| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Steenkin Man" |
| Date: |
20 Jun 2004 07:13:45 AM |
| Object: |
Babies that live after abortions are left to die |
And the feminazis say that abortion doesn't kill babies....
http://www.timesonline.co.ukSunday Times, June 20, 2004
Babies that live after abortions are left to die
Sarah-Kate Templeton and Lois Rogers
MIDWIVES have revealed that babies are being born alive after botched
abortions by doctors and allowed to die without receiving life-saving
medical treatment.
An investigation by The Sunday Times has uncovered at least six cases
where babies have been born alive after terminations have gone wrong.
They include a mother whose handicapped baby lived for three days
after the termination procedure failed to kill the infant.
A diary kept by one midwife up until last year claims there was an
"unwritten rule" in her hospital unit of not resuscitating aborted
babies that survived termination procedures.
"Sometimes the aborted babies were alive at birth," it states. "There
was an unwritten policy on the unit that babies would not be given
assistance."
The midwife, who does not want to be named, claims to have witnessed
one 23-week-old baby with Down's syndrome breathe and move for more
than three hours after an abortion.
The practices will be debated at next week's annual British Medical
Association conference, where one motion demands new guidelines that
babies born in botched abortions should receive the same care as ones
delivered prematurely.
Medical advances mean doctors can now save premature babies born at 22
or 23 weeks. However, doctors and midwives admit botched abortions are
often concealed and the damaged infants, which have very little chance
of survival, are simply kept warm and allowed to perish.
Sue MacDonald, education and research manager at the Royal College of
Midwives, said she had witnessed a baby born alive after termination.
The baby, which survived for three days, was fed and kept warm but not
given medical treatment to try to save its life.
Other incidents include:
Two cases at Leicester Royal Infirmary, according to David Field, the
hospital's professor of foetal medicine. Although both babies
initially survived and received intensive care, they subsequently died
of their original handicaps and the damage caused during the failed
attempts at abortion.
A baby destined for abortion for Down's syndrome at an unidentified
home counties hospital. It was cared for afterwards by specialists at
St George's hospital in south London and is believed to have been
adopted.
A severely handicapped child now aged seven, born following a failed
termination at a Midlands hospital. Although the parents were
determined to take the child home and care for it, they are now suing
the hospital for the trauma and cost involved.
Babies can be aborted for "social reasons" up to 24 weeks, but right
up to nine months if there is a risk of severe handicap.
Latest figures show 1,354 babies of 22 weeks or more, which may have
been capable of surviving, were aborted in England and Wales in 2002.
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
| User: "Steenkin Man" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
21 Jun 2004 03:32:08 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
It's a good point that you make. Do we really want a society that's
partially descended from females who would murder their own babies?
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
21 Jun 2004 05:50:30 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
It's a good point that you make. Do we really want a society that's
partially descended from females who would murder their own babies?
They don't
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
21 Jun 2004 06:42:49 PM |
|
|
In article <tdped054ls5s35orvmcl3l0ogq0915td93@4ax.com>,
Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long
before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
It's a good point that you make. Do we really want a society that's
partially descended from females who would murder their own babies?
You mean the religious.
With abortions reports at approximately 43% for Proestants and 27%
Catholic in a given year, what we are seeing is the decline of the
religious population.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steenkin Man" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
21 Jun 2004 06:12:34 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
21 Jun 2004 08:24:46 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean_MacCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
22 Jun 2004 03:45:35 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
Complicated question. But the answer doesn't prove material cause and effect reality
untrue. There is no free will. Thoughts are chemical chain reactions [just like light
stored on the retina when one looks at a light bulb] and chemical chain reactions are
cause and effect events tracable back to the universe's first cause and effect event.
If eyes are a genetic trait how do they ever see anything new? That is what your sophistry
question asks?
Eye color and hair color are chemical chain-reaction mechanisms. Personality traits are
chemical chainreaction mechanisms too. The way those personalities reflex/ respond to
*contingency (ie 'choose' things)-- are passed on or not. (*contingency = cause and
effect events that trigger more events called reflexes such as eg "making free will
choices")'
Complexity and knowledge gaps don't change that.
'Breeding' is real.
This doesn't mean that 'abort or not' is simply passed on or not. But the premice of
personality traits ("chemical mechanisms") passing on --and therefore chemical mechanisms
that cause 'decision making' passing on-- is real.
Like I said in another thread, everybody wants to hide in complexity a la sophistry-- god
of the gaps forever and ever. No matter how much we learn, it's just like cavemen forever.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
I don't know what that means relevant to what I said that started this.
'Needing fewer abortions'?
