| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Steenkin Man" |
| Date: |
28 Jun 2004 03:04:18 PM |
| Object: |
Now it's on the BBC site |
Scans uncover secrets of the womb
A new type of ultrasound scan has produced the vivid pictures of a 12
week-old foetus "walking" in the womb.
The new images also show foetuses apparently yawning and rubbing its
eyes.
The scans, pioneered by Professor Stuart Campbell at London's Create
Health Clinic, are much more detailed than conventional ultrasound.
Professor Campbell has previously released images of unborn babies
appearing to smile.
He has compiled a book of the images called Watch Me Grow.
Conventional ultrasound, usually offered to mothers at 12 and 20
weeks, produces 2D images of the developing foetus.
These are very useful for helping doctors to measure and assess the
growth of the foetus, but convey very little information about
behaviour.
Complex behaviour
Professor Campbell has perfected a technique which not only produces
detailed 3D images, but records foetal movement in real time.
He says his work has been able to show for the first time that the
unborn baby engages in complex behaviour from an early stage of its
development.
Professor Campbell told the BBC: "This is a new science for
understanding and mapping out the behaviour of the baby.
"Maybe in the future it will help us understand and diagnose genetic
disease, maybe even conditions like cerebral palsy which puzzles the
medical profession as to why it occurs."
The images have shown:
From 12 weeks, unborn babies can stretch, kick and leap around
the womb - well before the mother can feel movement
From 18 weeks, they can open their eyes although most doctors
thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks
From 26 weeks, they appear to exhibit a whole range of typical
baby behaviour and moods, including scratching, smiling,
crying, hiccoughing, and sucking.
Until recently it was thought that smiling did not start until
six weeks after birth.
An hour long session using the new technology, which is not yet
available on the NHS, costs 275 pounds.
Full story with pictures:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3846525.stm
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
30 Jun 2004 05:06:14 PM |
|
|
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs - you are ignorant of
the true value of life so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure you
won't disapoint me.
Phil
A loss of control for malodorous men such
as yourself. ;-)
--
Flower Power........
One women dies giving birth every 30 minutes in Afghanistan.
What an abortion REALLY looks like.
http://www.angelfire.com/pq/pepsii/nuva.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 12:44:52 AM |
|
|
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kgrqqF2cbk0U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs
$$ And I'm not surprised that YOU hold such selfish beliefs that the women
and her welfare don't count. How much more selfish can you get?
- you are ignorant of
the true value of life
$$ You're ignorant of the true value of life or you wouldn't expect the
women to give up her "life" for an unwanted fetus.
so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure you
won't disapoint me.
$$ So I expect a lot more foolishness and selfishness from you, and I'm
sure you won't disappoint me. :-)
--
Flower Power....
And there is ALSO the option of obtaining a legal and safe
abortion that will immediately get her life BACK on track as though
the unwanted pregnancy had never occured. No harm done, except for
spending some time and money on the reasonable fee charged
(a fraction of giving birth). After aborting, her well-being
and full range of future opportunities will have immediately been
RESTORED to before the unwanted pregnancy. (Insp. by GR).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 05:06:55 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Flower Power" <Imposters@Freedom.com> wrote in message
news:LtidnYBQtMFGOX7dRVn-tA@heartoftn.net...
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kgrqqF2cbk0U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for
herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs
$$ And I'm not surprised that YOU hold such selfish beliefs that the women
and her welfare don't count. How much more selfish can you get?
You have now accused me of something I never asserted - why are you so 'shy'
of dealing with this issue honestly?
- you are ignorant of
the true value of life
$$ You're ignorant of the true value of life or you wouldn't expect the
women to give up her "life" for an unwanted fetus.
I did not advocate suicide or the killing of pregnant women - but then maybe
your confusion arises from your ignorance of what LIFE is.
so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure you
won't disapoint me.
$$ So I expect a lot more foolishness and selfishness from you, and I'm
sure you won't disappoint me. :-)
--
Flower Power....
