"The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion"
Conspiracy of Doves
they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
Ben Kaufman
wrote:
Great stuff!!! Thanks.
Ben
LC
"Conspiracy of Doves" <mark...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185429013.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
Ah, the hypocrisy of the anti-choice brigade.
From the cited article:
"Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is
unique - not like those "other" women - even though they have abortions for
the same sorts of reasons."
In fact, Guttmacher reports that "forty-three percent of women obtaining
abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic."
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
Just another example of "Do as I say, not as I do."
Sid9
Many times taken
to the clinic by the
anti-choice boyfriend
who impregnated her.
One day on the
protest line...the
next day on the
patient line
Conspiracy of Doves
Ah! Someone in the comments section posted the cartoon that inspired
the article.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a229/dhonig2/YourAbortionMyAbortion383.jpg
CE
This isn't particularly surprising.
We all know we shouldn't steal - but many people who know they
shouldn't steal will steal and justify it to themselves. Some will say
a cheap boss wasn't paying what they were worth. Others will claim
it's okay to cheat on a tax return because it's only the government.
Others will simply take something because they wanted it and say it's
okay because they'll appreciate it more than that other person, the
owner.
My point is that we all sometimes break our own moral standards. We
know we shouldn't lie, but we'll lie to spare someone's feelings. We
know we shouldn't the jealous of someone else's success but it just
burns us up when the person who gets that promotion is THAT person in
the office who really, really, really doesn't deserve it - according
to us.
Are Christians sinners? Sure. Do we fail to uphold our own high moral
standards? All too often, the answer is yes.
Does that mean those standards aren't worth upholding? Clearly, the
answer to that must be no. Even though some people people who know
it's wrong to steal will still do so, we have laws making it illegal
to steal. Even though some people who know it's wrong to kill still
kill in fits of rage, we have laws against murder.
And, yes, even though some pro-life women get abortions, it's still
wrong to get an abortion and there should be a law against it.
The failure of some people to hold fast to their own moral principles
does not invalidate the principle. Stealing is still wrong. Murder is
still wrong. And abortion is still wrong.
My heart goes out to those pro-life women who, in a moment of
weakness, decide to get an abortion. The guilt they must feel must be
overwhelming.
Conspiracy of Doves
> On Jul 26, 2:50 am, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
> > they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
> > unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
> > who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
> > when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
> > grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
> > solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>
> >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
>
<snip>
>
> My heart goes out to those pro-life women who, in a moment of
> weakness, decide to get an abortion. The guilt they must feel must be
> overwhelming.
It wasn't a moment of weakness. It was a moment of realization mixed
with (in most of the cases) cognitive dissonance. They realized that
abortion was permissible, but they limited that permissibility to
their own situation. They refused to consider the possibility that the
other women who were having an abortion might have just as legitimate
reasons and just assumed that everyone else was simply using abortion
as a form of birth control.
There was a great line in that article: "When a woman expands her need
for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'."
Essentially, anti-choicers, in fact fundamentalists in general, have
extreme problems seeing things from other people's points of view.
They care most about themselves and their own point of view and their
own sense of morality (and other people who share them) and justifying
their point of view and sense of morality by insisting that everyone
else adhere to them.
The fundamentalist can not tolerate the idea that they might be wrong.
Other people living their lives differently and holding different
opinions constantly remind the fundamentalist of the possibility that
they might be wrong, and so other lifestyles and opinions must be
stamped out of existence so that the fundamentalist can rest secure in
the belief that the universe approves of the fundamentalist.
When a fundamentalist learns to recognize the right of other people to
peacefully disagree with the fundamentalist's most tightly held
beliefs, that person ceases to be a fundamentalist.
CE
> On Jul 26, 4:10 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 2:50 am, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
> > > they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
> > > unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
> > > who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
> > > when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
> > > grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
> > > solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>
> > >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> > My heart goes out to those pro-life women who, in a moment of
> > weakness, decide to get an abortion. The guilt they must feel must be
> > overwhelming.
>
> It wasn't a moment of weakness. It was a moment of realization mixed
> with (in most of the cases) cognitive dissonance. They realized that
> abortion was permissible, but they limited that permissibility to
> their own situation. They refused to consider the possibility that the
> other women who were having an abortion might have just as legitimate
> reasons and just assumed that everyone else was simply using abortion
> as a form of birth control.
I've known a lot of pro-lifers. Their support for the rights of the
unborn children of the world isn't as limited and narrow as you seem
to think it is.
> There was a great line in that article: "When a woman expands her need
> for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'."
And when a woman - or a man - expands their need to care for others
even more to include the unborn children of the world, you then have a
pro-lifer.
> Essentially, anti-choicers, in fact fundamentalists in general, have
> extreme problems seeing things from other people's points of view.
How so? Pro-lifers are seeing things from the unborn child's point of
view. That's not a point of view you often hear articulated by those
who support abortion.
> They care most about themselves and their own point of view and their
> own sense of morality (and other people who share them) and justifying
> their point of view and sense of morality by insisting that everyone
> else adhere to them.
Well, yes, I would like others to adhere to my own sense of morality
to a certain extent. But so would you. I'm sure you'll agree with me
that murder is wrong. And I'm also pretty sure you'd be willing to
lobby to make murder illegal if it was allowed by the state. I'm sure
you'd probably also agree that stealing is wrong. And I'm sure you'd
be willing to lobby to make stealing illegal if it was allowed by the
state.
Abortion is the same thing. Those who consider abortion to be okay or
even a good thing because it reduces population growth, are happy with
the current abortion laws and would campaign to make abortion legal if
it was against the law. Those who consider abortion to be wrong are
upset by the current laws and are campaigning to make abortion
illegal. Neither camp in this debate is more or less imposing their
will on the other. It's just that the two sides have conflicting views
on the morality of abortion.
> The fundamentalist can not tolerate the idea that they might be wrong.
Can you tolerate the idea that you may be wrong and that abortion may,
in fact, be the killing of an innocent human life?
> Other people living their lives differently and holding different
> opinions constantly remind the fundamentalist of the possibility that
> they might be wrong, and so other lifestyles and opinions must be
> stamped out of existence so that the fundamentalist can rest secure in
> the belief that the universe approves of the fundamentalist.
I find it both amusing and pathetic that someone who is trying to
stamp out the opinions of the pro-life position is him or herself
complaining that others might do the same thing.
> When a fundamentalist learns to recognize the right of other people to
> peacefully disagree with the fundamentalist's most tightly held
> beliefs, that person ceases to be a fundamentalist.
Well, Roman Catholics are not fundamentalists. We also recognize the
right of other people to disagree with us. But I'm not about to agree
to make murder legal simply because a murderer in jail wants to get
out and doesn't like the law. I'm also not about to agree to make
stealing legal simply because a thief disagrees with the notion of
private property. And I'm not about to agree that killing innocent,
unborn children should remain legal simply because courts and
politicians have caved to lobby groups that demanded that women have
the right to kill those children through abortion.
Abortion is wrong. One day, it will again be illegal.
Conspiracy of Doves
> On Jul 26, 6:04 pm, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I've known a lot of pro-lifers. Their support for the rights of the
> unborn children of the world isn't as limited and narrow as you seem
> to think it is.
>
> > There was a great line in that article: "When a woman expands her need
> > for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'."
>
> And when a woman - or a man - expands their need to care for others
> even more to include the unborn children of the world, you then have a
> pro-lifer.
A pro-lifer is someone who cares more about a potential person than
they care about an actual person.
> > Essentially, anti-choicers, in fact fundamentalists in general, have
> > extreme problems seeing things from other people's points of view.
>
> How so? Pro-lifers are seeing things from the unborn child's point of
> view. That's not a point of view you often hear articulated by those
> who support abortion.
The 'unborn child' (your term, not mine) doesn't have a point of view.
It has no consciousness, or even self awareness. Or, at least it
doesn't during the portion of the pregnancy where abortion is legal.
> > They care most about themselves and their own point of view and their
> > own sense of morality (and other people who share them) and justifying
> > their point of view and sense of morality by insisting that everyone
> > else adhere to them.
>
> Well, yes, I would like others to adhere to my own sense of morality
> to a certain extent. But so would you. I'm sure you'll agree with me
> that murder is wrong. And I'm also pretty sure you'd be willing to
> lobby to make murder illegal if it was allowed by the state. I'm sure
> you'd probably also agree that stealing is wrong. And I'm sure you'd
> be willing to lobby to make stealing illegal if it was allowed by the
> state.
Anyone else notice that this guy changed the wording? He replaced
'insist' with 'would like'.
I respect the right of anyone to do anything to make their lives
better, so long as they don't hurt anyone in the process. A mass of
cells with no more awareness or separate existence than your appendix
doesn't qualify as 'anyone'.
> Abortion is the same thing. Those who consider abortion to be okay or
> even a good thing because it reduces population growth, are happy with
> the current abortion laws and would campaign to make abortion legal if
> it was against the law. Those who consider abortion to be wrong are
> upset by the current laws and are campaigning to make abortion
> illegal. Neither camp in this debate is more or less imposing their
> will on the other. It's just that the two sides have conflicting views
> on the morality of abortion.
>
Abortion being legal does not affect people who are against abortion.
If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one. No one is trying to
force anyone to have an abortion they don't want.
Abortion being illegal WOULD affect people who are in favor of
abortion rights. They either wouldn't be able to get one, or they
would have to get a dangerous illegal one, probably in unsanitary
conditions.
Anti-choicers are the ONLY ones in this debate trying to impose their
will on anyone else.
> > The fundamentalist can not tolerate the idea that they might be wrong.
>
> Can you tolerate the idea that you may be wrong and that abortion may,
> in fact, be the killing of an innocent human life?
You keep using that word. How do you define human life? Something with
human DNA? A cancer tumor has human DNA. Should cancer treatment be
illegal?
Notice that pro-choicers don't use that term in this debate.
Personhood is defined by capacity for consciousness or self awareness.
The brain of a fetus is simply not yet complex enough to have these
traits.
A fetus is not a person. It is a potential person, but still not a
person.
> > Other people living their lives differently and holding different
> > opinions constantly remind the fundamentalist of the possibility that
> > they might be wrong, and so other lifestyles and opinions must be
> > stamped out of existence so that the fundamentalist can rest secure in
> > the belief that the universe approves of the fundamentalist.
>
> I find it both amusing and pathetic that someone who is trying to
> stamp out the opinions of the pro-life position is him or herself
> complaining that others might do the same thing.
I'm not trying to stamp out anyone's opinions. You are free to believe
anything you want. We really don't care. We are trying to stop you
from taking away a much-needed right.
> > When a fundamentalist learns to recognize the right of other people to
> > peacefully disagree with the fundamentalist's most tightly held
> > beliefs, that person ceases to be a fundamentalist.
>
> Well, Roman Catholics are not fundamentalists. We also recognize the
> right of other people to disagree with us. But I'm not about to agree
> to make murder legal simply because a murderer in jail wants to get
> out and doesn't like the law. I'm also not about to agree to make
> stealing legal simply because a thief disagrees with the notion of
> private property. And I'm not about to agree that killing innocent,
> unborn children should remain legal simply because courts and
> politicians have caved to lobby groups that demanded that women have
> the right to kill those children through abortion.
>
> Abortion is wrong. One day, it will again be illegal.
You still haven't established that abortion is, in fact, murder. You
have only stated that you believe that it is.
Andres64
> "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185429013.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Well why would anyone expect a "Christian" kook to be any different
than their leader?
CE
> On Jul 26, 5:28 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 6:04 pm, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I've known a lot of pro-lifers. Their support for the rights of the
> > unborn children of the world isn't as limited and narrow as you seem
> > to think it is.
>
> > > There was a great line in that article: "When a woman expands her need
> > > for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'."
>
> > And when a woman - or a man - expands their need to care for others
> > even more to include the unborn children of the world, you then have a
> > pro-lifer.
>
> A pro-lifer is someone who cares more about a potential person than
> they care about an actual person.
The unborn child has human DNA. If allowed to grow naturally, he or
she will one day do all the things other human beings do. In every
sense of the term, he or she is a human being.
The fact that he or she may be missing some body parts is irrelevent.
An amputee may be missing some body parts and yet be fully human. The
fact that the unborn child is unaware of much around him or her is
irrelevent. A person in a coma is similarly unaware but is still fully
human.
> > > Essentially, anti-choicers, in fact fundamentalists in general, have
> > > extreme problems seeing things from other people's points of view.
>
> > How so? Pro-lifers are seeing things from the unborn child's point of
> > view. That's not a point of view you often hear articulated by those
> > who support abortion.
>
> The 'unborn child' (your term, not mine) doesn't have a point of view.
> It has no consciousness, or even self awareness. Or, at least it
> doesn't during the portion of the pregnancy where abortion is legal.
The consciousness of the unborn child, is irrelevent. When a person is
sleeping or in a coma, he or she is similarly unaware of much of the
world around him or her. People are still people when they are
sleeping or in a coma - and the unborn child is still a person before
he or she is born.
> > > They care most about themselves and their own point of view and their
> > > own sense of morality (and other people who share them) and justifying
> > > their point of view and sense of morality by insisting that everyone
> > > else adhere to them.
>
> > Well, yes, I would like others to adhere to my own sense of morality
> > to a certain extent. But so would you. I'm sure you'll agree with me
> > that murder is wrong. And I'm also pretty sure you'd be willing to
> > lobby to make murder illegal if it was allowed by the state. I'm sure
> > you'd probably also agree that stealing is wrong. And I'm sure you'd
> > be willing to lobby to make stealing illegal if it was allowed by the
> > state.
>
> Anyone else notice that this guy changed the wording? He replaced
> 'insist' with 'would like'.
If you consider that wording to be important, I'll happily change it.
I INSIST that murder be illegal because I know murder to know rape to
be wrong. And I INSIST that abortion be illegal because I know
abortion to be wrong.
> I respect the right of anyone to do anything to make their lives
> better, so long as they don't hurt anyone in the process. A mass of
> cells with no more awareness or separate existence than your appendix
> doesn't qualify as 'anyone'.
An appendix, if left alone to grow naturally, will not become a full
human being so that is a poor example. The fact, though, is that you
do not have a good example. There is no other thing which, if left to
grow naturally, will become a human being. That's because the unborn
baby is not like those other things. The unborn baby is a person.
> > Abortion is the same thing. Those who consider abortion to be okay or
> > even a good thing because it reduces population growth, are happy with
> > the current abortion laws and would campaign to make abortion legal if
> > it was against the law. Those who consider abortion to be wrong are
> > upset by the current laws and are campaigning to make abortion
> > illegal. Neither camp in this debate is more or less imposing their
> > will on the other. It's just that the two sides have conflicting views
> > on the morality of abortion.
>
> Abortion being legal does not affect people who are against abortion.
> If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one. No one is trying to
> force anyone to have an abortion they don't want.
In an abortion, a human being is killed. Granted, it's not me. I'm not
getting an abortion and I'm not getting aborted. But that hardly makes
it any the less horrific an act.
If a man were to make his living killing children in my neighbourhood,
I'd certainly want to put a stop to it. Serial murder is a horrible
crime. Abortion is much the same, except that it seems to enjoy the
sanction of the government.
For now. This too shall pass.
> Abortion being illegal WOULD affect people who are in favor of
> abortion rights. They either wouldn't be able to get one, or they
> would have to get a dangerous illegal one, probably in unsanitary
> conditions.
Good. It should be difficult and dangerous to do illegal things that
cost the lives of innocent human beings. I wouldn't want it to be easy
and safe for someone to find a hired killer to murder people. In the
same way, I don't want it to be easy for women to go out and have
their unborn babies killed.
> Anti-choicers are the ONLY ones in this debate trying to impose their
> will on anyone else.
:-)
Are you kidding?
You started this thread in an obvious attempt to perpetuate your point
of view that abortion is okay. Not only that, but you posted it in a
Roman Catholic newsgroup so as to be sure that the message would be
read by pro-lifers.
You're clearly trying to impose your will on all pro-lifers and ensure
that abortion continues to be legal.
> > > The fundamentalist can not tolerate the idea that they might be wrong.
>
> > Can you tolerate the idea that you may be wrong and that abortion may,
> > in fact, be the killing of an innocent human life?
>
> You keep using that word. How do you define human life? Something with
> human DNA? A cancer tumor has human DNA. Should cancer treatment be
> illegal?
I define a human life the way it has been defined for centuries. When
a baby is growing inside the mother's womb, it is called a baby by
most normal people. Friends do not walk up to an expectant mother and
say, "How's the pregnant woman and the fetus?" or "How is your little
embryo?" In everyday life, people understand that what's in there is a
baby and that if it is left to grow naturally, it will be born and one
day take it's place in society. Even in the courts, there was a case
recently in California where a fetus was acknowledged to have been a
murder victim, clearly implying that the fetus was a human being.
> Notice that pro-choicers don't use that term in this debate.
> Personhood is defined by capacity for consciousness or self awareness.
> The brain of a fetus is simply not yet complex enough to have these
> traits.
The comatose patient in the hospital is also unconscious and unaware
he or she is in a coma. But he or she is still a person. The drunk
sleeping off too many beers in his dorm room is also unaware but he or
she is still a person.
If a certain amount of brain development or activity were crucial for
a person to be considered a human being, then I'm afraid there are
many people alive on earth now who wouldn't qualify.
I don't measure a person's humanity or personhood by their IQ. I don't
know why you do.
> A fetus is not a person. It is a potential person, but still not a
> person.
Why? If a thug punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses
her unborn baby, he will be judged much more harshly than if he just
punched a woman who wasn't pregnant. The law recognizes that the
unborn baby is more than just a bunch of cells. A California court has
decided a fetus can rightly be considered a murder victim. Everywhere
you look, people walk up to pregnant woman and ask them how the baby
is doing. People know intuitively that what's in there is a baby.
How come you don't know it?
> > > Other people living their lives differently and holding different
> > > opinions constantly remind the fundamentalist of the possibility that
> > > they might be wrong, and so other lifestyles and opinions must be
> > > stamped out of existence so that the fundamentalist can rest secure in
> > > the belief that the universe approves of the fundamentalist.
>
> > I find it both amusing and pathetic that someone who is trying to
> > stamp out the opinions of the pro-life position is him or herself
> > complaining that others might do the same thing.
>
> I'm not trying to stamp out anyone's opinions. You are free to believe
> anything you want. We really don't care. We are trying to stop you
> from taking away a much-needed right.
