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: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 11:17:55 AM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:ZygWg.5924$dR.1519@newsfe20.lga...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
As I pointed out to another poster, no woman is going to remain pregnant
for 6 months if she doesn't want a child.
How do you know that? How can you make such a sweeping generalisation
about what a woman does or does not want to do with her body? Or are you
guessing?
Well, let's see now: abortion before the 12th week is relatively painless
and extremely safe. As gestation continues the abortion procedure becomes
more painful and more dangerous. Only 1% of abortions are performed after
the 20th week - do you really think that this 1% of pregnant women would
choose to abort when it's painful and risky, when it could have been done
painlessly and safely? The vast majority of these later abortions are
because something's gone seriously wrong, either with the foetus or with the
woman's health. It's possible you could find a dozen or so women who would
carry for 6 months and then decide to abort, but laws should be made for the
benefit of the majority, not for a vanishingly small minority.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 08:00:59 PM |
|
|
In article <ZygWg.5924$dR.1519@newsfe20.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
As I pointed out to another poster, no woman is going to remain pregnant
for 6 months if she doesn't want a child.
How do you know that?
More stupid questions. You are a real joke.
How can you make such a sweeping generalisation about
what a woman does or does not want to do with her body? Or are you guessing?
Nothing but question marks.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Norm Gall" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 03:29:25 AM |
|
|
In article <ZygWg.5924$dR.1519@newsfe20.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote
As I pointed out to another poster, no woman is going to remain pregnant
for 6 months if she doesn't want a child.
How do you know that? How can you make such a sweeping generalisation about
what a woman does or does not want to do with her body? Or are you guessing?
Peter, I am too tired to go and look for the stats, but look to see
when Canadian women tend to have abortions.
You'll find that very, very few take place after the 24th week (IIRC,
fewer than 5%) and those 5% are almost always for perfectly good
medical reasons.
As for that nearly vanishingly small number of women who elect an
abortion for other than what (almost everyone) would agree are
medically indicated reasons after 25 or so weeks, we can talk about
them if you wish.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
08 Oct 2006 09:41:42 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:bObWg.2217$cz.33729@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:IB6Wg.2043$cz.31992@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:qrwUg.76539$MQ5.7825@newsfe15.lga...
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
If you are morally opposed to abortion, then don't have an abortion.
However,
recognize that nothing gives you the right to force that view on
others, nor
should anything.
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed
by those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The
legal status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a
fetus. And it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Because the neurons are not connected to the brain until about the 24th
week. Studies on brain-injured people have shown that when a neuron is
damaged, no sensation is felt in the part of the body 'served' by that
neuron.
So do you support abortion after the 24th week?
If it's medically necessary or if there is a gross abnormality of the
foetus, certainly - don't you?
Of course I do.
Do you support abortion on demand, when the conditions you
mentioned don't exist, after the 24th week?
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 11:30:03 AM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
[snip]
So do you support abortion after the 24th week?
If it's medically necessary or if there is a gross abnormality of the
foetus, certainly - don't you?
Of course I do.
Do you support abortion on demand, when the conditions you mentioned don't
exist, after the 24th week?
I think every case has to be considered on an individual basis, eg a woman
in her mid-to-late fifties might not be aware that she's pregnant until
after the 24th week, thinking that the cessation of menstruation is the
menopause, so the choice must be open to her. Similarly a rape victim, so
severely traumatised, or even in a coma, that she can't make a rational
decision until after the 24th week. Rare cases? Certainly, but then, so
are the cases of healthy women carrying healthy foetuses deciding to abort
in the third trimester, when there are no compelling reasons, such as
desertion or death of her partner. Do I support such a woman's decision to
abort? Yes, it's her body and I have no right to dictate to her what she
may or may not do with it - and nor do you. I would despise her for it, but
that wouldn't cut much ice with her, I'm sure.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
09 Oct 2006 02:32:07 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
[snip]
So do you support abortion after the 24th week?
If it's medically necessary or if there is a gross abnormality of the
foetus, certainly - don't you?
Of course I do.
Do you support abortion on demand, when the conditions you mentioned don't
exist, after the 24th week?
