>> autonomic reflexes.
>
>Assume that there are destructive social consequences for legalizing
>infanticide during the first month.
>
>Assume that the public achieves a high level of awareness and
>understanding about the processes of prenatal development, and is
>capable of fully and objectively recognizing the fetus they do not see
>in accurate comparison with the adorable baby they do see without
>being swayed by emotion to an inaccurate evaluation.
Why would we assume that?
>Conclusion: legalizing abortion will then have the same destructive
>social consequences.
Patent nonsense. Despite the lunacy of your cult, a fetus is not the
same as an infant and will never be the same as an infant.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Virgil
<f22ddb9f-994f-479f...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
> Assume that there are destructive social consequences for legalizing
> infanticide during the first month.
Assume that there are still, as there always have been in the past,
destructive social consequences for banning abortion of fetuses during
the first month.
Those who want to change the law to ban such abortions are unwilling to
themselves bear the costs of such bannings, but intend to put those
costs off on others.
Quadibloc
> My own notion is that you're importing a raft of assumptions in
> the "fully and objetively recognizing" bit.
Yes, I've just managed to prove that abortion should be outlawed on
the planet Vulcan.
John Savard
Wayne Throop
:: "fully and objetively recognizing" bit.
: Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
: Yes, I've just managed to prove that abortion should be outlawed on
: the planet Vulcan.
No, you're assuming that you, yourself, have a full and objective
understanding of human embryogenesis and birth. Or even that such
a thing makes sense in context. So your argument applies only to
you own fantasy-Vulan, where everybody agrees with you.
SkyEyes
And you don't think there will be "destructive social consequences"
from effectively making women into slaves?
You're delusional.
Mike Schilling
> Although there is a strong argument to be made that "personhood"
> doesn't happen until two or three months _after_ birth. Anyone who
> has gone through the process can tell you that for at least the
> first month or so, the kid is an adorable little lump. A very cute
> and lovable bundle of autonomic reflexes.
But anyone who's gone through it more than once would say the opposite --
that each baby is a unique individual from day one.
Frank Mayhar
Conclusion: You're an idiot. And, I may add, a damned fool.
(Hint: Your conclusion follows in no way from your premises, which are
themselves flawed.)
Frank Mayhar
Unique, yes. There are lots of ways for those autonomic reflexes to
express themselves. "Individual," though? No, not so much.
But this is about personality and "personhood," not uniqueness or
individuality.
Free Lunch
wrote in alt.atheism:
>On Feb 5, 3:55�pm, Frank Mayhar <fr...@exit.com> wrote:
>
>> Although there is a strong argument to be made that "personhood" doesn't
>> happen until two or three months _after_ birth. �Anyone who has gone
>> through the process can tell you that for at least the first month or so,
>> the kid is an adorable little lump. �A very cute and lovable bundle of
>> autonomic reflexes.
>
>Assume that there are destructive social consequences for legalizing
>infanticide during the first month.
Why?
>Assume that the public achieves a high level of awareness and
>understanding about the processes of prenatal development, and is
>capable of fully and objectively recognizing the fetus they do not see
>in accurate comparison with the adorable baby they do see without
>being swayed by emotion to an inaccurate evaluation.
>
>Conclusion: legalizing abortion will then have the same destructive
>social consequences.
So, if you get to assume whatever you want and make a bad logical
argument, you might win.