Science > Abortion > Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical?
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Purple" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2003 07:42:54 PM |
| Object: |
Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
Anyone care to compare and contrast the following statements?
"Fetuses and embryos are lucky that they have pro-lifers
to force pregnant women to gestate for them. Without these
heroes thousands more embryos and fetuses worldwide would
be denied the opportunity of experiencing human life."
"Ovum are lucky that they have rapists to force woman to
have sex with them. Without these heroes thousands more
ovum worldwide would be denied the opportunity of
experiencing human life."
.
|
|
| User: "killing my daughter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
15 Dec 2003 09:40:13 PM |
|
|
I didn't realize that gestation required my input. Would that be like from
squinting? or maybe grunting? Did the world of gestation go and connect
itself to my molar grinding without asking, dagnabit.
'Course now, I was aware that rape required the input of a rapist.
I'm thinking that you and I have different ideas of force, yours being
complete nonsense of course.
"Purple" <purple2510@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e034035.0312151742.997bf7@posting.google.com...
Anyone care to compare and contrast the following statements?
"Fetuses and embryos are lucky that they have pro-lifers
to force pregnant women to gestate for them. Without these
heroes thousands more embryos and fetuses worldwide would
be denied the opportunity of experiencing human life."
"Ovum are lucky that they have rapists to force woman to
have sex with them. Without these heroes thousands more
ovum worldwide would be denied the opportunity of
experiencing human life."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
16 Dec 2003 08:25:49 PM |
|
|
"killing my daughter" <deadself@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vtsv9urlnnrd0f@corp.supernews.com>...
I didn't realize that gestation required my input. Would that be like from
squinting? or maybe grunting? Did the world of gestation go and connect
itself to my molar grinding without asking, dagnabit.
'Course now, I was aware that rape required the input of a rapist.
I'm thinking that you and I have different ideas of force, yours being
complete nonsense of course.
It is the difference between forcing a woman to do something and
preventing her from not doing it. In my opinion the two
are equivalent for practical purposes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "killing my daughter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
17 Dec 2003 11:43:57 AM |
|
|
Huh...What?
So if I don't kill you, I'm forcing you to live, for practical purposes, I
mean. Or is your existence, confused as it may be, part of a process with
which I'm not connected? Certainly I might agree to kill you, to end your
certain misery. I might even choose to kill you, to end the misery you
bring to the rest of us. But the only force used in walking away, leaving
you responsible for your own existence, is that which you attempt to apply
to me in not letting me walk. (Now go ahead and talk to me about
compassion.)
Anyway, I'm confident you don't have the capacity to reprocess the
rhetorical abyss into which you've allowed yourself to be pushed by the
abortion lobby, but take heart in that you've at least attempted to elevate
the stature of the lowly rapist.
"Purple" <purple2510@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9e034035.0312161825.3291d7c9@posting.google.com...
"killing my daughter" <deadself@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<vtsv9urlnnrd0f@corp.supernews.com>...
I didn't realize that gestation required my input. Would that be like
from
squinting? or maybe grunting? Did the world of gestation go and connect
itself to my molar grinding without asking, dagnabit.
'Course now, I was aware that rape required the input of a rapist.
I'm thinking that you and I have different ideas of force, yours being
complete nonsense of course.
It is the difference between forcing a woman to do something and
preventing her from not doing it. In my opinion the two
are equivalent for practical purposes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
17 Dec 2003 07:45:00 PM |
|
|
"killing my daughter" <deadself@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<vu153ogcgkjbd4@corp.supernews.com>...
Huh...What?
So if I don't kill you, I'm forcing you to live, for practical purposes, I
mean.
This is not the implication of what I said. If you kill me, you are forcing
me to die. If I try to commit suicide and you prevent me by some method
other than persuasion than you are forcing me to live.
Or is your existence, confused as it may be, part of a process with
which I'm not connected? Certainly I might agree to kill you, to end your
certain misery. I might even choose to kill you, to end the misery you
bring to the rest of us. But the only force used in walking away, leaving
you responsible for your own existence, is that which you attempt to apply
to me in not letting me walk. (Now go ahead and talk to me about
compassion.)
Anyway, I'm confident you don't have the capacity to reprocess the
rhetorical abyss into which you've allowed yourself to be pushed by the
abortion lobby,
I believe that this comment is based on a misunderstanding of what I said.