And there is ALSO the option of obtaining a legal and safe
abortion that will immediately get her life BACK on track as though
the unwanted pregnancy had never occured. No harm done, except for
spending some time and money on the reasonable fee charged
(a fraction of giving birth). After aborting, her well-being
and full range of future opportunities will have immediately been
RESTORED to before the unwanted pregnancy. (Insp. by GR).
You have no idea what the value of life is - life is not what 'happens' to
you it is what SUSTAINS you and those that can dismiss a life so easilly are
truly ignorant of their own natures and have squandered the most precious
gift they have.
Phil
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power DePastor" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 02:57:53 PM |
|
|
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ki622F2mpbrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for
herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs
$$ And I'm not surprised that YOU hold such selfish beliefs that the
women
and her welfare don't count. How much more selfish can you get?
You have now accused me of something I never asserted - why are you so
'shy'
of dealing with this issue honestly?
## What issue? I put the women BEFORE any unwanted zygote/fetus. That is
the ISSUE and more than 50% of Americans agree!
- you are ignorant of
the true value of life
$$ You're ignorant of the true value of life or you wouldn't expect the
women to give up her "life" for an unwanted fetus.
I did not advocate suicide or the killing of pregnant women - but then
maybe
your confusion arises from your ignorance of what LIFE is.
## And I did not advocate the killing of *babies* as all babies have been
BORN - but then maybe
your confusion arises from your ignorance of what LIFE is and what the
women's life means to her - and women's lives mean nothing to you.
so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure you
won't disapoint me.
$$ So I expect a lot more foolishness and selfishness from you, and I'm
sure you won't disappoint me. :-)
Flower Power....
And there is ALSO the option of obtaining a legal and safe
abortion that will immediately get her life BACK on track as though
the unwanted pregnancy had never occured. No harm done, except for
spending some time and money on the reasonable fee charged
(a fraction of giving birth). After aborting, her well-being
and full range of future opportunities will have immediately been
RESTORED to before the unwanted pregnancy. (Insp. by GR).
You have no idea what the value of life is - life is not what 'happens' to
you it is what SUSTAINS you and those that can dismiss a life so easilly
are
truly ignorant of their own natures and have squandered the most precious
gift they have.
## You have no idea what the value of a woman's life is - her life and
future, her reputation and her chance for success is not what 'happens' to
her - it is what SUSTAINS her, feeds her, pays her bills, clothes her and
more. Those that can dismiss a woman's life and future welfare so easily
are truly ignorant, selfish and thoughtless of their own natures and have
squandered the most precious gift we all have - our women and young
teenagers - the mothers of the future! Yes, when THEY are ready to have
children and can afford them, love and want them, they will have them. But
selfish people like YOU would happily destroy them by forcing them to have
unwanted children before they are ready - SHAME ON YOU!
--
Flower Power....
And there is ALSO the option of obtaining a legal and safe
abortion that will immediately get her life BACK on track as though
the unwanted pregnancy had never occured. No harm done, except for
spending some time and money on the reasonable fee charged
(a fraction of giving birth). After aborting, her well-being
and full range of future opportunities will have immediately been
RESTORED to before the unwanted pregnancy. (Insp. by GR).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 05:19:43 PM |
|
|
"Flower Power DePastor" <Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote in message
news:kP-dnfFfbJZY8XndRVn-uw@heartoftn.net...
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ki622F2mpbrU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for
herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs
$$ And I'm not surprised that YOU hold such selfish beliefs that the
women
and her welfare don't count. How much more selfish can you get?
You have now accused me of something I never asserted - why are you so
'shy'
of dealing with this issue honestly?
## What issue? I put the women BEFORE any unwanted zygote/fetus. That
is
the ISSUE and more than 50% of Americans agree!
Clearly that is 'the issue' as far as you are concerned - even healthy
unborn baby's are to be killed for whatever whim or reason the woman
involved decides and if 50% of Americans really agree with this then America
is in even a sorrier state than I had first imagined.
- you are ignorant of
the true value of life
$$ You're ignorant of the true value of life or you wouldn't expect
the
women to give up her "life" for an unwanted fetus.
