| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Mike D." |
| Date: |
10 Mar 2005 08:59:15 PM |
| Object: |
Question |
Why would people who are 'pro choice' come here to defend abortion? What
concern could they have about whether abortion was legal or not,
particularly if they are not women of breeding age. I can understand
pro -life people coming here and speaking against abortion because they
could say they are acting in the interests of a human life who is in no
position to defend themselves. But to be proactive in favor of abortion the
only possible argument that could bemade is that they are defending the
personal sovereignty of the individual, and they would be extremists by
definition, since they are defending a persons rights even at the cost of
another person's life. If that is the case, logically the pro abortion
people should also be strongly in favor of people right to hunt, or even in
favor of people right's to purchase animals and torture them, since the
only one who counts is the person whose sovereignty is at issue( I hope
this isn't too sophisticated an argument for some of you here, judging by
your statements, I know you aren't too strong in logic and reasoning
skills). By these same arguments, pro choicers should be for total
legalization of drugs, legalization of suicide, etcetera. Are you all?
Mike.
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 04:53:49 PM |
|
|
in article jRJYd.7278$ju.5129@okepread07, Bill Gamelson at
wrote on 3/12/05 5:14 PM:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051331449812%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <yRHYd.7258$ju.6612@okepread07>, Bill Gamelson
< > wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051143096935%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <v0h631dcrbg45ccnnebkagkdpfh7vbba3p@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
I didn't say they were ignorant that pregnancy may occur, but that it
isn't the primary reason people have sex.
Irrelevant. Getting into an accident isn't the primary
reason people drive a car. But it does happen and you
consent to the risk and the responsibilities that it
may bring, when you get behind the wheel.
Having children isn't the primary reason MOST people have sex. Perhaps
you are an exception.
Well you know, running over someone and killing them isn't the primary
reason most people drink. It's a consequence, just like getting pregnant
is
a consequence of having sex.
The analogy is rather poor. But lets go with it. You drink. You
drive. You realize that you shouldn't be driving. You stop and don't
drive anymore until you are ready. Sounds responsible to me.
You don't put the key in the hole to begin with.
Of course, I sincerely doubt that Bill has GOTTEN too many
opportunities to put his key in the hole...
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 04:43:31 PM |
|
|
in article yRHYd.7258$ju.6612@okepread07, Bill Gamelson at
wrote on 3/12/05 2:58 PM:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051143096935%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <v0h631dcrbg45ccnnebkagkdpfh7vbba3p@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
I didn't say they were ignorant that pregnancy may occur, but that it
isn't the primary reason people have sex.
Irrelevant. Getting into an accident isn't the primary
reason people drive a car. But it does happen and you
consent to the risk and the responsibilities that it
may bring, when you get behind the wheel.
Having children isn't the primary reason MOST people have sex. Perhaps
you are an exception.
Well you know, running over someone and killing them isn't the primary
reason most people drink. It's a consequence, just like getting pregnant is
a consequence of having sex.
Then if you should get drunk and run over someone, I hope you won't
expect leniency because "It was an accident!"--you TOOK SOMEONE'S LIFE, and
you MUST be punished for it.
Paul
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 03:15:28 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:35:49 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<v0h631dcrbg45ccnnebkagkdpfh7vbba3p@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:40:06 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:2htYd.276$hg.171@news01.roc.ny...
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:45:55 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> spake thusly:
On 11 Mar 2005 16:53:35 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time.
Right. She says, "I withdraw consent" and the unborn
child just "leaves". <chuckle>
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
Not true at all. An attempt to reproduce is not the reason most sex
occurs.
Ignorance does not justify the ramifications..
I didn't say they were ignorant that pregnancy may occur, but that it
isn't the primary reason people have sex.
Irrelevant. Getting into an accident isn't the primary
reason people drive a car. But it does happen and you
consent to the risk and the responsibilities that it
may bring, when you get behind the wheel.
At the same time you expect to see a doctor to remedy any medical
ramifications that may occur.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 02:52:19 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:40:06 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:2htYd.276$hg.171@news01.roc.ny...
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:45:55 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> spake thusly:
On 11 Mar 2005 16:53:35 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time.
