Science > Abortion > Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
27 Sep 2006 08:03:16 PM |
| Object: |
Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1709046/posts
Mother of Seven Arrested Without Warning for Showing Abortion Image
LifeSiteNews ^ | 27 September 2006
Posted on 09/26/2006 10:54:14 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
FREDERICTON, New Brunswick, Sept. 27, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A
pro-life woman was arrested Tuesday for holding an image of an aborted
child outside an abortion facility in Fredericton, New Brunswick.
Suzie Ryan, mother of seven, was silently holding the image outside the
Morgentaler centre as abortions were being performed inside. Mrs. Ryan
was charged with violating s.163 of the Criminal Code. S.163 is about
the display of obscene material. She was released after being held in a
jail cell for several hours. She must face the charges in court in
November.
Prior to her arrest Mrs. Ryan was not warned in any way that she was
committing an illegal act. Six to eight police officers arrived and
forcibly put her in a paddy wagon, while confiscating her sign and
umbrella.
Police Staff Sergeant Kelly later explained to Mrs. Ryan's husband,
Campaign Life Coalition New Brunswick (CLCNB) president Peter Ryan,
that the police were acting following instructions from the Crown
Prosecutor office and some 35 complaints about the display of abortion
images. Mr. Ryan believes the abortuary staff must have put in one or
more complaints this morning.
CLCNB is not aware of any other case in Canada where a pro-life citizen
was arrested without prior warning for simply displaying an abortion
image in a public place. Such images have been repeatedly displayed by
such groups as Show the Truth which has won precedent-setting cases in
which it also was charged for showing graphic abortion pictures. That
group visited Fredericton twice this past summer. At the time
Fredericton Mayor Brad Woodside expressed displeasure with the group's
tactics, but said there was nothing the city could legally do to
prevent such displays.
The Morgentaler abortion facility has no legal restrictions against
protest in the surrounding public area. Pro-life supporters regularly
are present on Tuesday mornings when abortions usually take place.
Mrs. Ryan says she is quite shaken by the incident.
Peter Ryan says it is incredible when someone can be accused of a crime
for peacefully protesting the murder of innocent children. "Here's the
analogy," he said. "The Nazi death camps are exterminating Jews.
Outside someone protests with an image of the Holocaust. The camp staff
complains to police. The person is arrested as a criminal. The
slaughter goes on. That's where we now are in this country.
.
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
09 Oct 2006 03:20:22 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
In Canadian society abortion was always considered immoral
Really? But there were no laws against it?
Of course there were laws against it. They were the same laws
that made it illegal to deliberately kill any human being without
just cause.
Strange - I'm sure theft was
considered immoral, and I'll bet there were laws against that.
Sure there were and there still are. No minority group has yet
tried to convince society that it is their right to commit theft.
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until the pro
abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights' issue, which it is
not,
... in your opinion. In my opinion it's very much a 'rights' issue.
No, it's a little more than my opinion. There is no right to an
abortion, it is simply not a matter of rights.
that the issue was tested and the supreme
court declared that specific abortion legislation ought to be produced.
So far our legislators haven't seen fit to tackle the issue.
Who eroded that? It's very telling
that you, who is smug in the knowledge that you will never have to endure
the agony of childbirth, refers to the avoidance of such pain as
self-appeasement.
Oh, I see, women now want abortions because they don't want the pain of
childbirth?
It's one reason - and a damn good one at that.
Please, tell me you are kidding.
Nobody should have to go
through the agony of childbirth against their will (Hell's teeth! They
shouldn't have to go through that even if they do want a child, but there's
no other way yet, apart from Caesarean section.)
I understand your answer all right - women are not, as
you appear to think, airheads who need men to do their thinking for them.
No, you obviously don't understand my answer.
You reckon?
Yes, I reckon.
Then perhaps you'd better explain your statement better.
I don't think it would matter how well I explained it, you would
never agree.
Taken
literally, you apparently want the morals and values of 1867, when your
country became the Dominion of Canada.
Of course, when those morals and values are as valid today as
they were in 1867.
For the most part laws were based on
English law, when there were Poor Laws and workhouses, no votes for women
(and many men were also disenfranchised); racism was almost de rigeur;
homosexual behaviour was illegal ... the list goes on.
If you're trying to build a straw man you're not succeeding.
None of those things have anything to do with abortion.
I suspect that this
wasn't what you meant, but you did say it, so perhaps you should elucidate
further.
No, it wasn't what I meant and you know it.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 04:06:26 PM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:aayWg.2796$cz.42895@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
In Canadian society abortion was always considered immoral
Really? But there were no laws against it?
Of course there were laws against it. They were the same laws that made
it illegal to deliberately kill any human being without just cause.
Strange - I'm sure theft was
considered immoral, and I'll bet there were laws against that.
Sure there were and there still are. No minority group has yet tried to
convince society that it is their right to commit theft.
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until the pro
abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights' issue, which it is
not,
... in your opinion. In my opinion it's very much a 'rights' issue.
No, it's a little more than my opinion. There is no right to an abortion,
it is simply not a matter of rights.
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion? That is the same
as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over their own
bodies. How can you justify that? Women didn't choose to be women. Bear
in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when resources
are scarce; women do the same, the only difference being that we can discuss
it.
that the issue was tested and the supreme
court declared that specific abortion legislation ought to be produced.
So far our legislators haven't seen fit to tackle the issue.
Who eroded that? It's very telling
that you, who is smug in the knowledge that you will never have to
endure the agony of childbirth, refers to the avoidance of such pain as
self-appeasement.
Oh, I see, women now want abortions because they don't want the pain of
childbirth?
It's one reason - and a damn good one at that.
Please, tell me you are kidding.
I am absolutely not kidding. Let's put it this way: my daughter is now 46
and I haven't got over her birth yet! I doubt that one day has passed in
all that time when I haven't thought, however fleetingly, about that pain.
For a faint idea, go to my website (address as sig) and look at the
Childbirth section.
Nobody should have to go
through the agony of childbirth against their will (Hell's teeth! They
shouldn't have to go through that even if they do want a child, but
there's no other way yet, apart from Caesarean section.)
I understand your answer all right - women are not, as
you appear to think, airheads who need men to do their thinking for
them.
No, you obviously don't understand my answer.
You reckon?
Yes, I reckon.
Then perhaps you'd better explain your statement better.
I don't think it would matter how well I explained it, you would never
agree.
Likely not, but your claim was that I didn't understand it.
