Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Terracide and Terrarists
11 views
Skip to first unread message
chatnoir
May 24, 2013, 2:36:20 PM5/24/13
to
http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
headline:
We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
the environment: ecocide. But we don’t have a word for the conscious
act of destroying the planet we live on, the world as humanity had
known it until, historically speaking, late last night. A possibility
might be “terracide” from the Latin word for earth. It has the right
ring, given its similarity to the commonplace danger word of our era:
terrorist.
The truth is, whatever we call them, it’s time to talk bluntly about
the terrarists of our world. Yes, I know, 9/11 was horrific. Almost
3,000 dead, massive towers down, apocalyptic scenes. And yes, when it
comes to terror attacks, the Boston Marathon bombings weren’t pretty
either. But in both cases, those who committed the acts paid for or
will pay for their crimes.
In the case of the terrarists -- and here I’m referring in particular
to the men who run what may be the most profitable corporations on the
planet, giant energy companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron,
ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell -- you’re the one who’s going to pay,
especially your children and grandchildren. You can take one thing for
granted: not a single terrarist will ever go to jail, and yet they
certainly knew what they were doing.
It wasn’t that complicated. In recent years, the companies they run
have been extracting fossil fuels from the Earth in ever more frenetic
and ingenious ways. The burning of those fossil fuels, in turn, has
put record amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Only
this month, the CO2 level reached 400 parts per million for the first
time in human history. A consensus of scientists has long concluded
that the process was warming the world and that, if the average
planetary temperature rose more than two degrees Celsius, all sorts of
dangers could ensue, including seas rising high enough to inundate
coastal cities, increasingly intenseheat waves, droughts, floods, ever
more extreme storm systems, and so on.
How to Make Staggering Amounts of Money and Do In the Planet
None of this was exactly a mystery. It’s in the scientific literature.
NASA scientist James Hansen first publicized the reality of global
warming to Congress in 1988. It took a while -- thanks in part to the
terrarists -- but the news of what was happening increasingly made it
into the mainstream. Anybody could learn about it. ... (cont)
headline:
We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
the environment: ecocide. But we don’t have a word for the conscious
act of destroying the planet we live on, the world as humanity had
known it until, historically speaking, late last night. A possibility
might be “terracide” from the Latin word for earth. It has the right
ring, given its similarity to the commonplace danger word of our era:
terrorist.
The truth is, whatever we call them, it’s time to talk bluntly about
the terrarists of our world. Yes, I know, 9/11 was horrific. Almost
3,000 dead, massive towers down, apocalyptic scenes. And yes, when it
comes to terror attacks, the Boston Marathon bombings weren’t pretty
either. But in both cases, those who committed the acts paid for or
will pay for their crimes.
In the case of the terrarists -- and here I’m referring in particular
to the men who run what may be the most profitable corporations on the
planet, giant energy companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron,
ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell -- you’re the one who’s going to pay,
especially your children and grandchildren. You can take one thing for
granted: not a single terrarist will ever go to jail, and yet they
certainly knew what they were doing.
It wasn’t that complicated. In recent years, the companies they run
have been extracting fossil fuels from the Earth in ever more frenetic
and ingenious ways. The burning of those fossil fuels, in turn, has
put record amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Only
this month, the CO2 level reached 400 parts per million for the first
time in human history. A consensus of scientists has long concluded
that the process was warming the world and that, if the average
planetary temperature rose more than two degrees Celsius, all sorts of
dangers could ensue, including seas rising high enough to inundate
coastal cities, increasingly intenseheat waves, droughts, floods, ever
more extreme storm systems, and so on.
How to Make Staggering Amounts of Money and Do In the Planet
None of this was exactly a mystery. It’s in the scientific literature.
NASA scientist James Hansen first publicized the reality of global
warming to Congress in 1988. It took a while -- thanks in part to the
terrarists -- but the news of what was happening increasingly made it
into the mainstream. Anybody could learn about it. ... (cont)
Planet Visitor II
May 24, 2013, 3:20:09 PM5/24/13
to
On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:20 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
>
>headline:
>
>We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
>group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
>the environment: ecocide. But we don’t have a word for the conscious
>act of destroying the planet we live on, the world as humanity had
>known it --
>http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
>
>headline:
>
>We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
>group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
>the environment: ecocide. But we don’t have a word for the conscious
>act of destroying the planet we live on, the world as humanity had
No one word... but we do have a term for it. It's called "on-demand abortion
resulting in the killing of viable fetuses to satisfy the whim of a juke and jive
semi-adult in the U.S."
Planet Visitor II
chatnoir
May 24, 2013, 5:07:11 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 1:20 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
That does not destroy the planet
Planet Visitor II
May 24, 2013, 5:53:00 PM5/24/13
to
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/destroy
DESTROY -- "to kill."
Which is the term I used. It certainly "destroys" any possibility that the
fetus involved will ever possibly grow into a productive life on this planet.
If you insist that on-demand abortion does not "kill" human life... then
you need to defend a claim that the fetus not "human life."
Planet Visitor II
chatnoir
May 24, 2013, 8:54:44 PM5/24/13
to
On May 24, 3:53 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I need to reafirm a Women's Right to Choose!
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >On May 24, 1:20 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:20 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
>
> >> >headline:
>
> >> >We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
> >> >group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
> >> >the environment: ecocide. But we don’t have a word for the conscious
> >> >act of destroying the planet we live on, the world as humanity had
> >> >known it --
>
> >> No one word... but we do have a term for it. It's called "on-demand abortion
> >> resulting in the killing of viable fetuses to satisfy the whim of a juke and jive
> >> semi-adult in the U.S."
>
> >> Planet Visitor II
>
> >That does not destroy the planet
>
> That all depends upon what is used as the definition of "destroy." See --http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/destroy
> >On May 24, 1:20 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:20 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
>
> >> >headline:
>
> >> >We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
> >> >group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
> >> >the environment: ecocide. But we don’t have a word for the conscious
> >> >act of destroying the planet we live on, the world as humanity had
> >> >known it --
>
> >> No one word... but we do have a term for it. It's called "on-demand abortion
> >> resulting in the killing of viable fetuses to satisfy the whim of a juke and jive
> >> semi-adult in the U.S."
>
> >> Planet Visitor II
>
> >That does not destroy the planet
>
> DESTROY -- "to kill."
>
> Which is the term I used. It certainly "destroys" any possibility that the
> fetus involved will ever possibly grow into a productive life on this planet.
>
> If you insist that on-demand abortion does not "kill" human life... then
> you need to defend a claim that the fetus not "human life."
>
> Planet Visitor II- Hide quoted text -
>
> Which is the term I used. It certainly "destroys" any possibility that the
> fetus involved will ever possibly grow into a productive life on this planet.
>
> If you insist that on-demand abortion does not "kill" human life... then
> you need to defend a claim that the fetus not "human life."
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
No, I need to reafirm a Women's Right to Choose!
Planet Visitor II
May 25, 2013, 12:23:05 AM5/25/13
to
anomalies of legal niceties in the U.S., is that a pregnant woman
is the only member of our species who has a right to demand the
killing of a viable human fetus, if she is health, capable of bearing
a child, and responsible for that fetus being inside of her through a
voluntary sexual encounter; while she doesn't have a right to
demand that her viable right arm be cut off if it is attached to her.
Apparently arms are much more precious than life itself in the U.S.
legal system. While men (equally responsible for that fetus)
have no such "right to choose."