I did not advocate suicide or the killing of pregnant women - but then
maybe
your confusion arises from your ignorance of what LIFE is.
## And I did not advocate the killing of *babies* as all babies have been
BORN
Strawman - I didn't suggest you advocated the killing of 'babies' - I was
carefull to qualify my statements to avoid such confusion - but in any case
the difference lies more in semantics than it does on the ethical scale.
- but then maybe
your confusion arises from your ignorance of what LIFE is
and what the
women's life means to her - and women's lives mean nothing to you.
Life is the marriage of finite with the infinite - those lucky enough to be
gifted with a human body are doubly blessed (I am using the word without
being restricted to a purely religious sense) for they have the capacity to
realise the reality of the first part of my statement.
When YOU have availed yourself of that capacity - then you have earned the
right to discuss this topic and NOT until then.
Phil
so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure you
won't disapoint me.
$$ So I expect a lot more foolishness and selfishness from you, and
I'm
sure you won't disappoint me. :-)
Flower Power....
And there is ALSO the option of obtaining a legal and safe
abortion that will immediately get her life BACK on track as though
the unwanted pregnancy had never occured. No harm done, except for
spending some time and money on the reasonable fee charged
(a fraction of giving birth). After aborting, her well-being
and full range of future opportunities will have immediately been
RESTORED to before the unwanted pregnancy. (Insp. by GR).
You have no idea what the value of life is - life is not what 'happens'
to
you it is what SUSTAINS you and those that can dismiss a life so easilly
are
truly ignorant of their own natures and have squandered the most
precious
gift they have.
## You have no idea what the value of a woman's life is - her life and
future, her reputation and her chance for success is not what 'happens' to
her - it is what SUSTAINS her, feeds her, pays her bills, clothes her and
more. Those that can dismiss a woman's life and future welfare so easily
are truly ignorant, selfish and thoughtless of their own natures and have
squandered the most precious gift we all have - our women and young
teenagers - the mothers of the future! Yes, when THEY are ready to have
children and can afford them, love and want them, they will have them.
But
selfish people like YOU would happily destroy them by forcing them to have
unwanted children before they are ready - SHAME ON YOU!
--
Flower Power....
And there is ALSO the option of obtaining a legal and safe
abortion that will immediately get her life BACK on track as though
the unwanted pregnancy had never occured. No harm done, except for
spending some time and money on the reasonable fee charged
(a fraction of giving birth). After aborting, her well-being
and full range of future opportunities will have immediately been
RESTORED to before the unwanted pregnancy. (Insp. by GR).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
03 Jul 2004 12:23:07 AM |
|
|
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kjh03F36qs0U1@uni-berlin.de...
"Flower Power DePastor" <Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote in message
## What issue? I put the women BEFORE any unwanted zygote/fetus. That
is
the ISSUE and more than 50% of Americans agree!
====================================
Clearly that is 'the issue' as far as you are concerned - even healthy
unborn baby's are to be killed
$$ All babies are BORN and protected by law. Of course that doesn't stop
some depressed, unhappy mothers from killing them anyway. They then pay the
price by going to prison.
for whatever whim or reason the woman
involved decides and if 50% of Americans really agree with this then
America
is in even a sorrier state than I had first imagined.
$$ That's your opinion. This is a FREE country and that includes women and
their right to choose. If you don't like our laws you can leave anything
you want. :-)
## And I did not advocate the killing of *babies* as all babies have
been
BORN
Strawman - I didn't suggest you advocated the killing of 'babies' - I was
carefull to qualify my statements to avoid such confusion - but in any
case
the difference lies more in semantics than it does on the ethical scale.
$$ Don't expect everyone's ethics to be the same as yours.
- but then maybe
your confusion arises from your ignorance of what LIFE is
and what the
women's life means to her - and women's lives mean nothing to you.
Life is the marriage of finite with the infinite - those lucky enough to
be
gifted with a human body are doubly blessed (I am using the word without
being restricted to a purely religious sense) for they have the capacity
to
realise the reality of the first part of my statement.