Taken
literally, you apparently want the morals and values of 1867, when your
country became the Dominion of Canada.
Of course, when those morals and values are as valid today as they were in
1867.
For the most part laws were based on
English law, when there were Poor Laws and workhouses, no votes for women
(and many men were also disenfranchised); racism was almost de rigeur;
homosexual behaviour was illegal ... the list goes on.
If you're trying to build a straw man you're not succeeding. None of those
things have anything to do with abortion.
That is not a strawman at all; they are examples of how morals and values
have changed since 1867 - or are you claiming that it was moral that women
should be disenfranchised, etc? The legality of abortion is just another
example on the list.
I suspect that this
wasn't what you meant, but you did say it, so perhaps you should
elucidate further.
No, it wasn't what I meant and you know it.
Well, I did say that ... so what did you mean?
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 06:19:28 PM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until the pro
abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights' issue, which it
is not,
... in your opinion. In my opinion it's very much a 'rights' issue.
No, it's a little more than my opinion. There is no right to an
abortion, it is simply not a matter of rights.
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion? That is the
same as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over their
own bodies.
In fairness, women (and men) don't have "the right to sovereignity over
their own bodies". Such a "right" doesn't actually exist, at least not
formally and legally. Not even naturally either that I know of. Why there
are even laws that are designed to reduce any such "sovereignity" even if
the "right" exists outside of the law. For example, I have no "right" to not
protect my own body with a seatbelt when I drive. Wearing seatbelts is the
law. If I don'' obey -- thus exercising this "right" -- I can be penalised
for it. I have no "right" to ingest certain items such as illegal drugs, or
even "legal" (prescription) drugs obtained illegally, even though it's my
own body, even if I take appropriate measure to minimize or eliminate any
risk I may be to others. I can be refused the "right' to ingest as much
alcohol as I decide I want to. In some jurisdictions, the supplier may even
become criminally liable just for allowing me to exercise that "right". In
some jurisdictions it is even unlawful to exercise absolute sovereignity
over my body and end its life (though who they charge if I succeed is
another ssue entirely!). We have laws that limit, restrict, and refuse to
recognise such "sovereignity" over our bodies. So I think your "soverignity"
claim is unrealistic.
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called "miscarriage".
That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And I think you know that.
BTW, the appeal to nature way of reasoning would -- if applied -- justify
male dominance, and the "natural" right of the strong to bully, take from,
and kill the weak. We are not animals.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 12:40:19 AM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:_TVWg.28047$zu2.21139@newsfe18.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until the
pro abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights' issue, which
it is not,
... in your opinion. In my opinion it's very much a 'rights' issue.
No, it's a little more than my opinion. There is no right to an
abortion, it is simply not a matter of rights.
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion? That is the
same as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over their
own bodies.
In fairness, women (and men) don't have "the right to sovereignity over
their own bodies". Such a "right" doesn't actually exist, at least not
formally and legally. Not even naturally either that I know of. Why there
are even laws that are designed to reduce any such "sovereignity" even if
the "right" exists outside of the law. For example, I have no "right" to
not protect my own body with a seatbelt when I drive. Wearing seatbelts is
the law. If I don'' obey -- thus exercising this "right" -- I can be
penalised for it.
But no-one forces you to drive.
I have no "right" to ingest certain items such as illegal drugs, or
even "legal" (prescription) drugs obtained illegally, even though it's my
own body, even if I take appropriate measure to minimize or eliminate any
risk I may be to others.
You can't guarantee the elimination of risk to others if you've taken
illegal drugs.
I can be refused the "right' to ingest as much
alcohol as I decide I want to. In some jurisdictions, the supplier may
even become criminally liable just for allowing me to exercise that
"right".
The same applies here - drunks can be dangerous to others.
In
some jurisdictions it is even unlawful to exercise absolute sovereignity
over my body and end its life (though who they charge if I succeed is
another ssue entirely!). We have laws that limit, restrict, and refuse to
recognise such "sovereignity" over our bodies. So I think your
"soverignity" claim is unrealistic.
No, it isn't. All these laws are made with an eye to protect others. I
know you won't agree, but in an abortion there aren't any others to protect.
Aside from that, everyone is expected to follow a country's laws, and such
restrictions as you mentioned do not compare with the right to an abortion.
No law forces people to have their bodies damaged and their health impaired,
but making abortion illegal would force this on pregnant women.
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called "miscarriage".
That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And I think you know
that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will cause them
to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what these plants do - cats
will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit, when they have a stomach
upset.
BTW, the appeal to nature way of reasoning would -- if applied -- justify
male dominance, and the "natural" right of the strong to bully, take from,
and kill the weak. We are not animals.
It's as well that you said, "justify male dominance," because in most of the
world male dominance does apply. To make abortion illegal would enhance
male dominance, which can't be justified. As to the strong bullying the
weak etc, I could point to several wars in the not-too-distant past and a
current one. Oh, and we are animals, like it or not.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
12 Oct 2006 10:08:14 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Mq-dnQuM6Ng6SLDYRVnyiw@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:_TVWg.28047$zu2.21139@newsfe18.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until the
pro abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights' issue,
which it is not,
... in your opinion. In my opinion it's very much a 'rights' issue.
No, it's a little more than my opinion. There is no right to an
abortion, it is simply not a matter of rights.
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion? That is the
same as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over
their own bodies.
In fairness, women (and men) don't have "the right to sovereignity over
their own bodies". Such a "right" doesn't actually exist, at least not
formally and legally. Not even naturally either that I know of. Why there
are even laws that are designed to reduce any such "sovereignity" even if
the "right" exists outside of the law. For example, I have no "right" to
not protect my own body with a seatbelt when I drive. Wearing seatbelts
is the law. If I don'' obey -- thus exercising this "right" -- I can be
penalised for it.
But no-one forces you to drive.
The law applies to passengers as well. But that's not the point is it?
I have no "right" to ingest certain items such as illegal drugs, or
even "legal" (prescription) drugs obtained illegally, even though it's my
own body, even if I take appropriate measure to minimize or eliminate any
risk I may be to others.
You can't guarantee the elimination of risk to others if you've taken
illegal drugs.
Of course I can. Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own
body? Fascist!!!! :-)
I can be refused the "right' to ingest as much
alcohol as I decide I want to. In some jurisdictions, the supplier may
even become criminally liable just for allowing me to exercise that
"right".
The same applies here - drunks can be dangerous to others.
