| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
06 May 2005 05:48:35 AM |
| Object: |
The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
"All mammals, except the monotremes, produce live young that undergo
the early stages of development within the body cavity of the mother
(see Development)."
"After fertilization, development of offspring takes place entirely
within the body of the mother in all mammals except the monotremes..."
http://au.encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761561349/Mammal.html
"In all other vertebrates the developing embryo is separated from its
mother's body by the amniotic membrane which surrounds the egg. The
reason for this is that after fertilisation the embryo takes on its own
existence as a separate organism. This is because the mother's
auto-immune system (her internal defence mechanisms) will recognise the
new embryo as a foreign body and attack it. The amniotic membrane
isolates the young embryo from all biological interaction with its
parent, thus protecting it from attack."
http://www.earthlife.net/mammals/reproduction.html
"The life of the individual begins at conception. An egg is usually
fertilized inside the female by the male through sexual intercourse,
though in vitro fertilization methods are also used. The developing
individual is first called a zygote; as it grows through successive
stages inside the female's uterus over a period of 38 weeks, it is
called an embryo, then a fetus. At birth, the fully grown fetus, now
called a baby, is expelled from the female's body and breathes
independently for the first time, at which point the baby is recognized
as a person entitled to the full protection of the law, though some
jurisdictions extend personhood to human fetuses while they remain in
the uterus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
06 May 2005 03:40:02 PM |
|
|
wrote:
[--whatever--]
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the humanity of the
zygote/embryo/fetus, but it does no good. You see, no born human being
has the right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling donor,
even if withholding those resources results in the death of the
would-be beneficiary. It's the same with zygotes/embryos/fetuses.
They don't have any such right either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
09 May 2005 05:55:39 AM |
|
|
wrote:
legend...@hotmail.com wrote:
[--whatever--]
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the humanity of the
zygote/embryo/fetus, but it does no good. You see, no born human
being
has the right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling donor,
The young human in the womb didn't ask to be there
even if withholding those resources results in the death of the
would-be beneficiary. It's the same with zygotes/embryos/fetuses.
They don't have any such right either.
Tolerance
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
09 May 2005 10:26:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
spartakus@my-deja.com wrote:
wrote:
[--whatever--]
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the humanity of
the zygote/embryo/fetus, but it does no good. You see, no born
human being has the right to access the bodily resources of an
unwilling donor,
The young human in the womb didn't ask to be there
A CLUE!
even if withholding those resources results in the death of the
would-be beneficiary. It's the same with zygotes/embryos/fetuses.
They don't have any such right either.
Tolerance
Let's send a Red Cross team over to collect a pint of your blood and
see how well you tolerate that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pat Winstanley" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
09 May 2005 01:18:50 PM |
|
|
In article <1115636139.018337.279520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
legend_89@hotmail.com says...
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the humanity of the
zygote/embryo/fetus, but it does no good. You see, no born human
being
has the right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling donor,
The young human in the womb didn't ask to be there
The young foetus/embryo wasn't asked to be there by the person currently
hosting it - it attached itself uninvited and unwanted. (If it had been
asked to be there there its presence would be welcomed, and it wouldn't
- except for a serious problem with the pregnancy - be considered as a
candidate for early removal).
If you were to end up inside someone else's body, unintentionally on
either your part or theirs, you would still not have any right to remain
in their body against their ongoing consent. No person has that right.
And by the same token something that isn't a person (such as an embryo
or foetus or tumour) doesn't have that right either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
10 May 2005 03:13:33 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <1115636139.018337.279520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
legend_89@hotmail.com says...
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the humanity of
the
zygote/embryo/fetus, but it does no good. You see, no born human
being
has the right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling
donor,
The young human in the womb didn't ask to be there
The young foetus/embryo wasn't asked to be there by the person
currently
hosting it -
Can sex cause pregnancy?
it attached itself uninvited and unwanted.
Seems to me if it really were unwanted, the mother would not have
deliberately engaged in behaviors that caused it to be there.
If you were to end up inside someone else's body, unintentionally on
either your part or theirs, you would still not have any right to
remain
in their body against their ongoing consent. No person has that
right.
And by the same token something that isn't a person (such as an
embryo
or foetus or tumour) doesn't have that right either.
So what is the punishment for crashing the party? I wasn't aware that
being someplace where you are unwelcome warrants the death penalty.
It's not that way for adults, anyway.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
10 May 2005 11:18:11 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com says...
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the humanity of
the
zygote/embryo/fetus, but it does no good. You see, no born human
being
has the right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling
donor,
The young human in the womb didn't ask to be there
The young foetus/embryo wasn't asked to be there by the person
currently
hosting it -
Can sex cause pregnancy?
Can sex cause death?
it attached itself uninvited and unwanted.
