Late-term abortion of healthy son of healthy woman by Tiller
pnyikos
with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY, since the abortion
was done for no reason other than that her son (as she refers to him)
was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down Syndrome.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
Excerpt:
She was not sure she could find joy in raising her son to such a
future. She didn't think she could cope with what she expected would
be a lifetime of sadness and struggle.
Giving her son up for adoption seemed even worse -- to wake each
morning not knowing where he was, imagining him scared and alone. "I
could not live with that fear all my life," Plazio said.
"I don't want anyone to think that I did this all for Matthew," she
said. "I was not just sparing him problems. I was sparing my daughter,
my husband, me and all those who depend on me
In March 2001, a week into her third trimester, she and her husband
flew to Tiller's clinic. They took the bunny blanket and a teddy bear
with a big red heart on its chest -- a gift to the baby from their
daughter, then 11.
------------ end of excerpt
The article is very sympathetic towards the woman (whose maiden name
is Plazio and whose married name is compassionately left untold)
towards Tiller, and towards abortion in general, so there is little
reason to doubt the story. I am sure lots of people reading this feel
the same way, but the following is undeniable: the oft-repeated crap
that "viable fetuses are never aborted" or that third trimester
abortions are done only when the woman's life is at risk or the baby
(well, the article calls it that!) has some lethal deformity just does
not hold water.
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
> According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
> with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
> trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY,
Apparently NOT illegally. The article is dated May 31, 2005 and the
abortion had occurred in late 2001. Why didn't the Kansas authorities
prosecute?
> since the abortion was done for no reason other than that her son
> (as she refers to him) was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down
> Syndrome
> http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
And? Caring for children with Down's Syndrome can strain family
resources to the breaking point - mental and emotional as well as
financial. As Malapert used to say, that's because "Life - no matter
how horrible" is the watchword for anti-choicers.
> Excerpt:
> She was not sure she could find joy in raising her son to such a
> future. She didn't think she could cope with what she expected would
> be a lifetime of sadness and struggle.
Tellingly, PiNhead leaves out the first sentence in the paragraph
quoted above. Here's the whole thing:
"Plazio had studied special education in college; working
with adults with Down syndrome, she had seen their lives
as lonely, frustrating, full of hurt. She was not sure she
could find joy in raising her son to such a future. She
didn't think she could cope with what she expected
would be a lifetime of sadness and struggle."
[...]
> The article is very sympathetic towards the woman (whose maiden name
> is Plazio and whose married name is compassionately left untold)
> towards Tiller, and towards abortion in general, so there is little
> reason to doubt the story. I am sure lots of people reading this feel
> the same way, but the following is undeniable: the oft-repeated crap
> that "viable fetuses are never aborted" or that third trimester
> abortions are done only when the woman's life is at risk or the baby
> (well, the article calls it that!) has some lethal deformity just does
> not hold water.
Shorter PiNhead: "Life - no matter how horrible".
pnyikos
my first post, followed by the copy of the ones I did post, all from
an article in the Los Angeles Times:
>http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
Plazio asked to use her middle and maiden names to protect her
privacy. Many of Tiller's patients have not told their co-workers,
friends or even close relatives that they had terminated pregnancies.
Their abortions were verified by a review of clinic records they
supplied.
For Plazio, the heartache began with the unexpected. After a decade of
infertility, she was stunned to feel a kick to her ribs as she sat
through a meeting in February 2001. She had been dieting for weeks,
running five miles a day -- and wondering why she still couldn't
squeeze into her pants. She was six months pregnant.
Overjoyed, Plazio and her husband scheduled an amniocentesis. The
preliminary results were clean; bursting with excitement, Plazio, then
43, bought a baby blanket dotted with pale blue bunnies. Ten days
later, her doctor called with devastating news: More complete genetic
tests had determined that their son had Down syndrome.
Plazio had studied special education in college; working with adults
with Down syndrome, she had seen their lives as lonely, frustrating,
full of hurt. She was not sure she could find joy in raising her son
to such a future. She didn't think she could cope with what she
expected would be a lifetime of sadness and struggle.
> She was not sure she could find joy in raising her son to such a
> future. She didn't think she could cope with what she expected would
> be a lifetime of sadness and struggle.
>
> Giving her son up for adoption seemed even worse -- to wake each
> morning not knowing where he was, imagining him scared and alone. "I
> could not live with that fear all my life," Plazio said.
>
> "I don't want anyone to think that I did this all for Matthew," she
> said. "I was not just sparing him problems. I was sparing my daughter,
> my husband, me and all those who depend on me
>
> In March 2001, a week into her third trimester, she and her husband
> flew to Tiller's clinic. They took the bunny blanket and a teddy bear
> with a big red heart on its chest -- a gift to the baby from their
> daughter, then 11.
> ------------ end of excerpt
I find it very sad that Plazio apparently did not speak to the parents
of Down Syndrome children, many of whom would have told her that they
are full of love and a joy for them to raise despite all the extra
effort and special attention these children require. There are
support groups for people with Down Syndrome children, and I have seen
a very well written magazine published about the children and those
who care for them.
As for adults, well, the third child of Mary Ellen Rudin, has Down
Syndrome, and I got acquainted with him in 1974, when he was about 16
years old and it was a pleasure to converse with him despite his
somewhat limited vocabulary. Mary Ellen is the top researcher in my
field, set-theoretic topology, and an article about her in a leading
expository journal about two decades ago mentioned Mary Ellen saying
that her Down Syndrome son was gainfully employed. She said half-
seriously that while her other three children have performed to the
full extent of their abilities, this son performed beyond his
abilities.
One other thing Plazio may not have realized: there are long waiting
lists for women who very much want to adopt babies with Down
Syndrome. I think a competent adoption agency could have laid her
worries to rest about how he would have been treated by his adopotive
parents.
Peter Nyikos
Spartakus
on about marathons to demonstrate a point about taking on seemingly
impossible challenges. Well, a marathon can be an incredible, self-
actualizing experience, or a marathon can kill you. Similarly,
raising a special needs child can be an inspiring experience for the
whole family, or it can tear a family apart. I have known a family
that made such a commitment, with a deep faith that God would sustain
them. They all worked day and night to make it work. The end result
is that this family is in fragments - the parents are divorced and two
of the siblings are mortal enemies.
Here is a diary from Daily Kos where the author sharply criticizes
Sarah Palin for her ignorant glossing over the very real difficulties
of raising a Down's Syndrome child. Once you're past the poltical
polemics, you'll find a story that is heartwarming at first, but turns
heartbreaking by the end:
Adam A. Wanderer
news:99a812dd-1b01-48eb...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
> with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
> trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY, since the abortion
> was done for no reason other than that her son (as she refers to him)
> was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down Syndrome.
> http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
to stop or cure many of these defects, would like to raise a kid with Down's
Syndrome, and then tell us what it was like. Or, they might like to visit
Romania that has several institutions where Down's Syndrome kids and adults
are kept and tell us what it's like there. Better still, in the next
lifetime they might volunteer to be born with Down's Syndrome and experience
it all from beginning to end.
Spartakus
> One other thing Plazio may not have realized: there are long waiting
> lists for women who very much want to adopt babies with Down
> Syndrome.
Say what? Do you really believe you can palm off such a wild-ass
claim without being called on it?
> I think a competent adoption agency could have laid her worry
> to rest about how he would have been treated by his adopotive
> parents.
Have you ever seen statistics on how much more abuse adoptive children
experience than biological children? What are they putting in the
water there in in Columbia, SC?
bjack...@yahoo.com
with this lady 100%. That baby should be aborted (and was). It's so
easy for you to sound 'holier-than-though' in casting judgement on her
since you aren't the one who has to raise a child with downs
syndrome. It's also cruel to bring such a child into this world.
I'm against abortion when it's done out of convenience because the
mother feels she's not in the mood to raise a child (when the child is
normal).
If you want proof I'm on the far right, read my blog:
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
> > with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
> > trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY,
>
> Apparently NOT illegally. The article is dated May 31, 2005 and the
> abortion had occurred in late 2001. Why didn't the Kansas authorities
> prosecute?
Obviously, they couldn't start until they got wind of it, and it's a
pretty safe bet that they didn't get wind of it until after May 31,
2005. Despite what a fanatical ally of yours said, Tiller was never
under close scrutiny in any meaningful sense of the word. As for 2005
and thereafter...
It wasn't for want of trying, but Tiller and his lawyers kept up one
legal challenge after another until Phil Kline was defeated and the
guy who defeated him, Morrison, charged Tiller with a bunch of much
less serious breaches of the law. You can read a long article on the
subject by author Jack Cashill:
http://www.kfl.org/SiteResources/Data/Templates/templateb.asp?docid=971&DocName=The%20Man%20Behind%20the%20Curtain%20-%20June%203,%202008
> > since the abortion was done for no reason other than that her son
> > (as she refers to him) was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down
> > Syndrome
> >http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
>
> And? Caring for children with Down's Syndrome can strain family
> resources to the breaking point - mental and emotional as well as
> financial.
Or not. See the case of Mary Ellen Rudin, who together with her
husband is a Professor Emeritus of the University of Wisconsin. I
wrote about her in the first post to the thread. Mary Ellen, as we
set-theoretic topologists all call her at topology conferences [ where
everyone knows who we are talking about if we don't give a last name]
certainly didn't think she was ruining the life of her two older
chidren when she decided to keep her third, her first son, a Down [not
Downs, twit--I've altered the thread title to reflect this and much
more] syndrome child.
She went on to have a fourth son, despite the old factoid that the
older you are, the more likely Down Syndrome is for your next child.
He is extremely intelligent and successful.
Another set-theoretic topologist and a close friend of mine has a
daughter, their only child, who has one son, who has Down Syndrome.
She and her husband are happy parents. If anyone reading this is
sincerely and compassionately interested, I can ask my friend whether
he would be willing to let me share more details about them.
> As Malapert used to say, that's because "Life - no matter
> how horrible" is the watchword for anti-choicers.
...which I am not, because I would like for it to be legal -- and I've
said this in direct follow-up to you, Lyman clone -- to abort AT ANY
stage in the pregnancy a child who is so horribly deformed or
pathological that to let it live is to consign it to a fate worse
than death.
But only an ignorant bigot would say that an otherwise healthy Down
Syndrome child falls into that category.
I take it you think Tiller did Christin, a healthy 19-year old with
Down Syndrome, a huge favor when he botched the abortion of her baby
and she (and her baby) died as a result:
http://www.justiceforchristin.com/
What you just said, as well as the bigoted and ignorant Subject: line
you used, (Only a PiNhead would characterize a Downs Syndrome child as
"healthy") certainly makes it seem that way.
> Tellingly, PiNhead leaves out the first sentence in the paragraph
> quoted above.
Quoted in my second post, which I did before I saw yours, bigot. And
I quoted several more as well, and I had plenty to say about Plazio's
sadly misguided attitude.
[...]
> > the following is undeniable: the oft-repeated crap
> > that "viable fetuses are never aborted" or that third trimester
> > abortions are done only when the woman's life is at risk or the baby
> > (well, the article calls it that!) has some lethal deformity just does
> > not hold water.
>
> Shorter PiNhead: "Life - no matter how horrible".
Go crawl under a rock, bigot.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> > One other thing Plazio may not have realized: there are long waiting
> > lists for women who very much want to adopt babies with Down
> > Syndrome.
>
> That is a lie. There are no long waiting lists for children with
> Down's Syndrome. Hell, even normal children end up dumped in foster
> care gulags.
I said babies, not children, you bait-and-switch artist. We've been
through this before.
I suspect that is what your staunch ally Spartakus had in mind, too,
when he did his Lyman-clone song-and-dance in response to the same
thing. You pro-abortion (at least for Down Syndrome babies) fanatics
just love to talk about children in foster care, who have been
"wounded" by their parents and would pose a far greater challenge to
adoptive parents than a Down Syndrome child a few months old.
