| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Krusty" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 10:55:34 AM |
| Object: |
Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
(Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0403191622.259476dd@posting.google.com>...
On Wed Mar 17, 2004, Reuters posted an article by
Gail Appleson titled: "Judge Says Abortion-Ban Challenge
Must Be Tried." Go to:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4591609
___________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by
abortion providers to throw out a law banning a type
of late-term abortion and ruled a trial is needed to
determine whether the measure is unconstitutional.
"In his order, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey
denied a motion by the National Abortion Feder-
ation to throw out the law prior to a trial scheduled
to begin on March 29 in Manhattan federal court.
"The federation had sought a ruling on the ban before
the expected four-week trial, but Casey said a trial
was needed to resolve a dispute over whether the
abortion procedure, which critics call a 'partial-birth'
abortion, is ever medically necessary to protect a
woman's health.
[...]
"In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared uncon-
stitutional a Nebraska law banning the late-term
abortions, based in part on the fact that the statute
lacked a woman's-health exception.
[...]
"However, Casey said a trial is needed to determine
the facts in the case. He said that while the Supreme
Court ruling calls for a maternal health exception if
'a significant body of medical opinion believes a pro-
cedure brings with it greater safety advantages,' he
must also consider congressional findings made after
eight years of hearings.
"He said Congress concluded that 'partial-birth abortion
is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'"
[...]
LOL!! CONGRESS concluded?! Isn't that special.
Note the little problem that CONGRESS DOES NOT EQUAL PHYSICIANS!
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Since the law in question specifically states Congress
found PBAs are NEVER "...necessary to preserve the
health of a woman,"
Yea, and my doctor said that WAR is never necessary. Same lack
of authority and legal standing, numbnuts.
Of course, the *FACT* is that the only reason Intact D&E's are
performed is *for* the health of the woman.
it will be interesting to see how
the courts approach this.
It will be interesting to see if you join reality....
Actually, the Pro-Abortion crowd committed a serious
mistake when they came to the defense of this barbaric
technique.
Yea, who cares about women, right?
The subsequent controversies
You mis-spelled "propaganda"
forced many
"middle-of-the-road" types to actually consider what
abortion really is. And, guess what? The "middle-of-
the-road" types don't like what they see. It is ugly.
It is gory. It is inhumane.
It is funny that you expect your BS to be taken seriously.
Dont ever assume that other people are as unintelligent as you.
.
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
01 Apr 2004 11:11:14 AM |
|
|
"Krusty" <jonnyasscroft@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4f67237.0404010855.5e9a8f0c@posting.google.com...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message
news:<6f9e1b49.0403191622.259476dd@posting.google.com>...
On Wed Mar 17, 2004, Reuters posted an article by
Gail Appleson titled: "Judge Says Abortion-Ban Challenge
Must Be Tried." Go to:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4591609
___________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by
abortion providers to throw out a law banning a type
of late-term abortion and ruled a trial is needed to
determine whether the measure is unconstitutional.
"In his order, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey
denied a motion by the National Abortion Feder-
ation to throw out the law prior to a trial scheduled
to begin on March 29 in Manhattan federal court.
"The federation had sought a ruling on the ban before
the expected four-week trial, but Casey said a trial
was needed to resolve a dispute over whether the
abortion procedure, which critics call a 'partial-birth'
abortion, is ever medically necessary to protect a
woman's health.
[...]
"In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared uncon-
stitutional a Nebraska law banning the late-term
abortions, based in part on the fact that the statute
lacked a woman's-health exception.
[...]
"However, Casey said a trial is needed to determine
the facts in the case. He said that while the Supreme
Court ruling calls for a maternal health exception if
'a significant body of medical opinion believes a pro-
cedure brings with it greater safety advantages,' he
must also consider congressional findings made after
eight years of hearings.
"He said Congress concluded that 'partial-birth abortion
is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'"
[...]
LOL!! CONGRESS concluded?! Isn't that special.
Note the little problem that CONGRESS DOES NOT EQUAL PHYSICIANS!
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Since the law in question specifically states Congress
found PBAs are NEVER "...necessary to preserve the
health of a woman,"
Yea, and my doctor said that WAR is never necessary. Same lack
of authority and legal standing, numbnuts.
Of course, the *FACT* is that the only reason Intact D&E's are
performed is *for* the health of the woman.
Would you care to show us these "facts"?
