| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
| Date: |
27 Dec 2004 05:36:48 PM |
| Object: |
MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
Man charged with murder after pregnant woman's fetus dies
The Associated Press
The Union-Tribune
San Diego, California
Sunday, December 26, 2004
San Jose - A man who was arrested for assaulting his
pregnant girlfriend was being held on a murder charge
Sunday following the death of the fetus the woman was
carrying, police said.
The 25-year-old woman was 18 weeks pregnant when the male
fetus was delivered dead Saturday, said San Jose Police
Sgt. Steve Dixon. She was hospitalized early Saturday
after she told police that her boyfriend, Clifford Beane
Watkins, allegedly choked her and kicked her in the
stomach at a local motel, he said.
More at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041226-1306-ca-pregnantwomanattacked.html
xxxxxxxxxxx ABORTION KILLS xxxxxxxxxxx
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 06:10:08 PM |
|
|
<erroneous subject line fixed>
California law makes a very clear distinction between "human being" and
"fetus". Look up the law someday.
--
--sexkitten--He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he
realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that
there wasn't an afterlife.
-Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 06:14:14 PM |
|
|
(ABORTION KILLS)
Man charged with murder after pregnant woman's fetus dies
The Associated Press
The Union-Tribune
San Diego, California
Sunday, December 26, 2004
San Jose - A man who was arrested for assaulting his
pregnant girlfriend was being held on a murder charge
Sunday following the death of the fetus the woman was
carrying, police said.
The 25-year-old woman was 18 weeks pregnant when the male
fetus was delivered dead Saturday, said San Jose Police
Sgt. Steve Dixon. She was hospitalized early Saturday
after she told police that her boyfriend, Clifford Beane
Watkins, allegedly choked her and kicked her in the
stomach at a local motel, he said.
More at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041226-1306-ca-pregnantwomanattacked.html
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS NOT A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 08:27:26 PM |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
<erroneous subject line fixed>
California law makes a very clear distinction between "human being" and
"fetus". Look up the law someday.
--
--sexkitten--He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he
realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that
there wasn't an afterlife.
-Douglas Adams
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Razzer" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 06:36:59 PM |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
Man charged with murder after pregnant woman's fetus dies
Umm... where's the proof?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
31 Dec 2004 10:11:11 AM |
|
|
How can you kill something that isn't even alive?
PixieDust413
Proud Supporter Of Roe V. Wade
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
31 Dec 2004 10:35:45 AM |
|
|
<pixiedust413@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104509471.256527.166170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
How can you kill something that isn't even alive?
Also, why do you have to kill something that isn't alive?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
31 Dec 2004 10:17:55 AM |
|
|
<pixiedust413@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104509471.256527.166170@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
How can you kill something that isn't even alive?
PixieDust413
Proud Supporter Of Roe V. Wade
Why, does somebody want to kill you?
Proud Supporter of choosing life
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Mahadouche" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
28 Dec 2004 03:54:45 AM |
|
|
Johnny Judas Jay "the jackass jyotishithead" Maharaj wrote:
Man charged with murder after pregnant woman's fetus dies
xxxxxxxxxxx ABORTION KILLS xxxxxxxxxxx
So why is it that you merciless bastards kill girl babies, eh, Johnny
boya? I have not seen one single post by you condemning the evil
practice of female foeticide and female infanticide in India. Why is
that? Is it because you support it? Of course you do, you wretched animal!
==================================
While in almost all the developed countries, the female lead in the sex
ratio, it is in India that the males dominate the chart. Worse still is
when we take a look at the child sex ratio, between the age group of
zero to six. For the nation, the child sex ratio is 927. But the figures
drop significantly when we see the community report card: 950 for
Muslims, 925 for Hindus, and a shocking 786 for the Sikhs. Call it
shocking or dismal, but the fact remains that the growing female
foeticide and getting rid of the girl child before she reaches the age
of six, is a dastardly crime.
