Abortion Survivor Sarah Smith
Sam
Spartakus
> Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
>
> http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
Why do you suppose this is significant?
Sam
> Why do you suppose this is significant?
If the abortionist had his way then Sarah Smith would be dead. She
would have been killed in the womb. The mother also has regret over
her decision in which Sarah's twin brother was killed.
-Sam
Spartakus
> Spartakus says:
> > > Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
> > >
> > > http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
> > Why do you suppose this is significant?
> If the abortionist had his way then Sarah Smith would be dead.
Sarah Smith would not be dead, because Sarah Smith would not have existed.
> She would have been killed in the womb. The mother also has regret
> over her decision in which Sarah's twin brother was killed.
Btw, your statement would have been more accurate if you had written
"If Ms. Smith (the woman) had her way ..."
You're forgetting who the decision maker is here.
Why is this significant?
John D. Wentzky
"Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ato92o$etn$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org...
Significant? Because you want it to be significant?
LOL!!!!!!!
This is the scenario:
1. Can I get an abortion, doctor?
2. Sure. But it will cost you depending upon how old the fetus is.
M is for Malapert
"Sam" <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote in message
news:5b6a2e7d.0212...@posting.google.com...
I feel sorry for Sarah, but you do realize that she's a mentally disturbed
liar, don't you? For instance, she implies that she was born with
"bilateral, congenital dislocated hips and many other physical handicaps"
due to the abortion. That is untrue, and it's dishonest to suggest
otherwise. Furthermore, here are some quotes from one of her speeches:
'I did not know of the abortion until I was 12 years old. I grew up feeling
that I was the same as my friends, except for having numerous surgeries and
physical complications. The only difference I felt was an incredible
loneliness and a knowledge that something was missing. I never felt whole.
I battled with severe depression and found myself dying of anorexia nervosa
at age 12, when my mother knew it was time to tell me the truth.'
She felt she was the same as her friends - except that she was an invalid,
incredibly lonely, severely depressed, and anorexic? ("Other than that,
Mrs. Lincoln...") She attributes these feelings to the failed abortion?
She somehow "knew" about the abortion and that created all her problems?
This is crazy talk.
'The only thing I can compare my life to is that of an innocent Jew being
made to walk down the streets of Germany naked in front of many people and
into a room he knows he will never come out of. In my case, unfortunately,
the people leading me into that room are my mother and father.'
This is crazy talk.
'Another startling fact is that in medical journals it states the fetus is
capable of feeling pain at 8 weeks of gestation.'
Actually in medical journals it doesn't state that at all.
'In America, the vast majority of abortions are performed between 10 to 12
weeks, well after the child can feel the entire procedure.'
Isn't it irresponsible for someone who presents herself as an expert on
abortion not to have the facts? In America, the vast majority of abortions
are performed before 10 weeks, and in none of them can "the child" feel
anything.
'So don't tell me abortion is a simple procedure that expels a piece of
tissue and doesn't hurt anybody. I was there. I was less then an inch away
from my innocent twin brother when his body was ripped apart, and he felt
the entire thing. We were 14 to 16 weeks along in the second trimester.
That was how my life was meant to end.'
Crazy talk. Very sad, but not because of anything to do with the abortion.
By the way, how exactly does everyone know that Sarah's twin was a boy?
M is for Malapert
"M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:5_QL9.382221$WL3.115359@rwcrnsc54...
> I feel sorry for Sarah, but you do realize that she's a mentally disturbed
> liar, don't you? For instance, she implies that she was born with
> "bilateral, congenital dislocated hips and many other physical handicaps"
> due to the abortion. That is untrue, and it's dishonest to suggest
> otherwise. Furthermore, here are some quotes from one of her speeches:
I forgot this one:
'Imagine if Jesus had been selfish with His body and not given so freely of
His life to you and me. Where would we be today? We would be nothing. The
gift of a mother's body for 9 months of her life is one of the most
beautiful gifts of all time. We must fight to protect it.'
Oh, the irony.
Sam
and she is glad that her daughter, Sarah, survived. She also wishes
that Sarah's twin brother also survived the abortion. Do you believe
that it would be better if Sarah had been aborted like it was intended
to be?
-Sam
Paul Duca
Sam wrote:
Don't worry...I'm sure God and Jesus will let the twin beat
Sarah and Mommy like dogs for all eternity.
Paul
Ray Fischer
>Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
>
>http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
Unless it's complete fiction. No way of telling, is there?
Oh, and that picture of a fetus in the upper-left corner?
It's dead. Living fetuses in wombs aren't backlit.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Craig Chilton
"Sam" <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
> Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
As "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote, in response
to another such post:
"Anti-abortionist propaganda.
"Sadly, the biased hearing did not include the child victims
of unwanted pregnancies -- they are either running in the
streets, abused, abandoned and even murdered by their
parents.
"Neither did they hear from the older women who had to go
through back alley abortions before Roe V Wade ........and the
botched abortions, filthy conditions, coat hangers and such.
"Neither did they hear from unbiased scientists or medical
personnel who will tell you that a fetus is not a baby!
"Nor did they hear from religious experts who know that
religious books, like the Bible, accept abortion -- and NEVER
consider a fetus a person.
"For every sad abortion survivor tale you can show, there
are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of sadder stories of
what happens when women (families) are forced to birth a
child they don't want -- or forced to go to a back alley
abortionist."
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
American Voters: REMEMBER in NOVEMBER, 2004 ---
http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/viewad.html
http://www.the-rule-of-law.com/archive/supreme/whatnow.html
http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com/
...and just say, "NEVER AGAIN!!!"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Osprey
"Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3e127770....@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On 17 Dec 2002 08:21:24 -0800,
> "Sam" <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
> > Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
>
> As "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote, in response
> to another such post:
>
> "Anti-abortionist propaganda.
>
Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist"
Spartakus
> "Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote...
> > > > > Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html
> > > > Why do you suppose this is significant?
> > > If the abortionist had his way then Sarah Smith would be dead.
> > Sarah Smith would not be dead, because Sarah Smith would not have existed.
> > > She would have been killed in the womb. The mother also has regret
> > > over her decision in which Sarah's twin brother was killed.
> > Btw, your statement would have been more accurate if you had written
> >
> > "If Ms. Smith (the woman) had her way ..."
> >
> > You're forgetting who the decision maker is here.
> >
> > Why is this significant?
> Significant? Because you want it to be significant?
>
> LOL!!!!!!!
John, right now you're the proverbial drunken party guest who pokes
his nose into conversations he knows nothing about and spouts
meaningless blather. Go home before you barf on the carpet.
> This is the scenario:
>
> 1. Can I get an abortion, doctor?
>
> 2. Sure. But it will cost you depending upon how old the fetus is.
And your problem with this scenario is what, exactly?
Nanocebraic tosser.
Spartakus
> "Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote...
> > "If Ms. Smith (the woman) had her way ..."
> >
> > You're forgetting who the decision maker is here.
> and she is glad that her daughter, Sarah, survived. She also wishes
> that Sarah's twin brother also survived the abortion. Do you believe
> that it would be better if Sarah had been aborted like it was intended
> to be?
Did you read Malapert's response? She pointed out several
implausibilities in Sarah Smith's story. For instance, how do we know
that the other fetus was male?
Spartakus
> 'So don't tell me abortion is a simple procedure that expels a piece of
> tissue and doesn't hurt anybody. I was there. I was less then an inch
away
> from my innocent twin brother when his body was ripped apart, and he felt
> the entire thing. We were 14 to 16 weeks along in the second trimester.
> That was how my life was meant to end.'
>
> Crazy talk. Very sad, but not because of anything to do with the
abortion.
