| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"james g. keegan jr." |
| Date: |
18 Jul 2006 08:52:37 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
In article <1153228727.045403.179750@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
This is the
standard that Pro-Life hold themselves to -- nothing they say is a
lie, simply an opinion.
Correct (except that I'm not in the Pro-Life camp),
of course you are!! you prove it in the next statement.
and my opinion of
what would be a proper compromise between the two extremes has
been clearly put forward, as opinion only.
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
18 Jul 2006 09:09:36 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
oscwr@netscape.net wrote:
Correct (except that I'm not in the Pro-Life camp),
of course you are!! you prove it in the next statement.
I'm 'pro' the life of a viable foetus. But 'Pro-Life', I believe,
means much more than that. Since I'm 'pro' a woman's
choice for all of a pregnancy up until the time of
probable viability, I don't think the 'Pro-Life' crowd
would want to include me as one of them, any more
than the 'Pro-Choice' people do.
The whole point of my compromise proposal is that
the extremes of both 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Choice' are
avoided: Women would have choice for ample time to
exercize it, and the life of a viable foetus would be protected.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
18 Jul 2006 09:55:31 PM |
|
|
<oscwr@netscape.net> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
oscwr@netscape.net wrote:
Correct (except that I'm not in the Pro-Life camp),
of course you are!! you prove it in the next statement.
I'm 'pro' the life of a viable foetus.
No you're not. You're pro-force-the-sluts-to-suffer-and-die.
But 'Pro-Life', I believe,
means much more than that. Since I'm 'pro' a woman's
choice for all of a pregnancy up until the time of
probable viability,
After which she's a slave?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 07:14:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1153274976.460889.205520@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
wrote:
Correct (except that I'm not in the Pro-Life camp),
of course you are!! you prove it in the next statement.
I'm 'pro' the life of a viable foetus. But 'Pro-Life', I believe,
means much more than that.
you can run away from your support for abortion restrictions but i
doubt you'll fool anyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 07:44:43 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
oscwr@netscape.net wrote:
I'm 'pro' the life of a viable foetus. But 'Pro-Life', I believe,
means much more than that.
you can run away from your support for abortion restrictions but i
doubt you'll fool anyone.
Stating exactly what I'm for and against is not running away from
anything. Since I believe in a woman's right of choice for at least
the first six months of pregnancy, you can't truthfully call me
Pro-Life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 08:04:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1153356283.760842.240590@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
wrote:
I'm 'pro' the life of a viable foetus. But 'Pro-Life', I believe,
means much more than that.
you can run away from your support for abortion restrictions but i
doubt you'll fool anyone.
Stating exactly what I'm for and against is not running away from
anything.
pretending that you are not anti-choice while you support abortion
restrictions portrays your character in a way most people would
prefer not to be seen.
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 08:10:17 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
pretending that you are not anti-choice while you support abortion
restrictions portrays your character in a way most people would
prefer not to be seen.
I'm not pretending anything. You accused me of being Pro-Life,
which I'm not. And I'm not Pro-Choice either. Why can't you
understand the concept of being neither all of one nor all of the
other? I'm for choice until viability, and for life after that. Your
all-or-nothing labels don't apply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 08:37:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1153357817.939190.136330@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
pretending that you are not anti-choice while you support abortion
restrictions portrays your character in a way most people would
prefer not to be seen.
I'm not pretending anything. You accused me of being Pro-Life,
which I'm not.
of course you are. anyone who opposes choice is anti-choice. at least
you seem to have the good sense to embarrassed of what you are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 08:53:16 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
oscwr@netscape.net wrote:
I'm not pretending anything. You accused me of being Pro-Life,
which I'm not.
of course you are. anyone who opposes choice is anti-choice. at least
you seem to have the good sense to embarrassed of what you are.
Nor am I embarrassed at anything, except maybe at being drawn into
such a childish exchange as this one with you.
Again, I'm for choice until viability, and for life after that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
20 Jul 2006 06:49:24 AM |
|
|
In article <1153360396.707855.220890@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
wrote:
I'm not pretending anything. You accused me of being Pro-Life,
which I'm not.
of course you are. anyone who opposes choice is anti-choice. at least
you seem to have the good sense to embarrassed of what you are.
Nor am I embarrassed at anything
of course you are which is why you pretend not to be anti-choice
while espousing the anti-choice position.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
20 Jul 2006 09:09:47 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 17:44:43 -0700, wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
wrote:
I'm 'pro' the life of a viable foetus. But 'Pro-Life', I believe,
means much more than that.
you can run away from your support for abortion restrictions but i
doubt you'll fool anyone.
Stating exactly what I'm for and against is not running away from
anything. Since I believe in a woman's right of choice for at least
the first six months of pregnancy, you can't truthfully call me
Pro-Life.