Lower ranking females are lower ranking for reasons--glibly they're dumb. If they abort
more, fewer idiot babies would spread out. Sterilize the stupid and there will be fewer
stupid people multi generationally.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steenkin Man" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
22 Jun 2004 05:03:17 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
The reasons may be debatable but the outcome isn't: the higher the
education, the fewer the abortions.
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
22 Jun 2004 06:35:28 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
I would still like to know how any deviation from any standard
behavior can occur under your theory.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
The reasons may be debatable but the outcome isn't: the higher the
education, the fewer the abortions.
And the fewer the children no matter how that happens.
The intent of the freedom of choice is not to maximize abortion, it is
simply to give women another weapon in their arsenal of reproductive
control. Whether it is ever used is irrelevant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean_MacCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 06:40:10 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
The "curve" part means population distribution at certain aptitudes (ie
mode average [see
mean, median, mode] -- most often occuring number): For intellect, the
top/peak of the bell
shape curve is the mode average intellect of that segment or society.
This doesn't prove IQ tests or 'g' right or wrong. I am simply pointing
out what "bell
curve" means as a system humans use to chart the scores of their created
tests(debatable as
those tests are unfortunately).
I would still like to know how any deviation from any standard
behavior can occur under your theory.
("standard deviants" is just another one of these testing measures.)
It's not "his" theory; it is much bigger than that.
The answer to your question is variation. It will be selected for or
againts by niche (which
is also a variation). If this variation occurs in complex colonial
symbiosises (like a body
or hive) ... well it gets to complicated to simply digress. But this
complexity does not
prove that material cause and effect isn't real.
You are using a strawman called "Proscriptive v. Descriptive". (You
never heard of it 'cause
I'm just making it up.) This pretends a *description* of how nature, or
aspect thereof,
works is a *proscripition* and then when you demonstrate a complexity
which proves nature
leaves proscription you think you prove nature/material-reality unreal
(ie you burn the
strawman down [ie you assume you win and go back to anti material
reality ignorance]).
Actually I don''t know what you're talking about; your exchange here
hasn't said enough. I
assume it is 'creationism' based sophistry.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
The reasons may be debatable but the outcome isn't: the higher the
education, the fewer the abortions.
And the fewer the children no matter how that happens.
The intent of the freedom of choice is not to maximize abortion, it is
simply to give women another weapon in their arsenal of reproductive
control.
Very correct. If abortion is to be outlawed it should be oullawed on
this ground--not
religious (for religions aren't real), or sanctity of life silliness.
(Sanc o lif, as even
dim victor points out, flys in the face of the rest of the
conservative/pragmatist agenda.)
Men and boys are hurt and stressed by females playing their inherent
sexual crypto games and
their secretive mind fucking options(like make-up and birth control in
general etc); men
have been prevented from bradishing their natural skills and tendencies
because it hurtt
others, and so the females should be prevented from using their natural
skills for the same
imposed empthy reasons. Let us say *that* as our argument rather than
"god says..." or
"fetus loves you..." as a cover. La femme mystique game playing is an
emotionally abusive,
unfair--*unequal* and *unjust*--mind fucking ***** does to indivduals
and society. Birth
control and abortion is one part of that la femm mysti bag of tricks
--this wealth-ful bag
of tricks should be... "redistributed".
And 'female right to body soveriegnty' argument should be a non starter
(or what ever it's
called) becasuse it is not --and can not be-- applied equally to all
classes and genders. Eg
men have been drafted and taxed and etc, etc and females have been told
'to close their eyes
and think of England'; carrying rug rats should be legally seen in that
way.
Population and eugenic issues can then be framed properly, without these
distractions of the
absurd false dichotomy of '"pro reason" *****-soveriegnty pitted against
sanctity of life
pro war god conservatives'.
In the rennasaince this same debate happened regarding cadever research.
Chrisendumb thought the caderver still felt pain and was offened by the
research. Chrisendumb was also
--understandably-- horrified by the spectacle of it. But some people
could hack the spectacle and the cadaver doesn't feel a ***** thing.
And since it needed to be done it is good it
was.
Now I don't do mortuary stuff--I think it is ghoulish. But there are
people who do it--and it has to be done! Well it is the same with
abortion or compassionate euthanizing. It might not be
something everyone could do or stomach--but there are people who can
handle the pragmaticism of it all and they should do it --because it has
to be done!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 08:12:16 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:40:10 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40DA14C1.4AC05C23@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
The "curve" part means population distribution at certain aptitudes (ie
mode average [see
mean, median, mode] -- most often occuring number): For intellect, the
top/peak of the bell
shape curve is the mode average intellect of that segment or society.
