| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2006 12:27:05 AM |
| Object: |
Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
Further proof that virtue and decency is being embraced by a larger portion
of society's young, and growing stronger every day. Keep up the good work
kids!
http://www.christianpost.com/article/society/2257/section/teens.promote.purity.on.valentines.day/1.htm
Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day
Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 Posted: 12:08:23PM EST
Teens and youth will stand up for sexual purity today on Valentine's Day by
taking part in the third annual Day of Purity, organizing events to
encourage their churches, organizations or community to take part.
The national event, which will involve hundreds, was organized by the
Liberty Counsel, a conservative Christian legal firm based in Orlando, Fla.
Youths will participate in various outreach activities to spread the message
of abstinence before marriage
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Obsessions and OCD |
15 Feb 2006 06:52:01 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message=0D=0A<sr86v19568fumd8e9rjnunv5ouuk9vbhfu@4ax.com>...=
=0D=0A=0D=0A> They didn't let me out, they just gave me a day pass!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Obsessions and OCD |
15 Feb 2006 07:13:12 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton ***DID NOT*** write this inane post.
It was posted by a **brainless** FORGER** who
clearly is a *profound* case of immaturity, likely
combined with simply being an overall RETARD.
<garbage-flush>
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Sharp pain when pooping |
15 Feb 2006 07:15:18 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message=0D=0A<a6a6v1ha832mtmkaed85vddt83d8q68n4e@4ax.com>...=
=0D=0A=0D=0A> If you are what you eat, how come I'm not a penis?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Sharp pain when pooping |
15 Feb 2006 07:31:48 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton ***DID NOT*** write this inane post.
It was posted by a **brainless** FORGER** who
clearly is a *profound* case of immaturity, likely
combined with simply being an overall RETARD.
<garbage-flush>
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: embarrassing diarrhoea accident |
15 Feb 2006 07:33:46 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message=0D=0A<j7b6v11k149jgmd63179ebdcrb586b0nm9@4ax.com>...=
=0D=0A=0D=0A> How did a fool and his money GET together in the first place?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: embarrassing diarrhoea accident |
15 Feb 2006 07:38:41 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton ***DID NOT*** write this inane post.
It was posted by a **brainless** FORGER** who
clearly is a *profound* case of immaturity, likely
combined with simply being an overall RETARD.
<garbage-flush>
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Not enough bulky stool |
15 Feb 2006 07:40:11 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message=0D=0A<4lb6v11cs4v0a3s5q1capo2737gvriul63@4ax.com>...=
=0D=0A=0D=0A> Please try not to confuse me.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: embarrassing diarrhoea accident |
16 Feb 2006 01:30:34 AM |
|
|
Craig Chilton wrote:
Craig Chilton ***DID NOT*** write this inane post.
Actually, Craig, you did write this inane post.
What you didn't write are the inane posts you keep replying to like an
obsessed 5 year old.
It was posted by a **brainless** FORGER** who
clearly is a *profound* case of immaturity, likely
combined with simply being an overall RETARD.
<garbage-flush>
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: embarrassing diarrhoea accident |
16 Feb 2006 02:20:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 07:30:34 GMT,
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 06:13:26 GMT,
"Vandar" <vandar69@yahoo.com> ...
...spewed NOTHING worthwhile. As usual.
___________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|__________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _ ||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ronnie Dobbs" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 03:43:29 AM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139986100.387599.161470@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Further proof that virtue and decency is being embraced by a larger
portion
*of society's young, and growing stronger every day. Keep up the good
work
*kids!
What's the connection between sex life and decency?
Why is it that you RRR always think about sex, see sex everywhere and
pretend to know everything about sex?
Is it me or are there less and less differences between muslims
fanatics and christian talibans, beside the beard?
Does someone think that J Young is "getting any"?
From behind.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 07:24:51 AM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1139986100.387599.161470@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
*Further proof that virtue and decency is being embraced by a larger
portion
*of society's young, and growing stronger every day. Keep up the good
work
*kids!
What's the connection between sex life and decency?
Why is it that you RRR always think about sex, see sex everywhere and
pretend to know everything about sex?
Is it me or are there less and less differences between muslims
fanatics and christian talibans, beside the beard?
Does someone think that J Young is "getting any"?
You know if people weren't so aware of the baby killings, then maybe these
people you liberal scum call fascists and RRR cultists wouldn't chide you so
much.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 07:42:33 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:24:51 -0500,
John Wentzky" wrote:
You know if people weren't so aware of the baby killings...