Hell, even another victim of Tiller was deeply missed by her adoptive
family when she died at the age of five, and she was a lot more of a
challenge than all but the unhealthiest Down Syndrome babies:
http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL11.98/sarah.html
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
> > I think a competent adoption agency could have laid her
> > worries to rest about how he would have been treated by his adopotive
> > parents.
>
> prove it. And there aren't adoption agencies out there, there are
> state funded foster care and private adoption lawyers.
>
> Stop lying, Oopsey. You still haven't demonstrated that healthy women
> abort healthy fetuses. And FYI not all Down's Syndrome children are
> as high functioning as the single case you mentioned. And you can bet
> that the mother of that child had plenty of paid assistance to do the
> actual work.
>
> > Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:99a812dd-1b01-48eb...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...> According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
> > with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
> > trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY, since the abortion
> > was done for no reason other than that her son (as she refers to him)
> > was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down Syndrome.
> >http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
>
> Perhaps a few members of the "pro-life" community, who also oppose research
> to stop or cure many of these defects,
...because the result is amniocentesis followed by abortion. There
are far fewer Down Syndrome babies born since these search-and-destroy
missions began in earnest.
And the March of Dimes is in the doghouse with pro-life organizations
for promoting the "search" part.
>would like to raise a kid with Down's
> Syndrome, and then tell us what it was like.
I'll try and find out what the latest stats are on the adoption scene.
>Or, they might like to visit
> Romania that has several institutions where Down's Syndrome kids and adults
> are kept and tell us what it's like there.
Romania is backward in a lot of respects, including the defying of one
international organization after another that is trying to persuade
them to put an end to their ban on international adoptions. I know a
couple who was strung out for over three years, hoping they could
adopt a Romanian orphan, always hoping the next turn of events would
be the last--and then the last turn of events was a flat out NO.
> Better still, in the next
> lifetime they might volunteer to be born with Down's Syndrome and experience
> it all from beginning to end.
If it's a choice between that and being aborted over a week into the
third trimester, it's not contest where I am concerned.
How about you? would you prefer to be slowly dismembered alive,
without the benefit of anesthesia, in a D&E abortion? or would you
prefer to run the risk of a digoxin-induction abortion by a Tiller
type abortionist, and being one of the unlucky few who survived it?
See the following case:
Ospr...@hotmail.com
Peter,
This bitch is crazy. I've suspected it for a long time, but now the
evidence is just so overwelming.
I just ignore her completely now and it drives her absolutely crazy.
This bitch is so warped and hung up on me that she has created this
fantasy that you are supposed to be me. That's how damn warped this
chick is in the head. She is so crazy about me and misses my replies
to her so much that she has tried to make you into me. Now, that's
crazy. She can't tell the truth from fiction any longer.
The other day I saw through someone elses post, she started
complaining about how she needs to catch up to the 21st century and
she was leaving the newsgroup. It was all an act. She was looking for
responses and someone to ask her to stay. When she didn't get that,
she slowly crept her way back into this newsgroup.
Seriously Peter, this bitch is insane. She has been warned to stop
stalking me from officials in my state. She isn't allowed to have any
contact with myself, family, or anyone I work with. She knows if she
shows her crooked nose, 60's reject looking wicked witch of the west
face in my area she would regret ever minute of it. It would be the
sorriest day of her loser life. If she made it out in a vertical
position she would be lucky. Her posts are monitored though, I will
not say by whom. But she is known for radical moves and she has had
many problems in the past with law enforcement. All she is left with
is just her rants in this newsgroup and that's as far as she can go
and will ever go.
You're dealing with a lunatic Peter, she is absolutley mentally
insane.
Hey, maybe one day if you ignore her she will try to say someone else
is you.
She can't function unless she is bitching at someone. She needs some
strong meds.
james g. keegan jr.
<350bad61-a85a-44f1...@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Ospr...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 8, 3:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 8, 2:57 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> This bitch is crazy. I've suspected it for a long time, but now the
> evidence is just so overwelming.
wasn't i just reading a quote from you last night so the effect that
you'd not demean someone's mental health?
but it's not much of a surprise that you lied.
> I just ignore her completely now
which is why you wrote so much about her in a response to the person
posting as peter nyikos?
i'll bet you don't understand how people see that.
> and it drives her absolutely crazy.
o thought you just said she *was* crazy. how can you drive a crazy
person crazy?
> This bitch
i suspect that works in your family with your wife and daughter(s),
right?
[...]
> Seriously Peter, this bitch is insane.
you're repeating what the prisoners said about you when you were still
allowed to be a guard, aren't you?
> She has been warned to stop stalking me from officials in my state.
"If you can't prove it on your next post, by default you admit you
lied."
coward bobby heishman posting as"SeahawkFan" <deseah...@hotmail.com>
in news:xb6dnQH276BlFX_a...@comcast.com:
> She isn't allowed to have any contact with myself, family, or anyone
> I work with.
"If you can't prove it on your next post, by default you admit you
lied."
coward bobby heishman posting as"SeahawkFan" <deseah...@hotmail.com>
in news:xb6dnQH276BlFX_a...@comcast.com:
> She knows if she shows her crooked nose, 60's reject looking wicked
> witch of the west face in my area she would regret ever minute of it.
> It would be the sorriest day of her loser life. If she made it out
> in a vertical position she would be lucky.
is this the big, tough, coward former prison guard threatening a woman?
> Her posts are monitored
"If you can't prove it on your next post, by default you admit you
lied."
coward bobby heishman posting as"SeahawkFan" <deseah...@hotmail.com>
in news:xb6dnQH276BlFX_a...@comcast.com:
> But she is known for radical moves and she has had many problems in
> the past with law enforcement.
"If you can't prove it on your next post, by default you admit you
lied."
coward bobby heishman posting as"SeahawkFan" <deseah...@hotmail.com>
in news:xb6dnQH276BlFX_a...@comcast.com:
osprey will run away from each of his claims here, as he has run away
from so many hundreds of others. maybe he'll shriek "bitch" at the women
in his family to help him feel less inadequate.
--
"Note: NOWHERE...and I'll repeat..NOWHERE do you see me mentioning the New York Times. " --scumbag heishman posting as Ospre...@hotmail.com in news:9a845215-1896-47e0-acb9-fca427f2c...@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com
apprently forgetting he had previously written:
"New York Times has all ready sent me a response stating you have been warned." -- prison clerk heishman lying as "Osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com> in news:2rCdnZNy7LA...@comcast.com
Spartakus
> Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
> > > with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
> > > trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY,
> > Apparently NOT illegally. The article is dated May 31, 2005 and the
> > abortion had occurred in late 2001. Why didn't the Kansas authorities
> > prosecute?
> Obviously, they couldn't start until they got wind of it, and it's a
> pretty safe bet that they didn't get wind of it until after May 31,
> 2005. Despite what a fanatical ally of yours said, Tiller was never
> under close scrutiny in any meaningful sense of the word. As for
> 2005 and thereafter...
Even more obviously, the procedure WAS legal for that set of
circumstances, and your wishing it was illegal does not make it so.
> It wasn't for want of trying, but Tiller and his lawyers kept up one
> legal challenge after another until Phil Kline was defeated and the
> guy who defeated him, Morrison, charged Tiller with a bunch of much
> less serious breaches of the law. You can read a long article on the
> subject by author Jack Cashill:
> http://www.kfl.org/SiteResources/Data/Templates/templateb.asp?docid=9...
Kansans for Life? No thank you. But thanks for pointing out that
even after Kline left office, Tiller continued to be hounded by
trumped-up charges. This supports my point that Kansas *was* a
hostile poltical/legal environment for Tiller, and that he had to do
everything by the book, with "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed.
> > > since the abortion was done for no reason other than that her son
> > > (as she refers to him) was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down
> > > Syndrome
> > >http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
> > And? Caring for children with Down's Syndrome can strain family
> > resources to the breaking point - mental and emotional as well as
> > financial.
> Or not. See the case of Mary Ellen Rudin, who together with her
> husband is a Professor Emeritus of the University of Wisconsin.
See where? There is lots of information about Ms. Rudin's
professional life, but I found nothing about her family life.
> I wrote about her in the first post to the thread. Mary Ellen, as we
> set-theoretic topologists all call her at topology conferences [ where
> everyone knows who we are talking about if we don't give a last name]
> certainly didn't think she was ruining the life of her two older
> chidren when she decided to keep her third, her first son, a Down [not
> Downs, twit--I've altered the thread title to reflect this and much
> more] syndrome child.
"Down", "Downs" and "Down's" are all accepted, twit.
> She went on to have a fourth son, despite the old factoid that the
> older you are, the more likely Down Syndrome is for your next child.
Do you even know what a "factoid" is? Here, I'll eliminate the
suspense and tell you - a "factoid" is a piece of information that
appears to be a true fact, but isn't. The term "factoid" is the new
"old wives' tale".
And guess what? It is a *fact* (not a factoid) that the risk of Down
['][s] Syndrome ramps up as the woman ages. And guess what else? The
risk of birth defects of all kinds ramps up as the *father* ages.
> He is extremely intelligent and successful.
Please post his SAT scores.
[...]
junegill
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:99a812dd-1b01-48eb...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
> with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
> trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY, since the abortion
> was done for no reason other than that her son (as she refers to him)
> was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down Syndrome.
> http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
So you don't think that Down's Syndrome is a good reason to abort? What do
you know about caring for a mentally handicapped child? You happen to know
someone who is doing a good job with one? Great. You should try it for
yourself before you tell others what they should endure. Read the following
for the merest inkling of what it's like and then tell me that you'd
volunteer to do it:
http://uk.geocities.com/june...@btopenworld.com/webpages/autism/autism.html
Down's Syndrome is not the same as severe autism, but certain things hold
true for both: you can never hold a meaningful conversation with your child,
although you claim to have done so (would you choose the kind of
conversation you had to be just about the only kind on a daily basis?), they
will never (or extremely rarely) marry and have a family of their own, and
they will need to be cared for in a physical sense their whole lives, never
becoming independent. Not only do they not lead normal lives, neither do
their parents and siblings. I could go on at length, but I'll just say one
more thing: the abortion of a severely disabled or mentally handicapped
foetus paves the way for other children to be born - my husband and I both
wanted to have more children, but it was out of the question ... they're the
ones that I mourn.
[snip]
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/june...@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 8, 2:16 pm, Spartakus <sparta...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
>> > with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
>> > trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY,
>>
>> Apparently NOT illegally. The article is dated May 31, 2005 and the
>> abortion had occurred in late 2001. Why didn't the Kansas authorities
>> prosecute?
>
>Obviously, they couldn't start until they got wind of it, and it's a
>pretty safe bet that they didn't get wind of it until after May 31,
>2005. Despite what a fanatical ally of yours said, Tiller was never
The usual smears from the usual smear-monger.
>> > (as she refers to him) was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down
>> > Syndrome
>> >http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
>>
>> And? Caring for children with Down's Syndrome can strain family
>> resources to the breaking point - mental and emotional as well as
>> financial.
>
>Or not. See the case of Mary Ellen Rudin, who together with her
Down's syndrome covers a range of symptoms, which may include severe
disability.
You, being a self-righteous and hypocritical asshole first lied abotu
the case, claiming that the fetus was healthy, and are now trying to
minimize your lie by pretending that all Down's syndrome cases are
minor.
You're a typical pro-liar asshole spewing filth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>I am posting the paragraphs immediately preceding the ones I quoted in
>my first post, followed by the copy of the ones I did post, all from
>an article in the Los Angeles Times:
Because you're such an arrogant dumbshit that you think that people
will overlook your lie if you post enough evidence showing that you're
a liar.
>>http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
[...]
>I find it very sad that Plazio apparently did not speak to the parents
How many have YOU adopted, hypocrite?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 8, 2:57 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > One other thing Plazio may not have realized: there are long waiting
>> > lists for women who very much want to adopt babies with Down
>> > Syndrome.
>>
>> That is a lie. There are no long waiting lists for children with
>> Down's Syndrome. Hell, even normal children end up dumped in foster
>> care gulags.
>
>I said babies, not children, you bait-and-switch artist.
