| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Papa Jack" |
| Date: |
22 Aug 2003 12:01:46 PM |
| Object: |
Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
On Aug 21, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jack Elliott, Jr., titled
"Miss. Top Court Rules Fetus Is a Person. " Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030822/ap_on_re_us/fetus_ruling_2
_______________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized
by one of its members as an assault on Roe v. Wade , held
Thursday that a fetus is a "person" under state law and
wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf.
The justices upheld Tracy Tucker's right to pursue a
wrongful death claim after she alleged emotional dis-
tress and a mistake by her doctors caused her to have
a miscarriage in 1997. The fetus was 19 weeks old at
the time, according to doctors.
[...]
Presiding Justice Chuck McRae, in a written dissent,
described the decision as an assault on Roe v. Wade,
the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in America.
The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in
wrongful death statutes to include an "unborn child."
[...]
Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said
Thursday's ruling in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had
nothing to do with abortion. He said doctors performing
abortions are still protected by Mississippi law.
[...]
Pat Cartrette, executive director of Right to Life of
Jackson, said while the decision may not directly affect
Roe vs. Wade, it gives a fetus some legal protection
when it develops reflexes, at some cases as early as 8
weeks.
[...]
_______________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
If a fetus is a "person," it's obvious that fetuses
are human beings and deserve to enjoy all the same
human rights as born human beings.
.
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
22 Aug 2003 12:35:59 PM |
|
|
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0308220901.93aceab@posting.google.com...
On Aug 21, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jack Elliott, Jr., titled
"Miss. Top Court Rules Fetus Is a Person. " Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030822/ap_on_re_us/fetus_ruling_2
_______________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized
by one of its members as an assault on Roe v. Wade , held
Thursday that a fetus is a "person" under state law and
wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf.
The justices upheld Tracy Tucker's right to pursue a
wrongful death claim after she alleged emotional dis-
tress and a mistake by her doctors caused her to have
a miscarriage in 1997. The fetus was 19 weeks old at
the time, according to doctors.
[...]
Presiding Justice Chuck McRae, in a written dissent,
described the decision as an assault on Roe v. Wade,
the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in America.
The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in
wrongful death statutes to include an "unborn child."
[...]
Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said
Thursday's ruling in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had
nothing to do with abortion. He said doctors performing
abortions are still protected by Mississippi law.
[...]
Pat Cartrette, executive director of Right to Life of
Jackson, said while the decision may not directly affect
Roe vs. Wade, it gives a fetus some legal protection
when it develops reflexes, at some cases as early as 8
weeks.
[...]
_______________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
If a fetus is a "person," it's obvious that fetuses
are human beings and deserve to enjoy all the same
human rights as born human beings.
So once this law is struck down, you'll agree that a fetus is not a person
and has no rights under the law?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
22 Aug 2003 12:59:59 PM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2003 10:01:46 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
On Aug 21, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jack Elliott, Jr., titled
"Miss. Top Court Rules Fetus Is a Person. " Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030822/ap_on_re_us/fetus_ruling_2
_______________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized
by one of its members as an assault on Roe v. Wade , held
Thursday that a fetus is a "person" under state law and
wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf.
The justices upheld Tracy Tucker's right to pursue a
wrongful death claim after she alleged emotional dis-
tress and a mistake by her doctors caused her to have
a miscarriage in 1997. The fetus was 19 weeks old at
the time, according to doctors.
[...]
Presiding Justice Chuck McRae, in a written dissent,
described the decision as an assault on Roe v. Wade,
the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in America.
The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in
wrongful death statutes to include an "unborn child."
[...]
Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said
Thursday's ruling in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had
nothing to do with abortion. He said doctors performing
abortions are still protected by Mississippi law.
[...]
Pat Cartrette, executive director of Right to Life of
Jackson, said while the decision may not directly affect
Roe vs. Wade, it gives a fetus some legal protection
when it develops reflexes, at some cases as early as 8
weeks.
[...]
_______________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
If a fetus is a "person," it's obvious that fetuses
are human beings and deserve to enjoy all the same
human rights as born human beings.
But not extraordinary rights, even if your position is taken as
written. Why do you believe that a fetus should enjoy a right that no
child or adult does?
Still waiting for an answer to this basic and important question.
