If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following

Science > Abortion > If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 3 of 5

Topic:	Science > Abortion
User:	"osprey"
Date:	25 Jan 2006 10:13:02 AM
Object:	If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?
The fetus is protected from abortion, typically right after the first
trimester. Now, if what pro-idiots were claiming was true, that the
fetus isn't a human being...why would states have laws that protect the
fetus from abortion after the first trimester?
If the fetus is not a human being, why are people being charged with
homicide and/or murder of killing the unborn?
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/parentingfamily/a/aafetalhomicide.htm
.....
Many states have recently enacted fetal homicide laws, which create a
separate crime for actions taken against a woman that result in the
death of - or harm to - her fetus. These laws treat the fetus as an
individual, apart from the woman. Some of these laws do not contain
exceptions for the woman or her doctor, which could possibly allow
criminal proceedings for measures taken as a course of treatment
(radiation treatment for cancer or antibiotics) or for abortion.
On the federal level, in 1999 the Unborn Victims of Violence Act (which
does contain exceptions for the woman, her doctor, and abortion) was
proposed and passed the House of Representatives.
http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2001/000023.html
Drug Addict Charged With Killing Her Fetus
South Carolina is on the cutting edge of a controversial practice that
will someday be decided by the Supreme Court -- can women who take
illegal drugs during her pregnancy be charged with child abuse?
South Carolina considers a fetus in the third trimester to be a person.
As such, the law considers a woman who takes an illegal drug in the
third trimester to be administering drugs to a child -- a form of child
abuse.
In May, South Carolina plans to place Regina McKnight on trial for the
second time on charges that she smoked crack cocaine throughout the
third trimester of her pregnancy which caused her unborn child to be
stillborn. Among other crimes, McKnight has been charged with homicide.
http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2003/000002.html
A judge in Pennsylvania recently ruled that a woman could be charged
with murder for the death of a fetus of a romantic rival.
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/007837.html
Pregnant Drug User Charged With First Degree Murder
For the first time, Oklahoma has brought first degree murder charges
against a woman whose baby was stillborn based on drugs the mother
ingested while pregnant. Prosecutors say there will be more such cases
filed in the future:
Of course there are many more cases.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 06:58:25 PM

The Chief Instigator wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

The fetus is protected from abortion, typically right after the first
trimester. Now, if what pro-idiots were claiming was true, that the
fetus isn't a human being...why would states have laws that protect =

the

fetus from abortion after the first trimester?

There are other reasons for laws, you know. The legal status of a
fetus isn't anything like that of human being. If you see the need to
claim that the legal status is similar, then it's incumbent on you to
show how. It's not up to others to accept you shifting the burden of
proof.

<snip>

=A7187 of the California Penal Code, which specifies murder
as also applying to a fetus: ", or a fetus" - which gives it a status=

than a little different from that of a person.

<snip>

I snipped a lot of your childish remarks out, which as anyone can see
was more than 50% of your response.

So, tell us why it's not homicide when a woman kills her own fetus, but
it is when someone else kills it?

Gee, ya think maybe it's because the pregnant woman didn't consent to it?

So as long as one consents, it's o.k. to kill?
Why can't she consent after the 1st trimester?
What changes?
<snipping out childish and immature statements that do not pertain to
the issue>

Better yet, in the case in which the woman was charged with killing her
fetus due to her drug use, why would is that murder? It was her choice
to take the drugs right? It might have been her choice to kill the
fetus through the drugs.

You'll have to consult the arguments that were made to get that law passe=

d in

whatever state it was.

So you admit that you have no answer to the questions?

You don't see the huge double standards in this issue do you?

I'm not operating on the assumptions you do, which ought to be obvious ev=

en to

you.

So in this issue, you can not answer my questions?

Why is it homicide and/or murder in cases in which a woman doesn't pay
someone (abortion doctor) to carry out the deed?

For some reason, I have yet to find a credible case in which any woman was
charged with murder for such an act.

I have provided you cases.
(Even back in your Golden Age, before

RvW, the woman was never prosecuted on a murder charge, that I can find.)

Why are there abortion laws that protect the fetus after the 1st
trimester, if society isn't recognizing the fetus as a human being?

