| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Lawrence Hyde" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2004 02:48:35 PM |
| Object: |
Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
In order to decide what is right we must consult exclusively
our feelings of compassion - for compassion is the essential
foundation of all morality; it is the common ground that
unites us all. A moral disagreement is simply a disagreement
about what the object of our compassion should be, or about
the relative levels of priority that should be assigned
between the various objects of our compassion.
As animals it is natural that we would desire to have children.
But, does that mean we have the right to do so? It may seem
right that people ought to be free to fulfil their natural
desires but, just because a desire is natural does not mean
that it is right. The desire to murder or to rape are both
perfectly natural desires yet we don't say that we have a right
to fulfil them. This is because the fulfilment of these desires
generates victims for whom we feel a greater compassion than for
the perpetrator whose desires have been satisfied. We generally
feel a positive antipathy for anyone whose desires lead them to
harm others.
What most people fail to recognise is that the natural desire
for procreation generates victims also. Most directly there is
the child, who is an often unthought of victim of their parents'
carnal/paternal instinct to procreate. Especialy in cases where
parents are flawed in their moral and ethical assumptions and
ignorant of the inconsistancies of their words and actions.
Then there is the wider picture to consider. Surely steps should
be taken to considered what sort of life a child will have
beyond upbringing, over the next seventy-five years or so. What
economic and political prospects will they face? Will they be
able to go to college, get a good job, make a good living and
have a secure retirement? Or, will they face economic volatility,
low wages, high unemployment, war and the depletion of resourses.
For humanity to persist, each generation needs to be able to
produce another generation of equaly well educated and hard
working people in proportion to what it believes it can support.
Then reproduction is more like conscription Where people have
children as a privilage, but mainly as a duty for the good of
society as a whole. The shamelessly blasé attitude that
dominates our society today, leads to notions like: "the 'right'
to reproduce", and is most certainly a detrament to our future.
.
|
|
| User: "EvilZak" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
12 Apr 2004 07:47:42 AM |
|
|
(Lawrence Hyde) wrote in message news:<f925918f.0404101148.7bd7bfc6@posting.google.com>...
Then there is the wider picture to consider. Surely steps should
be taken to considered what sort of life a child will have
beyond upbringing, over the next seventy-five years or so. What
economic and political prospects will they face? Will they be
able to go to college, get a good job, make a good living and
have a secure retirement? Or, will they face economic volatility,
low wages, high unemployment, war and the depletion of resourses.
I take it that your latest deranged idea for "proper" parents is that
they have infallible pyschic powers, in order to be able to judge that
the next however many years will be free of war, economic collapse or
natural disaster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hate feminism" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
14 Apr 2004 06:44:32 AM |
|
|
EvilZak wrote:
revolutionarian@earthlink.net (Lawrence Hyde) wrote in message news:<f925918f.0404101148.7bd7bfc6@posting.google.com>...
Then there is the wider picture to consider. Surely steps should
be taken to considered what sort of life a child will have
beyond upbringing, over the next seventy-five years or so. What
economic and political prospects will they face? Will they be
able to go to college, get a good job, make a good living and
have a secure retirement? Or, will they face economic volatility,
low wages, high unemployment, war and the depletion of resourses.
I take it that your latest deranged idea for "proper" parents is that
they have infallible pyschic powers, in order to be able to judge that
the next however many years will be free of war, economic collapse or
natural disaster.
No; it's just more optimistic than your ideology of hopelessness.
.
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
14 Apr 2004 08:29:05 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:44:32 +1200, hate feminism
<adsfjkh@adsjfhuire.fdgfdjkhds> wrote:
EvilZak wrote:
revolutionarian@earthlink.net (Lawrence Hyde) wrote in message news:<f925918f.0404101148.7bd7bfc6@posting.google.com>...
Then there is the wider picture to consider. Surely steps should
be taken to considered what sort of life a child will have
beyond upbringing, over the next seventy-five years or so. What
economic and political prospects will they face? Will they be
able to go to college, get a good job, make a good living and
have a secure retirement? Or, will they face economic volatility,
low wages, high unemployment, war and the depletion of resourses.
