| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Cracklin" |
| Date: |
26 Jul 2005 01:15:13 PM |
| Object: |
Pope and abortion |
Pope Pius IX in 1869 extended punishment of excommunication for the
abortion of an embryo at any age. In 1951, Pius XII restated the
principle, saying: “Every human being, even the child in the mother’s
womb, receives its right to life directly from God, not from its
parents.” Speaking in Kenya in 1985, John Paul II bluntly declared:
“Actions such as contraception and abortion are wrong.”
Many Catholics today, however, maintain that such an attitude is out of
date and must be revised. As a result, Roman Catholics are divided over
the issue.
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 08:10:52 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1122418008.228886.239380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
All of it. With pro-choice, nobody is forced to remain pregnant.
Religious fanatics want to force their beliefs on everyone, especially
those that do not believe as they do.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
Bill's statement was a total truth. A functioning human being does not
reside within the body of another human being.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
And yet, it is. What thing seem to you is usually inaccurate.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.
Why don't you tell that to the pimps who overlord it over them to turn
tricks?
Because the overwhelming majority of women are not prostitutes, and
thus do not have pimps.
Why don't you tell that to all the employers who emlpoy women?
Because they already know that. Unlike you.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
His statement is a statement of fact.
You are defending a lie.
I am defending a fact. If I agreed with you, I would be defending a
lie.
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
However, that does not mean that the legislature has the right to force
women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills.
It does.
No, it does not. That is slavery and torture without a trial or a
conviction of a crime, in opposition of the 14th Amendment.
That is
slavery to the government,
Not in fact.
Yes, in fact. If it is not a fact, then whom is she enslaved to? She
certainly is not a free person, and she has committed and been
convicted of no crime, but she is being forced to put her body and her
future at risk for no discernible reason and against her will. That
sounds like slavery to me.
The government has a duty to represent its people, and it also
has a right to dictate what people can do with their bodies in the interest
of serving the people.
How does stealing from the woman, torturing her, and subjecting her to
unnecessary physical, emotional, and financial hardship, while
destroying her hopes and dreams and forcing her into poverty, while
also forcing everyone else to pay for the pregnancy and welfare of the
women because the government demands her suffering.
And, the government can require performance by persons who commit various
acts in society.
However, that performance comes after the individual has broken a law
or committed an infraction. What law has the woman broken? Having sex
is not a crime, and therefore does not deserve punishment. Also,
people are free to defend themselves from unwanted intrusions on their
bodies by other people and organisms, and are free to take any
necessary steps to defend themselves and end that intrusion.
which is unconstitutional, and punishment
for something that is not a crime, which is also unconstitutional.
*****.
My statement is a statement of fact.
But then, you do not want democracy, you want a totalitarian theocracy
with your belief system in control.
*****.
That describes most of what you say.
You are resisting democratic rule.
That is because it is my right to do so under democratic rule. And I
have read enough of your posts to know my statement is accurate.
What's more, I am in the right on this, since I am defending freedom,
liberty, and equality.
Why should religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand
that women continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to
their detriments?
The Constitution dictates that this nation be operated for the people, for
freedom.
That does not answer the question. Demanding that women continue
unwanted pregnancy is not operating for the people, it is operating
against them since it is demanding the uncompensated and harmful
involuntary servitude of women to their great detriment. And women are
included within the group known as "the people'. In fact, they make up
1/2 of "the people".
The Constitution also dictates that slavery is illegal, and that
religions cannot force their attitudes and beliefs on the general
populous. Making abortion illegal does both, make women slaves to the
government and religions that they do not subscribe to, and enables
religions to force their beliefs on others because they believe that
women should be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies.
Therefore, you still need to answer the question. Why should
religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand that women
continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to their
detriments?
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 08:30:45 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1122426652.399668.183450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1122418008.228886.239380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
All of it. With pro-choice, nobody is forced to remain pregnant.
Religious fanatics want to force their beliefs on everyone, especially
those that do not believe as they do.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
Bill's statement was a total truth. A functioning human being does not
reside within the body of another human being.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
And yet, it is. What thing seem to you is usually inaccurate.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.
Why don't you tell that to the pimps who overlord it over them to turn
tricks?
Because the overwhelming majority of women are not prostitutes, and
thus do not have pimps.
Why don't you tell that to all the employers who emlpoy women?