Here is the modern India for you, fast heading towards a daughter-less
nation. In an era of new economy based on knowledge-based systems and in
a fast-track mode, the Hindu rate of growth has also acquired a new
dimension. Here is the new Hindu rate of growth for you, linked to
rising literacy – the higher the economic growth the more is the mass
slaughter of the girl child.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Sharma0928.htm
===================================
Female Infanticide in India
Report By Manushri Bahukhandi
"Lakshmi gave birth to five daughters, only two survive. The other three
are all victims of infanticide, killed at birth over the last four
years. The method they employed was to mix sleeping tablets in milk and
feed it to the baby. The last girl child was killed some time in October
1997. Even as Lakshmi cried while she spoke her desire to have a son
remained strong. The reason for killing was purely 'financial.' Since
Lakshmi and Raja* live in a small village of marginal farmers. They own
a little over half an acre of dry land on which they cultivate groundnut
in order to supplement their income, they work as agricultural
labourers. Both are uneducated like most of the adults in the village."
-- Female Infanticide Vol XIII
Forget Miss Universe pageants, forget Women's Day, forget free Internet
connections for women. The stark reality is that India today tops the
list in illegal abortions and female infanticide in the world. A CMJI
report quoting UNICEF says, 40-50 million girls have gone 'missing' in
India in 1990. They are termed as missing as they were either murdered
at the time of their birth or within few hours of birth.
Women who assist in childbirth, snuff out newborn females.
In fact the very women who assist in the birth of a child are the ones
who are paid to finish off unwanted female babies. On payment of a fee
that can range between Rs. 60-150, these dais kill the female babies the
moment they are born.
The methods adopted to kill newborns are many. In south Indian states
like Tamil Nadu, children are either fed the milk of poisonous plants or
covered with a wet towel so that they die later of complications from cold.
In Bihar, holding the baby from the waist and shaking it back and forth
snaps the spinal chord. Sometimes a child is stuffed in a clay pot.
Babies are also fed with salt to increase their blood pressure, death
follows in a few minutes. Grains of paddy husk are also fed to slit the
tender gullet.
According to a report in Nexus, in a certain block in Katihar district,
35 dais accepted having killed three to four babies a month, making the
total number of female babies who are killed approximately 560 per
month. Ten dais in the Sitamarhi districts claim to have killed 1-2
babies a month. In this state alone there are approximately five lakhs
dais and the number of female babies killed can just be imagined.
These dais are the only link between the family and the mother and a
great amount of pressure is put on the dai to kill the baby if the baby
is a female.
Female infanticide is leading to a serious imbalance in the sex ratio in
the country
Female infanticide is leading to a serious imbalance in the sex ration
in the country. According to the 1991 statistics for out of every 1,000
males there are only 929 girls and by 2001 there will be only 920 women
for 1,000 males. In stark contrast, countries like Western Europe and US
the sex ratio is 1,064 and 1,054 respectively. (Sex ratio patterns in
the Indian population; Satish Agnihotri)
Even in the present 'modern' age there are 4 villages out of every 10
districts in Punjab, where the sex ratio is for every 1000 boys there
are only 800 girls. Even the neighboring state of Haryana is not far
behind where are 4 districts that have highly disproportionate sex ratio.
Why are females killed?
"The birth of a girl, grant elsewhere; here, grant a boy" [Atharva Veda]
The history of female infanticide can be traced back to the Vedic
period. Instances of gender discrimination are found in the writings of
Manu. The guiding philosophy is that the female is under the custody of
males from womb to tomb.
In a patriarchal society like India age-old traditions coupled with high
demand for dowry have resulted in the perpetuation of the centuries-old
practice of infanticide.
The general attitude against women is responsible for the backwardness
of the women folk, especially in the states of Tamil Nadu and Bihar. In
Rajasthan, where the Rajputs, traditionally a warrior caste, are in a
majority, daughters are seen as a burden.
According to some experts, this practice found its way into urban areas
due to the upper caste phenomena.
According to Sudipta Mukopadhay, Programme Assistant of Gender Equity
and Justice, "The only difference between the urban and rural
infanticide killing is that due to sophisticated technology available in
urban areas there is foeticide and in rural areas there is infanticide."
