Science > Abortion > Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Rob Wade" |
| Date: |
24 Feb 2005 04:08:32 PM |
| Object: |
Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush can protect Social Security by "curing"
abortion, a pro-life group says.
The American Life League is running a full-page newspaper ad in
Thursday's Washington Times, explaining that since 1973, more than 50
million babies have been killed through abortion.
"Those are the very babies that, today, would be living, working -- and
paying into Social Security," said Judie Brown, president of American
Life League. "However, the national plague of abortion has eliminated
those contributors from society."
The ad challenges the federal government to pull its multi-million
dollar annual subsidy of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest
abortion provider, and other abortion-promoting entities.
"The government is largely responsible for the Social Security crisis"
because it has continued to fund abortion giants, such as Planned
Parenthood, Brown said.
"With this ad, American Life League is blowing the whistle on the
failed government program of funding abortion."
Brown believes there is a "strong, direct connection" between Social
Security problems and abortion: "We have killed off our children, who
are no longer here to provide for us in the future."
She said the Social Security crisis will end, only when Americans stop
treating life like a dispensable commodity.
'Consumer Reports' blasted
In another development, a subsidiary of the American Life League is
urging Americans to cancel their subscriptions to Consumer Reports
magazine -- following revelations that James Guest, the CEO of
Consumers Union, once served as the president of a Maryland Planned
Parenthood affiliate.
According to the American Life League's STOPP International, that
explains why Consumer Reports' February issue ran "irresponsible
features on abortion and birth control."
Pro-life advocates say the Feb. 2005 issue of Consumer Reports magazine
contains deceptive, inaccurate information about how birth control
pills work.
Specifically, according to STOPP International said, the February issue
"follows a long-established Planned Parenthood propaganda tactic of not
telling consumers that the pill can cause the death of a human being in
the womb by preventing implantation" of a fertilized egg.
"If Consumers Union will lie about causing the death of human beings,
where else will it compromise its integrity?" asked Jim Sedlak,
executive director of American Life League's STOPP International.
He said the only way for Consumers Union to restore its credibility is
to "clean house."
.
|
|
| User: "Pat Kiewicz" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
25 Feb 2005 08:58:09 AM |
|
|
(newsgroups & followups trimmed)
Rob Wade said:
Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Morning Editor
(CNSNews.com) - President Bush can protect Social Security by "curing"
abortion, a pro-life group says.
The American Life League is running a full-page newspaper ad in
Thursday's Washington Times, explaining that since 1973, more than 50
million babies have been killed through abortion.
We all remember how *impossible* it was to get booze during Prohibition!
And there are no illegal drugs for sale anywhere in the USA!
Argh! Why do people think that making abortion illegal will ensure that it
never happens? (Or that women who have abortions *never* go on to
have children later in their lives? )
We have *no idea* how many more people there would have been
if Roe v Wade hadn't legalized abortion. It can be argued that there
might even have been FEWER children born:
1) Some of these babies might have been born, and the women would not
have had some (or all) the children they went on to have after their abortion.
Result: NO GAIN.
2) Some of those babies would still not have been born due to *illegal*
abortions. And also more women would have died of complications
or been rendered sterile by post-abortion infections, meaning they wouldn't
have gone on to have future children.
Result: A NET LOSS.
I know of at least one elderly woman who would have had children if she
had had access to a safe, legal abortion when she was young, unmarried
and 'in trouble.' (Yes, back in grandma's day, women had abortions. I
wish some of those old women would speak up about how things used
to be.)
Before Roe v Wade women in the USA had abortions. In countries where
it isn't currently legal, women have abortions. In *ancient times* it was
considered neccessary to make laws against women having abortions,
*even in societies where infanticide was common*. (A man could not be
deprived of potential sons, or the final decision about his 'property.')
--
Pat K. aa#1154 ('someplace.net' is comcast)
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
(attributed to Don Marti)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
24 Feb 2005 04:15:00 PM |
|
|
Even assuming that none of those abortions were later substituted with
a deferred birth, even assuming that each of them were productive
members of society while they were working (and not drains on society
before they were old enough to work in the mills and the coal mines)
what would happen when those 50 million non-aborted babies start
retiring in 2038? No matter how you slice it, it's a Ponzi scheme.
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
27 Feb 2005 02:46:48 AM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Even assuming that none of those abortions were later substituted with
a deferred birth, even assuming that each of them were productive
members of society while they were working (and not drains on society
before they were old enough to work in the mills and the coal mines)
what would happen when those 50 million non-aborted babies start
retiring in 2038? No matter how you slice it, it's a Ponzi scheme.
Right-wing disinformation. SS is nothing like a Ponzi scheme but outright
lying seems to be a regular tactic of the conservative.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Chesler" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
27 Feb 2005 11:27:05 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
chesler@post.harvard.edu <chesler@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
No matter how you slice it, it's a Ponzi scheme.
Right-wing disinformation. SS is nothing like a Ponzi scheme but outright
lying seems to be a regular tactic of the conservative.
It's significantly different from a Ponzi scheme in that it's not
voluntary, but otherwise it shares a lot: Early investors are paid
with the investments of later investors, and to keep going it requires
an ever-larger pool of investors. There is no "trust fund", any more
than I can expect to retire on my personal retirement savings, which
I've been using to fund current expenditures, but leaving myself
dollar-for-dollar little IOUs that I plan to cash in when I retire.
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
28 Feb 2005 10:20:28 PM |
|
|
David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
chesler@post.harvard.edu <chesler@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
No matter how you slice it, it's a Ponzi scheme.
Right-wing disinformation. SS is nothing like a Ponzi scheme but outright
lying seems to be a regular tactic of the conservative.
It's significantly different from a Ponzi scheme in that it's not
voluntary, but otherwise it shares a lot:
Except that 1) it doesn't promise any great return, 2) it isn't
presented as an investment, and 3) it doesn't require an expanding
pool of (non)investors.
Early investors are paid
with the investments of later investors,
There are no investors. SS is retirement insurance.
and to keep going it requires
an ever-larger pool of investors.
That's complete *****.
There is no "trust fund",
Except that there is.