>
> By the way, how exactly does everyone know that Sarah's twin was a boy?
Indeed. According to a web page on fetal development (found at a CPC's web
site), the genital organs do not start forming until the 14th week and
aren't visible until the 20th week. Why couldn't Ms. Smith at least do some
checking before telling her story?
Pope Dilbert
"Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:bOCcnbfIx8u...@comcast.com...
Anyone who believes women do not have a right to get an abortion.
Osprey
"Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
news:Lm0M9.267371$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
So you believe that women have a right to get an abortion correct? Which
would mean you are not "anti-abortion", right?
>
>
Craig Chilton
"Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
[ ... ]
>> As "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote, in
>> response to another such post:
>>
>> "Anti-abortionist propaganda. ...
> Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist."
I was quoting "Pope Dilbert" in this, but MY assessment of an
"anti-abortionist" would be just what it says: a person who disapproves
of abortion doctors, and therefore probably also disapproves of ready
accessibility of abortion-on-request to women. If a person feels that
way *passively,* but does NOTHING to interfere either with a woman's
obtaining an abortion, or to spak out against this vital right, then
that's no problem. But if a person *actively* DOES any such thing,
then he/she's an Anti-Choicer. A bigoted busybody who also probably
quite ignorant. Since NO FACTS support taking so hateful and mindless
a stance.
See the REST of his comment:
>> "Sadly, the biased hearing did not include the child victims
>> of unwanted pregnancies -- they are either running in the
>> streets, abused, abandoned and even murdered by their
>> parents.
>>
>> "Neither did they hear from the older women who had to go
>> through back alley abortions before Roe V Wade ........and the
>> botched abortions, filthy conditions, coat hangers and such.
>>
>> "Neither did they hear from unbiased scientists or medical
>> personnel who will tell you that a fetus is not a baby!
>>
>> "Nor did they hear from religious experts who know that
>> religious books, like the Bible, accept abortion -- and NEVER
>> consider a fetus a person.
>>
>> "For every sad abortion survivor tale you can show, there
>> are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of sadder stories of
>> what happens when women (families) are forced to birth a
>> child they don't want -- or forced to go to a back alley
>> abortionist."
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
RRR Cultists are NOT Fundamentalists... NOR could
Most of them even be Christians!
RRR cultists have NEVER been fundamentalists.
Fundamentalists believe in what the Bible SAYS.
RRR cultists have their OWN, totally FALSE dogmas, which
often even CONFLICT with what the Bible teaches.
For example:
(1) In the Bible, Jesus COMMANDS his followers to show love
and compassion to their neighbors. But on the issue of
abortion, the RRR cultists gleefully hype an agenda that
seeks to TRASH women, their well-being, and their
future opportunities by the MILLIONS. (Meanwhile, the
Bible speaks NOT ONE WORD against abortion.)
(2) RRR cultists regard themselves as ENFORCERS of
Biblical precepts upon society in general. However, the
Bible appoints NO such Gestapo.
RRR cultists are the most loathesome bigots that America
has seen since the agenda of the segregationists became extinct.
They are totally without excuse. Not even the Bible supports their
viciousness.
Not even REMOTELY can they be regarded as Christians...
even though most of them desperately attempt to cloak their
hatefulness in that mantle of respectability -- living a lie.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Osprey
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 09:11:18 -0500,
> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> Sam <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >>> Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >> As "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote, in
> >> response to another such post:
> >>
> >> "Anti-abortionist propaganda. ...
>
> > Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist."
>
> I was quoting "Pope Dilbert" in this, but MY assessment of an
> "anti-abortionist" would be just what it says: a person who disapproves
> of abortion doctors, and therefore probably also disapproves of ready
> accessibility of abortion-on-request to women.
So with that said: Would you consider yourself to approve of abortion
doctors?
Do you approve of read accessibility of abortion-on-request to women?
M is for Malapert
> "Spartakus" <spar...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:<ato92o$etn$1...@newsreader.mailgate.org>...
> > Btw, your statement would have been more accurate if you had written
> >
> > "If Ms. Smith (the woman) had her way ..."
> >
> > You're forgetting who the decision maker is here.
>
> and she is glad that her daughter, Sarah, survived.
So? What's your point? You originally wrote that if "the abortionist" had
had his [sic] way, Sarah would be dead. Are you trying, in your clumsy way,
to suggest that he or she is *not* glad that Sarah survived?
> Do you believe
> that it would be better if Sarah had been aborted like it was intended
> to be?
Do you believe that it would be better if the condom (or the diaphragm or
the attempt to abstain during the fertile time) had worked like it was
intended to do? If not, then what does that say about the
ontology/morality/ethics/telos of using contraceptives or abstaining from
sex?
Nothing. Ditto with abortion.
M is for Malapert
>
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> news:Lm0M9.267371$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:bOCcnbfIx8u...@comcast.com...
> > > Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist"
> >
> > Anyone who believes women do not have a right to get an abortion.
>
> So you believe that women have a right to get an abortion correct? Which
> would mean you are not "anti-abortion", right?
Right! By George, he's got it.
Now, you need to say "So that makes you pro-abortion." You can put it right
here:
(I always enjoy demolishing that one.)
Osprey
"M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bk6M9.389564$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Well if you are the opposite of anti, you figure it out.
Unless you can find a good source to prove that the opposite of anti isn't
pro
Go for it.
>
> (I always enjoy demolishing that one.)
Well we will see,
you come up with a credible source that proves the opposite of anti isn't
pro
>
>
Craig Chilton
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote:
>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>> Sam <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
[ ... ]
>>>> As "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote, in
>>>> response to another such post:
>>>>
>>>> "Anti-abortionist propaganda. ...
>>> Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist."
>> I was quoting "Pope Dilbert" in this, but MY assessment of an
>> "anti-abortionist" would be just what it says: a person who disapproves
>> of abortion doctors, and therefore probably also disapproves of ready
>> accessibility of abortion-on-request to women.
> So with that said: Would you consider yourself to approve of abortion
> doctors?
Of course. Just as much as i approve of hear turgeons, or any other
doctor that provides REMEDIES to people. Abortion is nothing more than a
valuable REMEDY for an unwanted medical condition. As I've TOLD you.
MANY times before, troll.)
> Do you approve of read accessibility of abortion-on-request to
> women?
Assuming you meant "ready" access -- most assuredly. What part of
the FACTS pertaining to that in the outline I've been posting would give
you any OTHER impression.
What's the point of these questions which are even more stupid than
usual for YOU?
(READERS: I'd say that Robert here is "losing it." Referring to
his mind. What there may be of it. If it weren't pretty obvious that
he'd already LOST it at the point when he BECAME an Anti-Choice loon.)
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
M is for Malapert
>
> "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:bk6M9.389564$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:sqKcnVfHjqa...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> > > news:Lm0M9.267371$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > >
> > > > "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:bOCcnbfIx8u...@comcast.com...
> >
> > > > > Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist"
> > > >
> > > > Anyone who believes women do not have a right to get an abortion.
> > >
> > > So you believe that women have a right to get an abortion correct?
> Which
> > > would mean you are not "anti-abortion", right?
> >
> > Right! By George, he's got it.
> >
> > Now, you need to say "So that makes you pro-abortion." You can put it
> right
> > here:
>
> Well if you are the opposite of anti, you figure it out.
I'm not the opposite of anti-abortion.
Gosh, that was easy.
> Unless you can find a good source to prove that the opposite of anti isn't
> pro
Don't need to. Anti-abortion means "Women have no right to abortion and
shouldn't be allowed to have one except in some very rare circumstances."