Right. She says, "I withdraw consent" and the unborn
child just "leaves". <chuckle>
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
Not true at all. An attempt to reproduce is not the reason most sex
occurs.
Ignorance does not justify the ramifications..
I didn't say they were ignorant that pregnancy may occur, but that it
isn't the primary reason people have sex.
Irrelevant. Getting into an accident isn't the primary
reason people drive a car. But it does happen and you
consent to the risk and the responsibilities that it
may bring, when you get behind the wheel.
Correct, and should you receive an injury in that accident, you seek a
physician to remedy the situation. You don't seek a surrogate to feel
your pain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 03:28:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:52:19 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:40:06 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:2htYd.276$hg.171@news01.roc.ny...
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:45:55 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> spake thusly:
On 11 Mar 2005 16:53:35 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time.
Right. She says, "I withdraw consent" and the unborn
child just "leaves". <chuckle>
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
Not true at all. An attempt to reproduce is not the reason most sex
occurs.
Ignorance does not justify the ramifications..
I didn't say they were ignorant that pregnancy may occur, but that it
isn't the primary reason people have sex.
Irrelevant. Getting into an accident isn't the primary
reason people drive a car. But it does happen and you
consent to the risk and the responsibilities that it
may bring, when you get behind the wheel.
Correct, and should you receive an injury in that accident, you seek a
physician to remedy the situation. You don't seek a surrogate to feel
your pain.
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off. But that has nothing to do
with it. The point was the responsibility of the
driver for the lives in his/her vehicle. But you knew
that.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 04:08:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 21:28:00 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ikn63155p5mi1jk7rkitvhcmd4b4dpv0fu@4ax.com> wrote:
Correct, and should you receive an injury in that accident, you seek a
physician to remedy the situation. You don't seek a surrogate to feel
your pain.
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off.
No. You seek a physician to remedy the result of the accident. That
remedy may involve amputation but you seek it anyway.
But that has nothing to do
with it. The point was the responsibility of the
driver for the lives in his/her vehicle. But you knew
that.
Wrong. Responsibility and liability are not the issue. And the
driver is not always responsible.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 05:01:10 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:52:19 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:40:06 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:2htYd.276$hg.171@news01.roc.ny...
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:45:55 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> spake thusly:
On 11 Mar 2005 16:53:35 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time.
Right. She says, "I withdraw consent" and the unborn
child just "leaves". <chuckle>
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
Not true at all. An attempt to reproduce is not the reason most sex
occurs.
Ignorance does not justify the ramifications..
I didn't say they were ignorant that pregnancy may occur, but that it
isn't the primary reason people have sex.
Irrelevant. Getting into an accident isn't the primary
reason people drive a car. But it does happen and you
consent to the risk and the responsibilities that it
may bring, when you get behind the wheel.
Correct, and should you receive an injury in that accident, you seek a
physician to remedy the situation. You don't seek a surrogate to feel
your pain.
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off.
You seek a physician to remedy the situation in whatever way you see fit
within the confines of his abilities.
But that has nothing to do
with it. The point was the responsibility of the
driver for the lives in his/her vehicle. But you knew
that.
So in your opinion, all injuries incurred to the passengers in all car
accidents are the responsibility of the driver?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:10:48 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:WwKYd.311$YH2.20@news02.roc.ny...
Pastor Dave wrote:
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off.
You seek a physician to remedy the situation in whatever way you see fit
within the confines of his abilities.
Agreed. You might have to have an arm amputated because of infection.
I suggest plonking Paster Dave. He's a strange case. There's parts of the
Bible he doesn't believe in.
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 01:14:24 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:52:19 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:40:06 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:2htYd.276$hg.171@news01.roc.ny...
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:45:55 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> spake thusly:
On 11 Mar 2005 16:53:35 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn
simply
because she wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to
define who can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw
that consent
at any time.
Right. She says, "I withdraw consent" and the unborn
child just "leaves". <chuckle>
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
Not true at all. An attempt to reproduce is not the reason most
sex
occurs.
Ignorance does not justify the ramifications..
I didn't say they were ignorant that pregnancy may occur, but that
it
isn't the primary reason people have sex.
Irrelevant. Getting into an accident isn't the primary
reason people drive a car. But it does happen and you
consent to the risk and the responsibilities that it
may bring, when you get behind the wheel.
