Science > Abortion > Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked)
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
30 Nov 2005 02:38:17 AM |
| Object: |
Study, Abortion Does NOT Lead to Depression (Another GOP Lie Debunked) |
Oops,
Facts 1, GOP 0
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4379422.stm
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2109 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
-----
"Now, did I want to go? Hell no."
-duke (duckgumbo32@cox.net), aka PedophilEarl J Weber, 63
year old mateless, heirless biological failure
of Afton Oaks Apartment, Baton Rouge, on why
a Neocon chickenhawk like him pussied out of
the Vietnam War.
.
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 10:57:32 AM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
news:dmnmim$6pg$0@pita.alt.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote...
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Of course it's a person. There's no duality in
a human life such as person/non-person.
It's one life, one person, from conception to
death.
Now there is an argument for ya. Proof by
blatant assertion.
Just plain fact. All *inherent* elements of
the human being, including it's intelligence
and personality -- it's personhood -- are
present at conception in the newly formed
DNA code of that individual. All of those
elements will be expressed as that life
goes forward,
You mean, *if* that life goes forward.
and they are added to by and
are the basis for experience. Conception
is the bright line in nature of each
individual life.
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at conception. (I'm using
your terminology for the sake of argument.) Allofasudden, there's two
"persons", well after the conception event. Where'd that second "person"
come from? Where'd that "bright line" go? Or sometimes, two fertilized
ova
will conjoin into one chimeral individual - there were two "persons"; now
there is one. Where'd that second "person" go?
Actual biology has a way of confounding our conventional wisdom about How
Things Are - and that might be why creationists hate evolution so much.
Oh, and btw - "personhood" is a social/legal, not medical/biological
construct.
Does not "personhood" hinge on a medical/biological construct?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 11:35:52 PM |
|
|
Chris <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
news:dmnmim$6pg$0@pita.alt.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote...
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Of course it's a person. There's no duality in
a human life such as person/non-person.
It's one life, one person, from conception to
death.
Now there is an argument for ya. Proof by
blatant assertion.
Just plain fact. All *inherent* elements of
the human being, including it's intelligence
and personality -- it's personhood -- are
present at conception in the newly formed
DNA code of that individual. All of those
elements will be expressed as that life
goes forward,
You mean, *if* that life goes forward.
and they are added to by and
are the basis for experience. Conception
is the bright line in nature of each
individual life.
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at conception. (I'm using
your terminology for the sake of argument.) Allofasudden, there's two
"persons", well after the conception event. Where'd that second "person"
come from? Where'd that "bright line" go? Or sometimes, two fertilized
ova
will conjoin into one chimeral individual - there were two "persons"; now
there is one. Where'd that second "person" go?
Actual biology has a way of confounding our conventional wisdom about How
Things Are - and that might be why creationists hate evolution so much.
Oh, and btw - "personhood" is a social/legal, not medical/biological
construct.
Does not "personhood" hinge on a medical/biological construct?
No.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 02:44:02 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
news:dmnmim$6pg$0@pita.alt.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote...
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
Of course it's a person. There's no duality in
a human life such as person/non-person.
It's one life, one person, from conception to
death.
Now there is an argument for ya. Proof by
blatant assertion.
Just plain fact. All *inherent* elements of
the human being, including it's intelligence
and personality -- it's personhood -- are
present at conception in the newly formed
DNA code of that individual. All of those
elements will be expressed as that life
goes forward,
You mean, *if* that life goes forward.
No, I said and mean *as* that life goes
forward.
If that life is ended, by natural causes
or by killing it, nothing is changed about
the inherent nature of those elements.
They are there from conception. Unless
death intevenes, they will be expressed
as that life unfolds. Just as any born
child will continue to express inherent
elements unless his life ends.
and they are added to by and
are the basis for experience. Conception
is the bright line in nature of each
individual life.
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 03:16:34 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
news:dmnmim$6pg$0@pita.alt.net...
<...>
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "chris.holt" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 03:32:26 PM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
Not Manichean enough. See, there's this angel and this devil.
They're playing poker, and one of them's really low. So they
go double or nothing; twins or a miscarriage. Usually the
miscarriage wins; but sometimes the good guys win out. We
don't have to explain trifectas, I'm sure. We also don't
have to explain who the good guys are...
--
chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 04:39:14 PM |
|
|
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dmnq5b$nm5$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of
dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
Not Manichean enough. See, there's this angel and this
devil.
They're playing poker, and one of them's really low. So
they
go double or nothing; twins or a miscarriage. Usually the
miscarriage wins; but sometimes the good guys win out. We
don't have to explain trifectas, I'm sure. We also don't
have to explain who the good guys are...