The opposite of that, pro-abortion, is "Women have no right NOT to have an
abortion and shouldn't be allowed NOT to have one except in some very rare
circumstances."
If those double negatives are confusing, here's another way of stating it:
"Women have no right to give birth and should be required to have an
abortion, except in some very rare circumstances." That is what
pro-abortion means.
Osprey
>
> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ShedncdUNZD...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:bk6M9.389564$%m4.1...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:sqKcnVfHjqa...@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:Lm0M9.267371$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:bOCcnbfIx8u...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > > > > Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist"
> > > > >
> > > > > Anyone who believes women do not have a right to get an abortion.
> > > >
> > > > So you believe that women have a right to get an abortion correct?
> > Which
> > > > would mean you are not "anti-abortion", right?
> > >
> > > Right! By George, he's got it.
> > >
> > > Now, you need to say "So that makes you pro-abortion." You can put it
> > right
> > > here:
> >
> > Well if you are the opposite of anti, you figure it out.
>
> I'm not the opposite of anti-abortion.
Then you are anti-abortion. Ok
>
> Gosh, that was easy.
>
> > Unless you can find a good source to prove that the opposite of anti
isn't
> > pro
>
> Don't need to. Anti-abortion means "Women have no right to abortion and
> shouldn't be allowed to have one except in some very rare circumstances."
> The opposite of that, pro-abortion, is "Women have no right NOT to have an
> abortion and shouldn't be allowed NOT to have one except in some very rare
> circumstances."
>
> If those double negatives are confusing, here's another way of stating it:
> "Women have no right to give birth and should be required to have an
> abortion, except in some very rare circumstances." That is what
> pro-abortion means.
Not according to the dictionary. Sorry, you lose again.
But at least now we know you are anti-abortion, since you said you are not
the opposite of anti-abortion. At least we got that cleared up.
>
>
>
Osprey
> On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:47:43 -0500,
> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote:
> > Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote:
> >>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> >>>> Sam <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>
>
> >>>>> Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >>>> As "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote, in
> >>>> response to another such post:
> >>>>
> >>>> "Anti-abortionist propaganda. ...
>
> >>> Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist."
>
> >> I was quoting "Pope Dilbert" in this, but MY assessment of an
> >> "anti-abortionist" would be just what it says: a person who
disapproves
> >> of abortion doctors, and therefore probably also disapproves of ready
> >> accessibility of abortion-on-request to women.
>
> > So with that said: Would you consider yourself to approve of
abortion
> > doctors?
>
> Of course. Just as much as i approve of hear turgeons, or any other
> doctor that provides REMEDIES to people. Abortion is nothing more than a
> valuable REMEDY for an unwanted medical condition. As I've TOLD you.
> MANY times before, troll.)
Then you are the opposite of anti-abortion, the opposite of anti is pro
You are pro-abortion.
since you clearly just stated above your not anti-abortion, the only logical
conclusion would be you are the opposite.
>
> > Do you approve of read accessibility of abortion-on-request to
> > women?
>
> Assuming you meant "ready" access -- most assuredly. What part of
> the FACTS pertaining to that in the outline I've been posting would give
> you any OTHER impression.
>
> What's the point of these questions which are even more stupid than
> usual for YOU?
>
> (READERS: I'd say that Robert here is "losing it." Referring to
> his mind. What there may be of it. If it weren't pretty obvious that
> he'd already LOST it at the point when he BECAME an Anti-Choice loon.)
>
Yes Craig, I see flocks of readers flooding around you cherishing each word
you type...LOL
>
> -- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
Loose Cannon
Is there a point to these inane word games? Do you think you're
demonstrating something meaningful? You do know where Minx stands on the
abortion issue, don't you? Seriously, this nonsense adds *nothing* to the
dialogue. After all, didn't you just write:
"Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:LZqdnVDCwYR...@comcast.com...
" I am just saying that have found most of the dishonest,
lies, distortions, hatred, bigotry, and so forth to come from the
pro-choice side. It actually gets downright embarrassing to see that many
of these pro-choice people are supposed to be adults."
Do you truly not see the hypocrisy here?
Pope Dilbert
Pope Dilbert
I know where you're going with this.
You're playing childish, and idiotic, word games without a shred of reality
cognizance.
BTW .. I wrote to the dictionary people about their definition with your
exact logic, and they said two things:
First that, with word definitions (not mathematics), if "A" means "B" - it
does NOT follow that "B" means "A".
and
They are not responsible for how someone else misinterprets their
definitions.
Go back to playing on Troll Street!
M is for Malapert
>
> "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:5U6M9.269076$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > I'm not the opposite of anti-abortion.
>
> Then you are anti-abortion.
False dilemma.
> > Don't need to. Anti-abortion means "Women have no right to abortion and
> > shouldn't be allowed to have one except in some very rare
circumstances."
> > The opposite of that, pro-abortion, is "Women have no right NOT to have
an
> > abortion and shouldn't be allowed NOT to have one except in some very
rare
> > circumstances."
> >
> > If those double negatives are confusing, here's another way of stating
it:
> > "Women have no right to give birth and should be required to have an
> > abortion, except in some very rare circumstances." That is what
> > pro-abortion means.
>
> Not according to the dictionary.
Then pro-abortion is not the opposite of anti-abortion, according to that
dictionary.
Osprey
"Loose Cannon" <efbe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yU7M9.1435$Eg1.3...@newsfeed.slurp.net...
What is the game?
Words are words, and the choice of words that were chosen was anti-abortion.
If you think this is a game, then you don't have to participate.
Do you think you're
> demonstrating something meaningful? You do know where Minx stands on the
> abortion issue, don't you? Seriously, this nonsense adds *nothing* to the
> dialogue. After all, didn't you just write:
>
> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:LZqdnVDCwYR...@comcast.com...
> " I am just saying that have found most of the dishonest,
> lies, distortions, hatred, bigotry, and so forth to come from the
> pro-choice side. It actually gets downright embarrassing to see that many
> of these pro-choice people are supposed to be adults."
>
> Do you truly not see the hypocrisy here?
Yea, your point?
I am not the one that called someone anti-abortion. And since that word was
used, and pro-choicers claim that there is no such thing as pro-abortion,
then why use the word anti-abortion?
>
>
>
>
>
>
Osprey
>
> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:w4KdnU0mJLR...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:5U6M9.269076$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
>
> > > I'm not the opposite of anti-abortion.
> >
> > Then you are anti-abortion.
>
> False dilemma.
What is false about it? You said you were not the opposite of
anti-abortion, so you must be anti-abortion.
>
> > > Don't need to. Anti-abortion means "Women have no right to abortion
and
> > > shouldn't be allowed to have one except in some very rare
> circumstances."
> > > The opposite of that, pro-abortion, is "Women have no right NOT to
have
> an
> > > abortion and shouldn't be allowed NOT to have one except in some very
> rare
> > > circumstances."
> > >
> > > If those double negatives are confusing, here's another way of stating
> it:
> > > "Women have no right to give birth and should be required to have an
> > > abortion, except in some very rare circumstances." That is what
> > > pro-abortion means.
> >
> > Not according to the dictionary.
>
> Then pro-abortion is not the opposite of anti-abortion, according to that
> dictionary.
According to how I read the definitions, one supports one opposes.
Unless you have a different dictionary.
>
>
>
Osprey
"Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
You mean you favor all choices on all issues by all people at all times???
Getting back to the "issue", which was clarifying anti-abortion.
Craig said that anti-abortion opposes women to have the right to get an
abortion. So if you are not anti, your pro.
And since the attachment to the word anit, was abortion, you are either
anti-abortion or pro-abortion.
Take your pick. The word pro-choice was not used.
