| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
| Date: |
02 Jul 2005 09:20:28 PM |
| Object: |
LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion
By Gaby Wood in New York
The Observer
Sunday, July 3, 2005
Last autumn, in the midst of a presidential election,
America's Democrats were fighting furiously to protect
what they described as a constitutional right -- to have
an abortion.
But in an extraordinary turn of events, some argue that
it is the single issue standing in the way of their
election prospects. They are daring to say what once was
regarded as heresy -- that it is time to let the argument
go.
Abortion may still be the most divisive issue in the US,
but in a move indicative of creeping conservatism,
Democrats now seem happy to amend -- even relinquish --
their position on it.
On Friday pro-choice campaigners received another blow --
Sandra Day O'Connor, the first women to serve in the US
Supreme Court, announced her retirement. Her crucial pro-
choice vote has now gone and George Bush is likely to
replace her with a conservative .
There has been unprecedented discussion about 'letting go
of Roe' -- meaning Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court
ruling that decriminalised abortion. Conservative New
York Times columnist David Brooks argued that 'unless Roe
v Wade is overturned, politics will never get better'.
Liberals, he believes, have lost touch with working-class
Americans because they rely on the courts to impose their
views and have never had to debate 'values' with those
voters.
But it is not only conservatives making this case.
Cynthia Gorney, author of A Frontline History of the
Abortion Wars, says she has 'heard it coming from people
who you certainly wouldn't have heard it from three or
four years ago. It's people who are ardent Democrats, fed
up with the vacillations and ineffectiveness of the
party. One aspect of that was: we've hung on too long to
things that are destructive to us ultimately and clinging
to Roe is costing us more than it's gaining us.'
The reason for the debate is the very real prospect of
new conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, and
whether they are likely to vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
A deeply contentious case, the 'Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act' is expected before the Supreme Court soon, by
which time its pro-life Chief Justice, William H.
Rehnquist, will have retired (he is suffering from
cancer). This is the longest-serving Supreme Court; eight
of the nine justices are over 65 -- and Day O'Connor and
Rehnquist could be replaced with pro-life justices this
year.
In the Atlantic Monthly, avowed pro-choicer Benjamin
Wittes advised abortion-rights supporters to 'let Roe
die'. Commitment to it, he wrote, 'has been deeply
unhealthy for American democracy'. The battle over
Supreme Court nominees is likely to become 'an ugly
spectacle in which a single narrow issue pushes to the
sidelines discussion of a broad array of other important
legal questions' and liberals should have faith in the
pro-choice majority.
But if Roe v Wade is overturned, women will lose what was
judged in 1973 to be a constitutional right. Many argue
that this is akin to relieving black people of their
civil rights, and fear the return of back-alley
abortions.
According to the Centre for Reproductive Rights, if the
right to an abortion is again decided state by state, 21
are very likely to ban it altogether. Others, which
legalised abortion before Roe, would continue to protect
it.
Gorney believes there is not necessarily as much to fear
as some suggest. The Supreme Court line-up has remained
the same for 10 years, a period in which Roe v Wade has
been upheld by those very same justices. Seven of the
nine have been appointed by Republicans.
Even the pro-Roe count is open to interpretation. Anthony
Kennedy is considered to be the most crucial swing voter.
His personal views on abortion are unknown, though he is
a conservative on other issues.
For this reason, some put him in the anti-Roe camp, and
consider the pro-Roe vote to be 5-4. With the vote so
close, losing one pro-Roe justice could bring down Roe v
Wade. But Kennedy's actual record shows his to have been
the swing vote in support of upholding Roe in 1992 and
for this reason others put him in the pro-Roe camp,
making the vote a less risky 6-3.
Last month, the debate over stem cell research reached a
peak of moral simplification when antagonists publicised
their use of the phrase 'embryo adoption', instead of
'embryo donation', used by clinics. To protest against a
bill supporting the use of embryos for stem cell
research, Bush appeared holding a baby who had been
'adopted' as an embryo.
William Saletan, author of Bearing Right: How
Conservatives Won the Abortion War, thinks pro-lifers are
'on a collision course' with IVF.
'Embryo adoption' is not unlike 'partial-birth abortion',
a term given by anti-abortionists to a particular
procedure,' he said. 'What's happening now is they're
fighting at the wrong end of pregnancy. There is no
pregnancy. They are going to try to dress this up as
"embryos are people". But it's just too hard to sell.'
Related stories
07.07.2002: Fury over fast-track abortions
07.07.2002: Synthetic condoms fail the safe sex test
In the United States
30.06.2002: Pro-lifers force US to slash Third World aid
28.04.2002: Bush promotes virgin values to curb teen sex
05.05.2002: Aids fear as Bush blocks sex lessons
More from The Observer
22.04.2001: Nicci Gerrard: Women and abortion
Observer Review highlights
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520138,00.html
- - - - - - -
Could it be?
Posted on 7/02/2005 6:54:48 PM PDT in part by Halfmanhalfamazing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded messages
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.
|
|
| User: "Steve Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 12:29:48 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 02:20:28 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj) wrote:
Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion
By Gaby Wood in New York
The Observer
Sunday, July 3, 2005
Last autumn, in the midst of a presidential election,
America's Democrats were fighting furiously to protect
what they described as a constitutional right -- to have
an abortion.
But in an extraordinary turn of events, some argue that
it is the single issue standing in the way of their
election prospects. They are daring to say what once was
regarded as heresy -- that it is time to let the argument
go.