Where's your evidence, pro-liar?
>I suspect that is what your staunch ally Spartakus had in mind, too,
I know you're a liar. There aren't "long waiting lists" of women
wanting to adopt babies with Down's syndrome. That's just another
example of you getting confused with the difference between what you
think should be reality and what is reality.
>when he did his Lyman-clone song-and-dance in response to the same
Smearing other people doesn't make you less of a lying sleazebag.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 8, 3:06 pm, "Adam A. Wanderer" <m...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:99a812dd-1b01-48eb...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...> According to the following article
>in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
>> > with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
>> > trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY, since the abortion
>> > was done for no reason other than that her son (as she refers to him)
>> > was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down Syndrome.
>> >http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
>>
>> Perhaps a few members of the "pro-life" community, who also oppose research
>> to stop or cure many of these defects,
>
>...because the result is amniocentesis followed by abortion.
Because you pro-liars love to see people suffer.
> There
>are far fewer Down Syndrome babies born since these search-and-destroy
>missions began in earnest.
There are fewer doctors doing abortions since your search-and-destroy
missions ended up with the murders of doctors.
> >would like to raise a kid with Down's
>> Syndrome, and then tell us what it was like.
>
>I'll try and find out what the latest stats are on the adoption scene.
LOL! Apparently you spew bullshit first and then try to find evidence
later.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>Come on! Be reasonable! I'm a far right conservative and I agree
>with this lady 100%. That baby should be aborted (and was). It's so
>easy for you to sound 'holier-than-though' in casting judgement on her
>since you aren't the one who has to raise a child with downs
>syndrome. It's also cruel to bring such a child into this world.
>
>I'm against abortion when it's done out of convenience because the
>mother feels she's not in the mood to raise a child (when the child is
>normal).
So you're not a conservative at all. You're a big-government control
freak.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> Come on! Be reasonable! I'm a far right conservative and I agree
> with this lady 100%.
I don't think there is any correlation between being far right
conservative and being reasonable--or if there is, it's negative.
> That baby should be aborted (and was). It's so
> easy for you to sound 'holier-than-though' in casting judgement on her
> since you aren't the one who has to raise a child with downs
> syndrome. It's also cruel to bring such a child into this world.
Do you consider yourself to be a Christian? I hope not. It is most
un-Christian to tempt God by killing a child in the womb and expecting
God to make everything right for the child in the hereafter.
> I'm against abortion when it's done out of convenience because the
> mother feels she's not in the mood to raise a child (when the child is
> normal).
>
> If you want proof I'm on the far right, read my blog:http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/
Not just far right, but anti-semitic and probably racist as well.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> Down's syndrome covers a range of symptoms, which may include severe
> disability.
Had there been any sign of severe disability in the Plazio's son, you
can bet your bottom dollar that it would have been mentioned in the
article by Stephanie Simon, a master of abortion-rights propaganda:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dave-pierre/2007/09/18/yet-another-slanted-abortion-story-lat
The ONLY reason given was distress over the two alternatives, raising
her son or giving him up for adoption:
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
Would that distress have exempted her or Tiller from your stated
policy, which you said has NOT changed since you posted the following
in 1992?
====begin repost
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wupost!
csus.edu!netcom.com!ray
From: r...@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Late-term abortion
Message-ID: <1992Nov17....@netcom.com>
Organization: Netcom, San Jose, California
References: <_=v1...@rpi.edu> <1992Nov15....@netcom.com>
<1992Nov16....@advtech.uswest.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 05:21:21 GMT
Lines: 29
ste...@advtech.uswest.com ( Steve Novak) writes ...
>I wouldn't mind hearing what restrictions you'd support, and what penalties
>for doctors/patients you'd like to see enacted.
Many people have made compelling arguments against banning late-term
abortions, and so I'm not going to propose any such thing. However,
neither do I see as justifiable any abortion which deliberately kills
a late term and viable fetus when alternatives exist.
What I would like to see are laws that allow a woman to terminate a
pregnancy at any time, but requires that an attempt be made to save
the life of the fetus when practical and when it does not place the
mother at great additional risk. Granted, this may not always be
possible, but when it is, it should be required.
What punishment? I'd consider a deliberate killing of a fetus to be
manslaughter, with the penalties appropriate to that crime. And yes,
that does mean throwing the would-be mother in jail should she be so
convicted. While putting mothers in jail sounds nasty, I don't think
that women should be treated like children just because they are
pregnant. I expect _equal_ justice under the law.
Of course this is only a sketch and there there are many exceptions
and caveats; should anyone feel like picking nits, please consider the
practicality of the intent first.
--
Ray Fischer "Convictions are more dangerous enemies
of truth
r...@netcom.com than lies." -- Friedrich Nietszsche
=====end repost
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >I am posting the paragraphs immediately preceding the ones I quoted in
> >my first post, followed by the copy of the ones I did post, all from
> >an article in the Los Angeles Times:
>
>
> >>http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
> [...]
> >I find it very sad that Plazio apparently did not speak to the parents
>
> How many have YOU adopted, hypocrite?
Depriving a responsible woman who is desperate for a baby to adopt,
by adopting myself when I have four wonderful daughters, is what would
be really hypocritical.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jun 8, 9:49 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> > pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >On Jun 8, 2:57 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > One other thing Plazio may not have realized: there are long waiting
> > >> > lists for women who very much want to adopt babies with Down
> > >> > Syndrome.
> > >> That is a lie. There are no long waiting lists for children with
> > >> Down's Syndrome. Hell, even normal children end up dumped in foster
> > >> care gulags.
>
> > >I said babies, not children, you bait-and-switch artist.
>
> fauxNy here explains that because most children in foster care were
> "damaged" by their breeders they didn't count, because no one wants a
> child that requires that much work. Grrr. So, only infants
> "deserve" a loving family, and those kids whose breeders were stupid
> enough to breed and not immediately give up an adoptable infant (
As usual, you jump to conclusions on the basis of laughably meager
evidence. In the first place, I think every child on this planet
deserves a loving family, but cold realities stand in the way.
Secondly, you are guilty of a dirty debating trick I call the Black
and White Meltdown, seeing no alternative in what I say between much
older children being impossible to adopt ,and being sought after.
It's a difficult thing that few couples are capable of, but just the
other day I saw the following heartwarming exception to the rule--and
note, even this mother had her doubts at one point about being able to
stay the course:
http://catholicexchange.com/2009/01/26/115157/
And don't forget, we are arguing about the disposition of ONE baby,
the son of the woman who had the third trimestrer abortion, and you
are the one who dragged in foster care, as if that were somehow
relevant.
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>> Down's syndrome covers a range of symptoms, which may include severe
>> disability.
>
>Had there been any sign of severe disability in the Plazio's son, you
You've already been caught lying your ass off about this case, asshole.
Now you expect other people to dispove your bullshit?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>> fauxNy here explains that because most children in foster care were
>> "damaged" by their breeders they didn't count, because no one wants a
>> child that requires that much work. Grrr. So, only infants
>> "deserve" a loving family, and those kids whose breeders were stupid
>> enough to breed and not immediately give up an adoptable infant (
>
>As usual, you jump to conclusions on the basis of laughably meager
>evidence.
Like claiming that a fetus with Down's syndrome is "healthy"?
> In the first place, I think every child on this planet
>deserves a loving family, but cold realities stand in the way.
The rationalization of the pro-liar hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >I am posting the paragraphs immediately preceding the ones I quoted in
>> >my first post, followed by the copy of the ones I did post, all from
>> >an article in the Los Angeles Times:
>>
>[...]
>>
>> >>http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
>> [...]
>> >I find it very sad that Plazio apparently did not speak to the parents
>>
>> How many have YOU adopted, hypocrite?
>
>Depriving a responsible woman who is desperate for a baby to adopt,
We'll take that as a "none". All you offer are excuses.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 9, 3:54 am, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> fauxNy here explains that because most children in foster care were
> >> "damaged" by their breeders they didn't count, because no one wants a
> >> child that requires that much work. Grrr. So, only infants
> >> "deserve" a loving family, and those kids whose breeders were stupid
> >> enough to breed and not immediately give up an adoptable infant (
>
> >As usual, you jump to conclusions on the basis of laughably meager
> >evidence.
>
> Like claiming that a fetus with Down's syndrome is "healthy"?
Health is a relative thing. A person can have a leg in a cast and
still be in general good health; and that is what is relevant when we
are discussing the appropriateness of late-term abortions [see the
subject line?]. Down's syndrome is not as debilitating as some things
people can suffer from, and yet it would be wrong to shoot even such
people to put them out of their misery. [That's an allusion to the
'60's film, "They Shoot Horses, Don't They?"]
And my evidence that the unborn son was not in general good health,
though far from airtight, is not laughably meager either--see an
earlier follow-up to you.
> > In the first place, I think every child on this planet
> >deserves a loving family, but cold realities stand in the way.
>
> The rationalization of the pro-liar hypocrite.
You are cynically projecting your hate-ravaged psyche onto me.
[In 1992-1997 you were not among the people I called "hate-ravaged"
but the years of unreasoning hatred have taken their toll on you.]
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 9, 10:45 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 9, 3:54 am, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> fauxNy here explains that because most children in foster care were
>> >> "damaged" by their breeders they didn't count, because no one wants a
>> >> child that requires that much work. Grrr. So, only infants
>> >> "deserve" a loving family, and those kids whose breeders were stupid
>> >> enough to breed and not immediately give up an adoptable infant (
>>
>> >As usual, you jump to conclusions on the basis of laughably meager
>> >evidence.
>>
>> Like claiming that a fetus with Down's syndrome is "healthy"?
>
>Health is a relative thing.
You lied.
> A person can have a leg in a cast and
I'm not interesteed in the whiny rationalizations of a sociopath.
>> > In the first place, I think every child on this planet
>> >deserves a loving family, but cold realities stand in the way.
>>
>> The rationalization of the pro-liar hypocrite.
>
>You are cynically projecting your
You LIED. And when challenged you lied AGAIN.
And now you're lying still.
You are a pro-liar hypocrite.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Day Brown
the hospital saw how lucky I was compared to all the freaks, that given
the option, never would have wanted to be born. If they had enuf marbles
to make the assessment. But certainly, none of the so called 'pro-life'
people, who all have intact bodies with real lives, would want to do
life in some of the bodies I saw.
Maybe its bad enuf to have mind that can think like a fundy.
Who Is John Galt
The government is not given the right to kill evil people, sick people
or ugly people.
Day Brown
This is now up to the women. If they cant find a doctor for an abortion,
there are rapidly increasing numbers of witches who will provide an herb
to do the job for them. The law no longer matters.
I currently have wild yam and queen anne's lace, but have also provided
witches with bachelor button (guess why its named that John) and blessed
thistle. And if I dont find any ergot on the road side grasses this
year, I'll grow barley next year. That shit is really powerful.
Midwives've always used it to create strong uterine contractions to
speed a birth. but it'll work any time. First, Second, or third
trimester, no problem. I'd send a woman to get a checkup to make sure
there is not any excessive bleeding. The hospital will list it as a
"miscarriage" so it'll never show up on the statistics on abortion.
You dont even know its going on. The more draconian abortion law, the
more todays' witches will recover their ancient 'family planning'
business. And the girls will give up being Christian as well.
pnyikos
dog...com> wrote:
I know who John Galt is. Do you know who Eric Starvo Galt was? [Day
Brown certainly is old enough to have heard about him.]
> Day Brown wrote:
> > I got polio for my 7th birthday in 1946, and over the next 10 months in
> > the hospital saw how lucky I was compared to all the freaks, that given
> > the option, never would have wanted to be born. If they had enuf marbles
> > to make the assessment. But certainly, none of the so called 'pro-life'
> > people, who all have intact bodies with real lives, would want to do
> > life in some of the bodies I saw.
Day Brown is certain about something that is highly dubious. If it's
a choice between living as a "freak" and never living at all, there
are damn few conditions that I wouldn't put up with.
> > Maybe its bad enuf to have mind that can think like a fundy.