Because they already know that. Unlike you.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
His statement is a statement of fact.
You are defending a lie.
I am defending a fact. If I agreed with you, I would be defending a
lie.
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
However, that does not mean that the legislature has the right to force
women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills.
It does.
No, it does not. That is slavery and torture without a trial or a
conviction of a crime, in opposition of the 14th Amendment.
It is neither slavery, indenture servitude, nor torture.
No one is accusing them of a crime.
No one is torturing them.
That is
slavery to the government,
Not in fact.
Yes, in fact.
You are too ignorant to make that determination.
If it is not a fact, then whom is she enslaved to?
Herself.
She
certainly is not a free person,
In your opinion.
According to you all pregnant women are not free.
and she has committed and been
convicted of no crime,
You would accuse of her committing a crime?
but she is being forced to put her body and her
future at risk for no discernible reason and against her will.
Not by me she isn't.
That
sounds like slavery to me.
Sounds like is not what slavery is.
The government has a duty to represent its people, and it also
has a right to dictate what people can do with their bodies in the
interest
of serving the people.
How does stealing from the woman,
Where will you find the evidence to support your accusation?
torturing her, and subjecting her to
unnecessary physical, emotional, and financial hardship, while
destroying her hopes and dreams and forcing her into poverty, while
also forcing everyone else to pay for the pregnancy and welfare of the
women because the government demands her suffering.
Where you will find the evidence in individual cases to support your
accusations?
And, the government can require performance by persons who commit various
acts in society.
However, that performance comes after the individual has broken a law
or committed an infraction.
Yes. Many times. Some requirements, if not fulfilled, make the
non-fulfillfer culpable.
What law has the woman broken?
Why don't you tell me?
I didn't accused her of a crime.
Having sex
is not a crime,
Shows your ignorance again.
and therefore does not deserve punishment.
You are too ignorant of the law to make such statements.
Also,
people are free to defend themselves from unwanted intrusions on their
bodies by other people and organisms, and are free to take any
necessary steps to defend themselves and end that intrusion.
Your rebellious side is showing.
which is unconstitutional, and punishment
for something that is not a crime, which is also unconstitutional.
*****.
My statement is a statement of fact.
Yet, only you believe it.
You are outnumbered.
But then, you do not want democracy, you want a totalitarian theocracy
with your belief system in control.
*****.
That describes most of what you say.
Wrong.
You are resisting democratic rule.
That is because it is my right to do so under democratic rule. And I
have read enough of your posts to know my statement is accurate.
Your resistance is futile.
What's more, I am in the right on this, since I am defending freedom,
liberty, and equality.
You are defending none of those things in what is supposed to be a
democratic society.
Why should religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand
that women continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to
their detriments?
The Constitution dictates that this nation be operated for the people,
for
freedom.
That does not answer the question.
Why not?
Demanding that women continue
unwanted pregnancy is not operating for the people,
You slipped again.
it is operating
against them since it is demanding the uncompensated and harmful
involuntary servitude of women to their great detriment.
Involuntary servitude is nowhere to be found in pregnancies which result
from consensual sex.
And women are
included within the group known as "the people'. In fact, they make up
1/2 of "the people".
Why do you ignore the other half?
The Constitution also dictates that slavery is illegal,
Who is selling women into slavery?
and that
religions cannot force their attitudes and beliefs on the general
populous.
Your inaccuracy is observed.
Making abortion illegal does both,
Only in your decieved mind.
make women slaves to the
government and religions that they do not subscribe to, and enables
religions to force their beliefs on others because they believe that
women should be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies.
In your deceived mind.
Therefore, you still need to answer the question. Why should
religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand that women
continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to their
detriments?
In a democracy, the will of the people is to be represented above special
interests.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 09:52:53 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1122426652.399668.183450@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1122418008.228886.239380@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to
change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
All of it. With pro-choice, nobody is forced to remain pregnant.
Religious fanatics want to force their beliefs on everyone, especially
those that do not believe as they do.
Before birth, and certainly before the third trimester, the fetus is
not
yet a functioning human.
A total lie.
Bill's statement was a total truth. A functioning human being does not
reside within the body of another human being.
It is a part of,
Sure doesn't seem that way.
And yet, it is. What thing seem to you is usually inaccurate.
and totally dependent on, the women's body.