So, the theory that infanticide is practiced more by uneducated rural
folk holds no water.
Even while writing this piece the lives of hundreds of female babies are
being snuffed out. Unless there is a radical change in the mindsets of
the people, the evil practice will continue to finish off innocent lives
- for the only fault of being born a female.
http://www.warroom.com/femalinfancide.htm
--
Jai Mahadouche
http://www.claptrap.com/jai
Om Shanty
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/life/2004/12/17/stories/2004121700070100.htm
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/oct/29kp.htm
http://www.secularindia.com/sangh_parivars_hidden_agenda.htm
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.stopfundinghate.org/sacw/part1.html
o Not for normal use. Solely to be used for the propagational
purposes of research and bigoted discussion. The contents of this post
may not have been authored by(and then again, they may have been), and
do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents may
be protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of
copyrighted works. I just don't give a *****.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely be read, but
not considered or answered even if it contains your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. If
your e-mail contains opinions inimical to my own, I will immediately
perform extreme voodoo upon you.
o Posted for stimulation of vituperative and bigoted discussion.
Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster, even
if the poster sometimes claims to have authored the views expressed by
others.
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
confound the understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It
is believed(by my good self, of course) 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.
Or, as I like to say, you signed up for 10 lbs. of ***** when you
subscribed to that 2 lb. newsgroup, and guess who's going to give you
the extra 8 lbs.?
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. Of course, I consider myself exempt from fair use
rules. I am, after all, "THE BORG MAHARAJ"!
A pic of myself at rest, between sessions of slinging my crap at Usenet:
http://www.museum-kentlife.co.uk/Gallery/images/32%20Sleepy%20Pig_jpg.jpg
How some would _like_ to see me at rest:
http://homepage.mac.com/stuffle/.cv/stuffle/Sites/.Pictures/Pig%20Roast/IMG_0575.JPG-thumb_140_105.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 06:49:06 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:36:48 GMT, (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
in alt.abortion with message-id <sOiQO3355AYUHu@NoM> wrote:
Man charged with murder after pregnant woman's fetus dies
The Associated Press
The Union-Tribune
San Diego, California
Sunday, December 26, 2004
San Jose - A man who was arrested for assaulting his
pregnant girlfriend was being held on a murder charge
Sunday following the death of the fetus the woman was
carrying, police said.
The 25-year-old woman was 18 weeks pregnant when the male
fetus was delivered dead Saturday, said San Jose Police
Sgt. Steve Dixon. She was hospitalized early Saturday
after she told police that her boyfriend, Clifford Beane
Watkins, allegedly choked her and kicked her in the
stomach at a local motel, he said.
More at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20041226-1306-ca-pregnantwomanattacked.html
xxxxxxxxxxx ABORTION KILLS xxxxxxxxxxx
Jai Maharaj
Read the first two lines, moron.
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits
an act that results in the death of a fetus if any of the
following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act,
Article 2 (commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of
Part 2 of Division 106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and
surgeon' s certificate, as defined in the Business and
Professions Code, in a case where, to a medical certainty,
the result of childbirth would be death of the mother of the
fetus or where her death from childbirth, although not
medically certain, would be substantially certain or more
likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to
by the mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 07:03:22 PM |
|
|
In article <lab1t09bt098jmmulasr7b1jkbdsvcnsjg@4ax.com>,
<Attila> posted:
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.. . .
Right -- a fetus is equated with a human being. A fetus is a person.
I am glad that the penal code clarifies this for people (such as
abortionists) who don't want to believe that a fetus is a human being.
Let all films and TV shows on the subject also clarify this point.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 11:50:12 PM |
|
|
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) writes:
In article <lab1t09bt098jmmulasr7b1jkbdsvcnsjg@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now <Attila> posted:
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.. . .
Right -- a fetus is equated with a human being. A fetus is a person.
