| 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: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
17 Feb 2006 08:39:13 PM |
|
|
"Bonnie B" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:5iicv1dqpveqq2ubpfg6ihvbdulf3j8513@fe04.buzzardnews.com...
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 12:36:30 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "Dutch"
<no@email.com>
Before I had the time to respond to you in this post, both "Bonnie
B."
and "BOB" had already done so. Excellently!!
Merçi beaucoup, cupcake <kiss noise>
What happened to "get a uterus and then you can have an opinion"?
Shouldn't
that have been "get a uterus and then you can disagree with me"?
No, Check the attribution chevrons, O Illiterate One.
I don't need to check. You disqualify men from having opinions only when you
don't like their opinions. That's hypocritical, and typical of your <sic>
style.
Anything I could say would
be a redundancy of their responses.
So I encourage you to read their responses. I second them!!
Bonnie B's fallacy-laden effort fell far short,
Only to someone lacking a brain.
There's that fallacy again.
And it's all yours.
I didn't say it, you did.
Sex is consensual.
Rape is not.
Only an idiot or serial rapist would claim otherwise.
Irrelevant
Except for the relevancy, in that it proves the original assertion
that others' sex lives are none of your damn business.
Do try to keep up, sweetie! LOL
It doesn't prove anything of the sort, it's an exercise in semantics, a
distraction to allow you to avoid discussing the real issue, that one you
fear so much, that is that irresponsible sex causes unwanted pregnancy which
leads to the widespread killing of human lives, iow abortion reduced to the
level of birth control.
Didja ever stop to ask yourself why BOB responds to you the way he
does?
Of course not -- you're a christstain, and you're blameless <guffaw>
I don't
Like I said
You say a lot, yet nothing comes out that has any meaning. You will be
successful in your efforts to have every dialogue end before it starts, or
else be reduced to a mudslinging match, congratulations, there's nothing I
can do about that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
17 Feb 2006 11:16:54 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:39:13 -0800,
"Dutch" [<Anonymous@COWARD>] wrote:
"Bonnie B" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote:
"Dutch" [<Anonymous@COWARD>] wrote:
"Bonnie B" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote:
Sex is consensual.
Rape is not.
Only an idiot or serial rapist would claim otherwise.
Irrelevant
Except for the relevancy, in that it proves the original assertion
that others' sex lives are none of your damn business.
Do try to keep up, sweetie! LOL
... you ... avoid discussing the real issue, that one you fear so
much, that is that irresponsible sex causes unwanted pregnancy which
leads to the widespread killing of human lives, iow abortion reduced to
the level of birth control.
1. From what you just said, you're actually **stupid** enough to
think that any one *sensible*, fair-minded, and compassionate
enough NOT to seek to *force* millions of women to gestate to
term against their will (a very real, 9-month-long form of RAPE)
would actually "fear" anything having to do with the beneficial
REMEDY of abortion. That makes you "dumb, dumber, and
'dumberer'!"
That valuable remedy has been enabling no fewer than a BILLION
(with a "B") girls and women who *choose* to access it, worldwide,
over any given recent 18-year-long period, to put their lives back
on track by UNDOING, within minutes, an unwanted medical con-
dition (ill-timed pregnancy) that otherwise could have irrevocably
destroyed countless of their future plans and aspirations.
Only the most hateful and ignorant of people would even *con-
sider* forcing ANY person to be deprived of ANY remedy. Such
as mindless and loathsome louts like you.
2. "Reducing" abortion "to the level of birth control" is impossible,
since abortion IS the birth control of last resort. It's the form
of birth control that girls and women access when il-timed and
unwanted pregnancies occur. Your comment was every bit as
idiotic as it would have been if you'd said, "aspirin reduced to
the level of headache relief." Fully 95% of all abortions ARE
for the purpose of *undoing* UNWANTED pregnancy. So in the
vast majority of cases it IS birth control. But -- obviously, the
birth control of last resort, due to the inconvenience and the
extra expense.
BTW -- have you heard the latest? Australia is about to accept
RU-486 *and* make it available for just $16. Through the 9th
week of pregnancy. So the USA won't be far behind! GOOD for
Australia!!!
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument... are
you aware that more than a QUADRILLION of those are termin-
ated DAILY, worldwide... by MEN? Yep. The elective abortion
of that many Stage One entities of the reproductive process.
Gametes. ALL of which... JUST like the Stage 2, 3, and 4 entities
(zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses)... are human, *potential*
people, unique, and *alive*. (LOL!!! So much for that lying
garbage spewed by Anti-Choicers that "life begins at fertiliza-
tion." They need to have a look at a sperm. DEAD sperm don't
have tails that wriggle!)
-- Craig Chilton
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
GOD'S "WIN-WIN-WIN" SITUATION
God is omniscient and omnipotent. That means that He has
always KNOWN everything *about* everything, past present
and future. And that He may freely INTERACT, uniquely, with
any person, group, or all humanity, however and whenever He
chooses.