Abortion may still be the most divisive issue in the US,
but in a move indicative of creeping conservatism,
Democrats now seem happy to amend -- even relinquish --
their position on it.
I have always been puzzled by the notion that the idea of a "right to
abortion" is a liberal one.
I remember how shocked i was the first time i encountered it, having fled from
South Africa a month earlier, one step ahead of the Security Police, being
hounded, like many other liberals, for opposing the ethnic cleansing that was
part and parcel of the implementation of the policy of apartheid, having been
officially warned by a magistrate in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act
(which was being used to suppress liberalism) not to engage in activities that
were calculated to achieve any of the objects of communism (such as a
democratic non-racial South Africa), and being told by him that my membership
of the Liberal Party must surely count as one of those activities.
So, being regarded as an enemy of the state (enemy of the state number 1648,
according to the Security Police files now lodged in the Sate Archives because
of my liberalism, I thought I was a liberal and knew what liberalism was.
So this is what I wrote in my diary the first time I saw "the rightto
abortion" being described as "liberal".
4-Feb-1966, Friday
I woke up relatively early, and while eating breaksfast discussed
with Eric an article in yesterday's "Sun" on the subject of
abortion. The thing that struck me was that it spoke of the
"liberal and enlightened practice of legal abortion" and "a human
approach unaffected by moral attitudes" which sounded completely
nonsensical. As they put it the whole thing sounded to me like
fascist piggery based fundamentally on the idea that if the
existence of another person causes me inconvenience or discomfort
then I am morally justified in trying to get rid of the other
person. And here the fact that many of the people involved (in
abortion) were married women who already had children would seem
to indicate a certain amount of selfishness. And once having
established the practice that it is all right to get rid of
inconvenient individuals in some circumctances, then the way is
open for doing it on others. If unwanted babies are to be
disposed of in this manner, then why not euthanasia, which could
rid society of the mental defective and the physically deformed,
and possibly the old people who can no longer look after
themselves and so become a burden on society. The practice might
be extended to social misfits as well -- those who, while having
no obvious physical or mental defects, nevertheless fail to
adjust themselves to society. Political deviates would be the
next on the list. Why, we'll be back to the good old days when
Jews were liquidated in the gas chambers. Of course the good
doctor in Aberdeen might say that in a liberal and enlightened
country things couldn't escalate like that -- but do we live in a
liberal and enlightened society? And of course a humane approach
must not be affected by moral attitudes. How lovely for Mr
Vorster, I am sure. We can embark at once on a humane and
enlightened programme for all Bantu women who become pregnant.
Humane, because most of them have starving children already , and
another mouth to feed when there is not enough food as it is
could cause them worry, and damage their mental and physical
health and well-being. And the world will have cause to be
grateful, because we are solving the problem of overpopulation by
a liberal and enlightend practice of genocide. The foregoing, of
course, is an extensive exaggeration of what the article actually
said. But such escalation would really be perilously easy.
Perhaps there is something in human rights after all; if it were
enshrined in law the illiberal, unenlightened and inhumane idea
that every human being from the moment of conception, had "an
inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
---
I regarded legal abortion as fascist piggery then, and I've seen no reason to
change my mind. It is not, and never has been, "liberal". It goes against
everything that liberalism stands for,
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
.
|
|
|
| User: "michael" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 10:52:09 AM |
|
|
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:basec11ltjmdott7k1jca7p55rh67fc1jc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 02:20:28 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
wrote:
I have always been puzzled by the notion that the idea of a "right to
abortion" is a liberal one.
that would be because you are neither particularly imaginative nor liberal
.... except perhaps as defined in the no-longer-extant context of apartheid
south africa, and that hardly counts in the wider world... if there is a
takeover by christo-fascists in the us of a, you may begin to "seem" liberal
again, but fear not, you won't be... if you lived under sharia, strictly
enforced, you might also appear to be tainted by western liberalism... from
where i sit in vancouver, you appear to be a conservative and narrow-minded
old boger with an altogether unrealistic sense of yourself...
michael
michael
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 05:08:53 PM |
|
|
In article <JQTxe.151501$El.130398@pd7tw1no>,
"michael" <noname@mungo.com> posted:
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:basec11ltjmdott7k1jca7p55rh67fc1jc@4ax.com...
I have always been puzzled by the notion that the idea of a "right to
abortion" is a liberal one.
that would be because you are neither particularly imaginative nor liberal
.... except perhaps as defined in the no-longer-extant context of apartheid
south africa, and that hardly counts in the wider world... if there is a
takeover by christo-fascists in the us of a, you may begin to "seem" liberal
again, but fear not, you won't be... if you lived under sharia, strictly
enforced, you might also appear to be tainted by western liberalism... from
where i sit in vancouver, you appear to be a conservative and narrow-minded
old boger with an altogether unrealistic sense of yourself...
michael
Do not kill persons in their fetal state.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 08:57:55 PM |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> wrote:
"michael" <noname@mungo.com> posted:
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I have always been puzzled by the notion that the idea of a "right to
abortion" is a liberal one.
that would be because you are neither particularly imaginative nor liberal
.... except perhaps as defined in the no-longer-extant context of apartheid
south africa, and that hardly counts in the wider world... if there is a
takeover by christo-fascists in the us of a, you may begin to "seem" liberal
again, but fear not, you won't be... if you lived under sharia, strictly
enforced, you might also appear to be tainted by western liberalism... from
where i sit in vancouver, you appear to be a conservative and narrow-minded
old boger with an altogether unrealistic sense of yourself...
michael
Do not kill persons in their fetal state.