The right to kill innocent human beings is not a much-needed right. It
is an atrocity. Fortunately, the days of legal abortion will come to
an end.
> > > When a fundamentalist learns to recognize the right of other people to
> > > peacefully disagree with the fundamentalist's most tightly held
> > > beliefs, that person ceases to be a fundamentalist.
>
> > Well, Roman Catholics are not fundamentalists. We also recognize the
> > right of other people to disagree with us. But I'm not about to agree
> > to make murder legal simply because a murderer in jail wants to get
> > out and doesn't like the law. I'm also not about to agree to make
> > stealing legal simply because a thief disagrees with the notion of
> > private property. And I'm not about to agree that killing innocent,
> > unborn children should remain legal simply because courts and
> > politicians have caved to lobby groups that demanded that women have
> > the right to kill those children through abortion.
>
> > Abortion is wrong. One day, it will again be illegal.
>
> You still haven't established that abortion is, in fact, murder. You
> have only stated that you believe that it is.
Actually, I don't believe I ever stated abortion was murder. I also
didn't state that I believe abortion to be murder. I stated abortion
was the killing of an innocent unborn child. It is possible, as in the
case of abortion, to kill another human being without it being murder.
It's still wrong. It just isn't murder.
Osprey
"CE" <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185492176.2...@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
BRAVO!!!
Excellent rebuttal and dead on.
Do we not all have "potential" throughout our life?
When a newborn is born, does he or she not have the potential to become a
toddler?
Does a toddler have the potential to become a young child?
Does a young child have the potential to become a young adult?
You see what I'm saying...
Their argument on "potential" is flawed and full of holes.
Don Kresch
<jlri...@gmail.com> let us all know that:
>On Jul 26, 2:50 am, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
>> they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
>> unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
>> who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
>> when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
>> grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
>> solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
>
>This isn't particularly surprising.
>
>We all know we shouldn't steal - but many people who know they
>shouldn't steal will steal and justify it to themselves. Some will say
>a cheap boss wasn't paying what they were worth. Others will claim
>it's okay to cheat on a tax return because it's only the government.
And others say it's ok to lie to a thief. I happen to be one
of those people.
>Are Christians sinners? Sure. Do we fail to uphold our own high moral
>standards? All too often, the answer is yes.
>
>Does that mean those standards aren't worth upholding?
In this case: yes. Your standard is "perfection", which is
utterly impossible, since it's a platonic anti-concept.
>And, yes, even though some pro-life women get abortions, it's still
>wrong to get an abortion and there should be a law against it.
Don't try to enforce your religion on others.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Conspiracy of Doves
> On Jul 26, 7:05 pm, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 5:28 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 26, 6:04 pm, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > How so? Pro-lifers are seeing things from the unborn child's point of
> > > view. That's not a point of view you often hear articulated by those
> > > who support abortion.
>
> > The 'unborn child' (your term, not mine) doesn't have a point of view.
> > It has no consciousness, or even self awareness. Or, at least it
> > doesn't during the portion of the pregnancy where abortion is legal.
>
> The consciousness of the unborn child, is irrelevent. When a person is
> sleeping or in a coma, he or she is similarly unaware of much of the
> world around him or her. People are still people when they are
> sleeping or in a coma - and the unborn child is still a person before
> he or she is born.
Perhaps in the last couple months before birth
As for the coma thing, I'll address that further down.
> > I respect the right of anyone to do anything to make their lives
> > better, so long as they don't hurt anyone in the process. A mass of
> > cells with no more awareness or separate existence than your appendix
> > doesn't qualify as 'anyone'.
>
> An appendix, if left alone to grow naturally, will not become a full
> human being so that is a poor example. The fact, though, is that you
> do not have a good example. There is no other thing which, if left to
> grow naturally, will become a human being. That's because the unborn
> baby is not like those other things. The unborn baby is a person.
And when the fetus becomes a full human, then it should receive
protected status.
> In an abortion, a human being is killed. Granted, it's not me. I'm not
> getting an abortion and I'm not getting aborted. But that hardly makes
> it any the less horrific an act.
Didn't you just say that a fetus WOULD BECOME a human being? Here
you're saying that it IS one. Which is it?
>
> > Anti-choicers are the ONLY ones in this debate trying to impose their
> > will on anyone else.
>
> :-)
>
> Are you kidding?
>
> You started this thread in an obvious attempt to perpetuate your point
> of view that abortion is okay. Not only that, but you posted it in a
> Roman Catholic newsgroup so as to be sure that the message would be
> read by pro-lifers.
>
> You're clearly trying to impose your will on all pro-lifers and ensure
> that abortion continues to be legal.
How is voicing my opinion 'imposing my will' on someone? You seem to
have a strange definition of 'imposing your will'. When I say that, I
mean forcing someone to do something or live a certain way. All I'm
doing is saying what I believe to be right. Yes, I fully admit that I
posted this in a RC newsgroup because I wanted 'pro-lifers' to read
it. But I'm not forcing any of them to read it any more than the
fundies who post in alt.atheism force us to read their posts.
>
> > You keep using that word. How do you define human life? Something with
> > human DNA? A cancer tumor has human DNA. Should cancer treatment be
> > illegal?
>
> I define a human life the way it has been defined for centuries. When
> a baby is growing inside the mother's womb, it is called a baby by
> most normal people.
I find that most people define "Normal People" as anyone who agrees
with them.
The ones that don't usually don't really care two flips about what's
'normal'.
Me? I don't believe that there is any such thing as 'normal'. There's
just people adopting the positions they figure they're supposed to
have.
> Friends do not walk up to an expectant mother and
> say, "How's the pregnant woman and the fetus?" or "How is your little
> embryo?" In everyday life, people understand that what's in there is a
> baby and that if it is left to grow naturally, it will be born and one
> day take it's place in society. Even in the courts, there was a case
> recently in California where a fetus was acknowledged to have been a
> murder victim, clearly implying that the fetus was a human being.
A ruling I disagree with.
> > Notice that pro-choicers don't use that term in this debate.
> > Personhood is defined by capacity for consciousness or self awareness.
> > The brain of a fetus is simply not yet complex enough to have these
> > traits.
>
> The comatose patient in the hospital is also unconscious and unaware
> he or she is in a coma. But he or she is still a person. The drunk
> sleeping off too many beers in his dorm room is also unaware but he or
> she is still a person.
Please note that I said 'capacity' for consciousness or self
awareness. A person who is unconscious, or the average coma patient
still has the capacity for it, which is why it is possible for them to
come out of the coma.
In other medical situations, it is not. For instance Terri Schiavo,
where a third of her brain had liquefied (not a coma).
> If a certain amount of brain development or activity were crucial for
> a person to be considered a human being, then I'm afraid there are
> many people alive on earth now who wouldn't qualify.
I said nothing about being a human being. I was talking about
personhood.
> I don't measure a person's humanity or personhood by their IQ. I don't
> know why you do.
I didn't say anything about IQ or intelligence either.
> > A fetus is not a person. It is a potential person, but still not a
> > person.
>
> Why? If a thug punches a pregnant woman in the stomach and she loses
> her unborn baby, he will be judged much more harshly than if he just
> punched a woman who wasn't pregnant. The law recognizes that the
> unborn baby is more than just a bunch of cells. A California court has
> decided a fetus can rightly be considered a murder victim.
This is not an attitude that the bible agrees with. Exodus 21:22-24
says that if a woman is hit and killed, the man who did it should be
put to death. But if he only causes her to miscarry, then he only has
to pay a fine.
It doesn't matter to me one way or the other what the Bible says, but
I'm betting it means something to you.
> > I'm not trying to stamp out anyone's opinions. You are free to believe
> > anything you want. We really don't care. We are trying to stop you
> > from taking away a much-needed right.
>
> The right to kill innocent human beings is not a much-needed right. It
> is an atrocity.
These aren't human beings that we're talking about. They would
eventually become human beings, but they aren't when the pregnancy is
aborted.
The right of women to control their own bodies (and yes, the fetus is
a part of the woman's body) IS much needed.
> Fortunately, the days of legal abortion will come to
> an end.
No, they won't. Too many people understand how important it is for
women to have the option.
> > > > When a fundamentalist learns to recognize the right of other people to
> > > > peacefully disagree with the fundamentalist's most tightly held
> > > > beliefs, that person ceases to be a fundamentalist.
>
> > > Well, Roman Catholics are not fundamentalists.
A fundamentalist is not determined by their religious denomination.
They are determined by their personal attitudes toward their beliefs,
whether those beliefs are religious, political, or whatever else. It
is possible for two people to attend the exact same church and for one
of them to be a religious fundamentalist and the other not.
>
> > You still haven't established that abortion is, in fact, murder. You
> > have only stated that you believe that it is.
>
> Actually, I don't believe I ever stated abortion was murder. I also
> didn't state that I believe abortion to be murder. I stated abortion
> was the killing of an innocent unborn child. It is possible, as in the
> case of abortion, to kill another human being without it being murder.
> It's still wrong. It just isn't murder.
Ok, then explain exactly why an embryo or fetus, or even a zygote (if
you agree that it should) should have the same protected legal status
as an adult human, and why it is wrong that it doesn't.
Conspiracy of Doves
> In alt.atheism On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:10:12 -0000, CE
>
>
>
> >On Jul 26, 2:50 am, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
> >> they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
> >> unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
> >> who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
> >> when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
> >> grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
> >> solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>
> >>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
>
> >This isn't particularly surprising.
>
> >We all know we shouldn't steal - but many people who know they
> >shouldn't steal will steal and justify it to themselves. Some will say
> >a cheap boss wasn't paying what they were worth. Others will claim
> >it's okay to cheat on a tax return because it's only the government.
>
> And others say it's ok to lie to a thief. I happen to be one
> of those people.
>
> >Are Christians sinners? Sure. Do we fail to uphold our own high moral
> >standards? All too often, the answer is yes.
>
> >Does that mean those standards aren't worth upholding?
>
> In this case: yes. Your standard is "perfection", which is
> utterly impossible, since it's a platonic anti-concept.
As much as I disagree with the anti-choicers, I would watch how you
argue here if I were you.
The ultimate goal of science is to have 'perfect' knowledge of how the
universe operates. That may or may not be possible, but it is still a
journey well worth undertaking. Every step we take fits another piece
into the puzzle.
That said, their standards are nowhere near perfection. They are
merely labeled as such.
That's probably what you meant, but you need to be careful. Some of
these people will believe you meant that Christian standards really
are perfect, or will deliberately ignore the sarcasm of your statement
and twist your words around anyway.
CE
> Don't try to enforce your religion on others.
The conversation wasn't about religion, it was about abortion. Pro-
lifers include people from many different relgions.
Mind you, I'd rather not get into a religious discussion at the moment
since it's off topic. I have no idea why you think it might be
relevent.
CE
> > Actually, I don't believe I ever stated abortion was murder. I also
> > didn't state that I believe abortion to be murder. I stated abortion
> > was the killing of an innocent unborn child. It is possible, as in the
> > case of abortion, to kill another human being without it being murder.
> > It's still wrong. It just isn't murder.
>
> Ok, then explain exactly why an embryo or fetus, or even a zygote (if
> you agree that it should) should have the same protected legal status
> as an adult human, and why it is wrong that it doesn't.
I never said an unborn child should have the same protected legal
status as an adult human being. That would be silly. Why should an
unborn child have the right to vote or get married? The answer is
obviously that an unborn child should not have those rights. The
unborn child should have rights more similar to those of a child than
to those of an adult.
The first right it should have is the right to life itself, a right
commonly recognized in the United States: life, liberty and the
pursuit of happiness.
CE
> On Jul 26, 7:22 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Even in the courts, there was a case
>> recently in California where a fetus was acknowledged to have been a
>> murder victim, clearly implying that the fetus was a human being.
> A ruling I disagree with.
:-) Yes, I'm sure.
I imagine it must make you very uncomfortable as a pro-choicer to see
a judge imply the personhood of unborn children in a court of law.
Liz
<mark...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I nominate the following quote by Conspiracy of Doves for Atheist
Quote of the Month for July.
>The fundamentalist can not tolerate the idea that they might be wrong.
>Other people living their lives differently and holding different
>opinions constantly remind the fundamentalist of the possibility that
>they might be wrong, and so other lifestyles and opinions must be
>stamped out of existence so that the fundamentalist can rest secure in
>the belief that the universe approves of the fundamentalist.
>
>When a fundamentalist learns to recognize the right of other people to
>peacefully disagree with the fundamentalist's most tightly held
>beliefs, that person ceases to be a fundamentalist.
A second is requested.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz
Not at all. Why would you think that?
When there is no clinical evidence of brain function, it is both legal
and acceptable to remove life support from those humans whose
personhood has been clearly established by birth. Personhood doesn't
guarantee that all means to ensure continuation of bodily functions be
maintained. In numerous cases, the vital organs are routinely removed
from a still breathing albeit brain dead person and transplanted into
someone else before life support is removed and the body is left to
die. To be consistent, before the brain is capable of functioning,
indeed before a brain develops, it should be both legal and acceptable
to remove life support (the woman's body) even if the fetus is given
personhood in the limited circumstances of being able to exact greater
punishment for a criminal who has murdered a pregnant woman.
The fact is that such laws offer no protection to a fetus.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz
[---]
>
>The first right it should have is the right to life itself, a right
>commonly recognized in the United States: life, liberty and the
>pursuit of happiness.
Hmmm. If I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, why is it
illegal for me to smoke cigars in taverns? I really enjoy doing that.
Liz #658 BAAWA
CE
> >The first right it should have is the right to life itself, a right
> >commonly recognized in the United States: life, liberty and the
> >pursuit of happiness.
>
> Hmmm. If I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, why is it
> illegal for me to smoke cigars in taverns? I really enjoy doing that.
Glad you asked, Liz. In this case, your right to the pursuit of
happiness would impinge on the other patron's right to life because of
the dangers of second-hand smoke. In a way, this situation is
analogous to a pregnant woman's desire to get an abortion to maintain
the quality of her life without the burdens of being a mother.
If her desire to get an abortion only affected her, it probably would
not be a moral issue even though an unnecessary medical procedure
might be seen as a risk to her health. Since abortion kills the unborn
baby, though, it is very definitely a moral issue because it's a case
of her right to happiness impinging on the right to life of the unborn
baby.
CE
That's an interesting bit of sophistry.
Here's a more practical consideration: as soon as the fetus is
recognized in law as being a person, decent men and women will shudder
at the thought of killing it. The only reason so many women feel
comfortable getting an abortion is because they have been convinced or
have convinced themselves that the unborn baby is not a baby at all,
not a person, but rather just a blob of cells.
As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years, the
public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great that the
laws will have to be changed.
What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
another, innocent human being?
When women get abortions, this is not what they think they are doing.
And if there are any who do know the truth and still get abortions,
well, their lives must be hell afterwards. I don't know how they can
go on afterwards knowing that this is what they have done to their
babies. I can only hope that they believe in a merciful God.
Ben Kaufman
The incredible part was when after her abortion she told the Dr. she thought he
was STILL a murderer. Hey lady, YOU ordered the "hit."
Ben
Martin
If you're an American you might be better off asking "why is it illegal
for me to purchase a decent cigar when I really enjoy smoking them?"
Land of the free? Pah, no American is allowed to purchase a decent smoke
anywhere in the world. What kind of freedom is that.
>
> Liz #658 BAAWA
John Popelish
I second your nomination.
Mike Painter
> That's an interesting bit of sophistry.
>
> Here's a more practical consideration: as soon as the fetus is
> recognized in law as being a person, decent men and women will shudder
> at the thought of killing it. The only reason so many women feel
> comfortable getting an abortion is because they have been convinced or
> have convinced themselves that the unborn baby is not a baby at all,
> not a person, but rather just a blob of cells.
Typical fundie approach. Why should a "decent" person change their mind
becaue something becomes law?
They have learned that a fetus *is* just a blob of cells during the period
when most abortions are performed,
>
> As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
> women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years, the
> public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great that the
> laws will have to be changed.
In other words, don't think about it, just obey the law.
>
> What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
> another, innocent human being?
Ask our government.
>
> When women get abortions, this is not what they think they are doing.
> And if there are any who do know the truth and still get abortions,
> well, their lives must be hell afterwards. I don't know how they can
> go on afterwards knowing that this is what they have done to their
> babies. I can only hope that they believe in a merciful God.
They, for the most part do know the truth, not your idea of it. Many are
bothered but feel that they made the best choice for themselves.
Are you willing to give a pregnant woman the finiancial support she needs to
give a child a reasonable life with shelter, food, clothing, an education,
and medical benefits?
Heck, just sspring for prenatal care, medical insurance and day care while
she works would be enough. Nine hundred dollars or so a month for the day
care, a few hundred for insurance and maybe a bit more so she can have a
nicer place. She can walk to work.
Gwen
> "CE" <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well, your wife had an abortion, and I don't see any of your anti-
choice comrades telling you that she's a baby killer.
CE
> CE wrote:
>
> > That's an interesting bit of sophistry.
> > Here's a more practical consideration: as soon as the fetus is
> > recognized in law as being a person, decent men and women will shudder
> > at the thought of killing it. The only reason so many women feel
> > comfortable getting an abortion is because they have been convinced or
> > have convinced themselves that the unborn baby is not a baby at all,
> > not a person, but rather just a blob of cells.
>
> Typical fundie approach. Why should a "decent" person change their mind
> becaue something becomes law?
That's obvious. Decent people try to obey the law. When they see
judges and politicians and other leaders telling them a fetus isn't a
baby, that influences them. Similarly, when the law of the land
recognizes that a fetus is an unborn baby, a person, and decent people
get that message from judges, politicians and community leaders, this
will influence how they think.
> They have learned that a fetus *is* just a blob of cells during the period
> when most abortions are performed,
You and I are also made of cells. Those cells contain human DNA. If
left alone to grow naturally, we will exhibit characteristics typical
of human beings. And we're considered people.
Unborn babies are also made of cells. Their cells contain human DNA.
If left alone to grow naturally, they will exhibit characteristics
typical of human beings.
Seems to me they're a lot like us, like people. On what basis do you
accept that we, the big blobs of cells, are people while denying the
same status to unborn babies just because they're smaller blobs?
> > As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
> > women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years, the
> > public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great that the
> > laws will have to be changed.
>
> In other words, don't think about it, just obey the law.
On the contrary, the message was: when people realize that unborn
babies are people, they will force a change in the laws.
> > What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
> > another, innocent human being?
>
> Ask our government.
Would that be the people who made abortion legal?