I have had another go at explianing myself above.
but take heart in that you've at least attempted to elevate
the stature of the lowly rapist.
I don't wish to raise the stature of the lowly rapist. I don't think
my analogy was invalid but regret making it because it implies that
pro-lifers are as heartless as a rapist and this is in general, very
far from the truth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
15 Dec 2003 09:08:34 PM |
|
|
On 15 Dec 2003 17:42:54 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Anyone care to compare and contrast the following statements?
"Fetuses and embryos are lucky that they have pro-lifers
to force pregnant women to gestate for them. Without these
heroes thousands more embryos and fetuses worldwide would
be denied the opportunity of experiencing human life."
"Ovum are lucky that they have rapists to force woman to
have sex with them. Without these heroes thousands more
ovum worldwide would be denied the opportunity of
experiencing human life."
Ova are single-celled living things, haploid human cells. They do not
naturally develop, in the normal course of events, into thinking
adults. Hence, they do not have rights. No benefit is produced to an
ovum by fertilizing it; that, instead, is the death of the ovum as it
is torn asunder to form part of a different living being.
Fetuses and embryos, on the other hand, are already living human
beings. They are simply younger than adults, like babies are.
Requiring a woman not to terminate her pregnancy through abortion is
not like rape. This is true for many reasons.
Even when pregnancy is a problem, people with problems aren't entitled
to escape from their problems by robbing others or performing acts of
violence upon them. Restricting abortion is simply acting on this
principle.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
15 Dec 2003 11:29:24 PM |
|
|
John Savard <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
On 15 Dec 2003 17:42:54 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Anyone care to compare and contrast the following statements?
"Fetuses and embryos are lucky that they have pro-lifers
to force pregnant women to gestate for them. Without these
heroes thousands more embryos and fetuses worldwide would
be denied the opportunity of experiencing human life."
"Ovum are lucky that they have rapists to force woman to
have sex with them. Without these heroes thousands more
ovum worldwide would be denied the opportunity of
experiencing human life."
Ova are single-celled living things, haploid human cells.
Fetuses and embryos are not individual human beings.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
16 Dec 2003 02:41:42 PM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brm57k$691$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Fetuses and embryos are not individual human beings.
They're human beings if their parents are, retard. That proves abortion is murder.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
17 Dec 2003 12:43:08 AM |
|
|
golddodgearies <golddodgearies@yahoo.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brm57k$691$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Fetuses and embryos are not individual human beings.
They're human beings if their parents are, retard.
You're so smart that all you can do is repeat the same idiocy again
and again and again and again and again and again ...
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without beinghypocritical? |
16 Dec 2003 11:35:38 PM |
|
|
golddodgearies wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brm57k$691$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Fetuses and embryos are not individual human beings.
They're human beings if their parents are, retard. That proves abortion is murder.
No it doesn't, retard. It proves nothing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
16 Dec 2003 11:46:00 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote in
news:3FDFEB4A.4A7CE738@citlink.net:
golddodgearies wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<brm57k$691$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Fetuses and embryos are not individual human beings.
They're human beings if their parents are, retard. That
proves abortion is murder.
No it doesn't, retard. It proves nothing.
on the contrary, it proves something about goldy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MheathXX" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
17 Dec 2003 08:49:00 PM |
|
|
What is a fetus Ray? A glob of goop that is unhuman?
My friend you had better get a clue and understand that at the
nanosecond a sperm unites with an egg, the process of human life has
BEGUN. It doesnt happen 5 min later, 5 days later, not after the baby
has exited the womb. It happens at that point in time.
When an egg and sperm unite, it is a being. The being is real and
exists. It has a beginning and an end. Just like YOU.
And get another clue before you spout off. I am not ANTI CHOICE. A
woman can do whatever she pleases. She can smoke crack till her head
pops off. It is her choice. But just as abortion is the wrong thing
to do, so is smoking crack.
fischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brm57k$691$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
John Savard <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
On 15 Dec 2003 17:42:54 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Anyone care to compare and contrast the following statements?
"Fetuses and embryos are lucky that they have pro-lifers
to force pregnant women to gestate for them. Without these
heroes thousands more embryos and fetuses worldwide would
be denied the opportunity of experiencing human life."