This doesn't prove IQ tests or 'g' right or wrong. I am simply pointing
out what "bell
curve" means as a system humans use to chart the scores of their created
tests(debatable as
those tests are unfortunately).
A bell curve is used as a graphical display of statistical
distribution for any number of things - intelligence being only one of
them. When two factors are plotted on an x-y axis the resulting curve
can show a meaningful relationship such as the distribution of IQ
scores across a population segment. There is nothing magical about it
and frankly I fail to see why you keep harping on it.
The tendency for support or opposition to the freedom of choice is not
a genetic trait, and even if it was I would point out that many of
those who are pro-choice (like me) are also parents (like me).
And many who are anti-choice quietly get an abortion when they
unexpectedly find themselves pregnant, frequently telling no one about
what they did.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean_MacCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 09:46:08 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:40:10 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40DA14C1.4AC05C23@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
The "curve" part means population distribution at certain aptitudes (ie
mode average [see
mean, median, mode] -- most often occuring number): For intellect, the
top/peak of the bell
shape curve is the mode average intellect of that segment or society.
This doesn't prove IQ tests or 'g' right or wrong. I am simply pointing
out what "bell
curve" means as a system humans use to chart the scores of their created
tests(debatable as
those tests are unfortunately).
A bell curve is used as a graphical display of statistical
distribution for any number of things - intelligence being only one of
them. When two factors are plotted on an x-y axis the resulting curve
can show a meaningful relationship such as the distribution of IQ
scores across a population segment. There is nothing magical about it
and frankly I fail to see why you keep harping on it.
I am not harping on it. And your posting of some definition you dug up did not impress me.
The tendency for support or opposition to the freedom of choice is not
a genetic trait,
Feedom of choice is a slogan in bed with leftist stuff. Leftists are bench warmers from
childhood and benchwarmers are inferiority complex reactionaries-- ie leftists. Bench warmer
ness is a biological condition (as everything in nitrogern carbon equations is). These
biologies are what they are because of nature nurture cause and effect patterns (that pass on
as affected by selection). Political leanings are aptitude and character and aptitude and
character is biology. (The various slogans that develop which flesh out the leanings are
fashions; ultimately these fashions are part of a complex equation which I could start to
explain but I ain't gonna.)
and even if it was I would point out that many of
those who are pro-choice (like me) are also parents (like me).
Strawman. I did not make the argument you are responding too. Unfortunately someone else
entered in incorrect details to the thread and you have seized upon them to obfuscate a simple
point I made...
Abortion is one way to keep the stupid population small. That is all I said. Also I want to
toughen up the right for the culling that is coming and get their minds out of the cumfy pillow
excess has made for them.
And many who are anti-choice quietly get an abortion when they
unexpectedly find themselves pregnant, frequently telling no one about
what they did.
Good. I eat babies. ...With a nice kee'ante.
Is this supposed to be smug and snide (or what ever it would be called), impling that one of my
***** bags has betrayed me behind my back, you jackass? That pretty much exposes what abortion
politic is all about for these conspiratioral gits, living off of the useful idiots of
chrisendumb. They want females to mind *****, betray and emotionally abuse men(not that I feel
abused by abortion*) --through any tactic necessary-- as a way of acting out pain that comes
from their inferiory complex issues from childhood and their ugliness. These demented hags use
normal females (if one could use the word normal when refering to *****) as proxies to get back
at the world for their own pain. (Stopping this pain and reactionary-ism is why I would make
everyone the same through bio tech.)
*Any female with my ***** up her kooter, would count her self lucky, and run out and buy the "How
to have his healthy baby" book at the local mall --that is not a brag: I dance as good as I
sing. (Ie I can back up my rep displayed on the 'net with an assortment of qualities that come
across even better in person.) ***** pregnant with my baby is pregnant with a king--and *****
radar would sense this: females are designed with discriminatory tastes. I am far more
concerned with some crazed skank pulling my ***** out of the trash and shoving it up her snatch
when I'm not looking than I am with her aborting. And besides --I gender abort.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean_MacCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
22 Jun 2004 02:46:35 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
The "curve" part means population distribution at certain aptitudes (ie mode average [see
mean, median, mode] -- most often occuring number): For intellect, the top/peak of the bell
shape curve is the mode average intellect of that segment or society.
This doesn't prove IQ tests or 'g' right or wrong. I am simply pointing out what "bell
curve" means as a system humans use to chart the scores of their created tests(debatable as
those tests are unfortunately).
I would still like to know how any deviation from any standard
behavior can occur under your theory.
("standard deviants" is just another one of these testing measures.)
It's not "his" theory; it is much bigger than that.