> > When women get abortions, this is not what they think they are doing.
> > And if there are any who do know the truth and still get abortions,
> > well, their lives must be hell afterwards. I don't know how they can
> > go on afterwards knowing that this is what they have done to their
> > babies. I can only hope that they believe in a merciful God.
>
> They, for the most part do know the truth, not your idea of it.
There are no versions to the truth. Either something is true or it
isn't. The fact that you consider it possible that there would be
versions, or ideas of, the truth indicates a serious lack of
understanding of what truth is.
> Many are
> bothered but feel that they made the best choice for themselves.
That's too bad.
> Are you willing to give a pregnant woman the finiancial support she needs to
> give a child a reasonable life with shelter, food, clothing, an education,
> and medical benefits?
Are you telling me that as soon as a woman has a child, she should be
able to kick back and have society pay all the bills for her and her
child? That's absurd.
Women, in case you haven't noticed, have brains and talent and the
ability to do, well, just about anything. I was about to exclude
peeing standing up but someone's come up with a contraption that even
allows women to do this, although why they'd want to beats me.
Anyways, the point is that women are capable of getting themselves
educated, landing good-paying jobs, starting businesses and taking
care of themselves.
That being said, yes, there is a lot of help out there for women who
are pregnant or have just given birth and need help. In addition to
food banks, subsidized housing, tax breaks for lower-income earners,
government programs to help women entrepreneurs launch businesses,
scholarships for women, networking groups for businesswomen,
affirmative action programs to encourage the hiring of women and
minorities, programs to help new mothers learn to care for their
babies and support them, AND second-hand clothing, furniture and toy
stores run by charities, there are also groups out there willing to
take in pregnant women who are considering abortion and cover all of
their costs including food, shelter, clothing and so forth until and
even after the baby has been born. I personally know families that
have done this.
Will that assistance last forever? No. And it shouldn't. As adults,
these women have a responsibility to their children and to themselves
to do what they can to take care of themselves. Subsidizing all
expenses for women simply because they've gotten pregnant would be to
infantilize them and it would serve no useful purpose.
skyeyes
<Snippage>
> Unborn babies are also made of cells. Their cells contain human DNA.
> If left alone to grow naturally, they will exhibit characteristics
> typical of human beings.
>
> Seems to me they're a lot like us, like people. On what basis do you
> accept that we, the big blobs of cells, are people while denying the
> same status to unborn babies just because they're smaller blobs?
Because humans who have been born are CONSCIOUS and SELF-AWARE.
Embryos and fetuses are *not*. That's the difference, idiot.
> > > As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
> > > women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years, the
> > > public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great that the
> > > laws will have to be changed.
>
> > In other words, don't think about it, just obey the law.
>
> On the contrary, the message was: when people realize that unborn
> babies are people, they will force a change in the laws.
Embryos and fetuses are *not* people. They're embryos and fetuses.
They're neither concious nor self-aware and the fact that they might
achieve those states in future really has nothing to do with it.
> > > What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
> > > another, innocent human being?
>
> > Ask our government.
>
> Would that be the people who made abortion legal?
No. That would be the people who invaded Iraq. Nice dodge, though.
> > > When women get abortions, this is not what they think they are doing.
> > > And if there are any who do know the truth and still get abortions,
> > > well, their lives must be hell afterwards. I don't know how they can
> > > go on afterwards knowing that this is what they have done to their
> > > babies. I can only hope that they believe in a merciful God.
>
> > They, for the most part do know the truth, not your idea of it.
>
> There are no versions to the truth. Either something is true or it
> isn't. The fact that you consider it possible that there would be
> versions, or ideas of, the truth indicates a serious lack of
> understanding of what truth is.
Things are not universally black or white, as you like to paint them.
There are an infinite number of shades of gray. Sorry for you if you
can't perceive them. But then, people like you generally tend to be
simple-minded. There are no simple religious answers to human
problems. Get over it.
> > Many are
> > bothered but feel that they made the best choice for themselves.
>
> That's too bad.
And many of us aren't bothered at *all*, but are openly grateful for
the medical providers whose expertise allowed us to chart the course
of our own lives without interruption by unwanted parasites.
> > Are you willing to give a pregnant woman the finiancial support she needs to
> > give a child a reasonable life with shelter, food, clothing, an education,
> > and medical benefits?
>
> Are you telling me that as soon as a woman has a child, she should be
> able to kick back and have society pay all the bills for her and her
> child? That's absurd.
Are you telling me that you can force a woman to give birth who
doesn't want to be pregnant? Who cannot afford the child she's
pregnant with? Who already has as many children as she can reasonably
care for? *That's* absurd.
> Women, in case you haven't noticed, have brains and talent and the
> ability to do, well, just about anything. I was about to exclude
> peeing standing up but someone's come up with a contraption that even
> allows women to do this, although why they'd want to beats me.
> Anyways, the point is that women are capable of getting themselves
> educated, landing good-paying jobs, starting businesses and taking
> care of themselves.
Thank you, I think, but as an actual *woman*, let me crack you across
the head with the clue-bat a few times:
1. Not *all* women have the same capabilities. Not all of us can
profit from higher education, or attain good-paying jobs that would
allow us to have unlimited numbers of children that you'd like us to
have.
2. Not *all* women have the physical or emotional strength or health
to cope with pregnancy, childbirth, or child-rearing.
3. Not *all* women *want* to have children. I'm one of the ones who
doesn't. With precious few exceptions, however, women want normal sex
lives. It is not up to you to tell us that we can't have them unless
we're willing to get pregnant.
4. Not *all* women think that adding more kids to the 6.5 billion
people already on this planet is a good idea. Some of us actually
care about the environment.
> That being said, yes, there is a lot of help out there for women who
> are pregnant or have just given birth and need help.
Giving birth, even in this modern day-and-age, is *still* a dangerous
proposition. Especially in the United States, where maternal
mortality is *way* higher than it is in civilized countries with
decent health care systems. You have no right to force a woman to run
that risk.
Pregnancy robs the woman's blood of iron - and some women never get
over being anemic. Pregnancy robs a woman's bones of calcium.
Pregnancy causes irreversible changes to the female body, many of them
nasty. Not all women are willing to go through a pregnancy and take
on these physical risks.
> In addition to
> food banks, subsidized housing, tax breaks for lower-income earners,
> government programs to help women entrepreneurs launch businesses,
> scholarships for women, networking groups for businesswomen,
> affirmative action programs to encourage the hiring of women and
> minorities, programs to help new mothers learn to care for their
> babies and support them, AND second-hand clothing, furniture and toy
> stores run by charities, there are also groups out there willing to
> take in pregnant women who are considering abortion and cover all of
> their costs including food, shelter, clothing and so forth until and
> even after the baby has been born. I personally know families that
> have done this.
Yeah, but none of that is any help to the woman whose body is
irreversibly damaged by a pregnancy, or who didn't want a child in the
first place. You seem to think that it all boils down to economics,
and that given sufficient economic support, that *all* women will
consent to being pregnant. It's not so, and pretending that it *is*
so is akin to racism - the notion that a particular group of people
are all alike in some way. Women are individuals, and some of us
don't want the least thing to do with pregnancy, childbirth, or
children. Deal with it.
> Will that assistance last forever? No. And it shouldn't. As adults,
> these women have a responsibility to their children and to themselves
> to do what they can to take care of themselves. Subsidizing all
> expenses for women simply because they've gotten pregnant would be to
> infantilize them and it would serve no useful purpose.
Until and unless we have unfettered access to free, failure-proof
birth control with no medical side effects and no religious
interference for every female commencing in childhood, we'll continue
to need abortion services. And we'll continue to have them, one way
or another. Abortions performed in medical establishments are the
safest and best way to safeguard women's lives AND FREEDOMS.
In short, dearie, if you don't like abortion, then don't have one.
But keep your goddamn laws off my body. You have no right to tell me
that I have to carry a pregnancy to term.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
skyeyes
> Because humans who have been born are CONSCIOUS and SELF-AWARE.
> Embryos and fetuses are *not*. That's the difference, idiot.
Of course, self-awareness is not immediately present in newborns. I
believe it takes a couple of years to develop.
Just thought I'd better clarify that thought.
Brenda
elizabeth
> "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
> they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
> unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
> who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
> when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
> grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
> solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
This is no surprise.
This is the same mentality that killed feminism--women will always
sell out other women, so long as other women are treated worse than
they are, they feel better about themselves.
I wish there was some way to have a list of antiabort women, and when
they get one, put their names and pictures on a webpage, forwarding
the info to those psycho antiabort loon sites.
elizabeth
> On Jul 26, 2:50 am, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
> > they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
> > unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
> > who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
> > when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
> > grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
> > solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>
> >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
>
>
> We all know we shouldn't steal - but many people who know they
> shouldn't steal will steal and justify it to themselves. Some will say
> a cheap boss wasn't paying what they were worth. Others will claim
> it's okay to cheat on a tax return because it's only the government.
> okay because they'll appreciate it more than that other person, the
> owner.
>
> My point is that we all sometimes break our own moral standards. We
> know we shouldn't lie, but we'll lie to spare someone's feelings. We
> know we shouldn't the jealous of someone else's success but it just
> burns us up when the person who gets that promotion is THAT person in
> the office who really, really, really doesn't deserve it - according
> to us.
>
> Are Christians sinners? Sure. Do we fail to uphold our own high moral
> standards? All too often, the answer is yes.
>
> answer to that must be no. Even though some people people who know
> it's wrong to steal will still do so, we have laws making it illegal
> to steal. Even though some people who know it's wrong to kill still
> kill in fits of rage, we have laws against murder.
>
> And, yes, even though some pro-life women get abortions, it's still
> wrong to get an abortion and there should be a law against it.
>
> does not invalidate the principle. Stealing is still wrong. Murder is
> still wrong. And abortion is still wrong.
Then why do women keep getting them?
>
> My heart goes out to those pro-life women who, in a moment of
> weakness, decide to get an abortion. The guilt they must feel must be
> overwhelming.
Nope, they feel relief.
*nemo*
John Popelish <jpop...@rica.net> wrote:
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
skyeyes
<Snippage>
> My heart goes out to those pro-life women who, in a moment of
> weakness, decide to get an abortion. The guilt they must feel must be
> overwhelming.
Nope, sorry to bust your bubble, but I've never lost a minute's sleep
over mine. Save your pity for the women who feel forced to give birth
to children they don't want, *they* (and their children) are the ones
suffering.
Frank Mayhar
> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
>> Because humans who have been born are CONSCIOUS and SELF-AWARE. Embryos
>> and fetuses are *not*. That's the difference, idiot.
>
> Of course, self-awareness is not immediately present in newborns. I
> believe it takes a couple of years to develop.
A little less than that, I believe. My 2.5-month-old son certainly
_acts_ like he's self-aware in many ways, even though speech is still far
beyond him.
On the other hand, he certainly was not self-aware immediately after he
was born. Just a little bundle of hardwired behaviors.
--
Frank Mayhar fr...@exit.com http://www.exit.com/
Exit Consulting http://www.gpsclock.com/
http://www.exit.com/blog/frank/
http://www.zazzle.com/fmayhar*
CE
> On Jul 26, 1:10 pm, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <Snippage>
>
> > My heart goes out to those pro-life women who, in a moment of
> > weakness, decide to get an abortion. The guilt they must feel must be
> > overwhelming.
>
> Nope, sorry to bust your bubble, but I've never lost a minute's sleep
> over mine.
Were you a pro-life woman who got an abortion?
CE
> > The failure of some people to hold fast to their own moral principles
> > does not invalidate the principle. Stealing is still wrong. Murder is
> > still wrong. And abortion is still wrong.
>
> Then why do women keep getting them?
Ah, that's a good question. Thank you.
Women keep getting abortions for a number of reasons. First of all,
some women simply do not see the unborn child as a human being. They
would regard what they are doing is no more significant than removing
an appendix or a mole. For that them, then, the reason getting an
abortion could be as serious as being unsure of whether they'll have
enough money to raise a child properly or as insignificant and
superficial as the thought that being pregnant will make them look fat
or prevent them from getting into the clothes they like to wear. Since
they do not regard abortion as a moral issue, it's a relatively simple
decision for them to make.
For most women, I think there's still some doubt as to whether or not
the unborn child is a person and that makes the decision more
difficult. On an intuitive level, they feel their reasons have to be
really good to justify this action even as they allow themselves to
believe the rationalization, the lie, that the unborn child is not
really a human being. For them, an abortion is a serious decision.
A common theme, though, is some degree of desperation: desperation
that a husband or boyfriend will find out about an affair because of
an illegitimate child; desperation that their studies at college or
university or their careers will come to a screeching halt if they
have to give birth to a child; desperation that they won't be able to
feed and care for this child because of a lack of money and
opportunity; desperation that judgmental parents and friends will look
down on them for having a child at a very early age; desperation that
a boyfriend or husband will no longer love them if they don't get the
abortion he thinks she should have. The greater the desperation, the
more likely the woman is to make the decision to abort the unborn
child. In those cases, the decision to get an abortion is made because
of an apparent lack of alternatives and a fear that time will run out
on what seems to be the only available alternative: abortion.
When these women later discover that there were alternatives, they
often feel regret and remorse for what they have done. In other cases,
though, they simply harden their hearts and become even more adamant
that abortion is no big deal because if they were to admit that they
had allowed someone to kill their unborn child, they'd break down with
guilt.
For these women, the message that abortion is wrong or that it is
murder typically makes very little difference in their decision to get
an abortion. This is not because of a lack of morality. It's because
their desperation makes them react emotionally and so any additional
pressure from the pro-life movement in terms of saying, "Abortion is
murder" only adds to the stress and desperation and pushes these women
even more to act emotionally. When these women are instead offered
alternatives, such as financial help to get through hard times,
counselling to learn to deal with the husband or boyfriend or
judgemental relatives, and a safe, secure environment to be able to
share this experience, this birth, they are less likely to choose to
get an abortion.
The more a woman knows beforehand or realizes afterwards that the
unborn child she aborted was a human being, the more likely she seems
to be to suffer guilt and remorse. But desperation makes people do
crazy things.
What the pro-life movement has to do, in addition to explaining the
truth about abortion and unborn children, is offer women the support
they need at the time they are making that decision. Women aren't
children. Once they've gone through the time of crisis, they'll be
able with a bit of help to get back on their feet and pick up their
lives. The important thing is to help them so that they can do this
without losing their children - and also with what may be a new
realization for many of them that they are not alone. There are people
out there who care for them and who want them to be able to succeed in
life and not have to give up their children to do it.
> > My heart goes out to those pro-life women who, in a moment of
> > weakness, decide to get an abortion. The guilt they must feel must be
> > overwhelming.
>
> Nope, they feel relief.
I doubt that but I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Have you got
some sort of study of pro-life women who got abortions and the
feelings they had afterwards?
Osprey
"CE" <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185584198.7...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 27, 7:59 pm, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > The failure of some people to hold fast to their own moral principles
>> > does not invalidate the principle. Stealing is still wrong. Murder is
>> > still wrong. And abortion is still wrong.
>>
>> Then why do women keep getting them?
>
> Ah, that's a good question. Thank you.
>
> Women keep getting abortions for a number of reasons. First of all,
> some women simply do not see the unborn child as a human being. They
> would regard what they are doing is no more significant than removing
> an appendix or a mole. For that them, then, the reason getting an
> abortion could be as serious as being unsure of whether they'll have
> enough money to raise a child properly or as insignificant and
> superficial as the thought that being pregnant will make them look fat
> or prevent them from getting into the clothes they like to wear. Since
> they do not regard abortion as a moral issue, it's a relatively simple
> decision for them to make.
It sounds horrible to say, but it's probably best for the unborn to be
aborted in cases like that.
If a woman can't see her unborn as a human being and have emotional
bonds...can you just imagine what kind of a horrible mother she probably
would be to her child when he or she is born?
There are women who are also pressured into having an abortion, and later
regret it.
CE
<snip>
> Because humans who have been born are CONSCIOUS and SELF-AWARE.
> Embryos and fetuses are *not*.
A person who's in a coma doesn't seem to self-aware or conscious to
me. Neither does a drunk sleeping off a few too many. They're still
people. Being conscious just isn't a criteria for being a human being.
As for self-awareness, well, that's something that comes in degrees,
isn't it? A person who's severely mentally handicapped or mentally ill
isn't necessarily self-aware but is still a person.
> Embryos and fetuses are *not* people. They're embryos and fetuses.
Calling someone by a different word may make you feel better about
what you do with him or her or how you treat him or her but it doesn't
negate the fact that they are a person. It wasn't all that long ago
that African Americans weren't considered to be persons. In Canada,
women weren't considered to be persons under the law. Ask any expert
about the atrocities that have been committed on people who weren't
considered to be human, who weren't considered to be persons. The use
of other words to describe these people made it possible for many
people to mistreat them.
Today, we cringe at the thought that someone would abuse a person
because of his or her skin colour or race or gender. Unfortunately, we
as a society still do commit exactly the same kind of atrocities, the
same kind of abuses, on unborn children. As a society, we have
declared them to not be persons and legalized the killing of them.
<snip>
> And many of us aren't bothered at *all*, but are openly grateful for
> the medical providers whose expertise allowed us to chart the course
> of our own lives without interruption by unwanted parasites.
Listen to yourself. You're calling your own unborn children "unwanted
parasites." Doesn't that tell you something?
<snip>
> 1. Not *all* women have the same capabilities. Not all of us can
> profit from higher education, or attain good-paying jobs that would
> allow us to have unlimited numbers of children that you'd like us to
> have.
The last time I checked, it also takes a man for a woman to get
pregnant. With the man and the woman raising their children, they
should be able between the two of them to take care of their
obligations. I'm also a big fan of men stepping up to the plate and
fulfilling their obligations to their families. I'm not exactly
letting men off the hook here.
> 2. Not *all* women have the physical or emotional strength or health
> to cope with pregnancy, childbirth, or child-rearing.
I'm not sure what that means exactly because the terms you've used are
so vague as to be meaningless. I've known women who were in
wheelchairs who were able to have children.
> 3. Not *all* women *want* to have children. I'm one of the ones who
> doesn't.
I gathered that from your description of children as "unwanted
parasites."
> With precious few exceptions, however, women want normal sex
> lives.
Normal sex includes the possibility of the normal consequences of sex.
A normal consequence of sex is children.
I think what you meant to say is that you want recreational sex
without the normal consequences because you regard children as
"unwanted parasites."
