In article <MmjPc.21743$1o.12867@fed1read06>, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com>
wrote:

Thus you will assume incorrectly. I need not "cite a cite" to support my
claim. It is supported by the basic tenet of "feminism".

Feminism is a perspective that women are and have been treated unfairly
as compared to men.

On Sun, 1 Aug 2004 11:48:50 -0700, "Chris" <reddd@juno.com> wrote:

"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:fv1og0pufu8kn9vnq2erv4b65cv5edm22a@4ax.com...

On 31 Jul 2004 13:11:20 -0700,

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote
in message news:<410ba2c2.372764@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...

==========================================================================

Papa Jack cited:
On July 31, 2004, The Guardian posted an article by
John Hooper and Tania Branigan titled "Pope Warns
Feminists." Go to:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,12272,1273140,00.html

________________________________________________________________________

Excerpts:

"The Pope will call on leaders of the Roman Catholic church
today to attack feminist ideologies which assert that men
and women are fundamentally the same.

"The Vatican is concerned that this belief is eroding what
it regards as women's maternal vocation. But a paper on the
subject which is due to be published today - the Vatican's
third major pronouncement on women's role in the quarter
century of John Paul's papacy - has drawn scornful criti-
cism from feminists and academics.

"According to a leaked extract, the document accuses femi-
nists of 'blurring the biological difference between man
and woman.'

"But it is also understood to break new ground by appealing
to governments to give help to women so they can cope with
their broader modern responsibilities.

[...]

"...But it is just as clearly intended to prevent any erosion
of the church's resolute opposition to gay mar riage, the
incorporation of women into the priesthood, and trends in
gender studies which the Pope has damned as 'misleading con-
ceptions of sexuality.'

"The Vatican's sights are trained in particular on the view
that while people's sex is anatomically determined their
gender identity and roles are entirely a product of condi-
tioning....

[...]

________________________________________________________________________

Papa Jack commented:
Recent studies show men and women are not only different in
the construction of their genitalia, but they also differ
significantly in their hormones and in the way they use their
brains.....

==========================================================================

Coyote wrote:
On average, yes. Men and men also differ significantly. This does
not change the fundamentals of what men and women are:

"Feminism -- the radical notion that women are human beings too."

Do you disagree that men and women are fundamentally the same --

human beings with the same human rights?

==========================================================================

Papa Jack replied:
I agree men and women are both human beings and both groups
should be given the same fundamental human rights.

The problem is when women want the special "right" to kill
their human offspring. However, no one suggests men should
have an equal "right" to kill their offspring.

Don't be stupider than normal, PJ. Men have exactly the same rights to
abort their pregnancies that women do.

He didn't say "abort their pregnancies".

Did you have a point? He's referring to abortion.

I see that your
absence wasn't used in striving for comprehension.

---
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god;
because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

You forget -- or try to hide -- the fact that the
unborn child killed in each abortion is a living
human being who should have the same human rights
as the mother.

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote

Do you disagree that men and women are fundamentally
the same -- both human beings with the same human rights?

=========================================================================

Papa Jack replied:
I agree men and women are both human beings and both groups
should be given the same fundamental human rights.

=========================================================================

Coyote wrote:
Small difference in language here shows the basic viewpoint
difference between us. I believe that human being already
have fundamental rights that the government recognizes and
protects. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to
secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men....."

Women do not need to be "given" any of the fundamental human
rights that I hold for myself -- including the right to my
own autonomy.

=========================================================================
Papa Jack countered:
You find a difference where none exists.

I've often
quoted this same paragraph of the DOI. And I've
discussed how all humans are endowed with "certain
unalienable Rights." However, you would pervert the
true meaning to give women a RIGHT TO KILL -- which
is certainly not one of the unalienable Rights which
Jefferson had in mind when he composed the memorable
words.

Have you noticed the ualienable Rights listed as
examples by Jefferson include the word "LIFE?" But,
you would twist his meaning to the opposite -- i.e.,
the taking of "LIFE."

You forget -- or try to hide -- the fact that the
unborn child killed in each abortion is a living
human being who should have the same human rights
as the mother.

=========================================================================

Papa Jack
The problem is when women want the special "right" to kill
their human offspring. However, no one suggests men should
have an equal "right" to kill their offspring.

=========================================================================
[snip]
=========================================================================

Coyote wrote:
...
Men and women have the same right of bodily autonomy.

=========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
Whoa! What does this phrase "bodily autonomy" mean?

Where does this brand new "right" come from? I've
had this same discussion with Hans-Richard. No one
has shown me any part of the Constitution which
discusses or relates to this "bodily autonomy."

=========================================================================

Coyote wrote:
...Noone and nothing has any right to use my body
against my wishes....

=========================================================================
Papa Jack replied:
Each pregnant woman (who wasn't raped) gave her
consent for a fetus to use her body when she chose
to participat in sex. CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES.

Every normal woman knows pregnancy is a possible
result of sexual intercourse. Yet, AGI tells us
that substantial percentages of those who get
abortions either did not use contraceptives or did
not use them consistently when sexually active.

=========================================================================

Coyote wrote:
...You can be dying and my blood would save your life
-- but you have no right to demand that I give you my
blood....

=========================================================================
Papa Jack responded:
That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're
talking about.

Again, we're discussing a human
unborn child who was formed because the child's
mother consented to sex with the child's father.

This isn't some stranger laying in a puddle of
blood on the sidewalk -- this is the pregnant
woman's own child.

If a mother has a legal responsibility to give a
newborn child proper care and feeding (as well as
a legal responsibility to avoid abusing the child),

why is it any different when the same child is
gestating?

IOW, parents DO have a responsibility
to their own children which is far greater than
their responsibility to other people.

=========================================================================

Coyote wrote:
...The first law of Robotics is " A robot may not
injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow
a human being to come to harm."

...I am a human being, not a robot. I may, by
action or inaction, allow a human being to come to
harm. I *AM* allowed to defend by body even though
another human being dies as a result.

=========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
First, you pervert the words of Thomas Jefferson, and
now you would twist the words of Isaac Asimov. Have
you no shame, Coyote?

The laws related to self-defense for humans all include
some provisions about PROPORTIONAL REACTION.

Your reaction to any threat I might pose must be com-
mensurate with the degree of threat I pose. Such a
degree of threat does NOT include personal inconvenience.

Yet, the great majority of reasons why pregnant women
give for getting an abortion are simply because a
child would cause a lifestyle inconvenience. That is
NOT self-defense -- that is selfishness.

=========================================================================

Coyote wrote:
Either women are not human beings, or I must defend
this right for women as well as for men.

Hence the second clause in my request for justification
to ban abortion -- that it not ignore the human rights
of the woman involved.

=========================================================================
Papa Jack remarked:
There is no such thing as a "human right" to kill
ones unborn child. You try to pretend a sow's ear
is a silk purse -- and convince no one.