Stop trying to punish women for sex, pervert.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
04 Jul 2005 02:39:09 AM |
|
|
Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion
By Gaby Wood in New York
The Observer
Sunday, July 3, 2005
Last autumn, in the midst of a presidential election,
America's Democrats were fighting furiously to protect
what they described as a constitutional right -- to have
an abortion.
But in an extraordinary turn of events, some argue that
it is the single issue standing in the way of their
election prospects. They are daring to say what once was
regarded as heresy -- that it is time to let the argument
go.
Abortion may still be the most divisive issue in the US,
but in a move indicative of creeping conservatism,
Democrats now seem happy to amend -- even relinquish --
their position on it.
On Friday pro-choice campaigners received another blow --
Sandra Day O'Connor, the first women to serve in the US
Supreme Court, announced her retirement. Her crucial pro-
choice vote has now gone and George Bush is likely to
replace her with a conservative .
There has been unprecedented discussion about 'letting go
of Roe' -- meaning Roe v Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court
ruling that decriminalised abortion. Conservative New
York Times columnist David Brooks argued that 'unless Roe
v Wade is overturned, politics will never get better'.
Liberals, he believes, have lost touch with working-class
Americans because they rely on the courts to impose their
views and have never had to debate 'values' with those
voters.
But it is not only conservatives making this case.
Cynthia Gorney, author of A Frontline History of the
Abortion Wars, says she has 'heard it coming from people
who you certainly wouldn't have heard it from three or
four years ago. It's people who are ardent Democrats, fed
up with the vacillations and ineffectiveness of the
party. One aspect of that was: we've hung on too long to
things that are destructive to us ultimately and clinging
to Roe is costing us more than it's gaining us.'
The reason for the debate is the very real prospect of
new conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, and
whether they are likely to vote to overturn Roe v Wade.
A deeply contentious case, the 'Partial-Birth Abortion
Ban Act' is expected before the Supreme Court soon, by
which time its pro-life Chief Justice, William H.
Rehnquist, will have retired (he is suffering from
cancer). This is the longest-serving Supreme Court; eight
of the nine justices are over 65 -- and Day O'Connor and
Rehnquist could be replaced with pro-life justices this
year.
In the Atlantic Monthly, avowed pro-choicer Benjamin
Wittes advised abortion-rights supporters to 'let Roe
die'. Commitment to it, he wrote, 'has been deeply
unhealthy for American democracy'. The battle over
Supreme Court nominees is likely to become 'an ugly
spectacle in which a single narrow issue pushes to the
sidelines discussion of a broad array of other important
legal questions' and liberals should have faith in the
pro-choice majority.
But if Roe v Wade is overturned, women will lose what was
judged in 1973 to be a constitutional right. Many argue
that this is akin to relieving black people of their
civil rights, and fear the return of back-alley
abortions.
According to the Centre for Reproductive Rights, if the
right to an abortion is again decided state by state, 21
are very likely to ban it altogether. Others, which
legalised abortion before Roe, would continue to protect
it.
Gorney believes there is not necessarily as much to fear
as some suggest. The Supreme Court line-up has remained
the same for 10 years, a period in which Roe v Wade has
been upheld by those very same justices. Seven of the
nine have been appointed by Republicans.
Even the pro-Roe count is open to interpretation. Anthony
Kennedy is considered to be the most crucial swing voter.
His personal views on abortion are unknown, though he is
a conservative on other issues.
For this reason, some put him in the anti-Roe camp, and
consider the pro-Roe vote to be 5-4. With the vote so
close, losing one pro-Roe justice could bring down Roe v
Wade. But Kennedy's actual record shows his to have been
the swing vote in support of upholding Roe in 1992 and
for this reason others put him in the pro-Roe camp,
making the vote a less risky 6-3.
Last month, the debate over stem cell research reached a
peak of moral simplification when antagonists publicised
their use of the phrase 'embryo adoption', instead of
'embryo donation', used by clinics. To protest against a
bill supporting the use of embryos for stem cell
research, Bush appeared holding a baby who had been
'adopted' as an embryo.
William Saletan, author of Bearing Right: How
Conservatives Won the Abortion War, thinks pro-lifers are
'on a collision course' with IVF.
'Embryo adoption' is not unlike 'partial-birth abortion',
a term given by anti-abortionists to a particular
procedure,' he said. 'What's happening now is they're
fighting at the wrong end of pregnancy. There is no
pregnancy. They are going to try to dress this up as
"embryos are people". But it's just too hard to sell.'
Related stories
07.07.2002: Fury over fast-track abortions
07.07.2002: Synthetic condoms fail the safe sex test
In the United States
30.06.2002: Pro-lifers force US to slash Third World aid
28.04.2002: Bush promotes virgin values to curb teen sex
05.05.2002: Aids fear as Bush blocks sex lessons
More from The Observer
22.04.2001: Nicci Gerrard: Women and abortion
Observer Review highlights
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1520138,00.html
- - - - - - -
Could it be?
Posted on 7/02/2005 6:54:48 PM PDT in part by Halfmanhalfamazing
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
End of forwarded messages
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
04 Jul 2005 02:09:31 PM |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> wrote:
Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion
Few things more idiotic than neocon bigots telling liberals what they
want.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 03:36:38 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:52:09 GMT, "michael" <noname@mungo.com> wrote:
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:basec11ltjmdott7k1jca7p55rh67fc1jc@4ax.com...