Again, all you have are lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
01 Mar 2005 01:12:06 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer and I discuss whether or not Social Security
is like a Ponzi scheme. Ray writes:
1) it doesn't promise any great return
Agreed. It's a credible return. Made it easier to sell.
For a number of decades it has been indexed by the
"cost of living" and has allowed retirees with a little
extra savings to live comfortably, and those with
nothing else, a modest standard of living.
Could they have done better if the 14% of the
first $80,000 or so of their annual income (employer
and employee sides) had been properly invested?
For the earlier retirees, not at all; for current retirees
it's about break even, meaning the government isn't
doing them any favors.
2) it isn't presented as an investment
It depends which politician you're talking to, and on
which day. It's generally packaged as "You are paying
now, so you can collect later". Terms like "trust
fund" and "account" and the annual statement lead
to this general picture. Of course it's really pay-as-you-go,
and it's not voluntary, as I've admitted. They could just
as well call it "The stealing 1/7 of your earnings so we can
give it to old people whether or not they need it" program.
3) it doesn't require an expanding
pool of (non)investors.
What else is going to sustain it?
Early investors are paid
with the investments of later investors,
There are no investors. SS is retirement insurance.
You mean like I've got house insurance, in case my
house catches fire, and I've got term life insurance
in case I die in the next 20 years, in case I unexpectedly
retire I'll be insured against that? It's even less like
insurance than it's like a Ponzi scheme.
There is no "trust fund",
Except that there is.
There's a stack of IOUs that the government owes itself.
Those aren't assets, they're memos, "Must remember to
pay the old people". (If you want to be most charitable,
"We promise that whoever is in charge in 20 or 40 or 60
years will figure out some way to collect enough taxes to
pay your benefits.")
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
01 Mar 2005 11:31:34 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer and I discuss whether or not Social Security
is like a Ponzi scheme. Ray writes:
1) it doesn't promise any great return
Agreed. It's a credible return. Made it easier to sell.
Which means it isn't a ponzi scheme, despite your whining.
For a number of decades it has been indexed by the
"cost of living" and has allowed retirees with a little
extra savings to live comfortably, and those with
nothing else, a modest standard of living.
Could they have done better if the 14% of the
first $80,000 or so of their annual income (employer
and employee sides) had been properly invested?
Smirk. "Properly". You too can be rich if you just select
the "proper" numbers for a lottery ticket.
2) it isn't presented as an investment
It depends which politician you're talking to,
Politicians are largely dishonest slimebags.
It's generally packaged as "You are paying
now, so you can collect later".
It's retirememnt insurance.
Terms like "trust
fund" and "account" and the annual statement lead
to this general picture.
There is no account.
3) it doesn't require an expanding
pool of (non)investors.
What else is going to sustain it?
The current pool of workers.
Early investors are paid
with the investments of later investors,
There are no investors. SS is retirement insurance.
You mean like I've got house insurance, in case my
house catches fire, and I've got term life insurance
in case I die in the next 20 years, in case I unexpectedly
retire I'll be insured against that?
In case you live longer than your money lasts SS will provide
a modest income.
There is no "trust fund",
Except that there is.
There's a stack of IOUs that the government owes itself.
Here's a clue: The dollar is nothing but an IOU.
That money you have in the bank is nothing but a promise
to give you IOUs. That currency you have in your wallet
is an IOU from the government.
Whining that SS is the same as every other bank and currency
is disingenuous.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
02 Mar 2005 05:11:27 PM |
|
|
This discussion has happened many times before, for instance
in ne.general (the group from which I'm reading this thread), see
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/ne.general/browse_frm/thread/dc7b924088bebd62/343ed2125fcb30ac
Ray Fischer writes:
Could they have done better if the 14% of the
first $80,000 or so of their annual income (employer
and employee sides) had been properly invested?
Smirk. "Properly". You too can be rich if you just select
the "proper" numbers for a lottery ticket.
You can't know the winning numbers ahead of time.
You can know, to a fairly good certainty, that if you
invest in a mix of major stocks, your money will increase
at a rate greater than inflation over any period of time
greater than 10 years or so. (You can adjust the mean
and standard deviation through the mix, adding more
speculative stocks or adding bonds.)
Terms like "trust
fund" and "account" and the annual statement lead
to this general picture.
There is no account.
Exactly.
3) it doesn't require an expanding
pool of (non)investors.
What else is going to sustain it?
The current pool of workers.
The current current pool of workers are going to
be retired when a current contributor retires.
What has sustained Social Security is the
workers who are still working when the retiree
retires. When I retire around 2030, if there's
any Social Security to collect, it will be supported
from some folks who are working today but
younger than I, and some folks who are not yet
working, and some folks who have not yet been
born. And that entire pool of workers will be
smaller, relative to the number of retirees, than
is the situation now.
Definitions aside, that's the problem.
There is no "trust fund",
Except that there is.
There's a stack of IOUs that the government owes itself.
Here's a clue: The dollar is nothing but an IOU.
That money you have in the bank is nothing but a promise
to give you IOUs. That currency you have in your wallet
is an IOU from the government.
Whining that SS is the same as every other bank and currency
is disingenuous.
There is no trust fund.
For now, most people will accept a dollar in return for goods and
services that are, well, worth a dollar. The US has done a really
good job in keeping it that way. Double digits is runaway inflation.
I don't expect that a dollar will be worth a dollar 30 years from now,
but it will probably be worth 40 or 50 cents then.
It's a credible promise, and self-fulfilling.
It's not a credible promise that retirees will be able to collect from
Social Security an amount close to what, as a sole source of
income is the poverty level, funded from payroll taxes on those who
are working while the retirees are retired, structured more or less as
we know it today.
And that is also self-fulfilling. Unlike the dollar, which is backed
by the full faith and credit of the United States, and which has a
lot of political will keeping it stable, Social Security is
subject the political will of the people. The AARP is pretty good
at rallying the votes and keeping that third rail electrified, but
there comes a time when enough workers, and enough voters who depend
on the wages of workers, find that their then-current burden is not
worth the expectation that Social Security retirement benefits will
be there for them when it's their turn.