I don't think I have to remind you that because something is
legal does not automatically mean it is moral. So.... does a
viable fetus represent human life??? Because we're talking about
a "right to choose," we should more precisely define what exactly
that particular "choice" intends to provide. Will it "provide the
right" for a woman to kill her boyfriend if she _gets tired of "carrying"
him emotionally and financially_, and he simply refuses to leave?
Or is it simply a _woman's right to choose to ignore red lights at
traffic intersections_? And frankly, ignoring that "right," do you
believe it is moral to terminate viable human life on-demand, if
that human life represents no threat to the person deciding to
terminate that viable human life??
Planet Visitor II
chatnoir
May 25, 2013, 8:03:48 AM5/25/13
to
On May 24, 10:23 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
I beleive in a woman's right to choose = Period!
Jim_Higgins
May 25, 2013, 8:06:35 AM5/25/13
to
On 5/25/13 8:03 AM, chatnoir wrote:
> On May 24, 10:23 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:54:44 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On May 24, 3:53 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 24, 1:20 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:20 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
>>
>>>>>>> headline:
>>
>>>>>>> We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
>>>>>>> group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
>>>>>>> the environment: ecocide. But we don�t have a word for the conscious
> On May 24, 10:23 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:54:44 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>> On May 24, 3:53 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>> On May 24, 1:20 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:20 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
>>
>>>>>>> headline:
>>
>>>>>>> We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
>>>>>>> group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
convenient tool.
--
"Guarded by a tired cohort of Roman Heavy Infantry"
chatnoir
May 25, 2013, 8:16:48 AM5/25/13
to
On May 25, 6:06 am, Jim_Higgins <gordian...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/25/13 8:03 AM, chatnoir wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 10:23 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:54:44 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>> On May 24, 3:53 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On May 24, 1:20 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:20 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
>
> >>>>>>> headline:
>
> >>>>>>> We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
> >>>>>>> group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
> >>>>>>> the environment: ecocide. But we don t have a word for the conscious
> On 5/25/13 8:03 AM, chatnoir wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 24, 10:23 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 17:54:44 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>> On May 24, 3:53 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 14:07:11 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On May 24, 1:20 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 24 May 2013 11:36:20 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfbat3...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>http://www.nationofchange.org/terracide-and-terrarists-1369404366
>
> >>>>>>> headline:
>
> >>>>>>> We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic
> >>>>>>> group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of
you then = your position is more absurd than mine!
Jim_Higgins
May 25, 2013, 8:25:37 AM5/25/13
to
Planet Visitor II
May 26, 2013, 3:08:00 AM5/26/13
to
opposition to justice, morality, fairness, equality, and respect for human
life, all of which would require reflection, empathy, reasoning, intellect,
and emotional maturity, which you consider irrelevant. You "believe
in a woman's right to choose" to murder her boyfriend if he doesn't
satisfy her sexually.
Welcome to the world of religion, my friend. Since your "I believe
in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
"I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
It's always nice when I have a dialog with someone who states a
view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
"believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
Planet Visitor II
chatnoir
May 26, 2013, 5:18:45 AM5/26/13
to
On May 26, 1:08 am, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
You are the one who does not respect a woman's right to choose!
>
> Welcome to the world of religion, my friend. Since your "I believe
> in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
> "I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
Not reallly
>
> It's always nice when I have a dialog with someone who states a
> view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
> "believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
>
What is there to discuss? Your only discussion is that women who
choose are murderers!
>
> Welcome to the world of religion, my friend. Since your "I believe
> in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
> "I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
>
> It's always nice when I have a dialog with someone who states a
> view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
> "believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
>
choose are murderers!
Planet Visitor II
May 26, 2013, 3:27:16 PM5/26/13
to
right to choose ANYTHING that a man has the same right to choose.
However, I wouldn't go so far as to compare an on-demand vasectomy
with an on-demand abortion. Just as with a vasectomy I do support
a woman's right to have any and all procedures that would PREVENT
an unwanted pregnancy.
>> Welcome to the world of religion, my friend. Since your "I believe
>> in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
>> "I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
>
>Not reallly
about something that the propounder argues does not have to be
explained... as if the orders came from God almighty.
>> It's always nice when I have a dialog with someone who states a
>> view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
>> "believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
>
>What is there to discuss?
exactly is the object that a woman has a right to choose? And why isn't
that same right afforded to men, since it sounds a bit sexist to simply
say "I support a woman's right to choose"?
To choose WHAT, for heaven's sake? Or is that too complicated for you?
Your silly mantra doesn't really make any logical or practical sense as
written. Or is it your inability to actually speak of the "object" that the
woman has the right to choose. Perhaps it sort of sticks in your craw
when you visualize what you're actually supporting... and you fear
articulating it in more precise words will expose the hypocrisy in your
argument. See --
http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-13/news/38494337_1_gosnell-employee-tina-baldwin-abortions
This is part of that "right" that you support for women. Notice that
it is only the doctor who is being prosecuted... because woman have
that "right" that you support.
> Your only discussion is that women who choose are murderers!
you have a guilty conscience.
Scene 1 --
Nineteen-year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I'm not happy with my viable right arm,
it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable, but I have an absolute,
and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,' and I could possibly make
more money without it, and I can choose what to do with my own
body. Amputate my viable right arm, and throw it away. Right now!!"
Doctor picks up phone... speaks 'in a whisper' to nurse...soon
orderlies in white-coats, carrying straight-jackets, come to take
young twit away to booby hatch.
Scene 2 --
Nineteen year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I have this viable piece of life growing
in my womb, and it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable,
but I have an absolute, and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,'
and I can probably make more money without it, and I can choose
what to do with my body. Vacuum out this unwanted viable fetus,
and throw it away. Right now!!"
Doctor picks up phone -- Speaks 'in a whisper' to nurse,,,
"Nurse.. did this 19-year-old twit pays the $500 for her on-demand
abortion?" Confirming it has been paid... Doctor says to twit --
"hop up on this table, young lady... Spread those legs, and
we'll quickly rid you of that viable human life growing inside
of you, and toss it into that pail over there filled with other
viable fetuses." Vroom.... vroomm... sluurppp... suck....
slurppp.....flip..flip...
Scene 3 --
Two blocks away -- Young, educated, middle-class couple
enters adoption center. Director tells them -- "Sorry, we have
no children available for adoption that you would accept at
this moment... they are all of the wrong race for you. You
should come back next year... we'll put your name on the
waiting list. Don't call us... we'll call you. Or you could go
to Romania, which will cost you a total of between $50,000
to $100,000 to adopt one of their unwanted children.
Although there is no guarantee that they will not just take your
money, and never deliver any child. And Russia no longer
wants to give away her babies, since you probably don't
want an American child, anyway."
How typical.. that someone would support sucking out life,
and tossing it into a garbage pail... all on the whim of the
twit... wishing only to quickly return to her 'juke and jive'
empty existence. While others, in this most affluent of
societies (I speak of the U.S., and only the U.S. in my
comments), cannot gain what they find to be the most
precious commodity in our advance as a species... life...
that they wish to nourish, care for, and rear into a person
who will hopefully be productive and provide some future
benefit for our country and our species. See --
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/17/142344354/fewer-babies-available-for-adoption-by-u-s-parents
How typical... that we would allow that twit to make that
'life and death' decision. When we permit not a single
other act from any individual which would permit that
same decision to be made without oversight from our
society to determine that EACH individual decision
that took a life was necessary and essential.
I am not opposed to abortion, per se. If that arm is
gangrenous, or cancerous... and medical authorities
determine it threatens the life of that twit... or the fetus
is determined to threaten the life of that twit, then both
amputation or abortion are certainly necessary and
essential. Nor am I opposed to birth control... the
morning after.. or the week after. And I support any
and all vasectomy procedures or other procedures that
would prevent pregnancy in almost absolute terms.