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 02:20:28 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
wrote:
I have always been puzzled by the notion that the idea of a "right to
abortion" is a liberal one.
that would be because you are neither particularly imaginative nor liberal
... except perhaps as defined in the no-longer-extant context of apartheid
south africa, and that hardly counts in the wider world... if there is a
takeover by christo-fascists in the us of a, you may begin to "seem" liberal
again, but fear not, you won't be... if you lived under sharia, strictly
enforced, you might also appear to be tainted by western liberalism... from
where i sit in vancouver, you appear to be a conservative and narrow-minded
old boger with an altogether unrealistic sense of yourself...
Well bully for you.
Are you one pf those neo-liberals then, making the world safe for capitalism
and corporate profits?
I prefer the old-fashioned kind.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
.
|
|
|
| User: "michael" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 05:28:35 PM |
|
|
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d61gc1tcm86a34rqdni34r23s0b33tnfsl@4ax.com...
Well bully for you.
Are you one pf those neo-liberals then, making the world safe for
capitalism
and corporate profits?
nah... just the kind that despises patriarchal christian hypocrites who
would deny individual rights to women on the basis of a belief in some
quasi-mystical entity like a foetus with a soul, and then go on to claim
that theirs is the "true" liberalism... you ever actually read that book you
base your inflated self-concept on? you rarely seem to have read most of the
ones you criticize in this group...
I prefer the old-fashioned kind.
yeah, i can just hear it now in that smarmy white south african lilt: "gimme
dat ol' time religion"
michael
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 05:11:15 PM |
|
|
In article <d61gc1tcm86a34rqdni34r23s0b33tnfsl@4ax.com>,
posted:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 15:52:09 GMT, "michael" <noname@mungo.com> wrote:
"Steve Hayes" <hayesmstw@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:basec11ltjmdott7k1jca7p55rh67fc1jc@4ax.com...
I have always been puzzled by the notion that the idea of a "right to
abortion" is a liberal one.
that would be because you are neither particularly imaginative nor liberal
... except perhaps as defined in the no-longer-extant context of apartheid
south africa, and that hardly counts in the wider world... if there is a
takeover by christo-fascists in the us of a, you may begin to "seem" liberal
again, but fear not, you won't be... if you lived under sharia, strictly
enforced, you might also appear to be tainted by western liberalism... from
where i sit in vancouver, you appear to be a conservative and narrow-minded
old boger with an altogether unrealistic sense of yourself...
Well bully for you.
Are you one pf those neo-liberals then, making the world safe for capitalism
and corporate profits?
I prefer the old-fashioned kind.
Conservative or liberal, say "no" to aborting babies..
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 04:56:40 PM |
|
|
In article <basec11ltjmdott7k1jca7p55rh67fc1jc@4ax.com>,
posted:
Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
Liberals ready to abandon US right to abortion
By Gaby Wood in New York
The Observer
Sunday, July 3, 2005
Last autumn, in the midst of a presidential election,
America's Democrats were fighting furiously to protect
what they described as a constitutional right -- to have
an abortion.
But in an extraordinary turn of events, some argue that
it is the single issue standing in the way of their
election prospects. They are daring to say what once was
regarded as heresy -- that it is time to let the argument
go.
Abortion may still be the most divisive issue in the US,
but in a move indicative of creeping conservatism,
Democrats now seem happy to amend -- even relinquish --
their position on it.
I have always been puzzled by the notion that the idea of a "right to
abortion" is a liberal one.
I remember how shocked i was the first time i encountered it, having fled from
South Africa a month earlier, one step ahead of the Security Police, being
hounded, like many other liberals, for opposing the ethnic cleansing that was
part and parcel of the implementation of the policy of apartheid, having been
officially warned by a magistrate in terms of the Suppression of Communism Act
(which was being used to suppress liberalism) not to engage in activities that
were calculated to achieve any of the objects of communism (such as a
democratic non-racial South Africa), and being told by him that my membership
of the Liberal Party must surely count as one of those activities.
So, being regarded as an enemy of the state (enemy of the state number 1648,
according to the Security Police files now lodged in the Sate Archives because
of my liberalism, I thought I was a liberal and knew what liberalism was.
So this is what I wrote in my diary the first time I saw "the rightto
abortion" being described as "liberal".
4-Feb-1966, Friday
I woke up relatively early, and while eating breaksfast discussed
with Eric an article in yesterday's "Sun" on the subject of
abortion. The thing that struck me was that it spoke of the
"liberal and enlightened practice of legal abortion" and "a human
approach unaffected by moral attitudes" which sounded completely
nonsensical. As they put it the whole thing sounded to me like
fascist piggery based fundamentally on the idea that if the
existence of another person causes me inconvenience or discomfort
then I am morally justified in trying to get rid of the other
person. And here the fact that many of the people involved (in
abortion) were married women who already had children would seem
to indicate a certain amount of selfishness. And once having
established the practice that it is all right to get rid of
inconvenient individuals in some circumctances, then the way is
open for doing it on others. If unwanted babies are to be
disposed of in this manner, then why not euthanasia, which could
rid society of the mental defective and the physically deformed,
and possibly the old people who can no longer look after
themselves and so become a burden on society. The practice might
be extended to social misfits as well -- those who, while having
no obvious physical or mental defects, nevertheless fail to
adjust themselves to society. Political deviates would be the
next on the list. Why, we'll be back to the good old days when
Jews were liquidated in the gas chambers. Of course the good
doctor in Aberdeen might say that in a liberal and enlightened
country things couldn't escalate like that -- but do we live in a
liberal and enlightened society? And of course a humane approach
must not be affected by moral attitudes. How lovely for Mr
Vorster, I am sure. We can embark at once on a humane and
enlightened programme for all Bantu women who become pregnant.
