| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"words of truth" |
| Date: |
25 Jan 2006 04:43:27 PM |
| Object: |
Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/features/prolife/frank_06.asp
The Ripple Effect of Abortion
by Fr. Frank Pavone
Abortion harms our entire culture in ways we have not even begun to
imagine. We may at times be tempted to think that we are not
individually affected by the fact that others legally abort their
children. But abortion does affect us all, personally and directly,
whether we are aware of it or not.
The pro-life movement has done much to teach the public about the
destructive harm that abortion does to the unborn child. Most people
also have been informed about the negative impact abortion has on
women's health, as a result of the multiple physical and emotional
complications of the procedure. But taking a brief look at the other
circles of destruction brought on by abortion can be an even more
sobering experience.
The Survivors
First of all, what does abortion do to the children who survive?
Psychologists have now discovered "Abortion Survivor Syndrome," a
cluster of symptoms that mimic those of the soldiers who return from
battle, and instead of feeling happy that they survived, feel guilty
and anxious. "Could I have done something to keep my army buddy from
getting killed? Why was it him and not me?"
Dr. Philip Ney, a Canadian expert and child psychiatrist, explains that
children eventually ask, "I was born because mommy wanted me. What if
she stops wanting me?"
The impact of being an abortion survivor should not be ignored as we
try to understand why children shoot other children in schools. We've
taught them to do so when we taught them that their lives were
disposable. Children will not stop killing children until parents stop
killing children.
The prospect that one could have been legally killed by his or her own
parents is also a significant obstacle for our young people to hear the
Gospel message of the Father's unconditional love for them.
From Generation to Generation
Abortion leads to more abortion, as well as to various forms of child
abuse. One of the biggest factors that will determine whether someone
will have an abortion is whether her mother had an abortion. The
reasons have to do with the way abortion affects the maternal bond. It
weakens and distorts it, and a woman who has an abortion faces
obstacles in her relationships with later children she brings to birth.
The act of aborting a child, rather than adjusting to the changes that
childbirth brings, constitutes a failure to mature and a regression in
one's development toward adult responsibility. This failure to mature
is one of the contributing causes of child abuse.
The Helpless Cry
Abortion threatens the survival of the human species itself, because it
introduces a distortion into the human response to the infant's
helpless cry. When a crying baby awakens her parents in the middle of
the night, initial annoyance quickly gives way to tenderness toward the
child in need. The very survival of the species depends on our overall
ability to make that transition. Abortion, by definition, is a
deliberate refusal to hear and respond to the helpless cry.
Dr. Ney writes, "Human response to the helpless cry of their young
will determine if the human species survives. The helpless cry is any
sound or signal that alerts a person that some creature is in distress
and cannot help him/herself . . . Anyone with any humanity in him or
herself must react in one way or another. The helpless cry is an
essential crisis . . . It is an accurate gauge of how human we are as
individuals and how civilized we are collectively. It will determine
whether we become more free, more mature, and more loving, or whether
we become insensitive, dehumanized, and hateful."
Marriage
Abortion destroys marriages and male-female relations generally. The
woman who has aborted a child finds it more difficult to trust the man.
Her relationship with him led to the unspeakable pain of abortion.
Meanwhile, the man finds in abortion an easy way to escape
responsibility for his actions. The fact that the law does not give
fathers a say in whether their own unborn children live or die means
that fathers are less willing to take responsibility for those children
before and after birth, and less willing to bond with them. If they are
not attached to the baby, moreover, they are not as supportive of their
partner.
Government
When our government allowed abortion, it became a different kind of
government than what it was founded to be. There are only two forms of
government. The first acknowledges that God gives us our rights, and
that government exists to secure those rights. In such a framework,
government can't tamper with the right to life, and can never
authorize its destruction.
The second form, however, says that government is the source of those
rights, and therefore has full dominion over life and death. The Pope
comments on this in Evangelium Vitae: "In this way democracy,
contradicting its own principles, effectively moves toward a form of
totalitarianism. The State is no longer the 'common home' where all
can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality,
but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the
right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenseless
members. . . . When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown
of a genuinely human coexistence and the disintegration of the State
itself has already begun. . . . This is the death of true freedom"
(no. 20).
Abortion has wrought havoc on our political system, practically
destroying one of our national parties and hijacking the
constitutionally provided method for filling positions on federal
courts.