Correct, and should you receive an injury in that accident, you seek
a
physician to remedy the situation. You don't seek a surrogate to
feel
your pain.
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off.
Sometimes, in order to make you whole, the physician does need to
remove things from your body. Things like tonsils, appendix, gall
bladder, sections of intestines, malignant and benign tumors, bone,
kidneys, and many other things in the body.
Therefore, your statement only shows that you did not think about what
you were writing, or you are ignorant.
But that has nothing to do
with it. The point was the responsibility of the
driver for the lives in his/her vehicle. But you knew
that.
And the woman is responsible for the care of her own body and for
running her own life. Therefore, if she experiences an unwanted
pregnancy, she as every right to have the embryo/fetus removed, since
it interferes with her health and well being, in her own eyes. (The
only viewpoint that is relevant.)
Mark Sebree
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 11:21:27 AM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2005 23:14:24 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off.
Sometimes, in order to make you whole, the physician does need to
remove things from your body.
And if it's a matter of life or death, then we have
something different to discuss, don't we? The fact is,
that's 1% or less of abortions performed. We are
discussing the 99%. But it does not surprise me that
abortionists constantly try to make the 1% seem like
the 99%. They do this, because they know they have no
moral ground to stand on and thus, must try to create a
moral argument out of the 1%.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 12:01:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 17:21:27 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<ngt831ta236hmg4ir5gchrigrnum4tivnq@4ax.com> wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 23:14:24 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off.
Sometimes, in order to make you whole, the physician does need to
remove things from your body.
And if it's a matter of life or death, then we have
something different to discuss, don't we? The fact is,
that's 1% or less of abortions performed. We are
discussing the 99%. But it does not surprise me that
abortionists constantly try to make the 1% seem like
the 99%. They do this, because they know they have no
moral ground to stand on and thus, must try to create a
moral argument out of the 1%.
Nonsense. There is no justification or explanation require for the
freedom of choice so any attempt to apply some kind of statistical
analysis to the reason for abortion is useless.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an abortion - she wants
it.
There is only one reason for a woman not to get an abortion - she
doesn't want it.
Almost everybody who refers to "moral"
means "what I think that you should do".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, itll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 01:00:20 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:01:34 -0500,
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote:
[ ... ]
There is no justification or explanation required for the
freedom of choice so any attempt to apply some kind of
statistical analysis to the reason for abortion is useless.
There is only one reason for a woman to get an
abortion -- she wants it.
There is only one reason for a woman not to get an
abortion -- she doesn't want it.
And I GUARANTEE you -- based on all the posts of
*pseudo*-pastor Dave that I've read -- that you'd stand an
**exponentially** better chance of teaching a choir of pigs
to sing Handel's "Messiah" in perfect harmony, before he
will EVER get those perfectly-OBVIOUS facts through his
granite-thick head.
And build a space-ship singlehandedly, and pilot it
successfully at light-speed to the Horsehead Nebula and
back before he'll ever become a sensible and fair-minded
egalitarian who stands up for the personal liberties that he
currently so INANELY opposes.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 01:52:05 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 23:14:24 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off.
Sometimes, in order to make you whole, the physician does need to
remove things from your body.
And if it's a matter of life or death, then we have
something different to discuss, don't we? The fact is,
that's 1% or less of abortions performed. We are
discussing the 99%. But it does not surprise me that
abortionists constantly try to make the 1% seem like
the 99%. They do this, because they know they have no
moral ground to stand on and thus, must try to create a
moral argument out of the 1%.
Pregnancy results from less than 1% of all sex had.
You were saying?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 12:30:26 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 23:14:24 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
You seek a physician to make things whole. Not to rip
parts of your body off.
Sometimes, in order to make you whole, the physician does need to
remove things from your body.
And if it's a matter of life or death, then we have
something different to discuss, don't we? The fact is,
that's 1% or less of abortions performed. We are
discussing the 99%. But it does not surprise me that
abortionists constantly try to make the 1% seem like
the 99%. They do this, because they know they have no
moral ground to stand on and thus, must try to create a
moral argument out of the 1%.
I was addressing the statement that I posted under that you made, that
you do not seek a physician to "rip parts out of your body".