"Ovum are lucky that they have rapists to force woman to
have sex with them. Without these heroes thousands more
ovum worldwide would be denied the opportunity of
experiencing human life."
Ova are single-celled living things, haploid human cells.
Fetuses and embryos are not individual human beings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
18 Dec 2003 10:07:12 PM |
|
|
MheathXX <mheath22@excite.com> wrote:
What is a fetus Ray? A glob of goop that is unhuman?
It's a fetus, moron.
My friend you had better get a clue and understand that at the
nanosecond a sperm unites with an egg,
You betray your ignorance again and again. Fertilization is a
process. It doesn't happen at an instant.
the process of human life has
BEGUN.
Wrong, idiot. Sperm and egg are alive BEFORE fertilization.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mizzyandrea" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
17 Dec 2003 08:54:52 PM |
|
|
When an egg and sperm unite, it is a being. The being is real and
exists. It has a beginning and an end. Just like YOU.
*******************
Nope.......there's no "being" until there's a birth.
that's why abortion is legal
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "H,R.Gruemm" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
21 Dec 2003 03:32:09 PM |
|
|
jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote in message news:<3fde763d.1793210@news.ecn.ab.ca>...
On 15 Dec 2003 17:42:54 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Anyone care to compare and contrast the following statements?
"Fetuses and embryos are lucky that they have pro-lifers
to force pregnant women to gestate for them. Without these
heroes thousands more embryos and fetuses worldwide would
be denied the opportunity of experiencing human life."
"Ovum are lucky that they have rapists to force woman to
have sex with them. Without these heroes thousands more
ovum worldwide would be denied the opportunity of
experiencing human life."
Ova are single-celled living things, haploid human cells. They do not
naturally develop, in the normal course of events, into thinking
adults.
Yes, they do, if you define "normal course of events" as the presence
of sperm. "Normal" is such a pliable word.
BTW, the "normal course of events" for a zygote is to be spontaneously
aborted.
Hence, they do not have rights. No benefit is produced to an
ovum by fertilizing it; that, instead, is the death of the ovum as it
is torn asunder to form part of a different living being.
What terrible forces are tearing apart an ovum at fertilization ? Does
it cease to metabolize, as a dying cell does ?
And is there any genetic material in the zygote which wasn't
previously present in either the ovum or the sperm ? A zygote is just
the union of two previously present living things.
Fetuses and embryos, on the other hand, are already living human
beings.
Sorry. They are not born, while human beings are.
They are simply younger than adults, like babies are.
What baby is living inside someone else's body ?
Requiring a woman not to terminate her pregnancy through abortion is
not like rape. This is true for many reasons.
Even when pregnancy is a problem, people with problems aren't entitled
to escape from their problems by robbing others or performing acts of
violence upon them.
Not so if those others are the very source of the problem: e.g. by
occupying their body without permission, drawing on their resources
and injecting them with hormones.
Restricting abortion is simply acting on this
principle.
Allowing abortion is simply acting on the principle that I can remove
a burglar from my home (especially if his actions cause me harm), even
if he is a somnambulist and cannot be directly blamed for his
presence.
Regards,
HRG.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Purple" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
16 Dec 2003 08:19:01 PM |
|
|
jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid (John Savard) wrote in message news:<3fde763d.1793210@news.ecn.ab.ca>...
On 15 Dec 2003 17:42:54 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Anyone care to compare and contrast the following statements?
"Fetuses and embryos are lucky that they have pro-lifers
to force pregnant women to gestate for them. Without these
heroes thousands more embryos and fetuses worldwide would
be denied the opportunity of experiencing human life."
"Ovum are lucky that they have rapists to force woman to
have sex with them. Without these heroes thousands more
ovum worldwide would be denied the opportunity of
experiencing human life."
Ova are single-celled living things, haploid human cells. They do not
naturally develop, in the normal course of events, into thinking
adults. Hence, they do not have rights.
I think I can understand your position but a fetus won't develop into
a thinking adult without the help of it's mother's bodily resources.
Of course in the normal course of events she has no option but to
provide these resources but since medical intervention is available
then she can have this choice and I don't see why she shouldn't.
No benefit is produced to an
ovum by fertilizing it; that, instead, is the death of the ovum as it
is torn asunder to form part of a different living being.