The answer to your question is variation. It will be selected for or againts by niche (which
is also a variation). If this variation occurs in complex colonial symbiosises (like a body
or hive) ... well it gets to complicated to simply digress. But this complexity does not
prove that material cause and effect isn't real.
You are using a strawman called "Proscriptive v. Descriptive". (You never heard of it 'cause
I'm just making it up.) This pretends a *description* of how nature, or aspect thereof,
works is a *proscripition* and then when you demonstrate a complexity which proves nature
leaves proscription you think you prove nature/material-reality unreal (ie you burn the
strawman down [ie you assume you win and go back to anti material reality ignorance]).
Actually I don''t know what you're talking about; your exchange here hasn't said enough. I
assume it is 'creationism' based sophistry.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
The reasons may be debatable but the outcome isn't: the higher the
education, the fewer the abortions.
And the fewer the children no matter how that happens.
The intent of the freedom of choice is not to maximize abortion, it is
simply to give women another weapon in their arsenal of reproductive
control.
Very correct. If abortion is to be outlawed it should be oullawed on this ground--not
religious (for religions aren't real), or sanctity of life silliness. (Sanc o lif, as even
dim victor points out, flys in the face of the rest of the conservative/pragmatist agenda.)
Men and boys are hurt and stressed by females playing their inherent sexual crypto games and
their secretive mind fucking options(like make-up and birth control in general etc); men
have been prevented from bradishing their natural skills and tendencies because it hurtt
others, and so the females should be prevented from using their natural skills for the same
imposed empthy reasons. Let us say *that* as our argument rather than "god says..." or
"fetus loves you..." as a cover. La femme mystique game playing is an emotionally abusive,
unfair--*unequal* and *unjust*--mind fucking ***** does to indivduals and society. Birth
control and abortion is one part of that la femm mysti bag of tricks --this wealth-ful bag
of tricks should be... "redistributed".
And 'female right to body soveriegnty' argument should be a non starter (or what ever it's
called) becasuse it is not --and can not be-- applied equally to all classes and genders. Eg
men have been drafted and taxed and etc, etc and females have been told 'to close their eyes
and think of England'; carrying rug rats should be legally seen in that way.
Population and eugenic issues can then be framed properly, without these distractions of the
absurd false dichotomy of '"pro reason" *****-soveriegnty pitted against sanctity of life
pro war god conservatives'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
22 Jun 2004 07:07:11 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:46:35 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D88C84.21B06EB2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
The "curve" part means population distribution at certain aptitudes (ie mode average [see
mean, median, mode] -- most often occuring number): For intellect, the top/peak of the bell
shape curve is the mode average intellect of that segment or society.
This doesn't prove IQ tests or 'g' right or wrong. I am simply pointing out what "bell
curve" means as a system humans use to chart the scores of their created tests(debatable as
those tests are unfortunately).
I am well aware of a bell curve (or sine curve) and what it signifies.
It is a statistical analysis tool and does not predict what an
individual component of the curve will do, whether it is a human or an
atomic particle.
I would still like to know how any deviation from any standard
behavior can occur under your theory.
("standard deviants" is just another one of these testing measures.)
It's not "his" theory; it is much bigger than that.
The answer to your question is variation. It will be selected for or againts by niche (which
is also a variation). If this variation occurs in complex colonial symbiosises (like a body
or hive) ... well it gets to complicated to simply digress. But this complexity does not
prove that material cause and effect isn't real.
Or that it is.
You are using a strawman called "Proscriptive v. Descriptive". (You never heard of it 'cause
I'm just making it up.) This pretends a *description* of how nature, or aspect thereof,
works is a *proscripition* and then when you demonstrate a complexity which proves nature
leaves proscription you think you prove nature/material-reality unreal (ie you burn the
strawman down [ie you assume you win and go back to anti material reality ignorance]).
Actually I don''t know what you're talking about; your exchange here hasn't said enough. I
assume it is 'creationism' based sophistry.
If you are talking to me you really missed the mark. I have yet to
see any evidence of a creator.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
The reasons may be debatable but the outcome isn't: the higher the
education, the fewer the abortions.
And the fewer the children no matter how that happens.
The intent of the freedom of choice is not to maximize abortion, it is
simply to give women another weapon in their arsenal of reproductive
control.
Very correct. If abortion is to be outlawed it should be oullawed on this ground--not
religious (for religions aren't real), or sanctity of life silliness. (Sanc o lif, as even
dim victor points out, flys in the face of the rest of the conservative/pragmatist agenda.)