I see that the chinlessness has turned you into
a clogged sinus. If morphology is destiny,
my chinless friend, you are the snot locker
for our times.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 07:21:15 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dmnq5b$nm5$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of
dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
Not Manichean enough. See, there's this angel and this
devil.
They're playing poker, and one of them's really low. So
they
go double or nothing; twins or a miscarriage. Usually the
miscarriage wins; but sometimes the good guys win out. We
don't have to explain trifectas, I'm sure. We also don't
have to explain who the good guys are...
I see that the chinlessness has turned you into
a clogged sinus. If morphology is destiny,
my chinless friend, you are the snot locker
for our times.
Man, stop talking. you're not helping any.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 09:03:16 PM |
|
|
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1133486475.460706.243030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dmnq5b$nm5$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of
dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
Not Manichean enough. See, there's this angel and this
devil.
They're playing poker, and one of them's really low.
So
they
go double or nothing; twins or a miscarriage. Usually
the
miscarriage wins; but sometimes the good guys win out.
We
don't have to explain trifectas, I'm sure. We also
don't
have to explain who the good guys are...
I see that the chinlessness has turned you into
a clogged sinus. If morphology is destiny,
my chinless friend, you are the snot locker
for our times.
Man, stop talking. you're not helping any.
Is that some kind of thought squirting out
of you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 10:21:49 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
<rc022586@reinhardt.edu> wrote in message
news:1133486475.460706.243030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dmnq5b$nm5$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of
dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
Not Manichean enough. See, there's this angel and this
devil.
They're playing poker, and one of them's really low.
So
they
go double or nothing; twins or a miscarriage. Usually
the
miscarriage wins; but sometimes the good guys win out.
We
don't have to explain trifectas, I'm sure. We also
don't
have to explain who the good guys are...
I see that the chinlessness has turned you into
a clogged sinus. If morphology is destiny,
my chinless friend, you are the snot locker
for our times.
Man, stop talking. you're not helping any.
Is that some kind of thought squirting out
of you?
It's funny seeing you and your virtual twin sniping at each other, too
late of course, we already knew you were cut from the same cloth.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 10:20:03 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dmnq5b$nm5$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of
dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
Not Manichean enough. See, there's this angel and this
devil.
They're playing poker, and one of them's really low. So
they
go double or nothing; twins or a miscarriage. Usually the
miscarriage wins; but sometimes the good guys win out. We
don't have to explain trifectas, I'm sure. We also don't
have to explain who the good guys are...
I see that the chinlessness has turned you into
a clogged sinus. If morphology is destiny,
my chinless friend, you are the snot locker
for our times.
Man, stop talking. you're not helping any.
You two are cut from the same cloth and him shutting up won't help we
already knew it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 11:18:12 AM |
|
|
Mimi Cohen wrote:
rc022586@reinhardt.edu wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dmnq5b$nm5$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of
dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
Not Manichean enough. See, there's this angel and this
devil.
They're playing poker, and one of them's really low. So
they
go double or nothing; twins or a miscarriage. Usually the
miscarriage wins; but sometimes the good guys win out. We
don't have to explain trifectas, I'm sure. We also don't
have to explain who the good guys are...
I see that the chinlessness has turned you into
a clogged sinus. If morphology is destiny,
my chinless friend, you are the snot locker
for our times.
Man, stop talking. you're not helping any.
You two are cut from the same cloth and him shutting up won't help we
already knew it.
I'm consistant in my vviews against abortion. He seems to think
abortion is ok under "certain circumstances". He's a wolf in sheep's
clothing
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 12:00:32 PM |
|
|
wrote in news:1133543891.942294.21210
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Mimi Cohen wrote:
wrote:
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"chris.holt" <chris.holt@ncl.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:dmnq5b$nm5$1@ucsnew1.ncl.ac.uk...
Jim07D5 wrote:
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> said:
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
Nah, it makes more sense that the angel in charge of
dealing out souls
keeps an eye out for the split.
Not Manichean enough. See, there's this angel and this
devil.
They're playing poker, and one of them's really low. So
they
go double or nothing; twins or a miscarriage. Usually the
miscarriage wins; but sometimes the good guys win out. We
don't have to explain trifectas, I'm sure. We also don't
have to explain who the good guys are...
I see that the chinlessness has turned you into
a clogged sinus. If morphology is destiny,
my chinless friend, you are the snot locker
for our times.
Man, stop talking. you're not helping any.
You two are cut from the same cloth and him shutting up won't help we
already knew it.