When YOU have availed yourself of that capacity - then you have earned the
right to discuss this topic and NOT until then.
$$ What other body would a human have? A cat's body? I'm not interested
in discussing quasi-religious mumbo jumbo with anyone. The women and her
welfare come before an unwanted pregnancy - period!
--
Flower Power.......
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence. - Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "EvilZak" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
05 Jul 2004 09:30:06 AM |
|
|
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<2kq3i2F54d23U1@uni-berlin.de>...
A woman can have her unborn baby KILLED for whatever trivial reason
as long as it is 'her choice' yet the man involved can offer to give that
child a life and support - not a trivial commitment nor a trivial decision -
yet the womans whim comes first no matter how trivial.
SO you think a man's whim gives him ownership rights over a woman's
body?
We treat children
like that - don't you understand.? With children we absolve them from
responsbility for many of their actions as we believe them not 'mature'
enough to understand the consequences of their actions.
THis is rubbish: a mature decision is to terminate an unwanted
pregnancy. That'sd taking responsibility.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
06 Jul 2004 06:29:27 AM |
|
|
"EvilZak" <zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e57ec88.0407050630.19c5459e@posting.google.com...
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<2kq3i2F54d23U1@uni-berlin.de>...
A woman can have her unborn baby KILLED for whatever trivial reason
as long as it is 'her choice' yet the man involved can offer to give
that
child a life and support - not a trivial commitment nor a trivial
decision -
yet the womans whim comes first no matter how trivial.
SO you think a man's whim gives him ownership rights over a woman's
body?
No I don't think that nor did I assert it.
We treat children
like that - don't you understand.? With children we absolve them from
responsbility for many of their actions as we believe them not 'mature'
enough to understand the consequences of their actions.
THis is rubbish: a mature decision is to terminate an unwanted
pregnancy. That'sd taking responsibility.
Nope that's taking a LIFE no matter how you try to dress it up.
Phil
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Steenkin Man" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 03:09:55 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:57:53 -0500, "Flower Pot DePissoir"
<Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote:
You have no idea what the value of a woman's life is - her life and
future, her reputation and her chance for success is not what 'happens' to
her - it is what SUSTAINS her,
So her reputation is worth a baby's life, ***** Pot?
--
num tibi mentireris?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
03 Jul 2004 12:15:47 AM |
|
|
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kj9crF350m1U3@uni-berlin.de...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:57:53 -0500, "Flower Pot DePissoir"
<Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote:
You have no idea what the value of a woman's life is - her life and
future, her reputation and her chance for success is not what 'happens'
to
her - it is what SUSTAINS her,
So her reputation is worth a baby's life, ***** Pot?
================
What baby's life Mr. PissPot?
--
Flower Power.......
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence. - Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "howldog" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 03:28:30 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 21:09:55 +0100, Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net>
wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:57:53 -0500, "Flower Pot DePissoir"
<Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote:
You have no idea what the value of a woman's life is - her life and
future, her reputation and her chance for success is not what 'happens' to
her - it is what SUSTAINS her,
So her reputation is worth a baby's life, ***** Pot?
she'll just reply that it isnt a "baby"... its a "choice"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
02 Jul 2004 12:07:10 AM |
|
|
Steenkin Man <me@privacy.net> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:57:53 -0500, "Flower Pot DePissoir"
<Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote:
You have no idea what the value of a woman's life is - her life and
future, her reputation and her chance for success is not what 'happens' to
her - it is what SUSTAINS her,
So her reputation is worth a baby's life, ***** Pot?
If a baby;s life worth more than YOUR amusements and conveniences?
Obviously not.