Trillions (indeed, even octillions) of years ago, God KNEW
just *which* human entities (from sperm and ova on, inclusive)
would be born, and which ones would NOT, for whatever
reason. In the case of Jeremiah, He interacted BEFORE
Jeremiah reached the womb -- while Jeremiah was STILL at
the sperm-and-ovum stage! (Jer. 1:5). In THAT case, at least,
the soul had been instilled at the sperm-and-egg stage -- the
stage at which God communicated with Jeremiah.
So it's VERY possible that God instills ALL souls at that
stage... since God ALREADY knows which of them will later
become people, and which ones will not. And if He chooses
to instill souls in ALL of those, then heaven must be a VERY
populated place. And any potential people that happened to
have been aborted then got a FREE pass to heaven. And
missed the RISK that is faced by all of us here on earth.
And then, there also is the very REAL possibility that God
chooses to instill souls ONLY in the entities that He KNOWS,
beforehand, *will* be BORN. Then there are NO free passes
to heaven. But that's no loss to the QUINTILLION human
entities, daily, that never knew the difference.
Any way you look at it, it's a "win-win" situation for God.
Which makes it no great surprise that He never said so much
as ONE SINGLE WORD against abortion. Since abortion is a
highly-valuable REMEDY that enables millions of women to put
their lives BACK on track, and gives them another chance to
pursue their full ranges of future opportunities, the availability
of it is FAR more in line with God's COMPASSION (and the
compassion that Jesus commanded us to show to others), than
it would be for women to be FORCED to carry-to-term against
their will, and see many of their opportunities and their well-being
destroyed. (Particularly since God ALSO was/is well-aware that
MOST women who DO obtain abortions go on later to HAVE
children, by choice, when the timing is better, and the circum-
stances and prospects for long-term stable family environments
are far more favorable.)
For God, the status quo is "win-win-win" -- all the way!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
17 Feb 2006 11:35:11 PM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 18:39:13 -0800,
"Dutch" [<Anonymous@COWARD>] wrote:
"Bonnie B" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote:
"Dutch" [<Anonymous@COWARD>] wrote:
"Bonnie B" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote:
Sex is consensual.
Rape is not.
Only an idiot or serial rapist would claim otherwise.
Irrelevant
Except for the relevancy, in that it proves the original assertion
that others' sex lives are none of your damn business.
Do try to keep up, sweetie! LOL
... you ... avoid discussing the real issue, that one you fear so
much, that is that irresponsible sex causes unwanted pregnancy which
leads to the widespread killing of human lives, iow abortion reduced to
the level of birth control.
1. From what you just said, you're actually **stupid** enough to
think
Do you even know how to form a sentence that doesn't begin with a poisoning
the well fallacy?
that any one *sensible*, fair-minded, and compassionate
enough NOT to seek to *force* millions of women to gestate to
term against their will (a very real, 9-month-long form of RAPE)
would actually "fear" anything having to do with the beneficial
REMEDY of abortion. That makes you "dumb, dumber, and
'dumberer'!"
What does any of that garbled crap have to do with the privacy of
irresponsible unprotected vaginal intercourse?
That valuable remedy has been enabling no fewer than a BILLION
(with a "B") girls and women who *choose* to access it, worldwide,
over any given recent 18-year-long period, to put their lives back
on track by UNDOING, within minutes, an unwanted medical con-
dition (ill-timed pregnancy) that otherwise could have irrevocably
destroyed countless of their future plans and aspirations.
Great, a billion children murdered.
Only the most hateful and ignorant of people would even *con-
sider* forcing ANY person to be deprived of ANY remedy. Such
as mindless and loathsome louts like you.
Why don't we just allow women in a bind to kill their kids?
2. "Reducing" abortion "to the level of birth control" is impossible,
since abortion IS the birth control of last resort. It's the form
of birth control that girls and women access when il-timed and
unwanted pregnancies occur. Your comment was every bit as
idiotic as it would have been if you'd said, "aspirin reduced to
the level of headache relief." Fully 95% of all abortions ARE
for the purpose of *undoing* UNWANTED pregnancy. So in the
vast majority of cases it IS birth control. But -- obviously, the
birth control of last resort, due to the inconvenience and the
extra expense.
And the minor detail that it is the deliberate taking of a human life.
BTW -- have you heard the latest? Australia is about to accept
RU-486 *and* make it available for just $16. Through the 9th
week of pregnancy. So the USA won't be far behind! GOOD for
Australia!!!
9th week? Why not later? Why stop there?
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much easier.
you aware that more than a QUADRILLION of those are termin-
ated DAILY, worldwide... by MEN? Yep. The elective abortion
of that many Stage One entities of the reproductive process.
Gametes. ALL of which... JUST like the Stage 2, 3, and 4 entities
(zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses)... are human, *potential*
people, unique, and *alive*. (LOL!!! So much for that lying
garbage spewed by Anti-Choicers that "life begins at fertiliza-
tion." They need to have a look at a sperm. DEAD sperm don't
have tails that wriggle!)