You'd have to ask the writers of such statutes to explain their reasoning=

, as

those aren't found in every state.

You have no answer?

Why does more than 50% of the population recognize the fetus as a human
being, but people like you rely on a law that says different?

Maybe more of them than you're ready to accept also believe that their op=

inion

isn't binding on anyone else.

Why does the law trump more than half of the American population?

Why don't you provide the source for your number?

This has been done numerous times in here, by myself, JYoung, and
others. Only to have people like you ignore the stats, ignore the
numbers, and to throw insults and attack the poster.

Do you think you can handle this issue?

I've been handling it almost as long as you've lived, IQ Boy...and in a b=

more than a third of a century of being pro-choice, for some reason, I ha=

yet to demand (or even advise) that a woman choose abortion....and I've o=

nly

been married once, to a woman who's been through one pregnancy and has bo=

rne

one child. Too bad you can't even claim that modest accomplishment.

If you can show me one woman that I ever demanded to abort or continue
her pregnancy, then you can make that claim.
So far to date, you can't. So do you think you can acknowledge that
your claim is wrong?
.

User: "Mimi Cohen"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 07:01:52 PM

osprey lied:

I
"One last note: I am very surprised at your reaction especially after
just a few short months ago I provided a copy of my DD214 Right in
box 18...1st line it says... SERVED 2 AUG 90 TO 1 OCT 94 IN SUPPORT
OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD/STORM and in box 13 NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE
MEDAL Funny how you have selective memory, why? Yes, I served in combat
during Desert Storm."

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/38f5de5691243868?dmode=source&hl=en

"Fine, if you want to play on words...no I was not in actual "combat" "

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/db12fe6b6ec66a35?dmode=source&hl=en

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 05:29:36 PM

On 25 Jan 2006 15:24:51 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

<snip>

�187 of the California Penal Code, which specifies murder

as also applying to a fetus: ", or a fetus" - which gives it a status more
than a little different from that of a person.

<snip>

I snipped a lot of your childish remarks out, which as anyone can see
was more than 50% of your response.

So, tell us why it's not homicide when a woman kills her own fetus, but
it is when someone else kills it?

Better yet, in the case in which the woman was charged with killing her
fetus due to her drug use, why would is that murder? It was her choice
to take the drugs right? It might have been her choice to kill the
fetus through the drugs.

You don't see the huge double standards in this issue do you?

If you have a problem with 'double standards' then take it up with
those who passed this law, not those who support pro-choice.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
�Republican�, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I�ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 05:32:29 PM

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 15:24:51 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

the

fetus from abortion after the first trimester?

<snip>

=A7187 of the California Penal Code, which specifies murder

as also applying to a fetus: ", or a fetus" - which gives it a status=

than a little different from that of a person.

If you have a problem with 'double standards' then take it up with
those who passed this law, not those who support pro-choice.

I do what I can. Yes, there are double standards in this issue, and
there are serious problems. I think you see it and you realize it. It
appears you are having difficulty answering some of my questions, which
indicates you know that I am hitting the double standards.
Just because a law says somethign Adam, doesn't mean it's right.

---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
'Republican', but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I'll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 08:57:24 PM

In article <1138231949.745927.277670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 15:24:51 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

<snip>

�187 of the California Penal Code, which specifies murder

as also applying to a fetus: ", or a fetus" - which gives it a status
more
than a little different from that of a person.

If you have a problem with 'double standards' then take it up with
those who passed this law, not those who support pro-choice.

I do what I can. Yes, there are double standards in this issue, and
there are serious problems. I think you see it and you realize it. It
appears you are having difficulty answering some of my questions, which
indicates you know that I am hitting the double standards.

Just because a law says somethign Adam, doesn't mean it's right.

Really? So what makes it "right?"
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 09:11:46 PM

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <1138231949.745927.277670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 15:24:51 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> w=

rote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can N=

abort after the fetus has become viable?

The fetus is protected from abortion, typically right after the =

first

trimester. Now, if what pro-idiots were claiming was true, that=

the

fetus isn't a human being...why would states have laws that prot=

ect the

fetus from abortion after the first trimester?