I think every case has to be considered on an individual basis, eg a woman
in her mid-to-late fifties might not be aware that she's pregnant until
after the 24th week, thinking that the cessation of menstruation is the
menopause, so the choice must be open to her. Similarly a rape victim, so
severely traumatised, or even in a coma, that she can't make a rational
decision until after the 24th week. Rare cases? Certainly, but then, so
are the cases of healthy women carrying healthy foetuses deciding to abort
in the third trimester, when there are no compelling reasons, such as
desertion or death of her partner. Do I support such a woman's decision to
abort? Yes, it's her body and I have no right to dictate to her what she
may or may not do with it - and nor do you. I would despise her for it, but
that wouldn't cut much ice with her, I'm sure.
I'll take that as a 'yes'. I guess I don't have to tell you I
disagree.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 03:49:57 PM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:XsxWg.2763$cz.42398@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
[snip]
So do you support abortion after the 24th week?
If it's medically necessary or if there is a gross abnormality of the
foetus, certainly - don't you?
Of course I do.
Do you support abortion on demand, when the conditions you mentioned
don't exist, after the 24th week?
I think every case has to be considered on an individual basis, eg a
woman in her mid-to-late fifties might not be aware that she's pregnant
until after the 24th week, thinking that the cessation of menstruation is
the menopause, so the choice must be open to her. Similarly a rape
victim, so severely traumatised, or even in a coma, that she can't make a
rational decision until after the 24th week. Rare cases? Certainly, but
then, so are the cases of healthy women carrying healthy foetuses
deciding to abort in the third trimester, when there are no compelling
reasons, such as desertion or death of her partner. Do I support such a
woman's decision to abort? Yes, it's her body and I have no right to
dictate to her what she may or may not do with it - and nor do you. I
would despise her for it, but that wouldn't cut much ice with her, I'm
sure.
I'll take that as a 'yes'.
Not much gets past you, eh? I did say, 'Yes.'
I guess I don't have to tell you I
disagree.
That's right, you don't.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
10 Oct 2006 06:17:05 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:XsxWg.2763$cz.42398@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
[snip]
So do you support abortion after the 24th week?
If it's medically necessary or if there is a gross abnormality of the
foetus, certainly - don't you?
Of course I do.
Do you support abortion on demand, when the conditions you mentioned
don't exist, after the 24th week?
I think every case has to be considered on an individual basis, eg a
woman in her mid-to-late fifties might not be aware that she's pregnant
until after the 24th week, thinking that the cessation of menstruation is
the menopause, so the choice must be open to her. Similarly a rape
victim, so severely traumatised, or even in a coma, that she can't make a
rational decision until after the 24th week. Rare cases? Certainly, but
then, so are the cases of healthy women carrying healthy foetuses
deciding to abort in the third trimester, when there are no compelling
reasons, such as desertion or death of her partner. Do I support such a
woman's decision to abort? Yes, it's her body and I have no right to
dictate to her what she may or may not do with it - and nor do you. I
would despise her for it, but that wouldn't cut much ice with her, I'm
sure.
I'll take that as a 'yes'.
Not much gets past you, eh? I did say, 'Yes.'
No you didn't. I asked;
Do you support abortion on demand, when the conditions you mentioned
don't exist, after the 24th week?
You replied;
Do I support such a
woman's decision to abort? Yes, it's her body and I have no
right to
dictate to her what she may or may not do with it - and nor do you.
That wasn't a 'yes' to the question I asked but I'll take it as such.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
11 Oct 2006 10:25:41 PM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:RRVWg.3616$cz.51204@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:XsxWg.2763$cz.42398@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
[snip]
So do you support abortion after the 24th week?
If it's medically necessary or if there is a gross abnormality of the
foetus, certainly - don't you?
Of course I do.
Do you support abortion on demand, when the conditions you mentioned
don't exist, after the 24th week?
I think every case has to be considered on an individual basis, eg a
woman in her mid-to-late fifties might not be aware that she's pregnant
until after the 24th week, thinking that the cessation of menstruation
is the menopause, so the choice must be open to her. Similarly a rape
victim, so severely traumatised, or even in a coma, that she can't make
a rational decision until after the 24th week. Rare cases? Certainly,
but then, so are the cases of healthy women carrying healthy foetuses
deciding to abort in the third trimester, when there are no compelling
reasons, such as desertion or death of her partner. Do I support such
a woman's decision to abort? Yes, it's her body and I have no right to
dictate to her what she may or may not do with it - and nor do you. I
would despise her for it, but that wouldn't cut much ice with her, I'm
sure.