I'll concede that calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is
rhetorical hyperbole, if you'll agree that the current funding
model is just not going to work at some point in the future,
and that point is a lot closer to 15 years from now (when
outflow exceeds intake) than 40 years from now (when
the mythical trust fund is depleted, the so-called "bankruptcy"
that President Bush mentioned in the State of the Union
address.
See http://www.factcheck.org/article305.html although it
doesn't matter which side of the aisle you sit on to realize
that they system can't be maintained under the current
model.
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
02 Mar 2005 11:15:20 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer writes:
Could they have done better if the 14% of the
first $80,000 or so of their annual income (employer
and employee sides) had been properly invested?
Smirk. "Properly". You too can be rich if you just select
the "proper" numbers for a lottery ticket.
You can't know the winning numbers ahead of time.
And you cannot know what the markets will do in the future.
You can know, to a fairly good certainty, that if you
invest in a mix of major stocks, your money will increase
at a rate greater than inflation over any period of time
greater than 10 years or so.
Starting in 1965 the stock markets started to drop and didn't
recover for 25 years.
Anybody who tells you he has a sure thing is a liar trying to
get your money for himself.
Terms like "trust
fund" and "account" and the annual statement lead
to this general picture.
There is no account.
Exactly.
That's another reason SS isn't anything like a ponzi scheme.
3) it doesn't require an expanding
pool of (non)investors.
What else is going to sustain it?
The current pool of workers.
The current current pool of workers are going to
be retired when a current contributor retires.
Then there will be new workers joining the workforce.
What has sustained Social Security is the
workers who are still working when the retiree
retires. When I retire around 2030, if there's
any Social Security to collect, it will be supported
from some folks who are working today but
younger than I, and some folks who are not yet
working, and some folks who have not yet been
born. And that entire pool of workers will be
smaller, relative to the number of retirees, than
is the situation now.
But it's simple to adjust benefits so that the system remains
balanced.
There is no "trust fund",
Except that there is.
There's a stack of IOUs that the government owes itself.
Here's a clue: The dollar is nothing but an IOU.
That money you have in the bank is nothing but a promise
to give you IOUs. That currency you have in your wallet
is an IOU from the government.
Whining that SS is the same as every other bank and currency
is disingenuous.
There is no trust fund.
That just happens to have a balance of $1.6 trillion.
[...]
I'll concede that calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme is
rhetorical hyperbole, if you'll agree that the current funding
model is just not going to work at some point in the future,
and that point is a lot closer to 15 years from now (when
outflow exceeds intake) than 40 years from now (when
the mythical trust fund is depleted, the so-called "bankruptcy"
that President Bush mentioned in the State of the Union
address.
The model is fine and has been working for 70 years. Only the
parameters are off. Raise the retirement age and it'll continue
to work for another 100 years.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
03 Mar 2005 12:16:49 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer writes:
Only the
parameters are off. Raise the retirement age and it'll continue
to work for another 100 years.
I'll have to tell that to my creditors. "Here's my IOU. Don't worry
that it's not money, just an IOU, because that's all money is
anyway. And don't think I'm not paying you what I owe you because
I'm past due and only sending you 75% of what the bill says, I've
just adjusted the parameters."
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
04 Mar 2005 12:05:04 AM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Ray Fischer writes:
Only the
parameters are off. Raise the retirement age and it'll continue
to work for another 100 years.
I'll have to tell that to my creditors. "Here's my IOU. Don't worry
Try not to be an idiot. Your analogy makes no sense.
If you spend more than you earn then the solutions are simple:
1) earn more, or 2) spend less.
Raises taxes on SS or reduce benefits (such as by raising the
retirement age).
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
04 Mar 2005 10:54:33 AM |
|
|
Saying "The system will be bankrupt" may be overstating the problem,
but brushing it off as "All we have to do is reduce the benefits" is
denying that there is a problem.
THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Since THERE IS NO ACTUAL TRUST FUND, since the system has always been
pay as you go, it doesn't suddenly run out of money in 2048. Until
2020 or so, the sytem is a profit-maker for the US government: It is
taking in more, in the form of the 7% + 7% contributions, then it is
paying out. After that, it is paying out more than it is taking in.
(Nothing inherently wrong with that, few government programs use the
"every tub with its own bucket" model.) At the "bankruptcy" point, the
total of all payments, from the beginning of time, is equal to the toal
of all contributions, from the beginning of time.
What I gather from the article I cited is that by law (that is, by
current law), benefits would have to be cut at that point, when the
trust fund, which is merely an accounting device, is exhausted.
Benefits would have to be cut so that outflow didn't exceed intake.
Those of us who think "Social Security won't be there for us when we
retire" don't think there won't be any check in the mail, at least not
right away, but the concern is that the check will be materially
smaller than it is now.
Under the current law, the payouts could go at full speed until the
day before "bankruptcy", and then suddenly drop to match intake. More
likely is that things would be slowed down and done more gradually --
it's always better to boil a frog that way.
But that is the fear: Social Security AS WE KNOW IT will not be there
when we retire.
The point of my analogy would be that just as my creditors wouldn't
think I was meeting my obligations to them if I paid them less than I
owed, later than when it was due, neither will the
taxpayer/participants/retirees think that Social Security is meeting
its obligation to them if benefits are reduced in size or delayed.
Raising taxes merely puts off the problem.
The Ponzi or pyramid claim is because the demographics are not in a
steady state. For 70 years there have been enough wage-earners
entering the system that retirees were covered until they died. But as
retirees are refusing to die soon enough, and more importantly as the
rate of population increase slows, the program can't go on. This is
the similarity to Ponzi and pyramid schemes: The program depends on
ever-increasing numbers of new participants, and it can't go on
forever. And the end is in sight.
--
- David Chesler <chesler@post.harvard.edu>
Iacta alea est
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
04 Mar 2005 10:28:51 PM |
|
|
<> wrote:
Saying "The system will be bankrupt" may be overstating the problem,
but brushing it off as "All we have to do is reduce the benefits" is
denying that there is a problem.
Admitting that there is a problem by stating a solution is denying
that there is a problem?