>
> The government is not given the right to kill evil people, sick people
> or ugly people.
Alas, private citizens are, under circumstances far more prevalent
than I'd like. It wasn't the government that removed Terri Schiavo's
feeding tube; it was private citizens, and the government merely
decided not to stand in the way.
Peter Nyikos
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 12, 11:09 am, Who Is John Galt <"Men Of The Mind"@Talkn-n-
>> > I got polio for my 7th birthday in 1946, and over the next 10 months in
>> > the hospital saw how lucky I was compared to all the freaks, that given
>> > the option, never would have wanted to be born. If they had enuf marbles
>> > to make the assessment. But certainly, none of the so called 'pro-life'
>> > people, who all have intact bodies with real lives, would want to do
>> > life in some of the bodies I saw.
>
>Day Brown is certain about something that is highly dubious.
Nope.
> If it's
>a choice between living as a "freak" and never living at all, there
>are damn few conditions that I wouldn't put up with.
More of that pro-liar arrogance. EVERYBODY must think and feel just
as fauxNy does. Even when he hasn't a clue. Dissent must equal error.
>> > Maybe its bad enuf to have mind that can think like a fundy.
>>
>> The government is not given the right to kill evil people, sick people
>> or ugly people.
>
>Alas, private citizens are, under circumstances far more prevalent
>than I'd like.
There is NO right to kill another person. Not ever.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Day Brown
> Alas, private citizens are, under circumstances far more prevalent
> than I'd like. It wasn't the government that removed Terri Schiavo's
> feeding tube; it was private citizens, and the government merely
> decided not to stand in the way.
the reports from ancient Europe, but anthropology reports from native
cultures all over the world. It no longer matters what you, your elected
representatives, or the courts, think.
These are private family matters, which is what it was in the Bible. Its
time for you to find a new rant.
Quadibloc
> the abortion
> was done for no reason other than that her son (as she refers to him)
> was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down Syndrome
> I am sure lots of people reading this feel
> the same way, but the following is undeniable: the oft-repeated crap
> that "viable fetuses are never aborted" or that third trimester
> abortions are done only when the woman's life is at risk or the baby
> (well, the article calls it that!) has some lethal deformity just does
> not hold water.
You are absolutely correct that such an abortion is the murder of an
innocent child simply because that child is the victim of a handicap,
and so it should be considered reminiscent of Nazi euthanasia.
However, Down's Syndrome _is_ a pathological condition. It shortens
life, and causes mental retardation.
The child was indeed, therefore, not "healthy" in every sense of the
word, although the child was healthy in a _clinical_ sense. The child
did not need medical treatment to survive, didn't have a fever or
chills or vomiting... but the child did have a genetic condition with
harmful sequelae. By using the term "healthy" which has more than one
meaning, and not all meanings of which are applicable, you have opened
the door to confusion.
John Savard
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 12, 11:09 am, Who Is John Galt <"Men Of The Mind"@Talkn-n-
> >> Day Brown wrote:
> >> > I got polio for my 7th birthday in 1946, and over the next 10 months in
> >> > the hospital saw how lucky I was compared to all the freaks, that given
> >> > the option, never would have wanted to be born. If they had enuf marbles
> >> > to make the assessment. But certainly, none of the so called 'pro-life'
> >> > people, who all have intact bodies with real lives, would want to do
> >> > life in some of the bodies I saw.
>
> >Day Brown is certain about something that is highly dubious.
>
> Nope.
Did he ever see anyone in a condition as bad as Trisomy-13 or
Trisomy-18? He's being awfully vague.
> > If it's
> >a choice between living as a "freak" and never living at all, there
> >are damn few conditions that I wouldn't put up with.
>
> More of that pro-liar arrogance.
By none other than Pro-liar Fischer: Dan made a blanket statement
about ALL pro-lifers, I made a statement about MYSELF, having seen the
99balloons website and deciding that having such loving parents would
make up for all the suffering that this unfortunate child had.
One exception refutes the rule, and Fischer isn't so low in IQ that he
cannot see that this is exactly what has transpired. But, fueled by
blind hatred of me, and fanatical loyalty to all potential recruits to
his group of Seven Musketeers, he pretends to believe that exactlly
the opposite is true:
>EVERYBODY must think and feel just
> as fauxNy does. Even when he hasn't a clue. Dissent must equal error.
Fischer doesn't even try to sound like an adult, preferring to sound
like a pouty ten-year old smart alec.
> >> > Maybe its bad enuf to have mind that can think like a fundy.
>
> >> The government is not given the right to kill evil people, sick people
> >> or ugly people.
>
> >Alas, private citizens are, under circumstances far more prevalent
> >than I'd like.
>
> There is NO right to kill another person. Not ever.
The right to kill Terri Schiavo by removing her feeding tube and
prohibiting her brother from trying to mouth-feed her was legally
absolute.
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
Um, wrong. The court finding was that HER wish to not be
kept alive artificially with no chance of recovery had priority.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
Frankly, the so-called 'right to life' crowd made the entire
affair a disgusting spectacle, even resorting to blatant
unconstitutionality, outright slander, and attempted bribery.
--
When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called
insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is
called Religion.
- Robert Pirsig
Talk-n-dog
>
> The right to kill Terri Schiavo by removing her feeding tube and
> prohibiting her brother from trying to mouth-feed her was legally
> absolute.
>
"kill *another* person"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The court decided she was killing herself....
That she had voiced her wish to never remain a vegetable.
The court said that she was killing herself not being killed by another
person.
I didn't particularly like that it was so vague a case where all they
had was a husband saying "she said" but the court accepted it so I may
not have all the details.
The Government thinks they can kill Prisoners on death row. They think
they have some right to take the life of citizens, where is that eluded
to in the Constitution?
Killing citizens steps on the inalienable right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.
pnyikos
"finding" is a legal term. The presiding judge decided, for reasons
not at all clear from the link you provide below, to go with the
testimony of two doctors that Terri had no hope of recovery, and that
she was in a persistent vegetative state, and that the numerous signs
indicating otherwise, to which nurses attested, were pure unconscious
reflex.
> http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
I'll have to read the decision very carefully to see how convincing
the other assertion was, that Terri would not have wanted to be kept
alive artificially under the circumstances that the court "found" but
a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the "finding" seems
to be a weak one.
> Frankly, the so-called 'right to life' crowd made the entire
> affair a disgusting spectacle, even resorting to blatant
> unconstitutionality, outright slander, and attempted bribery.
Calling an offer to forego all of the money they might have inherited
from Terri, and even an offer of an extra million dollars if Michael
would relent, hardly deserves to be classified as "bribery" GIVEN
that the blood relatives of Terri who wanted to save her life
sincerely believed she had a good chance to recover given the proper
therapy. Michael continually thwarted their wishes that she be given
this therapy, according to detailed accounts by a brother of Terri's
that I have read.
The rest of what you wrote is dubious also, and if you want to
discuss it further, I'm willing.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
It is your description "killing herself" that is vague. Where in the
court documents do you read any such thing?
And why did you set follow-ups to alt.rush-limbaugh while deleting all
four of the newsgroups to which your post went? Is this your idea of
a joke?
Peter Nyikos
IAAH
And that testimony was certainly borne out 100% later. Some
opposing testimony, such as that disgusting display by
Frist, should have resulted in the loss of medical licenses.
>
>> http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf
>
> I'll have to read the decision very carefully to see how convincing
> the other assertion was, that Terri would not have wanted to be kept
> alive artificially under the circumstances that the court "found" but
> a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and the "finding" seems
> to be a weak one.
I rather thank that consistent testimony from over a dozen
people who knew her is not weak at all.
>
>> Frankly, the so-called 'right to life' crowd made the entire
>> affair a disgusting spectacle, even resorting to blatant
>> unconstitutionality, outright slander, and attempted bribery.
>
> Calling an offer to forego all of the money they might have inherited
> from Terri, and even an offer of an extra million dollars if Michael
> would relent, hardly deserves to be classified as "bribery" GIVEN
> that the blood relatives of Terri who wanted to save her life
> sincerely believed she had a good chance to recover given the proper
> therapy. Michael continually thwarted their wishes that she be given
> this therapy, according to detailed accounts by a brother of Terri's
> that I have read.
>
> The rest of what you wrote is dubious also, and if you want to
> discuss it further, I'm willing.
"Terri's Law" was overturned as unconstitutional. Michael
Schiavo was called, in public and out loud, any one of a
dozen slanders by Terri's family. The offer of a million
dollars was certainly an attempted bribe - I don't see how
it can be viewed otherwise.
>
> Peter Nyikos
Talk-n-dog
The whole case was whether she had voiced an intent to not live on life
support. What else was the case about? Had she a legal document
expressing her wishes to not live on life support, the whole case would
have lasted ten minutes.
> And why did you set follow-ups to alt.rush-limbaugh while deleting all
> four of the newsgroups to which your post went? Is this your idea of
> a joke?
NO I have a service that allows only 4 cross-posts, since there were 5
on this particular post I just decided to set the other 4 to follow-up
to the one that I read most often. There was no malicious intent,
simple maximizing of the poor service that I get. You can reset any
that you wish or if you have better services just add to it. I have no
idea which group a message originated from, with follow-up set, it
ensures I'll get the response since other people also don't know which
NG to delete to fit the cross post limits of their providers although I
imagine my service is the worst. That limit to 4 is a bit of a problem
when I get lists of 7 and 8 cross posts. Which groups do I delete?
Where did the reply originate? Will I delete the authors NG and him
never get my reply?
I can make it into two posts and and send to 3groups + the group I'm
reading and then change the 3groups and send it again but that makes for
twice the message traffic in the group I'm reading.
Basically, by setting my cross post limit so low, the Administrator
thinks he's saving traffic and abuse and lowering the total posts stored
on their servers. It is causing some double posting by me when I decide
to reply all around.
NO who do I delete to get this post back to you?
Day Brown
> Basically, by setting my cross post limit so low, the Administrator
> thinks he's saving traffic and abuse and lowering the total posts stored
> on their servers. It is causing some double posting by me when I decide
> to reply all around.
limits, so you could quit worrying about it. It costs me a bit less than
3$/month.
As to the issue at hand; I got polio in 1946, been in a lotta hospitals,
seen a lotta freaks, and know damn well that most of those who get their
panties in a wad over euthanasia or abortion would not want to spend a
life in bodies like those I've seen.
Its so much easier to say that someone else should do that so they can
go on feeling good about their "respect for life".
Poetic Justice
> Talk-n-dog wrote:
>> Basically, by setting my cross post limit so low, the Administrator
>> thinks he's saving traffic and abuse and lowering the total posts stored
>> on their servers. It is causing some double posting by me when I decide
>> to reply all around.
> usenetmonster.com is but one of many newservers that dont have crosspost
> limits, so you could quit worrying about it. It costs me a bit less than
> 3$/month.
>
OK I may change.
Neolibertarian
Day Brown <dayh...@gmail.com> wrote:
It isn't ignorance of pain and suffering that gives man a respect for
life, dummy.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
SilentOtto
> In article <4a4294b2$0$11508$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Talk-n-dog wrote:
> > > Basically, by setting my cross post limit so low, the Administrator
> > > thinks he's saving traffic and abuse and lowering the total posts stored
> > > on their servers. It is causing some double posting by me when I decide
> > > to reply all around.
> > usenetmonster.com is but one of many newservers that dont have crosspost
> > limits, so you could quit worrying about it. It costs me a bit less than
> > 3$/month.
>
> > As to the issue at hand; I got polio in 1946, been in a lotta hospitals,
> > seen a lotta freaks, and know damn well that most of those who get their
> > panties in a wad over euthanasia or abortion would not want to spend a
> > life in bodies like those I've seen.
>
> > Its so much easier to say that someone else should do that so they can
> > go on feeling good about their "respect for life".
>
> It isn't ignorance of pain and suffering that gives man a respect for
> life, dummy.
A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
You'll run your mouths, but you won't lay out the bread.
Talk is cheap.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
Unfuckingbelieveable.