Wrong, Jay. There's a reason you'd rather kill yourself than admit to knowing
why that language was used in the Code. (As in, it's *not* equated, but
included in this one particular circumstance. You of all people should know
that much legal terminology.)
I am glad that the penal code clarifies this for people (such as
abortionists) who don't want to believe that a fetus is a human being.
Let all films and TV shows on the subject also clarify this point.
I'd rather see them spend their time on legitimate news and ignore the ravings
of an incompetent scamster in Hawai'i named Jay Stevens.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (December 23)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 29 vs. Milwaukee, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 07:38:03 PM |
|
|
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
In article <lab1t09bt098jmmulasr7b1jkbdsvcnsjg@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now <Attila> posted:
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.. . .
Right -- a fetus is equated with a human being.
No, it is not. If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
A fetus is a person.
No, a human being is a person. A fetus is a fetus. A fetus does not
become a human being until it is born.
I am glad that the penal code clarifies this for people (such as
abortionists)
You mean that it clarifies the law for anti-choice terrorists like you,
if you actually had the education to read the law as it is written and
for comprehension. You are saying what you want the law to say, not
what the law actually says.
who don't want to believe that a fetus is a human being.
You apparently need to learn to read for comprehension. That law
specifially includes a fetus because a fetus is NOT a human being. The
law goes on to say that abortion is not murder, and this law does not
change that fact.
Let all films and TV shows on the subject also clarify this point.
And if they are honest, (unlike FOX News), they will state that a fetus
is not a person or a human being, since it had to specifially added to
the law for that law to apply to killing a fetus.
What's more, this law, as written, cannot be charged sigularly against
someone that harms a fetus. There must also be a charge specifying
harm to the woman that was pregnant with the fetus, such as murder or
aggravated assault. That is because you cannot harm the fetus in such
a manner that the murder charge would apply without harming the woman
in a similar manner.
Mark Sebree
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 08:12:20 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1104197883.076702.94610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
In article <lab1t09bt098jmmulasr7b1jkbdsvcnsjg@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now <Attila> posted:
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.. . .
Right -- a fetus is equated with a human being.
No, it is not. If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a fetus is a
human being.
The argument using law is weak, very weak, when we try to place value on
human life. You are using law to determine whether human life is valuable.
You are saying that unless the law says so, that we do not have to value
life.
A fetus is a person.
No, a human being is a person. A fetus is a fetus. A fetus does not
become a human being until it is born.
wrong again, the definition of human being is very simple...."a human"
A fetus is a human being.
Just as a newborn is a human being
an infant is a human being
a toddler is a human being
a young child is a human being
a teenager is a human being
a young adult is a human being
ect...
The term fetus, like newborn, infant, toddler, young child, and so forth is
ONLY used to establish a stage in life.
A fetus, from the time of conception is a human being...we use terms to
describe the stage of life...
zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, ect...
Person..is a legal term, used for legal purposes.
The fact of the matter is this...
pro-abortionist, such as yourself, relies on terms. You have too.
You can not, in good concious, view a fetus as a human being because it
would really be hard for you to justify the killing of a human being without
good reason.
Abortion does just that, and you most likely will never agree due to pride,
abortion kills a human being.
You can not hide from the truth, you can try to chang it...but you will be
unsuccessful. And as technology continues to improve and we learn more about
the stages of life, from conception to death, more people will turn against
abortion.
Years ago, women honestly did think the fetus was nothing more than a blob
of tissue. I am sure you would like for them to continue to view the fetus
as that, because it helps you justify abortion. It is much easier to say
something like, abortion is no different than removing a cancer. That
sounds easy. But it isn't the truth. Abortion kills a human being, 100% of
the time.
The only justifiable reason for abortion, and it is the "only" reason that
can be justified, is when a woman's life is truly in danger and abortion is
the ONLY option left that will save her live. It is still tragic because
one human being, the fetus, will lose her/his life.
Other than that, there is is absolutely NO OTHER reasons that justify
abortion...NONE.