Humane, because most of them have starving children already , and
another mouth to feed when there is not enough food as it is
could cause them worry, and damage their mental and physical
health and well-being. And the world will have cause to be
grateful, because we are solving the problem of overpopulation by
a liberal and enlightend practice of genocide. The foregoing, of
course, is an extensive exaggeration of what the article actually
said. But such escalation would really be perilously easy.
Perhaps there is something in human rights after all; if it were
enshrined in law the illiberal, unenlightened and inhumane idea
that every human being from the moment of conception, had "an
inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".
---
I regarded legal abortion as fascist piggery then, and I've seen no reason to
change my mind. It is not, and never has been, "liberal". It goes against
everything that liberalism stands for,
Abortion is violence. A quotation:
Ahinsa (nonviolence) is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the
best Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the
highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice.
Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest
friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the
highest teaching. MAHABHARAT 18.116.37-41
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Ilechko" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 07:05:26 AM |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote:
I regarded legal abortion as fascist piggery then, and I've seen no reason to
change my mind. It is not, and never has been, "liberal". It goes against
everything that liberalism stands for,
But in the USA, the fascistic piggery that is currently ruling this
country is solidly against abortion. Many people who are *personally*
disconcerted by the *idea* of abortion will still support the rights of
others to have abortions because of the political ramifications, and the
sides they have chosen. They hate the anti-abortion crowd more than they
dislike abortion as an act, which is not that suprising given the
sickening hypocrisy of many on the exteme right.
Then again, some people think as deeply about abortion as they think
about fast food choices.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 04:58:05 PM |
|
|
In article <3iq2k6Fmh4upU1@individual.net>,
Paul Ilechko <noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net> posted:
Steve Hayes wrote:
I regarded legal abortion as fascist piggery then, and I've seen no reason
to
change my mind. It is not, and never has been, "liberal". It goes against
everything that liberalism stands for,
But in the USA, the fascistic piggery that is currently ruling this
country is solidly against abortion. Many people who are *personally*
disconcerted by the *idea* of abortion will still support the rights of
others to have abortions because of the political ramifications, and the
sides they have chosen. They hate the anti-abortion crowd more than they
dislike abortion as an act, which is not that suprising given the
sickening hypocrisy of many on the exteme right.
Then again, some people think as deeply about abortion as they think
about fast food choices.
A right to kill babies is simply wrong.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
04 Jul 2005 04:14:18 AM |
|
|
Dear Dr Maharaj,
Is killing any baby anywhere in the world wrong? Are the children you
love any less the children you love when they grow into adults who have
acquired the freewill to disagree with you? ...If they become
Christian, Muslim, Hindu, marry white people (or black if they are
white), change their 1st language, despise their heritage, grow more
wise than you, fight against you, cause your heart to break and all
manner of things which hurt your heart, mind and soul?
"Shall the throne of iniquity, which devises evil by law, Have
fellowship with You? They gather together against the life of the
righteous, And condemn innocent blood. But the Lord has been my
defence, And my God the rock of my refuge. He has brought on them their
own iniquity, And shall cut them off in their own wickedness; The Lord
our God shall cut them off." Psa 94:20-23
In Christ's love
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
04 Jul 2005 04:39:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Dear Dr Maharaj,
Is killing any baby anywhere in the world wrong?
You have never said this was wrong:
Moses' instructions to Joshua concerning the killing of those
inhabiting Canaan
Basically, spare no one that breathes... kill men, women, children,
babies, the old, the infirm. Take no prisoners. Make no treaties with
them. Kill them for defending their homes. Kill them for defending
their families. Take the land under their feet, and murder every human
being you see, without question, without thinking.
Bible Stories your parents never taught you
http://www.reasonworks.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
04 Jul 2005 06:08:15 AM |
|
|
Is killing any baby anywhere in the world wrong?
You have never said this was wrong:<<<<<<<
Dear Ranjitt,
Have a read through this story fully and then you can give the
references points and a purpose for your argument. The Bible is an epic
instructional book of life events, warnings, consequence, wisdom,
poetry, love and so forth as well as Spiritual guidance. A journey
through it brings people to a realisation of God and who He is to each
of us. Praise The Lord that we do not suffer the trials and
tribulations of the Jewish people, even in this modern world today.
Their fear of The Lord has kept their history fully intact, so that the
world can learn of a chosen nation of people.
On the matter of my question to Dr Maharaj, it was a thinking point for
him. He is not Moses, he is not liberating people's, educating them, or
helping to grow a nation of God fearing people. He has no need to look
at this question with the perceived sin of others before Him. This was
a question of wisdom, of seeing beyond, of understanding suffering,
choices and ultimately 'Love' between men and their Lord.
Remember that Moses was a baby that man's laws tried to kill, and yet
The Lord placed him amongst those he would learn great things from, so
that as an adult he would lead his people to freedom.
' The Lord is my defence, the rock of my refuge
'.................................
We must ask ourselves, who do we take fellowship with?
In Christ's love
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
04 Jul 2005 06:35:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Is killing any baby anywhere in the world wrong?
You have never said this was wrong:<<<<<<<
On the matter of my question to Dr Maharaj, it was a thinking point for
him. He is not Moses, he is not liberating people's, educating them, or
helping to grow a nation of God fearing people.