But you feel that you should have the power to limit the
woman's choice. As long as she does as you want every thing
is fine. There can be no fucking limit on choice. Bigoted
piece of *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
18 Jul 2006 10:18:35 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jul 2006 19:09:36 -0700, wrote:
The whole point of my compromise proposal is that
the extremes of both 'Pro-Life' and 'Pro-Choice' are
avoided....
You lie. The extremes you are talking about are Pro-Life and the
Pro-Life strawman Pro-Abortion.
We, society, did a compromise over 30 years ago -- you simply refuse
to accept that compromise. The compromise was that while there was no
legal grounds to deny a woman an abortion, at any time, Blackmum
pulled a "State interest in the potentiality of human life" out of
nowhere, with no precedence stated for such legislating from the
bench, and created the legal grounds for the States regulate or even
ban abortion post viability.
You started this thread with a falsehood and haven't budge even after
your premises have repeatedly been shown false. You show no movement
toward any compromise.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 07:03:25 AM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
We, society, did a compromise over 30 years ago -- you simply refuse
to accept that compromise. The compromise was that while there was no
legal grounds to deny a woman an abortion, at any time, Blackmum
pulled a "State interest in the potentiality of human life" out of
nowhere, with no precedence stated for such legislating from the
bench, and created the legal grounds for the States regulate or even
ban abortion post viability.
Wrong again, because Blackmun left open the mental health exception,
meaning that anyone determined to have a late-term abortion could
have one, simply by claiming or faking mental health issues.
My proposed compromise, between the extreme of calling all
abortion murder, and the extreme of allowing abortion-on-demand
at any time throughout pregnancy, does not leave open a potential
compromise-defeating exception.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 12:48:22 PM |
|
|
<oscwr@netscape.net> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
We, society, did a compromise over 30 years ago -- you simply refuse
to accept that compromise. The compromise was that while there was no
legal grounds to deny a woman an abortion, at any time, Blackmum
pulled a "State interest in the potentiality of human life" out of
nowhere, with no precedence stated for such legislating from the
bench, and created the legal grounds for the States regulate or even
ban abortion post viability.
Wrong again, because Blackmun left open the mental health exception,
meaning that anyone determined to have a late-term abortion could
have one, simply by claiming or faking mental health issues.
Now you are lying outright, which is typical of pro-liar assholes who
cannot justify themselves without lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 05:00:07 PM |
|
|
<oscwr@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1153310605.097169.99670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Paul Anderson wrote:
We, society, did a compromise over 30 years ago -- you simply refuse
to accept that compromise. The compromise was that while there was no
legal grounds to deny a woman an abortion, at any time, Blackmum
pulled a "State interest in the potentiality of human life" out of
nowhere, with no precedence stated for such legislating from the
bench, and created the legal grounds for the States regulate or even
ban abortion post viability.
Wrong again, because Blackmun left open the mental health exception,
meaning that anyone determined to have a late-term abortion could
have one, simply by claiming or faking mental health issues.
Why would any woman choose to have a late-term abortion, which would be
painful and risky, when she could have chosen to have an early-term
abortion, which would be relatively pain-free and with hardly any risk? If
a woman gestates a foetus for six months, it's patently obvious that she
wants a child and intends to carry to term, and if she seeks an abortion at
that stage it's because something has gone drastically wrong, such as gross
foetal abnormality or threat to her life. Mental health - or rather lack of
it - can also threaten her life. Would you be prepared to take the risk, if
you were a woman's obstetrician, to refuse a suicidal woman an abortion?
Doctors are in a much better position to judge the risks than you are. The
number of women who might fake symptoms of mental illness is so triflingly
small that it isn't worth considering. Laws are made to benefit the
majority, not to target the one 'abuser' out of hundreds of thousands of
genuine cases.
My proposed compromise, between the extreme of calling all
abortion murder, and the extreme of allowing abortion-on-demand
at any time throughout pregnancy, does not leave open a potential
compromise-defeating exception.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 05:44:13 PM |
|
|
junegill wrote:
The
number of women who might fake symptoms of mental illness is so triflingly
small that it isn't worth considering ...
Your naive wishful thinking doesn't make this claim likely to be true.
The mental health exception is an easy loophole for any woman who
wants to take advantage of it.
Google these words: late term abortion mental health
and you will see plenty of discussion of this very real loophole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 11:06:26 PM |
|
|
<oscwr@netscape.net> wrote:
junegill wrote:
The
number of women who might fake symptoms of mental illness is so triflingly
small that it isn't worth considering ...
Your naive wishful thinking doesn't make this claim likely to be true.
Your sleazy ***** doesn't make it false.
The mental health exception is an easy loophole for any woman who
Your'e a liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "junegill" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 06:49:01 PM |
|
|
<oscwr@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1153349053.153403.11500@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
junegill wrote:
The
number of women who might fake symptoms of mental illness is so
triflingly
small that it isn't worth considering ...