And not one of you can justify a reason to kill another human being with no
reason what so ever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 09:52:40 PM |
|
|
In article <rfGdnSLZ4-LbXU3cRVn-iQ@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> posted:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1104197883.076702.94610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
In article <lab1t09bt098jmmulasr7b1jkbdsvcnsjg@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now <Attila> posted:
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.. . .
Right -- a fetus is equated with a human being.
No, it is not. If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a fetus is a
human being.
The argument using law is weak, very weak, when we try to place value on
human life. You are using law to determine whether human life is valuable.
You are saying that unless the law says so, that we do not have to value
life.
A fetus is a person.
No, a human being is a person. A fetus is a fetus. A fetus does not
become a human being until it is born.
wrong again, the definition of human being is very simple...."a human"
A fetus is a human being.
Just as a newborn is a human being
an infant is a human being
a toddler is a human being
a young child is a human being
a teenager is a human being
a young adult is a human being
ect...
The term fetus, like newborn, infant, toddler, young child, and so forth is
ONLY used to establish a stage in life.
A fetus, from the time of conception is a human being...we use terms to
describe the stage of life...
zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, ect...
Person..is a legal term, used for legal purposes.
The fact of the matter is this...
pro-abortionist, such as yourself, relies on terms. You have too.
You can not, in good concious, view a fetus as a human being because it
would really be hard for you to justify the killing of a human being without
good reason.
Abortion does just that, and you most likely will never agree due to pride,
abortion kills a human being.
You can not hide from the truth, you can try to chang it...but you will be
unsuccessful. And as technology continues to improve and we learn more about
the stages of life, from conception to death, more people will turn against
abortion.
Years ago, women honestly did think the fetus was nothing more than a blob
of tissue. I am sure you would like for them to continue to view the fetus
as that, because it helps you justify abortion. It is much easier to say
something like, abortion is no different than removing a cancer. That
sounds easy. But it isn't the truth. Abortion kills a human being, 100% of
the time.
The only justifiable reason for abortion, and it is the "only" reason that
can be justified, is when a woman's life is truly in danger and abortion is
the ONLY option left that will save her live. It is still tragic because
one human being, the fetus, will lose her/his life.
Other than that, there is is absolutely NO OTHER reasons that justify
abortion...NONE.
And not one of you can justify a reason to kill another human being with no
reason what so ever.
More material for abortion-related movies and TV shows.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "z" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 11:55:35 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1104197883.076702.94610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
In article <lab1t09bt098jmmulasr7b1jkbdsvcnsjg@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now <Attila> posted:
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.. . .
Right -- a fetus is equated with a human being.
No, it is not. If a fetus was a human being, then it would not
need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a
fetus is a
human being.
The argument using law is weak, very weak, when we try to place value
on
human life. You are using law to determine whether human life is
valuable.
You are saying that unless the law says so, that we do not have to
value
life.
A fetus is a person.
No, a human being is a person. A fetus is a fetus. A fetus does
not
become a human being until it is born.
wrong again, the definition of human being is very simple...."a
human"
A fetus is a human being.
Just as a newborn is a human being
an infant is a human being
a toddler is a human being
a young child is a human being
a teenager is a human being
a young adult is a human being
ect...
The term fetus, like newborn, infant, toddler, young child, and so
forth is
ONLY used to establish a stage in life.
A fetus, from the time of conception is a human being...we use terms
to
describe the stage of life...
zygote, embryo, fetus, newborn, infant, ect...
Person..is a legal term, used for legal purposes.
The fact of the matter is this...
pro-abortionist, such as yourself, relies on terms. You have too.
You can not, in good concious, view a fetus as a human being because
it
would really be hard for you to justify the killing of a human being
without
good reason.
Abortion does just that, and you most likely will never agree due to
pride,
abortion kills a human being.
You can not hide from the truth, you can try to chang it...but you
will be
unsuccessful. And as technology continues to improve and we learn
more about
the stages of life, from conception to death, more people will turn
against
abortion.
Years ago, women honestly did think the fetus was nothing more than a
blob
of tissue. I am sure you would like for them to continue to view the
fetus
as that, because it helps you justify abortion. It is much easier to
say
something like, abortion is no different than removing a cancer.