>
>
Osprey
"Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
>
> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:sqKcnVfHjqa...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote in message
> > news:Lm0M9.267371$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bOCcnbfIx8u...@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "Craig Chilton" <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3e127770....@netnews.mchsi.com...
> > > > > On 17 Dec 2002 08:21:24 -0800,
> > > > > "Sam" <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
> > > > >
> > > > > As "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote, in response
> > > > > to another such post:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Anti-abortionist propaganda.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist"
> > >
> > > Anyone who believes women do not have a right to get an abortion.
> >
> > So you believe that women have a right to get an abortion correct?
Which
> > would mean you are not "anti-abortion", right?
>
> I know where you're going with this.
> You're playing childish, and idiotic, word games without a shred of
reality
> cognizance.
You mean you can't accept it when it can come back on you.
Believe me, this isn't a game. And what we have here is a method in which I
have very easily exposed the pro-abortion.
I am not the one who used the word anti-abortion. Craig has used it, Karen
has used it.
If you want to play games, don't use words that can come back at you.
>
> BTW .. I wrote to the dictionary people about their definition with your
> exact logic, and they said two things:
> First that, with word definitions (not mathematics), if "A" means "B" - it
> does NOT follow that "B" means "A".
> and
> They are not responsible for how someone else misinterprets their
> definitions.
>
> Go back to playing on Troll Street!
How about you giving me the name and email address of the person you wrote
so I can verify that.
If not, then I guess that makes you the troll.
>
>
M is for Malapert
>
> "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:iM8M9.420168$NH2.30719@sccrnsc01...
> >
> > "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > news:w4KdnU0mJLR...@comcast.com...
> > >
> > > "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > news:5U6M9.269076$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> >
> > > > I'm not the opposite of anti-abortion.
> > >
> > > Then you are anti-abortion.
> >
> > False dilemma.
>
> What is false about it?
"False dilemma: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while
in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use
of the "or" operator."
You're falsely claiming that one is *either* anti-abortion *or* pro-abortion
(the opposite of anti-abortion). A third option is that one can be
pro-choice.
> > > > If those double negatives are confusing, here's another way of
stating
> > it:
> > > > "Women have no right to give birth and should be required to have an
> > > > abortion, except in some very rare circumstances." That is what
> > > > pro-abortion means.
> > >
> > > Not according to the dictionary.
> >
> > Then pro-abortion is not the opposite of anti-abortion, according to
that
> > dictionary.
>
> According to how I read the definitions, one supports one opposes.
"One supports one opposes" what?
ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net
pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
adj.
Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
>
>
>
ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net
Osprey wrote:
He thinks that, because he's gotten a few positive e-mails, that bunches
of people think his posts are worth cherishing. He's so busy being
arrogant that he fails to realize that there is no trick to getting
people to write you private emails praising what you post. Happens to
many many people who post to usenet including those with whom Craig
vehemently disagrees.
Osprey
>
> "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:q_ydnZ6BNOK...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:iM8M9.420168$NH2.30719@sccrnsc01...
> > >
> > > "Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:w4KdnU0mJLR...@comcast.com...
> > > >
> > > > "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:5U6M9.269076$GR5....@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
> > >
> > > > > I'm not the opposite of anti-abortion.
> > > >
> > > > Then you are anti-abortion.
> > >
> > > False dilemma.
> >
> > What is false about it?
>
> "False dilemma: A limited number of options (usually two) is given, while
> in reality there are more options. A false dilemma is an illegitimate use
> of the "or" operator."
>
> You're falsely claiming that one is *either* anti-abortion *or*
pro-abortion
> (the opposite of anti-abortion). A third option is that one can be
> pro-choice.
Then don't use the term anti-abortion then. The term was used, I asked 3
legitimate questions regarding the term.
And you know what is amazing?
The pro-choicers that refuse to answer those questions. And you know why
they refuse?
Because they know that it will show they are pro-abortion.
So you can call yourself pro-choice that is fine. I don't care about that.
The term is misleading, and in my opinion discriminating.
>
> > > > > If those double negatives are confusing, here's another way of
> stating
> > > it:
> > > > > "Women have no right to give birth and should be required to have
an
> > > > > abortion, except in some very rare circumstances." That is what
> > > > > pro-abortion means.
> > > >
> > > > Not according to the dictionary.
> > >
> > > Then pro-abortion is not the opposite of anti-abortion, according to
> that
> > > dictionary.
> >
> > According to how I read the definitions, one supports one opposes.
>
> "One supports one opposes" what?
Well lets see, anti-abortion "opposes abortion"
Pro-abortion "supports abortion"
>
>
Osprey
<ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:3E0140B3...@nospam.charter.net...
He is more stuck on himself than he actually realizes that he comes across
very ignorant.
>
>
John D. Wentzky
>
> So you can call yourself pro-choice that is fine. I don't care about
that.
> The term is misleading, and in my opinion discriminating.
Part of the controversy arises, imo, by the 'choice' dictum that says it is
a woman's right to choose.
That is easily shown as sexist and in violation of Civil rights legislation
which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.
Osprey
"John D. Wentzky" <admin[pleasedonotspamme]@buyatbid.com> wrote in message
news:3e01fb43$1...@nopics.sjc...
Exactly, but they are not honest enough to admit that. But they will be the
first to call someone else sexist, racist, a bigot, or anything else.
They are afraid John. Plain and simple, and they use dishonest methods to
hide their fear.
>
>
>
Mark Sebree
Not at all. When a man gets pregnant, he will also have the right to
decide for himself whether to continue the pregnancy to term, or to get
an abortion. There is nothing sexist in it. The person that is
pregnant gets the decision.
Mark Sebree
Adam H.
You dink, when was the last time a man got pregnant? Is a man's lack
of ovaries also discrimination?
You're posting to an abortion newsgroup. It is understood that
'pro-choice' in an abortion newsgroup refers to the woman's right to
choose to continue her pregnancy on her own terms. Nobody's trying to
bring up other issues here except you - most probably because that's
the only way for you to deflect attention from your other crap.
Get over it.
---
"The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
-Pierre Trudeau, 1967
John D. Wentzky
"Adam H." <a...@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:74140vobgsjla1of5...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:03:54 -0500, "John D. Wentzky"
> <admin[pleasedonotspamme]@buyatbid.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
> >news:tYycnV1eu_J...@comcast.com...
> >>
> >> So you can call yourself pro-choice that is fine. I don't care about
> >that.
> >> The term is misleading, and in my opinion discriminating.
> >
> >
> >Part of the controversy arises, imo, by the 'choice' dictum that says it
is
> >a woman's right to choose.
> >That is easily shown as sexist and in violation of Civil rights
legislation
> >which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.
> >
> >
>
> You dink, when was the last time a man got pregnant? Is a man's lack
> of ovaries also discrimination?
Force Majeur.
You are so outclassed here it is obvious to probably every person who has
adequate reading comprehension abilities.
> You're posting to an abortion newsgroup. It is understood that
> 'pro-choice' in an abortion newsgroup refers to the woman's right to
> choose to continue her pregnancy on her own terms. Nobody's trying to
> bring up other issues here except you - most probably because that's
> the only way for you to deflect attention from your other crap.
I live in line with the law as best I can.
If Civil Rights legislation says that discrimintation on the basis of gender
is illegal then that is exactly what it means.
I was 'over it' a long time ago when I saw the good inherent in the efforts
of such people as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Why stop at sex discrimination?
We could use age discrimination, too.
How many women under 15 or over 45 are employing 'the right to choose"?
What about race discrimination?
Look at the figures and see how abortion discriminates on the basis of race
even.
> Get over it.
I did.