That is a fallacy. You claim that those laws exist because the fe=

tus

is a human being, but there's no reason to assume it's not another
reason - and it's quite obvious that in the legal arena the fetus=

NOT a human being.

There are other reasons for laws, you know. The legal status of a
fetus isn't anything like that of human being. If you see the nee=

d to

claim that the legal status is similar, then it's incumbent on yo=

u to

show how. It's not up to others to accept you shifting the burden=

proof.

<snip>

=A7187 of the California Penal Code, which specifies murder

as also applying to a fetus: ", or a fetus" - which gives it a st=

atus

more
than a little different from that of a person.

<snip>

I snipped a lot of your childish remarks out, which as anyone can see
was more than 50% of your response.

So, tell us why it's not homicide when a woman kills her own fetus, =

but

it is when someone else kills it?

Better yet, in the case in which the woman was charged with killing =

her

fetus due to her drug use, why would is that murder? It was her cho=

ice

to take the drugs right? It might have been her choice to kill the
fetus through the drugs.

You don't see the huge double standards in this issue do you?

If you have a problem with 'double standards' then take it up with
those who passed this law, not those who support pro-choice.

I do what I can. Yes, there are double standards in this issue, and
there are serious problems. I think you see it and you realize it. It
appears you are having difficulty answering some of my questions, which
indicates you know that I am hitting the double standards.

Just because a law says somethign Adam, doesn't mean it's right.

Really? So what makes it "right?"

We as individuals can decide for ourselves. The vast majority of
Americans agree that the fetus is a human being.
A very SMALL minority will argue that the fetus isn't, for obvious
reasons. Reasons you would never be honest enough to answer.
You have said before, that you support a woman's right to choose to
kill her fetus from conception until the day of birth.
.

User: "The Chief Instigator"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 10:51:17 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <1138231949.745927.277670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

[...]

Just because a law says somethign Adam, doesn't mean it's right.

Really? So what makes it "right?"

We as individuals can decide for ourselves. The vast majority of
Americans agree that the fetus is a human being.

What "vast majority"? (A credible source is preferred, which rules out
LifeNews, Worldnet Daily, and the like. You understand the reason.)

A very SMALL minority will argue that the fetus isn't, for obvious
reasons. Reasons you would never be honest enough to answer.

I guess that's why Gallup keeps coming up with a majority of Americans who
want abortion to remain legal, right?

You have said before, that you support a woman's right to choose to
kill her fetus from conception until the day of birth.

Prove it, without resorting to your usual chicanery.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Peoria 3, Houston 0 (January 24)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, January 26 at Iowa, 7:05
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 09:15:53 PM

In article <1138245106.278047.301580@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <1138231949.745927.277670@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 15:24:51 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

The fetus is protected from abortion, typically right after the
first
trimester. Now, if what pro-idiots were claiming was true, that
the
fetus isn't a human being...why would states have laws that
protect the
fetus from abortion after the first trimester?

There are other reasons for laws, you know. The legal status of a
fetus isn't anything like that of human being. If you see the need
to
claim that the legal status is similar, then it's incumbent on you
to
show how. It's not up to others to accept you shifting the burden of
proof.

<snip>

�187 of the California Penal Code, which specifies murder

as also applying to a fetus: ", or a fetus" - which gives it a
status
more
than a little different from that of a person.

If you have a problem with 'double standards' then take it up with
those who passed this law, not those who support pro-choice.

I do what I can. Yes, there are double standards in this issue, and
there are serious problems. I think you see it and you realize it. It
appears you are having difficulty answering some of my questions, which
indicates you know that I am hitting the double standards.

Just because a law says somethign Adam, doesn't mean it's right.

Really? So what makes it "right?"

We as individuals can decide for ourselves.

So women have a "choice."

The vast majority of
Americans agree that the fetus is a human being.

The law says differently.

A very SMALL minority will argue that the fetus isn't, for obvious
reasons. Reasons you would never be honest enough to answer.

Most state legislatures agree a fetus is not a human being, and they
represent the people.

You have said before, that you support a woman's right to choose to
kill her fetus from conception until the day of birth.