If you are a liberator, educator or God-fearing-nation builder, then it
is not wrong for you to kill babies?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
04 Jul 2005 08:01:43 AM |
|
|
Dear Ranjit,
The whole Bible tests people's faith in God and the wisdom of men
against God's wisdom too. Therefore I fully defend God's wisdom, as His
righteousness over the righteousness of men has been proved time and
again. I have no need to defend The Old Testament, it is a Testament of
truth, faith and fear of The Lord, and the Jewish nation of people all
over the world are a testament to its truths. Because of this and The
Lord Jesus Christ men no longer have to live under law, now they live
in good conscience toward God through salvation from sin.
All Moses had at the time of their departure was faith in The Lord and
a promise for his people. This was a promise that he must have known
that he would never see himself. That is an awesome faith with unknown
parallels today.
Have you found the full story you are dwelling in yet? Did the Jewish
people have Jesus' wisdom at that time of liberation? Could they
minister to their neighbours in the power of The Holy Spirit and
strength of faith? Who had the strength and faith in God in Moses'
time? Who was sinless, did Moses claim to be? How many generations can
it take to raise a sinless child bathed in the Holy Spirit of God; so
that you can know Him, hear Him and see Him in living flesh?
If you are in defence of abortion yourself, at what point does the
child become your object of hatred?
Jesus gives us two commandments, to love the Lord God with all our
heart, mind, soul and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Easy...yes/no?
The Bible talks of conflicts we have with the law of our minds against
the light of Christ. The dilemma's it can throw at us as we turn our
consciousness toward God, the times when the rights feel wrong and the
wrongs feel right. Who are _you / we_ in the light of the greater
goodness over all man kind and the universe, what is the truth of
ourselves against God's righteousness?
Can the emerging hatred, which arises out of own sin, for the
defenceless children we strive to save today, be ultimately oppressed
through love alone? If sin causes the hatred to arise who can take it
out of our hearts, minds and soul and turn it into a true love if not
Christ Himself?
In Christ's love
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
04 Jul 2005 06:20:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dear Ranjit,
The whole Bible tests people's faith in God and the wisdom of men
against God's wisdom too. Therefore I fully defend God's wisdom, as His
righteousness over the righteousness of men has been proved time and
again. I have no need to defend The Old Testament,
Then, you should have no hesitation in saying that Moses was evil when
he ordered genocide.
If you are in defence of abortion yourself, at what point does the
child become your object of hatred?
At no point. Who told you that abortions are done because a fetus is an
object of hatred?
Jesus gives us two commandments, to love the Lord God with all our
heart, mind, soul and strength and to love our neighbours as ourselves.
Easy...yes/no?
No, since they are contradictory commandments. If we love the Lord God,
we would massacre pagans, etc. like the Lord God enjoins in the Torah.
If we love our neighbors, then we would not massacre them; we would
live in peace with them. To live in peace with them, we would have to
ignore the Lord God's Torah, which would mean that we don't love the
Lord God.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
05 Jul 2005 04:45:19 AM |
|
|
Then, you should have no hesitation in saying that Moses was evil when
he ordered genocide. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear Ranjit,
Do you know in The Bible and context where you have read this yet? It
is important that you have a greater understanding of making judgement
against others, the trials of freedom and the preservation of God's
people. Who at this point in history has become sinless and what does
the sinless man do about children who taint a nation with disease? Who
is conquering with God's almighty sword of their mouth, and who has
even learned about His sword and its conquering Spirit? Why did it take
thousands of years to reveal Christ to us?
At no point. Who told you that abortions are done because a foetus is an object of hatred?<<<
You have misunderstood what I was saying. You see, a foetus grows into
a child, then into an adult. So as 'the foetus' is the same individual
as s/he was; then what stops the man who is full of righteousness from
failing to love and care for them in the same way as he did when he was
prepared to unreservedly say that taking his life is wrong?
If gaining a consciousness makes one of these children hated at any
point in their life, then surly it is better that they gain a good
consciousness toward your own Lord God, whom you love, admire and know
to be perfect, as they grow?
However, even if they don't gain a good conscience, then all you are
ever truly reject is the sin they have come to chose over righteousness
and love between you. Jesus died for rejecting this sin and because of
His love for us. 'He' could have picked up a sword of man and led
mighty armies against all those who would not reject their sin, He
certainly had the charisma to lead an army and forcibly cut away the
diseased. What did He know that Jewish men hundreds of years before Him
didn't ? Why was He different and One with His Father in Spirit?
Who could hate a man so much that s/he could want his death for any
reason, knowing that for the reason they fought for their life as a
foetus (the sanctity of life) is no longer worthy of continued love and
the power of a forgiving heart?
Can you/we continue to measure the sins and faith of anyone when we
have yet to acquire the full understandings of Christ? To judge a
righteous man, should we not become 'more' than he is and bathed in a
greater understanding? Or is it better that we not bring ourselves to
judge at all and seek to understand his purpose deeper?
If we love our neighbors, then we would not massacre them; we would live in peace with them. To live in peace with them, we would have to ignore the Lord God's Torah, which would mean that we don't love the Lord God. <<<<<<<<
The Lord God is not telling you to massacre anyone, you are not taking
a people's out of their captivity and into righteousness, you can put
aside God's message the Jewish children for now. If you feel that our
land is riddled with disease, filth, hatred, paganism, and all those
things a righteous man despises, then be filled with the Holy Spirit of
God's wisdom and rise up against it in the power of God's Word through
Christ. His Word is like the most powerful sword of all, it has the
strength to come down between families and divide those who want to
turn their consciousness toward God from those who 'chose' to sin.