PREVENTION is what I support. Not ON-DEMAND
DISPOSABLE, as if discarding a bucket of slop.
But where do we draw the "moral" line in each of our
subjective ideas of our own "morality," and the life of
our future generations? Who are we saving from whom...
in on-demand abortion?
No one has been able to answer those questions with any
degree of sensitivity or sensibility to me. And never in
terms of considering the fetus being anything more valuable
than a rock. Once the word "life" is used... we have a different
set of parameters... and "life" is not in a test tube, or in the
first few days after sexual intercourse when courses of action
other than on-demand abortion are readily available.
Planet Visitor II
chatnoir
May 26, 2013, 5:40:38 PM5/26/13
to
On May 26, 1:27 pm, Planet Visitor II <na...@nosuchserver.com> wrote:
Tell it to the Pope!
> >> Welcome to the world of religion, my friend. Since your "I believe
> >> in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
> >> "I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
>
> >Not reallly
>
> And yet they represent exactly the same thing... a dogmatic assertion
> about something that the propounder argues does not have to be
> explained... as if the orders came from God almighty.
No, it is recognizing that only a woman can become pregnant! Not a
man. Therefore I agree with her right to choose!
>
> >> It's always nice when I have a dialog with someone who states a
> >> view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
> >> "believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
>
> >What is there to discuss?
>
> Perhaps the object of your sentence should at least be clarified. What
> exactly is the object that a woman has a right to choose? And why isn't
> that same right afforded to men, since it sounds a bit sexist to simply
> say "I support a woman's right to choose"?
A man can't get pregnant!
>
> To choose WHAT, for heaven's sake? Or is that too complicated for you?
> Your silly mantra doesn't really make any logical or practical sense as
> written. Or is it your inability to actually speak of the "object" that the
> woman has the right to choose. Perhaps it sort of sticks in your craw
> when you visualize what you're actually supporting... and you fear
> articulating it in more precise words will expose the hypocrisy in your
> argument. See --http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-13/news/38494337_1_gosnell-employe...
>
> > Your only discussion is that women who choose are murderers!
>
> I don't believe the word "murderers" was ever mentioned by me. Perhaps
> you have a guilty conscience.
Then what religious law are they breaking according to you?
>
> Scene 1 --
> Nineteen-year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I'm not happy with my viable right arm,
> it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable, but I have an absolute,
> and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,' and I could possibly make
> more money without it, and I can choose what to do with my own
> body. Amputate my viable right arm, and throw it away. Right now!!"
The embryo is not a part of the pregnant woman!
>
> Doctor picks up phone... speaks 'in a whisper' to nurse...soon
> orderlies in white-coats, carrying straight-jackets, come to take
> young twit away to booby hatch.
>
> Scene 2 --
> Nineteen year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I have this viable piece of life growing
> in my womb, and it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable,
> but I have an absolute, and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,'
> and I can probably make more money without it, and I can choose
> what to do with my body. Vacuum out this unwanted viable fetus,
> and throw it away. Right now!!"
Hmmm. I would not present it in that scope. I think it is a hard
decision for most women to make = not the trival persuit you present
it as such. Any human action can be make to look like a trivial
persuit and not of value!
> benefit for our country and our species. See --http://www.npr.org/2011/11/17/142344354/fewer-babies-available-for-ad...
A life is precious = therefore a woman should really want to have it -
not have it and not be able to care for it - which you conservatives
refuse to pick up!
>
> How typical... that we would allow that twit to make that
> 'life and death' decision. When we permit not a single
> other act from any individual which would permit that
> same decision to be made without oversight from our
> society to determine that EACH individual decision
> that took a life was necessary and essential.
By naming her a twit, you have allready devalued her life - whcih I
will not do. She has the right to have or not have the baby without
one choice totally devaluing her life. And if the baby would not be
born viable or severely retarded, you would still demand she have the
baby or die in the process! That is the ultimate value to place all
the value on the embryo and none on the so-called valueless woman.
>
> I am not opposed to abortion, per se. If that arm is
> gangrenous, or cancerous... and medical authorities
> determine it threatens the life of that twit... or the fetus
> is determined to threaten the ...
That is not what many religious people say = the ultimate value is
with the embryo = not the devalued woman - which they are devalued by
religion throughout their life. Why should your position on aborting
a severely retarded fetus be taken as something that should happen
when the important fetus is yet to be born to the valueless mother!
Which again many religious people - the final authority support!
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
> >> Welcome to the world of religion, my friend. Since your "I believe
> >> in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
> >> "I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
>
> >Not reallly
>
> And yet they represent exactly the same thing... a dogmatic assertion
> about something that the propounder argues does not have to be
> explained... as if the orders came from God almighty.
man. Therefore I agree with her right to choose!
>
> >> It's always nice when I have a dialog with someone who states a
> >> view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
> >> "believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
>
> >What is there to discuss?
>
> Perhaps the object of your sentence should at least be clarified. What
> exactly is the object that a woman has a right to choose? And why isn't
> that same right afforded to men, since it sounds a bit sexist to simply
> say "I support a woman's right to choose"?
>
> To choose WHAT, for heaven's sake? Or is that too complicated for you?
> Your silly mantra doesn't really make any logical or practical sense as
> written. Or is it your inability to actually speak of the "object" that the
> woman has the right to choose. Perhaps it sort of sticks in your craw
> when you visualize what you're actually supporting... and you fear
> articulating it in more precise words will expose the hypocrisy in your
> This is part of that "right" that you support for women. Notice that
> it is only the doctor who is being prosecuted... because woman have
> that "right" that you support.
I agree the woman has theright to choose to get an abortion or not!
> it is only the doctor who is being prosecuted... because woman have
> that "right" that you support.
>
> > Your only discussion is that women who choose are murderers!
>
> I don't believe the word "murderers" was ever mentioned by me. Perhaps
> you have a guilty conscience.
>
> Scene 1 --
> Nineteen-year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I'm not happy with my viable right arm,
> it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable, but I have an absolute,
> and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,' and I could possibly make
> more money without it, and I can choose what to do with my own
> body. Amputate my viable right arm, and throw it away. Right now!!"
>
> Doctor picks up phone... speaks 'in a whisper' to nurse...soon
> orderlies in white-coats, carrying straight-jackets, come to take
> young twit away to booby hatch.
>
> Scene 2 --
> Nineteen year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I have this viable piece of life growing
> in my womb, and it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable,
> but I have an absolute, and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,'
> and I can probably make more money without it, and I can choose
> what to do with my body. Vacuum out this unwanted viable fetus,
> and throw it away. Right now!!"
decision for most women to make = not the trival persuit you present
it as such. Any human action can be make to look like a trivial
persuit and not of value!
A life is precious = therefore a woman should really want to have it -
not have it and not be able to care for it - which you conservatives
refuse to pick up!
>
> How typical... that we would allow that twit to make that
> 'life and death' decision. When we permit not a single
> other act from any individual which would permit that
> same decision to be made without oversight from our
> society to determine that EACH individual decision
> that took a life was necessary and essential.
will not do. She has the right to have or not have the baby without
one choice totally devaluing her life. And if the baby would not be
born viable or severely retarded, you would still demand she have the
baby or die in the process! That is the ultimate value to place all
the value on the embryo and none on the so-called valueless woman.