And pro-choice people are on very solid legal ground. (Morals are
subjective, personal, and mutable, and thus not a valid reason to force
anyone to do anything, especially to continue an unwanted pregnancy.)
Women are not slaves nor nor have they been convicted of a felony.
Therefore, they are not required to allow their body to be used by any
other person, entity, being, or growth against their wills. And thus,
they have every right to have it removed at the earliest possible time,
prior to the damage increasing. This principle is enshrined in a
number of our laws, including self-defense laws, rape and sexual
assault laws, laws that allow people to request or refuse medical
procedures, organ donation laws, and others. Abortion laws merely
build on this principle.
Do you know of any law where a person, exclusive of convicted felons,
must be forced to suffer physical, emotional, and financial harm
against their will when there is a simple, safe, inexpensive, and
easily acquired solution available? I thought not.
Mark Sebree
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 12:50:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 03:23:42 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:45:55 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> spake thusly:
On 11 Mar 2005 16:53:35 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time.
Right. She says, "I withdraw consent" and the unborn
child just "leaves". <chuckle>
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
Not true at all. An attempt to reproduce is not the reason most sex occurs.
Where did I mention what the reason was? Oh, that's
right, I didn't.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk. You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:47:12 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 06:50:31 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<5v3531tpig6h3hb5ojadb00a8hdefmtm4n@4ax.com> wrote:
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk. You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
Getting into an accident and then getting medical assistance to reduce
or eliminate the unwanted medical results of that accident is
considered proper and prudent. Or do you contend each accident victim
must fend for himself with no medical assistance?
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
Unless and until birth occurs the father is not directly involved.
His involvement is only in a support function if and after birth
occurs.
This can easily be proven. What will be the result on the pregnancy
if the father drops dead now? The pregnant woman? Will the results
be different?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 02:02:40 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 03:23:42 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:45:55 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> spake thusly:
On 11 Mar 2005 16:53:35 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to define who can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw that consent
at any time.
Right. She says, "I withdraw consent" and the unborn
child just "leaves". <chuckle>
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
Not true at all. An attempt to reproduce is not the reason most sex occurs.
Where did I mention what the reason was? Oh, that's
right, I didn't.
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk.
Do you also give consent to be involved in an accident?
You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
While DWI is certainly the driver's responsibility, you are only
responsible for the safety of your passengers to an extent. There are
many accidents and injuries that aren't the driver's responsibility.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
You're getting sidetracked by your analogy.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
A paragraph ago we were discussing accidental pregnancies. All of a
sudden you've moved the goalposts to after she gives birth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 05:17:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:02:40 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Not when you know what the possibilities
are. You do not get behind the wheel of a car drunk
and then claim that since you merely consented to
pleasurable driving, that you are not responsible for
the results of an accident.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk.
Do you also give consent to be involved in an accident?
Yes. Every time I get behind the wheel, knowing that
it is a possibility. That does not mean that my goal
was to get into an accident. But I do consent to the
possibility and claiming that I only consented to
driving the vehicle, does not give me the right to
avoid my responsibilities to the other lives involved.
You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
While DWI is certainly the driver's responsibility, you are only
responsible for the safety of your passengers to an extent. There are
many accidents and injuries that aren't the driver's responsibility.
No, I am responsible for the passengers in my car. But
even if I took your statement as valid, what you
advocate, is ZERO responsibility for the other lives in
the car.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
You're getting sidetracked by your analogy.
No, I'm not. You just don't like where it inevitably
leads.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
A paragraph ago we were discussing accidental pregnancies. All of a
sudden you've moved the goalposts to after she gives birth?
Responsibility for the life does not end at pregnancy
and the fact that child support would have to be paid,
disproves your argument in which you claimed that
consent to this life was not given at the time they had
sex. Once again, you don't like where the logic
inevitably leads.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 10:19:38 AM |
|
|
In article <1gj531pp9ullm1gq9iq5n4m5kjkel84fre@4ax.com>, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:02:40 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Not when you know what the possibilities
are. You do not get behind the wheel of a car drunk
and then claim that since you merely consented to
pleasurable driving, that you are not responsible for
the results of an accident.