Since I would rather be a human than an ovum, I would argue that the
ovum does benefit from being fertilized.
Fetuses and embryos, on the other hand, are already living human
beings. They are simply younger than adults, like babies are.
I prefer to think of them as potential humans because they do not
think or act like humans do and they can not develop into humans
without assistance. I think this is the main point of contention.
If I thought of them as humans I would have to concede that my whole
rape analogy is silly.
Requiring a woman not to terminate her pregnancy through abortion is
not like rape. This is true for many reasons.
Yes. My analogy was designed to be provocative but I don't want to
leave the impression that I consider pro-lifers to be no better
than rapists. Both wish to assert control over a woman's body but
at least pro-life people are generally motiavted by noble intentions.
Even when pregnancy is a problem, people with problems aren't entitled
to escape from their problems by robbing others or performing acts of
violence upon them. Restricting abortion is simply acting on this
principle.
Again this sounds sensible if you believe that a fetus deserves as
much consideration as a human and are prepared to make exceptions to
the 'no abortion' rule for extreme cases. Therefore we need to consider
by what criteria we grant rights to living organisms. In another thread
you proposed that:
"A decision about who has rights and who doesn't has to be based on
*first principles*, not an arbitrary choice without reasons.
Humans have rights, and horses don't, because humans are able to think
well enough to recognize the concept of rights, and to choose to
respect the rights of others."
By this criteria don't you agree that a fetus is a potential human, just
like an ovum?
.
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
18 Dec 2003 11:35:52 PM |
|
|
(Purple) wrote in message news:<9e034035.0312161819.258dbb12@posting.google.com>...
I prefer to think of them as potential humans because they do not
think or act like humans do
They actually have human parents, retard. They can only actually be
actual humans (i.e., not potential.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
17 Dec 2003 07:55:25 AM |
|
|
On 16 Dec 2003 18:19:01 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Again this sounds sensible if you believe that a fetus deserves as
much consideration as a human and are prepared to make exceptions to
the 'no abortion' rule for extreme cases. Therefore we need to consider
by what criteria we grant rights to living organisms. In another thread
you proposed that:
"A decision about who has rights and who doesn't has to be based on
*first principles*, not an arbitrary choice without reasons.
Humans have rights, and horses don't, because humans are able to think
well enough to recognize the concept of rights, and to choose to
respect the rights of others."
By this criteria don't you agree that a fetus is a potential human, just
like an ovum?
There is a difference between a fetus and an ovum.
The fetus becomes an adult by growing up, just like a baby becomes an
adult by growing up. There is continuity between them.
An ovum is used to produce a fertilized egg cell, just as a sperm is
used to produce a fertilized egg cell; the controlling genetic
material of both is ripped asunder, and organized into a new
arrangement.
Does a fetus "actually think"? Does a baby "actually think"? It's
rather hard to tell. So it would seem, from the pro-life perspective,
that abortion should not be legal, unless we are dealing with embryos
so undeveloped that it is unambiguously clear that even the incipient
beginnings of mental life, as present in neonates, are utterly absent.
At seven weeks, fetuses look human, and have been spotted sucking
their thumbs.
But at 27 days, the first neuroblasts are differentiating from cells
which may also give rise to other cell types besides nerve cells.
Let's just say that as a time limit, the third trimester doesn't cut
it.
John Savard
http://home.ecn.ab.ca/~jsavard/index.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
17 Dec 2003 01:02:53 PM |
|
|
John Savard <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 18:19:01 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Again this sounds sensible if you believe that a fetus deserves as
much consideration as a human and are prepared to make exceptions to
the 'no abortion' rule for extreme cases. Therefore we need to consider
by what criteria we grant rights to living organisms. In another thread
you proposed that:
"A decision about who has rights and who doesn't has to be based on
*first principles*, not an arbitrary choice without reasons.
Humans have rights, and horses don't, because humans are able to think
well enough to recognize the concept of rights, and to choose to
respect the rights of others."
By this criteria don't you agree that a fetus is a potential human, just
like an ovum?
There is a difference between a fetus and an ovum.
There is a difference between a fetus and a newborn.
The fetus becomes an adult by growing up,
And by first being born.
just like a baby becomes an
adult by growing up. There is continuity between them.