I take it that your latest deranged idea for "proper" parents is that
they have infallible pyschic powers, in order to be able to judge that
the next however many years will be free of war, economic collapse or
natural disaster.
No; it's just more optimistic than your ideology of hopelessness.
A child's life is a game of chance for you?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IMPX" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
10 Apr 2004 09:18:57 PM |
|
|
Hi,
Then there is the wider picture to consider. Surely steps should
be taken to considered what sort of life a child will have
beyond upbringing, over the next seventy-five years or so. What
economic and political prospects will they face? Will they be
able to go to college, get a good job, make a good living and
have a secure retirement? Or, will they face economic volatility,
low wages, high unemployment, war and the depletion of resourses.
I believe that it is virtually impossible to know for certain if the
economic or civic structures around us will ever change or not. I am
inclined to believe that the economy is always subject to change without
notice so to speak. However, the civic structures I do not believe are
subject to change, for example, the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights). Another example is the welfare system
and the military. If something does not change that is indicative of a good
thing. If things kept changing all the time we'd find ourselves with moral
questions at every corner. However, if a lot of changing is conducive to a
free and prosperous society then so be it.
For humanity to persist, each generation needs to be able to
produce another generation of equaly well educated and hard
working people in proportion to what it believes it can support.
Then reproduction is more like conscription Where people have
children as a privilage, but mainly as a duty for the good of
society as a whole. The shamelessly blasé attitude that
dominates our society today, leads to notions like: "the 'right'
to reproduce", and is most certainly a detrament to our future.
Yes it is.
~IMPX
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
11 Apr 2004 03:12:31 PM |
|
|
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "EvilZak" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
12 Apr 2004 07:50:20 AM |
|
|
(Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
Just how do you enforce this RIGHT to life against, say, terminal cancer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "hate feminism" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
14 Apr 2004 06:43:48 AM |
|
|
EvilZak wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
Just how do you enforce this RIGHT to life against, say, terminal cancer?
You expect us to prosecute a cancer.
Are you one stupid fucktard - or what?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
14 Apr 2004 09:00:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:43:48 +1200, hate feminism
<adsfjkh@adsjfhuire.fdgfdjkhds> in alt.abortion with message-id
<407D23F4.BBE9CF49@adsjfhuire.fdgfdjkhds> wrote:
EvilZak wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
Just how do you enforce this RIGHT to life against, say, terminal cancer?
You expect us to prosecute a cancer.
Are you one stupid fucktard - or what?
OK. You must have a kidney transplant or die. There is no other
option. I am the only existing source for a kidney for you. I refuse
to allow a transplant.
Now what?
You must have an immediate blood transfusion or die. I am the only
source for usable blood and I refuse.
Now what?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
14 Apr 2004 08:28:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 23:43:48 +1200, hate feminism
<adsfjkh@adsjfhuire.fdgfdjkhds> wrote:
EvilZak wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
Just how do you enforce this RIGHT to life against, say, terminal cancer?
You expect us to prosecute a cancer.
Why not? It kills people.
Idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
15 Apr 2004 08:17:22 AM |
|
|
(Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion??
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
15 Apr 2004 04:59:29 PM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
15 Apr 2004 09:28:00 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob SD" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
16 Apr 2004 11:12:45 AM |
|
|
(TBone) wrote in
news:90282bc8.0404151828.795d155d@posting.google.com:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message
news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message
news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message
news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of
abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
The only "victim" of abortion is the pregnant woman.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
15 Apr 2004 09:39:02 PM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2004 19:28:00 -0700, (TBone) in
alt.abortion with message-id
<90282bc8.0404151828.795d155d@posting.google.com> wrote:
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
There are no 'victims of abortion'.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
15 Apr 2004 11:40:34 PM |
|
|
On 15 Apr 2004 19:28:00 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
A victim is "One who is harmed or killed by another.... A person who
suffers injury, loss, or death... " Since we are speaking of
abortions sought by the people having them there are no victims.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
16 Apr 2004 05:35:19 AM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f6199.7715959@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 19:28:00 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
A victim is "One who is harmed or killed by another.... A person who
suffers injury, loss, or death... " Since we are speaking of
abortions sought by the people having them there are no victims.