> "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
> -Pierre Trudeau, 1967
"Oh, Canada."
LOL!!!!!!
I am a U.S. Citizen.
John D. Wentzky
"Mark Sebree" <seb...@fortwayne.infi.net> wrote in message
news:3E0205A3...@fortwayne.infi.net...
The person that is pregnant is only of one gender. That is completely
one-sided and is a violation of the statutes prohibiting discrimination on
the basis of gender.
Abortion discriminates on the basis of sex, age, and race.
The data do not lie.
> Mark Sebree
Matt Pillsbury
[...]
> And since that word was used, and pro-choicers claim that there is
> no such thing as pro-abortion, then why use the word anti-abortion?
Because one of the words is accurate, and the other isn't?
Believe it or not, sometimes the simplest answer is correct.
--
Matt Pillsbury "Fanaticism consists of redoubling your effort
pil...@mac.com when you have forgotten your aim."
--George Santayana
Matt Pillsbury
> "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:ne9M9.420470$NH2.30480@sccrnsc01...
[...]
> > "False dilemma: A limited number of options (usually two) is
> > given, while in reality there are more options. A false dilemma
> > is an illegitimate use of the "or" operator."
> > You're falsely claiming that one is *either* anti-abortion *or*
> > pro-abortion (the opposite of anti-abortion). A third option is
> > that one can be pro-choice.
> Then don't use the term anti-abortion then.
Huh?
> The term was used, I asked 3 legitimate questions regarding the
> term.
A false dichotomy is not, in fact, a legitmate question.
> And you know what is amazing?
> The pro-choicers that refuse to answer those questions. And you
> know why they refuse?
I've seen at least to 'pro-choicers' answer those questions.
Refusing to give an answer that's simple enough for you to understand
is not the same thing as refusing to give any answer at all.
[...]
jack_the_mormon
Pat Winstanley
@buyatbid.com says...
Since person whatsoever is being discriminated against by a pregnant
person having the right to decide *for themselves and themselves alone*
what medical treatment *they* will or will not have for *their*
pregnancy, clearly there is no discrimination at all, let alone gender
discrimination.
How is having the right to choose one's own medical treatment (something
eafch man and woman has and some kids have too, whether male or female)
discriminatory in any way whatsoever?
You are insane.
John D. Wentzky
The lies of abortion are what are so disgusting.
I really am disgusted with Pro-Choicers acting as if it is the woman and
only the woman that meks the choice especially when the woman was the one
that got pregnant and the one that got her pregnant is easily found to be
against having the child in many of the cases.
And what about the parents that advise abortion or the clinic that is
profitting from it?
It is a bad way of treating this issue when so many other people are really
doing the choosing by influencing the woman to abort.
If I were a woman in the USA I would be furious that the USA or Pro-Choice
would try to make it seem as if I were the only one responsible in abortion.
The man made a choice to have sex with the woman, and the cause and effect
relationship shows how that choice led to the 'choice' of the woman to get
an abortion.
LOL!!!!!!
You can not escape the guilt that you bring upon yourself by lying and by
rendering false witness against so many people or the guilt that you would
incur by leading someone into an option that she would not have chosen had
you or the clinic or the parents had not told her to do either by coercion
or by subterfuge of silence and abandonment and just becuase 'she was a good
lay, but no way would I want to marry her or her to have my kids."
Or, waht about, "She was not the best in bed, so I don't want to keep her or
the baby."
Or, "Wow, Ms. ____ at ____ is such a good sex freak. It's worth a chance and
$350 at the most."
If you do not want a baby don't make one.
LOL!!!!!
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!!
It is time to laugh at the deadbeat Pro-Choice men who would rather screw
than have children.
Yes. You do have a choice, and the superior choice is to make babies
responsibly or to not make them at all.
People do not like paying for aboritons when it was someone else who got the
woman pregnant.
It's $350 and up, so don't tell me that abortion is for poor women.
That's another one of those rich, sex-freak abortinist arguments.
What about the poor people they say, when all along the rich people are the
ones that can afford it.
LOL!
LOL!!!!!!!!
HAHAHHAHAAHHAHA!!!!!!
This is funny.
LOL!!!!!!
Get the words in line with what is really happening and expect peope to
maybe become more accepting of the practice or less accepting when they find
out who really is making the choices in this area.
> Mark Sebree
LOL!!!!!!
That is funny, too.
Pat Winstanley
@nospam.charter.net says...
Now try a larger selection of the definitions you will find in commonl;y
used dictionaries... and count how many of them agree with yours and how
many do not! ;-)))
I make the voting 7 to 1 against your particular meaning... what do you
make it?
http://www.onelook.com/?w=pro-choice&ls=b
We found 8 dictionaries that include the word pro-choice:
General (8 matching dictionaries)
[1]pro-choice : Dictionary.com [home, info]
[2]pro-choice : Cambridge International Dictionary of English [home,
info]
[3]pro-choice : Merriam Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, 10th Edition
[home, info]
[4]pro-choice : The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English
Language [home, info]
[5]pro-choice : UltraLingua English Dictionary [home, info]
[6]pro-choice : Cambridge Dictionary of American English [home, info]
[7]pro-choice : Rhymezone [home, info]
[8]pro-choice : LookWAYup Translating Dictionary/Thesaurus [home, info]
========================================================================
=========
#1
pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
pro-choicer n.
========================================================================
=============
#2
pro-choice
[not gradable]
supporting the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to
choose an abortion if she does not want to have a baby
pro-choice activists/advocates/demonstrators
The President is known to be pro-choice.
Compare anti-choice at anti-; pro-life.
========================================================================
===========
#3
Main Entry: pro-choice
Pronunciation: (")prO-'chois
Function: adjective
Date: 1975
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-choic·er /-'choi-s&r/ noun
========================================================================
===========
#4
pro-choice
PRONUNCIATION: pr-chois
ADJECTIVE: Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to
choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
OTHER FORMS: pro-choicer —NOUN
========================================================================
===========
#5
Search Results for entries containing 'pro-choice' - - 1 -
No. English Definition
1. pro-choice faction [n.] Those who argue that the decision to have an
induced abortion should be made by the mother
========================================================================
===========
#6
pro-choice
adjective [not gradable]
supporting the belief that a pregnant woman should have the freedom to
choose an abortion (= an operation to end a pregnancy) if she does not
want to have a baby Compare pro-life.
========================================================================
===========
#7
Definitions of pro-choice:
adjective: advocating a woman's right to control her own body
(especially her right to an induced abortion)
========================================================================
============
#8
1. [a] advocating a woman's right to control her own body (especially
her right to an induced abortion).
what is it en español? Full version, try it free!
Related terms
Opposite pro-life pro-life
========================================================================
============
Adam H.
<admin[pleasedonotspamme]@buyatbid.com> wrote:
>
>"Adam H." <a...@asdf.com> wrote in message
>news:74140vobgsjla1of5...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 12:03:54 -0500, "John D. Wentzky"
>> <admin[pleasedonotspamme]@buyatbid.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Osprey" <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote in message
>> >news:tYycnV1eu_J...@comcast.com...
>> >>
>> >> So you can call yourself pro-choice that is fine. I don't care about
>> >that.
>> >> The term is misleading, and in my opinion discriminating.
>> >
>> >
>> >Part of the controversy arises, imo, by the 'choice' dictum that says it
>is
>> >a woman's right to choose.
>> >That is easily shown as sexist and in violation of Civil rights
>legislation
>> >which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You dink, when was the last time a man got pregnant? Is a man's lack
>> of ovaries also discrimination?
>
>Force Majeur.
>You are so outclassed here it is obvious to probably every person who has
>adequate reading comprehension abilities.