Seems to me if it really were unwanted, the mother would not have
deliberately engaged in behaviors that caused it to be there.
The classic excuse of the rapist: "She asked for it".
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
11 May 2005 12:05:43 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Pat Winstanley wrote:
legend_89@hotmail.com says...
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the humanity
of
the
zygote/embryo/fetus, but it does no good. You see, no born
human
being
has the right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling
donor,
The young human in the womb didn't ask to be there
The young foetus/embryo wasn't asked to be there by the person
currently
hosting it -
Can sex cause pregnancy?
Can sex cause death?
Yep.
it attached itself uninvited and unwanted.
Seems to me if it really were unwanted, the mother would not have
deliberately engaged in behaviors that caused it to be there.
The classic excuse of the rapist: "She asked for it".
Is that your way of saying you are only for killing the baby if it is a
rape baby? That would mean you are against about 99% of abortions
since it would appear that the sex that causes most "unwanted"
pregnancies is consensual.
That still does not solve the problem of why killing someone who is in
the wrong place at the wrong time because of someone else's behavior is
a death-penalty offense.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
11 May 2005 11:07:30 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
The young foetus/embryo wasn't asked to be there by the person
currently
hosting it -
Can sex cause pregnancy?
Can sex cause death?
Yep.
Do you agree to die when you have sex?
it attached itself uninvited and unwanted.
Seems to me if it really were unwanted, the mother would not have
deliberately engaged in behaviors that caused it to be there.
The classic excuse of the rapist: "She asked for it".
Is that your way of saying you are only for killing the baby if it is a
rape baby?
No, I'm saying that you use the same "logic" as the rapist:
You convince yourself that she asked for whatever cruelty you
wish to impose.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
12 May 2005 11:26:06 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
The young foetus/embryo wasn't asked to be there by the person
currently
hosting it -
Can sex cause pregnancy?
Can sex cause death?
Yep.
Do you agree to die when you have sex?
If I were having sex with strangers and not having them tested for
diseases first, yes.
it attached itself uninvited and unwanted.
Seems to me if it really were unwanted, the mother would not have
deliberately engaged in behaviors that caused it to be there.
The classic excuse of the rapist: "She asked for it".
Is that your way of saying you are only for killing the baby if it
is a
rape baby?
No,
Then why did you bring up rape when the subject of unwanted children
came up? In the case of a woman engaging in consensual sex, should she
not use the argument that the pregnancy is unwanted? How can that be?
I'm saying that you use the same "logic" as the rapist:
No, you do--that is, the fetus is not fully human and can be victimized
at your discretion.
You convince yourself that she asked for whatever cruelty you
wish to impose.
Well, except in the case of pregnancy, the woman brings it upon
herself--so no one imposes anything on her but her.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
13 May 2005 12:53:18 AM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
The young foetus/embryo wasn't asked to be there by the person
currently
hosting it -
Can sex cause pregnancy?
Can sex cause death?
Yep.
Do you agree to die when you have sex?
If I were having sex with strangers and not having them tested for
diseases first, yes.
You sure add a lot of qualifications that show what a hypocrite you
are.
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting pregnant then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
it attached itself uninvited and unwanted.
Seems to me if it really were unwanted, the mother would not have
deliberately engaged in behaviors that caused it to be there.
The classic excuse of the rapist: "She asked for it".
Is that your way of saying you are only for killing the baby if it
is a
rape baby?
No,
Then why did you bring up rape when the subject of unwanted children
Because you use the exact same excuse a rapist does.
I'm saying that you use the same "logic" as the rapist:
No, you do--that is, the fetus is not fully human and can be victimized
at your discretion.
I have never made any such claim, liar. But YOU insist that "the
[woman] is not fully human and can be victimized at your discretion."
You convince yourself that she asked for whatever cruelty you
wish to impose.
Well, except in the case of pregnancy, the woman brings it upon
herself--so no one imposes anything on her but her.
What a shameless liar you are. You think that you can lie yourself
and everybody else into believing that when you force women to remain
pregnant and give birth that you're not really imposing anything.
Your evil has made you insane.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
13 May 2005 03:56:40 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Can sex cause pregnancy?
Can sex cause death?
Yep.
Do you agree to die when you have sex?
If I were having sex with strangers and not having them tested for
diseases first, yes.
You sure add a lot of qualifications that show what a hypocrite you
are.
I wonder if, Ray, when you catch AIDS from your bathhouse buddies
(Loose Cannon for example), you'll say the disease just happened, it
wasn't because you let men stick their infected semen in your lower GI
tract.
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting pregnant
then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
Because the sex where she didn't "intend to get pregnant" couldn't
possibly ever cause pregnancy! Of course not.
No,
Then why did you bring up rape when the subject of unwanted children
Because you use the exact same excuse a rapist does.