It has no body of its own?
Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.
Why don't you tell that to the pimps who overlord it over them to turn
tricks?
Because the overwhelming majority of women are not prostitutes, and
thus do not have pimps.
Why don't you tell that to all the employers who emlpoy women?
Because they already know that. Unlike you.
All decisions on abortion belong to the women
not some religious bigot or legislature.
*****!
His statement is a statement of fact.
You are defending a lie.
I am defending a fact. If I agreed with you, I would be defending a
lie.
WIthout representative government there is no democracy.
However, that does not mean that the legislature has the right to force
women to continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills.
It does.
No, it does not. That is slavery and torture without a trial or a
conviction of a crime, in opposition of the 14th Amendment.
It is neither slavery, indenture servitude, nor torture.
It is, however, involuntary servitude.
No one is accusing them of a crime.
Then they should not be made to suffer an unwanted pregnancy.
No one is torturing them.
You know nothing about childbirth, do you. And unwanted pregnancy can
easily inflict physical, emotional, and financial hardships on the
woman that she has no way of avoiding because she is being forced to
continue the unwanted pregnancy. Those add up to torture. And
childbirth has been described as the greatest pain that a person can
endure, which sounds rather like torture to me.
That is
slavery to the government,
Not in fact.
Yes, in fact.
You are too ignorant to make that determination.
I am far more knowledgeable than you are. And I am perfectly capable
of making such a determination for myself.
If it is not a fact, then whom is she enslaved to?
Herself.
Impossible. That would mean that she could determine her own course of
action, which would be to get an abortion. If you or the government
are forcing her to continue her pregnancy, then she is not able to get
an abortion as she desires, and thus is obviously a slave to the person
or group that is forcing her to suffer needlessly. That makes her a
slave to the government, since you are powerless to demand her
involuntary servitude.
She
certainly is not a free person,
In your opinion.
In fact, given the scenario. A free person could get the desired
abortion.
According to you all pregnant women are not free.
That is what you want, isn't it? The enslavement of women? Women are
currently free to decide for themselves whether they want to continue
their pregnancies or get an abortion. You want to take away that
freedom. Women that want to be pregnant and continue their pregnancies
will not notice any difference, but women that do not want to remain
pregnant will see their chains and suffer under their weight.
and she has committed and been
convicted of no crime,
You would accuse of her committing a crime?
No. You are the one that wants to punish her, not me..
but she is being forced to put her body and her
future at risk for no discernible reason and against her will.
Not by me she isn't.
Yes, by you. At least, that is your desire. You want to force her to
continue an unwanted pregnancy. If she was a free person, she could
choose to get an abortion if she so desires.
That sounds like slavery to me.
Sounds like is not what slavery is.
However, I was describing the condition of slavery that you want to
subject women to quite clearly. And it is slavery, no matter what you
think.
From Dictionary.com:
1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a slaveholder
or household.
[the "household" in this instance is the government]
2. A condition of hard work and subjection
3. work done under harsh conditions for little or no pay
[i.e. the unwanted pregnancy]
It sure sounds like you want to enslave women to me. And I do seem to
know what I am talking about, unlike you, as usual.
The government has a duty to represent its people, and it also
has a right to dictate what people can do with their bodies in the
interest
of serving the people.
How does stealing from the woman,
Where will you find the evidence to support your accusation?
Simple. I look at the facts that you find inconvenient.
Fact - If the women was not pregnant, she would have to pay for the
childbirth and hospital stay, which even with insurance can run into
the hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Fact - She would also not have to pay for maternity clothes, which are
not covered by insurance.
Fact - She would not have to pay for the pre-natal visits, assuming
that she goes. Again, only partially covered by insurance at best.
Fact - She would not be impaired at work, and possibly be subject to
extra restrictions that could reduce her pay.
Fact - If the job pays only hours worked, she does not get paid for her
time off for doctor's appointments and childbirth and post-natal
recovery. Or perhaps she does not receive full pay during her
incapacitation.
She would rather not lose all this money. It is taken from her
needlessly, since she wanted to get an abortion, but insensitive people
like yourself forced her to continue her unwanted pregnancy. Since the
money was effectively taken from her without her permission, and
perhaps forced her into financial hardship that would not otherwise
have existed, then the money was effectively stolen from her.
torturing her, and subjecting her to
unnecessary physical, emotional, and financial hardship, while
destroying her hopes and dreams and forcing her into poverty, while
also forcing everyone else to pay for the pregnancy and welfare of the
women because the government demands her suffering.