> 4. Not *all* women think that adding more kids to the 6.5 billion
> people already on this planet is a good idea. Some of us actually
> care about the environment.
The most immediate population problem facing the world right now is
the paucity of young people to replace the aging boomers. We don't
currently have an over-population crisis, we have an under-population
crisis. That under-population crisis, by the way, threatens to
destablize the world and plunge us into war which could have
significant environmental impacts.
<snip>
> Giving birth, even in this modern day-and-age, is *still* a dangerous
> proposition. Especially in the United States, where maternal
> mortality is *way* higher than it is in civilized countries with
> decent health care systems.
I fully support the idea of universal health care for the United
States. By all means, let's get better health care for everyone.
<snip>
> Pregnancy robs the woman's blood of iron - and some women never get
> over being anemic.
Iron supplements. Better diet.
> Pregnancy robs a woman's bones of calcium.
Calcium supplements. Better diet.
> Pregnancy causes irreversible changes to the female body, many of them
> nasty.
Such as?
> Not all women are willing to go through a pregnancy and take
> on these physical risks.
Not all men are willing to grow up and become men either. But at some
point, a child has to realize that it's time to grow up. Women aren't
little girls. They're adults. That comes with some responsibilities
and some risks.
> > In addition to
> > food banks, subsidized housing, tax breaks for lower-income earners,
> > government programs to help women entrepreneurs launch businesses,
> > scholarships for women, networking groups for businesswomen,
> > affirmative action programs to encourage the hiring of women and
> > minorities, programs to help new mothers learn to care for their
> > babies and support them, AND second-hand clothing, furniture and toy
> > stores run by charities, there are also groups out there willing to
> > take in pregnant women who are considering abortion and cover all of
> > their costs including food, shelter, clothing and so forth until and
> > even after the baby has been born. I personally know families that
> > have done this.
<snip>
> You seem to think that it all boils down to economics,
> and that given sufficient economic support, that *all* women will
> consent to being pregnant. It's not so, and pretending that it *is*
> so is akin to racism - the notion that a particular group of people
> are all alike in some way. Women are individuals, and some of us
> don't want the least thing to do with pregnancy, childbirth, or
> children. Deal with it.
Oh, I'm fine with women who decide they don't want to have children. I
have a great deal of respect, admiration and appreciation for nuns in
the Roman Catholic church and they don't have children.
I certainly don't think it all boils down to economics. It all comes
down to respecting and cherishing life. And while the life of the
mother-to-be is extremely valuable, so is the life of the unborn baby.
I don't agree with killing one person only to reduce the risk to
another.
<snip>
> Until and unless we have unfettered access to free, failure-proof
> birth control with no medical side effects and no religious
> interference for every female commencing in childhood, we'll continue
> to need abortion services.
I'm happy to be able to provide you with the solution you seek: a 100-
per-cent-effective birth control method with no medical side effects
that comes with no religious interference is now available for any
woman starting right from childhood.
It's called abstinence.
Don't have sex, you won't get pregnant.
Simple. Free. 100-per-cent effective. No religious interference.
Available to all women, everywhere in the world, and suitable for all
ages. Completely free of medical side effects.
You can thank me later.
<snip>
> Abortions performed in medical establishments are the
> safest and best way to safeguard women's lives AND FREEDOMS.
Not if the woman we're talking about is the unborn baby girl who is
being aborted. Think of all the women's lives that were snuffed out
because their mothers chose to abort them.
> In short, dearie, if you don't like abortion, then don't have one.
Deal! I hereby pledge to never get an abortion.
> But keep your goddamn laws off my body.
Sorry, too late. There are many laws already affecting your body.
You're not allowed, for example, to use crack cocaine, heroin,
marijuana, other drugs for recreational purposes. You're not allowed
to jump off a skyscraper in the downtown core of a major city and
plunge to your death. You're not allowed to take a gun and blow your
brains out. You're not allowed to drive at 500 miles an hour strapped
to a rocket down a major highway, even if you don't intend to kill
yourself or others and everyone survices. You're not allowed to sell
your own body parts, a leg or an arm, to a stranger.
Let's face it, this was never about whether or not the government has
the right to tell you what you can do with your body. There are
already many laws that do that. In the military, solidiers don't even
have the right to use their legs and run away from battle and go AWOL.
This issue is much more specific. It's only about whether or not women
have the right to get their unborn babies aborted.
And yes, I do have the right to tell you that that abortion is wrong
and that it should be illegal.
It's called the right of free speech.
I also have the right to lobby my government to make abortion illegal.
And I will exercise those rights.
What's the expression you used? Ah yes ...
Deal with it.
:-)
Liz
>On 27 juil, 08:26, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
>
>> >The first right it should have is the right to life itself, a right
>> >commonly recognized in the United States: life, liberty and the
>> >pursuit of happiness.
>>
>> Hmmm. If I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, why is it
>> illegal for me to smoke cigars in taverns? I really enjoy doing that.
>
>Glad you asked, Liz. In this case, your right to the pursuit of
>happiness would impinge on the other patron's right to life because of
>the dangers of second-hand smoke.
So, you agree that these rights are not absolute. Good. No one has
the absolute right to life, the absolute right to liberty, nor the
absolute right to pursue happiness.
>In a way, this situation is
>analogous to a pregnant woman's desire to get an abortion to maintain
>the quality of her life without the burdens of being a mother.
Or for any and all other reasons.
>If her desire to get an abortion only affected her, it probably would
>not be a moral issue
It is not a moral issue.
>even though an unnecessary medical procedure
>might be seen as a risk to her health.
Pregnancy is more dangerous than abortion.
>Since abortion kills the unborn
>baby, though, it is very definitely a moral issue because it's a case
>of her right to happiness impinging on the right to life of the unborn
>baby.
On the contrary as you agreed the above rights are not absolute, and
the pregnancy is impinging upon the physical health and the emotional
well being of the only person in question. The fetus has no rights
that countermand the rights of another person . . . in this case, the
woman who is perfectly within her right to choose whether or not she
will allow her body to be used for the benefit of another.
Liz #658 BAAWA
Liz
You declare it sophistry, but fail to demonstrate why.
>
>Here's a more practical consideration: as soon as the fetus is
>recognized in law as being a person, decent men and women will shudder
>at the thought of killing it. The only reason so many women feel
>comfortable getting an abortion is because they have been convinced or
>have convinced themselves that the unborn baby is not a baby at all,
>not a person, but rather just a blob of cells.
What planet are you living on? Personhood has never protected anyone.
It doesn't protect people from accidents. It doesn't protect soldiers
or bystanding civilians from being killed by guns or IEDs. It doesn't
protect women who are beaten to death by their loving husbands or
boyfriends. Personhood merely prescribes penalties if someone
violates a law against such person.
>As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
>women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years, the
>public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great that the
>laws will have to be changed.
Mere redefinition changes nothing. If abortion is still legal,
personhood will not change a thing. Every woman of at least ordinary
intelligence knows that the normal result of a pregnancy is a birth.
Whether the result of that birth is normal is another question
entirely. However, it isn't ignorance that allows women to get
abortions. The decision is made for highly personal, physical,
financial, and/or emotional reasons. She doesn't want a child, she
doesn't want a child now, or she doesn't want the child of the sperm
donor.
>
>What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
>another, innocent human being?
It's done all the time by normal human beings, not monsters. Military
troops have the chance of doing that every time they discharge a
weapon or a drop a bomb. Doctors remove life support every day. Some
religious people refuse to get medical treatment for their children so
they die from easily treatable conditions such as appendicitis or an
abscessed tooth. And these are real persons that die rather than just
"defined" persons.
>When women get abortions, this is not what they think they are doing.
>And if there are any who do know the truth and still get abortions,
>well, their lives must be hell afterwards. I don't know how they can
>go on afterwards knowing that this is what they have done to their
>babies. I can only hope that they believe in a merciful God.
They do know -- even those religious women who think their abortion is
somehow different and justifiable within their pro-life viewpoint.
Very few women have emotional problems after an abortion because they
had already determined that an abortion is the best choice for them
under their given circumstances. And it usually is.
You can keep your merciful GodŠ for those who actually need mercy.
Liz #658 BAAWA
CE
> So, you agree that these rights are not absolute. Good. No one has
> the absolute right to life
Liz, this was never in dispute. I fully accept that police, for
example, have the right to use all reasonable, necessary force to
bring a serial killer who poses a real and immediate threat to the
life of someone to justice. In the case of an invasion by another
country where the lives of innocents are at stake, I also accept that
a country has the right and obligation to defend its citizenry by use
of military force. A guiding principle behind thes actions is to take
the course that results in the least amount of loss of life. An
objective is to preserve the right to life of as many people as
possible.
> >Since abortion kills the unborn
> >baby, though, it is very definitely a moral issue because it's a case
> >of her right to happiness impinging on the right to life of the unborn
> >baby.
>
> On the contrary as you agreed the above rights are not absolute, and
> the pregnancy is impinging upon the physical health and the emotional
> well being of the only person in question. The fetus has no rights
> that countermand the rights of another person . . . in this case, the
> woman who is perfectly within her right to choose whether or not she
> will allow her body to be used for the benefit of another.
If the unborn child were not a person and this could be demonstrated
beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would accept your position. However, it
is entirely reasonable to suppose that the unborn child is a human
being since it has human DNA, is growing and will, if it is allowed to
grow naturally, become a fully independent human being - or, at least,
to the extent that any of us are independent.
Since there are reasonable grounds to suppose the unborn child is a
human being, it is unacceptable to kill him or her simply to reduce a
risk to the mother.
CE
> Personhood has never protected anyone.
> It doesn't protect people from accidents.
We're not talking about accidents here. A miscarriage might be an
accident, an abortion is a planned act.
> It doesn't protect soldiers
> or bystanding civilians from being killed by guns or IEDs. It doesn't
> protect women who are beaten to death by their loving husbands or
> boyfriends. Personhood merely prescribes penalties if someone
> violates a law against such person.
If people lived their lives only trying to avoid penalties, you might
be correct. But that's not how people live their lives. People
recognize value in others and don't kill them or hurt them because
they see value in them as people. Children love their mothers, and
mothers love their children. It's not a question of simply acting in
such a way as to avoid being caught doing something wrong by the
police or government social welfare agents.
When people recognize others as persons, they treat them differently
than if they considered them to be animals or property.
> >As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
> >women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years, the
> >public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great that the
> >laws will have to be changed.
>
> Mere redefinition changes nothing. If abortion is still legal,
> personhood will not change a thing. Every woman of at least ordinary
> intelligence knows that the normal result of a pregnancy is a birth.
> Whether the result of that birth is normal is another question
> entirely. However, it isn't ignorance that allows women to get
> abortions. The decision is made for highly personal, physical,
> financial, and/or emotional reasons. She doesn't want a child, she
> doesn't want a child now, or she doesn't want the child of the sperm
> donor.
I'm not surprised you'd call the father of the child a "sperm donor."
In fact, I'm pleased. It's a perfect example of the kind of alienation
in human relationships that arises as a result of the acceptance of
abortion and a strictly utilitarian view of human beings.
In healthy relationships, Liz, the father of the child is not just a
"sperm donor" and the unborn child is just that, a child, not just an
embryo or fetus to be tossed into the trash. Earlier in this thread,
one poster called the unborn child an "unwanted parasite."
When you go down the road of accepting abortion, you're also accepting
the idea of the disposability of human beings. It's a pretty cold
approach to human relationships.
> >What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
> >another, innocent human being?
> It's done all the time by normal human beings, not monsters.
What makes you think that a person who kills innocent human beings
isn't a monster? Look at our horror movies. The serial killer who
preys on innocent children is the very definition of a monster.
> Military
> troops have the chance of doing that every time they discharge a
> weapon or a drop a bomb.
And this is why all wars must meet stringent criteria to determine if
they are just wars. If that same criteria is applied to abortion, it's
clear that abortion is wrong.
> Doctors remove life support every day.
This is something they should not do. I do not support those actions.
I do note, however, that the doctor is not actively killing an
innocent human being. He is letting an innocent human being die. There
is a distinction.
> Some
> religious people refuse to get medical treatment for their children so
> they die from easily treatable conditions such as appendicitis or an
> abscessed tooth.
In those cases, the law should remove the children from the parents'
custody and have the children treated. The religious belief should not
be allowed to prevent the care of the children. In this case too, the
parents are not actively killing an innocent human being but rather
letting that person die.
By the way, I wasn't aware a person could die from an abscessed tooth.
> And these are real persons that die rather than just
> "defined" persons.
These are horrific situations. They are not the same as the active
killing of an innocent human being in an abortion but I also oppose
these other situations, with the possible exception of the military
action, since they impinge on a person's right to life. The military
action would have to be examined using the criteria for a just war.
> You can keep your merciful God for those who actually need mercy.
We all need God's mercy, Liz. Some of us just don't know it.
The Real Diddy Pop
> "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185429013.0...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
> > they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
> > unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
> > who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
> > when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
> > grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
> > solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
> >http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
>
> From the cited article:
>
> "Many anti-choice women are convinced that their need for abortion is
> unique - not like those "other" women - even though they have abortions for
> the same sorts of reasons."
>
> In fact, Guttmacher reports that "forty-three percent of women obtaining
> abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 27% as Catholic."http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
>
> Just another example of "Do as I say, not as I do."
Keep on rationalizing murder...
Martin
> Since there are reasonable grounds to suppose the unborn child is a
> human being, it is unacceptable to kill him or her simply to reduce a
> risk to the mother.
When are you going to donate your kidney, half your liver, an eye to
someone who needs them to live more than you do?
>
Martin
> Mere redefinition changes nothing. If abortion is still legal,
> personhood will not change a thing. Every woman of at least ordinary
> intelligence knows that the normal result of a pregnancy is a birth.
I don't believe that, I believe the 'bormal' result of pregnancy is an
abortion.
Now we have a very strange situation, ever woman, every month would have
to have a pregnancy test to determine if indeed she's pregnant. Should a
baby not be produced, or the pregnancy end, then there will have to be a
full scale murder investigation by the police to determine whether or
not an illegal abotificant was used.
Then there is the issue (pun intended) of charging the mother with
man-slaughter (or murder?) if she was deamed to ne negligent in anyway.
Let's say she falls off a motor bike. Once a fetus has been reclassified
as a 'person' then all sorts of implications are in place. The woman
would have to stop driving, not ride a bike - or motor bike, not go up
ladders in case of a fall, it would be illegal to eat many brands of
chease, you'd have to have your pet cat put down.
Women wouldn't be able to drive, it's illegal in most places to have two
people sitting behind the steering wheel - never mind the charge of
man-slaughter in the event of an accident.
And all this applies as soon as there is a +ve test result for pregnancy.
There would be some benefits, a new state funded building programme
would be in place for the prisons needed, mass employment for the
testers going round once a month, a vastly increased police force to
investigate all these potential crimes ...
you get the picture.
Davej
> On Jul 26, 6:04 pm, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > [...]
> > There was a great line in that article: "When a woman expands her need
> > for care beyond herself, you no longer have an 'anti'."
>
> And when a woman - or a man - expands their need to care for others
> even more to include the unborn children of the world, you then have a
> pro-lifer.
Yeah, and I think the unborn should be sent to fight overseas.
Martin
> On Jul 28, 12:01 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Personhood has never protected anyone.
>> It doesn't protect people from accidents.
>
> We're not talking about accidents here. A miscarriage might be an
> accident, an abortion is a planned act.
Are you too stupid to realise that _every_ misscarriage would have to
have a police investigation in order to determine whether or not it was
an illegal abortion?
Where does it end?
What if the miscarriage was caused by ingesting an abotificant? Or
caused by eating chease known to be susceptible to bacteria that carry a
risk of being an abortificant?
If you say ingesting an abortificant which brings in a misscarriange is
ok, then why isn't it ok to ingest one specifically designed to do the
job? If that's ok then why not allow medical procedures as well?
And before you say "that's not what I mean" these questions are going to
have to be answered! When is an abortificant not an abortificant? Are
you proposing to have a list of plants and foods that is illegal for a
pregnant woman (who might not even know she is pregnant remember) to be
allowed to eat?
CE
Ah, it's the hammer-and-gun bit of sophistry.
When countries propose to ban guns or regulate them, one of the things
that's pointed out is that many, many things can be used as a weapon,
not just guns. The argument goes like this: "If you ban guns because
they can be deadly weapons, you'll have to ban hammers too because
they can be used to kill someone just as much as a gun can. Where does
it end? Are you going to ban ball-point pens next because they can be
used to stab someone in the throat?!!!"
Clearly, that's nonsense. A country bans the most common or likely
route of access to the offensive thing. In the case of weapons, a
country might ban or regulate guns and, say, knives of a certain
length.
In the case of abortion, the country would ban abortions as we
commonly think of them with a doctor and/or nurse in a clinical
setting, the "morning after" abortion pill, and the use of otherwise
legal and available substances for the purposes of inducing an
abortion. Would that catch everyone? Probably not. Would there still
be abortions? Likely there would be some. And some people may wind up
aborting their unborn children by mistake through exposure to
environmental factors. Obviously, these cases would be up to the
government to investigate or the courts, much as is the case with
child abuse now.
Gwen
> "CE" <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Your wife wasn't one of them. So stop your nonsense.
Mark K. Bilbo
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:34:49 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
>
>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Because humans who have been born are CONSCIOUS and SELF-AWARE.
>>> Embryos and fetuses are *not*. That's the difference, idiot.
>>
>> Of course, self-awareness is not immediately present in newborns. I
>> believe it takes a couple of years to develop.
>
> A little less than that, I believe. My 2.5-month-old son certainly
> _acts_ like he's self-aware in many ways, even though speech is still
> far beyond him.
"In many ways". After all, it's a process, not something that happens all
at once. And I'm of the (tentative) position that "critical mass" is at
language acquisition.
"Self-aware" is a funny concept anyway. Many animals are aware of *self*.
That's not what sets us apart (to the degree such can be said about us at
all).
I would posit the hallmark of being *human* is language. Not that other
animals don't communicate but that we've taken the idea of a
representational system much, much further than any other species.
It's also interesting that based on our development (particularly the
brain), our gestation period should actually be 21 months. A human child
is "premature" until about one year old.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace
alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing
it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
- H. L. Mencken
Gwen
I'm a Pro-Choice woman and a mother.
Christopher A.Lee
<gm...@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:53:42 -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:34:49 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because humans who have been born are CONSCIOUS and SELF-AWARE.