Aware of something NONEXISTENT?
There you go, proving once again to everyone what a
total IDIOT you are, Wentzky.
ROTFL!!!! What a loony loser.
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
---
RRR Cult lemmings.
Dumber than dirt. America's own version of the Taliban.
Selfishly, hatefully, and mindlessly supporting sociopathic
agendas that seek to destroy vital personal liberties of
millions of people. (That's as dumb as it GETS!!!)
And constantly proving that to everyone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 09:40:59 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:fpb6v1dn48rgppn80hspevarrjf9nidu41@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:24:51 -0500,
John Wentzky" wrote:
You know if people weren't so aware of the baby killings...
Aware of something NONEXISTENT?
Denial is killing pro-Choice.
There you go, proving once again to everyone what a
total IDIOT you are, Wentzky.
Glad to see you left the topmost phrase for people to read.
ROTFL!!!! What a loony loser.
Actually, I am well aware of the dynamics of Pro-Choice ideology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 01:20:12 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:fpb6v1dn48rgppn80hspevarrjf9nidu41@4ax.com...
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 08:24:51 -0500,
John Wentzky" wrote:
You know if people weren't so aware of the baby killings...
Aware of something NONEXISTENT?
Denial is killing pro-Choice.
....says the insane crackpot of Anderson County.
There you go, proving once again to everyone what a
total IDIOT you are, Wentzky.
Glad to see you left the topmost phrase for people to read.
....which shows just how far away you are from the real world.
ROTFL!!!! What a loony loser.
Actually, I am well aware of the dynamics of Pro-Choice ideology.
You're well aware of your insanity, and very little else. QED, again.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Hartford 4, Houston 3 (February 11)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 15 at Cleveland, 6:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 09:55:52 AM |
|
|
*Actually, I am well aware of the dynamics of Pro-Choice ideology.
What part of "pro-choice" do you have problem with, actually? Is it
"choice"? As in "leaving the people decide for themselves"? Or is it
"pro", meaning "in favor of letting people decide for themselves"...
Tell me: why do you want to impose your views on anyone? "Pro-choice"
means: decide for yourself. Only fascists can oppose that. Fascists and
christian talibans, of course... which is the same...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 05:07:58 PM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote
*Actually, I am well aware of the dynamics of Pro-Choice ideology.
What part of "pro-choice" do you have problem with, actually? Is it
"choice"? As in "leaving the people decide for themselves"? Or is it
"pro", meaning "in favor of letting people decide for themselves"...
Tell me: why do you want to impose your views on anyone? "Pro-
choice" means: decide for yourself. Only fascists can oppose that.
Fascists and christian talibans, of course... which is the same...
The Samaritans have a non-directional policy on suicide. So if someone
calls, and claims to be in the act of committing suicide, the Samaritian
will talk them through it.
However the Oxford branch didn't apply the national policy to students. It
was felt that teenaged students, in the hothouse atmosphere of a college,
would be grateful later if prevented from committing suicide. Therefore the
policy was to always inform the emergency services, if it was felt that
there was a risk of suicide.
That's the snag with pro-choice. Once you make some choices, there is no
going back. If it is felt that for some reason the person making the choice
isn't very competent, maybe because of youth or some transient pressure,
then it is not at all obvious that the general principle that people should
be allowed to make their own mistakes applies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 01:03:19 PM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140018952.174767.110970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
*Actually, I am well aware of the dynamics of Pro-Choice ideology.
What part of "pro-choice" do you have problem with, actually?
The part that denies liberty to Pro-Lifers.
Is it "choice"? As in "leaving the people decide for themselves"? Or is it
"pro", meaning "in favor of letting people decide for themselves"...
It is the part that allows so much information to be hidden so much.
Tell me: why do you want to impose your views on anyone?
I am not a fetus. Who is imposing their views on me?
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
"Pro-choice" means: decide for yourself.
To do what?
Only fascists can oppose that.
Fascists and
christian talibans, of course... which is the same...
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 02:37:23 PM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140018952.174767.110970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
*Actually, I am well aware of the dynamics of Pro-Choice ideology.
What part of "pro-choice" do you have problem with, actually?
The part that denies liberty to Pro-Lifers.
Idiots like you don't get to force anyone to do as they say. Pro-choicers
don't get to force you or yours to abort. What the hell is your problem?
Is it "choice"? As in "leaving the people decide for themselves"? Or is it
"pro", meaning "in favor of letting people decide for themselves"...
It is the part that allows so much information to be hidden so much.
