| 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: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:54:06 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:52:47 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Somewriter wrote:
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 00:46:53 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <42338a2b$0$32621$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Bill Gamelson wrote:
I can. If they do have sex and the woman get's pregnant, then she should
suffer the burden of her actions and carry the baby to full term and at
least put it up for adoption. By the way, I was adopted and I am very glad
that my mother carried me to full term. There is my choice in the matter.
There are people on this group who consider your very existence a form
of penury, and who would rather have seen you killed before birth.
Tell me Bill, are you "unwanted"? Would it have been better for you that
you had not been born? Because that is what these psychopaths want us to
believe. That there is ever such a thing as an "unwanted child".
Maybe you need to look around at all the unwanted children in the
world. Have you adopted?
Nope. Hope to one day though.
How convenient.
No, not really.
Yes, yes really.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:02:53 PM |
|
|
Somewriter wrote:
all the unwanted children in the
world. Have you adopted?
Nope. Hope to one day though.
How convenient.
No, not really.
Yes, yes really.
And your unwillingness to adopt is some kind of mandate to sanction the
killing of all the "unwanted" unborn children in the world?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 09:16:58 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 01:02:53 +0000, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Somewriter wrote:
all the unwanted children in the
world. Have you adopted?
Nope. Hope to one day though.
How convenient.
No, not really.
Yes, yes really.
And your unwillingness to adopt...
I don't demand people to do what they don't want to do. If you don't
want to adopt before you're ready, fine - but don't demand pregnant
women to carry to term if they're not.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 01:37:45 PM |
|
|
In article <9DLYd.7302$ju.5026@okepread07>, says...
By the way, I was adopted and I am very glad
that my mother carried me to full term.
Did she have a free choice in the matter? Or was she forced (whether
legally or otherwise) to give birth?
(Remember that had she chosen otherwise you [a thinking person able to
make choices yourself] would never have existed anyway, so wouldn't have
had any opinion on the matter, either for or against, and would never
have known any consciousness of existence anyway.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 11:28:35 AM |
|
|
In article <9DLYd.7302$ju.5026@okepread07>, says...
Right - they "shouldn't" have sex if they can't do so responsibly.
Agreed. But what about when they DO? Why can't "prolifers" answer
that?
I can. If they do have sex and the woman get's pregnant, then she should
suffer the burden of her actions and carry the baby to full term and at
least put it up for adoption.
By that logic a man shouldn't have sex unless *he* is prepared to carry
a pregnancy to term.
Remember also that what you were reacting to was where I said that a
woman may well be happy to *raise* a child (a biological child with
their partner), but not happy to undergo a pregnancy herself. There was
no suggestion whatsoever in what I wrote that the couple were not
prepared or willing to take on the responsibility of *raising* their
child!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:20:02 PM |
|
|
In article <9DLYd.7302$ju.5026@okepread07>, Bill Gamelson
<bgamelson@cox.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051552001301%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <2tKYd.7284$ju.6166@okepread07>, Bill Gamelson
<bgamelson@cox.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9617B12D6E9FDkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in
news:0QJYd.7276$ju.5981@okepread07:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9d6ffacd6351e498c2cd@news.uni-berlin.de...
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not
prepared to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of
continuing a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
only a person who considered women to be breeding stock would presume
to
say such a thing.
Not at all. If a person can't drink responsibly, then they shouldn't
drink.
No - they "shouldn't."
Just the same, if a person can't have sex responsibly, then they should
have
sex. Simple as that.
Right - they "shouldn't" have sex if they can't do so responsibly.
Agreed. But what about when they DO? Why can't "prolifers" answer
that?
I can. If they do have sex and the woman get's pregnant, then she should
suffer the burden of her actions and carry the baby to full term and at
least put it up for adoption.
So you view having a child as "suffering a burden." Nice. And
children aren't usually adopted, unless they are white and healthy.
By the way, I was adopted and I am very glad
that my mother carried me to full term.
I'm sure it is nice to be wanted. Too bad you don't feel a desire to
ensure others have that feeling.
There is my choice in the matter.