Please learn to form coherent sentences, OK, Craig? Then we'll work on
thoughts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
18 Feb 2006 12:41:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:35:11 -0800,
"Dutch" [<Anonymous@COWARD>] wrote:
Craig Chilton <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
"Dutch" [<Anonymous@COWARD>] wrote:
"Bonnie B" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote:
"Dutch" [<Anonymous@COWARD>] wrote:
"Bonnie B" <bonnieb@fifismaxi.pad> wrote:
Sex is consensual.
Rape is not.
Only an idiot or serial rapist would claim otherwise.
Irrelevant
Except for the relevancy, in that it proves the original assertion
that others' sex lives are none of your damn business.
Do try to keep up, sweetie! LOL
... you ... avoid discussing the real issue, that one you fear so
much, that is that irresponsible sex causes unwanted pregnancy which
leads to the widespread killing of human lives, iow abortion reduced to
the level of birth control.
1. From what you just said, you're actually **stupid** enough to
think that any one *sensible*, fair-minded, and compassionate
enough NOT to seek to *force* millions of women to gestate to
term against their will (a very real, 9-month-long form of RAPE)
would actually "fear" anything having to do with the beneficial
REMEDY of abortion. That makes you "dumb, dumber, and
'dumberer'!"
What does that ... have to do with the privacy of irresponsible
unprotected vaginal intercourse?
Nothing. Any more than being in a car has anything to do with
accidents. And in the case of most such accidents, CURABLE injuries
result, and are treated. The same is true for UNwanted pregnancies
resulting from sex.
As for "irresponsible" -- guess what? Whether or not it happens to be
is NO ONE'S business other than those involved, busybody.
That valuable remedy has been enabling no fewer than a BILLION
(with a "B") girls and women who *choose* to access it, worldwide,
over any given recent 18-year-long period, to put their lives back
on track by UNDOING, within minutes, an unwanted medical con-
dition (ill-timed pregnancy) that otherwise could have irrevocably
destroyed countless of their future plans and aspirations.
Great, a billion children murdered.
Wrong. Abortion has *nothing* to do with children -- ALL of which
have been BORN. And UNwanted mere reproductive-process entities
are utterly worthless. Even the Bible makes that quite clear, in many
passages.
Apples and oranges.
Only the most hateful and ignorant of people would even *con-
sider* forcing ANY person to be deprived of ANY remedy. Such
as mindless and loathsome louts like you.
Why don't we just allow women in a bind to kill their kids?
There you go again, proving you are to DOLTISH to be able to
distinguish between mere reproductive process entities and PEOPLE.
ROCKS are smarter than you. And you just keep right on proving
that to everyone.
2. "Reducing" abortion "to the level of birth control" is impossible,
since abortion IS the birth control of last resort. It's the form
of birth control that girls and women access when il-timed and
unwanted pregnancies occur. Your comment was every bit as
idiotic as it would have been if you'd said, "aspirin reduced to
the level of headache relief." Fully 95% of all abortions ARE
for the purpose of *undoing* UNWANTED pregnancy. So in the
vast majority of cases it IS birth control. But -- obviously, the
birth control of last resort, due to the inconvenience and the
extra expense.
And the minor detail that it is the deliberate...
...RESTORATION of the woman's well-being, and her full range of
PRE-unwanted-pregnancy future opportunities, A very VALUABLE and
beneficial remedy -- and totally harmless.
BTW -- have you heard the latest? Australia is about to accept
RU-486 *and* make it available for just $16. Through the 9th
week of pregnancy. So the USA won't be far behind! GOOD for
Australia!!!
9th week? Why not later? Why stop there?
ONLY because beyond the 9th week of gestation, that method
no longer works.
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much easier.
There you go again, proving you are to DOLTISH to be able to
distinguish between mere reproductive process entities and PEOPLE.
Are you aware that more than a QUADRILLION of those are
terminated DAILY, worldwide... by MEN? The elective abortion
of that many Stage One entities of the reproductive process.
Gametes. ALL of which... JUST like the Stage 2, 3, and 4 entities
(zygotes, embryoes, and fetuses)... are human, *potential*
people, unique, and *alive*. (LOL!!! So much for that lying
garbage spewed by Anti-Choicers that "life begins at fertiliza-
tion." They need to have a look at a sperm. DEAD sperm don't
have tails that wriggle!)
-- Craig Chilton <xanadu222_@mchsi.com>
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
GOD'S "WIN-WIN-WIN" SITUATION
God is omniscient and omnipotent. That means that He has
always KNOWN everything *about* everything, past present and
future. And that He may freely INTERACT, uniquely, with any
person, group, or all humanity, however and whenever He
chooses.
Trillions (indeed, even octillions) of years ago, God KNEW
just *which* human entities (from sperm and ova on, inclusive)
would be born, and which ones would NOT, for whatever
reason. In the case of Jeremiah, He interacted BEFORE
Jeremiah reached the womb -- while Jeremiah was STILL at
the sperm-and-ovum stage! (Jer. 1:5). In THAT case, at least,
the soul had been instilled at the sperm-and-egg stage -- the
stage at which God communicated with Jeremiah.