You obviously know very little about maternity. Life begins when the
egg is fertilized. Like it or not, when an abortion is performed a
human life is destroyed in its very earliest stages. The unborn child
is the victim of murder.
Studies have shown unborn children to have structured brain wave
activity during the first trimester. In other words... thoughts.
They are not the "unviable tissue mass" you would have people believe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
16 Apr 2004 09:27:12 AM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2004 03:35:19 -0700, (TBone) in
alt.abortion with message-id
<90282bc8.0404160235.2d1dec4@posting.google.com> wrote:
You obviously know very little about maternity. Life begins when the
egg is fertilized.
You are ignoring the fact that the egg and the sperm themselves must
be alive.
Like it or not, when an abortion is performed a
human life is destroyed in its very earliest stages
The same thing happens every time a woman can become pregnant and
fails to do so.
The unborn child
Which does not exist
is the victim of murder.
Murder is an illegal act, and abortion is legal. For those reasons
alone it is not currently possible for an abortion to be murder.
Studies have shown unborn children to have structured brain wave
activity during the first trimester.
Irrelevant.
In other words... thoughts.
Haven't these same studies shown the same type of activity in trees?
They are not the "unviable tissue mass" you would have people believe.
It really does not matter. There is no requirement for every possible
person to exist, and a pregnant woman (or any woman or man) has the
right to determine what will happen to his or her body.
Any effect on a fetus is an irrelevant and unimportant side effect.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
16 Apr 2004 08:32:22 AM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2004 03:35:19 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f6199.7715959@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 19:28:00 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
A victim is "One who is harmed or killed by another.... A person who
suffers injury, loss, or death... " Since we are speaking of
abortions sought by the people having them there are no victims.
You obviously know very little about maternity. Life begins when the
egg is fertilized.
Biological life began billions of years ago and has continued in an
unbroken line ever since.
Human life began about a million years ago and has continued in an
unbroken line ever since.
The life of an entity, a person, a human being, etc., begins when that
entity, person, being, etc. comes into existence. In the case of
human, at birth.
To claim that the life of a human being, comething that could be a
'victim' begins at fertilization is to claim that it is totally
aceptable to toss the bodies of out dead children into the trash.
Like it or not, when an abortion is performed a
human life is destroyed in its very earliest stages. The unborn child
is the victim of murder.
Like it or not, "a human life" does not begin until birth. What is
'destroyed' in an abortion is the unborn human life, that which
*might* have become a human life. Abortion is not and never has been
considered to be murder (except by anti-abortionists, and then only
for the purpose of opposing abortion.)
Studies have shown unborn children to have structured brain wave
activity during the first trimester. In other words... thoughts.
Any time you wish to discuss reality, please feel free to start.
They are not the "unviable tissue mass" you would have people believe.
The only people calling a fetus an "unviable tissue mass" are
Pro-Lifers. Do you have any justification for opposing abortion that
is not based upon falsehoods, and which does not ignore the human
rights of the woman involved?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
17 Apr 2004 03:05:19 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407fdc72.39170113@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 16 Apr 2004 03:35:19 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f6199.7715959@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 19:28:00 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
A victim is "One who is harmed or killed by another.... A person who
suffers injury, loss, or death... " Since we are speaking of
abortions sought by the people having them there are no victims.
You obviously know very little about maternity. Life begins when the
egg is fertilized.
Biological life began billions of years ago and has continued in an
unbroken line ever since.
Human life began about a million years ago and has continued in an
unbroken line ever since.
The life of an entity, a person, a human being, etc., begins when that
entity, person, being, etc. comes into existence. In the case of
human, at birth.
You know... Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy would pretend their
victims were something less than human. If you dehumanize someone, if
you can convince yourself that they are not human it makes them easier
to kill doesn't it.