Have you adopted - or do you leave that to others? (Statistics show
that liberals are far more likely to adopt than conservatives.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:51:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:15:58 -0600, "Bill Gamelson"
<bgamelson@cox.net> in alt.abortion with message-id
<9DLYd.7302$ju.5026@okepread07> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051552001301%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <2tKYd.7284$ju.6166@okepread07>, Bill Gamelson
<bgamelson@cox.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9617B12D6E9FDkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in
news:0QJYd.7276$ju.5981@okepread07:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9d6ffacd6351e498c2cd@news.uni-berlin.de...
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not
prepared to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of
continuing a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
only a person who considered women to be breeding stock would presume
to
say such a thing.
Not at all. If a person can't drink responsibly, then they shouldn't
drink.
No - they "shouldn't."
Just the same, if a person can't have sex responsibly, then they should
have
sex. Simple as that.
Right - they "shouldn't" have sex if they can't do so responsibly.
Agreed. But what about when they DO? Why can't "prolifers" answer
that?
I can. If they do have sex and the woman get's pregnant, then she should
suffer the burden of her actions
And here we go folks. Pregnancy is a punishment for improper
behavior.
and carry the baby to full term and at
least put it up for adoption.
Nonsense. How is terminating an unwanted pregnancy not acting
responsibly?
By the way, I was adopted
I rest my case.
and I am very glad
that my mother carried me to full term. There is my choice in the matter.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somewriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:39:59 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:15:58 -0600, "Bill Gamelson"
<bgamelson@cox.net> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120320051552001301%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <2tKYd.7284$ju.6166@okepread07>, Bill Gamelson
<bgamelson@cox.net> wrote:
"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9617B12D6E9FDkeegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in
news:0QJYd.7276$ju.5981@okepread07:
"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9d6ffacd6351e498c2cd@news.uni-berlin.de...
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not
prepared to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of
continuing a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
only a person who considered women to be breeding stock would presume
to
say such a thing.
Not at all. If a person can't drink responsibly, then they shouldn't
drink.
No - they "shouldn't."
Just the same, if a person can't have sex responsibly, then they should
have
sex. Simple as that.
Right - they "shouldn't" have sex if they can't do so responsibly.
Agreed. But what about when they DO? Why can't "prolifers" answer
that?
I can. If they do have sex and the woman get's pregnant, then she should
suffer the burden of her actions and carry the baby...
Why punish the baby for what the men' and women's actions?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 04:45:32 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not prepared
to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of continuing
a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
Come come Bill. Don't you know that sex, for both men and women, without
any consequences is a basic human right, like the right to shelter and
clean water, even if that right involves the wilful destruction of other
people? Don't you know that it's the only human right on the planet
devoid of any commensurate responsibilities like, er, responsibility
towards the person conceived? And don't you know that if you suggest
otherwise you are a **FASCIST** who simply wants to **CONTROL WOMEN**
(all in caps lock to boot)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 04:59:12 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4233710d$0$32608$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not prepared
to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of continuing
a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
Come come Bill. Don't you know that sex, for both men and women, without
any consequences is a basic human right, like the right to shelter and
clean water, even if that right involves the wilful destruction of other
people? Don't you know that it's the only human right on the planet devoid
of any commensurate responsibilities like, er, responsibility towards the
person conceived? And don't you know that if you suggest otherwise you are
a **FASCIST** who simply wants to **CONTROL WOMEN** (all in caps lock to
boot)?
Not in my book. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's not a right. It's
a gift that God gave us to be had within the bounds of Holy Matrimony.
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 10:35:30 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4233710d$0$32608$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not prepared
to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of continuing
a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
Come come Bill. Don't you know that sex, for both men and women, without
any consequences is a basic human right, like the right to shelter and
clean water, even if that right involves the wilful destruction of other
people? Don't you know that it's the only human right on the planet devoid
of any commensurate responsibilities like, er, responsibility towards the
person conceived? And don't you know that if you suggest otherwise you are
a **FASCIST** who simply wants to **CONTROL WOMEN** (all in caps lock to
boot)?
Not in my book. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's not a right. It's
a gift that God gave us to be had within the bounds of Holy Matrimony.