Really, I think women should be forced to have sex with me for my
personal gratification? That's odd considering that I am a straight
chick. But never let logic stand in the way of a good abortion
defense!
I'm saying that you use the same "logic" as the rapist:
No, you do--that is, the fetus is not fully human and can be
victimized
at your discretion.
I have never made any such claim, liar.
You defend abortion. Therefore fetuses may be killed whenever and for
whatever reason and you think that's acceptable. Don't lie and say
that's not what you believe because everyone here knows it is.
But YOU insist that "the
[woman] is not fully human
No one said that. Anywhere. Ever. Pregnant women are as human as
anyone else.
You convince yourself that she asked for whatever cruelty you
wish to impose.
Well, except in the case of pregnancy, the woman brings it upon
herself--so no one imposes anything on her but her.
What a shameless liar you are.
How so? Do sexually active women become pregnant because someone else
decided to have sex? Do they get pregnant by accidentally falling into
a vat of living, viable semen?
You think that you can lie yourself
and everybody else into believing that when you force women to remain
pregnant and give birth that you're not really imposing anything.
They're not. Not anymore than forcing mothers to feed their infants is
imposing something on mothers. Isn't it "impositional" to force women
to care for their newborns if they don't "agree" to?
Your evil has made you insane.
I find that statement utterly laughable coming from someone who thinks
deflating the skulls of unborn living human beings to be an acceptable
practice.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
13 May 2005 10:41:45 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Can sex cause pregnancy?
Can sex cause death?
Yep.
Do you agree to die when you have sex?
If I were having sex with strangers and not having them tested for
diseases first, yes.
You sure add a lot of qualifications that show what a hypocrite you
are.
I wonder if, Ray, when you catch AIDS from your bathhouse buddies
And now you make up ridiculous scenarios in order to distract from the
fact of your hypocrisy.
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting pregnant then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
Because the sex where she didn't "intend to get pregnant" couldn't
possibly ever cause pregnancy! Of course not.
And you could die from sex even if you test for diseases. Especially
since HIV has an incubation period of several months.
No,
Then why did you bring up rape when the subject of unwanted children
Because you use the exact same excuse a rapist does.
Really, I think women should be forced to have sex with me for my
personal gratification?
You think you have some right to use women for your own purpose.
I'm saying that you use the same "logic" as the rapist:
No, you do--that is, the fetus is not fully human and can be
victimized
at your discretion.
I have never made any such claim, liar.
You defend abortion.
I defend liberty.
Therefore fetuses may be killed whenever and for
You're lying again, screeches. A right of self defense is not a right
to kill.
But YOU insist that "the
[woman] is not fully human
No one said that.
You insist that women may be treated like animals to be used as you
wish.
You convince yourself that she asked for whatever cruelty you
wish to impose.
Well, except in the case of pregnancy, the woman brings it upon
herself--so no one imposes anything on her but her.
What a shameless liar you are.
How so?
YOU want to impose childbiorth on women.
Do sexually active women become pregnant because someone else
decided to have sex? Do they get pregnant by accidentally falling into
You're just a twisted, anti-sex pervert who hates it when other people
enjoy themselves. Punishing sex is the only thing you care about.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
14 May 2005 12:48:47 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting pregnant
then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
Because the sex where she didn't "intend to get pregnant" couldn't
possibly ever cause pregnancy! Of course not.
And you could die from sex even if you test for diseases.
Yep. If you don't want to die from STDs, don't have sex with infected
people.
Especially
since HIV has an incubation period of several months.
Yep. I wonder how you would prevent things like that....
No,
Then why did you bring up rape when the subject of unwanted
children
Because you use the exact same excuse a rapist does.
Really, I think women should be forced to have sex with me for my
personal gratification?
You think you have some right to use women for your own purpose.
I dO? How does that work?
I'm saying that you use the same "logic" as the rapist:
No, you do--that is, the fetus is not fully human and can be
victimized
at your discretion.
I have never made any such claim, liar.
You defend abortion.
I defend liberty.
No, you don't.
Therefore fetuses may be killed whenever and for
You're lying again, screeches.
That is what abortion is, Ray.
A right of self defense is not a right
to kill.
Depends on the level of force. Since an abortion is not in 99% of
cases about self-defense, and the fetus always dies, what exactly is it
about?
But YOU insist that "the
[woman] is not fully human
No one said that.
You insist that women may be treated like animals
Actually you are the one treating them like animals--you expect them to
screw anything that walks anywhere, anytime, any place, and that they
are "stripped of their humanity" if they aren't allowed to stick a fork
in a baby's head. Sounds like your idea of how women should feel and
behave isn't far removed from an African hyena den.
You convince yourself that she asked for whatever cruelty you
wish to impose.