Note that the Right equates getting pregnant to committing a crime for
which the punishment is being forced to bear a child.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:49:42 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:17:27 GMT, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> in alt.abortion with message-id
<1gj531pp9ullm1gq9iq5n4m5kjkel84fre@4ax.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:02:40 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Not when you know what the possibilities
are. You do not get behind the wheel of a car drunk
and then claim that since you merely consented to
pleasurable driving, that you are not responsible for
the results of an accident.
But is there is an accident there are medical procedures that reduce
or eliminate any unwanted results.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk.
Do you also give consent to be involved in an accident?
Yes. Every time I get behind the wheel, knowing that
it is a possibility. That does not mean that my goal
was to get into an accident. But I do consent to the
possibility and claiming that I only consented to
driving the vehicle, does not give me the right to
avoid my responsibilities to the other lives involved.
Then you think anyone in an accident must not get any medical help to
alleviate the results.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:24:53 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:02:40 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Not when you know what the possibilities
are. You do not get behind the wheel of a car drunk
and then claim that since you merely consented to
pleasurable driving, that you are not responsible for
the results of an accident.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk.
Do you also give consent to be involved in an accident?
Yes. Every time I get behind the wheel, knowing that
it is a possibility. That does not mean that my goal
was to get into an accident. But I do consent to the
possibility and claiming that I only consented to
driving the vehicle, does not give me the right to
avoid my responsibilities to the other lives involved.
You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
While DWI is certainly the driver's responsibility, you are only
responsible for the safety of your passengers to an extent. There are
many accidents and injuries that aren't the driver's responsibility.
No, I am responsible for the passengers in my car. But
even if I took your statement as valid, what you
advocate, is ZERO responsibility for the other lives in
the car.
Is that what I advocate? I'd be intereste in hearing how you reached
that conclusion based on what I wrote.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
You're getting sidetracked by your analogy.
No, I'm not. You just don't like where it inevitably
leads.
It leads somewhere other than the point.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
A paragraph ago we were discussing accidental pregnancies. All of a
sudden you've moved the goalposts to after she gives birth?
Responsibility for the life does not end at pregnancy
and the fact that child support would have to be paid,
disproves your argument in which you claimed that
consent to this life was not given at the time they had
sex. Once again, you don't like where the logic
inevitably leads.
lol! I didn't say responsibility ends at preganancy. We haven't even
touched the subject of child support (a subject with which I am VERY
familiar), which has absolutely nothing to do with consent to
responsibility.
Even though it has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, I'll
be more than happy to discuss the issue of child support, if that's the
road you wish to travel.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 01:33:58 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:24:53 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:02:40 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Not when you know what the possibilities
are. You do not get behind the wheel of a car drunk
and then claim that since you merely consented to
pleasurable driving, that you are not responsible for
the results of an accident.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk.
Do you also give consent to be involved in an accident?
Yes. Every time I get behind the wheel, knowing that
it is a possibility. That does not mean that my goal
was to get into an accident. But I do consent to the
possibility and claiming that I only consented to
driving the vehicle, does not give me the right to
avoid my responsibilities to the other lives involved.
You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
While DWI is certainly the driver's responsibility, you are only
responsible for the safety of your passengers to an extent. There are
many accidents and injuries that aren't the driver's responsibility.
No, I am responsible for the passengers in my car. But
even if I took your statement as valid, what you
advocate, is ZERO responsibility for the other lives in
the car.
Is that what I advocate? I'd be intereste in hearing how you reached
that conclusion based on what I wrote.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
You're getting sidetracked by your analogy.
No, I'm not. You just don't like where it inevitably
leads.
It leads somewhere other than the point.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
A paragraph ago we were discussing accidental pregnancies. All of a
sudden you've moved the goalposts to after she gives birth?
Responsibility for the life does not end at pregnancy
and the fact that child support would have to be paid,
disproves your argument in which you claimed that
consent to this life was not given at the time they had
sex. Once again, you don't like where the logic
inevitably leads.
lol! I didn't say responsibility ends at preganancy. We haven't even
touched the subject of child support (a subject with which I am VERY
familiar), which has absolutely nothing to do with consent to
responsibility.
Even though it has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, I'll
be more than happy to discuss the issue of child support, if that's the
road you wish to travel.