Show us every case of a Intact D&E, the reasons for it.
Then demonstrate to us that a C Section could not be performed that could
have saved
both mother and child.
if you can't do this, you become the numbnuts
it will be interesting to see how
the courts approach this.
It will be interesting to see if you join reality....
It would be interesting if you could become a human being too, but looks
like you wish to remain
ignorant and name call and attack instead of staying on the issue.
Actually, the Pro-Abortion crowd committed a serious
mistake when they came to the defense of this barbaric
technique.
Yea, who cares about women, right?
Do you care about the rights of a man?
Let me ask you a question.
Do you feel the below reasons I am going to give justify a woman to choose
to abort.
a) She is not financially prepared yet?
b) She has not met all her goals and does not wish to be a mother yet?
c) She does not like the father and does not wish to be a single mother?
d) She just doesn't want to be a mother at all?
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
When you answer those question, you let me know. We will get back to the
issue of rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krusty" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
06 Apr 2004 12:10:02 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<GqqdndgfoeDE0fHdRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
"Krusty" <jonnyasscroft@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4f67237.0404010855.5e9a8f0c@posting.google.com...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message
news:<6f9e1b49.0403191622.259476dd@posting.google.com>...
On Wed Mar 17, 2004, Reuters posted an article by
Gail Appleson titled: "Judge Says Abortion-Ban Challenge
Must Be Tried." Go to:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4591609
___________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by
abortion providers to throw out a law banning a type
of late-term abortion and ruled a trial is needed to
determine whether the measure is unconstitutional.
"In his order, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey
denied a motion by the National Abortion Feder-
ation to throw out the law prior to a trial scheduled
to begin on March 29 in Manhattan federal court.
"The federation had sought a ruling on the ban before
the expected four-week trial, but Casey said a trial
was needed to resolve a dispute over whether the
abortion procedure, which critics call a 'partial-birth'
abortion, is ever medically necessary to protect a
woman's health.
[...]
"In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared uncon-
stitutional a Nebraska law banning the late-term
abortions, based in part on the fact that the statute
lacked a woman's-health exception.
[...]
"However, Casey said a trial is needed to determine
the facts in the case. He said that while the Supreme
Court ruling calls for a maternal health exception if
'a significant body of medical opinion believes a pro-
cedure brings with it greater safety advantages,' he
must also consider congressional findings made after
eight years of hearings.
"He said Congress concluded that 'partial-birth abortion
is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'"
[...]
LOL!! CONGRESS concluded?! Isn't that special.
Note the little problem that CONGRESS DOES NOT EQUAL PHYSICIANS!
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Since the law in question specifically states Congress
found PBAs are NEVER "...necessary to preserve the
health of a woman,"
Yea, and my doctor said that WAR is never necessary. Same lack
of authority and legal standing, numbnuts.
Of course, the *FACT* is that the only reason Intact D&E's are
performed is *for* the health of the woman.
Would you care to show us these "facts"?
Show us every case of a Intact D&E, the reasons for it.
Then demonstrate to us that a C Section could not be performed that could
have saved
both mother and child.
if you can't do this, you become the numbnuts
Do your own homework (assuming you can read the big words).
it will be interesting to see how
the courts approach this.
It will be interesting to see if you join reality....
It would be interesting if you could become a human being too, but looks
like you wish to remain
ignorant and name call and attack instead of staying on the issue.
LOL Nice hypocrisy!
Actually, the Pro-Abortion crowd committed a serious
mistake when they came to the defense of this barbaric
technique.
Yea, who cares about women, right?
Do you care about the rights of a man?
Ask me that, in this same newsgroup, when a man can get pregnant.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you feel the below reasons I am going to give justify a woman to choose
to abort.
a) She is not financially prepared yet?
b) She has not met all her goals and does not wish to be a mother yet?
c) She does not like the father and does not wish to be a single mother?
d) She just doesn't want to be a mother at all?
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
Try to comprehend this: *ANY* reason for why a woman wants an abortion
is justification enough. *You* dont get to decide for her.
When you answer those question, you let me know. We will get back to the
issue of rights.
You arent intelligent enough to be condescending. Wanker.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
06 Apr 2004 01:21:08 PM |
|
|
"Krusty" <jonnyasscroft@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4f67237.0404060910.51d4c5d6@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
news:<GqqdndgfoeDE0fHdRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
"Krusty" <jonnyasscroft@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4f67237.0404010855.5e9a8f0c@posting.google.com...