Well, except in the case of pregnancy, the woman brings it upon
herself--so no one imposes anything on her but her.
What a shameless liar you are.
How so?
YOU want to impose childbiorth on women.
No one wants to impose anything on anyone above and beyond what is
already imposed. Do you think it is "impositional" to expect new
mothers to feed their infants?
Do sexually active women become pregnant because someone else
decided to have sex? Do they get pregnant by accidentally falling
into
You're just a twisted, anti-sex pervert
No one is anti-sex, and if someone here is a pervert that would be you,
since you think sawing the limbs off of babies is OK--that makes you an
anti-life monster.
But I remember this old argument of yours--do you remember it being
refuted? I do.
"They are no more anti-sex than people who simply recommend a proper
time and place for any human behavior are "anti" that behavior...In
politics, by its nature, all people decide what is "proper" behavior
for other people.
E.g., you're attempting to decide what is the "proper" behavior for
everyone by saying that no one should make any moral judgments and the
like. I.e., you're a passive agressive hypocrite about the way that
you decide what is "proper" for other people."
3B6C5655.211F9191@bellatlantic.net
Have a nice day.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
14 May 2005 11:23:15 AM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting pregnant
then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
Because the sex where she didn't "intend to get pregnant" couldn't
possibly ever cause pregnancy! Of course not.
And you could die from sex even if you test for diseases.
Yep. If you don't want to die from STDs, don't have sex with infected
people.
Don't have sex at all.
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every time you
have sex.
Then why did you bring up rape when the subject of unwanted
children
Because you use the exact same excuse a rapist does.
Really, I think women should be forced to have sex with me for my
personal gratification?
You think you have some right to use women for your own purpose.
I dO? How does that work?
You want to use them to keep fetuses alive.
I'm saying that you use the same "logic" as the rapist:
No, you do--that is, the fetus is not fully human and can be
victimized
at your discretion.
I have never made any such claim, liar.
You defend abortion.
I defend liberty.
No, you don't.
Quite the irrational lunatic, aren't you, screeches?
Therefore fetuses may be killed whenever and for
You're lying again, screeches.
That is what abortion is, Ray.
Your hate isn't reality.
A right of self defense is not a right
to kill.
Depends on the level of force.
No, it doesn't.
Since an abortion is not in 99% of
cases about self-defense,
It is self-defense ANY time a woman says it is.
But YOU insist that "the
[woman] is not fully human
No one said that.
You insist that women may be treated like animals
Actually you are the one treating them like animals-
"I know you are but what am I"
-you expect them to
screw anything that walks anywhere, anytime, any place, and that they
Now you're reduced to lying again.
You convince yourself that she asked for whatever cruelty you
wish to impose.
Well, except in the case of pregnancy, the woman brings it upon
herself--so no one imposes anything on her but her.
What a shameless liar you are.
How so?
YOU want to impose childbiorth on women.
No one wants to impose anything on anyone above and beyond what is
already imposed.
Then why do you need to force women to remain pregnant?
Do sexually active women become pregnant because someone else
decided to have sex? Do they get pregnant by accidentally falling
into
You're just a twisted, anti-sex pervert
No one is anti-sex,
You are.
But I remember this old argument of yours--do you remember it being
refuted? I do.
I didn't write it. I have never had an account with Bell Atlantic.
3B6C5655.211F9191@bellatlantic.net
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
14 May 2005 05:37:06 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting
pregnant
then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
Because the sex where she didn't "intend to get pregnant"
couldn't
possibly ever cause pregnancy! Of course not.
And you could die from sex even if you test for diseases.
Yep. If you don't want to die from STDs, don't have sex with
infected
people.
Don't have sex at all.
That would be the smart way to protect yourself from disease in a way
you can be sure of.
On the other hand, people who do not wish to protect themselves should
not complain when something bad happens to them as if they were too
stupid to know that something bad can happen to them.
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every time you
have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
You think you have some right to use women for your own purpose.
I dO? How does that work?
You want to use them to keep fetuses alive.
Considering that I do not care whether or not they ever conceive, how
does that work?
A right of self defense is not a right
to kill.
Depends on the level of force.
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does. You cannot shoot a car thief in the back.
Since an abortion is not in 99% of
cases about self-defense,
It is self-defense ANY time a woman says it is.
No, it's not. Rape cases must go to court to determine the veracity of
the statements of women who accuse men of rape, for example. And
sometimes they get themselves in deep doo-do!
http://www.menweb.org/throop/falsereport/adult.html
Any time you kill someone, you better be ready to prove that they were
trying to kill or maim you.
YOU want to impose childbiorth on women.
No one wants to impose anything on anyone above and beyond what is
already imposed.
Then why do you need to force women to remain pregnant?
Why do you want to force them to not starve their infants to death? Do
away with infanticide laws, they are too "impositional"!