THAT IS THE PROBLEM.
Since THERE IS NO ACTUAL TRUST FUND,
The usual right-wing conspiracy lunacy.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saban" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
04 Mar 2005 10:39:46 PM |
|
|
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Obviously with an exeption or two, such as health complications with
the mother, and possibly rape victims, that one would need a debate.
I'd like to see the first death penalty dealt out due to multiple
abortions. Would be an interesting twist to society eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
04 Mar 2005 10:47:46 PM |
|
|
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of your body
in order to help people live.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saban" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
04 Mar 2005 10:59:10 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of your body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism. eg. Give up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally over the
population. And you even suggest it to an extreme where it means forced
organ donations for the better of anyone that get's ill! (Which is an
interesting concept)
Making abortions illegal is protecting every new citizen of this world
their human right to life. This doesn't compare to the communism you
suggest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
05 Mar 2005 01:53:18 PM |
|
|
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of your body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism. eg. Give up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally over the
population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in order to
keep fetuses alive.
And you even suggest it to an extreme where it means forced
organ donations for the better of anyone that get's ill! (Which is an
interesting concept)
"Organs" like, for example, uteruses?
Making abortions illegal is protecting every new citizen of this world
their human right to life.
Except that 1) you violate the rights of pregnant women, and 2) you
just compared that right to life with communism.
This doesn't compare to the communism you
suggest.
But my statement was just another version of what YOU advocate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saban" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
05 Mar 2005 04:28:18 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of your body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism. eg. Give
up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally over the
population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in order to
keep fetuses alive.
lol? Maybe you mean imprison them until they've given birth? That is
unnecessary. Making it illegal will do just fine...
And you even suggest it to an extreme where it means forced
organ donations for the better of anyone that get's ill! (Which is
an
interesting concept)
"Organs" like, for example, uteruses?
A uterus is an organ, sure. But I don't see why anyone would need a new
uterus to survive?
Making abortions illegal is protecting every new citizen of this
world
their human right to life.
Except that 1) you violate the rights of pregnant women, and 2) you
just compared that right to life with communism.
It isn't her right to kill someone. I didn't compare the right to life
with communism, I compared your original BS statement with communism.
This doesn't compare to the communism you
suggest.
But my statement was just another version of what YOU advocate.
No it wasn't.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrealphus" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
05 Mar 2005 08:35:06 PM |
|
|
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of your body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism. eg.
Give up everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally
over the population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in order to
keep fetuses alive.
lol? Maybe you mean imprison them until they've given birth? That is
unnecessary. Making it illegal will do just fine...
Making it illegal in the U.S. wouldn't do a thing where I live.
--
"Only Buddhism is compatible with science. It covers the smallest
particles to the largest creations of the cosmos. It is the only
religion capable of scientific truth."
Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
05 Mar 2005 07:00:49 PM |
|
|
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of your body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism. eg. Give
up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally over the
population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in order to
keep fetuses alive.
lol? Maybe you mean imprison them until they've given birth?
I wrote what I meant. You demand that women be forced to provide the
use of their bodies, suffer pain, injury, expense, and risk of death
because you want to use them to benefit fetuses.
And you even suggest it to an extreme where it means forced
organ donations for the better of anyone that get's ill! (Which is
an
interesting concept)
"Organs" like, for example, uteruses?
A uterus is an organ, sure. But I don't see why anyone would need a new
uterus to survive?
"Anyone" like, say, a fetus?
Making abortions illegal is protecting every new citizen of this
world
their human right to life.
Except that 1) you violate the rights of pregnant women, and 2) you
just compared that right to life with communism.
It isn't her right to kill someone.
Nobody ever said it was.
It's the single biggest lie of the anti-abortion ideology that there
is any right to kill. There is not. But as long as a fetus is in a
woman's body she has the right to remove it.
I didn't compare the right to life
with communism, I compared your original BS statement with communism.
But YOU want to take the use of her body to benefit others.
This doesn't compare to the communism you
suggest.
But my statement was just another version of what YOU advocate.
No it wasn't.
Yes, it was.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saban" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
06 Mar 2005 01:00:37 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of your
body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism. eg.
Give
up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally over
the
population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in order
to
keep fetuses alive.
lol? Maybe you mean imprison them until they've given birth?
I wrote what I meant. You demand that women be forced to provide the
use of their bodies, suffer pain, injury, expense, and risk of death
because you want to use them to benefit fetuses.
No, they aren't forced. No one forced them to go and get pregnant.
(rape victims most likely would be exempt from the law) But once they
do, it's their responsibility to do their best that the life they
brought into the world doesn't come to harm.
suffer pain- yes, that's what happens when a woman gives birth
risk of death- I'm sure the risk of death is greater on their drive to
the hospital then when actually giving birth.
Sure, to "Benefit fetuses". To allow a child to be born into this world
I agree is a major benefit...
And you even suggest it to an extreme where it means forced
organ donations for the better of anyone that get's ill! (Which
is
an
interesting concept)
"Organs" like, for example, uteruses?
A uterus is an organ, sure. But I don't see why anyone would need a
new
uterus to survive?
"Anyone" like, say, a fetus?
Fetuses don't need uterus transplants. They do however need them to
live.
Making abortions illegal is protecting every new citizen of this
world
their human right to life.
Except that 1) you violate the rights of pregnant women, and 2)
you
just compared that right to life with communism.
It isn't her right to kill someone.
Nobody ever said it was.
It's the single biggest lie of the anti-abortion ideology that there
is any right to kill. There is not. But as long as a fetus is in a
woman's body she has the right to remove it.
No, you just contradicted yourself. To say a pregnant woman has the
right to remove a fetus from her body is to say she has the right to
kill a living human being.
I didn't compare the right to life
with communism, I compared your original BS statement with
communism.
But YOU want to take the use of her body to benefit others.
No, I don't want to take her body to benefit others. I want it to be
illegal for her to kill living human beings simply because she's too
irresponsible to prevent the pregnacy in the first place.
This doesn't compare to the communism you
suggest.
But my statement was just another version of what YOU advocate.