Other effects in law have been described as "the abortion
distortion." In various states, for example, pro-abortion forces have
begun to shut down avenues of free speech, such as specialty license
plate programs or tow banner advertising, just to prevent the truth of
abortion from being told.
The Church
The well-being of the Church is also at stake because of the abortion
controversy. The more the "ethic" of abortion is embedded in the
laws and practices of society, the more strained are the Church's
relations with government. The Church, after all, must interact with
government leaders on a wide range of programs that serve the people
and advance the Church's interests. But as was painfully evident in
recent controversies over whether pro-abortion politicians should be
allowed to receive Holy Communion or even appear on Church property,
the constant presence of legal abortion-and public officials who are
willing to keep it legal-will provide a source of continued conflict.
At the same time, positions on abortion are reduced, in public
commentary, to "political" positions. Given the fact that many
attorneys who advise the Church give unnecessarily restrictive legal
advice, the bottom line is that there is a chilling effect on the
freedom of the clergy-and others in ministry-to comment on
abortion. This strains the credibility of the Church, as people try to
figure out why more leadership is not evident from the pulpit on what
the bishops themselves have called the most fundamental civil rights
issue of our day.
The Medical Community
Legal abortion distorts the purpose and slows the progress of medicine.
Doctors are being reduced to their pre-Hippocratic oath days when they
were seen as dispensers of both life and death. The inherent link
between the medical profession and the care of life is being denied and
obscured. Moreover, if defects in a child are handled by aborting the
child, motivation to make medical progress in treating such defects is
deterred.
At the same time, if embryos can be destroyed, they can also be
manipulated, experimented on, sold, or combined with other species.
Bioethical oddities of immense proportions aThe fruit of abortion is
nuclear warre on the horizon.
Security
Ultimately, the economy and security of the nation and the world are
threatened by abortion. Destroying 40 million lives in a generation
can't happen without consequences, starting with the aging of the
population, with fewer younger workers supporting the system.
Moreover, how can we maintain peace between nations if we cannot
maintain peace between a mother and her own child? As Mother Teresa
warned, "If we say that a mother can kill her own child, how can we
tell other people not to kill each other? . . . The fruit of abortion
is nuclear war."
We have only skimmed the surface here and have truly not begun to
appreciate the destructive power of abortion. May we, as individuals
and as a society, face up to the truth about abortion and its many
dimensions before it is too late.
.
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 05:37:09 AM |
|
|
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote>
It's murder - believe it or go to hell.
It is not murder, and there's no such place as hell ... unless you have
some
proof that such a place exists?
It is murder if the law says it is, and sometimes it does.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 10:50:11 AM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote>
It's murder - believe it or go to hell.
It is not murder, and there's no such place as hell ... unless you have
some proof that such a place exists?
It is murder if the law says it is, and sometimes it does.
No society that I am aware of has ever defined abortion as murder, nor have
they called for the same penalties. In fact, a lot of anti-choicers don't
even want to charge the *woman* with a crime.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 02:42:31 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote>
It's murder - believe it or go to hell.
It is not murder, and there's no such place as hell ... unless you have
some proof that such a place exists?
It is murder if the law says it is, and sometimes it does.
No society that I am aware of has ever defined abortion as murder, nor
have
they called for the same penalties. In fact, a lot of anti-choicers don't
even want to charge the *woman* with a crime.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/parentingfamily/a/aafetalhomicide.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32164
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,360007002,00.html
http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2001/000023.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 02:51:51 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"junegill" <junegill@btinternet.com> wrote>
It's murder - believe it or go to hell.
It is not murder, and there's no such place as hell ... unless you
have
some proof that such a place exists?
It is murder if the law says it is, and sometimes it does.
No society that I am aware of has ever defined abortion as murder, nor
have they called for the same penalties. In fact, a lot of
anti-choicers
don't even want to charge the *woman* with a crime.
http://womensissues.about.com/cs/parentingfamily/a/aafetalhomicide.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32164
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,360007002,00.html
http://www.equityfeminism.com/archives/years/2001/000023.html
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever defined
abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that statement. What is
your point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 03:06:47 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined
abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that statement. What
is
your point?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 03:22:01 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:HXvCf.233002$tl.214288@pd7tw3no...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
<piggbacking>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
Looks like Dutch is having trouble staying on-topic.