---
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
23 Aug 2003 04:56:20 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote in message > news:<9fmckv8q60jfvob55pd61a1c0q2im89cbj@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
========================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On Aug 21, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jack Elliott, Jr.,
titled
"Miss. Top Court Rules Fetus Is a Person. " Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030822/ap_on_re_us/fetus_ruling_2
_______________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized
by one of its members as an assault on Roe v. Wade , held
Thursday that a fetus is a "person" under state law and
wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf.
The justices upheld Tracy Tucker's right to pursue a
wrongful death claim after she alleged emotional dis-
tress and a mistake by her doctors caused her to have
a miscarriage in 1997. The fetus was 19 weeks old at
the time, according to doctors.
[...]
Presiding Justice Chuck McRae, in a written dissent,
described the decision as an assault on Roe v. Wade,
the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in America.
The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in
wrongful death statutes to include an "unborn child."
[...]
Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said
Thursday's ruling in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had
nothing to do with abortion. He said doctors performing
abortions are still protected by Mississippi law.
[...]
Pat Cartrette, executive director of Right to Life of
Jackson, said while the decision may not directly affect
Roe vs. Wade, it gives a fetus some legal protection
when it develops reflexes, at some cases as early as 8
weeks.
[...]
_______________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
If a fetus is a "person," it's obvious that fetuses
are human beings and deserve to enjoy all the same
human rights as born human beings.
========================================================================
Adam H. wrote:
But not extraordinary rights, even if your position is taken as
written. Why do you believe that a fetus should enjoy a right that no
child or adult does?
Still waiting for an answer to this basic and important question.
========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
The only rights I believe unborn children should have are
the same as all human beings enjoy.
First, every "born" human walking the face of the earth
was carried in their mother's womb while they developed.
Since this is the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
Second, the primary right we all need -- both born and
unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED. As Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
"...WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are
LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness
-- That to secure these Rights, Governments
are instituted among Men, deriving their
just Powers from the Consent of the Governed,
that whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of
the People to alter or to abolish it..."
Is our government destructive of the Right to LIFE?
Perhaps it's time to make some changes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
23 Aug 2003 05:00:29 PM |
|
|
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0308231356.aa7ac0e@posting.google.com...
Adam H. <thisisnot@realaddress.com> wrote in message >
news:<9fmckv8q60jfvob55pd61a1c0q2im89cbj@4ax.com>...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote:
========================================================================
Papa Jack cited:
On Aug 21, 2003, the AP posted an article by Jack Elliott, Jr.,
titled
"Miss. Top Court Rules Fetus Is a Person. " Go to:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030822/ap_on_re_us/fetus_ruling_2
_______________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized
by one of its members as an assault on Roe v. Wade , held
Thursday that a fetus is a "person" under state law and
wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf.
The justices upheld Tracy Tucker's right to pursue a
wrongful death claim after she alleged emotional dis-
tress and a mistake by her doctors caused her to have
a miscarriage in 1997. The fetus was 19 weeks old at
the time, according to doctors.
[...]
Presiding Justice Chuck McRae, in a written dissent,
described the decision as an assault on Roe v. Wade,
the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in America.
The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in
wrongful death statutes to include an "unborn child."
[...]
Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said
Thursday's ruling in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had
nothing to do with abortion. He said doctors performing
abortions are still protected by Mississippi law.
[...]
Pat Cartrette, executive director of Right to Life of
Jackson, said while the decision may not directly affect
Roe vs. Wade, it gives a fetus some legal protection
when it develops reflexes, at some cases as early as 8
weeks.
[...]
_______________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
If a fetus is a "person," it's obvious that fetuses
are human beings and deserve to enjoy all the same
human rights as born human beings.
========================================================================
Adam H. wrote:
But not extraordinary rights, even if your position is taken as
written. Why do you believe that a fetus should enjoy a right that no
child or adult does?
Still waiting for an answer to this basic and important question.
Papa, notice in the article it says this
Sondra Goldschein, state strategies attorney for the American Civil
Liberties Union (news - web sites) said she was troubled by the court's
definition of a fetus as a "person."
"Anytime the fetus is recognizable as a person it chips away at the
foundation of Roe," she said.
This is why they are having such a fit over the term person. The
pro-choicers/pro-abortion can't deal with it because it weakens their
argument.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
24 Aug 2003 04:14:53 AM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0308231356.aa7ac0e@posting.google.com>,
papajack@stic.net says...