Yeah, childbirth is just an everyday continuity type of event.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "MheathXX" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
18 Dec 2003 04:02:09 PM |
|
|
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brq98t$jt$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
John Savard <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 18:19:01 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Again this sounds sensible if you believe that a fetus deserves as
much consideration as a human and are prepared to make exceptions to
the 'no abortion' rule for extreme cases. Therefore we need to consider
by what criteria we grant rights to living organisms. In another thread
you proposed that:
"A decision about who has rights and who doesn't has to be based on
*first principles*, not an arbitrary choice without reasons.
Humans have rights, and horses don't, because humans are able to think
well enough to recognize the concept of rights, and to choose to
respect the rights of others."
By this criteria don't you agree that a fetus is a potential human, just
like an ovum?
There is a difference between a fetus and an ovum.
There is a difference between a fetus and a newborn.
The fetus becomes an adult by growing up,
And by first being born.
just like a baby becomes an
adult by growing up. There is continuity between them.
Yeah, childbirth is just an everyday continuity type of event.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Is it possible to be anti-abortion and anti-rape without being hypocritical? |
18 Dec 2003 04:13:25 PM |
|
|
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
news:c3d9dd2.0312181402.58b8ae1b@posting.google.com...
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus to come out
completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it wouldn't be a partial
birth. We would have a completed birth, and then they can't complete the
abortion.
By allowing the fetus to come out up to the shoulders, there isn't a
complete birth. By law, the fetus is not a person since there is no birth.
They can stop the fetus, suck out the brain, and the abortion is complete.
Ray simply refuses to realize this.
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<brq98t$jt$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
John Savard <jsavard@ecn.aSBLOKb.caNADA.invalid> wrote:
On 16 Dec 2003 18:19:01 -0800, (Purple) wrote,
in part:
Again this sounds sensible if you believe that a fetus deserves as
much consideration as a human and are prepared to make exceptions to
the 'no abortion' rule for extreme cases. Therefore we need to
consider
by what criteria we grant rights to living organisms. In another
thread
you proposed that:
"A decision about who has rights and who doesn't has to be based on
*first principles*, not an arbitrary choice without reasons.
Humans have rights, and horses don't, because humans are able to think
well enough to recognize the concept of rights, and to choose to
respect the rights of others."
By this criteria don't you agree that a fetus is a potential human,
just
like an ovum?
There is a difference between a fetus and an ovum.
There is a difference between a fetus and a newborn.
The fetus becomes an adult by growing up,
And by first being born.
just like a baby becomes an
adult by growing up. There is continuity between them.
Yeah, childbirth is just an everyday continuity type of event.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Heishman is lying yet again |
18 Dec 2003 10:09:27 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus to come out
completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it wouldn't be a partial
birth.
***** Heishman is lying outright yet again. Proof has been provided
again and again that he's wrong, but still he writes his lies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Heishman is lying yet again |
19 Dec 2003 07:39:26 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in
news:brttlm$1oi$1@bolt.sonic.net:
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you
objectively KNOW that when we suck the brain out of a 3
month old baby in the womb, that the baby is NOT a human
being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus
to come out completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it
wouldn't be a partial birth.
***** Heishman is lying outright yet again. Proof has been
provided again and again that he's wrong, but still he writes
his lies.
of course he does. he is, and has been, the abortion newsgroups
most prolific liar (although lately he is getting competition from
dorothy and cleopatra/marie/cleopatra).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Watch Ray ignore this question |
19 Dec 2003 04:52:40 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brttlm$1oi$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus to come out
completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it wouldn't be a partial
birth.
***** Heishman is lying outright yet again. Proof has been provided
again and again that he's wrong, but still he writes his lies.
Ray, can they complete the abortion if the fetus comes completely out
alive?
Proof has been provided by testimony from MD's why they don't allow
the fetus to come completely out. You snipped it.
Two reasons
a) They can't kill the fetus if the fetus comes completely out
b) Abortionist make more money from late term abortions than early
term
Regardless, lets watch you run from my question as you always do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "golddodgearies" |
|
| Title: Re: Watch Ray ignore this question |
19 Dec 2003 03:53:28 PM |
|
|
(osprey) wrote in message news:<8912d58d.0312190252.662e16b1@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
Regardless, lets watch you run from my question as you always do.