"can" does not make "will". If I take reasonable precautions not to be
dangerous to others, who are you to interfere with my sovereign body rights?
In some jurisdictions it is even unlawful to exercise absolute
sovereignity
over my body and end its life (though who they charge if I succeed is
another ssue entirely!). We have laws that limit, restrict, and refuse to
recognise such "sovereignity" over our bodies. So I think your
"soverignity" claim is unrealistic.
No, it isn't. All these laws are made with an eye to protect others. I
know you won't agree, but in an abortion there aren't any others to
protect.
Well, I and others would argue that the life growing in the womb has a right
to protection.
Aside from that, everyone is expected to follow a country's laws, and such
restrictions as you mentioned do not compare with the right to an
abortion. No law forces people to have their bodies damaged and their
health impaired, but making abortion illegal would force this on pregnant
women.
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called "miscarriage".
That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And I think you know
that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will cause
them to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what these plants do -
cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit, when they have a
stomach upset.
Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same. And cats usually do it to help get
rid of hairballs not becaus etheir stomach is upset. Dogs eat grass to
assist indigestion. None of which has anything to do with abortion being
"natural" (the point you are trying to support).
BTW, the appeal to nature way of reasoning would -- if applied -- justify
male dominance, and the "natural" right of the strong to bully, take
from, and kill the weak. We are not animals.
It's as well that you said, "justify male dominance," because in most of
the world male dominance does apply. To make abortion illegal would
enhance male dominance, which can't be justified. As to the strong
bullying the weak etc, I could point to several wars in the
not-too-distant past and a current one. Oh, and we are animals, like it
or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 12:00:50 AM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:tTsXg.50940$nc3.22598@newsfe16.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:Mq-dnQuM6Ng6SLDYRVnyiw@bt.com...
[snip old attributions]
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until the
pro abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights' issue,
which it is not,
... in your opinion. In my opinion it's very much a 'rights' issue.
No, it's a little more than my opinion. There is no right to an
abortion, it is simply not a matter of rights.
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion? That is the
same as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over
their own bodies.
In fairness, women (and men) don't have "the right to sovereignity over
their own bodies". Such a "right" doesn't actually exist, at least not
formally and legally. Not even naturally either that I know of. Why
there are even laws that are designed to reduce any such "sovereignity"
even if the "right" exists outside of the law. For example, I have no
"right" to not protect my own body with a seatbelt when I drive. Wearing
seatbelts is the law. If I don'' obey -- thus exercising this "right" --
I can be penalised for it.
But no-one forces you to drive.
The law applies to passengers as well. But that's not the point is it?
I have no "right" to ingest certain items such as illegal drugs, or
even "legal" (prescription) drugs obtained illegally, even though it's
my own body, even if I take appropriate measure to minimize or eliminate
any risk I may be to others.
You can't guarantee the elimination of risk to others if you've taken
illegal drugs.
Of course I can.
I have to admit to being out of my depth when discussing illegal drugs, but
I was always under the impression that they have a deleterious effect on the
brain, so if you're not in your right mind, you can't guarantee eliminating
risk to others.
Who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do with my own
body? Fascist!!!! :-)
Pro-strife? :)
I can be refused the "right' to ingest as much
alcohol as I decide I want to. In some jurisdictions, the supplier may
even become criminally liable just for allowing me to exercise that
"right".
The same applies here - drunks can be dangerous to others.
"can" does not make "will". If I take reasonable precautions not to be
dangerous to others, who are you to interfere with my sovereign body
rights?
When you're drunk, you don't know what you're doing.
In some jurisdictions it is even unlawful to exercise absolute
sovereignity
over my body and end its life (though who they charge if I succeed is
another ssue entirely!). We have laws that limit, restrict, and refuse
to recognise such "sovereignity" over our bodies. So I think your
"soverignity" claim is unrealistic.
No, it isn't. All these laws are made with an eye to protect others. I
know you won't agree, but in an abortion there aren't any others to
protect.
Well, I and others would argue that the life growing in the womb has a
right to protection.
That would be OK were it not at someone else's expense.
Aside from that, everyone is expected to follow a country's laws, and
such restrictions as you mentioned do not compare with the right to an
abortion. No law forces people to have their bodies damaged and their
health impaired, but making abortion illegal would force this on pregnant
women.
Miss this one? :p
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called
"miscarriage". That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And I
think you know that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will cause
them to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what these plants
do - cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit, when they
have a stomach upset.
Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same.
Well, what do you know - and here was I thinking that women upchucked
foetuses in an abortion!
And cats usually do it to help get
rid of hairballs not becaus etheir stomach is upset.
Hairballs upset the stomach.
Dogs eat grass to
assist indigestion. None of which has anything to do with abortion being
"natural" (the point you are trying to support).
Yes, it does - animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion.
BTW, the appeal to nature way of reasoning would -- if applied --
justify male dominance, and the "natural" right of the strong to bully,
take from, and kill the weak. We are not animals.
It's as well that you said, "justify male dominance," because in most of
the world male dominance does apply. To make abortion illegal would
enhance male dominance, which can't be justified. As to the strong
bullying the weak etc, I could point to several wars in the
not-too-distant past and a current one. Oh, and we are animals, like it
or not.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
14 Oct 2006 01:39:25 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kp6dnXhkr6w07K3YRVnysw@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
[snip old attributions]
because it involved the killing of human life. It wasn't until the
pro abortion movement saw fit to make abortion a 'rights' issue,
which it is not,
... in your opinion. In my opinion it's very much a 'rights' issue.
No, it's a little more than my opinion. There is no right to an
abortion, it is simply not a matter of rights.
Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion? That is the
same as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over
their own bodies.
In fairness, women (and men) don't have "the right to sovereignity over
their own bodies". Such a "right" doesn't actually exist, at least not
formally and legally. Not even naturally either that I know of. Why
there are even laws that are designed to reduce any such "sovereignity"
even if the "right" exists outside of the law. For example, I have no
"right" to not protect my own body with a seatbelt when I drive.
Wearing seatbelts is the law. If I don'' obey -- thus exercising this
"right" -- I can be penalised for it.
But no-one forces you to drive.
The law applies to passengers as well. But that's not the point is it?
I have no "right" to ingest certain items such as illegal drugs, or
even "legal" (prescription) drugs obtained illegally, even though it's
my own body, even if I take appropriate measure to minimize or
eliminate any risk I may be to others.
You can't guarantee the elimination of risk to others if you've taken
illegal drugs.
Of course I can.