Wentzky, the only people who think that you outclass me are the same
ones who think that men's inability to get pregant is a form of
discrimination.
Here's a hint - it's not discriminatory since there isn't anybody
forcing that inability on men. I see that, much like your censorship
claims, you fail to understand what the word actually means.
>
>> You're posting to an abortion newsgroup. It is understood that
>> 'pro-choice' in an abortion newsgroup refers to the woman's right to
>> choose to continue her pregnancy on her own terms. Nobody's trying to
>> bring up other issues here except you - most probably because that's
>> the only way for you to deflect attention from your other crap.
>
>
>I live in line with the law as best I can.
>If Civil Rights legislation says that discrimintation on the basis of gender
>is illegal then that is exactly what it means.
>I was 'over it' a long time ago when I saw the good inherent in the efforts
>of such people as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>Why stop at sex discrimination?
>We could use age discrimination, too.
>How many women under 15 or over 45 are employing 'the right to choose"?
>What about race discrimination?
>Look at the figures and see how abortion discriminates on the basis of race
>even.
>
>> Get over it.
>
>I did.
Apparently, you haven't, or you wouldn't be whining about it here.
>
>> "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
>> -Pierre Trudeau, 1967
>
>"Oh, Canada."
>
>LOL!!!!!!
>I am a U.S. Citizen.
And every day I thank my lucky stars that somebody like you isn't a
citizen of my country.
---
John D. Wentzky
You are the one that asked the questions about ovaries and getting pregnant.
And even if it was considered discriminatory (look up discrimination) Force
Majeur still apllies.
> Here's a hint - it's not discriminatory since there isn't anybody
> forcing that inability on men. I see that, much like your censorship
> claims, you fail to understand what the word actually means.
You think x and y chromosomes are chosen by parents and children?
> >> You're posting to an abortion newsgroup. It is understood that
> >> 'pro-choice' in an abortion newsgroup refers to the woman's right to
> >> choose to continue her pregnancy on her own terms. Nobody's trying to
> >> bring up other issues here except you - most probably because that's
> >> the only way for you to deflect attention from your other crap.
> >
> >
> >I live in line with the law as best I can.
> >If Civil Rights legislation says that discrimintation on the basis of
gender
> >is illegal then that is exactly what it means.
> >I was 'over it' a long time ago when I saw the good inherent in the
efforts
> >of such people as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
> >Why stop at sex discrimination?
> >We could use age discrimination, too.
> >How many women under 15 or over 45 are employing 'the right to choose"?
> >What about race discrimination?
> >Look at the figures and see how abortion discriminates on the basis of
race
> >even.
> >
> >> Get over it.
> >
> >I did.
>
> Apparently, you haven't, or you wouldn't be whining about it here.
>
Since when are facts considered whining?
> >
> >> "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
> >> -Pierre Trudeau, 1967
> >
> >"Oh, Canada."
> >
> >LOL!!!!!!
> >I am a U.S. Citizen.
>
> And every day I thank my lucky stars that somebody like you isn't a
> citizen of my country.
"Oh, Canada."
> "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation."
> -Pierre Trudeau, 1967
1967?
"Oh, Canada."
Adam H.
<admin[pleasedonotspamme]@buyatbid.com> wrote:
And this has what to do with discrimination? Tell me, was I being
discriminated when I didn't get blond hair?
>
>> >> You're posting to an abortion newsgroup. It is understood that
>> >> 'pro-choice' in an abortion newsgroup refers to the woman's right to
>> >> choose to continue her pregnancy on her own terms. Nobody's trying to
>> >> bring up other issues here except you - most probably because that's
>> >> the only way for you to deflect attention from your other crap.
>> >
>> >
>> >I live in line with the law as best I can.
>> >If Civil Rights legislation says that discrimintation on the basis of
>gender
>> >is illegal then that is exactly what it means.
>> >I was 'over it' a long time ago when I saw the good inherent in the
>efforts
>> >of such people as the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
>> >Why stop at sex discrimination?
>> >We could use age discrimination, too.
>> >How many women under 15 or over 45 are employing 'the right to choose"?
>> >What about race discrimination?
>> >Look at the figures and see how abortion discriminates on the basis of
>race
>> >even.
>> >
>> >> Get over it.
>> >
>> >I did.
>>
>> Apparently, you haven't, or you wouldn't be whining about it here.
>>
>
>Since when are facts considered whining?
You haven't presented any facts. If you hate being male so much, get
the surgery.
Just quit with the whining.
<snip>
---
M is for Malapert
>
> "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:ne9M9.420470$NH2.30480@sccrnsc01...
> > You're falsely claiming that one is *either* anti-abortion *or*
> pro-abortion
> > (the opposite of anti-abortion). A third option is that one can be
> > pro-choice.
>
> Then don't use the term anti-abortion then.
False dilemma again.
> > "One supports one opposes" what?
>
> Well lets see, anti-abortion "opposes abortion"
Under almost all circumstances and typically wants to pass laws forbidding
it.
> Pro-abortion "supports abortion"
Under almost all circumstances and typically wants to pass laws requiring
it?
THAT would be the opposite stance. So once again we see that either
"pro-abortion" is incorrect as a description of what most pro-choice people
stand for, or it has a meaning that is not the opposite of "anti-abortion".
Pat Winstanley
@buyatbid.com says...
> The person that is pregnant is only of one gender. That is completely
> one-sided and is a violation of the statutes prohibiting discrimination on
> the basis of gender.
>
Precisely *whose* medical decisions are being discriminated against when
a pregnant person chooses to continue or chooses to end the pregnancy
affecting their body?
Precisely *who* is being discriminated against, and how, by that other
person having the choice of their own medical treatment?
Craig Chilton
Robert Heishman <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote:
> Ruth Smith <ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sam <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
[ ... ]
>>>>>>>> As "Pope Dilbert" <Vat...@NYC.com> wrote, in
>>>>>>>> response to another such post:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Anti-abortionist propaganda. ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please define to us who you consider "anti-abortionist."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was quoting "Pope Dilbert" in this, but MY assessment of an
>>>>>> an "anti-abortionist" would be just what it says: a person who
>>>>>> disapproves of abortion doctors, and therefore probably also
>>>>>> disapproves of ready accessibility of abortion-on-request to women.
>>>>> So with that said: Would you consider yourself to approve of
>>>>> abortion doctors?
>>>> Of course. Just as much as I approve of heart surgeons, or any other
>>>> doctor that provides REMEDIES to people. Abortion is nothing more than
>>>> a valuable REMEDY for an unwanted medical condition. As I've TOLD
>>>> you. MANY times before, troll.)
>>> Then you are the opposite of anti-abortion, the opposite of anti is pro.
>>> You are pro-abortion, since you clearly just stated above your not
>>> anti-abortion, the only logical conclusion would be you are the opposite.
No. I'm not "for" abortion in that I would find it PREFERABLE to
carrying-to-term. I support BOTH options EQUALLY, and if safe and legal
access to EITHER of those options is attacked, i DEFEND the right of all
women to have such access.
And that makes me PRO-CHOICE.
Quite UNlike you, who hatefully wants to see one of those choices
DENIED to women.
Making you a total LOUSE.
>>>>> Do you approve of read accessibility of abortion-on-request to
>>>>>women?
>>>> Assuming you meant "ready" access -- most assuredly. What part of
>>>> the FACTS pertaining to that in the outline I've been posting would give
>>>> you any OTHER impression.
>>>>
>>>> What's the point of these questions which are even more stupid than
>>>> usual for YOU?