I value what's left of our right to privacy, and I don't appreciate morons
like you supporting the bastards in Washington who want that right to be
nothing more than a memory.
Tell me: why do you want to impose your views on anyone?
I am not a fetus. Who is imposing their views on me?
No one's making you be pro-choice...but they have every right to defend
themselves from your trying to force your crap on them.
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
"Pro-choice" means: decide for yourself.
To do what?
Whatever. The only thing is, you can't force anyone else to obey you. That's
one of the things that drives you even crazier than you already are.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Hartford 4, Houston 3 (February 11)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 15 at Cleveland, 6:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 04:24:44 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an illegal
abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered homicide. Therefore, the
fetus is not only *there* as far as the law is concerned, it is afforded the
legal status of a human being. The issue, the ONLY issue, is if and for how
long the mother shall maintain an overriding legal right to kill that fetus,
despite the fact that it otherwise possesses legal human status.
"Pro-choice" means: decide for yourself.
To do what?
Whatever. The only thing is, you can't force anyone else to obey you.
That's
one of the things that drives you even crazier than you already are.
That is a really cheap response. The issue is not "obedience", the issues
are, what is right, what is fact, what is legal, and what should one
advocate in a moral society.
It's one thing to advocate choice, it's quite another to lie and
misrepresent the issues.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 07:41:04 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an illegal
abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered homicide. Therefore, the
fetus is not only *there* as far as the law is concerned, it is afforded the
legal status of a human being. The issue, the ONLY issue, is if and for how
long the mother shall maintain an overriding legal right to kill that fetus,
despite the fact that it otherwise possesses legal human status.
It may be illegal, but that doesn't equate to the fetus being given the status
of human being - look at the wording, California's §187 being a prime example:
"the killing of a person, or a fetus, with malice aforethought", with the
provision that it doesn't apply in the event of an abortion. If the fetus was
being given the status of human being, "or a fetus" wouldn't have appeared
anywhere in the statute.
"Pro-choice" means: decide for yourself.
To do what?
Whatever. The only thing is, you can't force anyone else to obey you.
That's one of the things that drives you even crazier than you already are.
That is a really cheap response. The issue is not "obedience", the issues
are, what is right, what is fact, what is legal, and what should one
advocate in a moral society.
You're right, but keep in mind I was aiming this at Wentzky, and that's his
obsession - making others obey him.
It's one thing to advocate choice, it's quite another to lie and
misrepresent the issues.
Maybe one day he'll figure out that women are under no requirement to obey
him, and they'll make their own preferably informed choices without having to
deal with kooks like him. (He doesn't speak for anyone but himself, and is
not representative of anyone else in the anti-abortion sector.)
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Hartford 4, Houston 3 (February 11)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 15 at Cleveland, 6:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 08:13:21 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an
illegal
abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered homicide. Therefore, the
fetus is not only *there* as far as the law is concerned, it is afforded
the
legal status of a human being. The issue, the ONLY issue, is if and for
how
long the mother shall maintain an overriding legal right to kill that
fetus,
despite the fact that it otherwise possesses legal human status.
It may be illegal, but that doesn't equate to the fetus being given the
status
of human being - look at the wording, California's §187 being a prime
example:
"the killing of a person, or a fetus, with malice aforethought", with the
provision that it doesn't apply in the event of an abortion.
In the event of a *legal* abortion. In Canada, where abortion is very
accessible, illegal abortion is homicide.
If the fetus was
being given the status of human being, "or a fetus" wouldn't have appeared
anywhere in the statute.
That is a misinterperation of specifically inclusive legal language. If the
killing of a fetus is explicitly added to statute as a crime of homicide,
then the fetus is by direct inference "homo" (human). That is the correct
way to read it. To infer that it means that the fetus is *not* human is
self-contradictory.
"Pro-choice" means: decide for yourself.
To do what?
Whatever. The only thing is, you can't force anyone else to obey you.
That's one of the things that drives you even crazier than you already
are.
That is a really cheap response. The issue is not "obedience", the issues
are, what is right, what is fact, what is legal, and what should one
advocate in a moral society.
You're right, but keep in mind I was aiming this at Wentzky, and that's
his
obsession - making others obey him.
Are you sure he isn't just expressing a desire to have Roe v Wade revisited?
It's one thing to advocate choice, it's quite another to lie and
misrepresent the issues.
Maybe one day he'll figure out that women are under no requirement to obey
him, and they'll make their own preferably informed choices without having
to
deal with kooks like him. (He doesn't speak for anyone but himself, and
is
not representative of anyone else in the anti-abortion sector.)