I'm consistant in my vviews against abortion. He seems to think
abortion is ok under "certain circumstances". He's a wolf in sheep's
clothing
And you are an idiot in idiots clothing, ReCycled trash.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 02:54:56 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote...
Just plain fact. All *inherent* elements of
the human being, including it's intelligence
and personality -- it's personhood -- are
present at conception in the newly formed
DNA code of that individual. All of those
elements will be expressed as that life
goes forward,
You mean, *if* that life goes forward.
No, I said and mean *as* that life goes
forward.
There's no guarantee that it will - in fact, there's a better than even
chance that it will not implant.
If that life is ended, by natural causes
or by killing it, nothing is changed about
the inherent nature of those elements.
You seem to be saying that one should presume that a thing that has not
occurred will most likely occur, and hence is the same as having occurred.
Thus, you avoid the messy business of dealing with actualities - like what
happens when two fertilized ova conjoin to become *one* person. That's not
a hypothetical question, you know, and simply deleting it from your response
won't make it go away.
[...]
Explain identical twins. It was one "person" at
conception.
Right, one person becomes two. Both of their lives
began at conception; they shared that origin
before and after they twinned.
That's a brave display of hand-waving, there, Martin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
01 Dec 2005 04:54:03 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote in message
news:dmnnv1$ck0$0@pita.alt.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote...
"Spartakus" <no.spam@this.address> wrote...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote...
Just plain fact. All *inherent* elements of
the human being, including it's intelligence
and personality -- it's personhood -- are
present at conception in the newly formed
DNA code of that individual. All of those
elements will be expressed as that life
goes forward,
You mean, *if* that life goes forward.
No, I said and mean *as* that life goes
forward.
There's no guarantee that it will - in fact, there's a
better than even
chance that it will not implant.
Right, there are few guarantees in any life. There's
not even a guarantee that you won't be run over
by a backhoe on your way to the store tomorrow.
Should that allow someone to kill you today?
"Aye, the bloke could just as easily been
run over by the tram tomorrow, so I went
and did him in today, to spare us both the
difficulty."
We all begin life at conception with all that
is truly ours save our experiences. We all run
the risk of not making it onward to a good long
life. For some it ends sooner, for others latter.
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
It will always be wrong and evil, regardless of
the lack of guarantees that they won't die
naturally well before their time, even in the
womb before they are born.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 08:54:24 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a profoundly retarded
fetus that would live only an hour or so after being born, you'd force her
to go through the entire pregnancy?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 09:02:02 AM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour or
so after being born, you'd force her to go through the
entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born. But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 11:58:49 AM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KlZjf.38843$u43.6322@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a profoundly
retarded fetus that would live only an hour or so after being born, you'd
force her to go through the entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
So that would be a "no", then?
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
Sure there is - That's why we have doctors. Notice I said "an hour or so".
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
So, you WOULD make your wife go through the pregnancy?
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin McPhillips" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 12:20:19 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vbg8sF15adq9U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KlZjf.38843$u43.6322@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour
or so after being born, you'd force her to go through
the entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
So that would be a "no", then?
What did I just say?
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
Sure there is - That's why we have doctors. Notice I said
"an hour or so".
And there is little to no chance of predicting
something like that with certainty. Doctors offer
probabilities, not certainties, and their job
isn't to suggest killing someone before they
die naturally.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
So, you WOULD make your wife go through the pregnancy?
I wouldn't *make* anyone do anything.
But you apparently have a desire to kill the
unborn, whether they are profoundly retarded
or not. There's a lot of *making* in that,
as in making the living dead.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 02:47:24 PM |
|
|
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Df0kf.38889$u43.526@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vbg8sF15adq9U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KlZjf.38843$u43.6322@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a profoundly
retarded fetus that would live only an hour or so after being born,
you'd force her to go through the entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
So that would be a "no", then?
What did I just say?
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
Sure there is - That's why we have doctors. Notice I said "an hour or
so".
And there is little to no chance of predicting
something like that with certainty. Doctors offer
probabilities, not certainties, and their job
isn't to suggest killing someone before they
die naturally.
Sounds like you know extremely little about doctors.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
So, you WOULD make your wife go through the pregnancy?
I wouldn't *make* anyone do anything.
So, what would you do if she wanted to terminate the pregnancy rather then
go through it and end up with a dead baby?
But you apparently have a desire to kill the
unborn, whether they are profoundly retarded
or not.
Uh huh. Yeah, like you really know me well enough to make that sort of
judgement.
There's a lot of *making* in that,
as in making the living dead.