So it's VERY possible that God instills ALL souls at that
stage... since God ALREADY knows which of them will later
become people, and which ones will not. And if He chooses
to instill souls in ALL of those, then heaven must be a VERY
populated place. And any potential people that happened to
have been aborted then got a FREE pass to heaven. And
missed
the RISK that is faced by all of us here on earth.
And then, there also is the very REAL possibility that God
chooses to instill souls ONLY in the entities that He KNOWS,
beforehand, *will* be BORN. Then there are NO free passes
to heaven. But that's no loss to the QUINTILLION human
entities, daily, that never knew the difference.
Any way you look at it, it's a "win-win" situation for God.
Which makes it no great surprise that He never said so much
as ONE SINGLE WORD against abortion. Since abortion is a
highly-valuable REMEDY that enables millions of women to put
their lives BACK on track, and gives them another chance to
pursue their full ranges of future opportunities, the availability
of it is FAR more in line with God's COMPASSION (and the
compassion that Jesus commanded us to show to others), than
it would be for women to be FORCED to carry-to-term against
their will, and see many of their opportunities and their well-being
destroyed. (Particularly since God ALSO was/is well-aware that
MOST women who DO obtain abortions go on later to HAVE
children, by choice, when the timing is better, and the circum-
stances and prospects for long-term stable family environments
are far more favorable.)
For God, the status quo is "win-win-win" -- all the way!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
18 Feb 2006 01:19:29 AM |
|
|
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not infanticide
Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and abortion?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
18 Feb 2006 06:57:52 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not infanticide
Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
22 Feb 2006 10:53:07 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43f719d0$0$58093$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not infanticide
Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference? HINT: saying that one occurs
before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
22 Feb 2006 11:32:46 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in news:11vqftl193mp696@news.supernews.com:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43f719d0$0$58093$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so
much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
infanticide Chilton, what's the essential difference between
infanticide and abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference? HINT: saying that one
occurs before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate
answer.
Sure it's adequate Douche, because it is the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
23 Feb 2006 04:16:28 AM |
|
|
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote in message news:Xns9772DB495202DSD@70.169.32.36...
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in news:11vqftl193mp696@news.supernews.com:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43f719d0$0$58093$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so
much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
infanticide Chilton, what's the essential difference between
infanticide and abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference? HINT: saying that one
occurs before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate
answer.
Sure it's adequate Douche, because it is the truth.
It's not adequate. One is perfectly acceptable the other is heinous crime,
yet a young human life is terminated in both cases. Something is wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "BOB" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
23 Feb 2006 10:56:24 AM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in news:11vr2rqhk02ce09@news.supernews.com:
"BOB" <sd@sd.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9772DB495202DSD@70.169.32.36...
"Dutch" <no@email.com> wrote in
news:11vqftl193mp696@news.supernews.com:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43f719d0$0$58093$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so
much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
infanticide Chilton, what's the essential difference between
infanticide and abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of
women that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference? HINT: saying that one
occurs before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate
answer.
Sure it's adequate Douche, because it is the truth.
It's not adequate.
To you, Douche? That's because your mind is closed to the truth, like
most anti-choice loons.
One is perfectly acceptable the other is heinous
crime, yet a young human life is terminated in both cases. Something
is wrong.
Something certainly is wrong, Douche. You and the rest of the anti-
choice loons are wrong to try to interfere in the sex and reproductive
lives of women you don't even know or care about.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
22 Feb 2006 11:48:14 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not infanticide
Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference?
Infants have all been born.
HINT: saying that one occurs
before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate answer.
Tough *****, pro-liar. Redefining words to mean what you want is just
outright lying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
23 Feb 2006 04:13:58 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43fd4c9e$0$58111$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
infanticide
Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and
abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference?
Infants have all been born.
That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the fetus.
- Neither has a clue what's going on.
- Neither can survive on it's own
- Neither is fully developed
Compared to the similarities
- Both are human
- Both have their whole life ahead of them
HINT: saying that one occurs
before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate answer.
Tough *****, pro-liar. Redefining words to mean what you want is just
outright lying.
I'm not redefining words, I'm just not hiding behind them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
23 Feb 2006 11:47:36 AM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
infanticide
Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and
abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference?
Infants have all been born.
That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the fetus.
In your irrational opinion. In this case, however, it is the
different between an outright lie and the truth.
HINT: saying that one occurs
before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate answer.
Tough *****, pro-liar. Redefining words to mean what you want is just
outright lying.
I'm not redefining words,
Liar.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
23 Feb 2006 11:19:24 PM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43fdf538$0$58043$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
infanticide
Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and
abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference?
Infants have all been born.
That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the fetus.
In your irrational opinion.
There's nothing irrational about it, a fetus is not significantly different
before birth and after. Both stages of develpment are on a continuum from
conception to birth to adulthood to death.
In this case, however, it is the
different between an outright lie and the truth.
A fetus can be very quickly removed from it's mother by Cesarean Section,
the only difference in the infant from it's previous state as a fetus will
be that it begins to breathe air instead of amniotic fluid. Yet you diminish
the value of one into nothingness and exalt the value of the other above all
things. The significant similarity between fetus and infant is that both
have a long life ahead of them as human beings, unless someone intervenes to
destroy them, a life that YOU enjoy, but wish to facilitate the destruction
of for others.
