| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Mike D." |
| Date: |
07 Mar 2005 01:30:44 PM |
| Object: |
question from new guy |
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
.
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
07 Mar 2005 11:08:33 PM |
|
|
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> writes:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Some of them even defend the woman's right to make her own choice. I guess
this place isn't right for you.
--
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 3, Grand Rapids 1 (March 7)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 9 at Chicago, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
08 Mar 2005 11:21:20 PM |
|
|
Why isn't it right for me? I might not agree with you or someone else? Is
that grounds for declaring me 'out of place' ? Mike.
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkpsyak9m6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> writes:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Some of them even defend the woman's right to make her own choice. I
guess
this place isn't right for you.
--
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 3, Grand Rapids 1 (March 7)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 9 at Chicago, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 03:23:45 AM |
|
|
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> writes:
"Patrick Lee Humphrey" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szkpsyak9m6.fsf@eris.io.com...
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> writes:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Some of them even defend the woman's right to make her own choice. I guess
this place isn't right for you.
Why isn't it right for me? I might not agree with you or someone else? Is
that grounds for declaring me 'out of place' ? Mike.
Well, you're going to have to deal with people who'd rather let the woman make
her own informed choice, whether it be abortion or birth. No one can exclude
you from a public newsgroup, but no one's obliged to agree or disagree with
you. Might as well say your piece, and see if anyone salutes it.
--
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 3, Grand Rapids 1 (March 7)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 9 at Chicago, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
07 Mar 2005 11:06:19 PM |
|
|
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Shrug. I defend liberty.
Do you really oppose it?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
08 Mar 2005 11:20:06 PM |
|
|
I oppose abortion in principle, but not physically, so I guess one could say
I don't "really", technically oppose abortion.
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:d0jbsb$ojd$1@bolt.sonic.net...
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Shrug. I defend liberty.
Do you really oppose it?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
07 Mar 2005 12:03:21 PM |
|
|
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
08 Mar 2005 11:18:28 PM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact. The
debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is whether
abortion should be legal. As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder. Abortion on
demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is inconvenient to
some other human or humans. The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person. Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 03:19:53 AM |
|
|
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> writes:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact. The
debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is whether
abortion should be legal. As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder. Abortion on
demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is inconvenient to
some other human or humans. The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person. Mike
*yawn* I quit counting the "no true Scotsman" assertions when they overflowed
my calculator, and that was a decade and a half ago...come up with something
more original than the Xerox copies you're spitting out. Abortion is legal,
indeed, and unless something is really awry, no one's forcing you to abort.
After all, it's your choice. (Or, more accurately, the choice of your
wife/girlfriend/SO/whatever, since she's the only one of you two that has the
capability of being pregnant.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 3, Grand Rapids 1 (March 7)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 9 at Chicago, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 02:12:50 AM |
|
|
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YtGdnV7UXKhDwbPfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact.
The
debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is whether
abortion should be legal.
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
Yes it is. Murder is the taking of someone's life against their will. A
foetus doesn't have any will yet.
Abortion on
demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
That assumes that this being *must* come into this world. It doesn't have
to.
It was just the result of a natural physical process that was accidentally
triggered.
The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of
these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person. Mike
--
Andrew W. (Paranormal Agnostic) An interest in the paranormal (spiritual)
but with acknowledgement that it's existence can neither be proved - to
others, nor disproved (agnostic).
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 05:19:26 PM |
|
|
"Andrew W (Paranormal Agnostic)" <nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> wrote
in message news:422eb002$0$31616$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YtGdnV7UXKhDwbPfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact.
The
debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is whether
abortion should be legal.
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
Yes it is. Murder is the taking of someone's life against their will. A
foetus doesn't have any will yet.
Does a 1 week old baby have a will to be alive? If so, how do you know this?
How many 1 week year old babies have talked to you? Should you be allowed to
kill babies out of the womb?