Nowhere is this submission is abortion defined as 'murder'.
In fact, this nearly two-year-old press release relates only to legislation
(UVoVA) resulting from the media frenzy whipped up via the Lacy Peterson
'tawdry news du jour' of the time:
* "Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the injury or
death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman."
* "The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who are
harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers."
Please point out where you find any reference to abortion.
TIA.
LC~ Doesn't have the X-Ray vision (or delusions) to find it there.
"If you got the grits, serve 'em!" - Stanley Crouch
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 10:09:10 PM |
|
|
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:HXvCf.233002$tl.214288@pd7tw3no...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
<piggbacking>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
Looks like Dutch is having trouble staying on-topic.
Nowhere is this submission is abortion defined as 'murder'.
In fact, this nearly two-year-old press release relates only to
legislation
(UVoVA) resulting from the media frenzy whipped up via the Lacy Peterson
'tawdry news du jour' of the time:
* "Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the injury or
death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman."
* "The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who are
harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers."
Please point out where you find any reference to abortion.
The point I was making was that there is beginning to be a broad recognition
that the killing of a fetus should be considered murder, in other words the
fetus is a defacto human life. Saying that abortion is an exception to this
is not saying that the fetus is suddenly NOT a human life, it is granting
that the mother, no-one else, has authority over it, and immunity if she
should choose to expel that fetus from her womb causing it to die. The
question then arises, should this immunity be contingent on some conditions,
first term, second term, good cause, or whatever. The difficulty I have is
in understanding the concept of when this "compelling" condition exists, it
seems very subjective.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 10:28:28 PM |
|
|
In article <G7CCf.235075$tl.211742@pd7tw3no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:HXvCf.233002$tl.214288@pd7tw3no...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
<piggbacking>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
Looks like Dutch is having trouble staying on-topic.
Nowhere is this submission is abortion defined as 'murder'.
In fact, this nearly two-year-old press release relates only to
legislation
(UVoVA) resulting from the media frenzy whipped up via the Lacy Peterson
'tawdry news du jour' of the time:
* "Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the injury or
death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman."
* "The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who are
harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers."
Please point out where you find any reference to abortion.
The point I was making was that there is beginning to be a broad recognition
that the killing of a fetus should be considered murder, in other words the
fetus is a defacto human life. Saying that abortion is an exception to this
is not saying that the fetus is suddenly NOT a human life, it is granting
that the mother, no-one else, has authority over it, and immunity if she
should choose to expel that fetus from her womb causing it to die.
Who said "exception?"
The
question then arises, should this immunity be contingent on some conditions,
first term, second term, good cause, or whatever. The difficulty I have is
in understanding the concept of when this "compelling" condition exists, it
seems very subjective.
It usually is. What would you prefer instead?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
28 Jan 2006 03:27:52 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120062028286429%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <G7CCf.235075$tl.211742@pd7tw3no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:HXvCf.233002$tl.214288@pd7tw3no...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
<piggbacking>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
Looks like Dutch is having trouble staying on-topic.
Nowhere is this submission is abortion defined as 'murder'.
In fact, this nearly two-year-old press release relates only to
legislation
(UVoVA) resulting from the media frenzy whipped up via the Lacy
Peterson
'tawdry news du jour' of the time:
* "Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the injury
or
death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman."
* "The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who
are
harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers."
Please point out where you find any reference to abortion.
The point I was making was that there is beginning to be a broad
recognition
that the killing of a fetus should be considered murder, in other words
the
fetus is a defacto human life. Saying that abortion is an exception to
this
is not saying that the fetus is suddenly NOT a human life, it is granting
that the mother, no-one else, has authority over it, and immunity if she
should choose to expel that fetus from her womb causing it to die.
Who said "exception?"
What else would you call it? In this situation the only person that can
authorize the killing of a fetus is the mother in consultation with her
doctor. She is the exception to the rule that calls killing a fetus a crime.
That's exactly how the Canadian Law is written.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42801.html
287. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female
person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of
carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for life.
but then under Exceptions
(b) a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical
practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the
purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage.
The
question then arises, should this immunity be contingent on some
conditions,
first term, second term, good cause, or whatever. The difficulty I have
is
in understanding the concept of when this "compelling" condition exists,
it
seems very subjective.