Hypcorite control freak.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "howldog" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 03:05:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:57:53 -0500, "Flower Power DePastor"
<Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote:
## What issue? I put the women BEFORE any unwanted zygote/fetus. That is
the ISSUE a
i'm not sure thats the issue. i think thats the
feminist-women-first-in-every-situation way of looking at it.
i think you had it partly right, i think the real issue is, is it a
"zygote/fetus" or is it a "child/person".
it's obviously a lot easier for you to dismiss its life if you dont
label it a person and simply consider it an unthinking group of cells.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
03 Jul 2004 12:13:35 AM |
|
|
"howldog" <nope@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8fr8e0p2hm372ag4j02uc21ivebc22it1o@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:57:53 -0500, "Flower Power DePastor"
<Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote:
## What issue? I put the women BEFORE any unwanted zygote/fetus. That
is
the ISSUE a
i'm not sure thats the issue. i think thats the
feminist-women-first-in-every-situation way of looking at it.
$$ Think what you like. Women come before unwanted zygotes/fetuses.
i think you had it partly right, i think the real issue is, is it a
"zygote/fetus" or is it a "child/person".
$$ It's zygote/fetus. It's a person/child after it's born.
it's obviously a lot easier for you to dismiss its life if you dont
label it a person and simply consider it an unthinking group of cells.
$$ Because it's NOT a person do why consider it as one? Eggs and sperm are
also living human tissue - look how may billion die every day.
Rather then beat the "let's make abort illegal to punish the women" drum -
why not beat the "how can we stop them from aborting if we do make it
illegal again" drum? Even if it's made illegal how will you stop women
from aborting? Keep them under house arrest, and guard them 24/7?
--
Flower Power.......
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence. - Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bobs Boyfriend" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 04:06:42 PM |
|
|
In article <8fr8e0p2hm372ag4j02uc21ivebc22it1o@4ax.com>,
howldog <nope@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 14:57:53 -0500, "Flower Power DePastor"
<Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote:
## What issue? I put the women BEFORE any unwanted zygote/fetus. That is
the ISSUE a
i'm not sure thats the issue. i think thats the
feminist-women-first-in-every-situation way of looking at it.
i think you had it partly right, i think the real issue is, is it a
"zygote/fetus" or is it a "child/person".
The argument remains the same. I can use lethal force to stop the use of
my body, whether you are zygote, fetus, child, adult, male, female,
young, or old. And no, I have no intention of waiting 9 months for you
to stop in any circumstance.
it's obviously a lot easier for you to dismiss its life if you dont
label it a person and simply consider it an unthinking group of cells.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
30 Jun 2004 07:32:39 PM |
|
|
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs - you are ignorant of
the true value of life so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure you
won't disapoint me.
Don't pretend to value life when you obviously just value control.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 04:51:14 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cbvm36$g24$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for
herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs - you are ignorant
of
the true value of life so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure you
won't disapoint me.
Don't pretend to value life when you obviously just value control.
Listen simpleton - one womans 'control' is another unborn babies untimely
death - now what were you saying to ME about control?
Phil
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power DePastor" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 02:47:37 PM |
|
|
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ki54lF2f4cmU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cbvm36$g24$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for
herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs - you are ignorant
of
the true value of life so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure
you
won't disapoint me.
Don't pretend to value life when you obviously just value control.
==============================================
Listen simpleton - one womans 'control' is another unborn babies untimely
death - now what were you saying to ME about control?
Phil
===================
Listen simpleton - one woman's 'control' is NOT another unborn baby's
untimely
death since all babies have been *BORN* and are protected by law. Ask the
Susan Smiths of the world who kill them anyway, even older children, and end
up in prison.
Now what were you saying about control?
--
BTW,.... I'm PRO-CHOICE! :-)
Flower Power...
pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Pro-Choice
~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~{@
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
05 Jul 2004 05:31:15 AM |
|
|
"Flower Power DePastor" <Imposters@thisNG.now> wrote in message
news:R6mdnXnc2oD993ndRVn-ug@heartoftn.net...
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2ki54lF2f4cmU1@uni-berlin.de...
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cbvm36$g24$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for
herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs - you are
ignorant
of
the true value of life so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure
you
won't disapoint me.
Don't pretend to value life when you obviously just value control.
==============================================
Listen simpleton - one womans 'control' is another unborn babies
untimely
death - now what were you saying to ME about control?