Where you will find the evidence in individual cases to support your
accusations?
Simple really. Case studies dating back to the 60's and early 70's
when abortion was illegal. Women, especially young women, were forced
to leave high school and college in order to continue their
pregnancies. This destroyed their chances at a good education and
forced them to live in poverty. And that sentenced was also forced on
the child she was forced to have, since he will suffer the effects,
both physical and psychological, of growing up knowing he was unwanted
and forced of his mother. The woman is likely to suffer long term
depression from knowing what might have been if she was not forced to
continue an unwanted pregnancy.
The financial hardships I detailed earlier in the post. Add to that
the financial hardships of living a life of poverty, especially when
the woman was well on her way to a good, high paying job before that
unwanted pregnancy forced her to drop out of school.
The physical hardships are easy to document. The effects of a
pregnancy on the woman, and the dangers associated with pregnancy, are
well known and readily available in most book stores and all over the
net.
And, the government can require performance by persons who commit various
acts in society.
However, that performance comes after the individual has broken a law
or committed an infraction.
Yes. Many times. Some requirements, if not fulfilled, make the
non-fulfillfer culpable.
That is not true with forcing the pregnant women to continue an
unwanted pregnancy.
What law has the woman broken?
Why don't you tell me?
I didn't accused her of a crime.
You are punishing her as if she did. Therefore, you are the one that
must know what laws she broke, and when she was convicted of them,
which required her punishment.
Having sex is not a crime,
Shows your ignorance again.
Wrong again, as usual. The fact that you think that having sex is a
crime does not make it a crime.
and therefore does not deserve punishment.
You are too ignorant of the law to make such statements.
I have proven time and again that I am more knowledgeable about the law
that you are. You have yet to define what she deserves to be punished
when she did not break any law.
Also,
people are free to defend themselves from unwanted intrusions on their
bodies by other people and organisms, and are free to take any
necessary steps to defend themselves and end that intrusion.
Your rebellious side is showing.
Nothing wrong with that. It is a good thing to rebel against tyranny
like you are proposing. That is in the best American tradition, dating
back all the way to our Founding Fathers. However, I am not rebelling
against anything. I am standing up for the rights of others, and
working to prevent them from being taken away.
which is unconstitutional, and punishment
for something that is not a crime, which is also unconstitutional.
*****.
My statement is a statement of fact.
Yet, only you believe it.
More than just me believes it. And facts do not require belief, since
they exist independent of belief.
You are outnumbered.
You do not outnumber me. You, like me, are only one person, no matter
how many personalities you have roaming around in your head. And being
outnumbered does not abridge my right to free speech and standing up
for the rights of others.
But then, you do not want democracy, you want a totalitarian theocracy
with your belief system in control.
*****.
That describes most of what you say.
Wrong.
My statement is accurate.
You are resisting democratic rule.
That is because it is my right to do so under democratic rule. And I
have read enough of your posts to know my statement is accurate.
Your resistance is futile.
Then why am I winning? I have every reason to resist the tyranny that
you endorse. I stand for freedom, liberty, and equality, in the best
traditions of the American people.
And I will continue to resist your tyranny, and other tyrannies like
yours.
What's more, I am in the right on this, since I am defending freedom,
liberty, and equality.
You are defending none of those things in what is supposed to be a
democratic society.
Yes, I am. The fact that you endorse tyranny, bigotry, and enslavement
does not speak well of you.
I am defending the freedom and liberty of women to decide the course of
their own pregnancies, and to get the best available medical care no
matter their choice. I also defend the equality of women, as well as
homosexuals, in our society.
Why should religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand
that women continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to
their detriments?
The Constitution dictates that this nation be operated for the people,
for freedom.
That does not answer the question.
Why not?
Because it does not give any reason why women should be forced to
suffer through unwanted pregnancies and all of the attendant hardships
without recourse. It is obvious that you do not think that the
Constitution does not operate for them, or for people besides religious
bigots.
Demanding that women continue
unwanted pregnancy is not operating for the people,
You slipped again.
Not at all. My statement is factual.
it is operating
against them since it is demanding the uncompensated and harmful
involuntary servitude of women to their great detriment.
