In article <c6q55q$b71$5@pita.alt.net>, *****@yourchurch.org says...

In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Mark Richardson said...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:03:06 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:

Mark Richardson wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:01:00 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:

The only conceivable reason to take an anti-abortion stance would be a
particular set of religious beliefs.
Absent this, a non-self-aware,
non-viable fetus has no reason to be of any concern. This site is a
spoof, right?

I don't think so.
You can be an atheist and hold something as precious or "holy".
You don't believe that "holiness" resides in a being called god.

So its conceivable that you hold all (animal?) life holy - even non


sentient life.

Not and be a logically consistant atheist, you can't.

Well I must disagree.
There are some things that logic simply has nothing to say about.

No god, no
supernatural anything, for the same reasons that gods are ruled out.

I agree with that - but what if its holy in a non supernatural way?
Or if you dont like holy use another word - english is full of 'em.
"Sacred" is another.

No
concept of "holiness" to be applied. Believing otherwise is to be
confused. The fetus has no rights that must be respected. It's
essentially a sort of parasite on the mother.

In the same sense that you or I am a "parasite" on the earths
ecosystem?
Calling something a "parasite" doesn;t change what it is - it adds
nothing to the discussion either way.

Her rights and wishes in
the matter are paramount. There can be no logical grounds to interfere
in her decision whether to carry to term or terminate a pregnancy.
Sorry, but I can only see an anti-abortion stance as an intellectually
dishonest abuse of women.

I can see it that way - just not 100% of the time - but i am not an
all or nothing, Black and White, kind of guy. I see shades of gray.

I am pro choice - but I am uncomfortable with the level and extent of
abortions.
I am all for sex education and teaching kids to be responsible.

I am not for forcing kids to become parents when they are not
responsible (that's just stoopid!)
(two wrongs don't make a right.)

I feel uneasy about killing a spider unnecessarily - I capture them
and take them outside.
We *should* feel uneasy/unhappy about unnecessary killing - of
spiders, cats dogs, chickens and human fetuses.

Which one of these things is not like the other? All save the human
fetus can walk around and feed themselves. Also, what do you view as
necessary killing? I have no problem whatsoever with killing chickens to
eat. I also don't know of anyone who undertook to have an abortion
because there was nothing on TV. It looks to me as if women are
biologically programmed to keep the pregnancy. There have to be very
good reasons to override that.

I understand all that. I am pro choice too.
I was trying (and failing!) to give you a hint about *idea* of life
being sacred.
That things can have an intrinsic value beyond utility/threat.

It seems to me that humans are capable of responses to things in the
world beyond kill it, eat it, or shag it.
8-)

Mark.

Have you ever watched an abortion, Mark? I got to a few years back after
knocking up yet another female. They had a clear hose that came out of
her *****, went to a pump, and then through another clear tube and then
into what looked like a Hellman's mayonnaise jar. As it filled with red
fluid, all I could think was that I wished I hadn't left my pint of
vodka out in the car. I'm sure the godless Hindu wog doing the abortion
wouldn't have minded one bit if I'd made myself a very special Bloody
Mary.

Dude, you have a very sick sense of humor. It's cool that you're able
to laugh at it all, but I have to fear that you must be more than a
little bit mentally or emotionally unstable to be able to consistently
come up with the gross imagery you use.

In article <c6q55q$b71$5@pita.alt.net>, *****@yourchurch.org says...

In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Mark Richardson said...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:03:06 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:

Mark Richardson wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:01:00 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:

The only conceivable reason to take an anti-abortion stance would be a
particular set of religious beliefs.
Absent this, a non-self-aware,
non-viable fetus has no reason to be of any concern. This site is a
spoof, right?

I don't think so.
You can be an atheist and hold something as precious or "holy".
You don't believe that "holiness" resides in a being called god.

So its conceivable that you hold all (animal?) life holy - even non


sentient life.

Not and be a logically consistant atheist, you can't.

Well I must disagree.
There are some things that logic simply has nothing to say about.

No god, no
supernatural anything, for the same reasons that gods are ruled out.

I agree with that - but what if its holy in a non supernatural way?
Or if you dont like holy use another word - english is full of 'em.
"Sacred" is another.

No
concept of "holiness" to be applied. Believing otherwise is to be
confused. The fetus has no rights that must be respected. It's
essentially a sort of parasite on the mother.

In the same sense that you or I am a "parasite" on the earths
ecosystem?
Calling something a "parasite" doesn;t change what it is - it adds
nothing to the discussion either way.

Her rights and wishes in
the matter are paramount. There can be no logical grounds to interfere
in her decision whether to carry to term or terminate a pregnancy.
Sorry, but I can only see an anti-abortion stance as an intellectually
dishonest abuse of women.

I can see it that way - just not 100% of the time - but i am not an
all or nothing, Black and White, kind of guy. I see shades of gray.

I am pro choice - but I am uncomfortable with the level and extent of
abortions.
I am all for sex education and teaching kids to be responsible.