That
sounds easy. But it isn't the truth. Abortion kills a human being,
100% of
the time.
The only justifiable reason for abortion, and it is the "only" reason
that
can be justified, is when a woman's life is truly in danger and
abortion is
the ONLY option left that will save her live. It is still tragic
because
one human being, the fetus, will lose her/his life.
Other than that, there is is absolutely NO OTHER reasons that justify
abortion...NONE.
And not one of you can justify a reason to kill another human being
with no
reason what so ever.
OK, here's a hypothetical. Suppose you're outside a fertility clinic
when it catches on fire. The little fertilized embryo human beings are
kept in Dewar flasks, mobile tanks of liquid nitrogen like big
thermoses on casters, maybe a hundred or more per flask. (They're in
sealed tubes about the size of a joint or two on your pinky, stacked up
in kind of long pieces of tubing that stick down into the liquid
nitrogen. I guess there could be several fertilized embryoes in each
sealed tube, all related from the same fertilization). I guess it's
cheaper or more reliable to do it that way than to keep them in
electric freezers. The point being, the flasks with their heavily
populated contents are reasonably easy to wheel around and don't need
to be plugged in. So... do you run into the burning building and risk
your life to save hundreds, maybe thousands of human beings by getting
some of these flasks outside, the same way that you might run into a
burning school to help lead a hundred 6 year olds out to safety? Do
your wife and kids know that that's your plan to risk your life for
these human beings in that particular stage if you ever happen to be in
such a situation, and do they approve?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Baldin Pramer" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
28 Dec 2004 11:08:25 AM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a fetus is a
human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too, and they deserve
personhood. As soon as fetuses get the vote, we will fight for the
rights of all spermazens too.
One at a time, bit by bit, we will establish the personhood of all human
DNA carrying entities, until the dead, tissue samples and even DVDs
carrying the code for the human genome, will have full legal status.
Baldin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
28 Dec 2004 01:05:35 PM |
|
|
"Baldin Pramer" <baldin@mailtoworld.com> wrote in message
news:cqs405$s1m$1@news.cudenver.edu...
Osprey wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a fetus is
a human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too,
Wrong, they are human organism's, not human beings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
28 Dec 2004 09:04:32 PM |
|
|
Osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Baldin Pramer" <baldin@mailtoworld.com> wrote in message
news:cqs405$s1m$1@news.cudenver.edu...
Osprey wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a fetus is
a human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too,
Wrong, they are human organism's, not human beings.
If you weren't such a stupid *****, you might figure out that sperm
are no more human beings than are fetuses.
But you are a stupid *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
28 Dec 2004 12:46:41 PM |
|
|
"Baldin Pramer" <baldin@mailtoworld.com> wrote in message
news:cqs405$s1m$1@news.cudenver.edu...
Osprey wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a fetus is
a human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too, and they deserve
Nope. Only the product of fertilized human eggs are human beings.
Go peddle your Junk Science somewhere else, you pro-abortion fraud.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
30 Dec 2004 03:25:28 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Nope. Only the product of fertilized human eggs are human beings.
Boy can't tell the difference between a fried chicken and a fried egg.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
30 Dec 2004 03:37:53 PM |
|
|
<gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1104441928.676494.107100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Nope. Only the product of fertilized human eggs are human beings.
Boy can't tell the difference between a fried chicken and a fried egg.
Most eggs you purchase in the store are not chickens, since they are not
fertilized eggs. You are probably too ignorant to be aware of that fact,
however.
SOME eggs available for purchase ARE fertilized eggs, and thus ARE live
chickens, but YOU would not be able to detect which of the eggs you purchase
are fertilized.
ONLY the product of fertilized human eggs are human beings, and ALL
fertilized human eggs are human beings. But I bet you are too ignorant to
be aware of THAT fact also.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
30 Dec 2004 05:24:12 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Repuglicon <LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> wrote:
SOME eggs available for purchase ARE fertilized eggs, and thus ARE live
chickens,
LOL!