Involuntary servitude is nowhere to be found in pregnancies which result
from consensual sex.
It is found, however, found in all unwanted pregnancies where the woman
is prevented from getting an abortion.
Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to remaining
pregnant if a pregnancy results. They are completely different and
unrelated decisions, except that the second decision cannot be made
until after the pregnancy starts. And consent can always be withdrawn
from either at any time.
And women are
included within the group known as "the people'. In fact, they make up
1/2 of "the people".
Why do you ignore the other half?
Because men have no say in the care of women's bodies, because women
are not slaves of men. After all, if men can demand that women get an
abortion or continue her pregnancy against her will, then the woman is
effectively a slave to the man, and not his equal.
Answer these three questions. In each instance, who decides and why?
1. the woman want to get an abortion, and the man wants her to get an
abortion
2. the woman wants to get an abortion, and the man wants her to
continue her pregnancy
3. the woman wants to continue the pregnancy, and the man wants her to
get an abortion
The Constitution also dictates that slavery is illegal,
Who is selling women into slavery?
You, it would seem. You are the one that is endorsing their slavery.
and that
religions cannot force their attitudes and beliefs on the general
populous.
Your inaccuracy is observed.
My statement is accurate and true. All you have done is show your
ignorance. Freedom of religion means that you cannot force your
beliefs on anyone else, because then they do not have freedom of
religion, which in turn means that other people can force YOU to follow
their religious beliefs and tenets. Either everyone has the freedom to
follow their own religious beliefs without hinderance, or everyone
loses their freedom of religion.
Making abortion illegal does both,
Only in your decieved mind.
My statement is a statement of fact.
make women slaves to the
government and religions that they do not subscribe to, and enables
religions to force their beliefs on others because they believe that
women should be forced to continue unwanted pregnancies.
In your deceived mind.
My mind is clear and undeceived. Unlike your own.
Therefore, you still need to answer the question. Why should
religious bigots or the legislature have the right to demand that women
continue unwanted pregnancies against their wills and to their
detriments?
So, where is your answer? You still have not given any reasons.
In a democracy, the will of the people is to be represented above special
interests.
And the rights of the people are represented above the rights of the
special interest. The will of the people cannot subsume the rights of
any of it's people. Everyone must have the same rights. You want to
take away people's rights, and force them to live in tyranny.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zod" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 06:25:02 AM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
Having sex
is not a crime, and therefore does not deserve punishment.
Wrong. Rape is a crime, it involves forceful sex. Having consented sex
with a minor, depending on the state you live in may be considered
statuetory rape, and even child molestation. A person who has HIV and
don't inform their partner
maybe guilty of intent to homocide. Adultry is basis for divorce. Oral
sex can get you impeached if your the president of the USA.
Think twice before making a open statement, and thus look the fool
among millions. If not People will start calling you Carol
Cracklin'Mckoi.
.
|
|
|
| User: "E. Dickenson " |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 06:35:03 AM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2005 04:25:02 -0700, "Zod" <zodriol@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Wrong. Rape is a crime, it involves forceful sex.
It's a violent crime. Full-stop.
.
|
|
|
| User: "reel mckoi" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 08:57:26 AM |
|
|
E. Dickenson wrote:
On 27 Jul 2005 04:25:02 -0700, "Zod" <zodriol@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Wrong. Rape is a crime, it involves forceful sex.
It's a violent crime. Full-stop.
Depending on state law and defintion. Statutory rape has nothing to do
with force sex.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 09:35:09 PM |
|
|
Zod <zodriol@gmail.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Having sex
is not a crime, and therefore does not deserve punishment.
Wrong. Rape is a crime, it involves forceful sex.
Rape is a crime but sex is not.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ReelMcKoi" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 04:07:35 PM |
|
|
Mark Sebree wrote:
Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.
Well she can refuse the use of her body after a bay is born as well.
newborns are still dependent of their mothers after they are born.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 09:49:41 PM |
|
|
On 27 Jul 2005 14:07:35 -0700, "ReelMcKoi" <ReelMckoi@mailinator.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<1122498455.320218.226150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.
Well she can refuse the use of her body after a bay is born as well.
newborns are still dependent of their mothers after they are born.