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message
news:<6f9e1b49.0403191622.259476dd@posting.google.com>...
On Wed Mar 17, 2004, Reuters posted an article by
Gail Appleson titled: "Judge Says Abortion-Ban Challenge
Must Be Tried." Go to:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4591609
___________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by
abortion providers to throw out a law banning a type
of late-term abortion and ruled a trial is needed to
determine whether the measure is unconstitutional.
"In his order, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey
denied a motion by the National Abortion Feder-
ation to throw out the law prior to a trial scheduled
to begin on March 29 in Manhattan federal court.
"The federation had sought a ruling on the ban before
the expected four-week trial, but Casey said a trial
was needed to resolve a dispute over whether the
abortion procedure, which critics call a 'partial-birth'
abortion, is ever medically necessary to protect a
woman's health.
[...]
"In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared uncon-
stitutional a Nebraska law banning the late-term
abortions, based in part on the fact that the statute
lacked a woman's-health exception.
[...]
"However, Casey said a trial is needed to determine
the facts in the case. He said that while the Supreme
Court ruling calls for a maternal health exception if
'a significant body of medical opinion believes a pro-
cedure brings with it greater safety advantages,' he
must also consider congressional findings made after
eight years of hearings.
"He said Congress concluded that 'partial-birth abortion
is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'"
[...]
LOL!! CONGRESS concluded?! Isn't that special.
Note the little problem that CONGRESS DOES NOT EQUAL PHYSICIANS!
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Since the law in question specifically states Congress
found PBAs are NEVER "...necessary to preserve the
health of a woman,"
Yea, and my doctor said that WAR is never necessary. Same lack
of authority and legal standing, numbnuts.
Of course, the *FACT* is that the only reason Intact D&E's are
performed is *for* the health of the woman.
Would you care to show us these "facts"?
Show us every case of a Intact D&E, the reasons for it.
Then demonstrate to us that a C Section could not be performed that
could
have saved
both mother and child.
if you can't do this, you become the numbnuts
Do your own homework (assuming you can read the big words).
Appears that once again another pro-choice/abort can't produce the so called
"facts"
You are the one preaching pal, I don't need to do the homework. If you know
it all, you should be able to produce.
it will be interesting to see how
the courts approach this.
It will be interesting to see if you join reality....
It would be interesting if you could become a human being too, but looks
like you wish to remain
ignorant and name call and attack instead of staying on the issue.
LOL Nice hypocrisy!
Actually, the Pro-Abortion crowd committed a serious
mistake when they came to the defense of this barbaric
technique.
Yea, who cares about women, right?
Do you care about the rights of a man?
Ask me that, in this same newsgroup, when a man can get pregnant.
Let me ask you a question.
Do you feel the below reasons I am going to give justify a woman to
choose
to abort.
a) She is not financially prepared yet?
b) She has not met all her goals and does not wish to be a mother yet?
c) She does not like the father and does not wish to be a single mother?
d) She just doesn't want to be a mother at all?
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
Try to comprehend this: *ANY* reason for why a woman wants an abortion
is justification enough. *You* dont get to decide for her.
So you agree the above reasons are justifiable. Thus killing the argument
"It's her body"
Because not one of those reasons involve the body, they involved a selfish
want.
When you answer those question, you let me know. We will get back to
the
issue of rights.
You arent intelligent enough to be condescending. Wanker.
Well lets see.
a) You couldn't produce the "facts"
b) You diverted and worked very hard to avoid the issues and questions
c) You killed the argument "It's her body" by agreeing that 4 issues that
have nothing
to do with her body were justifiable reasons to abort
d) You showed me that you are prejudiced against a man's wants to a woman's
want
Buh.....Bye...:o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krusty" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
07 Apr 2004 01:58:33 PM |
|
|
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<pNWdnSDoV7d-ae_d4p2dnA@comcast.com>...
"Krusty" <jonnyasscroft@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4f67237.0404060910.51d4c5d6@posting.google.com...
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message
<snip a whole lot o propaganda>
"He said Congress concluded that 'partial-birth abortion
is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'"
[...]
LOL!! CONGRESS concluded?! Isn't that special.
Note the little problem that CONGRESS DOES NOT EQUAL PHYSICIANS!