I have to admit to being out of my depth when discussing illegal drugs,
but
I was always under the impression that they have a deleterious effect on
the
brain, so if you're not in your right mind, you can't guarantee
eliminating
risk to others.
Well, I could place myself in a padded room with a trained medical
porfessionals in atendance outside, guards with strict instrucitons not to
let me out, acces to food, wwater, etc. and ingest mescalin, smoke pot,
snort cocaine, and generally have a wicked night of illegal drug taking and
never harm a soul (including myself -- the doc, you know).
I can be refused the "right' to ingest as much
alcohol as I decide I want to. In some jurisdictions, the supplier may
even become criminally liable just for allowing me to exercise that
"right".
The same applies here - drunks can be dangerous to others.
"can" does not make "will". If I take reasonable precautions not to be
dangerous to others, who are you to interfere with my sovereign body
rights?
When you're drunk, you don't know what you're doing.
Could be (haven't been drunk in a very long, long time), but I can take lots
of precautions -- sufficient to remove any reasonalbe objection if I have
to.
<snip>
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called
"miscarriage". That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And I
think you know that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will cause
them to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what these plants
do - cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit, when they
have a stomach upset.
Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same.
Well, what do you know - and here was I thinking that women upchucked
foetuses in an abortion!
You need to retake that biology class.
Here let me walk you through it:
You claimed that "abortion in natural". You supported that claim by claiming
"animals in the wild abort when resources are scarce". You then supported
that claim by stating, "Animals will eat plants that will cause them to
abort when food is scarce." You supported that claim by stating, "cats will
eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit."
So you see, saying "Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same." was a
reasonable point to make because all you offered in the end was that cats
eat certain plants to upchuck hairballs. That's hardly a reasonable
correlation to abortion.
None of which has anything to do with abortion being "natural" (the point
you are trying to support).
Yes, it does - animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion.
Which plants and which animals?
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 01:00:53 AM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message news:Xz%Xg.43$AU6.34@newsfe21.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kp6dnXhkr6w07K3YRVnysw@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
[snip old attributions]
[snip]
I have no "right" to ingest certain items such as illegal drugs, or
even "legal" (prescription) drugs obtained illegally, even though it's
my own body, even if I take appropriate measure to minimize or
eliminate any risk I may be to others.
You can't guarantee the elimination of risk to others if you've taken
illegal drugs.
Of course I can.
I have to admit to being out of my depth when discussing illegal drugs,
but
I was always under the impression that they have a deleterious effect on
the
brain, so if you're not in your right mind, you can't guarantee
eliminating
risk to others.
Well, I could place myself in a padded room with a trained medical
porfessionals in atendance outside, guards with strict instrucitons not to
let me out, acces to food, wwater, etc. and ingest mescalin, smoke pot,
snort cocaine, and generally have a wicked night of illegal drug taking
and never harm a soul (including myself -- the doc, you know).
Maybe you could, but how many others could do this? The law has to be made
for the majority.
I can be refused the "right' to ingest as much
alcohol as I decide I want to. In some jurisdictions, the supplier may
even become criminally liable just for allowing me to exercise that
"right".
The same applies here - drunks can be dangerous to others.
"can" does not make "will". If I take reasonable precautions not to be
dangerous to others, who are you to interfere with my sovereign body
rights?
When you're drunk, you don't know what you're doing.
Could be (haven't been drunk in a very long, long time), but I can take
lots of precautions -- sufficient to remove any reasonalbe objection if I
have to.
See above. I see that you've snipped, without addressing: 'No law forces
people to have their bodies damaged and their health impaired, but making
abortion illegal would force this on pregnant women.' Can't counter it?
<snip>
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort
when resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called
"miscarriage". That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And I
think you know that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will cause
them to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what these plants
do - cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit, when they
have a stomach upset.
Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same.
Well, what do you know - and here was I thinking that women upchucked
foetuses in an abortion!
You need to retake that biology class.
Oh my! I didn't think I needed to type 'sarcasm' in brackets.
Here let me walk you through it:
You claimed that "abortion in natural". You supported that claim by
claiming "animals in the wild abort when resources are scarce". You then
supported that claim by stating, "Animals will eat plants that will cause
them to abort when food is scarce." You supported that claim by stating,
"cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit."
So you see, saying "Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same." was a
reasonable point to make because all you offered in the end was that cats
eat certain plants to upchuck hairballs. That's hardly a reasonable
correlation to abortion.
It's a correlation to their self-medication.
None of which has anything to do with abortion being "natural" (the
point you are trying to support).
Yes, it does - animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion.
Which plants and which animals?
The aborting animals which featured in a documentary I saw many years ago
were zebra, but I think all animals do it. I don't know which plants, but I
do know that ergot causes an abortion in women, and ergot is a fungus which
grows on rye grass, so maybe that's one of them.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
15 Oct 2006 11:37:58 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:gYKdnWRmJ8A_s6_YRVnyvw@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:Xz%Xg.43$AU6.34@newsfe21.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kp6dnXhkr6w07K3YRVnysw@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
[snip old attributions]
[snip]
I have no "right" to ingest certain items such as illegal drugs, or
even "legal" (prescription) drugs obtained illegally, even though
it's my own body, even if I take appropriate measure to minimize or
eliminate any risk I may be to others.
You can't guarantee the elimination of risk to others if you've taken
illegal drugs.
Of course I can.
I have to admit to being out of my depth when discussing illegal drugs,
but
I was always under the impression that they have a deleterious effect on
the
brain, so if you're not in your right mind, you can't guarantee
eliminating
risk to others.
Well, I could place myself in a padded room with a trained medical
porfessionals in atendance outside, guards with strict instrucitons not
to let me out, acces to food, wwater, etc. and ingest mescalin, smoke
pot, snort cocaine, and generally have a wicked night of illegal drug
taking and never harm a soul (including myself -- the doc, you know).
Maybe you could, but how many others could do this? The law has to be
made for the majority.
Not really. I can think of several "rights" cases that were won at the
expense of the majority, even the expressed will of the majority. And that
would include women voting, owning property, gaining financial and property
settlements in divorce, even free access to abortion.
I can be refused the "right' to ingest as much
alcohol as I decide I want to. In some jurisdictions, the supplier
may even become criminally liable just for allowing me to exercise
that "right".
The same applies here - drunks can be dangerous to others.
"can" does not make "will". If I take reasonable precautions not to be
dangerous to others, who are you to interfere with my sovereign body
rights?
When you're drunk, you don't know what you're doing.