>
> I am not opposed to abortion, per se. If that arm is
> gangrenous, or cancerous... and medical authorities
> determine it threatens the life of that twit... or the fetus
That is not what many religious people say = the ultimate value is
with the embryo = not the devalued woman - which they are devalued by
religion throughout their life. Why should your position on aborting
a severely retarded fetus be taken as something that should happen
when the important fetus is yet to be born to the valueless mother!
Which again many religious people - the final authority support!
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Planet Visitor II
May 26, 2013, 11:12:59 PM5/26/13
to
Since when has respect for the human life of the viable fetus become
"only a religious" issue? You certainly have a way to trivialize human
life. But then, many of those in support of on-demand abortion would
trivialize human life. These are the same people who would argue
how valuable the life of a serial murderer is to the human race, claiming
we become serial murderers if we execute even one of them. But have
no problem with pails being filled with aborted fetuses. Talk about your
paradoxes. Support life for serial murderers... don't support life unless
it has left the womb.
Remember that YOU'RE the guy who offered the same kind of argument
spewed out by religious fruitcakes. You're the guy who said "I support
a woman's right to choose - period." Which is no different at all from
fruitcakes like Globi who insist "I support the belief in a God having
an extra large peppermint lifesaver floating over his head - period."
You two have a lot in common. He's a Bible-thumper, and you're a
Roe-vs-Wade-ruling-thumper.
It's not about religion, my deluded friend... it's about human life. Or are
you still arguing that the fetus is not "human life"?
>> >> Welcome to the world of religion, my friend. Since your "I believe
>> >> in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
>> >> "I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
>>
>> >Not reallly
>>
>> And yet they represent exactly the same thing... a dogmatic assertion
>> about something that the propounder argues does not have to be
>> explained... as if the orders came from God almighty.
>
>No, it is recognizing that only a woman can become pregnant! Not a
>man. Therefore I agree with her right to choose!
right. So what's the problem, since it's obvious you find the object of
this dialog a bit too touchy for you to deal with. You deal with abstractions,
and don't see the results of your beliefs. Human life in the womb is all
a big joke to you. And through it all runs the clear proof that you are
totally unable to articulate exactly what it is about a woman's right you
choose to support.
>> >> It's always nice when I have a dialog with someone who states a
>> >> view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
>> >> "believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
>>
>> >What is there to discuss?
>>
>> Perhaps the object of your sentence should at least be clarified. What
>> exactly is the object that a woman has a right to choose? And why isn't
>> that same right afforded to men, since it sounds a bit sexist to simply
>> say "I support a woman's right to choose"?
>
>A man can't get pregnant!
the latest scientific help and overcoming some very broad moral and
ethical issues regarding the future of our species.
But I'm sure that once women can inseminate themselves you will be
firmly in support of their right to terminate on-demand any pregnancy
that might result.
In any case you still didn't answer the question. Your response was
similar to stating "the sky is blue," and expecting that to be the object
of your statement that "I support a woman's right to choose." If you're
concerned about my support for transgender sexual reassignment for
a woman to become a man... I'm totally in support of it... absolutely.
I'm also in support of the other direction, with a man becoming a
woman (although they can't get pregnant). But what does an answer
of "A man can't get pregnant!" have to do with the object of your
statement of support for a woman's right to choose? CHOOSE WHAT???
Is the mention of that "object" just too complicated for you... or is it
that your stomach gets queasy when thinking about it? Here's help --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/fetus.jpg
>> To choose WHAT, for heaven's sake? Or is that too complicated for you?
>> Your silly mantra doesn't really make any logical or practical sense as
>> written. Or is it your inability to actually speak of the "object" that the
>> woman has the right to choose. Perhaps it sort of sticks in your craw
>> when you visualize what you're actually supporting... and you fear
>> articulating it in more precise words will expose the hypocrisy in your
>> argument. See -
>> http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-13/news/38494337_1_gosnell-employe...
>> This is part of that "right" that you support for women. Notice that
>> it is only the doctor who is being prosecuted... because woman have
>> that "right" that you support.
>
>I agree the woman has theright to choose to get an abortion or not!
FINALLY!! And what has she chosen to abort??? Is she aborting "human
>> This is part of that "right" that you support for women. Notice that
>> it is only the doctor who is being prosecuted... because woman have
>> that "right" that you support.
>
>I agree the woman has theright to choose to get an abortion or not!
life"?? That's rather a critical question considering your unwavering
support of a woman's right to choose to get an abortion, even in the
third trimester. The question is what do YOU consider represents what
she is aborting? Or more precisely do you believe she is aborting
HUMAN LIFE? Just a yes or no is enough, because we are just probing
our separate opinions.
>> > Your only discussion is that women who choose are murderers!
>>
>> I don't believe the word "murderers" was ever mentioned by me. Perhaps
>> you have a guilty conscience.
>
>Then what religious law are they breaking according to you?
do with my view regarding on-demand abortion. It would not matter
one jot to me if a religious law totally supported or totally opposed
on-demand abortion. Unlike you, I am not a slave to religion or the
view of any majority. I feel my personal view meets my subjective
standards of morality, fills every ethical requirement that might be
placed upon me, and benefits mankind in the end. Unlike you... I
oppose eugenics, and hold no belief that we can create a "master-race"
if we simply discard the unwanted.
Obviously YOU are the one insisting that "human life" can be found in
"religious law." That's not what I believe.
>> Scene 1 --
>> Nineteen-year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
>> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I'm not happy with my viable right arm,
>> it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable, but I have an absolute,
>> and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,' and I could possibly make
>> more money without it, and I can choose what to do with my own
>> body. Amputate my viable right arm, and throw it away. Right now!!"
>
>The embryo is not a part of the pregnant woman!
growing inside of her that will insidiously grow unless excised by
an abortion doctor. Yeah... I've heard there are those who support
on-demand abortion who argue that there is no difference between an
unwanted fetus and cancer.
>> Doctor picks up phone... speaks 'in a whisper' to nurse...soon
>> orderlies in white-coats, carrying straight-jackets, come to take
>> young twit away to booby hatch.
>>
>> Scene 2 --
>> Nineteen year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
>> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I have this viable piece of life growing
>> in my womb, and it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable,
>> but I have an absolute, and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,'
>> and I can probably make more money without it, and I can choose
>> what to do with my body. Vacuum out this unwanted viable fetus,
>> and throw it away. Right now!!"
>
>Hmmm. I would not present it in that scope. I think it is a hard
>decision for most women to make = not the trival persuit you present
>it as such. Any human action can be make to look like a trivial
>persuit and not of value!
more reason to oppose on-demand abortion. Many women go through
extreme emotional episodes following an on-demand abortion. They
suffer recrimination and regret. It is society that makes such decisions
easily available... all the more reason that a woman feels caught up
in a temporary situation she cannot deal with. Post Abortion Syndrome
is a very real illness similar to PTSD. This is what society puts such
women through. Many women following an on-demand abortion
verbally express the feeling that they were pressured by society to
seek an easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy. Some even daydream
of the child being alive and with them.
when are you "liberals' going to pick up a tab??
However, there is a very long line of Americans waiting to adopt.
Once again, if there is any obstacle to doing so that obstacle is our
own bureaucracy. Which is another reason why Americans seek
an easier way to adopt through foreign adoption agencies which
are all big business, and totally in support of on-demand abortion,
so the supply of American babies for adoption doesn't take away
some of their business.
>> How typical... that we would allow that twit to make that
>> 'life and death' decision. When we permit not a single
>> other act from any individual which would permit that
>> same decision to be made without oversight from our
>> society to determine that EACH individual decision
>> that took a life was necessary and essential.
>
>By naming her a twit, you have allready devalued her life - whcih I
>will not do.