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Since the law in question specifically states Congress
found PBAs are NEVER "...necessary to preserve the
health of a woman,"
Yea, and my doctor said that WAR is never necessary. Same lack
of authority and legal standing, numbnuts.
Of course, the *FACT* is that the only reason Intact D&E's are
performed is *for* the health of the woman.
Would you care to show us these "facts"?
Show us every case of a Intact D&E, the reasons for it.
Then demonstrate to us that a C Section could not be performed that
could
have saved
both mother and child.
if you can't do this, you become the numbnuts
Do your own homework (assuming you can read the big words).
Appears that once again another pro-choice/abort can't produce the so called
"facts"
You are the one preaching pal, I don't need to do the homework.
You not only need the homework, you need the accompanying education
that
would (hopefully) come along with it.
Yeah, per Jackass' reasoning (Congress deciding on medical matters),
I checked with my plumber and he said that "intact D&E's are always
necessary for the health of the woman".
See? There's the proof, using similar logic.
You seem to be fixated on the *reason* behind a 2nd trimester abortion
which would call for an ID&E being performed. I dont (nor does the
woman)
care. The *reason* why ID&E's are performed is to best preserve the
health of the woman. Whould you rather the fetus was dismembered and
removed?
Why do *you* assume a c-section would save the life of the fetus? Even
if
a c-section could save the life of 2nd trimester fetus, are you
prepared to
pay for it? Half million dollars each? No? Then you dont give a crap
about the "unborn child", you just want to see women punished by being
forced to endure a much more dangerous procedure. Why?
Let me ask you a question.
Do you feel the below reasons I am going to give justify a woman to
choose
to abort.
a) She is not financially prepared yet?
b) She has not met all her goals and does not wish to be a mother yet?
c) She does not like the father and does not wish to be a single mother?
d) She just doesn't want to be a mother at all?
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
Try to comprehend this: *ANY* reason for why a woman wants an abortion
is justification enough. *You* dont get to decide for her.
So you agree the above reasons are justifiable. Thus killing the argument
"It's her body"
Because not one of those reasons involve the body, they involved a selfish
want.
You mean just like your selfish want to keep your money instead of
offering your money to just such a woman who's "unborn child" might
have a chance at survival, if only for want of a half-million dollars
or so? Now we see how much you care about life. Dumbass, hypocrite.
When you answer those question, you let me know. We will get back to
the
issue of rights.
You arent intelligent enough to be condescending. Wanker.
Well lets see.
a) You couldn't produce the "facts"
b) You diverted and worked very hard to avoid the issues and questions
c) You killed the argument "It's her body" by agreeing that 4 issues that
have nothing
to do with her body were justifiable reasons to abort
d) You showed me that you are prejudiced against a man's wants to a woman's
want
Buh.....Bye...:o)
Yes, I suspect you'll run now.......
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
06 Apr 2004 12:15:58 PM |
|
|
On 6 Apr 2004 10:10:02 -0700, (Krusty)
wrote:
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in message news:<GqqdndgfoeDE0fHdRVn-hg@comcast.com>...
[snip]
When you answer those question, you let me know. We will get back to the
issue of rights.
You arent intelligent enough to be condescending. Wanker.
When he tries to be condescending it means that he can't come up with
a response to any of your points. He usually accompanies that with
demands for irrelevant (or totally off-topic) facts.
---
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
01 Apr 2004 11:33:49 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Krusty" <jonnyasscroft@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4f67237.0404010855.5e9a8f0c@posting.google.com...
[...]
Of course, the *FACT* is that the only reason Intact D&E's are
performed is *for* the health of the woman.
Would you care to show us these "facts"?
Show us every case of a Intact D&E, the reasons for it.
http://tinyurl.com/ypwrc
(I went to tiny URL to shorten the length of the URL for easier
access. This URL will lead you to a page with information on the D &
E (Dilation and Evacuation) procedure.
The aforemention procedure is not to be confused with the D&X
procedure.
A Diation and Extraction (D & X) procedure is is performed in the
last trimester of pregnancy, but it is rarely performed.
It is ONLY performed when the fetus is either ALREADY dead, severely
malformed and (or) when the pregnancy is a severe health risk to the
woman or it's threat to the pregnant woman's life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MyTwoAngels" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
01 Apr 2004 11:35:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Krusty" <jonnyasscroft@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:e4f67237.0404010855.5e9a8f0c@posting.google.com...
[...]