Could be (haven't been drunk in a very long, long time), but I can take
lots of precautions -- sufficient to remove any reasonalbe objection if I
have to.
See above. I see that you've snipped, without addressing: 'No law forces
people to have their bodies damaged and their health impaired, but making
abortion illegal would force this on pregnant women.' Can't counter it?
No. Not deliberate. That said, I think you are mischaracterising the isssue
in order to sensationalise it.
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort
when resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called
"miscarriage". That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And I
think you know that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will
cause them to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what these
plants do - cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit,
when they have a stomach upset.
Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same.
Well, what do you know - and here was I thinking that women upchucked
foetuses in an abortion!
You need to retake that biology class.
Oh my! I didn't think I needed to type 'sarcasm' in brackets.
Here let me walk you through it:
You claimed that "abortion in natural". You supported that claim by
claiming "animals in the wild abort when resources are scarce". You then
supported that claim by stating, "Animals will eat plants that will cause
them to abort when food is scarce." You supported that claim by stating,
"cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit."
So you see, saying "Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same." was a
reasonable point to make because all you offered in the end was that cats
eat certain plants to upchuck hairballs. That's hardly a reasonable
correlation to abortion.
It's a correlation to their self-medication.
None of which has anything to do with abortion being "natural" (the
point you are trying to support).
Yes, it does - animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion.
Which plants and which animals?
The aborting animals which featured in a documentary I saw many years ago
were zebra, but I think all animals do it. I don't know which plants, but
I do know that ergot causes an abortion in women, and ergot is a fungus
which grows on rye grass, so maybe that's one of them.
The statement "animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion."
needs more support than something you recall about zebras some years ago.
:-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
17 Oct 2006 10:16:33 PM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:ivtYg.555$Zi.398@newsfe22.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:gYKdnWRmJ8A_s6_YRVnyvw@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:Xz%Xg.43$AU6.34@newsfe21.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:kp6dnXhkr6w07K3YRVnysw@bt.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
[snip old attributions]
[snip]
I have no "right" to ingest certain items such as illegal drugs, or
even "legal" (prescription) drugs obtained illegally, even though
it's my own body, even if I take appropriate measure to minimize or
eliminate any risk I may be to others.
You can't guarantee the elimination of risk to others if you've taken
illegal drugs.
Of course I can.
I have to admit to being out of my depth when discussing illegal drugs,
but
I was always under the impression that they have a deleterious effect
on the
brain, so if you're not in your right mind, you can't guarantee
eliminating
risk to others.
Well, I could place myself in a padded room with a trained medical
porfessionals in atendance outside, guards with strict instrucitons not
to let me out, acces to food, wwater, etc. and ingest mescalin, smoke
pot, snort cocaine, and generally have a wicked night of illegal drug
taking and never harm a soul (including myself -- the doc, you know).
Maybe you could, but how many others could do this? The law has to be
made for the majority.
Not really. I can think of several "rights" cases that were won at the
expense of the majority, even the expressed will of the majority. And that
would include women voting, owning property, gaining financial and
property settlements in divorce, even free access to abortion.
Since women outlive men, there are probably more women than men, so how can
things like the right to vote etc be at the expense of the majority, when
it's the majority that benefit?
I can be refused the "right' to ingest as much
alcohol as I decide I want to. In some jurisdictions, the supplier
may even become criminally liable just for allowing me to exercise
that "right".
The same applies here - drunks can be dangerous to others.
"can" does not make "will". If I take reasonable precautions not to be
dangerous to others, who are you to interfere with my sovereign body
rights?
When you're drunk, you don't know what you're doing.
Could be (haven't been drunk in a very long, long time), but I can take
lots of precautions -- sufficient to remove any reasonalbe objection if
I have to.
See above. I see that you've snipped, without addressing: 'No law forces
people to have their bodies damaged and their health impaired, but making
abortion illegal would force this on pregnant women.' Can't counter it?
No. Not deliberate. That said, I think you are mischaracterising the
isssue in order to sensationalise it.
You think that pregnancy and childbirth don't damage women's bodies and
impair their health?
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort
when resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called
"miscarriage". That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And
I think you know that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will
cause them to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what these
plants do - cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit,
when they have a stomach upset.
Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same.
Well, what do you know - and here was I thinking that women upchucked
foetuses in an abortion!
You need to retake that biology class.
Oh my! I didn't think I needed to type 'sarcasm' in brackets.
Here let me walk you through it:
You claimed that "abortion in natural". You supported that claim by
claiming "animals in the wild abort when resources are scarce". You then
supported that claim by stating, "Animals will eat plants that will
cause them to abort when food is scarce." You supported that claim by
stating, "cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit."
So you see, saying "Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same." was a
reasonable point to make because all you offered in the end was that
cats eat certain plants to upchuck hairballs. That's hardly a reasonable
correlation to abortion.
It's a correlation to their self-medication.
None of which has anything to do with abortion being "natural" (the
point you are trying to support).
Yes, it does - animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion.
Which plants and which animals?
The aborting animals which featured in a documentary I saw many years ago
were zebra, but I think all animals do it. I don't know which plants,
but I do know that ergot causes an abortion in women, and ergot is a
fungus which grows on rye grass, so maybe that's one of them.
The statement "animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion."
needs more support than something you recall about zebras some years ago.
:-)
Yes, I guess it does, and I can't find anything on the Web, which isn't to
say it isn't there - I'm pretty useless at finding what I want on the Web -
all I could find was advice to farmers on how to prevent their livestock
from aborting. I think it's likely that animals will avoid these plants
under normal conditions, but will eat them when there is no other food
around, thus causing an abortion.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
18 Oct 2006 09:55:17 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
[snip old attributions]
[snip]
Maybe you could, but how many others could do this? The law has to be
made for the majority.
Not really. I can think of several "rights" cases that were won at the
expense of the majority, even the expressed will of the majority. And
that would include women voting, owning property, gaining financial and
property settlements in divorce, even free access to abortion.
Since women outlive men, there are probably more women than men, so how
can things like the right to vote etc be at the expense of the majority,
when it's the majority that benefit?
Sloppy reasoning. At best you can make a weak case as the years increase
past about 55-60.
It seems that you throw stuff out as definitive, but when challenged show
that you really haven't thought it through. For example, "law has to be made
for the majority." misses the point of makinglaws to protect minority rights
in teh face of the desires of the majority (anti-slavery laws, votes for
blacks, chinese, etc). Not _all_ laws are for the minority and not all are
for the majority. Laws shouldn't be made on the basis of popularity, btw.