Abortion on
demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
08 Mar 2005 10:58:32 PM |
|
|
Mike D. wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact.
An established and indisputable fact that is constantly under attack.
The debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is whether
abortion should be legal.
Thus my statement that there's only a need to defend the legality.
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
lol... hardly
Abortion on demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
That doesn't make it murder.
The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person.
As I said, the act of abortion needs no defense. It is a decision for a
woman to make after consulting with whomever she wishes to consult with.
Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion (convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, thus there is nothing
to defend on that front (and nothing for you to attack).
The reason for obtaining an abortion doesn't matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 11:03:50 PM |
|
|
re this statement "Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion
(convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, "
Well, it also concerns the fetus whose life support system is being aborted.
If you are going to suggest that a pregnant woman should have the absolute
right to arbitrarily kill her unborn baby for any reason she wishes, how
much different would it be to allow a parent the absolute right to
terminate the life of a child of his/hers who has been born already? Why
shouldn't a fetus have the right to life? It isn't imposing itself on the
pregnant woman due to it's own decision, but rather it is only struggling to
survive in circumstances in which it was placed by it's parents. Ahh, *****
you. Abortion is wrong, and everyone knows it, even the human ***** who
verbally defend the practice.
I have a cousin who is a retired surgeon, and he is truly a skilled doctor.
he was a cancer surgeon at Sloan Kettering. In his opinion abortion is
wrong. I think I am in better company sharing the same opinion as someone
like him, than the rabble who clamor for the heads of babies. Mike.
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:YnvXd.691$it1.439@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact.
An established and indisputable fact that is constantly under attack.
The debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is
whether
abortion should be legal.
Thus my statement that there's only a need to defend the legality.
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
lol... hardly
Abortion on demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is
inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
That doesn't make it murder.
The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of
these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person.
As I said, the act of abortion needs no defense. It is a decision for a
woman to make after consulting with whomever she wishes to consult with.
Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion (convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, thus there is nothing
to defend on that front (and nothing for you to attack).
The reason for obtaining an abortion doesn't matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 10:09:16 PM |
|
|
Mike D. wrote:
re this statement "Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion
(convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, "
Well, it also concerns the fetus whose life support system is being aborted.
A fetus is not a "one", it is a part of a one (the woman).
If you are going to suggest that a pregnant woman should have the absolute
right to arbitrarily kill her unborn baby for any reason she wishes, how
much different would it be to allow a parent the absolute right to
terminate the life of a child of his/hers who has been born already?
Considering the born have rights, it would be much different.
Why shouldn't a fetus have the right to life?
It does, insofar as the woman carrying it wishes to grant that right.
It isn't imposing itself on the pregnant woman due to it's own decision, but rather it is only struggling to
survive in circumstances in which it was placed by it's parents.
Yeah... and?
Ahh, ***** you.
***** you too.
Abortion is wrong,
Wrong
and everyone knows it, even the human ***** who
verbally defend the practice.
The intelligent folk among us know better.
I have a cousin who is a retired surgeon, and he is truly a skilled doctor.
he was a cancer surgeon at Sloan Kettering. In his opinion abortion is
wrong.
So? That's probably one of the reasons he became a surgeon and not an
ob/gyn.
I think I am in better company sharing the same opinion as someone
like him,
Because he cuts people for a living?
than the rabble who clamor for the heads of babies.
How do you know I'm not Chief of Thoracic Surgery at Boston Mercy Hospital?
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:YnvXd.691$it1.439@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact.
An established and indisputable fact that is constantly under attack.
The debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is
whether
abortion should be legal.
Thus my statement that there's only a need to defend the legality.
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
lol... hardly
Abortion on demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is
inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
That doesn't make it murder.
The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of
these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person.
As I said, the act of abortion needs no defense. It is a decision for a
woman to make after consulting with whomever she wishes to consult with.
Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion (convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, thus there is nothing
to defend on that front (and nothing for you to attack).