The only rights I believe unborn children should have are
the same as all human beings enjoy.
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second human
being without that second human being's ongoing consent, clearly you
approve of a pregnant woman being able to separate the embryo/foetus
from her body (remove it from her body) at any time... according to her
right as a human being...
Remember... you say above that the unborn and born should have exactly
the same rights, neither more nor less rights than the other.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
29 Aug 2003 01:48:37 AM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0308281532.6b6e0dcd@posting.google.com>,
says...
Subject: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person
From: (Papa Jack)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:<MPG.19b2926a88fd65d198a993@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
says...
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's a false assertion, Pat.
No it isn't.
It's a simple fact.
No human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second human
being, without the consent of that second human being.
No human being may be forced to have their blood, organs etc used for
another person's benefit.
Remember, laws allowing slavery were repealed in the US many years ago.
Similarly a person's choice as to what, if any, medical treatment they
have to treat their medical condition is up to them. About the only
exception to that is where the patient is incapable of making a decision
(for instance a small child [older minors are often perfectly capable of
making an informed decision for themselves], an adult in a coma etc) in
which case someone appointed/recognised by the courts (such as the next
of kin) may do so on their behalf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
29 Aug 2003 02:29:02 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<MPG.19b9079bb13007df98aaad@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
papajack@stic.net says...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
papajack@stic.net says...
=====================================================================
[snip]
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's a false assertion, Pat. As I previously noted
(before you deleted it):
"First, every "born" human walking the face
of the earth was carried in their mother's
womb while they developed. Since this is
the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
An unborn child is NOT an alien creature assaulting
the pregnant woman. It is her own offspring -- a
direct result of her decision to participate in sex.
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
No it isn't.
It's a simple fact.
No human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second
human being, without the consent of that second human being.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's bunk, Pat. There are only two possibilities
to test your assertion:
* One, to determine whether or not a BORN human
being might have the right to INHABIT the body
of a second human being. Now I doubt any of us
can imagine a realistic situation where anyone
would want to INHABIT the body of another, so
it's a ridiculous thing to consider.
* Two, to determine whether or not an UNBORN
human being might have the right to INHABIT
the body of a second human being. Since all
human beings walking the face of the earth
were carried in their mother's womb for the
first several months of their lives we must
conclude this is a necessary and essential
step to the propagation of the human race.
Remember, the primary right we all need -- both born
and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED. As Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
"...WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are
LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
Thanks for considering my point of view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
29 Aug 2003 02:36:08 PM |
|
|
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0308291129.172354f0@posting.google.com...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<MPG.19b9079bb13007df98aaad@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
papajack@stic.net says...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
papajack@stic.net says...
=====================================================================
[snip]
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's a false assertion, Pat. As I previously noted
(before you deleted it):
"First, every "born" human walking the face
of the earth was carried in their mother's
womb while they developed. Since this is
the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
An unborn child is NOT an alien creature assaulting
the pregnant woman. It is her own offspring -- a
direct result of her decision to participate in sex.
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
No it isn't.
It's a simple fact.
No human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second
human being, without the consent of that second human being.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's bunk, Pat. There are only two possibilities
to test your assertion:
* One, to determine whether or not a BORN human
being might have the right to INHABIT the body
of a second human being. Now I doubt any of us
can imagine a realistic situation where anyone
would want to INHABIT the body of another, so
it's a ridiculous thing to consider.
* Two, to determine whether or not an UNBORN
human being might have the right to INHABIT
the body of a second human being. Since all
human beings walking the face of the earth
were carried in their mother's womb for the
first several months of their lives we must
conclude this is a necessary and essential
step to the propagation of the human race.
For those who don't mind donating the use of their body, sure.
Remember, the primary right we all need -- both born
and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED. As Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
"...WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are
LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
Yes, but when they said men, they didn't mean mankind. Women were still
property at the time this was written and anyhow, that is not a law. It's
the Declaration of Independence.
Thanks for considering my point of view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
01 Sep 2003 12:20:08 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <not@naddress.com> wrote in message > news:<bio9vq$bfdfe$1@ID-163025.news.uni-berlin.de>...
"Papa Jack" <papajack@stic.net> wrote in message
news:6f9e1b49.0308291129.172354f0@posting.google.com...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
papajack@stic.net says...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
papajack@stic.net says...