I've only ignored your book since I was old enough to read (back when a Texan
was in the White House, and no, it wasn't LBJ). I got around to losing my
virginity when I was 20, but I didn't get married until I was 35...and I make
no apologies for that fact to anyone, least of all busybodies like you, and
neither does my wife. We'll both gladly salute you, one finger at a time, if
you presume to lecture us...and I won't be too surprised if the one child and
two grandchildren don't do the same, once they find out.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 8, San Antonio 0 (March 12)
NEXT GAME: Monday, March 14 vs. Cincinnati, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 05:51:28 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> wrote in
news:bvKYd.7285$ju.3600@okepread07:
Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's not a right.
It's a gift that God gave us to be had within the bounds of Holy
Matrimony.
i'll defend your right to hold that minority religious belief, bill.
i'm sure you extend that same courtesy to others, right bill?
--
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 01:36:11 AM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4233710d$0$32608$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy
to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not
prepared
to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of
continuing
a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
Come come Bill. Don't you know that sex, for both men and women,
without
any consequences is a basic human right, like the right to shelter
and
clean water, even if that right involves the wilful destruction of
other
people? Don't you know that it's the only human right on the planet
devoid
of any commensurate responsibilities like, er, responsibility
towards the
person conceived? And don't you know that if you suggest otherwise
you are
a **FASCIST** who simply wants to **CONTROL WOMEN** (all in caps
lock to
boot)?
Not in my book. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's not a right.
It's
a gift that God gave us to be had within the bounds of Holy
Matrimony.
However, pre-marital sex is NOT a sin in my book. And you have no
right to dictate to anyone what actions that they can and cannot take,
especially when your only argument is religious in nature.
Besides, which deity are you talking about? I know of many that would
disagree with you that pre-marital sex is a sin. After all, many of
them have engaged in it as well.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 05:35:17 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4233710d$0$32608$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not prepared
to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of continuing
a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
Come come Bill. Don't you know that sex, for both men and women, without
any consequences is a basic human right, like the right to shelter and
clean water, even if that right involves the wilful destruction of other
people? Don't you know that it's the only human right on the planet devoid
of any commensurate responsibilities like, er, responsibility towards the
person conceived? And don't you know that if you suggest otherwise you are
a **FASCIST** who simply wants to **CONTROL WOMEN** (all in caps lock to
boot)?
Not in my book. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's not a right. It's
a gift that God gave us to be had within the bounds of Holy Matrimony.
Sorry Bill, I was being ironic. It's a British thing. I was simply
illustrating the idiocy of the pro-abortion position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:11:52 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42337cb5$0$32620$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4233710d$0$32608$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not
prepared
to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of continuing
a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
Come come Bill. Don't you know that sex, for both men and women, without
any consequences is a basic human right, like the right to shelter and
clean water, even if that right involves the wilful destruction of other
people? Don't you know that it's the only human right on the planet
devoid of any commensurate responsibilities like, er, responsibility
towards the person conceived? And don't you know that if you suggest
otherwise you are a **FASCIST** who simply wants to **CONTROL WOMEN**
(all in caps lock to boot)?
Not in my book. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's not a right.
It's a gift that God gave us to be had within the bounds of Holy
Matrimony.
Sorry Bill, I was being ironic. It's a British thing. I was simply
illustrating the idiocy of the pro-abortion position.
Oh ok. I hope you understand why I thought you were serious. ;-)
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:03:42 PM |
|
|
In article <42337cb5$0$32620$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Bill Gamelson wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:4233710d$0$32608$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
Bill Gamelson wrote:
You don't seem to understand that a woman may be perfectly happy to
share the raising of their child with their partner, but is not prepared
to take on or continue the (very real) risks and problems of continuing
a pregnancy.
Then she shouldn't be having sex.
Come come Bill. Don't you know that sex, for both men and women, without
any consequences is a basic human right, like the right to shelter and
clean water, even if that right involves the wilful destruction of other
people? Don't you know that it's the only human right on the planet devoid
of any commensurate responsibilities like, er, responsibility towards the
person conceived? And don't you know that if you suggest otherwise you are
a **FASCIST** who simply wants to **CONTROL WOMEN** (all in caps lock to
boot)?
Not in my book. Sex outside of marriage is a sin. It's not a right. It's
a gift that God gave us to be had within the bounds of Holy Matrimony.
Sorry Bill, I was being ironic. It's a British thing. I was simply
illustrating the idiocy of the pro-abortion position.