The reason for obtaining an abortion doesn't matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
10 Mar 2005 09:20:26 PM |
|
|
Frank Dwyer is a troll, in my opinion. He argues his point not with logic or
reason, but with retorts and childish denials. He describes rights as if
they are privileges, he makes false statements to bolster a weak arguing
position, such as claiming a fetus and it's mother are on organism( he
obviously didn't major in any of the life sciences), and he does what all
pablum puking liberals do, he borrows the liberal argument that there is no
right or wrong, only opinions of right or wrong. Being a troll is one's
own business I guess, but I just would rather not get involved in debating
with them, because they aren't really trying to achieve anything positive.
Mike.
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:MLPXd.46$hg.7@news01.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
re this statement "Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an
abortion
(convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, "
Well, it also concerns the fetus whose life support system is being
aborted.
A fetus is not a "one", it is a part of a one (the woman).
If you are going to suggest that a pregnant woman should have the
absolute
right to arbitrarily kill her unborn baby for any reason she wishes, how
much different would it be to allow a parent the absolute right to
terminate the life of a child of his/hers who has been born already?
Considering the born have rights, it would be much different.
Why shouldn't a fetus have the right to life?
It does, insofar as the woman carrying it wishes to grant that right.
It isn't imposing itself on the pregnant woman due to it's own decision,
but rather it is only struggling to
survive in circumstances in which it was placed by it's parents.
Yeah... and?
Ahh, ***** you.
***** you too.
Abortion is wrong,
Wrong
and everyone knows it, even the human ***** who
verbally defend the practice.
The intelligent folk among us know better.
I have a cousin who is a retired surgeon, and he is truly a skilled
doctor.
he was a cancer surgeon at Sloan Kettering. In his opinion abortion is
wrong.
So? That's probably one of the reasons he became a surgeon and not an
ob/gyn.
I think I am in better company sharing the same opinion as someone
like him,
Because he cuts people for a living?
than the rabble who clamor for the heads of babies.
How do you know I'm not Chief of Thoracic Surgery at Boston Mercy
Hospital?
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:YnvXd.691$it1.439@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable
fact.
An established and indisputable fact that is constantly under attack.
The debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is
whether
abortion should be legal.
Thus my statement that there's only a need to defend the legality.
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
lol... hardly
Abortion on demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is
inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
That doesn't make it murder.
The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of
these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person.
As I said, the act of abortion needs no defense. It is a decision for a
woman to make after consulting with whomever she wishes to consult with.
Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion (convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, thus there is nothing
to defend on that front (and nothing for you to attack).
The reason for obtaining an abortion doesn't matter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
10 Mar 2005 08:53:30 PM |
|
|
In article <0-OdnXO7uIqsea3fRVn-sQ@comcast.com>, Mike D.
<mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Frank Dwyer is a troll, in my opinion.
Note the childish remark - then:
He argues his point not with logic or
reason, but with retorts and childish denials.
lol
He describes rights as if
they are privileges,
They are.
he makes false statements to bolster a weak arguing
position, such as claiming a fetus and it's mother are on organism( he
obviously didn't major in any of the life sciences), and he does what all
pablum puking liberals do,
Note: More childish remarks from some who just called someone a troll
for making what he characterized as childish remarks.
he borrows the liberal argument that there is no
right or wrong, only opinions of right or wrong.
Which is true - so why would you have a problem with that?
Being a troll is one's
own business I guess, but I just would rather not get involved in debating
with them, because they aren't really trying to achieve anything positive.
From "Mr. Positive."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
10 Mar 2005 08:42:13 PM |
|
|
Mike D. wrote:
Frank Dwyer is a troll, in my opinion.
Good thing your opinion is worthless.
He argues his point not with logic or
reason, but with retorts and childish denials.
I gave you logical and reasonable retorts (look up the word before you
use it) and you've now come back with this gem of a post. Instead of
facing the fact that your position, while deeply seated in your narrow
mind, could very well be highly flawed and/or outright wrong. You've
offered exactly zero refutations of any of the facts I've presented you.