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 17, 11:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 12, 11:09 am, Who Is John Galt <"Men Of The Mind"@Talkn-n-
>> >> Day Brown wrote:
>> >> > I got polio for my 7th birthday in 1946, and over the next 10 months in
>> >> > the hospital saw how lucky I was compared to all the freaks, that given
>> >> > the option, never would have wanted to be born. If they had enuf marbles
>> >> > to make the assessment. But certainly, none of the so called 'pro-life'
>> >> > people, who all have intact bodies with real lives, would want to do
>> >> > life in some of the bodies I saw.
>>
>> >Day Brown is certain about something that is highly dubious.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Did he ever see anyone in a condition as bad as Trisomy-13 or
>Trisomy-18? He's being awfully vague.
Since when do you care about "vaugue"? You LOVE to take vague
circumstances and use them to try and convict people.
>> > If it's
>> >a choice between living as a "freak" and never living at all, there
>> >are damn few conditions that I wouldn't put up with.
>>
>> More of that pro-liar arrogance.
>
>By none other than Pro-liar Fischer:
Wrong again, asshole. I'm pro-choice.
> Dan made a blanket statement
>about ALL pro-lifers, I made a statement about MYSELF, having seen the
>99balloons website and deciding that having such loving parents would
>make up for all the suffering that this unfortunate child had.
LOL! AGAIN you decide that you know everything based upon nothing
more than some "vague" web site.
You're a sleazy hypocrite.
>>EVERYBODY must think and feel just
>> as fauxNy does. Even when he hasn't a clue. Dissent must equal error.
>
>Fischer doesn't even try to sound like an adult, preferring to sound
Quit whining, hypocrite.
>> >> > Maybe its bad enuf to have mind that can think like a fundy.
>>
>> >> The government is not given the right to kill evil people, sick people
>> >> or ugly people.
>>
>> >Alas, private citizens are, under circumstances far more prevalent
>> >than I'd like.
>>
>> There is NO right to kill another person. Not ever.
>
>The right to kill Terri Schiavo by removing her feeding tube and
I'm not interested in your lies, asshole. There is no right to kill.
Not ever. Leanr what "rights" are.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> As to the issue at hand; I got polio in 1946, been in a lotta hospitals,
> seen a lotta freaks,
Did any of those people have trisomy-13 or trisomy-18? If so, did
you see any that were WORSE "freaks" than that?
> and know damn well that most of those who get their
> panties in a wad over euthanasia or abortion would not want to spend a
> life in bodies like those I've seen.
On what basis do you know that? your own weird ideas about what the
people you describe consider to be a fate worse than death? Your use
of the word "freaks" suggests that your ideas about this ARE weird.
Have you ever seen the 1930's film "Freaks"?
> Its so much easier to say that someone else should do that so they can
> go on feeling good about their "respect for life".
I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
promoting justice and compassion and truth.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jun 24, 10:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <4a4294b2$0$11508$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As to the issue at hand; I got polio in 1946, been in a lotta hospitals,
> > > seen a lotta freaks, and know damn well that most of those who get their
> > > panties in a wad over euthanasia or abortion would not want to spend a
> > > life in bodies like those I've seen.
>
> > > Its so much easier to say that someone else should do that so they can
> > > go on feeling good about their "respect for life".
I've reprimanded Day Brown for the above garbage.
> > It isn't ignorance of pain and suffering that gives man a respect for
> > life, dummy.
Neolibertarian is right on the money here.
> A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
Garbage, unless you get to say exactly who is and who isn't a
rightard. I've contributed modestly to pro-life organizatons and
massively (about a thousand dollars a year for the past twenty years)
to charities that take care of impoverished and sick and injured
people.
> You'll run your mouths, but you won't lay out the bread.
What evidence have you that Neolibertarian is like this?
> Talk is cheap.
>
> Heh heh...
>
> Rightards...
>
> Unfuckingbelieveable.
Your garbage is indeed unbelievable. But I suppose you will continue
to blissfully wallow in your misconceptions like a pig satisfied,
while I take the route of following Socrates dissatisfied.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jun 17, 11:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 12, 11:09 am, Who Is John Galt <"Men Of The Mind"@Talkn-n-
> >> >> Day Brown wrote:
> >> >> > I got polio for my 7th birthday in 1946, and over the next 10 months in
> >> >> > the hospital saw how lucky I was compared to all the freaks, that given
> >> >> > the option, never would have wanted to be born. If they had enuf marbles
> >> >> > to make the assessment. But certainly, none of the so called 'pro-life'
> >> >> > people, who all have intact bodies with real lives, would want to do
> >> >> > life in some of the bodies I saw.
>
> >> >Day Brown is certain about something that is highly dubious.
>
> >> Nope.
>
> >Did he ever see anyone in a condition as bad as Trisomy-13 or
> >Trisomy-18? He's being awfully vague.
>
> Since when do you care about "vaugue"? You LOVE to take vague
> circumstances and use them to try and convict people.
You can't name a single valid example, can you, your hate-driven
liar?
> >> > If it's
> >> >a choice between living as a "freak" and never living at all, there
> >> >are damn few conditions that I wouldn't put up with.
>
> >> More of that pro-liar arrogance.
>
> >By none other than Pro-liar Fischer:
>
> Wrong again, asshole. I'm pro-choice.
That depends on what your definition of pro-choice is. If you use the
Merriam-Webster definition, you are safe, but you are CERTAINLY a pro-
liar, because your are ardently pro-Spartakus, as I've shown many
times, and Spartakus is a proven liar many times over.
I've deleted the rest of your post, which only someone as far gone as
you or Keegan could possibly think of as intellectual, and in any
event it consists of pure TbBA, especially about the two 99 balloons
websites being "vague".
Here they are, in case any reader wishes to ascertain whether they are
"vague" by their standards.
Film about baby with trisomy 18:
http://www.ignitermedia.com/products/iv/singles/570/99-Balloons
background information:
http://www.ninetynineballoons.com/
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 24, 10:52 pm, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
>
>Garbage,
We've seen ample evidence that you rightards are opposed to any
taxation or givernment program that might actually help people live.
> unless you get to say exactly who is and who isn't a
>rightard. I've contributed modestly to pro-life organizatons
That shows NO respect for life. Quite the contrary.
>and
>massively (about a thousand dollars a year for the past twenty years)
Pah. That's a long way from "massively".
>to charities that take care of impoverished and sick and injured
>people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 25, 1:43 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jun 17, 11:20 pm, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> >> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Jun 12, 11:09 am, Who Is John Galt <"Men Of The Mind"@Talkn-n-
>> >> >> Day Brown wrote:
>> >> >> > I got polio for my 7th birthday in 1946, and over the next 10 months in
>> >> >> > the hospital saw how lucky I was compared to all the freaks, that given
>> >> >> > the option, never would have wanted to be born. If they had enuf marbles
>> >> >> > to make the assessment. But certainly, none of the so called 'pro-life'
>> >> >> > people, who all have intact bodies with real lives, would want to do
>> >> >> > life in some of the bodies I saw.
>>
>> >> >Day Brown is certain about something that is highly dubious.
>>
>> >> Nope.
>>
>> >Did he ever see anyone in a condition as bad as Trisomy-13 or
>> >Trisomy-18? He's being awfully vague.
>>
>> Since when do you care about "vaugue"? You LOVE to take vague
>> circumstances and use them to try and convict people.
>
>You can't name a single valid example,
Your accusations against Tiller.
> can you, your hate-driven
>liar?
As opposed to you lying terrorist sympathizers?
>> >> More of that pro-liar arrogance.
>>
>> >By none other than Pro-liar Fischer:
>>
>> Wrong again, asshole. I'm pro-choice.
>
>That depends
No it doesn't, pro-liar.
> If you use the
>Merriam-Webster definition, you are safe, but you are CERTAINLY a pro-
choice.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Day Brown
the state cant control abortion anymore. I harvested a few doses of
Queen Anne's lace today for women who mite be wanting an abortion later.
All I hadda do now was set them out to dry. It grows wild all over the
temperate zone because the seed blows in the wind.
I had three young women come by last month, and another young witch to
look at my harvest yesterday. I guess you dunno witches are going back
into the family planning business since your friends are making it so
difficult for doctors and clinics.
No appointment, no protester line, no adoption sermon, no parental
consent, no doctor bill, and no problem with pharmacists; just nearly
free abortion on demand with no medical record that it ever happened.
What you think no longer matters, and when I see rants like yours on
abortion, I have another excuse to spread the good word. The Wiccans, of
course, are not Christian, so there's no guilt issues either.
Ray Fischer
>I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
>promoting justice and compassion and truth.
And you do that by being an insulting asshole who attacks women's
rights and lies in order to justify a fundamentally immoral ideology.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
SilentOtto
> On Jun 24, 10:52 pm, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 24, 10:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > In article <4a4294b2$0$11508$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > > Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > As to the issue at hand; I got polio in 1946, been in a lotta hospitals,
> > > > seen a lotta freaks, and know damn well that most of those who get their
> > > > panties in a wad over euthanasia or abortion would not want to spend a
> > > > life in bodies like those I've seen.
>
> > > > Its so much easier to say that someone else should do that so they can
> > > > go on feeling good about their "respect for life".
>
> I've reprimanded Day Brown for the above garbage.
>
> > > It isn't ignorance of pain and suffering that gives man a respect for
> > > life, dummy.
>
> Neolibertarian is right on the money here.
>
> > A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
>
> Garbage, unless you get to say exactly who is and who isn't a
> rightard.
You can cast about these groups for the answer to that question.
>I've contributed modestly to pro-life organizatons and
> massively (about a thousand dollars a year for the past twenty years)
> to charities that take care of impoverished and sick and injured
> people.
If you want to make abortion illegal, and I happen to know from your
posting history that you do, then you're going to have to do a hell of
a lot better than making voluntary charitable contributions.
While I don't read all of your posts, I've read a substantial
sampling.
I've never seen a -single- instance where you've advocated for the
massively improved social safety net that making abortion illegal
would necessitate..
In other words, you want to FORCE women to have children they can't
afford, but you want your obligation to help pay for them to be
optional.
That won't fly, rightard.
> > You'll run your mouths, but you won't lay out the bread.
>
> What evidence have you that Neolibertarian is like this?
Hello?
"NeoLIBERTARIAN"???
The only thing you'll get out of him is a speech about personal
responsibility.
> > Talk is cheap.
>
> > Heh heh...
>
> > Rightards...
>
> > Unfuckingbelieveable.
>
> Your garbage is indeed unbelievable. But I suppose you will continue
> to blissfully wallow in your misconceptions like a pig satisfied,
> while I take the route of following Socrates dissatisfied.
I don't have any misconceptions about the anti-abortion crowd.
I've been round and round with uncounted numbers of rightards on these
groups about this issue, and they're the one's who've informed my
opinion.
They want to make abortion illegal, but they don't want to be
obligated pay for the consequences of imposing their will on others.
Further, were my perceptions wrong, and rightards did support the sort
of improved safety net that would persuade women away from having
abortions, then it would -already- exist.
But, it doesn't, does it rightard?
Which political party consistently resists any attempt to create such
a structure?
Why, it's the Republicans, the darlings of the anti-abortion crowd.
What a coincidence....
Game, set and match, rightard.
Heh heh...
Rightards....
Batshit crazy, every one of you.
>
> Peter Nyikos
duke
>pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
>>promoting justice and compassion and truth.
>
>And you do that by being an insulting asshole who attacks women's
>rights and lies in order to justify a fundamentally immoral ideology.
He's not a baby killer like you.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mark Sebree
> On 01 Jul 2009 06:46:09 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
> >>promoting justice and compassion and truth.
>
> >And you do that by being an insulting asshole who attacks women's
> >rights and lies in order to justify a fundamentally immoral ideology.
>
> He's not a baby killer like you.
There is no reason to think that Ray kills infants, or anyone else for
that matter, either. Your lies do not coincide with the truth. If
you think that Ray has killed anyone, then you need to support your
claims. Something that you have repeatedly shown that you are loath
to do.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
>>>promoting justice and compassion and truth.