>>>> Embryos and fetuses are *not*. That's the difference, idiot.
>>>
>>> Of course, self-awareness is not immediately present in newborns. I
>>> believe it takes a couple of years to develop.
>>
>> A little less than that, I believe. My 2.5-month-old son certainly
>> _acts_ like he's self-aware in many ways, even though speech is still
>> far beyond him.
>
>"In many ways". After all, it's a process, not something that happens all
>at once. And I'm of the (tentative) position that "critical mass" is at
>language acquisition.
Yes. We're born a heck of a lot less developed than most other
species, due to the size of the cranium and brain. Development that
happens in the womb in other animals, happens after birth, with the
brain's software being implanted by the parents and others.
Compare the pain of a human mother with the ecstasy of purring in a
female cat giving birth to kittens. This is for two reasons: the size
of the skull and the right angle in the birth canal due to the
transition from quadruped to biped.
CE
> Then there is the issue (pun intended) of charging the mother with
> man-slaughter (or murder?) if she was deamed to ne negligent in anyway.
> Let's say she falls off a motor bike. Once a fetus has been reclassified
> as a 'person' then all sorts of implications are in place. The woman
> would have to stop driving, not ride a bike - or motor bike, not go up
> ladders in case of a fall, it would be illegal to eat many brands of
> chease, you'd have to have your pet cat put down.
>
> Women wouldn't be able to drive, it's illegal in most places to have two
> people sitting behind the steering wheel - never mind the charge of
> man-slaughter in the event of an accident.
>
> And all this applies as soon as there is a +ve test result for pregnancy.
In an attempt to make something look silly, some people will try to
toss out all normal common sense. There are things we do now to
protect our children when we drive. Even though an infant of six
months is allowed to be in a car with a proper child safety seat, for
example, you're suggesting an unborn baby would not be allowed in a
car because of the risk of death or injury. And you're using that
highly unlikely scenario to suggest that this means pregnant women
wouldn't be allowed to drive if abortion were made illegal.
But that's nonsense. The way we normally operate in our society is to
risk to acceptable safety levels and it seems very likely and only
reasonable that the same approach would be applied to pregnant women
and their unborn children should these unborn children be recognized
as persons.
You use the example of ladders. Again, that's just being ridiculous.
There's a world of difference between a two-foot stepladder to reach a
can of paint or beans off a shelf, or a properly-secured and safe
stepladder to paint the hallway of a house, and a 300-foot long ladder
up the side of a utility shaft in a highrise tower.
In our everyday lives, we already recognize the need for appropriate
safety measures and they don't usually come with absolutes. While it's
perfectly legal for people to ride elevators, for example, only
workers on a construction site or properly-accompanied visitors
wearing appropriate safety equipment can ride in a temporary
construction elevator at the site of a new highrise tower.
Would there be implications of recognizing unborn children as people?
Sure there would. They would no longer be butchered in abortion
clinics and, yes, there would perhaps be more care taken of them.
There could be cases of criminal negligence or homocide of unborn
babies. That's a good thing.
june...@btinternet.com
>On Jul 27, 7:14 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
[snip]
>> Pregnancy robs the woman's blood of iron - and some women never get
>> over being anemic.
>
>Iron supplements. Better diet.
You going to pay for them?
>> Pregnancy robs a woman's bones of calcium.
>
>Calcium supplements. Better diet.
Again, are you going to pay for them?
>> Pregnancy causes irreversible changes to the female body, many of them
>> nasty.
>
>Such as?
Hiatus hernia, where the stomach is pushed above the diaphragm, where
it remains (surgery has less than a 50% success rate), causing acid
reflux, which leads to a condition called Barrett's Oesophagus. In
this condition the cells of the oesophagus try to turn themselves into
stomach lining cells in order to cope with the acid, but there is a
great danger that these attempts at changing become cancerous instead,
so endoscopies have to be performed every year to check on the
condition. There are medications available to suppress the acid,
which have to be taken for the rest of one's life, but all have some
unpleasant side effects. How do I know? I've got the condition - a
direct result of my last pregnancy.
There are many other permanent adverse effects of pregnancy and
childbirth:
Death
Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
Pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged
former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers,
associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and
reduced quality of life)
Scarring from episiotomy or c-section
Increased proclivity for haemorrhoids
Loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Embolism
>> Not all women are willing to go through a pregnancy and take
>> on these physical risks.
>
>Not all men are willing to grow up and become men either. But at some
>point, a child has to realize that it's time to grow up. Women aren't
>little girls. They're adults. That comes with some responsibilities
>and some risks.
You're right - and sometimes it's the responsible thing to do to avoid
taking risks. A pertinent example that comes to mind is where a woman
already has several children and another pregnancy would put her
health and even her life at risk. Her responsibility is to her
existing children and she shouldn't be taking risks.
>> > In addition to
>> > food banks, subsidized housing, tax breaks for lower-income earners,
>> > government programs to help women entrepreneurs launch businesses,
>> > scholarships for women, networking groups for businesswomen,
>> > affirmative action programs to encourage the hiring of women and
>> > minorities, programs to help new mothers learn to care for their
>> > babies and support them, AND second-hand clothing, furniture and toy
>> > stores run by charities, there are also groups out there willing to
>> > take in pregnant women who are considering abortion and cover all of
>> > their costs including food, shelter, clothing and so forth until and
>> > even after the baby has been born. I personally know families that
>> > have done this.
>
>
><snip>
>
>> You seem to think that it all boils down to economics,
>> and that given sufficient economic support, that *all* women will
>> consent to being pregnant. It's not so, and pretending that it *is*
>> so is akin to racism - the notion that a particular group of people
>> are all alike in some way. Women are individuals, and some of us
>> don't want the least thing to do with pregnancy, childbirth, or
>> children. Deal with it.
>
>Oh, I'm fine with women who decide they don't want to have children. I
>have a great deal of respect, admiration and appreciation for nuns in
>the Roman Catholic church and they don't have children.
You only respect them because they don't have sex.
>I certainly don't think it all boils down to economics. It all comes
>down to respecting and cherishing life. And while the life of the
>mother-to-be is extremely valuable, so is the life of the unborn baby.
>I don't agree with killing one person only to reduce the risk to
>another.
Sure you do - you'd opt for the woman dying in order to give the
foetus a better chance.
><snip>
>
>> Until and unless we have unfettered access to free, failure-proof
>> birth control with no medical side effects and no religious
>> interference for every female commencing in childhood, we'll continue
>> to need abortion services.
>
>I'm happy to be able to provide you with the solution you seek: a 100-
>per-cent-effective birth control method with no medical side effects
>that comes with no religious interference is now available for any
>woman starting right from childhood.
>
>It's called abstinence.
>
>Don't have sex, you won't get pregnant.
>
>Simple. Free. 100-per-cent effective. No religious interference.
>Available to all women, everywhere in the world, and suitable for all
>ages. Completely free of medical side effects.
>
>You can thank me later.
I wonder how many husbands would thank you.
><snip>
>
>> Abortions performed in medical establishments are the
>> safest and best way to safeguard women's lives AND FREEDOMS.
>
>Not if the woman we're talking about is the unborn baby girl who is
>being aborted. Think of all the women's lives that were snuffed out
>because their mothers chose to abort them.
Yes, and think of all those babies that I could have had if I'd had
sex with Johnny Depp or Gary Oldman or 3 billion other guys! Every
woman in the world could say the same thing and there you have it:
countless billions of people denied the chance of life. Think also of
all the miscarriages that happen, and the millions of spontaneous
abortions, which end up on the tampons of every sexually active woman
in the world. You think that women are lied to when such things are
referred to as 'blobs of cells', but women know from first-hand
experience that that is exactly what they are in the early stages, and
those who try to tell women that they've killed a human being have an
agenda of their own.
>> In short, dearie, if you don't like abortion, then don't have one.
>
>Deal! I hereby pledge to never get an abortion.
>
>> But keep your goddamn laws off my body.
>
>Sorry, too late. There are many laws already affecting your body.
>
>You're not allowed, for example, to use crack cocaine, heroin,
>marijuana, other drugs for recreational purposes. You're not allowed
>to jump off a skyscraper in the downtown core of a major city and
>plunge to your death. You're not allowed to take a gun and blow your
>brains out.
What's anyone going to do about it if you do?
You're not allowed to drive at 500 miles an hour strapped
>to a rocket down a major highway, even if you don't intend to kill
>yourself or others and everyone survices. You're not allowed to sell
>your own body parts, a leg or an arm, to a stranger.
These apply to men as well as women. Forcing unwilling women to use
their bodies as incubators is more like forcing people to part with a
kidney against their will.
>Let's face it, this was never about whether or not the government has
>the right to tell you what you can do with your body. There are
>already many laws that do that. In the military, solidiers don't even
>have the right to use their legs and run away from battle and go AWOL.
They've taken an oath; pregnant women haven't.
>This issue is much more specific. It's only about whether or not women
>have the right to get their unborn babies aborted.
>
>And yes, I do have the right to tell you that that abortion is wrong
>and that it should be illegal.
>
>It's called the right of free speech.
>
>I also have the right to lobby my government to make abortion illegal.
>
>And I will exercise those rights.
>
>What's the expression you used? Ah yes ...
>
>Deal with it.
>
>:-)
We'll deal with it. In the meantime, abortion is legal, so you deal
with that.
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/june...@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
Frank Mayhar
> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:53:42 -0700, Frank Mayhar wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:34:49 -0700, skyeyes wrote:
>>
>>> On Jul 27, 3:14 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because humans who have been born are CONSCIOUS and SELF-AWARE.
>>>> Embryos and fetuses are *not*. That's the difference, idiot.
>>>
>>> Of course, self-awareness is not immediately present in newborns. I
>>> believe it takes a couple of years to develop.
>>
>> A little less than that, I believe. My 2.5-month-old son certainly
>> _acts_ like he's self-aware in many ways, even though speech is still
>> far beyond him.
>
> "In many ways". After all, it's a process, not something that happens
> all at once. And I'm of the (tentative) position that "critical mass" is
> at language acquisition.
Indeed, it is a process. He started language acquisition from the first
month of his life and these days he babbles a _lot_. (In fact, I suspect
that he's a trifle precocious in this respect.) This morning I was
slowly waking up when he got my attention with a loud "gaga!" And then
was just _delighted_ when it actually worked and I came over to him.
I believe that it's really going to be a matter of babble slowly turning
into words until at some point the babble will have (mostly) disappeared
and he'll actually be speaking. It's definitely a gradual thing and very
reflective of the neurological changes that are happening at a furious
rate right about now.
> "Self-aware" is a funny concept anyway. Many animals are aware of
> *self*. That's not what sets us apart (to the degree such can be said
> about us at all).
> I would posit the hallmark of being *human* is language. Not that other
> animals don't communicate but that we've taken the idea of a
> representational system much, much further than any other species.
At the same time, we're still on the continuum that we share with
chimpanzees and gorillas, not to mention dogs, pigs and raccoons. It's
not a matter of kind but merely of degree.
> It's also interesting that based on our development (particularly the
> brain), our gestation period should actually be 21 months. A human child
> is "premature" until about one year old.
Yep. A compromise between being developed enough to survive and not
being so far along that both mother and child die in childbirth. Which
compromise, in point of fact, we've kind of short-circuited with things
like cesarean section and other medical procedures. We were still
adapting to having big brains when those big brains suspended that
process.
Walter Bushell
CE <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> How so? Pro-lifers are seeing things from the unborn child's point of
> view. That's not a point of view you often hear articulated by those
> who support abortion.
A fetus has _no_ point of view, in the sense that an adult woman or
adolescent girl does, or even in the sense a two year old child has. In
fact some birds have more of a point of view than a fetus.
Walter Bushell
Martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Are you too stupid to realise that _every_ misscarriage would have to
> have a police investigation in order to determine whether or not it was
> an illegal abortion?
>
> Where does it end?
Most miscarriages, as I understand, are not even noticed. It's like the
woman realizes she missed a period.
God probably makes more miscarriages than we do abortions.
Walter Bushell
CE <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unborn babies are also made of cells. Their cells contain human DNA.
> If left alone to grow naturally, they will exhibit characteristics
> typical of human beings.
No, they need massive inputs from a society around them, and the way
their brain develops is dependent on that society. Human beings are as
much a product of social interaction as biology
CE
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 02:04:46 -0000, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 27, 7:14 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> Pregnancy robs the woman's blood of iron - and some women never get
> >> over being anemic.
>
> >Iron supplements. Better diet.
>
> You going to pay for them?
Why should I?
>
> >> Pregnancy robs a woman's bones of calcium.
>
> >Calcium supplements. Better diet.
>
> Again, are you going to pay for them?
Again, why should I?
>
> >> Pregnancy causes irreversible changes to the female body, many of them
> >> nasty.
>
> >Such as?
>
> Hiatus hernia, where the stomach is pushed above the diaphragm, where
> it remains (surgery has less than a 50% success rate), causing acid
> reflux, which leads to a condition called Barrett's Oesophagus. In
> this condition the cells of the oesophagus try to turn themselves into
> stomach lining cells in order to cope with the acid, but there is a
> great danger that these attempts at changing become cancerous instead,
> so endoscopies have to be performed every year to check on the
> condition. There are medications available to suppress the acid,
> which have to be taken for the rest of one's life, but all have some
> unpleasant side effects. How do I know? I've got the condition - a
> direct result of my last pregnancy.
A rare situation.
> There are many other permanent adverse effects of pregnancy and
> childbirth:
> Death
But also life.
> Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
But growth of love and tenderness in the form of the mother-child
bond.
> Pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged
> former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers,
> associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and
> reduced quality of life)
Ah, never heard of it. Is pregnancy the direct cause of this or are
you statistics like saying, "100 per cent of people who eat ice cream
will die, therefore ice cream is dangerous" ?
> Scarring from episiotomy or c-section
A very minor and completely insignificant consequence.
> Increased proclivity for haemorrhoids
And so is aging a factor.
> Loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Take calcium supplements and eat well.
<snip nonsensical blathering>
>> Not all women are willing to go through a pregnancy and take
> >> on these physical risks.
>
> >Not all men are willing to grow up and become men either. But at some
> >point, a child has to realize that it's time to grow up. Women aren't
> >little girls. They're adults. That comes with some responsibilities
> >and some risks.
>
> You're right - and sometimes it's the responsible thing to do to avoid
> taking risks.
Right! Try abstinence.
> A pertinent example that comes to mind is where a woman
> already has several children and another pregnancy would put her
> health and even her life at risk. Her responsibility is to her
> existing children and she shouldn't be taking risks.
We all take some risks every day. It's called life. The only people
who no longer take risks are the dead, but it's a condition I'm not in
a hurry to explore.
>
> >> > In addition to
> >> > food banks, subsidized housing, tax breaks for lower-income earners,
> >> > government programs to help women entrepreneurs launch businesses,
> >> > scholarships for women, networking groups for businesswomen,
> >> > affirmative action programs to encourage the hiring of women and
> >> > minorities, programs to help new mothers learn to care for their
> >> > babies and support them, AND second-hand clothing, furniture and toy
> >> > stores run by charities, there are also groups out there willing to
> >> > take in pregnant women who are considering abortion and cover all of
> >> > their costs including food, shelter, clothing and so forth until and
> >> > even after the baby has been born. I personally know families that
> >> > have done this.
>
> ><snip>
>
> >> You seem to think that it all boils down to economics,
> >> and that given sufficient economic support, that *all* women will
> >> consent to being pregnant. It's not so, and pretending that it *is*
> >> so is akin to racism - the notion that a particular group of people
> >> are all alike in some way. Women are individuals, and some of us
> >> don't want the least thing to do with pregnancy, childbirth, or
> >> children. Deal with it.
>
> >Oh, I'm fine with women who decide they don't want to have children. I
> >have a great deal of respect, admiration and appreciation for nuns in
> >the Roman Catholic church and they don't have children.
>
> You only respect them because they don't have sex.
No, I respect them AND they don't have sex. I also respect some women
who have sex but are adult enough and woman enough to accept the
consequences of their actions.
> >I certainly don't think it all boils down to economics. It all comes
> >down to respecting and cherishing life. And while the life of the
> >mother-to-be is extremely valuable, so is the life of the unborn baby.
> >I don't agree with killing one person only to reduce the risk to
> >another.
>
> Sure you do - you'd opt for the woman dying in order to give the
> foetus a better chance.
In the case of abortion, we're not talking about giving the unborn
child a better chance. We're talking about either letting the unborn
child live or butchering it. That's not improving the odds. That's
life and death. There's a difference between the two.
> ><snip>
>
> >> Until and unless we have unfettered access to free, failure-proof
> >> birth control with no medical side effects and no religious
> >> interference for every female commencing in childhood, we'll continue
> >> to need abortion services.
>
> >I'm happy to be able to provide you with the solution you seek: a 100-
> >per-cent-effective birth control method with no medical side effects
> >that comes with no religious interference is now available for any
> >woman starting right from childhood.
>
> >It's called abstinence.
>
> >Don't have sex, you won't get pregnant.
>
> >Simple. Free. 100-per-cent effective. No religious interference.
> >Available to all women, everywhere in the world, and suitable for all
> >ages. Completely free of medical side effects.
>
> >You can thank me later.
>
> I wonder how many husbands would thank you.
You might be surprised. Sure, these guys will want to have sex. But
they may also be pleasantly surprised to see their wives acting as
adults and taking responsibility for their actions.
> ><snip>
>
> >> Abortions performed in medical establishments are the
> >> safest and best way to safeguard women's lives AND FREEDOMS.
>
> >Not if the woman we're talking about is the unborn baby girl who is
> >being aborted. Think of all the women's lives that were snuffed out
> >because their mothers chose to abort them.
>
> Yes, and think of all those babies that I could have had if I'd had
> sex with Johnny Depp or Gary Oldman or 3 billion other guys! Every
> woman in the world could say the same thing and there you have it:
> countless billions of people denied the chance of life. Think also of
> all the miscarriages that happen, and the millions of spontaneous
> abortions, which end up on the tampons of every sexually active woman
> in the world. You think that women are lied to when such things are
> referred to as 'blobs of cells', but women know from first-hand
> experience that that is exactly what they are in the early stages, and
> those who try to tell women that they've killed a human being have an
> agenda of their own.
Now you're just ranting. If you want to have sex with three billion
guys, be my guest. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.
> >> In short, dearie, if you don't like abortion, then don't have one.
>
> >Deal! I hereby pledge to never get an abortion.
>
> >> But keep your goddamn laws off my body.