But I remember this old argument of yours--do you remember it being
refuted? I do.
I didn't write it.
CJW refuted you.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
14 May 2005 05:54:44 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting
pregnant
then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
Because the sex where she didn't "intend to get pregnant"
couldn't
possibly ever cause pregnancy! Of course not.
And you could die from sex even if you test for diseases.
Yep. If you don't want to die from STDs, don't have sex with
infected
people.
Don't have sex at all.
That would be the smart way to protect yourself from disease in a way
you can be sure of.
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes are
removed from the pool
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every time you
have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
Anybody could be infected.
You think you have some right to use women for your own purpose.
I dO? How does that work?
You want to use them to keep fetuses alive.
Considering that I do not care whether or not they ever conceive, how
does that work?
Don't play stupid. You're getting to be far too good at it.
A right of self defense is not a right
to kill.
Depends on the level of force.
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does. You cannot shoot a car thief in the back.
That isn't self defense.
Since an abortion is not in 99% of
cases about self-defense,
It is self-defense ANY time a woman says it is.
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
Rape cases must go to court to determine the veracity of
the statements of women who accuse men of rape, for example.
Rape isn't pregnancy. A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
YOU want to impose childbiorth on women.
No one wants to impose anything on anyone above and beyond what is
already imposed.
Then why do you need to force women to remain pregnant?
Why do you want to force them to not starve their infants to death?
Your unwillingness to answer the question is noted.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
14 May 2005 09:59:21 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting
pregnant
then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
Because the sex where she didn't "intend to get pregnant"
couldn't
possibly ever cause pregnancy! Of course not.
And you could die from sex even if you test for diseases.
Yep. If you don't want to die from STDs, don't have sex with
infected
people.
Don't have sex at all.
That would be the smart way to protect yourself from disease in a
way
you can be sure of.
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Is that why you are so pro-sex? Because you're afraid people won't
reproduce? That's interesting since you love abortion so much.
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every time
you
have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
Anybody could be infected.
Really, do you think a demonstratably disease-free man and woman who
have been married for many years and remain faithful to one another
have a chance of catching AIDS from having sex with each other?
You think you have some right to use women for your own
purpose.
I dO? How does that work?
You want to use them to keep fetuses alive.
Considering that I do not care whether or not they ever conceive,
how
does that work?
Don't play stupid.
Don't say things that are so stupid they require clarification or
rewording.
A right of self defense is not a right
to kill.
Depends on the level of force.
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does. You cannot shoot a car thief in the back.
That isn't self defense.
Exactly.
Since an abortion is not in 99% of
cases about self-defense,
It is self-defense ANY time a woman says it is.
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
Sorry, women cannot harm people for no good reason and claim that it
was for self defense any more than anyone else can. Their claims are
just as subject to legal scrutiny as anyone else's. Supposedly. Maybe
you are against the idea of the 14th Amendment and want women to be
less accountable for their actions than other people are. Maybe you're
a misandrist.
Rape cases must go to court to determine the veracity of
the statements of women who accuse men of rape, for example.
Rape isn't pregnancy.
And pregnancy isn't rape (or any other action requiring lethal
response). Very good, young Skywalker.
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived childbirth
and later regretted it.
YOU want to impose childbiorth on women.
No one wants to impose anything on anyone above and beyond what
is
already imposed.
Then why do you need to force women to remain pregnant?
Why do you want to force them to not starve their infants to death?
Your unwillingness to answer the question is noted.
You were the one that refused to answer. I just provided you with a
more enlightening perspective.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
14 May 2005 11:16:24 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well then, if a woman has sex with the intent of getting
pregnant
then
and only then does she agree to get pregnant.
Because the sex where she didn't "intend to get pregnant"
couldn't
possibly ever cause pregnancy! Of course not.
And you could die from sex even if you test for diseases.
Yep. If you don't want to die from STDs, don't have sex with
infected
people.
Don't have sex at all.
That would be the smart way to protect yourself from disease in a
way
you can be sure of.
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every time
you
have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
Anybody could be infected.
Really, do you think a demonstratably disease-free man and woman who
have been married for many years and remain faithful to one another
have a chance of catching AIDS from having sex with each other?
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
You think you have some right to use women for your own
purpose.
I dO? How does that work?
You want to use them to keep fetuses alive.
Considering that I do not care whether or not they ever conceive, how
does that work?
Don't play stupid.
Don't say things that are
You're the stupid ***** who doesn't know the difference between "remain
pregnant" and "have sex".
A right of self defense is not a right
to kill.
Depends on the level of force.
No, it doesn't.
Yes it does. You cannot shoot a car thief in the back.
That isn't self defense.
Exactly.
You're nuts.
Since an abortion is not in 99% of
cases about self-defense,
It is self-defense ANY time a woman says it is.