Whatever. I just know that if I found out that I was carrying a profoundly
retarded fetus that wouldn't survive, I would definitely terminate the
pregnancy. My husband and I are in agreement on that.
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 11:34:48 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vbg8sF15adq9U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KlZjf.38843$u43.6322@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour
or so after being born, you'd force her to go through
the entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
So that would be a "no", then?
What did I just say?
Looks like you're a coward trying to have it both ways.
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
Sure there is - That's why we have doctors. Notice I said
"an hour or so".
And there is little to no chance of predicting
something like that with certainty.
*****.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
So, you WOULD make your wife go through the pregnancy?
I wouldn't *make* anyone do anything.
So you pro-choice.
But you apparently have a desire to kill the
You really are an evil little *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
03 Dec 2005 08:14:50 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vbg8sF15adq9U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KlZjf.38843$u43.6322@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour
or so after being born, you'd force her to go through
the entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
So that would be a "no", then?
What did I just say?
Looks like you're a coward trying to have it both ways.
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
Sure there is - That's why we have doctors. Notice I said
"an hour or so".
And there is little to no chance of predicting
something like that with certainty.
*****.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
So, you WOULD make your wife go through the pregnancy?
I wouldn't *make* anyone do anything.
So you pro-choice.
But you apparently have a desire to kill the
You really are an evil little *****.
Blatantly obvious to the most casual observer
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Most Casual Observer" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
03 Dec 2005 09:18:29 AM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 06:14:50 -0800, Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> spewed
forth this unto the Network:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Martin McPhillips <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vbg8sF15adq9U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KlZjf.38843$u43.6322@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour
or so after being born, you'd force her to go through
the entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
So that would be a "no", then?
What did I just say?
Looks like you're a coward trying to have it both ways.
[...]
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
So, you WOULD make your wife go through the pregnancy?
I wouldn't *make* anyone do anything.
So you pro-choice.
But you apparently have a desire to kill the
You really are an evil little *****.
Blatantly obvious to the most casual observer
I concur.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 12:24:38 PM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vbg8sF15adq9U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:KlZjf.38843$u43.6322@twister.nyc.rr.com...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour
or so after being born, you'd force her to go through
the entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
So that would be a "no", then?
What did I just say?
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
Sure there is - That's why we have doctors. Notice I said
"an hour or so".
And there is little to no chance of predicting
something like that with certainty. Doctors offer
probabilities, not certainties, and their job
isn't to suggest killing someone before they
die naturally.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
So, you WOULD make your wife go through the pregnancy?
I wouldn't *make* anyone do anything.
But you apparently have a desire to kill the
unborn, whether they are profoundly retarded
or not. There's a lot of *making* in that,
as in making the living dead.
I salute you as a prfoundly gentle person, Martin McPhillips.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 02:14:14 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:20:19 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
But you apparently have a desire to kill the
unborn, whether they are profoundly retarded
or not. There's a lot of *making* in that,
as in making the living dead.
What do you assholes imagine you are achieving by lying about people
with a better grasp on reality than you do?
Are there any honest anti-abortionists?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 02:25:54 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2005 18:20:19 GMT, "Martin McPhillips"
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
But you apparently have a desire to kill the
unborn, whether they are profoundly retarded
or not. There's a lot of *making* in that,
as in making the living dead.
What do you assholes imagine you are achieving by lying about people
with a better grasp on reality than you do?
Are there any honest anti-abortionists?
Is anyone in the whole world honest in the eyes of Christopher A. Lee?
- Not if she disagrees with Christopher A. Lee. Christopher A. Lee
cannot write a post without the words "liar, lie, lying, lies, etc."
When Christopher A. Lee is the judge of men, how can anyone be honest?
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 10:36:04 AM |
|
|
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour or
so after being born, you'd force her to go through the
entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
You are advocating forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies.
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
If it would die that soon after birth, it is likely that they doctors
could predict it.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
However, we are not talking about a person, unless you mean the
pregnant women, who is the only person directly involved in the
pregnnacy. We are talking about your desire to force a woman, which is
a person, to continue an unwanted pregnancy against her will as a
virtual slave just because you want her to do so.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 11:06:59 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1133541364.236161.23280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour or
so after being born, you'd force her to go through the
entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
You are advocating forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies.
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
If it would die that soon after birth, it is likely that they doctors
could predict it.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
However, we are not talking about a person, unless you mean the
pregnant women, who is the only person directly involved in the
pregnnacy.