Your naive wishful thinking doesn't make this claim likely to be true.
The mental health exception is an easy loophole for any woman who
wants to take advantage of it.
I see that you've snipped the questions that I asked you - no answers I
presume ... or would you like me to repeat them?
Google these words: late term abortion mental health
and you will see plenty of discussion of this very real loophole.
Yes, far more discussion than the actual late-term abortions. From
Wikipedia:
'the Alan Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions past 24
weeks to be 0.08% (approximately 1,032 per year).'
These 1,032 per year include the abortions due to gross foetal abnormality,
risk to the woman's life or health, both physical and mental, so I reiterate
that the number of women who fake symptoms in order to get an abortion is
very small.
--
June G
# 364
http://uk.geocities.com/junegill@btopenworld.com/webpages/index.html.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 07:31:45 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 15:44:13 -0700, wrote in message
<1153349053.153403.11500@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
junegill wrote:
The
number of women who might fake symptoms of mental illness is so triflingly
small that it isn't worth considering ...
Your naive wishful thinking doesn't make this claim likely to be true.
The mental health exception is an easy loophole for any woman who
wants to take advantage of it.
But you have STILL been unable to show that this 'loophole' needs to
be entirely closed off. You aren't looking for a compromise.
Google these words: late term abortion mental health
and you will see plenty of discussion of this very real loophole.
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 08:03:42 PM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
But you have STILL been unable to show that this 'loophole' needs to
be entirely closed off. You aren't looking for a compromise.
I've stated over and over exactly what is the compromise I'm
talking about, and I've stated over and over that the mental
health exception kills that compromise. If I have to choose
between the life of a viable foetus and letting a woman who
failed for six months or more to use her right of choice, to
deny life to that viable foetus on mental health grounds, then
yes, I choose the life of the viable foetus. There's no perfect
solution that allows a woman choice for the full term of
pregnancy, and protects the life of a viable foetus. When you
say I'm not looking for a compromise, what you're really saying
is that I won't surrender all possibility of compromise, which
is what having the mental health exception would do. You're
the one who isn't looking for compromise, and why should you?
You have abortion-on-demand for the full term of pregnancy,
the life of a viable foetus be damned, which appears to be what
you want
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 08:15:15 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 18:03:42 -0700, wrote in message
<1153357422.345748.3930@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
Adam H wrote:
But you have STILL been unable to show that this 'loophole' needs to
be entirely closed off. You aren't looking for a compromise.
I've stated over and over exactly what is the compromise I'm
talking about, and I've stated over and over that the mental
health exception kills that compromise. If I have to choose
between the life of a viable foetus and letting a woman who
failed for six months or more to use her right of choice, to
deny life to that viable foetus on mental health grounds, then
yes, I choose the life of the viable foetus. There's no perfect
solution that allows a woman choice for the full term of
pregnancy, and protects the life of a viable foetus. When you
say I'm not looking for a compromise, what you're really saying
is that I won't surrender all possibility of compromise, which
is what having the mental health exception would do. You're
the one who isn't looking for compromise, and why should you?
You have abortion-on-demand for the full term of pregnancy,
the life of a viable foetus be damned, which appears to be what
you want
Nice strawman, but irrelevant. You don't want a compromise - if you
did, then you would be asking for better/tighter investigation and
enforcement of the mental health clause.
Instead you want to simply eliminate it, and tough beans to women who
actually need it.
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 08:43:27 PM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
Nice strawman, but irrelevant. You don't want a compromise - if you
did, then you would be asking for better/tighter investigation and
enforcement of the mental health clause.
That would be fine if I could believe in it, but I think that what you
propose is so much easier said than done, that it just looks
naive to me.
Instead you want to simply eliminate it, and tough beans to women who
actually need it.
Make it look convincingly likely that what you propose would be
effective and not abused, and I will go along with it wholeheartedly;
but in the meantime, yes, tough beans for a woman who had six
months or more to choose abortion, and then wants to sacrifice
a viable foetus for the sake of her mental state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 09:21:27 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 18:43:27 -0700, wrote in message
<1153359807.471511.229200@75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Adam H wrote:
Nice strawman, but irrelevant. You don't want a compromise - if you
did, then you would be asking for better/tighter investigation and
enforcement of the mental health clause.
That would be fine if I could believe in it, but I think that what you
propose is so much easier said than done, that it just looks
naive to me.
No, naive is believing that eliminating treatment is a good idea.
Instead you want to simply eliminate it, and tough beans to women who
actually need it.
Make it look convincingly likely that what you propose would be
effective and not abused, and I will go along with it wholeheartedly;
Nope, you have yet to show that there is widespread opportunity to
abuse the system. Women can't just say 'my mental health is suffering
so abort the pregnancy', you know. The numbers on late-term abortions
do NOT support your contention that abuse is happening.
but in the meantime, yes, tough beans for a woman who had six
months or more to choose abortion, and then wants to sacrifice
a viable foetus for the sake of her mental state.