=====================================================================
[snip]
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
[snip]
No human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second
human being, without the consent of that second human being.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's bunk, Pat. There are only two possibilities
to test your assertion:
* One, to determine whether or not a BORN human
being might have the right to INHABIT the body
of a second human being. Now I doubt any of us
can imagine a realistic situation where anyone
would want to INHABIT the body of another, so
it's a ridiculous thing to consider.
* Two, to determine whether or not an UNBORN
human being might have the right to INHABIT
the body of a second human being. Since all
human beings walking the face of the earth
were carried in their mother's womb for the
first several months of their lives we must
conclude this is a necessary and essential
step to the propagation of the human race.
=====================================================================
Sex Kitten wrote:
For those who don't mind donating the use of their
body, sure.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Today's women have a much greater choice of various
types of contraception than ever in history. If
you don't want to bother with the pill, use "the
patch." There is little excuse today for a woman
who doesn't want to become pregnant to not use
at least one of the available methods.
AGI tells us:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
CONTRACEPTIVE USE
• 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive
method DURING THE MONTH they became pregnant.
76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported
using the methods INCONSISTENTLY,
while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users
reported correct use.
[...]
• 49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each
year are unplanned;14 47% of these occur among the
7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do
not practice contraception.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Remember, the primary right we all need -- both born
and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED. As Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
"...WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are
LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
=====================================================================
Sex Kitten wrote:
Yes, but when they said men, they didn't mean mankind.
Women were still property at the time this was written
and anyhow, that is not a law. It's the Declaration of
Independence.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
You are avoiding the issue, Kitten. The point is
that the most important human right is the RIGHT
NOT TO BE KILLED. How do you exercise your other
rights AFTER you've been killed?
Go to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Go to:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
"Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights
of ALL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in
the world,..."
"Article 3: Everyone has the right to LIFE, liberty
and security of person."
Thanks for considering my point of view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
01 Sep 2003 01:39:41 PM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0309010920.3ebcda35@posting.google.com>,
papajack@stic.net says...
Today's women have a much greater choice of various
types of contraception than ever in history. If
you don't want to bother with the pill, use "the
patch." There is little excuse today for a woman
who doesn't want to become pregnant to not use
at least one of the available methods.
And yet women sometimes still become pregnant even when using one of the
methods you recommend above (many women can't use those, by the way),
just as women sometimes become pregnant when not using one.
What does that tell you PJ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Papa Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
01 Sep 2003 04:44:22 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:<MPG.19bda2c66f8cc5ce98ab48@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
In article <6f9e1b49.0309010920.3ebcda35@posting.google.com>,
papajack@stic.net says...
======================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Today's women have a much greater choice of various
types of contraception than ever in history. If
you don't want to bother with the pill, use "the
patch." There is little excuse today for a woman
who doesn't want to become pregnant to not use
at least one of the available methods.
======================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
And yet women sometimes still become pregnant even when using one of the
methods you recommend above (many women can't use those, by the way),
just as women sometimes become pregnant when not using one.
What does that tell you PJ?
======================================================================
AGI tells us:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
CONTRACEPTIVE USE
• 54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive
method DURING THE MONTH they became pregnant.
76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported
using the methods INCONSISTENTLY, while 13% of pill
users and 14% of condom users reported correct use.
[...]
• 49% of the 6.3 million pregnancies that occur each
year are unplanned;14 47% of these occur among the
7% of women at risk of unintended pregnancy who do
not practice contraception.
These stats are taking the women's word for it. How many
do you suppose were ashamed to tell the whole truth?
IOW, the majority of those having abortions used contra-
ceptives INCONSISTENTLY if at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
01 Sep 2003 05:31:01 PM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0309011344.2c519322@posting.google.com>,
says...
Subject: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person
From: (Papa Jack)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:<MPG.19bda2c66f8cc5ce98ab48@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
In article <6f9e1b49.0309010920.3ebcda35@posting.google.com>,
says...
======================================================================
Papa Jack wrote:
Today's women have a much greater choice of various
types of contraception than ever in history. If
you don't want to bother with the pill, use "the
patch." There is little excuse today for a woman
who doesn't want to become pregnant to not use
at least one of the available methods.
======================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
And yet women sometimes still become pregnant even when using one of the
methods you recommend above (many women can't use those, by the way),
just as women sometimes become pregnant when not using one.
What does that tell you PJ?