And there it is folks. No rebuttal of my points. He
now just attempts to ignore them. He doesn't know what
else to do, knowing now that his claims are built on
falsehoods.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 02:50:13 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:24:53 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:02:40 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Not when you know what the possibilities
are. You do not get behind the wheel of a car drunk
and then claim that since you merely consented to
pleasurable driving, that you are not responsible for
the results of an accident.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk.
Do you also give consent to be involved in an accident?
Yes. Every time I get behind the wheel, knowing that
it is a possibility. That does not mean that my goal
was to get into an accident. But I do consent to the
possibility and claiming that I only consented to
driving the vehicle, does not give me the right to
avoid my responsibilities to the other lives involved.
You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
While DWI is certainly the driver's responsibility, you are only
responsible for the safety of your passengers to an extent. There are
many accidents and injuries that aren't the driver's responsibility.
No, I am responsible for the passengers in my car. But
even if I took your statement as valid, what you
advocate, is ZERO responsibility for the other lives in
the car.
Is that what I advocate? I'd be intereste in hearing how you reached
that conclusion based on what I wrote.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
You're getting sidetracked by your analogy.
No, I'm not. You just don't like where it inevitably
leads.
It leads somewhere other than the point.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
A paragraph ago we were discussing accidental pregnancies. All of a
sudden you've moved the goalposts to after she gives birth?
Responsibility for the life does not end at pregnancy
and the fact that child support would have to be paid,
disproves your argument in which you claimed that
consent to this life was not given at the time they had
sex. Once again, you don't like where the logic
inevitably leads.
lol! I didn't say responsibility ends at preganancy. We haven't even
touched the subject of child support (a subject with which I am VERY
familiar), which has absolutely nothing to do with consent to
responsibility.
Even though it has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, I'll
be more than happy to discuss the issue of child support, if that's the
road you wish to travel.
And there it is folks. No rebuttal of my points. He
now just attempts to ignore them. He doesn't know what
else to do, knowing now that his claims are built on
falsehoods.
You haven't made any points relevant to the topic being discussed. Two
posts ago, we were discussing alternatives to being pregnant (there are
two - give birth & abort) and all of a sudden you're arguing about
things that could only happen after giving birth (adoption & now child
support). You're trying to start a new topic mid-thread and claiming
victory when others don't follow suit.
Very transparent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 03:26:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:50:13 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:24:53 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:02:40 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Not when you know what the possibilities
are. You do not get behind the wheel of a car drunk
and then claim that since you merely consented to
pleasurable driving, that you are not responsible for
the results of an accident.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk.
Do you also give consent to be involved in an accident?
Yes. Every time I get behind the wheel, knowing that
it is a possibility. That does not mean that my goal
was to get into an accident. But I do consent to the
possibility and claiming that I only consented to
driving the vehicle, does not give me the right to
avoid my responsibilities to the other lives involved.
You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
While DWI is certainly the driver's responsibility, you are only
responsible for the safety of your passengers to an extent. There are
many accidents and injuries that aren't the driver's responsibility.
No, I am responsible for the passengers in my car. But
even if I took your statement as valid, what you
advocate, is ZERO responsibility for the other lives in
the car.
Is that what I advocate? I'd be intereste in hearing how you reached
that conclusion based on what I wrote.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
You're getting sidetracked by your analogy.
No, I'm not. You just don't like where it inevitably
leads.
It leads somewhere other than the point.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
A paragraph ago we were discussing accidental pregnancies. All of a
sudden you've moved the goalposts to after she gives birth?
Responsibility for the life does not end at pregnancy
and the fact that child support would have to be paid,
disproves your argument in which you claimed that
consent to this life was not given at the time they had
sex. Once again, you don't like where the logic
inevitably leads.
lol! I didn't say responsibility ends at preganancy. We haven't even
touched the subject of child support (a subject with which I am VERY
familiar), which has absolutely nothing to do with consent to
responsibility.
Even though it has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, I'll
be more than happy to discuss the issue of child support, if that's the
road you wish to travel.
And there it is folks. No rebuttal of my points. He
now just attempts to ignore them. He doesn't know what
else to do, knowing now that his claims are built on
falsehoods.
You haven't made any points relevant to the topic being discussed.
<chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Glenn \Christian Mystic" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
10 May 2005 04:34:26 AM |
|
|
I struggle to scroll all the way to the bottom of this post to read...