To claim that the life of a human being, comething that could be a
'victim' begins at fertilization is to claim that it is totally
aceptable to toss the bodies of out dead children into the trash.
???
Like it or not, when an abortion is performed a
human life is destroyed in its very earliest stages. The unborn child
is the victim of murder.
Like it or not, "a human life" does not begin until birth. What is
'destroyed' in an abortion is the unborn human life, that which
*might* have become a human life. Abortion is not and never has been
considered to be murder (except by anti-abortionists, and then only
for the purpose of opposing abortion.)
Like I said... you know very little about maternity and human
development.
Studies have shown unborn children to have structured brain wave
activity during the first trimester. In other words... thoughts.
Any time you wish to discuss reality, please feel free to start.
Any time you wish to leave denial, please feel free to start... take
the red pill Neo...
They are not the "unviable tissue mass" you would have people believe.
The only people calling a fetus an "unviable tissue mass" are
Pro-Lifers. Do you have any justification for opposing abortion that
is not based upon falsehoods, and which does not ignore the human
rights of the woman involved?
Try reading Roe v. Wade about the use of the term "unviable tissue
mass"
.
|
|
|
| User: "EvilZak" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
19 Apr 2004 04:30:55 PM |
|
|
(TBone) wrote in message news:<90282bc8.0404171205.6b33f1fa@posting.google.com>...
The life of an entity, a person, a human being, etc., begins when that
entity, person, being, etc. comes into existence. In the case of
human, at birth.
You know... Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy would pretend their
victims were something less than human. If you dehumanize someone, if
you can convince yourself that they are not human it makes them easier
to kill doesn't it.
It's a popular tactic with anti choicers to act as though women are
not human beings, merely the containers for "human beings". Makes it
easier to ignore their rights.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
17 Apr 2004 03:53:55 PM |
|
|
On 17 Apr 2004 13:05:19 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407fdc72.39170113@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 16 Apr 2004 03:35:19 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f6199.7715959@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 19:28:00 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
A victim is "One who is harmed or killed by another.... A person who
suffers injury, loss, or death... " Since we are speaking of
abortions sought by the people having them there are no victims.
You obviously know very little about maternity. Life begins when the
egg is fertilized.
Biological life began billions of years ago and has continued in an
unbroken line ever since.
Human life began about a million years ago and has continued in an
unbroken line ever since.
The life of an entity, a person, a human being, etc., begins when that
entity, person, being, etc. comes into existence. In the case of
human, at birth.
You know... Jeffrey Dahmer and John Wayne Gacy would pretend their
victims were something less than human.
Which has nothing to do with what I posted, this is merely a dodge and
an attack by assocation against me. Why? Because you cannot deny
that a human being is that which is born, human, and alive -- which
fact is in accordance with language, religion, tradition, and law.
If you dehumanize someone, if
you can convince yourself that they are not human it makes them easier
to kill doesn't it.
And if you attack someone you can avoid facing the truth.
To claim that the life of a human being, comething that could be a
'victim' begins at fertilization is to claim that it is totally
aceptable to toss the bodies of out dead children into the trash.
???
I guess you don't know much about human reproduction, maternity, and
are oblivious to facts.
Like it or not, when an abortion is performed a
human life is destroyed in its very earliest stages. The unborn child
is the victim of murder.
Like it or not, "a human life" does not begin until birth. What is
'destroyed' in an abortion is the unborn human life, that which
*might* have become a human life. Abortion is not and never has been
considered to be murder (except by anti-abortionists, and then only
for the purpose of opposing abortion.)
Like I said... you know very little about maternity and human
development.
I know what is meant by "a human life" -- it is the life of a human
being and cannot exist until and unless that human being exists.
Studies have shown unborn children to have structured brain wave
activity during the first trimester. In other words... thoughts.
Any time you wish to discuss reality, please feel free to start.
Any time you wish to leave denial, please feel free to start... take
the red pill Neo...
If you had anything other than lies and insults you would have
produced them. Thoughts, in the first trimester?
They are not the "unviable tissue mass" you would have people believe.