Wrong. Once born any sufficiently motivated person can take care of a
baby. It is not necessary this person be it's mother.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 05:43:42 PM |
|
|
ReelMcKoi wrote:
Mark Sebree wrote:
Yes, it does. And it is totally dependent on the woman's body. And
the woman has the right to refuse the use of her body to anyone and
anything, and can issue that refusal at any time.
Well she can refuse the use of her body after a bay is born as well.
That's right. She can give it up for adoption. She can feed it using
a formula, as opposed to breast feeding.
newborns are still dependent of their mothers after they are born.
Wrong. They are dependent on other people, but that person does not
even have to be an adult or female. And the dependency is not total
and physical, as it is during pregnancy. Many of the functions that
the woman provides during pregnancy for the embryo/fetus are done by
the infant after birth. The infant breathes for itself, digests its
own food, eliminates its own wastes, develops it own immune system
responses, controls its own metabolism, and so on. During pregnancy,
the woman provides and controls all these functions.
However, the fact that the woman can refuse to have anything to do with
the newborn does not take away the option that she can get an abortion
if she so desires. The two are separate decisions, and separated by
months of time.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 01:40:46 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Bill" <wmech@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:AdvFe.1686$G71.362@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
The serious problems is that these religious fanatics would like to change
the law and
FORCE this on everyone else.
What part of Pro-Choice is NOT forced on the nation?
But by forcing choice on people, you are not only allowing
them to have abortions if they want them - you are also
allowing them not to have abortions if they don't want them.
Everybody gets to do what their conscience dictates. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 02:31:35 PM |
|
|
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
.. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe, feed
and educate. You never see the anti-choice fanatics come forward to help
these women or families financially.......
--
CR......
Numbers 31:17-18 God commands Moses to kill all the Medianite people
including infants, children and women. To top it off he commands that the
virgins be
saved for later raping (concubinage & forced marriage) by Moses' soldiers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 04:13:30 PM |
|
|
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e6888e$0$16560$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe, feed
and educate.
What part of contraception do you not understand?
You never see the anti-choice fanatics come forward to help these women
or families financially.......
I see no proof of your statement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 02:17:41 AM |
|
|
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e70b9f@sl-news....
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:PGxFe.4200$Ie1.1679@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e6888e$0$16560$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed and educate.
What part of contraception do you not understand?
## What part of birth-control failure do you not understand?
You never see the anti-choice fanatics come forward to help these women
or families financially.......
I see no proof of your statement.
## I see no evidence or proof of any of your statements.
--
CR........
"Precision" <precision@Usenet.com> wrote:
I'm not an authorized distributor or reseller, neither have
I been licensed to collect funds and distribute their CD.
From: "le ténébreux" <prince.d'aquitaine@tour.abolie>
I still haven't worked out how they can claim information
revealed to them by God for the benefit of all mankind as their
intellectual property subject to their own distribution rules. :-P
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<~~{@
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 04:49:07 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 26 July 2005 5:13 pm
wxpprofessional@msn.com wrote:
"Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote in message
news:42e6888e$0$16560$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed and educate.
What part of contraception do you not understand?
The part where they don't work when rapists choose not to use them?
You never see the anti-choice fanatics come forward to help these women
or families financially.......
I see no proof of your statement.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Reel MCkoI" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 02:51:27 PM |
|
|
Cracklin' wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed and educate.
No sex No babies. easy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 04:11:01 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 26 July 2005 3:51 pm
invalid@invalid.net wrote:
Cracklin' wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed and educate.
No sex No babies. easy
No rape, no babies. Have you stopped rape from occurring yet? easy
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 05:42:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:51:27 -0400, Reel MCkoI <invalid@invalid.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <mvwFe.260$rx5.7242891@news.sisna.com>
wrote:
Cracklin' wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed and educate.
No sex No babies. easy
No eating, no food poison.
When did sex become illegal? Why should a legal activity be
restricted?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 08:22:12 PM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:k1fde115ncqmr2oacnb8v03of6uroo83qt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:51:27 -0400, Reel MCkoI <invalid@invalid.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <mvwFe.260$rx5.7242891@news.sisna.com>
wrote:
Cracklin' wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed and educate.
No sex No babies. easy
No eating, no food poison.
When did sex become illegal? Why should a legal activity be
restricted?