I'll take that as a 'yes'.
Not much gets past you, eh? I did say, 'Yes.'
No you didn't. I asked;
Do you support abortion on demand, when the conditions you mentioned
don't exist, after the 24th week?
You replied;
Do I support such a
woman's decision to abort? Yes, it's her body and I have no right to
dictate to her what she may or may not do with it - and nor do you.
That wasn't a 'yes' to the question I asked but I'll take it as such.
So a 'yes' with a reason added isn't a real 'yes'? You do like semantics,
don't you?
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 10:28:49 PM |
|
|
In article <GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Do you support abortion on demand
You keep bringing up this "abortion on demand" thing. Do you presume that
somehow you are a better judge of when an abortion might be appropriate than the
woman carrying the child, and her doctor? Who are you to second-guess their
situation, motives, and needs?
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 10:53:45 PM |
|
|
In article <nicoya-75D748.22284808102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net>,
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote:
In article <GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Do you support abortion on demand
You keep bringing up this "abortion on demand" thing. Do you presume that
somehow you are a better judge of when an abortion might be appropriate than
the
woman carrying the child, and her doctor? Who are you to second-guess their
situation, motives, and needs?
That is what he does. Be careful - he is thin skinned, too.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 10:56:13 PM |
|
|
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Do you support abortion on demand
You keep bringing up this "abortion on demand" thing. Do you presume that
somehow you are a better judge of when an abortion might be appropriate than the
woman carrying the child, and her doctor? Who are you to second-guess their
situation, motives, and needs?
If a woman is carrying a fetus that is healthy and viable, would you
support her decision to abort at that stage?
Key terms: Health and Viable
Let's say she is in her 7th month of pregnancy, and suddenly she just
ups and decides she doesn't want to have the child and she wants
someone to perform an abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 12:46:37 AM |
|
|
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> writes:
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Do you support abortion on demand
You keep bringing up this "abortion on demand" thing. Do you presume that
somehow you are a better judge of when an abortion might be appropriate
than the woman carrying the child, and her doctor? Who are you to
second-guess their situation, motives, and needs?
If a woman is carrying a fetus that is healthy and viable, would you
support her decision to abort at that stage?
Key terms: Health and Viable
....which you aren't exactly qualified to determine, of course.
Let's say she is in her 7th month of pregnancy, and suddenly she just
ups and decides she doesn't want to have the child and she wants
someone to perform an abortion.
I wouldn't agree with it, but then, it's not my decision to make - it's hers.
Now, all you have to do is produce some credible documentation of late-term
pregnancies being aborted by the woman on a whim. The CDC haven't been able
to find anything but extremely scattered cases, and few of those. (There's a
reasonable explanation for that state of affairs that I can reasonably expect
you to never consider.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 6, Houston 3 (October 7)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, October 12 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 10:09:25 AM |
|
|
In article <1160366173.383752.73710@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
: If a woman is carrying a fetus that is healthy and viable, would you
: support her decision to abort at that stage?
: Key terms: Health and Viable
:
: Let's say she is in her 7th month of pregnancy, and suddenly she just
: ups and decides she doesn't want to have the child and she wants
: someone to perform an abortion.
The short answer is: That situation has never arisen, and probably never will
(at least, not in any meaningful numbers). Therefore it would be silly to
attempt to form a broad policy based on such a case.
The long answer is: I would not encourage such things, but I would also not feel
that I'm in a position to interfere in the situation.
I'm sure that there will be cases that come up where it *appears* to outsiders
that the mother is making a hasty or whimsical choice to abort, but I'm quite
confident that if further scrutiny were applied (never mind that prying into
such matters would be wholly inappropriate) one would inevitably find that the
woman has a good, solid reasoning behind her decision.
These decisions are never made lightly, even by the most bubble-headed
'princess' types who never take anything seriously.
It's really not a meaningful part of the issue, and does not deserve any further
consideration.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 11:27:59 PM |
|
|
In article <1160366173.383752.73710@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <GFiWg.2433$cz.37621@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Do you support abortion on demand
You keep bringing up this "abortion on demand" thing. Do you presume that
somehow you are a better judge of when an abortion might be appropriate
than the
woman carrying the child, and her doctor? Who are you to second-guess their
situation, motives, and needs?