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/ap.shtml
We are talking about your desire to force a woman, which is
a person, to continue an unwanted pregnancy against her will as a
virtual slave just because you want her to do so.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Sebree" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
02 Dec 2005 01:08:17 PM |
|
|
Chris wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1133541364.236161.23280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour or
so after being born, you'd force her to go through the
entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
You are advocating forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies.
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
If it would die that soon after birth, it is likely that they doctors
could predict it.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
However, we are not talking about a person, unless you mean the
pregnant women, who is the only person directly involved in the
pregnnacy.
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/ap.shtml
"A circuit judge ruled in early 1999 against Aka's claims, citing a
Supreme Court ruling that a fetus was not a person in wrongful-death
actions.
"Later that year, the Legislature approved a law specifying that an
unborn fetus could be considered a person for some purposes in criminal
law."
In other words, it is not a person, but is considered a person under
specific circumstances. The woman is always considered a person
because she is. The fetus is considered a person only in specific
circumstances and under specified statutes of criminal law. Therefore,
since the law does not specify the fetus as a person in general, but
rather gives specific exceptions where the fetus is consideres a person
for the applicable statutes, the fetus is not a person. If it was, no
exceptions would need to be made.
Therefore, my statement still stands as the only person directly
involved in the pregnancy is the pregnant woman.
Mark Sebree
We are talking about your desire to force a woman, which is
a person, to continue an unwanted pregnancy against her will as a
virtual slave just because you want her to do so.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
03 Dec 2005 07:53:15 AM |
|
|
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1133550497.088473.67540@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Chris wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
news:1133541364.236161.23280@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Martin McPhillips wrote:
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in message
news:3vb5f3F14rtv2U1@individual.net...
"Martin McPhillips" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:faLjf.23234$ek6.4235@news-wrt-
01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
snip
But *killing* the unborn out of convenience
will never be justified under any circumstances
except to save the life of the mother.
So, if your wife found out that she was pregnant with a
profoundly retarded fetus that would live only an hour or
so after being born, you'd force her to go through the
entire pregnancy?
I don't *force* anyone to do anything.
You are advocating forcing women to continue unwanted pregnancies.
But there is no way to predict that a profoundly
retarded child will die an hour after being
born.
If it would die that soon after birth, it is likely that they doctors
could predict it.
But every person has the right to die
in its own time, and to not be killed, whether
that person is profoundly retarded or not.
However, we are not talking about a person, unless you mean the
pregnant women, who is the only person directly involved in the
pregnnacy.
http://www.thevanguard.org/thevanguard/other_writers/ap.shtml
"A circuit judge ruled in early 1999 against Aka's claims, citing a
Supreme Court ruling that a fetus was not a person in wrongful-death
actions.
"Later that year, the Legislature approved a law specifying that an
unborn fetus could be considered a person for some purposes in criminal
law."
In other words, it is not a person, but is considered a person under
specific circumstances.
Are YOU considered a person?
The woman is always considered a person
because she is.
I sense a circle.
The fetus is considered a person only in specific
circumstances and under specified statutes of criminal law. Therefore,
since the law does not specify the fetus as a person in general, but
rather gives specific exceptions where the fetus is consideres a person
for the applicable statutes, the fetus is not a person. If it was, no
exceptions would need to be made.
Since the law considers a fetus a person, it is not a person.
Therefore, my statement still stands as the only person directly
involved in the pregnancy is the pregnant woman.
Mark Sebree
We are talking about your desire to force a woman, which is
a person, to continue an unwanted pregnancy against her will as a
virtual slave just because you want her to do so.
Mark Sebree
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Technical problems with "personhood from conception" |
03 Dec 2005 10:51:22 AM |
|
|
Chris <reddd@juno.com> wrote:
"Mark Sebree" <sebree@infionline.net> wrote in message
"A circuit judge ruled in early 1999 against Aka's claims, citing a
Supreme Court ruling that a fetus was not a person in wrongful-death
actions.
"Later that year, the Legislature approved a law specifying that an
unborn fetus could be considered a person for some purposes in criminal
law."
In other words, it is not a person, but is considered a person under
specific circumstances.
Are YOU considered a person?
Are you stupid?
The woman is always considered a person
because she is.
I sense a circle.
I sense stupidity.
The fetus is considered a person only in specific
circumstances and under specified statutes of criminal law. Therefore,
since the law does not specify the fetus as a person in general, but
rather gives specific exceptions where the fetus is consideres a person
for the applicable statutes, the fetus is not a person. If it was, no
exceptions would need to be made.
Since the law considers a fetus a person,
It does not, as was just explained.
it is not a person.
At least you got something right.
Therefore, my statement still stands as the only person directly
involved in the pregnancy is the pregnant woman.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