I oppose on-demand abortion, which means I support carrying every
viable fetus to full term, except if the life of the woman is threatened in
carrying to full term, or in circumstances of rape or incest. You claim
my support for carrying a fetus to full term is devaluing the life of the
woman; so obviously you insist that carrying a fetus to full term devalues
the life of the woman. You believe every live birth devalues the life
of the woman delivering that child into the world. While I support
bringing live birth, and oppose on-demand abortion. Don't you just hate
it when your own argument bites you in the ass?? Think you can
follow your own logic the see where it leads in in respect to who is
devaluing the life of a woman who brings her child to full birth?
> She has the right to have or not have the baby without
>one choice totally devaluing her life.
the point that she just wants to get rid of the unwanted child
she is carrying. How exactly is supporting the saving of human
life in the form of that fetus devaluing HER life? You really
need to check out who those woman getting an on-demand
abortion are. They are driven by their boyfriend, their parents,
and their peers to seek an easy out to an unwanted pregnancy.
Society makes it easy for them to devalue their life in making them
feel worthless after that easy on-demand abortion. However,
those women seeking on-demand abortions are not your middle-class,
30-something professionals. They are predominately Black, and
from a ghetto background, kept there by racism. And abortion
clinics purposely locate their clinics within walking distance from
the Black ghetto. They are perpetuating BLACK GENOCIDE!!! See --
http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
Look at the FACTS!!! On average 1,876 Black babies are aborted
EACH AND EVERY YEAR!! I call them twits because they meet
the definition of that term --> a foolish, clueless person. They are
foolish because they are easily manipulated by their boyfriend, their
parents, their peers, their economic situation, and the cheap and
easy way that medical hucksters provide for them. It is AFTER...
when it's too late, that the recriminations set in... when the
attempts at suicide start... when the downward descent into
petty crime... and then perhaps more violent crime begin. When
they begin to realize they have devalued their own lives, and
those environmental situations helped them do it. It is on-demand
abortion that diminishes them emotionally, as they begin to doubt
their own worth. That's your doing. The very arguments you
offer are only evidence of the moral and ethical failure of on-demand
abortion in American society... which aims and enables the easiest
of on-demand abortions for poor Blacks in the ghetto.
> And if the baby would not be
>born viable or severely retarded, you would still demand she have the
>baby or die in the process! That is the ultimate value to place all
>the value on the embryo and none on the so-called valueless woman.
>
deceit and lies is nothing other than the fact you feel you're losing
your grip in this argument regarding on-demand abortion.
Of course at the end of every on-demand abortion we see that the
unborn child has been terminated... in absolute terms! Survival rate
is ZERO. Now how many women who undergo on-demand abortion
are terminated... in absolute terms? What is their survival rate?
So which of the two of us has devalued human life??
When you have the answer to that it will become clear who is claiming
the unborn child is "valueless." Supporters of on-demand abortion
are always proud as peacocks to announce that in the case of the
pregnant woman there is a slightly less statistical chance of death from
having an on-demand abortion than there is to carrying that fetus to
full term. They have even used that as presumed justification for their
support for on-demand abortion.
Which is an argument if carried to ad nauseam extremes suggests
that no woman should carry to term since her chance of survival is
better with an on-demand abortion. If you claim that opposing
on-demand abortion devalues the life of the woman, then it must
be your claim that opposing full term delivery also devalues the
life of the woman. Since opposing on-demand abortion only means
carrying to full term. You can't have it both ways. I oppose
on-demand abortion, which means I support carrying every viable
fetus to full term, except if the life of the woman is threatened in
carrying to full term, or in circumstances of rape or incest.
You claim my support for carrying a fetus to full term is devaluing the
life of the woman; so obviously you insist that carrying a fetus to
full term is devaluing the life of the woman. Oh, woe is me...
you believe every live birth devalues the life of the woman delivering
that child into the world. Don't you just hate it when your own
argument bites you in the ass??
>> I am not opposed to abortion, per se. If that arm is
>> gangrenous, or cancerous... and medical authorities
>> determine it threatens the life of that twit... or the fetus
>> is determined to threaten the ...
>
>That is not what many religious people say =
about what religion might say. I personally don't care what they say... I
don't care what any fanatic liberal or conservative says. I'm only interested
in pointing out the facts, while you wander around in abstruse and fatuous
comments , including a disingenuous impugn that my opinions are based
upon a religion I presumably follow; even though I have repeatedly noted
that I am anti-religion. anti-ALL-RELIGION.
>the ultimate value is with the embryo =
If a woman's life is threatened in carrying to term, or if a woman has been
raped, or is the victim of incest, I totally support the medical decisions
and the woman's choice to abort such a fetus. In no case... in no instance...
have I ever presumed to argue that the life of the fetus is more important
than the life, or true emotional well-being (based upon facts rather than
hearsay) of the pregnant woman.... PERIOD! While I have shown that
your claim is that supporting a woman delivering a child to live birth is
"devaluing her life."
>not the devalued woman -
on-demand abortion go though a very deep grieving process in which in
hindsight they feel they were made to believe it was so easy and quick
and harmless, and then realize it was not that emotionally easy. Many even
feel the pangs of this in the waiting room... finding it impossible to turn
back. Wishing they could somehow get away from the fetus without
hurting it. The procedure itself is short and the physical pain doesn't last
long, but the emotional scars are as evident as PTSD is in a soldier returning
from Afghanistan. Far too many come to the same conclusion following
an on-demand, and totally unnecessary abortion: Every once in a while a
ghost appears in the horizon waving and making her wonder if indeed,
she should have had room in heart for that unborn child. DEVALUED??? What
devalues a woman is when she is pressed into believing that her genetic
role is no longer of value to a society.
>which they are devalued by
>religion throughout their life.
sharing viewpoints and the few facts we can assembly that support our
viewpoint. Since I am absolutely not religious, all you are doing is using a
greasy attempt to inject an irrelevant argument into the mix.
>Why should your position on aborting
>a severely retarded fetus be taken as something that should happen
>when the important fetus is yet to be born to the valueless mother!
>Which again many religious people - the final authority support!
>
eugenics. Making sure we only have a "super-race" of off-spring. Oh...
wait... wasn't that plan already tried in the 1940s somewhere in
Europe??? How'd that go for you?
Planet Visitor II
Planet Visitor II
Jul 1, 2013, 8:45:31 AM7/1/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 14:40:38 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir <wolfb...@mindspring.com> wrote:
<Still no response. One correction made in my comment in which I used "YEARS" when
obviously my intention was to use "DAYS"
the definition of that term --> a foolish, clueless person. They are
foolish because they are easily manipulated by their boyfriend, their
parents, their peers, their economic situation, and the cheap and
easy way that medical hucksters provide for them. It is AFTER...
when it's too late, that the recriminations set in... when the
attempts at suicide start... when the downward descent into
petty crime... and then perhaps more violent crime begin. When
they begin to realize they have devalued their own lives, and
those environmental situations helped them do it. It is on-demand
abortion that diminishes them emotionally, as they begin to doubt
their own worth. That's your doing. The very arguments you
offer are only evidence of the moral and ethical failure of on-demand
abortion in American society... which aims and enables the easiest
of on-demand abortions for poor Blacks in the ghetto.
<Still no response. One correction made in my comment in which I used "YEARS" when
obviously my intention was to use "DAYS"
Why is it that all those opposed to human life fall back upon religion?
Since when has respect for the human life of the viable fetus become
"only a religious" issue? You certainly have a way to trivialize human
life. But then, many of those in support of on-demand abortion would
trivialize human life. These are the same people who would argue
how valuable the life of a serial murderer is to the human race, claiming
we become serial murderers if we execute even one of them. But have
no problem with pails being filled with aborted fetuses. Talk about your
paradoxes. Support life for serial murderers... don't support life unless
it has left the womb.