"Informed choices" is the key phrase, not misinformed choices.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 10:16:31 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an
illegal abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered
homicide. Therefore, the fetus is not only *there* as far as the law is
concerned, it is afforded the legal status of a human being. The issue, the
ONLY issue, is if and for how long the mother shall maintain an overriding
legal right to kill that fetus, despite the fact that it otherwise
possesses legal human status.
It may be illegal, but that doesn't equate to the fetus being given the
status of human being - look at the wording, California's §187 being a
prime example: "the killing of a person, or a fetus, with malice
aforethought", with the provision that it doesn't apply in the event of an
abortion.
In the event of a *legal* abortion. In Canada, where abortion is very
accessible, illegal abortion is homicide.
That's their take on it. Different countries, different standards.
If the fetus was being given the status of human being, "or a fetus"
wouldn't have appeared anywhere in the statute.
That is a misinterperation of specifically inclusive legal language. If the
killing of a fetus is explicitly added to statute as a crime of homicide,
then the fetus is by direct inference "homo" (human). That is the correct
way to read it. To infer that it means that the fetus is *not* human is
self-contradictory.
To put it a bit more accurately, it's not a person for legal purposes in §187,
thus the wording.
"Pro-choice" means: decide for yourself.
To do what?
Whatever. The only thing is, you can't force anyone else to obey you.
That's one of the things that drives you even crazier than you already
are.
That is a really cheap response. The issue is not "obedience", the issues
are, what is right, what is fact, what is legal, and what should one
advocate in a moral society.
You're right, but keep in mind I was aiming this at Wentzky, and that's his
obsession - making others obey him.
Are you sure he isn't just expressing a desire to have Roe v Wade revisited?
After having watched him rant in this newsgroup for six or seven years, it's a
safe conclusion that he's got some serious mental problems. His experience
with losing his brother has unhinged him more than a little.
It's one thing to advocate choice, it's quite another to lie and
misrepresent the issues.
Maybe one day he'll figure out that women are under no requirement to obey
him, and they'll make their own preferably informed choices without having
to deal with kooks like him. (He doesn't speak for anyone but himself, and
is not representative of anyone else in the anti-abortion sector.)
"Informed choices" is the key phrase, not misinformed choices.
Je suis d'accord. Informed choices are better likely to work than misinformed
choices.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 6, Cleveland 4 (February 15)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 17 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
16 Feb 2006 03:26:50 AM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an
illegal abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered
homicide. Therefore, the fetus is not only *there* as far as the law is
concerned, it is afforded the legal status of a human being. The issue,
the
ONLY issue, is if and for how long the mother shall maintain an
overriding
legal right to kill that fetus, despite the fact that it otherwise
possesses legal human status.
It may be illegal, but that doesn't equate to the fetus being given the
status of human being - look at the wording, California's §187 being a
prime example: "the killing of a person, or a fetus, with malice
aforethought", with the provision that it doesn't apply in the event of
an
abortion.
In the event of a *legal* abortion. In Canada, where abortion is very
accessible, illegal abortion is homicide.
That's their take on it. Different countries, different standards.
I believe that interpretation holds true in California also.
If the fetus was being given the status of human being, "or a fetus"
wouldn't have appeared anywhere in the statute.
That is a misinterperation of specifically inclusive legal language. If
the
killing of a fetus is explicitly added to statute as a crime of homicide,
then the fetus is by direct inference "homo" (human). That is the correct
way to read it. To infer that it means that the fetus is *not* human is
self-contradictory.
To put it a bit more accurately, it's not a person for legal purposes in
§187,
thus the wording.
That makes NO sense. If it's "not a person for legal purposes" then why is
it homicide to kill it? The only legal statute which could plausibly apply
to an act against a fetus is homicide, and it applies. The only logical
interpretation of all this is that it *is* a person [equivalent] for legal
purposes, *however*, nothwithstanding that, the mother has special powers
wrt that human, she may legally, under proscribed circumstances, overide
that status and have it's life terminated.
[..]
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
16 Feb 2006 09:58:19 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an
illegal abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered
homicide. Therefore, the fetus is not only *there* as far as the law is
concerned, it is afforded the legal status of a human being. The issue,
the ONLY issue, is if and for how long the mother shall maintain an
overriding legal right to kill that fetus, despite the fact that it
otherwise possesses legal human status.