HINT: saying that one occurs
before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate answer.
Tough *****, pro-liar. Redefining words to mean what you want is just
outright lying.
I'm not redefining words,
Liar.
Truth hurts when you're in denial Ray.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
26 Feb 2006 12:18:40 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43fdf538$0$58043$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
easier.
There you go again, proving
Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
infanticide
Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and
abortion?
Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
that he doesn't even see their existance.
It should be easy then, what's the difference?
Infants have all been born.
That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the fetus.
In your irrational opinion.
There's nothing irrational about it, a fetus is not significantly different
before birth and after.
"An [egg] is not significantly different before [conception] and
after."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
27 Feb 2006 04:14:56 AM |
|
|
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
There's nothing irrational about it, a fetus is not significantly
different
before birth and after.
"An [egg] is not significantly different before [conception] and
after."
That is false, egg and sperm cease to exist after conception. Once
conception occurs what now exists and immediately begins to develop is
something new, completely unlike either sperm or egg, a new human life.
Don't lose heart just because you're all screwed up though, a woman can
still maintain the moral and legal right to an abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
27 Feb 2006 03:31:24 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
There's nothing irrational about it, a fetus is not significantly
different
before birth and after.
"An [egg] is not significantly different before [conception] and
after."
That is false, egg and sperm cease to exist after conception.
LOL! The insanity of the pro-liar. So confused are you by your own
propaganda and self-serving dislogic that you claim that aan egg
ceases to exist merely by acquiring some genetic material.
Once
conception occurs what now exists and immediately begins to develop is
something new, completely unlike either sperm or egg, a new human life.
Pure pro-liar propaganda without any basis in fact.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
23 Feb 2006 05:11:12 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:13:58 -0800, in alt.politics.homosexuality
"Dutch" <no@email.com>
<11vr2n53d0pj9a4@news.supernews.com> wrote:
|
| "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
| news:43fd4c9e$0$58111$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
| > Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
| >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
| >>> Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
| >>>>"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
| >
| >>>>>>> 3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so much
| >>>>>> easier.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> There you go again, proving
| >>>>
| >>>>Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
| >>>>infanticide
| >>>>Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and
| >>>>abortion?
| >>>
| >>> Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
| >>> abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of women
| >>> that he doesn't even see their existance.
| >>
| >>It should be easy then, what's the difference?
| >
| > Infants have all been born.
|
| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the fetus.
| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| - Neither can survive on it's own
| - Neither is fully developed
is not a legal entity
| Compared to the similarities
| - Both are human
| - Both have their whole life ahead of them
|
| >> HINT: saying that one occurs
| >>before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate answer.
| >
| > Tough *****, pro-liar. Redefining words to mean what you want is just
| > outright lying.
|
| I'm not redefining words, I'm just not hiding behind them.
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
23 Feb 2006 11:08:54 PM |
|
|
"Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:13:58 -0800, in alt.politics.homosexuality
"Dutch" <no@email.com>
<11vr2n53d0pj9a4@news.supernews.com> wrote:
|
| "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
| news:43fd4c9e$0$58111$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
| > Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
| >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
| >>> Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
| >>>>"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
| >
| >>>>>>> 3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so
much
| >>>>>> easier.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> There you go again, proving
| >>>>
| >>>>Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
| >>>>infanticide
| >>>>Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and
| >>>>abortion?
| >>>
| >>> Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
| >>> abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of
women
| >>> that he doesn't even see their existance.
| >>
| >>It should be easy then, what's the difference?
| >
| > Infants have all been born.
|
| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the
fetus.
| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| - Neither can survive on it's own
| - Neither is fully developed
is not a legal entity
False, anyone who causes an unborn child to be killed is guilty of homicide
in this country. The mother, with the consent of a doctor, *may* be an
exception to this law under Roe v Wade and other precedents. That makes the
fetus a legal entity. Now you are attempting to hide behind legalese, and
failing.
| Compared to the similarities
| - Both are human
| - Both have their whole life ahead of them
|
| >> HINT: saying that one occurs
| >>before birth and the other occurs after is not an adequate answer.
| >
| > Tough *****, pro-liar. Redefining words to mean what you want is just
| > outright lying.
|
| I'm not redefining words, I'm just not hiding behind them.
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
23 Feb 2006 11:26:53 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the
} fetus.
| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| - Neither can survive on it's own
| - Neither is fully developed
is not a legal entity
False, anyone who causes an unborn child to be killed is guilty of homicide
in this country. The mother, with the consent of a doctor, *may* be an
exception to this law under Roe v Wade and other precedents. That makes the
fetus a legal entity. Now you are attempting to hide behind legalese, and
failing.
That is simply not true. See
<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm>.
Whether or not the death of a fetus can be considered a homocide
varies from state to state. A number of states have no laws regarding
that. California's law is in Paragraph 187(a) of the Penal Code and
defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus,
with malice aforethought. An abortion is generally not the result of
"malice" on the part of the physician.