Remember that YOU'RE the guy who offered the same kind of argument
spewed out by religious fruitcakes. You're the guy who said "I support
a woman's right to choose - period." Which is no different at all from
fruitcakes like Globi who insist "I support the belief in a God having
an extra large peppermint lifesaver floating over his head - period."
You two have a lot in common. He's a Bible-thumper, and you're a
Roe-vs-Wade-ruling-thumper.
It's not about religion, my deluded friend... it's about human life. Or are
you still arguing that the fetus is not "human life"?
Since when has respect for the human life of the viable fetus become
"only a religious" issue? You certainly have a way to trivialize human
life. But then, many of those in support of on-demand abortion would
trivialize human life. These are the same people who would argue
how valuable the life of a serial murderer is to the human race, claiming
we become serial murderers if we execute even one of them. But have
no problem with pails being filled with aborted fetuses. Talk about your
paradoxes. Support life for serial murderers... don't support life unless
it has left the womb.
Remember that YOU'RE the guy who offered the same kind of argument
spewed out by religious fruitcakes. You're the guy who said "I support
a woman's right to choose - period." Which is no different at all from
fruitcakes like Globi who insist "I support the belief in a God having
an extra large peppermint lifesaver floating over his head - period."
You two have a lot in common. He's a Bible-thumper, and you're a
Roe-vs-Wade-ruling-thumper.
It's not about religion, my deluded friend... it's about human life. Or are
you still arguing that the fetus is not "human life"?
>> >> Welcome to the world of religion, my friend. Since your "I believe
>> >> in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
>> >> "I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
>>
>> >Not reallly
>>
>> And yet they represent exactly the same thing... a dogmatic assertion
>> about something that the propounder argues does not have to be
>> explained... as if the orders came from God almighty.
>
>No, it is recognizing that only a woman can become pregnant! Not a
>man. Therefore I agree with her right to choose!
>> >> in a woman's right to choose," can be stated as no different than
>> >> "I believe in God, and no one can tell me otherwise = period!"
>>
>> >Not reallly
>>
>> And yet they represent exactly the same thing... a dogmatic assertion
>> about something that the propounder argues does not have to be
>> explained... as if the orders came from God almighty.
>
>No, it is recognizing that only a woman can become pregnant! Not a
>man. Therefore I agree with her right to choose!
Right to choose WHAT? Not become pregnant?? I totally support that
right. So what's the problem, since it's obvious you find the object of
this dialog a bit too touchy for you to deal with. You deal with abstractions,
and don't see the results of your beliefs. Human life in the womb is all
a big joke to you. And through it all runs the clear proof that you are
totally unable to articulate exactly what it is about a woman's right you
choose to support.
right. So what's the problem, since it's obvious you find the object of
this dialog a bit too touchy for you to deal with. You deal with abstractions,
and don't see the results of your beliefs. Human life in the womb is all
a big joke to you. And through it all runs the clear proof that you are
totally unable to articulate exactly what it is about a woman's right you
choose to support.
>> >> It's always nice when I have a dialog with someone who states a
>> >> view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
>> >> "believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
>>
>> >What is there to discuss?
>>
>> Perhaps the object of your sentence should at least be clarified. What
>> exactly is the object that a woman has a right to choose? And why isn't
>> that same right afforded to men, since it sounds a bit sexist to simply
>> say "I support a woman's right to choose"?
>
>A man can't get pregnant!
>> >> view, but doesn't care to discuss that view. What else do you
>> >> "believe in" ==> pixies, perhaps???
>>
>> >What is there to discuss?
>>
>> Perhaps the object of your sentence should at least be clarified. What
>> exactly is the object that a woman has a right to choose? And why isn't
>> that same right afforded to men, since it sounds a bit sexist to simply
>> say "I support a woman's right to choose"?
>
>A man can't get pregnant!
Well, no shit, Dick Tracy... and a woman can't create sperm without
the latest scientific help and overcoming some very broad moral and
ethical issues regarding the future of our species.
But I'm sure that once women can inseminate themselves you will be
firmly in support of their right to terminate on-demand any pregnancy
that might result.
In any case you still didn't answer the question. Your response was
similar to stating "the sky is blue," and expecting that to be the object
of your statement that "I support a woman's right to choose." If you're
concerned about my support for transgender sexual reassignment for
a woman to become a man... I'm totally in support of it... absolutely.
I'm also in support of the other direction, with a man becoming a
woman (although they can't get pregnant). But what does an answer
of "A man can't get pregnant!" have to do with the object of your
statement of support for a woman's right to choose? CHOOSE WHAT???
Is the mention of that "object" just too complicated for you... or is it
that your stomach gets queasy when thinking about it? Here's help --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/fetus.jpg
the latest scientific help and overcoming some very broad moral and
ethical issues regarding the future of our species.
But I'm sure that once women can inseminate themselves you will be
firmly in support of their right to terminate on-demand any pregnancy
that might result.
In any case you still didn't answer the question. Your response was
similar to stating "the sky is blue," and expecting that to be the object
of your statement that "I support a woman's right to choose." If you're
concerned about my support for transgender sexual reassignment for
a woman to become a man... I'm totally in support of it... absolutely.
I'm also in support of the other direction, with a man becoming a
woman (although they can't get pregnant). But what does an answer
of "A man can't get pregnant!" have to do with the object of your
statement of support for a woman's right to choose? CHOOSE WHAT???
Is the mention of that "object" just too complicated for you... or is it
that your stomach gets queasy when thinking about it? Here's help --
http://home.earthlink.net/~onetimeuse/fetus.jpg
>> To choose WHAT, for heaven's sake? Or is that too complicated for you?
>> Your silly mantra doesn't really make any logical or practical sense as
>> written. Or is it your inability to actually speak of the "object" that the
>> woman has the right to choose. Perhaps it sort of sticks in your craw
>> when you visualize what you're actually supporting... and you fear
>> articulating it in more precise words will expose the hypocrisy in your
>> argument. See -
>> Your silly mantra doesn't really make any logical or practical sense as
>> written. Or is it your inability to actually speak of the "object" that the
>> woman has the right to choose. Perhaps it sort of sticks in your craw
>> when you visualize what you're actually supporting... and you fear
>> articulating it in more precise words will expose the hypocrisy in your
>> argument. See -
>> http://articles.philly.com/2013-04-13/news/38494337_1_gosnell-employe...
>> This is part of that "right" that you support for women. Notice that
>> it is only the doctor who is being prosecuted... because woman have
>> that "right" that you support.
>
>I agree the woman has theright to choose to get an abortion or not!
>> This is part of that "right" that you support for women. Notice that
>> it is only the doctor who is being prosecuted... because woman have
>> that "right" that you support.
>
>I agree the woman has theright to choose to get an abortion or not!
FINALLY!! And what has she chosen to abort??? Is she aborting "human
life"?? That's rather a critical question considering your unwavering
support of a woman's right to choose to get an abortion, even in the
third trimester. The question is what do YOU consider represents what
she is aborting? Or more precisely do you believe she is aborting
HUMAN LIFE? Just a yes or no is enough, because we are just probing
our separate opinions.
life"?? That's rather a critical question considering your unwavering
support of a woman's right to choose to get an abortion, even in the
third trimester. The question is what do YOU consider represents what
she is aborting? Or more precisely do you believe she is aborting
HUMAN LIFE? Just a yes or no is enough, because we are just probing
our separate opinions.