Men and boys are hurt and stressed by females playing their inherent sexual crypto games and
their secretive mind fucking options(like make-up and birth control in general etc); men
have been prevented from bradishing their natural skills and tendencies because it hurtt
others, and so the females should be prevented from using their natural skills for the same
imposed empthy reasons. Let us say *that* as our argument rather than "god says..." or
"fetus loves you..." as a cover. La femme mystique game playing is an emotionally abusive,
unfair--*unequal* and *unjust*--mind fucking ***** does to indivduals and society. Birth
control and abortion is one part of that la femm mysti bag of tricks --this wealth-ful bag
of tricks should be... "redistributed".
Major trash.
And 'female right to body soveriegnty' argument should be a non starter (or what ever it's
called) becasuse it is not --and can not be-- applied equally to all classes and genders. Eg
men have been drafted and taxed and etc, etc and females have been told 'to close their eyes
and think of England'; carrying rug rats should be legally seen in that way.
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean_MacCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
22 Jun 2004 08:31:10 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:46:35 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D88C84.21B06EB2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
The "curve" part means population distribution at certain aptitudes (ie mode average [see
mean, median, mode] -- most often occuring number): For intellect, the top/peak of the bell
shape curve is the mode average intellect of that segment or society.
This doesn't prove IQ tests or 'g' right or wrong. I am simply pointing out what "bell
curve" means as a system humans use to chart the scores of their created tests(debatable as
those tests are unfortunately).
I am well aware of a bell curve (or sine curve) and what it signifies.
It is a statistical analysis tool and does not predict what an
individual component of the curve will do, whether it is a human or an
atomic particle.
I would still like to know how any deviation from any standard
behavior can occur under your theory.
("standard deviants" is just another one of these testing measures.)
It's not "his" theory; it is much bigger than that.
The answer to your question is variation. It will be selected for or againts by niche (which
is also a variation). If this variation occurs in complex colonial symbiosises (like a body
or hive) ... well it gets to complicated to simply digress. But this complexity does not
prove that material cause and effect isn't real.
Or that it is.
You are using a strawman called "Proscriptive v. Descriptive". (You never heard of it 'cause
I'm just making it up.) This pretends a *description* of how nature, or aspect thereof,
works is a *proscripition* and then when you demonstrate a complexity which proves nature
leaves proscription you think you prove nature/material-reality unreal (ie you burn the
strawman down [ie you assume you win and go back to anti material reality ignorance]).
Actually I don''t know what you're talking about; your exchange here hasn't said enough. I
assume it is 'creationism' based sophistry.
If you are talking to me you really missed the mark. I have yet to
see any evidence of a creator.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
The reasons may be debatable but the outcome isn't: the higher the
education, the fewer the abortions.
And the fewer the children no matter how that happens.
The intent of the freedom of choice is not to maximize abortion, it is
simply to give women another weapon in their arsenal of reproductive
control.
Very correct. If abortion is to be outlawed it should be oullawed on this ground--not
religious (for religions aren't real), or sanctity of life silliness. (Sanc o lif, as even
dim victor points out, flys in the face of the rest of the conservative/pragmatist agenda.)
Men and boys are hurt and stressed by females playing their inherent sexual crypto games and
their secretive mind fucking options(like make-up and birth control in general etc); men
have been prevented from bradishing their natural skills and tendencies because it hurtt
others, and so the females should be prevented from using their natural skills for the same
imposed empthy reasons. Let us say *that* as our argument rather than "god says..." or
"fetus loves you..." as a cover. La femme mystique game playing is an emotionally abusive,
unfair--*unequal* and *unjust*--mind fucking ***** does to indivduals and society. Birth
control and abortion is one part of that la femm mysti bag of tricks --this wealth-ful bag
of tricks should be... "redistributed".
Major trash.
And 'female right to body soveriegnty' argument should be a non starter (or what ever it's
called) becasuse it is not --and can not be-- applied equally to all classes and genders. Eg
men have been drafted and taxed and etc, etc and females have been told 'to close their eyes
and think of England'; carrying rug rats should be legally seen in that way.
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
Oh I advocate slavery. And your convenient arguments expose what you advocate.
Your days are numbered. Trust me.
Enjoy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 05:27:58 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:31:10 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D8DD40.4BFE6F49@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:46:35 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D88C84.21B06EB2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
The "curve" part means population distribution at certain aptitudes (ie mode average [see
mean, median, mode] -- most often occuring number): For intellect, the top/peak of the bell
shape curve is the mode average intellect of that segment or society.
This doesn't prove IQ tests or 'g' right or wrong. I am simply pointing out what "bell
curve" means as a system humans use to chart the scores of their created tests(debatable as
those tests are unfortunately).
I am well aware of a bell curve (or sine curve) and what it signifies.
It is a statistical analysis tool and does not predict what an
individual component of the curve will do, whether it is a human or an
atomic particle.