Just when I think that neocons couldn't get more stupid, here's one
that insists that fried chicken is the same as fried egg.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
31 Dec 2004 03:46:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:37:53 GMT, "Mindless Drewling Libruls"
<LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<Ry_Ad.12864$RH4.6599@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
<gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote in message
news:1104441928.676494.107100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
Nope. Only the product of fertilized human eggs are human beings.
Boy can't tell the difference between a fried chicken and a fried egg.
Most eggs you purchase in the store are not chickens, since they are not
fertilized eggs. You are probably too ignorant to be aware of that fact,
however.
So if they are fertilized they are chickens?
SOME eggs available for purchase ARE fertilized eggs, and thus ARE live
chickens, but YOU would not be able to detect which of the eggs you purchase
are fertilized.
You are saying it is difficult to tell a chicken from an egg? I bet
you eat strange dishes.
ONLY the product of fertilized human eggs are human beings,
Eventually. If they live long enough.
and ALL
fertilized human eggs are human beings.
Nope.
But I bet you are too ignorant to
be aware of THAT fact also.
Too educated.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Mahadouche" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
29 Dec 2004 11:14:09 AM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Libruls wrote:
"Baldin Pramer" <baldin@mailtoworld.com> wrote in message
news:cqs405$s1m$1@news.cudenver.edu...
Osprey wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a fetus is
a human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too, and they deserve
Nope. Only the product of fertilized human eggs are human beings.
Go peddle your Junk Science somewhere else, you pro-abortion fraud.
I say let 'em all be born! We'll hate 'em as they grow up because
they're different from us. And then we'll kill them or send them to be
killed when they're all growed up! More, more, more!!!
Ah'm a deeply religious Christian conservative Republican pro-business
small-guvmint('cept for corporate welfare) flag-waver, and Ah say we
need more drones to do our killing fer us when we grab, er, do business
in other countries. And kill those bastards on death row in Texas
already! Kill, kill, kill! But do it to the full-sizers! Save the
children for later!
--
Jai Mahadouche
http://www.claptrap.com/jai
Om Shanty
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/life/2004/12/17/stories/2004121700070100.htm
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.rediff.com/news/1999/oct/29kp.htm
http://www.secularindia.com/sangh_parivars_hidden_agenda.htm
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.stopfundinghate.org/sacw/part1.html
While in almost all the developed countries, the female lead in the sex
ratio, it is in India that the males dominate the chart. Worse still is
when we take a look at the child sex ratio, between the age group of
zero to six. For the nation, the child sex ratio is 927. But the figures
drop significantly when we see the community report card: 950 for
Muslims, 925 for Hindus, and a shocking 786 for the Sikhs. Call it
shocking or dismal, but the fact remains that the growing female
foeticide and getting rid of the girl child before she reaches the age
of six, is a dastardly crime.
Here is the modern India for you, fast heading towards a daughter-less
nation. In an era of new economy based on knowledge-based systems and in
a fast-track mode, the Hindu rate of growth has also acquired a new
dimension. Here is the new Hindu rate of growth for you, linked to
rising literacy – the higher the economic growth the more is the mass
slaughter of the girl child.
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept04/Sharma0928.htm
o Not for normal use. Solely to be used for the propagational
purposes of research and bigoted discussion. The contents of this post
may not have been authored by(and then again, they may have been), and
do not necessarily represent the opinion of the poster. The contents may
be protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of
copyrighted works. I just don't give a *****.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely be read, but
not considered or answered even if it contains your full legal name,
current e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number. If
your e-mail contains opinions inimical to my own, I will immediately
perform extreme voodoo upon you.
o Posted for stimulation of vituperative and bigoted discussion.
Views expressed by others are not necessarily those of the poster, even
if the poster sometimes claims to have authored the views expressed by
others.
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
confound the understanding of environmental, political, human rights,
economic, democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It
is believed(by my good self, of course) 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.