So?
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 06:29:23 PM

On 25 Jan 2006 15:32:29 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 15:24:51 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

<snip>

�187 of the California Penal Code, which specifies murder

as also applying to a fetus: ", or a fetus" - which gives it a status more
than a little different from that of a person.

If you have a problem with 'double standards' then take it up with
those who passed this law, not those who support pro-choice.

I do what I can. Yes, there are double standards in this issue, and
there are serious problems. I think you see it and you realize it. It
appears you are having difficulty answering some of my questions, which
indicates you know that I am hitting the double standards.

Just because a law says somethign Adam, doesn't mean it's right.

Your obsession with 'double standards' is none of my concern, and the
discussion doesn't so far concern if the law is right but what the law
says.
One thing it does NOT say is that the fetus enjoys the legal status of
a human being. You are deliberately conflating a biological term and a
normative term and that's not especially honest.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
�Republican�, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I�ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "Mimi Cohen"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 07:03:16 PM

osprey lied:

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 06:29:40 PM

osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> writes:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

<snip>

�187 of the California Penal Code, which specifies murder

as also applying to a fetus: ", or a fetus" - which gives it a status more
than a little different from that of a person.

<snip>

I snipped a lot of your childish remarks out,

So you could insert some of your own.

So, tell us why it's not homicide when a woman kills her own fetus, but
it is when someone else kills it?

Because, moron, it's not homicide to kill a fetus. A fact which you
have already acknowledged and are now lying about.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.

User: "Mimi Cohen"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 07:04:16 PM

osprey lied:

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 11:01:55 AM

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

That is a fallacy. You claim that those laws exist because the fetus
is a human being, but there's no reason to assume it's not another
reason - and it's quite obvious that in the legal arena the fetus is
NOT a human being.

There are other reasons for laws, you know. The legal status of a
fetus isn't anything like that of human being. If you see the need to
claim that the legal status is similar, then it's incumbent on you to
show how. It's not up to others to accept you shifting the burden of
proof.

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".
None of what you posted answers my questions.
Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?
Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?
.

User: "Johnny"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 11:22:39 AM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?

Because people do NOT believe that the human fetus is NOT a human being.

Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

Because people do not believe or think that the human fetus is NOT a human
being.
Because people do not subscribe to the premise that a human fetus is NOT a
human being.
Clear enough?
Because Pro-Choice is not settled in the USA.
Because people do not like Pro-Choice.
Because abortion on demand is not a good thing.
.

User: "The Chief Instigator"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 04:25:22 PM

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

That is a fallacy. You claim that those laws exist because the fetus
is a human being, but there's no reason to assume it's not another
reason - and it's quite obvious that in the legal arena the fetus is
NOT a human being.
There are other reasons for laws, you know. The legal status of a
fetus isn't anything like that of human being. If you see the need to
claim that the legal status is similar, then it's incumbent on you to
show how. It's not up to others to accept you shifting the burden of
proof.

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".
None of what you posted answers my questions.
Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?

Because people do NOT believe that the human fetus is NOT a human being.

Because *some* people believe that. (Remember, you don't speak for anyone but
yourself, and you do that badly.)

Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

Because people do not believe or think that the human fetus is NOT a human
being.

Because you and a few of your dimwitted comrades believe that. That's no
problem, until you start trying to force that belief on everyone else - at
which point is when you start getting your ***** kicked regularly.

Because people do not subscribe to the premise that a human fetus is NOT a
human being.

Because YOU don't subscribe to it, Napoleon XIV.

Clear enough?

It's clear that you're quite removed from sanity.

Because Pro-Choice is not settled in the USA.

It's more settled than control freaks like you can stand.

Because people do not like Pro-Choice.

Because *some* people don't like it, little megalomaniac in South Carolina.

Because abortion on demand is not a good thing.

....in your less than credible opinion. Who's being forced to abort against
their will, again?
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Peoria 3, Houston 0 (January 24)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, January 26 at Iowa, 7:05
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 05:30:56 PM

The Chief Instigator wrote:

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?

Because people do NOT believe that the human fetus is NOT a human being.