======================================================================
AGI tells us:
I didn't ask what the *AGI* website says about anything at all... and
nor did you say what AGI says about what I posted above.
I asked what my comment tells *YOU*!
Are you afraid of giving your *own* thoughts on the issue?
(Probably).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Signorelli" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
04 Sep 2003 10:16:03 AM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0309010920.3ebcda35@posting.google.com>, Papa Jack
<papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Go to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Go to:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
"Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights
of ALL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in
the world,..."
"Article 3: Everyone has the right to LIFE, liberty
and security of person."
More proof that Papa Jack is a lying SOB. The fact that he has to lie
like this proves how weak his position is. Read the entire thing, not
the piece that this lying sack of ***** represents.
" Article 1: "All human beings are BORN free and equal in dignity and
rights. " It doesn't say what PJ says. (But then, it never does.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan C. Mitchell" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
04 Sep 2003 09:17:24 AM |
|
|
On 1 Sep 2003 10:20:08 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
<snip>
Go to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
Go to:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
"Preamble: Whereas recognition of the inherent
dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights
of ALL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY is the
foundation of freedom, justice and peace in
the world,..."
"Article 3: Everyone has the right to LIFE, liberty
and security of person."
And once again Jack conveniently omits Article 1: "All human beings
are BORN free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with
reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit
of brotherhood."
Think globally, act locally.
Susan
--
=============== Remove what you find annoying in my address ==============
"Gadfly is what they call you when you are no longer | Seditious libel
dangerous. I much prefer troublemaker, malcontent, | for fun and
desperado." -- Harlan Ellison | profit
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
29 Aug 2003 04:11:37 PM |
|
|
In article <6f9e1b49.0308291129.172354f0@posting.google.com>,
papajack@stic.net says...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<MPG.19b9079bb13007df98aaad@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
papajack@stic.net says...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
papajack@stic.net says...
=====================================================================
[snip]
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's a false assertion, Pat.
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
No it isn't.
It's a simple fact.
No human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second
human being, without the consent of that second human being.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's bunk, Pat.
Nope... its a simple fact.
That you don't LIKE that it's a fact when the body in question is that
of a person you would like to control doesn't alter reality.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
29 Aug 2003 03:09:34 PM |
|
|
On 29 Aug 2003 12:29:02 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<MPG.19b9079bb13007df98aaad@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
says...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
says...
=====================================================================
[snip]
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's a false assertion, Pat. As I previously noted
(before you deleted it):
"First, every "born" human walking the face
of the earth was carried in their mother's
womb while they developed. Since this is
the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
An unborn child is NOT an alien creature assaulting
the pregnant woman. It is her own offspring -- a
direct result of her decision to participate in sex.
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
No it isn't.
It's a simple fact.
No human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second
human being, without the consent of that second human being.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's bunk, Pat. There are only two possibilities
to test your assertion:
* One, to determine whether or not a BORN human
being might have the right to INHABIT the body
of a second human being. Now I doubt any of us
can imagine a realistic situation where anyone
would want to INHABIT the body of another, so
it's a ridiculous thing to consider.
* Two, to determine whether or not an UNBORN
human being might have the right to INHABIT
the body of a second human being. Since all
human beings walking the face of the earth
were carried in their mother's womb for the
first several months of their lives we must
conclude this is a necessary and essential
step to the propagation of the human race.
Balls. Why should a fetus be given a right that is explicitly denied,
in law, to any person?
Are you still running from that question, PJ?
Remember, the primary right we all need -- both born
and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED. As Thomas
Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
"...WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are
LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
Thanks for considering my point of view.
Life is not 'primary'. None of those three rights trumps the other.
You know this, so stop with they crap.
---
"I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the
other possible gods, you will understand why
I dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Nicholson" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
30 Aug 2003 11:50:00 AM |
|
|
On 8/30/03 12:09 PM, in article 3F50CC42.2F7454F3@citlink.net, "Frank Dwyer"
<fdwyer@citlink.net> wrote:
Papa Jack wrote:
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<MPG.19b9079bb13007df98aaad@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
papajack@stic.net says...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
papajack@stic.net says...
=====================================================================
[snip]
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's a false assertion, Pat. As I previously noted
(before you deleted it):
"First, every "born" human walking the face
of the earth was carried in their mother's
womb while they developed. Since this is
the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
An unborn child is NOT an alien creature assaulting
the pregnant woman. It is her own offspring -- a
direct result of her decision to participate in sex.