Law should be made on the basis of what is right.
I see that you've snipped, without addressing: 'No law forces people to
have their bodies damaged and their health impaired, but making abortion
illegal would force this on pregnant women.' Can't counter it?
No. Not deliberate. That said, I think you are mischaracterising the
isssue in order to sensationalise it.
You think that pregnancy and childbirth don't damage women's bodies and
impair their health?
Obviously not. You do. I expect you'll name some extreme, rare, or unusual
circumstances ore events as your "norm" and we'll disagree again.
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort
when resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called
"miscarriage". That is not the same as what we call "abortion". And
I think you know that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will
cause them to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what these
plants do - cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit,
when they have a stomach upset.
Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same.
Well, what do you know - and here was I thinking that women upchucked
foetuses in an abortion!
You need to retake that biology class.
Oh my! I didn't think I needed to type 'sarcasm' in brackets.
Here let me walk you through it:
You claimed that "abortion in natural". You supported that claim by
claiming "animals in the wild abort when resources are scarce". You
then supported that claim by stating, "Animals will eat plants that
will cause them to abort when food is scarce." You supported that claim
by stating, "cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves vomit."
So you see, saying "Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same." was a
reasonable point to make because all you offered in the end was that
cats eat certain plants to upchuck hairballs. That's hardly a
reasonable correlation to abortion.
It's a correlation to their self-medication.
None of which has anything to do with abortion being "natural" (the
point you are trying to support).
Yes, it does - animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion.
Which plants and which animals?
The aborting animals which featured in a documentary I saw many years
ago were zebra, but I think all animals do it. I don't know which
plants, but I do know that ergot causes an abortion in women, and ergot
is a fungus which grows on rye grass, so maybe that's one of them.
The statement "animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion."
needs more support than something you recall about zebras some years ago.
:-)
Yes, I guess it does, and I can't find anything on the Web, which isn't to
say it isn't there
But it is to say that it's reasonable to conclude it's a myth. It's
definitely more reasonable than to conclude it's true.
I'm pretty useless at finding what I want on the Web
Well, I'm very good at finding things on the Web and I couldn't find
anything to support your claim either.
all I could find was advice to farmers on how to prevent their livestock
from aborting. I think it's likely that animals will avoid these plants
under normal conditions, but will eat them when there is no other food
around, thus causing an abortion.
Not much of a support for your "abortion is natural. Just look at the animal
world", eh? Though I suspect it won't change you using the claim in the
future. It's the nature of sacred cows and claims that we don't give them up
easily.
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
19 Oct 2006 09:32:10 PM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:12jcg2lh545u9e7@corp.supernews.com...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
[snip old attributions]
[snip]
Maybe you could, but how many others could do this? The law has to be
made for the majority.
Not really. I can think of several "rights" cases that were won at the
expense of the majority, even the expressed will of the majority. And
that would include women voting, owning property, gaining financial and
property settlements in divorce, even free access to abortion.
Since women outlive men, there are probably more women than men, so how
can things like the right to vote etc be at the expense of the majority,
when it's the majority that benefit?
Sloppy reasoning. At best you can make a weak case as the years increase
past about 55-60.
It seems that you throw stuff out as definitive, but when challenged show
that you really haven't thought it through. For example, "law has to be
made for the majority." misses the point of makinglaws to protect minority
rights in teh face of the desires of the majority (anti-slavery laws,
votes for blacks, chinese, etc).
Making laws to benefit the majority doesn't necessarily equate with the
desires of the majority.
Not _all_ laws are for the minority and not all are
for the majority. Laws shouldn't be made on the basis of popularity, btw.
Law should be made on the basis of what is right.
I agree, but people's opinions of what is right vary.
I see that you've snipped, without addressing: 'No law forces people to
have their bodies damaged and their health impaired, but making
abortion illegal would force this on pregnant women.' Can't counter
it?
No. Not deliberate. That said, I think you are mischaracterising the
isssue in order to sensationalise it.
You think that pregnancy and childbirth don't damage women's bodies and
impair their health?
Obviously not. You do. I expect you'll name some extreme, rare, or unusual
circumstances ore events as your "norm" and we'll disagree again.
There has been nothing 'normal' about pregnancy and childbirth ever since we
stood on two feet and developed large brains with the concomitant large
skulls. Can you name one other species that has the same amount of
difficulty and pain in gestating and giving birth? You obviously won't
consider stretch marks to be damaging to women's bodies, although women do.
The metabolism of many women undergoes a permanent change during pregnancy,
leading to a weight gain, which they can never lose and which is damaging to
their bodies. I personally suffered neither of those effects, but there are
a couple of things from which I do suffer, which are not mentioned in the
list below: hiatus hernia - a direct result of my last pregnancy, leading to
Barrett's Oesophagus (a pre-malignant condition); and thyrotoxicosis,
necessitating a sub-total thyroidectomy, triggered by the pre-eclampsia and
nephritis caused by my last pregnancy. Now, here's a list of other effects
of pregnancy:
Pregnancy effects:
The dangers involved with pregnancy include but are not limited to:
Death
Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
Pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged former
child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers, associated with
urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and reduced quality of life)
Scarring from episiotomy or c-section
Increased proclivity for haemorrhoids
Loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Embolism
Temporary adverse effects
Exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks), altered appetite and senses
of taste and smell
Nausea and vomiting
Dizziness and light-headedness
Bloating and attendant discomfort
Haemorrhoids
Cramps
Acne and mild skin disorders
Skin discoloration, particularly face and abdomen
Mild to severe backache and strain
Increased headaches
Difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
Increased urination and incontinence
Breast pain and discharge
Swelling of joints, and attendant discomfort or pain
Difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
Inability to take regular medications
Shortness of breath
Higher blood pressure
Hair loss
Tendency to anemia
Infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease (pregnant
women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant women, and are more
susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
Curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
Hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
Extreme pain on delivery
Continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period, exacerbated if
c-section (major surgery) is required, sometimes taking up to a full year to
fully recover
Occasional complications and side effects
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Severe scarring requiring later surgery, esp. after additional pregnancies
Dropped uterus, esp. with additional pregnancies
Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of
pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of pregnancies)
Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of death)
Gestational diabetes
Placenta previa
Anemia (which can be life-threatening)
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Severe cramping
Embolism (blood clots)
Medical disability requiring full bed rest, frequently ordered during part
of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of either mother
or baby
Torn abdominal muscles
Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
Serious infection and disease, e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis
Hormonal imbalance
Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
Hemorrhage
Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions, e.g. epilepsy is
present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug metabolism
and treatment prospects all the while it increases the number and frequency
of seizures
Severe post-partum depression and psychosis
Some less common (and serious) complications
Peripartum cardiomyopathy
Cardiopulmonary arrest
Magnesium toxicity
Severe hypoxemia/acidosis
Massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
Molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a pregnancy-induced
cancer)
Malignant arrhythmia
Circulatory collapse
Placental abruption
Bear in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort
when resources are scarce
"Natural" abortion such as you are talking about is called
"miscarriage". That is not the same as what we call "abortion".