He describes rights as if they are privileges,
No "as if" about it. Rights ARE privileges granted by the society in
which you live.
he makes false statements to bolster a weak arguing
position, such as claiming a fetus and it's mother are on organism( he
obviously didn't major in any of the life sciences),
I obviously didn't say one organism. Have you anymore disingenuous
remarks?...
and he does what all
pablum puking liberals do,
Thus your ridiculous, albeit true motivation is revealed. You're a
partisan. I like partisans... really.
he borrows the liberal argument that there is no
right or wrong, only opinions of right or wrong.
That's not a liberal argument, you partisan shill, it's a logical and
factual argument.
There is nothing that is universally right or wrong. That's a fact.
Being a troll is one's
own business I guess,
So is being an ignorant partisan, but I'll let one entertain me from
time to time.
but I just would rather not get involved in debating
with them, because they aren't really trying to achieve anything positive.
One could reasonably assume that the reason you would rather not get
involved in debating with "them" is because you know that the facts do
not support your position or your wishes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
10 Mar 2005 06:44:32 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:20:26 -0800, "Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <0-OdnXO7uIqsea3fRVn-sQ@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:MLPXd.46$hg.7@news01.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
re this statement "Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an
abortion
(convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, "
Well, it also concerns the fetus whose life support system is being
aborted.
A fetus is not a "one", it is a part of a one (the woman).
If you are going to suggest that a pregnant woman should have the
absolute
right to arbitrarily kill her unborn baby for any reason she wishes, how
much different would it be to allow a parent the absolute right to
terminate the life of a child of his/hers who has been born already?
Considering the born have rights, it would be much different.
Why shouldn't a fetus have the right to life?
It does, insofar as the woman carrying it wishes to grant that right.
It isn't imposing itself on the pregnant woman due to it's own decision,
but rather it is only struggling to
survive in circumstances in which it was placed by it's parents.
Yeah... and?
Ahh, ***** you.
***** you too.
Abortion is wrong,
Wrong
and everyone knows it, even the human ***** who
verbally defend the practice.
The intelligent folk among us know better.
I have a cousin who is a retired surgeon, and he is truly a skilled
doctor.
he was a cancer surgeon at Sloan Kettering. In his opinion abortion is
wrong.
So? That's probably one of the reasons he became a surgeon and not an
ob/gyn.
I think I am in better company sharing the same opinion as someone
like him,
Because he cuts people for a living?
than the rabble who clamor for the heads of babies.
How do you know I'm not Chief of Thoracic Surgery at Boston Mercy
Hospital?
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:YnvXd.691$it1.439@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable
fact.
An established and indisputable fact that is constantly under attack.
The debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is
whether
abortion should be legal.
Thus my statement that there's only a need to defend the legality.
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
lol... hardly
Abortion on demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is
inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
That doesn't make it murder.
The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of
these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person.
As I said, the act of abortion needs no defense. It is a decision for a
woman to make after consulting with whomever she wishes to consult with.
Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion (convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, thus there is nothing
to defend on that front (and nothing for you to attack).
The reason for obtaining an abortion doesn't matter.
Frank Dwyer is a troll, in my opinion. He argues his point not with logic or
reason, but with retorts and childish denials. He describes rights as if
they are privileges,
The only rights that exist are those recognized and protected by law.
he makes false statements to bolster a weak arguing
position, such as claiming a fetus and it's mother are on organism( he
obviously didn't major in any of the life sciences),
Evidently you have no idea what an organism is.
You are one.
I am one.
and he does what all
pablum puking liberals do, he borrows the liberal argument that there is no
right or wrong, only opinions of right or wrong.
Right and wrong have no intrinsic values and will change from person
to person and over time.
Being a troll is one's
own business I guess, but I just would rather not get involved in debating
with them, because they aren't really trying to achieve anything positive.
Other than countering your propaganda?