If a woman is carrying a fetus that is healthy and viable, would you
support her decision to abort at that stage?
Key terms: Health and Viable
Let's say she is in her 7th month of pregnancy, and suddenly she just
ups and decides she doesn't want to have the child and she wants
someone to perform an abortion.
How many times must you ask such a stupid question?
Here is a news flash for you, Osprey. Whether you "support" her
decision is irrelevant. Stop acting like you have some authority over
women. You have already demonstrated that you abused your past, and
perhaps current, wife. Stop acting as though you can do the same with
women in general.
(I told him that I support the right of a woman to choose an abortion
up until the moment of birth and it shut him right up.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 12:41:52 AM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:IB6Wg.2043$cz.31992@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:qrwUg.76539$MQ5.7825@newsfe15.lga...
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
If you are morally opposed to abortion, then don't have an
abortion. However, recognize that nothing gives you the right to force
that view on others, nor should anything.
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed by
those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus. And
it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses can't.
How do you know that?
Because the neurons are not connected to the brain until about the 24th
week. Studies on brain-injured people have shown that when a neuron is
damaged, no sensation is felt in the part of the body 'served' by that
neuron.
So do you support abortion after the 24th week?
I'm glad you're up there north of the 49th...since down here, the CDC have yet
to be able to find any credible evidence of women in the third trimester
aborting a pregnancy on a mere whim. (I don't support abortion in any case
where the pregnant woman chooses not to abort. Can you say the same?)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 6, Houston 3 (October 7)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, October 12 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 01:40:32 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkr6xidp0f.fsf@fnord.io.com...
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> writes:
junegill wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:IB6Wg.2043$cz.31992@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:qrwUg.76539$MQ5.7825@newsfe15.lga...
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
If you are morally opposed to abortion, then don't have an
abortion. However, recognize that nothing gives you the right to
force
that view on others, nor should anything.
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument
proposed by
those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The
legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus.
And
it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Because the neurons are not connected to the brain until about the 24th
week. Studies on brain-injured people have shown that when a neuron is
damaged, no sensation is felt in the part of the body 'served' by that
neuron.
So do you support abortion after the 24th week?
I'm glad you're up there north of the 49th...since down here, the CDC have
yet
to be able to find any credible evidence of women in the third trimester
aborting a pregnancy on a mere whim.
That would be the answer to the quesiton, "Has the CDC found any credible
evidence of women in the third trimester aborting a pregnancy on a mere
whim?" I didn't ask that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 10:20:40 AM |
|
|
In article <IB6Wg.2043$cz.31992@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>, Carter
<per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
news:qrwUg.76539$MQ5.7825@newsfe15.lga...
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
If you are morally opposed to abortion, then don't have an abortion.
However,
recognize that nothing gives you the right to force that view on others,
nor
should anything.
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed by
those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus. And
it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses can't.
How do you know that?
Science.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 03:53:28 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article Carter
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed
by
those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The
legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus.
And
it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Science.
OK, David. Show me you science that proves that the thing inside a womb is
unfeeling and unthinking immediately prior to it attaining the legal status
of a person. Seriously, show me the "science' you claim to know and trust.
Or were you hoping to slide by without a challenge?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 01:05:22 AM |
|
|
"Peter D" <please@.sk> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article Carter
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed
by those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus.
And it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Science.
OK, David. Show me you science that proves that the thing inside a womb is
unfeeling and unthinking immediately prior to it attaining the legal status
of a person. Seriously, show me the "science' you claim to know and trust.
Or were you hoping to slide by without a challenge?
Considering that it's been demonstrated that consciousness requires a
functional nervous system - and since the nerves can't transmit signals until
myelinization occurs, which is going to be right around the start of the third
trimester, give or take the odd week, maybe you should try Googling that
little tidbit. You're not likely to be pleased with what you'll find. (Maybe
that's why most states down here place restrictions on late-term abortions,
wot?)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Iowa 6, Houston 3 (October 7)
NEXT GAME: Thursday, October 12 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 01:47:56 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac46dnx9.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article Carter
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument
proposed
by those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery.