And I think you know that.
No, I do not mean miscarriage. Animals will eat plants that will
cause them to abort when food is scarce. Animals do know what
these plants do - cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves
vomit, when they have a stomach upset.
Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same.
Well, what do you know - and here was I thinking that women upchucked
foetuses in an abortion!
You need to retake that biology class.
Oh my! I didn't think I needed to type 'sarcasm' in brackets.
Here let me walk you through it:
You claimed that "abortion in natural". You supported that claim by
claiming "animals in the wild abort when resources are scarce". You
then supported that claim by stating, "Animals will eat plants that
will cause them to abort when food is scarce." You supported that
claim by stating, "cats will eat certain grasses to make themselves
vomit."
So you see, saying "Vomiting and "aborting" are not the same." was a
reasonable point to make because all you offered in the end was that
cats eat certain plants to upchuck hairballs. That's hardly a
reasonable correlation to abortion.
It's a correlation to their self-medication.
None of which has anything to do with abortion being "natural" (the
point you are trying to support).
Yes, it does - animals will eat different plants to cause an
abortion.
Which plants and which animals?
The aborting animals which featured in a documentary I saw many years
ago were zebra, but I think all animals do it. I don't know which
plants, but I do know that ergot causes an abortion in women, and ergot
is a fungus which grows on rye grass, so maybe that's one of them.
The statement "animals will eat different plants to cause an abortion."
needs more support than something you recall about zebras some years
ago. :-)
Yes, I guess it does, and I can't find anything on the Web, which isn't
to say it isn't there
But it is to say that it's reasonable to conclude it's a myth. It's
definitely more reasonable than to conclude it's true.
No, it's no myth when animals in the wild definitely abort.
I'm pretty useless at finding what I want on the Web
Well, I'm very good at finding things on the Web and I couldn't find
anything to support your claim either.
all I could find was advice to farmers on how to prevent their livestock
from aborting. I think it's likely that animals will avoid these plants
under normal conditions, but will eat them when there is no other food
around, thus causing an abortion.
Not much of a support for your "abortion is natural. Just look at the
animal world", eh? Though I suspect it won't change you using the claim in
the future. It's the nature of sacred cows and claims that we don't give
them up easily.
It's still natural, whether animals eat these plants deliberately to cause
abortion or through necessity from lack of other food - nature causes these
abortions either way.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
19 Oct 2006 10:50:54 PM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8qmdnXVIi7SmqKXYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
[snip]
Maybe you could, but how many others could do this? The law has to be
made for the majority.
Not really. I can think of several "rights" cases that were won at the
expense of the majority, even the expressed will of the majority. And
that would include women voting, owning property, gaining financial and
property settlements in divorce, even free access to abortion.
Since women outlive men, there are probably more women than men, so how
can things like the right to vote etc be at the expense of the majority,
when it's the majority that benefit?
Sloppy reasoning. At best you can make a weak case as the years increase
past about 55-60.
It seems that you throw stuff out as definitive, but when challenged show
that you really haven't thought it through. For example, "law has to be
made for the majority." misses the point of makinglaws to protect
minority rights in teh face of the desires of the majority (anti-slavery
laws, votes for blacks, chinese, etc).
Making laws to benefit the majority doesn't necessarily equate with the
desires of the majority.
Er, OK. Sloppy wiggle and dodge there though.
You have the population figures. Voting age is 18 (sometimes was 21 some
places). You were wrong. Plain and simple. Wrong. Why do you find it so hard
to accept that?
I see that you've snipped, without addressing: 'No law forces people
to have their bodies damaged and their health impaired, but making
abortion illegal would force this on pregnant women.' Can't counter
it?
No. Not deliberate. That said, I think you are mischaracterising the
isssue in order to sensationalise it.
You think that pregnancy and childbirth don't damage women's bodies and
impair their health?
Obviously not. You do. I expect you'll name some extreme, rare, or
unusual circumstances ore events as your "norm" and we'll disagree again.
There has been nothing 'normal' about pregnancy and childbirth ever since
we stood on two feet and developed large brains with the concomitant large
skulls. Can you name one other species that has the same amount of
difficulty and pain in gestating and giving birth?
I here porcupines and hedgehogs have a heck of time! :-)
You obviously won't consider stretch marks to be damaging to women's
bodies, although women do.
Well, you dont' speak for me. And you don't speak for all women. So the
above is kinda pointless, yes?
<big snip>
You know, it occurs to me that if your picture of pregnancy and childbirth
is so bad for women, evolution must be pooched. I mean, why would it
continue as it is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
22 Oct 2006 11:03:47 PM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:12jghsto850su75@corp.supernews.com...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:8qmdnXVIi7SmqKXYnZ2dnUVZ8tSdnZ2d@bt.com...
[snip]
Maybe you could, but how many others could do this? The law has to
be made for the majority.
Not really. I can think of several "rights" cases that were won at the
expense of the majority, even the expressed will of the majority. And
that would include women voting, owning property, gaining financial
and property settlements in divorce, even free access to abortion.
Since women outlive men, there are probably more women than men, so how
can things like the right to vote etc be at the expense of the
majority, when it's the majority that benefit?
Sloppy reasoning. At best you can make a weak case as the years increase
past about 55-60.
It seems that you throw stuff out as definitive, but when challenged
show that you really haven't thought it through. For example, "law has
to be made for the majority." misses the point of makinglaws to protect
minority rights in teh face of the desires of the majority (anti-slavery
laws, votes for blacks, chinese, etc).
Making laws to benefit the majority doesn't necessarily equate with the
desires of the majority.
Er, OK. Sloppy wiggle and dodge there though.
You have the population figures. Voting age is 18 (sometimes was 21 some
places). You were wrong. Plain and simple. Wrong. Why do you find it so
hard to accept that?