>
> >Sorry, too late. There are many laws already affecting your body.
>
> >You're not allowed, for example, to use crack cocaine, heroin,
> >marijuana, other drugs for recreational purposes. You're not allowed
> >to jump off a skyscraper in the downtown core of a major city and
> >plunge to your death. You're not allowed to take a gun and blow your
> >brains out.
>
> What's anyone going to do about it if you do?
>
> You're not allowed to drive at 500 miles an hour strapped
>
> >to a rocket down a major highway, even if you don't intend to kill
> >yourself or others and everyone survices. You're not allowed to sell
> >your own body parts, a leg or an arm, to a stranger.
>
> These apply to men as well as women. Forcing unwilling women to use
> their bodies as incubators is more like forcing people to part with a
> kidney against their will.
How is it the same? When the baby is born, the woman still has her
body. It's completely different. As for the limitations on using your
body, I've given you several examples that have shown that you don't
have an absolute right to use your body in just any way you see fit.
Society has already placed restrictions. Abortion laws would just be
one more.
> We'll deal with it. In the meantime, abortion is legal, so you deal
> with that.
I am dealing with it. I'm doing what I can to make it illegal. In the
end, abortion will become illegal again because it is a horrific
practice that runs counter to everything our society holds most dear.
lora...@cs.com
> "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
> they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
> unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
> who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
> when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
> grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
> solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
Yeah..
The subject title says much.
It says that this decision is a personal morals/ethics/health/rights
issue - and not something for anyone else to natter or pontificate
about.
Liz
>On Jul 28, 12:01 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
>
>> Personhood has never protected anyone.
>> It doesn't protect people from accidents.
>
>We're not talking about accidents here. A miscarriage might be an
>accident, an abortion is a planned act.
You are missing the point. The point is that personhood doesn't offer
any protection. None. At. All. Prior to someone violating a right
of a person, no one even considers personhood. When is the last (or
the first) time you walked down the street and said to yourself, "That
being has personhood so I can't harm him," rather than seeing other
people whom you treat with either courtesy, empathy, or disrespect
depending upon how you are inclined.
>
>> It doesn't protect soldiers
>> or bystanding civilians from being killed by guns or IEDs. It doesn't
>> protect women who are beaten to death by their loving husbands or
>> boyfriends. Personhood merely prescribes penalties if someone
>> violates a law against such person.
>
>If people lived their lives only trying to avoid penalties, you might
>be correct. But that's not how people live their lives. People
>recognize value in others and don't kill them or hurt them because
>they see value in them as people.
Exactly! That is correct. A simple redefinition of a fetus will not
change anything. If people do not place the same value on a fetus as
on a living, breathing human being, a government mandated redefinition
will not change this at all. The reality of the situation is that a
fetus is less than a living, breathing human being. It can't do
either on its own.
>Children love their mothers, and
>mothers love their children.
Aw, isn't that sweet. You should write Hallmark cards. In case you
aren't aware, that is not always the case.
> It's not a question of simply acting in
>such a way as to avoid being caught doing something wrong by the
>police or government social welfare agents.
Then you agree that ascribing personhood to a fetus will change
nothing. All you are suggesting is that the government pass
legislation that recognizes a fetus as a person so that penalties
could apply to any woman who chooses to abort when you say that it is
not a question of simply avoiding the penalties. I think you are very
confused.
>
>When people recognize others as persons, they treat them differently
>than if they considered them to be animals or property.
No, when people see other living, breathing human beings they act
differently. No one sees a fetus as either a animal or property. It
is seen by the woman in whom the fetus is lodged as either a future
wanted child or as a problem.
>
>> >As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
>> >women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years, the
>> >public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great that the
>> >laws will have to be changed.
>>
>> Mere redefinition changes nothing. If abortion is still legal,
>> personhood will not change a thing. Every woman of at least ordinary
>> intelligence knows that the normal result of a pregnancy is a birth.
>> Whether the result of that birth is normal is another question
>> entirely. However, it isn't ignorance that allows women to get
>> abortions. The decision is made for highly personal, physical,
>> financial, and/or emotional reasons. She doesn't want a child, she
>> doesn't want a child now, or she doesn't want the child of the sperm
>> donor.
>
>I'm not surprised you'd call the father of the child a "sperm donor."
>In fact, I'm pleased. It's a perfect example of the kind of alienation
>in human relationships that arises as a result of the acceptance of
>abortion and a strictly utilitarian view of human beings.
Actually, I first heard the term from a male friend of mine whom had
become an unwitting sperm donor. He called himself that. He
certainly didn't want to be a father, and unfortunately committed a
stupid act that could have easily been avoided if the woman had been
in the least honest with him.
>In healthy relationships, Liz, the father of the child is not just a
>"sperm donor" and the unborn child is just that, a child, not just an
>embryo or fetus to be tossed into the trash. Earlier in this thread,
>one poster called the unborn child an "unwanted parasite."
I'm not sure you would know a healthy relationship if you fell over
one. You seem like too much of a control freak to even have a
relationship.
>
>When you go down the road of accepting abortion, you're also accepting
>the idea of the disposability of human beings. It's a pretty cold
>approach to human relationships.
Slippery slope arguments don't impress me. Albeit, most Republicans I
know seem to think that soldiers are merely disposable human beings
who should be sent to face danger so that they aren't endangered
themselves. I do not feel that way.
>
>> >What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
>> >another, innocent human being?
>
>> It's done all the time by normal human beings, not monsters.
>
>What makes you think that a person who kills innocent human beings
>isn't a monster? Look at our horror movies. The serial killer who
>preys on innocent children is the very definition of a monster.
Are you saying that our troops are monsters? That doctors are
monsters.
>
>> Military
>> troops have the chance of doing that every time they discharge a
>> weapon or a drop a bomb.
>
>And this is why all wars must meet stringent criteria to determine if
>they are just wars. If that same criteria is applied to abortion, it's
>clear that abortion is wrong.
If there are just wars, then there is just abortion.
>
>> Doctors remove life support every day.
>
>This is something they should not do. I do not support those actions.
>I do note, however, that the doctor is not actively killing an
>innocent human being. He is letting an innocent human being die. There
>is a distinction.
His actions, especially when the doctor removes the heart, kidneys and
other donatable organs, are active. And he is not a monster.
>
>> Some
>> religious people refuse to get medical treatment for their children so
>> they die from easily treatable conditions such as appendicitis or an
>> abscessed tooth.
>
>In those cases, the law should remove the children from the parents'
>custody and have the children treated. The religious belief should not
>be allowed to prevent the care of the children. In this case too, the
>parents are not actively killing an innocent human being but rather
>letting that person die.
If the parents had not actively denied medical care, the child would
be alive. Again, personhood didn't stop this from happening. The
child is still dead, and the parents must face the legal penalties for
denying the medical care which would have cured the child.
>
>By the way, I wasn't aware a person could die from an abscessed tooth.
It's called infection. If the infection spreads from the abscessed
tooth, then you can die just like any other untreated infection.
>
>> And these are real persons that die rather than just
>> "defined" persons.
>
>These are horrific situations. They are not the same as the active
>killing of an innocent human being in an abortion but I also oppose
>these other situations, with the possible exception of the military
>action, since they impinge on a person's right to life. The military
>action would have to be examined using the criteria for a just war.
>
>> You can keep your merciful God for those who actually need mercy.
>
>We all need God's mercy, Liz. Some of us just don't know it.
LOL Then keep it for people who want it.
Liz #658 BAAWA
CE
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 04:27:26 -0000, CE <jlris...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jul 28, 12:01 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
>
> >> Personhood has never protected anyone.
> >> It doesn't protect people from accidents.
>
> >We're not talking about accidents here. A miscarriage might be an
> >accident, an abortion is a planned act.
>
> You are missing the point. The point is that personhood doesn't offer
> any protection. None. At. All. Prior to someone violating a right
> of a person, no one even considers personhood. When is the last (or
> the first) time you walked down the street and said to yourself, "That
> being has personhood so I can't harm him," rather than seeing other
> people whom you treat with either courtesy, empathy, or disrespect
> depending upon how you are inclined.
It happens quite often, actually. When I feel aggressive, I'll
routinely do some physical work such as chopping wood and get rid of
my aggression in that way. Even if I'm in a bad mood and I've got a
sharp axe in my hand, I won't chop a person to death because I
recognize that they are a human being. That block of wood in front of
me, though, is a different story.
> >> It doesn't protect soldiers
> >> or bystanding civilians from being killed by guns or IEDs. It doesn't
> >> protect women who are beaten to death by their loving husbands or
> >> boyfriends. Personhood merely prescribes penalties if someone
> >> violates a law against such person.
>
> >If people lived their lives only trying to avoid penalties, you might
> >be correct. But that's not how people live their lives. People
> >recognize value in others and don't kill them or hurt them because
> >they see value in them as people.
>
> Exactly! That is correct. A simple redefinition of a fetus will not
> change anything. If people do not place the same value on a fetus as
> on a living, breathing human being, a government mandated redefinition
> will not change this at all. The reality of the situation is that a
> fetus is less than a living, breathing human being. It can't do
> either on its own.
Neither can a patient who's intubated and on life support in a
hospital. That doesn't make him or her less human.
By recognizing unborn children as persons, a government would be
sending a signal to the population that unborn children have that
value and are worthy of the same respect, dignity and compassion
afforded to all human beings by decent people.
> >Children love their mothers, and
> >mothers love their children.
>
> Aw, isn't that sweet. You should write Hallmark cards. In case you
> aren't aware, that is not always the case.
Yes, it is sweet. In normal, healthy relationships, there are many
sweet moments. There's no reason to deride those moments. They're one
of the things that make life seem worth living.
> > It's not a question of simply acting in
> >such a way as to avoid being caught doing something wrong by the
> >police or government social welfare agents.
>
> Then you agree that ascribing personhood to a fetus will change
> nothing. All you are suggesting is that the government pass
> legislation that recognizes a fetus as a person so that penalties
> could apply to any woman who chooses to abort when you say that it is
> not a question of simply avoiding the penalties. I think you are very
> confused.
Actually, I'm saying the opposite of what you misread.
> >When people recognize others as persons, they treat them differently
> >than if they considered them to be animals or property.
>
> No, when people see other living, breathing human beings they act
> differently. No one sees a fetus as either a animal or property. It
> is seen by the woman in whom the fetus is lodged as either a future
> wanted child or as a problem.
The language used by women all over North America when attending baby
showers would suggest otherwise. At these events, women refer to the
unborn child as "the baby." When women have a miscarriage, the common
term is that she has "lost the baby."
The way in which people discuss unborn children tells us that they do
recognize them as babies. People do not say, "How is your future
wanted child."
> >> >As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
> >> >women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years, the
> >> >public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great that the
> >> >laws will have to be changed.
>
> >> Mere redefinition changes nothing. If abortion is still legal,
> >> personhood will not change a thing. Every woman of at least ordinary
> >> intelligence knows that the normal result of a pregnancy is a birth.
> >> Whether the result of that birth is normal is another question
> >> entirely. However, it isn't ignorance that allows women to get
> >> abortions. The decision is made for highly personal, physical,
> >> financial, and/or emotional reasons. She doesn't want a child, she
> >> doesn't want a child now, or she doesn't want the child of the sperm
> >> donor.
>
> >I'm not surprised you'd call the father of the child a "sperm donor."
> >In fact, I'm pleased. It's a perfect example of the kind of alienation
> >in human relationships that arises as a result of the acceptance of
> >abortion and a strictly utilitarian view of human beings.
>
> Actually, I first heard the term from a male friend of mine whom had
> become an unwitting sperm donor. He called himself that. He
> certainly didn't want to be a father, and unfortunately committed a
> stupid act that could have easily been avoided if the woman had been
> in the least honest with him.
Well, there you go. You're proving my point. The term was indeed used
to describe a situation in which the man was completely alienated from
the mother and unborn child.
By the way, if he didn't want to be a father, he should have kept it
in his pants. Responsibility when it comes to sex belongs to the guy
just as much as the woman.
> >In healthy relationships, Liz, the father of the child is not just a
> >"sperm donor" and the unborn child is just that, a child, not just an
> >embryo or fetus to be tossed into the trash. Earlier in this thread,
> >one poster called the unborn child an "unwanted parasite."
>
> I'm not sure you would know a healthy relationship if you fell over
> one. You seem like too much of a control freak to even have a
> relationship.
Is that your way of saying you can't seem to convince me that killing
unborn children is just fine and dandy?
> >When you go down the road of accepting abortion, you're also accepting
> >the idea of the disposability of human beings. It's a pretty cold
> >approach to human relationships.
>
> Slippery slope arguments don't impress me. Albeit, most Republicans I
> know seem to think that soldiers are merely disposable human beings
> who should be sent to face danger so that they aren't endangered
> themselves. I do not feel that way.
I wouldn't know about Republicans. I'm not one. And I have no idea why
you think they're relevent to this discussion.
> >> >What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
> >> >another, innocent human being?
>
> >> It's done all the time by normal human beings, not monsters.
>
> >What makes you think that a person who kills innocent human beings
> >isn't a monster? Look at our horror movies. The serial killer who
> >preys on innocent children is the very definition of a monster.
>
> Are you saying that our troops are monsters? That doctors are
> monsters.
Doctors are there to save lives and so are soldiers when they are well
deployed. In the case of the Iraqi war, they were not.
> >> Military
> >> troops have the chance of doing that every time they discharge a
> >> weapon or a drop a bomb.
>
> >And this is why all wars must meet stringent criteria to determine if
> >they are just wars. If that same criteria is applied to abortion, it's
> >clear that abortion is wrong.
>
> If there are just wars, then there is just abortion.
How does the second logically follow from the first?
> >We all need God's mercy, Liz. Some of us just don't know it.
>
> LOL Then keep it for people who want it.
God's mercy is not mine to give or withdraw. You'll have to take it up
with Him.
Walter Bushell
Martin <use...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
> Liz wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 04:00:46 -0000, CE <jlri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [---]
> >> The first right it should have is the right to life itself, a right
> >> commonly recognized in the United States: life, liberty and the
> >> pursuit of happiness.
> >
> > Hmmm. If I have a right to the pursuit of happiness, why is it
> > illegal for me to smoke cigars in taverns? I really enjoy doing that.
>
> If you're an American you might be better off asking "why is it illegal
> for me to purchase a decent cigar when I really enjoy smoking them?"
>
> Land of the free? Pah, no American is allowed to purchase a decent smoke
> anywhere in the world. What kind of freedom is that.
> >
> > Liz #658 BAAWA
And we are not allowed soft drugs like marijuana, but are allowed
extremely hard drugs like alcohol and cigarettes.
Sid9
1. It's none of your business if it's not your pregnancy
2. If you make abortions illegal there will still be abortions in this
country.
3. Women with money will get safe abortions one way or another.
4. Poor women and teenagers will die.
5. More dead infants will be found in dumpsters
Mike Painter
> On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> CE wrote:
>>
>> > That's an interesting bit of sophistry.
>
>>> recognized in law as being a person, decent men and women will
>>> shudder at the thought of killing it. The only reason so many women
>>> feel comfortable getting an abortion is because they have been
>>> convinced or have convinced themselves that the unborn baby is not
>>> a baby at all, not a person, but rather just a blob of cells.
>>
>> mind becaue something becomes law?
>
> That's obvious. Decent people try to obey the law. When they see
> judges and politicians and other leaders telling them a fetus isn't a
> baby, that influences them. Similarly, when the law of the land
> recognizes that a fetus is an unborn baby, a person, and decent people
> get that message from judges, politicians and community leaders, this
> will influence how they think.
You've said that. Your argument applies quite well to the "good decent
citizen's" of Hitler's Germany when it became law that the Jews,
homosexuals, mentally and physically disabled people were to go to the
camps.
Decent *intelligent* people need no laws nor advise from otheres to decide
what is right and wrong.
>
>> They have learned that a fetus *is* just a blob of cells during the
>> period when most abortions are performed,
>
> You and I are also made of cells. Those cells contain human DNA. If
> left alone to grow naturally, we will exhibit characteristics typical
> of human beings. And we're considered people.
Dribble, my tonsils are made of cells and if leftr to grow naturally will
not ehhibit such characteristics.
>
> Unborn babies are also made of cells. Their cells contain human DNA.
> If left alone to grow naturally, they will exhibit characteristics
> typical of human beings.
>
> Seems to me they're a lot like us, like people. On what basis do you
> accept that we, the big blobs of cells, are people while denying the
> same status to unborn babies just because they're smaller blobs?
>
We are not a big blob of cells, we consist of orginized groups of cells
doing different tasks.
The fetus has not reached that point yet. Neither have the 75% of fertilizes
ova that never make it to embryo stage.
>>> As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
>>> women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years,
>>> the public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great
>>> that the laws will have to be changed.
>>
>> In other words, don't think about it, just obey the law.
>
> On the contrary, the message was: when people realize that unborn
> babies are people, they will force a change in the laws.
People have realized that a fetus is not an unborm baby.
>
>>> What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
>>> another, innocent human being?
>>
>> Ask our government.
>
> Would that be the people who made abortion legal?
No that would be the people who continue to kill innocents in Iraq and other
countries.
>
>
>>> When women get abortions, this is not what they think they are
>>> doing. And if there are any who do know the truth and still get
>>> abortions, well, their lives must be hell afterwards. I don't know
>>> how they can go on afterwards knowing that this is what they have
>>> done to their babies. I can only hope that they believe in a
>>> merciful God.
>>
>> They, for the most part do know the truth, not your idea of it.
>
> There are no versions to the truth. Either something is true or it
> isn't. The fact that you consider it possible that there would be
> versions, or ideas of, the truth indicates a serious lack of
> understanding of what truth is.
Tell that to the 20,000 different christian cults and the millions of other
such beliefs world wide.
>
>> Many are
>> bothered but feel that they made the best choice for themselves.
>
> That's too bad.
>
>
>> Are you willing to give a pregnant woman the finiancial support she
>> needs to give a child a reasonable life with shelter, food,
>> clothing, an education, and medical benefits?
>
> Are you telling me that as soon as a woman has a child, she should be
> able to kick back and have society pay all the bills for her and her
> child? That's absurd.
No, I'm asking *you* what you are willing to do for the high school drop out
who can't aford decent medical care, much less childcare while working full
time at a minimum wage job.
As I have said, the right to life ends at birth for you people.
>
> Women, in case you haven't noticed, have brains and talent and the
> ability to do, well, just about anything. I was about to exclude
> peeing standing up but someone's come up with a contraption that even
> allows women to do this, although why they'd want to beats me.