No, it's not.
Yes it is.
Sorry, women cannot harm people for no good reason and claim that it
was for self defense any more than anyone else can.
Non sequitur.
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
YOU want to impose childbiorth on women.
No one wants to impose anything on anyone above and beyond what
is
already imposed.
Then why do you need to force women to remain pregnant?
Why do you want to force them to not starve their infants to death?
Your unwillingness to answer the question is noted.
You were the one that refused to answer.
The words above show you to be a liar or an idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
17 May 2005 10:41:55 PM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes
are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the pool?
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every
time
you
have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
Anybody could be infected.
Really, do you think a demonstratably disease-free man and woman who
have been married for many years and remain faithful to one another
have a chance of catching AIDS from having sex with each other?
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything to do
with sex.
Maybe you think heroin addicts do not agree to die every time they
shoot up or something.
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived
childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
17 May 2005 10:52:21 PM |
|
|
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the pool?
No, but how many women abort all their children?
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every time you
have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
Anybody could be infected.
Really, do you think a demonstratably disease-free man and woman who
have been married for many years and remain faithful to one another
have a chance of catching AIDS from having sex with each other?
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything to do
with sex.
Ask Ryan White about getting AIDS. Oops! He died from it, and he never had
sex. Ask your fetus-fanatic comrade John Wentzky about it, as his brother
contracted HIV and then AIDS from a badly screened transfusion.
Maybe you think heroin addicts do not agree to die every time they
shoot up or something.
I'd suspect more than a few wouldn't. (That doesn't mean they won't.)
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
I don't know, but I imagine Texas has given one or two the Big Needle some
time in the last fifteen years...check the TDC site, Ms. Coulter.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
18 May 2005 04:15:15 AM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes
are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the
pool?
No, but how many women abort all their children?
If you are interested in adding your genes to the pool (apparently for
some reason Ray now thinks this is important), abortion is not a good
way to do so.
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every
time you
have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
Anybody could be infected.
Really, do you think a demonstratably disease-free man and woman
who
have been married for many years and remain faithful to one
another
have a chance of catching AIDS from having sex with each other?
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything to
do
with sex.
Ask Ryan White about getting AIDS.
They screen blood for AIDS now, you moron. They have been screening it
for twenty years.
Oops! He died from it, and he never had
sex.
He died fifteen years ago. People don't get AIDS from transfusions
anymore. WTF cave have you been living in?
Maybe you think heroin addicts do not agree to die every time they
shoot up or something.
I'd suspect more than a few wouldn't.
That makes a big difference when they are on the slab. Is that
suicide?
(That doesn't mean they won't.)
For the most part they will die early if not from an overdose or a
disease.
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived
childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
I don't know,
Never.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
18 May 2005 07:33:10 PM |
|
|
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the pool?
No, but how many women abort all their children?
If you are interested in adding your genes to the pool (apparently for
some reason Ray now thinks this is important), abortion is not a good
way to do so.
That's your problem with Ray. Ask him about it. Meanwhile, I note that you
are trying to get out of answering my question. How many women abort *all*
their pregnancies?
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every time
you have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
Anybody could be infected.
Really, do you think a demonstratably disease-free man and woman who
have been married for many years and remain faithful to one another
have a chance of catching AIDS from having sex with each other?
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything to do
with sex.
Ask Ryan White about getting AIDS.
They screen blood for AIDS now, you moron. They have been screening it
for twenty years.
They weren't screening it very well in December 1984, though - and there are
cases of AIDS that were passed via that vector for a number of years
afterwards. Ask your comrade fetus freak John Wentzky, who lost a brother the
same way in the early 1990s.
Oops! He died from it, and he never had sex.
He died fifteen years ago. People don't get AIDS from transfusions
anymore. WTF cave have you been living in?
No caves in Houston (not that you'd ever know the difference), but pointing
out a support for Ray's statement that apparently didn't register on your
infinitesimal consciousness.
Maybe you think heroin addicts do not agree to die every time they
shoot up or something.
I'd suspect more than a few wouldn't.
That makes a big difference when they are on the slab. Is that suicide?
Since I'm not a mind-reader, I don't know.
(That doesn't mean they won't.)
For the most part they will die early if not from an overdose or a disease.
Belaboring the obvious is a way of life for you, isn't it?
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
I don't know,
but I'd suspect TDCJ may have at least one or two on Death Row in Huntsville.
Never.
Nice of you to edit my statement - there may still be a Guy Marble, Jr at the
Walls Unit awaiting his turn on the gurney. Maybe you should e-mail the TDCJ
and see.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
20 May 2005 12:11:29 AM |
|
|
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your
genes are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the
pool?
No, but how many women abort all their children?