Osprey, stop being such a stupid *****. Ray Fischer is as pathetic a
baby murderer as you will find anywhere, but that doesn't give you
liscence to act like a complete idiot like so many others here. Do you
even know what a debate is? Do you know what an argument is? Where
does it say that you (and everyone else who does this) get to 'debate'
and 'argue' by asking a bunch of (often stupid) questions? Make your
fucking argument if you have one. Actually debate your opponent. No
one is your little answer slave. Your opponent doesn't have an
obligation to help you with your case. Do you understand that? This
isn't rocket science. And where did this stupid notion come from that
opponents who don't answer every stupid fucking question you can think
of, are somehow a 'cowards running away'? Jesus H. Christ.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Watch Ray ignore this question |
19 Dec 2003 04:19:33 PM |
|
|
(golddodgearies) wrote in
news:44e87bc2.0312191353.215550ae@posting.google.com:
Osprey, stop being such a stupid *****. Ray Fischer is as
pathetic a baby murderer as you will find anywhere, but that
doesn't give you liscence to act like a complete idiot like so
many others here. Do you even know what a debate is? Do you
know what an argument is?
it's safe to say that no one who knowingly lies and calls others
murderers can be a participant in any debate.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Watch Ray ignore this question |
20 Dec 2003 01:35:12 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brttlm$1oi$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus to come out
completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it wouldn't be a partial
birth.
***** Heishman is lying outright yet again. Proof has been provided
again and again that he's wrong, but still he writes his lies.
Ray, can they complete the abortion if the fetus comes completely out
alive?
How can you be such a sleazy, immoral, *****?
Proof has been provided by testimony from MD's why they don't allow
You're lying again, ***** Heishman. And I provided proof that
you're lying, ***** Heishman.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Watch Ray ignore this question |
20 Dec 2003 06:15:11 AM |
|
|
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<bs0u3g$271$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote in message news:<brttlm$1oi$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus to come out
completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it wouldn't be a partial
birth.
***** Heishman is lying outright yet again. Proof has been provided
again and again that he's wrong, but still he writes his lies.
Ray, can they complete the abortion if the fetus comes completely out
alive?
How can you be such a sleazy, immoral, *****?
No answer
Proof has been provided by testimony from MD's why they don't allow
You're lying again, ***** Heishman. And I provided proof that
you're lying, ***** Heishman.
Ray says nothing of importance.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Watch Ray ignore this question |
20 Dec 2003 10:47:50 PM |
|
|
In article <8912d58d.0312200415.4f935306@posting.google.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<bs0u3g$271$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<brttlm$1oi$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus to come
out
completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it wouldn't be a
partial
birth.
***** Heishman is lying outright yet again. Proof has been provided
again and again that he's wrong, but still he writes his lies.
Ray, can they complete the abortion if the fetus comes completely out
alive?
How can you be such a sleazy, immoral, *****?
No answer
Proof has been provided by testimony from MD's why they don't allow
You're lying again, ***** Heishman. And I provided proof that
you're lying, ***** Heishman.
Ray says nothing of importance.
Ray does great things. For one thing, he drives you crazy because he
has your number. Just as you follow me around, you follow him around
like a puppy dog. Best of all, you try to play stupid manipulative
games with him, as you do with me. You say things like "Watch Ray
ignore this question" because you are tired of being ignored for your
inane comments. You hope to manipulate him, like you probably do with
those at the prison and at home, in a pathetic attempt for attention.
Then, when that doesn't work, you try to get people to answer you by
claiming they are "running." How sad for you.
You figure, "If I can't get them to answer questions that I ask because
they see my questions for what they are, the pathetic ramblings of an
intellectually impotent fool, perhaps I can trick them, through
manipulation, to answer my questions." That may work with those around
you in your private life, but here you are out of your league. You are
like the little kid who follows the older boys around hoping to get
them to pay attention to you. In a way, I feel sorry for you. But you
still can't hang out with me, and I doubt Ray will put up with your
childish tricks, either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Watch Ray ignore this question |
21 Dec 2003 04:09:48 AM |
|
|
David Barnes <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<201220032047506433%dbarnes111@yahoo.com>...