What is Top-Posting and why is it considered bad?
http://www.dickalba.demon.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq_topp.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 09:12:47 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 21:03:50 -0800, "Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <8YadnbIRwPs5NrLfRVn-ug@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:YnvXd.691$it1.439@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact.
An established and indisputable fact that is constantly under attack.
The debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is
whether
abortion should be legal.
Thus my statement that there's only a need to defend the legality.
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
lol... hardly
Abortion on demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is
inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
That doesn't make it murder.
The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of
these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person.
As I said, the act of abortion needs no defense. It is a decision for a
woman to make after consulting with whomever she wishes to consult with.
Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion (convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, thus there is nothing
to defend on that front (and nothing for you to attack).
The reason for obtaining an abortion doesn't matter.
re this statement "Any reason a woman may have for obtaining an abortion
(convenience,
medical necessity, etc) concerns no one but her, "
Well, it also concerns the fetus whose life support system is being aborted.
Irrelevant. An appendectomy also concerns the appendix but that is
not a consideration.
If you are going to suggest that a pregnant woman should have the absolute
right to arbitrarily kill her unborn baby
The purpose of an abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. Anything else
is an unimportant side effect. There are no unborn babies.
for any reason she wishes, how
much different would it be to allow a parent the absolute right to
terminate the life of a child of his/hers who has been born already?
The Constitution would be a problem, just to mention one.
Why
shouldn't a fetus have the right to life?
Please give me a reference to where a person has a right to life. A
fetus is not a person.
It isn't imposing itself on the
pregnant woman due to it's own decision, but rather it is only struggling to
survive in circumstances in which it was placed by it's parents.
Irrelevant and wrong.
Ahh, *****
you. Abortion is wrong,
Right and wrong have no intrinsic values and will change from person
to person and over time.
and everyone knows it,
I don't.
even the human ***** who
verbally defend the practice.
Then don't have one.
I have a cousin who is a retired surgeon, and he is truly a skilled doctor.
he was a cancer surgeon at Sloan Kettering. In his opinion abortion is
wrong.
So what? That is just one person's opinion, and no better than mine.
I think I am in better company sharing the same opinion as someone
like him, than the rabble who clamor for the heads of babies. Mike.
No one wants the heads of babies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 05:47:52 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 21:18:28 -0800, "Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> in
alt.abortion with message-id <YtGdnV7UXKhDwbPfRVn-hQ@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact. The
debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is whether
abortion should be legal.
Why not debate whether speed limits should be legal?
As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder.
Nonsense. It ia a simple elective medical procedure available to
anyone who needs it. As it so happens it is useless to anyone but a
pregnant woman but that is irrelevant.
Abortion on
demand is the killing of a human being
No human being exists prior to live birth.
whose existence is inconvenient to
some other human or humans.
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. Anything else is an
irrelevant side effect.
The only time an abortion might be defensible is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable.
Why should a medical procedure need defending? Does an appendectomy?
A heart bypass?
ALl of these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person.
I see you have set yourself up as the judge of what is decent. Do you
mind if I ignore you?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike D." |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 12:02:40 AM |
|
|
testes, one two
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YtGdnV7UXKhDwbPfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:JH0Xd.519$Se.159@news02.roc.ny...
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
There's no need to defend the act, only the legality.
I 'beg to differ'. The legality is an established and indisputable fact.
The
debate( which is nor really debatable to any decent person) is whether
abortion should be legal. As far as 'defend' whether or not abortion
should
be legal, abortion on demand is no more defensible than murder. Abortion
on
demand is the killing of a human being whose existence is inconvenient to
some other human or humans. The only time an abortion might be defensible
is
when it is medically necessary, and THAT itself is debatable. ALl of
these
staementsare self evident facts to any decent person. Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "--sexkitten--" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
07 Mar 2005 10:33:18 AM |
|
|
Mike D. wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Yup.
Although it would be more accurate to say we come here to argue about it.