>>
>>And you do that by being an insulting asshole who attacks women's
>>rights and lies in order to justify a fundamentally immoral ideology.
>
>He's not a baby killer like you.
Is he a child-molesting puppy-torturing pervert like you?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
duke
wrote:
I've been knowing him longer than you.
duke
No, you are the pervert.
Day Brown
> There is no reason to think that Ray kills infants, or anyone else for
> that matter, either. Your lies do not coincide with the truth. If
> you think that Ray has killed anyone, then you need to support your
> claims. Something that you have repeatedly shown that you are loath
> to do.
witches used to provide 'family planning'. It no longer matters what
they or the courts think. They cant stop herbal abortions.
I'm in the middle of harvesting Queen Anne's lace now, which I already
used on a cat that does not now have kittens. Duck soup. Well, tea
actually.
Course, responding to their rants keeps the issue alive, and that drives
even more young women to seek out witches who already know about this.
My neck of Ozark woods has both Scots/Irish and Cherokee hybrid witches.
The roads were so bad, they never stopped using midwives, and now they
are expanding the range of their services. Which are gonzo cheaper than
those offered by an abortion clinic. The more the zealots rant, the more
young women fear them, and the faster they seek witches. Who also
instruct them in alternative spiritual paths.
So, in effect, the rants harm the very cause they try to promote.
Ray Fischer
>On 02 Jul 2009 06:43:39 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>pnyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
>>>>>promoting justice and compassion and truth.
>>>>
>>>>And you do that by being an insulting asshole who attacks women's
>>>>rights and lies in order to justify a fundamentally immoral ideology.
>>>
>>>He's not a baby killer like you.
>>
>>Is he a child-molesting puppy-torturing pervert like you?
>
>No, you are the pervert.
Says the creep who's interested in the sex lives of other men.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
duke
>Mark Sebree wrote:
>> There is no reason to think that Ray kills infants, or anyone else for
>> that matter, either. Your lies do not coincide with the truth. If
>> you think that Ray has killed anyone, then you need to support your
>> claims. Something that you have repeatedly shown that you are loath
>> to do.
>Dont worry about it. Young women are finding out what herbs ancient
>witches used to provide 'family planning'. It no longer matters what
>they or the courts think. They cant stop herbal abortions.
Ancient witches!!! Haahaahahaahahahaa.
>I'm in the middle of harvesting Queen Anne's lace now, which I already
>used on a cat that does not now have kittens. Duck soup. Well, tea
>actually.
>
>Course, responding to their rants keeps the issue alive, and that drives
>even more young women to seek out witches who already know about this.
>My neck of Ozark woods has both Scots/Irish and Cherokee hybrid witches.
>
>The roads were so bad, they never stopped using midwives, and now they
>are expanding the range of their services. Which are gonzo cheaper than
>those offered by an abortion clinic. The more the zealots rant, the more
>young women fear them, and the faster they seek witches. Who also
>instruct them in alternative spiritual paths.
>
>So, in effect, the rants harm the very cause they try to promote.
duke
>rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in news:4a4dbdff$0$1623
>$742e...@news.sonic.net:
>Especially catholic priests...
Ah, "bottom of barrel" is still so ignorant.
Day Brown
> Ancient witches!!! Haahaahahaahahahaa.
Its all going on under the radar. They dont build monumental churches.
They are back in the 'bewitchment' business too. I remember a safe sex
orgy organized by witches. And recall as well how a friend, who'd always
gone on about weapons and his enemy list, afterwards could only speak of
what he could do to further their agenda.
Mark Sebree
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 07:51:22 -0700 (PDT), Mark Sebree <seb...@infionline.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jul 1, 7:50 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 01 Jul 2009 06:46:09 GMT, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
> >> >pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> >>I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
> >> >>promoting justice and compassion and truth.
>
> >> >And you do that by being an insulting asshole who attacks women's
> >> >rights and lies in order to justify a fundamentally immoral ideology.
>
> >> He's not a baby killer like you.
>
> >There is no reason to think that Ray kills infants, or anyone else for
> >that matter, either. Your lies do not coincide with the truth. If
> >you think that Ray has killed anyone, then you need to support your
> >claims. Something that you have repeatedly shown that you are loath
> >to do.
>
> I've been knowing him longer than you.
So? That does not support your claims. And given that you have
repeatedly shown that your loath the truth and you cannot support
your assertions, there is no reason to think that Ray has killed
anyone.
Mark Sebree
>
> Duke
pnyikos
> pnyikos wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 5:01 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> As to the issue at hand; I got polio in 1946, been in a lotta hospitals,
> >> seen a lotta freaks,
>
> > Did any of those people have trisomy-13 or trisomy-18? If so, did
> > you see any that were WORSE "freaks" than that?
No answer from you. I do believe you don't even have a clue about how
bad trisomy-13 and trisomy-18 are.
Well, have a look at the following websites, and let me know what your
answer is:
Film, lots of comments, and short description:
http://www.ignitermedia.com/products/iv/singles/570/99-Balloons
background information:
http://www.ninetynineballoons.com/
> >> and know damn well that most of those who get their
> >> panties in a wad over euthanasia or abortion would not want to spend a
> >> life in bodies like those I've seen.
>
> > On what basis do you know that? your own weird ideas about what the
> > people you describe consider to be a fate worse than death? Your use
> > of the word "freaks" suggests that your ideas about this ARE weird.
> > Have you ever seen the 1930's film "Freaks"?
You ducked this question too. I'm beginning to wonder whether your
comments down to here were a pack of lies.
> >> Its so much easier to say that someone else should do that so they can
> >> go on feeling good about their "respect for life".
>
> > I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
> > promoting justice and compassion and truth.
>
> It looks more like an excuse to rant and vent your anger.
No, the anger comes from seeing how unjust, untruthful, and
incompassionate so many people posting to alt.abortion and
talk.abortion are. I neither rant nor vent any anger against
reasonable (though quite opinionated) people like sexkitten, and I
even was quite calm and even friendly towards Chilton until very
recently.
>In any case,
> the state cant control abortion anymore. I harvested a few doses of
> Queen Anne's lace today for women who mite be wanting an abortion later.
> All I hadda do now was set them out to dry. It grows wild all over the
> temperate zone because the seed blows in the wind.
Have you read that article by Joseph Dellapenna yet, about herbal
abortifacients?
Joseph Dellapena, after mentioning some "abortifacients" of bygone
days thay were completely ineffectual (including raw eggs and goat
dung), went on to write on pp. 373-374 of University of Pittsburgh Law
Review, v. 40, 1979, in "The History of Abortion: Technology,
Morality, and Law":
When these methods failed, a woman could ingest substances
which would cause abortions, but only if taken in dangerous
quantities. [85] Oil of savin for example, is a very ancient
abortifacient. Frederick Taussig reports one study which
found 21 instances of attempted abortions by means of this
drug, in ten of which attempts there was an abortion.
Unfortunately, nine of the "successful" women died, as well
as four of the "unsuccessful" ones. [86]
[86] F. Taussig, _Abortion Spontaneous and Induced_(1936) at 353.
Each of the following "remedies" has a reference listed for it in the
footnotes. I have omitted all but one of these citations, the one for
tansy, which I have seen mentioned in talk.abortion back in the
mid-90's by somegullible pro-choicer.
Other such drugs included assarabacca, castor oil, cloves, ergot,
hellebore, nutmeg, quinine, rue, saffron, sassafras, tansy tea [97],
thyme, and yarrow. If none of these induced the abortion, one
might ingest a variety of substances which were highly toxic
even in small quantities. These included aloes, apiole, arsenic,
cantharides, cedar, snake venom, and a variety of metal salts.
[97] Taussig, at 353. Although quite popular, tansy is rather
ineffective, and quite deadly. See C. Millspaugh, American
medicinal plants, pl.86 (1887)
> I had three young women come by last month, and another young witch to
> look at my harvest yesterday. I guess you dunno witches are going back
> into the family planning business since your friends are making it so
> difficult for doctors and clinics.
No, my friends aren't doing any such thing. Changing the minds of a
fraction of one percent of would-be customers hardly fits the
description of making things "so hard" for them, and even the passage
of clinic regulation laws only makes things difficult for clinlics
whose denizens are doing a shoddy job of maintaining facilities that
meet minimal standards.
It is enemies of justice like Scott Roeder who are making things so
difficult for just a very few doctors and clinics.
Deletion of drivel that I have addressed elsewhere, on the Ginsburg
thread.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
> >promoting justice and compassion and truth.
>
> And you do that by being an insulting asshole who attacks women's
> rights and lies in order to justify a fundamentally immoral ideology.
I see you are as badly addicted to wishful thinking as ever. You are
a far more insulting asshole than I ever could be, yet you are
obviously very satisfied with yourself.
Even the women's rights part--you don't see that your "attack on the
rights of women" is actually worse than mine if Day Brown is to be
believed, because the only women who would be prosecuted under the
laws we propose are the ones who choose a method of pregnancy
termination that is designed to kill the fetus that is mature enough
to be viable.
I opt for 200 hours community service maximum sentence, you opt for
prison time, with manslaughter as the charge.
As for the rest of your crap, it is totally devoid of reality, and
you've never tried to show otherwise, except with your sleazy
equivocation about me saying "a" Down syndrome baby is healthy instead
of noting that I only said ONE individual was healthy. And you
haven't even tried to prove otherwise.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jun 29, 6:04 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 10:52 pm, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 24, 10:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <4a4294b2$0$11508$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > > > It isn't ignorance of pain and suffering that gives man a respect for
> > > > life, dummy.
>
> > Neolibertarian is right on the money here.
>
> > > A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
>
> > Garbage, unless you get to say exactly who is and who isn't a
> > rightard.
>
> You can cast about these groups for the answer to that question.
If everyone is as evasive as you are, i'll never get it.
Since you have ducked the issue, your allegation up there is null and
void.
> >I've contributed modestly to pro-life organizatons and
> > massively (about a thousand dollars a year for the past twenty years)
> > to charities that take care of impoverished and sick and injured
> > people.
>
> If you want to make abortion illegal, and I happen to know from your
> posting history that you do,
Like hell you do. I only want to make a MINORITY of them illegal.
> While I don't read all of your posts, I've read a substantial
> sampling.
And you jumped to conclusions without having seen a single one that
said I want to make abortion illegal.
Is this typical of your posting behavior?
> I've never seen a -single- instance where you've advocated for the
> massively improved social safety net that making abortion illegal
> would necessitate..
This last sentence of yours is pure GIGO.
Are you experienced enough to know what GIGO stands for?
Additional GIGO, and GO, deleted.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> Mark Sebree wrote:
> > There is no reason to think that Ray kills infants, or anyone else for
> > that matter, either. Your lies do not coincide with the truth. If
> > you think that Ray has killed anyone, then you need to support your
> > claims. Something that you have repeatedly shown that you are loath
> > to do.
>
> Dont worry about it. Young women are finding out what herbs ancient
> witches used to provide 'family planning'.
Like savin, and tansy, and various other herbal substances in the
article by Dellapenna?
When these methods failed, a woman could ingest substances
which would cause abortions, but only if taken in dangerous
quantities. [85] Oil of savin for example, is a very ancient
abortifacient. Frederick Taussig reports one study which
found 21 instances of attempted abortions by means of this
drug, in ten of which attempts there was an abortion.
Unfortunately, nine of the "successful" women died, as well
as four of the "unsuccessful" ones. [86]
[86] F. Taussig, _Abortion Spontaneous and Induced_(1936) at 353.
Other such drugs included assarabacca, castor oil, cloves, ergot,
hellebore, nutmeg, quinine, rue, saffron, sassafras, tansy tea [97],
thyme, and yarrow. If none of these induced the abortion, one
might ingest a variety of substances which were highly toxic
even in small quantities. These included aloes, apiole,...