In article <8912d58d.0312200415.4f935306@posting.google.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<bs0u3g$271$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<brttlm$1oi$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus to come
out
completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it wouldn't be a
partial
birth.
***** Heishman is lying outright yet again. Proof has been provided
again and again that he's wrong, but still he writes his lies.
Ray, can they complete the abortion if the fetus comes completely out
alive?
How can you be such a sleazy, immoral, *****?
No answer
Proof has been provided by testimony from MD's why they don't allow
You're lying again, ***** Heishman. And I provided proof that
you're lying, ***** Heishman.
Ray says nothing of importance.
Ray does great things. For one thing, he drives you crazy because he
has your number. Just as you follow me around, you follow him around
like a puppy dog. Best of all, you try to play stupid manipulative
games with him, as you do with me. You say things like "Watch Ray
ignore this question" because you are tired of being ignored for your
inane comments. You hope to manipulate him, like you probably do with
those at the prison and at home, in a pathetic attempt for attention.
Then, when that doesn't work, you try to get people to answer you by
claiming they are "running." How sad for you.
You figure, "If I can't get them to answer questions that I ask because
they see my questions for what they are, the pathetic ramblings of an
intellectually impotent fool, perhaps I can trick them, through
manipulation, to answer my questions." That may work with those around
you in your private life, but here you are out of your league. You are
like the little kid who follows the older boys around hoping to get
them to pay attention to you. In a way, I feel sorry for you. But you
still can't hang out with me, and I doubt Ray will put up with your
childish tricks, either.
WOW!!!
Did your paranoia just hit the top of the meter in this post.
You are scared!!!
I am loving it.
Too bad you are too scared to come into a real court room. Little
guard will tear you up.
ROFL
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Watch Ray ignore this question |
21 Dec 2003 11:36:48 AM |
|
|
In article <8912d58d.0312210209.f69cb6e@posting.google.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes <dbarnes111@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<201220032047506433%dbarnes111@yahoo.com>...
In article <8912d58d.0312200415.4f935306@posting.google.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<bs0u3g$271$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
rfischer@bolt.sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote in message
news:<brttlm$1oi$1@bolt.sonic.net>...
Osprey <noneedstoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"MheathXX" <mheath22@excite.com> wrote in message
So Ray, tell me, with UNDISPUTED EVIDENCE, that you objectively
KNOW
that when we suck the brain out of a 3 month old baby in the womb,
that the baby is NOT a human being.
What is your PROOF???
Better yet, ask him the main reason they don't allow the fetus to
come
out
completely during a PBA.
The main reason is, because if they did allow that, it wouldn't be a
partial
birth.
***** Heishman is lying outright yet again. Proof has been
provided
again and again that he's wrong, but still he writes his lies.
Ray, can they complete the abortion if the fetus comes completely out
alive?
How can you be such a sleazy, immoral, *****?
No answer
Proof has been provided by testimony from MD's why they don't allow
You're lying again, ***** Heishman. And I provided proof that
you're lying, ***** Heishman.
Ray says nothing of importance.
Ray does great things. For one thing, he drives you crazy because he
has your number. Just as you follow me around, you follow him around
like a puppy dog. Best of all, you try to play stupid manipulative
games with him, as you do with me. You say things like "Watch Ray
ignore this question" because you are tired of being ignored for your
inane comments. You hope to manipulate him, like you probably do with
those at the prison and at home, in a pathetic attempt for attention.
Then, when that doesn't work, you try to get people to answer you by
claiming they are "running." How sad for you.
You figure, "If I can't get them to answer questions that I ask because
they see my questions for what they are, the pathetic ramblings of an
intellectually impotent fool, perhaps I can trick them, through
manipulation, to answer my questions." That may work with those around
you in your private life, but here you are out of your league. You are
like the little kid who follows the older boys around hoping to get
them to pay attention to you. In a way, I feel sorry for you. But you
still can't hang out with me, and I doubt Ray will put up with your
childish tricks, either.
WOW!!!
Did your paranoia just hit the top of the meter in this post.
You are scared!!!
Manipulative.
I am loving it.
I must have hit a nerve.
Too bad you are too scared to come into a real court room. Little
guard will tear you up.
I live in court. You have to do better than that.
ROFL
Run away, kid. The big boys are playing...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