--
--sexkitten--
In Loving Memory of Jim Addison
9/18/71 - 12/30/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, itll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
07 Mar 2005 09:51:43 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:30:44 -0800,
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Fair-minded and SENSIBLE people do, yes. All the time.
And in case you had any ideas, they also make debating
DOG MEAT of those in here who are clueless and hateful
enough to seek to FORCE gestation-to-term on women against
their will. Since such vile, Anti-Choice people have NO FACTS
to back up their loathsome agenda. (Due to the fact that NO
such relevant facts even **exist**.)
ALSO all the time.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
08 Mar 2005 06:30:59 PM |
|
|
How many times must you be asked to bring forward the "facts" supporting
your position Craig? I know I've asked you several times and you never have
other then trying to spew a bunch of self evident bull crap. It's self
evident that you are full of crap. Now shut up already.
"Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!"
<xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:42332021.5523032@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:30:44 -0800,
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Fair-minded and SENSIBLE people do, yes. All the time.
And in case you had any ideas, they also make debating
DOG MEAT of those in here who are clueless and hateful
enough to seek to FORCE gestation-to-term on women against
their will. Since such vile, Anti-Choice people have NO FACTS
to back up their loathsome agenda. (Due to the fact that NO
such relevant facts even **exist**.)
ALSO all the time.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
08 Mar 2005 06:28:41 PM |
|
|
***rude, newbie top post reformatted
as a courtesy to readers***
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:torXd.6527$Wy.5118@okepread02:
"Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, it'll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD
RIDDANCE!" <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:42332021.5523032@netnews.mchsi.com...
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:30:44 -0800,
"Mike D." <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Fair-minded and SENSIBLE people do, yes. All the time.
And in case you had any ideas, they also make debating
DOG MEAT of those in here who are clueless and hateful
enough to seek to FORCE gestation-to-term on women against
their will. Since such vile, Anti-Choice people have NO FACTS
to back up their loathsome agenda. (Due to the fact that NO
such relevant facts even **exist**.)
ALSO all the time.
How many times
after you have been around for a few weeks, kid, you'll figure out not to
top post.
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
08 Mar 2005 10:22:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:30:59 -0600,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Fair-minded and SENSIBLE people do, yes. All the time.
And in case you had any ideas, they also make debating
DOG MEAT of those in here who are clueless and hateful
enough to seek to FORCE gestation-to-term on women against
their will. Since such vile, Anti-Choice people have NO FACTS
to back up their loathsome agenda. (Due to the fact that NO
such relevant facts even **exist**.)
ALSO all the time.
How many times must you be asked to bring forward the
"facts" supporting your position Craig?
I'll keep right on doing it every time ignorant louts like you
continue to make total fools of yourself by LYING that I haven't.
I know I've asked you several times and you never have
other then trying to spew a bunch of self evident bull crap.
Many of the facts that are relevant to these issue ARE
self-evident. And NONE of them are bullcrap. They INDICT
the loathsome and hateful agendas of all who are moronic
enough to seek to deny personal liberties to ANY person or
group.
It's self evident that you are full of crap.
Quite the opposite. But **you** keep right on PROVING
that you ARE, as you just now did again in this idiotic and
trollish post of yours. (And don't think that the readers aren't
smart enough to be laughing long and loud at you for that.)
Now shut up already.
Until the loathsome agendas of the RRR cult have
become extinct -- never!
Meanwhile -- here's an outline that you have NEVER had
the guts to try to disprove any part of. (Or if you have, you
failed. no one has EVER been able to disprove *any* of the
facts it contains. ---
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryos &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefited
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Craig Chilton
(To E-mail me, remove the "_".)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Reasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
09 Mar 2005 05:11:21 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <dpn@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:s9us21d6msv5vno4n71t4t9tvk6gpchtak@4ax.com...
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:30:59 -0600,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com> wrote:
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Fair-minded and SENSIBLE people do, yes. All the time.