What is idiotic is the idea that anyone is pro-abortion or that people
have to claim someone is pro-abortion because reality won't support
their agenda.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:28:01 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
Sorry Bill, I was being ironic. It's a British thing. I was simply
illustrating the idiocy of the pro-abortion position.
What is idiotic is the idea that anyone is pro-abortion or that people
have to claim someone is pro-abortion because reality won't support
their agenda.
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their
prerogative, but I for one will not humour them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill Gamelson" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:30:34 PM |
|
|
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42338912$0$32615$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
David W. Barnes wrote:
Sorry Bill, I was being ironic. It's a British thing. I was simply
illustrating the idiocy of the pro-abortion position.
What is idiotic is the idea that anyone is pro-abortion or that people
have to claim someone is pro-abortion because reality won't support
their agenda.
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their prerogative,
but I for one will not humour them.
It's called "denial."
--
Christian music and sermons on streaming audio:
www.globalnetministries.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
13 Mar 2005 10:40:17 PM |
|
|
"Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net> writes:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42338912$0$32615$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
David W. Barnes wrote:
Sorry Bill, I was being ironic. It's a British thing. I was simply
illustrating the idiocy of the pro-abortion position.
What is idiotic is the idea that anyone is pro-abortion or that people
have to claim someone is pro-abortion because reality won't support
their agenda.
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their prerogative,
but I for one will not humour them.
It's called "denial."
Kinda like this?:
-----quote-----
From: "Bill Gamelson" <bgamelson@cox.net>
Newsgroups: alt.abortion,talk.abortion,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.politics.usa.republican
Subject: Abortion
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <p4yYd.7221$ju.701@okepread07>
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:51:26 -0600
Organization: Cox Communications
It is quite obvious I am not going to change your mind and you're not going
to change mine. Continuing this argument would be fruitless.
End of story.
----endquote----
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 8, San Antonio 0 (March 12)
NEXT GAME: Monday, March 14 vs. Cincinnati, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:41:34 PM |
|
|
Bill Gamelson wrote:
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their prerogative,
but I for one will not humour them.
It's called "denial."
In some cases, it's just evil dissembling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:43:32 PM |
|
|
In article <42338c44$0$32614$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
Bill Gamelson wrote:
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their prerogative,
but I for one will not humour them.
It's called "denial."
In some cases, it's just evil dissembling.
No - it's denial - on your part. (That explains how you can believe
God exists without any evidence, too.)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:37:17 PM |
|
|
In article <QQLYd.7308$ju.4726@okepread07>, Bill Gamelson
<bgamelson@cox.net> wrote:
"Michael Calwell" <michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:42338912$0$32615$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
David W. Barnes wrote:
Sorry Bill, I was being ironic. It's a British thing. I was simply
illustrating the idiocy of the pro-abortion position.
What is idiotic is the idea that anyone is pro-abortion or that people
have to claim someone is pro-abortion because reality won't support
their agenda.
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their prerogative,
but I for one will not humour them.
It's called "denial."
The denial seems to be yours. His comment is illogical. But perhaps
you can explain it.
If "pro-abortion really means supporting legalized abortion, and people
support legalized abortion, why would it bother them to be called
pro-abortion?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:57:35 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 18:30:34 -0600, Bill Gamelson wrote:
It's called "denial."
now that you have accepted your problem, i hope that you'll begin to cope
with it.
good luck.
--
"That's not a forgery, stupid" moaned forger Frank Dwyer as
he tried to explain why he manufactured text and falsely
attributed it to me. <4Y8Kd.2254$Ty.1665@news02.roc.ny>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:37:16 PM |
|
|
In article <42338912$0$32615$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
Sorry Bill, I was being ironic. It's a British thing. I was simply
illustrating the idiocy of the pro-abortion position.
What is idiotic is the idea that anyone is pro-abortion or that people
have to claim someone is pro-abortion because reality won't support
their agenda.
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
Because you say so? Hardly. They are pro-choice. One can honestly
say they disagree with abortion and would never have one, but still
believe in legalized abortion.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their
prerogative, but I for one will not humour them.
Why would that "make them feel better?" If "pro-abortion really means
supporting legalized abortion, and they support legalized abortion, why
would it bother them to be called pro-abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:43:39 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
Because you say so? Hardly. They are pro-choice. One can honestly
say they disagree with abortion and would never have one, but still
believe in legalized abortion.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their
prerogative, but I for one will not humour them.