Phil
===================
Listen simpleton - one woman's 'control' is NOT another unborn baby's
untimely
death since all babies have been *BORN* and are protected by law.
I am merely asserting the fact that a baby is 'existing without birth' (i.e.
unborn). Semantics aside I believe this is a perfectly logical and valid
assertion to make.
For example in the case of a ceaserian operation there is no 'birth' in the
natural sense - the baby is removed artificially and 'prematurely' from the
womb and if it is found alive it is regarded no less HUMAN than a baby born
naturally.
Ask the
Susan Smiths of the world who kill them anyway, even older children, and
end
up in prison.
Now what were you saying about control?
Killing unborn babies is definitely control of the most extreme kind.
Phil
--
BTW,.... I'm PRO-CHOICE! :-)
Flower Power...
pro-choice (pr-chois)
adj.
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose
whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Pro-Choice
~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~<~~~{@ ~~~<~~~{@
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
01 Jul 2004 10:32:45 PM |
|
|
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cbvm36$g24$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for
herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs - you are ignorant
of
the true value of life so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure you
won't disapoint me.
Don't pretend to value life when you obviously just value control.
Listen simpleton - one womans 'control' is another unborn babies untimely
death - now what were you saying to ME about control?
YOu want nothing more than to control women.
You don't care about human life.
Proof? 10,000+ people die every day of hunger for want of $20/month
worth of food and clean water. You spend your money on toys and
amusements instead.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
02 Jul 2004 06:46:24 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cc2l0s$mta$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cbvm36$g24$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Sister Flower Power" <LiberatedWomen@Freedom.house> wrote in message
news:DKKdnawOM5Zsc3_dRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Steenkin Man" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:2kfr0lF1kuqjU4@uni-berlin.de...
Is she related to Carol Ann, do you think? There's a certain
malodorous resemblance...
========================
Yes, we both believe it's a women's CHOICE to do what's best for
herself
when she finds herself pregnant.
I am not surprised you hold you such selfish beliefs - you are
ignorant
of
the true value of life so I expect lots more foolishness and I'm sure
you
won't disapoint me.
Don't pretend to value life when you obviously just value control.
Listen simpleton - one womans 'control' is another unborn babies untimely
death - now what were you saying to ME about control?
YOu want nothing more than to control women.
Human reproduction needs no 'control' for it to happen - abortion OTH is the
direct exercise of control,
You don't care about human life.
Proof? 10,000+ people die every day of hunger for want of $20/month
worth of food and clean water.
You spend your money on toys and
amusements instead.
Incorrect - but not surprising since you are not privy to my personal
budget.
Also unlike you I am not actually encouraging women to KILL their unborn for
trivial reasons.
Phil
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
03 Jul 2004 12:06:48 AM |
|
|
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kl08kF3jkl3U1@uni-berlin.de...
Also unlike you I am not actually encouraging women to KILL their unborn
for
trivial reasons.
========================
No one encourages them to abort. What we're against are those who coerce
women to have children against their will. Not only do the women suffer but
the children do as well. Children aren't like pups and kittens that you can
bring BACK to the store if you're not happy being a pet owner.
--
Flower Power....
And there is ALSO the option of obtaining a legal and safe
abortion that will immediately get her life BACK on track as though
the unwanted pregnancy had never occured. No harm done, except for
spending some time and money on the reasonable fee charged
(a fraction of giving birth). After aborting, her well-being
and full range of future opportunities will have immediately been
RESTORED to before the unwanted pregnancy. (Insp. by GR).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
03 Jul 2004 11:51:36 AM |
|
|
"Flower Power" <FreeWomen@thisNG.today> wrote in message
news:GvCdnWDpodt2o3vdRVn-gg@heartoftn.net...
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kl08kF3jkl3U1@uni-berlin.de...
Also unlike you I am not actually encouraging women to KILL their unborn
for
trivial reasons.
========================
No one encourages them to abort. What we're against are those who coerce
women to have children against their will.
Women are adult girls and as adults they have a duty to be responsible for
their actions.