Quoting from the URL,
"Currently, at least 34 states have fetal homicide laws - 31
are state statutes and three are case law. The states include:
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and
Wisconsin. At least 15 states have fetal homicide laws that
apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of
gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or
post-fertilization), indicated below with an asterisk (*)."
The URL is fairly recent (last updated in June 2005).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
24 Feb 2006 02:50:48 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the
} fetus.
| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| - Neither can survive on it's own
| - Neither is fully developed
is not a legal entity
False, anyone who causes an unborn child to be killed is guilty of
homicide
in this country. The mother, with the consent of a doctor, *may* be an
exception to this law under Roe v Wade and other precedents. That makes
the
fetus a legal entity. Now you are attempting to hide behind legalese, and
failing.
That is simply not true. See
<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm>.
Your link shows that 34 states call it homicide, THAT gives the fetus "legal
status", making it a legal entity.
Whether or not the death of a fetus can be considered a homocide
varies from state to state.
In my country (Canada) it's *homicide* (not homocide, that's the killing of
a queer). Abortion with the consent of the mother, a doctor, and a hospital
board is listed as an exception in the statute. That does not erase the
legal status of the fetus, it grants an overarching right of reproductive
self-determination to the mother.
A number of states have no laws regarding
that. California's law is in Paragraph 187(a) of the Penal Code and
defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus,
with malice aforethought. An abortion is generally not the result of
"malice" on the part of the physician.
I didn't say it was, that was not the claim. You said that a fetus was not a
"legal entity", everything here proves that is not the case, otherwise
killing it would never be a crime at all, much less "homicide".
Quoting from the URL,
"Currently, at least 34 states have fetal homicide laws - 31
are state statutes and three are case law. The states include:
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and
Wisconsin. At least 15 states have fetal homicide laws that
apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of
gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or
post-fertilization), indicated below with an asterisk (*)."
The URL is fairly recent (last updated in June 2005).
Thank you for proving my point. A fetus is a legal entity with legal status
in the vast majority of jursidictions. The fact that the crime is listed as
homicide means that the legal status is that of defacto human.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
24 Feb 2006 08:33:45 PM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the
} fetus.
| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| - Neither can survive on it's own
| - Neither is fully developed
is not a legal entity
False, anyone who causes an unborn child to be killed is guilty
of homicide in this country. The mother, with the consent of a
doctor, *may* be an exception to this law under Roe v Wade and
other precedents. That makes the fetus a legal entity. Now you
are attempting to hide behind legalese, and failing.
That is simply not true. See
<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm>.
Your link shows that 34 states call it homicide, THAT gives the fetus "legal
status", making it a legal entity.
Yes, I know about the number. I quoted that number for you and for
some reason you felt you had to point it out anyway. The point was that
the number was 34, not 50.
Whether or not the death of a fetus can be considered a homocide
varies from state to state.
In my country (Canada) it's *homicide* (not homocide, that's the killing of
a queer).
Oooh. A big deal about a typo (If you look closely the 'o' and 'i' are
adjacent on the QUERTY keyboard).
Abortion with the consent of the mother, a doctor, and a hospital
I didn't say it was, that was not the claim. You said that a fetus was not a
"legal entity", everything here proves that is not the case, otherwise
killing it would never be a crime at all, much less "homicide".
I said the rules varied from state to state, so the claim that something
was true "in this country" (with no qualification) is simply wrong. It
varies from state to state.
The URL is fairly recent (last updated in June 2005).
Thank you for proving my point. A fetus is a legal entity with legal status
in the vast majority of jursidictions. The fact that the crime is listed as
homicide means that the legal status is that of defacto human.
No, I disproved your point - the idea that some particular status is
true in general.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
25 Feb 2006 01:29:19 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3mzggp3tr.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of
the
} fetus.
| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| - Neither can survive on it's own
| - Neither is fully developed
is not a legal entity
False, anyone who causes an unborn child to be killed is guilty
of homicide in this country. The mother, with the consent of a
doctor, *may* be an exception to this law under Roe v Wade and
other precedents. That makes the fetus a legal entity. Now you
are attempting to hide behind legalese, and failing.
That is simply not true. See
<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm>.
Your link shows that 34 states call it homicide, THAT gives the fetus
"legal
status", making it a legal entity.
Yes, I know about the number. I quoted that number for you and for
some reason you felt you had to point it out anyway. The point was that
the number was 34, not 50.
And which direction do you think that number is headed? Read what just
happened in South Dakota, take a look at the changing Supreme Court. Do you
think Roe v Wade is secure?
Whether or not the death of a fetus can be considered a homocide
varies from state to state.
In my country (Canada) it's *homicide* (not homocide, that's the killing
of
a queer).
Oooh. A big deal about a typo (If you look closely the 'o' and 'i' are
adjacent on the QUERTY keyboard).
I was making a funny HAHA.
Abortion with the consent of the mother, a doctor, and a hospital
I didn't say it was, that was not the claim. You said that a fetus was
not a
"legal entity", everything here proves that is not the case, otherwise
killing it would never be a crime at all, much less "homicide".