Why would that "make them feel better?" If "pro-abortion really means
supporting legalized abortion, and they support legalized abortion, why
would it bother them to be called pro-abortion?
You tell me David, you tell me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 06:54:42 PM |
|
|
In article <42338cbc$0$32614$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
Because you say so? Hardly. They are pro-choice. One can honestly
say they disagree with abortion and would never have one, but still
believe in legalized abortion.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their
prerogative, but I for one will not humour them.
Why would that "make them feel better?" If "pro-abortion really means
supporting legalized abortion, and they support legalized abortion, why
would it bother them to be called pro-abortion?
You tell me David, you tell me.
I thought so. Every time I ask a pro-lifer why it is that if
"pro-abortion really means supporting legalized abortion, and someone
supports legalized abortion, why would it bother them to be called
pro-abortion, the pro-lifers head for the hills.
The fact is, it makes no sense - which is why you can't support it.
However, it does make one valuable point. Those of you who claim to be
so religious have no compunction whatsoever about lying and distort the
truth. So why would you do that?
Pro-lifers aren't interested in the child, or life. They are
interested in punishment. You demonstrate beautifully what I have
always said. Prolifers view a child as the punishment for the sin of
the woman getting pregnant when she didn't want to. It is the reason
prolifers work so hard at getting the fetus born and then cut any
financial assistance to the child. Sex is the crime, having to give
birth is the punishment, and having an abortion is committing the crime
without being punished - which conservatives can't stand.
The fact is, pro-lifers aren't interested in the child (they vote
against the child once they are born). They aren't interested in the
health of the mother (they vote against programs that ensure the health
of the mother and fetus). I conclude that they are interested ONLY in
punishing the woman for what they see as unacceptable behavior. The
child isn't "life" it is "punishment." It is a deterrent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:07:35 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <42338cbc$0$32614$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
Because you say so? Hardly. They are pro-choice. One can honestly
say they disagree with abortion and would never have one, but still
believe in legalized abortion.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their
prerogative, but I for one will not humour them.
Why would that "make them feel better?" If "pro-abortion really means
supporting legalized abortion, and they support legalized abortion, why
would it bother them to be called pro-abortion?
You tell me David, you tell me.
I thought so. Every time I ask a pro-lifer why it is that if
"pro-abortion really means supporting legalized abortion, and someone
supports legalized abortion, why would it bother them to be called
pro-abortion, the pro-lifers head for the hills.
No I didn't. I told you the reason. BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER.
Hitler did not describe what he did as genocidal mania. He described it
as "the final solution". It's called EUPHIMISM.
The fact is, it makes no sense - which is why you can't support it.
I did.
However, it does make one valuable point. Those of you who claim to be
so religious have no compunction whatsoever about lying and distort the
truth. So why would you do that?
I didn't.
Pro-lifers aren't interested in the child, or life. They are
interested in punishment. You demonstrate beautifully what I have
always said. Prolifers view a child as the punishment for the sin of
the woman getting pregnant when she didn't want to. It is the reason
prolifers work so hard at getting the fetus born and then cut any
financial assistance to the child. Sex is the crime, having to give
birth is the punishment, and having an abortion is committing the crime
without being punished - which conservatives can't stand.
Nope. Now you're clutching at straws.
The fact is, pro-lifers aren't interested in the child (they vote
against the child once they are born). They aren't interested in the
health of the mother (they vote against programs that ensure the health
of the mother and fetus). I conclude that they are interested ONLY in
punishing the woman for what they see as unacceptable behavior. The
child isn't "life" it is "punishment." It is a deterrent.
A barrage of non-sequiturs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:17:47 PM |
|
|
In article <42339258$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <42338cbc$0$32614$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
Because you say so? Hardly. They are pro-choice. One can honestly
say they disagree with abortion and would never have one, but still
believe in legalized abortion.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their
prerogative, but I for one will not humour them.
Why would that "make them feel better?" If "pro-abortion really means
supporting legalized abortion, and they support legalized abortion, why
would it bother them to be called pro-abortion?
You tell me David, you tell me.
I thought so. Every time I ask a pro-lifer why it is that if
"pro-abortion really means supporting legalized abortion, and someone
supports legalized abortion, why would it bother them to be called
pro-abortion, the pro-lifers head for the hills.