I would still like to know how any deviation from any standard
behavior can occur under your theory.
("standard deviants" is just another one of these testing measures.)
It's not "his" theory; it is much bigger than that.
The answer to your question is variation. It will be selected for or againts by niche (which
is also a variation). If this variation occurs in complex colonial symbiosises (like a body
or hive) ... well it gets to complicated to simply digress. But this complexity does not
prove that material cause and effect isn't real.
Or that it is.
You are using a strawman called "Proscriptive v. Descriptive". (You never heard of it 'cause
I'm just making it up.) This pretends a *description* of how nature, or aspect thereof,
works is a *proscripition* and then when you demonstrate a complexity which proves nature
leaves proscription you think you prove nature/material-reality unreal (ie you burn the
strawman down [ie you assume you win and go back to anti material reality ignorance]).
Actually I don''t know what you're talking about; your exchange here hasn't said enough. I
assume it is 'creationism' based sophistry.
If you are talking to me you really missed the mark. I have yet to
see any evidence of a creator.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
The reasons may be debatable but the outcome isn't: the higher the
education, the fewer the abortions.
And the fewer the children no matter how that happens.
The intent of the freedom of choice is not to maximize abortion, it is
simply to give women another weapon in their arsenal of reproductive
control.
Very correct. If abortion is to be outlawed it should be oullawed on this ground--not
religious (for religions aren't real), or sanctity of life silliness. (Sanc o lif, as even
dim victor points out, flys in the face of the rest of the conservative/pragmatist agenda.)
Men and boys are hurt and stressed by females playing their inherent sexual crypto games and
their secretive mind fucking options(like make-up and birth control in general etc); men
have been prevented from bradishing their natural skills and tendencies because it hurtt
others, and so the females should be prevented from using their natural skills for the same
imposed empthy reasons. Let us say *that* as our argument rather than "god says..." or
"fetus loves you..." as a cover. La femme mystique game playing is an emotionally abusive,
unfair--*unequal* and *unjust*--mind fucking ***** does to indivduals and society. Birth
control and abortion is one part of that la femm mysti bag of tricks --this wealth-ful bag
of tricks should be... "redistributed".
Major trash.
And 'female right to body soveriegnty' argument should be a non starter (or what ever it's
called) becasuse it is not --and can not be-- applied equally to all classes and genders. Eg
men have been drafted and taxed and etc, etc and females have been told 'to close their eyes
and think of England'; carrying rug rats should be legally seen in that way.
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
Oh I advocate slavery. And your convenient arguments expose what you advocate.
I try to make it as clear as possible.
Your days are numbered.
What does that mean?
Trust me.
I doubt that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean_MacCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 07:44:49 AM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:31:10 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D8DD40.4BFE6F49@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:46:35 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D88C84.21B06EB2@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 11:03:17 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jqefiF14kk2lU4@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:24:46 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 00:12:34 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jp8bgF14a84hU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 18:50:30 -0400, Attila <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 21:32:08 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <2jouumF13eu7mU1@uni-berlin.de> wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 17:15:53 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> wrote:
Abortion is good -- kills liberals dead. Kills 'em at the get go, long before they
vote.
It's certainly a fact that the pro-death faction will produce less
offspring than the pro-life faction, so the pro-lifers are bound to
win in the end.
Amusing, as if this was a genetic trait like eye or hair color.
The human brain is genetically determined - just like hair or eye
colour.
Some characteristics, yes, but not how someone thinks.
If thought is genetic how does anyone ever think anything new?
The ability to think is inherited. Intelligence is a heritable trait.
Read The Bell Curve.
I have. Note it is a curve - not a digital spike. While it can
predict trends there are enough exceptions to be significant.
The "curve" part means population distribution at certain aptitudes (ie mode average [see
mean, median, mode] -- most often occuring number): For intellect, the top/peak of the bell
shape curve is the mode average intellect of that segment or society.
This doesn't prove IQ tests or 'g' right or wrong. I am simply pointing out what "bell
curve" means as a system humans use to chart the scores of their created tests(debatable as
those tests are unfortunately).
I am well aware of a bell curve (or sine curve) and what it signifies.
It is a statistical analysis tool and does not predict what an
individual component of the curve will do, whether it is a human or an
atomic particle.
I would still like to know how any deviation from any standard
behavior can occur under your theory.
("standard deviants" is just another one of these testing measures.)
It's not "his" theory; it is much bigger than that.
The answer to your question is variation. It will be selected for or againts by niche (which
is also a variation). If this variation occurs in complex colonial symbiosises (like a body
or hive) ... well it gets to complicated to simply digress. But this complexity does not
prove that material cause and effect isn't real.