I said the rules varied from state to state, so the claim that something
was true "in this country" (with no qualification) is simply wrong. It
varies from state to state.
I grant you that, but the essential point is that laws DO grant fetuses
legal status. The comment "is not a legal entity" was wrong. I am quite sure
in those other states that third trimester fetuses have legal status as
well.
The URL is fairly recent (last updated in June 2005).
Thank you for proving my point. A fetus is a legal entity with legal
status
in the vast majority of jursidictions. The fact that the crime is listed
as
homicide means that the legal status is that of defacto human.
No, I disproved your point - the idea that some particular status is
true in general.
That was not my point, that is a strawman. The original claim was [a fetus]
"..is not a legal entity". It should be clear to everyone now that that
categorical claim is false. In most countries and most states the fetus has
legal status of some kind from implantation on. Even in the other states the
fetus has legal status by some point during pregnancy. All of this legal
status flies in the face of the "pro-choice goon" rhetoric being slung
around here.
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
25 Feb 2006 01:54:56 AM |
|
|
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3mzggp3tr.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of
the
} fetus.
| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| - Neither can survive on it's own
| - Neither is fully developed
is not a legal entity
False, anyone who causes an unborn child to be killed is guilty
of homicide in this country. The mother, with the consent of a
doctor, *may* be an exception to this law under Roe v Wade and
other precedents. That makes the fetus a legal entity. Now you
are attempting to hide behind legalese, and failing.
That is simply not true. See
<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm>.
Your link shows that 34 states call it homicide, THAT gives the fetus
"legal
status", making it a legal entity.
Yes, I know about the number. I quoted that number for you and for
some reason you felt you had to point it out anyway. The point was that
the number was 34, not 50.
And which direction do you think that number is headed? Read what just
happened in South Dakota, take a look at the changing Supreme Court. Do you
think Roe v Wade is secure?
Oh, so you admit that you were wrong (and the general consensus is that
with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, Roe versus Wade will not
be overturned).
See
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/24/national/a114732S26.DTL&type=health>
which states,
"Even with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom
Alito replaced, there still appear to be the minimum five
votes needed on the high court to uphold Roe
v. Wade. Supporters of the bill, however, said another justice
could be replaced in the years it would take a case to reach
the nation's highest court."
Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Oooh. A big deal about a typo (If you look closely the 'o' and 'i' are
adjacent on the QUERTY keyboard).
I was making a funny HAHA.
How 7th grade.
I said the rules varied from state to state, so the claim that something
was true "in this country" (with no qualification) is simply wrong. It
varies from state to state.
I grant you that, but the essential point is that laws DO grant fetuses
legal status. The comment "is not a legal entity" was wrong. I am quite sure
in those other states that third trimester fetuses have legal status as
well.
You did not restrict your statement to the thrid trimester, and some
states apparently have no laws regarding the issue whatsoever.
No, I disproved your point - the idea that some particular status is
true in general.
That was not my point, that is a strawman.
No it isn't - you simply didn't qualify your statement properly
(and if you look at what I posted, that is all I commented on).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dutch" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
25 Feb 2006 04:56:43 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3mzggp3tr.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote
"Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
"Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of
the
} fetus.
| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| - Neither can survive on it's own
| - Neither is fully developed
is not a legal entity
False, anyone who causes an unborn child to be killed is guilty
of homicide in this country. The mother, with the consent of a
doctor, *may* be an exception to this law under Roe v Wade and
other precedents. That makes the fetus a legal entity. Now you
are attempting to hide behind legalese, and failing.
That is simply not true. See
<http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm>.
Your link shows that 34 states call it homicide, THAT gives the fetus
"legal
status", making it a legal entity.
Yes, I know about the number. I quoted that number for you and for
some reason you felt you had to point it out anyway. The point was that
the number was 34, not 50.
And which direction do you think that number is headed? Read what just
happened in South Dakota, take a look at the changing Supreme Court. Do
you
think Roe v Wade is secure?
Oh, so you admit that you were wrong
I wouldn't call my statement wrong, as stated it was too sweeping. You are
right about that.
(and the general consensus is that
with the current makeup of the Supreme Court, Roe versus Wade will not
be overturned).
Not *yet*.
See
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/24/national/a114732S26.DTL&type=health>
which states,
"Even with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom
Alito replaced, there still appear to be the minimum five
votes needed on the high court to uphold Roe
v. Wade. Supporters of the bill, however, said another justice
could be replaced in the years it would take a case to reach
the nation's highest court."
Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
I'm not counting on anything, I am just speculating on the trend into the
future, beyond the current makeup of the court.
Oooh. A big deal about a typo (If you look closely the 'o' and 'i' are
adjacent on the QUERTY keyboard).
I was making a funny HAHA.
How 7th grade.
C'mon, it was at least 9th grade. :>)
I said the rules varied from state to state, so the claim that
something
was true "in this country" (with no qualification) is simply wrong. It
varies from state to state.
I grant you that, but the essential point is that laws DO grant fetuses
legal status. The comment "is not a legal entity" was wrong. I am quite
sure
in those other states that third trimester fetuses have legal status as
well.