No I didn't. I told you the reason. BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER.
The answer the question, why would it make me feel better to deny your
definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel? Stop
RUNNING!
Hitler did not describe what he did as genocidal mania. He described it
as "the final solution". It's called EUPHIMISM.
No. It's called a "EUPHEMISM."
The fact is, it makes no sense - which is why you can't support it.
I did.
Really? Where? You can't do it. Why would it make me feel better to
deny your definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel?
However, it does make one valuable point. Those of you who claim to be
so religious have no compunction whatsoever about lying and distort the
truth. So why would you do that?
I didn't.
Then support you position. Why would it make me feel better to deny
your definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel?
Pro-lifers aren't interested in the child, or life. They are
interested in punishment. You demonstrate beautifully what I have
always said. Prolifers view a child as the punishment for the sin of
the woman getting pregnant when she didn't want to. It is the reason
prolifers work so hard at getting the fetus born and then cut any
financial assistance to the child. Sex is the crime, having to give
birth is the punishment, and having an abortion is committing the crime
without being punished - which conservatives can't stand.
Nope. Now you're clutching at straws.
Look who's talking. I explained my position. You didn't.
The fact is, pro-lifers aren't interested in the child (they vote
against the child once they are born). They aren't interested in the
health of the mother (they vote against programs that ensure the health
of the mother and fetus). I conclude that they are interested ONLY in
punishing the woman for what they see as unacceptable behavior. The
child isn't "life" it is "punishment." It is a deterrent.
A barrage of non-sequiturs.
Back it up - if you can. Or does the truth hurt too much?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:26:06 PM |
|
|
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <42339258$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <42338cbc$0$32614$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
Because you say so? Hardly. They are pro-choice. One can honestly
say they disagree with abortion and would never have one, but still
believe in legalized abortion.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their
prerogative, but I for one will not humour them.
Why would that "make them feel better?" If "pro-abortion really means
supporting legalized abortion, and they support legalized abortion, why
would it bother them to be called pro-abortion?
You tell me David, you tell me.
I thought so. Every time I ask a pro-lifer why it is that if
"pro-abortion really means supporting legalized abortion, and someone
supports legalized abortion, why would it bother them to be called
pro-abortion, the pro-lifers head for the hills.
No I didn't. I told you the reason. BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER.
The answer the question, why would it make me feel better to deny your
definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel?
RUNNING!
BECAUSE ABORTION IS, IN REALITY, A HORRIFIC VIOLENT ACT AGAINST THE MOST
DEFENCELESS, and people who support it wish to distance themselves from
that reality. Happy now? Do I have to spell it out again for you? Or
maybe you want to tell me that I've avoided the question.
Hitler did not describe what he did as genocidal mania. He described it
as "the final solution". It's called EUPHIMISM.
No. It's called a "EUPHEMISM."
Ah, typo pednatry, the last bastoin of the deseprate.
The fact is, it makes no sense - which is why you can't support it.
I did.
Really? Where? You can't do it. Why would it make me feel better to
deny your definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel?
However, it does make one valuable point. Those of you who claim to be
so religious have no compunction whatsoever about lying and distort the
truth. So why would you do that?
I didn't.
Then support you position. Why would it make me feel better to deny
your definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel?
Pro-lifers aren't interested in the child, or life. They are
interested in punishment. You demonstrate beautifully what I have
always said. Prolifers view a child as the punishment for the sin of
the woman getting pregnant when she didn't want to. It is the reason
prolifers work so hard at getting the fetus born and then cut any
financial assistance to the child. Sex is the crime, having to give
birth is the punishment, and having an abortion is committing the crime
without being punished - which conservatives can't stand.
Nope. Now you're clutching at straws.
Look who's talking. I explained my position. You didn't.
The fact is, pro-lifers aren't interested in the child (they vote
against the child once they are born). They aren't interested in the
health of the mother (they vote against programs that ensure the health
of the mother and fetus). I conclude that they are interested ONLY in
punishing the woman for what they see as unacceptable behavior. The
child isn't "life" it is "punishment." It is a deterrent.
A barrage of non-sequiturs.
Back it up - if you can. Or does the truth hurt too much?