Because *some* people believe that. (Remember, you don't speak for anyone but
yourself,<snip>)

I have to snip out childish remarks and keep this on the issue only.
Sure, "some" people do believe that. A small minority now, as we see
indicated in polls being taken nation wide. Now remember, some of you
rely on what the majority thinks. Example, you think that it's true if
a majority of people in here hold an opinion of me.
So, since we know that's how you think, and we are seeing polls
indicating that the majority of the public recognizes the fetus as a
human being....appears you are on the losing end.

Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

Because people do not believe or think that the human fetus is NOT a human
being.

Because you <snip> That's no
problem, until you start trying to force that belief on everyone else

That would not be a true statement. I have never nor would I try to
force my ideas or opinions on anyone else. If you agree, fine..if you
disagree, that's fine too.
Now, if you wish to get into a debate on what force means I will be
more than happy to educate you on what it means.
<snip>

Because people do not subscribe to the premise that a human fetus is NOT a
human being.

Because YOU don't subscribe to it, Napoleon XIV.

Clear enough?

<snip>

Because Pro-Choice is not settled in the USA.

<snip>

Because people do not like Pro-Choice.

Because *some* people don't like it <snip>

Like what?

Because abortion on demand is not a good thing.

<snip>
Afte we snipped out you childish remarks and immature insults, we see
that you really didn't have much to say as far as the issue goes.
.

User: "The Chief Instigator"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 06:16:27 PM

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

That is a fallacy. You claim that those laws exist because the fetus
is a human being, but there's no reason to assume it's not another
reason - and it's quite obvious that in the legal arena the fetus is
NOT a human being.
There are other reasons for laws, you know. The legal status of a
fetus isn't anything like that of human being. If you see the need to
claim that the legal status is similar, then it's incumbent on you to
show how. It's not up to others to accept you shifting the burden of
proof.

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".
None of what you posted answers my questions.
Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?

Because people do NOT believe that the human fetus is NOT a human being.

Because *some* people believe that. (Remember, you don't speak for anyone
but yourself,<snip>)

I have to snip out childish remarks and keep this on the issue only.

You choose to, incompetent prison guard. No one's fooled by your pretense.

Sure, "some" people do believe that. A small minority now, as we see
indicated in polls being taken nation wide. Now remember, some of you
rely on what the majority thinks. Example, you think that it's true if
a majority of people in here hold an opinion of me.

As *you* see, anyway...and you don't seem to ever disagree with anything that
agrees with your assumptions.

So, since we know that's how you think, and we are seeing polls
indicating that the majority of the public recognizes the fetus as a
human being....appears you are on the losing end.

....and that's all that matters to a dull dud like yourself, isn't it? Me, I
believe in that Constitution that you want to gut, and I don't give a damn
what you believe, because I will continue to offer my opinions, and the only
thing you can do is tune me out. (You obviously don't have enough upstairs to
even manage that.)

Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

Because people do not believe or think that the human fetus is NOT a human
being.

Because you <snip> That's no
problem, until you start trying to force that belief on everyone else

That would not be a true statement. I have never nor would I try to
force my ideas or opinions on anyone else. If you agree, fine..if you
disagree, that's fine too.

If you'd quit deleting curiously selected parts of my quotes, readers might
actually have a little more respect for you.

Now, if you wish to get into a debate on what force means I will be
more than happy to educate you on what it means.

Take your intimidation tactics and stick them where the moon doesn't shine
(where the rest of your tactics originate, as it is). I don't bow to IQ-80
hypocritical failures like you, now or ever.

<snip>

Heishman the Cowardly Cop Reject runs away.

Because people do not subscribe to the premise that a human fetus is NOT a
human being.

Because YOU don't subscribe to it, Napoleon XIV.

Clear enough?

<snip>

Your COAD comrades are no doubt impressed by the PR you're generating for
them.

Because Pro-Choice is not settled in the USA.

<snip>

Why are you so afraid of what I have to say?

Because people do not like Pro-Choice.

Because *some* people don't like it <snip>

Like what?

Quit channeling Wentzky.

Because abortion on demand is not a good thing.

<snip>
Afte we snipped out you childish remarks and immature insults, we see
that you really didn't have much to say as far as the issue goes.