The only people calling a fetus an "unviable tissue mass" are
Pro-Lifers. Do you have any justification for opposing abortion that
is not based upon falsehoods, and which does not ignore the human
rights of the woman involved?
Try reading Roe v. Wade about the use of the term "unviable tissue
mass"
Repeat:
Do you have any justification for opposing abortion that is not based
upon falsehoods, and which does not ignore the human rights of the
woman involved?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
16 Apr 2004 07:03:42 PM |
|
|
On 16 Apr 2004 03:35:19 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f6199.7715959@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 19:28:00 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
A victim is "One who is harmed or killed by another.... A person who
suffers injury, loss, or death... " Since we are speaking of
abortions sought by the people having them there are no victims.
You obviously know very little about maternity. Life begins when the
egg is fertilized. Like it or not, when an abortion is performed a
human life is destroyed in its very earliest stages. The unborn child
is the victim of murder.
Nope. Life began (on this planet) about 3 billion years ago. When
you masturbate, 'a human life is destroyed in its very earliest
stages'.
Studies have shown unborn children to have structured brain wave
activity during the first trimester. In other words... thoughts.
Where are these 'studies'? Is this 'structured brain wave activity;
distinguishable from what you get when you connect an EEG to a
rutabaga?
They are not the "unviable tissue mass" you would have people believe.
Uh, what does 'viable' mean in loonie-speak?
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
17 Apr 2004 02:54:10 PM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uss080livl3k0rta8o8c0gllhomtgpp2ae@4ax.com>...
On 16 Apr 2004 03:35:19 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f6199.7715959@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 19:28:00 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<407f0479.7215925@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
On 15 Apr 2004 06:17:22 -0700, (TBone) wrote:
unpleazant_truth@yahoo.com (Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
So when,in your eyes, does this not apply to the infant victims of abortion?
There is no such thing as an 'infant victim of abortion.' An infant
is a (www.dictionary.com:) "A child in the first period of life,
beginning at his birth....Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary"
There is no infant until a live birth has occurred.
Correction, when does this not apply to the victims of abortion?
A victim is "One who is harmed or killed by another.... A person who
suffers injury, loss, or death... " Since we are speaking of
abortions sought by the people having them there are no victims.
You obviously know very little about maternity. Life begins when the
egg is fertilized. Like it or not, when an abortion is performed a
human life is destroyed in its very earliest stages. The unborn child
is the victim of murder.
Nope. Life began (on this planet) about 3 billion years ago. When
you masturbate, 'a human life is destroyed in its very earliest
stages'.
When a female's egg is fertilized by sperm a human is the result. An
egg by itself is not a human being nor is sperm.
Your statement is similar to saying that Vodka by itself is a
"screwdriver" and that orange juice by itself is a "screwdriver"...
Only when you mix vodka and orange juice do you get a "screwdriver"
Studies have shown unborn children to have structured brain wave
activity during the first trimester. In other words... thoughts.
Where are these 'studies'? Is this 'structured brain wave activity;
distinguishable from what you get when you connect an EEG to a
rutabaga?
They are not the "unviable tissue mass" you would have people believe.
Uh, what does 'viable' mean in loonie-speak?
I don't know... I don't speak Loonie.
You see... the references to "viable" and "unviable tissue mass" are
central to the Left Wing Loonie Bible, Roe v. Wade.
Maybe you should pickup a book and try to play "catch up" in a few
years.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
17 Apr 2004 03:28:17 PM |
|
|
TBone <mrtim5700@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net>
Nope. Life began (on this planet) about 3 billion years ago. When
you masturbate, 'a human life is destroyed in its very earliest
stages'.
When a female's egg is fertilized by sperm a human is the result.
A human embryo.
An
egg by itself is not a human being nor is sperm.
Nor is an embryo.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Joey" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
16 Apr 2004 11:49:27 AM |
|
|
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
Imagine the precedent this could set. Given the proper power of
attorney and the proper loopholes, if all of your paperwork was in
order you could legally kill anyone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
11 Apr 2004 03:50:18 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2004 13:12:31 -0700, (Unpleasant
Truth) in alt.abortion with message-id
<2083fd5d.0404111212.2e16db5a@posting.google.com> wrote:
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights).
