In article <szky7ri3wex.fsf@eris.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@eris.io.com> wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

The Chief Idiot wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

The Chief Idiot wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:

In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:

[...]

...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks
knew they'd leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some
reason, not too many others thought that committing suicide was
all that great an idea, and the Heaven's Kooks are going to be
mouldering in the earth for a few eons to come.)

That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."

...which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are
close cousins.

Can you find any medical experts to support your position?

What part of "opinion" are you having trouble with this time?

So you don't have anything, that's all I wanted to know and point out.

That's what I'd expect from you - declare victory, but you can't seem to
figure out how to run away after doing so.

Par for the course.

Until next time.

...at which time you'll run the same defective program. At least you're
consistent in that.

Osprey (Pictured at http://chiefinstigator.us.tt/spud.php ) only has
three programs.

(1) Try to divert the issue by asking some stupid question (He calls
this "Challenging You").
(2) Say something stupid, run away, and declare victory,
(3) Simply lie.
Maybe he is working on a new, hybrid, with you?

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

The Chief Idiot wrote:

"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:

The Chief Idiot wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> writes:

In article <szk8xjj1xs0.fsf@fnord.io.com>, The Chief Instigator
<patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote:

[...]

...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew
they'd leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason,
not too many others thought that committing suicide was all that
great an idea, and the Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in
the earth for a few eons to come.)

That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."

...which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are close
cousins.

Can you find any medical experts to support your position?

What part of "opinion" are you having trouble with this time?

So you don't have anything, that's all I wanted to know and point out.

That's what I'd expect from you - declare victory, but you can't seem to
figure out how to run away after doing so.

...about like Marshall Applewhite and his "Heaven's Gate" kooks knew
they'd leave this earth for a superior existence. (For some reason,
not
too many others thought that committing suicide was all that great an
idea, and the Heaven's Kooks are going to be mouldering in the earth
for
a few eons to come.)

That is the funny thing about religion. If you believe in uncommon
fantasies ("God is speaking to me through the neighbors dog), you are
nuts. Common fantasies ("There is a God who watches over me"), you
are "good," and "moral."

...which supports the opinion that religion and schizophrenia are close
cousins.

Can you find any medical experts to support your position?

What part of "opinion" are you having trouble with this time?

So you don't have anything, that's all I wanted to know and point out.

Until next time

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...

In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.

No stupid, I never stated that.

I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.

But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.

FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for certain
crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote or
create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral regardless
of
whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.

Then what are you getting at?

I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and unaccountable
abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law written that
makes
it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third trimester without sound and
justifiable medical/health reasons.

Why is that?

Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.

Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <MkFXg.156732$MQ5.90527@newsfe15.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:

"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:121020061921413870%dbarnes@aol.com...

In article <OGuXg.4403$cz.63172@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:

David W. Barnes wrote:

He's just another "pro-life" idiot who states that the law should be
the way he wants it to be because that is what he wants.

No stupid, I never stated that.

I believe abortion on demand goes against the values and morals
of the majority of Canadians.

But for some reason they can't get it outlawed.

FWIW, most people would allow the death penalty to be imposed for

crimes. Many would even insist on it. But the legistlature won't vote

create a law allowing it. Why? Because they feel it is immoral

whow the majority feel. Sometimes then people's represenatives don't
represent the people. Sometimes that's is a good thing. Sometimes not.

Then what are you getting at?

I'm not sure most in Canada who are against unrestricted and

abortion access want it "outlawed". Most just want a law written that

it illegal to perform an aboriton in the third trimester without sound

justifiable medical/health reasons.

Why is that?

Because it is in line with the values and morals of most Canadians.

Carter

junegill wrote:

"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:T2WWg.3626$cz.52041@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...

junegill wrote:

Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion?

I don't consider it, I know it.

What evidence do you have to back up that assertion?

That is the same

as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over their

bodies. How can you justify that?

I don't have to justify that because it is not true. It is not the

Women do have sovereignty over their own bodies. They can choose to
copulate or not. When they choose to copulate and conceive they, and

father, now have responsibility for another life. It is no longer just
the woman's body.

Nobody can choose to conceive. I've told you before: everything to do

conception, pregnancy and the onset of labour is initiated firstly by

ovum, and then by the zygote, embryo and foetus. All that a woman can do

supply the opportunity. Men can have sex without any painful penalties

women demand the same.

Women didn't choose to be women.

Nor did men choose to be men.

No, but they all would have done if there had been a choice.

Bear

in mind that abortion is natural - animals in the wild abort when
resources are scarce; women do the same, the only difference being

we can discuss it.

I am well aware that abortion is natural in the animal world. It is

natural in the human world.

How can you claim that when so many women abort? Not all women want to

mothers, and I'm sure not all men want to be fathers. Is that

Oh, I see, women now want abortions because they don't want the

of childbirth?

It's one reason - and a damn good one at that.

Please, tell me you are kidding.

I am absolutely not kidding.

Then it is useless for me to waste my time discussing this issue with

Why? Because you can't justify forcing women to go through hellish pain
against their will?

No, because anyone who thinks the pain of childbirth is good
reason to demand an abortion doesn't deserve any attention.

Bye.

Carter

junegill wrote:

Why do you consider that there's no right to an abortion?

I don't consider it, I know it.

That is the same

as saying that women do not have the right to sovereignty over their own
bodies. How can you justify that?

I don't have to justify that because it is not true. It is not
the same. Women do have sovereignty over their own bodies. They
can choose to copulate or not. When they choose to copulate and
conceive they, and the father, now have responsibility for
another life.

It is no longer just the woman's body.

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.

I am well aware that abortion is natural in the animal world. It
is not natural in the human world.

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.

Then it is useless for me to waste my time discussing this issue
with you.

junegill wrote:

"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GI6Wg.2044$cz.32005@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...

junegill wrote:

"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message

I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that reason
is confirmed by competent medical authority.

What's so special about you that you should demand 'a valid reason' for a
woman to abort? What does it have to do with you?

I belong to a society which was founded on certain values and morals and I
do not want to see those values and morals eroded in the name of self
appeasement. For the very reason that you had to ask the question I don't
expect you to understand that answer.

When your society was founded, abortion was not illegal, therefore
obviously
it wasn't considered to be immoral.

In Canadian society abortion was always considered immoral
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, 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?

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.

junegill wrote:

"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message

I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that reason

confirmed by competent medical authority.

What's so special about you that you should demand 'a valid reason' for

woman to abort? What does it have to do with you?

I belong to a society which was founded on certain values and
morals and I do not want to see those values and morals eroded in
the name of self appeasement. For the very reason that you had
to ask the question I don't expect you to understand that answer.

Carter

David W. Barnes wrote:

In article <MqOUg.92$cz.1788@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:

Abortion is not a rights issue. If it is anything but a moral
issue it is a responsibility issue. Abortion on demand is
nothing more than an attempt by irresponsible people to escape
responsibility for what they conceive when they copulate.

Therapeutic abortion is a whole different issue.

Contrary to the position of so many "pro-life" out here, I have never
stated whether I "support abortion."

Do you or don't you?

I do, however, support the choice

being left in the hands of the woman. Hopefully they act wisely, but
either way, it is their choice.

I agree, but only when there is a valid reason to abort and that
reason is confirmed by competent medical authority.