Of course, the *FACT* is that the only reason Intact D&E's are
performed is *for* the health of the woman.
Would you care to show us these "facts"?
Show us every case of a Intact D&E, the reasons for it.
http://tinyurl.com/ypwrc
(I went to tiny URL to shorten the length of the URL for easier
access. This URL will lead you to a page with information on the D &
E (Dilation and Evacuation) procedure.
The aforemention procedure is not to be confused with the D&X
procedure.
A Dilation and Extraction (D & X) procedure is performed in the last
trimester of pregnancy, but it is rarely performed.
It is ONLY performed when the fetus is either ALREADY dead, severely
malformed and (or) when the pregnancy is a severe health risk to the
woman or it's threat to the pregnant woman's life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
01 Apr 2004 07:23:07 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Let me ask you a question.
Do you feel the below reasons I am going to give justify a woman to choose
to abort.
a) She is not financially prepared yet?
b) She has not met all her goals and does not wish to be a mother yet?
c) She does not like the father and does not wish to be a single mother?
d) She just doesn't want to be a mother at all?
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
I'll make it easier for you, and give you a shorter list:
1. She wants to abort the pregnancy.
She doesn't need to 'justify' it to me, or to you, or to John
Ashcroft, however much you and Ashcroft want that to be so.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "W. Stephen Lush" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
05 Apr 2004 07:35:39 PM |
|
|
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote
in message news:u0gp605uilad5pqr50kuig34sn36ga9o1j@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Let me ask you a question.
Do you feel the below reasons I am going to give justify a woman to
choose
to abort.
a) She is not financially prepared yet?
b) She has not met all her goals and does not wish to be a mother yet?
c) She does not like the father and does not wish to be a single mother?
d) She just doesn't want to be a mother at all?
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
I'll make it easier for you, and give you a shorter list:
1. She wants to abort the pregnancy.
Yeah. I want my neighbor to go away, so gagging and throwing him in the
closet is totally acceptable.
She doesn't need to 'justify' it to me, or to you, or to John
Ashcroft, however much you and Ashcroft want that to be so.
I wonder where Mr. Ashcroft came into this. You know, if one guy is capable
of pissing so many people off, maybe he's doing something right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krusty" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
06 Apr 2004 12:14:06 PM |
|
|
"W. Stephen Lush" <wlush@niu.edu> wrote in message news:<c4stse$rt9$1@usenet.cso.niu.edu>...
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote
in message news:u0gp605uilad5pqr50kuig34sn36ga9o1j@4ax.com...
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
Let me ask you a question.
Do you feel the below reasons I am going to give justify a woman to
choose
to abort.
a) She is not financially prepared yet?
b) She has not met all her goals and does not wish to be a mother yet?
c) She does not like the father and does not wish to be a single mother?
d) She just doesn't want to be a mother at all?
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
I'll make it easier for you, and give you a shorter list:
1. She wants to abort the pregnancy.
Yeah. I want my neighbor to go away, so gagging and throwing him in the
closet is totally acceptable.
This is an *abortion* newsgroup. You want *homicide*, numbnuts.
She doesn't need to 'justify' it to me, or to you, or to John
Ashcroft, however much you and Ashcroft want that to be so.
I wonder where Mr. Ashcroft came into this.
Cause Ashcroft is a dangerous religious zealot and a control freak?
He supports domestic terrorism, you know.
You know, if one guy is capable
of pissing so many people off, maybe he's doing something right.
Or maybe he's just a control-freak and a lying hypocrite?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
06 Apr 2004 12:38:57 AM |
|
|
W. Stephen Lush <wlush@niu.edu> wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
I'll make it easier for you, and give you a shorter list:
1. She wants to abort the pregnancy.
Yeah. I want my neighbor to go away, so gagging and throwing him in the
closet is totally acceptable.
If your neighbor takes up residence in your body and threatens your
health and starts causing you pain and injury then you too are free to
use whatever force is needed to protect yourself.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "W. Stephen Lush" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
07 Apr 2004 04:23:03 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c4tfph$l1q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
W. Stephen Lush <wlush@niu.edu> wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net>
wrote
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
I'll make it easier for you, and give you a shorter list:
1. She wants to abort the pregnancy.
Yeah. I want my neighbor to go away, so gagging and throwing him in the
closet is totally acceptable.
If your neighbor takes up residence in your body and threatens your
health and starts causing you pain and injury then you too are free to
use whatever force is needed to protect yourself.