And in case you had any ideas, they also make debating
DOG MEAT of those in here who are clueless and hateful
enough to seek to FORCE gestation-to-term on women against
their will. Since such vile, Anti-Choice people have NO FACTS
to back up their loathsome agenda. (Due to the fact that NO
such relevant facts even **exist**.)
ALSO all the time.
How many times must you be asked to bring forward the
"facts" supporting your position Craig?
I'll keep right on doing it every time ignorant louts like you
continue to make total fools of yourself by LYING that I haven't.
If you have indeed proved what you say, prove that you have said it.
Otherwise you are made to be a liar once again.
I know I've asked you several times and you never have
other then trying to spew a bunch of self evident bull crap.
Many of the facts that are relevant to these issue ARE
self-evident.
Such as the fact that you are a liar and have not proved anything.
And NONE of them are bullcrap. They INDICT
the loathsome and hateful agendas of all who are moronic
enough to seek to deny personal liberties to ANY person or
group.
It's self evident that you are full of crap.
Quite the opposite. But **you** keep right on PROVING
that you ARE,
If asking you to prove what you say is bullcrap, I guess there's are tons of
scientists that you could say are full of bullcrap by wanting proof for
theories.
as you just now did again in this idiotic and
trollish post of yours. (And don't think that the readers aren't
smart enough to be laughing long and loud at you for that.)
Now shut up already.
Until the loathsome agendas of the RRR cult have
become extinct -- never!
Meanwhile -- here's an outline that you have NEVER had
the guts to try to disprove any part of. (Or if you have, you
failed. no one has EVER been able to disprove *any* of the
facts it contains. ---
It is never necessary to prove a negative. Present proof of everything you
say and I will refute that which is untrue. Until you do, you are nothing
but a liar.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton -- On 1/20/09, itll be BYE-BYE Bushie! Then, GOOD RIDDANCE!" |
|
| Title: Re: question from new guy |
14 Mar 2005 08:48:49 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 9 Mar 2005 17:11:21 -0600,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> ...
...did nothing but prove to everyone, once AGAIN,
that he is nothing but one VERY bone-*ignorant* TROLL.
Moronic loser.
<Lying swill flushed>
<Previous post -- which INDCTS him -- restored.> ---
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 18:30:59 -0600,
"Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
Craig Chilton < > wrote:
Mike D. <mikdan7@comcast.net> wrote:
Do people really come here and defend abortion? Mike.
Fair-minded and SENSIBLE people do, yes. All the time.
And in case you had any ideas, they also make debating
DOG MEAT of those in here who are clueless and hateful
enough to seek to FORCE gestation-to-term on women against
their will. Since such vile, Anti-Choice people have NO FACTS
to back up their loathsome agenda. (Due to the fact that NO
such relevant facts even **exist**.)
ALSO all the time.
How many times must you be asked to bring forward the
"facts" supporting your position Craig?
I'll keep right on doing it every time ignorant louts like you
continue to make total fools of yourself by LYING that I haven't.
I know I've asked you several times and you never have
other then trying to spew a bunch of self evident bull crap.
Many of the facts that are relevant to these issue ARE
self-evident. And NONE of them are bullcrap. They INDICT
the loathsome and hateful agendas of all who are moronic
enough to seek to deny personal liberties to ANY person or
group.
It's self evident that you are full of crap.
Quite the opposite. But **you** keep right on PROVING
that you ARE, as you just now did again in this idiotic and
trollish post of yours. (And don't think that the readers aren't
smart enough to be laughing long and loud at you for that.)
Now shut up already.
Until the loathsome agendas of the RRR cult have
become extinct -- never!
Meanwhile -- here's an outline that you have NEVER had
the guts to try to disprove any part of. (Or if you have, you
failed. no one has EVER been able to disprove *any* of the
facts it contains. ---
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryos &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the year 2002 to date, in
the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic of
any nation in the entire history of the world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefited
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Craig Chilton
(To E-mail me, remove the "_".)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