Phil
Not only do the women suffer but
the children do as well. Children aren't like pups and kittens that you
can
bring BACK to the store if you're not happy being a pet owner.
--
Flower Power....
And there is ALSO the option of obtaining a legal and safe
abortion that will immediately get her life BACK on track as though
the unwanted pregnancy had never occured. No harm done, except for
spending some time and money on the reasonable fee charged
(a fraction of giving birth). After aborting, her well-being
and full range of future opportunities will have immediately been
RESTORED to before the unwanted pregnancy. (Insp. by GR).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
05 Jul 2004 04:33:10 AM |
|
|
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-B3A645.17320304072004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <2kr96lF5h4fjU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Bob's Boyfriend" <together@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:together-BED5A8.11483804072004@nntp.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
In article <2kp2o3F4ke5nU1@uni-berlin.de>,
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:cc6s1d$pmg$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Flower Power" <FreeWomen@thisNG.today> wrote in message
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Also unlike you I am not actually encouraging women to KILL
their
unborn
for
trivial reasons.
No one encourages them to abort. What we're against are those
who
coerce
women to have children against their will.
Women are adult girls and as adults they have a duty to be
responsible
for
their actions.
And so another control freak makes his pronouncement.
It is all about controlling and punishing women.
Men are expected to accept what they are responsible for and
sometimes
even
what they are not responsible for - you would prefer that we
continue
the
path to treat women as mere children?
And men are also allowed to avoid responsbility for their choices. A
man
who chooses a woman who cannot afford to care for children, then
assumes
that role and then complains when the relationship goes sour is
avoiding
the choices that he made.
Does the CS agency care about his choices for good or ill?
I'm unclear on how you intend this.
I think that as a preponderance of
evidence that CS authorities do take this into account as does the law.
Crying fowl after the fact usually creates an impression.
This came up earlier in terms of men being drugged, raped and having
their sperm stolen. Reporting to a doctor that one has suspicions about
a circumstance the day before, Instances of odd physical symptoms and
unexplained periods of time is one thing. Waiting until a paternity suit
is filed to be making the claim does create some suspicion.
Similarly, a man who has voluntarily been paying child support for 10
years and then decides after learning that his wife has cheated is
attempting to exact revenge on her through his lack of support of a
child that he acted in the role of parent. Again, this only creates
suspicion on the motivation for nonpayment.
Impressive pandering but pandering nonetheless - perhaps you are not aware
that a supposed father cannot even demand a DNA test without consent of the
mother.
Phil
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Flower Power" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
05 Jul 2004 01:17:33 AM |
|
|
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kp2o3F4ke5nU1@uni-berlin.de...
Men are expected to accept what they are responsible for
* And society is expected to be responsible for all the unwanted kids men
refuse to support. Look at the millions of welfare.
and sometimes even
what they are not responsible for
* Like MY taxes supporting unwanted children men abandoned and will not
support?
--
FPower.......
But look what your Jehovah god said in his bible:
Psalm 137:9
"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones." (Infanticide approved by god)
======================================
You still haven't told us how YOU plan to enforce monthly pregnancy
tests on all women and where and how you will confine them for the 9
months.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
05 Jul 2004 06:26:03 AM |
|
|
"Flower Power" <IndependantWomen@This.net> wrote in message
news:rfadnUkxB9web3XdRVn-ig@heartoftn.net...
"Philip Lewis" <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2kp2o3F4ke5nU1@uni-berlin.de...
Men are expected to accept what they are responsible for
* And society is expected to be responsible for all the unwanted kids men
refuse to support. Look at the millions of welfare.
Since men do not even have a say whether or not their child gets to be born
or not it is surprising that you attach ANY responsibility to men for the
choices of women. Of course I am far from happy with the current status
quo - and I certainly do not approve of the 'social engineering' in place
which seeks only to dole out RESPONSIBILITIES to men in procreative matters
but no RIGHTS.
and sometimes even
what they are not responsible for
* Like MY taxes supporting unwanted children men abandoned and will not
support?