"We"? You and the voices in that dead head of yours, I assume.
You're a sleazy, eminently disrespectable *****, Robert John Heishman.
Live with my opinion, and have some normal adult try and teach you how to
filter your newsreader. <snicker>
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Peoria 3, Houston 0 (January 24)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, January 26 at Iowa, 7:05
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 07:03:40 PM

The Chief Instigator wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?

Because people do NOT believe that the human fetus is NOT a human being.

Because *some* people believe that. (Remember, you don't speak for anyone
but yourself,<snip>)

I have to snip out childish remarks and keep this on the issue only.

As *you* see, anyway...and you don't seem to ever disagree with anything that
agrees with your assumptions.

You obviously have not read some of my post with others whom I normally
agree with and I had disagreed with some of their positions.

So, since we know that's how you think, and we are seeing polls
indicating that the majority of the public recognizes the fetus as a
human being....appears you are on the losing end.

Me, I

believe in that Constitution that you want to gut,

I happen to believe very much in the constitution, and I have never
wanted it gutted.
So your statement is false.
and I don't give a damn

what you believe, because I will continue to offer my opinions,

Who is stopping you from offering your opinions?
and the only

thing you can do is tune me out.

You can't handle that.
<snipping out childish, immature and baseless statements that do not
pertain to the issue>

Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

Because people do not believe or think that the human fetus is NOT a human
being.

Because you <snip> That's no
problem, until you start trying to force that belief on everyone else

That would not be a true statement. I have never nor would I try to
force my ideas or opinions on anyone else. If you agree, fine..if you
disagree, that's fine too.

If you'd quit deleting curiously selected parts of my quotes, readers might
actually have a little more respect for you.

If your response is childish, immature, and not pertaining to the
issue..I am deleting it. The purpose of that is to show to the readers
that for the most part, you have little to actually say that's
worthwhile.

Now, if you wish to get into a debate on what force means I will be
more than happy to educate you on what it means.

<snip>

Because people do not subscribe to the premise that a human fetus is NOT a
human being.

Because YOU don't subscribe to it, Napoleon XIV.

Clear enough?

<snip>

Because Pro-Choice is not settled in the USA.

<snip>

Why are you so afraid of what I have to say?

If you have something of worth to say, I have no problem with it.

Because people do not like Pro-Choice.

Because *some* people don't like it <snip>

Like what?

Because abortion on demand is not a good thing.

<snip>

Afte we snipped out you childish remarks and immature insults, we see
that you really didn't have much to say as far as the issue goes.

<snipping out childish, immature and baseless statements that do not
pertain to the issue>>
In this post, less than 30% of your response was even remotely close to
the issue. Approximately 60% to 70% was based on immature and childish
responses.
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 08:57:23 PM

In article <1138237420.881090.97060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

In this post, less than 30% of your response was even remotely close to
the issue. Approximately 60% to 70% was based on immature and childish
responses.

And when a person puts you in your place, you ignore it. Example:
If a fetus WAS a human being we would not need laws to "protect" it.
The current laws would do so. The reason laws are passed with regard
to the fetus is that PRESENT LAWS do not cover the fetus because they
are intended only for a human being.
.

User: "Mimi Cohen"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 09:48:39 PM

osprey lied:

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 08:57:22 PM

In article <1138231856.886871.264360@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

The Chief Instigator wrote:

"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain why a woman can NOT
abort after the fetus has become viable?

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?

Because people do NOT believe that the human fetus is NOT a human being.

Because *some* people believe that. (Remember, you don't speak for anyone
but
yourself,<snip>)

I have to snip out childish remarks and keep this on the issue only.

Sure, "some" people do believe that. A small minority now, as we see
indicated in polls being taken nation wide. Now remember, some of you
rely on what the majority thinks. Example, you think that it's true if
a majority of people in here hold an opinion of me.

So, since we know that's how you think, and we are seeing polls
indicating that the majority of the public recognizes the fetus as a
human being....appears you are on the losing end.

17%

Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

Because people do not believe or think that the human fetus is NOT a human
being.

Because you <snip> That's no
problem, until you start trying to force that belief on everyone else

That would not be a true statement. I have never nor would I try to
force my ideas or opinions on anyone else. If you agree, fine..if you
disagree, that's fine too.