[97] Taussig, at 353. Although quite popular, tansy is rather
ineffective, and quite deadly. See C. Millspaugh, American
medicinal plants, pl.86 (1887)
--pp. 373-374 of University of Pittsburgh Law Review, v. 40, 1979,
in "The History of Abortion: Technology, Morality, and Law":
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 1, 3:38 am, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 6:04 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> > On Jun 24, 10:52 pm, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > > A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
>>
>> > Garbage, unless you get to say exactly who is and who isn't a
>> > rightard.
>>
>> You can cast about these groups for the answer to that question.
>
>If everyone is as evasive as you are, i'll never get it.
Not everybody is as stupid as you are
>Since you have ducked the issue, your allegation up there is null and
>void.
LOL! Cut it out, Pee Wee.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 1, 2:46 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >I'm not in these newsgroups for the sake for feeling good, but for
>> >promoting justice and compassion and truth.
>>
>> And you do that by being an insulting asshole who attacks women's
>> rights and lies in order to justify a fundamentally immoral ideology.
>
>I see you are as badly addicted to wishful thinking as ever.
That isn't a denial, coward.
>Even the women's rights part--you don't see that your "attack on the
>rights of women" is actually worse than mine
Stop lying, Pee Wee.
>As for the rest of your crap,
You whine but you don't deny. You are anti-choice.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> duke wrote:
> > Ancient witches!!! Haahaahahaahahahaa.
>
> Its all going on under the radar. They dont build monumental churches.
>
> They are back in the 'bewitchment' business too. I remember a safe sex
> orgy organized by witches.
I sure hope they didn't rely on hexes to make the sex safe.
Peter Nyikos
Patrick
>
> You whine but you don't deny. You are anti-choice.
Almost every person on earth is anti-choice if one of the choices
is to murder an innocent person merely for your own convenience.
Stop putting a false label on your pro-murder stance.
Ray Fischer
>> You whine but you don't deny. You are anti-choice.
>
>Almost every person on earth is anti-choice if one of the choices
Fallacy of equivotion.
>is to murder an innocent person merely for your own convenience.
Except when YOU find it "necessary" to do so. Then it's perfectly
fine.
>Stop putting a false label on your pro-murder stance.
It's you anti-choicers who murder people.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
SilentOtto
> On Jul 1, 3:38 am, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 29, 6:04 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > On Jun 24, 10:52 pm, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 24, 10:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > In article <4a4294b2$0$11508$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > > > > It isn't ignorance of pain and suffering that gives man a respect for
> > > > > life, dummy.
>
> > > Neolibertarian is right on the money here.
>
> > > > A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
>
> > > Garbage, unless you get to say exactly who is and who isn't a
> > > rightard.
>
> > You can cast about these groups for the answer to that question.
>
> If everyone is as evasive as you are, i'll never get it.
Cut the crap.
I've engaged so many anti-abortion advocates on these groups that I
can't count them all.
They're almost universally rightwing and they're almost universally
unwilling to pay the very real costs our society would incur from
making abortion illegal.
And, since you snipped the part where I pointed out that you think a
pregnant woman having the baby should be mandatory while you think
your obligation to pay for it should be optional, I strongly suspect
you're one of them.
>
> Since you have ducked the issue, your allegation up there is null and
> void.
>
> > >I've contributed modestly to pro-life organizatons and
> > > massively (about a thousand dollars a year for the past twenty years)
> > > to charities that take care of impoverished and sick and injured
> > > people.
>
> > If you want to make abortion illegal, and I happen to know from your
> > posting history that you do,
>
> Like hell you do. I only want to make a MINORITY of them illegal.
>
> > While I don't read all of your posts, I've read a substantial
> > sampling.
>
> And you jumped to conclusions without having seen a single one that
> said I want to make abortion illegal.
I see post after post from you railing against abortion.
I'm supposed to reserve judgment on how you feel about the matter?
Heh heh...
Rightards...
Batshit crazy, every single one of you.
junegill
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:f3b9570b-624f-4fae...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 30, 11:05 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> pnyikos wrote:
>> > On Jun 24, 5:01 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> As to the issue at hand; I got polio in 1946, been in a lotta
>> >> hospitals,
>> >> seen a lotta freaks,
>>
>> > Did any of those people have trisomy-13 or trisomy-18? If so, did
>> > you see any that were WORSE "freaks" than that?
>
> No answer from you.
Your criticism of Day Brown's failure to answer is a bit rich, considering
that you totally ignored the post I made to you in this thread on 9 June.
Ignore my posts by all means, but spare us the hypocrisy of castigating
others for what you do yourself.
[snip]
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/june...@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
pnyikos
> Patrick <barker...@erinet.com> wrote:
> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote ...
> >> You whine but you don't deny. You are anti-choice.
>
> >Almost every person on earth is anti-choice if one of the choices
>
> Fallacy of equivotion.
You mean "equivocation," and you've equivocated big-time on one of the
"Ginsburg" threads about this very word, "anti-choice", telling me
that "you anti-choicers" have a lot to answer for, implying that
massive sterilization of Native Americans was done by "anti-choicers".
> >is to murder an innocent person merely for your own convenience.
>
> Except when YOU find it "necessary" to do so. Then it's perfectly
> fine.
Ah, maybe this is the first post in a string that "elizabeth" was
anticipating when [s]he called Patrick "prorape".
> >Stop putting a false label on your pro-murder stance.
>
> It's you anti-choicers who murder people.
Did he actually accuse you of murder? If so, you are using his own
tactics against him on this one issue. If not, then you are just
working another one of your scams.
Peter Nyikos
pnyikos
> On Jul 17, 12:26 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
The smart money says SilentOtto will soon start living up to his
moniker where I am concerned. Keep reading, folks.
> > On Jul 1, 3:38 am, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 29, 6:04 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > On Jun 24, 10:52 pm, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jun 24, 10:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article <4a4294b2$0$11508$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > > > > > It isn't ignorance of pain and suffering that gives man a respect for
> > > > > > life, dummy.
>
> > > > Neolibertarian is right on the money here.
>
> > > > > A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
>
> > > > Garbage, unless you get to say exactly who is and who isn't a
> > > > rightard.
>
> > > You can cast about these groups for the answer to that question.
>
> > If everyone is as evasive as you are, i'll never get it.
>
> Cut the crap.
>
> I've engaged so many anti-abortion advocates on these groups that I
> can't count them all.
Really? Can you name even ten who have been active in the past half
year to the abortion newsgroups? I'm not sure I can, and what's more,
I would class only a minority as "rightards".
And I can't recall a single one who showed signs of flagging if being
anti-abortion cost him/her money. Can you?
> They're almost universally rightwing
Can you name five righwinger anti-abortion posters who have posted to
the abortion newsgroups in the past half year? J Young and duke, I
grant you; who are the other three? Bill Mosco is pro-choice, you
know. And Osprey voted for Obama, so you need evidence to convince me
that he is rightwing.
>and they're almost universally
> unwilling to pay the very real costs our society would incur from
> making abortion illegal.
Oh, you expect them to shoulder the entire financial burden?
Will you be telling your Congressman and Senator not to vote to
appropriate federal money for abortions, because the pro-choicers are
willing to foot the whole bill for elective abortions?
> And, since you snipped the part where I pointed out that you think a
> pregnant woman having the baby should be mandatory
I didn't think it was worth the trouble to inform you how mistaken you
were, until I saw how much staying power you had. Lots of pro-
choicers are awfully skittish when it comes to engaging me in debate.
Even Tom S. was, until about a month ago.
> while you think
> your obligation to pay for it should be optional, I strongly suspect
> you're one of them.
If women can't decide on an abortion until after the 10th week LMP,
then I don't think I should be saddled with paying for the childbirth,
etc. After all, how am I supposed to know that they didn't want a
child in the first place??
> > Since you have ducked the issue, your allegation up there is null and
> > void.
>
> > > >I've contributed modestly to pro-life organizatons and
> > > > massively (about a thousand dollars a year for the past twenty years)
> > > > to charities that take care of impoverished and sick and injured
> > > > people.
>
> > > If you want to make abortion illegal, and I happen to know from your
> > > posting history that you do,
>
> > Like hell you do. I only want to make a MINORITY of them illegal.
See, you are *even* *now* showing signs of running away from the
debate with me. You made no response to the above.
> > > While I don't read all of your posts, I've read a substantial
> > > sampling.
>
> > And you jumped to conclusions without having seen a single one that
> > said I want to make abortion illegal.
>
> I see post after post from you railing against abortion.
Even Steve Matheson did that, and he never came out in favor of ANY
restrictions on abortion. And not so many years ago, he came out
AGAINST them.
You are an idiot.
> I'm supposed to reserve judgment on how you feel about the matter?
Sure. Are you so clueless that you never heard of the expression,
"Personally opposed to abortion, but..." [wanting to keep it legal].
Nor of wanting to keep abortions "safe, legal, and rare"? The
Clintons still use that mantra AFAIK.
> Heh heh...
>
> Rightards...
>
> Batshit crazy, every single one of you.
Keep wallowing in your ignorance, twit. But if you want to stop, try
looking back over some old (1993-1997) lists of mine, especially those
of:
PARADOXICAL PRO-CHOICERS
and
PARADOXICAL PRO-LIFERS
Maybe perusing posts by some of those people will help you see the
light.
More signs of you wanting to get out while the getting is good: you
made no response to anything below:
pnyikos
> "pnyikos" <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:f3b9570b-624f-4fae...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 30, 11:05 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> pnyikos wrote:
> >> > On Jun 24, 5:01 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> As to the issue at hand; I got polio in 1946, been in a lotta
> >> >> hospitals,
> >> >> seen a lotta freaks,
>
> >> > Did any of those people have trisomy-13 or trisomy-18? If so, did
> >> > you see any that were WORSE "freaks" than that?
>
> > No answer from you.
>
> Your criticism of Day Brown's failure to answer is a bit rich, considering
> that you totally ignored the post I made to you in this thread on 9 June.
Oh, dear, I assure you it was an oversight. I'll look for it once
I've gotten to the bottom of this thread.
Or, at least, what *I* (and apparently you) call this thread. Ray
Fischer apparently thinks "thread" has a totally different meaning
from the one I've assigned to it all these years.
> Ignore my posts by all means, but spare us the hypocrisy of castigating
> others for what you do yourself.
There is a major difference between what I did and what he did: what
you see me doing up there is following up to his post, and noting a
failure to respond to something he kept in.
Do such notings come across to you as castigations? How could I word
them to escape this judgment from you?
> # 364
Is that one of those atheist numbers?
Peter Nyikos
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 18, 7:53 am, "junegill" <juneg...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> Your criticism of Day Brown's failure to answer is a bit rich, considering
>> that you totally ignored the post I made to you in this thread on 9 June.
>
>Oh, dear, I assure you it was an oversight.
Smirk. For you it's an "oversight". For other people it's
intentional evasion.
You're a dishonest hypocrite.
>Or, at least, what *I* (and apparently you) call this thread. Ray
>Fischer apparently thinks "thread" has a totally different meaning
You're lying
Again.
>> Ignore my posts by all means, but spare us the hypocrisy of castigating
>> others for what you do yourself.
>
>There is a major difference between what I did and what he did:
LOL!
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 18, 12:08 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> Patrick <barker...@erinet.com> wrote:
>> >"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote ...
>> >> You whine but you don't deny. You are anti-choice.
>>
>> >Almost every person on earth is anti-choice if one of the choices
>>
>> Fallacy of equivotion.
>
>You mean "equivocation," and you've equivocated big-time on one of the
>"Ginsburg" threads about this very word, "anti-choice", telling me
You're lying again, asshole.
>that "you anti-choicers" have a lot to answer for, implying that
Thus you admit that I didn't actually equivocate and you're caught in
another one of your many lies.
>> >is to murder an innocent person merely for your own convenience.
>>
>> Except when YOU find it "necessary" to do so. Then it's perfectly
>> fine.
>
>Ah, maybe this is the first post in a string that "elizabeth" was
And so the pro-liar changes the subject.
>> >Stop putting a false label on your pro-murder stance.
>>
>> It's you anti-choicers who murder people.
>
>Did he actually accuse you of murder?