If you are interested in adding your genes to the pool (apparently
for
some reason Ray now thinks this is important), abortion is not a
good
way to do so.
That's your problem with Ray. Ask him about it.
Apparently you felt the need to interject yourself here, so now I take
it you are answering for him.
Meanwhile, I note that you
are trying to get out of answering my question.
Why was your question relevant?
How many women abort *all*
their pregnancies?
I wouldn't know, if there are statistics on that I have not looked at
them.
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything
to do
with sex.
Ask Ryan White about getting AIDS.
They screen blood for AIDS now, you moron. They have been screening
it
for twenty years.
They weren't screening it very well in December 1984, though -
Irrelevant.
Oops! He died from it, and he never had sex.
He died fifteen years ago. People don't get AIDS from transfusions
anymore. WTF cave have you been living in?
No caves in Houston
A hole in the ground counts as a cave.
(not that you'd ever know the difference),
Who would?
but pointing
out a support for Ray's statement
It wasn't a support for Ray's statement any more than citing "Aids used
to be called GRID" is a support for the idea of aids being a "gay
disease."
Your facts are WAAAAY out of date, dad.
That makes a big difference when they are on the slab. Is that
suicide?
Since I'm not a mind-reader, I don't know.
That would be a first since your support for abortion relies on "what
women want/need."
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
I don't know,
but I'd suspect TDCJ may have at least one or two on Death Row in
Huntsville.
Well, you go on and look that up.
Never.
Nice of you to edit my statement -
You asked, I answered.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
22 May 2005 09:14:02 PM |
|
|
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
The Chief Instigator wrote:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> writes:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the pool?
No, but how many women abort all their children?
If you are interested in adding your genes to the pool (apparently for
some reason Ray now thinks this is important), abortion is not a good
way to do so.
That's your problem with Ray. Ask him about it.
Apparently you felt the need to interject yourself here, so now I take
it you are answering for him.
You're an arrogant blithering bimbo, Ann. Ray can speak for himself quite
effectively, as evidenced by your inability to deal with his observations of
your act.
Meanwhile, I note that you are trying to get out of answering my question.
Why was your question relevant?
You're the idiot who asked, Ann - and it's right up there: "Is a woman who
aborts all of her children adding her genes to the pool?". That's why I asked
the following question:
How many women abort *all* their pregnancies?
I wouldn't know, if there are statistics on that I have not looked at them.
So why did you ask in the first place?
[the rest dumped, as Ann's far from the sharpest tool in the shed, these days]
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
17 May 2005 11:03:56 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the pool?
Is a woman who has one abortion and givesbirth to three children
removing her genes from the pool?
And according to your dislogic, you agree to be killed every
time
you
have sex.
With people who could possibly be infected--which is never.
Anybody could be infected.
Really, do you think a demonstratably disease-free man and woman who
have been married for many years and remain faithful to one another
have a chance of catching AIDS from having sex with each other?
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything to do
with sex.
Are those the ONLY two ways of getting AIDS?
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived
childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
Sine when are women not allowed to defend themselves from harm?
Or do you think that people have to wait until they've been killed
before defending themselves?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
18 May 2005 04:19:40 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes
are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the
pool?
Is a woman who has one abortion and givesbirth to three children
removing her genes from the pool?
Yes.
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything to
do
with sex.
Are those the ONLY two ways of getting AIDS?
Pretty much. Sharing needles and penises seem to be it.
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived
childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
Sine when are women not allowed to defend themselves from harm?
Since they are not being harmed.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
18 May 2005 05:30:10 AM |
|
|
On 18 May 2005 02:19:40 -0700, "Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> in
alt.abortion with message-id
<1116407980.190930.108620@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes
are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the
pool?
Is a woman who has one abortion and givesbirth to three children
removing her genes from the pool?
Yes.
Reality and rationality have no place in your world do they?
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything to
do
with sex.
Are those the ONLY two ways of getting AIDS?
Pretty much. Sharing needles and penises seem to be it.
Nonsense. Those are just the most common. Another was from
unscreened blood transfusions until tests were put in place.
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived
childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
Sine when are women not allowed to defend themselves from harm?
Since they are not being harmed.
Rape is not harm? See my first comment.