It usually is. What would you prefer instead?
I don't know, it's confusing. I'd like to talk more about this issue, but
it's late here now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
28 Jan 2006 11:39:15 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120062028286429%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <G7CCf.235075$tl.211742@pd7tw3no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:HXvCf.233002$tl.214288@pd7tw3no...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
<piggbacking>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
Looks like Dutch is having trouble staying on-topic.
Nowhere is this submission is abortion defined as 'murder'.
In fact, this nearly two-year-old press release relates only to
legislation
(UVoVA) resulting from the media frenzy whipped up via the Lacy
Peterson
'tawdry news du jour' of the time:
* "Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the injury
or
death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman."
* "The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who
are
harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers."
Please point out where you find any reference to abortion.
The point I was making was that there is beginning to be a broad
recognition
that the killing of a fetus should be considered murder, in other words
the
fetus is a defacto human life. Saying that abortion is an exception to
this
is not saying that the fetus is suddenly NOT a human life, it is granting
that the mother, no-one else, has authority over it, and immunity if she
should choose to expel that fetus from her womb causing it to die.
Who said "exception?"
What else would you call it? In this situation the only person that can
authorize the killing of a fetus is the mother in consultation with her
doctor.
A woman authorizes the ending of her pregnancy. The notion of her authorizing
killing is just pro-liar sleaze.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
29 Jan 2006 02:00:53 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
A woman authorizes the ending of her pregnancy. The notion of her
authorizing
killing is just pro-liar sleaze.
There no dispute that a fetus is alive before abortion and dead after it -
except in a few cases where it struggles for some hours on the clinic sink.
So yes, the mother is authorising killing.
The dispute is whehter she is authorising something evil or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
29 Jan 2006 02:50:55 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
A woman authorizes the ending of her pregnancy. The notion of her
authorizing
killing is just pro-liar sleaze.
There no dispute that a fetus is alive before abortion and dead after it -
except in a few cases where it struggles for some hours on the clinic sink.
You're a singularly stupid git, aren't you? Over in this country, nine of
every ten abortions are done in the first trimester - meaning the fetus (or
embryo) has no possibility of sensing anything.
So yes, the mother is authorising killing.
The dispute is whehter she is authorising something evil or not.
That's not for you to decide.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 5, Chicago 4 (January 28)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, February 4 vs. Milwaukee, 7:35
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
29 Jan 2006 07:50:09 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> writes:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
A woman authorizes the ending of her pregnancy. The notion of her
authorizing
killing is just pro-liar sleaze.
There no dispute that a fetus is alive before abortion and dead after it -
except in a few cases where it struggles for some hours on the clinic
sink.
You're a singularly stupid git, aren't you?
That kind of ad hominem preface is a sure sign you are about to spin some
crap.
Over in this country, nine of
every ten abortions are done in the first trimester - meaning the fetus
(or
embryo) has no possibility of sensing anything.
As I predicted, strawman, he said nothing about "sensing anything", he said,
correctly, that abortion is the killing of the fetus. Fischey's attempt to
impose the euphemism "ending her pregnancy" is what is sleaze. [let's call
the killing of innocent civilians "collateral damage"] Your attempt to
validate his ***** is very disappointing.
So yes, the mother is authorising killing.
The dispute is whehter she is authorising something evil or not.
That's not for you to decide.
It's certainly not for YOU to decide how HE feels about it. It is for
everyone to decide in their own heart and mind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Savard" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Feb 2006 08:30:11 AM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2006 14:50:55 -0600, The Chief Instigator <patrick@io.com>
wrote, in part:
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> writes:
There no dispute that a fetus is alive before abortion and dead after it -
except in a few cases where it struggles for some hours on the clinic sink.
You're a singularly stupid git, aren't you? Over in this country, nine of
every ten abortions are done in the first trimester - meaning the fetus (or
embryo) has no possibility of sensing anything.
"A few cases" can still be a subset of one out of ten.
John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
29 Jan 2006 07:43:15 PM |
|
|
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
A woman authorizes the ending of her pregnancy. The notion of her
authorizing
killing is just pro-liar sleaze.
There no dispute that a fetus is alive before abortion and dead after it -
except in a few cases where it struggles for some hours on the clinic
sink.