Or that it is.
You are using a strawman called "Proscriptive v. Descriptive". (You never heard of it 'cause
I'm just making it up.) This pretends a *description* of how nature, or aspect thereof,
works is a *proscripition* and then when you demonstrate a complexity which proves nature
leaves proscription you think you prove nature/material-reality unreal (ie you burn the
strawman down [ie you assume you win and go back to anti material reality ignorance]).
Actually I don''t know what you're talking about; your exchange here hasn't said enough. I
assume it is 'creationism' based sophistry.
If you are talking to me you really missed the mark. I have yet to
see any evidence of a creator.
This is an education trait, and as more people are better educated and
better medical support is available it will become a non-issue because
it will be universally accepted.
The flaw in that argument is that the better educated the mother, the
less likely she is to have an abortion.
Oh? I doubt that, other than having better control over her
reproductive life and needing fewer abortions.
The reasons may be debatable but the outcome isn't: the higher the
education, the fewer the abortions.
And the fewer the children no matter how that happens.
The intent of the freedom of choice is not to maximize abortion, it is
simply to give women another weapon in their arsenal of reproductive
control.
Very correct. If abortion is to be outlawed it should be oullawed on this ground--not
religious (for religions aren't real), or sanctity of life silliness. (Sanc o lif, as even
dim victor points out, flys in the face of the rest of the conservative/pragmatist agenda.)
Men and boys are hurt and stressed by females playing their inherent sexual crypto games and
their secretive mind fucking options(like make-up and birth control in general etc); men
have been prevented from bradishing their natural skills and tendencies because it hurtt
others, and so the females should be prevented from using their natural skills for the same
imposed empthy reasons. Let us say *that* as our argument rather than "god says..." or
"fetus loves you..." as a cover. La femme mystique game playing is an emotionally abusive,
unfair--*unequal* and *unjust*--mind fucking ***** does to indivduals and society. Birth
control and abortion is one part of that la femm mysti bag of tricks --this wealth-ful bag
of tricks should be... "redistributed".
Major trash.
And 'female right to body soveriegnty' argument should be a non starter (or what ever it's
called) becasuse it is not --and can not be-- applied equally to all classes and genders. Eg
men have been drafted and taxed and etc, etc and females have been told 'to close their eyes
and think of England'; carrying rug rats should be legally seen in that way.
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
Oh I advocate slavery. And your convenient arguments expose what you advocate.
I try to make it as clear as possible.
(When you're not engaging in sophistry of course.)
What is clear is you want special treatment for ***** wrapped up in the absurd delusions of
democracy/equality which were created/advocated, good-intentionedly, by those you seek to oppress.
Your days are numbered.
What does that mean?
It means liberalsm is going to be eliminated through warcrime, just as soon as the goofball
infantile idiocy called christianity is politically realigned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 09:21:47 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:44:49 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D97B25.98CC7EB3@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
Oh I advocate slavery. And your convenient arguments expose what you advocate.
I try to make it as clear as possible.
(When you're not engaging in sophistry of course.)
What is clear is you want special treatment for ***** wrapped up in the absurd delusions of
democracy/equality which were created/advocated, good-intentionedly, by those you seek to oppress.
Not at all. If any men become pregnant I would support their right to
choose also.
Your days are numbered.
What does that mean?
It means liberalsm is going to be eliminated through warcrime, just as soon as the goofball
infantile idiocy called christianity is politically realigned.
Warcrime?
It is obvious school is out for the summer and some kids don't have
enough to do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean_MacCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 04:02:58 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:44:49 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D97B25.98CC7EB3@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
Oh I advocate slavery. And your convenient arguments expose what you advocate.
I try to make it as clear as possible.
(When you're not engaging in sophistry of course.)
What is clear is you want special treatment for ***** wrapped up in the absurd delusions of
democracy/equality which were created/advocated, good-intentionedly, by those you seek to oppress.
Not at all. If any men become pregnant I would support their right to
choose also.
Smug semantics.
Your days are numbered.
What does that mean?
It means liberalsm is going to be eliminated through warcrime, just as soon as the goofball
infantile idiocy called christianity is politically realigned.
Warcrime?
Warcrime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 04:08:40 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:02:58 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D9EFE9.2BF95BD9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:44:49 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D97B25.98CC7EB3@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
Oh I advocate slavery. And your convenient arguments expose what you advocate.
I try to make it as clear as possible.
(When you're not engaging in sophistry of course.)
What is clear is you want special treatment for ***** wrapped up in the absurd delusions of
democracy/equality which were created/advocated, good-intentionedly, by those you seek to oppress.
Not at all. If any men become pregnant I would support their right to
choose also.