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
No it isn't.
It's a simple fact.
No human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second
human being, without the consent of that second human being.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's bunk, Pat. There are only two possibilities
to test your assertion:
* One, to determine whether or not a BORN human
being might have the right to INHABIT the body
of a second human being. Now I doubt any of us
can imagine a realistic situation where anyone
would want to INHABIT the body of another, so
it's a ridiculous thing to consider.
* Two, to determine whether or not an UNBORN
human being might have the right to INHABIT
the body of a second human being. Since all
human beings walking the face of the earth
were carried in their mother's womb for the
first several months of their lives we must
conclude this is a necessary and essential
step to the propagation of the human race.
Remember, the primary right we all need -- both born
and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED.
The born have that right. For the unborn, it's a privilege granted by
the born.
And I want the right to be killed too. When my time comes to an end and I
decide life is no longer worth living then, I want the right to end my life.
It is presumptuous to assume that everyone wants to live.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
Which is not a legally binding document in any way, shape or form.
"...WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are
LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
There exists no right to any "pursuit of happiness".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
30 Aug 2003 11:26:58 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 16:09:58 GMT, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@citlink.net>
wrote:
Papa Jack wrote:
.....
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:
Which is not a legally binding document in any way, shape or form.
"...WE hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal, that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are
LIFE, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
There exists no right to any "pursuit of happiness".
Nor, according to the *actions* of Thomas Jefferson, is there any
right to LIFE or Liberty -- He was a slave owner and did not believe
in what he wrote. Might be why Papa Jack quotes him.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
29 Aug 2003 07:47:24 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
No human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second
human being, without the consent of that second human being.
That's bunk, Pat.
Slavery is illegal, Jackass.
There are only two possibilities
to test your assertion:
* One, to determine whether or not a BORN human
being might have the right to INHABIT the body
of a second human being.
The answer is "no".
* Two, to determine whether or not an UNBORN
human being might have the right to INHABIT
the body of a second human being.
The answer is "no", Jackass.
Since all
human beings walking the face of the earth
were carried in their mother's womb for the
first several months of their lives we must
conclude this is a necessary and essential
step to the propagation of the human race.
Which is a complete non sequitur.
Remember, the primary right we all need -- both born
and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED.
But when YOU want people killed that's "different".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
28 Aug 2003 07:13:59 PM |
|
|
On 28 Aug 2003 16:32:19 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote.
(Papa Jack) wrote:
The only rights I believe unborn children should have are
the same as all human beings enjoy.
.....
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
That's a false assertion, Pat.
*****. No human being has the right to insert so much as a
fingertip into another human being without that human being's ongoing
consent. If I stuck my index finger up your ***** without your consent
you would have the right to kill me if that was the minimum force
required to remove me.
"First, every "born" human walking the face
of the earth was carried in their mother's
womb while they developed. Since this is
the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
It is not a right that any human being has. As Pat pointed out, no
one has the right to place even a tiny part of themselves in another
without that other's consent. If you claim that a fetus has this
right then you are lying when you claim "The only rights I believe
unborn children should have are the same as all human beings enjoy."
An unborn child is NOT an alien creature assaulting
the pregnant woman. It is her own offspring -- a
direct result of her decision to participate in sex.
And this gives the unborn child rights over the woman that no human
being has over any other human being? Is the Unborn Child some sort
of God or Superbeing that enjoys rights that no human being has?
.....
There never should be any right for one human to
kill another human being just for convenience as
you are suggesting.
Not for convenience, for preservation of health. Not that you should
be able to object to any murders since you argued that homicide is
justified on the basis of righteous rage against a person's parent.
Yep, and I also clarified:
"Second, the primary right we all need -- both
born and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED....
There is no such right.
I believe in the sanctity of human life --
No you don't. You argued that people may justly kill based upon
'righteous rage'. You supported the abortion of a viable 30 week
fetus. You supported the right of parents to force abortion upon
their minor children without mention of the child's wishes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
29 Aug 2003 11:19:46 AM |
|
|
"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3f4e9712.28283139@news.la.sbcglobal.net...
On 28 Aug 2003 16:32:19 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote.
(Papa Jack) wrote:
The only rights I believe unborn children should have are
the same as all human beings enjoy.