Run away, coward. Keep dodging, keep running.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
pnyikos
> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 18, 7:53 am, "junegill" <juneg...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> >> Your criticism of Day Brown's failure to answer is a bit rich, considering
> >> that you totally ignored the post I made to you in this thread on 9 June.
>
> >Oh, dear, I assure you it was an oversight.
>
> Smirk. For you it's an "oversight".
Surprise! I looked on this thread for June 9 and also on June 8 and
June 10, just in case there was another time zone or a slow newsfeed
involved, and I saw no post by "junegill".
Did YOU find one?
>For other people it's
> intentional evasion.
Whom have I accused of intentional evasion just for not following up
to a post? I've pointed out the existence of such non-responses, but
I'd love to see you try to find a post that fits YOUR description.
Also to the point, did you ever see anyone offering to look up the
post in question? Your dear friend Spartakus never offered to do any
such thing, and HIS response to one such pointing-out was a sneer
about how I think I must be terribly important to make such comments.
> You're a dishonest hypocrite.
You are indulging in wishful thinking, as usual.
> >Or, at least, what *I* (and apparently you) call this thread. Ray
> >Fischer apparently thinks "thread" has a totally different meaning
>
> You're lying
You posted a different meaning to this very thread. Do you deny this?
[drooling by Fischer deleted]
Peter Nyikos
junegill
> On Jul 23, 2:17 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 18, 7:53 am, "junegill" <juneg...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> Your criticism of Day Brown's failure to answer is a bit rich,
>> >> considering
>> >> that you totally ignored the post I made to you in this thread on 9
>> >> June.
>>
>> >Oh, dear, I assure you it was an oversight.
>>
>> Smirk. For you it's an "oversight".
>
> Surprise! I looked on this thread for June 9 and also on June 8 and
> June 10, just in case there was another time zone or a slow newsfeed
> involved, and I saw no post by "junegill".
>
> Did YOU find one?
Try the penultimate post on this page:
... or don't bother - I'll copy and paste it below:
"pnyikos" <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:99a812dd-1b01-48eb...@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> According to the following article in the Los Angeles Times, a woman
> with no health problems had an abortion over a week into the third
> trimester at Tiller's clinic, apparently ILLEGALLY, since the abortion
> was done for no reason other than that her son (as she refers to him)
> was revealed by amniocentesis to have Down Syndrome.
> http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/31/nation/na-abortion31?pg=1
So you don't think that Down's Syndrome is a good reason to abort? What do
you know about caring for a mentally handicapped child? You happen to know
someone who is doing a good job with one? Great. You should try it for
yourself before you tell others what they should endure. Read the following
for the merest inkling of what it's like and then tell me that you'd
volunteer to do it:
http://uk.geocities.com/june...@btopenworld.com/webpages/autism/autism.html
Down's Syndrome is not the same as severe autism, but certain things hold
true for both: you can never hold a meaningful conversation with your child,
although you claim to have done so (would you choose the kind of
conversation you had to be just about the only kind on a daily basis?), they
will never (or extremely rarely) marry and have a family of their own, and
they will need to be cared for in a physical sense their whole lives, never
becoming independent. Not only do they not lead normal lives, neither do
their parents and siblings. I could go on at length, but I'll just say one
more thing: the abortion of a severely disabled or mentally handicapped
foetus paves the way for other children to be born - my husband and I both
wanted to have more children, but it was out of the question ... they're the
ones that I mourn.
[snip]
--
June G
# 364
In answer to a previous question of yours: yes it is an atheist number.
http://uk.geocities.com/june...@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
Ray Fischer
>On Jul 23, 2:17 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >On Jul 18, 7:53 am, "junegill" <juneg...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> >> Your criticism of Day Brown's failure to answer is a bit rich, considering
>> >> that you totally ignored the post I made to you in this thread on 9 June.
>>
>> >Oh, dear, I assure you it was an oversight.
>>
>> Smirk. For you it's an "oversight".
>
>Surprise! I looked on this thread for June 9 and also on June 8 and
>June 10, just in case there was another time zone or a slow newsfeed
>involved, and I saw no post by "junegill".
How convenient.
>>For other people it's
>> intentional evasion.
>
>Whom have I accused of intentional evasion just for not following up
>to a post?
Who not?
>> You're a dishonest hypocrite.
>
>You are indulging in wishful thinking, as usual.
No, you're a lying sleazebag with the lack of morals that all too
common among those who have little but contempt for other people.
>> >Or, at least, what *I* (and apparently you) call this thread. Ray
>> >Fischer apparently thinks "thread" has a totally different meaning
>>
>> You're lying
>
>You posted a different meaning to this very thread.
You're lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
SilentOtto
> On Jul 18, 4:13 am, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 12:26 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> The smart money says SilentOtto will soon start living up to his
> moniker where I am concerned. Keep reading, folks.
>
>
>
> > > On Jul 1, 3:38 am, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jun 29, 6:04 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > > On Jun 24, 10:52 pm, SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:25 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In article <4a4294b2$0$11508$ec3e2...@news.usenetmonster.com>,
> > > > > > > It isn't ignorance of pain and suffering that gives man a respect for
> > > > > > > life, dummy.
>
> > > > > Neolibertarian is right on the money here.
>
> > > > > > A rightard's respect for life ends when it starts costing them money.
>
> > > > > Garbage, unless you get to say exactly who is and who isn't a
> > > > > rightard.
>
> > > > You can cast about these groups for the answer to that question.
>
> > > If everyone is as evasive as you are, i'll never get it.
>
> > Cut the crap.
>
> > I've engaged so many anti-abortion advocates on these groups that I
> > can't count them all.
>
> Really?
I could if I wanted to spend my time wading through old posts in the
usenet archive, which I don't.
But, off the top of my head, Rudy Canoza was one.
Another was a rightard who calls himself CB.
And, there was John Tibbs... He didn't want to fork over any money.
He thought society could shame people into not screwing around.
Some of the others were nym shifters who I don't keep track of.
Most of the self-styled libertarians will tell you something similar.
If you don't believe me, go to one of the groups frequented by
libertarians.
First ask them how many are against abortion.
Then ask those who respond affirmatively if they think tax payers have
an obligation to help poor mothers pay the cost of raising their
children.
The answer you'll get most frequently is "The shouldn't have fucked
around in the first place".
>Can you name even ten who have been active in the past half
> year to the abortion newsgroups? I'm not sure I can, and what's more,
> I would class only a minority as "rightards".
I rarely post to the abortion groups unless it's already on the groups
list in a post I respond to, like this post.
So, you'd probably have to look to a group like alt.politics.
> And I can't recall a single one who showed signs of flagging if being
> anti-abortion cost him/her money. Can you?
They don't back off their anti-abortion stance.
They just refuse to accept any financial responsibility for the
consequences of making abortion illegal.
As I said, their position is "They shouldn't have been fucking around
in the first place", and they
> > They're almost universally rightwing
>
> Can you name five righwinger anti-abortion posters who have posted to
> the abortion newsgroups in the past half year? J Young and duke, I
> grant you; who are the other three? Bill Mosco is pro-choice, you
> know. And Osprey voted for Obama, so you need evidence to convince me
> that he is rightwing.
Like I said, I don't often post to the anti-abortion group.
> >and they're almost universally
> > unwilling to pay the very real costs our society would incur from
> > making abortion illegal.
>
> Oh, you expect them to shoulder the entire financial burden?
I expect them to shoulder their share.
We can't even get many rightards to agree that they should help pay
for the children of poor people who are already here.
Here's an example from a Republican State Congress woman in Missouri
on the school lunch program:
"Who’s buying dinner? Who is getting paid to serve the meal? Churches
and other non-profits can do this at no cost to the taxpayer if it is
warranted. [...] Bigger governmental programs take away our
connectedness to the human family, our brotherhood and our need for
one another. [...] Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a
job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a
positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so
you can get better meals? Tip: If you work for McDonald’s, they will
feed you for free during your break. [...] It really is all about
increasing government spending, which means an increase in taxes for
us to buy more free lunches and breakfasts."
That's pretty typical of the mind set I've encountered.
> Will you be telling your Congressman and Senator not to vote to
> appropriate federal money for abortions, because the pro-choicers are
> willing to foot the whole bill for elective abortions?
I'd be willing to get far more restrictive about abortions if we had
the social systems in place to make sure the country didn't end up
like Romania or Brazil.
But, that's prohibitively expensive and isn't really a viable
alternative in our current political climate.
> > And, since you snipped the part where I pointed out that you think a
> > pregnant woman having the baby should be mandatory
>
> I didn't think it was worth the trouble to inform you how mistaken you
> were, until I saw how much staying power you had. Lots of pro-
> choicers are awfully skittish when it comes to engaging me in debate.
> Even Tom S. was, until about a month ago.
I'm not skittish.
But, for the most part, I don't find it very profitable to engage
those who are slaves to their religious dogma.
> > while you think
> > your obligation to pay for it should be optional, I strongly suspect
> > you're one of them.
>
> If women can't decide on an abortion until after the 10th week LMP,
> then I don't think I should be saddled with paying for the childbirth,
> etc. After all, how am I supposed to know that they didn't want a
> child in the first place??
Unfortunately, there are many uncertainties when dealing with such
issues.
Few things are cut and dried.
>
> > > Since you have ducked the issue, your allegation up there is null and
> > > void.
>
> > > > >I've contributed modestly to pro-life organizatons and
> > > > > massively (about a thousand dollars a year for the past twenty years)
> > > > > to charities that take care of impoverished and sick and injured
> > > > > people.
>
> > > > If you want to make abortion illegal, and I happen to know from your
> > > > posting history that you do,
>
> > > Like hell you do. I only want to make a MINORITY of them illegal.
>
> See, you are *even* *now* showing signs of running away from the
> debate with me. You made no response to the above.
Like you, I'm not really taking this debate very seriously.
My response to your quest to make a minority of abortions illegal
would be that few people enter into late term abortions lightly, and
in the vast majority of such cases there really is a damn good reason
to perform them.
> > > > While I don't read all of your posts, I've read a substantial
> > > > sampling.
>
> > > And you jumped to conclusions without having seen a single one that
> > > said I want to make abortion illegal.
>
> > I see post after post from you railing against abortion.
>
> Even Steve Matheson did that, and he never came out in favor of ANY
> restrictions on abortion. And not so many years ago, he came out
> AGAINST them.
Don't know who Steve Matheson is.
Don't care.
>
> You are an idiot.
I feel the same way about you.
>
> > I'm supposed to reserve judgment on how you feel about the matter?
>
> Sure. Are you so clueless that you never heard of the expression,
> "Personally opposed to abortion, but..." [wanting to keep it legal].
> Nor of wanting to keep abortions "safe, legal, and rare"? The
> Clintons still use that mantra AFAIK.
I don't recall any of your posts taking that tone.
> > Heh heh...
>
> > Rightards...
>
> > Batshit crazy, every single one of you.
>
> Keep wallowing in your ignorance, twit. But if you want to stop, try
> looking back over some old (1993-1997) lists of mine, especially those
> of:
>
> PARADOXICAL PRO-CHOICERS
> and
> PARADOXICAL PRO-LIFERS
>
> Maybe perusing posts by some of those people will help you see the
> light.
>
> More signs of you wanting to get out while the getting is good: you
> made no response to anything below:
I'm not all that interested in what you think.
I made a quick comment about the hypocrisy of most pro-lifers being
unwilling to foot the bill for the consequences of their agenda, and I
stand by it.
As I said above...
If you don't believe me, find some stauch pro-life advocates and
suggest to them that the cost of their agenda will be considerable and
that they will have to pay far more than their current voluntary
contribution to their church.
Their responses will be:
A. It's not my problem. (Denial)
B. They shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place. (Denial)
C. Adoption will solve the problem. (Fantasy)
D. People will stop screwing around if they can't get abortions.
(Even bigger fantasy)
Conduct the experiment and then get back to me.
Heh heh...
Rightards...
Batshit crazy, every single one of you.
> > > Is this typical of your posting behavior?