No it wasn't.
Yes, it was.
No it wasn't. In fact, your original statement made little to no sense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
06 Mar 2005 06:21:03 PM |
|
|
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of your
body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism. eg.
Give
up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally over
the
population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in order
to
keep fetuses alive.
lol? Maybe you mean imprison them until they've given birth?
I wrote what I meant. You demand that women be forced to provide the
use of their bodies, suffer pain, injury, expense, and risk of death
because you want to use them to benefit fetuses.
No, they aren't forced. No one forced them to go and get pregnant.
Which is a stupid non sequitur. You want them forced to give birth.
But once they
do, it's their responsibility to do their best that the life they
brought into the world doesn't come to harm.
Your perverted need to subjugate women doesn't create any
responsibility for anybody to obey you. Women are not your slaves
no matter how badly you hate them.
And you even suggest it to an extreme where it means forced
organ donations for the better of anyone that get's ill! (Which
is
an
interesting concept)
"Organs" like, for example, uteruses?
A uterus is an organ, sure. But I don't see why anyone would need a
new
uterus to survive?
"Anyone" like, say, a fetus?
Fetuses don't need uterus transplants.
But they do need the use of a woman's uterus.
They do however need them to
live.
One of those forced organ donations you were just whining about.
Making abortions illegal is protecting every new citizen of this
world
their human right to life.
Except that 1) you violate the rights of pregnant women, and 2)
you
just compared that right to life with communism.
It isn't her right to kill someone.
Nobody ever said it was.
It's the single biggest lie of the anti-abortion ideology that there
is any right to kill. There is not. But as long as a fetus is in a
woman's body she has the right to remove it.
No, you just contradicted yourself. To say a pregnant woman has the
right to remove a fetus from her body is to say she has the right to
kill a living human being.
You're sleazy idiot. Women "remove" fetuses from within their bodies
every day. Thousands of them. It's called "childbirth".
Nobody dies.
I didn't compare the right to life
with communism, I compared your original BS statement with
communism.
But YOU want to take the use of her body to benefit others.
No,
STOP LYING!
I don't want to take her body to benefit others. I want it to be
illegal for her to kill living human beings simply because she's too
irresponsible to prevent the pregnacy in the first place.
You just want to punish women for having sex. It's fine for YOU to
kill living human beings by refusiing to feed them, but heaven forbid
that a woman protect herself from harm by refusing to keep a fetus
alive.
You're an immoral control freak. A loser with a madonna/***** complex.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saban" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
06 Mar 2005 08:33:20 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of
your
body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism.
eg.
Give
up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally over
the
population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in
order
to
keep fetuses alive.
lol? Maybe you mean imprison them until they've given birth?
I wrote what I meant. You demand that women be forced to provide
the
use of their bodies, suffer pain, injury, expense, and risk of
death
because you want to use them to benefit fetuses.
No, they aren't forced. No one forced them to go and get pregnant.
Which is a stupid non sequitur. You want them forced to give birth.
But once they
do, it's their responsibility to do their best that the life they
brought into the world doesn't come to harm.
Your perverted need to subjugate women doesn't create any
responsibility for anybody to obey you. Women are not your slaves
no matter how badly you hate them.
Your argument makes no sense and has no basis to stand! To say that I
"have a perverted need to control women and turn them into slaves
because I hate them" is a terrible thing to say! Requiring very poor
intelligence I may add. I said nothing of the sort!
And you even suggest it to an extreme where it means forced
organ donations for the better of anyone that get's ill!
(Which
is
an
interesting concept)
"Organs" like, for example, uteruses?
A uterus is an organ, sure. But I don't see why anyone would need
a
new
uterus to survive?
"Anyone" like, say, a fetus?
Fetuses don't need uterus transplants.
But they do need the use of a woman's uterus.
They do however need them to
live.
One of those forced organ donations you were just whining about.
Making abortions illegal is protecting every new citizen of
this
world
their human right to life.
Except that 1) you violate the rights of pregnant women, and 2)
you
just compared that right to life with communism.
It isn't her right to kill someone.
Nobody ever said it was.
It's the single biggest lie of the anti-abortion ideology that
there
is any right to kill. There is not. But as long as a fetus is in
a
woman's body she has the right to remove it.
No, you just contradicted yourself. To say a pregnant woman has the
right to remove a fetus from her body is to say she has the right to
kill a living human being.
You're sleazy idiot. Women "remove" fetuses from within their bodies
every day. Thousands of them. It's called "childbirth".
Nobody dies.
I'm a "sleazy idiot" because YOU just claimed that childbirth is the
same as abortion! When a women gives birth, she's giving birth, not
"removing a fetus". By the way, it is no longer considered a fetus, it
is a baby.
I didn't compare the right to life
with communism, I compared your original BS statement with
communism.
But YOU want to take the use of her body to benefit others.
No,
STOP LYING!
I don't want to take her body to benefit others. I want it to be
illegal for her to kill living human beings simply because she's too
irresponsible to prevent the pregnacy in the first place.
You just want to punish women for having sex.
lol, I wish not to punish women for having sex. I simply want to
protect the helpless children that are slaughtered every day. If a
women thinks that having a child is punishment, then surely they should
not be having sex... ever hear of "protection".
Some people think that using protection during sex is like murder too
hehe... Preventing a life is the same as stopping one? I almost care to
agree. Definately have an argument.
It's fine for YOU to
kill living human beings by refusiing to feed them,
Who have I "killed by refusing to feed them". Seriously now.
but heaven forbid
that a woman protect herself from harm by refusing to keep a fetus
alive.
Yes, Heaven forbid. God Himself told us that murder is wrong.
If complications arise for a pregnant woman, obviously aborting the
baby would be legal...
You're an immoral control freak. A loser with a madonna/*****
complex.
Immoral? I'm not the one that thinks that abortion is every womens
right. You need a major lack of morals to believe that.
Please stop replying to this, your arguments are becoming less
comprehensible and less competent and you are now resorting to petty
childish name calling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
06 Mar 2005 10:44:19 PM |
|
|
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of
your
body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism.
eg.