>> > Your only discussion is that women who choose are murderers!
>>
>> I don't believe the word "murderers" was ever mentioned by me. Perhaps
>> you have a guilty conscience.
>
>Then what religious law are they breaking according to you?
>>
>> I don't believe the word "murderers" was ever mentioned by me. Perhaps
>> you have a guilty conscience.
>
>Then what religious law are they breaking according to you?
I have no idea, nor do I care, nor does religious law have anything to
do with my view regarding on-demand abortion. It would not matter
one jot to me if a religious law totally supported or totally opposed
on-demand abortion. Unlike you, I am not a slave to religion or the
view of any majority. I feel my personal view meets my subjective
standards of morality, fills every ethical requirement that might be
placed upon me, and benefits mankind in the end. Unlike you... I
oppose eugenics, and hold no belief that we can create a "master-race"
if we simply discard the unwanted.
Obviously YOU are the one insisting that "human life" can be found in
"religious law." That's not what I believe.
do with my view regarding on-demand abortion. It would not matter
one jot to me if a religious law totally supported or totally opposed
on-demand abortion. Unlike you, I am not a slave to religion or the
view of any majority. I feel my personal view meets my subjective
standards of morality, fills every ethical requirement that might be
placed upon me, and benefits mankind in the end. Unlike you... I
oppose eugenics, and hold no belief that we can create a "master-race"
if we simply discard the unwanted.
Obviously YOU are the one insisting that "human life" can be found in
"religious law." That's not what I believe.
>> Scene 1 --
>> Nineteen-year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
>> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I'm not happy with my viable right arm,
>> it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable, but I have an absolute,
>> and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,' and I could possibly make
>> more money without it, and I can choose what to do with my own
>> body. Amputate my viable right arm, and throw it away. Right now!!"
>
>The embryo is not a part of the pregnant woman!
>> Nineteen-year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
>> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I'm not happy with my viable right arm,
>> it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable, but I have an absolute,
>> and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,' and I could possibly make
>> more money without it, and I can choose what to do with my own
>> body. Amputate my viable right arm, and throw it away. Right now!!"
>
>The embryo is not a part of the pregnant woman!
Prove it! Oh, wait... I get it... you equate the fetus with a "cancer"
growing inside of her that will insidiously grow unless excised by
an abortion doctor. Yeah... I've heard there are those who support
on-demand abortion who argue that there is no difference between an
unwanted fetus and cancer.
growing inside of her that will insidiously grow unless excised by
an abortion doctor. Yeah... I've heard there are those who support
on-demand abortion who argue that there is no difference between an
unwanted fetus and cancer.
>> Doctor picks up phone... speaks 'in a whisper' to nurse...soon
>> orderlies in white-coats, carrying straight-jackets, come to take
>> young twit away to booby hatch.
>>
>> Scene 2 --
>> Nineteen year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
>> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I have this viable piece of life growing
>> in my womb, and it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable,
>> but I have an absolute, and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,'
>> and I can probably make more money without it, and I can choose
>> what to do with my body. Vacuum out this unwanted viable fetus,
>> and throw it away. Right now!!"
>
>Hmmm. I would not present it in that scope. I think it is a hard
>decision for most women to make = not the trival persuit you present
>it as such. Any human action can be make to look like a trivial
>persuit and not of value!
>> orderlies in white-coats, carrying straight-jackets, come to take
>> young twit away to booby hatch.
>>
>> Scene 2 --
>> Nineteen year-old twit walks in off the street to doctor's office --
>> Says to Doctor -- "Doc, I have this viable piece of life growing
>> in my womb, and it interferes with my 'life style.' It's viable,
>> but I have an absolute, and inviolate right to 'my body-my self,'
>> and I can probably make more money without it, and I can choose
>> what to do with my body. Vacuum out this unwanted viable fetus,
>> and throw it away. Right now!!"
>
>Hmmm. I would not present it in that scope. I think it is a hard
>decision for most women to make = not the trival persuit you present
>it as such. Any human action can be make to look like a trivial
>persuit and not of value!
It's spelled "pursuit," please!! The very reason it is hard is all the
more reason to oppose on-demand abortion. Many women go through
extreme emotional episodes following an on-demand abortion. They
suffer recrimination and regret. It is society that makes such decisions
easily available... all the more reason that a woman feels caught up
in a temporary situation she cannot deal with. Post Abortion Syndrome
is a very real illness similar to PTSD. This is what society puts such
women through. Many women following an on-demand abortion
verbally express the feeling that they were pressured by society to
seek an easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy. Some even daydream
of the child being alive and with them.
more reason to oppose on-demand abortion. Many women go through
extreme emotional episodes following an on-demand abortion. They
suffer recrimination and regret. It is society that makes such decisions
easily available... all the more reason that a woman feels caught up
in a temporary situation she cannot deal with. Post Abortion Syndrome
is a very real illness similar to PTSD. This is what society puts such
women through. Many women following an on-demand abortion
verbally express the feeling that they were pressured by society to
seek an easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy. Some even daydream
of the child being alive and with them.
>refuse to pick up
Personally, I'm quite willing to pay my share of whatever it takes...
when are you "liberals' going to pick up a tab??
However, there is a very long line of Americans waiting to adopt.
Once again, if there is any obstacle to doing so that obstacle is our
own bureaucracy. Which is another reason why Americans seek
an easier way to adopt through foreign adoption agencies which
are all big business, and totally in support of on-demand abortion,
so the supply of American babies for adoption doesn't take away
some of their business.
Personally, I'm quite willing to pay my share of whatever it takes...
when are you "liberals' going to pick up a tab??
However, there is a very long line of Americans waiting to adopt.
Once again, if there is any obstacle to doing so that obstacle is our
own bureaucracy. Which is another reason why Americans seek
an easier way to adopt through foreign adoption agencies which
are all big business, and totally in support of on-demand abortion,
so the supply of American babies for adoption doesn't take away
some of their business.
>> How typical... that we would allow that twit to make that
>> 'life and death' decision. When we permit not a single
>> other act from any individual which would permit that
>> same decision to be made without oversight from our
>> society to determine that EACH individual decision
>> that took a life was necessary and essential.
>
>By naming her a twit, you have allready devalued her life - whcih I
>will not do.
>> 'life and death' decision. When we permit not a single
>> other act from any individual which would permit that
>> same decision to be made without oversight from our
>> society to determine that EACH individual decision
>> that took a life was necessary and essential.
>
>By naming her a twit, you have allready devalued her life - whcih I
>will not do.
Your purpose is to totally devalue the child she is carrying.
I oppose on-demand abortion, which means I support carrying every
viable fetus to full term, except if the life of the woman is threatened in
carrying to full term, or in circumstances of rape or incest. You claim
my support for carrying a fetus to full term is devaluing the life of the
woman; so obviously you insist that carrying a fetus to full term devalues
the life of the woman. You believe every live birth devalues the life
of the woman delivering that child into the world. While I support
bringing live birth, and oppose on-demand abortion. Don't you just hate
it when your own argument bites you in the ass?? Think you can
follow your own logic the see where it leads in in respect to who is
devaluing the life of a woman who brings her child to full birth?
I oppose on-demand abortion, which means I support carrying every
viable fetus to full term, except if the life of the woman is threatened in
carrying to full term, or in circumstances of rape or incest. You claim
my support for carrying a fetus to full term is devaluing the life of the
woman; so obviously you insist that carrying a fetus to full term devalues
the life of the woman. You believe every live birth devalues the life
of the woman delivering that child into the world. While I support
bringing live birth, and oppose on-demand abortion. Don't you just hate
it when your own argument bites you in the ass?? Think you can
follow your own logic the see where it leads in in respect to who is
devaluing the life of a woman who brings her child to full birth?