It may be illegal, but that doesn't equate to the fetus being given the
status of human being - look at the wording, California's §187 being a
prime example: "the killing of a person, or a fetus, with malice
aforethought", with the provision that it doesn't apply in the event of
an abortion.
In the event of a *legal* abortion. In Canada, where abortion is very
accessible, illegal abortion is homicide.
That's their take on it. Different countries, different standards.
I believe that interpretation holds true in California also.
I don't know, not being a resident (and only having visited twice), but I'd
imagine even if that's so, it's not exactly being enforced very often...and
regardless, in Laci Peterson's case, something tells me the issue of her
choice being denied would also be involved.
If the fetus was being given the status of human being, "or a fetus"
wouldn't have appeared anywhere in the statute.
That is a misinterperation of specifically inclusive legal language. If the
killing of a fetus is explicitly added to statute as a crime of homicide,
then the fetus is by direct inference "homo" (human). That is the correct
way to read it. To infer that it means that the fetus is *not* human is
self-contradictory.
To put it a bit more accurately, it's not a person for legal purposes in
§187,
thus the wording.
That makes NO sense. If it's "not a person for legal purposes" then why is
it homicide to kill it? The only legal statute which could plausibly apply
to an act against a fetus is homicide, and it applies. The only logical
interpretation of all this is that it *is* a person [equivalent] for legal
purposes, *however*, nothwithstanding that, the mother has special powers
wrt that human, she may legally, under proscribed circumstances, overide
that status and have it's life terminated.
The Constitution spikes that, since one of the requisites for citizenship is
having been born...it may be different, in the Dominion.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 6, Cleveland 4 (February 15)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 17 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
16 Feb 2006 10:23:30 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk7j7uvdpg.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an
illegal abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered
homicide. Therefore, the fetus is not only *there* as far as the law
is
concerned, it is afforded the legal status of a human being. The
issue,
the ONLY issue, is if and for how long the mother shall maintain an
overriding legal right to kill that fetus, despite the fact that it
otherwise possesses legal human status.
It may be illegal, but that doesn't equate to the fetus being given
the
status of human being - look at the wording, California's §187 being a
prime example: "the killing of a person, or a fetus, with malice
aforethought", with the provision that it doesn't apply in the event
of
an abortion.
In the event of a *legal* abortion. In Canada, where abortion is very
accessible, illegal abortion is homicide.
That's their take on it. Different countries, different standards.
I believe that interpretation holds true in California also.
I don't know, not being a resident (and only having visited twice), but
I'd
imagine even if that's so, it's not exactly being enforced very
often...and
regardless, in Laci Peterson's case, something tells me the issue of her
choice being denied would also be involved.
Denying choice is not homicide, in fact it's not even a defined crime per
se, that I know of. Scott Peterson was charged with two murders, which
establishes a defacto status of human for the fetus.
If the fetus was being given the status of human being, "or a fetus"
wouldn't have appeared anywhere in the statute.
That is a misinterperation of specifically inclusive legal language. If
the
killing of a fetus is explicitly added to statute as a crime of
homicide,
then the fetus is by direct inference "homo" (human). That is the
correct
way to read it. To infer that it means that the fetus is *not* human is
self-contradictory.
To put it a bit more accurately, it's not a person for legal purposes in
§187,
thus the wording.
That makes NO sense. If it's "not a person for legal purposes" then why is
it homicide to kill it? The only legal statute which could plausibly
apply
to an act against a fetus is homicide, and it applies. The only logical
interpretation of all this is that it *is* a person [equivalent] for legal
purposes, *however*, nothwithstanding that, the mother has special powers
wrt that human, she may legally, under proscribed circumstances, overide
that status and have it's life terminated.
The Constitution spikes that, since one of the requisites for citizenship
is
having been born...it may be different, in the Dominion.
I didn't say anything about citizenship, the issue is status for legal
purposes, and protection by threat of a homicide charge is status as human
for legal purposes. Even non-citizens are still human. So my point remains,
this status is extant, it is established, despite the rider that the mother
has the right to "withdraw her services".
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
16 Feb 2006 11:12:40 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk7j7uvdpg.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an
illegal abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered
homicide. Therefore, the fetus is not only *there* as far as the law
is
concerned, it is afforded the legal status of a human being. The
issue,
the ONLY issue, is if and for how long the mother shall maintain an
overriding legal right to kill that fetus, despite the fact that it
otherwise possesses legal human status.