Give
up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally over
the
population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in
order
to
keep fetuses alive.
lol? Maybe you mean imprison them until they've given birth?
I wrote what I meant. You demand that women be forced to provide
the
use of their bodies, suffer pain, injury, expense, and risk of
death
because you want to use them to benefit fetuses.
No, they aren't forced. No one forced them to go and get pregnant.
Which is a stupid non sequitur. You want them forced to give birth.
But once they
do, it's their responsibility to do their best that the life they
brought into the world doesn't come to harm.
Your perverted need to subjugate women doesn't create any
responsibility for anybody to obey you. Women are not your slaves
no matter how badly you hate them.
Your argument makes no sense and has no basis to stand!
You want pregnant women forced to give birth.
You want them treated like slaves, forced to provide the use
of their bodies.
To say that I
"have a perverted need to control women and turn them into slaves
because I hate them" is a terrible thing to say!
What you demand would end up killing women. Now then, you might think
that the words are "terrible", but you're not dead from them.
Fetuses don't need uterus transplants.
But they do need the use of a woman's uterus.
They do however need them to
live.
One of those forced organ donations you were just whining about.
It isn't her right to kill someone.
Nobody ever said it was.
It's the single biggest lie of the anti-abortion ideology that there
is any right to kill. There is not. But as long as a fetus is in a
woman's body she has the right to remove it.
No, you just contradicted yourself. To say a pregnant woman has the
right to remove a fetus from her body is to say she has the right to
kill a living human being.
You're sleazy idiot. Women "remove" fetuses from within their bodies
every day. Thousands of them. It's called "childbirth".
Nobody dies.
I'm a "sleazy idiot" because YOU just claimed that childbirth is the
same as abortion!
Do not start lying about what I write.
When a women gives birth, she's giving birth, not
"removing a fetus".
Is the fetus in her body after she gives birth?
I didn't compare the right to life
with communism, I compared your original BS statement with
communism.
But YOU want to take the use of her body to benefit others.
No,
STOP LYING!
I don't want to take her body to benefit others. I want it to be
illegal for her to kill living human beings simply because she's too
irresponsible to prevent the pregnacy in the first place.
You just want to punish women for having sex.
lol, I wish not to punish women for having sex.
Of course you do. She was "irresponsible" and so you want her
punished. You words are just above.
I simply want to
protect the helpless children that are slaughtered every day.
Stop lying. If you wanted to help then you'd be helping instead of
demanding that women be forced to obey.
You want to prevent abortion? Here's how:
Find a pregnant woman wanting an abortion. Offer her money to give
birth instead.
It's that simple. If you wanted to help, that is. But you're a
hypcorite who wants OTHER people to make all the sacrifices while you
remain free to do nothing.
If a
women thinks that having a child is punishment, then surely they should
not be having sex... ever hear of "protection".
And if you don't want to be murdered then you should stay off of the
streets.
How do you know she didn't use contraception?
It's fine for YOU to
kill living human beings by refusiing to feed them,
Who have I "killed by refusing to feed them". Seriously now.
10,000+ people, mostly children, die of hunger worldwide each and
every day. $20 per child per month would be enough to keep one alive.
But you'd rather spend money on your amusements.
but heaven forbid
that a woman protect herself from harm by refusing to keep a fetus
alive.
Yes, Heaven forbid. God Himself told us that murder is wrong.
Abortion is not and has never been murder. And before you start
invoking "God's" laws you had damn well better make sure that YOU are
obeying them.
Laws like this one:
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you:
every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for
whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from
among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh
is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any
work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
You're an immoral control freak. A loser with a madonna/*****
complex.
Immoral?
Deeply.
I'm not the one that thinks that abortion is every womens
right.
You're the one that thinks that enslaving and killing women is right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saban" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
08 Mar 2005 05:51:42 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Make abortions illegal with the same sentencing as
murder.
Force you to give up your money and freedom and parts of
your
body
in order to help people live.
What you speak of sounds like an extreme form of communism.
eg.
Give
up
everything you have accumulated and distribute it equally
over
the
population.
Make people into slaves in order to benefit others.
As you do when you insist that pregnant women be enslaved in
order
to
keep fetuses alive.
lol? Maybe you mean imprison them until they've given birth?
I wrote what I meant. You demand that women be forced to
provide
the
use of their bodies, suffer pain, injury, expense, and risk of
death
because you want to use them to benefit fetuses.
No, they aren't forced. No one forced them to go and get
pregnant.
Which is a stupid non sequitur. You want them forced to give
birth.
But once they
do, it's their responsibility to do their best that the life they
brought into the world doesn't come to harm.
Your perverted need to subjugate women doesn't create any
responsibility for anybody to obey you. Women are not your slaves
no matter how badly you hate them.
Your argument makes no sense and has no basis to stand!
You want pregnant women forced to give birth.
You want them treated like slaves, forced to provide the use
of their bodies.
To say that I
"have a perverted need to control women and turn them into slaves
because I hate them" is a terrible thing to say!
What you demand would end up killing women. Now then, you might
think
that the words are "terrible", but you're not dead from them.
lol, yes I am "dead from them" as you say. I have no "perverted need to
control women and turn them into slaves because I hate them"... lol
Simply trying to protect the children =).
Fetuses don't need uterus transplants.
But they do need the use of a woman's uterus.
They do however need them to
live.
One of those forced organ donations you were just whining about.
It isn't her right to kill someone.
Nobody ever said it was.
It's the single biggest lie of the anti-abortion ideology that
there
is any right to kill. There is not. But as long as a fetus is
in a
woman's body she has the right to remove it.
No, you just contradicted yourself. To say a pregnant woman has
the
right to remove a fetus from her body is to say she has the right
to
kill a living human being.
You're sleazy idiot. Women "remove" fetuses from within their
bodies
every day. Thousands of them. It's called "childbirth".
Nobody dies.
I'm a "sleazy idiot" because YOU just claimed that childbirth is the
same as abortion!
Do not start lying about what I write.
When a women gives birth, she's giving birth, not
"removing a fetus".
Is the fetus in her body after she gives birth?