....
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
That's a false assertion, Pat.
*****. No human being has the right to insert so much as a
fingertip into another human being without that human being's ongoing
consent. If I stuck my index finger up your ***** without your consent
you would have the right to kill me if that was the minimum force
required to remove me.
"First, every "born" human walking the face
of the earth was carried in their mother's
womb while they developed. Since this is
the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
It is not a right that any human being has. As Pat pointed out, no
one has the right to place even a tiny part of themselves in another
without that other's consent. If you claim that a fetus has this
right then you are lying when you claim "The only rights I believe
unborn children should have are the same as all human beings enjoy."
An unborn child is NOT an alien creature assaulting
the pregnant woman. It is her own offspring -- a
direct result of her decision to participate in sex.
And this gives the unborn child rights over the woman that no human
being has over any other human being? Is the Unborn Child some sort
of God or Superbeing that enjoys rights that no human being has?
Your questions cannot be answered since you both have differing definitions
of the terms being used.
....
There never should be any right for one human to
kill another human being just for convenience as
you are suggesting.
Not for convenience, for preservation of health. Not that you should
be able to object to any murders since you argued that homicide is
justified on the basis of righteous rage against a person's parent.
Yep, and I also clarified:
"Second, the primary right we all need -- both
born and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED....
There is no such right.
I believe in the sanctity of human life --
No you don't. You argued that people may justly kill based upon
'righteous rage'. You supported the abortion of a viable 30 week
fetus. You supported the right of parents to force abortion upon
their minor children without mention of the child's wishes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
29 Aug 2003 12:01:58 AM |
|
|
On 28 Aug 2003 16:32:19 -0700, (Papa Jack) wrote:
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:<MPG.19b2926a88fd65d198a993@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
says...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack wrote, in part:
The only rights I believe unborn children should have are
the same as all human beings enjoy.
[REINSERTED]
First, every "born" human walking the face of the earth
was carried in their mother's womb while they developed.
Since this is the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
Second, the primary right we all need -- both born and
unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED....
[END REINSERTION]
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
=====================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
That's a false assertion, Pat. As I previously noted
(before you deleted it):
"First, every "born" human walking the face
of the earth was carried in their mother's
womb while they developed. Since this is
the only way a human being can start life,
it certainly isn't an "extraordinary right."
An unborn child is NOT an alien creature assaulting
the pregnant woman. It is her own offspring -- a
direct result of her decision to participate in sex.
But that doesn't matter. No person has the right to use another's body
without consent, and neither does a fetus. It's not a false assertion
at all - you ignore it since you can't refute it.
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
...clearly you approve of a pregnant woman being
able to separate the embryo/foetus from her body
(remove it from her body) at any time... according
to her right as a human being...
=====================================================================
Papa Jack corrected:
Pat, you've read hundreds of my posts. Why would
you make such a ridiculous statement?
There never should be any right for one human to
kill another human being just for convenience as
you are suggesting.
But you have already stated that you believe that a fetus should
possess *only* the rights that human beings possess. So, you must
*not* believe that a fetus has the right to use a woman's body without
her consent, since no human being possesses that right.
Or do you want to retract something that you said?
=====================================================================
Pat Winstanley wrote:
Remember... you say above that the unborn and born
should have exactly the same rights, neither more
nor less rights than the other.
=====================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Yep, and I also clarified:
"Second, the primary right we all need -- both
born and unborn -- is the right NOT TO BE KILLED....
The pregnant woman has a right not to be killed for
the convenience of the fetus -- just like the fetus
should have the right not to be killed just for the
convenience of its parents.
That's not a clarification. That's a contradiction. Now, which
(mutually exclusive) position do you want to back?
I believe in the sanctity of human life -- you clearly
don't believe in the sanctity of human life (except
perhaps your own).
No, PJ. That's not it. There are just some of us who place a high
value on liberty as well, that's all.
You are not one of them.
---
"I contend that we are both atheists.
I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the
other possible gods, you will understand why
I dismiss yours."
- Stephen Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
28 Aug 2003 11:30:39 PM |
|
|
Papa Jackass <papajack@stic.net> wrote:
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk>
Since no human being has the right to inhabit the body
of a second human being without that second human being's
ongoing consent,
That's a false assertion, Pat.
You're a liar, Jackass.