Of course there isn't ant dispute, this is the kind of pro-choice *****
that makes my blood boil.
So yes, the mother is authorising killing.
The dispute is whehter she is authorising something evil or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
29 Jan 2006 09:28:52 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in news:TaeDf.485370$ki.443108@pd7tw2no:
"Malcolm" <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
A woman authorizes the ending of her pregnancy. The notion of her
authorizing
killing is just pro-liar sleaze.
There no dispute that a fetus is alive before abortion and dead after
it - except in a few cases where it struggles for some hours on the
clinic sink.
Of course there isn't ant dispute, this is the kind of pro-choice
***** that makes my blood boil.
Enough to make you lie, cheat and forge articles in these ngs, huh Crutch?
So yes, the mother is authorising killing.
The dispute is whehter she is authorising something evil or not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
29 Jan 2006 10:33:27 PM |
|
|
Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
A woman authorizes the ending of her pregnancy. The notion of her
authorizing
killing is just pro-liar sleaze.
There no dispute that a fetus is alive before abortion and dead after it -
There is no doubt that there are children alive right now who will be
dead tomorrow because you didn't choose to sacrifice your time and
money to help.
except in a few cases where it struggles for some hours on the clinic sink.
More pro-liar sleaze.
So yes, the mother is authorising killing.
Just like you are a killer of children.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
30 Jan 2006 03:16:02 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
There is no doubt that there are children alive right now who will be
dead tomorrow because you didn't choose to sacrifice your time and
money to help.
So yes, the mother is authorising killing.
Just like you are a killer of children.
Some Catholics do take this seriously, and give up all their money to live
lives of obedience and service to the poor.
Maybe this should be for the many rather than for the few - I think you have
a point there.
The fact is that most people are not prepared to live radically different
lives from their peers. The church doesn't try to demand anything too
excessive from the lay Catholic. The exception is the ban on contraception,
which has had an unhappy history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
30 Jan 2006 04:36:42 PM |
|
|
Malcolm <regniztar@btinternet.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
There is no doubt that there are children alive right now who will be
dead tomorrow because you didn't choose to sacrifice your time and
money to help.
So yes, the mother is authorising killing.
Just like you are a killer of children.
Some Catholics do take this seriously, and give up all their money to live
lives of obedience and service to the poor.
Damn few.
Maybe this should be for the many rather than for the few - I think you have
a point there.
All Catholics, at any rate, and certainly all of the pro-lie
anti-abortion types who really only want to punish sex.
The fact is that most people are not prepared to live radically different
lives from their peers. The church doesn't try to demand anything too
excessive from the lay Catholic. The exception is the ban on contraception,
which has had an unhappy history.
And which is not based on the Bible.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
28 Jan 2006 10:05:56 AM |
|
|
In article <sOGCf.346010$2k.129990@pd7tw1no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120062028286429%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <G7CCf.235075$tl.211742@pd7tw3no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:HXvCf.233002$tl.214288@pd7tw3no...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
<piggbacking>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
Looks like Dutch is having trouble staying on-topic.
Nowhere is this submission is abortion defined as 'murder'.
In fact, this nearly two-year-old press release relates only to
legislation
(UVoVA) resulting from the media frenzy whipped up via the Lacy
Peterson
'tawdry news du jour' of the time:
* "Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the injury
or
death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman."
* "The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children who
are
harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers."
Please point out where you find any reference to abortion.
The point I was making was that there is beginning to be a broad
recognition
that the killing of a fetus should be considered murder, in other words
the
fetus is a defacto human life. Saying that abortion is an exception to
this
is not saying that the fetus is suddenly NOT a human life, it is granting
that the mother, no-one else, has authority over it, and immunity if she
should choose to expel that fetus from her womb causing it to die.
Who said "exception?"
What else would you call it? In this situation the only person that can
authorize the killing of a fetus is the mother in consultation with her
doctor. She is the exception to the rule that calls killing a fetus a crime.
That's exactly how the Canadian Law is written.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42801.html
287. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female
person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of
carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to
imprisonment for life.
but then under Exceptions
(b) a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical
practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the
purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage.
Well that may be the case in Canada, but in the U.S., a fetus is
neither a person covered by the United States Constitution, nor a human
being.