And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The
legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus.
And it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Science.
OK, David. Show me you science that proves that the thing inside a womb is
unfeeling and unthinking immediately prior to it attaining the legal
status
of a person. Seriously, show me the "science' you claim to know and trust.
Or were you hoping to slide by without a challenge?
Considering that it's been demonstrated that consciousness requires a
functional nervous system - and since the nerves can't transmit signals
until
myelinization occurs, which is going to be right around the start of the
third
trimester, give or take the odd week, maybe you should try Googling that
little tidbit. You're not likely to be pleased with what you'll find.
(Maybe
that's why most states down here place restrictions on late-term
abortions,
wot?)
Can I safely conclude then that in your opinion, based on all the evidence
you have, that the fetus is capable or feeling or thinking or both at some
point between the 24th week or third trimester and actual live birth?
If you were following the thread closely you'd know that it has been claimed
that feeling and thinking occur at birth and not before. David even claims
that a newborn has no sense of feeling or pain. I think that that is just
bad science, and reveals either an ignorance of the human nervous system and
brain function or a wilful blindness because it would cause a re-evaluation
of the whole issue. I don't care what a person's personal beliefs are
regarding abortion, but I do expect those who claim that "science" supports
their postion have good science to show when asked for it.
And, fwiw, in Canada there is no legal restriction on abortion because of a
failure to rewrite the previous abortion laws. That means that legally an
abortion can be performed up until the moment of live birth. Whether it is
routine or common is immaterial. It isn't illegal or criminal. And that
concerns me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 05:18:27 PM |
|
|
In article <6PwWg.17$IJ3.2@newsfe19.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: Whether it is
: routine or common is immaterial. It isn't illegal or criminal. And that
: concerns me.
I would think the former would be much more worthy of consideration than the
latter.
There's no law specifically saying that I can't somehow magically cause my
entire body to convert from matter to energy in a fraction of an instant,
somehow teleporting half the city into the cold, airless blackness of outer
space. Would you be concerned about the legality of that too, knowing that it's
also neither routine nor common?
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 07:12:12 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-8E0B8B.17182509102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <6PwWg.17$IJ3.2@newsfe19.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: Whether it is
: routine or common is immaterial. It isn't illegal or criminal. And that
: concerns me.
I would think the former would be much more worthy of consideration than
the
latter.
There's no law specifically saying that I can't somehow magically cause my
entire body to convert from matter to energy in a fraction of an instant,
somehow teleporting half the city into the cold, airless blackness of
outer
space. Would you be concerned about the legality of that too, knowing that
it's
also neither routine nor common?
If you're going to do a drive-by into a thread, Tony, and expect a response
you'll have to (a) include more context so that it remains honest, and (b)
be less of a fuckwit.
HTH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 07:30:01 AM |
|
|
In article <jaEWg.371$Lk7.209@newsfe23.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <> wrote in message
: news:nicoya-8E0B8B.17182509102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
: > In article <6PwWg.17$IJ3.2@newsfe19.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: >
: > : Whether it is
: > : routine or common is immaterial. It isn't illegal or criminal. And that
: > : concerns me.
: >
: > I would think the former would be much more worthy of consideration than the
: > latter.
: >
: > There's no law specifically saying that I can't somehow magically cause my
: > entire body to convert from matter to energy in a fraction of an instant,
: > somehow teleporting half the city into the cold, airless blackness of outer
: > space. Would you be concerned about the legality of that too, knowing that it's
: > also neither routine nor common?
:
: If you're going to do a drive-by into a thread, Tony, and expect a response
: you'll have to (a) include more context so that it remains honest, and (b)
: be less of a fuckwit.
So, pointing out how absurd it is to make a law banning something that basically
never happens, that makes me a "fuckwit"?
I'm sorry if somehow you think *I'm* the one who made you look stupid. ;)
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 07:50:39 PM |
|
|
In article <6PwWg.17$IJ3.2@newsfe19.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac46dnx9.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article Carter
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument
proposed
by those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery.
And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The
legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus.
And it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Science.
OK, David. Show me you science that proves that the thing inside a womb is
unfeeling and unthinking immediately prior to it attaining the legal
status
of a person. Seriously, show me the "science' you claim to know and trust.
Or were you hoping to slide by without a challenge?
Considering that it's been demonstrated that consciousness requires a
functional nervous system - and since the nerves can't transmit signals
until
myelinization occurs, which is going to be right around the start of the
third
trimester, give or take the odd week, maybe you should try Googling that
little tidbit. You're not likely to be pleased with what you'll find.
(Maybe
that's why most states down here place restrictions on late-term
abortions,
wot?)
Can I safely conclude then that in your opinion, based on all the evidence
you have, that the fetus is capable or feeling or thinking or both at some
point between the 24th week or third trimester and actual live birth?
If you were following the thread closely you'd know that it has been claimed
that feeling and thinking occur at birth and not before. David even claims
that a newborn has no sense of feeling or pain.
I claim doctors claim that. I am sure you know better, however.
I think that that is just
bad science, and reveals either an ignorance of the human nervous system and
brain function or a wilful blindness because it would cause a re-evaluation
of the whole issue. I don't care what a person's personal beliefs are
regarding abortion, but I do expect those who claim that "science" supports
their postion have good science to show when asked for it.
And, fwiw, in Canada there is no legal restriction on abortion because of a
failure to rewrite the previous abortion laws. That means that legally an
abortion can be performed up until the moment of live birth. Whether it is
routine or common is immaterial. It isn't illegal or criminal. And that
concerns me.
Because God knows, what bothers you should be criminal for others.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 10:19:19 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:091020061750397070%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <6PwWg.17$IJ3.2@newsfe19.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac46dnx9.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article Carter
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument
proposed
by those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery.
And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The
legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a
fetus.
And it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Science.
OK, David. Show me you science that proves that the thing inside a womb
is
unfeeling and unthinking immediately prior to it attaining the legal
status
of a person. Seriously, show me the "science' you claim to know and
trust.
Or were you hoping to slide by without a challenge?
Considering that it's been demonstrated that consciousness requires a
functional nervous system - and since the nerves can't transmit signals
until
myelinization occurs, which is going to be right around the start of
the
third
trimester, give or take the odd week, maybe you should try Googling
that
little tidbit. You're not likely to be pleased with what you'll find.
(Maybe
that's why most states down here place restrictions on late-term
abortions,
wot?)
Can I safely conclude then that in your opinion, based on all the
evidence
you have, that the fetus is capable or feeling or thinking or both at
some
point between the 24th week or third trimester and actual live birth?
If you were following the thread closely you'd know that it has been
claimed
that feeling and thinking occur at birth and not before. David even
claims
that a newborn has no sense of feeling or pain.
I claim doctors claim that.
Nonsense. You claimed that new borns are circumcised without anathesthetic
(btw, no 'doctor' has claimed that, only you) to support your claim that the
fetus is unthinking and unfeeling up to the moment of birth. Actually, I
suppose you're claiming _after_ the moment of birth as well.
I think that that is just
bad science, and reveals either an ignorance of the human nervous system
and
brain function or a wilful blindness because it would cause a
re-evaluation
of the whole issue. I don't care what a person's personal beliefs are
regarding abortion, but I do expect those who claim that "science"
supports
their postion have good science to show when asked for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 10:38:48 PM |
|
|
In article <JgEWg.376$Lk7.134@newsfe23.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:091020061750397070%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <6PwWg.17$IJ3.2@newsfe19.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@fnord.io.com> wrote in message
news:szkac46dnx9.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Peter D" <please@.sk> writes:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article Carter
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument
proposed
by those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery.
And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The
legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a
fetus.
And it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Science.
OK, David. Show me you science that proves that the thing inside a womb
is
unfeeling and unthinking immediately prior to it attaining the legal
status
of a person. Seriously, show me the "science' you claim to know and
trust.
Or were you hoping to slide by without a challenge?
Considering that it's been demonstrated that consciousness requires a
functional nervous system - and since the nerves can't transmit signals
until
myelinization occurs, which is going to be right around the start of
the
third
trimester, give or take the odd week, maybe you should try Googling
that
little tidbit. You're not likely to be pleased with what you'll find.
(Maybe
that's why most states down here place restrictions on late-term
abortions,
wot?)
Can I safely conclude then that in your opinion, based on all the
evidence
you have, that the fetus is capable or feeling or thinking or both at
some
point between the 24th week or third trimester and actual live birth?
If you were following the thread closely you'd know that it has been
claimed
that feeling and thinking occur at birth and not before. David even
claims
that a newborn has no sense of feeling or pain.
I claim doctors claim that.
Nonsense. You claimed that new borns are circumcised without anathesthetic
(btw, no 'doctor' has claimed that, only you)
Great - another "pro-lifer" who thinks denial is proof.
to support your claim that the
fetus is unthinking and unfeeling up to the moment of birth. Actually, I
suppose you're claiming _after_ the moment of birth as well.
I claim what the doctors I refer to claim. And some say pain begins
after birth. Others say otherwise. You are dishonest.
I think that that is just
bad science, and reveals either an ignorance of the human nervous system
and
brain function or a wilful blindness because it would cause a
re-evaluation
of the whole issue. I don't care what a person's personal beliefs are
regarding abortion, but I do expect those who claim that "science"
supports
their postion have good science to show when asked for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 11:16:01 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:091020062038486965%dbarnes@aol.com...
I claim what the doctors I refer to claim. And some say pain begins
after birth. Others say otherwise. You are dishonest.
OK, David. I'll assume that you aren't being dishonest and it's all a
misunderstanding. Here's what I think you claimed to be true (and thus what
I'm asking you to find proof to support):
#1) The fetus does not feel and/or think immediately prior to birth.
#2) The baby doesn't feel pain after birth.
If you aren't claiming either or both of those statements then we're done.
If you are, please provide proof supporting either or both of these claims.
Not something supporting something else. Just proof supporting the claim you
present it for.
Thanks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
10 Oct 2006 07:58:32 PM |
|
|
In article <9LPWg.45865$nc3.29920@newsfe16.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:091020062038486965%dbarnes@aol.com...
I claim what the doctors I refer to claim. And some say pain begins
after birth. Others say otherwise. You are dishonest.
OK, David. I'll assume that you aren't being dishonest and it's all a
misunderstanding. Here's what I think you claimed to be true (and thus what
I'm asking you to find proof to support):
#1) The fetus does not feel and/or think immediately prior to birth.
I'm claiming many doctors claim a fetus does not feel pain prior to
birth and that the process of birth "kick starts" certain nervous
systems. This kind of makes sense since it would seem rather painful
to have ones head and body crushed through a hole one half its size.
The URL's I offered talked about that. As to "think," I never offered
anything on that.
#2) The baby doesn't feel pain after birth.
That is clearly untrue. The real issue how long after birth does the
nervous system begin to function.
If you aren't claiming either or both of those statements then we're done.
If you are, please provide proof supporting either or both of these claims.
Not something supporting something else. Just proof supporting the claim you
present it for.
I'm claiming that many doctors state as above.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 04:19:39 PM |
|
|
In article <bydWg.9$O45.8@newsfe24.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
In article Carter
junegill wrote:
"Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote in message
Rubbish! This was the exact same "live and let live" argument proposed
by
those who owned slaves speaking to those who opposed slavery. And,
puleeze,don't say "that's different". At one time, it wasn't. The
legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus.
And
it was those "do-gooders" who created change.
Big difference: slaves could think and feel - embryos and foetuses
can't.
How do you know that?
Science.
OK, David. Show me you science that proves that the thing inside a womb is
unfeeling and unthinking immediately prior to it attaining the legal status
of a person. Seriously, show me the "science' you claim to know and trust.
Or were you hoping to slide by without a challenge?
That was a "challenge?" LOL! You are all questions and no substance.
Is questioning all you have? No wonder you are "pro-life."
The reason a newborn infant is circumcised without anesthesia, as an
example, is because doctors (science) believe they feel no pain. Pain
is dependent upon the presence of higher cortical (brain) regions that
do not develop before birth and is an experience incompatible with the
thinking capacity and emotional development of the fetus. Quite simply,
the assertion of pain experience in the fetus presupposes a
psychological and biological development that is yet to come.
If a newborn did feel pain, childbirth would be exceedingly painful.
The head, for example, is often distorted during birth. The child,
before birth, tries to breath and is unable to do so. All very painful
in the presence of higher cortical regions.
Get an education - you are unimpressive.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