How clever of you to find out about something My mother mentioned in the
1940's
> Anyways, the point is that women are capable of getting themselves
> educated, landing good-paying jobs, starting businesses and taking
> care of themselves.
You really don't have a clue about raising children or the cost of it do
you?
osprey
Wrong...cells live and die...our bodies are constantly growing new
cells..our entire bodies. The fetus is doing the same exact thing,
from the moment of conception until death.
> The fetus has not reached that point yet. Neither have the 75% of fertilizes
> ova that never make it to embryo stage.
>
> >>> As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men and
> >>> women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many years,
> >>> the public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so great
> >>> that the laws will have to be changed.
>
> >> In other words, don't think about it, just obey the law.
>
> > On the contrary, the message was: when people realize that unborn
> > babies are people, they will force a change in the laws.
>
> People have realized that a fetus is not an unborm baby.
Except for all those states that have laws that inclued the term
"unborn child".
Are you talking about "those" people?
>
>
>
> >>> What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
> >>> another, innocent human being?
>
> >> Ask our government.
>
> > Would that be the people who made abortion legal?
>
> No that would be the people who continue to kill innocents in Iraq and other
> countries.
You mean like the insurgents who are killing their own people?
Or are you just overlooking them?
Are you willing to do, what you're asking others?
>
> As I have said, the right to life ends at birth for you people.
And that's just nothing but a bunch of hogwash. Your brain is polluted
with B.S. and you are showing nothing but bigotry.
If you want anyone to ever try to understand your view points,
eliminate your own bigotry first and stop with the lies.
>
>
> > Women, in case you haven't noticed, have brains and talent and the
> > ability to do, well, just about anything. I was about to exclude
> > peeing standing up but someone's come up with a contraption that even
> > allows women to do this, although why they'd want to beats me.
>
> How clever of you to find out about something My mother mentioned in the
> 1940's
>
> > Anyways, the point is that women are capable of getting themselves
> > educated, landing good-paying jobs, starting businesses and taking
> > care of themselves.
>
> You really don't have a clue about raising children or the cost of it do
> you?-
Do you have a clue?
So far you saying things that make no sense at all and a lot of your
comments are based on your own bigotry.
Gwen
Osprey can't accept his mortality.
> Wrong...cells live and die...our bodies are constantly growing new
> cells..our entire bodies. The fetus is doing the same exact thing,
> from the moment of conception until death.
Nobody ever "conceives a fetus," much less a child.
[snipped]
Martin
Certainly does. But because it's god who is causing them it's ok, god
forbid a woman be allowed to make that choice though.
They are all control freaks
Gwenyth Bennet
> > Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Are you too stupid to realise that _every_ misscarriage would have to
> >> have a police investigation in order to determine whether or not it was
> >> an illegal abortion?
>
> >> Where does it end?
>
> > Most miscarriages, as I understand, are not even noticed. It's like the
> > woman realizes she missed a period.
>
> > God probably makes more miscarriages than we do abortions.
>
> Certainly does. But because it's god who is causing them it's ok, god
> forbid a woman be allowed to make that choice though.
That's age-old news.
> They are all control freaks
In a nutshell.
Brian E. Clark
@l70g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, osprey said...
> > We are not a big blob of cells, we consist of orginized groups of cells
> > doing different tasks.
>
> Wrong...cells live and die...our bodies are constantly growing new
> cells..our entire bodies. The fetus is doing the same exact thing,
> from the moment of conception until death.
You seem incapable of making your argument
without resorting to grotesque equivocation. I'll
borrow your tactic, though: since like firewood
you're made of atoms, it's perfectly okay to chop
you to bits and use you for kindling.
Hmm, it sounds as if your method of comparison
has a few problems. Fortunately, no one but you
is reckless enough to employ it. Even you can
recognize that a collection of atoms does not of
itself define a an adult human, just as cleverer
people realize that a small collection of cells
does not of itself make a baby.
More to the point, sensible people recognize a
vast difference between a tiny blob of virtually
indistinct cells and a fully developed, highly
differentiated, functioning network of cells,
tissues, organs and systems, which includes a
neurological matrix capable of awareness,
feeling, movement, sensation of pain, and
learning.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Martin
> On Jul 28, 6:29 am, Martin <usen...@etiqa.co.uk> wrote:
>> CE wrote:
>>> On Jul 28, 12:01 am, Liz <ehu...@donotspam.com> wrote:
>>>> Personhood has never protected anyone.
>>>> It doesn't protect people from accidents.
>>> We're not talking about accidents here. A miscarriage might be an
>>> accident, an abortion is a planned act.
>> Are you too stupid to realise that _every_ misscarriage would have to
>> have a police investigation in order to determine whether or not it was
>> an illegal abortion?
>>
>> Where does it end?
>>
>> What if the miscarriage was caused by ingesting an abotificant? Or
>> caused by eating chease known to be susceptible to bacteria that carry a
>> risk of being an abortificant?
>>
>> If you say ingesting an abortificant which brings in a misscarriange is
>> ok, then why isn't it ok to ingest one specifically designed to do the
>> job? If that's ok then why not allow medical procedures as well?
>>
>> And before you say "that's not what I mean" these questions are going to
>> have to be answered! When is an abortificant not an abortificant? Are
>> you proposing to have a list of plants and foods that is illegal for a
>> pregnant woman (who might not even know she is pregnant remember) to be
>> allowed to eat?
>
> Ah, it's the hammer-and-gun bit of sophistry.
Not at all.
> In the case of abortion, the country would ban abortions as we
> commonly think of them with a doctor and/or nurse in a clinical
> setting, the "morning after" abortion pill, and the use of otherwise
> legal and available substances for the purposes of inducing an
> abortion.
So you really are proposing to make up a list of products that women are
not allowed to ingest because they might be an abortificant.
You do realise that classifying a fetus as "people" you turn every
abortion and miscarriage into a murder enquirey. Just think about how
many more police and judges you're going to need.
On the other hand, you might just sleep a little easier if you just keep
your bloody nose out of other peoples' business and realise it's just
got nothing at all to do with you. If you personally don't like to have
an abortion, then don't have one. A bit like having anal sex, if you
don't like it, don't do it, but don't go telling others what they should
or shouldn;t be doing with their own lives and bodies
duke
>On Jul 25, 10:50 pm, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
>> they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
>> unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
>> who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
>> when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
>> grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
>> solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>>
>> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
>
>This is no surprise.
>
>This is the same mentality that killed feminism--women will always
>sell out other women, so long as other women are treated worse than
>they are, they feel better about themselves.
>
>I wish there was some way to have a list of antiabort women, and when
>they get one, put their names and pictures on a webpage, forwarding
>the info to those psycho antiabort loon sites.
I'm not a woman, but I would personally welcome my picture on an antiabortion
page.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mike Painter
Noted that you have stopped this argument.
>>
>>>> They have learned that a fetus *is* just a blob of cells during the
>>>> period when most abortions are performed,
>>
>>> You and I are also made of cells. Those cells contain human DNA. If
>>> left alone to grow naturally, we will exhibit characteristics
>>> typical of human beings. And we're considered people.
>>
>> Dribble, my tonsils are made of cells and if leftr to grow naturally
>> will not ehhibit such characteristics.
>>
>>> Unborn babies are also made of cells. Their cells contain human DNA.
>>> If left alone to grow naturally, they will exhibit characteristics
>>> typical of human beings.
>>
>>> Seems to me they're a lot like us, like people. On what basis do you
>>> accept that we, the big blobs of cells, are people while denying the
>>> same status to unborn babies just because they're smaller blobs?
>>
>> We are not a big blob of cells, we consist of orginized groups of
>> cells doing different tasks.
>
> Wrong...cells live and die...our bodies are constantly growing new
> cells..our entire bodies. The fetus is doing the same exact thing,
> from the moment of conception until death.
Yes, cells live and die, yes they are constantly growing new cells, yes the
fetus is growing new cells.
But none of what you said is an answer to what I said.
Where is the liver in an embryo?
We are not the same unless you believe the ancient concept that we start as
little tiny fully formed creatures. We start as a blob of cells and remain a
blob of cells for some time.
No liver, brain, heart, nervouse system. A blob of cells.
>
>> The fetus has not reached that point yet. Neither have the 75% of
>> fertilizes ova that never make it to embryo stage.
>>
>>>>> As soon as the law says that the baby is indeed a person and men
>>>>> and women realize they've been the victims of lies for so many
>>>>> years, the public's horror of the atrocity of abortion will be so
>>>>> great that the laws will have to be changed.
>>
>>>> In other words, don't think about it, just obey the law.
>>
>>> On the contrary, the message was: when people realize that unborn
>>> babies are people, they will force a change in the laws.
>>
>> People have realized that a fetus is not an unborm baby.
>
> Except for all those states that have laws that inclued the term
> "unborn child".
>
> Are you talking about "those" people?
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> What kind of monster would walk into a place and knowingly kill
>>>>> another, innocent human being?
>>
>>>> Ask our government.
>>
>>> Would that be the people who made abortion legal?
>>
>> No that would be the people who continue to kill innocents in Iraq
>> and other countries.
>
> You mean like the insurgents who are killing their own people?
> Or are you just overlooking them?
Your ability to respond a comment with something different is inane.
I said what I meant and the fact that others may be involved has noting to
do with our government killing directly the innocent or indirectly by
ignoring heath care.
<snip>
>>>> Are you willing to give a pregnant woman the finiancial support she
>>>> needs to give a child a reasonable life with shelter, food,
>>>> clothing, an education, and medical benefits?
>>
>>> Are you telling me that as soon as a woman has a child, she should
>>> be able to kick back and have society pay all the bills for her and
>>> her child? That's absurd.
>>
>> No, I'm asking *you* what you are willing to do for the high school
>> drop out who can't aford decent medical care, much less childcare
>> while working full time at a minimum wage job.
>
> Are you willing to do, what you're asking others?
I'm talking to you. I support a womans right to choose. You don't. What are
you willing to do to help her?
>
>>
>> As I have said, the right to life ends at birth for you people.
>
> And that's just nothing but a bunch of hogwash. Your brain is polluted
> with B.S. and you are showing nothing but bigotry.
>
I work EMS in a small very poor town, but it is the same all over the
country. Your christian leaders spend billions on killing and the poor have
to call an ambulance to get to an ER because they don't have cars and can't
afford a taxi.
I've seen what other countries do for their people and see what our "god
fearing christian, love your brother" country does not do for the people.
> If you want anyone to ever try to understand your view points,
> eliminate your own bigotry first and stop with the lies.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Women, in case you haven't noticed, have brains and talent and the
>>> ability to do, well, just about anything. I was about to exclude
>>> peeing standing up but someone's come up with a contraption that
>>> even allows women to do this, although why they'd want to beats me.
>>
>> How clever of you to find out about something My mother mentioned in
>> the 1940's
>>
>>> Anyways, the point is that women are capable of getting themselves
>>> educated, landing good-paying jobs, starting businesses and taking
>>> care of themselves.
>>
>> You really don't have a clue about raising children or the cost of
>> it do you?-
>
> Do you have a clue?
>
> So far you saying things that make no sense at all and a lot of your
> comments are based on your own bigotry.
It makes a lot of sense when you actually find out about it, or even (excuse
the profanity for such as you) think about it. How does a mother making
minimum wage and paying out at least half of it for rent and utilities, pay
for childcare which runs upward of $800.00 a month around here?
Sid9
Don't have an abortion, if you oppose abortion.
Michael James
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:daesa31i7onuc00q7...@4ax.com...
...As what happens when an abortion fails :) (sorry, you walked in to
that one)
Martin
frontal lobotomy
CE
> How does a mother making
> minimum wage and paying out at least half of it for rent and utilities, pay
> for childcare which runs upward of $800.00 a month around here?
husband
Osprey
"Brian E. Clark" <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in message
news:MPG.2117d99c9...@216.196.97.136...
So if a woman decided to kill her fetus, let's say during her seventh month
or early eighth month of her pregnancy, you would have no problem with her
doing that? Do you think that the laws should be changed so she could do
that legally?
Osprey
"Mike Painter" <mddotp...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:pSqri.741$jO3...@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
Whoa...
Where did I say I didn't support her right to choose?
I hope you have something to back that up, because I can come up with plenty
of postings to show you that I do.
I'll expect an apology for your ignorance and false assumption.
>
>>
>>>
>>> As I have said, the right to life ends at birth for you people.
>>
>> And that's just nothing but a bunch of hogwash. Your brain is polluted
>> with B.S. and you are showing nothing but bigotry.
>>
> I work EMS in a small very poor town, but it is the same all over the
> country.
Do all EMS techs make false assumptions???
Your christian leaders spend billions on killing and the poor have
> to call an ambulance to get to an ER because they don't have cars and
> can't afford a taxi.
>
> I've seen what other countries do for their people and see what our "god
> fearing christian, love your brother" country does not do for the people.
Do all EMS techs just lump everyone into a category, like you are doing???
Gwen
> "Brian E. Clark" <re...@newsgroup.only.please> wrote in messagenews:MPG.2117d99c9...@216.196.97.136...
Legal abortion and murder are two separate issues.
Gwen
> Do all EMS techs just lump everyone into a category, like you are doing???
All reject prison guards, like you, revel in hypocrisy.
(Do you consider your first wife -- the woman who had the abortion --
a murderer?)
Sid9
Then there's reality...there
is no husband for a hundred
different reasons none of
which is the fault or responsibilty
of the woman.
Your answer follows Ziggy's law:
"For every complex problem
there is a simple answer...and
it's usually wrong"
skyeyes
> On Jul 27, 7:14 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Because humans who have been born are CONSCIOUS and SELF-AWARE.
> > Embryos and fetuses are *not*.
>
> A person who's in a coma doesn't seem to self-aware or conscious to
> me. Neither does a drunk sleeping off a few too many. They're still
> people. Being conscious just isn't a criteria for being a human being.
> As for self-awareness, well, that's something that comes in degrees,
> isn't it? A person who's severely mentally handicapped or mentally ill
> isn't necessarily self-aware but is still a person.
No, it isn't a person. It's only a potential person. At the stage
when most abortions are performed, it doesn't even have a nervous
system.
>
> > Embryos and fetuses are *not* people. They're embryos and fetuses.
>
> Calling someone by a different word may make you feel better about
> what you do with him or her or how you treat him or her but it doesn't
> negate the fact that they are a person.
See above. <Eyeroll> Damn, but you're denser than most.
> It wasn't all that long ago
> that African Americans weren't considered to be persons. In Canada,
> women weren't considered to be persons under the law. Ask any expert
> about the atrocities that have been committed on people who weren't
> considered to be human, who weren't considered to be persons. The use
> of other words to describe these people made it possible for many
> people to mistreat them.
African Americans and women are sentient beings with nervous systems
who live independently of their mother's reproductive organs. Embroys
and fetuses can't. That's the difference.
By your reasoning, we can choose to call cats "people" if we choose.
(Which would be fine by me, as most cats I know don't presume to tell
other people what they can and can't do with their lives, unlike some
humans.)
> Today, we cringe at the thought that someone would abuse a person
> because of his or her skin colour or race or gender.
You don't mind in the *least* abusing a person, as long as that person
isn't an embryo. If it's a pregnant woman who doesn't want to be
pregnant, you're perfectly happy abusing her by making her carry to
term.
>Unfortunately, we
> as a society still do commit exactly the same kind of atrocities, the
> same kind of abuses, on unborn children.
How is it abuse, when there isn't even a nervous system involved?
It's way more abusive to a kid to force it to be born to a mother who
doesn't want it, than it is to medically eliminate it in the first
trimester.
> As a society, we have
> declared them to not be persons and legalized the killing of them.
Which is a far better option than forcing them to be born to mothers
who dont' want them, into a an over-populated world.
> <snip>
>
> > And many of us aren't bothered at *all*, but are openly grateful for
> > the medical providers whose expertise allowed us to chart the course
> > of our own lives without interruption by unwanted parasites.
>
> Listen to yourself. You're calling your own unborn children "unwanted
> parasites." Doesn't that tell you something?
Yes, it tells me I don't like or want children, which is not news to
me. (Not all women *do*, you know; I knew at the grand old age of 11
that I wasn't motherhood material.) And some like them and want them,
but at some point are unable to care for them. And some have a slew
of them already, and can't care for anymore of them. And some have
medical conditions that weigh against them having a child.
Has none of this ever penetrated your thick skull?
> <snip>
>
> > 1. Not *all* women have the same capabilities. Not all of us can
> > profit from higher education, or attain good-paying jobs that would
> > allow us to have unlimited numbers of children that you'd like us to
> > have.
>
> The last time I checked, it also takes a man for a woman to get
> pregnant. With the man and the woman raising their children, they
> should be able between the two of them to take care of their
> obligations. I'm also a big fan of men stepping up to the plate and
> fulfilling their obligations to their families. I'm not exactly
> letting men off the hook here.
Well don't *you* just live the loveliest life up there in Cloud Cuckoo
Land? That's all very nice, but down here in the real world, things
frequently don't work out that way. And all your sermonizing isn't
going to make it work that way, either.
>
> > 2. Not *all* women have the physical or emotional strength or health
> > to cope with pregnancy, childbirth, or child-rearing.
>
> I'm not sure what that means exactly because the terms you've used are
> so vague as to be meaningless. I've known women who were in
> wheelchairs who were able to have children.
And so that means that *all* women are physically and emotionally able
to cope with pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing?
What part of "unable to cope with pregnancy, childbirth, or child-
rearing" is unclear to you? Are you unaware that some women have
medical conditions that contraindicate for pregnancy? Are you aware
that some women have mental conditions that weigh against it?
What rock do you live under, anway? Must be cozy under there. <Shakes
head in disbelief>
You're problem is that women are just one big stereotype to you.
We're not individuals - we're all just heroic baby-making machines who
can grunt 'em out without the least problem and just enjoy the hell
out of it in spite of everything.
Well, I hate to ruin your little cardboard cut-out of womanhood, but
all women are *not* the same.
> > 3. Not *all* women *want* to have children. I'm one of the ones who
> > doesn't.
>
> I gathered that from your description of children as "unwanted
> parasites."
>
> > With precious few exceptions, however, women want normal sex
> > lives.