The
question then arises, should this immunity be contingent on some
conditions,
first term, second term, good cause, or whatever. The difficulty I have
is
in understanding the concept of when this "compelling" condition exists,
it
seems very subjective.
It usually is. What would you prefer instead?
I don't know, it's confusing. I'd like to talk more about this issue, but
it's late here now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
28 Jan 2006 04:01:33 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120060805569353%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <sOGCf.346010$2k.129990@pd7tw1no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120062028286429%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <G7CCf.235075$tl.211742@pd7tw3no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:HXvCf.233002$tl.214288@pd7tw3no...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has
ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
<piggbacking>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
Looks like Dutch is having trouble staying on-topic.
Nowhere is this submission is abortion defined as 'murder'.
In fact, this nearly two-year-old press release relates only to
legislation
(UVoVA) resulting from the media frenzy whipped up via the Lacy
Peterson
'tawdry news du jour' of the time:
* "Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the
injury
or
death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman."
* "The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children
who
are
harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers."
Please point out where you find any reference to abortion.
The point I was making was that there is beginning to be a broad
recognition
that the killing of a fetus should be considered murder, in other
words
the
fetus is a defacto human life. Saying that abortion is an exception to
this
is not saying that the fetus is suddenly NOT a human life, it is
granting
that the mother, no-one else, has authority over it, and immunity if
she
should choose to expel that fetus from her womb causing it to die.
Who said "exception?"
What else would you call it? In this situation the only person that can
authorize the killing of a fetus is the mother in consultation with her
doctor. She is the exception to the rule that calls killing a fetus a
crime.
That's exactly how the Canadian Law is written.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42801.html
287. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a
female
person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of
carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
to
imprisonment for life.
but then under Exceptions
(b) a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical
practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for
the
purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage.
Well that may be the case in Canada, but in the U.S., a fetus is
neither a person covered by the United States Constitution, nor a human
being.
In Canada abortions are governed pretty much by the doctor's disgression, so
it's hard to argue that those fetuses have the rights of persons.
I am interested in the implications of the ruling that killing a fetus is
murder or homicide when it is done by assault from a third party as is the
case in Canada and in most parts of the US, and ruling that is legal when
demanded by the mother.
The
question then arises, should this immunity be contingent on some
conditions,
first term, second term, good cause, or whatever. The difficulty I
have
is
in understanding the concept of when this "compelling" condition
exists,
it
seems very subjective.
It usually is. What would you prefer instead?
I don't know, it's confusing. I'd like to talk more about this issue, but
it's late here now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D. theendis@hand" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
28 Jan 2006 04:08:52 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:1RRCf.470538$ki.3420@pd7tw2no...
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:280120060805569353%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <sOGCf.346010$2k.129990@pd7tw1no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:270120062028286429%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <G7CCf.235075$tl.211742@pd7tw3no>, Dutch <no@email.com>
wrote:
"LC" <LCisnot@this.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in message
news:HXvCf.233002$tl.214288@pd7tw3no...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has
ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
<piggbacking>
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
Looks like Dutch is having trouble staying on-topic.
Nowhere is this submission is abortion defined as 'murder'.
In fact, this nearly two-year-old press release relates only to
legislation
(UVoVA) resulting from the media frenzy whipped up via the Lacy
Peterson
'tawdry news du jour' of the time:
* "Until today, the federal criminal code had been silent on the
injury
or
death of a child in cases of violence against a pregnant woman."
* "The moral concern of humanity extends to those unborn children
who
are
harmed or killed in crimes against their mothers."
Please point out where you find any reference to abortion.
The point I was making was that there is beginning to be a broad
recognition
that the killing of a fetus should be considered murder, in other
words
the
fetus is a defacto human life. Saying that abortion is an exception
to
this
is not saying that the fetus is suddenly NOT a human life, it is
granting
that the mother, no-one else, has authority over it, and immunity if
she
should choose to expel that fetus from her womb causing it to die.
Who said "exception?"
What else would you call it? In this situation the only person that can
authorize the killing of a fetus is the mother in consultation with her
doctor. She is the exception to the rule that calls killing a fetus a
crime.
That's exactly how the Canadian Law is written.
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/c-46/42801.html
287. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a
female
person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose
of
carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and
liable
to
imprisonment for life.
but then under Exceptions
(b) a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical
practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for
the
purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage.