That force would have to be in proportion to the danger it posed to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
07 Apr 2004 06:33:41 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 04:23:03 -0500, "W. Stephen Lush" <wlush@niu.edu>
wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c4tfph$l1q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
W. Stephen Lush <wlush@niu.edu> wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net>
wrote
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
I'll make it easier for you, and give you a shorter list:
1. She wants to abort the pregnancy.
Yeah. I want my neighbor to go away, so gagging and throwing him in the
closet is totally acceptable.
If your neighbor takes up residence in your body and threatens your
health and starts causing you pain and injury then you too are free to
use whatever force is needed to protect yourself.
That force would have to be in proportion to the danger it posed to me.
No, it has to be the minimum force necessary.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
07 Apr 2004 10:19:08 PM |
|
|
W. Stephen Lush <wlush@niu.edu> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@bolt.sonic.net> wrote in message
news:c4tfph$l1q$1@bolt.sonic.net...
W. Stephen Lush <wlush@niu.edu> wrote:
"Lawrence E. McKnight" <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net>
wrote
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 12:11:14 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
Do you feel those 4 reasons get a "yes" to them as a justification for
abortion?
I'll make it easier for you, and give you a shorter list:
1. She wants to abort the pregnancy.
Yeah. I want my neighbor to go away, so gagging and throwing him in the
closet is totally acceptable.
If your neighbor takes up residence in your body and threatens your
health and starts causing you pain and injury then you too are free to
use whatever force is needed to protect yourself.
That force would have to be in proportion to the danger it posed to me.
And since the injury women suffer from preganncy and childbirth is
serious and even involves risk of death then clearly abortion is
in proportion to the danger it poses.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: PBA Ban Challenge Must be Tried |
01 Apr 2004 07:20:07 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2004 08:55:34 -0800, (Krusty)
wrote:
papajack@stic.net (Papa Jack) wrote in message news:<6f9e1b49.0403191622.259476dd@posting.google.com>...
On Wed Mar 17, 2004, Reuters posted an article by
Gail Appleson titled: "Judge Says Abortion-Ban Challenge
Must Be Tried." Go to:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4591609
___________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request by
abortion providers to throw out a law banning a type
of late-term abortion and ruled a trial is needed to
determine whether the measure is unconstitutional.
"In his order, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey
denied a motion by the National Abortion Feder-
ation to throw out the law prior to a trial scheduled
to begin on March 29 in Manhattan federal court.
"The federation had sought a ruling on the ban before
the expected four-week trial, but Casey said a trial
was needed to resolve a dispute over whether the
abortion procedure, which critics call a 'partial-birth'
abortion, is ever medically necessary to protect a
woman's health.
[...]
"In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declared uncon-
stitutional a Nebraska law banning the late-term
abortions, based in part on the fact that the statute
lacked a woman's-health exception.
[...]
"However, Casey said a trial is needed to determine
the facts in the case. He said that while the Supreme
Court ruling calls for a maternal health exception if
'a significant body of medical opinion believes a pro-
cedure brings with it greater safety advantages,' he
must also consider congressional findings made after
eight years of hearings.
"He said Congress concluded that 'partial-birth abortion
is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman.'"
[...]
LOL!! CONGRESS concluded?! Isn't that special.
Note the little problem that CONGRESS DOES NOT EQUAL PHYSICIANS!
Kind of interesting now that the physicians the anti-abortionists
didn't call to testify at the hearing are testifying in court.
___________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack comments:
Since the law in question specifically states Congress
found PBAs are NEVER "...necessary to preserve the
health of a woman,"
Yea, and my doctor said that WAR is never necessary. Same lack
of authority and legal standing, numbnuts.
Of course, the *FACT* is that the only reason Intact D&E's are
performed is *for* the health of the woman.
it will be interesting to see how
the courts approach this.
It will be interesting to see if you join reality....
Actually, the Pro-Abortion crowd committed a serious
mistake when they came to the defense of this barbaric
technique.
Yea, who cares about women, right?
The subsequent controversies
You mis-spelled "propaganda"
forced many
"middle-of-the-road" types to actually consider what
abortion really is. And, guess what? The "middle-of-
the-road" types don't like what they see. It is ugly.
It is gory. It is inhumane.
It is funny that you expect your BS to be taken seriously.
Dont ever assume that other people are as unintelligent as you.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