<chuckle> ???
And that is all ?
How rude to the disabled !
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:ejn631d5gn1iop9m4jdtbllogrr13oitrv@4ax.com...
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 20:50:13 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 13:24:53 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 08:02:40 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> spake
thusly:
You stated that consent (to become pregnant) is given when she spreads
her legs. As most sex is merely a consent to mutual pleasure, that
statement is incorrect.
No, it isn't. Not when you know what the possibilities
are. You do not get behind the wheel of a car drunk
and then claim that since you merely consented to
pleasurable driving, that you are not responsible for
the results of an accident.
BTW, when you get your driver's license, you consent to
not driving drunk.
Do you also give consent to be involved in an accident?
Yes. Every time I get behind the wheel, knowing that
it is a possibility. That does not mean that my goal
was to get into an accident. But I do consent to the
possibility and claiming that I only consented to
driving the vehicle, does not give me the right to
avoid my responsibilities to the other lives involved.
You may claim that you didn't, but
that doesn't alleviate you of the responsibility for
the safety of those who ride in your vehicle.
While DWI is certainly the driver's responsibility, you are only
responsible for the safety of your passengers to an extent. There are
many accidents and injuries that aren't the driver's responsibility.
No, I am responsible for the passengers in my car. But
even if I took your statement as valid, what you
advocate, is ZERO responsibility for the other lives in
the car.
Is that what I advocate? I'd be intereste in hearing how you reached
that conclusion based on what I wrote.
Getting into an accident and then claiming that getting
rid of the dead bodies was the proper thing to do,
doesn't mean that your claim is morally valid, just
because you don't want the responsibility for another
life.
You're getting sidetracked by your analogy.
No, I'm not. You just don't like where it inevitably
leads.
It leads somewhere other than the point.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
Nope.
Oh no, of course not. That's why if she gives birth,
no man has ever had to pay child support. That's
because the, "I didn't give consent just by having
sex;" argument works every time.
A paragraph ago we were discussing accidental pregnancies. All of a
sudden you've moved the goalposts to after she gives birth?
Responsibility for the life does not end at pregnancy
and the fact that child support would have to be paid,
disproves your argument in which you claimed that
consent to this life was not given at the time they had
sex. Once again, you don't like where the logic
inevitably leads.
lol! I didn't say responsibility ends at preganancy. We haven't even
touched the subject of child support (a subject with which I am VERY
familiar), which has absolutely nothing to do with consent to
responsibility.
Even though it has nothing to do with the topic we were discussing, I'll
be more than happy to discuss the issue of child support, if that's the
road you wish to travel.
And there it is folks. No rebuttal of my points. He
now just attempts to ignore them. He doesn't know what
else to do, knowing now that his claims are built on
falsehoods.
You haven't made any points relevant to the topic being discussed.
<chuckle>
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 01:03:29 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 01:45:55 GMT, after pondering deep
thoughts, Pastor Dave
<newsgroupmail@nospam-tampabay.rr.com> spake thusly:
On 11 Mar 2005 16:53:35 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
Why should the woman have the right to murder the unborn simply
because she wants to relieve herself of her pregnancy?
Because it is not murder, and the woman has the right to define who
can
have what use of her body, and when, and she can withdraw that
consent
at any time.
Right. She says, "I withdraw consent" and the unborn
child just "leaves". <chuckle>
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
To sex and an orgasm(s) from that particular person at that particular
time. Not to pregnancy. They are two completely separate things.
Consent to sex does NOT imply consent to continue any resulting
pregnancy, especially against the woman's will.
What's more, she can withdraw her consent to sex at any time, even
after penetration. Therefore, even if she previously gave consent to
sex, that consent can be withdrawn at any time. The same principle
applies to her pregnancy.
Both parents did and are now responsible for that life.
If she does not want to remain pregnant, then she can get an abortion.
If she does not want to remain pregnant, then it is likely that she
never wanted to become pregnant, and thus she did not consent to become
pregnant. It is also likely that she took precautions against her
becoming pregnant which failed.
Mark Sebree
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 11:23:18 AM |
|
|
On 12 Mar 2005 23:03:29 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
To sex and an orgasm(s) from that particular person at that particular
time. Not to pregnancy.