Well that may be the case in Canada, but in the U.S., a fetus is
neither a person covered by the United States Constitution, nor a human
being.
In Canada abortions are governed pretty much by the doctor's disgression,
so
it's hard to argue that those fetuses have the rights of persons.
I am interested in the implications of the ruling that killing a fetus is
murder or homicide when it is done by assault from a third party as is the
case in Canada and in most parts of the US, and ruling that is legal when
demanded by the mother.
The following link is not really what you're asking about but it is about
someone who refuses to be an accessory.
http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/012406cckkKMOVPharmacist.3747ef5a.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
28 Jan 2006 09:52:21 PM |
|
|
"John D." <theendis@hand> wrote
The following link is not really what you're asking about but it is about
someone who refuses to be an accessory.
http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/012406cckkKMOVPharmacist.3747ef5a.html
Requires a user acoount.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
29 Jan 2006 10:06:11 AM |
|
|
In article <1RRCf.470538$ki.3420@pd7tw2no>, "Dutch" <no@email.com>
wrote:
In Canada abortions are governed pretty much by the doctor's disgression, so
it's hard to argue that those fetuses have the rights of persons.
since the fetal personhood argument has been soundly refuted since
the beginnings of the usenet abortion debate, it doesn't matter how
that particular argument is presented.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 03:16:10 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
This doesn't refute my statement either. Do you *read* the stuff you are
linking to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 03:23:32 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
This doesn't refute my statement either. Do you *read* the stuff you are
linking to?
What exactly is your point? A lot of law indicates that killing a fetus in
latter stages is the equivalent of murder. A late term abortion is killing a
fetus in latter stages.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 03:30:50 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
This doesn't refute my statement either. Do you *read* the stuff you
are
linking to?
What exactly is your point? A lot of law indicates that killing a fetus in
latter stages is the equivalent of murder. A late term abortion is killing
a
fetus in latter stages.
These laws explicitly exclude abortion, Dutch. For example, look at Section
187 of the California Penal Code:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/187.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 03:41:53 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
This doesn't refute my statement either. Do you *read* the stuff you
are
linking to?
What exactly is your point? A lot of law indicates that killing a fetus
in
latter stages is the equivalent of murder. A late term abortion is
killing
a
fetus in latter stages.
These laws explicitly exclude abortion, Dutch. For example, look at
Section
187 of the California Penal Code:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/187.htm
*If* the abortion complies under one of the 3 listed stipulations. If not,
it would be considered murder. And what about other States, other countries,
are their stipulations all as loose as California's?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 10:30:54 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
This doesn't refute my statement either. Do you *read* the stuff you are
linking to?
What exactly is your point? A lot of law indicates that killing a fetus in
latter stages is the equivalent of murder. A late term abortion is killing
a fetus in latter stages.
These laws explicitly exclude abortion, Dutch. For example, look at
Section 187 of the California Penal Code:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/187.htm
*If* the abortion complies under one of the 3 listed stipulations. If not,
it would be considered murder. And what about other States, other countries,
are their stipulations all as loose as California's?
We're talking about *this* country, and evidently their laws aren't too
different from California's, if the number of women being prosecuted for
murder (for electing to abort) is about as it always was: near zero.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 2, Peoria 1 (January 27)
NEXT GAME: Saturday, January 28 vs. Chicago, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Mother Theresa: The Fruit Of Abortion Is Nuclear War |
27 Jan 2006 03:58:41 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote...
As you recall, I stated that no society that I am aware of has
ever
defined abortion as murder, and none of these source refute that
statement. What is your point?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040401-3.html
This doesn't refute my statement either. Do you *read* the stuff you
are linking to?
What exactly is your point? A lot of law indicates that killing a fetus
in latter stages is the equivalent of murder. A late term abortion is
killing a fetus in latter stages.
These laws explicitly exclude abortion, Dutch. For example, look at
Section 187 of the California Penal Code:
http://members.aol.com/abtrbng/187.htm
*If* the abortion complies under one of the 3 listed stipulations. If not,
it would be considered murder. And what about other States, other
countries,
are their stipulations all as loose as California's?
The abortion has to comply with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, it has to be
performed by a licensed physician, and the patient has to give her consent.
That's *loose*? Do us a favor and play your silly word games with the kids
eating dinner at the folding card table.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