PS...INALIENABLE means incapable of being transferred.
Your right to life is NOT transferrable to other men.
It is yours when you come into this world--it does
not belong to the government.
To repeat, exactly where can I find this right detailed?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
11 Apr 2004 06:09:52 AM |
|
|
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
Hi,
...the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights)...
The CONSTITUTION??? The rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness are bestowed upon men by GOD
or NATURE'S GOD--they are not GIVEN or GRANTED to us
by OTHER CREATURES WHO WALK ON TWO LEGS JUST AS WE DO!
What criteria could you POSSIBLY use to determine
which HUMAN BEING(S) deserve the power to grant basic
rights to OTHER human beings? We have NO KINGS ruling
over us here in the United States.
Good heavens. One of the highest priorities of our
government is to collectively secure our god-given
rights. It is mortifying that so many Americans are
so inadequately informed about such things.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TBone" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
11 Apr 2004 04:07:45 PM |
|
|
(Unpleasant Truth) wrote in message news:<2083fd5d.0404110309.7a48d957@posting.google.com>...
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
Hi,
...the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights)...
The CONSTITUTION??? The rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness are bestowed upon men by GOD
or NATURE'S GOD--they are not GIVEN or GRANTED to us
by OTHER CREATURES WHO WALK ON TWO LEGS JUST AS WE DO!
What criteria could you POSSIBLY use to determine
which HUMAN BEING(S) deserve the power to grant basic
rights to OTHER human beings?
Based on the original post I would say that if you are of proper
upbringing and education, i.e. wealthy, that gives you the right to
reproduce. That of course leaves out the fact that most of "our" best
and brightest were not born with a silver spoon up their *****. It is
also based on the notion that poor people serve no purpose and are
only a detriment to society.
This is also based on the notion that your existence is to only obtain
material wealth.
Rather than ***** about whether ghetto children should have been born
maybe this guy should try to help some of these people get out of the
ghetto so their next generation does not end up there.
We have NO KINGS ruling
over us here in the United States.
Amen to that, we are the masters of our own destiny.
Good heavens. One of the highest priorities of our
government is to collectively secure our god-given
rights. It is mortifying that so many Americans are
so inadequately informed about such things.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
11 Apr 2004 12:53:36 PM |
|
|
On 11 Apr 2004 04:09:52 -0700, (Unpleasant
Truth) in alt.abortion with message-id
<2083fd5d.0404110309.7a48d957@posting.google.com> wrote:
"IMPX" <impx@spamnet.net> wrote in message news:<4078ab11$0$12740$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>...
Hi,
...the US constitution (which grants the US
civillians many unalienable rights)...
The CONSTITUTION???
Suppose we start by pointing out that is from the Declaration of
Independence, not the Constitution, and as such is not the basis for
any law.
The rights to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness are bestowed upon men by GOD
or NATURE'S GOD--they are not GIVEN or GRANTED to us
by OTHER CREATURES WHO WALK ON TWO LEGS JUST AS WE DO!
Please prove any such entity exists.
What criteria could you POSSIBLY use to determine
which HUMAN BEING(S) deserve the power to grant basic
rights to OTHER human beings?
No, we have a representative government which formats and passes laws,
and the only rights that exists are those protected by those laws.
We have NO KINGS ruling
over us here in the United States.
No one said we did. That is simply a different form of government.
Good heavens. One of the highest priorities of our
government is to collectively secure our god-given
rights.
First prove any god exists.
It is mortifying that so many Americans are
so inadequately informed about such things.
As you have aptly demonstrated. Try to learn.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Do We Have The "Right" To reproduce? |
11 Apr 2004 05:23:51 PM |
|
|
Suppose we start by pointing out that is from the Declaration of
Independence, not the Constitution, and as such is not the basis for
any law.
********************
I doubt if the fucking moron will check out the link, but here it is
anyhow.........
http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html
He will note, IF he bothers to read it, that only the BORN have rights in the
US
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