Yes, thanks to Tony, I do have the population figures ... and there are more
women than men, so I don't see how I was wrong. Bear in mind that when the
enfranchisement of women was finally equal to that of men in 1928, the
voting age then was 21 and there would have been more women than men in the
general population due to the losses in WWI.
I see that you've snipped, without addressing: 'No law forces people
to have their bodies damaged and their health impaired, but making
abortion illegal would force this on pregnant women.' Can't counter
it?
No. Not deliberate. That said, I think you are mischaracterising the
isssue in order to sensationalise it.
You think that pregnancy and childbirth don't damage women's bodies and
impair their health?
Obviously not. You do. I expect you'll name some extreme, rare, or
unusual circumstances ore events as your "norm" and we'll disagree
again.
There has been nothing 'normal' about pregnancy and childbirth ever since
we stood on two feet and developed large brains with the concomitant
large skulls. Can you name one other species that has the same amount of
difficulty and pain in gestating and giving birth?
I here porcupines and hedgehogs have a heck of time! :-)
Very droll. Their spines, of course, are soft at birth.
You obviously won't consider stretch marks to be damaging to women's
bodies, although women do.
Well, you dont' speak for me. And you don't speak for all women. So the
above is kinda pointless, yes?
<big snip>
Yes, it was a big snip, wasn't it? Lots and lots of effects of pregnancy
that damage women's bodies and impair their health.
You know, it occurs to me that if your picture of pregnancy and childbirth
is so bad for women, evolution must be pooched. I mean, why would it
continue as it is?
Pregnancy and childbirth is bad, terribly bad, but the desire for babies is
so strong, that women will endure it, since it's the only way to have them,
apart from surrogacy these days.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "PV" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
23 Oct 2006 11:59:58 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:_fmdnVwpw7r_oqHYnZ2dnUVZ8tidnZ2d@bt.com...
<snip>
Pregnancy and childbirth is bad, terribly bad, but the desire for babies
is so strong, that women will endure it, since it's the only way to have
them, apart from surrogacy these days.
This has been your experience but I don't think it can be applied as a
blanket statement for all women. It wasn't until our third child that my
wife decided enough. After the first (premature) and the second (full term)
she was ready to get pregnant right away. In quieter moments she still
considers her pregnancy times as wonderful and would not have passed up the
opportunity. All deliveries were normal vaginal and without major pain
medication although they had to break her water in the last two. She chose
to forgo pain medication other then gravol for nausea.
Yes I am a man so have never gone through the process but was with her all
three times as an eyewitness.
Yes I read your website regarding childbirth.
PV
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
23 Oct 2006 09:22:34 PM |
|
|
"PV" <edruser@NOSPAMtelus.net> wrote in message
news:iy6%g.29979$P7.680@edtnps90...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:_fmdnVwpw7r_oqHYnZ2dnUVZ8tidnZ2d@bt.com...
<snip>
Pregnancy and childbirth is bad, terribly bad, but the desire for babies
is so strong, that women will endure it, since it's the only way to have
them, apart from surrogacy these days.
This has been your experience but I don't think it can be applied as a
blanket statement for all women. It wasn't until our third child that my
wife decided enough. After the first (premature) and the second (full
term) she was ready to get pregnant right away. In quieter moments she
still considers her pregnancy times as wonderful and would not have passed
up the opportunity. All deliveries were normal vaginal and without major
pain medication although they had to break her water in the last two. She
chose to forgo pain medication other then gravol for nausea.
I would never deny the emotional wonder of being pregnant; the trouble is
it's ruined by the constant aches and pains and nausea. I find nothing
wonderful about the delivery, and every woman I've met on the maternity
wards has vowed, 'Never again.' They have mostly gone through it again, of
course, myself included, but they all agreed that it was sheer hell. I'm
glad your wife enjoyed the experience.
Yes I am a man so have never gone through the process but was with her all
three times as an eyewitness.
Yes I read your website regarding childbirth.
PV
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
17 Oct 2006 10:26:58 PM |
|
|
In article <TKqdndY9gJwEAajYRVnytg@bt.com>,
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
: Since women outlive men, there are probably more women than men, so how can
: things like the right to vote etc be at the expense of the majority, when
: it's the majority that benefit?
No need to guess, the stats are just a quick google away.
<https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2018.html>
Canada
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.01 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.75 male(s)/female
total population: 0.98 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
And since voting age seems to be "over 65" in practice, rather than the "over
18" as prescribed by law, it's safe to say that the majority of potential voters
are women. :)
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
19 Oct 2006 07:00:46 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-891022.22265617102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <TKqdndY9gJwEAajYRVnytg@bt.com>,
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
: Since women outlive men, there are probably more women than men, so how
can
: things like the right to vote etc be at the expense of the majority,
when
: it's the majority that benefit?
No need to guess, the stats are just a quick google away.
<https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2018.html>
Canada
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.01 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.75 male(s)/female
total population: 0.98 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
And since voting age seems to be "over 65" in practice, rather than the
"over
18" as prescribed by law, it's safe to say that the majority of potential
voters
are women. :)
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
Thanks, Tony.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
17 Oct 2006 11:59:30 PM |
|
|
In article <nicoya-891022.22265617102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>,
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote:
In article <TKqdndY9gJwEAajYRVnytg@bt.com>,
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote:
: Since women outlive men, there are probably more women than men, so how can
: things like the right to vote etc be at the expense of the majority, when
: it's the majority that benefit?
No need to guess, the stats are just a quick google away.
<https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2018.html>
Canada
at birth: 1.05 male(s)/female
under 15 years: 1.05 male(s)/female
15-64 years: 1.01 male(s)/female
65 years and over: 0.75 male(s)/female
total population: 0.98 male(s)/female (2006 est.)
And since voting age seems to be "over 65" in practice, rather than the "over
18" as prescribed by law, it's safe to say that the majority of potential
voters
are women. :)
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
Furthermore, considering what the Republicans are doing this country,
more women to men makes moving to Canada look pretty good.
Today, the U.S. government can legally torture Canadian citizens, U.S.
citizens, anyone, in an effort to get them to confess. They can be
imprisoned, without trial, and with the Habeas Corpus right guaranteed
under the U.S. Constitution. Somewhere, Adolph Hitler, Mussolini,
Stalin, and others who believed as our current leaders do, are smiling,
while any American worth a damn, with any honor, pride, or self
respect, including myself, hangs their head in shame.
"We Have Met the Enemy, and He Is Us" - Pogo
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