You did not restrict your statement to the thrid trimester, and some
states apparently have no laws regarding the issue whatsoever.
No restrictions on abortion *at all*, even right before birth? Which states?
For the most part, fetuses have legal status to varying degrees depending on
jurisdiction, does that satisfy you?
No, I disproved your point - the idea that some particular status is
true in general.
That was not my point, that is a strawman.
No it isn't - you simply didn't qualify your statement properly
(and if you look at what I posted, that is all I commented on).
Fair enough. To go back to the original point, except for the overriding
right to end her pregnancy that is allowed to the woman, fetuses generally
*are* treated as human entities in law. Furthermore, there is in my opinion
no morally significant biological difference between fetus and infant stages
of development, *in and of themselves* (i.e. without reference to the rights
of the mother)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
25 Feb 2006 09:17:06 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:54:56 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
See
<http://www.sfgate.com/
"sfgate!" Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha! You fucking loon!
.
|
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
26 Feb 2006 12:32:39 AM |
|
|
writes:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:54:56 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
See
<http://www.sfgate.com/
"sfgate!" Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaha! You fucking loon!
Here'w what the "default@xxx.org" moron (yet another of the multiple
personalities of "Wild Bill Taylor") snipped:
See
<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/02/24/national/a114732S26.DTL&type=health>
which states,
"Even with the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whom
Alito replaced, there still appear to be the minimum five
votes needed on the high court to uphold Roe
v. Wade. Supporters of the bill, however, said another justice
could be replaced in the years it would take a case to reach
the nation's highest court."
The web site belongs is the one for the San Francisco Chronicle, one of
the two regional mainstream newspapers in the area (the other is the
San Jose Mercury News).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
25 Feb 2006 09:15:36 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 02:33:45 GMT, No One <noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
wrote:
Oooh. A big deal about a typo (If you look closely the 'o' and 'i' are
adjacent on the QUERTY keyboard).
Dropped your ***** in the dirt and then STEPPED ON IT! That's so
fucking funny, boy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff North" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
24 Feb 2006 06:35:06 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 05:26:53 GMT, in alt.politics.homosexuality No One
<noone@nospam.pacbell.net>
<m38xs1s51l.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote:
| "Dutch" <no@email.com> writes:
|
| > "Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
| > news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
| > >>| That's not a very significant difference from the standpoint of the
| > >>} fetus.
| > >>| - Neither has a clue what's going on.
| > >>| - Neither can survive on it's own
| > >>| - Neither is fully developed
| > >
| > > is not a legal entity
| >
| > False, anyone who causes an unborn child to be killed is guilty of homicide
| > in this country. The mother, with the consent of a doctor, *may* be an
| > exception to this law under Roe v Wade and other precedents. That makes the
| > fetus a legal entity. Now you are attempting to hide behind legalese, and
| > failing.
|
| That is simply not true. See
Thanks for the link and info.
| <http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm>.
|
| Whether or not the death of a fetus can be considered a homocide
| varies from state to state. A number of states have no laws regarding
| that. California's law is in Paragraph 187(a) of the Penal Code and
| defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus,
| with malice aforethought. An abortion is generally not the result of
| "malice" on the part of the physician.
|
| Quoting from the URL,
|
| "Currently, at least 34 states have fetal homicide laws - 31
| are state statutes and three are case law. The states include:
| Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho,
| Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
| Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
| Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
| Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South
| Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and
| Wisconsin. At least 15 states have fetal homicide laws that
| apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy ("any state of
| gestation," "conception," "fertilization" or
| post-fertilization), indicated below with an asterisk (*)."
|
| The URL is fairly recent (last updated in June 2005).
|
---------------------------------------------------------------
jnorthau@yourpantsyahoo.com.au : Remove your pants to reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Teens Promote Purity on Valentine's Day |
26 Feb 2006 12:17:39 PM |
|
|
Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
"Jeff North" <jnorthau@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:646rv1954n47d2kt2di4403c70i35g1jv8@4ax.com...
On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:13:58 -0800, in alt.politics.homosexuality
"Dutch" <no@email.com>
<11vr2n53d0pj9a4@news.supernews.com> wrote:
|
| "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
| news:43fd4c9e$0$58111$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
| > Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
| >>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
| >>> Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
| >>>>"Craig Chilton" <xanadu222@mchsi.com> wrote
| >
| >>>>>>> 3. Regarding that INANE "killing of human lives" argument...
| >>>>>
| >>>>>> I agree, let's just make murder legal... it'd make life so
much
| >>>>>> easier.
| >>>>>
| >>>>> There you go again, proving
| >>>>
| >>>>Whatever is convenient is what C Chilton advocates, so why not
| >>>>infanticide
| >>>>Chilton, what's the essential difference between infanticide and
| >>>>abortion?
| >>>
| >>> Anybody who doesn't know the difference between infanticide and
| >>> abortion either has to be insane with hate or so contempuous of
women
| >>> that he doesn't even see their existance.
| >>
| >>It should be easy then, what's the difference?
| >
| > Infants hav | | | | | | | | | | | | |