Ask the Lord Jesus Christ into your life, ask for the power to do these
things, to bring His peace and righteousness to all people; not in
y/ours judgement, but in His. Come into a personal relationship with
your Lord God through Jesus' death on the cross for you. Be baptised in
The Word of Christ, be forgiven of your sins. Learn and understand what
many of His other children have failed to take on board because they
have not been baptised out of their sinning and into a good conscience
toward God.
Prayer and love is a powerful weapon against sin, disease, greed,
hatred, war, problems, despair, dishonesty, violence....... Prayer is a
powerful tool to spread love, righteousness, justice, tolerance,
understanding, wisdom, healing and all good things.
"Pray for us: for we trust we have a good conscience, in all things
willing to live honestly. "
Hebrews 13:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing
psalms." James 5:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and
let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
Lord:" James 5:14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Confess [your] faults one to another, and pray one for another, that
ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man
availeth much." James 5:16
Have you read a full Gospel of Christ?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/mark-kjv.html
In Christ's love
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
05 Jul 2005 05:40:59 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Then, you should have no hesitation in saying that Moses was evil when
he ordered genocide. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Dear Ranjit,
Do you know in The Bible and context where you have read this yet? It
is important that you have a greater understanding of making judgement
against others, the trials of freedom and the preservation of God's
people.
I have given you the contexts. You have failed thus far to condemn the
genocides.
If we love our neighbors, then we would not massacre them; we would live in peace with them. To live in peace with them, we would have to ignore the Lord God's Torah, which would mean that we don't love the Lord God. <<<<<<<<
The Lord God is not telling you to massacre anyone,
Oh, yes. Read the Torah.
Ask the Lord Jesus Christ into your life,
He's welcome to tea at any time but he never shows up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
05 Jul 2005 03:23:02 PM |
|
|
Dear Ranjit,
Repent of your sins and be always ready, don't miss your moment.
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
with me." Revelation 3:20
In Christ's love
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
05 Jul 2005 05:59:43 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Dear Ranjit,
Repent of your sins and be always ready, don't miss your moment.
Attaboy! Have you supped with him yet?
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
with me." Revelation 3:20
If Gandhi knocks at your door and sups with you, try to offer him goat
milk.
In Christ's love
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "harmony" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
11 Jul 2005 07:43:44 PM |
|
|
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120604383.427218.66150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
cteasd5941@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Ranjit,
Repent of your sins and be always ready, don't miss your moment.
Attaboy! Have you supped with him yet?
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
with me." Revelation 3:20
If Gandhi knocks at your door and sups with you, try to offer him goat
milk.
lol. and gandhi will say thank you; won't act like he is doing you a favor
by making you cook.
In Christ's love
Carol T
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Homilete" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
13 Jul 2005 12:48:28 PM |
|
|
harmony wrote:
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120604383.427218.66150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
cteasd5941@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Ranjit,
Repent of your sins and be always ready, don't miss your moment.
Attaboy! Have you supped with him yet?
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
with me." Revelation 3:20
If Gandhi knocks at your door and sups with you, try to offer him goat
milk.
lol. and gandhi will say thank you; won't act like he is doing you a favor
by making you cook.
Indians are not known to say thank you for anything. They don't say
thank you to their maids. They don't say thank you to their waiters.
They don't say thank you to their customers. And they certainly don't
say thank you to the country that allowed them the opportunity to seek a
better life. One such scoundrel named Pradip Parekh lives in Victoria,
Texas, and loses no opportunity to knock his neighbors' race, religion
and social customs. No "thank you" there at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Salah al-Din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
14 Jul 2005 06:43:56 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:48:28 GMT, "Dr. Homilete" <look@my.universe>
wrote:
harmony wrote:
<ranjit_mathews@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1120604383.427218.66150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
cteasd5941@gmail.com wrote:
Dear Ranjit,
Repent of your sins and be always ready, don't miss your moment.
Attaboy! Have you supped with him yet?
"Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and
open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he
with me." Revelation 3:20
If Gandhi knocks at your door and sups with you, try to offer him goat
milk.
lol. and gandhi will say thank you; won't act like he is doing you a favor
by making you cook.
Indians are not known to say thank you for anything. They don't say
thank you to their maids. They don't say thank you to their waiters.
They don't say thank you to their customers. And they certainly don't
say thank you to the country that allowed them the opportunity to seek a
better life. One such scoundrel named Pradip Parekh lives in Victoria,
Texas, and loses no opportunity to knock his neighbors' race, religion
and social customs. No "thank you" there at all.
And yet he will wonder when 4 or 5 of the teens kick his ***** into a
coma some night.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 08:57:00 PM |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj <usenet@mantra.com> wrote:
A right to kill babies is simply wrong.
There is no such right and nobody asks for such a right.
It's just another lie of anti-abortion fanatics.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Hayes" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 10:15:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:05:26 -0400, Paul Ilechko
<noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
I regarded legal abortion as fascist piggery then, and I've seen no reason to
change my mind. It is not, and never has been, "liberal". It goes against
everything that liberalism stands for,
But in the USA, the fascistic piggery that is currently ruling this
country is solidly against abortion. Many people who are *personally*
disconcerted by the *idea* of abortion will still support the rights of
others to have abortions because of the political ramifications, and the
sides they have chosen. They hate the anti-abortion crowd more than they
dislike abortion as an act, which is not that suprising given the
sickening hypocrisy of many on the exteme right.