Is the woman ripping the baby out with forcepts and putting it in a
pickle jar?
I didn't compare the right to life
with communism, I compared your original BS statement with
communism.
But YOU want to take the use of her body to benefit others.
No,
STOP LYING!
I don't want to take her body to benefit others. I want it to be
illegal for her to kill living human beings simply because she's
too
irresponsible to prevent the pregnacy in the first place.
You just want to punish women for having sex.
lol, I wish not to punish women for having sex.
Of course you do. She was "irresponsible" and so you want her
punished. You words are just above.
I simply want to
protect the helpless children that are slaughtered every day.
Stop lying. If you wanted to help then you'd be helping instead of
demanding that women be forced to obey.
By abortion were illegal, there would be far fewer children killed
through abortion, is that not helping?
You want to prevent abortion? Here's how:
Find a pregnant woman wanting an abortion. Offer her money to give
birth instead.
Nah, legislature is far more effective.
It's that simple. If you wanted to help, that is. But you're a
hypcorite who wants OTHER people to make all the sacrifices while you
remain free to do nothing.
Obviously whoever helped get the woman pregnant is also responsible. I
don't see why I have to give anything up for someone that got pregnant?
If a
women thinks that having a child is punishment, then surely they
should
not be having sex... ever hear of "protection".
And if you don't want to be murdered then you should stay off of the
streets.
How do you know she didn't use contraception?
Because then she most likely wouldn't be pregnant. And if she did and
it failed to prevent, it's still her and the man's responsibility.
It's fine for YOU to
kill living human beings by refusiing to feed them,
Who have I "killed by refusing to feed them". Seriously now.
10,000+ people, mostly children, die of hunger worldwide each and
every day. $20 per child per month would be enough to keep one
alive.
But you'd rather spend money on your amusements.
I hope your giving $20 per month to some children somewhere when you
say that to me... Shouldn't the majority of it be left more towards big
business and the government who have billions of dollards that they
rench out of our earnings through taxes and over priced junk?
but heaven forbid
that a woman protect herself from harm by refusing to keep a fetus
alive.
Yes, Heaven forbid. God Himself told us that murder is wrong.
Abortion is not and has never been murder. And before you start
invoking "God's" laws you had damn well better make sure that YOU are
obeying them.
I haven't murdered anyone from what I can recall... Walk down a busy
street and you may see a dozen women who have.
Laws like this one:
Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you:
every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for
whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off
from
among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh
is the sabbath of rest, holy to the Lord: whosoever doeth any
work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.
You're an immoral control freak. A loser with a madonna/*****
complex.
Immoral?
Deeply.
I'm not the one that thinks that abortion is every womens
right.
You're the one that thinks that enslaving and killing women is right.
Enslaving women? If you think that passing laws against abortion is
enslavement, you're an idiot.
If an individual woman has health hazards that came with her pregnancy
obviously she should be granted the right to an abortion. Same possibly
goes with rape victims.
It is not slavery... It is freedom. The right to life for all persons,
no matter how young, small, and helpless they may be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
08 Mar 2005 11:18:53 PM |
|
|
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No, they aren't forced. No one forced them to go and get
pregnant.
Which is a stupid non sequitur. You want them forced to give
birth.
But once they
do, it's their responsibility to do their best that the life they
brought into the world doesn't come to harm.
Your perverted need to subjugate women doesn't create any
responsibility for anybody to obey you. Women are not your slaves
no matter how badly you hate them.
Your argument makes no sense and has no basis to stand!
You want pregnant women forced to give birth.
You want them treated like slaves, forced to provide the use
of their bodies.
To say that I
"have a perverted need to control women and turn them into slaves
because I hate them" is a terrible thing to say!
What you demand would end up killing women. Now then, you might
think
that the words are "terrible", but you're not dead from them.
lol, yes I am "dead from them" as you say.
I don't believe in ghosts.
I have no "perverted need to
control women and turn them into slaves because I hate them"... lol
Simply trying to protect the children =).
Now you're lying. If you were trying to protect children then you'd be
offering your help and assistance. Instead what you're doing is
offering condemnation and dictates.
When a women gives birth, she's giving birth, not
"removing a fetus".
Is the fetus in her body after she gives birth?
Is the woman ripping the baby out with forcepts and putting it in a
pickle jar?
Don't be an *****.
lol, I wish not to punish women for having sex.
Of course you do. She was "irresponsible" and so you want her
punished. You words are just above.
I simply want to
protect the helpless children that are slaughtered every day.
Stop lying. If you wanted to help then you'd be helping instead of
demanding that women be forced to obey.
By abortion were illegal, there would be far fewer children killed
through abortion, is that not helping?
There'd be fewer people dying if we took all of your money and
property and make you a slave, forced to work to help those in need.
Is that "helping" you to do what's right?
You want to prevent abortion? Here's how:
Find a pregnant woman wanting an abortion. Offer her money to give
birth instead.
Nah, legislature is far more effective.
You're just a hypocritical thief who would steal what you don't
want to pay for. A modern-day slaver.
It's that simple. If you wanted to help, that is. But you're a
hypcorite who wants OTHER people to make all the sacrifices while you
remain free to do nothing.
Obviously whoever helped get the woman pregnant is also responsible. I
don't see why I have to give anything up for someone that got pregnant?
Because YOU want the woman's services. YOU want her to suffer through
months of pregnancy and then the pain and injury and risk and expense
of childbirth.
Moral people pay for what they want.
If a
women thinks that having a child is punishment, then surely they
should
not be having sex... ever hear of "protection".
And if you don't want to be murdered then you should stay off of the
streets.
How do you know she didn't use contraception?
Because then she most likely wouldn't be pregnant.
Contraception fails.
And if she did and
it failed to prevent, it's still her and the man's responsibility.
Says who? Some immoral hypocrite like you?
It's fine for YOU to
kill living human beings by refusiing to feed them,
Who have I "killed by refusing to feed them". Seriously now.
10,000+ people, mostly children, die of hunger worldwide each and
every day. $20 per child per month would be enough to keep one
alive.
But you'd rather spend money on your amusements.
I hope your giving $20 per month to some children somewhere when you
say that to me...