If you are talking about pregnancy:
http://www.indiaparenting.com/pregnancy/data/preg16_00.shtml
And:
The dangers involved with pregnancy include but are not limited to:
Death
Abdominal and vaginal muscle weakness
Pelvic floor disorder (occurring in as many as 35% of middle-aged
former child-bearers and 50% of elderly former child-bearers,
associated with urinary and rectal incontinence, discomfort and
reduced quality of life)
Scarring from episiotomy or c-section
Increased proclivity for hemmorhoids
Loss of dental and bone calcium (cavities and osteoporosis)
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Embolism
Temporary adverse effects
Exhaustion (weariness common from first weeks)
altered appetite and senses of taste and smell
Nausea and vomiting
Dizziness and light-headedness
Bloating and attendant discomfort
Hemmorhoids
Cramps
Acne and mild skin disorders
Skin discoloration, particularly face and abdomen
Mild to severe backache and strain
Increased headaches
Difficulty sleeping, and discomfort while sleeping
Increased urination and incontinence
Breast pain and discharge
Swelling of joints, and attendant discomfort or pain
Difficulty sitting, standing in later pregnancy
Inability to take regular medications
Shortness of breath
Higher blood pressure
Hair loss
Tendency to anemia
Infection including from serious and potentially fatal disease
(pregnant women are immune suppressed compared with non-pregnant
women, and are more susceptible to fungal and certain other diseases)
Curtailment of ability to participate in some sports and activities
Hormonal mood changes, including normal post-partum depression
Extreme pain on delivery
Continued post-partum exhaustion and recovery period, exacerbated if
c-section (major surgery) is required, sometimes taking up to a full
year to fully recover
Occasional complications and side effects
Temporary and permanent injury to back
Severe scarring requiring later surgery, esp. after additional
pregnancies
Dropped uterus, esp. with additional pregnancies
Pre-eclampsia (edema and hypertension, the most common complication of
pregnancy, associated with eclampsia, and affecting 7 - 10% of
pregnancies)
Eclampsia (convulsions, coma during pregnancy or labor, high risk of
death)
Gestational diabetes
Placenta previa
Anemia (which can be life-threatening)
Thrombocytopenic purpura
Severe cramping
Embolism (blood clots)
Medical disability requiring full bed rest, frequently ordered during
part of many pregnancies varying from days to months for health of
either mother or baby
Torn abdominal muscles
Mitral valve stenosis (most common cardiac complication)
Serious infection and disease, e.g. increased risk of tuberculosis
Hormonal imbalance
Ectopic pregnancy (risk of death)
Broken bones (ribcage, "tail bone")
Hemorrhage
Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease
Aggravation of pre-pregnancy diseases and conditions, e.g. epilepsy is
present in .5% of pregnant women, and the pregnancy alters drug
metabolism and treatment prospects all the while it increases the
number and frequency of seizures
Severe post-partum depression and psychosis
Some less common (and serious) complications
Peripartum cardiomyopathy
Cardiopulmonary arrest
Magnesium toxicity
Severe hypoxemia/acidosis
Massive embolism
increased intracranial pressure, brainstem infarction
Molar pregnancy, gestational trophoblastic disease (like a
pregnancy-induced cancer)
Malignant arrhythmia
Circulatory collapse
Placental abruption
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
18 May 2005 09:17:31 PM |
|
|
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Sneechres <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote:
And it would have the added benefit of ensuring that your genes
are
removed from the pool
Just like abortion.
Nope.
Is a woman who aborts all of her children adding her genes to the
pool?
Is a woman who has one abortion and givesbirth to three children
removing her genes from the pool?
Yes.
LOL! What a moron you are! She has three children and you claim that
she's removed her genes from the pool.
What a desperate kook.
Sex isn't the only way you can get AIDS.
Well, there's always heroin use. But that doesn't have anything to
do
with sex.
Are those the ONLY two ways of getting AIDS?
Pretty much.
WRONG!
A woman who is pregnant WILL suffer serious
injury if forced to give birth.
No more serious than your own mother. Who I assume survived
childbirth
and later regretted it.
Women "survive" sex all the time, so rape should be legal?
When was the last time a rapist was sentenced to die?
Sine when are women not allowed to defend themselves from harm?
Since they are not being harmed.
Claiming that women don't suffer harm in childbirth is pure insanity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Calwell" |
|
| Title: Re: The FACTS Pro-aborts don't want to discuss |
09 May 2005 01:04:37 PM |
|
|
Pat Winstanley wrote:
In article <1115636139.018337.279520@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
legend_89@hotmail.com says...
You can argue until you're blue in the face about the humanity of the
zygote/embryo/fetus, but it does no good. You see, no born human
being
has the right to access the bodily resources of an unwilling donor,
The young human in the womb didn't ask to be there
The young foetus/embryo wasn't asked to be there by the person currently
hosting it - it attached itself uninvited and unwanted. (If it had been
asked to be there there its presence would be welcomed, and it wouldn't
- except for a serious problem with the pregnancy - be considered as a
candidate for early removal).
If you were to end up inside someone else's body, unintentionally on
either your part or theirs, you would still not have any right to remain
in their body against their ongoing consent. No person has that right.
And by the same token something that isn't a person (such as an embryo
or foetus or tumour) doesn't have that right either.
Listen to yourself, you poor pitiful sociopath.
.
|
|
| | | | |