> She has the right to have or not have the baby without
>one choice totally devaluing her life.
>one choice totally devaluing her life.
Legal right. I can't help it if society has devalued her life to
the point that she just wants to get rid of the unwanted child
she is carrying. How exactly is supporting the saving of human
life in the form of that fetus devaluing HER life? You really
need to check out who those woman getting an on-demand
abortion are. They are driven by their boyfriend, their parents,
and their peers to seek an easy out to an unwanted pregnancy.
Society makes it easy for them to devalue their life in making them
feel worthless after that easy on-demand abortion. However,
those women seeking on-demand abortions are not your middle-class,
30-something professionals. They are predominately Black, and
from a ghetto background, kept there by racism. And abortion
clinics purposely locate their clinics within walking distance from
the Black ghetto. They are perpetuating BLACK GENOCIDE!!! See --
http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
Look at the FACTS!!! On average 1,876 Black babies are aborted
EACH AND EVERY YEAR!! I call them twits because they meet
^^^ DAY ^^^ <not year but every DAY>
the point that she just wants to get rid of the unwanted child
she is carrying. How exactly is supporting the saving of human
life in the form of that fetus devaluing HER life? You really
need to check out who those woman getting an on-demand
abortion are. They are driven by their boyfriend, their parents,
and their peers to seek an easy out to an unwanted pregnancy.
Society makes it easy for them to devalue their life in making them
feel worthless after that easy on-demand abortion. However,
those women seeking on-demand abortions are not your middle-class,
30-something professionals. They are predominately Black, and
from a ghetto background, kept there by racism. And abortion
clinics purposely locate their clinics within walking distance from
the Black ghetto. They are perpetuating BLACK GENOCIDE!!! See --
http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
Look at the FACTS!!! On average 1,876 Black babies are aborted
EACH AND EVERY YEAR!! I call them twits because they meet
the definition of that term --> a foolish, clueless person. They are
foolish because they are easily manipulated by their boyfriend, their
parents, their peers, their economic situation, and the cheap and
easy way that medical hucksters provide for them. It is AFTER...
when it's too late, that the recriminations set in... when the
attempts at suicide start... when the downward descent into
petty crime... and then perhaps more violent crime begin. When
they begin to realize they have devalued their own lives, and
those environmental situations helped them do it. It is on-demand
abortion that diminishes them emotionally, as they begin to doubt
their own worth. That's your doing. The very arguments you
offer are only evidence of the moral and ethical failure of on-demand
abortion in American society... which aims and enables the easiest
of on-demand abortions for poor Blacks in the ghetto.
> And if the baby would not be
>born viable or severely retarded, you would still demand she have the
>baby or die in the process! That is the ultimate value to place all
>the value on the embryo and none on the so-called valueless woman.
>
>born viable or severely retarded, you would still demand she have the
>baby or die in the process! That is the ultimate value to place all
>the value on the embryo and none on the so-called valueless woman.
>
>> I am not opposed to abortion, per se. If that arm is
>> gangrenous, or cancerous... and medical authorities
>> determine it threatens the life of that twit... or the fetus
>> is determined to threaten the ...
>
>That is not what many religious people say =
>> gangrenous, or cancerous... and medical authorities
>> determine it threatens the life of that twit... or the fetus
>> is determined to threaten the ...
>
>That is not what many religious people say =
Who cares what religious people say? You seem the only one concerned
about what religion might say. I personally don't care what they say... I
don't care what any fanatic liberal or conservative says. I'm only interested
in pointing out the facts, while you wander around in abstruse and fatuous
comments , including a disingenuous impugn that my opinions are based
upon a religion I presumably follow; even though I have repeatedly noted
that I am anti-religion. anti-ALL-RELIGION.
about what religion might say. I personally don't care what they say... I
don't care what any fanatic liberal or conservative says. I'm only interested
in pointing out the facts, while you wander around in abstruse and fatuous
comments , including a disingenuous impugn that my opinions are based
upon a religion I presumably follow; even though I have repeatedly noted
that I am anti-religion. anti-ALL-RELIGION.
>the ultimate value is with the embryo =
Rubbish. Your argument is that the embryo HAS NO VALUE!! Period.
If a woman's life is threatened in carrying to term, or if a woman has been
raped, or is the victim of incest, I totally support the medical decisions
and the woman's choice to abort such a fetus. In no case... in no instance...
have I ever presumed to argue that the life of the fetus is more important
than the life, or true emotional well-being (based upon facts rather than
hearsay) of the pregnant woman.... PERIOD! While I have shown that
your claim is that supporting a woman delivering a child to live birth is
"devaluing her life."
If a woman's life is threatened in carrying to term, or if a woman has been
raped, or is the victim of incest, I totally support the medical decisions
and the woman's choice to abort such a fetus. In no case... in no instance...
have I ever presumed to argue that the life of the fetus is more important
than the life, or true emotional well-being (based upon facts rather than
hearsay) of the pregnant woman.... PERIOD! While I have shown that
your claim is that supporting a woman delivering a child to live birth is
"devaluing her life."
>not the devalued woman -
Woman are devalued BY on-demand abortion. Most woman following an
on-demand abortion go though a very deep grieving process in which in
hindsight they feel they were made to believe it was so easy and quick
and harmless, and then realize it was not that emotionally easy. Many even
feel the pangs of this in the waiting room... finding it impossible to turn
back. Wishing they could somehow get away from the fetus without
hurting it. The procedure itself is short and the physical pain doesn't last
long, but the emotional scars are as evident as PTSD is in a soldier returning
from Afghanistan. Far too many come to the same conclusion following
an on-demand, and totally unnecessary abortion: Every once in a while a
ghost appears in the horizon waving and making her wonder if indeed,
she should have had room in heart for that unborn child. DEVALUED??? What
devalues a woman is when she is pressed into believing that her genetic
role is no longer of value to a society.
on-demand abortion go though a very deep grieving process in which in
hindsight they feel they were made to believe it was so easy and quick
and harmless, and then realize it was not that emotionally easy. Many even
feel the pangs of this in the waiting room... finding it impossible to turn
back. Wishing they could somehow get away from the fetus without
hurting it. The procedure itself is short and the physical pain doesn't last
long, but the emotional scars are as evident as PTSD is in a soldier returning
from Afghanistan. Far too many come to the same conclusion following
an on-demand, and totally unnecessary abortion: Every once in a while a
ghost appears in the horizon waving and making her wonder if indeed,
she should have had room in heart for that unborn child. DEVALUED??? What
devalues a woman is when she is pressed into believing that her genetic
role is no longer of value to a society.
>which they are devalued by
>religion throughout their life.
>religion throughout their life.
I repeat -- WHAT does religion have to do with this??? We're supposedly
sharing viewpoints and the few facts we can assembly that support our
viewpoint. Since I am absolutely not religious, all you are doing is using a
greasy attempt to inject an irrelevant argument into the mix.
sharing viewpoints and the few facts we can assembly that support our
viewpoint. Since I am absolutely not religious, all you are doing is using a
greasy attempt to inject an irrelevant argument into the mix.
>Why should your position on aborting
>a severely retarded fetus be taken as something that should happen
>when the important fetus is yet to be born to the valueless mother!
>Which again many religious people - the final authority support!
>
>a severely retarded fetus be taken as something that should happen
>when the important fetus is yet to be born to the valueless mother!
>Which again many religious people - the final authority support!
>
0 new messages