===========================
The "Reel" you're repling to is Jabriol aka Zod from the JW NG. They don't
believe in sex unless one wants to concieve a child. Any women who wants
and enjoys sex is considered a "*****.
Make sure of which Cracklin' and Reel Mckoi you're replying to - the TROLL
from
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn is using other people's names to bypass
killfiles. There are now TWO Cracklin's and TWO Reel McKoi's posting here.
There is no limit to how low a religious fanatic will stoop to silence
someone or get an audience for themselves when ignored.
CR...........
http://silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
========================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 11:26:36 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:22:12 -0500, "Cracklin'" <c@c.c> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<42e6dabb$0$16613$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:k1fde115ncqmr2oacnb8v03of6uroo83qt@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 15:51:27 -0400, Reel MCkoI <invalid@invalid.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <mvwFe.260$rx5.7242891@news.sisna.com>
wrote:
Cracklin' wrote:
"Graham Kennedy" <graham@ditl.org> wrote in message
news:BsvFe.6851$CF.47301@news-1.opaltelecom.net...
. Whereas
the "pro life" side want to force their conscience on
everybody.
=====================
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed and educate.
No sex No babies. easy
No eating, no food poison.
When did sex become illegal? Why should a legal activity be
restricted?
===========================
The "Reel" you're repling to is Jabriol aka Zod from the JW NG. They don't
believe in sex unless one wants to concieve a child. Any women who wants
and enjoys sex is considered a "*****.
That is their problem, not mine. As long as they don't try to force
others to live according to their delusions.
Make sure of which Cracklin' and Reel Mckoi you're replying to - the TROLL
from
alt.religion.jehovahs-witn is using other people's names to bypass
killfiles. There are now TWO Cracklin's and TWO Reel McKoi's posting here.
There is no limit to how low a religious fanatic will stoop to silence
someone or get an audience for themselves when ignored.
CR...........
http://silentlambs.org
www.freeminds.org
========================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 05:27:54 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:31:35 -0500, "Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote:
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe, feed
and educate.
It doesn't matter. If she couldn't afford them, she should have used the
aspirin method - put an aspirin behind the left knee and hold it there with the
right knee.
You never see the anti-choice fanatics come forward to help
these women or families financially.......
Adopt. It's not necessary to butcher the unborn.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 02:16:16 AM |
|
|
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e70cb1@sl-news....
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:b4ede1hl1dfkj2acjqaa4vc42qbopaa516@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:31:35 -0500, "Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote:
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed
and educate.
It doesn't matter. If she couldn't afford them, she should have used the
aspirin method - put an aspirin behind the left knee and hold it there
with the
right knee.
$$ Why don't you tell that to the catholic priests who molest children?
It's a shame you live a sexless, loveless life. I can see why you're so
bitter.... :-(
You never see the anti-choice fanatics come forward to help
these women or families financially.......
Adopt. It's not necessary to butcher the unborn.
$$ Why haven't the thousands of unwanted children now waiting for
families not being adopted? What makes you think dumping thousands more
into the system will change that? How many have YOU adopted?
--
CR........
Well, then, have I become YOUR enemy because I tell YOU the truth?
Galatians 4:16 NWT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }<(((({{o>
.
|
|
|
| User: "reel mckoi" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 10:26:24 AM |
|
|
Cracklin' wrote:
It doesn't matter. If she couldn't afford them, she should have used
the
aspirin method - put an aspirin behind the left knee and hold it
there with the
right knee.
$$ Why don't you tell that to the catholic priests who molest
children? It's a shame you live a sexless, loveless life. I can see
why you're so bitter.... :-(
--> And here is where Carcklin' lost an argument and tries to misdirect
the subject with a totally unrelated reply, attached to a personal
attack. Next she will have people call your local police dept claiming
you are a rapist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 07:49:45 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 26 July 2005 6:27 pm
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:31:35 -0500, "Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote:
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe, feed
and educate.
It doesn't matter. If she couldn't afford them, she should have used the
aspirin method - put an aspirin behind the left knee and hold it there
with the right knee.
You are not too awfully familiar with the female anatomy are you? I know
you are Catholic and your sex education has been stultified but the
missionary position is the only one you know.
You never see the anti-choice fanatics come forward to help
these women or families financially.......
Adopt. It's not necessary to butcher the unborn.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cracklin" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 02:16:37 AM |
|
|
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e70f0b@sl-news....