As I previously noted
(before you deleted it):
"First, every "born" human walking the face
of the earth was carried in their mother's
womb while they developed.
That is no evidence of any right. Nearly every person is the result
of an act of sex, and yet there is no right to have sex with anybody
you wish. Rape is still a crime.
An unborn child is NOT an alien creature assaulting
Again you try to change the subject.
...clearly you approve of a pregnant woman being
able to separate the embryo/foetus from her body
(remove it from her body) at any time... according
to her right as a human being...
Pat, you've read hundreds of my posts. Why would
you make such a ridiculous statement?
Indeed, Pat should know better than to expect you to be either honest
or consistent.
There never should be any right for one human to
kill another human being just for convenience as
you are suggesting.
But, in fact, YOU have argued for just such a right. YOU have argued
that it should be legal to murder in innocent child because of the
actions of its parents.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
24 Aug 2003 09:58:43 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley :
... no human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second human
being without that second human being's ongoing consent...
How do you know that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
25 Aug 2003 04:26:59 AM |
|
|
In article <3808ad57.0308241858.2ca71e54@posting.google.com>,
H_Longtime@hotmail.com says...
Pat Winstanley :
... no human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second human
being without that second human being's ongoing consent...
How do you know that?
Because it's a simple legal fact I have learned about over the years.
How do you know anything? You learn.
The above is the reason that nobody can be legally forced to donate any
part of their body (bood, organs etc), even to their child, even to save
the life of another person... even after they themself has already died!
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
25 Aug 2003 05:03:01 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Aug 2003 21:36:07 +1200, in alt.abortion with
message-id <3F49D887.E62FF32D@spam.com> wrote:
The above is the reason that nobody can be legally forced to donate any
part of their body (bood, organs etc), even to their child,
We're talking about pregnancy. It's a normal condition which arises out of
the woman's own actions. You'd justify homicide on that basis? Then you're
*sick*, feminazi, SICK.
Nonsense. Everything a doctor does is contrary to 'normal condition'.
Would you end the medical profession?
Abortion is not homicide, and even if some court holds that it is it really
doesn't matter. If a woman can be forced to remain pregnant then anyone
can be forced to provide blood or organs to anyone who needs them.
even to save
the life of another person...
But even if the person donates their organ they don't immediately DIE.
That does not matter. Do you support taking one of my kidney's by force if
someone else needs it to live?
Sounds like you're scare-mongering about pregnancy again. Is that really
the only way you can justify abortion? Heck, and, unlike organ donation,
pregnant women will get their "bodily resources" back.
Irrelevant. Blood cannot be taken by force even if the body replaces it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
25 Aug 2003 04:21:14 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.19b3e6bba9d579ae98a9f8@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
In article <3808ad57.0308241858.2ca71e54@posting.google.com>,
H_Longtime@hotmail.com says...
Pat Winstanley :
... no human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second human
being without that second human being's ongoing consent...
How do you know that?
Because it's a simple legal fact I have learned about over the years.
How do you know it's a simple legal fact that you learned?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Trish" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
30 Aug 2003 01:06:24 AM |
|
|
Because it's a simple legal fact I have learned about over the years.
How do you know it's a simple legal fact that you learned?
It certainly is, er, simple.
Trish
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
30 Aug 2003 02:49:21 AM |
|
|
In article <23be6401.0308292206.7b465648@posting.google.com>,
Discotrish@msn.com says...
Because it's a simple legal fact I have learned about over the years.
How do you know it's a simple legal fact that you learned?
It certainly is, er, simple.
Indeed... the poster who is unaware of the simple legal fact must indeed
be simple. :-))
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Miss. Court Rules Fetus is a Person |
25 Aug 2003 08:11:19 PM |
|
|
In article <3808ad57.0308251321.6f2b5215@posting.google.com>,
H_Longtime@hotmail.com says...
Pat Winstanley <wallopcods2003@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<MPG.19b3e6bba9d579ae98a9f8@News.CIS.DFN.DE>...
In article <3808ad57.0308241858.2ca71e54@posting.google.com>,
H_Longtime@hotmail.com says...
Pat Winstanley :
... no human being has the right to inhabit the body of a second human
being without that second human being's ongoing consent...
How do you know that?
Because it's a simple legal fact I have learned about over the years.
How do you know it's a simple legal fact that you learned?
How do you know that you exist?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