"Precious few"? Oh, I've got news for you, Ducks. There are *scads*
of us out there. There always have been. Nowadays, word is starting
to get out - you don't have to grunt out a fleshloaf to be a fulfilled
woman. Unfortunately, some women go along with The Script and have
children they don't want and are physically or financially or
emotionally unsuited to care for. That's why there are so many post-
natal abortions. What, you think all those kids left to die in hot
cars are *accidents*??? You think it's just happenstance that Mom
leaves the kidlet with boyfriend, who beats it to death? You think
she just accidentally leaves the patio door open so the toddler can go
swim in the pool?
I've got some bad news for you: children are most often hurt and
killed not by strangers, but by THEIR PARENTS.
Parenthood is fine, for those who want it and for those who are
physically, financially, and psychologically prepared for it.
However, it isn't for everybody. And the world would be a much better
place if more people grokked that fact.
> Normal sex includes the possibility of the normal consequences of sex.
> A normal consequence of sex is children.
"Consequence" is right. However, in this day and age, consequences
don't have to be permanent and life-changing. Particularly if you
don't *want* your life changed.
>
> I think what you meant to say is that you want recreational sex
> without the normal consequences because you regard children as
> "unwanted parasites."
I want and expect a normal sex life; that's my right. However,
describing it as mere "recreational" sex is one of those canards the
anti-choice crowd loves to lob. In fact, sex has many facets above
and beyond mere reproduction. It's the primary cement in a love
relationship, and it improves human health. Expecting people to do
without it is irrational, not to mention downright mean.
And yes, I don't want children. When I was pregnant - when two forms
of birth control failed me - I indeed felt that I'd been invaded by an
alien life form that was feeding off me. Never felt such a negative
feeling before nor since. Pretty much puts-paid to that fluffy-bunny
sweetness-and-light idea of how pregnancy is supposed to affect women.
> > 4. Not *all* women think that adding more kids to the 6.5 billion
> > people already on this planet is a good idea. Some of us actually
> > care about the environment.
>
> The most immediate population problem facing the world right now is
> the paucity of young people to replace the aging boomers. We don't
> currently have an over-population crisis, we have an under-population
> crisis. That under-population crisis, by the way, threatens to
> destablize the world and plunge us into war which could have
> significant environmental impacts.
That's only if you believe in the "growth at any cost" line of
bullshit. Within 25 years, the biggest issue on this planet is going
to be the availability of fresh water. Think the flap over fossil
fuels is gettin' nasty? You ain't seen *nothin'*.
Oh, I can guarantee you that we'll have a nice, environmentally-
hazardous war, anytime now. Bernard Malthus talked about that at
great length, quite some time ago - wrote a pretty good book on the
subject, he did. And if it means that there's a net loss of humans on
this planet, I'm fine with it, even if one of the humans to die off is
me. I'm one of those weird people who don't think we're the only life
form that counts for anything.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Giving birth, even in this modern day-and-age, is *still* a dangerous
> > proposition. Especially in the United States, where maternal
> > mortality is *way* higher than it is in civilized countries with
> > decent health care systems.
>
> I fully support the idea of universal health care for the United
> States. By all means, let's get better health care for everyone.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Pregnancy robs the woman's blood of iron - and some women never get
> > over being anemic.
>
> Iron supplements. Better diet.
Oh, what, like all those my mother got? All those iron supplements
while she carried my brother? All that spinach she ate? Guess what?
She remained anemic until the day she died. Like I said, some women
never get over being anemic.
And how about gestational diabetes? Are you aware that it can persist
even after the kid is born?
Are you aware that a woman has a ten-times greater chance of dying in
childbirth (yes, here, in the United States in 2007) than she does
having an abortion?
> > Pregnancy robs a woman's bones of calcium.
>
> Calcium supplements. Better diet.
And in spite of that, some women continue to lose bone mass. I
recently had a bone scan, being the age where bone thinning becomes
apparent, and the technicians marveled at my totally normal bone mass
- even though I fit the profile (Caucasian, slight build) of women to
whom bone mass is supposed to happen. My doc is of the opinion that
I've still got my bones because I never had a baby.
> > Pregnancy causes irreversible changes to the female body, many of them
> > nasty.
>
> Such as?
Look up "fistuals." And yes, it still happens right here in modern
21st-century 'Merica. It happened to a friend of mine. She's had,
oh, I forget the exact count, about eight operations for it, and you
know what? She still gets feces in her vagina.
There is an entire laundry list of nasty things that pregnancy does to
a woman's body: everything from irreversible hair loss to urine
incontinence. And more. Do your homework. Pregnancy is *not* a zero-
sum game.
> > Not all women are willing to go through a pregnancy and take
> > on these physical risks.
>
> Not all men are willing to grow up and become men either. But at some
> point, a child has to realize that it's time to grow up. Women aren't
> little girls. They're adults. That comes with some responsibilities
> and some risks.
Exucse me, I don' t know where *you* live, but I live in the United
States. That means weI get to *choose* what responsibilities an risks
I take on. They're not automatic or mandated, as much as you would
like them to be.
> > > In addition to
> > > food banks, subsidized housing, tax breaks for lower-income earners,
> > > government programs to help women entrepreneurs launch businesses,
> > > scholarships for women, networking groups for businesswomen,
> > > affirmative action programs to encourage the hiring of women and
> > > minorities, programs to help new mothers learn to care for their
> > > babies and support them, AND second-hand clothing, furniture and toy
> > > stores run by charities, there are also groups out there willing to
> > > take in pregnant women who are considering abortion and cover all of
> > > their costs including food, shelter, clothing and so forth until and
> > > even after the baby has been born. I personally know families that
> > > have done this.
>
> <snip>
>
> > You seem to think that it all boils down to economics,
> > and that given sufficient economic support, that *all* women will
> > consent to being pregnant. It's not so, and pretending that it *is*
> > so is akin to racism - the notion that a particular group of people
> > are all alike in some way. Women are individuals, and some of us
> > don't want the least thing to do with pregnancy, childbirth, or
> > children. Deal with it.
>
> Oh, I'm fine with women who decide they don't want to have children. I
> have a great deal of respect, admiration and appreciation for nuns in
> the Roman Catholic church and they don't have children.
Of course you do. Nuns don't have sex. What frosts your cookies is
the idea of women who have normal sex lives and who *still* don't want
to have children. Because you want to legislate your religious
prejudices into law, and the best way to do that is to punish women
who have sex by forcing them to have children even if they don't want
them.
>
> I certainly don't think it all boils down to economics. It all comes
> down to respecting and cherishing life.
Yeah, as long as the life you're respecting and cherishing isn't the
life of the woman who wants to end a pregnancy. Fuck her life. Save
that precious blob of human DNA at *all* costs. Whether we need it or
not.
> And while the life of the
> mother-to-be is extremely valuable, so is the life of the unborn baby.
Not unless she says it is, no.
> I don't agree with killing one person only to reduce the risk to
> another.
Too bad embryos and fetuses aren't persons. And anyway, using your
logic, you'd gleefully "reduce the risk" to a fetus by allowing a
pregnant woman to die rather than let her get a theraputic abortion.
> <snip>
>
> > Until and unless we have unfettered access to free, failure-proof
> > birth control with no medical side effects and no religious
> > interference for every female commencing in childhood, we'll continue
> > to need abortion services.
>
> I'm happy to be able to provide you with the solution you seek: a 100-
> per-cent-effective birth control method with no medical side effects
> that comes with no religious interference is now available for any
> woman starting right from childhood.
> It's called abstinence.
And this is really the heart of the matter, isn't it? You disapprove
of abortion because you see pregnancy as a just punishment for women
who have sex.
Well, I've got news for you: I don't *want* to be abstinent. I like
sex, and I intend to have it. Fortunately, I've reached the far side
of menopause, and I no longer have to worry about fertility. But
plenty of women do - some women who want children eventually, and some
who never want them at all. And you know what? However much you'd
like it to come true, women are *never* going to give up having sex.
If you think sex is merely for procreation, then do/don't have it, as
you like. Just don't try forcing that sick philosophy off on others.
> Don't have sex, you won't get pregnant.
> Simple. Free. 100-per-cent effective. No religious interference.
> Available to all women, everywhere in the world, and suitable for all
> ages. Completely free of medical side effects.
> You can thank me later.
Thank you for trying to run my life for me? That's not gonna happen.
> <snip>
>
> > Abortions performed in medical establishments are the
> > safest and best way to safeguard women's lives AND FREEDOMS.
>
> Not if the woman we're talking about is the unborn baby girl who is
> being aborted. Think of all the women's lives that were snuffed out
> because their mothers chose to abort them.
<Yawn> I just *love* how you fetus worshippers value the fetus so
much more than you value the life of the woman who is *already*
*here*. You "people" (and I use the term loosely) make me sick.
> > In short, dearie, if you don't like abortion, then don't have one.
>
> Deal! I hereby pledge to never get an abortion.
Fine by me.
> > But keep your goddamn laws off my body.
>
> Sorry, too late. There are many laws already affecting your body.
However, you and your ilk don't get to make any more of the kind that
affect my reproductive choices.
> You're not allowed, for example, to use crack cocaine, heroin,
> marijuana, other drugs for recreational purposes.
Laws I also happen to disagree with. Crack, heroine, and meth are bad
drugs, but using them is a medical problem, and shouldn't be
criminalized.
Marijuana being illegal is just *silly*. We'll get that law changed,
one of these days.
> You're not allowed
> to jump off a skyscraper in the downtown core of a major city and
> plunge to your death. You're not allowed to take a gun and blow your
> brains out.
Laws against suicide are also ridiculous. If a person wants to check
out, it's nobody else's business, as long as nobody else is injured in
the process. You people are just crazy about having control over
other people's lives, aren't you?
> You're not allowed to drive at 500 miles an hour strapped
> to a rocket down a major highway, even if you don't intend to kill
> yourself or others and everyone survices.
And a sane person would want to do this...why?
> You're not allowed to sell
> your own body parts, a leg or an arm, to a stranger.
Another law that needs to go. If I want to sell my kidney for profit,
that's nobody's business but mine.
> Let's face it, this was never about whether or not the government
has
> the right to tell you what you can do with your body. There are
> already many laws that do that. In the military, solidiers don't even
> have the right to use their legs and run away from battle and go AWOL.
And since (at lease here in 'Merica) serving in the armed forces is
totally voluntary, the soldier has already *made* that choice for him/
herself.
>
> This issue is much more specific. It's only about whether or not women
> have the right to get their unborn babies aborted.
And we do, fortunately. And it's going to stay that way, whether you
assholes like it or not.
> And yes, I do have the right to tell you that that abortion is wrong
> and that it should be illegal.
You have a right to express your opinion. You don't have a right to
force me to breed because of your beliefs.
> It's called the right of free speech.
And my right is called "The pursuit of happiness."
> I also have the right to lobby my government to make abortion illegal.
I am not convinced that you *do*. You have the right to make your own
reproductive choices. So do I. You don't have the right to make
those choices for me, or to pass laws saying that others can make
those choices for me. And if you think that the right to privacy and
abortion is going to be taken away in this country without a major
civil war, just keep pushing your anti-woman agenda, Sparky.
> And I will exercise those rights.
And I will oppose you at every turn. And since secular polls (those
whose responding audience isn't pre-selected) consistently show that
the majority of people (around 70%) in this country support abortion
rights, you're going to lose.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
Liz
>On Jul 27, 4:31 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Many are
>> bothered but feel that they made the best choice for themselves.
>
>That's too bad.
How far does your position against individual choice extend? According
to you, should a person be able to:
refuse medical treatment?
refuse to donate blood?
refuse to donate a kidney or part of a liver?
refuse to financially care for a sibling who will not work?
refuse to take foster children?
refuse to donate to a charity?
Or is the only thing you think should be taken out of the individual's
purview the refusal to carry a pregnancy to term.
The first six can have terminal conseqences to living,breathing
people. Should your wishes override the individual's choice in these
instances so that every single life that can be saved will be saved
even at the cost of the quality of life and liberty for the person
from whom you have taken the ability to choose?
Liz #658 BAAWA
CE
> CE wrote:
> > On Jul 30, 4:23 pm, "Mike Painter" <mddotpain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >> How does a mother making
> >> minimum wage and paying out at least half of it for rent and
> >> utilities, pay for childcare which runs upward of $800.00 a month
> >> around here?
>
> > husband
>
> Then there's reality...there
> is no husband for a hundred
> different reasons none of
> which is the fault or responsibilty
> of the woman.
There's a husband if she waits until she's married to have sex. If she
does and he dies, leaving her a widow, there's the insurance money to
take care of the expenses mentionned above. If he takes off to avoid
his responsibilities, the state should garnish his wages and seize his
assets if needed to cover a fair contribution to the children's well-
being. If he decides to become a bum and never make any money again
for the rest of his life, well, then the woman will have to rely on
family and charitable organizations, of which there are many, to help
her out until she makes more money.
The reality is that women can meet these challenges and overcome them.
And they don't need to kill off their unborn children to do it.
In one place where I lived, a group of women got together and worked
out an arrangement where each one of them would take a turn watching
the children on their days off. The daycare was then free. And the
arrangement helped the women develop a sense of community.
Another woman I met living in wonderful apartment where the children
had great clothes and fantastic toys. When she had to go on welfare,
she taught herself to knit. The children got very nice sweaters and
socks. She also taught herself to sew, make toys, and do a whole bunch
of other things, including the renovations to her apartment. She lived
on an income that was far below the poverty line but you'd never know
it by looking at her or her well-fed, healthy, and happy children.
Raising children can be a challenge but it's one that people face.
When they do, they grow as people and their children become a real
blessing to them.
duke
>No, it isn't a person. It's only a potential person. At the stage
>when most abortions are performed, it doesn't even have a nervous
>system.
But it IS human life. And that's sacred. It will never become a dog.
duke
>> I'm not a woman, but I would personally welcome my picture on an
>> antiabortion page.
>Don't have an abortion, if you oppose abortion.
God calls me to oppose all human abortion for birth control purposes. I would
personally welcome my picture on an antiabortion page.
duke
wrote:
>> I'm not a woman, but I would personally welcome my picture on an
>antiabortion page.
>...As what happens when an abortion fails :) (sorry, you walked in to
>that one)
Then I got my wish.
duke
>> ...As what happens when an abortion fails :) (sorry, you walked in to
>> that one)
>frontal lobotomy
Yes you are.
duke
>> So if a woman decided to kill her fetus, let's say during her seventh month
>> or early eighth month of her pregnancy, you would have no problem with her
>> doing that? Do you think that the laws should be changed so she could do
>> that legally?
>Legal abortion and murder are two separate issues.
Only in the civil courts. Not to God.
Gwenyth Bennet
> "duke" <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:daesa31i7onuc00q7...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:58:51 -0700, elizabeth <efran...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > >On Jul 25, 10:50 pm, Conspiracy of Doves <mark_d...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> "Abortion is a highly personal decision that many women are sure
> > >> they'll never have to think about until they're suddenly faced with an
> > >> unexpected pregnancy. But this can happen to anyone, including women
> > >> who are strongly anti-choice. So what does an anti-choice woman do
> > >> when she experiences an unwanted pregnancy herself? Often, she will
> > >> grin and bear it, so to speak, but frequently, she opts for the
> > >> solution she would deny to other women - abortion."
>
> > >>http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/22/9334/83825
>
> > >This is no surprise.
>
> > >This is the same mentality that killed feminism--women will always
> > >sell out other women, so long as other women are treated worse than
> > >they are, they feel better about themselves.
>
> > >I wish there was some way to have a list of antiabort women, and when
> > >they get one, put their names and pictures on a webpage, forwarding
> > >the info to those psycho antiabort loon sites.
>
> > I'm not a woman, but I would personally welcome my picture on an
> antiabortion
> > page.
>
> ...As what happens when an abortion fails :) (sorry, you walked in to
> that one)
Touché.
Sid9
Don't let reality get in the way of your opinions
Sid9
Other people have other gods.
Keep your god and let others have theirs
Gwenyth Bennet
> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:16:25 -0000, Gwen <gwen.ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> So if a woman decided to kill her fetus, let's say during her seventh month
> >> or early eighth month of her pregnancy, you would have no problem with her
> >> doing that? Do you think that the laws should be changed so she could do
> >> that legally?
> >Legal abortion and murder are two separate issues.
>
> Only in the civil courts. Not to God.
You're as crazed as Robert Wynn. (And he's a certified nutcase.)
The Chief Instigator
>On Jul 31, 5:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:16:25 -0000, Gwen <gwen.ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> So if a woman decided to kill her fetus, let's say during her seventh
>> >> month or early eighth month of her pregnancy, you would have no problem
>> >> with her doing that? Do you think that the laws should be changed so
>> >> she could do that legally?
>> >Legal abortion and murder are two separate issues.
>> Only in the civil courts. Not to God.
>You're as crazed as Robert Wynn. (And he's a certified nutcase.)
Actually, he's Robert Winn...and he's certified by the VA.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: San Antonio 4, Houston 2 (April 15)
NEXT GAME: October 2007, date/place/opponent TBA
Gwenyth Bennet
> Gwenyth Bennet <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> writes:
> >On Jul 31, 5:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:16:25 -0000, Gwen <gwen.ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> So if a woman decided to kill her fetus, let's say during her seventh
> >> >> month or early eighth month of her pregnancy, you would have no problem
> >> >> with her doing that? Do you think that the laws should be changed so
> >> >> she could do that legally?
> >> >Legal abortion and murder are two separate issues.
> >> Only in the civil courts. Not to God.
> >You're as crazed as Robert Wynn. (And he's a certified nutcase.)
>
> Actually, he's Robert Winn...
Same guy.
>and he's certified by the VA.
Being certified is being certified.
>
> --
> Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patr...@io.com) Houston, Texas
The Chief Instigator
>On Jul 31, 7:21 am, The Chief Instigator <patr...@io.com> wrote:
>> Gwenyth Bennet <bennetwitho...@gmail.com> writes:
>> >On Jul 31, 5:38 am, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 23:16:25 -0000, Gwen <gwen.ben...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> So if a woman decided to kill her fetus, let's say during her seventh
>> >> >> month or early eighth month of her pregnancy, you would have no
>> >> >> problem with her doing that? Do you think that the laws should be
>> >> >> changed so she could do that legally?
>> >> >Legal abortion and murder are two separate issues.
>> >> Only in the civil courts. Not to God.
>> >You're as crazed as Robert Wynn. (And he's a certified nutcase.)
>> Actually, he's Robert Winn...
>Same guy.
>>and he's certified by the VA.
>Being certified is being certified.
If only there were some way of getting Wentzky examined by the VA...;-\
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas