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: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 07:14:40 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:081020061419392992%dbarnes@aol.com...
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!
Yes. You claimed that "science" was how you knew that the fetus was
unfeeling and unthinking. That's a positive claim. I asked you for proof.
You waffled (no surprise), "generalised (no surprose), demonized (no
surprise), and then made a personal attack (no surprise0. IOW, you're a
typical newsgroup psuedo-intellectual who has no substance.
The reason a newborn infant is circumcised without anesthesia, as an
example, is because doctors (science) believe they feel no pain.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it! This is your "science"? OMG, tell
me you didn't pay money to get that education!
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.
Me get an education? Too funny!
Hey, David. How about finding three (just three) scientific authorities that
support your fabricated theory. Just three.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
08 Oct 2006 07:59:49 PM |
|
|
In article <%ygWg.5928$dR.2977@newsfe20.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:081020061419392992%dbarnes@aol.com...
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!
Yes. You claimed that "science" was how you knew that the fetus was
unfeeling and unthinking. That's a positive claim. I asked you for proof.
You waffled (no surprise), "generalised (no surprose), demonized (no
surprise), and then made a personal attack (no surprise0. IOW, you're a
typical newsgroup psuedo-intellectual who has no substance.
More denial from the idiot. Great.
The reason a newborn infant is circumcised without anesthesia, as an
example, is because doctors (science) believe they feel no pain.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it! This is your "science"? OMG, tell
me you didn't pay money to get that education!
More idiotic denial with nothing to back it up?
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.
Me get an education? Too funny!
No, rather pathetic, actually.
Hey, David. How about finding three (just three) scientific authorities that
support your fabricated theory. Just three.
How about you support your position first. Anyone can just insist
others are wrong with NOTHING behind them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 01:32:40 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Claims that the fetus is unthinking up to and including the moment of birth.
He claims that "science" is why he believes this. His "science" consists of
a claim that no anasthetic is used when circumsing babies because they feel
nothing. He further extrapolates -- using some quasi-scientific
technio-babble -- that thought and feeling come some time after birth,
certainly some time after circumcisoin (usually done within the first 10
days).
Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
Hey, David. How about finding three (just three) scientific authorities
that support your fabricated theory. Just three.
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
How about you support your position first. Anyone can just insist others
are wrong with NOTHING behind them.
TRANSLATION: I made it up!
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 07:50:38 PM |
|
|
In article <OAwWg.13$IJ3.6@newsfe19.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Claims that the fetus is unthinking up to and including the moment of birth.
He claims that "science" is why he believes this. His "science" consists of
a claim that no anasthetic is used when circumsing babies because they feel
nothing. He further extrapolates -- using some quasi-scientific
technio-babble -- that thought and feeling come some time after birth,
certainly some time after circumcisoin (usually done within the first 10
days).
Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
Hey, David. How about finding three (just three) scientific authorities
that support your fabricated theory. Just three.
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
How about you support your position first. Anyone can just insist others
are wrong with NOTHING behind them.
TRANSLATION: I made it up!
How many sources do you need? Five were provided.
So far you are ALL TALK.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 10:15:44 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:091020061750387047%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OAwWg.13$IJ3.6@newsfe19.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Claims that the fetus is unthinking up to and including the moment of
birth.
He claims that "science" is why he believes this. His "science" consists
of
a claim that no anasthetic is used when circumsing babies because they
feel
nothing. He further extrapolates -- using some quasi-scientific
technio-babble -- that thought and feeling come some time after birth,
certainly some time after circumcisoin (usually done within the first 10
days).
Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
Hey, David. How about finding three (just three) scientific
authorities
that support your fabricated theory. Just three.
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
How about you support your position first. Anyone can just insist
others
are wrong with NOTHING behind them.
TRANSLATION: I made it up!
How many sources do you need? Five were provided.
Five were provided that supported something I didn't disagree with and you
didn't claim. I'm sorry if you're too stupid to undersnta dhte obvious --
you need to provide support for what you claimed not something else.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 10:38:47 PM |
|
|
In article <jdEWg.374$Lk7.236@newsfe23.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:091020061750387047%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <OAwWg.13$IJ3.6@newsfe19.lga>, Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
Claims that the fetus is unthinking up to and including the moment of
birth.
He claims that "science" is why he believes this. His "science" consists
of
a claim that no anasthetic is used when circumsing babies because they
feel
nothing. He further extrapolates -- using some quasi-scientific
technio-babble -- that thought and feeling come some time after birth,
certainly some time after circumcisoin (usually done within the first 10
days).
Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
Hey, David. How about finding three (just three) scientific
authorities
that support your fabricated theory. Just three.
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote
How about you support your position first. Anyone can just insist
others
are wrong with NOTHING behind them.
TRANSLATION: I made it up!
How many sources do you need? Five were provided.
Five were provided that supported something I didn't disagree with and you
didn't claim. I'm sorry if you're too stupid to undersnta dhte obvious --
I "undersnta dhte" obvious. It is raw denial that throws me.
you need to provide support for what you claimed not something else.
Mental and medical professionals suggest that a fetus cannot feel pain,
no matter how far developed. Stuart Derbyshire, a psychologist at the
University of Birmingham, UK, is an expert specializing in how the
brain feels pain. He wrote that there is "good evidence that fetuses
cannot experience pain." In World Science, he argues that the complex
medical processes necessary for the experience of pain cannot begin
until the jolt of life outside the womb kick starts them. Thus, a fetus
-- no matter how advanced in development -- cannot feel pain. World
Science comments:
"The brain circuitry for processing pain seems to be complete by 26
weeks' gestation." But true pain requires not only development of the
brain but also development of the mind to accommodate the subjectivity
of pain."
"This mental development occurs only outside the womb, through the
baby¹s actions and interactions with caregivers. The chemical
environment in the uterus encourages sleep and suppresses higher-level
brain activity necessary for pain perception, wrote Derbyshire, who
uses brain scans frequently in his research." - Stuart Derbyshire,
Article, British Medical Journal, 2006-APR-15.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
08 Oct 2006 09:15:51 PM |
|
|
Peter D wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:081020061419392992%dbarnes@aol.com...
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!
Yes. You claimed that "science" was how you knew that the fetus was
unfeeling and unthinking. That's a positive claim. I asked you for proof.
You waffled (no surprise), "generalised (no surprose), demonized (no
surprise), and then made a personal attack (no surprise0. IOW, you're a
typical newsgroup psuedo-intellectual who has no substance.
The reason a newborn infant is circumcised without anesthesia, as an
example, is because doctors (science) believe they feel no pain.
That has absolutely NOTHING to do with it! This is your "science"? OMG, tell
me you didn't pay money to get that education!
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.
Me get an education? Too funny!
Hey, David. How about finding three (just three) scientific authorities that
support your fabricated theory. Just three.
Here's five:
Susan J. Lee, JD; Henry J. Peter Ralston, MD; Eleanor A. Drey, MD, EdM;
John Colin Partridge, MD, MPH; Mark A. Rosen, MD
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947
Conclusions Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited
but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third
trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct
fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data
exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context
of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery
are not directly applicable to abortion procedures.
--
--sexkitten--
Sneechres on marital rape:
1414fd53.0312142051.5e760545@posting.google.com
Marriage is a contract in which everything is shared, including
bodies. What's yours is his and what's his is yours.
By withholding sex from him you violated your marriage vows. You
stole from your husband what was rightfully his.
1126802087.688528.21760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
Making your mind up is called the marriage
certificate. If you want to change it, it's called a divorce.
1414fd53.0311032335.47dd4971@posting.google.com
How would a witnesses' opinion, or a DA's opinion, or
a jurist's opinion, or a judge's opinion of the significance of force
involved be relevant?
The issue is that you think the government and it's
various judicial arms should act as people's parents and guardians,
even when it isn't there and can't possibly mediate what goes on in the
privacy of someone's bedroom without resorting to testimony--"he said,
she said".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
09 Oct 2006 01:35:51 PM |
|
|
"--sexkitten--" <jumpingbeanazNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote
Peter D wrote:
Hey, David. How about finding three (just three) scientific authorities
that support your fabricated theory. Just three.
Here's five:
Susan J. Lee, JD; Henry J. Peter Ralston, MD; Eleanor A. Drey, MD, EdM;
John Colin Partridge, MD, MPH; Mark A. Rosen, MD
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/294/8/947
Conclusions Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but
indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third
trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct
fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques. Similarly, limited or no data
exist on the safety of such techniques for pregnant women in the context
of abortion. Anesthetic techniques currently used during fetal surgery are
not directly applicable to abortion procedures.
<sigh> That doesn't support the two claims I'm asking for proof of:
#1: The fetus is unthinking and unfeeling immediately prior to birth. That
includes the second before birth. I ask because I challenge the notion that
it is only birth that confers on the fetus the ability to think and feel.
#2: A newborn baby feels no pain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 07:05:01 PM |
|
|
In article <qrwUg.76539$MQ5.7825@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <> 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.
So we come to the question, is it a productive use of the government's resources
to attach rights and statuses to the unborn fetuses of the country, and would
doing so not infringe heavily on the rights of the mother?
I personally don't see what society has to gain for demanding that each and
every pregnancy, especially one which is undesired by the mother, be carried to
term regardless of circumstances.
Certainly it has a lot of the "warm fuzzy" of protecting something that can't
protect itself, but I think we need a higher standard than that to enact a law.
: > The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the rights
: > of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully independent
: > being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester).
:
: The courts have ruled that Section 287 of the CCoC was trumped by Seciton 7
: of the Charter (see my other post for specifics). The Courts have also
: sought to define "person", "life" etc. What is needed is for legistlators to
: sit down and write a workable law covering abortion and related matters.
You know, there's an argument that drug users and 2-tier healthcare promoters
have used in situations like this, and I think I'll try it myself just for kicks:
People will seek abortions regardless of their legality, so we might as well
regularize it and make it legal.
I don't think anyone is interested in seeing a resurgence of coathanger
abortions.
: > Being a half-formed wad of cells doesn't quite qualify.
: > That's as far as logic will take you in either
: > direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to sit,
: > regardless of what "morals" might say.
:
: It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a half-formed wad
: of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others that it caused the
: arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a half-formed wad of cells".
: Do you think that this "half-formed wad of cells" suddenly becomes a
: fully-formed formed baby in an instant of birth? I thought you were a
: "scientist" Tony! <lol>
:
: So, tell me Tony, do you think it's OK to abort a fetus anhour before normal
: delivery? If we call the moment when birth would normally occur "B", when is
: your cut-off point? How many hours before "B" do you draw your line?
: <cue/wiggle and dodge>
As I said in a different post, my line is roughly around the start of the third
trimester.
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 |
03 Oct 2006 09:11:36 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-7FFA92.19050103102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <qrwUg.76539$MQ5.7825@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk>
wrote:
: "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.
So we come to the question, is it a productive use of the government's
resources
to attach rights and statuses to the unborn fetuses of the country, and
would
doing so not infringe heavily on the rights of the mother?
I don't think it's relevant how "productive" it is or isn't to use those
resources. Rights aren't decided on whether it's "productive" to use
respurces to fight for them or portect them (it usually isn't). As for
infringing on the rights of a mother, there are many cases where one
person's rights "infringe" on another. Such is life.
: > The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede
the rights
: > of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully
independent
: > being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester).
:
: The courts have ruled that Section 287 of the CCoC was trumped by
Seciton 7
: of the Charter (see my other post for specifics). The Courts have also
: sought to define "person", "life" etc. What is needed is for
legistlators to
: sit down and write a workable law covering abortion and related matters.
You know, there's an argument that drug users and 2-tier healthcare
promoters
have used in situations like this, and I think I'll try it myself just for
kicks:
People will seek abortions regardless of their legality, so we might as
well
regularize it and make it legal.
People will drink and drive or rob banks. So what?
I don't think anyone is interested in seeing a resurgence of coathanger
abortions.
True. I dont'want to see that either. But I also don't want to see the
removal of all rights from the most weak of our society.
: > Being a half-formed wad of cells doesn't quite qualify.
: > That's as far as logic will take you in either
: > direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to
sit,
: > regardless of what "morals" might say.
:
: It's not "logical" to describe the whole of gestation as "a half-formed
wad
: of cells". I'm sure the picture that so offended others that it caused
the
: arrest of the person displaying it wasn't of "a half-formed wad of
cells".
: Do you think that this "half-formed wad of cells" suddenly becomes a
: fully-formed formed baby in an instant of birth? I thought you were a
: "scientist" Tony! <lol>
:
: So, tell me Tony, do you think it's OK to abort a fetus anhour before
normal
: delivery? If we call the moment when birth would normally occur "B",
when is
: your cut-off point? How many hours before "B" do you draw your line?
: <cue/wiggle and dodge>
As I said in a different post, my line is roughly around the start of the
third
trimester.
Well, is it a "half-formed wad of cells" -- speaking scientifically -- at
that point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 07:45:38 PM |
|
|
In article <SWRUg.77030$MQ5.2864@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: > As I said in a different post, my line is roughly around the start of the third
: > trimester.
:
: Well, is it a "half-formed wad of cells" -- speaking scientifically -- at
: that point?
I would say yes. It is not fully formed as a human, as it is not capable of
independent life outside of the womb (or rather extreme life support).
A fully-formed wad of cells, in comparison, would have all its organs in place
such that it could be reasonably expected to survive on its own (barring disease
or injury).
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 08:21:47 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-7707AB.19453704102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <SWRUg.77030$MQ5.2864@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk>
wrote:
: > As I said in a different post, my line is roughly around the start of
the third
: > trimester.
:
: Well, is it a "half-formed wad of cells" -- speaking scientifically --
at
: that point?
I would say yes. It is not fully formed as a human, as it is not capable
of
independent life outside of the womb (or rather extreme life support).
I'm curious when you think it changes from "a half-formed wad of cells" to
"a fully-formed human" -- scientifically, of course. You seem to opine that
it's stil a "half-formed wad of cells" at the start of the third trimester
(unless I'm reading you wrong). Presumably, it is "a fully-formed human' on
the day it is born. Or maybe I should clarify that is what you think or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
05 Oct 2006 03:51:36 PM |
|
|
In article <RL0Vg.5952$ar6.3719@newsfe21.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <> wrote in message
: news:nicoya-7707AB.19453704102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
: > In article <SWRUg.77030$MQ5.2864@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk>
: > wrote:
: >
: > : > As I said in a different post, my line is roughly around the start of the third
: > : > trimester.
: > :
: > : Well, is it a "half-formed wad of cells" -- speaking scientifically -- at
: > : that point?
: >
: > I would say yes. It is not fully formed as a human, as it is not capable of
: > independent life outside of the womb (or rather extreme life support).
:
: I'm curious when you think it changes from "a half-formed wad of cells" to
: "a fully-formed human" -- scientifically, of course. You seem to opine that
: it's stil a "half-formed wad of cells" at the start of the third trimester
: (unless I'm reading you wrong). Presumably, it is "a fully-formed human' on
: the day it is born. Or maybe I should clarify that is what you think or not.
You're reading it wrong. The beginning of the third trimester is roughly where
it transitions from partly-formed to fully-formed.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 09:16:50 PM |
|
|
Peter D <please@.sk> wrote:
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
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.
Of course it's different. Pregnancy and childbirth are dangerous and
cause women serious harm. A woman has the fundamental right to
protect herself.
At one time, it wasn't. The legal
status of a slave was no different than the legal status of a fetus.
That's a lie.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
03 Oct 2006 09:16:33 AM |
|
|
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <edkUg.2037$%6.43998@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: That's not only trite, it is incorrect. Manslaughter and
: infanticide are both close to murder in a legal sense.
Blah blah blah, murder, manslaughter, infanticide. Nothing more than loaded
words intended to provoke an emotional reaction. It may seem sincere to you, but
to others it's trite and tiresome, and does not progress the discussion in any
meaningful way.
I think you missed my point completely.
The whole situation boils down to the fact that anti-abortionists believe that
their particular set of morals is somehow absolute, universal and/or divine, and
that justifies them trying to force their morals onto others. If you believe
that's right, then that's fine, but that's not a free and just country; more
like an arbitrary theocracy.
So what would you call it when pro abortionists force their
beliefs onto others?
Despite what some might think, the law is not an instrument of morality. While
most things it might proscribe happen to be commonly held as immoral, and most
things it allows may happen to be commonly moral, morality itself should never
be the foundation of laws.
Two sentences, the second of which contradicts the first.
Whether you like it or not, the laws of a country are a direct
reflection of the values and morals of the majority of the
population.
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.
If you are a pro abortionist recognize that nothing gives you the
right to force that view on others.
The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the rights
of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully independent
being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester). Being a half-formed wad of
cells doesn't quite qualify. That's as far as logic will take you in either
direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to sit,
regardless of what "morals" might say.
I firmly disagree. The law has to reflect the values and morals
of the majority of society.
Or, to put a more conservative slant on it: the government has no business
regulating such things that are better left to the individual to manage for
themselves.
The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of
the people, particularly the rights of those who cannot defend
their own rights. In the absence of any clear, legal or moral,
irrefutable definition of when a person becomes a person I fear
that is not happening.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Stapleton" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 09:01:56 PM |
|
|
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
news:5huUg.2145$%6.46281@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <edkUg.2037$%6.43998@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: That's not only trite, it is incorrect. Manslaughter and :
infanticide are both close to murder in a legal sense.
Blah blah blah, murder, manslaughter, infanticide. Nothing more than
loaded words intended to provoke an emotional reaction. It may seem
sincere to you, but to others it's trite and tiresome, and does not
progress the discussion in any meaningful way.
I think you missed my point completely.
The whole situation boils down to the fact that anti-abortionists believe
that their particular set of morals is somehow absolute, universal and/or
divine, and that justifies them trying to force their morals onto others.
If you believe that's right, then that's fine, but that's not a free and
just country; more like an arbitrary theocracy.
So what would you call it when pro abortionists force their beliefs onto
others?
Despite what some might think, the law is not an instrument of morality.
While most things it might proscribe happen to be commonly held as
immoral, and most things it allows may happen to be commonly moral,
morality itself should never be the foundation of laws.
Two sentences, the second of which contradicts the first.
Whether you like it or not, the laws of a country are a direct reflection
of the values and morals of the majority of the population.
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.
If you are a pro abortionist recognize that nothing gives you the right to
force that view on others.
and it would follow that if you are anti abortion nothing gives you the
right to force that on others as well. however there they are, the anti
abortion picketers in front of abortion clinics.
Not to mention the excuses that anti abortionists give when they blow up
clinics in the name of their cause
The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the
rights of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully
independent being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester). Being a
half-formed wad of cells doesn't quite qualify. That's as far as logic
will take you in either direction, and therefore that's the appropriate
place for the law to sit, regardless of what "morals" might say.
I firmly disagree. The law has to reflect the values and morals of the
majority of society.
In this country i would say the majority of society says that it is the
womans choice. If the majority thought otherwise things would change.
Or, to put a more conservative slant on it: the government has no
business regulating such things that are better left to the individual to
manage for themselves.
The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of the people,
particularly the rights of those who cannot defend their own rights. In
the absence of any clear, legal or moral, irrefutable definition of when
a person becomes a person I fear that is not happening.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
04 Oct 2006 07:45:01 AM |
|
|
Jeff Stapleton wrote:
"Carter" <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote in message
If you are a pro abortionist recognize that nothing gives you the
right to force that view on others.
and it would follow that if you are anti abortion nothing gives you the
right to force that on others as well.
That's true. There is the right, and I think in the case of
abortion the responsibility, to protest.
however there they are, the anti
abortion picketers in front of abortion clinics.
Yes, that is part of their right and responsibility to protest.
Not to mention the excuses that anti abortionists give when they blow up
clinics in the name of their cause
I certainly don't condone that kind of protest. It,
unfortunately, diminishes the cause of the anti abortionist.
I firmly disagree. The law has to reflect the values and morals of
the majority of society.
In this country i would say the majority of society says that it is the
womans choice. If the majority thought otherwise things would change.
You might say that. The fact is, however, that we do not know
for sure. The people of this country have never been given the
opportunity to formally express their opinion. Why do you think
that is?
Carter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 10:05:50 AM |
|
|
In article <5huUg.2145$%6.46281@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
: > In article <edkUg.2037$%6.43998@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
: > Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: >
: > : That's not only trite, it is incorrect. Manslaughter and
: > : infanticide are both close to murder in a legal sense.
: >
: > Blah blah blah, murder, manslaughter, infanticide. Nothing more than loaded
: > words intended to provoke an emotional reaction. It may seem sincere to you, but
: > to others it's trite and tiresome, and does not progress the discussion in any
: > meaningful way.
:
: I think you missed my point completely.
More like you missed mine.
: > The whole situation boils down to the fact that anti-abortionists believe that
: > their particular set of morals is somehow absolute, universal and/or divine, and
: > that justifies them trying to force their morals onto others. If you believe
: > that's right, then that's fine, but that's not a free and just country; more
: > like an arbitrary theocracy.
:
: So what would you call it when pro abortionists force their
: beliefs onto others?
When pro abortionists start going around forcing other people to have abortions,
I'll condemn that just the same way as I condemn anti-abortionists trying to
force other people to not have abortions. (not saying that hasn't or can't
happen, but it's not the usual pro-abortion position)
: > Despite what some might think, the law is not an instrument of morality. While
: > most things it might proscribe happen to be commonly held as immoral, and most
: > things it allows may happen to be commonly moral, morality itself should never
: > be the foundation of laws.
:
: Two sentences, the second of which contradicts the first.
Your reading comprehension needs some work. I said the law *happens* to be well
aligned with most of most people's morals, but that this moral alignment is not
the foundation that the laws are built on, nor should it be.
: Whether you like it or not, the laws of a country are a direct
: reflection of the values and morals of the majority of the
: population.
They happen to be closely correlated, but there is not and should not be a
causal link.
: > 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.
:
: If you are a pro abortionist recognize that nothing gives you the
: right to force that view on others.
I wouldn't force you to like it, I wouldn't force you to do it. All I would say
is "you have no right to be involved in the personal decisions of others".
However, an anti-abortionist does not follow the same pattern. They *do* attempt
to force you to dislike it, and they *do* attempt to force you to not do it.
: > The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the rights
: > of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully independent
: > being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester). Being a half-formed wad of
: > cells doesn't quite qualify. That's as far as logic will take you in either
: > direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to sit,
: > regardless of what "morals" might say.
:
: I firmly disagree. The law has to reflect the values and morals
: of the majority of society.
And what happens if those morals aren't something you agree with? What happens
when a majority of society, say, agrees that it's immoral to allow women to
vote, or that it's immoral to allow blacks to own property?
That's why we don't base laws in morals.
: > Or, to put a more conservative slant on it: the government has no business
: > regulating such things that are better left to the individual to manage for
: > themselves.
:
: The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of
: the people, particularly the rights of those who cannot defend
: their own rights. In the absence of any clear, legal or moral,
: irrefutable definition of when a person becomes a person I fear
: that is not happening.
Here's a somewhat related question: What happens if science discovers that all
adults have residual totipotent stem cells hiding in, I dunno, their appendix.
Each of those cells would have the potential of naturally growing into a full,
normal, human. Would an appendectomy, removing and killing those cells, then be
murder?
That would be silly, of course. So there would have o be some point *after* that
in development where that collection of cells could be considered an individual,
with some rights to protect.
Remember that the purpose of protecting these rights is to make society function
more smoothly. An unborn child isn't a part of society outside of the actions of
its mother, therefore it can have little to no effect on society until after
it's born.
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 |
03 Oct 2006 11:49:29 AM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
So there would have o be some point *after* that
in development where that collection of cells could be considered an
individual,
with some rights to protect.
At what point -- if any -- in gestation do you consider that collection of
cells to be more than a collection of cells, to be sufficently developed to
obtain certain rights that may be in need of protection?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 06:52:54 PM |
|
|
In article <qwwUg.76540$MQ5.43202@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <> wrote
: > So there would have o be some point *after* that
: > in development where that collection of cells could be considered an
: > individual,
: > with some rights to protect.
:
: At what point -- if any -- in gestation do you consider that collection of
: cells to be more than a collection of cells, to be sufficently developed to
: obtain certain rights that may be in need of protection?
The beginning of the third trimester, when the unborn can be reasonably expected
to survive outside the womb. Before that point, the fetus isn't really
independently viable, and therefore I don't really consider it as being separate
from the mother.
It's a fairly blurred line between that and "born alive", though. There's not an
exact cutoff point set in stone, and I personally prefer to see abortions
performed earlier rather than later for a number of reasons.
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 |
03 Oct 2006 09:07:02 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-2B9131.18525403102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <qwwUg.76540$MQ5.43202@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk>
wrote:
: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote
: > So there would have o be some point *after* that
: > in development where that collection of cells could be considered an
: > individual,
: > with some rights to protect.
:
: At what point -- if any -- in gestation do you consider that collection
of
: cells to be more than a collection of cells, to be sufficently developed
to
: obtain certain rights that may be in need of protection?
The beginning of the third trimester, when the unborn can be reasonably
expected
to survive outside the womb. Before that point, the fetus isn't really
independently viable, and therefore I don't really consider it as being
separate
from the mother.
Thanks for the honest response.
It's a fairly blurred line between that and "born alive", though. There's
not an
exact cutoff point set in stone, and I personally prefer to see abortions
performed earlier rather than later for a number of reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
03 Oct 2006 11:04:45 AM |
|
|
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
In article <5huUg.2145$%6.46281@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
: > In article <edkUg.2037$%6.43998@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
: > Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: >
: > : That's not only trite, it is incorrect. Manslaughter and
: > : infanticide are both close to murder in a legal sense.
: >
: > Blah blah blah, murder, manslaughter, infanticide. Nothing more than loaded
: > words intended to provoke an emotional reaction. It may seem sincere to you, but
: > to others it's trite and tiresome, and does not progress the discussion in any
: > meaningful way.
:
: I think you missed my point completely.
More like you missed mine.
As far as I could tell your point had nothing to do with what I
originally said to Jeff. It was the point I made to him that you
obviously missed.
: > The whole situation boils down to the fact that anti-abortionists believe that
: > their particular set of morals is somehow absolute, universal and/or divine, and
: > that justifies them trying to force their morals onto others. If you believe
: > that's right, then that's fine, but that's not a free and just country; more
: > like an arbitrary theocracy.
:
: So what would you call it when pro abortionists force their
: beliefs onto others?
When pro abortionists start going around forcing other people to have abortions,
I'll condemn that just the same way as I condemn anti-abortionists trying to
force other people to not have abortions. (not saying that hasn't or can't
happen, but it's not the usual pro-abortion position)
Of course I knew that would be your answer. It is the answer of
all pro abortionists. It, of course, ignores the fact that one
does not have to force another to have an abortion in order to
force his morals on another. He only has to insist that
abortion, which the other considers immoral, is his right.
: > Despite what some might think, the law is not an instrument of morality. While
: > most things it might proscribe happen to be commonly held as immoral, and most
: > things it allows may happen to be commonly moral, morality itself should never
: > be the foundation of laws.
:
: Two sentences, the second of which contradicts the first.
Your reading comprehension needs some work.
I don't think so.
I said the law *happens* to be well
aligned with most of most people's morals, but that this moral alignment is not
the foundation that the laws are built on, nor should it be.
Values and morals form most of the foundation of laws, it is not
a coincidence.
: Whether you like it or not, the laws of a country are a direct
: reflection of the values and morals of the majority of the
: population.
They happen to be closely correlated, but there is not and should not be a
causal link.
I firmly disagree. There is, and should be, a casual link.
: > 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.
:
: If you are a pro abortionist recognize that nothing gives you the
: right to force that view on others.
I wouldn't force you to like it, I wouldn't force you to do it. All I would say
is "you have no right to be involved in the personal decisions of others".
You would, however, force me to live in a country where abortion
is practised.
If someone makes a decision to murder you, don't you think I have
a right to be involved in that decision?
However, an anti-abortionist does not follow the same pattern. They *do* attempt
to force you to dislike it, and they *do* attempt to force you to not do it.
Of course.
: > The courts have ruled (iirc) that the rights of the mother supersede the rights
: > of the fetus until it can be reasonably considered to be a fully independent
: > being (roughly the beginning of the third trimester). Being a half-formed wad of
: > cells doesn't quite qualify. That's as far as logic will take you in either
: > direction, and therefore that's the appropriate place for the law to sit,
: > regardless of what "morals" might say.
:
: I firmly disagree. The law has to reflect the values and morals
: of the majority of society.
And what happens if those morals aren't something you agree with?
I have the right and responsibility to do everything I can to
ensure they are not translated into law.
What happens
when a majority of society, say, agrees that it's immoral to allow women to
vote, or that it's immoral to allow blacks to own property?
That would be silly of course. Those are not moral issues.
That's why we don't base laws in morals.
On silliness?
: > Or, to put a more conservative slant on it: the government has no business
: > regulating such things that are better left to the individual to manage for
: > themselves.
:
: The government has the responsibility to protect the rights of
: the people, particularly the rights of those who cannot defend
: their own rights. In the absence of any clear, legal or moral,
: irrefutable definition of when a person becomes a person I fear
: that is not happening.
Here's a somewhat related question: What happens if science discovers that all
adults have residual totipotent stem cells hiding in, I dunno, their appendix.
Each of those cells would have the potential of naturally growing into a full,
normal, human. Would an appendectomy, removing and killing those cells, then be
murder?
I don't know, do you?
That would be silly, of course. So there would have o be some point *after* that
in development where that collection of cells could be considered an individual,
with some rights to protect.
Of course.
Remember that the purpose of protecting these rights is to make society function
more smoothly. An unborn child isn't a part of society outside of the actions of
its mother, therefore it can have little to no effect on society until after
it's born.
An unborn child is most definitely a part of society.
Carter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
03 Oct 2006 09:13:44 PM |
|
|
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler wrote:
I said the law *happens* to be well
aligned with most of most people's morals, but that this moral alignment is not
the foundation that the laws are built on, nor should it be.
Values and morals form most of the foundation of laws, it is not
a coincidence.
In fact laws (all of them) are based upon self-interest. Enlightened
self-interest in many cases, base self-interest too often, but always
self-interest. "Values" and "morals" is really just meaningless
nonsense used to hide the self-interest.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 07:16:50 PM |
|
|
In article <xSvUg.2188$%6.46962@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: > When pro abortionists start going around forcing other people to have abortions,
: > I'll condemn that just the same way as I condemn anti-abortionists trying to
: > force other people to not have abortions. (not saying that hasn't or can't
: > happen, but it's not the usual pro-abortion position)
:
: Of course I knew that would be your answer. It is the answer of
: all pro abortionists. It, of course, ignores the fact that one
: does not have to force another to have an abortion in order to
: force his morals on another. He only has to insist that
: abortion, which the other considers immoral, is his right.
Well, if you're not the mother, immediate family, or unborn fetus, you're not
really involved, are you?
: I said the law *happens* to be well
: > aligned with most of most people's morals, but that this moral alignment is not
: > the foundation that the laws are built on, nor should it be.
:
: Values and morals form most of the foundation of laws, it is not
: a coincidence.
Then we disagree. I would suggest you do some further study on politics to
better understand my position. You obviously have a lot to learn.
: > I wouldn't force you to like it, I wouldn't force you to do it. All I would say
: > is "you have no right to be involved in the personal decisions of others".
:
: You would, however, force me to live in a country where abortion
: is practised.
Have I nailed your feet to the floor?
"Wah wah, you force me to live in a country that allows such heinous moral
transgressions as allowing women to wander the streets without wearing a burka".
Seriously, suck it up. Not everyone shares your morals.
: If someone makes a decision to murder you, don't you think I have
: a right to be involved in that decision?
You do, in some small and very distributed way, rely on me not being murdered.
All the taxes that paid for my education and healthcare would be wasted, my
employer would have to scramble to find a replacement wasting time and money and
disrupting the services I directly provide to the community, an effect which
would ripple through the lives of many other people.
Murder can be seen to be fairly detrimental to society, regardless of your
personal morals regarding it. Therefore it makes sense to make it illegal.
: > And what happens if those morals aren't something you agree with?
:
: I have the right and responsibility to do everything I can to
: ensure they are not translated into law.
So it doesn't really matter if the morals of the majority or the minority are
enacted into law, so long as they're *your* morals. I see.
: What happens
: > when a majority of society, say, agrees that it's immoral to allow women to
: > vote, or that it's immoral to allow blacks to own property?
:
: That would be silly of course. Those are not moral issues.
How aren't they? I know some people who would be quite morally offended that we
treat these people as equals.
: > Here's a somewhat related question: What happens if science discovers that all
: > adults have residual totipotent stem cells hiding in, I dunno, their appendix.
: > Each of those cells would have the potential of naturally growing into a full,
: > normal, human. Would an appendectomy, removing and killing those cells, then be
: > murder?
:
: I don't know, do you?
Yes, I'm pretty confident.
: > That would be silly, of course. So there would have o be some point *after* that
: > in development where that collection of cells could be considered an individual,
: > with some rights to protect.
:
: Of course.
: >
: > Remember that the purpose of protecting these rights is to make society function
: > more smoothly. An unborn child isn't a part of society outside of the actions of
: > its mother, therefore it can have little to no effect on society until after
: > it's born.
:
: An unborn child is most definitely a part of society.
I disagree.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Stapleton" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 09:17:05 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <> wrote in message
news:nicoya-C35A5A.19165003102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <xSvUg.2188$%6.46962@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: > When pro abortionists start going around forcing other people to have
abortions,
: > I'll condemn that just the same way as I condemn anti-abortionists
trying to
: > force other people to not have abortions. (not saying that hasn't or
can't
: > happen, but it's not the usual pro-abortion position)
:
: Of course I knew that would be your answer. It is the answer of
: all pro abortionists. It, of course, ignores the fact that one
: does not have to force another to have an abortion in order to
: force his morals on another. He only has to insist that
: abortion, which the other considers immoral, is his right.
Well, if you're not the mother, immediate family, or unborn fetus, you're
not
really involved, are you?
reminds me of a signature tag i once saw from some poster. here it is.
There is something particularly unnatural about
a person who pretends to have emotional concern over
the contents of a stranger's uterus.
: I said the law *happens* to be well
: > aligned with most of most people's morals, but that this moral
alignment is not
: > the foundation that the laws are built on, nor should it be.
:
: Values and morals form most of the foundation of laws, it is not
: a coincidence.
Then we disagree. I would suggest you do some further study on politics to
better understand my position. You obviously have a lot to learn.
: > I wouldn't force you to like it, I wouldn't force you to do it. All I
would say
: > is "you have no right to be involved in the personal decisions of
others".
:
: You would, however, force me to live in a country where abortion
: is practised.
Have I nailed your feet to the floor?
"Wah wah, you force me to live in a country that allows such heinous moral
transgressions as allowing women to wander the streets without wearing a
burka".
Seriously, suck it up. Not everyone shares your morals.
: If someone makes a decision to murder you, don't you think I have
: a right to be involved in that decision?
You do, in some small and very distributed way, rely on me not being
murdered.
All the taxes that paid for my education and healthcare would be wasted,
my
employer would have to scramble to find a replacement wasting time and
money and
disrupting the services I directly provide to the community, an effect
which
would ripple through the lives of many other people.
Murder can be seen to be fairly detrimental to society, regardless of your
personal morals regarding it. Therefore it makes sense to make it illegal.
: > And what happens if those morals aren't something you agree with?
:
: I have the right and responsibility to do everything I can to
: ensure they are not translated into law.
So it doesn't really matter if the morals of the majority or the minority
are
enacted into law, so long as they're *your* morals. I see.
: What happens
: > when a majority of society, say, agrees that it's immoral to allow
women to
: > vote, or that it's immoral to allow blacks to own property?
:
: That would be silly of course. Those are not moral issues.
How aren't they? I know some people who would be quite morally offended
that we
treat these people as equals.
: > Here's a somewhat related question: What happens if science discovers
that all
: > adults have residual totipotent stem cells hiding in, I dunno, their
appendix.
: > Each of those cells would have the potential of naturally growing into
a full,
: > normal, human. Would an appendectomy, removing and killing those
cells, then be
: > murder?
:
: I don't know, do you?
Yes, I'm pretty confident.
: > That would be silly, of course. So there would have o be some point
*after* that
: > in development where that collection of cells could be considered an
individual,
: > with some rights to protect.
:
: Of course.
: >
: > Remember that the purpose of protecting these rights is to make
society function
: > more smoothly. An unborn child isn't a part of society outside of the
actions of
: > its mother, therefore it can have little to no effect on society until
after
: > it's born.
:
: An unborn child is most definitely a part of society.
I disagree.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 10:47:25 PM |
|
|
In article <BQEUg.87804$5R2.41367@pd7urf3no>,
"Jeff Stapleton" <dilagetto@hotmail.com> wrote:
: reminds me of a signature tag i once saw from some poster. here it is.
:
: There is something particularly unnatural about
: a person who pretends to have emotional concern over
: the contents of a stranger's uterus.
Especially considering the lack of concern over the contents of said stranger's
skull.
Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler :)
--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler - Master of Code-fu
-- -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carter" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing AbortionImage |
04 Oct 2006 07:15:22 AM |
|
|
Jeff Stapleton wrote:
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-C35A5A.19165003102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <xSvUg.2188$%6.46962@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: > When pro abortionists start going around forcing other people to
have abortions,
: > I'll condemn that just the same way as I condemn anti-abortionists
trying to
: > force other people to not have abortions. (not saying that hasn't
or can't
: > happen, but it's not the usual pro-abortion position)
:
: Of course I knew that would be your answer. It is the answer of
: all pro abortionists. It, of course, ignores the fact that one
: does not have to force another to have an abortion in order to
: force his morals on another. He only has to insist that
: abortion, which the other considers immoral, is his right.
Well, if you're not the mother, immediate family, or unborn fetus,
you're not
really involved, are you?
reminds me of a signature tag i once saw from some poster. here it is.
There is something particularly unnatural about
a person who pretends to have emotional concern over
the contents of a stranger's uterus.
What is more unnatural Jeff is the dismissal of that content as
nothing more than a bunch of cells to be discarded at will.
Carter
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter D" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
03 Oct 2006 09:15:38 PM |
|
|
"Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <nicoya@ubb.ca> wrote in message
news:nicoya-C35A5A.19165003102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
In article <xSvUg.2188$%6.46962@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca>,
Carter <per.ardua@ad.astra> wrote:
: > When pro abortionists start going around forcing other people to have
abortions,
: > I'll condemn that just the same way as I condemn anti-abortionists
trying to
: > force other people to not have abortions. (not saying that hasn't or
can't
: > happen, but it's not the usual pro-abortion position)
:
: Of course I knew that would be your answer. It is the answer of
: all pro abortionists. It, of course, ignores the fact that one
: does not have to force another to have an abortion in order to
: force his morals on another. He only has to insist that
: abortion, which the other considers immoral, is his right.
Well, if you're not the mother, immediate family, or unborn fetus, you're
not
really involved, are you?
It doens't matter. If you're not the owner of a slave, that doens't mean you
can't speak out against the wrongness of slavery. You can still object to
rape even if you havne't been raped. And so on.
BTW, when you say, " immediate family" above, what do you mean? If you mean
that the " immediate family" -- especially the father -- has a voice to
object, think again. It's either the woman's SOLE decision or it's not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tony Nicoya Mantler" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Of Seven Arrested Without Warning For Showing Abortion Image |
04 Oct 2006 07:42:08 PM |
|
|
In article <SWRUg.77031$MQ5.63175@newsfe15.lga>, "Peter D" <please@.sk> wrote:
: "Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler" <> wrote in message
: news:nicoya-C35A5A.19165003102006@shawnews.wp.shawcable.net...
: > Well, if you're not the mother, immediate family, or unborn fetus, you're
: > not really involved, are you?
:
: It doens't matter. If you're not the owner of a slave, that doens't mean you
: can't speak out against the wrongness of slavery. You can still object to
: rape even if you havne't been raped. And so on.
I could object to slavery on the grounds that the slaves are not being given an
equal opportunity to be full, contributing members of society. Thus all of
society (including myself) is lessened by the slavery of a few men.
I could object to rape in that if it were legal, it would place an undue burden
on people to ensure for themselves that they do not get raped, rather than more
efficiently handling it in a centralized manner, like via the police.
These situations are subtly different, and neither relies exclusively on
morality to determine the appropriate course of action.
: BTW, when you say, " immediate family" | | | | | | |