>>>>
>>>> (READERS: I'd say that Robert here is "losing it." Referring to
>>>> his mind. What there may be of it. If it weren't pretty obvious that
>>>> he'd already LOST it at the point when he BECAME an Anti-Choice loon.)
>>> Yes Craig, I see flocks of readers flooding around you cherishing each
>>> word you type...LOL.
You don't see any PRO-Choicers who criticize me. Only Anti-Choice
LOUSES like you. Which is just FINE with me. I wouldn't want it any
other way!
>> He thinks that, because he's gotten a few positive e-mails, that
>> bunches of people think his posts are worth cherishing. He's so busy
>> being arrogant that he fails to realize that there is no trick to getting
>> people to write you private emails praising what you post. Happens to
>> many many people who post to usenet including those with whom Craig
>> vehemently disagrees.
> He is more stuck on himself than he actually realizes that he comes
> across very ignorant.
No matter how desperately you are to denigrate me, the FACTS will
always indict and condemn your loathesome Anti-Choice stance against
women.
I regularly furnish an ABUNDANCE of solid facts that make it very
clear that abortion is nothing more than a beneficial remedy for an
unwanted medical condition, and should NEVER be denied, under any
circumstances, to any woman who CHOOSES to avail herself of it. (See
SIG.)
On the other hand, NO Anti-choicer that I have EVER run across, in
more than 40 years as a Pro-Choice activist, has ever been able to
produce so much as even ONE FACT that supports *their* stance, or
argues effectively *against* safe and legal abortion on request.
Probably because NO such fact even EXISTS.
And yet, YOU are hateful and control-freakish enough to be an
Anti-Choicer.
And you call ME ignorant???
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Craig Chilton xana...@mchsi.com
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation*) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
*(AFTER the 7th month of gestation, rudimentary conscious
awareness is regarded possible, by medical science. But
that's a moot point since, per a report by JAMA, 99.99996%
of U.S. abortions already have been performed by that
point.)
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by its immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion & talk.abortion
on Aug. 13, 2000, and updated since.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Osprey
Craig, until you actually come up with some facts and back them up, there is
no need for further discussion. You simply have no facts. When challenged
you run away. You have nothing Craig, nothing at all. And when faced with
opposition, you falter every time.
So when you have some actual facts, that you can back up, you can then
respond to my post.
Craig Chilton
Robert Heishman <noonenee...@mail.com> wrote:
> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> No matter how desperately you are to denigrate me, the FACTS will
>> always indict and condemn your loathesome Anti-Choice stance against
>> women.
> Craig, until you actually come up with some facts and back them up, there is
> no need for further discussion. You simply have no facts. When challenged
> you run away. You have nothing Craig, nothing at all. And when faced with
> opposition, you falter every time.
>
> So when you have some actual facts, that you can back up, you can then
> respond to my post.
The FACTS which both CONDEMN the Anti-Choice agenda as ignorant
and sociopathic... and do the same to you... and PROVE you to be merely a
worthless TROLL, since you've seen them before, and then LIE... are in
the outline below.
You are a liar, a jerk, and have NO credibility.
And everyone knows it.
june gill
>
> "Sam" <sa83...@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu> wrote in message
> news:5b6a2e7d.0212...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Here is a link about an abortion survivor.
> > > >
[snip]
> 'I did not know of the abortion until I was 12 years old. I grew up
feeling
> that I was the same as my friends, except for having numerous surgeries
and
> physical complications. The only difference I felt was an incredible
> loneliness and a knowledge that something was missing. I never felt
whole.
Because of the missing twin presumably. Interestingly enough, some medical
scientists - Professor Sir Robert Winston among them - believe that all
left-handed people started out as one of twins, the right-handed twin being
subsumed very early. Do all you lefties out there feel incredibly lonely
and 'know' that something is missing?
[snip]
> 'Another startling fact is that in medical journals it states the fetus is
> capable of feeling pain at 8 weeks of gestation.'
>
> Actually in medical journals it doesn't state that at all.
Spoilsport - why let facts spoil a good story?
> 'In America, the vast majority of abortions are performed between 10 to 12
> weeks, well after the child can feel the entire procedure.'
>
> Isn't it irresponsible for someone who presents herself as an expert on
> abortion not to have the facts? In America, the vast majority of
abortions
> are performed before 10 weeks, and in none of them can "the child" feel
> anything.
>
> 'So don't tell me abortion is a simple procedure that expels a piece of
> tissue and doesn't hurt anybody. I was there. I was less then an inch
away
> from my innocent twin brother when his body was ripped apart, and he felt
> the entire thing. We were 14 to 16 weeks along in the second trimester.
> That was how my life was meant to end.'
My goodness! This woman is amazing! She can remember being a
14-16-week-old foetus and _knows_ that her 'innocent twin brother' felt
everything - and this memory and knowledge all before the neurons connected
to the brain. Medical scientists should investigate this, because as well
as exhibiting a whole new way of thinking, this woman could obviously tell
them a great deal about foetal development, which no-one knows anything
about yet.
> Crazy talk. Very sad, but not because of anything to do with the
abortion.
>
> By the way, how exactly does everyone know that Sarah's twin was a boy?
Tsk, Malapert - what a silly question - the woman saw him and remembers him.
--
June G
# 364
http://www.jgdodworth.demon.co.uk
Hate Feminism
Very simple in the case of the fetus being a patient in need of medical
care.
For example, heart surgery:
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=insubject:Heart+insubject:Surgery+insubject:on+insubject:Unborn+insubject:Child&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=6f9e1b49.0211150839.29e9c694%40posting.google.com&rnum=1
(original format: )
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6f9e1b49.0211150839.29e9c694%40posting.google.com&output=gplain
So. Since the fetus may be in need of heart surgery it's needs are
hardly being met by being dismembered and then flushed into a vat of
medical waste.
"Oh yeah....Duuuh....Didn't think of that"
Pat Winstanley
> Subject: Re: Abortion Survivor Sarah Smith
> From: Hate Feminism <cl...@r.us>
> Newsgroups: alt.abortion, talk.abortion, us.issues.abortion, alt.christnet, alt.religion.christian
>
> Pat Winstanley wrote:
> >
> > In article <3e021...@nopics.sjc>, admin[pleasedonotspamme]
> > @buyatbid.com says...
> > > The person that is pregnant is only of one gender. That is completely
> > > one-sided and is a violation of the statutes prohibiting discrimination on
> > > the basis of gender.
> > >
> >
> > Precisely *whose* medical decisions are being discriminated against when
> > a pregnant person chooses to continue or chooses to end the pregnancy
> > affecting their body?
> >
> > Precisely *who* is being discriminated against, and how, by that other
> > person having the choice of their own medical treatment?
>
> Very simple in the case of the fetus being a patient in need of medical
> care.
>
Try again... I said *who*. Not *what*.
M is for Malapert
<ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:3E013FBF...@nospam.charter.net...
>
> M is for Malapert wrote:
>
What's your point? Do you know anyone who favors or supports the legalized
abortion of almost all pregnancies? That would be the opposite of
"anti-abortion". Whose fault is it that enough people have used
"pro-abortion" dishonestly that a dictionary recognizes the misleading word?
Now, here's what Merriam-Webster online says:
Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bor-sh&n
Function: adjective
Date: 1972
: favoring the legalization of abortion
- pro-abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
This is better - closer to the true meaning of "pro-choice" - but it's still
an anti-choice creation, as evidenced by the noun.
So what does Merriam-Webster have for "anti-abortion"?
Main Entry: an·ti·abor·tion
Pronunciation: "an-tE-&-'bor-sh&n, "an-"tI-
Function: adjective
Date: 1971
: opposed to abortion <antiabortion lobbyists>
"Opposed to abortion." Not just opposed to legalized abortion, not just
opposed to the legalization of abortion, but opposed to it in all ways and
in almost all cases, and yes, typically wanting laws against it too.