YOU are the one claiming to care about children.
When YOU don't live by YOUR rules then YOU are the dishonest
hypocrite.
. Shouldn't the majority of it be left more towards big
business and the government who have billions of dollards that they
rench out of our earnings through taxes and over priced junk?
Again you justify stealing from others.
but heaven forbid
that a woman protect herself from harm by refusing to keep a fetus
alive.
Yes, Heaven forbid. God Himself told us that murder is wrong.
Abortion is not and has never been murder. And before you start
invoking "God's" laws you had damn well better make sure that YOU are
obeying them.
I haven't murdered anyone from what I can recall... Walk down a busy
street and you may see a dozen women who have.
And there you go again, showing that you have no morals and have no
regard for God's laws.
You're an immoral control freak. A loser with a madonna/*****
complex.
Immoral?
Deeply.
I'm not the one that thinks that abortion is every womens
right.
You're the one that thinks that enslaving and killing women is right.
Enslaving women?
Yes.
If you think that passing laws against abortion is
enslavement, you're an idiot.
I know you to be immoral and a liar and coward.
If an individual woman has health hazards that came with her pregnancy
A woman's body does not belong to you, your church, the state, or the
fetus, and you have NO right to command her servitude.
She is not your slave.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Saban" |
|
| Title: Re: Ending Abortion Would Save Social Security, Group Argues |
09 Mar 2005 03:18:09 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Saban <andrewh36@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
No, they aren't forced. No one forced them to go and get
pregnant.
Which is a stupid non sequitur. You want them forced to give
birth.
But once they
do, it's their responsibility to do their best that the life
they
brought into the world doesn't come to harm.
Your perverted need to subjugate women doesn't create any
responsibility for anybody to obey you. Women are not your
slaves
no matter how badly you hate them.
Your argument makes no sense and has no basis to stand!
You want pregnant women forced to give birth.
You want them treated like slaves, forced to provide the use
of their bodies.
To say that I
"have a perverted need to control women and turn them into slaves
because I hate them" is a terrible thing to say!
What you demand would end up killing women. Now then, you might
think
that the words are "terrible", but you're not dead from them.
lol, yes I am "dead from them" as you say.
I don't believe in ghosts.
I have no "perverted need to
control women and turn them into slaves because I hate them"... lol
Simply trying to protect the children =).
Now you're lying. If you were trying to protect children then you'd
be
offering your help and assistance. Instead what you're doing is
offering condemnation and dictates.
Anti-abortion laws are not condemnation. They are upholding every
persons right to life.
When a women gives birth, she's giving birth, not
"removing a fetus".
Is the fetus in her body after she gives birth?
Is the woman ripping the baby out with forcepts and putting it in a
pickle jar?
Don't be an *****.
lol, I wish not to punish women for having sex.
Of course you do. She was "irresponsible" and so you want her
punished. You words are just above.
I simply want to
protect the helpless children that are slaughtered every day.
Stop lying. If you wanted to help then you'd be helping instead
of
demanding that women be forced to obey.
By abortion were illegal, there would be far fewer children killed
through abortion, is that not helping?
There'd be fewer people dying if we took all of your money and
property and make you a slave, forced to work to help those in need.
Is that "helping" you to do what's right?
Anti-abortion laws are not slavery. They are upholding every persons
right to life.
You want to prevent abortion? Here's how:
Find a pregnant woman wanting an abortion. Offer her money to
give
birth instead.
Nah, legislature is far more effective.
You're just a hypocritical thief who would steal what you don't
want to pay for. A modern-day slaver.
Anti-abortion laws are not hypocritical. They are upholding every
persons right to life.
It's that simple. If you wanted to help, that is. But you're a
hypcorite who wants OTHER people to make all the sacrifices while
you
remain free to do nothing.
Obviously whoever helped get the woman pregnant is also responsible.
I
don't see why I have to give anything up for someone that got
pregnant?
Because YOU want the woman's services. YOU want her to suffer
through
months of pregnancy and then the pain and injury and risk and expense
of childbirth.
Moral people pay for what they want.
Anti-abortion laws are not immoral. They are upholding every persons
right to life.
If a
women thinks that having a child is punishment, then surely they
should
not be having sex... ever hear of "protection".
And if you don't want to be murdered then you should stay off of
the
streets.
How do you know she didn't use contraception?
Because then she most likely wouldn't be pregnant.
Contraception fails.
And if she did and
it failed to prevent, it's still her and the man's responsibility.
Says who? Some immoral hypocrite like you?
It's fine for YOU to
kill living human beings by refusiing to feed them,
Who have I "killed by refusing to feed them". Seriously now.
10,000+ people, mostly children, die of hunger worldwide each and
every day. $20 per child per month would be enough to keep one
alive.
But you'd rather spend money on your amusements.
I hope your giving $20 per month to some children somewhere when you
say that to me...
YOU are the one claiming to care about children.
When YOU don't live by YOUR rules then YOU are the dishonest
hypocrite.
So you care nothing about children? Obviously not. Anyone that supports
abortion laws can't be too fond of them.
. Shouldn't the majority of it be left more towards big
business and the government who have billions of dollars that they
rench out of our earnings through taxes and over priced junk?
Again you justify stealing from others.
How so? The government takes our money and usually wastes most of it,
they can do some good by sending more to the poor.
but heaven forbid
that a woman protect herself from harm by refusing to keep a
fetus
alive.
Yes, Heaven forbid. God Himself told us that murder is wrong.
Abortion is not and has never been murder. And before you start
invoking "God's" laws you had damn well better make sure that YOU
are
obeying them.
I haven't murdered anyone from what I can recall... Walk down a busy
street and you may see a dozen women who have.
And there you go again, showing that you have no morals and have no
regard for God's laws.
It must that this is very amusing. I've never heard before that
anti-abortion laws are imoral and now the kicker, "against God's laws".
Those are two arguments that are usually used in arguments AGAINST
abortion.
You are immoral! You have no regard for God's laws! You agree with the
murder of children! You are the scum of society and shall bring
hellfire upon us! You argue for women's rights to play god over the
lives of these | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