Smug semantics.
No, fact. The situation involving the freedom of choice only applies
to women, like it or not.
Your days are numbered.
What does that mean?
It means liberalsm is going to be eliminated through warcrime, just as soon as the goofball
infantile idiocy called christianity is politically realigned.
Warcrime?
Warcrime.
Whatever that is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean_MacCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 05:52:43 PM |
|
|
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:02:58 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D9EFE9.2BF95BD9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:44:49 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D97B25.98CC7EB3@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
Oh I advocate slavery. And your convenient arguments expose what you advocate.
I try to make it as clear as possible.
(When you're not engaging in sophistry of course.)
What is clear is you want special treatment for ***** wrapped up in the absurd delusions of
democracy/equality which were created/advocated, good-intentionedly, by those you seek to oppress.
Not at all. If any men become pregnant I would support their right to
choose also.
Smug semantics.
No, fact. The situation involving the freedom of choice only applies
to women, like it or not.
Like or not?...
Law is the most malliable unnatural philosophy humans engage in.
You people who hide behind the ever changing fashion of law --like it is a deep
truth of the universe -- and a mighty shield of rhetorical semantic brilliance--
are really quite something.
Freedom of choice is rooted in other principles. Right to privacy and freedom from government intrusion
(or what ever the actual slogans are that assert those notions and intentions). If these principles can't
apply to all then they shouldn't apply to just females.
Society makes citizens (read males) do things all the time, which are against their right to privacy and
come from government intrusion.
Approaching it from any other perspective is semantics and sloganeering. Semantics which benefit your
ideology and are presented smugly (even though law is an ever shiftable construct).
I'm not going to debate it with you -- like you're an honest philosopher or something. You're a mindless
sloganeering git. The problem is not with you and I --it is popularity and mass confusion --useful idiot--
problem. So long as the white male has embraced the beliefs he has, you'll be able to smugly hide behind
the laws as they are now.
But then the pendulumn will swing...
Your days are numbered.
What does that mean?
It means liberalsm is going to be eliminated through warcrime, just as soon as the goofball
infantile idiocy called christianity is politically realigned.
Warcrime?
Warcrime.
Whatever that is.
Put in camps and killed by your betters. What did you think? I was afraid to say it, you git?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: I don't get it. |
23 Jun 2004 08:04:36 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:52:43 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40DA09A2.5C44E97F@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 21:02:58 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D9EFE9.2BF95BD9@yahoo.com> wrote:
Attila wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 12:44:49 GMT, Sean_MacCloud
<Sean_MacCloud@yahoo.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<40D97B25.98CC7EB3@yahoo.com> wrote:
Nonsense. Women serve in the military, and to force them to remain
pregnant is nothing less than slavery.
Oh I advocate slavery. And your convenient arguments expose what you advocate.
I try to make it as clear as possible.
(When you're not engaging in sophistry of course.)
What is clear is you want special treatment for ***** wrapped up in the absurd delusions of
democracy/equality which were created/advocated, good-intentionedly, by those you seek to oppress.
Not at all. If any men become pregnant I would support their right to
choose also.
Smug semantics.
No, fact. The situation involving the freedom of choice only applies
to women, like it or not.
Like or not?...
Law is the most malliable unnatural philosophy humans engage in.
Law can do little to make a man pregnant.
You people who hide behind the ever changing fashion of law --like it is a deep
truth of the universe -- and a mighty shield of rhetorical semantic brilliance--
are really quite something.
Freedom of choice is rooted in other principles. Right to privacy and freedom from government intrusion
(or what ever the actual slogans are that assert those notions and intentions). If these principles can't
apply to all then they shouldn't apply to just females.
They do apply to all, but freedoms involving pregnancy are limited to
those who are pregnant.
Society makes citizens (read males) do things all the time, which are against their right to privacy and
come from government intrusion.
Approaching it from any other perspective is semantics and sloganeering. Semantics which benefit your
ideology and are presented smugly (even though law is an ever shiftable construct).
I'm not going to debate it with you -- like you're an honest philosopher or something. You're a mindless
sloganeering git. The problem is not with you and I --it is popularity and mass confusion --useful idiot--
problem. So long as the white male has embraced the beliefs he has, you'll be able to smugly hide behind
the laws as they are now.
But then the pendulumn will swing...
Thank you for not debating it with me. I am really not very
interested. I assume you will stop responding to me?
May I suggest a killfile?
Your days are numbered.
What does that mean?
It means liberalsm is going to be eliminated through warcrime, just as soon as the goofball
infantile idiocy called christianity is politically realigned.
Warcrime?
Warcrime.
Whatever that is.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