Yes, the truth hurts. The truth is that people are being killed, and you
support that, and you deny you support it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Question |
12 Mar 2005 07:38:06 PM |
|
|
In article <423396ae$0$32616$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <42339258$0$8759$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <42338cbc$0$32614$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Michael Calwell
<michael.calwell@btopenworld.com> wrote:
David W. Barnes wrote:
If someone supports legalised abortion on demand, then they are
pro-abortion. That is a fact.
Because you say so? Hardly. They are pro-choice. One can honestly
say they disagree with abortion and would never have one, but still
believe in legalized abortion.
If, in some convoluted way known only to their acrobatic imaginations,
calling themselves "pro-choice" makes them feel better by somehow
abnegating responsibility for their support of the most barbaric,
horrific and violent practice still legal, then that's their
prerogative, but I for one will not humour them.
Why would that "make them feel better?" If "pro-abortion really means
supporting legalized abortion, and they support legalized abortion, why
would it bother them to be called pro-abortion?
You tell me David, you tell me.
I thought so. Every time I ask a pro-lifer why it is that if
"pro-abortion really means supporting legalized abortion, and someone
supports legalized abortion, why would it bother them to be called
pro-abortion, the pro-lifers head for the hills.
No I didn't. I told you the reason. BECAUSE IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER.
The answer the question, why would it make me feel better to deny your
definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel?
RUNNING!
BECAUSE ABORTION IS, IN REALITY, A HORRIFIC VIOLENT ACT AGAINST THE MOST
DEFENCELESS, and people who support it wish to distance themselves from
that reality. Happy now? Do I have to spell it out again for you? Or
maybe you want to tell me that I've avoided the question.
You HAVE avoided it. Let me spell it out for YOU.
You claim pro-abortion means only "favoring legalized abortion."
The pro-choice "favor legalized abortion."
Therefore they should not abject to being referred to as "pro-abortion."
But they do. WHY? If you are right and that is all it means, why
"distance" yourself from it? Why is this so hard for you?
Could it be that you know full well it means more than "favoring
legalized abortion," you lying hypocrite?
Hitler did not describe what he did as genocidal mania. He described it
as "the final solution". It's called EUPHIMISM.
No. It's called a "EUPHEMISM."
Ah, typo pednatry, the last bastoin of the deseprate.
Ah, typo pednatry[sic], the last bastoin[sic] of the deseprate[sic]?
Did you mean, "Ah, typo pedantry, the last bastion of the desperate?"
It was YOU who tried to bring Hitler into this. (And Hitler was
pro-life, except for the Jews, blacks, gays, and other minorities, much
like many Republicans.)
The fact is, it makes no sense - which is why you can't support it.
I did.
Really? Where? You can't do it. Why would it make me feel better to
deny your definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel?
However, it does make one valuable point. Those of you who claim to be
so religious have no compunction whatsoever about lying and distort the
truth. So why would you do that?
I didn't.
Then support you position. Why would it make me feel better to deny
your definition if your definition were accurate as to how I feel?
Pro-lifers aren't interested in the child, or life. They are
interested in punishment. You demonstrate beautifully what I have
always said. Prolifers view a child as the punishment for the sin of
the woman getting pregnant when she didn't want to. It is the reason
prolifers work so hard at getting the fetus born and then cut any
financial assistance to the child. Sex is the crime, having to give
birth is the punishment, and having an abortion is committing the crime
without being punished - which conservatives can't stand.
Nope. Now you're clutching at straws.
Look who's talking. I explained my position. You didn't.
The fact is, pro-lifers aren't interested in the child (they vote
against the child once they are born). They aren't interested in the
health of the mother (they vote against programs that ensure the health
of the mother and fetus). I conclude that they are interested ONLY in
punishing the woman for what they see as unacceptable behavior. The
child isn't "life" it is "punishment." It is a deterrent.
A barrage of non-sequiturs.
Back it up - if you can. Or does the truth hurt too much?
Yes, the truth hurts. The truth is that people are being killed, and you
support that, and you deny you support it.
People are not "being killed," legally. But lets say that is true. Do
you support the "war" with Iraq (and all the other brown or Asians of
the world?) Do you support the "right to bear arms?" Do you support
the death "penalty?" Or do you just support ensuring non-persons
become persons before we kill them?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