I am not for forcing kids to become parents when they are not
responsible (that's just stoopid!)
(two wrongs don't make a right.)

I feel uneasy about killing a spider unnecessarily - I capture them
and take them outside.
We *should* feel uneasy/unhappy about unnecessary killing - of
spiders, cats dogs, chickens and human fetuses.

Which one of these things is not like the other? All save the human
fetus can walk around and feed themselves. Also, what do you view as
necessary killing? I have no problem whatsoever with killing chickens to
eat. I also don't know of anyone who undertook to have an abortion
because there was nothing on TV. It looks to me as if women are
biologically programmed to keep the pregnancy. There have to be very
good reasons to override that.

I understand all that. I am pro choice too.
I was trying (and failing!) to give you a hint about *idea* of life
being sacred.
That things can have an intrinsic value beyond utility/threat.

It seems to me that humans are capable of responses to things in the
world beyond kill it, eat it, or shag it.
8-)

Mark.

Have you ever watched an abortion, Mark? I got to a few years back after
knocking up yet another female. They had a clear hose that came out of
her *****, went to a pump, and then through another clear tube and then
into what looked like a Hellman's mayonnaise jar. As it filled with red
fluid, all I could think was that I wished I hadn't left my pint of
vodka out in the car. I'm sure the godless Hindu wog doing the abortion
wouldn't have minded one bit if I'd made myself a very special Bloody
Mary.

Dude, you have a very sick sense of humor. It's cool that you're able
to laugh at it all, but I have to fear that you must be more than a
little bit mentally or emotionally unstable to be able to consistently
come up with the gross imagery you use.

From: Mark Richardson <mark.richardson@die.spammers.die>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.217.10.29

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 01:51:57 -0400, St. Jackanapes
<*****@yourchurch.org> wrote:

In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Mark Richardson said...

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 20:03:06 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:

Mark Richardson wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 16:01:00 -0700, Nivlem <mlml@svn.net> wrote:

The only conceivable reason to take an anti-abortion stance would be a
particular set of religious beliefs.
Absent this, a non-self-aware,
non-viable fetus has no reason to be of any concern. This site is a
spoof, right?

I don't think so.
You can be an atheist and hold something as precious or "holy".
You don't believe that "holiness" resides in a being called god.

So its conceivable that you hold all (animal?) life holy - even non


sentient life.

Not and be a logically consistant atheist, you can't.

Well I must disagree.
There are some things that logic simply has nothing to say about.

No god, no
supernatural anything, for the same reasons that gods are ruled out.

I agree with that - but what if its holy in a non supernatural way?
Or if you dont like holy use another word - english is full of 'em.
"Sacred" is another.

No
concept of "holiness" to be applied. Believing otherwise is to be
confused. The fetus has no rights that must be respected. It's
essentially a sort of parasite on the mother.

In the same sense that you or I am a "parasite" on the earths
ecosystem?
Calling something a "parasite" doesn;t change what it is - it adds
nothing to the discussion either way.

Her rights and wishes in
the matter are paramount. There can be no logical grounds to interfere
in her decision whether to carry to term or terminate a pregnancy.
Sorry, but I can only see an anti-abortion stance as an intellectually
dishonest abuse of women.

I can see it that way - just not 100% of the time - but i am not an
all or nothing, Black and White, kind of guy. I see shades of gray.

I am pro choice - but I am uncomfortable with the level and extent of
abortions.
I am all for sex education and teaching kids to be responsible.

I am not for forcing kids to become parents when they are not
responsible (that's just stoopid!)
(two wrongs don't make a right.)

I feel uneasy about killing a spider unnecessarily - I capture them
and take them outside.
We *should* feel uneasy/unhappy about unnecessary killing - of
spiders, cats dogs, chickens and human fetuses.

Which one of these things is not like the other? All save the human
fetus can walk around and feed themselves. Also, what do you view as
necessary killing? I have no problem whatsoever with killing chickens to
eat. I also don't know of anyone who undertook to have an abortion
because there was nothing on TV. It looks to me as if women are
biologically programmed to keep the pregnancy. There have to be very
good reasons to override that.

I understand all that. I am pro choice too.
I was trying (and failing!) to give you a hint about *idea* of life
being sacred.
That things can have an intrinsic value beyond utility/threat.

It seems to me that humans are capable of responses to things in the
world beyond kill it, eat it, or shag it.
8-)

Mark.

Have you ever watched an abortion, Mark?

No, luckily

I got to a few years back after
knocking up yet another female. They had a clear hose that came out of
her *****, went to a pump, and then through another clear tube and then
into what looked like a Hellman's mayonnaise jar. As it filled with red
fluid, all I could think was that I wished I hadn't left my pint of
vodka out in the car. I'm sure the godless Hindu wog doing the abortion
wouldn't have minded one bit if I'd made myself a very special Bloody
Mary.

Oh. Right.
Am I supposed to say something now?

That "godless Hindu wog" bit was probably the most offensive bit of
your post - but it was all quite offensive.