Or, as I like to say, you signed up for 10 lbs. of ***** when you
subscribed to that 2 lb. newsgroup, and guess who's going to give you
the extra 8 lbs.?
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. Of course, I consider myself exempt from fair use
rules. I am, after all, "THE BORG MAHARAJ"!
A pic of myself at rest, between sessions of slinging my crap at Usenet:
http://www.museum-kentlife.co.uk/Gallery/images/32%20Sleepy%20Pig_jpg.jpg
How some would _like_ to see me at rest:
http://homepage.mac.com/stuffle/.cv/stuffle/Sites/.Pictures/Pig%20Roast/IMG_0575.JPG-thumb_140_105.jpg
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
30 Dec 2004 03:24:14 PM |
|
|
Baldin Pramer wrote:
Osprey wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law.
You have two problems with your argument.
a) the argument of whether a fetus is legally a human being is not
"universal"
b) you have personhood confused with human being.
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a
fetus is a
human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too, and they deserve
personhood. As soon as fetuses get the vote, we will fight for the
rights of all spermazens too.
One at a time, bit by bit, we will establish the personhood of all
human
DNA carrying entities, until the dead, tissue samples and even DVDs
carrying the code for the human genome, will have full legal status.
A tumor is just a population of unicellular human beings fighting for
self-determination and the right to live feely as they please without
having to get you and your body's OK, and chemotherapy of that tumor is
nothing more than mass murder, just like killing a one day old embryo
except on a bigger scale.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mindless Drewling Libruls" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
30 Dec 2004 03:29:30 PM |
|
|
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a
fetus is a
human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too, and they deserve
personhood.
THAT particular bit of Junk Science (still believed in by some VERY ignorant
pro-abortion types, however) was discredited over a hundred years ago. A
fetus, however, IS a human being.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
30 Dec 2004 05:22:47 PM |
|
|
Mindless Drewling Repuglicon
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a
fetus is a
human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too, and they deserve
personhood.
THAT particular bit of Junk Science (still believed in by some VERY ignorant
pro-abortion types, however) was discredited over a hundred years ago. A
fetus, however, IS a human being.
Just like spemr and eggs.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
31 Dec 2004 03:46:42 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 21:29:30 GMT, "Mindless Drewling Libruls"
<LibFools@WhackjobDemmieLeft.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<_q_Ad.12855$RH4.5447@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
While in the U.S., a fetus is not regarded as a person by law, a
fetus is a
human being.
Spermazens, or the unzygoted, are human beings too, and they deserve
personhood.
THAT particular bit of Junk Science (still believed in by some VERY ignorant
pro-abortion types, however) was discredited over a hundred years ago. A
fetus, however, IS a human being.
Oh? Then take it as a tax deduction.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Jai Maharaj" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 07:49:06 PM |
|
|
In article <1104197883.076702.94610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> posted:
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
In article <lab1t09bt098jmmulasr7b1jkbdsvcnsjg@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now <Attila> posted:
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.. . .
Right -- a fetus is equated with a human being. A fetus is a person.
No, it is not. If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law. . . .
The penal code clarifies this for people (such as abortionists) who don't
want to believe that a fetus is a baby human being.
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: MORE PROOF THAT A FETUS IS A PERSON |
27 Dec 2004 10:26:19 PM |
|
|
(Dr. Jai Maharaj) writes:
In article <1104197883.076702.94610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> posted:
Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
In article <lab1t09bt098jmmulasr7b1jkbdsvcnsjg@4ax.com>,
prochoice@here.now <Attila> posted:
California Penal Code
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being,
or a fetus, with malice aforethought.. . .
Right -- a fetus is equated with a human being. A fetus is a person.
No, it is not. If a fetus was a human being, then it would not need to
be specifically noted and included in the law. . . .
The penal code clarifies this for people (such as abortionists) who don't
want to believe that a fetus is a baby human being.
You're still delusional, Jay...and whatever happened to Mantra Corporation?
*snicker* Fortunately, you're no legal authority anywhere, much less
California.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (December 23)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, December 29 vs. Milwaukee, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