Now, if you wish to get into a debate on what force means I will be
more than happy to educate you on what it means.

Like you know. LOL!
.

User: "Mimi Cohen"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 07:05:46 PM

osprey lied:

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 08:57:22 PM

In article <1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?
Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

You are as dumb as a rock. If a fetus WAS a human being we would not
need laws to "protect" it. The current laws would do so. The reason
laws are passed with regard to the fetus is that PRESENT LAWS do not
cover the fetus because they are intended only for a human being.
I have only explained this to you about a dozen times so I guess we
should just assume you are a MORON.
.

User: "osprey"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 09:10:01 PM

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?
Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

<snipping out childish remarks and/or immature remarks that have
nothing to do with the issue.>.
If a fetus WAS a human being we would not

need laws to "protect" it.

Why? Human beings have laws to protect us...constitutional rights for
example.
Once again, you are wrong.
The current laws would do so. The reason

laws are passed with regard to the fetus is that PRESENT LAWS do not
cover the fetus because they are intended only for a human being.

Why does the fetus need protection after the 1st trimester?
<snipping out childish remarks and/or immature remarks that have
nothing to do with the issue.>
.

User: "David W. Barnes"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 09:13:55 PM

In article <1138245001.675706.140140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <1138207794.672865.65830@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?
Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

<snipping out childish remarks and/or immature remarks that have
nothing to do with the issue.>.

This is Osprey's new and cowardly way of running from the issues.

If a fetus WAS a human being we would not

need laws to "protect" it.

Why? Human beings have laws to protect us...constitutional rights for
example.
Once again, you are wrong.

Except you just betrayed what you really think! "Human beings have
laws to protect "us". So even you accept that a fetus is different
than "us."

The current laws would do so. The reason

laws are passed with regard to the fetus is that PRESENT LAWS do not
cover the fetus because they are intended only for a human being.

Why does the fetus need protection after the 1st trimester?

It doesn't, necessarily.

Osprey runs off, lost.
.

User: "Adam H."
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 11:38:05 AM

On 25 Jan 2006 09:01:55 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?
Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

I don't know - but the fact, plain and simple, is that the legal
status of the fetus is NOT that of 'human being' and so those laws
exist for some other reason.
If you want to maintain that a fetus enjoys the legal status of 'human
being', against the evidence, then you should produce something to
back up your claim.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
�Republican�, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I�ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.

User: "Dutch"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 10:32:17 PM

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

On 25 Jan 2006 09:01:55 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?
Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

I don't know - but the fact, plain and simple, is that the legal
status of the fetus is NOT that of 'human being' and so those laws
exist for some other reason.

You're placing too much importance on the wording that says "human being and
fetus". Legal language cannot be read like normal text. The Canadian law on
abortion for example begins by strictly and absolutely outlawing abortion in
unequivoacal language, then follows a couple of paragraphs later by noting
an exception that any woman who wants to terminate a pregancy may do so in
consultation with her doctor provided the hospital board is on side. That is
not a very intuitive way to express that abortion is completely legal, if
you read it like you would read an essay.

If you want to maintain that a fetus enjoys the legal status of 'human
being', against the evidence, then you should produce something to
back up your claim.

It's not against the significant evidence, that wording you are resting your
whole case on is a very weak point. That wording can be read to simply be
there for inclusion and clarity.
.

User: "Ray Fischer"
Title: Re: If the fetus isn't a human being, then explain the following	25 Jan 2006 10:55:51 PM

Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote

On 25 Jan 2006 09:01:55 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

Adam H. wrote:

On 25 Jan 2006 08:13:02 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:

You spent a lot of time saying "nothing".

None of what you posted answers my questions.

Why do we have laws that protect the fetus, if the fetus isn't a human
being?
Why do people get charged with homicide and/or murder for killing a
fetus, if the fetus isn't a human being?

I don't know - but the fact, plain and simple, is that the legal
status of the fetus is NOT that of 'human being' and so those laws
exist for some other reason.

You're placing too much importance on the wording that says "human being and
fetus".

You're playing games in order to avoid the truth.

If you want to maintain that a fetus enjoys the legal status of 'human
being', against t