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:3ko41aFv01buU1@individual.net...
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 26 July 2005 6:27 pm
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:31:35 -0500, "Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote:
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed
and educate.
It doesn't matter. If she couldn't afford them, she should have used
the
aspirin method - put an aspirin behind the left knee and hold it there
with the right knee.
You are not too awfully familiar with the female anatomy are you? I know
you are Catholic and your sex education has been stultified but the
missionary position is the only one you know.
======================
Not true! The pedophile priests seem to like little boy's "behinds"
..........
--
CR........
The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 587
"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and
belongs to the Christian congregation as an
organization, not to individuals, regardless of how
sincerely they may believe that they can interpret
the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be
properly understood without Jehovah's visible
organization in mind." This is BLASPHEMY!
====================================
.
|
|
|
| User: "Darrell Stec" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 02:35:08 PM |
|
|
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 27 July 2005 3:16 am
c@c.c wrote:
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e70f0b@sl-news....
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:3ko41aFv01buU1@individual.net...
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 26 July 2005 6:27 pm
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:31:35 -0500, "Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote:
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as
Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed
and educate.
It doesn't matter. If she couldn't afford them, she should have used
the
aspirin method - put an aspirin behind the left knee and hold it there
with the right knee.
You are not too awfully familiar with the female anatomy are you? I
know you are Catholic and your sex education has been stultified but the
missionary position is the only one you know.
======================
Not true! The pedophile priests seem to like little boy's "behinds"
..........
--
CR........
The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 587
"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and
belongs to the Christian congregation as an
organization, not to individuals, regardless of how
sincerely they may believe that they can interpret
the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be
properly understood without Jehovah's visible
organization in mind." This is BLASPHEMY!
====================================
Another one who doesn't understand female anatomy? Neither the priest nor
the little boy are female. Contraception is not needed. Please stop
taking whatever it is that you are taking. It is befuddling your brain.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
| User: "ReelMcKoi" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
27 Jul 2005 02:46:28 PM |
|
|
That Carol,
misdirect
misdirect
misdirect
Darrell Stec wrote:
After serious contemplation, on or about Wednesday 27 July 2005 3:16 am
c@c.c wrote:
"Cracklin' Rozie" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:42e70f0b@sl-news....
"Darrell Stec" <darrell_stec@webpagesorcery.com> wrote in message
news:3ko41aFv01buU1@individual.net...
After serious contemplation, on or about Tuesday 26 July 2005 6:27 pm
duckgumbo32@cox.net wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:31:35 -0500, "Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote:
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as
Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe,
feed
and educate.
It doesn't matter. If she couldn't afford them, she should have used
the
aspirin method - put an aspirin behind the left knee and hold it there
with the right knee.
You are not too awfully familiar with the female anatomy are you? I
know you are Catholic and your sex education has been stultified but the
missionary position is the only one you know.
======================
Not true! The pedophile priests seem to like little boy's "behinds"
..........
--
CR........
The Watchtower, October 1, 1967, p. 587
"Thus the Bible is an organizational book and
belongs to the Christian congregation as an
organization, not to individuals, regardless of how
sincerely they may believe that they can interpret
the Bible. For this reason the Bible cannot be
properly understood without Jehovah's visible
organization in mind." This is BLASPHEMY!
====================================
Another one who doesn't understand female anatomy? Neither the priest nor
the little boy are female. Contraception is not needed. Please stop
taking whatever it is that you are taking. It is befuddling your brain.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Pope and abortion |
26 Jul 2005 05:35:32 PM |
|
|
In article <b4ede1hl1dfkj2acjqaa4vc42qbopaa516@4ax.com> duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> writes:
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 14:31:35 -0500, "Cracklin'" <c@c.c> wrote:
That's the only way they can get to punish those nasty "sluts" as Johnny
(and other religious fanatics) calls them! Never mind the woman may be
married and already have more children than she can afford to clothe, feed
and educate.
It doesn't matter. If she couldn't afford them, she should have used the
aspirin method - put an aspirin behind the left knee and hold it there with the
right knee.
You never see the anti-choice fanatics come forward to help
these women or families financially.......
Adopt. It's not necessary to butcher the unborn.
That does sound like a compassionate alternative. I like
it.
So, how many have you, personally, adopted?
-- cary
.
|
| | | |