Men have no rights wrt children only responsibilities - campaign for change
and you might see one.
Phil
--
FPower.......
But look what your Jehovah god said in his bible:
Psalm 137:9
"Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the
stones." (Infanticide approved by god)
======================================
You still haven't told us how YOU plan to enforce monthly pregnancy
tests on all women and where and how you will confine them for the 9
months.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
05 Jul 2004 12:51:02 PM |
|
|
Flower Power <IndependantWomen@This.net> wrote:
* Like MY taxes supporting unwanted children men abandoned and will not
support?
LOL! Is there something WRONG with forcing innocent people to support
children they didn't want and didn't give birth to?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
07 Jul 2004 05:29:32 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ccc4e6$nnf$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Flower Power <IndependantWomen@This.net> wrote:
* Like MY taxes supporting unwanted children men abandoned and will not
support?
Men have NO SAY whether a child gets to be born or not including the would
be father, as Ray has pointed out before 'men don't get pregnant' - post
conception a woman can CHOOSE whether or not to parent a man cannot -
therefore the person responsible for bringing a child into the world is the
woman - take up your argument with her. (That is not say I agree with the
current status quo because as it happens I don't!)
LOL! Is there something WRONG with forcing innocent people to support
children they didn't want and didn't give birth to?
Is there something wrong with forcing childless couples and single people to
support the education of anothers children through ever increasing taxes, I
suppose one could argue that educating those children would make them more
usefull productive citizens and thus contribute to the future welfare of
current taxpayers (up to a point) , one could also argue that a policy of
abortion on demand depletes the future work pool - there are many other such
arguments and they arise because democracy is not an exact science - to make
it work best for the common good demands endless fine (and sometimes
'gross'!) tuning.
In any case penny pinching 'Flower Power' should console herself with the
fact that women get far more out of what we all pay in taxes than do men
(who contribute much more in the way of taxes in any cases!).
In short trying to argue the case for abortion in financial terms is not
only inappropriate but in the final analysis is most likely to lose you the
argument anyway!
Phil
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
07 Jul 2004 11:40:33 PM |
|
|
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
LOL! Is there something WRONG with forcing innocent people to support
children they didn't want and didn't give birth to?
Is there something wrong with forcing childless couples and single people to
support the education of anothers children through ever increasing taxes,
Atne' you demanding that women provide the use of their bodies and
suffer pain and injury in order to keep fetuses alive?
Pretty hypocritical of you to whine that you're expected to contribute
to the society you live in.
I
suppose one could argue that educating those children would make them more
usefull productive citizens and thus contribute to the future welfare of
current taxpayers (up to a point) ,
One could. And one would be right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Philip Lewis" |
|
| Title: Re: Now it's on the BBC site |
10 Jul 2004 05:49:09 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:ccij81$llm$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Philip Lewis <nottelling@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
LOL! Is there something WRONG with forcing innocent people to support
children they didn't want and didn't give birth to?
Is there something wrong with forcing childless couples and single people
to
support the education of anothers children through ever increasing taxes,
Atne' you demanding that women provide the use of their bodies and
suffer pain and injury in order to keep fetuses alive?
I am demanding no such thing - the women involved 'provided' (outside of
rape) their bodies willingly in activities that caused them to become
pregnant - the consequences of these 'activities' are known in advance by
all but the most ignorant. The fetus's in most cases will be kept alive
quite naturally unless of course the mother meets a life hating piece of
scum like yourself that treats a 'pregnancy' like it was some sort of
'headache' that can be 'soothed' by the taking of a human LIFE!!!
Pretty hypocritical of you to whine that you're expected to contribute
to the society you live in.
Oh ***** Ray - being disingenuous is a 'skill' that you have honed and
practiced for a LONG time on usenet - you are the last person to lecture
anyone else about 'hypocrisy'!!!!
Phil
I
suppose one could argue that educating those children would make them
more
usefull productive citizens and thus contribute to the future welfare of
current taxpayers (up to a point) ,
One could. And one would be right.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