Yes, she did, when she knew it was a possibility. I'm
not going to go around in a circle with you. You read
what I posted to Frank and your wanting to start over
again, only shows your deception and your stupidity.
They are two completely separate things.
If they were, then women wouldn't get pregnant when
they have sex.
Only a complete idiot would have said what you just
did.
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
Silence in the Face of Doctrinal Criticism is Suicide
"I have more understanding than all my teachers:
for thy testimonies are my meditations." - Psalm 119:99
/
o{}xxxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>
\
"And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of
the Spirit, which is the word of God:" - Ephesians 6:17
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/solution.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 12:31:11 PM |
|
|
Dave
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
To sex and an orgasm(s) from that particular person at that particular
time. Not to pregnancy.
Yes, she did, when she knew it was a possibility.
And abortion is a possible outcome of sex so according to you women
should be forced to get abortions.
I'm
not going to go around in a circle with you.
You can do that much without help from anyone else.
They are two completely separate things.
If they were, then women wouldn't get pregnant when
they have sex.
Here's a clue: 99%+ of the time they don't.
Only a complete idiot would have said what you just
did.
And women can get pregnant without having sex at all.
It would seem that the idiot is you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
14 Mar 2005 07:01:25 PM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 23:03:29 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
To sex and an orgasm(s) from that particular person at that
particular
time. Not to pregnancy.
Yes, she did, when she knew it was a possibility.
Which is why she takes contraceptives. And why abortion is an option
if she becomes pregnant and does not want to continue the pregnancy.
I'm
not going to go around in a circle with you.
Because you will lose because you do not respect the woman, her rights,
or her freedom.
You read
what I posted to Frank and your wanting to start over
again, only shows your deception and your stupidity.
They are two completely separate things.
If they were, then women wouldn't get pregnant when
they have sex.
The decision to have sex has nothing to do with the decision about
whether or not to continue a pregnancy. They are two completely
separate decisions. She can give consent to sex without even implying
consent to continuing a resulting unwanted pregnancy. She can decide
how, when, and by whom her body may be used, and she can withdraw that
consent at any time, and take any necessary action she deems
appropriate to enforce her withdrawal of consent.
Only a complete idiot would have said what you just
did.
Or someone that is intelligent enough to look at the entire picture.
The decision to have sex is completely different from the decision to
continue or abort a pregnancy. You completely ignore the woman, her
desires, her religion, her beliefs, her goals, and her life. To you,
she is nothing more than breeding stock, to be commanded and made to
suffer at your whim. And that is the goal that you advocate.
Mark Sebree
--
Pastor Dave Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
14 Mar 2005 07:39:06 PM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1110848485.608513.166150@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Pastor Dave wrote:
On 12 Mar 2005 23:03:29 -0800, after pondering deep
thoughts, "Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> spake
thusly:
BTW, she gave consent when she spread her legs open.
To sex and an orgasm(s) from that particular person at that
particular
time. Not to pregnancy.
Yes, she did, when she knew it was a possibility.
Which is why she takes contraceptives. And why abortion is an option
if she becomes pregnant and does not want to continue the pregnancy.
I'm
not going to go around in a circle with you.
Because you will lose because you do not respect the woman, her rights,
or her freedom.
You read
what I posted to Frank and your wanting to start over
again, only shows your deception and your stupidity.
They are two completely separate things.
If they were, then women wouldn't get pregnant when
they have sex.
The decision to have sex has nothing to do with the decision about
whether or not to continue a pregnancy. They are two completely
separate decisions. She can give consent to sex without even implying
consent to continuing a resulting unwanted pregnancy. She can decide
how, when, and by whom her body may be used, and she can withdraw that
consent at any time, and take any necessary action she deems
appropriate to enforce her withdrawal of consent.
Only a complete idiot would have said what you just
did.
Or someone that is intelligent enough to look at the entire picture.
The decision to have sex is completely different from the decision to
continue or abort a pregnancy. You completely ignore the woman, her
desires, her religion, her beliefs, her goals, and her life. To you,
she is nothing more than breeding stock, to be commanded and made to
suffer at your whim. And that is the goal that you advocate.
Mark Sebree
Yet men have no rights, no say, and their desires, religion, beliefs, goals,
and his lif | | | | |