I don't doubt it.
Until I went to the UK and read that article in the "Sun", I had hardly given
a thought to abortion, and yet encountered fascist piggery every day of my
life. You couldn't go into the post office to buy a stamp without encountering
it -- having to look up at the notice above the door to see if it was the
correct entrance for one of your pigmentation.
But it was seeing that particular aspect of it labelled as "liberal" that came
as a shock.
--
Steve Hayes
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
http://www.bookcrossing.com/mybookshelf/Methodius
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 04:59:22 PM |
|
|
In article <o4sfc1dgi2e0ckcnm879g7o52sdsknqu3l@4ax.com>,
posted:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:05:26 -0400, Paul Ilechko
<noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net> wrote:
Steve Hayes wrote:
I regarded legal abortion as fascist piggery then, and I've seen no reason
to
change my mind. It is not, and never has been, "liberal". It goes against
everything that liberalism stands for,
But in the USA, the fascistic piggery that is currently ruling this
country is solidly against abortion. Many people who are *personally*
disconcerted by the *idea* of abortion will still support the rights of
others to have abortions because of the political ramifications, and the
sides they have chosen. They hate the anti-abortion crowd more than they
dislike abortion as an act, which is not that suprising given the
sickening hypocrisy of many on the exteme right.
I don't doubt it.
Until I went to the UK and read that article in the "Sun", I had hardly given
a thought to abortion, and yet encountered fascist piggery every day of my
life. You couldn't go into the post office to buy a stamp without encountering
it -- having to look up at the notice above the door to see if it was the
correct entrance for one of your pigmentation.
But it was seeing that particular aspect of it labelled as "liberal" that came
as a shock.
Original distribution restored.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "smw" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 11:43:05 AM |
|
|
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:05:26 -0400, Paul Ilechko
<noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net> wrote:
But in the USA, the fascistic piggery that is currently ruling this
country is solidly against abortion. Many people who are *personally*
disconcerted by the *idea* of abortion will still support the rights of
others to have abortions because of the political ramifications, and the
sides they have chosen. They hate the anti-abortion crowd more than they
dislike abortion as an act, which is not that suprising given the
sickening hypocrisy of many on the exteme right.
I don't doubt it.
Until I went to the UK and read that article in the "Sun", I had hardly given
a thought to abortion, and yet encountered fascist piggery every day of my
life. You couldn't go into the post office to buy a stamp without encountering
it -- having to look up at the notice above the door to see if it was the
correct entrance for one of your pigmentation.
But it was seeing that particular aspect of it labelled as "liberal" that came
as a shock.
Your reaction seems to hinge on terms like "baby" and "individual." I
assume that this is part of the dissonance. A vast percentage of fetuses
miscarry spontaneously during the first three months, often without the
mother even knowing she's pregnant -- should there be funerals? family
mourning? It seems that collectively, we really do not think of early
fetuses as people, individuals, or babies, discourse on the right
notwithstanding.
Selfishness -- yes, I assume so, often enough. But having babies is
usually selfish as well; at least I can't imagine people having babies
for unselfish reasons. It certainly would be a burden to the kids that
result.
I agree with you that the rhetoric surrounding abortion is often just
awful; I assume that was Paul's point as well. But if you see the
arguments on the other side, it's unclear to me how you locate the
fascist pigs on this matter with any certainty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: LIBERALS READY TO ABANDON US RIGHT TO ABORTION |
03 Jul 2005 05:04:37 PM |
|
|
In article <tAUxe.64$0w2.7@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com>,
"Silke-Maria Weineck aka smw" <smwei@ameritech.net> posted:
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 08:05:26 -0400, Paul Ilechko
<noSPaM_pilechko_DeLETe@patmedia.net> wrote:
But in the USA, the fascistic piggery that is currently ruling this
country is solidly against abortion. Many people who are *personally*
disconcerted by the *idea* of abortion will still support the rights of
others to have abortions because of the political ramifications, and the
sides they have chosen. They hate the anti-abortion crowd more than they
dislike abortion as an act, which is not that suprising given the
sickening hypocrisy of many on the exteme right.
I don't doubt it.
Until I went to the UK and read that article in the "Sun", I had hardly
given a thought to abortion, and yet encountered fascist piggery every day
of my life. You couldn't go into the post office to buy a stamp without
encountering it -- having to look up at the notice above the door to see if
it was the correct entrance for one of your pigmentation.
But it was seeing that particular aspect of it labelled as "liberal" that
came as a shock.
Your reaction seems to hinge on terms like "baby" and "individual." I
assume that this is part of the dissonance. A vast percentage of fetuses
miscarry spontaneously during the first three months, often without the
mother even knowing she's pregnant -- should there be funerals? family
mourning? It seems that collectively, we really do not think of early
fetuses as people, individuals, or babies, discourse on the right
notwithstanding.
Selfishness -- yes, I assume so, often enough. But having babies is
usually selfish as well; at least I can't imagine people having babies
for unselfish reasons. It certainly would be a burden to the kids that
result.
I agree with you that the rhetoric surrounding abortion is often just
awful; I assume that was Paul's point as well. But if you see the
arguments on the other side, it's unclear to me how you locate the
fascist pigs on this matter with any certainty.
There are many funerals of persons who
die at the fetus stage. I have attended
a couple of them.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