It may be illegal, but that doesn't equate to the fetus being given
the
status of human being - look at the wording, California's §187 being a
prime example: "the killing of a person, or a fetus, with malice
aforethought", with the provision that it doesn't apply in the event
of
an abortion.
In the event of a *legal* abortion. In Canada, where abortion is very
accessible, illegal abortion is homicide.
That's their take on it. Different countries, different standards.
I believe that interpretation holds true in California also.
I don't know, not being a resident (and only having visited twice), but
I'd
imagine even if that's so, it's not exactly being enforced very
often...and
regardless, in Laci Peterson's case, something tells me the issue of her
choice being denied would also be involved.
Denying choice is not homicide, in fact it's not even a defined crime per
se, that I know of. Scott Peterson was charged with two murders, which
establishes a defacto status of human for the fetus.
That's an outright lie. The law is clear and has been explained
repeatedly, but Crutch prefers repeating the lie.
A fetus is NOT a human being according to California law.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
16 Feb 2006 10:59:17 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
[..]
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
That's an outright lie. If a fetus is killed due to an assault or an
illegal abortion in most jurisdictions that is considered
homicide. Therefore, the fetus is not only *there* as far as the law is
concerned, it is afforded the legal status of a human being. The issue,
the
ONLY issue, is if and for how long the mother shall maintain an
overriding
legal right to kill that fetus, despite the fact that it otherwise
possesses legal human status.
It may be illegal, but that doesn't equate to the fetus being given the
status of human being - look at the wording, California's §187 being a
prime example: "the killing of a person, or a fetus, with malice
aforethought", with the provision that it doesn't apply in the event of
an
abortion.
In the event of a *legal* abortion. In Canada, where abortion is very
accessible, illegal abortion is homicide.
That's their take on it. Different countries, different standards.
I believe that interpretation holds true in California also.
You believe many things which are not true.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 09:23:36 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote
If the fetus was
being given the status of human being, "or a fetus" wouldn't have appeared
anywhere in the statute.
That is a misinterperation of specifically inclusive legal language. If the
killing of a fetus is explicitly added to statute as a crime of homicide,
then the fetus is by direct inference "homo" (human).
That's exactly backwards. If the fetus was a human being then it
wouldn't need to be mentioned explicitely.
That is the correct
way to read it. To infer that it means that the fetus is *not* human is
self-contradictory.
Do you really not know the difference between something that is human
and something that is a human?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 07:32:36 PM |
|
|
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk4q30jr3w.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140018952.174767.110970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
*Actually, I am well aware of the dynamics of Pro-Choice ideology.
What part of "pro-choice" do you have problem with, actually?
The part that denies liberty to Pro-Lifers.
Idiots like you don't get to force anyone to do as they say. Pro-choicers
don't get to force you or yours to abort. What the hell is your problem?
Is it "choice"? As in "leaving the people decide for themselves"? Or is
it
"pro", meaning "in favor of letting people decide for themselves"...
It is the part that allows so much information to be hidden so much.
I value what's left of our right to privacy, and I don't appreciate morons
like you supporting the bastards in Washington who want that right to be
nothing more than a memory.
Tell me: why do you want to impose your views on anyone?
I am not a fetus. Who is imposing their views on me?
No one's making you be pro-choice...but they have every right to defend
themselves from your trying to force your crap on them.
Who is imposing their views on the fetuses? ANYONE of them?
They're not there, as far as the law is concerned.
"Pro-choice" means: decide for yourself.
To do what?
Whatever. The only thing is, you can't force anyone else to obey you.
Uh........
That's
one of the things that drives you even crazier than you already are.
Nah. That is what drives the bad people crazy while they hide the truth to
cover their asses.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Hartford 4, Houston 3 (February 11)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, February 15 at Cleveland, 6:05
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
15 Feb 2006 11:04:22 PM |
|
|
(trimmed down to only what Wentzky bothered to respond to)
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"The Chief Instigator" <patrick@io.com> wrote in message
news:szk4q30jr3w.fsf@fnord.io.com...
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140018952.174767.110970@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
[...]
"Pro-choice" means: decide for yourself.
To do what?
Whatever. The only thing is, you can't force anyone else to obey you.
Uh........
Sucks to be you, eh? That's sad.
That's
one of the things that drives you even crazier than you already are.
Nah. That is what drives the bad people crazy while they hide the truth to
cover their asses.
I'm thankful I don't live in the dream world you inhabit much of the
time...reality takes precedence, around here.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Houston 6, Cleveland 4 (February 15)
NEXT GAME: Friday, February 17 at Iowa, 7:05
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