To be pro-choice is not the opposite of that.
ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net
What's your point? That's not what the above definition says.
> That would be the opposite of
> "anti-abortion".
No it isn't.
> Whose fault is it that enough people have used
> "pro-abortion" dishonestly that a dictionary recognizes the misleading word?
I've said the same thing about the misnomer "pro choice." I'm glad we
can agree on something.
>
> Now, here's what Merriam-Webster online says:
>
> Main Entry: pro·abor·tion
> Pronunciation: "prO-&-'bor-sh&n
> Function: adjective
> Date: 1972
> : favoring the legalization of abortion
> - pro-abor·tion·ist /-sh(&-)nist/ noun
>
> This is better - closer to the true meaning of "pro-choice" - but it's still
> an anti-choice creation, as evidenced by the noun.
>
> So what does Merriam-Webster have for "anti-abortion"?
>
> Main Entry: an·ti·abor·tion
> Pronunciation: "an-tE-&-'bor-sh&n, "an-"tI-
> Function: adjective
> Date: 1971
> : opposed to abortion <antiabortion lobbyists>
>
> "Opposed to abortion." Not just opposed to legalized abortion, not just
> opposed to the legalization of abortion, but opposed to it in all ways and
> in almost all cases, and yes, typically wanting laws against it too.
>
> To be pro-choice is not the opposite of that.
>
We're all pro-choice.
M is for Malapert
<ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:3E0B8E3D...@nospam.charter.net...
>
> M is for Malapert wrote:
> >>>I'm not the opposite of anti-abortion.
> >>>
> >>>Gosh, that was easy.
> >>pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
> >>adj.
> >>
> >>Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
> >>
> >> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
> > What's your point? Do you know anyone who favors or supports the
legalized
> > abortion of almost all pregnancies?
>
> What's your point? That's not what the above definition says.
Then it's NOT THE OPPOSITE of "anti-abortion", is it?
> > That would be the opposite of
> > "anti-abortion".
>
> No it isn't.
Sure it would. Do you know what "opposite" means?
> > Whose fault is it that enough people have used
> > "pro-abortion" dishonestly that a dictionary recognizes the misleading
word?
>
> I've said the same thing about the misnomer "pro choice." I'm glad we
> can agree on something.
What's dishonest about "pro-choice"?
ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net
M is for Malapert wrote:
> <ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
> news:3E0B8E3D...@nospam.charter.net...
>
>>M is for Malapert wrote:
>>
>
>>>>>I'm not the opposite of anti-abortion.
>>>>>
>>>>>Gosh, that was easy.
>>>>>
>
>>>>pro-a·bor·tion (pr-bôrshn)
>>>>adj.
>>>>
>>>>Favoring or supporting legalized abortion.
>>>>
>>>> The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
>>>>
>
>>>What's your point? Do you know anyone who favors or supports the
>>>
> legalized
>
>>>abortion of almost all pregnancies?
>>>
>>What's your point? That's not what the above definition says.
>>
>
> Then it's NOT THE OPPOSITE of "anti-abortion", is it?
Sigh. I don't know why it has to be the exact opposite. Accepted use
is what the dictionary defines. Ya don't like it, write to American
Heritage.
>
>
>>> That would be the opposite of
>>>"anti-abortion".
>>>
>>No it isn't.
>>
>
> Sure it would. Do you know what "opposite" means?
>
>
>>> Whose fault is it that enough people have used
>>>"pro-abortion" dishonestly that a dictionary recognizes the misleading
>>>
> word?
>
>>I've said the same thing about the misnomer "pro choice." I'm glad we
>>can agree on something.
>>
>
> What's dishonest about "pro-choice"?
Besides everything?
jack_the_mormon
>
>
>
> Besides everything?
Your tendency to generalize displays your close-mindedness. It is
unfortunate that you debate by belittling rather than adding
constructive comments.
Anti-choice - by American Heritage
SYLLABICATION: an·ti-choice
PRONUNCIATION: nt-chois, nt-
ADJECTIVE: Opposed to the right of women to have the choice to
terminate a pregnancy by induced abortion.
So, now that we are clear about what all the words mean, let's talk
about the real issue. You believe, contrary to every statute in every
state in the union, that a fetus deserves the same legal status/rights
as that of a (born) child. Since legally, you have no leg to stand
on, you belittle, generalize, use sarcasm, judgement and name calling
to make a completely emotional argument that has no basis in law or
logic. Unfortunate.
What is fortunate is that there are people here who see through your
small-minded attempt to distort the real issues and turn constructive
dialouge into childishness.
Pat Winstanley
@nospam.charter.net says...
> Sigh. I don't know why it has to be the exact opposite. Accepted use
> is what the dictionary defines. Ya don't like it, write to American
> Heritage.
>
>
Do you *really* want to know what dictionaries in general define "pro-
choice" as meaning?
In that case, see the following...
http://www.onelook.com/?w=pro-choice&ls=b
General (8 matching dictionaries)
========================================================================
=========
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
pro-choicer n.
Pronunciation: (")prO-'chois
Function: adjective
Date: 1975
: favoring the legalization of abortion
========================================================================
============
Note that not a single one *advocates* abortion. The only thing
advocated is that it should be legal for a woman to give birth AND legal
for a woman to abort... *her* choice of the two.
Pro-choice is the position that advocates BOTH birth and abortion be
legal options for someone who is pregnant, and that someone is the one
who gets to choose which of those two possible and legal options they
will attempt to take regarding medical treatment of the pregnancy (a
medical condition) affecting *their* body.
Do you understand now?
Sam
arguing about words, let's get back to the subject, which is about an
abortion survivor by the name of Sarah Smith.
-Sam
Pat Winstanley
@pegasus.cc.ucf.edu says...
Someone who was born, or someone who gave birth?
What, exactly, did they survive?
Sam
> > arguing about words, let's get back to the subject, which is about an
> > abortion survivor by the name of Sarah Smith.
> > -Sam
Pat says:
> Someone who was born, or someone who gave birth?
>
> What, exactly, did they survive?
an abortion attempt. Her twin brother was killed, but fortunately, she
survived the attempt against her life.
-Sam
Pat Winstanley
Since people can't be aborted... please try again!
Spartakus
> an abortion attempt. Her twin brother was killed, but fortunately,
> she survived the attempt against her life.
How do we know it was male?
M is for Malapert
<ruthsm...@nospam.charter.net> wrote in message
news:3E0C4F0...@nospam.charter.net...
>
> M is for Malapert wrote:
> > What's dishonest about "pro-choice"?
>
> Besides everything?
That's a little vague, isn't it? How 'bout you name one thing, so I can
examine it to see why it's dishonest.
Fritz Baumgartner
> "M is for Malapert" <som...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:5_QL9.382221$WL3.115359@rwcrnsc54...
> > liar, don't you? For instance, she implies that she was born with
> > "bilateral, congenital dislocated hips and many other physical handicaps"
> > due to the abortion. That is untrue, and it's dishonest to suggest
> > otherwise. Furthermore, here are some quotes from one of her speeches:
> I forgot this one:
> 'Imagine if Jesus had been selfish with His body and not given so freely of
> His life to you and me. Where would we be today? We would be nothing. The
> gift of a mother's body for 9 months of her life is one of the most
> beautiful gifts of all time. We must fight to protect it.'
> Oh, the irony.
Amazing. For so many people who supposedly care about women to have such callous disregard for the life of this beautiful woman on whom an attempted assassination attempt failed is utterly grotesque. F Baumgartner,MD