And tough beans to you for disregarding women and their health. I
guess you've never considered that health problems can progress and
develop through pregnancy, huh?
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 10:11:13 PM |
|
|
Adam H wrote:
And tough beans to you for disregarding women and their health. I
guess you've never considered that health problems can progress and
develop through pregnancy, huh?
And tough beans to you for disregarding the life of a viable foetus.
It always comes down to this, that whatever a woman wants, legitimate
or otherwise, is supposed to be more important than anything else.
But when there is a life that can be indepehndent of her body, that
life is at least as important as her mental health.
Again, I'm for choice until viability, and for life after that. Make
of it
what you will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 10:34:43 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 20:11:13 -0700, wrote in message
<1153365073.492844.291560@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>:
Adam H wrote:
And tough beans to you for disregarding women and their health. I
guess you've never considered that health problems can progress and
develop through pregnancy, huh?
And tough beans to you for disregarding the life of a viable foetus.
It always comes down to this, that whatever a woman wants, legitimate
or otherwise, is supposed to be more important than anything else.
Utter crap. Late-term abortions aren't done just because the woman
wants one.
But when there is a life that can be indepehndent of her body, that
life is at least as important as her mental health.
Why?
Again, I'm for choice until viability, and for life after that.
Unless it's the woman's life that's in danger, of course. You don't
seem particularly concerned about that.
Can you ever show where there's been abuse of this system that would
justify eliminating it or not?
---
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
- Stephen F. Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
20 Jul 2006 09:05:38 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 18:03:42 -0700, wrote:
Adam H wrote:
But you have STILL been unable to show that this 'loophole' needs to
be entirely closed off. You aren't looking for a compromise.
Tell us exactly what it is that gives you the right to make
decisions for women. Why is your desires more important than
the woman's. Oh that's right you are infallible anyone that
doesn't agree with you has to be wrong, because you are
always right. Such a self righteous bigot, hope you are
happy with your self.
I've stated over and over exactly what is the compromise I'm
talking about, and I've stated over and over that the mental
health exception kills that compromise. If I have to choose
between the life of a viable foetus and letting a woman who
failed for six months or more to use her right of choice, to
deny life to that viable foetus on mental health grounds, then
yes, I choose the life of the viable foetus. There's no perfect
solution that allows a woman choice for the full term of
pregnancy, and protects the life of a viable foetus. When you
say I'm not looking for a compromise, what you're really saying
is that I won't surrender all possibility of compromise, which
is what having the mental health exception would do. You're
the one who isn't looking for compromise, and why should you?
You have abortion-on-demand for the full term of pregnancy,
the life of a viable foetus be damned, which appears to be what
you want
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 07:16:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1153310605.097169.99670@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
My proposed compromise,
you don't have the right to compromise away the rights of any woman.
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "robpar" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 08:21:11 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jul 2006 05:03:25 -0700, wrote:
My proposed compromise, between the extreme of calling all
abortion murder,
and the extreme of allowing abortion-on-demand
at any time throughout pregnancy,
There is nothing extreme about a woman having the right to
control over her own body. Simply fact is it's none of your
business, what a woman does with her body. So butt the f**k
out, you nosy self righteous bigot. I support Freedom, not
control.
--
does not leave open a potential
compromise-defeating exception.
I happily admit to knowing that there are many good decent people
that are christians. And have the utmost respect and affection for
them.
However the big mouthed, small brained, self righteous, bigoted
majority are my enemies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 09:45:45 AM |
|
|
robpar wrote:
There is nothing extreme about a woman having the right to
control over her own body. ...
It becomes extreme once the foetus has become viable,
because with help it can live outside her body. A woman
has no right to deny life to a foetus that can live outside her body.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 11:36:12 AM |
|
|
wrote in news:1153320345.859767.325030
@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
robpar wrote:
There is nothing extreme about a woman having the right to
control over her own body. ...
It becomes extreme once the foetus has become viable,
because with help it can live outside her body. A woman
has no right to deny life to a foetus that can live outside her body.
Tell you what oscarmeyerwiener, when the fetus is inside of your body, you
can chose for yourself what to do with it. Other people have that same
right, at least here in the U.S.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Pro-abortion case built on a falsehood |
19 Jul 2006 07:17:32 PM |
|
|
In article <1153320345.859767.325030@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
It becomes extreme once the foetus has become viable,
because with help it can live outside her body. A woman
has no right to deny life to a foetus that can live outside her body.
"You have confirmed my suspicion that those who argue the rights of
the fetus view the woman as a container." Muriel Nelson
<1992Jun22.123409.5...@hemlock‚.cray.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
